text:
Waterstone 5600-3-AC Antique Copper Annapolis Kitchen Faucet Single Handle with Pullout Spray, Soap Dispenser and Air Switch
Technical Specs
Specification Sheet | |
Care and Cleaning | |
ADA | Yes |
Country Of Origin | USA |
Drain Assembly Included | No |
Eco Friendly | Yes |
Escutcheon Included | No |
Faucet Centers | 0 |
Faucet Holes | 1 |
Faucet Type | Kitchen Faucet |
Filtering | No |
Flow Rate (GPM) | 1.75 |
Handle Material | Metal |
Handle Style | Lever |
Handles Included | Yes |
Height | 18 |
Installation Type | Deck Mounted |
Low Lead Compliant | Yes |
Made in America | Yes |
Material | Brass |
Max Deck Thickness | 2.375 |
Number Of Handles | 1 |
Pre Rinse | No |
Pullout Direction | Down |
Pullout Spray | Yes |
Sidespray | No |
Soap Dispenser Included | Yes |
Spout Height | 18 |
Spout Reach | 8.75 |
Spout Swivel | 360 |
Spout Type | Swivel |
Theme | Traditional |
Valve Type | Ceramic Disc |
Water Efficient | Yes |
Width | 3 |
American Made Luxury Kitchen Faucets by Waterstone
The Annapolis faucet suite has a beautifully detailed design that evokes an old world feel. Its classic styling is perfectly suited for today's high-end kitchens. This collection features a wide range of traditional designs including hook spout faucets, gooseneck pull down faucets, and the patented Gantry pull down faucet. There are 30 different finishes to choose from, along with matching Bar, Prep, and Filtration Faucets, plus 6 accessories. Make your kitchen truly unique with an Annapolis kitchen faucet from Waterstone.
All Waterstone faucets are built in the USA using 100% American components and materials.
Waterstone 5600-3 Includes:
- Pull Out Spray Kitchen Faucet 5600
- Soap Dispenser 4060
- Air Switch 4010
Waterstone Pull Out Spray Kitchen Faucet 5600 Features:
- Designed, Engineered and Made in the USA
- Water Efficient
- Solid Brass or Stainless Steel Construction
- Compatible with Reverse Osmosis Filtration Systems
- Traditional C-Spout Design
- Unique PLP Positive Lock Holds Spray Head in Place
- Pre-Positioned Easy Pull Counterbalanced Weight
- Lever Selects Spray from Aerated Stream
- Single Lever Control Hot/Cold Ceramic Disk Valve Cartridge
- Handle Adjusts 22 Degrees (Right or Left) to Allow for Clearance from Backsplashes
- 3 Handle Caps Included: Plain and Ceramic Right Hand or Left Hand Operation Indicated for Hot and Cold
- Factory Installed Reinforced Braided Connection Hoses
- Adjustable Teflon Friction Lock Aids Handle Feel and Prevents Sag
- 360 Degree Swivel Spout
- Quick Snug and Lock Attachment Hardware is Included for Ease of Installation
- Neoperl Aerator
- Recommended Installation Hole Size 1-1/2"
- Supply Hoses 20" Long with 3/8" Compression Fittings
- Spray Connection with 3/8" Compression Fittings
- California AB-1953 Low Lead Compliant
- ADA Compliant
Waterstone Pull Out Spray Kitchen Faucet 5600 Specifications:
- Overall Height: 18"
- Spout Height: 8"
- Spout Reach: 8.75"
- Width: 3"
- Flow Rate: 1.75 GPM with Stream Selected
- Max Deck Thickness: 2.375"
Waterstone Soap Dispenser 4060 Features:
- Designed, Engineered and Made in the USA
- Solid Brass or Stainless Steel Construction
- Anti Wick Tip Helps Protect Delicate Patina Finishes and Prevents Dripping
- 3 Accent Buttons Included: 1 Soap, 1 Lotion, 1 Plain with Matching Finish
- Teflon Guides for Smooth Action and Solid Feel
- Easily Replaceable Pump
- Large 12oz Capacity Bottle
- Refill from Top Design
- Requires 1-3/8" Mounting Hole
Waterstone Soap Dispenser 4060 Specifications:
- Height: 4.25"
- Width: 2"
- Bottle Height: 6"
- Bottle Width: 2.25"
- Max Deck Thickness: 2.375"
Waterstone Air Switch 4010 Features:
- Designed, Engineered and Made in the USA
- Includes Control Box and Tubing
- Two Accent Buttons Included
- Easy Operation
- Eliminates Broken Fingernails
- Solid Brass Construction, Button and Trim Ring Available in Solid Stainless Steel
- Easily Replaceable Air Pump
- Simplifies First Time Disposer Installations
- Isolated from Electrical Connections
- Requires 1-3/8" Mounting Hole
- On/Off Safety Air Switch
- Pressing Air Switch Will Alternately Activate or Deactivate Two Pieces of Equipment Plugged Into the Box
- ADA Compliant
Waterstone Air Switch 4010 Specifications:
- Height: 1.375"
- Width: 2"
- Max Deck Thickness: 2.375"
Antique Bronze, Black Oil Rubbed Bronze, Caribbean Bronze, Tuscan Brass, Weathered Brass, and Weathered Copper are LIVING FINISHES. Generally, finishes darken slightly where they are not being touched and highlight where the high use points are. Living finishes have no protective coatings and are more easily scratched or scuffed.
Additional Waterstone Links
- View Manufacturer Warranty
- Shop All Waterstone Products
- Shop All Waterstone Annapolis Collection Products
Our SKU: 5600-3
This product is listed under the following manufacturer number(s):
- Almond
5600-3-01 - American Bronze
5600-3-AMB - Antique Brass
5600-3-AB - Antique Bronze
5600-3-ABZ - Antique Copper
5600-3-AC - Antique Pewter
5600-3-AP - Bisquit
5600-3-07 - Black Oil Rubbed Bronze
5600-3-ORB - Caribbean Bronze
5600-3-CB - Chocolate Bronze
5600-3-CHB - Chrome
5600-3-CH - Distressed American Bronze
5600-3-DAMB - Distressed Antique Brass
5600-3-DAB - Distressed Antique Copper
5600-3-DAC - Distressed Antique Pewter
5600-3-DAP - Euro-White
5600-3-EW - Gloss Black
5600-3-06 - Matte Black
5600-3-MB - Polished Brass
5600-3-PB - Polished Copper
5600-3-PC - Polished Nickel
5600-3-PN - Satin Chrome
5600-3-SC - Satin Nickel
5600-3-SN - Tuscan Brass
5600-3-TB - Venetian Bronze
5600-3-VB - Weathered Brass
5600-3-WB - Weathered Copper
5600-3-WC - White
*Denotes a finish or option that has been discontinued
Waterstone Annapolis Collection
Other Products In The Waterstone Annapolis Collection
Waterstone 5600
Annapolis Kitchen Faucet Single Handle with Pull Out Spray$1,243.20-$1,327.20(3)
Waterstone 5500
Annapolis Pull Out Spray High-Arc Kitchen Faucet$1,287.20-$1,371.20(1)
Waterstone 5500-4
Annapolis Kitchen Faucet Single Handle with Pull O...$1,851.20-$1,996.00
Waterstone 4400
Annapolis 2.2 GPM Pre-Rinse Kitchen Faucet with Le...$1,759.20-$1,903.20
Waterstone 5600-4
Annapolis Kitchen Faucet Single Handle with Pullou...$1,809.60-$1,893.60
Warranty Info
All Waterstone, LLC products carry a LIMITED LIFETIME GUARANTEE against defect in material or workmanship. Waterstone does not, however, guarantee its products against defects due to improper installation, the failure to perform proper maintenance or uses for which they were not designed. Waterstone has no liability for consequential or indirect damages and its only liability is to repair or replace, at its option, any of its products determined by Waterstone to have a manufacturing defect. Products must be returned within one year of purchase. Waterstone shall not pay any repair costs performed on its products by other than its authorized representatives unless Waterstone has given prior written approval to incur costs on its behalf. The rate of deterioration of finishes will vary either from exposure to chemicals, perspiration, climate conditions, or other factors. Tarnishing or excessive wear of finishes is therefore, not a defect, but a normal process which is unavoidable. Under these circumstances, finishes can not be guaranteed and, therefore, products will not be repaired or replaced under warranty for normal tarnishing or wear finishes.


