text:
Hold down Control (PC) or Command (Mac) key + mouseclick to select more than one option
|Avg. Dinner Entrée
|Greater than $25
|$18.01 - $25
|$12.01 - $18
|$7.01 - $12
|Less than $7
Posted by anonymous on 06/18/2009
pizza was decent, but the staff left a lot to be desired. our waiter was completely inattentive and clueless.
Posted by deb cuffaro on 05/29/2009
This is by far the best pizza NY has to offer. Sullivan Street Bakery no knead crust topped with a delicious assortment of creative toppings, fabulous salad combinations. If you're looking for a cheap slice -- this is not the place for you. If you're interesting in changing your defination of pizza - I challenge you to find better.
Posted by jodido194 on 05/29/2009
If you're looking for overpriced pizza in an extremely noisy environment with very slow service, this is your place.
Posted by Michael Picon on 05/01/2009
We were all excited to try the new pizza place in Chelsea that everyone was lining up for. But what a bad experience it turned out to be. Had our waiter only explained that pizzas are brought out as soon as they're ready--and not necessarily when the entire party's pies are ready--we would have ordered appetizers and pizzas to share. Instead, we ordered individually--as the waiter suggested--and expected the pies to arrive more or less at the same time. We were puzzled when the waiter started dropping the pizzas one at a time (5-10 minutes apart) but we waited patiently, thinking it was just the fault of a busy kitchen. But when friend got the wrong pie and another was left waiting 15 minutes, I really wanted an explanation and called over the manager. He was defensive and less than helpful, explaining gruffly that this is how it's done at Company. Fair enough. I applaud the artisinal touch of bringing out food when it's hot and ready, but that should be explained up front. Of course all would have been forgiven if the pizza had been as good as promised. It soooo was not. The pies were uniformly burnt, flavorless, and forgettable. (The fennel on mine was charred to a crisp and the sausage was dry and rubbery). The noisy, buzzy scene was typical New York--over-hyped, over-priced, and really unsatisfying.
Posted by CuisineCrazy on 04/22/2009
I guess that Co. is trying to emulate Otto. The pizza I ordered had a very creamy, very tasty cheese that unfortunately was cold, having just come out of the refrigerator. The dough was lukewarm and the other ingredients included tomato and fresh arugula. When I commented to the waitress regarding the temperature of the dish, she brought out the chef, who, after some conversation, said "Get him a Margherita" (pizza not cocktail). It was forgettable. When I returned home, to cap off the experience, I realized I was overcharged $1.00 Stick with Otto.
Posted by maditalian on 04/19/2009
Food quality is decent, but nothing has any intrinsic taste except the added salt! The $3 piece of bread is tasteless with a wimpy crust. The $5 piece of Pecorino is about the size they give out at Di Paolo for free tasting! The best thing at the table was the $2 dish of Olive oil! The whole experience made me mad!
Posted by Hungry Mike on 04/11/2009
You get a slice, it's heavy with cheese and oil, about to run down your arm. Fold it in half, flip back the tip, and chow down. This is heaven to many of us Manhattan ites, and Brooklynites too, where the best pizza is made. Don't expect that here; Pizza the way they do it in Naples is not made here. Here, the crust is thin, the dough has a flavor rarely found in NY, as few pizza lovers pay much attention to the crust; they want heaps of toppings. There is some sticker shock too, and in these hard times, I expect the chef will make a few changes. I hope so, I want this place to survive.


text:
Step 1: Getting Started
- Schedule 40 3/4" PVC
- End caps (3/4")
- Pipe foam
- Strapping Tape
- Duct Tape (Two contrasting colors)
- Athletic tape (Optional)
- Scissors or knife
- Pipe cutter/hack saw/anything that will cut PVC
- Tape measure
Step 2: Preparing the PVC
The standard length for a one handed weapon is equal to the distance between the user's hand and the ground, when the user's arm is hanging at rest. For me, that is 30", but I'm a little over 6 feet tall. The general idea is that when standing up straight, the user cannot touch the ground with their weapon.
Find this distance, and subtract 4". (For Div. 2 weapons, subtract 3.5") This subtracted distance will be made up for by the thrusting tip and padding on the butt. (Haha, butt.)
Personally, I prefer longer weapons, so I'm making this sword to be maximum length for a one-handed weapon in Division 3, 42". (Div. 2 max. is 36".) This means that my PVC should be 38" long.
-Cap it
It never mentions an outer layer of foam.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In recent weeks, two leading company formations agents have been battling for the hearts and minds of AccountingWEB members in an online debate.
Company formations
The discussion around forming a company has played out through the pages of
As the debate on paying the correct (whatever that means) amounts of corporation tax rages on, almost all pundits agree that the myriad allowances is what creates avoidance schemes and loopholes.
I have been having somewhat of a Twitter debate with a company formation agent. Basically they tried spamming me with a 'great' offer. So I questioned their cost structure.
If you are sad enough to study the HMRC 'Rates and Allowances' archive and compare tax rates it is noticeable how the 'break even' point for incorporation has fluctuated over the years such tha
So you've formed a new company - but what happens next? Jennifer Adams presents a checklist for ensuring that your new enterprise gets off on the right foot.
With the internet increasing the options for forming companies, Jennifer Adams considers the pros and cons of the different methods.
BusinessLink.gov.uk has introduced a cheaper, easier to use Web Incorporation Service.
My currrent agent has become slighlty sloppy (e.g. sending invoice to client rather than us!) so am looking for an alternative.
I have had a call from a potential client from a mailshot I did a couple of weeks ago.
- Incorporation - why bother? 18,521 22
- Company formations: What's best for you? 16,080 15
- Post incorporation: Get the details right 10,505 5
- New £18 web incorporation service 8,134 14
- Company formation agents 5,028 28


text:
Tasting Sixpoint's Mad Scientist Beers with Food at the Guilty Goose, NYC
Sixpoint's Mad Scientist line is a limited-run series of experimental beers the brewery releases once every two months. The series gives Sixpoint's brewers a chance to unleash some of their wilder notions on the public. We gathered at the Guilty Goose to try out four of the beers paired with food. More


text:
Home in the Heights
A blog about life in the Houston Heights with Martin Hajovsky
Monthly Archive for January, 2010
Busy week ahead for Opera in the Heights
Opera in the Heights will present a meditation on the (almost always unfortunate) mixing of love and politics in its production of Giuseppi Verdi's Un Ballo in Maschera this week. OH's production will also be the first under new stage director Matthew Ferrarao. A former dancer, Ferraro has worked at Washington National Opera, the Santa […] [Read More]
Tickets on sale fo HHA's volunteer dinner
Consider this advanced notice. Tickets are now on sale for the Houston Heights Association's Volunteer Appreciation and Community Improvement Awards Dinner, which will be held 5-8 p.m. Feb. 28 at the Heights Fire Station, 107 West 12th at Yale. According to an e-mail the association sent out this week, the theme and attire this year […] [Read More]
Artist opportunity at First Saturday, but deadline Friday
First Saturday Arts Market impresario Mitch Cohen sent out this e-mail looking for an artist to show work on Heights First Saturdays at Heights Modern Home, 540 West 19th next door to the market. Looks like a great opportunity, and the best thing, you get all this exposure for free! Can't beat that. Heights 1st […] [Read More]
Sara Hickman playing here Saturday
The beautiful playing and voice of Sara Hickman will be on display at Listening Room at NiaMoves, 508 Pecore, this Saturday night at 9 p.m. I could go on and on about how much I love listening to Hickman and have been a fan of hers for decades. Her sound never gets out of date […] [Read More]
Attempt to save church building builds steam
The following is a letter sent out by outgoing Houston Heights Association president Chris Silkwood to association members this morning regarding effort to save the old Immanuel Lutheran Church building. Anyone who has read this blog for any length of time at all knows of my attitudes toward the importance of historical preservation. (I live […] [Read More]
Help needed for Boulevard tree planting
The Houston Heights Association's Boulevard Committee will be out on Heights Boulevard Saturday morning to plant trees and are looking for help. According to committee chair Jim Bennett, volunteers will start along the 600 block at 9 a.m. "I expect to only pick up a few trees so the work session should not take over […] [Read More]
Woodland Heights meeting Tuesday
The Woodland Heights Civic Association's monthly general meeting is set for 7:30 p.m. Tuesday at Zion Lutheran Church, 3606 Beauchamp. On the agenda is a presentation from the owners of the Backyard Gardener, who will be able to answer landscaping and frozen plant questions. For more information, check out woodland-heights.org, call 713-598-3043 or e-mail association […] [Read More]
18 Hands owners show their stuff tonight
Medusa by Betsy Evans The owners of 18 Hands Gallery, 249 West 19th, will present their own work in the gallery tonight, opening the show 10 from 6-9 p.m. The five owners, Betsy Evans, Karen Cruce, Katy McKinin, Jim Shea and Nancy Susaneck, will present their work as a collective unit, the first time they […] [Read More]
Show More


