text:
Teeter Picks Up 200th Career Win As Princeton Sweeps Penn, Cornell
With victories in 13 of the 16 events, the Princeton women's swimming and diving team cruised to a pair of victories in its 2012-13 Ivy League openers Friday afternoon at Sheerr Pool in Philadelphia. The victory was number 200 in the illustrious career of head coach Susan Teeter, who has led Princeton to 15 Ivy League championships.
Princeton scored wins of 183-88 over Cornell and 165-113 over Penn. The victories move the Tigers to 2-0 overall, though their next dual meet won't come until a home showdown with Villanova on January 4.
The Tigers set three Sheerr Pool records during the victory, including two relays (200 medley and 400 free). The third record came in the 100 back, as freshman Sada Stewart continues to show what an impact she could have in this league over the next four years.
Before any Princeton swimmer touched the water, the Tigers were already off to a strong start. The junior diving duo of Randi Brown and Emily Kaplan went 1-2 in both the 1- and 3-meter diving events, though each grabbed a victory. Brown won the 1-meter event with 248.25 points, while Kaplan took first in the 3-meter by less than one point. Kaplan won the event with 249.60, while Brown finished second with 248.90 points.
Princeton went 1-2 again to start the swimming, as the Tigers took the top two spots in the 200 medley relay. The quartet of Sada Stewart, Cara Slear, Nikki Larson and Lisa Boyce won the event in 1:44.28, while the team of Beverly Nguyen, Sarah Furgatch, Morgan Karetnick and Carter Stephens took second in 1:46.69.
Stewart followed up her impressive opening weekend at the Big Al by taking three individual wins Friday afternoon. She opened with a 100 back victory in 56.21, and she followed by winning the 200 back in 2:01.76, more than three seconds faster than the rest of the field. She finished the day winning the 200 IM in 2:06.21.
Classmate Nikki Larson, named the National Swimmer of the Week by collegeswimming.com, junior Lisa Boyce and senior Jillian Altenburger each won two events apiece. Larson won the 100 fly in 55.63, and she took the 200 fly in 2:03.01; she topped classmate Nguyen by only .16 of a second in the 200. That 200 fly performance moved Larson into 10th in the all-time Princeton list.
Boyce, a three-time individual Ivy League champion last year, swept both the 50 (23.59) and the 100 free (51.08). Altenburger, another former Ivy League individual champion, won the 200 free in 1:49.81 and the 500 free in 4:57.82.
Princeton also closed the session by winning the 400 free relay, as the team of Larson, Megan Lydzinski, Altenburger and Boyce won the event in 3:28.67.
It was another milestone win for Teeter, who has turned Princeton into the model program in the Ivy League during her 29-year career. Princeton has won 15 Ivy League titles during her tenure, including a run of 10 in the last 14 years. She has two Top-20 finishes at NCAAs over the last four years, and she just brought in a nationally ranked freshman class that has been dominant over its first two weeks of competition.
Princeton will be off this week, and it will return during the first weekend in December when it heads to the new Katherine Moran Coleman Aquatics Center at Brown for the three-day Brown Open.


text:
Lois C. Snyder
Published: Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 11:05 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, April 21, 2013 at 11:05 a.m.
Lois Cranford Snyder, 92, of Lexington Health Care and formerly of Druid Hills, died Friday, April 19, 2013, at Wake Forest Baptist Health — Lexington Medical Center.
The family will have a private service later.
Davidson Funeral Home is serving the family.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Columbia Edges Princeton at Men's Heps
PRINCETON, N.J. (11/2/13) - The Princeton men's cross country team had its three-year streak of Heps titles come to an end as Columbia edged the Tigers for the Ivy League cross country title, 48-56.
The No. 15 ranked Tigers had their top five across the line first but the No. 10 ranked Lions 2-4-5 pushed Columbia into the win.
Seniors Tyler Udland and Chris Bendtsen finished sixth and seventh, respectively, as they both raced across the line together. Udland clocked a 23:48.6 while Bendtsen, the 2012 Heps champion, ran a 23:49.7. Senior Alejandro Arroyo Yamin was 12th at 23:59.8, followed by junior Sam Pons at 24:02.4 for 15th and junior Matt McDonald at 24:05.3 for 16th. Junior Eddie Owens was 19th as the Tigers' sixth runner at 24:11.4 and sophomore Brett Kelly was 25th at 24:27.8.
Dartmouth was third in the team scoring with 64 points, followed by Noo. 21 Harvard with 103, Yale at 116, Penn at 150, Cornell at 181 and Brown with 253. Harvard's Maksim Korolev was the individual champion winning in 23:28.2.
Udland and Bendtsen both earned first-team All-Ivy League honors, while Arroyo Yamin takes second-team All-Ivy League honors.
Princeton will compete at the NCAA Regionals next Friday, Nov. 15 at Lehigh.
Check back later for video highlights and photo gallery.Princeton Finishers
6. Tyler Udland23:48.6
7. Chris Bendtsen 23:49.7
12. Alejandro Arroyo Yamin 23:59.8
15. Sam Pons 24:02.4
16. Matt McDonald 24:05.3
19. Eddie Owens 24:11.4
25. Brett Kelly 24:27.8
36. George Galasso 24:38.4
42. Connor Martin 24:43.8
54. Sam Berger 24:52.8
56. William Bertrand 25:00.4
65. Michael Williams 25:11.8


