text:
Subtleties within subtleties within subtleties.
You play a dangerous game, Muad'Dib, err, John Roberts...
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
Subtleties within subtleties within subtleties.
You play a dangerous game, Muad'Dib, err, John Roberts...
Lao Tzu – "Tao Teh Ching", Chapter 69
"The strategists have a saying:
I dare not be a host, but rather a guest;
I dare not advance an inch, but rather retreat a foot.
This is called marching without moving,
Rolling up one's sleeves without baring one's arms,
Capturing the enemy without confronting him,
Holding a weapon that is invisible.
There is no greater calamity than to under-estimate the strength of your enemy.
For to under-estimate the strength of your enemy is to lose your treasure.
Therefore, when opposing troops meet in battle,
Victory belongs to the grieving side."
Then a gain Lao Tzu wasn't a general; Sun Tzu recommended gathering up overwhelming force and then destroying your enemy with it.
Sun Tzu recommended a lot more than just having "overwhelming force". Even an "overwhelming force" can be defeated if not lead properly.
Also, Sun Tzu and all the other "strategists", definitely would not have recommended to "under-estimate the strength of your enemy".
Personally, I would have preferred if Roberts was a tactician in the tradition of Lord Nelson, "nevermind about the maneuvers, go straight at 'em".
I have read, and enjoyed, "The Tao of Pooh." However, when it comes to doing battle, I would not pick Pooh as my general.
Who told you that?
You obviously didn't read it yourself, otherwise you would understand the context better than you do.
(And Lao Tsu actually WAS the primary "author" of the Sun Tzu. which is the name of the work, not of the author.)
"It is more fun to talk with someone who doesn't use long, difficult words but rather short, easy words like "What about lunch?"
I wish that the Court would follow this doctrine. The words are rather difficult to digest. I think Roberts' ruling is more in the tradition of Chief Justice Piglet.
"It is hard to be brave, when you're only a Very Small Animal."
My only reply can be - you don't know pooh!!! :-) :-) :-)
Oh I have read it. At least in translation.
But as Jiang says, my comment is only a narrow sliver of the whole and I only made it to pull his (her?) beard - not because I had any real point.
The book certainly does recommend overwhelming force -- which means trying to avoid battle when you don't have it. W.W. is right to say that this is what Roberts has done in this situation, and Jiang is right to quote ancient stanzas about it.
BTW: I thought it was Sun Tzu who was the fairly clearly defined historical general, and Lao Tze who was the possible multitude of thinkers.
This is a bit late to the game, but the historical figure Sun Tzu is at least nominally the author of The Art of War, though from what I can tell, it's generally believed that it was written by someone else and ascribed to him (possibly to seem more authoritative), partly due to anachronistic references in the text to crossbows, which didn't exist in China when The Art of War was supposedly written.
I'd learned enough Constitutional Law to understand all the lawyer's shop-talk in the Roberts hearings, and I came away with the sense that he is a genuine Conservative, and not the kind of Right-wing Radical upon whom that venerable word has been absurdly bestowed by Republicans since 1995 [think: What would Burke say?]. And he's the Chief Justice. It's the Roberts Court, and his personal historical reputation is on the line in a way that none of the other justices has to worry about.
I don't think so. The CJ is merely the first among equals. Every justice has his or her own individual legacy to worry about, to the extent they choose to do so.
Burke must have been aghast at the very idea of the US constitution; it is impossible to be a thorough Burkean with regards to America. Uphold the constitution, and you uphold abstract rights and (heaven forbid!) limits on the legislature. Ignore the constitution and you ignore those ancient rights and privileges which the people see as their birthright.
Why must one be a "thorough" Burkean? He lived in another place and another time. Certainly, he disapproved of the airy Philosophe's rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, as well as of that independence itself; and the separation of powers in the US Constitution was by no means the direction in which history had taken the British Constitution, and therefore nothing he would approve for Great Britain. But the US Constitution did follow 200 years of tradition and experience of government in the American Colonies. It followed the historical British Constitution in much, but not all, and that was as it ought to have been; the growing misunderstanding between the Colonies and the Mother Country that ultimately led to separation was in large part due to the increasingly unchallenged might of Parliament. The Convention certainly did not succumb to the kind of purely abstract justifications for radical change that Burke so despised about the French Revolution
I refer in my comment to the Burkean Conservatism that, above all, acknowledges an undeniable organic complexity in the fabric of a community. It was hardly a new or original inclination; Cicero shared it, and wrote of it, as well.
That recognition, to my mind, is the essence of genuine Conservatism. But since 1995, the Republican Party has been more and more dominated by various varieties of Radicals of the Right, who are quite as careless, irresponsible and dangerous as those of the Left.
Burke would not abide their nonsense for a moment.
Again, when I tried to edit, the changes did not go through.
Shape up, Economist!
Here is something about Burke in the latest 'The American Scholar'...
An interesting read, thanks.
Glad you liked it; I like Burke, too.
You don't have to be a thorough Burkean, and it seems like Roberts is doing is best to be an American Bureakan. Nonetheless, for the reasons I described its an inherently awkward balancing act. I wish him luck.
As an Obama supporter, I always thought he was a peerlessly cunning individual.
Now I realize that he has company in Chief Justice Roberts. It's weird to see such fancy footwork in the name of judicial *restraint*.
The Republicans should be applauded for putting him on the Court. Too bad for them that he appears to have no ambition for the Presidency. He might have gotten a lot of votes from independents.
Ebdebebbede, you raise some good points. I also found it hilarious that some of the more vocal critics on the right would bash the current President as yet another example of a misguided Harvard elitist, not realizing (or, more likely simply ignoring) the fact that the man they hoped would set the record straight on the President's centerpiece legislation, Chief Justice Roberts, was in fact also a Harvard law grad. Maybe Harvard is cranking out both smart liberals and conservatives.
An UNLIMITED taxing power, even if not called such, to enforce any mode of life style or behavior the Powers That BE command is NOT a CONSERVATIVE decision in any way promoting limited or constitutionally circumscribed government. This decision will haunt the political community and public culture of America for generations to come.
But the point is that the US government already has unlimited taxing power. Roberts gave noting away. However, he does now have a ruling that the Commerce Clause cannot regulate inactivity or non-participation in a market. I am not an expert, but my impression is that this is the first SCt holding to explicitly state thus, especially since the Commerce Clause was ripped open in the 1942 Sct case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn). Read it. It is mind boggling.
The court previously ruled that the Commerce Clause does not extend to prohibiting guns within a radius of schools, or to laws covering domestic violence. It started in the 90s.
Romney will run on eliminating Obamacare, but having nothing to replace it. (Not a good idea.)
A better strategy would be to accept the "tax" aspect and run on cutting the tax. (A natural position of the Republicans.)
I can't wait to hear Grover Norquist's broadside.
"Hey Grover, you forgot to get the right-leaning members of SCOTUS to sign your silly "pledge"."
Romney's bluster will be a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. He can't repeal it without 60 votes in the Senate. The filibuster will be transformed by the left wing from the destroyer of the republic to the savior.
Remember how the left gnashed their teeth about No Child Left Behind or the Patriot Act? They did not repeal the former as they had vowed, and they actually extended the latter.
The Republicans will bluster about it but then will use it towards their own ends.
Once the government expands, that expansion is permanent.
Yes he most certainly can. First off, now that it's defined as a tax, it can be removed through reconciliation. That is done by majority. The Senate can also just undo the filibuster anytime they feel like it, even if that wasn't the case, which it is.
Even without the Senate, or the House, the Act allows the President to waive it for whoever he wants. This was put in by the democrats so that the President could hand out favors, but Romney can just waive the entire thing. This is clearly in the bill, but considering the precedent Mr. Obama just established, he could just use prosecutorial discretion to just ignore ACA.
The real question is will Romney be able to get the votes to replace as well as repeal the Act, and if he can't replace it, will he repeal it anyway.
Now it's "silly" for parasites to pledge not to extort money from producers--such a perverse inversion of values.
(Taxation is extortion because the penalty for resistance is prison and the daily gangrape that comes with it.)
Good points. Some find it hard to accept that beating your spouse or carrying a gun is "interstate commerce"; I wonder why.
But I still have not seen where the SCT has previously said that it can compel participation in interstate commerce, when there is otherwise no participation. That would be like requiring guns within 90 feet of school, or requiring you to give your wife a massage and flowers.
I am becoming increasingly annoyed by claims that Roberts saved the court's "legitimacy." The court's legitimacy depends on justices ruling objectively, on the merits of the case. Partisanship, scoring "points" for one's political team, undermines legitimacy only to the degree to which justices ignore, or appear to ignore, the merits of the case before them.
Here, Justice Roberts is being praised for having ignored, or appearing to have ignored, the merits of the healthcare case in order to bow to hemi-popular pressure. He is strengthening a precedent for taking politics and popularity into consideration during court cases, a trend that will ultimately enfeeble the court and leave it a thrall to semi-popular opinion and to the other branches. If Americans can't trust the supreme court to make hard, unpopular decisions, then how can they trust it at all?
He wanted to feel special and was jealous of Kennedy always getting the attention.
True Story, you forget how much politics and the supreme court is ruled by egos.
Now hes thinking "Wow, I'm cool, everyone's going to be talking about Meee now, I'm so special!"
The only independence a judge can show is conspicuous indifference to
Court baiters and non-legally based arguments or appeals. I don't think Justice Roberts has shown such judicial DETACHMENT in these proceedings but has been parsing the political columns and analysts as much or more than the good old law books.
While I often agree that many of our political and business leaders are not as high and mighty as they may appear and are, in fact, simply imperfect human beings, the fact is they are also often very well educated and often very intelligent. Therefore, I doubt seriously he is thinking that his decision made him "cool". I get the feeling that he is reading peer-reviewed journals on his decisions, not what People magazine says about him.
Tax paid to private entities, that's called serfdom.
However, in the Frankish empire, if a serf stayed away for a month, she, or he, was free of its obligation to pay tax to its lord, forever. There is no such relief clause here. Just the opinion that tax can be paid to a for profit company, by law. Plutocracy supreme.