text:
UNC sophomore faces punishment for 'intimidating' student she accused of rape
Sophomore Landen Gambill of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is now facing possible expulsion for "intimidating" her alleged rapist.
Gambill went to Honor Court to press charges against her ex-boyfriend from her freshmen year, who she said was regularly abusive. But the Honor Court, which found the man not guilty, gave her an unfair trial, she said.
"They were not only offensive and inappropriate, but they were so victim-blaming," she told the Daily Tar Heel. "They made it seem like my assault was completely my fault."
Last month, Gambill along with three other students and former UNC Assistant Dean of Students Melinda Manning filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights against the university. The report claimed that the university pressured Manning into under-reporting cases of sexual assault, violating the Campus Sexual Assault Victims' Bill of Rights, the Clery Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and other equal opportunity mandates.
Gambill received notification Friday from Elizabeth Ireland, the graduate and professional schools student attorney general, that she is being charged with violating the UNC honor code and needs to appear once again in front of the Honor Court. The email states that the court believes it has evidence that Gambill has acted in ways that are "disruptive or intimidating behavior that willfully abuses, disparages or otherwise interferes with another so as to adversely affect their academic pursuits, opportunities for university employment, participation in university-sponsored extracurricular activities or opportunities to benefit from other aspects of university life."
Gambill said, though, that she has never publicly identified the accused. At a preliminary Honor Court meeting, she was told that she could be in violation of the honor code simply by saying she was raped. If she is found guilty, she could receive a number of punishments ranging from a written warning to expulsion.
A similar situation would be unlikely to happen on Duke's campus, said junior Stefani Jones, Duke Student Government vice president for equity and outreach and a leading advocate for the campaign leading to Duke's repeal of the statute of limitations for student sexual misconduct. Jones added that the controversy offers an opportunity to reflect.
"The incident at UNC highlights just how important it is for universities and students to be looking for ways to prevent and address sexual assault on campus. Victim-blaming and a poor institutional response are inexcusable," she said. "We've done a lot of work on our campus this year, specifically in repealing the statute of limitations on our reporting policy, to give victims additional support. There's a lot more to be done, though."
Honor Council Chair Michael Habashi, a senior, also expressed that he did not believe a case like this could happen at Duke.
"The student conduct process at Duke is one in which the student is treated with respect," he said. "We've created an infrastructure where students feel empowered in that room [with the Student Conduct Board] and have the outside resources they need as well."
Jones added that she along with the DSG Committee for Equity and Outreach have been working to address gender-based violence with a Gender Task Force, which would seek to approach the issue of sexual assault holistically, and start a program which would provide academic support to victims.
Editor's Note: This article, including the headline, has been changed to reflect the fact that the man accused of sexual assault by Gambill was found not guilty by the UNC Honor Court. Gambill maintains that the man raped her.


text:
Triller's Triplets
Rhonda Triller and her triplets
Monthly Archive for May, 2010
Snack happy
I'm grateful my kids are good eaters. They aren't picky, they eat new things, they eat fruits and vegetables and, even though the girls don't seem to love red meat, most meats. They love carbs, any kind of bread or cracker. In the past week, they have eaten less of their meals, though, especially breakfast. […] [Read More]
Happy medium
Some days, I am so overwhelmed and frazzled, I count the minutes until my husband gets home, from two hours in advance. Those days have been more frequent lately, and I often feel guilty about that. Earlier this week, my husband suggested I take Saturday for myself. He urged me to go shopping or to […] [Read More]
My kids love "Curious George" the cartoon. They even like the George books we have. Now the live show is coming to Glens Falls Civic Center, and both my sister-in-law and niece, 2, and my sister and nieces, 5 and 10, are going. Tickets are $15 for anyone 1 or older, and I just don't […] [Read More]
Fingers are crossed
As a teenager, I worked at a busy coffee shop in the mall in Plattsburgh. The job changed my life. The people I worked with were like family members. We manned the store together, tolerated rude tourists and berating customers. We loved our regulars and had pet names for all of them. Some, a few […] [Read More]
Random thoughts of a frazzled mom
I decided about a week ago that the kids' toys need upgrading. They've outgrown most of their toys and, I think, are ready for more challenging pieces. In one trip, with all three kids in tow (patting myself on the back), I ended up getting a set of those stacking boxes; two new wooden puzzles; […] [Read More]
Sigh of exhaustion
Today is the kind of day I'm embarrassed to admit I have. After an especially short afternoon nap yesterday, my three little angels were whiny and demanding and fought with one another until dinnertime yesterday. Today, Avery was overtired and whiny. By lunch, I wanted to scream. I'm not proud to admit this, but today, […] [Read More]


text:
On November 2009 I had the wonderful opportunity of taking part in Visualizar '09, a workshop on data visualization organized in Madrid, Spain, by Medialab Prado.
Is Net Art still alive? Well, it is in Buenos Aires! I'm now in the process of teaching a workshop on the subject at the Centro Cultural de España.