text:
Classic Sugar Cookies RecipeRead Reviews Be the first to add a review
4 14 12
Use cookie cutters to cut seasonal shapes from a few cups of Gloria's dough. Prepared frosting and colored sugar make it a snap to decorate these classic Christmas cookies.
- 2 cups Basic Cookie Dough
- Colored sugar and frosting of your choice
- On a lightly floured surface, roll out dough to 1/4-in. thickness. Using 2-1/2-in. cookie cutters, cut out desired shapes. Place 2 in. apart on ungreased baking sheets. Leave plain or sprinkle with colored sugar. Bake at 375° for 8-10 minutes or until the edges are golden brown. Remove to wire racks to cool. Frost plain cookies; sprinkle with colored sugar if desired. Yield: about 3 dozen.
Originally published as Sugar Cookies in Quick Cooking November/December 2002, p52
Reviews for Classic Sugar Cookies
Please Log In or Join to add a rating and review.
Click stars to rate
Any changes to your rating or review will appear where you originally posted your review
Reviewed Aug. 12, 2013
"These were absolutely great! =]http://www.printablecouponsanddeals.com has tons of great coupons for this or any recipe!"
Reviewed Dec. 7, 2012
"To all those of you who said this isn't a recipe! Did you click on the words basic cookie recipe? It's right there!"
Reviewed Aug. 4, 2012
"This particular Sugar Cookie Recipe is intended to be used with the several other recipes pictured in the Christmas Cookie Plate [They failed to even mention the Sugar Cookies as they listed the other Cookies that can be made with this Base being the common string between each recipe]."
Reviewed Dec. 18, 2011
"Here is a link to the Basic Cookie Dough recipe - sorry for the confusion. http://www.tasteofhome.com/Recipes/Basic-Cookie-Dough "
Reviewed Dec. 17, 2011
"I wouldn't make this again, because I couldn't make it now...there is no recipe...what the heck is "basic cookie dough" and where does one find it?"


text:
Quality CareFind out why Mayo Clinic is the right place for your health care. Make an appointment.
Meet the StaffFind a directory of doctors and departments at all Mayo Clinic campuses. Visit now.
Research and Clinical TrialsSee how Mayo Clinic research and clinical trials advance the science of medicine and improve patient care. Explore now.
Visit Our SchoolsEducators at Mayo Clinic train tomorrow's leaders to deliver compassionate, high-value, safe patient care. Choose a degree.
Professional ServicesExplore Mayo Clinic's many resources and see jobs available for medical professionals. Get updates.
Give to Mayo ClinicHelp set a new world standard in care for people everywhere. Give now.
Mayo Clinic offers appointments in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota and at Mayo Clinic Health System locations.
Subscribe to Housecall
Our general interest e-newsletter keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics.
If you or your child has experienced a painful, persistent erection that lasted less than four hours, or multiple unwanted, persistent erections (stuttering priapism), see your primary care doctor. If the erection has lasted more than four hours, go to the emergency room.
Your doctor or the emergency room doctor may suggest that you make a follow-up appointment with a specialist in reproductive and urinary organs (urologist).
If you have time before you see your doctor, it's a good idea to prepare for questions the doctor is likely to ask.
You may also want to prepare a list of questions to ask the doctor:
If other questions occur to you or you don't understand something, don't hesitate to ask questions during your appointment.
Your doctor is likely to ask a number of questions regarding recurring episodes of persistent erections. Your doctor may ask:
Your doctor may also order laboratory tests to determine if a disease or condition is causing priapism.
Don't stop your prescription medications without consulting your doctor. Don't use any recreational substance that could cause persistent erections.
Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not for profit mission.
Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic.
Any use of this site constitutes your agreement to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy linked below.
A single copy of these materials may be reprinted for noncommercial personal use only. "Mayo," "Mayo Clinic," "MayoClinic.org," "Mayo Clinic Healthy Living," and the triple-shield Mayo Clinic logo are trademarks of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
We comply with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.