But let's not expect that a vulgar American Supreme court justice would know the history of the middle Ages.
The tax is paid to the IRS, just like any other tax. If you refuse to pay the private entity, you must pay the IRS. The payment due to the IRS is much smaller than the bill to the private entity would be. Most uninsured individuals will pay the IRS.
Thanks for the precision, which had escaped me. However, the analogy with the Middle Ages is then even greater, as those who did not pay the private entity, the local lord, had to pay tax to the "Crown" (=IRS).
And it does not remove my observation that tax to a private entity, that's serfdom.
Another point: much of Obmacare will not be applied as is. For example it supposes a decrease of subsidies to hospitals of 15% (no?).
Anyway, all these enormous complications to serve the plutocrats, whereas opening and enabling Medicare would have taken minutes to write... Shameful, and a deception!
Its funny, all the liberals are gushing.
"Roberts is Brilliant! it was his plan all along he such a good strategist"
of course anyone who agrees with you is going to always be brilliant.
The debate isn't over. All Roberts did was hand the problem back to the Congressional Republicans and say, "You figure it out." He even handed them a weapon in calling the mandate a tax.
They are entirely free to drum up enough popular support to get it repealed. If Romney gets elected, the repeal will be that much easier.
Congress has grown flabby by letting these cases go to the Supreme Court. Roberts was tired of getting used like that.
Well, that's precisely why Democrats haven't moved to eliminate the filibuster. Now that Obamacare has been upheld, we can count on the Dems filibustering any attempt to eliminate it if Romney wins. They may well lose the Senate-- it'll only take a 3-seat swing to do that in a Romney administration-- but I doubt the 'Pubs will get a supermajority.
Of course, unlike the Democrats to date, the Republicans will, I strongly suspect, force the filibusterer actually to stand and speak and speak and speak, instead of merely announcing that he or she plans to do so.
Ain't gonna happen. Obama will retain the Presidency because he will give the Moderates and Independents who decide elections "an offer they cannot refuse"- Chicago Style. Come September, he will tell them: Re-elect me, and Bernanke and I will refinance your underwater mortgage at 0%. Give me a Democratic Congress and the underwater portion will be forgiven outright. Elect Romney and be a debt slave for the next 25 years.
I'm one of those Independents, and I find that offer ridiculous. If they could have done that kind of thing and if-- big if-- they were willing to, they'd have done it already.
That said, I have no prediction whether Obama will win. All I can tell you is, I'm not gonna repeat my prior vote for him.
Course, voting for Romney seems kind of silly even if you aren't gonna vote for Obama. Romney hasn't actually put forth much in the way of political positions, so you're just voting for a vague "not-Obama" until he elucidates.
Not that I blame him, considering that one of his biggest projects from ten years ago is now his biggest enemy because he has to pander to the "Obama supports it so it must be bad" idiots; he's had to adjust his proposed views to match the ever right-shifting party lines.
It makes me kinda feel sorry for Romney in a sense, even if I mostly disagree with his vague stance on taxes (the only stance he's actually pushed forth so far).
I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
Hey another Obama to Johnson convert, welcome aboard!
It's a no-brainer.
Thus leading to revenge and payback from the other side. We have had far too much of that already. Many Americans, like myself are tired of the histrionics and hypocrisy coming from both sides of the aisle [but a bit more from the GOP side].
Those self serving politicos who may be in the pockets of various lobbyists and "interest groups," are letting the interests and lobbies draft the laws and serve on the agencies supposed to watch out for the public.
Swinging from DEM to GOP and back to DEM won't clean out the Augean Stables in DC, we won't get good government again until we get rid of all the bad actors, even the ones we like. Down with both sides of the Republicrat Corporatist Party!
Roberts is letting Napoleon take Moscow.
Scorch the earth, then?
Avoid the battle you'll likely lose.
Yield the victory your enemy cannot survive.
Accept the loss that will deliver victory.
No, he probably gave into media peer pressure somewhat, and wants to look balanced hoping he will get reciprocal good behavior from liberal activist judges "leading by example"
If the history of liberal US activist judges is any indicator Roberts is an Idiot.
Like the Arizona case, I'm sure he made a deal with the liberal justices to uphold the ID checks, to make the court seem non partisan in exchange for the healthcare ruling in their favor.
unfortunately he was tricked and got the dumb end of the deal.
I don't really think Justice Roberts adopted this line of thinking at all. The Court is designed specifically to be immune to public opinion, and no matter how much discussion of the court's legitimacy is in question, it is unlikely the Court will ever be reformed. I think Justice Roberts simply genuinely believed his argument that the penalty is a tax and is therefore Constitutional.
" All warfare is based on deception."
"Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate."
-Sun-tzu, "The Art of War".
It looks like there is more to John Roberts than he let on. He still is who he was: not of the Left. I wonder what what he was really thinking. Only time will tell...
I'm pessimistic. First, while there were 5 justices who agreed on the Commerce Clause argument, it's spread over two opinions. Nobody joined Roberts Commerce Clause part and the dissenting opinion doesn't even acknowledge agreement. Second, the tax argument isn't nothing. What good are Commerce Clause limitations if you can get around them with a tax?
"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase." - President Obama
"What good are Commerce Clause limitations if you can get around them with a tax?"
Truer words were never spoken, RR. I wish WW had addressed that.
To be far, it does place limits on jailing people through the Commerce Clause. But besides for drugs, we don't typically jail people through the Commerce Clause. You can still be "taxed" for growing your own food or failing to grow your own food or eating with your mouth open.
Wickard v. Filburn was such a terrible decision. Glad Roberts got the Court moving away from that, anyway.
"I wish WW had addressed that."
W.W. doesn't like Commerce Clause limitations, if I remember his blogging correctly.
This is hardly legislating from the bench.
The Government argued that the mandate was either authorised by the Commerce Clause, or alternatively was an exercise of Congress' power to tax (see page 15). (So it's not really correct to say that the Court offered and affirmed a construction 'rejected' by the Government.) Roberts found against the Government on the former but found in favour of the Government on the latter. It has long been a matter for the Court to decide whether a particular impost is as a matter of law a tax or a penalty (or a 'levy' or a 'fee' etc), irrespective of what it is called in the legislation. Determining that the mandate is at law a tax falls well within the traditional judicial methods for construing legislation.
Balls. Justice Roberts merely seems to think he is a better lawyer than Obama's counsel.
Barack is a genius for realising that making his case poorly would bait justice Roberts to make it in his stead.
But now the ACA is saddled with that political poison of a term- tax.
So really, both sides can spin it as a victory.
...true but only the very best type of tax.
A progressive tax, targeted at an undeniable need with a million tragedies for the news if it were ever repealed.
They couldnt call it a 'tax' while it was being voted through and they'd look dishonest to call it a tax now, but it always was one and no-one who is not fundamentally opposed to the ACA already would mind calling it one.
The interesting part is that if the PPACA is now saddled with the term "tax", so is Romneycare—and Mitt's term of office as Massachusetts governor, about which he likes to boast he didn't raise taxes. In other words, both sides get a weapon from this.
Romney's terrified of the idea of actually running on his record anyways. His campaign slogan might as well be "He's not Obama."
On the other hand, Obama, as the incumbent, is sort of forced to run on his record (and also that Mitt Romney is a rich vulture capitalist* whose bid for the presidency has pretty much cynically centered on embracing absolutely every bit of Republican doctrine).
And now it's entirely legitimate to say that his signature legislative victory is a tax increase.
*I don't actually think that, but it is plausible that that'll be one of the attacks (probably the major attack) on Romney.
This is shameful. The Court is an integral part of our government, one of the three branches of government with a responsibility to check the other two. It's job is probably the most difficult, as it's often called on to check popular opinion in defense of the principles of individual liberty, minority rights, and limited government.
In the abstract, people are all for them, but when it comes down to specifics it's startling how hard we rage in support of throwing our liberty away. I think it shows an incredible level of insight by the people who wrote our Constitution that they recognized our deep seated desires to alienate our own rights, and they wrote in such strong protections against it.
If you look back on the Courts stands against the other branches, and against public opinion, with the insight of hindsight, you can see how necessary a strong Court is. Brown v. Board of Education was pushed down the teeth of the American people, and I think we should be damn grateful. When they failed, they have been vindicated by time, such as opposing the removal of the Cherokee. In retrospect, it is now evident that the Court was speaking to the better angels of our nature, and the Executive was just the embodiment of the petty little tyrant in all of us.
The Court has taken on the public more than any other branch, and it became the most respected branch because of it. Look at Brown, we were wrong, they were right, and it is because they were willing to call us out for our own failings, to call our democratic desires what they were, to insult us to our faces. For all intents and purposes, they called the American people bigots, and they were right. That is how the Court earned respect, that was how they deserve to be listed to, because they were better than us.
And their failures they did for us. How dare they allow us to imprison the Nisei, how dare they allow us to throw away Reconstruction for Redemption. They were supposed to stop us from doing wrong, and they didn't. They disgracefully did not prevent us from disgracing ourselves.
It doesn't bode well that the Court can't do so even with popular opinion at its side. Warren had posters up offering a bounty on his life, and Roberts can't take criticism from op-ed columnists. These will not be remembered as the bright parts of the Court's history. If he thinks that he is defending the position of the court he is wrong. The Justices have earned respect for holding to their beliefs, and, hell, I even respect the Court's four liberals for a position that I'm sure they think is right. Roberts, not so much.
I also think he deeply underestimates the Court's strength. Even when the public has disagreed, they have still stood up for the principle of a nation of laws when it came down to it, with nine justices to propound them. FDR, one of our most popular Presidents, defending popular laws, had to back down when it came to attacking the Court. Obama is a small fry.
Have a little confidence in yourself man. You want to defend the Court's position, then take it. If this is "The Art of War", it is the kind fitting of a McClellan.
