text:
Depart Residences on the Avenue, Step Back Into the 18th Century with a Visit to Tudor Place
Located just moments from Residences on the Avenue, Tudor Place is home to over 15,000 historical artifacts dating back as far as the mid 18-century, all of which help to explain what life in early America was like. As you visit the majestic mansion and grounds—built by Martha Washington's granddaughter, Martha Custis Peter, and her
Have Fresh Cookies Delivered to Your Door at the Residences on the Avenue from Captain Cookie & The Milkmen
The future of food has arrived, and it comes to you in the form of Captain Cookie & The Milkmen! This cookie delivery service and dessert food truck is the answer to your cookie cravings, as it specializes solely in fresh-baked cookies and glasses of milk to dip them in. While this all may sound


text:
How awesome would it be if you didn't have to splurge on newer items each season just to dress according to the weather? It's easy to transition from summer to winter wardrobe, but not quite the other way round. It can, however, be accomplished by some smart thinking on your part. As you start moving all your winter clothing to another part of the room or pack it all in suitcases to put … [Read more...]
Stylish Spring Wardrobe Must-Haves for Women
With every new season comes the urge to rebuild the wardrobe. Spring will soon be here and bring with itself new trends and several fashion updates that true fashionistas cannot do without. And while fashion keeps changing, style stays eternal. It makes sense, therefore, to work on developing your own unique style which reflects who you are, while working the latest fashion trends into … [Read more...]
Accessorizing for the Chilly Winter Season
Finding ways to keep cozy during the winter isn't our only challenge. It's one thing to stay warm, and another to look great with just the right accessories.On top that, if the weather reports are true, we're looking at an especially frigid year. So, let's look at some of the hottest ways to accessorize this season. Layering Clothing and Accessories During the colder months, there are many … [Read more...]
Daddy Gifting Guide: Get Your Father the Right Gift Each Time
It's often challenging to find the right gift for a man who has everything. Dads seem to want for nothing; while it is still easy to shop for some dads, there are others who require you to be creative enough to get the right gift each time. And with the holiday season just around the corner, our daddy gifting guide will give you some swanky gift ideas for your old man's gift needs. The Elegant … [Read more...]
Stairway to Safety: 6 Reasons Why Balustrades Are a Safe Choice for Your Home
Balustrades are a defining feature of the modern household. A stylish and safe way to encase a staircase, balcony, patio or garden, they can be a bespoke finish to homes old and new. From durable outdoor systems to elegant open plan balconies, putting safety first needn't compromise the look of your home or garden. Balustrades are the ideal solution for any home. So when considering why you … [Read more...]
10 Easy Ways of Working the Little Black Dress
Any girl who has is a regular on the social circuit would know that splurging on a new cocktail dress for every evening out can burn a rock-sized hole in her pocket. Sure, you've already bought a million cocktail dresses online over the last few months, but even those don't seem enough. Therein lies the importance of owning a well-fitting little black dress (LBD). It is this savior that helps … [Read more...]
5 Swimsuit Trends That Will Never Let You Down
Summer means the sand and the sun and not wanting to come out of your pool or the beach. It is also the time to update your swimming suit collection and wear some trendy pieces to revel in style this season. This is no uphill task for those who regularly buy new bathing suits every now and then and are abreast with the latest fashion trends that are doing the rounds. But what about the rest? If … [Read more...]
Barely There bra is simply The One
When I was sent the Simply The One bra from Barely There I thought yeah right. They all say they are the one bra you'll ever need, but in all honesty this one is pretty darn close. I say that because I never ever say 1 bra can do it all because we all know that we have bras for different reasons. However, for an everyday running around need a comfy bra the Simply The One bra is a great … [Read more...]
Top Tips to Purchase Swimming Costumes Online
As you've most likely officially found for yourself, shopping online for swimming outfit dress and other swimwear garments can be heaps of fun. Really, its scarcely astounding that such a variety of individuals are turning to the Internet for their shopping needs. If at any time you wish to overhaul your closet, you'll discover web shopping to be a significant asset, especially for the individuals … [Read more...]
Skater Skirt
Winter time is about getting yourself bundled up and prepared for the weather, and that can be tough to stay girly and chic when you want to stay warm. I'm here to say there are ways to get yourself girly in a winter way. The latest in fashion is a skater skirt. It's an a-line shorter skirt that really flatters everyone. You can do it in leather, faux leather, wool, cotton etc. I mean the … [Read more...]
Radiant orchid Pantone 2014 color of the year
Last week PANTONE® released the color of the year for 2014, and it has taken a dramatic turn from 2013's emerald green. It's a light purple/lilac color called Radiant Orchid. This color while very feminine packs a punch with its crisp clean femininity. Although it can be seen more as a springtime color, I think it will show itself as an all year round color as we begin 2014. As you will see as … [Read more...]
Wear a little red
As I've said on many different occasions red is the way to go. Yes it's my favorite color, but there's no better time to step out in red then right now. It's the holiday season and red is an all around festive color, so why not add it to your look. You can add a little or a lot, or even a whole outfit, whatever way you decide to go I promise red will make you feel chic and stylish. A little red … [Read more...]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Algebraic Topology: An Introduction
Springer New York, Oct 19, 1989 - Mathematics - 292 pages
William S. Massey Professor Massey, born in Illinois in 1920, received his bachelor's degree from the University of Chicago and then served for four years in the U.S. Navy during World War II. After the War he received his Ph.D. from Princeton University and spent two additional years there as a post-doctoral research assistant. He then taught for ten years on the faculty of Brown University, and moved to his present position at Yale in 1960. He is the author of numerous research articles on algebraic topology and related topics. This book developed from lecture notes of courses taught to Yale undergraduate and graduate students over a period of several years.
What people are saying - Write a review
Review: Algebraic Topology: An IntroductionUser Review - Geoffrey Lee - Goodreads
This book essentially covers the first section of Hatcher and maybe the latter half of Munkres. I regret not finding this book earlier when I was still learning the subjects the book presents, but ... Read full review


text:
Music blog
Lyrics/song texts are property and copyright of their owners and provided for educational purposes only.
Someone Like Me Lyrics
We are sorry, but we don't have lyrics for that song.
If you want to submit lyrics - please use "Send corrections" form
Cheaper by the Dozen Song List
›These are Days
10,000 Maniacs
›Life is a Highway
Tom Cochran
›Conant Gardens
Slum Village
›I'm Just a Kid
Simple Plan
›Alright, Alright
Sahara Hotnights
Fountains of Wayne
David Usher
›In Too Deep
Sum 41
›Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree
Brenda Lee
›Rockin' Robin
Jackson 5
›What Christmas Should Be
Hilary Duff
›Classical Gas (Instrumental) (Instrumental)
Mason Williams
›Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: 'O Fortuna' from Carmina Burana
Orchestre symphonique de Montreal
›Guajira (I Love U 2 Much)
Yerba Buena
›Someone Like Me
Lea Longo
›Back Again
Mr. Cheeks
›People Come Together
›Ninety-Nine Bottles of Beer on the Wall


text:
Recent historical discoveries about northern Palestine of two millennia ago reveal how radical Jesus's message was, what risks he was asking his followers to take, and why he was arrested and crucified as an insurrectionist when he ventured south to Jerusalem, says Rev. Howard Bess.
Tag Archive for Jesus
Jesus, the Radical Economist
If the teachings of Jesus were really taken seriously, the Christian Right wouldn't be devoting so much time to protecting the wealth of the wealthiest. True Christians would be demanding redistribution of the world's riches in ways far more radical than modern politicians would dare propose, as Rev. Howard Bess explains.
Hiding the True Jesus
In reshaping American politics and society, the Christian Right has applied a distorted version of Jesus's teachings, downplaying his pacifism and his contempt for wealth while emphasizing later revisions that didn't threaten the powerful. That's why Rev. Howard Bess says the search for the true Jesus is crucial.
Render to Caesar, Extraordinarily
Exclusive: On Good Friday, Christians observe the brutal torture and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of Roman occupiers, but many modern Christians don't mind when it's "their" side doing the extraordinary renditions of alleged subversives to be tortured and sometimes killed, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern notes.
Misunderstanding Jesus's Execution
From the Archive: Over the centuries as Christianity bent to the interests of the rich and powerful, the story of Jesus's fateful week in Jerusalem was reshaped to minimize perhaps its central event, his overturning of the money tables at the temple, a challenge to the merging of religious and political power, says Rev. Howard Bess.
Hunt for the Historical Jesus
For years there has been a debate over not only who Jesus was but whether he existed. Historians remain split on many Jesus-related questions – and the issue is fraught with religious overtones – but Rev. Howard Bess believes enough is now known about Jesus to put him in context for his (and our) times.
What Kind of Christianity Is This?
Though founded by a pacifist, Christianity has justified some of the most brutal slaughters in human history, from the wars of the late Roman Empire to the Crusades to the Inquisition to world wars to genocides against "heathens," Muslims and Jews. Yet, Gary G. Kohls says the essence of Christianity can still be reclaimed.
Occupying Jesus and His Church
It is an inconvenient truth for mainstream and right-wing Christians that Jesus was crucified for taking his protest against income inequality to the power center of Jerusalem, where he challenged how money had perverted religious principles. Now, that tension is returning with the Occupy protests, Rev. Howard Bess says.
Would Jesus Join the Occupy Protests?
In the holiday season, many Christians take pride in helping the poor – by donating food and toys – but U.S. religious leaders have stayed in the background of challenges to an inequitable economic system, leaving that Jesus work to mostly secular young people of the Occupy movement, the Rev. Howard Bess observes.
Explaining Wayward Christianity
The core crisis of Christianity is how could a religion based on the teachings of Jesus, who called for peace through love and generosity to the poor – and who disdained the rich – have grown so tolerant of war, greed and inequality. The Rev. Howard Bess traces this conundrum to the Church's early days.