text:
Oh, Bret. Will you continue to stay here and rock my LOL?
Rise and shine, oatmeal pancakes!
We've got a show to cover!
As the girls check out of that weird theme hotel that they spent the night in last episode, Ashley underscores the collective disdain for Brittaney: "She when to the Alien Invasion room for a reason: because aliens need to abduct her fat ass and bring her to somewhere else because we don't want her." In the event of alien unavailability, I wonder if Real and Chance would do? Close enough, right?
On the bus is information on the girls' next destination.
The "Tenacious 12″ are heading to Champaign, Il. Everyone is thrilled when they hear the name of the town, but no one more than Kelsey who gushes, "I have no clue where Champaign is, but all I know is it's my favorite drink, so we're going to the bottom of the bottle, y'know? I'm excited." As if they haven't yet reached the bottom of the bottle already, both literally and figuratively, by agreeing to appear on this show!
When the girls' bus stops, it drops them off at an ice rink. There, they see Bret who creepily beckons them.
In a fit of slips, giggles and jiggles, the girls make their way across the ice to him.
On the way over, one notes that she doesn't "do good on ice." But then again, she probably doesn't do good on traction, either, knowing this group.
Bret announces that he has devised a challenge that will engage his inner sports fan and nurturer. Kelsey and the cud she has wedged in her mouth couldn't be more excited.
Yes, it's another iteration of the Save Baby Bret game of last season, except this time it's on ice.
The girls will play against the University of Illinois Women's Hockey Club, as well as a "good friend" of Bret's. As she skates up, someone notes, "I've seen that hair before." Probably on a maxi pad. For you see, today's special guest is none other than…
Lacey Connor! Apparently, Evil Lacey is gracing us today. But then, so is…
…Disheveled Lacey. She seriously looks unhinged. Like, more so than usual!
The girls begin practicing. There's a lot of this…
…which is actually the real reason for the challenge. Obviously!
Farrah mumbles something about the girls being professionals or not or…something, and adds, "What the French?" I believe this is the third straight episode, in which she's uttered what is obviously her catchphrase. I'd warn her with the Quimby Family rule of comedy (first time's funny, second time's silly, third time's a spanking), but she might enjoy that too much. But seriously, Farrah. Change up the lingo. You seem to have so much potential. Please don't become the living talking doll that is Tim Gunn.
While Kelsey skates around the rink with the grace of an extra in The Cutting Edge 4: Ice, Ice, Scabies, Beverly seems to be all thumbs where her skates her concerned.
Her incompetence is noted so often by so many that it's clear that (SPOILER ALERT) this is all a ruse.
Enough of this. Bret decides that it's time to divide the girls into teams. Ashley, Natasha and Maria are his captain choices. When he calls up Ashley, he encourages her with, "Come on, hot mess!" She doesn't seem to mind being referred to as such. Glad we're all on the same page!
The teams are divided this way: Kelsey, Marcia and Farrah are on Ashley's team; Brittanya, Mindy and Taya are on Natasha's (when Natasha chooses Brittanya first, she explains that they're BFFs and that this way they can "suck together," which a Rock of Love Bus-approved activity if ever there were); finally, Melissa, Brittaney and Beverly are on Maria's team. Instead of a normal two-goal hockey set-up, there are three goals of varying distances from the center of the rink that the girls must attempt to score in. The farther the goal, the more points it's worth.
Natasha's Blue Team is up first. Highlights of their round include Brittanya's bleeding pierced navel, a decapitated Baby Bret…
…and a possibly concussed Natasha…
And here's a close-up, possibly concussed Natasha.
Bret notes that Natasha dusted herself right off, thus taking it like a man. Hey Mickey, you're so…confusing.
The team ends up with four points, all courtesy of Mindy.
Next up is Ashley's Black Team, which ends up with just two points because Kelsey only goes for the one-point goal.
After scoring the first one in the one-pointer, they should have gone for a more valuable goal, since, as Farrah notes, the Blue Team has already scored 4. She adds mega-awesomely, "Oh piss!" Now there is the catchphrase potential that I knew she had! This girl, I'm tellin' ya. This girl's a star.
As the Pink Team gets ready for their to-be-terrible-except-not-at-all round on the ice, Farrah yells at them, "You guys suck like a Hoover!" Looks like someone's keen on joining the Writer's Guild!
Except, they don't suck like a Hoover at all. They glide like a Zamboni, thanks to Beverly's scheme to be underestimated. They score five points immediately, winning the date.
To this, Farrah, of course, has something to say…
I don't know if she's a genius or the second coming of Boss Hogg or what, but with every utterance Farrah is fast becoming a gem in the Rock of Love crown.
But it isn't all roses or biscuit eatin' bulldogs — there's been an injury. After falling face-first into the ice, Melissa worries that she popped her freakin' implant. I didn't know that was possible, but since it is, why is this the first time that it's happening on this show? You'd think with all the bouncing and jiggling and mashing, someone would have had at least leakage by this point. I guess it's just a testament to the fine doctors across the country working endlessly to make sure the men (and, let's face it, ladies) of our fine nation are adequately aroused.
Anyway, Melissa is very concerned, so she speaks with…someone (?) about this:
Melissa doesn't know the answer to this question. Come on, Melissa. Even Brandi C., knew enough to contrast her breasts to the "Gummi Bear" variety that was, I guess, all the rage back in 2007. Get it together!
Ashley, at least, offers some helpful insight: "If Melissa busted her breast implant playing hockey, then she got 'em done in Tiajuana because $300 boob jobs pop for not reason, OK?" And thus, Ashley has introduced the world to the previously little-known concept of breast-implant snobbery. I know I noted it last week, but the collective innovation of these women cannot be understated. This show is just as educational as anything you see on National Geographic or Discovery. And buoyant, to boot!
The whole boob explosion ends with that official woman telling Melissa to…
Thank god for experts!
While Bret corrals the Pink Team for his date, something is afoul on the Pink Bus…
Oh, piss. Literally! Farrah's not just slick-tongued, she's also a prophet! Except not really. It's actually maybe some food that Brittaney has been stashing in her bed.
If you think it's bitchy of the girls to blame the bad smell on Brittaney, well…it isn't bitchy if you're right. Another possible source of the smell?
Sweaty socks, specifically those worn by the girls during the hockey game earlier. WTF? For real? Everyone's disgusted and surprised at Brittaney's stash. Best case scenario, it's awfully fetishy. Worst case scenario: sweat voodoo.
Farrah's hypothesis as to why Brittaney would need socks falls somewhere in the middle: she thinks Brittaney needs them as a cheap boob lift.
You lift…
…you stick a sock under…
…and voila! You have boobs just as perky as Farrah's. Not that she knows this from experience or anything.
Meanwhile, Bret's taken his four "dates" to a strip club, where they're expected to perform. God, that would be like Bret taking me to the Viacom building for our date. Although, I'd happily blog that, so I guess I can relate. I have the heart of a stripper, you could say if you wanted. And I kind of want you to want to say that.
Everyone's having a crotch-grindingly good time except for Beverly.
She interviews that she's not feeling this. Yet, everyone wants her to join her counterparts on stage. Even Bret does. He tells her with more than a touch of irritation, "You're here to party. Go!" Forcing someone to party? Why not go whole-hog and bust out the funnel and speculum?
Beverly eventually makes it to the stage, where she takes part in one of the most amazing screen shots I've ever captured.
I mean, if you can tear your eyes away from the invisible cloud of piss hanging above Bev, feast your eyes on Maria whose very exposed boob isn't even the most exciting part of her ensemble. It's the leashes she has attached to her collar and wrists. That way she can walk herself. She's a retired model, did you know that? That's what they do.
Anyway, Beverly informs us she is not going to drop her drawers in front of God, Bret Michaels and everybody, in that order. The other girls, however…
Here's more of the same…
…and yet it loses none of its entertainment value, thanks to Beverly's disdain and Maria's self-bondage.
Also of note is a hilarious monologue from Brittaney regarding her past and how it's just that and she's moving on with her life except…
…she isn't. Not that there's anything wrong with it! It's really watchable, in fact!
Intercut with this is a scene of the non-daters checking into a hotel and being made to drag their bags up stairs.
She probably ate the sweaty socks, too. That couldn't have helped. You know how heavy cotton gets when it's wet. Also, it's hilarious that the spelling of Brittaney's name is too complicated even for the subtitlers.
Back at the club, Bret decides to take Beverly aside to find out whassa goin' on with her pissiness. She's a rocker chick, for God's sake! It shouldn't be this hard to get her to show some skin and mime like she's showing much more! Beverly explains that she doesn't want to put herself out there like that because she has three (!) kids. Bret helpfully points out that her kids aren't here. Well, they are if they stumble upon this show, which shouldn't be too hard since it's shown approximately 5,000 during any given week. They end up seemingly resolving things…
And yet, Bret interviews that Beverly's kind of a buzzkill. Bret's about as sensitive as a beer shotgun.
The girls meet the non-dates at the hotel, much to the glee of the Blontourage…
Yay! Now they get to be bitchy to Brittaney's face instead of just doing so behind her back. They call her out on stealing the socks. She indignantly interviews that she did not steal the socks. She asked the rink's owner and provider of them if she could have them and he said yes. So there! Never in her rant does she explain why she wanted them in the first place, which is kind of like getting belligerent when someone accuses you of stabbing someone with a dagger only to be all, "I did it with a butter knife!" Sometimes how just isn't as important as why.
Why, Brittaney, why?
Anyway, she feels ostracized and picked on enough to go sleep in the bus.
That's what she says, at least. My theory is that she was just hungry.
Meanwhile, in another room, Melissa talks loudly on a cell phone that she isn't supposed to have.
Did it really take seeing him in person to realize that Bret wears extensions? Melissa adds that she doesn't like Bret as a person. As someone who cared enough to dig up a $2 bill after watching Rock of Love 2, how on earth did she not know what she was getting into?
No matter. Natasha tells Farrah while Melissa is at the hospital the next morning getting her boob examined. If she didn't have such an attitude, she could have got that done for much cheaper on one of the buses. Just saying. Her boob, by the way, is indeed leaking and she has torn tendons. When she gets back to the hotel, Farrah, of course, spearheads the confrontation. Melissa denies ever having made the phone call. Farrah tells her to prove that she didn't. Farrah knows nothing of the burden of proof, but whatever. That's the risk you take when you speak so colorfully. Bret eventually arrives and Brittaney whines to him about being ostracized.
Bret wonders if Brittaney is crazy. Crazy, not in the "rock and roll good way," but crazy-crazy. You better believe "rock and roll good way" is entering my lexicon with the determination of a biscuit eatin' bulldog. At last, influential phrasing that wasn't devised by Farrah. Who in the French ever would have thought?
Like hell they are! Bret has left with Farrah and Ashley who inform him about the Melissa's smack talk. Farrah lets him know what Melissa said about his appearance and that she's not there for him.
Such a helper!
Bret returns to the room and tells "everybody who's not named Melissa" to leave. That's such a roundabout way of saying what he has to. Perhaps that comes from his background as a lyricist. If so, he accomplished his goal in the rock and roll so-so way.
Bret confronts Melissa.
She lies boldly, claiming, "I never made a phone call." Bret recaps the "bipolar roller coaster" she's put him on so far, and adds with disdain that they haven't even had sex yet! In this environment that's actually a great point.
Elimination! Farrah is dressed in a manner that could only be described as a rock and roll good way.
Actually, it might do you well to soak in all the outfits.
I know there's already a show with this title, but with some minor editing, Rock of Love easily could be called What Not To Wear and lose absolutely nothing.
Bret addresses the girls by saying, "For the last couple of days, we have definitely been rockin' and rollin' on this tour." And as you know, he likes to rock! Bret says there have been some good highs and lows. When he says "highs," we see Ashley doing this…
It begs the question: is she high?
Bret addresses the hair allegations first, because obviously they're the most important. He says that he's dropped "quality money on the finest hair extensions Europe has to offer." This way you know he's a cool guy who isn't above acknowledging his fake hair. It's actually impressive every time he does this. Would you really have guessed that he had that much of a sense of humor about himself? Joke away, he's all good. Melissa speaks up and says she's not feeling this. Bret knows she isn't and. He had a feeling she was a player. He tells her to get the f*** out. Clearly, everything just rolls off his back.
Melissa interviews that the show left her with a busted up boob and a f***ed up arm and it wasn't worth it. No solace to be taken in the fact that millions got to watch you bust up your boob and f*** up your arm, even?
Elimination proceeds like it always does. Kelsey gets the first pass. Good for her. She's cute. Although I do wonder if she's cute in the rock and roll good way or just cute-cute. (OK, that's the last rock and roll good way I'm gonna use…for now.) When Maria gets her pass, she enthuses, "After tonight, I feel like we have a connection. I know he knows my name!"
Yes. Having your existence acknowledged on a reality show is a very special thing.
It comes down to Brittaney and Beverly. Bret believes that the Lord gives you two eyes to look forward. I thought the Lord gave you an eye for each boob? Whatever, the point is that Bret isn't holding Brittaney's past against her, he's holding her present against her. She's leaving.
Bret interviews that he'll always have Brittaney's DVDs in his heart and on his tour bus. Yet another reason those eyes are helpful. Our Lord is indeed an awesome one! And I hate to use the word "awesome" a lot, but it is.
Related content
Rock of Love Bus show page
Rock of Love videos and extras


text:
Mandrake 10.x related topics
I would like to get feedback about Mandrake linux and the 7167 drivers in this thread. Especially for Mandrake versions 10.0 and 10.1 (and the upcoming 10.2).
thanks in advance...
Re: Mandrake 10.x related topics
To start the thread, some of my experiences...
If you have problems with undefined agp symbols during the installation you have to do a "modprobe agpgart" before starting the installer. (Otherwise the installer will issue strange errors like missing agp... symbols or complain about wrong module format of nvidia.ko)
For Mandrake 10.1 I always saw a strange line in the xorg.conf that tries to explicitly load libglx.a specifying the complete path:
Load "/usr/X11R6/lib/modules/extensions/libglx.a"
This line can simply be replaced by the following line:
Load "glx" # 3D layer
For widescreen notebooks you should try adding your own modeline and use the
Option "IgnoreEDID" "true"
option (see NVIDIA readme) to get it working for exotic screen resolutions (e.g. 1280x800). Otherwise you'll get a "no screens found" error while starting X.
For a 1280x800 widescreen, you can use:
# mode generated with http://zaph.com modelinegenerator
Mode "1280x800"
DotClock 75.42
HTimings 1280 1304 1384 1520
VTimings 800 803 806 827
What about mandrake 10.2? Did anybody have similar experiences?
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1998 - 2014, nV News.