text:
Balkinization   |
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Dred Scott and Kelo JB
The closest analogy to the substantive due process argument in Dred Scott v. Sandford isn't Roe v. Wade. It's the dissenters' position in Kelo v New London. Have I got your attention? Good, because it's time for a little lesson on the history of substantive due process. Dred Scott is often cited as the Supreme Court's earliest flirtation with the idea that the Due Process Clause places substantive as well as procedural limitations on government, often known as the doctrine of substantive due process. Because Roe v. Wade also relies on the idea of substantive due process, critics of Roe often invoke Dred Scott to show why Roe was such a bad idea. There is a second comparison between Dred Scott and Roe that is sometimes run together with the first: In Roe the Supreme Court held that fetuses are not persons; in Dred Scott the Supreme Court held that blacks are not citizens. These are not substantive due process arguments; they are arguments about the original understanding of the constitutional text. One of these two arguments is based on sound history and the other is not. Guess which one? It turns out that it's Roe. In 1868 the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment was not generally understood to include persons who were not yet born, in part because, at common law, abortion was not a felony before quickening. Dred Scott's argument about the original understanding of citizenship, however, is not sound. Taney's originalist argument that blacks were not expected ever to be citizens is not supported by history, as Justice Curtis's dissent shows: there were in fact free black citizens in various states at the time of the founding. But, today, as I said, I'm interested in substantive due process. Many people think that substantive due process is inconsistent with the original understanding and that the doctrine began with Dred Scott as a means of defending slavery. Therefore Dred Scott is doubly bad. This is incorrect. Taney's argument in Dred Scott comes from the same source as the argument of the dissenters in Kelo, and it has the same pedigree in thought of the founding era. Now, in fact Taney applies the substantive due process argument incorrectly, as Justice Curtis ably shows in his dissent in Dred Scott. But the key point is that Taney's argument in Dred Scott is not the originator of the idea of substantive due process; the idea goes back to the founding (and before in the history of the English common law), and the same argument lives on in the dissenters' views in Kelo. Indeed, as I shall explain later, it lives in even on the majority's opinion and in Justice Kennedy's concurrence. Substantive due process, I must report, is as American as apple pie, and even the people who publicly disdain it actually invoke it. Kelo is just the latest example. This doesn't show that Roe or any other substantive due process case is right or wrong; My point is simply that the "substantive due process is evil because it appeared in Dred Scott" meme is stupid and shows an ignorance of history. Moreover, once you understand that history, you will see the closest analogue to Taney's argument in Dred Scott is not Roe v. Wade; it is the dissenters' position in Kelo. And that doesn't make their position necessarily wrong either. Hoping that I've tantalized you enough with my comparison of Dred Scott and Kelo, let me try to explain what Dred Scott's substantive due process argument was actually about. Remember, this is *not* the infamous argument that blacks can't be citizens-- that's the argument from original intention. (Are you listening, Justice Scalia?) Rather, Taney's due process argument is the claim that Congress could not, through the Missouri Compromise, ban slavery in the territories north of the compromise line, because the Federal Government must abide by constitutional civil liberties guarantees in territories it controls. Thus, Taney argues: Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law. And there it is. But before getting to the substantive due process argument, note the context in which it appears. Taney is arguing that if as long as the United States holds territory, the Constitution and the civil rights the Constitution guarantees bind the government there. Does this sound familiar? Yes, it's the same issue at stake in the litigation over interrogation practices at Guantanamo Bay. The Bush Administration put detainees there so that it would not be bound by American constitutional norms, arguing that the Constitution does not follow the flag. But Chief Justice Taney says that won't work. You can't deny people basic constitutional rights just because a piece of land you control isn't part of the mother country. The United States was once a colony, too, and the British Empire didn't protect the colonists' rights. When we became a nation, we promised we would do better. Thus Taney says, "citizens of the United States who migrate to a Territory belonging to the people of the United States, cannot be ruled as mere colonists, dependent upon the will of the General Government, and to be governed by any laws it may think proper to impose." Take that, King George. So Taney is making an anticolonial argument: If the United States holds a piece of property as its territory, it cannot escape guaranteeing constitutional rights. Of course the rights he was thinking about were the property rights of slaveholders, and the rights the Guantanamo Bay detainees are arguing for are the right to a hearing and the right not to be tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. But this would not be the first time that constitutional law made strange bedfellows. You can distinguish the Guantanamo case in two ways. First, Guantanamo Bay is held by a perpetual lease, not owned outright, and second the detainees are aliens, not citizens. But in Rasul v. Bush, Justice Kennedy's concurrence pointed out that this was a formalist ruse. The United States holds Gitmo quite securely; it exercises sovereignty over it in all practical terms. If you buy Taney's argument that we should do better than the British Empire did, the idea that the U.S. can escape its constitutional obligations through the formality of a leasehold argument rings quite hollow. And although Taney spoke of the rights of citizens, the Bill of Rights does not make distinctions between aliens and citizens, particularly not the Due Process Clause, which protects "persons," not citizens. In any case, Taney's anticolonial argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions in the early 1900's collectively referred to as the Insular Cases. The Supreme Court held that Puerto Rico and other possessions gained through the Spanish-American war were, unlike Louisiana and California, "unincorporated" territories, and so the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution generally) did not apply there. At most, the federal government was required to respect only the most fundamental rights applied. One of those rights, however, was due process of law. The irony of Dred Scott and the Insular Cases is that today we think of Dred Scott as the very antithesis of a human rights decision. But in fact Dred Scott actually offered a theory of the Constitution that was far more protective of human rights in U.S. possessions (and territories under America's effective control, like Guantanamo Bay) than the doctrines the Court subsequently created to justify the United States' imperial ambitious following the Spanish-American War. But of course, the irony makes perfect sense if you understand that Taney wanted to protect the property rights of white southerners who owned slaves, while the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases didn't want to extent full constitutional rights to the native peoples in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and elsewhere. Like the Court in the Insular Cases, Taney wanted to protect civil rights only for the people he cared about most; he didn't think that blacks had any "rights which the white man was bound to respect." But if one takes his argument beyond the despicable context of the property rights of slaveholders and applies it, as Taney himself understood it, to the legal obligations of an imperial power to protect basic human rights, it has surprising resonance. And that brings me to the main event, Taney's substantive due process argument. As you will recall, Taney argued that the federal government couldn't ban slavery in the Territories because that would mean that when the slaveholder crossed into free territory, he would lose his property rights in his slaves; his slaves would become free and own their own labor. Taney argued that "an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offence against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law." What Taney is referring to in this passage had a long and honored history in the United States, and before it, in England. It is the doctrine of vested rights, the idea that the legislature may not take away vested rights of property. The roots of the idea go back to Magna Carta, and its reference to "the law of the land" On the eve of the American revolution, William Blackstone, who generally supported parliamentary supremacy, nevertheless explained that taking private property either for public use without the payment of compensation, or without the owner's consent, would violate the "law of the land." That means A to B transfers without the owner's consent violate the "law of the land." Thus, in 1798, in Calder v. Bull, Justice Chase insisted that "An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority ... . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean... . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Justice Chase's argument in Calder is the first Supreme Court appearance of the doctrine of unenumerated rights. Legislatures may not destroy vested rights. The idea of taking property vested in A and giving it to B, along with the prohibition on a person being a judge in his or her own case, were the most obvious examples of a violation of the law of the land, or of due process of law. And so it appeared to people at the Founding when they wrote the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. It was generally assumed at the time, and by federal and state courts in subsequent decisions, that the idea of "due process of law" was synonymous with the protections of the "law of the land." And both phrases were generally understood to prevent governments from engaging in simple "naked" transfers-- taking from A and giving to B. Indeed, in 1829 in Wilkinson v. Leland, Justice Story suggested that principle apparently held whether or not a state had a law of the land or due process clause in its constitution: "We know of no case, in which a legislative act to transfer the property of A. to B. without his consent, has ever been held a constitutional exercise of legislative power in any state in the union." If you look at the language of the Fifth Amendment, you will see that it has not one, but two limitations on eminent domain. The second one is the Public Use Clause, which says that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Public Use Clause regulates private to public transfers for public use, but note that it says nothing about takings for private use. That is because this category is already dealt with in the first limitation on eminent domain, the Due Process Clause, which prohibits private to private transfers. The two clauses appear after each other in the text, first the due process clause, prohibiting A to B transfers, then the public use clause, regulating the conditions under which takings can occur for public use. And that brings us back to Taney and Dred Scott. Understood against this long historical background, Taney was not making things up out of whole cloth in Dred Scott when he said that the effect of the Missouri Compromise was inconsistent with due process of law. He was adverting to the basic doctrine of vested rights; the idea that government cannot take vested rights from A and give them to B. That, he claimed is precisely what the Federal Government had done when it applied the Missouri Compromise to southerners bringing their property into free territories. It was taking their property and giving it to the slave. The problem with Dred Scott, you see, was not that Taney was using the idea of substantive due process. For the idea he invoked, that the government could not take away vested rights, was among the most hallowed ideas around at the Founding. And there was nothing particularly evil about the idea of protecting vested rights in property. What was evil was that the United States allowed some people to hold property in other human beings. The problem with Taney's argument is an incorrect application of the vested rights principle. The appropriate rejoinder is Justice Curtis's in his dissent in Dred Scott. Justice Curtis, it should be noted, *agreed* with Taney that taking vested rights of property violates the Due Process Clause: "this restriction on the legislative power is not peculiar to the Constitution of the United States; it was borrowed from Magna Charta; was brought to America by our ancestors, as part of their inherited liberties, and has existed in all the States, usually in the very words of the great charter." However, Curtis explained, people do not have vested rights in property when they voluntarily enter into jurisdictions that do not recognize that species of property. For in the second jurisdiction the rights are not vested; indeed, they do not even exist. This point doesn't arise with estates in land because they are not movable, so they can't cross jurisdictions, but it does apply to chattels that can be moved from place to place. If you've been paying attention to the Supreme Court's recent docket, you may find all this talk about taking from A and giving to B familiar. It's what was at issue in Kelo v. New London, in which the Supreme Court held that taking property as part of a comprehensive scheme to stimulate economic development was a public use, and did not violate the Constitution as long as just compensation was given. Justice O'Connor began her dissent by quoting the passage from Calder v. Bull I cited above, which as we have seen, is the original citation for the doctrine of unenumerated rights. What New London was doing, she argued was nothing less than taking property from individual homeowners and giving it to other private parties. Nobody accused Justice O'Connor of engaging in substantive due process, and amusingly, Justices Scalia and Thomas, who don't usually recognize unenumerated rights, joined her opinion. Of course, the reason was that her argument was nominally premised on the text of the Public Use Clause. But as I noted above, the Public Use Clause doesn't actually say that property can't be taken for private use. It says only that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." That leaves out takings for private use without just compensation and takings for private use with just compensation. O'Connor is reading into the text of the Public Use Clause things that are not actually there. The prohibition is in the Fifth Amendment to be sure, but not in the Public Use Clause. So where *do* we get the principle banning takings for purely private use that was at stake in Kelo? We get it from the basic idea of substantive due process, which prohibits A to B transfers and protects vested rights from being destroyed by government. Justice Thomas tries to avoid recognizing this in his dissenting opinion, arguing that despite its language the Public Use clause cannot apply merely to public uses; otherwise, it would allow takings for private use without compensation, which would "contradict a bedrock principle well established by the time of the founding: that all takings required the payment of compensation." He artfully elides the question of what textual provision in the Constitution prevents takings for private use with compensation. We know the answer-- it's the Due Process Clause. That's what most people at the Founding thought, and that's why the Fifth Amendment is written that way. But, wait, that would mean that in Kelo Thomas is actually making an argument from (shudder) substantive due process. And it would be the same sort of argument that Chief Justice Taney made in Dred Scott. But we all know that Justices Thomas and Scalia don't believe in substantive due process. And they certainly don't agree with anything that awful Chief Justice Taney said in Dred Scott. Or do they? And that's not all: Let me point out that the majority and Justice Kennedy agreed that at least some private to private transfers also violate the Constitution. So they too buy into the substantive due process argument, at least where the government deliberately takes land for the purpose of benefiting a private party. (That is to say, they limit the restriction on private use to purely private purposes. This is, roughly speaking, the post-New Deal conception: The legislature can take from A and give to B for a public purpose (and if the legislative act constitutes a taking, it must pay just compensation), but it may not do so for a purely private purpose.) Let me summarize: Critics of Kelo (including the dissenting Justices) are making a very old kind of argument from substantive due process, indeed the *original* argument from substantive due process, and the very sort of argument that Chief Justice Taney made in Dred Scott. Does that undermine their arguments or make them bad people? No, it does not. And here's the moral of the story: Just because an argument appears in Dred Scott doesn't mean that the idea is bad. The idea that the Constitution follows the flag is not bad, and substantive due process is not bad. Slavery is bad.
This is a very nice argument. I think it also contains a subtle argument for the supiriority of a Humian or Kantian understanding of property to a Lockean one, but I guess that wasn't the main point. I'll point my students to it.
Thank you for not squirreling away this gem of analysis in some turgid law review article, like so many interesting and important legal ideas from so many minds. The ideas are simple and powerful; so should be their expression.
The Constitution clearly in some fashion protects substantive rights and surely substantive due process has a time-old history, one reflected in anti-slavery thought. And, Dred Scott in some ways does trump the Insular Cases as a liberty protecting measure.
But the "gotcha" is a bit too cute in that Justice Thomas in his "dissent" was guided by various principles, including, the original meaning (or his reading of it) of "public use" that he held to be restrictive. This would include the substantive property rights tied to it. This has a limited reach though for those who like substantive due process generally. Thomas also accepts a substantive content to the privileges and immunities provision. I also believe he disagreed with the Calder limitation of ex post fato laws to civil cases, so that adds additional safeguards to property. So, he has ways to protect substantive rights w/o using substantive due process per se.
I'm not sure Jack is right in suggesting that Justice Thomas does not believe the Constitution protects unenumerated rights. See, for example, his concurring opinion (fn. 1) in Troxel v. Granville, and his dissent in Saenz v. Roe. I suspect that Justice Thomas's objection to, say, Roe v. Wade, is not that the right to abortion is not specifically enumerated, but that (in his view) the right to abortion is neither enumerated nor one of the unenumerated, fundamental rights that the Constitution nonetheless protects.