text:
Previous Cartoon | Next Cartoon
Barbie: A Fashion FairytaleBarbie: A Fashion Fairytale (2010) by Dave Koch
This page has been viewed 6 times this month, and 4181 times total.
- Mattel, Mattel Entertainment, Rainmaker Entertainment
- Distributed by: Universal Studios Home Entertainment
- Cartoon Characters: Barbie, Ken, Marie-Alecia "Alice", Aunt Millicent, Jacqueline, Delphine, Teresa, Grace, Raquelle, Shyne, Shimmer, Glimmer, Sequin, Paris Taxi Driver, Jacques, Jilliana, Lulu, Lilliana Roxelle, Hotdogeteria Guy, Wicked Queen, Movie Director, Spencer, Farmer, Zombie Peas, Fashionable Woman, Incidentals.
- Voice Actors: Diana Kaarina, Adrian Petriw, Tabitha St. Germain.
- Directed By William Lau.
- Produced By Shelley Dvi-Vardhana, Kylie Ellis, Shawn McCorkindale, David Wiebe, Kim Dent-Wilder, Rob Hudnut.
- Animated By Daniel Broverman, Oscar Lo, Grant Wilson, Ricardo Rodrigues, Genevieve Lacombe, Colin Oleksyn, Larry Anderson, Alice Kramer, Gino Nichele, Allen LeCorre, Bong Macarayan, Jody Prouse; more Animators ...
- Written By Elise Allen.
- Awards: Nominee, Leo Award, Best Animation Program or Series, Kim Dent-Wilder and Shawn McCorkindale, 2011, Nominee, Leo Award, Best Overall Sound in an Animation Program or Series, Ryan Nowak (Sound Designer), Joe Watts (Re-Recording Mixer), Bill Mellow (Re-Recording Mixer) and Kelly Cole (Re-Recording Mixer), 2011.
- Music: BC Smith, Bryon Rickerson, Edgardo Simone.
- Editor: Sylvain Blais, Duncan Rochfort.
- Originally Released on September 14, 2010.
- Direct to Video Release.
- Running Time: 79 minutes.
- Color
- U.S.A. / Canada
Cartoon Summary:
Barbie leaves behind her acting career and her friend Ken to travel to Paris and help her Aunt Millie. Millie runs a fashion design house that has received bad reviews and is about to close up shop for good. Barbie and Millie's assistant, Alecia, enlist the help... (more)
Cartoon Production Information:
CGI animated.
Soundtrack: "Life is a Fairytale," Performed by Tiffany Giardina.
Watch Cartoon Video:
You can watch this cartoon today on your computer. Just click below to start viewing "Barbie: A Fashion Fairytale" online now.
Submit Additional Information:
Do you have anything to add to this page? Have we made any mistakes... or do you have any additional information about Barbie: A Fashion Fairytale? If so, we would love to hear from you. Please send us a quick note with your additions or corrections to this page, and we will make the corrections as soon as possible!
Cartoon Comments:
Do you love Barbie: A Fashion Fairytale, or do you think it is the worst cartoon ever? Let us know what you think! Surely you have an opinion... so share what you think. Take a minute and post your own comments about this cartoon here.


text:
Posts seem to conflict in their description of how best to get web.config settings into an Azure worker role. Some posts say you need to create WaIISHost.exe.config, set output to always then copy relevant web.config info to that file. Other posts describe creation of app.config instead of WaIISHost.exe. Which is correct?
The answer to this depends a bit on the version of the SDK you are using. First and foremost, the WaIISHost.exe.config is only applicable to Web Roles (not worker roles). Worker Roles use and continue to use app.config for their configuration settings. I am going to assume here that you are trying to configure a Web Role's RoleEntryPoint in config settings.
Now, for Web Roles: If you are using the latest SDK (1.8 at time of writing), you will find that creating a WaIISHost.exe.config file (and copy local, etc.) no longer works. Something has changed in the latest SDK and it will no longer pull those values. For earlier versions of the SDK, this is still how you do it. For the latest version (and likely next versions) 1.8, you can create an app.config. When you do that, it will actually create a file in your bin directory like "WebRoleProjectName.dll.config". You DO NOT have to create this file manually yourself and "Copy Local". Simply create the app.config like you normally would and you will find that your RoleEntryPoint in the Web Role can be configured just fine like that.
In your previous SO post, I suggested that you would need to spend some time to understand both Windows Azure websites and Windows Azure Cloud services as you are mixing together.
Like above you are mixing web and worker role together. WaIISHost.exe is the Windows Azure Web Role Host process which is responsible for loading and running your Web Role DLL. This process has nothing to do with Worker role because it is not even existing in a Windows Azure Worker Role. This process will be only available to Web Roles. And because of that your question above "WaIISHost.exe.config vs. app.config for worker role config" is irrelevant.
App.config configuration is used with both Web Role and Worker Role, however web.config is only used with your web application. So if you want to configure Roles only you can use app.config (both with web and worker role) however for web site configuration you can use web.config.
IF you just write what your final objective is in simple word, you sure will get exact assistance and suggestion on how to do it.


text:
Whe you choose a book to read do you go by someone else's recommendation or do you just pick what interests you?
i usually choose what interests me. i have a few books that were recommended to me by my ex and although they were good i am not sure if its my true pick of good reading material.
Best Answer
Both. As a fall back choice I always keep a Harlequin for when I'm in between other books.
Best Answer
Sometimes one and sometimes the other.
Best Answer
I read reviews
Best Answer
Related Questions
I'm a big book reader. What's one of the greatest books you have ever read? How did it affect you? Mine is catch 22 :)
Crisis in Black and White. by Charles E. Silberman
AllegorieBootlair 51-55, M 0 Feb 20, 2014 in Dating & Relationships
MaiaTheBroken 18-21, F 1 Answer 2 Jan 25, 2013 in Community
ImmaSlender 18-21, M 4 Answers 3 Jan 25, 2013 in Community
MrHazeinCherubsGrace 26-30, M 2 Answers 2 Jan 25, 2013 in EP
PS: This question is copied, help me win and win free bacon
SilenceEvermore 22-25 9 Answers 3 Sep 3, 2013 in Doing Good


text:
Popular Subjects
Sign up for an exclusive coupon good on your next order.
By signing up you enjoy subscriber-only access to the latest news,
personalized book picks and special offers, delivered right to your inbox.
We never share your information and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Advanced Search
See All
from $0.99
from $5.84
See All
from $0.99
from $7.73
See All
from $2.10
from $10.84
See All
from $0.99
from $3.88
See All
from $0.99
from $0.99
See All
from $2.50
from $6.23
Copies not related to any edition.
(What is this?)
The ISBN system was devised beginning in 1967, and books published prior to then don't have "editions" associated with them. It's very similar with movie, music and video game UPCs. It's also possible that a seller listed an item with us and didn't include an ISBN/UPC with the listing. You'll find items like this by clicking this link.
I know of another edition. Why isn't it showing here?
We may not have all editions of this item currently in stock. Please double-check your search terms for accuracy, and check back often, as our inventory changes frequently.
With just a couple of cursory listens to the few tracks that popped up all over the Internet through 2007, comparisons were made between Adele, the ...
Show synopsis
With just a couple of cursory listens to the few tracks that popped up all over the Internet through 2007, comparisons were made between Adele, the much-hyped brassy British songstress, and Amy Winehouse, the...much-hyped brassy British songstress. However, after a solid listen to 19, the first full sampling by the up-and-coming Adele, listeners are forced to throw all comparisons to the wind; Adele is simply too magical to compare her to anyone. Bluesy like it's no one's business yet voluptuously funky in a contemporary way, Adele rocks out 19 with a unique voice and gritty sound that dazzle endlessly. Synthesizing blues, jazz, folk, soul, and even electric pop, Adele mystifies through her mature songwriting skills and jaw-dropping arrangements. As the album opens with "Daydreamer," Adele's illusionary instrument -- over minimal sounds -- engulfs the listener with a gorgeous feeling of awe and wonderment. On "Melt My Heart to Stone" and the bona fide hit "Chasing Pavements," Adele allows herself to soar over the strings and power her way through these incredible songs. The upbeat "Right as Rain" is just wonderful, with clear Ashford & Simpson influences speckled all over it in an upbeat set. Nearly all the tracks seem to have been nurtured to glory over months as labors of love. What's simply awesome on 19 is its capability to capture the listener through mere teasing; Adele doesn't shout for attention, and doesn't rely on anyone but herself to prove she's worth it, in the same vein as Sara Bareilles, another heavily praised artist of 2007. The jazzy "Best for Last" is as retro as the tunes get on the album, yet it still manages to steer away from being boring or old-fashioned. The only awkwardness throughout all of 19 is the overly poppy galactic "Tired," which sounds as though it might have fallen off a Lily Allen track list, something that doesn't suit Adele as a musician. As far as artistic drive goes, it seems as though Adele is hoping to capitalize on the sounds of 2007 by borrowing elements of Feist, Regina Spektor, Norah Jones, and even, yes, Amy Winehouse; yet Adele blends all the artistic pizzazz of all those ladies into her own set of manipulative, glamorous wonder. Plus, as a terrific songwriter at merely 20 years of age, the Brit has so much room to expand her artistic dimensions into a full-fledged artist that it's no wonder most critics see her as the top new talent of 2008. This debut isn't an empty promise of a great career; 19 is a fleshed-out stunning portrayal of a young woman with a talent beyond her years who deserves immense credit for a unique style that never fails. A beyond stellar debut in both quality and originality. ~ Matthew Chisling, Rovi
Hide synopsis
2 discs
1 disc
Do not like any on the music, put it immediately into the goodwill bin
See All Reviews of 19 by Adele
Subscribe now for coupons, newsletters, and more!
Let's Get Social
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Recommendations by Simularity |
Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Alibris. All rights reserved.
Alibris, the Alibris logo, and Alibris.com are registered trademarks of Alibris, Inc.
Portions of content provided by Rovi Corporation. © 2016 Rovi Corporation.