text:
How the Schools Were Ruined
During the last quarter-century, American sentiments concerning education have fallen and risen and fallen. In the heart of that period, circa 1960 to 1975, we witnessed what can only be called a frenzy of exalted expectations for the prospects of schooling. The present mood, by contrast, is despondent, and I suspect more so than ever before in our history, certainly more so than in the memory of most of us. A great many feel that we are not merely coming down from a high, but that the high is itself to be blamed for the depths in which we now find ourselves—that the reforms of the late 1960's, undertaken thoughtlessly, giddily, produced the shallowness of learning and ennui of spirit we find so commonly in the schools.
The degree of disaffection amounts almost to disgust. The chancellor of a Southern university comments to the New York Times that "the quality of secondary education is just awful." The political philosopher Allen Bloom begins a powerful essay on higher education by writing that "students in our best universities do not believe in anything, and those universities are doing nothing about it, nor can they." A noted investment banker, interviewed on our country's loss of economic competitiveness, mentions almost offhandedly that an important part of the problem is our educational system. Jacques Barzun, one of our most distinguished academicians, in a new preface to his classic book, Teacher in America, says: "The once proud and efficient public-school system of the United States—especially its unique free high school for all—has turned into a wasteland where violence and vice share the time with ignorance and idleness." And as if to give all this an official seal of recognition, a bipartisan federal commission, concluding a two-year study of the schools, reported in April that "the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity."
Part of us wants to believe that this is rhetorical excess, reflecting the disappointment of inflated hopes. Yet the data we now have on American school achievement tell us precisely the same thing. In a masterful analysis of these data, "American Education: How Are We Doing?" (Public Interest, Fall 1982), Barbara Lerner puts to rest any surviving complacency about our nation's educational system. Her article concentrates on two types of comparisons, historical and international. As to the former, she marshals evidence from a number of studies showing a substantial decline in the competence of American students during the last quarter-century, especially at the high-school level. The decline of SAT scores is by now so well known as to have become a journalistic cliché; but Mrs. Lerner points out that this key finding is corroborated by almost every other reliable study of the performance of American students then and now. The international comparisons are equally dispiriting. "Out of nineteen tests, we were never ranked first or second; we came in last three times and, if comparisons are limited to other developed nations only, the U.S. ranked at the bottom seven times."
The impression of widespread crime and violence in the schools receives similar empirical confirmation. The most recent large survey tells us that about 7 percent of all junior-high-school students report having been assaulted within the past month of the survey; a slightly higher number report having been robbed. Well over 10 percent of teachers report being victimized by thefts during that period.
The widespread disaffection with American schools is thus neither hyperbolic nor hysterical nor based on fancy, but is rooted in an accurate perception of what the schools—a great many of them—are like.
How shall we understand this apparent decline in both civility and competence? Is there some fault in the national temper? The economist Paul Samuelson believes we may be seeing a diminution of the American work ethic, as a response to more general economic changes in the country. There is a substantial body of opinion which holds that the country "has had it," especially with respect to economic innovation and productivity; a corollary hypothesis is that the slackness often seen in the schools reflects a more general failure of will. We have caught the "English disease," so it is said, and are now experiencing that loss of energy which laid low Great Britain's economy. Economic enterprise, technical innovation, and intellectual drive must have behind them some stimulus to effort or to risk-taking; for various reasons, these motives have declined in force during the last quarter-century, and the schools have suffered accordingly.
Another version of this theme stresses cyclical variations, shifts from era to era in the emphasis placed on certain values. Daniel Bell has written of the "issue-attention cycle," referring to the waxing and waning of values over time. In an essay published in 1972 he noted that a decade earlier, "excellence" had been at the center of national concern, but that it had receded and had been replaced by "equality." A decade later, the wheel continues to turn, and we are seeing a renewed interest in excellence, and if not a dethronement of the rampant egalitarianism of a decade ago, at least some signs of a dialectic.
Whether one believes that long-range or short-range trends are at work, it is increasingly understood that the variables involved are ideological or, if you will, philosophical. One dubious American habit is to see our problems as concrete or "practical" and hence to search for technical solutions. That in fact has been a prominent feature of our thinking about the schools during the period in question. Now it has begun to dawn on us that at least some solutions are to be found in the realm of ideas and ideals, that we will be slow to recover past levels of achievement and decorum without giving some thought to transformations in the American sensibility. In what follows I will try to explore some ways in which "ideological" changes have influenced American education during the last twenty-five years.
Anyone who spends any time at all in the schools soon realizes that a great many of those persons nominally in authority have a sense of having lost it.
The sense of lost authority is felt most strongly at the secondary-school level, and its effects are seen most clearly in the area of discipline. The extraordinary growth of litigiousness, and of litigation, has meant that school administrations—and ultimately teachers and principals—have become gun-shy, fearing that a wrong move can land them in the courts, or on the front pages of the local press. Much of the time, of course, that fear is exaggerated, but there are enough instances of gratuitous litigation to reinforce anyone's caution—or paranoia. In my own school district, for instance, a judge took it upon himself to overturn a standard disciplinary penalty meted out in a case of serious vandalism by a high-school student. That a case of this sort is taken to court, that a judge decides to accept it, and that he rules in favor of the defendant—all of that suggests a profound change in the atmosphere of education and in the authority of the schools.
In a recent article Gerald Grant has provided some illuminating—and depressing—reports stemming from his extensive survey of high schools. Some of his observations are worth quoting:
Jurisdiction is so narrowly defined that a student who comes to a school principal after lunch complaining of being beaten up is asked which side of the street he was standing on when the beating occurred. If he was across the street, it would be out of the school's jurisdiction and hence of no concern to the principal. Often when students need help, teachers are afraid to intervene for fear of legal reprisals. One teacher, explaining why she hadn't interfered with a girl who clawed another in her classroom, said, "You'll only be after trouble if you physically handle them." Another teacher was still shaking as she told us about a group of students who had verbally assaulted her and made sexually degrading comments about her in the hall. When we asked why she didn't report the students, she responded, "Well, it wouldn't have done any good." "Why not?" we pressed. "I didn't have any witnesses," she replied.
These vignettes focus upon the helplessness of teachers, but we should also note the thuggishness of the students depicted. This loss of authority in the schools could not have come at a worse time for those deputed to run them. Many youngsters remained in the upper grades of high school who in an earlier era would have left; and among these a small but significant number were resentful and fractious. More important still, there was a rise in the number and proportion of anti-social adolescents—in fact, there was an astonishing increase in all indices of social pathology among the young during the last quarter-century, in assaults, suicides, homicides, drug use, out-of-wedlock pregnancy. There were also larger families, which meant a decrease in the number of intellectually able youngsters. Hence, in the postwar era, the schools confronted a horde of youngsters, a large percentage of whom were academically weak and/or anti-social. It was at that very moment that they found themselves stripped of their accustomed powers.
The weakened authority of teachers and principals also led to a weakening of academic demands. Teachers coping with unruly students could not give themselves fully to instruction; those coping unsuccessfully lost the esteem of all students. A demoralization often took hold which diminished the will to set and abide by high expectations. During the late 1960's a sense of impotence overcame many of those managing and teaching in the schools, producing in turn an inanition of the purpose necessary for sustained academic effort.
In the universities, the crisis of authority did not so much involve discipline—except during moments of upheaval—as the erosion or collapse of academic standards. One hardly needs to belabor the matter, since the crisis in the universities was the most highly publicized set of events in education during the quarter-century we are considering. Academic faculties lost much of their control over curriculum, grading, intellectual standards, and above all the tacit definition of what the university ought to be. Those losses have not been made up.
One might argue, as Robert Nisbet and many others have done, that the faculties lost their authority because they did not have a strong definition of the university to begin with, that in particular the specifically pedagogical functions of higher education had been treated by many of them with derision or had at most been given lip-service. Hence there was an intellectual flaccidity, a confusion of inner purpose, which left the universities unable to defend themselves against the anti-intellectualism of the student movement. Be that as it may, the events of the late 1960's had as their primary effect—and perhaps as one of their latent purposes—a serious decline in intellectual quality.
The social sciences were the most grievously affected, in my view, especially those disciplines, such as psychology and sociology, which proved particularly attractive to the youngsters of the 1970's. Credit was given in courses where neither work nor attendance was required. In some cases instructors guaranteed an "A" grade to any student enrolling, as a protest either against the Vietnam war or merely against the competitiveness of academic life. Some courses in psychology became therapy groups, exercises in self-expression. In other instances the subject matter was entirely politicized; one of my sons, attending an Ivy League university, found that the introductory psychology course (and the only one given that year) consisted exclusively of denunciations of capitalism.
To be sure, these cases were in the minority, and the faculty as a whole, even in affected departments, did not participate or even approve. It was all seen as a kind of fever which could be left untreated, since it would ultimately run its course. The uninfected faculty thereupon retreated even further into research, or specialized graduate education, and withdrew even more decisively from the pedagogical missions of the university.
We now find that a blessed amnesia has begun to settle over us, and with it a tendency to minimize the impact of that period, on the ground that the consequences were limited. In fact, however, they were extensive, enduring, and have yet to be repaired. Consciously or otherwise, many teachers simply gave up requiring sustained effort from their students. In many instances this was done cynically, in others out of despair. Some teachers came to believe that the entire academic enterprise had been so compromised by the failure to resist student demands, that the game was no longer worth the candle. In other instances, a mood of manic zeal persuaded some teachers that they were living in a Golden Age of student achievement. College authorities told anyone who would listen that they were privileged to be teaching the most talented group of students the planet had ever seen; many students solemnly agreed.
That self-gratulation produced—or perhaps merely rationalized—the notorious grade inflation which dominated higher education, and which persists. Each year grade-point averages (GPA's) rose, ultimately to dizzying heights. In some universities the average GPA was at a level once reserved for the highest academic honors, and this forced a change in long-standing criteria for the awarding of such honors. One saw the same phenomenon, less concretely but far more vividly, in the letters of recommendation written by university teachers about students applying to graduate and professional schools. Where a few years before these letters had on the whole been positive but measured, they were now uniformly euphoric. One might read three such intoxicated letters regarding an applicant who could not compose a coherent complex sentence, and whose transcript showed that there had been no college-level instruction in mathematics or science or language or philosophy or history.
For this was the inevitable and inherent counterpart to the inflation of grades: a devalued curriculum and debased standards of achievement. There was a general retreat from required courses, or sequences of courses, and from the ideal of a general liberal education. What was most troubling was that the liberalization of the curriculum seemed to have nothing behind it, aside from the pious notion that coercion deadens enthusiasm which in turn inhibits learning. Those in favor of a core curriculum seemed too disheartened or confused to argue their case persuasively. Perhaps the most depressing experience I can remember from that period was listening to a general faculty discussion on whether we ought to institute a new bachelor's degree, the only purpose of which seemed to be to enable some students to escape requirements they found noxious, especially languages. Listening to that listless discussion made it clear that many of the faculty could no longer "remember the answers" (in Nathan Glazer's phrase), that the vision of a liberal education had been eclipsed.
The colleges not only offered junk courses of their own, but by lowering admission standards, they encouraged high schools to use junk courses for admission to the university. Or was it the other way around? Each, in any event, pulled the other down, and despite some grumbling here and there, neither objected too vehemently to the pulling down. In all likelihood, both secondary and higher education were being responsive to the same obscure but compelling forces in American life, a peculiar mixture of inflated self-esteem on the one hand and exhaustion of will on the other.
The American zeal for education also provides the energy for programs of innovation and reform. It is hard, indeed, to think of another country where so many proposals are put forward for the improvement of schooling.
The zest for reform was evident throughout the postwar period and, as always, reflected larger social and ideological preoccupations. The Conant Report of 1948 was one of the most influential documents in this century's history of education, in helping to establish the normative idea of a consolidated high school able to offer all students an abundance of opportunities. A second landmark event was the Sputnik "crisis," which led to substantial improvements in the scientific curricula, and an infusion of federal money into mathematics, science, and technological education.
These were establishment ventures, whose intention was to strengthen the existing system rather than to overturn it. In no sense were the aims utopian; they were within reach, given sufficient energy and effort. In both cases the goals were readily achieved, and became an enduring part of the American pattern of education.
The movements for reform which succeeded these—let us place them in time from about 1960 to about 1975—are not so briskly characterized, since they have moved in many different directions. But they can be discussed under two general categories, which we will call "technological" and "liberationist."