In general, I agree with your frustration. But Supreme Court has limited tools with which to protect the constitution - basically it can only voice its opinion with respect to cases that it sees. The SC can't just randomly issue a majority opinion regarding the Commerce Clause out of the blue (although that would be awesome if it did). More threatening to the Constitution than the ACA were all the "scholars" and lawyers (and legislators, and pundits, and voters) who were 100% convinced that a mandate is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Roberts went directly after this issue, which was the real one (in my mind).
I actually think this was a very STRONG verdict from the court - a rebuke to the Democrats for lying about the mandate (it is a tax), and a strong defense of the Commerce Clause while he was at it. The fact that he did it with the liberals cheering is just icing on the cake.
I'm just so tired of how it seems like the Court is only there for objections to laws from one side.
I think that the liberal side of this country has done a great job in building up the machinery to get their objections heard by the Court, and defended. There's organizations like the ACLU, or the NAACP that through hard work earned a lot of cachet defending individual liberties that the left supports. And I think that has done a great service to this country.
But when it comes to availing themselves of the judiciary, the right has been a complete failure. After Roe, they retreated into this doctrine of "judicial discretion" or "modesty" that I just find pathetic. Just to weaken Roe, they tried to just throw out the entire idea that something could be unconstitutional.
This was petulant, idiotic, and just disastrous. Because the right and judicial power went separate ways, there was no one there to stop the government slapping red tape on everything that moves and the constant erosion of the concept of limited government. This has led to a completely unbalanced approach to civil liberties by the Court, they were only doing half their job.
I think it's time for conservatives to get past judicial modesty, to stop defining their interpretation of the Constitution as "whatever invalidates Miranda and Roe" and take advantage of this branch of our government.
It's time for Conservatives to start defending the right of the Court to shut down Congress. For the love of God, stop all this regulatory taking. I don't care if that makes it harder to stop gay people from getting married.
The court gave the papal wave to slavery (Dred Scott), segregation, eugenics, the broad 1917 espionage act, locking up Japanese American citizens during WWII, etc.
Fair to say that those with conservative dispositions at the time either approved such actions or didn't have much of a problem with the decisions (say eugenics, which was orginally a progressive hobby).
Not sure where allowing eminent domain to transfer property between private parties falls. Conservatives like myself and acquaintances tend to view that with disapproval.
"How dare they allow us to imprison the Nisei, how dare they allow us to throw away Reconstruction for Redemption."
War is different, and times are different. I strongly dislike attempts to force the moral expectations of today on people of the past.
Brown didn't do much in jurisprudence, as the Boston busing crisis showed. Wedge black people into white communities against people's will! The effect it mainly had was to turn white communities in cities into black ones. The effects you mention were far more a matter of a minuscule, day-by-day changing of people's minds than any gesture of government.
I don't know what the historical standards of SCOTUS decorum are, but if I would worry about anyone besmirching the courts reputation by not being the better angel of our nature and resisting popular opinion, it's not Roberts, it's Scalia. He doesn't so much go against popular opinion as defend the worst parts of it. Popular opinion says we have to deny terrorists jurisprudence, Scalia's down with that. A lot of people don't like Obamacare, neither does Scalia. A lot of people want to boot out all the illegals, Scalia cites fugitive slave law to justify the same opinion.
"I'm just so tired of how it seems like the Court is only there for objections to laws from one side."
That's probably because you're blind to objections not from "the one side".
I appreciate the McClellan reference. Lee thought that Little Mac was his ablest opponent.
I say "errrrr" to Scalia too. He does conservative jurisprudence no credit.
The Chief could have upheld on congressional power to tax without saying a thing about the commerce clause. The fact that he did strongly suggests that he does intend to narrow that scope. The long game is indeed underway.
But again, I think it is reasonable to argue that there is no such thing as inaction in American health care today. We all consume health care, but before today some were consuming without paying. The government is now regulating preexisting active participation of individuals in an established interstate market, so the "mandate" may be justified under commerce.
Health care and health insurance are related, but they're not the same thing, and are distinct markets.
We all consume health care? At any given moment, no, we don't. The young people who are voluntarily going without health insurance because they don't need it are the ones most being forced, and they're choosing not to consume health care. To say "They will one day, and if they don't have insurance then society will feel forced to pay for it, so that justifies our actions now" is the deepest variety of insanity. No, no, no, a million times no.
And it's not a rational position just because someone has come up with some legalistic contortion, any more than Jews can genuinely use electric lights on the sabbath if a Gentile flicks the switch. They can think they can all they want, but the rule of law has meaning proportionate to how much you reject colorable but facile excuses why it doesn't apply. (I'm not Jewish, by the way; this is just a simile about legalistic thinking.)
Everyone, please understand this simple concept. Health care and health insurance are effectively inseparable, and are constantly consumed by every living American. A young healthy libertarian living under a freeway and paying nothing IS CONSUMING HEALTH CARE. Because if he gets hit by a car, 911, an ambulance, and an emergency room will all be consumed by him regardless of his choices, actions, consciousness, youth, health, payment history, employment, state of residence, or political affiliation.
These services are consumed by ALL OF US, ALL OF THE TIME.
"These services are consumed by ALL OF US, ALL OF THE TIME."
I'm not consuming healthcare right now. I've never even been hospitalized. It seems entirely legitimate to say that I don't use healthcare all of the time.
To be fair, if I was hit by a car, then I would be using healthcare.
Then you are in denial about the nature of contingency services. Are you consuming fire protection if your house never burns? You say no, but the fireman down the street knows better.
Nope. And that's society's choice to cover him. Society's choices cannot be self-justifying. It cannot say "we choose to do this, so therefore we can set conditions before you need this." In any case, truthfully, for most people it'll never come up: most people have health insurance. But that's their choice. That's freedom. All this big-government, social-engineering stuff can go down a privy pit, and I don't care how beautiful anyone thinks it is or how required.
Much of health care is public health, and public health is like public safety. It is a social good which may benefit individuals to vastly differing degrees in a totally unpredictable fashion. For this reason, it must be and is applied broadly and constantly. So once again, like police protection, we all consume health care all the time, even if we never set foot in a hospital or police station.
You could have a cancerous tumor within you right now. So could the young healthy-looking independent libertarian. So could a newborn. And your colleague with that nasty cough could have TB. If he gets treated, YOU get treated. These are all everyday examples of health care as a collective activity and a contingency service. Society has long ago figured out that for many things, it is best to pool resources and share risk. Our fire, police, justice, and defense systems are all like this. You may never feel like you personally use these services, but in fact we ALL use them ALL the time.
You are right, society has long ago chosen to offer universal health care. Watch what happens when a homeless guy complains of chest pain at the library. Watch what happens when he is hit by a truck, or by ebola.
Society stands ready, and then springs to action. Just like it does when there is a fire. Or a war.
So what's your point, Handworn? Are firemen and soldiers your big-government bogeymen too?
Wars and fires are rare, discrete occurrences which have obvious solutions and obvious ending points. They're inexpensive to deal with, relatively speaking, unlike the gross overreaction that rushing the homeless guy to the hospital and keeping him overnight, only to discover it was heartburn from chili dogs, would represent. There's fifty thousand dollars well spent. ("Soak the rich! Soak the rich! Soak the rich!" Except as Margaret Thatcher once said, sooner or later you run out of somebody else's money.) And we all have far greater stakes in having buildings. By contrast, if what we've bought is another five years of panhandling and binges before his liver gets him, between the homeless guy and my money it's laughable how much it's not a close decision.
That's the real black hole in the center of the liberal equation-- the Left never shows the tiniest bit of intellectual resistance to a heartwarming idea, and then uses its intelligence to find reasons for it. Just admit that your decisions are actually emotional, OK? The honesty would be refreshing.
Your arguments essentially resolve the conflict between society and individual permanently in society's favor. Which is so far beyond the pale that arguments shrink to nothing; no compromise is possible. I'm more or less libertarian and generally agree with the Left on things like abortion and gay marriage. But they're not worth this.
I think the rule of thumb for chess Grandmasters is that they think at least eight moves ahead?
If W.W. is right, Roberts is thinking 15 or 16 moves ahead of everybody. I would be amazed if any human being could potentially be that calculating. If Roberts is ruling that this is a "tax", in the hopes that someone later challenges the scope of what a "tax" can be, or that Congress has more stomach to cut taxes than it has to create future mandates, then he is truly a mad genius.
Personally, I think Roberts was not that far off base in recognizing the power of federal taxing authority, although I find it academically interesting that this is not a tax on stuff you use or buy, but a tax on what you DON'T use or buy. I don't know if anyone has ever raised a challenge to a tax on this basis, and I don't know of any other tax parallels in federal caselaw. This really was pulled out of a vacuum.
You could feasibly state that there is a tax on not having children, not owning a home or not donig anythnig that gets you a taxbreak.... OK it's semantics, but the costs exist all the same
Today's Johnson blog post explains Justice Roberts's point of view very well. http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2012/06/law
When you look at it from that angle, it doesn't seem as if he's pulled it out of thin air.
... I find it academically interesting that this is not a tax on stuff you use or buy, but a tax on what you DON'T use or buy.
Or it is a tax on stuff you use, the implicit insurance covering medical treatment when you end up in ER without an insurance.
"Legal logic" is fun.
No, it really isn't a tax on what you implicitly use either, because it applies even when people could effectively self-insure (i.e. pay their own bills without relying on insurance). This is expressly a tax on people when they DON'T buy something - it is written as such in the statute.