I don't think it's correct to argue that Calder v. Bull really had much of anything to do with the Due Process Clause. Moreover, the comments of Justice Chase in that case did not go undisputed. Both Justices Iredell and Patterson felt very differently from Justice Chase. Here's what Iredell said:
"It is true, that some speculative jurists have held, that a legislative act against natural justice must, in itself, be void; but I cannot think that, under such a government, any Court of Justice would possess a power to declare it so. Sir William Blackstone, having put the strong case of an act of Parliament, which should authorise a man to try his own cause, explicitly adds, that even in that case, 'there is no court that has power to defeat the intent of the Legislature, when couched in such evident and express words, as leave no doubt whether it was the intent of the Legislature, or no.' 1 Bl. Com. 91." Likewise, Justice Patterson agreed to uphold the retrospective Connecticut law in Calder v. Bull even though he felt that it violated the "fundamental principles of the social compact." Here's what Patterson said: "I had an ardent desire to have extended the provision in the Constitution to retrospective laws in general. There is neither policy nor safety in such laws; and, therefore, I have always had a strong aversion against them. It may, in general, be truly observed of retrospective laws of every description, that they neither accord with sound legislation, nor the fundamental principles of the social compact." Chase was the odd man out.
I don't think it's correct to argue that Calder v. Bull really had much of anything to do with the Due Process Clause. That Clause of the Constitution was not at issue in the case. Moreover, the comments of Justice Chase stand in marked contrast to those of Justice Iredell and Patterson. Here's what Iredell said:
"It is true, that some speculative jurists have held, that a legislative act against natural justice must, in itself, be void; but I cannot think that, under such a government, any Court of Justice would possess a power to declare it so. Sir William Blackstone, having put the strong case of an act of Parliament, which should authorise a man to try his own cause, explicitly adds, that even in that case, 'there is no court that has power to defeat the intent of the Legislature, when couched in such evident and express words, as leave no doubt whether it was the intent of the Legislature, or no.' 1 Bl. Com. 91." Likewise, Justice Patterson agreed to uphold the retrospective Connecticut law in Calder v. Bull, even though he felt that it violated the "fundamental principles of the social compact." Here's what Patterson said: "I had an ardent desire to have extended the provision in the Constitution to retrospective laws in general. There is neither policy nor safety in such laws; and, therefore, I have always had a strong aversion against them. It may, in general, be truly observed of retrospective laws of every description, that they neither accord with sound legislation, nor the fundamental principles of the social compact." Chase was the odd man out.
Interestingly, Justice Kennedy is on record as believing that some private-to-private, A-to-B transfers violate the [substantive] Due Process Clause. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel (1998). Apfel involved the retroactive imposition of crippling liability on a coal company based on long-extinguished employment relationships. Not only didn't Kennedy dress Apfel up as a Takings Clause case, he expressly refused to view the imposition of liability as a "taking" at all. Does Prof. Balkin think he was right?
Interestingly, Justice Kennedy is on record as believing that some private-to-private, A-to-B transfers violate the [substantive] Due Process Clause. Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel (1998). Apfel involved the retroactive imposition of crippling liability on a coal company based on long-extinguished employment relationships. Not only didn't Kennedy dress Apfel up as a Takings Clause case, he expressly refused to view the imposition of liability as a "taking" at all. Does Prof. Balkin think he was right?
I think you characterize the due process issues in Guantanamo Bay incorrectly. POWs are not granted rights under the Consitution. They are denied liberty without legal process (although some sargent checks their uniform, ids, takes name, rank, and serial number, and reports them to the Red Cross). They certainly have no right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. They are subject to military, not civilian justice.
Their rights are guaranteed under the Geneva Convention. The one case that currently establishes a due process right is the Jan 31 decision of Judge Green, and that was only with respect to the CSR Tribunals. The Geneva Convention requires that any military judicial proceeding grant the POW the same rights that a US soldier would have. Since a US soldier has rights of due process, then so does a POW. However, this right doesn't arise because the Constitution directly applies to POWs in Cuba, but rather because in the special case that a Tribunal is undertaken, then International Law indirectly requires the POW to get the same rights (whatever they may be) as are enjoyed by US soldiers. The only claim that the administration made about the Cuban location is that US Courts would not have jurisdiction there. If one believes that there are Constitutional rights enjoyed by POWs, then had the administration been right they would have had rights but the courts would have lacked jurisdiction to enforce those rights. So far, the Supreme Court has granted jurisdiction, but none of the courts in any of the cases has asserted Constitutional rights to protect. The Geneva Convention does protect a POW (at least a lawful combatant) from ill treatment. Another set of cases seek to have the courts enforce this, and of course the Hamdan decision claims that the Convention is not judicially enforcable. That is an entirely separate chain of argument.
Wow, that's a long way to go to establish an uncontroversial point. I don't think, and I suspect you do not think, that Justice Scalia or any other originalist opposed to substantive due process think it's wrong *because* of its association with Taney's opinion. Do they occasionally throw in that suspect lineage for rhetorical force? Sure. But that's just to let people know that substantive due process is not an invention of progressives--the same reason one throws in Lochner.
But I am really suprised at the suggestion that the dissenters in fact rely upon the due process clause rather than the public use clause. Certainly that is no way to understand O'Connor's opinion or her dispute with the majority. The very opening paragraphs of her opinion make this clear, and it is similarly clear that both Stevens and O'Connor took themselves to be battling over the meaning of "public use." The furthest your argument can go is to show that O'Connor's quotation of Calder v. Bull is not the most apt. I'll need to review Calder v. Bull to see whether I agree that any citation of it in this context commits one to the view that the public use clause is not really the limitation on takings for private use, but the due process clause. In any event, that is not what any of the Justices seemed to think they were arguing about. What motive would they all have to go along with such a charade? Your argument ignores Justice O'Connor's own attempt to distinguish the Due Process clause from the "public use" clause, as well as the traditional principle inclusio unis est exclusio alteris, which seems to be a part of how all of the court was thinking of this clause--thus all parties wanted to worry about the scope of the meaning of public use, and not some mysterious-believed-in-but-cited-by-none power of the Due Process clause to settle the case. So, critics of Kelo *might* choose to make the argument you accuse them of making here, but, then again, the opinions in the case just *might* mean what they say. I don't think this case serves to entrap folks into acknowledging what is in any case impossible to acknowledge with a straight face, that when the framers wrote "due process" they meant "due substance"--that when they meant that life (!), liberty, and property could not be taken without due process they intended us to discover that this meant that for some "liberties" though not for life (!) no amount of process would be acceptable. Clever try, but there are other bad things besides slavery, and, yes, the judicially imposed oxymoron of SDP is most certainly one of them.
You are a bit unfair to George III. His powers in the Empire were limited by British law, including the common law rights of British subjects, and I am not aware of his ever claiming otherwise.
Two queries respecting some comments.
(1) If the detainees have some sort of statutory or constitutionally based right to habeas, does this not bring with it some sort of due process? See, e.g., Scalia's Hamdi opinion (2) The "oxymoron" of SDP is overplayed. The term originally came from "lex terre," the law of the land. Various 19th century opinions tied "due process of law" and "law of the land" as one. And, the law of the land recognized certain substantive rights. Thus, SDP. Or, did the Framers think "fair procedure" included a perfectly fair removal of one's right to pray to one's God? Or, maybe, enslaving whites who happened to have special talents that might help the state? And, they thought so before the Bill of Rights was ratified.
No, they did not think "fair procedure" included a government power to stop prayer. Interestingly, they did not seem to think the Due Process clause did anything in that regard, and they wrote the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents certain really bad things from happening. There is little evidence to support the view that a clause about "process" was meant to be a catch all clause empowering the judiciary to make sure that nothing else was missed. The best evidence against that view remains the clause itself, which permits even the denail of life if the process is fair. It would be truly extraordinary that a clause would permit that, but by some mysterious operation would guarantee, say, a right to abortion no matter the process involved. Now, I'm no expert, but I don't think even lex terre would save substantive due process from the absurdity of that reading. But a triumph of modern legal education is to stop people from thinking about whether certain doctrines make any sense and instead to persuade them that those of us who find them odd favor all manner of bad things. Thus Arlen Specter, apparently having no good arguments against originalism at his disposal, continues to claim that Robert Bork's originalism would require a segregated Senate. Might I politely suggest that it would not? But I digress.
I actually agree a little bit with Joe about the meaning of the word "process." This word superficically sounds procedural. However, it was known back in 1789 that it was also a technical legal term, referring to an entire lawsuit and everything that happened during a lawsuit.
If you're going to attribute to the word "process" its unintuitive technical meaning, then you should do so also for the little word "due." It was very well understood in 1789 that the word "due" in this particular context meant "due according to the law of the land" rather than according to some other principles or policies. There is no real question about what the phrase "due process" meant in the 1700s. See, for example, the case of Regina v. Paty, 92 Eng. Rep. 232, 234 (K. B. 1704): "By the 28 Ed. 3, c. 3, there the words lex terrae, which are used in Mag. Char. are explained by the words, due process of law ; and the meaning of the statute is, that all commitments must be by a legal authority. And the law of Parliament is as much a law as any; nay, if there be any superiority, this is a superior law." This is where Calder v. Bull might be marginally relevant. In that case, Justice Chase did insist that "An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority." As I mentioned, Justices Patterson and Iredell both rejected that view (as did the entire Marshall Court in Barron v. Baltimore). Chase's view was not just rejected by the great Supreme Court Justices of that day. It was also plainly rejected by the United States Constitution itself. Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution says in plain English what "shall be a law." Likewise, the Supremacy Clause says that federal statutes shall be supreme even over state law that judges might think is more consistent with the fundamental principles of natural justice.
I meant to say: "Article I, section 7,clause 2 of the Constitution says in plain English what 'shall be a law.'"
But didn't New London engage in substantive due process to arrive at its decision? If so, didn't the Court decide correctly?
No, Mr. Nephew. In the Keol case, the Due Process Clause was not mentioned in the Opinion of the Court.
RE: Gitmo prisoners: A prior commenter is right that it is the Geneva Conventions which protect POWs rights, but only those who are legal combatants. Illegal combatants, which are anyone not wearing a uniform/insignia, reporting to a chain of command, or who has hidden among civilians or attacked with weapons out of uniform, attacked non-combatant targets (i.e. terrorism), grossly mistreated prisoners, or used banned weapons, are specifically disavowed by the Geneva Conventions, allowing impromptu tribunals and summary execution if battle conditions impede the ability to bring such prisoners to rear areas safely or expeditiously.
While such summary justice sounds bad, the alternative is worse: treating such illegal combatants like regular prisoners legitimizes illegal forms of warfare and will cause the spread of martial attacks upon non-combatants, civilian targets as a legitimate form of warfare. Illegal combatants need to be exterminated like the cockroaches they are if human civilization is to survive.
Mike wrote: "Illegal combatants need to be exterminated like the cockroaches they are if human civilization is to survive."
So you would exterminate US special forces like cockroaches? After all, they certainly do not always wear identifiable uniforms and insignias as those terms are used in the Geneva Conventions, and they hide out in civilian populations. And how about American spies, who are clearly unlawful combatants. Should they be exterminated like cockroaches too? I understand the arguments about different classes of combatants under the Geneva accords, but let's be serious here-- unlawful combatants, like lawful combatants, are a tactic of warfare. We couldn't have won the Revolutionary War without the use of non-uniformed personnel who hid out in civilian populations while the Redcoats marched into battle in their uniforms in accordance with the Law of Nations. Saying that they have "no" rights and should be "exterminated like cockroaches" is silly. (It is also inaccurate-- at a minimum, for instance, they are clearly covered by the Convention Against Torture, which the US is a party to. This is why the Bush Administration has gone to great lengths to try and neuter its effect.)
The most famous of unlawful combatants is Captain Nathan Hale. Dressed as a civilian, he went behind British lines to gather intelligence. They captured him, tried him, and executed him. We remember him for his last words.
A less famous incident occured four years later. Major John Andre, a British officer known mostly for organizing lavish parties was chosen as a go-between because he knew Benedict Arnold's wife. He was captured in civilian clothes trying to sneak through American lines with the plans for the defense of West Point hidden in his boot. He was tried, convicted, and hung. He did not have any notable last words, but he was buried in Westminster Abbey. What is not often noted about the Andre story is that the reason he was captured was that he encoutered a party of American troops dressed in British uniforms (thus themselves unlawful combatants) and identified himself to them thinking they were on his side. Terrorists may be the sort of people that you stamp out, but do not confuse them with the large body of honorable unlawful combatants just because they also happen to be unlawful combatants. As was noted, the Green Berets train to do this sort of work. Besides, we name Elementary Schools after Nathan Hale. The British were quite right to hang him, but he wasn't a criminal let alone a cockroach.
Just because one dissented in Kelo on the grounds that the transfer was not "public use" does not imply a hidden substantive right that prevents unwanted private-to-private transfers. That is simply called "theft", and states are free to criminilize it as they see fit.
Ha! They let you teach at Yale? I just lost a lot of respect for Yale, and gained a little for Harvard. You Sir. don't understand the Article 5 due process clause. There is no substantive protection offered in the Article 5 due process clause that prevent the government from taking from property from private party A and giving the property to private party B. As long as the transfer is accomplished according to the law of the land it is permitted. In fact it is done all the time. The courts grant orders garnishing wages, which effectively transfers property form one private citizen to another, but this is not a violation of the Constitution because it has been done according to the process mandated by the law. If you had understood this point of law, you would not have mistakenly though that Thomas had avoided bringing it up in his dissent. He didn't bring it up because it wasn't relevant. And they let you teach this stuff? Pathetic!
thanks so much i like very so much your post حلي الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورتة حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA 77Dewa SITUS JUDI POKER dan DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA agen sbobet agen ibcbet cara bermain sbobet sbobet ibcbet agen bola online agen bola terpercaya bola tangkas casino sbobet bola tangkas agen bola cara bermain poker agen poker online Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya Wahana303.com Agen SBOBET IBCBET 368BET Casino 338A Bola Tangkas Togel SINGAPURA HONGKONG Online Indonesia Terpercaya SARANAPOKER.COM AGEN TEXAS POKER DAN DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA SARANAPOKER.COM AGEN TEXAS POKER DAN DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA SARANAPOKER.COM AGEN TEXAS POKER DAN DOMINO ONLINE INDONESIA TERPERCAYA NUSANTARAPOKER.COM AGEN TEXAS POKER DAN DOMINO ONLINE TANPA ROBOT TERPERCAYA agen ibcbet ibcbet agen sbobet NUSANTARAPOKER.COM AGEN TEXAS POKER DAN DOMINO ONLINE TANPA ROBOT TERPERCAYA
Post a Comment
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
LEGO Shop Home Themes Star Wars™ LEGO® Star Wars™ Stormtrooper™ Kid's Watch
LEGO® Star Wars™ Stormtrooper™ Kid's Watch
- Item: 2855057
- Limit: 10 ?
- Ages:6+
- VIP Points: 24
- Available Now
Let a Stormtrooper™ keep you on time!
Build your own LEGO® Star Wars™ watch! Start with the white face, then add black and white links to build the watchband in any pattern you choose. Includes an illustrated image of a LEGO Star Wars Stormtrooper™ minifigure on the face.
- Watch face features image of LEGO® Star Wars™ Stormtrooper ™ minifigure!
- LEGO ClicTime watches are tested to ISO standard 2281 to a static depth of 50m. This means that our watches are splashproof.
- Battery included.