text:
Moving In - Procter & Gamble's Plan for an Eastern Panhandle Plant
February 27, 2015 -Procter & Gamble's plan for an Eastern Panhandle plant is considered the biggest investment in the state's history, but it didn't happen overnight. Ask just about anyone in the past several years what would cure all that ails West Virginia, and the answer typically would be more high paying jobs. If the Feb. 10 announcement made by Procter & Gamble is any indication, the Mountain State might well be on its way to recovery. Government officials happily announced an estimated $500 million, one million square foot manufacturing facility P&G is bringing to Berkeley County in the Eastern Panhandle.Full Story
Proctor & Gamble to Open Facility in Berkeley County
February 10, 2015 - Procter & Gamble, a Wall Street heavweight that produces a broad range of consumer goods ranging from Gillette razors to Tide laundry detergent, said Tueday it is opening a manufacturing facility in Berkeley County. Expected to open in 2017, the "multi-category"facility represents a $500 million investment that will create 700 full-time jobs at the Tabler Station Business Park south of Martinsburg, according to announcements by the company and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin.Full Story
Berkeley County beats 40 potential sites in landing Procter & Gamble plant
February 10, 2015 -Charleston, WV — West Virginia beat out several states and dozens of other potential sites for the $500-million Procter & Gamble manufacturing plant to be built along Interstate 81 in Berkeley County.
"They began with over 40 sites identified across the entire northeast and began a process with us over a year and a half ago," state Commerce Secretary and Development Office executive director Keith Burdette said during a Tuesday news conference at the state capitol. "We competed against bigger and wealthier states with a lot more flat property than we have." Full Story
Berkeley County is the second largest county in West Virginia with a population of 104,160 which is a 37.2% increase from a population of 75,905 in 2000.
West Virginia had to nation's most improved economy in 2008, based on its 46th place ranking in 2007 and its sixth place ranking in 2008.
West Virginia leads the nation in terms of technology and Internet in the classroom.
Cost of living and home prices are among the lowest in the nation.
West Virginia is #1 in exporting electricity and coal in the Nation.
West Virginia has some of the lowest electricity rates in the country.
For a listing of local resources willing to work with you to locate your business in Berkeley County; provide training for your employees; or just about any business related issue click here. +More
Business Assistance Programs
West Virginia's highest priority is meeting your company's needs by providing aggressive development assistance in the form of tax credits and financing programs.
+ More (pdf)
Business Taxes Overview
Learn more about West Virginia's business friendly tax environment.
+ More (pdf)
300 Foxcroft Avenue
Suite 201
Martinsburg, WV 25401
Phone: (304) 267-4144
fax: (304) 267-2283
The Berkeley County Development Authority meets the second Wednesday of each month at 9:30 a.m. The meeting takes place in the conference room of the Authority at 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 201, Martinsburg, WV. For a copy of the agenda click here. If you have questions or need additional information, please call 304-267-4144.


text:
With Bated Breath: September19
September 1, 2012 by Heidi
Fall has finally arrived!! And with it come an insane amount of fantastic new releases…September and October are both riddled with books I'm looking forward to. It may well take me till next September to get through them!
Check them out and watch the trailers—particularly those for The Diviners and The Raven Boys. Both of these are fantastic! Also, check out the trailer for Carnival of Souls, which was exclusive at Entertainment Weekly. Breed looks totally creepy, and all's I can think when watching the In a Fix trailer is 'Wow! That's some clumpy mascara.'
Really happy for Kate Milford who raised the money to self-publish this new series on Kickstarter (love that website), and I'm oh so excited to pick up the sequel to Elizabeth Miles' debut, Fury. I hate the cover changes for Fathomless from the previous books, but it's made up for by the vast improvement in the cover of Monstrous Beauty. I've already finished Shadowfell and The Brides of Rollrock Island and will be posting reviews in the next several weeks. Spoilers: they're wonderful.
September 1st
The Dark Unwinding by Sharon Cameron | Goodreads|Amazon
The Kairos Mechanism by Kate Milford | Goodreads|Clockwork Foundry
The Black Count: Glory, Revolution, Betrayal and the Real Count of Monte Cristo | Goodreads|Amazon
September 1st/4th
Henry Franks by Peter Adam Salomon | Goodreads|Amazon
Safekeeping by Karen Hesse | Goodreads|Amazon
Breed by Chase Novak | Goodreads|Amazon
September 4th
Envy by Elizabeth Miles | Goodreads|Amazon
My Book of Life by Angel by Martine Leavitt | Goodreads|Amazon
Fathomless by Jackson Pearce | Goodreads|Amazon
The Edge of Nowhere by Elizabeth George | Goodreads|Amazon
What Came From the Stars by Gary D. Schmidt | Goodreads|Amazon
In a Fix by Linda Grimes | Goodreads|Amazon
Carnival of Secrets by Melissa Marr | Goodreads|Amazon
Monstrous Beauty by Elizabeth Fama | Goodreads|Amazon
The Seven Tales of Trinket by Shelley Moore Thomas | Goodreads|Amazon|My Review
September 4th/8th
Blackwood by Gwenda Bond | Goodreads|Amazon
Pickle: The Formerly Anonymous Prank Club of Fountain Point Middle School by Kim Baker | Goodreads|Amazon
The City's Son by Tom Pollock | Goodreads|Amazon
September 11th
Silhouette of a Sparrow by Molly Beth Griffin | Goodreads|Amazon
Shadowfell by Juliet Marillier | Goodreads|Amazon
The Brides of Rollrock Island by Margo Lanagan | Goodreads|Amazon
The White Forest by Adam McOmber | Goodreads|Amazon
One Year in Coal Harbor by Polly Horvath | Goodreads|Amazon
Unspoken by Sarah Rees Brennan | Goodreads|Amazon
September 11th/18th
Vessel by Sarah Beth Durst | Goodreads|Amazon
The Dangerous Animals Club by Stephen Tobolowsky | Goodreads|Amazon
Stormdancer by Jay Kristoff | Goodreads|Amazon
Ten by Gretchen McNeil | Goodreads|Amazon
What's Left of Me by Kat Zhang | Goodreads|Amazon
The Diviners by Libba Bray | Goodreads|Amazon
A Corner of White by Jaclyn Moriarty (Aussie Release) | Goodreads|Fishpond
Glass Heart by Amy Garvey | Goodreads|Amazon
Burn for Burn by Jenny Han & Siobhan Vivian | Goodreads|Amazon
The Peculiar by Stefan Bachmann | Goodreads|Amazon
Adaptation by Melinda Lo | Goodreads|Amazon
The Raven Boys by Maggie Stiefvater | Goodreads|Amazon
September 25th/27th
The Other Normals by Ned Vizzini | Goodreads|Amazon
The Hallowed Ones by Laura Bickle | Goodreads|Amazon
The Casual Vacancy by J.K. Rowling | Goodreads|Amazon
That concludes the extensive list of September new releases I'm looking to check out—let me know what I missed and what you're most looking forward to!
If you liked that you might like this:
Category With Bated Breath | Tags: new releases, With Bated Breath


text:
AdBlock blows! Please disable the add-on to ensure you get the most out of Tube8's features and functionality. Read about why you shouldn't use AdBlock. Close
Add to Favorite List:
Create a new folder:
Next »
Hazedgirl Rush Coed Sale
Recognize a pornstar in this video?
Help make pornstars easier to find on Tube8 by telling us who is in this video.
Thanks! The pornstar names will be added to this video when enough users submit the same names.
You must enter a pornstar name that already exists in our database.
- Category: Amateur
- Views: 34,969
- Added: 3 years ago
- Description: This weeks video features an auction hosted by the sisters at , The girls needed to make some quick cash
- Tags: young, real, latino, teens, amatuer, brunettes, homemade
- Pornstars: Add Pornstar
- Favorite by: 61
- Featured: 3 years ago
- Report This Video
Video Comments
All Video Comments (0)


text:
Wedding directory
- Beauty Salons
- Bridal Boutiques
- Cake Makers and Decorators
- Churches
- Discos and Mobile Entertainers
- Dressmaking and Tailoring
- Jewellery
- Limousine Hire
- Marquee Hire
- Menswear Hire
- Photographers
- Travel Agents
- Wedding Cars
- Wedding Caterers
- Wedding Favours
- Wedding Flowers
- Wedding Hairstylists
- Wedding Services
- Wedding Stationery
- Wedding Venues
AnnouncementsBook announcement
Forthcoming MarriagesSarah & Edward BURCHAM and RENDELL
SARAH BURCHAM & EDWARD RENDELL Jane and Ray Burcham are delighted to announce the marriage of their daughter Sarah to Edward Rendell on Saturday 31st October at St Mary's Church, Rodbourne Cheney at 12 noon. With all our love and much happiness…
Wedding AnniversariesJan WILLIS
Jan Willis You are an amazing person and without you I don't know where I'd be. Having you in my life completes and fulfils every part of me. Happy 28th Anniversary. All my love, now and forever John xxx
Forthcoming MarriagesGemma and Byron FERRIS & MULDOWNEY
FERRIS & MULDOWNEY Both families have great pleasure in announcing the marriage of GEMMA and BYRON on Saturday 19th September 2015 at St Marks Church, Swindon Congratulations and every happiness for your future Lots of love from Mum & Dad,…
GoldenCeleste & Pasquale MARCARELLA
CELESTE & PASQUALE MARCARELLA GOLDEN WEDDING ANNIVERSARY on 28th August Many congratulations on 50 years of a long and happy marriage. Lots of love from your children Pasqualina, Claudia, Antonio, Giovanna, Tina, Grandchildren and Partners xx
Wedding news
Wedding of Katie Eels and Thomas Griffiths
MISS Katie Selina Louise Eels and Mr Thomas James Griffiths were married on Saturday, August 15 at St Michael and All Angels Church, Kington St Michael, in a service conducted by the Rev Gillian Parkin.
Wedding of Aquila New and Gareth Brown
AQUILA New, of Ramsbury and Gareth Brown, of Newbury were married Saturday, July 18 in Ramsbury church.
Wedding of Victoria Keefe and Wayne Bradfield
caption: Victoria Keefe and Wayne Bradfield Photo: Les Griffin
Wedding: Victoria Keefe and Wayne Bradfield
caption: Victoria Keefe and Wayne Bradfield Photo: Les Griffin
Wedding of Samantha Jane Fairbrother and Michael David Garner
Miss Samantha Jane Fairbrother and Mr Michael David Garner were married on May 23 at St Mary's Church, Collingbourne Kingston.