You are correct that, from an economist's standpoint, the costs exist all the same regardless of the mechanism used. However, this is where the academic disciplines of "economics" and "law" happily diverge. For the economist, it is a wash. For the lawyer, it is two very dissimilar legal events. This is why we traditionally see tax incentivization in the form of a blanket tax on everyone coupled with deductions/credits for preferred behavior, rather than a tax targeted on people who refuse to engage in the preferred behavior.
Perhaps you could look at it as a tax on a risky behavior.... But, seriously I get your point but I am having trouble inferring the downstream consequences on taxing a failure to act, perhaps you could expand on what they might be.
I can't tell you what the downstream consequences will be, because we have had no prior example of this in our history. Income tax liability is generally something that accrues to everyone automatically solely based on how much you make, with some deductions given for certain behaviors. I have not been able to find a single example of the government selectively levying a direct tax on only a portion of the population that is triggered by doing nothing (in part because the only examples of direct taxation are income tax, property tax, and poll tax, and the federal government does not levy the last two examples). This really is new ground, and I am quite curious as to what use the government will try and put this newly developed taxing power. I'm not saying that it is illegal, just a very odd and unique way of levying a direct tax that I have no prior American legal examples of. The Stamp Act is the closest analogy I could find, and even that is not exactly on point, since there the British government was forcing the colonists to use authorized (revenue stamped) British paper for all critical documentation (i.e. sort of like the mandate) but the tax was added to the cost of the paper, rather than as a separate levy for non-compliance.
"The fearful part is that five justices ruled that the Affordable Care Act cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause. This is a bizarre and implausibly narrow reading — if Congress cannot regulate the health-care market, then it cannot really regulate interstate commerce."
This is what I don't get - there is no question that the Federal Gov't can regulate the healthcare market. They regulate insurers that provide services across state lines - they are engaging in commercial activity. What was ruled today is that Congress cannot, using the Commerce Clause, regulate inactivity. However by ruling this a tax, it essentially does the same thing anyway - so however much I'm pleased by the ruling on the Commerce Clause it seems to be a moot point.
Not entirely a moot point. If this had been upheld as a commerce clause power, the government could theoretically compel compliance with more than just a tax -- they could civil fines or even criminal sanctions to enforce the law. Since this is only an "income tax", the only remedy for the government for non-compliance is levy the tax. The government can collect, but it cannot do anything else to you. It also theoretically cannot impose any sort of monetary penalty that is not connected to income, since this is what ostensibly makes the penalty a direct "tax" that is not required to be apportioned.
For example, in the case of Wickard v. Filburn (the wheat farmer case under the Commerce Clause), the farmer was subjected to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel. This penalty, not connected to income, would not be permitted as a direct tax (or even an indirect tax).
This decision strikes me as something of a Pyrrhic victory for the statist left. They got their Obamacare "win" but the way it came down...
Roberts left Obama to defend a Healthcare Mandate that is openly branded a tax (collected by health care providers much as retailers collect sales tax and employers collect payroll taxes).
He (in effect) painted Obama's Solicitor as incompetent for advancing an ineffective, unconstitutional defense of a law that was in itself constitutional.
He gave the unyielding liberal block a choice between seeing the law go down or preserving it while admitting the rationale offered up for it was unconstitutional. On that, we effectively have a 9 vote concurrence. The commerce clause cannot regulate inaction. (Oooh, that one is going to smart for decades...)
He left it clear that while clearly a politically astute judge, he is not an unyielding ideologue as Thomas, Scalia, and the entire liberal block. (Translation: political capital. The bill will come due soon enough. Eric Holder beware!)
And he made fools of the liberal pundits who decried the expected decision as an anti-democratic coup and in the process exposed their desire for a rubber-stamp supreme court to go along with a president ruling by decree.
The biggest winner here is Romney.
He gets Romney care off his back and gets to run against the Obama Healthcare Tax. (Obama is already on the defensive today: "Really, its not a tax!")
And he gets the right wing of the GOP fuming mad and energized for november.
Another "win" like this for Obama and he might find himself without a party.
They wanted a politically-responsive Court? He gave it to them. The statist left wanted a healthcare win in the worst way and that is exactly what Roberts gave them.
Let them party today...
...'cause tomorrow the hangover hits and it's not going to be pretty.
"Act of War?" Not inaccurate at all.
He certainly flipped a live grenade in the middle of the presidential campaign...
Things are about to get interesting. And on-so-messy...
Ignorant comments like yours make an entire board reek! First, it is "Art" not "Act" of war read a book! Second, you say the big winner is Romney, but if this is a hot topic debate how can Romney attack Obama over a health care system designed by Romney/upheld by the court? Finally, though most of your comment is incomprehensible the media spin point is truly off base. Most networks expected the the AHA to be struck down, I am sure Fox's News rented a 25 pound helium tank, bought 10,000 red balloons, and stole a donkey from a carnival all for not!
Excellent analysis, as someone who is against the bill I have to say I still have mixed feelings, but it's becoming clear that this decision wasn't the defeat we thought it was. A Pyrrhic victory perhaps? We will certainly see in November...
"He (in effect) painted Obama's Solicitor as incompetent for advancing an ineffective, unconstitutional defense of a law that was in itself constitutional."
No he didn't. He repeated his acceptance of the Government's tax power argument throughout his discussion and gave them credit when he found in its favor.
I am concerned that you don't understand how Supreme Court advocacy works. You can have a hundred "Ineffective and unconstitutional" defenses, but so long as you have the one winning one, it doesn't matter how many you lose on. It's called arguing in the alternative, and it's what every Supreme Court litigator (and every litigator period, unless he's got a brain dead simple case) does in every case. Why would you not use as many chances to win as possible?
"He gave the unyielding liberal block a choice between seeing the law go down or preserving it while admitting the rationale offered up for it was unconstitutional. On that, we effectively have a 9 vote concurrence. The commerce clause cannot regulate inaction. (Oooh, that one is going to smart for decades...)"
No. Did you skip 40 pages of the opinion? The four liberal justices had a separate concurrence because they believed the law was valid under the Commerce Clause. So it would be a 5-4 decision on Commerce Clause, not 9-0, and that would be IF the case was decided on Commerce Clause grounds, which it wasn't. The CC stuff is dicta, non-binding, and easily tossed aside by future courts should they wish it so.
"He left it clear that while clearly a politically astute judge, he is not an unyielding ideologue as Thomas, Scalia, and the entire liberal block."
I agree with this.
"(Translation: political capital. The bill will come due soon enough. Eric Holder beware!)"
That's a huge leap to make without any support. As a former prosecutor who has taken the prosecution's side in the past, he'll probably stand on Holder's side. There's strong likelihood that the other conservatives will as well, as they tend to favor immunity defenses.
"And he made fools of the liberal pundits who decried the expected decision as an anti-democratic coup and in the process exposed their desire for a rubber-stamp supreme court to go along with a president ruling by decree."
Please. Such a nebulous assertion could be made of any big case when one side gets nervous about its chances. And exactly zero popular media are suggesting a response like this.
"The biggest winner here is Romney.
He gets Romney care off his back and gets to run against the Obama Healthcare Tax."
No, the biggest winner is Obama. He passed landmark legislation that has been decades in the making and a singular legislative achievement greater than we've seen in decades, and now has put to bed any questions of constitutionality save the medicaid withholding part. Anything other position is obfuscating this point. He's stated before that if he could get health care passed and it cost him a 2 term presidency, he would be content with that. Now he is guaranteed that as his legacy at minimum. Meanwhile, Romney's argument that the case is unconstitutional has been shot to hell, forcing him to rely on policy reasons to object to it. What policy reasons? The individual mandate is the only aspect with widespread unpopularity and that was the central feature of Romneycare. Most people support the portions of ACA that deal with preexisting conditions, increased age for dependents, etc.
"And he gets the right wing of the GOP fuming mad and energized for november."
Have they been anything but for the last 3 years? I'm not sure how many more fists the Tea Party can shake before its arms collectively fall off.
"Things are about to get interesting. And on-so-messy..."
Wouldn't count on it.
Thoughts and opinions on America's kinetic brand of politics. The blog is named after Alexis de Tocqueville's study of American politics and society
The Economist explains: Why Singapore became an economic success
The Economist explains
Tolerance in America: Getting nicer
Democracy in America
UK election 2015: British Parliament interactive timeline: Commons sense
Graphic detail
Currencies and tourism: The power of the almighty dollar
UK general election 2015 - map of Britain: Constituency cartography
Graphic detail
Politics: The first TV "debate"
Politics and the constitution: In praise of Alex Salmond
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
In Other Words
Try our new audio app and website, providing reporting and analysis from our correspondents around the world every weekday
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
Commentary: Souter's challenge to Scalia
WASHINGTON -- It should become the philosophical shot heard 'round the country. In a remarkable speech that received far too little attention, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter took direct aim at the conservatives' favorite theory of judging.
Souter's verdict: It "has only a tenuous connection to reality."
Get the full story
Subscribe or Log In
Are you a newspaper subscriber but you don't have a Digital Access account yet? Activate your account.
You will need your subscription account number and phone number. Not sure if you have an account? Email us or call 320-214-4364 and we can help you.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Here are just a few of the reasons why you will want to join us in 2015:
Registration opens July 7. Registration closes on April 15, and some races will fill up before then.
Runner Traking sponsored by Amtrak
Commemorative fleece blanket to all full marathon finishers
Muscle Milk available post-race on Saturday
Personalized age group awards
Personalize race bibs (must be registered by March 26)
Nike performance shirt for the marathon and half marathon
Race registration insurance option
1-way shuttle to the start line from CU hotels
Expanded Biaggi's Pasta Feed hours
Amazing scoreboard at the finish line in Memorial Stadium
Registration for our 2015 race opens at 12:01 a.m. on July 7
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Health & Fitness Expo takes place Thursday evening and all day Friday.
Registration closes on April 15, 2015 (except for the Youth Run) or when races fill.