text:
Welcome Back | Login | Track Your Order
0 Item(s) | $0.00 Subtotal | Checkout | 877 400 5263
Any chef will tell you that cooking is not simply about eating, it's about the experience, the memories and the power of a well-prepared meal enjoyed by friends and family. There's no better way to cherish those memories, meals, and recipes than with a Letterpress Recipe Box Set from One Canoe Two.
This is a one-of-a-kind heirloom item, worthy of storing your beloved recipe collection. Each box is handmade in the U.S. and includes letterpressed recipe cards and tab dividers.
Write your own review
Rate this product:


text:
Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
Yup. That's right. A landslide for Mitt Romney approaching the magnitude of President Obama's against John McCain. That's my prediction.
On Sunday, we changed our clocks. On Tuesday, we'll change our president.
Romney will win the states McCain carried in 2008, with the addition of Florida, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
In the popular vote, Romney will win by more than five points.
The Obama campaign made the following key mistakes:
??They bet the farm on negative ads in swing states. They didn't realize that Mitt's convention speech and the three debates would give him the chance to live down the charges and demonstrate — through facts and his demeanor — that they were baseless.
–Obama had no Plan B if the negatives didn't work. He never really laid in a convincing defense of his record, except to recall the mess that he inherited and to try to make people believe things were better. He had no vision for his second term except more of the same. He never moved to the center — the shift that re-elected Bill Clinton.
–Obama drew his list of swing states too narrowly. He did not contemplate that he would be forced to defend Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Minnesota and squandered his money contesting unwinnable states like North Carolina. When Romney bypassed Obama's "firewall" states (like the Germans did the French Maginot Line in World War II) the president had not laid in the necessary prophylactic irradiation of negative ads. Three of the states embraced Romney.
??By focusing on the negative, Obama sacrificed first his personal popularity, then his dignity and presidentiality. No longer was he the hope and the change. He became nothing more than a nasty partisan, throwing epithets at his rival. A president does not let himself be quoted as saying that his opponent is a "bullshitter" or that voting is the best "revenge." Even his dress was wrong. Instead of appearing in a dark suit, he dressed in an open necked white shirt, trying to be everyman but succeeding only in not looking like a president.
??Since he offered nothing more than a negative campaign and a grab bag of special interest pleadings for single women, unions, college kids and minorities, Obama failed to inspire the turnout that he needed. Against Santorum and Gingrich, Obama could have made the case that their prospective presidencies were sufficiently dangerous that liberals and Democrats must rush to the polls to stop them. But against the congenial Romney, the warnings rang hollow.
??In the first debate, Obama was terrible. We'll likely find out what his excuses are after the polls close. Did he have the flu? Was it the altitude? Had he, as Bob Woodward suggested, just received a dose of bad news? Why did he appear distracted?
??Obama should have gotten the facts out quickly about Benghazi rather than let them drip, drip, drip out over six weeks. He could then have handled the crisis and won points for determination and toughness. Instead, to the very end, he looked like he was covering up the fact of a terrorist attack. Because he was.
??After Sandy, Obama visited New Jersey battleground and surveyed the damage with Governor Chris Christie. He should have stayed on the storm, superintending relief efforts, urging FEMA on and absorbing the lessons of Bush's failure to cope well with Katrina. Instead, he returned to the partisan wars and the strident speeches in swing states.
None of this should take away from Romney's brilliant campaign. By staying on the economy and not being tempted into side issues like Libya, Mitt kept the focus where it needed to be and never let up. His campaign's foray into Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Wisconsin was vital to his chances of victory. More about what Mitt did right in my post-election column on Thursday. But for now, let's celebrate the new president we are about to elect.
Also see...
A black judge in Kentucky has given two home invaders and armed robbers a light sentence because he feels that their three-year-old white victim was a "racist" because in her...
Read MoreRelated Articles
Don't Forward This Breitbart Painting to the Occupiers or Media Matters
"We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us." –Winston Churchill Art is powerful. Through art nations have been swayed toward
When Government Runs Health Care
No wonder I am so cynical about government health care.Unless you live under a rock, you probably know that the
GOP Needs to Get Over the Makers vs. Takers Mindset
Mitt Romney's secretly recorded comment that 47 percent of Americans are "dependent on the government" and "believe they are victims"