The technological category encompassed a wide variety of proposals, some narrow, some quite far-reaching, wherein we found some effort to manipulate the materials or specific processes of learning. The simplest examples involved exploiting for the classroom technical devices originally developed for other purposes. The use of cassette tapes for language and other instruction was one obvious example, as was the use of closed-circuit television in the classroom. In most instances these techniques were meant to hasten learning or extend it, but did not aim at any radical transformation of the teaching process. Although their introduction was often announced by inventors and early enthusiasts as "revolutionary," they generally survived as ancillary methods woven into the quotidian activities of the classroom.
There were other modes of technology which were—potentially—more ambitious and even radical in intention. The microcomputer was one such device, in that it might have the capacity to transform the very processes of learning, though whether it would do so remained to be seen. Another "technological" approach was programmed learning, through the systematic use of reinforcers (àla Skinner), and its close cousin, "contract teaching." Though neither of these necessarily involved mechanical or electronic devices, their aim was to rearrange and rationalize the learning process itself, basing themselves upon a technology of response acquisition.
The Skinnerian and other behavioral approaches to education were at their inception utopian, promising not merely the transformation of the classroom, but a remaking of human behavior in society itself. These approaches, however, proved themselves adaptable, in that they could be borrowed from piecemeal. It is my impression that the Skinnerian emphasis these days is seen in a more deliberate effort on the part of classroom teachers to reward students, both in general and as they acquire specific skills.
It was the second direction of reform—the liberationist—which had the more profound initial impact on education. These movements defined themselves as radical. They saw a major aim of education as the undoing of the constraints imposed by excessive socialization. They believed that conventional child-rearing chained the "true self," and with it creativity and the capacity to learn easily and joyously. Conventional education then reinforced that enchainment; it merely completed what traditional child-rearing had left undone. Liberationist writing posited—at times merely implied—a "true self" which was essentially virtuous; and it was this optimism about human nature, this tacit denial of original sin, which was part of its attraction in an era marked by political utopianism.
Liberationist writing was a bold attempt to redefine the purpose and practice of education, in part by redefinitions of human psychology. The student was to be seen not as recalcitrant, but as avid (under the correct circumstances) and the teacher was to be seen not as a drill master so much as a partner or inspirational leader. Subject matter was to take second place to the perfection of the self—the cultivation of sensitivity, creativity, and the like.
Revolutionary movements tend to be both totalistic and sectarian. That is, on the one hand they aim to produce conversion, to enlist others totally in the cause, and on the other hand a sense of exclusivity develops within the movement itself. For these reasons, the new progressivism did not take over American schooling; far from it. It proved to be self-limiting. In those few communities where it enjoyed a large constituency, there might be some effort to satisfy it by offering special programs, or by setting aside one or two special schools. But it rarely went beyond that, since the more radical the program proposed, the more certain there was to be community resistance.
Yet the liberationist movements were hardly without effect; to the contrary, they were deeply influential. They were able to give credence and respectability to the idea that the cultivation of "the total personality" was as important a goal as the acquisition of subject matter and of cognitive skills. Hence it became easier to establish course work on such topics as "family living" and "personal adjustment" in lieu of conventional offerings in history and the social sciences.
By far the major impact of liberation-ism had to do with the adversary stance it took to the existing system of public education, and to those who taught and managed that system. The messages of the movement were these: the schools were extremely dull places for the young; teachers were rigid and unimaginative, and could not engage the enthusiasm of their students; the secondary schools had as their essential but unspoken assumption keeping youngsters out of the labor market; hence they functioned as prisons, in that they contained an energetic population resentful of its confinement.
Yet even this fairly blunt paraphrase does not quite capture the contempt expressed toward schools and schoolteachers. One has to reread these writings to recall the tonalities (here again I think most of us suffer from some amnesia). The depiction of the ordinary school and the ordinary teacher was supercilious and at times scurrilous: these were held to be mean-spirited people servicing mean institutions. If the writer was himself a teacher often he would offer himself as exemplary, though of course with the usual moues of humility or self-irony. The author's students were said to learn more, to be more creative, to be suffused with the joy of learning, and to love their teacher almost beyond words.
These writers were generally young and viewed themselves as mavericks. But precisely the same attitudes could be seen in establishment figures such as Charles Silberman who, in an extremely influential book, Crisis in the Classroom (1970), took a position which Barbara Lerner quite correctly later characterized as extremist in rhetoric and messianic in claims.
When the liberationist movement was in full flower, the climate of the times was such that its diagnoses of American education proved persuasive to elite opinion, soon found their way into the mass media, became conventional wisdom, and ultimately were enshrined in the teaching of the schools of education. There was little countervailing argument. If you look through the holdings of a good public library, or a good used bookstore, you will find, abundantly, books by Silberman, John Holt, Herbert Kohl, Jonathan Kozol, Edgar Z. Friedenberg, Paul Goodman, James Herndon, George Leonard. You will find hardly anything from that era by writers representing a contrary position. If you survey the journals of opinion of that time, you find little attention given to problems of primary and secondary education, and the little there is, is sympathetic to the "reform" outlook. Most such journals limited their attention to the universities, or to the political problems in the primary and secondary schools, especially integration and busing.1
This disdainful depiction of the American schoolteacher did grievous damage to the self-esteem of many who were already uncertain about themselves and their value—a group which was not seen as "professional," or as "intellectual," or as successful in worldly terms. That loss of self-regard made it especially difficult for them to demand a disciplined effort from their students. Being portrayed as drones or jailers made many yearn to be seen as the opposite, as charismatic figures or laid-back adolescents. Young teachers in particular were tempted to embrace and exemplify the new values, and to serve as role models for advanced thinking. Here is a report by Fred Bloom, a young psychiatrist living in rural Maine:
A teacher, a woman with twenty years' teaching experience, resigned recently from the new community school in our town because she was expected to go on the "team" weekend encounter of the social-studies faculty. On the weekend, she told me, the faculty members play therapy games. Among other games, they lie on the ground and roll back and forth over one another's bodies to develop "closeness" and "trust" among the team. "I went on it last year," she said, "and besides, I can't see why, after twenty years, I have to be shown how to get along. But really, you can't get along at that school unless you go in for that kind of thing."
The liberationist movement has lost influence, at least for the moment. One suspects its success would not be repeated today—not only because of obvious changes in the political climate, but also because we would now insist that some evidence be provided for its claims. Instead, a whole new body of empirical literature has shown how much truth there is in the beliefs which the liberationist writers opposed—that learning tends to flourish in schools governed by a strong and unified leadership, that it requires an orderly environment, that mastery of a subject is in large part a function of the time spent in learning it, and that homework is important. All of these findings are "new" in that they are quite recent, but they coincide, of course, with beliefs that are quite old, not to say commonplace.
As it happens, we did know and do know many of the answers, even if we did not remember them and even if it remains unclear whether we will be able to put into practice what we know. But we were led away from these rather trite truths by the dominant intellectual writings of the 1960's. One movement of reform was, as we have seen, overly preoccupied with technique. The other movement did not see the school for what it was, or what it might realistically become, but as a simulacrum of a despised society. Both these approaches elided what we now see as central to sustained academic achievement—the internal morale marked by effort, drive, and persistence supported by purposeful leadership. Although both positions are now in some decline, they are by no means eclipsed. They draw upon two of the deepest and most enduring themes in American thinking—the love of technique and the idea of perfectibility—and one can expect that sooner or later, in one form or another, and for better or worse, they will once again be felt in the American theory of education.
"Equality" has been so obsessive a theme during the postwar era that we are liable to think of it as a permanent feature of our political landscape. Yet it has been a central issue—politically and intellectually—only at certain moments of our history. It gained vigor and attention in the 1950's, with the explosive growth of the civil-rights movement. During that period, equality came to mean racial equality—the end of systematic discrimination against blacks, particularly in the areas of electoral rights, in schools, and public facilities. These struggles having been won, indeed with surprising ease, the quest for equality moved ahead, toward the achievement of equal opportunity in such areas as housing and work, and to the extension of equality to other putatively disadvantaged groups, primarily women.
These extensions of equality enjoyed widespread and enthusiastic assent, certainly among the educated and among political liberals. But in the late 1960's we began to see not so much an extension as a transformation of the earlier idea of equality. Though that transformation drew upon some of the most ancient utopian ideals, it represented a startling new departure in the American political context and generated a bitter and continuing struggle among intellectuals.
The earlier notion of equality of opportunity involved what the late Charles Frankel termed "corrective egalitarianism"—the idea that a primary aim of social policy was to remove or modify those circumstances that disadvantaged some classes of citizens. That mode gave way to what Frankel called "redemptive egalitarianism." Whereas in the earlier understanding, one sought to give each player a more or less equal chance to succeed, in the newest conception, the fact of inequality itself was seen as unjust, in that it derived from external circumstances that favored one player over another, or from the presence of internal qualities—intelligence and drive—which the player had not "earned," or because it was itself capricious, the result of good luck and little more. That being the case, one could not say that a given person was morally more deserving of good fortune than another; and that being the case, the aim of social policy should be to minimize differences in fortune or privilege stemming from differences in achievement. The shorthand formula is now familiar: from equality of opportunity to equality of result.
The new position on equality was stated elegantly in one of the few philosophical books of our era to become famous, John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971), which was—as all commentators have agreed—a book of remarkable originality. As Frankel said, the author's purpose—"which is nothing less than to overturn two centuries of empirical, utilitarian, and positivistic philosophies"—was "breathtaking." Yet the popularity of the book among the educated, the quickness with which it seized the attention of intellectuals, had less to do with its originality than with the way it centered upon the ideal of equality. In a long and withering critique of the book, Robert Nisbet argued that the "passion for equality, first vivid at the time of the Puritan revolution, has been the essential mark of every major revolution in the West" and has in particular been the "mainspring of radicalism." Hence in an era such as the late 1960's, in which a great many intellectuals deemed themselves revolutionary, one might have expected that a book celebrating a revolutionary idea of equality should itself become celebrated.
Rawls's new doctrine did not long escape scrutiny. By drawing such considerable attention, it evoked almost immediately some brilliant displays of contra-egalitarian writing, the best known being Robert Nozick's prize-winning Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) which, roughly speaking, did for libertarianism what Rawls had done for egalitarianism. However, the main thrust of the response to Rawls came not from the libertarian movement but from the intellectuals commonly categorized as neoconservative, those associated with COMMENTARY and the Public Interest—Daniel Bell, Irving Kristol, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Charles Frankel, Robert Nisbet, to mention only a few. The major intellectual debate of the early 1970's pitted these writers against the egalitarians. The issues debated were pivotal in the fission between intellectuals in the postwar era, entirely comparable in gravity and scope to the debate about the cold war in the late 1940's. And as we might expect, the debate about equality involved, as a leading issue, a fierce argument about education.
In the traditional understanding of equality, it was posited that economic and other disadvantages acted to constrain the appearance and expression of talent. Jefferson's "natural aristocrats," ordinarily lost to the world by the accidents of privation, were to be uncovered by universal education. Schooling for all was to serve two aims—raising the level of literacy and competence in the general population, and bringing into cultivation those talents that would otherwise have lain fallow. The infusion of federal money into higher education after World War II served both goals: college training was made available to large numbers of young men, and an elite education was offered to those who qualified by virtue of intellectual merit.
Soon after the war ended, the prestigious private colleges and universities began to give up the exclusion of students by religion, ethnicity, and social background. Much the same happened at the graduate and professional level and in the recruitment of college faculty. That change took place quickly and for the most part silently—without litigation, protest, or government intervention, as though an agreement had been arrived at tacitly, based on a sense of social justice and a reckoning of the nation's needs. The example of Nazi Germany was a sufficient warning of the long-range effects of social bigotry. And beyond that, the country became aware—as did other nations—that its technical progress would depend upon the cultivation of intelligence, and that the great universities could no longer be enclaves restricted by class and caste.
The effect of that tacit decision was to open the great universities to groups previously excluded or restricted—the Jews most visibly, but also that majority of the American population which had not been so much excluded as discouraged. Access was determined by accomplishment rather than by membership in favored social groups; and accomplishment (or its potential) was determined by objective and universalistic means.
The opening of our universities proved to be a major reason for the extraordinary vitality which marked American intellectual, scientific, and artistic life during the postwar period. This country achieved leadership in many of the arts and humanities, and in almost all of the natural and social sciences. It did so, much of the time, by a seemingly effortless succession of European émigrés by native talent. And if we look closely at our indigenous "second generation" of extraordinary achievement—Nobel laureates, for example—we find that it is made up in significant degree of the previously excluded and' discouraged, the ethnics and provincials.