text:
Protective Wear
Protective Clothing
Protective Clothing
Lenzing FR® has teamed up with industry partners to take flame resistant intervention clot... more
Tuesday, 10. February 2015
Fiber innovation – Lenzing presents its new Micro Fiber
Lenzing presents another TENCEL® fiber innovation: A new micro version of the A100™ fiber type is now available. The new TENCEL® micro fiber complements the range of fibers offered for knitwear applications.
Thursday, 15. January 2015
TENCEL® - first medically tested fiber
The Lenzing Lyocell fiber TENCEL® is the first fiber to be medically tested according to the FKT test method criteria for body compatibility and toxic substances.


text:
At Bestiario, we are passionate about data visualization. Since 2005 we have been offering solutions that enable people to visualize and comprehend complex data-sets. Throughout these years our multi-disciplinary team has combined skills in engineering, science, art and design, to ...Read More
We Launch Quadrigram!
At Bestiario, we are passionate about data visualization. Since 2005 we have been offering solutions that enable people to visualize ...Read More
We Launch Quadrigram!
- Written by Tim
- Posted on 05/29/2012.
- Filed under Feature, News.
- Tagged as complexity, data visualization, interaction, language, platform, quadrigram.
- Read Comments (17).
(Catalan below) Yesterday Bestiario attended to the ceremony of "Premis Ciutat de Barcelona" (City of Barcelona awards) where we received the award in technology innovation for the Impure project. The ceremony took place at the "Saló de Cent" of the city hall and ...Read More
Bestiario receives the award "Ciutat de Barcelona"
- Written by Victor Pascual
- Posted on 02/16/2011.
- Filed under News.
- Read Comments (11).
Impure is a visual programming language aimed to gather, process and visualize information. With impure is possible to obtain information from very different sources; from user owned data to diverse feeds in internet, including social media data, real time or ...Read More
New Project: IMPURE
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 10/29/2010.
- Filed under Feature, Projects.
- Read Comments (80).
Next thuesday (october 5, 2010) we will participate in SIMO. This event presents itself as a "platform aimed at fostering professional networking, with a range of content designed to prescribe technology and demonstrate a global perspective of technological products, services ...Read More
Bestiario at SIMOnetwork 2010
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 09/28/2010.
- Filed under Events.
- Tagged as EOI, madrid, talk.
- Read Comments (3).
Este sábado 12 de Junio participamos en el evento Innosfera, una iniciativa de la UOC cuyo objetivo es reunir a profesionales que desde diferentes ámbitos trabajan en el campo de la innovación para proporcionar un espacio de debate y compartir ...Read More
Bestiario en Innosfera
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 06/13/2010.
- Filed under Events.
- Read Comments (Be the first!).
Last Friday (May 28), we were amongst five Spanish entrepreuneurs invited to a roundtable with the Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Businses Affairs, Mr. Jose W. Fernandez hosted by the American Embassy in Madrid. This event took ...Read More
Bestiario at roundtable hosted by the American Embassy
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 06/01/2010.
- Filed under Events.
- Read Comments (12).
Next thursday 20 may, Dani Aguilar from Bestiario will present some of our projects in "Show me the data" an event organized by the University of Amsterdam and the Utrecht Graduate School of Visual Art and Design (MaHKU). Free entrance! Read More
Show me the Data
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 05/13/2010.
- Filed under Events.
- Read Comments (8).
The reMap interface we used to visualize visualcomplexity projects can be applied to many other collections. In fact the conditions are: - to be a list of contents (more than 80) - each content is tagged - contents share tags - each content has ...Read More
New Project: Tessera
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 02/25/2010.
- Filed under Feature, Projects.
- Tagged as 2010, photography, treemap.
- Read Comments (6).
The Natural Science Museum of Barcelona Data Base contains 50.000 records so far collected along one century. Most of the register are mollusc, vertebrata and artropodes. They belong to places all .over the world. The Data Base will be updated ...Read More
Biodiversity Map
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 01/29/2010.
- Filed under Projects.
- Tagged as 2010, barcelona, biodiversity, map.
- Read Comments (1).
Yesterday (17.12.2009), the Education Minister, Mr Angel Gabilondo, and the Scretary of State, Ms Eva Almunia, presented Cosmolema at the Ministry's headquarters. Cosmolema is a new application developed by Bestiario and it makes part of a new set of ...Read More
New Project: Cosmolema
- Written by Andrés Ortiz
- Posted on 12/18/2009.
- Filed under Events, Projects.
- Tagged as 3D, language, network.
- Read Comments (2).