text:
Washington's source for compelling television and inspiring classical music. Donate Online
WETA Television is your Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia PBS station for Masterpiece Classic: Downton Abbey. Whether you're beginning with season 1, finishing up season 2, or eagerly awaiting season 3, WETA is the place to watch! Let's face it, watching TV on your laptop can be a bit frustrating: low volume, small screen, buffering video. Set the computer aside, grab the remote control, and tune into WETA TV26, HD, and WETA UK for all three seasons of Downton Abbey.
Season 1 – WETA UK Tuesdays at 8:00pm
The bold and beautiful Downton Abbey estate runs smoothly from generations of excellent care, but change is coming. With enticing drama and terrible threat, the future of Downton's dynasty takes shape but is it possible to preserve? Follow the upstairs, downstairs dynamic in this beautiful period drama from PBS. Repeats Wednesdays at 3:00pm.
Where to watch WETA UK: Via antenna: 26.2, Comcast: 265, Cox: 800, Verizon FiOS: 474, RCN: 39
Season 2 – WETA TV26 & HD Sunday January 6 from 11:30am – 9:00pm
It's November 1916 and the Great War has changed everything and everyone. At the war front, life intensifies for Downton's young men and more is demanded of those at Downton Abbey. Some see change as an opportunity while some disregard it. As other great houses crumble, a diminished Downton Abbey struggles to prevail into a new era with its residents and its honor intact. Check out these Masterpiece Classic cast interviews to see what it's like playing a resident of Downton!
Where to watch WETA TV26: Via antenna: 26.4, Comcast: 26 & 92, Cox: 26 & 802, Verizon FiOS: 26 & 471, RCN: 26, DISH Network: 8076
Where to watch WETA HD: Via antenna: 26.1, Comcast: 220 (DC) & 219 (Baltimore), Cox: 1026 (Fairfax) & 1003 (Fredericksburg), Verizon FiOS: 526, RCN: 613, DirecTV: 26 & 26-1
Season 3 - WETA TV26 & HD Sundays at 9:00pm Premieres: January 6 at 9:00pm
The Great War is over but the drama isn't over at Downton Abbey as struggling social changes, romance, and personal crises infect the estate. Repeats Thursdays at 8:00pm & Fridays at 1:00pm.
The holiday season is upon us and WETA UK is celebrating with great British Christmas specials. Not only do we have festive shows this week, but we begin new mystery adventures with our favorite detectives like Inspector Morse and the Waking the Dead team. We also begin Masterpiece Classic: Downton Abbey the successful PBS period-drama from the very beginning and continue our favorite British comedies including Coupling and Blackadder II. There are lots of exciting programs on WETA UK, so dive on in to our highlights for the week!
Monday at 9:00pm tune in for a new adventure with Foyle's War: Bleak Midwinter part 1. When Grace Phillips dies in what appears to be an industrial accident, Foyle looks into her death for good measure. Grace had always been such a cheerful girl but recently something had been bothering her. Foyle establishes a link between this death and anothers, the latter who just found out her husband was having an affair. Could Grace have been the mistress? Is the adulterer the murderer? Come back next week for part 2 of this dynamic tale!
Tuesday at 5:00pm catch the first episode of All Creatures Great and Small season 3! Download our WETA UK ALL CREATURES GREAT AND SMALL SEASON 3 EPISODE GUIDE here!
Tuesday at 8:00pm begin the story of Downton Abbey from the very beginning. Learn more about this program on the PBS website and tune in every Tuesday at 8:00pm to watch Downton Abbey.
Wednesday at 8:00pm join in on another investigation as Inspector Morse takes on Ghost in the Machine part 1! Morse investigates the reported theft of erotic paintings belonging to the now missing Sir Julius Hanbury, a local baronet who is one of those standing for election as the new Master of Courtney College, Oxford. Morse finds Sir Julius's dead body and at first it looks like murder, but police pathologist Dr Grayling Russell believes he killed himself. Return next week for part 2 of Ghost in the Machine.
Thursday at 9:00pm get mysterious with Waking the Dead: Fugue States part 1. In 1990, two 5-year-old twins, Jason and Cindy, disappeared from their home, and even after a nationwide search was launched, they are still no where to be found. Thirteen years later, Jason is found is in a hospital suffering from car accident related injuries. But where's his sister Cindy? Boyd and the team set out to find her with or without Jason's help.
Friday we're getting in the Christmas spirit with some of our favorite British holiday specials. At 4:30pm kick off the festivities with My Hero season 2 episode 1 Christmas. George tries to get into the spirit of Christmas by creeping into the houses of Janet's parents on Christmas Eve dressed as Santa to leave them all presents. This doesn't go down as well as he had planned, and Christmas dinner is a bit of a miserable affair until George appears with the real Father Christmas who has a special present for everyone! Repeats Saturday at 7:00am, December 28 at 3:30pm.
Friday continue the laughs and holiday merriment at 5:30pm with Good Neighbors: Christmas Special 1977! When Margo sends back the Leadbetters store bought Christmas gift, they are unable to entertain their high society friends. So as a result the Leadbetters go to share the holiday with their neighbors, the Goods. Who knows what antics this will bring about! Repeats Saturday at 6:00am, December 26 at 9:00am and December 28 at 2:00pm.
Friday at 9:40pm join us for the Outnumbered 2011 Christmas Special! Learn more about this holiday program and more in our blog post: An English Holiday in DC | British Christmas Shows on WETA UK!
Friday at 10:20pm begin watching the hilarious comedy Coupling from the very first episode! When a group of friends begin thinking about love, the results are a wild mix of one-night stands and two-timing and partner-swapping. Often compared to the American television sensation Friends, this British sitcom isn't one to miss so tune in Friday for season 1 episode 1.
Saturday is loaded with back-to-back Christmas specials from 10:00am – 7:00pm! Click on this link to read more about the episodes on our blog post: An English Holiday in DC | British Christmas Shows on WETA UK!
Sunday at 9:00pm Blackadder II begins! A favorite at the Court of Elizabeth I, Edmund Blackadder keeps his head from being chopped off by the capricious Queen with rapier-sharp wit, cunning and bravado. Meanwhile, his rival Lord Melchett loses no opportunity to try to disgrace him. See what classic British actor Rowan Atkinson can do with these characters in the second season beginning Sunday! Download our WETA UK BLACKADDER II EPISODE GUIDE here!