Nevertheless, the hegemony of merit proved to be surprisingly brief. Not that it was abandoned—it is hard to imagine that happening entirely in any technological society, or for any length of time. Yet it did lose its primacy, that unspoken assent previously given by all significant strata of the society. The term "meritocracy" soon became current—a term used pejoratively, or dismissively, certainly without much loving-kindness. The meritocracy, it was implied, was composed not of the meritorious but of those who had the knack of taking tests, or making the right moves in school, or ingratiating themselves with selection committees. Furthermore, the tests themselves were suspect, in that there was said to be no clear relationship between doing well on them and doing well later in life. Nor was there much relationship between doing well in school and later success. Perhaps success was a matter of luck, no more than a roll of the dice. The idea that social mobility was fortuitous was the theme of one of the most influential books of the period, Christopher Jencks's Inequality (1973).
These critiques might not have had so powerful an influence had it not been for race. What would otherwise have remained an argument about social class and social mobility became an argument about race, and in the process it inherited our country's complex historical legacy of racial division and bitterness. The conflation produced, among many other things, a fierce attack on intelligence testing, largely because of the false assumption that most psychometricians held blacks to be genetically inferior in intelligence. Hostility to IQ testing—much of it ignorant, or uninformed, or based on the inflation of half-truths—was then generalized to other forms of aptitude and achievement testing. That hostility soon extended to the very idea of intelligence as a measurable attribute.
A dogmatic environmentalism came to dominate most discourse on these matters among social scientists, and among much of the educated public. Differences among individuals, especially in capacity, were held to be due to socialization alone, unless proved otherwise—and the conditions for proving otherwise were essentially impossible to meet. With the passage of time, the rhetorical ante was raised, and the arguments for equality became ever more shrill. The elegant moral reasoning of a Rawls and the intricate analyses of a Jencks gave way to the vulgarity of William Ryan's Equality (1981), which held that measured variations in intelligence were a scam devised by the "very rich" to swindle the rest of us.
It was a climate in which the idea of merit could not survive, at least not the belief that native gifts, cultivated by learning and effort, would produce achievement and reward, the fruits of which would ultimately add to the common good. Instead the following propositions became commonplace: Achievement has little to do with talent, or with effort, or with schooling. Differences in ability are a fiction, or are not measurable, or are a kind of confidence trick. The ruling class makes sure that the system is rigged to protect its own kind. The gifted can take care of themselves, or are in any case not worthy of admiration or special attention. There is no reason to stress cognitive skills over all others, since to do so is a bourgeois prejudice; it takes as much intelligence to survive on the street as to solve quadratic equations.
These propositions were not often stated quite so crudely, but stated they were, and they helped establish a moral and intellectual ambience in which striving, self-discipline, and the intellectual life itself came to be devalued. That in turn produced a loss of morale which was to diminish the moral energy of the public schools.
Beginning in the middle 1960's, a great many parents became aware that something was going awry in the schools. Those with children in the middle or high schools could recognize symptoms of demoralization and loss of purpose: that drugs were sold openly and that school authorities were not doing much about it; that courses in math, science, and languages were disappearing; that students were rarely asked to write, and were given little work to bring home. Parents also began to feel that they could not get their concerns acted upon. On issues of discipline, the school principal might say that his hands were tied because of new developments in the law, or because the schools were wary of litigation. On the issue of a softened curriculum, he might point to changes in college entrance requirements, or utter pieties about bringing education up to date and keeping it in tune with the times, leading the parents to feel that they were back numbers. Or the principal might agree wholeheartedly, but then go on to say that things were not what they once were, that students were less manageable, less motivated, and that many families had become indifferent to the academic progress of their children.
That parents, and the general public, were becoming disenchanted with the quality of public education was evident from trend statistics collected by the Roper Organization during the last quarter-century.2 These showed a striking loss of confidence in the local schools during the period we are considering. In 1959, 64 percent of Americans felt that public education was doing an excellent or good job. That figure declined to 48 percent by 1978. Most of the drop took place between 1967 and 1971, when the proportion giving a favorable rating declined by eleven points, from 61 to 50 percent. We can infer what may have been involved in that loss of confidence from the Gallup figures on discipline in the schools. Those believing that the schools were too lax jumped from 39 percent in 1969 to an extraordinary 84 percent in 1978—about as close to unanimity as anyone ever achieves in opinion polling. That conclusion received distinct support from the potential targets of disciplinary toughness—the high-school students themselves, a majority of whom reported the following as "big problems": classroom disturbances (64 percent), marijuana use (60 percent), theft (56 percent), and vandalism (52 percent).
The remedies proposed for the schools also showed some startling changes. There was a sharp increase in sentiment for a greater amount of homework for high-school students, from 39 percent in 1965 to 63 percent in 1978. Many students themselves agreed: 48 percent thought the work was not hard enough, contrasted with 23 percent who believed it was too hard. Finally there was a striking jump in the number favoring competence testing: from 50 percent of the general public in 1965 to 82 percent in 1978. Once again, the students agreed. In 1977, 65 percent favored a standard examination to earn the diploma, as against 35 percent who were opposed.
These findings offered compelling testimony that the public disaffection with the schools had been felt for well over a decade, and that there was nothing whimsical about it: it had been responsive to the actual vicissitudes of American schooling, specifically the easing of both academic and disciplinary demands. But what was most striking was the extraordinary cleavage between public and elite opinion on the schools. It was during the late 1960's that a sharp decline in public confidence began showing up; and that was precisely when liberationist writing had come to dominate elite attitudes and then the media and ultimately educational practice. By the early 1970's, the public attitude had become cynical when not altogether hostile—the schools had been turned into a playpen, at times a dangerous one, where little serious learning took place. Yet these perceptions were either ignored or rejected by vanguard opinion.
In one form or another that cleavage continues—it is one of the most striking aspects of American education today that there is so little agreement among professional educators (the public is another matter) on what is wrong with the schools, how it came about, and what if anything ought to be done about it. The public's sourness about local schooling—now beginning to change, though rather slowly—is simply not shared by a great many experts in education, who may agree that there has been a decline in quality, but take it in stride, seeing it as the price to be paid for universal education.
Nor is it the question of quality alone that divides opinion. Shall we teach morality in the schools, and if so, how? The struggle over "values clarification" between some teachers and some parents has turned on the claim of the latter that under the pretext of teaching children how to think about moral issues, a program of moral relativism has in fact been inserted into the curriculum. The occasional disputes about sex education provide another example. Though the opinion polls show that most people—even those calling themselves conservative—approve of the idea of teaching youngsters about sexuality, a great many parents become uneasy or opposed if they believe that more than information is being conveyed, that social attitudes they find offensive are being taught as well.
These disputes are by no means new to the schools, which have always been an arena for the playing out of arguments about values and ideologies. Nevertheless, the quarrels now seem more intense than before, and seem to involve a larger range of issues. We may well have seen, since the middle 1960's, some loss of consensus on the functions of the schools, and on the values they are meant to embody and teach. If so, that loss of consensus would have to do with a widespread shift in values among the population at large, from "materialist" to "post-materialist."
Portents of that change have been described by social theorists for many years, from David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd (1950) to Daniel Bell's The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (1973). More recently support has come in a variety of studies, most significantly Ronald Inglehart's The Silent Revolution (1977), which presents data from most of the industrialized countries of the West.
As these nations advance into a more affluent phase, one less dominated by economic survival and fears of scarcity, material values lose their hold over large segments of the citizenry—especially those cohorts which are young and have enjoyed higher education—and are replaced by a greater emphasis upon aesthetic, intellectual, and communitarian values. It is a trend visible in all developed societies, and most striking in the most prosperous of them—Belgium, the U.S., and Switzerland. Certain political movements—environmentalism, for example, both here and abroad—can be understood fully only if we keep in mind the more general changes in sensibility they rest upon.
Of course it is not at all clear whether this shift in values will survive the moment, or, more precisely, will survive the current worldwide economic recession. Certainly some of the more flamboyant claims made for a new level of consciousness, as by Herbert Marcuse and Charles Reich, now seem—to put it generously—overstated. Nevertheless, it is quite evident that the emergence of these new values—transient or not, deeply rooted or not—had some considerable consequences for American education, not merely because new values always tend to jostle the status quo, but even more so because in this case they provided the agenda for a new and assertive constituency in American life.
That constituency is made up of a significant social cadre, often called the New Class—occupationally centered in government, education, journalism, and education, of extremely high educational attainment, and usually from affluent and educated families. It considers itself to be a part of or at least allied to the intelligentsia. The growth and evolution of this cadre were sensed, with an uncanny prescience, by a number of astute observers—Joseph Schumpeter and George Orwell, for example, but most strikingly in some early essays by Lionel Trilling, who noted its adversarial tendencies and its sense of affiliation with those elements in the literary and political culture that were hostile to the given order, which in American terms meant the business culture.
These intuitions about the New Class, which have often been dismissed as either speculative or tendentious, have now been confirmed in some remarkable social research by S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman comparing the views of the media elite (journalists working for prestigious newspapers, magazines, and television networks) with a group of high-level corporate executives. As we might expect, the former are more liberal on political and economic issues, and show more cynical attitudes toward American institutions. But the most substantial differences, by far, are to be found on moral questions—homosexuality, abortion, adultery—where the journalists give "liberal" responses three to four times as often as do the business executives.
Each group takes an adversary stance toward the other. Each sees the other as too influential, and itself as not influential enough, and each would like to replace the other in influence. This competition involves more than pride of place. Though it is an argument about politics and economics, it is also a struggle over which values will be ascendant—the ideal of self-restraint on the one hand, of individualism on the other.
Such differences, so strongly separating two segments of the upper bourgeoisie, are important to us not merely because these are strong and willful elites, but even more because that dispute has taken place, partially, in and about the schools. The mainstream culture fears the schools may be captured by those who, out of a misguided sense of compassion, are unwilling to make the demands necessary to a child's intellectual and moral growth. The modernist culture fears they are academic prisons which sustain the mercenary, authoritarian aims of the heartless elements of American society.
A few months ago, I took part in taping a series of broadcasts on the state of American secondary education. For nearly a full day, our panel of five complained about the public schools: their mediocrity, their low standards, the loss of discipline and the prevalence of drugs, legislative and judicial intrusion, the abysmal level of science and mathematics teaching, the poor quality of education majors, and much, much more.
Having listened to six hours of steady pessimism, the moderator concluded by asking the group to predict the next ten years. Every face brightened. Things would be far better: demographic trends were favorable, with fewer and more able students; social pathology showed signs of ebbing; the legislators and judges had at last learned their lesson and would leave the schools alone; SAT scores would soon rise; school administrators were feeling more confident; and parents were making themselves heard. All in all, we could look forward to a glorious decade.
As Diane Ravitch has pointed out, that fluctuating mood has been all too characteristic of American sentiment on education—our pessimism is succeeded by utopian zeal. Will it really be a glorious decade? Probably not, although the schools are indeed beginning to lift themselves from the depths of the last two decades. Chester E. Finn, Jr. thinks we may be approaching a national consensus on. the importance of educational excellence. That consensus is evident at the local level, among almost all parents and most classroom teachers, wherever we find a clear determination to elevate the quality of schooling.
Yet that resolve has been present for years, and change has been slow in coming. If you spend some time among the intellectuals of education—the writers and professors—you soon see some of the reasons. A great many of them are simply stuck in the 1960's. They believe that the widespread yearning for achievement and discipline has somehow been trumped up, that it represents a strategy to oppress minorities or to stamp out student creativity. The most powerful teachers union, the National Education Association, offers a politicized agenda for the schools, giving more stress to racial quotas in hiring than to the achievement of excellence. And many of those genuinely interested in quality want to avoid controversy, or hope to finesse the touchy issue of intellectual standards through the wonders of the technetronic age—a microcomputer at every desk.
This country deserves far better public schooling, but will get it only if it can find a way to cope with the intellectual inertia of our educational leadership.
1 Daedalus, for example, published over a hundred articles on higher education during the last quarter-century, but until last year only a handful about the schools. The shining exception is the Public Interest, which has published a steady stream of excellent articles by the most distinguished American writers on education.
2 The statistics that follow are taken from the invaluable summaries published by Public Opinion magazine (August/ September 1979, February/March 1980 and October/November 1981).