text:
A little more than two hours ago, a fairly monumental day at the Supreme Court got underway. Two big boxes of opinion were brought out signaling at least two, and perhaps as many as four, new decisions were going to be announced. It was only two, but they are huge and critically important decisions King v. Burwell, better known as the "Obamacare case", and Texas Dept of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, better known as the Fair Housing case.
Both King and Texas Housing are big, and both have been the cause of serious apoplexy and fear among liberals and progressives. And both were decided very much in the favor of the liberal position, so it was a very good day on both issues.
First off is King v. Burwell, and the full opinion is here. It is a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts. Many people seem shocked that the majority was 6-3. I am not. While I thought the challenger King plaintiffs had a cognizable legal argument, it always struck me as a losing one, and one the Chief Justice was unlikely to sign off on after his sleight of hand to keep the ACA alive in the earlier NFIB case.
Similarly, though Anthony Kennedy was a bigger concern because of his states rights history, he has a long history on protecting citizens on social justice issues (which is why we are about to get marriage equality, maybe as soon as tomorrow). And, once Obamacare was upheld in NFIB, and all the millions of additional Americans had been given health insurance access (which, let us keep in mind, is still different than actual healthcare), it really became a social justice issue, and thus one Kennedy would be very troubled to strip away.
As to the general overview, Rick Hasen at Election Law Blog has a great summary:
Before the case, so much ink was spilled (and more virtual ink virtually spilled) on the question of deference to the IRS's interpretation of ambiguity under the statute (under the so-called "Chevron" doctrine) as well as principles of federalism, which were used to argue for results for and against the Administration in the case. There were also questions about the standing of various plaintiffs. There were arguments about the intent of the drafters, and what MIT economist Gruber said, or may have said, or may have misspoken about the way the law was supposed to work. In the end, the Court rejected application of Chevron deference to the IRS and federalism made no appearance. Nor did standing or Gubert get discussed. Instead the Court's analysis went basically like this:
The question whether tax subsidies applied to poor people in states that did not set up their own health care exchange is important, so important that it is hard to believe that Congress would have delegated that question to an agency (and particularly to the IRS, whose job it is to collect revenue not design health care policy). So there is no "Chevron" deference on the question. The court has to use its tools of statutory interpretation to decide the case. The law, read as a whole, is ambiguous. It is certainly possible to read the challenged language as giving subsidies only to people in state exchanges and not in the federal exchange. But there are other parts of the law, read in context, that only make sense if subsidies apply to those in state or federal exchanges. In such an ambiguous case, it is the purpose of the law that should govern. "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter."
Go read all of Rick's post, it is also notable for its explanation as to why King is likely the last word on the ACA as a viable entity and Obamacare is here to stay. I concur.
I would like to point out one aspect of the King decision I find particularly rewarding – the lack of attention to all the extrinsic noise that has been generated over the many months the King case was pending by all the crazed pundits on both sides of the issue at heart. Absent was all the relentless sturm and drang about standing, loss of standing, federalism, what Hans, err Jon, Gruber said or didn't say, post hoc interviews with Congress members, their staff and lobbyists and what it meant, and all other sundry sorts of faux legislative history by people that apparently would not recognize real "legislative history" if it hit them in the butt. That is very satisfying thing for somebody that thinks appellate decisions should, at their core, be based on the statutes, precedence and the record on appeal.
For this I am thankful for the clarity and cleanliness of Roberts opinion. As a side note, the majority's scuppering of the Chevron basis has created a side issue among us in the legal chattering class as to whether it signals a weakening of the "Chevron Doctrine". Rick seems to think there is a fundamental weakening here. I am not so sure of that at all, even though I have had sincere problems with Chevron pretty much as long as I have been practicing law, as it gives far too much deference to often out of control administrative agencies, and the appellate burden is very onerous to overcome bad administrative rulings.
We shall see how the components of today's decision in King play out in the future, but it was a very good day for the law, and the ACA, today.
The second, and also huge, case handed down today is the Texas Fair Housing decision, and the full opinion is here. Although it will be overshadowed today by the more famous (infamous?) King Obamacare decision, the Texas case is absolutely critical to the ability to fight and control discrimination.
As the excellent Lawrence Hurley reports for Reuters:
On a 5-4 vote in a major civil rights case, the court decided that the law allows for discrimination claims based on seemingly neutral practices that may have a discriminatory effect. Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, joined the court's four liberals in the majority.
The ruling also was a triumph for President Barack Obama and his administration, which had backed Inclusive Communities Project Inc, a nonprofit group in Texas that claimed the state violated the law by disproportionately awarding low-income housing tax credits to developers who own properties in poor, minority-dominated neighborhoods.
Although a broad win for civil rights advocates on the legal theory, Kennedy, writing for the court, indicated in the ruling that the Texas plaintiffs could ultimately lose when the case returns to lower courts.
The court was considering whether the 1968 law allows for so-called disparate impact claims in which plaintiffs only need to show the discriminatory effect of a particular practice and not evidence of discriminatory intent. There was no dispute over the law's prohibition on openly discriminatory acts in the sale and rental of housing.
Kennedy wrote that Congress indicated in 1988 when it amended the law that it intended disparate impact claims to be available.
"It permits plaintiffs to counteract unconscious prejudices and disguised animus that escape easy classification," Kennedy added.
Kennedy also made clear there are limits to the types of claims that can be brought, saying that "statistical disparity" alone is not enough. Plaintiffs must "point to a defendant's policy or policies causing that disparity," Kennedy added.
As Adam Serwer said on Twitter (here and here), "banks and insurance companies have been trying to tee up this case for years because they thought the Roberts court would rule in their favor" and "without this law, it's unlikely any of the banks would have paid any price for trapping minorities in bad loans regardless of credit". That is right. But it goes further than that, the "disparate impact" claim is one of the most important tools available to fight discrimination that may not be apparent on the face of a cagily crafted provision or business model policy, but which nevertheless is effected by it. Discriminatory animus has gotten very sophisticated, and this tool under the Fair Housing Act of 1968 is necessary to have to fight it.
Texas Fair Housing was a 5-4 decision authored, somewhat surprisingly, by Anthony Kennedy where he joined the four justices of the "liberal bloc". It is yet another indication of where Tony Kennedy is on "social justice" issues, again a trend that augurs well for marriage equality. We shall know soon enough!
The moment of truth has finally come on the long and tortured path through the Supreme Court for the marriage equality movement. Without further adieu, the Defense Of Marriage Act has been struck down as unconstitutional under Equal Protection grounds in a 5-4 opinion authored by Anthony Kennedy. A lack of standing has been found by the court in the California Hollingsworth v. Perry Prop 8 case, thus meaning the case will revert to the Ninth Circuit decision.
Frankly, everybody in the universe is going to have instantaneous analysis and opinion on the nature and import of these two decisions. I will likely be along with the same on particular aspects later, but for now I want to get the decisions and opinions up here so that one and all can read and discuss them. Below I will give the links to the opinions and the critical language blurbs from each.
United States v. Windsor (DOMA): Here is the opinion. As stated above, it is a 5-4 split authored by Justice Kennedy, joined by the liberal bloc of Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito dissent in separate dissents written by Roberts and Scalia.
The opinion is very broad in range and focuses on Section 3 of DOMA, which will effectively obliterate the law. The key holding comes at the end of Kennedy's majority opinion:
DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA in- structs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the mar- riages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Hollingsworth v. Perry (Prop 8): Here is the opinion. As stated above, the court found a lack of standing by the appellants Hollingsworth (Prop 8 Proponents). ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which SCALIA, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. So, just to be clear here: The liberals are the reason the court could not issue a decision granting ALL Americans the right to marriage equality that citizens in California, and the other few states who have state law marriage equality, will enjoy.
Anthony Kennedy, by his crystal clear decision and language he penned in the Windsor DOMA decision, and his willingness to find standing and rule on the merits in the Prop 8 case, was ready to make it happen. And all the liberal justices, save for Sonia Sotomayor, prevented it.
The court has remanded Hollingsworth back to the 9th Circuit with instructions to enter a similar ruling based on lack of standing/jurisdiction. That means that the broad and sweeping decision entered by Vaughn Walker in the district court trial will become law in California.
Now, to again be clear, I expect there will be litigation attempts by the Equality Haters to try to restrict Walker's decision to the two plaintiff couples and/or the two respective counties at issue in the original Perry complaint. I do not believe that will bear any fruit and fully expect full marriage equality to exist across all of California, but it may not be as immediate as it should. We shall see.
In closing, a very good day for marriage equality and LGBT rights. The DOMA decision is broad and provides for heightened scrutiny in evaluating marriage and sexual identity issues; that portends well for future rights litigation. And, of course, DOMA is dead. Also heartwarming that all of California's citizens will have their rights protected; it is, however, sad that this will not extend to all Americans.
[As always on these Prop 8 posts, the absolutely incredible graphic, perfect for the significance and emotion of the Perry Prop 8 case, and the decision to grant marriage equality to all citizens without bias or discrimination, is by Mirko Ilić. Please visit Mirko and check out his stock of work.]
I am going to do something different today and put up a post for semi-live coverage – and discussion – of the DOMA oral arguments in the Supreme Court this morning. First, a brief intro, and then I will try to throw tidbits in here and there as I see it during and after the arguments.
The case at bar is styled United States v. Windsor, et al. In a nutshell, Edith Windsor was married to Thea Spyer, and their marriage was recognized under New York law. Ms. Spyer passed away in 2009 and Windsor was assessed $363,000.00 in inheritance taxes because the federal government, i.e. the IRS, did not recognize her marriage to Spyer in light of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. Litigation ensued and the 2nd Circuit, in an opinion written by Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, struck down DOMA as unconstitutional and ruled in favor of Edith Windsor. Other significant cases in Circuit Courts of Appeal hang in the lurch of abeyance awaiting the Supreme Court decision in Windsor, including Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Gill v. OPM and Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management.
As an aside, here is a fantastic look at the restaurant where Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer met nearly 50 years ago.
Arguing the case will be Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli again for the United States, Paul Clement for the Bi-Partisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) on putative behalf of Congress, because the Obama Administration ceased defending DOMA on the grounds it was discriminatory and unconstitutional, and Robbie Kaplan for Edith Windsor. Clement and Verrilli are well known by now, but for some background on Robbie Kaplan, who is making her first appearance before the Supremes, here is a very nice article. Also arguing will be Harvard Law Professor Vicki Jackson who was "invited" by SCOTUS to argue on the standing and jurisdiction issue, specifically to argue that there is no standing and/or jurisdiction, because the Obama Administration quit defending and BLAG will argue in favor of standing and jurisdiction.
Here is a brief synopsis of the argument order and timing put together by Ed Whelan at National Review Note: I include Whelan here only for the schedule info, I do not necessarily agree with his framing of the issues).
Okay, that is it for now, we shall see how this goes!
Live Updates:
10:39 am It appears oral arguments are underway after two decisions in other cases were announced.
10:51 am RT @SCOTUSblog: #doma jurisdiction arg continues with no clear indication of whether majority believes #scotus has the power to decide case.
11:00 am By the way, the excellent SCOTUSBlog won a peabody award for its coverage of the Supreme Court.
11:05 am @reuters wire: 7:56:34 AM RTRS – U.S. SUPREME COURT CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES SAY TROUBLED BY OBAMA REFUSAL TO DEFEND MARRIAGE LAW
11:15 am Wall Street Journal is reporting: Chief Justice John Roberts told attrorney Sri Srinivasan, the principal deputy solicitor general, that the government's actions were "unprecedented." To agree with a lower court ruling finding DOMA unconstitutional but yet seeking the Supreme Court to weigh in while it enforces the law is "has never been done before," he said.
11:20 am Is anybody reading this, or is this a waste?
11:32 am @SCOTUSblog Kennedy asks two questions doubting #doma validity but nothing decisive and Chief Justice and Kagan have yet to speak.
11:40 am Wall Street Journal (Evan Perez) Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly expressed irritation at the Obama administration, telling Ms. Jackson, the court-appointed lawyer, and without specifically mentioning the administration, that perhaps the government should have the "courage" to execute the law based on the constitutionality rather instead of shifting the responsibility to the Supreme Court to make a decision.
11:45 am Wall Street Journal (Evan Perez) Paul Clement, attorney for lawmakers defending the law, argued that the went to the very heart of Congress's prerogatives. Passing laws and having them defended was the "single most important" function of Congress, he argued.
11:52 am Wall Street Journal (Evan Perez) Justice Scalia and Mr. Srinivasan parried on whether Congress should have any expectation that laws it passes should be defended by the Justice Department. Mr. Srinivasan said he wouldn't give an "algorithm" that explained when Justice lawyers would or wouldn't defend a statute, but ceded to Justice Scalia's suggestion that Congress has no "assurance" that when it passes a law it will be defended. That's not what the OLC opinion guiding the Justice Department's actions in these cases says, Justice Scalia interjected.
11:56 am Associated Press (Brent Kendall) One of the last questions on the standing issue came from Justice Samuel Alito, who asked whether the House could step in to defend DOMA without the Senate's participation, given that it takes both chambers to pass a law.
11:59 am Bloomberg News During initial arguments today on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested that a federal law that doesn't recognize gay marriages that are legal in some states can create conflicts.
"You are at real risk of running in conflict" with the "essence" of state powers, Kennedy said. Still, he also said there was "quite a bit" to the argument by backers of the law that the federal government at times needs to use its own definition of marriage, such as in income tax cases.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that when a marriage under state law isn't recognized by the federal government, "One might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?"
12:05 pm @SCOTUSblog Final update: #scotus 80% likely to strike down #doma. J Kennedy suggests it violates states' rights; 4 other Justices see as gay rights.
12:07 pm The argument at the Court is well into the merits portion of the case now
12:09 pm Wall Street Journal (Brent Kendall) Justice Kennedy, however, jumped in with federalism concerns, questioning whether the federal government was intruding on the states' territory. With there being so many different federal laws, the federal government is intertwined with citizens' day-to-day lives, he said. Because of this, DOMA runs the risk of running into conflict with the states' role in defining marriage, he said.
12:12 pm It is pretty clear to me, from a variety of sources I am tracking, that the Court has serious problems with DOMA on the merits. Clement is getting pounded with questions on discrimination, conflict with state laws and federalism concerns. Pretty clear that if standing is found, DOMA is going down.
12:15 pm Wall Street Journal (Brent Kendall) Justice Ginsburg again says the denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples pervades every area of life. DOMA, she said, diminished same-sex marriages to "skim-milk" marriages. Justice Elena Kagan (pictured) follows a short time later saying DOMA did things the federal government hadn't done before, and she said the law raised red flags.
12:19 pm @reuters wire: U.S. SUPREME COURT CONCLUDES ORAL ARGUMENTS ON FEDERAL LAW RESTRICTING SAME-SEX BENEFITS
12:30 pm @AdamSerwer Con Justices contemptuous of Obama decision not to defend DOMA but still enforce law. Kennedy said "it gives you intellectual whiplash"
Okay, as I said earlier, if the Justices can get by the standing issue, it seems clear that DOMA is cooked. I think they will get by standing and enter a decision finding DOMA unconstitutional as to Section 3, which is the specific part of the law under attack in Windsor. That effectively guts all of DOMA.
That is it for the "Live Coverage" portion of the festivities today. It should be about an hour and a half until the audio and transcript are available. As soon as they are, I will add them as an update at the top of the post, and will then put this post on the top of the blog for most of the rest of the day for further discussion. It has been bot a fascinating and frustrating two days of critical oral argument; please continue to analyze and discuss!
A momentous morning in the Supreme Court. All the work, analysis, speculation, briefing and lobbying culminated in an oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry lasting nearly an hour and a half – half an hour over the scheduled time. There are a lot of reports and opinions floating around about what transpired.
Here is Reuters led by Lawrence Hurley and David Ingram
Here is Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog
Here is Huffington Post's Mike Sacks with a video report
Here is Ryan Reilly and Mike Sacks with a written report at HuffPost
Suffice it to say, we do not know a heck of a lot after oral arguments than we did right before them. The full range of decision is on the table. However, there were certainly some hints given. Scalia and Alito are very hostile, and Thomas is almost certainly with them in that regard although he once again stood mute. Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor seemed receptive to the Ted Olson's arguments. Breyer oddly quiet and hard to read. As is so often the case, that left Anthony Kennedy in effective control of the balance.
If Kennedy's tenor at argument is any guide, and it isn't necessarily, he is unlikely to sign on to a broad ruling. In fact he may be struggling with standing, but that is very hard to read. Several commenters I have seen interpreted Kennedy's questions as having a real problem with standing and signaling a possibility of punting the case on that basis. From what I have read so far, I wouldn't say that…and neither does Adam Serwer, who was present at argument.
So, in short, I would summarize thusly: Standing is a bigger issue than I had hoped, and there is more resistance to a broad ruling than I had hoped. But the game is still on. Remember when Jeff Toobin's train wreck/plane wreck take after the ACA oral arguments; you just don't know and cannot tell.
I will likely be back later after analysis of the pertinent material. For now, let me leave you with that material and media so you too can hear and see the groundbreaking day in the Supreme Court:
Here is the full transcript of the oral arguments
Here is the audio of the proceedings
Enjoy, and I look forward to discussing this! And, again, there will be updates to this post throughout the day, so keep checking for them.
[As always on these Prop 8 posts, the absolutely incredible graphic, perfect for the significance and emotion of the Perry Prop 8 case, and the decision to grant marriage equality to all citizens without bias or discrimination, is by Mirko Ilić. Please visit Mirko and check out his stock of work.]
One of the relentless memes that keeps cropping up in the marriage equality battle is that, were the Supreme Court to grant full broad based and constitutionally protected marriage equality in the Hollingsworth v. Perry Prop 8 case, there would be a destructive backlash consuming the country on the issue.
A good example of the argument was propounded by Professor Eric Segall at the ACSBlog in a piece entitled "Same-Sex Marriage, Political Backlash and the Case for Going Slow":
There may be a better way. The Court could strike down DOMA under heightened scrutiny making it clear that government classifications based on sexual orientation receive heightened scrutiny. The Court could dismiss the Proposition 8 case on standing grounds (there are substantial standing arguments which the Court asked the parties to brief). This combination would leave all state laws (except perhaps California's) intact but subject to likely successful challenges. Obviously, this would be a slower and more expensive route to marriage equality, but it might make the right more secure over time while decreasing the chances of serious backlash.