text:
The X.Org Foundation Board of Directors
Also see the XorgFoundation page.
- Contact: board AT foundation DOT x DOT org
Current Members
Name | Affiliation | Contact | End of term | Office |
Rob Clark | Red Hat | robdclark AT gmail DOT com | Q1 2017 | |
?Alex Deucher | AMD | alexdeucher AT gmail DOT com | Q1 2016 | |
Egbert Eich | SUSE Linux GmbH | eich AT freedesktop DOT org | Q1 2016 | |
Keith Packard | HP | keithp AT keithp DOT com | Q1 2016 | |
Martin Peres | Intel | martin.peres AT free DOT fr | Q1 2017 | |
Matt Dew | Micron | marcoz AT osource DOT org | Q1 2016 | |
?Peter Hutterer | Red Hat | peter.hutterer AT who-t DOT net | Q1 2017 | Secretary |
Daniel Vetter | Intel | daniel.vetter AT ffwll DOT ch | Q1 2017 | |
Stuart Kreitman | Oracle Corp. | stuart.kreitman AT oracle.com | Treasurer |
End of term based on an election date in the first quarter of each year.
Members History
- Alan Coopersmith (Sun/Oracle) alan.coopersmith AT oracle.com (term ended: 2015)
- Stuart Kreitman (Sun/Oracle) stuart.kreitman AT oracle.com (term ended: 2015)
- Matthias Hopf (Georg-Simon-Ohm University) mat AT mshopf DOT de (term ended: 2014)
- ?Eric Anholt (Intel) eric AT anholt DOT net (term ended: 2012)
- Bart Massey (Portland State University) bart AT cs DOT pdx DOT edu (term ended: 2012)
- Matthieu Herrb (CNRS/LAAS) matthieu DOT herrb AT laas DOT fr (term ended: 2011)
- ?Donnie Berkholz (Gentoo Linux) dberkholz AT gentoo DOT org (term ended: 2010)
- Adam Jackson (Red Hat, Inc.) ajax AT redhat DOT com (term ended: 2009)
- Daniel Stone (Collabora Ltd.) daniel AT fooishbar DOT org (resigned: 2009)
- ?Carl Worth (Intel) cworth AT cworth DOT org (term ended:2009)
- Egbert Eich (SUSE Linux Products GmbH) eich AT freedesktop DOT org (term ended: 2008)
The company affiliations are given only for reference. The X.Org Foundation has only personal membership; the Board Members do not represent their employers or affiliations.
Originally, the Board had regular phonemeetings, now the meetings are held on irc. Summaries of these meetings are published at MeetingSummaries. These meetings take place fortnightly, on Thursdays at 2pm Pacific Time (22:00 UTC depending on daylight savings time) in the #xf-bod channel on the OFTC network (irc.oftc.net #xf-bod). Please refer to the X.Org calendar for the next meeting time (remember to set the TZ). Some logs from these meetings can be found at IrcLogs.
The Foundation is operated according to its Bylaws.


text:
Klipsch Mode™ M40 Active Noise-Canceling Headphones
Maximum sound performance in a dazzling style—in either active noise-canceling or stereo listening modes.
Klispch's first active noise-canceling (ANC) headphone model provides an unrivaled listening experience—no matter how you want to listen. When you're in an environment where outside noise threatens to compromise sound quality, Klipsch Mode™ M40 headphones with active noise cancellation are ready to block it out, providing up to 45 hours of ANC on a single AAA battery. But it also serves as a fully functioning stereo headphone without battery power, giving you the option of listening wherever you want, however you want.
Brains and beauty.
Sixty-five years of world-renowned sound is at the heart of the Klipsch Mode™ M40 Headphones. With a 40mm moving coil woofer and 15mm tweeter, they deliver signature Klispch® sound with deep bass, a dynamic midrange and clean, crisp highs. And with their sleek profile, rich bourbon finish with blazed copper accents, they are a striking alternative to standard black headphones.
Hours of listening pleasure—music or calls.
Each lightweight leather ear cup of Klipsch Mode™ M40 headphones contains a special high-density memory foam for enhanced comfort, while an adjustable headband ensures a perfect and secure fit. Two detachable cloth cables fit any device with a standard 3.5mm headphone jack. With one cord featuring an Apple®-based echo-canceling mic and three-button remote, users can take calls and control music on an iPod®, iPhone® or iPad® device. Comes complete with a brown leather carrying case, one AAA battery, airline adapter and ¼-inch adapter.
Drivers: Dynamic moving coil 40 mm and 15 mm speakers
Frequency Response: 20Hz – 20kHz
Impedance (1kHz): 32 ohms
Sensitivity (@ 1mW, 15mm): 97.5 dB
Great sound has never looked so good. Order your Klipsch Mode M40 Active Noise-Canceling Headphones from Brookstone today!
iPad, iPhone, iPod and Apple are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries. The remote and mic are supported only by iPod nano (4th generation and later), iPod classic (120GB, 160GB), iPod touch (2nd generation and later), iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPad. The remote is supported by iPod shuffle (3rd generation and later). Audio is supported by all iPod models.
Klipsch Mode™ M40 Active Noise-Canceling Headphones
Reviewed by 2 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-2
- Anc-excellent
- Comfortable
- Craftsmanship
- Sound quality
- a bit heavy
Best Uses
- Everyday use
- Travel
Comments about Klipsch Mode™ M40 Active Noise-Canceling Headphones:
I love the quality of these headphones. The sound is so much better than the Beats, or the Bose. I tried both of them locally, but they didn't have the Klipsch. I took a chance and got these based on other reviews I read about them. I am completely happy I did. These are absolutely amazing. The sound quality is unbelievable, and the noise canceling is so much better than the Bose.
- Crystal clear
- Deep bass
- Dre who
- Outside world GONE
- Sparkling treble
- Wish I heard them sooner
Best Uses
- Exquisite recordings
- Masterful performances
- Studio Work
Comments about Klipsch Mode™ M40 Active Noise-Canceling Headphones:
I was just rambling around during the Christmas shopping season. Decided to listen to the beats by Dre headphones everyone was raving about, then happened to try these Klipsch ones on the other side of the display, been saving my pennies since them, buying them this weekend, so excited! no offense to Dre, he's running a great marketing campaign, but Klipsch has a significantly better product, definitely worth the $100 more
Displaying reviews 1-2
Klipsch Mode™ M40 Active Noise-Canceling Headphones
Brookstone/OSIM-branded products are backed by a one-year limited warranty.
Our innovative products will provide you and your family with years of enjoyment. And with the Brookstone Protection Plus service and replacement plans, you'll have the added peace of mind knowing that if the unexpected does happen, we will simply repair or replace your covered product. Our enhanced coverage goes above and beyond the manufacturer's warranty, saving you time and money.
- Service Plan - 2 Year $39.99
- Service Plan - 3 Year $49.99


text:
This is the only flash drive that enables you to transfer or view files from a computer on an iPad or iPhone. The device plugs into a Mac or PC's USB port, holds up to 32 GB of documents, photos, videos, or music, and connects to an iPad or iPhone, allowing you to transfer the files or simply view or listen to them on the mobile device. A free app enables simple file transfers and allows you to back up contacts or save email documents less than 10 MB directly from the app. Accommodates over 35 file formats including Microsoft Word and Excel documents, PDFs, JPGs, MP4, and MP3. Compatible with iPhone 6, 5, 4S, 4, and 3GS; iPod touch 5th, 4th, and 3rd generations; all iPad models, and iPad mini. Requires iOS 6. 2 3/4" L x 1" W x 1/2" D. (4 oz.)
Compatible Devices
Lifetime Guarantee
The Only Read Or Write iPad Flash Drive (32 GB) comes with The Hammacher Schlemmer Lifetime Guarantee at no additional charge. If this product ever disappoints you, for any reason, you may return your Hammacher Schlemmer purchase for exchange, credit, or refund.Should you have any questions, we are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Please call 1-800-321-1484 to speak with a product specialist or email us at firstname.lastname@example.com to receive a response within one hour.
Shipping charges noted in parentheses apply in addition to our standard shipping & service.
We're sorry, but gift wrap is not available. Please call 1-800-395-7006 for Premium or Express delivery rates.
Oversized items scheduled for expedited delivery (Premium or Express) may incur additional shipping and services charges because of their unusual size. Please call 1-800-321-1484 for an estimate of S&S charges. International callers, please call 1-513-860-3397.
We're sorry, but gift wrap is not available for oversized items.
Shipped via truck and may require customer assistance upon delivery. You will be contacted to make an appointment for delivery.
We're sorry, but gift wrap and gift cards are not available.
GST still applies and will be charged upon processing. For complete shipping & service charges please call Customer Service at 1-800-321-1484.
May we recommend:
(based on 4 reviews)
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
of respondents would recommend this to a friend.
Best Uses
Reviewed by 4 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-4
Back to top
(9 of 10 customers found this review helpful)
No surprises
By Senior technology user
from Haymarket, VA
Use to move files to iPad and to view movies without having to use iTunes to load the files. It works just as advertised - plug and play with a single app download.
Share this Review
(4 of 4 customers found this review helpful)
As advertised
By HS Shopper
from Melbourne, FL
Works as advertised. Easy to set up. Would be nice to have a cap for the lightning adapter and a way to attach it to a keychain.
(3 of 4 customers found this review helpful)
It's the greatest invention.
By Mike
from Phoenix, az
I have 18 movies, and still have room foe 3 or 4 more.
(1 of 1 customers found this review helpful)
Performs Above Expectations
By Ptsbg Shopper
from Petersburg VA
Easy to take working large documents to meetings without taking internal iPad storage and to transfer data from iPad to PC.