text:
£56.00 per 100ml
Item in stock
HUGO Man Eau de Toilette 75ml
Item No.1176519158
HUGO Man fragrance is for men who want to live their life on their own terms. They are true originals, believing that rules are made to be challenged and personal potential should be explored to the max.
This item is available for
UK Home Delivery Free (UK orders over £30) or £3.99
Delivered within 4 working days
Next or Named Day Delivery
7 days a week between 8am - 6pm
Monday to Friday - order by 7pm - £4.99
Saturday & Sunday - order by 6pm - £4.99
Next or Named Evening Delivery
7 days a week between 6pm - 10pm
Monday to Sunday - order by 10pm - £6.99
Collect from store the next day - FREE
Order before 7pm for next day collection after 12pm midday
Show participating stores
Full Delivery details
Notes of:
- Top Note: Green apple, grapefruit and basil
- Heart Note: Sage and jasmine
- Base Note: Fire balsam, cedarwood and patchouli


text:
Fantastic location 1 min from Embankment tube yet discrete and quiet.
Marvelous homy room decor with a wide selection of channels both English
and Arabic (All MBCs, Dubai tv, Qatar, etc) and other languages.
Exceptional staff and service. Concierge managed to get us last minute
theatre tickets (1 day before the show). Very convenient to have early
check-in and late check-out. Espa is wonderful, one of best in London.
Room was arranged twice daily and a wide selection of newspapers
delivered to - Anonymous
I have travelled around the world in all types of accommodations and wanted to spoil myself every now and then and there is no better place to do so than the Savoy in London, it was a pleasure to stay there and nothing was to much trouble for any of the very friendly staff even when I needed some tickets to the ashes. From the moment I stepped out of the taxi, my bag was taken and I was shown to my room without going to the reception till the time I stepped into a taxi to leave it was a very en - Anonymous
The ambiance, look and feel of the place, the warm welcome and
friendlyness of staff. Amazing location, amazing staff. We'll
definitely go back whenever we stay in London. Never stayed in a hotel
that I didn't want to leave. - Anonymous
centrico - Anonymous
1. Very professional and friendly staff, nothing too much trouble to
make our stay as pleasurable as possible.
2. Very much value for money and we will certainly use the hotel again in the near future
3. Hotel decor, modern, clean and fresh.
4. Breakfast service and food outstanding and the bar area was a great place to relax after the theatre over a well prepared cocktail or two.
5. Excellent location for shopping, theatres and restaurants. This all meant we didn't have to travel far for w - Anonymous
I'd never stayed at The Athenaeum before but I will be back. Although I booked a standard double at a very deep discounted rate (typically this means getting the box room next to the staff quarters), I was given an apartment room which was really a suite. It was excellent and I cannot commend it highly enough. Excellent value for money. - Jim
Everything - stylish hotel ,all mod cons and centrally located .Clean
bathroom with fantastic shower .Blinds and curtains give total blackout
so easy to sleep in - take an alarm if you need to get up
early.Convenient to shops,bars restaurants ,tube and St Paul's
.Would not hesitate to recommend and will stay again .Have paid more to
stay in centrally located Premier Inn or Travel lodge - absolutely no
comparison !! - Anonymous
The staff were great, very friendly and helpful.The service was excellent. It was a pleasure staying at the hotel and would recommend it to others and would stay there again. - Anonymous
Everything is just perfect from the moment you step through the door.
The room we had was fabulous - they had taken note of what my husband
had said on the booking form - that it was a birthday treat - and as a
result we were upgraded, got a birthday card from the management and
complimentary birthday patiserries. The bed was the most comfortable we
have ever slept in and the pillows were just heaven. The bathroom was
excellent and the Penhalligon toiletries a real treat. If you are
looking for - Anonymous
Gimnasio espectacular, estas haciendo ejercicio con una vista panomárica de Londres desde la planta 9, y una piscina excepcional. La ubicación no puede ser mejor, a un paso de Harrods y en Sloane donde están las mejores tiendas de Londres. - Joaquin
NIcely equipped bedroom with an Incredibly comfortable bed and a really
nice shower (a proper rain shower). The staff are helpful and friendly.
The room service breakfast is very good, the "Montcalm
breakfast" easily serves two and is then quite a good deal. It is
in a very good location, less than 5 minutes walk from Marble Arch
station but in a quiet area, and you can be walking in Hyde Park within
5 minutes of leaving the hotel. We had a nice quiet room with a view
over a side street even th - Anonymous
Reasonable sized room; good quality furniture.
Very good swimming pool, jacuzzi etc. with good changing facilities & showers. - Anonymous
las camas estupendas - Anonymous