I know that it is easy for a straight male like me to suggest that the Court should refrain from quickly and forcefully resolving the same sex marriage issue on a national basis. But issues that some gays care deeply about are not limited to marriage equality, just like feminists face many challenges other than abortion such as equal pay, equality in the military, and glass ceiling barriers. Where gender equality would be without Roe is unknowable but even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has observed that the right to choose today might be more secure if the Court hadn't decided it "in one fell swoop." I don't know what will happen if the Court announces a national rule on same-sex marriage but history strongly suggests that a more incremental approach might better serve the long term interests of people who identify themselves as liberals and progressives, including gays and lesbians.
I like and respect Eric quite a lot, but I cannot agree with him, nor other advocates of this position (for further discussion of the "Roe backlash" theory, see Adam Liptak in the New York Times). I have long strongly advocated for a full, broad based, ruling for equality for all, in all states, most recently here. But the issue of "backlash" has not previously been specifically addressed in said discussions that I recall.
Fortunately, there are already superb voices who have addressed this issue. The first is from Harvard Law Professor Michael Klarman in the LA Times:
What sort of political backlash might such a decision ignite?
Constitutionalizing gay marriage would have no analogous impact on the lives of opponents. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples may alter the institution's meaning for religious conservatives who believe that God created marriage to propagate the species. But that effect is abstract and
Continue reading
Just about a month ago, in urging the Obama Administration to file a brief in favor of marriage equality in the Hollingsworth v. Perry Prop 8 case before the Supreme Court, I described the stakes:
And here we are on the cusp on the next defining moment in the quest for equality for all in the US. It is not for origin, not for skin color, not for gender, but for something every bit as root fundamental, sexual identity and preference. Marriage equality, yes, but more than that, equality for all as human beings before the law and governmental function.
For all the talk of the DOMA cases, the real linchpin for the last measure of equality remains the broad mandate achievable only through Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Proposition 8 case.
It was true then, it is true now. To the everlasting credit of of President Obama, Solicitor General Verrilli and the Administration, they did indeed file a brief in support. It was a surprisingly strong brief with a clarion call for full equality based upon heightened scrutiny; yet is was conflicted with a final ask only for a restricted ruling limited in application to either just California or, at most, a handful of somewhat similarly situated states. In short, the ask in the Administration's brief was not for equality for all, in all the states; just in some.
On the eve of one one of the seminal moments of Supreme Court history – it is easily arguable this is far more of a defining moment than the ACA Healthcare scuffle was – it is again incumbent on the Administration to give the justices the headroom to make a broad decision granting equality for all.
Even in the short time since the Obama Administration filed their brief, between February 28 and now, the mounting tide of public opinion and desire for full equality has grown substantially in multiple ways. Colorado, a state where the thought was once beyond contentious, passed full civil union equality and Governor Hickenlooper signed it into law. And a new comprehensive Washington Post/ABC News public poll has found that a full 58% of Americans now support the legality of gay nuptials, and a whopping 81% of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 so support.
The writing is on the wall, and the trend overwhelming. And it simply does not make sense for the Obama Administration to buck this tidal wave and argue only for equality in a handful of states, with equality for some, but far from for all. Barack Obama and Donald Verrilli laid every bit the foundation needed to argue for broad based full equality – in all states – in their brief.
It is time for Mr. Obama and Mr. Verrilli to step up and forcefully tell the Supreme Court that full equality is the right way to rule. The Court granted Solicitor General Verrilli time to express the Administration's position in the oral argument Tuesday; he should use it in the name and cause of full broad based equality. It is a time for leadership; this is a moment for Mr. Obama and his attorney to display it.
By the same token, it is also time for the Supreme Court to do the same. So often it has been argued the "Court should not get out in front of popular opinion". Bollocks, the Court should refuse to put themselves behind public opinion, and an ever strengthening one at that, by shamefully ducking the perfect opportunity to stand for that which the Constitution purports to stand, equal protection for all.
There are a myriad of legal arguments and discussions, and just about every commenter and expert in the field has been offering them up over the last week. I will leave that to another day, after the court has heard the oral arguments, we have our first inclination of what the justices are focused on, and the case is under advisement for decision.
For now, here are a couple of warms ups for Tuesday's oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry/Prop 8 and Wednesday's oral argument in United States v. Windsor/DOMA. First a nice little video "Viewer's Guide to Gay Marriage Oral Arguments" with Supreme Court barrister extraordinaire, and SCOTUSBlog founder, Tom Goldstein. Here is a handy flow chart of all the different possibilities, and the why for each, of how the court may rule on both cases. It is really pretty neat and useful tool.
The briefing is long done now and the Justices understand the issues. But if the ACA/Healthcare cases taught us anything, it is that Justice Roberts is concerned about the legacy and esteem of the court. And Justice Kennedy has already shown how committed he is to fairness in social justice issues and willing to even go out on limbs ahead of controversial public opinion with his written opinions.
At this point, the most effective leverage is not repeated discussion of the minutiae of law, but rather the demonstration of the righteousness of full equality. History will prove fools of those who sanction continued bigotry against marital equality, and anything less than a broad based heightened scrutiny finding, for equality for all people, in all states, is a continuation of such unacceptable bigotry.
UPDATE: Professor Adam Winkler of UCLA has a piece out today that embodies my point in the post perfectly. Discussing the disastrous and ugly 1986 decision of the Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick to uphold sodomy laws when times and opinion had already changed, and the profound regret felt by Anthony Kennedy's predecessor, Lewis Powell, Professor Winkler writes:
Kennedy is clearly a justice who considers how his legacy will be shaped by his votes. In 1992, when the Supreme Court was asked to overturn Roe in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy originally sided with the conservatives to reverse the controversial privacy decision. Like Justice Powell in Bowers, Justice Kennedy then changed his vote. He went to see Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe, and explained that he was concerned about how history would judge Kennedy's decision to end constitutional protections for women's right to choose.
Like many people, Justice Kennedy may believe that the public tide against marriage discrimination is growing and that gay marriage is inevitable. History is not likely to be kind to those justices who vote to continue relegating LGBT people to second-class citizenship. As the swing justice ponders how to rule in the gay-marriage cases, Justice Powell's well-known regret over Bowers, and the widespread recognition that Bowers was wrongly decided, will almost certainly weigh on his mind.
Adam's article is worth a full read. And I agree with it completely.
[UPDATE:Okay, from the SCOTUSBlog "The entire ACA is upheld, with exception that federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read." Key language from the decision on the mandate:
The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.
And, boy howdy, was I wrong. I steadfastly maintained that CJ Roberts would never be the swing vote on a 5-4 majority, but would only join a liberal majority on the heels of Tony Kennedy. WRONG! The mandate survives solely as a result of Roberts and without Kennedy. Wow.
Final update thought. While I think the mandate should have been constructed as a tax, it clearly was not in the bill passed. You want to talk about "legislating from the bench"? Well hard to see how this is not a remarkable example of just that. I am sure all the plebes will hypocritically cheer that, and fail to note what is going on. Also, if the thing is a "tax" how is it not precluded as unripe under the AIJA? don't have a fine enough reading of the opinion – read no reading yet – to discern that apparent inconsistency.
As to the Medicaid portion, here is the key opinion language on that:
Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.
Oh well, people on the left have been crying for this crappy law, now you got it. Enjoy. I will link the actual opinion as soon as it is available.
And here is THE FULL OPINION]
Well, the long awaited moment is here: Decision Day On The ACA. If you want to follow the live roll out of the Supreme Courts decisions, here is a link to the incredibly good SCOTUSBlog live coverage. Coverage starts at 9 am EST and the actual Court proceedings starting at 10 am EST.
This post will serve two functions. The first is to lay just a very brief marker, for better or worse (undoubtedly the latter I am afraid), going into decision day, hour and moment, and a ready location to post the decision of the court and link the actual opinions. The minute they are known and links available, they will be put here in an update at the top of the post. That way you can start the discussion ahead of the decisions, lay a record of your predictions ahead of time AND have a place to immediately discuss the rulings as they come in and immediately afterward.
Many friends and other pundits involved in the healthcare SCOTUS discussion have been working for weeks on alternative drafts of posts and articles to cover every contingency so they can immediately hit the net with their takes. That is great, and some of them will be a service. But I have just been too busy lately to expend that kind of energy on something so canned. Sorry about that. So my actual analysis and thoughts will mostly have to come later, but they will be on the merits, such as they may be, when the actual decisions are in. Also, I will be in comments and on Twitter (under "bmaz" of course).
Okay, with the logistics out of the way, I have just a few comments to lodge on the front end of this gig. First off, the ACA/PPA started off as truly about health insurance, not about health care from the start, and that is, still, never more true than today. Marcy laid out why this is, and why a LOT of people may get, or be forced into, purchasing health insurance, but there is a real question as to whether they will be able to afford to actually use what they will be commanded to buy. See here, here and here as a primer. Those points are pretty much as valid today as they were back when she wrote them.
Secondly, I have no real actual idea how the ruling will come down as to the merits. But, just for sport and grins, I guess I should take a stab at what I think after all the briefing and oral arguments, so here goes. The Anti-Injunction Act argument that the issue is a tax matter and therefore cannot be ripe for consideration until implemented and applied, will be rejected. The individual mandate is struck by a very narrow majority in a very carefully worded opinion written by John Roberts. The remainder of the ACA is deemed severable and is left to stand, and the Medicaid provisions are left intact, again by a narrow majority. Here is the thing, I would not bet one red cent of my own money on the foregoing; but if I could play with your money, I guess that is how I would roll. Maybe. Note that, before oral argument, my prediction was that the mandate would be upheld; I may regret not sticking with that call.
The real $64,000 question is the mandate, and that could just as easily be upheld, in which case it will likely be by a 6-3 margin (I still think Roberts writes the opinion, and if that is to uphold that means it will be 6-3). Here is what I will unequivocally say: however this goes down as to the mandate, it is a very legitimate issue; the arguments by the challengers, led by Randy Barnett, are now, and always were, far more cognizant than most everyone on the left believed or let on. I said that before oral argument, I said that after oral arguments and I say that now. Irrespective of what the actual decision turns out to be. Oh, and I always thought the hook liberals desperately cling to, Wickard v. Filburn, was a lousy decision to start with.
I have been literally stunned by the ridiculous hyperbole that has been blithely bandied about on the left on the ACA cases and potential striking of the mandate. Kevin Drum says it would be "ridiculous", James Fallows says it would be a "coup!", Liz Wydra says the entire legitimacy of SCOTUS is at issue, So do the Jonathans, Chait and Cohn. A normally very sane and brilliant guy, Professor David Dow, went off the deep end and says the justices should be impeached if they invalidate the mandate. The Huffington Post, and their supposed healthcare expert, Jeffrey Young, ran this insanely idiotic and insulting graphic. It is all some of the most stupefyingly hyperbolic and apoplectic rubbish I have ever seen in my life.
Curiously, the ones who are screaming about, and decrying,"politicization of the Court", my colleagues on the left, are the ones who are actually doing it with these antics. Just stop. Please. The mandate, and really much of the ACA was ill conceived and crafted from the get go. Even if the mandate is struck, the rest of the law can live on quite nicely. Whatever the decision of the court, it will be a legitimate decision on an extremely important and very novel extension of Commerce Clause power that had never been encountered before.
One last prediction: Irrespective of the outcome today, the hyperbole will continue. So, there is the warm up. Let's Get Ready To Rumble!
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise popularly known as "Obamacare" had a bit of a rough go of it this week at the Supreme Court. Jeff Toobin called it a train wreck (later upgraded to plane wreck). Kevin Drum termed it a "debacle" and Adam Serwer a "Disaster".
Was it really that bad? Considering how supremely confident, bordering on arrogant, the Obama Administration, and many of the ACA's plethora of healthcare "specialists", had been going into this week's arguments, yes, it really was that bad. Monday's argument on the applicability of the tax Anti-Injunction Act (AIJA) went smoothly, and as expected, with the justices appearing to scorn the argument and exhibit a preference to decide the main part of the case on the merits. But then came Tuesday and Wednesday.
Does that mean the ACA is sunk? Not necessarily; Dahlia Lithwick at Slate and Adam Bonin at Daily Kos sifted through the debris and found at least a couple of nuggets to latch onto for hope. But, I will be honest, after reading transcripts and listening to most all of the audio, there is no question but that the individual mandate, and quite possible the entire law, is in a seriously precarious lurch.
Unlike most of my colleagues, I am not particularly surprised. Indeed, in my argument preview piece, I tried to convey how the challenger's arguments were far more cognizable than they were being given credit for. The simple fact is the Commerce Clause power claimed by Congress in enacting the individual mandate truly is immense in scope, – every man, woman and child in the United States – and nature – compelled purchase of a product from private corporate interests. Despite all the clucking and tut tutting, there really never has been anything like it before. The Supreme Court Justices thought so too.
I have no idea what kind of blindered hubris led those on the left to believe the Roberts Court was going to be so welcoming to their arguments, and to be as dismissive of the challengers' arguments, as was the case. Yes, cases such as Raich and Wickard established Congress could regulate interstate commerce and Morrison and Lopez established there were limits to said power. But, no, none of them directly, much less conclusively, established this kind of breathtaking power grant as kosher against every individual in the country.
Despite the grumbling of so many commentators that the law was clear cut, and definitively Continue reading
As you likely know by now, we stand on the cusp of historic oral arguments this week in the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise popularly known as "Obamacare". The arguments will occur over three days, for a total of six hours, Monday through Wednesday. Yes, they really are that historic, as Lyle Denniston explains in SCOTUSBlog. The schedule is as follows: Monday: 90 minutes on whether the Anti Injunction Act (AIJA) prevents consideration of a challenge to the individual mandate until it takes effect in 2014; Tuesday: Two hours on the Constitutionality of the individual mandate; and Wednesday: 90 minutes on severability of the main law from the mandate and 60 minutes on state sovereignty concerns of Medicaid reform.
There are two areas of particular interest for me and which really are the meat on the bone of the overall consideration. The first is Monday's technical argument on the AIJA, which I actually think may be much more in play than most commentators believe, because the Supremes may want to punt the politically sticky part of the case down the road until after the 2012 elections, and the AIJA argument is a ready made vehicle to do just that. Judge Brett Kavanaugh's dissent in Seven Sky v. Holder explains how that would go should the Supreme beings decide to punt. This is by no means likely, but do not be shocked if it occurs; can kicking down the road is certainly not unknown at SCOTUS on politically sensitive cases.
By far, however, the biggest, and most contentious, kahuna of the healthcare debate is the individual mandate, and that is where I want to focus. The two sides, pro (predominantly liberal left) and con (predominantly conservative right), have been selling their respective wares since before the law was passed and signed by the President. As we truly head into the arguments, however, the pro left have crystallized around a matched pair of articles by Dahlia Lithwick and Linda Greenhouse, and the con right around response pieces by James Taranto and Ed Whelan.
Now this hardly seems like a fair fight, as Taranto has no degree, nor legal training, whatsoever; that said he and Whelan actually lay out the contra to Dahlia and Linda pretty well. Each side effectively accuses the other of being vapid and hollow in argument construct. I will leave aside any vapidity discussion because I think both sides genuinely believe in their positions; as to the hollowness, though, I think both sides are pretty much guilty. Which is understandable, there is simply not a lot of law directly on point with such a sweeping political question as presented by the mandate. "Unprecedented" may be overused in this discussion, but it is not necessarily wrong (no, sorry, Raich v. Gonzales is not that close; it just isn't).
In short, I think both sides are guilty of puffery as to the quality of legal support for their respective arguments, and I believe both are guilty of trying to pass off effective political posturing as solid legal argument. Certainty is just not there for either side. This is a real controversy, and the Supreme Court has proved it by allotting the, well, almost "unprecedented" amount of time it Continue reading
As I read the transcript of the SCOTUS hearing in the US v. Jones yesterday, I was most interested in what the comments suggest about the government's secret use of the PATRIOT Act to–presumably–use phone geolocation to track people. (Here's Dahlia Lithwick, Orrin Kerr, Julian Sanchez, Lyle Denniston, and Kashmir Hill on the hearing itself.)
Mind you, the facts in Jones are totally different from what we think may be happening with Secret PATRIOT (I'll borrow Julian Sanchez' speculation on what Secret PATRIOT does for this post). In Jones, a suspected drug dealer had a GPS device placed on his car after the 10-day warrant authorizing the cops to do so had already expired. As such, Jones tests generally whether the government needs an active warrant to track a suspect using GPS.
Whereas with Secret PATRIOT, the government is probably using Section 215 to collect the geolocation data from a large group of people–most of them totally innocent–to learn whom suspected terrorists are hanging around with. Not only does Secret PATRIOT probably use the geolocation of people not suspected of any crime (Section 215 requires only that the data be relevant to an investigation into terrorists, not that the people whose records they collect have any tie to a suspected terrorist), but it collects that information using a device–a cell phone–that people consensually choose to carry. Moreover, whereas in Jones, the government was tracking his car in "public" (though Justice Sotomayor challenges that to a degree), Secret PATRIOT probably tracks the location of people in private space, as well. Another significant difference is that, in Jones, the government is doing the tracking themselves; in Secret PATRIOT they probably get tracking data under the guise of business records from cell phone companies.
Nevertheless, the concerns expressed by the Justices seem to be directly relevant to Secret PATRIOT. After all, Chief Justice Roberts almost immediately highlighted that the government's argument–that the use of GPS to track cars on public streets was not a search and therefore it did not need probable cause to use it on anyone–meant that the government could also use GPS trackers on the Justices themselves.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You think there would also not be a search if you put a GPS device on all of our cars, monitored our movements for a month? You think you're entitled to do that under your theory?
MR. DREEBEN: The justices of this Court?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yes.
MR. DREEBEN: Under our theory and under this Court's cases, the justices of this Court when driving on public roadways have no greater expectation
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: So your answer is yes, you could tomorrow decide that you put a GPS device on every one of our cars, follow us for a month; no problem under the Constitution?
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, then you're -you're moving away from your argument. Your argument is, it doesn't depend how much suspicion you have, it doesn't depend on how urgent it is. Your argument is you can do it, period. You don't have to give any reason. It doesn't have to be limited in any way, right?
MR. DREEBEN: That is correct, Mr. Chief Justice.