text:
As an owner of a 6870 (on the desktop), I really can't muster the enthusiasm to care about the discrepancies.
So if I played Doom 3 (which I won't until it comes to Steam), I get highly playable framerates even on the open source driver. If I'm running 60FPS on open source then I'll stick to that. And that's just about the most demanding game on Linux that I want to play. At the moment I'm actually just playing Half Life.
If I were playing Crysis 3 on Linux, then a decision would have to be made, and I'd probably choose Catalyst (or buy an Nvidia card). But, as it is, there's absolutely nothing on Linux that requires the power and advanced OpenGL features which the closed source driver brings.


text:
Top Definition
Plowing or Piledriving a girl that is a little on the chubby side.
When she puts on jeans some fat from her waist goes over the top of the pants making her look like a "Muffin". So when you plow this girl you are hence a "Muffin Stuffer!"
av King of Muffin Stuffers
30. april 2008


text:
Too many passwords to remember? 1Password can create strong, unique passwords for you, remember them, and restore them, all directly in your web browser.
1Password is a password manager that goes beyond simple password storage by integrating directly with your web browser to automatically log you into websites, enter credit card information, fill registration forms, and easily generate strong passwords.
Your passwords, identities, and credit cards, are just some of the confidential information that 1Password stores in one secure place, protected by the only password you will need to remember.
1Password has received numerous awards, including 4.5 mice from Macworld magazine, MacLife Editors pick, and was the Pick of Week on MacBreak Weekly by both Leo Laporte and Merlin Mann.
Required OS: not specified
, organize
, security
, productivity
, password
, web
272 Opinions
Great app, I could not live without it. I consider is as a model for software, with great and fast support and very regular updates. If you want serious security password management and protection use it!
Great app...I recommend it .
I wanted to let you know how glad I am using 1Password 3!
I am a recent Mac switcher, and used RoboForm on Windows XP.
I choosed 1Password because it allowed me to import my datas from RoboForm as simple as 2 clicks...
Then I bought 1Password 3 because Agile Web Solutions currently offers 1Password for iPhone...
So many thanks again, I am delighted!
Great! One of my three must have tools! The support contact is very friendly.
An excellent program now in version 3 beta for OSX 10.6. I can not add anything to the review comments as it is so well covered but must stress the excellent quality of the customer support. That is second to one. Highly recommended.
Excellent program very helpful...working great on SL with version 3
I love 1Password, have been a happy registered user since version 1 and have been using the v3 beta since upgrading to Snow Leopard, everything works exceptionally well and newly improved beta updates have been almost daily. Agile rocks!
First, customer support is OUTSTANDING. The folks at Agile are supportive, prompt in their responses, friendly, helpful, and eager to assist. As for 1Password itself, it is the best program of its type that I know, and I've tried plenty of them. And the people behind the products work HARD to keep improving their products, regularly providing updates and fixes when necessary due to the ever-changing OS's and tons of browsers that 1P works with, and any little bugs that may be found due to the complexity of OSâs, multitude of browsers including mobile browsers and so on, and - maybe most important of all - they LISTEN to their users. So if you're looking for a secure, encrypted, easy-to-use, and DEPENDABLE product of this type, or any other Agile products, theyâre the best! Keep up the great work guys!
Wow, look how many people use this app! Developer is definitely making bank but it is well deserved. We know the app is constantly being developed and is for so many users that ESSENTIAL app that needs to be on any mac we touch. Nothing compares to 1password and considering you can buy a license for version 3.0 there will be tons of time before a paid upgrade is asked. They probably won't even ask for a fee from v3 to v4 when that day comes. First they have to finish and release version 3, I've been beta testing it like many others and it is nothing less than what I expected. Now not just my logins, I am going to finally take advantage of it's notes, application serial holder, fill info... I just used it before for login:pass to sites like this. Now I am going to take advantage and keep all my info in the same app. Scares me a bit to have all my "eggs in one basket" but it backups so frequently and restores quite well.
Discount of 20% if you go to islayer.com then follow their code
I'd be lost without 1Password. I'd have sticky notes covering my desk or worse I'd end up using the same password for most things. I really enjoy how I can wifi sync to my iPod and find any password I need no matter where I am or what system I happen to be using. Or the ability to create a HTML document with all or a few of your passwords in a few seconds. I use it every single day, so the price is not a big deal. I was telling a few pc diehards about this and they said, "Where can I find such an app?!!" I loved saying, "Mac only!" :D
Well done guys!!!
Page 11 of 28. 272 entries.


text:
Order of Inca Mardi Gras Parade.
Friday, February 01, 2013 8:50 PM
Inappropriate photo? Alert us.
A Murphy High School Marching Band trombone player marches down Royal St. during the Order of Inca Mardi Gras parade in down town Mobile, Ala. Friday Feb. 1, 2013. (Bill email@example.com)
Related articles
- As Incas 'Remember When,' a New Orleans resident admits Mobile's Mardi Gras is better (photos, video) February 01, 2013, 8:11 PM
- Order of Inca getting ready to roll in downtown Mobile tonight February 01, 2013, 5:13 PM
- Incas attract 53,510 Mardi Gras revelers to Mobile; festivities ramp up again this afternoon February 02, 2013, 1:06 PM


text:
20 essential things to do in Las Vegas
If you're new to Vegas, there's more to life than sticking, twisting and getting hitched. Don't leave Las Vegas without checking off these definitive experiences
Plan your perfect day out with Time Out's guide to the best things to do in Las Vegas, from the definitive stroll down the Strip to a night spent in glamorous bars.
Place a bet at a world famous casino
Caesars Palace remains an icon of classic Sin City decadence—few casinos can match it for atmosphere—but before you hit the baccarat pit mug up on the subject. The Gamblers General Store in Downtown has a library of "how to" gaming books, as well as gifts.
Apart from Caesars, some of the best poker games can be found at the legendary Golden Nugget in Downtown, whose residents can actually shed their shirts in a pool area where waterslides run though a central shark tank. Casino Royale provides the cheapest fun you can have round the roulette wheel. Killers fans who like a spot of the Old West with their 20x-odds craps should make for Sam's Town.
See a different country without leaving the city
Many of the more preposterously themed resorts in Vegas pay tacky homage to other world cities. You want Paris, and the Eiffel Tower? Try Paris Las Vegas. Venice? There are gondolas and a St. Mark's Square at the Venetian. The Big Apple? New York New York has the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, Central Park and much, much more. Only in Vegas (or Legoland).
Pull up a stool at one of Sin City's brilliant bars
The most impressive difference between watering holes in the rest of the world and those on the Strip is the sheer number of bottles. Single malt enthusiasts can boggle at the vast scotch collection at Craftsteak. Cognacs to knock your socks off reside at chef André Rochat's restaurants—André's and Alizé.
Connoisseurs must visit the Downtown Cocktail Room, where specialty drinks are rated on a level of 1 ("very approachable") to 5 ("advanced palate"). Wine drinkers should set their sights on Aureole, where the bottles are housed in a four-story wine tower that requires harnessed "wine angels" to retrieve them.
Mooch around a museum
The Atomic Testing Museum, a one-of-a-kind, often terrifying, insight into the Nevada Test Site, once the country's principal weapons testing facility, pulls back the curtain on the state's history as nuclear guinea pig. Downtown, organized-crime buffs will flip for the Mob Museum, which details the mob's involvement with Las Vegas's rise.
Admire the Steve Wynn's man-made wonder
Maverick mogul Steve Wynn designed his Wynn Las Vegas resort from the inside out, which means you have to remain cocooned inside his casino to appreciate its signature attraction. From outside, the visitor can see a small hill covered with huge trees, but to get the full effect, you have to go in, then take the spiral staircase down to the terraces at the SW Steakhouse or Lakeside Seafood. The faux mountain fuses light, water, horticulture and architecture into a diverting multimedia experience.
See the sights of the Strip for less than $10
How the Deuce do you do that? By riding one of the city's fleet of pimped-out double-decker buses that troll the Strip and all the way to Downtown. Known as the Deuce, these buses come cheap at $6 for a two-hour ride or $8 to hop on and off all day.
Jump on a rollercoaster atop the Stratosphere Tower
There are two reasons to follow Las Vegas Boulevard South as far as Sahara Avenue. One is Bonanza Gifts, which claims to be the "world's largest gift store," and offers a pleasantly kitschy ride back in time to the Route 66 era. A very different ride is in store if you go north along the Boulevard to the tower where the shrieks are coming from.
Stratosphere, the tallest building in Nevada, has at its summit a quartet of thrill rides: Big Shot, X-Scream, Insanity: the Ride and SkyJump all as white-knuckle as they sound.
Nourish yourself with American cuisine
What better way to cheer the soul than soul food—chicken, short ribs, yams—at M&M's Soul Food, or burgers as big as your head at Hash House a-Go Go. For steaks, try the best barbecue in Vegas at Big Mama's Rib Shack. For a generous slice of Old Vegas, try Du-Par's, housed in a historic casino (Golden Gate), where no-nonsense waitresses like you see in the movies serve basic food for 20 hours a day.
See a spectacular water-based show
The most eye-catching attraction at the Bellagio, a supersized, all-American Italian villa, is the signature jumping fountain. It's a fine, free appetizer for a rather more expensive attraction here. Cirque du Soleil's most sophisticated show, O, comprises more than 70 swimmers, divers, aerialists, contortionists and clowns performing acrobatic feats around a pool/stage containing 1.5 million gallons of water. If you see only one show, make it O.
Tie the knot in the blink of an eye
Weddings are the other industry in Las Vegas. The classic place for lightning-quick, starry hitching is the Little White Wedding Chapel, where Frank Sinatra married Mia Farrow. The tackiest, a favorite with Elvis impersonators, is the Viva Las Vegas Chapel. The dinkiest is undoubtedly Wee Kirk o' the Heather, for those who find the real Scotland a mite too chilly.
Discover a new frozen delicacy
It looks like ice cream, it tastes a bit like ice cream, but the richer, smoother confection at Luv-It Frozen Custard is better than anything we've had from Mr. Whippy. We recommend the Western Sundae, but it's all good stuff.
Guzzle a beer in strange surroundings
There's no shortage of deeply odd places to raise a glass in Las Vegas. The Mermaid Bar & Lounge at Silverton is the most extraordinary. Slog back your drinks in the company of silver-finned fish-women, before advancing to other oddities in the city of lights. Take a tipple here before seeking (relative) peace of Ghostbar at Palms—55 stories up and quiet before 11pm. When you're ready for more fun, join in the sing-alongs to dueling pianos at the Bar at Times Square at New York New York or doodle electronically in the Beatles-themed Revolution at the Mirage.
Try your luck on a slot machine
Quarters burning a hole in your pocket? You have options. Play the slots at Palms, Gold Coast or Circus Circus, where you'll get free drinks and great people-watching opportunities, or test your flipping skills at the peculiarly beautiful Pinball Hall of Fame, a museum of more than 100 operational pinball machines.
Go on a shopping spree in Caesars Palace
Take your credit card for a spin around the Forum Shops at Caesars Palace, where, if the faux Roman vibe doesn't defeat you, the legions of medium- and high-end designer outlets will. You have until midnight to make your choices at weekends. If you're thin and rich enough, shop at the Fashion Show Mall, whose one billion dollar Cloud, an amazing image projection screen hovering over the center, provides entertainment enough when the credit runs out.
Take a break from the Strip
Suffering from sensory overload? Rancho Drive, northwest of town, offers a different taste of old Vegas. Take the bus as far as the US 95 to the historic Las Vegas Springs Preserve, a huge site given over to botanical gardens, nature trails and museum exhibits. It takes a while to adjust the eyes to the unwonted green.
Plunge into a swimming pool
The Hard Rock's pool gives you the very best fun you can have with your cossie on. It's always buzzing, with its sandy beaches, waterfalls and swim-up blackjack. On summer Sunday evenings pop into your sequined swimsuit for the raucous pool parties.
Hang out with a trendy crowd
Fremont Street, east of the Boulevard, is where the hipsters preen. The melancholy air of discarded Vegas evoked by restored vintage neon signs around Neonopolis and the nearby open-air Neon Museum lighting up the shabby environs of old Downtown makes a nice counterpoint to the trendy center. At its heart is the Beauty Bar, sister to the New York "martinis and manicures" backdrop for those Sex and the City girls.
Nearby the pubbie, indie-rocking joint Griffin pulls in the young and cool, as does the recently reopened Atomic Liquors. Check out these bars for after-parties on First Fridays, when the city's galleries stay open late and everyone parties artily.
Leap onto a trampoline
Bounce back to babydom at SkyZone in southwest Las Vegas—a room filled with an alluring grid of trampolines—where the walls and floor are padded and everyone jumps for joy.
Enjoy a feast for the belly and eyes
At Nove, the seafood spaghetti is exemplary, at the Mix, the signature French/American dishes is ambitious, at The Top of the World, the cultured mix of American and European favorites are surprisingly good. In all three, however, the menu is secondary to the stupendous views. High-end dining indeed.
Explore Egypt at the Luxor
The Venetian, which recreates the city of canals in the desert, may be the world's largest hotel, but the Egyptian vibe evoked by the glass pyramid of the Luxor is more suited to the topography, and it's enjoyably silly. The high-intensity lights that shoot from its top at night can be seen from space and attracts bats during warmer months.