text:
11am – 1pm at the Peacock Pavilion
Tickets: $75 each or $750 for a table of 10
Purchase Tickets
Proceeds benefit horticulture efforts at the Cincinnati Zoo & Botanical Garden
follow #TulipLuncheon
Be our guest this spring for guided tours through 100,000+ blooming tulips, lunch inside the Peacock Pavilion, and presentation from the Zoo's VP of Facilities and Sustainability, Mark Fisher.
From growing food for our animals, to taking entire exhibits 'off the grid', Mr. Fisher's presentation will feature what it really takes to hold the title of Greenest Zoo in America! After lunch, guests will be treated to an exclusive plant sale packed with distinctive items from the Zoo's nurseries.


text:
The Resurrection of Competitive Bodyboarding
Solid left and beachbreak, also covers Mullaway to the north
27 Jan 01:00 2910
All content remains copyright of Magicseaweed Ltd unless stated otherwise, we'd kindly ask that you don't reproduce it in any form without our permission.
Forgot your password?
15 day surf forecasts and advanced tools.
Enhanced iOS and Android apps.
Reduced advertising.
All this from only US$2.89/month.


text:
The latest from our blogs
NICKS'S BLOG | Friday, 27 March 2015
I'm really pleased to see that our friends over at Imams Online, one of our partners on the See It, Report It website, have launched a new online magazine to "reclaim the internet" from extremists. Over 100 imams gathered in London for the launch of Haqiqah – read more
INSIDER'S BLOG | Saturday, 28 March 2015
Despite numerous arrests, police are allowing the neo nazi a march in Manchester. One of those arrested is notorious Stockport based nazi Liam Pinkham, who is not long out of prison for an assault on a man walking through Liverpool with his two children. read more
PURPLE RAIN BLOG | Saturday, 28 March 2015
A UKIP parliamentary candidate has called for the kidnapping of US President Barack Obama. Jeremy Zeid, UKIP parliamentary candidate for the Hendon constituency made the bizarre demand in a posting on his Facebook page. The posting by Zeid was in response to a story that he shared on Facebook regarding secret documents read more
GENERATION JIHAD BLOG | Thursday, 19 February 2015
A 19 year old disciple of the hate preacher Anjem Choudary has been found guilty of preparing an act of terrorism. Brusthom Ziamani was in his way to decapitate a member of the armed forces when he was apprehended by police. He was carrying a 12 inch knife, a hammer and read more


text:
Sign up for 2015 Sussex membership
Buy Now »
1839 Hospitality
Sample First Class hospitality at Sussex CCC
Details & pricing »
County Ground
Visit the new County Ground website »
2015 tickets are now on sale.
Buy now »
See Sussex's 2015 fixtures
View Fixtures »
Keep up to date with all the latest Sussex Cricket Board news
and more »
Latest News
GUERNSEY: Dave Brooks joins Guernsey Cricket Board17-Dec-2012
Sussex CCC is pleased to confirm that their departing Chief Executive, Dave Brooks, has been appointed to the Board of Guernsey Cricket. Over ..read more »
ACADEMY: South African Tour Update17-Dec-2012
The Sussex Cricket Academy have been continuing their tour of South Africa over the past week and have been in a rich vein of form as they look to ..read more »


text:
5 Not-So-Obvious Reasons Why Your Husband Could Be Cheating On You
It is usually seen that women are more expressive than men in a relationship. They do not really mind talking their hearts out at any point of time. While speaking out helps to maintain transparency in the relationship, certain trademark phrases used quite frequently by women can lead them in troubled waters with their partners. But ladies, when you can play safe, why take the risk? Here is a list of a few such phrases that your man secretly hates to hear.
Recommended Read:
What Women Want in Bed but Never Say
8 Things Women Do Not Like About Men
6 Things that Men Find Irresistible in Women
5 Things Men Do that Destroy a Marriage
Your "I am okay" can puzzle him because somewhere he knows you do not want to deal with things upfront. Avoid this phrase especially after a bout of argument. Do not pretend it is going to be fine, unless you really mean it. May be you can tell him, you want some time to calm down before you talk about it.
Don't worry, we hate spam too. We won't share your details with anyone.


text:
- Cranberry and Port-Braised Short Ribs
- Cranberry-Gorgonzola Tart on Savory Walnut Shortbread Crust
- Spinach Salad with Warm Cranberry Vinaigrette
- Turkey Meat Loaf with Cranberry Ketchup
- Chocolate-Cranberry White Chunk Cookies
Previous page | 1 2
Please Note: This information was accurate at the time of publication. When planning a trip, please confirm details by directly contacting any company or establishment you intend to visit.
Tags: cranberries, food, ma, recipes, wareham
You May Like
Bring New England Home
plus, get the Tablet Edition FREE!
In this issue: Thoreau's Maine
- Best Chowder: We Found It!
- 5 Best Historic Home Tours
- Spring Comes to Narragansett Bay
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.
We reserve the right to remove or edit comments that are offensive or disrespectful to our readers and/or writers, cannot be verified, lack clarity, or contain profanity. Your comments may be republished by Yankee Magazine across multiple platforms.


text:
Search for:
Recent Comments
- Alex Ali on [WHMCS] Getting Started
- Luis on [WHMCS] Getting Started
- Jack Yin on [TomatoCart] New Arrival, Feature Items and Hot Deals Within Tabs
- Jack Yin on [TomatoCart] Integrate Four Banners into the Left & Right Columns in your Store
- Jack Yin on Block Specific TomatoCart Users Based on Area or IP Address
Tags7 add adding admin Alfresco arvixe bucket change clip ClipBucket CMS cPanel/Linux Hosting create dolphin elgg Elgg Hosting elgg tutorials email how how to install joomla module mojoPortal net New panel php plugin security set up setup site socialengine softaculous tips to TomatoCart use using video web website websitepanel WordPress
Tag Archives: template
How to Include the Admin Bar in a Template in Clip-Bucket v2
Hello, Somebody recently asked me how to add the admin bar in a Clip-Bucket v2 template, so here is the guide for everyone. Enjoy! Difficulty level: Easy If you are …
Tags: add, admin bar, bucket, clip, ClipBucket, how to, include, layout, template, v2 Posted under ClipBucket Leave a comment
My First Time Using Silex
What do I do now? You have downloaded Silex and launched it in your browser. What's next? Access to your Manager When you launch Silex, you arrive on a default …
Tags: access, CMS, create, first, import, manager, media, open, silex, site, source, template, time, tutorial, upload, using, what to do Posted under Silex, Video Leave a comment
TomatoCart is Building a Specific Edition for Arvixe Users
In the TomatoCart community, many users face the problem of installing languages packs and templates. In order to let the Arvixe users install the language packs and templates efficiently, TomatoCart …
Tags: arvixe, build, building, cart, edition, free, game, specific, template, tomato, TomatoCart, users Posted under TomatoCart, Using Arvixe Leave a comment