text:
iHerb Customer Reviews
Posted by Reviewer1365740 on Nov 20, 2007
I have on &off taken shen min for about two years. When I'm taking it my hair stops falling out, is stronger and healthier. I have strayed,but I will never again,this product is awesome!!!!
Posted by Reviewer2593290 on Nov 09, 2008
I love this product. I see an immediate shiny full difference in my hair when I take it
Posted by Reviewer1937164 on Nov 20, 2008
it's been only couple of weeks of using, but i can tell my hair looks better, i will keep using this product as long as i have to
Posted by Reviewer1939126 on Dec 21, 2008
I have taken this nutrient for about a year and a half and feel it has decreased the rate of hair loss for me. Your price makes me feel like I can continue to use the product.
menopause support
Posted by Reviewer3106873 on Apr 09, 2009
Hair is thicker and grows longer but also it gives help with change; as I am 51, and in midst of it, but this is not mentioned as product for that maybe because there is so little black cohosh, but enough to help


text:
HUD's deputy secretary on Thursday dispatched a team of auditors to the Philadelphia Housing Authority "to conduct an audit of PHA's financial and management operations," ordering the agency to "freeze" any action against personnel including embattled executive director Carl Greene.
Deputy Secretary Ron Sims wrote today that "We are very concerned about the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars and so will be paying close attention to the team's findings," reads the letter, dated Thursday and send to PHA Board Chairman John F. Street, the former mayor. Mayor Nutter, City Controller Alan Butkovitz, and the PHA Board were copied on the letter.
Sims said he has asked the team to report back to him within 60 days with preliminary findings. "If recommended by the team, we are prepared to require a forensic audit of PHA's financial and management operations," Sims wrote.
"I urge you not to make any new appointments or management changes to PHA's senior team at this point, given the importance of this audit and the sensitivity of the allegations currently facing PHA and its leadership," the letter said. That will affect the board's actions on the future of executive director Carl Greene, as well as the future of board appointments.