text:
Top Definition
This is when you are Having sex with a girl with a prosthetic leg or arm. You take it off and wear it as a helmet while you keep fucking her.
She didn't have a problem with me pulling a Unicorn helmet while fucking her last night. I must say i felt like a is a mythological creature in bed!
Beküldő: BigBGank
2010. március 2.


text:
- Corporate Engagement and Commercialization
- Sponsored Programs
- Research Compliance
- Events
- Undergraduate Research
- Researcher Profiles
- About the Vice President
- About the Division
- Facilities
Division of Research and Sponsored Programs:
A&S Launches Research Directory
Posted Dec. 5, 2012The A&S Research Directory has two components:
- The A&S External Funding Activity listing provides recent information about external funding awarded to KSU faculty members associated with the College of Arts and Sciences.
- The Grant Consultation Directory lists faculty members who have recently received external grant awards and have agreed to discuss strategies for success with prospective grantees.
Both components recognize accomplishments of awardees and make information about active research projects more accessible so that potential collaborators can be more easily identified.
The Grant Consultation Directory also serves as a resource for prospective grantees seeking advice on a project. Each faculty member listed will determine the extent of informal mentoring to be provided based on factors such as available time and intellectual property issues as well as relevance of the proposal to current interests. Please contact Cathy Lowe (email@example.com) if you are a recent awardee and would like your name to be added to the Grant Consultation Directory.
Along with other efforts such as the A&S Research Incentive Program, the A&S Research Directory is intended to help to increase both the number and success rates of grant applications as part of the university strategic plan to place Kent State among the community of nationally prominent large public research universities.


text:
Super Chalk
In Stock Product Number: 21863
Super Chalk from Metolius is the #1-selling brand of climbing chalk in America! This is the original chalk specifically formulated for rock climbing. A safe drying agent is added to the highest-quality magnesium carbonate for maximum sweat absorption and friction. Super Chalk comes packaged in re-sealable, zippered plastic bags (except 5 lb).
Please do your part to keep the boulders and cliffs clean. Brush holds frequently, pick up trash, and stay on established trails. It's up to you to protect and maintain your climbing areas!
Gender: Unisex
Season: F11
Vendor ProductId: CTWO200
Review ProductId: 4167
by PowerReviewsPros
Best Uses
- Bouldering (4)
- Climbing gym (3)
- Reviewer Profile:
- Avid climber (3)
Reviewed by 5 customers
Sort by
Displaying reviews 1-5
- Easy To Access Chalk
- Lightweight
Best Uses
- Climbing Gyms
Comments about Metolius Super Chalk:
I needed some chalk to climb indoors and didn't want to spend a lot since I'm a beginner. I bought this because it was a good deal and I'm happy with it. I am not advanced enough yet to know whether difference kinds of chalk make a difference, but I know that this has been good for me to get started.
- Was this a gift?:
- No
Best Uses
- Bouldering
- Climbing Gyms
- Outdoors
Comments about Super Chalk:
Driest chalk out there
- Rugged
- Super sticky
- Versatile
Best Uses
- Bouldering
- Climbing Gym
- Extreme Conditions
Comments about Metolius Super Chalk:
Great chalk. I have used this stuff ever since I started climbing, even through some very intense climbing trips in Colorado. It is even great for the gym, where I mostly climb now.
Best Uses
- Bouldering
- Climbing Gym
Comments about Metolius Super Chalk:
Great chalk, just be careful not to have this on your hands all day or for long periods of time. Its really dry, makes you itch like mad, and it's horrible when it gets into cuts on your hands.
- Versatile
- Weather Resistant
Best Uses
- Bouldering
- Climbing Gym
- Out Door
Comments about Metolius Super Chalk:
A good chalk that keep your hands dry and helps stick you to the rock. i really like this chalk. i've tried a few other chalks and they don't compare. it also works really well mixing it with other chalks you might still have laying around.
Displaying reviews 1-5


text:
Transfer files and settings from another computer
How does Windows Easy Transfer make setting up a computer easier?
Transferring files and settings: frequently asked questions
How to get an Easy Transfer cable
Windows Easy Transfer
Compare and upgrade
New to Windows 7?
Desktop and personalization
Hardware and drivers
System maintenance and repair
Pictures and music
Networking, Internet, and email
Choosing the edition of Windows 7 that's right for you (2:24)
32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7 (2:16)
Software and hardware compatibility in Windows 7 (2:07)
Windows XP vs. Windows 7 (2:15)
Getting around the desktop (5:58)
Personalizing your PC (4:50)
Finding your files (4:35)
Sharing files with HomeGroup (3:43)
Using email and the Internet (5:25)
Changing Windows settings (5:08)
Transferring files and settings from another PC (3:58)
Making a desktop background slide show (3:34)
Printing with Windows 7 (2:35)
Sharing a printer at home (3:36)
Connect devices to your computer (3:40)
Using Windows Touch (3:55)
Saving power on the go (3:48)
Performance and maintenance
Solving common problems using troubleshooters (3:29)
Backing up and restoring your computer (4:37)
Restoring your PC after a hard drive failure (3:54)
Fixing a problem using System Restore (3:30)
Using Windows Remote Assistance to get help with your computer (4:23)
Make a greeting card using Paint (5:51)
Answer a burning question: Burn a CD (4:14)
Stream music around your house with Windows Media Player (2:49)
Networking, Internet, and mail
Access another computer using Remote Desktop (2:52)


text:
Conviction is a major anointing that is needed in the prophetic ministry. The Scripture tells us that the gifts and the calling are without repentance. Many prophets operate in the gifts without having any conviction in their personal lives. Conviction can be defined as "the act of convincing a person of error or of compelling the admission of a truth."
When you spend time in the presence of God, you are measured according to His standards, not the standards of man. In light of the Lord revealing Himself to Isaiah, he got a true picture of himself. read more


text:
A Problem Has Occurred!
We are currently experiencing system issues. Please use your back button to try again or if that doesn't work send us an email explaining your issue to firstname.lastname@example.com.
© 2015 Hearst Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved
| Privacy Policy
| Your California Privacy Rights
| Terms of Use
| CO Residents click here for tax information
Go to RedbookMag.com


text:
Our guides show you the best ways to make your money go further and work harder. They're jam-packed with all the latest financial information and money saving tips, and set out really clearly (no jargon!) so it's easy for you to make smart decisions about the things that matter.
Be the first to find out about the hottest bargains, biggest freebies & best deals each week! Terms & Conditions