text:
United States / $ (USD)
Judaica, Jewish Gifts, Tallits, Jewish Jewelry, Shofars & more
Brown Knitted Kippah with Box Stitch and High Quality Yarn
Share: Send to a friend:Product ID: KPT-JA-48209
This dark brown Knitted Kippah features a unique shade of chocolate brown, strong box stitch and is made from strong yarn that can be stretched to fit both adult and child heads alike. Read more
Contact Our Judaica Experts 24/7 1-800-818-8394
For Phone Orders Please Mention: help-phonecode-updating
Live Chat Online
THIS ITEM QUALIFIES FOR FREE SHIPPING With an order of $59 and over
In accordance with our shipping policy
General Information
Dimensions 17cm
Temporarily out of stock
Similar Products
- $6 16cm blue knitted kippah with Star of David View Product
- $6 Black Knitted Frik Kippah with Box Weave View Product
- $6 17 cm. White Wool Knitted Kippah with Gold Embroidering of Magen David View Product
- $6 17cm White Knitted Kippah with Embroidered Star of David and Silver Stripe View Product
- $6 16 Centimeter Blue Knitted Kippah with Embroidered Silver Star of David View Product
- $6 20cm White Satin Kippah with Four Sections, Lace Trim and Gold Star of David View Product
- $6 20 cm. Black Velvet Kippah with Aleph Bet View Product
- $6 Black Suede Kippah with Four Sections and Thick Rim View Product
- $6 7cm White Knitted Kippah with Lace Tie and Gold Star of David View Product
- $6 White Knitted Kippah with Embroidered Silver Shema Yisrael and Stripe View Product
Recommended Products
- $4 Ner Hatsafon Paraffin Havdalah Candle in Blue and White View Product
- $59 Dog Tag Pendant with Customized Hebrew Name and Star of David Cut Out in Sterling Silver View Product
- $140 Shema Yisrael Earrings with Freshwater Pearl in Sterling Silver View Product
- $14 Men's Jerusalem Script T-Shirt View Product
- $5 Carmit Plastic Dreidel with Milk Chocolate Coins (70gr) View Product
- $56 Traditional Ashkenaz Ram Horn Shofar View Product
- $6 White Ceramic 'I Love Israel' Mug View Product
- $5 Birthday Card for 70th Birthday View Product
- $24 Art Print with Modern Portrait of Golda Meir View Product
- $32 Cylindrical Silver Mezuzah Case with Golden Accents and View of Jerusalem for 12cm Scroll View Product
Customers Reviews
(No Reviews) 0
Popular Searches that include this item:
Multiple Shipping Methods!
Choose among a variety of convenient shipping methods.Learn more!
24/7 Customer Service
- Contact Our Judaica Experts 24/7 1-800-818-8394
- Live Chat
Judaica Products
Yair Emanuel
View all Yair Emanuel»
- New Judaica Brands
- New Candlesticks & Candles
- New Havdalah Sets and Candles
- New Kiddush Cups
- New Kippot
- New Mayim Achronim
- New Menorahs
- New Mezuzahs
- New Shofars
- New Sterling Silver
- New Synagogue Items
- New Tallit Items
- New Tefillin
- New Tzedakah Boxes
- New Tzitzit
- New Washing Cups
- New Yair Emanuel
Jewish Occasions
- New Shabbat
- New Hanukkah
- New Passover
- New Purim
- New Rosh Hashanah
- New Sukkot
- New Wedding
- New Bar Mitzvah
- New Bat Mitzvah
- New Bris
- New Israeli Independence Day
From Israel
Body Care & Dead Sea
View all Body Care & Dead Sea»
- New Israeli T-Shirts
- New Israeli Kosher Food
- New Israeli Artists
- New Books
- New CDs
- New DVDs
- New Hebrew Learning
- New Military Surplus
- New Israeli Cleaning Supplies
- New Israeli Brands
- New Israel Coins & Medals Corp.
- New Israel Museum Products
- New Megemeria by Yvel
- New Body Care & Dead Sea
Jewish Jewelry
- New Our Jewelry
- New Necklaces and Pendants
- New Bracelets
- New Rings
- New Earrings
- New Brooches
- New Accessories
- New Kabbalah Jewelry
- New IDF Jewelry
- New Name Jewelry
- New Choshen Jewelry
- New Magic Touch Jewelry
- New Adina Plastelina
- New Marina Jewelry
- New Ben Jewelry
- New Jerusalem Pearl Collection
- New Megemeria by Yvel
Jewish Home
- New Apparel
- New Blessings
- New Bookmarks
- New Children's Items
- New Decorative Plates
- New Figurines
- New Hamsa
- New Home Decor
- New Jewish Calendars
- New Jewish Pictures
- New Kitchen
- New Linens
- New Shot Glasses
- New Snow Globes
- New Stationery
- New Chabad
Featured Items
- New Popular Passover Items
- New New Arrivals
- New Artist of the Month-Megemeria
- New Souvenirs From Israel
- New Rockets into Roses
- New Ben Jewelry
- New Photographs by Duby Tal/Albatross
- About World of Judaica
- About Us
- Why Buy World of Judaica
- Contact us
- Customer Testimonials
- Coupons and Discounts
- Learn About Judaism
- Website Policies
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Use
- Secure Shopping
- Return Policy
- Warranty
- Sitemap
- Newsletter Sign Up Now!
- United States / All prices in $ (USD)
- Change your country or language
- Change selected currency
© 2008-2015, World Of Judaica


text:
|Page: 1 of 1
|Sort By:
Sight-Seeing Tours Morocco - Well, We specialise in crafting wonderful itineraries that respond to your interests. The tours respond to many kind of travellers who are interested in one of the tours: Desert trip, Marrakech discovery, Imlil and the high Atlas, Camel trekking.
Bike Tours Arizona - Electric Bike Tours of Arizona. Guided Sonoran Desert Tours and City Tours through Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe Arizona. Journey Arizona's Electric Bike Tours have combined comfort and ease with adventure and excitement.
Sight-Seeing Tours Morocco - Marrakech desert trips is a tour company based in Marrakech specialized in organizing private and shared Morocco desert tours departing from Marrakech for 2, 3 and 4 days. All our tours include a camel trekking and overnight at our Sahara desert camp
Sight-Seeing Tours Morocco - Authentic sahara tours is a LLC, specialized in organizing Morocco Sahara desert tours from Marrakech with reasonable price, Fes and Marrakech sahara desert tours, 2 Days Zagora sahara desert tour near Marrakech in order to discover and visit Morocco
Sight-Seeing Tours Morocco - desert tour,desert trip,organizationt trip in morocco,excursion from Marrakech
Vacation Rentals Morocco - Traveling In Morocco : Offers a great selection of Moroccan tours including Cultural Tours, Desert Tours, Mountain Tours, Beach Tours and more. Skip the crowded bus tour and come have a different adventure instead.Traveling In Morocco,
Camel Riding Morocco - Moroccan desert trips offerd the best morocco private tours , desert tours , night under stars , camel trekking , travel culture , camps in desert
Hiking & Trekking Morocco - I Go Morocco offers a wide range of tours, excursions and activities across Morocco,having a specialisation in desert tours and trekking. Tour packages are offered in 3 styles: Private, shared and luxury with Free Airport pick up upon arrival ...
Wildlife & Safari Tours Morocco - OverMorocco desert trips in morocco, day trips from marrakech, adventure holidays in morocco, desert trips from marrakech and family holidays morocco with Moroccan views, adventure holidays in morocco : trips from marrakech, Trips Zagora Dunes
Sight-Seeing Tours Morocco - Merzouga Journeys a Local Morocco Tours Specialists in travel around Morocco. Individuals, Small group travelers, guided tours/independent plans, tailor made to suit all budgets and requests Enjoy Morocco travels and sahara desert tourswith Us !
Browse 10 desert tours listings and start planning your vacation today


text:
NCAAB Basketball - Preview
|Canisius Golden Griffins vs. Fairfield Stags
The fans at Webster Bank Arena will be treated to a game between the Canisius Golden Griffins and the Fairfield Stags when they take their seats on Saturday. Canisius was an 86-74 winner in its last match on the road against Quinnipiac. They covered the 2-point spread as underdogs. Fairfield was a 64-56 loser in their most recent outing at home against Siena. They failed to cover the 1.5-point spread as favorites. Canisius:
Team record: 15-7 SU, 12-7 ATS
Current streak: won 3 straight games.
The total has gone OVER in 4 of last 6 games on the road
When playing on Saturday are 3-7
Team record: 4-17 SU, 8-8 ATS
Current streak: lost 3 straight games.
is 10-1 SU in its last 11 games when playing Canisius
When playing on Saturday are 5-5
Canisius home to Manhattan, Friday, February 7
Fairfield at Rider, Monday, February 3


text:
System suggestion: Modifier Crafting
I'm going to outline a spin on an idea I saw for the crafting system that they wanted to see imported from CO. I won't take credit for this, just so you know.
This idea revolves around allowing players to take any quality item that isn't purple and modify it as they wish.
This proposed idea can be carried out at Memory Alpha or Qo'nos but was visualized being done on board the player's ship so those labs actually serve a use instead of being eye candy.
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
The general goal is to allow players to make what they want with what they have. Players could craft modifiers on their current equipment if they wanted, or use it to help craft for their friends.
It is not intended to replace or be better than crafting items outright at the two major crafting hubs. In fact that's why modifier crafting requires the player to first go to said hubs to get the materials the system needs before progressing further. Its also why this system has a fixed chance of success and failure for each successive upgrade that favors failure more for each attempted upgrade. This way, players that do get all the way to Purple Quality would have a few bragging rights.
I'm not holding my breath that Cryptic Devs will comment on this system or even implement anything like it. I'm not even going to keep my hopes up that it will be well received. But I wanted to put my idea up for feedback so that it can be reshaped into something more likely to be accepted by the general player base and something the devs could probably call a "good idea" even if its not put into the game. :)
|All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:10 PM.