text:
micoach is all you need to get the results you want.
(10 Products)
Your SelectionClear All
Fits great and the brushed interior is extremely soft and comfortable. However the hoodie is also very thin (I've worn it in the summer) and the fleece material deteriorates quickly in the back where it rubs against chairs and stuff. ... read more
Nice sweat shirt that is really lightweight. Not for outdoor use if you have cold winters. Good for indoors in the winter or in the fall/spring. The sweat shirts fits perfect and looks good on. Material is good but not my favorite. ... read more
My 16 yr old son hasn't had a chance to use this yet, because even though we measured carefully before ordering, it fit too small. Well, it barely fit in width and the length would be outgrown before winter is over. We are ordering up a size. He was at the low end of the measurement range for a small according to the size chart. His height is 5'10" and weight 135lbs. Hopefully this helps someone order their size easier. ... read more
This vest fits well over a climaheat running top and is great for keeping warm without overheating. It's extremely lightweight and not at all bulky. The only negative is that it can't be left to dry naturally after washing. It needs to be tumble dried with tennis balls in the dryer in order for the down inside the layers to properly fluff back into shape. ... read more
Great, low-profile piece for layering or a stylish accent to a casual outfit. Fits trimmer than most Adidas outerwear. I can wear a thin hoodie under it but not much more (I'm 5'10"/177cm and 170lbs./77kg, trim upper body, about 38"chest and 30" waist. I bought a small to wear under heavier jackets rather than over a fleece etc. so I'm happy with it.) It's fairly breathable yet retains a moderate amount of warmth to the core of the body. It's not very waterproof, however, which is fine for me but something worth mentioning. ... read more
These pants are so warm! When I sit down I can feel the warmth that is collected in the material and it makes it feel like everything you sit on is heated. They are very high quality and stylish, I wish I could replace my entire wardrobe with these pants. ... read more
Ordered up a size which for me personally works a treat with Adidas shoes. Most comfortable flip flops I have had just waiting to try out the quick drying.....sure they will be fine and dandy. Just to add service ordering from Adidas - top of the range. ... read more
I bought this hoodie mainly for working out and running which is why I like the fact that's its a little loose, giving me that freedom in mobility. Even though I use it to workout, I also wear it just as an everyday hoodie and it also looks great. Love the colors! ... read more
I'm a girl and I bought the small for me. I'm 5'5" 115 lbs and the small fits well. A little roomy but not much. It's really soft but not very thick. Feels more like a spring/early fall hoodie. For that reason I'm keeping it. ... read more
I ordered this during a huge sale, as a backup hoody. My other hoody is a generic but comfortable fleece from Kohls, that I know I paid less for. The Adidas one is just as comfortable, and the fit is great for my 6ft 170lb frame (I ordered a medium). It's a tad long, but I like that because it keeps it from riding. Anyway I've had it for a few weeks now, and it's been through the wash once and worn nearly daily. The material isn't very thick and the weave isn't tight because the fabric started pilling after 1 wash. Remember the hoody I mentioned earlier? It's also a fleece made from 100% polyester, and it looks nearly new despite missing it's drawstring. It's been in the wash a bazillion times. And as for the warmth? It's definitely a lighter weight jacket like some others have mentioned. Anyway this is just a cool looking hoody but definitely not the ultimate. If you want it to look great for a long time my advice is- don't wear it much. ... read more
As with all Climawarm product, this hoodie offers a great deal of warmth with very little bulk. This piece is very tightly woven, so it's quite wind resistant, while the brushed interior is really comfy. The smooth fabric along with a "snugger than usual fit" make this a versatile piece, and one that's particularly suited to layering. Note: just about any XXL top in the Adidas world fits me just fine (I'm 6'2", 230), but this is a slim fit item. Body and sleeve lengths are fine ,but it clings. ... read more