text:
Forum comment
A combined spring and shock absorber always absorbs energy whenever it moves. Although the spring returns all energy which it sites during compression, the shock absorber does not. If it didn't work that way, going over a bump would result in you continuing to bounce afterwards. The point of the absorber is to absorb unwanted energy (the vertical movement). That energy is supplied by the slowing up a you hit the bump and only the spring part is pearly returned (minus pivot frictionand the energy dissipation of the shock absorber) If the payload is cranked up high enough that the small irregularities of the road don't lead to any movement of the spring (instead the whole bike and payload moves up and over the bump.), the energy loss will be less, but so will the comfort (and perhaps wheel life if the bumps are hard andfrequent enough!)


text:
- Home
- Moto Places
- Albums
- Events
- Videos
- Classifieds
- Sponsorship
- Articles
Category: Motocross Contest & Giveaway
Tags: Fantasy MX , Fantasy SX , Fantasy Racing , Fantasy Motocross League , Fantasy Supercross League , Fantasy Motocross , Fantasy Supercross , Fantasy MX League , Fantasy SX League
6159 S Kincaid St, Bennett, US
The Premier Fantasy Racing Series of Pro Motocross and Supercross in the United States. Dedicated to providing fans, industry and fellow racers a unique opportunity to support privateers and the...
Submitted by Jeff Hopkins, updated
Category: Motocross Contest & Giveaway
Total Likes: 73
Tags: photo contest , photo of the week , t-shirt , tee shirts
PO Box 391983, Miami Beach, US
June-July 2012 - We are mixing things up a bit and running a 2 month contest because the value of this giveaway is huge! A 10 week virtual training program See Details Below:
Submitted by Iain Grae, updated