text:
United States
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Home :::
- Arizona :::
- Bullhead City :::
- Water - Bottled & Bulk
Taco Bell
Users Rating:
Taco Bell is a business providing services in the field of Water - Bottled & Bulk. Taco Bell is located in Bullhead City, AZ on 1751 Highway 95.
Taco Bell telephone number is
(928) 763-3900.
Telefax: No fax number available
Website: No web address available
Business owner? Moderate reviews or edit this listing.Link to this Page (Permalink):
Promote this listing for your business by linking here.
- (928) 763-3900
- No fax number available
Search through the entire category for Water - Bottled & Bulk
Customer Ratings and Reviews
Submit a review for Taco Bell
Helpful Tip for: Water - Bottled & Bulk
Water - Bottled and Bulk, refers to bottled and bulk water delivery suppliers in Bullhead City. Hygienically sealed, distilled/ spring or fluoride bottled water is supplied for home and office consumption. Bulk water is required to fill swimming pools, water fountains, hot tubs, gardening tanks, landscaping ponds, waterbeds, and drinking water supply tanks. They also take care of supplies during crisis situations like emergencies and disasters, providing relief services.
Recent News from the Green Blog
Climate Change or Global Warming – Either Way It Spells Big Trouble
I get the newspaper every day, and usually like to do the sudoku and word puzzles before I even delve into the sports pages. Recently, I solved a cryptoquote that I thought would fit well with one of my blogs; it read, "When we see the land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it..


text:
The Broken Family Band
~ Group
The Broken Family Band was a British rock band from Cambridge and London.
The band was formed in Cambridge, England by Steven Adams, Jay Williams, Micky Roman and Gavin Johnson in 2001, following the break-up of Adams and Williams' indie rock band Hofman. Their musical style has variously been referred to as alt country, country rock, new wave, and indie-rock (the latter term being favoured by the band).
Showing official release groups by this artist. Show all release groups instead, or show various artists release groups.


text:
Tag: paypal
1. White House to engage Iran critics through @TheIranDeal (Nahal Toosi / Politico) 2. Men who harass women online are quite literally losers, new study finds (Caitlin Dewey / Washington Post) 3. CartoDB lets anyone visualize their data with one-click mapping (Christine Magee / TechCrunch) 4. PayPal is now worth more than Netflix, eBay, and […] more »
1. Netflix, Amazon get record Emmy nods (Cecilia Kang / Washington Post) 2. Inside the tech divorce of the decade: PayPal and eBay start a new life without each other (JP Mangalindan / Mashable) 3. 'The soul of Google': What the return of Kordestani says about the Mountain View monolith (Mark Bergen / Re/code) 4. […] more »
1. Why rumors outrace the truth online (Brendan Nyhan / New York Times) 2. Does it matter that some New York Times editors and writers don't tweet? Yes and no (Mathew Ingram / GigaOm) 3. The Toast hires Roxane Gay to lead new sister site 'The Butter' (Peter Sterne / Capital New York) 4. The […] more »
Online dating services have been around for quite a while, and through them, members of just about any social subgroup can get help looking for that perfect match. But an online dating service may be promoting something more than just a social introduction. Sexual Services in the Online World Adult services such as prostitution have […] more »
The best stories of the week from across the web on e-books and self-publishing 1. How much should e-books cost? (The Atlantic) 2. Amazon sells more than 2 million copies of Kindle mini e-books (PaidContent) 3. PayPal backtracks on its ban on 'obscene' e-books (CNET) 4. Do e-books make it harder to remember what you […] more »
The best stories of the week from across the web on e-books and self-publishing. 1. Justice Department may be ready to sue Apple and five publishers in price-fixing case (PaidContent) 2. PayPal asks some e-book distributors to ban books with "obscene" themes (Globe and Mail) 3. Random House triples e-book prices for libraries (Annoyed Librarian) […] more »
The best stories across the web on media and technology, curated by Nathan Gibbs 1. Yahoo announces PayPal president Scott Thompson as its new CEO (TechCrunch) 2. Wikipedia raises $20 million in its annual donation drive, from 1 million donors (Wikimedia Foundation) 3. No warrant needed for GPS monitoring, judge rules (Wired) 4. Why Twitter's "verified account" failure matters (GigaOM) 5. It is now […] more »
With all the talk about paid content coming back into vogue (thanks, Rupert Murdoch!), it's a wonder that PayPal hasn't been part of the conversation. The tech startup that's now part of eBay has been dominant in handling online payment transactions and is projected to have $5 billion in sales by 2011, according to Bloomberg. […] more »


text:
As luck would have it around this time of year. I suddenly find myself with the ability to go to the Burn. HALLELUJAH!
I will be joining a friend who is going in an RV this year. This is my 5th burn but first time in an RV and I am trying to learn all I can about being a good RV burner.
I was hoping peeps could offer some good advice on baffling the gennie on an RV. I've built a baffle box for an external gennie sitting on the ground but this is a different animal since it's enclosed in a compartment on the RV.
Do people just build a 3 walled baffle box and place it up against the RV compartment? Maybe just lean a piece of plywood over the compartment?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated.


text:
Missouri Baptist Cancer Center is committed to offering patients the most advanced treatment options available and are known as early adopters of new technology.
Rapid Arc Therapy is now a part of the array of radiation treatment options available to our patients. Missouri Baptist Cancer Center is the first and only oncology program in Missouri to offer this new, $3 million, FDA-approved treatment that provides faster and more precise treatment.
For more information on cancer treatment or to schedule an appointment, call 314-996-5151 or contact us online.
Ranked #2 in the Region • #5 in State
High performing in COPD, Hip Replacement and Knee Replacement


text:
Headless Horseman carving by HalloweenPandaWatch
©2012-2016 HalloweenPanda
Made this for a contest. Didnot win. Like how the horse came out, but the rider is messed up. XC
Hello Just letting you know that your awesome work was featured in this Halloween Artisan Crafts article, keep up the good work and I hope you had a great Halloween!
Wow that is freaking amazing!!!!
so wonderful - happy Halloween!
Ingeline ))
Ingeline ))
Holy cow!! That's awesome!!!


text:
I wish Bath and Body Works would stop releasing new Liplicious Lipglosses. I can't keep up! Thanks to a reader who mentioned that they'll be releasing not one, not two, not three, but TEN Halloween Lipglosses….jeepers I could so have done without knowing that.
But Halloween is decades away and today my lemmings are centered on the new Bath and Body Works Liplicious Double Delish Lip Gloss.
I so don't need more lipgloss.


text:
Find out why other VW Hood Strut parts customers order from us by ordering your VW Hood Strut parts on our web store. Phoenix and International callers, call (602) 276-9402. You can get the auto parts you need by calling us toll-free. You can literally save thousands of dollars by buying VW Hood Strut parts from us versus the dealer. We started selling VW Hood Strut parts nearly 30 years ago in Arizona, now we sell worldwide via the internet. Stop buying from VW Hood Strut parts stores that outsource their phone support abroad. Our order system uses the absolute latest in ssl encryption technology.
Brian W. - Tuckerton, NJ: I would like to commend you on your web site and service. It is a pleasure doing business with your company.
Jeff W. - Spanish Fork, UT: Thank you for the order I received on Wednesday. I ordered on Sunday night. Great prices and fastest shipping I've seen in a while. Thank you and I will be ordering again.