text:
In January 2007, I took office as Representative of Arkansas District 93 in the House of Representatives. As the youngest elected in the 86th General Assembly, I learned to serve the State of Arkansas alongside other Arkansas legislative leaders. Through the guidance and direction of experienced, knowledgeable legislators, I gained the tenure, and wisdom that earned the trust of my constituents.
In January 2013, after serving the limit of 6 years in the Arkansas House of Representatives, I took office as the Senator representing District 7 in the State Senate. I currently hold this office, and consider it an honor to be chosen by the people, to represent their strongest beliefs and desires in and for the state of Arkansas.
This website contains information about my personal background, life, beliefs and passions. Additionally, the issues I have tackled as an Arkansas legislator over the last 7 years as an elected official. I update the contact information and photo album to remain available to the citizens of the state of Arkansas, and I welcome questions, comments and communication at any time. Thank you for visiting my political website!


text:
- Detail Images
Running across a sun-bleached valley is way more comfortable when you don't have to feel sweat-soaked. Wear the Mountain Hardwear Women's Wicked Lite T-Shirt and enjoy the beautiful scenery without the wetness. Wicked Taper SD fabric wicks moisture quickly so you stay dry while you run, and Mountain Hardwear added an antimicrobial finish so the fabric stays fresh after multiple extended uses. Flatlock seams reduce bulk when you pair this shirt with a daypack, and a reflective trim keeps you visible to oncoming traffic after the sun sets.
- Wicked Taper SD fabric
- Antimicrobial finish
- Flatlock seams
- Reflective trim
Share your thoughts
What do you think of the
Mountain Hardwear Wicked Lite T-Shirt - Short-Sleeve - Women's
? Share a...
Wicked lite
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
- Fit: True to size
Awesomely light and the seams don't chafe, so it's *close* to wearing nothin. I wear a small in pretty much every shirt I own and this small fit really well... It's fitted but not suffocating. The neckline is not revealing, but low enough to feel feminine. It's the right length where it covers but doesn't bunch. I wear it biking, hiking, trail building (tough enough so far), running...you name it. I haven't worn it through fall or winter yet, but I imagine it will be a perfect layer--for the fall at least.
The ONLY thing that was off was the color. I ordered hibiscus expecting a more red color but I would say it's definitely a pink shirt... However it's more of a bright salmon pink, so I opted to keep it anyway.
Michelle Parker
Wicked Lite!
- Familiarity: I've used it several times
- Fit: True to size
I'm a fan of the wicked lite t-shirt material. It's light, breathable, and simple design makes it a shirt I wear all the time. Biking, hiking, and running. Love it.


text:
Gear & Equipment
TaylorMade takes 'simple' approach with Ghost Spider Si putter
"The question was, 'Can we make something simpler, something easier to look at for some, and still get the mass properties?' " says Bret Wahl, vice president of product development for irons and putters. "Not the easiest thing to do, but I think we ended up in a very good spot."
Unlike the company's Daddy Long Legs mallet, which Wahl says includes 18 components, Ghost Spider Si has just three: a cast stainless-steel frame, a lightweight-aluminum center section and the company's grooved-polymer face insert. But the simpler construction still yields the third-highest MOI in TaylorMade's line.
The counterbalanced model ($200, in lengths of 35 and 38 inches) has a 380-gram head and a 15-inch, 130-gram grip.
Jack Kinzler's club hit 'the most famous golf shot in the universe'
Friday, March 21, 2014 News & Tours Jack Kinzler's club hit 'the most famous golf shot in the universe'
Friday, March 21, 2014 Instruction Top Teacher: Guys who swing like Tiger don't lastTop Teacher: Guys who swing like Tiger don't last


text:
August 1, 2015
BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraq's government is blaming today's bombing attacks in Baghdad on insurgents linked to the Saddam Hussein regime.
The attacks came near three hotels in Baghdad that are popular with Western journalists and businessmen.
At least 37 people were killed and more than 100 injured, and the number of dead could climb.
The blasts came shortly before state TV announced the execution of a Saddam cousin known as "Chemical Ali." He'd been sentenced to death for poison gas attacks that killed thousands of Kurds.
The bombings today came about six weeks after a series of blasts
killed 127 people, and brought criticism of Iraq's government for repeated security lapses.
A government spokesman says the bombings are an "extension" of
activities of insurgents linked to Saddam's regime. But the spokesman stopped short of saying the attacks were possible revenge for the execution of Chemical Ali.
To comment, the following rules must be followed:
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content, but the station is under no legal obligation to do so.
If you believe a comment violates the above rules, please use the Flagging Tool to alert a Moderator.
Flagging does not guarantee removal.
Multiple violations may result in account suspension.
Decisions to suspend or unsuspend accounts are made by Station Moderators.
Questions may be sent to email@example.com. Please provide detailed information.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
|"Justin C. Sherrill" <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:54:08 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, June 14, 2006 9:49 am, elekktretterr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > accelerated X for which you need 3rd party drivers. I briefly installed > KDE on FreeBSD without nvidia drivers. It was ok, but GUI was slow, > redrawing windows was slow(same on DragonFly), then I installed nvidia > drivers and now it's very smooth, ready for desktop use. Sadly, there nv driver performance is that bad? I'm running with a combination of Intel onboard and old ATI cards, and 2D performance is excellent. > So basically we are back to the "It's been there for ages, sometimes > working, sometimes not, but it's BSD written so we keep it there > irrespectively of whether its crap or not". Gee, and I thought DragonFly > was progressive. I know you're frustrated, but that's no reason to get mean. Right now, we can switch out to any MTA people want, including Postfix. This fixes the problem very well, and as Adrian Nida wrote, documenting it would be very helpful. Working on that, rather than yanking Sendmail and adding Postfix, will help everyone, including non-Postfix users. (plus, it's probably easier.)


text:
Related Topics
WSJ on the Giving Pledge
The Wall Street Journal has two noteworthy pieces on the Giving Pledge, the Bill Gates-Warren Buffett effort to get billionaires to pledge half their assets to charity.
Evan Newmark has a column describing the pledges as "condescending, nearly cartoonish PR exercises – the exact opposite of good leadership." He suggests the effort is somehow linked to tax increases: "in terms of public perception, is there better cover for higher taxes than America's 'wealthy' giving their money away?"
And Michael Corkery has an item somewhat capriciously singling out some people who haven't taken the Giving Pledge. He mentions a lot of people as "missing" from the list, but makes no mention of the man he works for, Rupert Murdoch, who is also "missing," but who, since he owns the newspaper, gets a free pass from this kind of pressure or scrutiny, at least in his own paper.
by Editor | Aug 6, 2010 at 11:06 am Related Topics: Press, Taxes, Warren Buffett receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free futureofcapitalism.com mailing list
Reader comments on this item
Comment on this item
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2015 FutureOfCapitalism, LLC.
home | archives | about | mailing list | how to help | FoC @ facebook | FoC @ twitter | terms of use | privacy policy
news transparency | smartertimes


text:
Cars > Titan912S's Garage > "72Crush"
Comments on this car
Log in to post comments.
Read comments on this car
No comments have been posted on Titan912S's car.
Challenges W: 0 L: 0
1972 Chevrolet Chevelle SS (72Crush)
Last updated Jul 12, 2006
- 821 views
- comment
- forward car
- add to coolbox
3rd Owner.
Here's the rest of my cars:
Factory Options
SS, A/C, PDB, PS, tilt, gauges, console, 12-bolt posi with 2.70 gears.
True SS 350, now sports a big block 402.
Permanent Link to this Car
Cars > Titan912S's Garage > "72Crush"


text:
Business Communication- Technical Writing (ENG153)
3.0 Semester Hours
This course emphasizes technical writing basics, including defining an audience, understanding style and format, using graphic elements and visual aids, and evaluating purpose and format. Students develop business-related documents such as proposals, reports, user manuals and technical brochures. Sentence-level mechanics, conciseness, paragraph structure, organization and language precision are addressed. Collaboration and revision are emphasized.
Prereq: C or better in ENG070 or placement determined by assessment score.
Next Steps
Is this a course you want to take? Visit our online schedule to see when it's offered next and then learn how to enroll. If you still have questions, our Admissions Office is happy to help.