text:
Food Network Kitchen eatery opens at Fla. airport
In this Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2012 photo, Liz Lamoureux sits in the Food Network Kitchen at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., sipping a glass of wine before her flight back to San Antonio. Dining-on-the-go is soaring at the airport where travelers can dine at a restaurant inspired by a test kitchen. (AP Photo/J Pat Carter)


text:
Veronica Bennett (a.k.a. Ronnie Spector) of the Ronettes is born in New York City.
Estelle Bennett of the Ronettes is born in New York City.
Nedra Talley of the Ronettes is born in New York City.
Renowned girl-group trio the Ronettes form in their native New York City.
"I Want a Boy, the first single by the Ronettes – credited to "Ronnie and the Relatives" – is released on Colpix Records.
"Silhouettes," the first single credited to the Ronettes – and the second of four they'd release on the related Colpix and May labels before moving to Phil Spector's Philles imprint – is released.
Having signed to Phil Spector's Philles label, the Ronettes begin sessions for "Be My Baby," one of rock and roll's greatest singles, in Los Angeles.
"Be My Baby," by the Ronettes, peaks at #2 on Billboard's singles chart. It will reach #4 in Britain the following month.
The seasonal classic A Christmas Gift for You - produced by Phil Spector and featuring the Ronettes, the Crystals and others - is released.
"Baby, I Love You," the Ronettes' second single for producer Phil Spector's label, peaks at #24 in the U.S. A month later it will hit #11 in the U.K.
Having befriended the Beatles on their first tour of Britain, the Ronettes are on hand to welcome the Fab Four to New York on their first trip to the U.S.
"Walking in the Rain," by the Ronettes, becomes the girl group's fifth single to enter the Top 40, where it will peak at #23.
Presenting the Fabulous Ronettes Featuring Veronica enters Billboard's album chart, where it will peak at #96.
"I Can Hear Music," the Ronettes' last single for the Philles label, is released but fails to chart. The Ronettes disband shortly thereafter.
Phil Spector and Veronica "Ronnie" Bennett, of the Ronettes, are married. They will separate in 1972 and divorce two years later.
"You Came, You Saw, You Conquered" – a single credited to the Ronettes, Featuring Veronica – is released.
Ronnie Spector releases "Try Some, Buy Some," a single produced by husband Phil Spector, on the Beatles' Apple label.
Ronnie Spector cuts "Say Goodbye to Hollywood," written by Billy Joel, produced by Steve Van Zant and backed by Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band.
Ronnie Spector returns to the Top Forty for the first time since 1964 when Eddie Money's "Take Me Home Tonight," on which she sings, enters the chart, where it will peak at #4. It is her highest-charting single since "Be My Baby" reached #2 in 1963.
Ronnie Spector's tell-all autobiography, Be My Baby
The Best of the Ronettes, a long-overdue CD compendium, is released on ABKCO Records.
Last of the Rock Stars, Ronnie Spector's first album in 20 years, is released on the High Coin label.
The Ronettes are inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame at the 22nd annual induction dinner. Keith Richards is their presenter.
Estelle Bennett passes away in her New Jersey home.


text:
Featured in Vallarta Lifestyles Magazine, Fall/Winter 2006 issue.
Peaceful and pretty and a world apart from the hurly-burly of town, yet just 15 minutes away, this is the perfect place for those who dare to dream. Yachts glisten in the sun, coming and going on exciting adventures around Banderas Bay and the globe.
But Marina Vallarta is so much more than a boaters' way station! If you enjoy people-watching, you'll appreciate its seaside promenade with its easy-to-walk-on surface, amazing views, great restaurants, pampering spas, and inviting shops and galleries to discover in this easy-going neighborhood focused on a life of leisure.
On the boardwalk alone, some two dozen eateries and bars offer a wide range of cuisines overlooking the water and mountains. And there is not a traffic sound to be heard. After 6 pm El Faro, the lighthouse bar at its midpoint, is the place to be with your camera, providing panoramic 360-degree views of Marina Vallarta and far beyond


text:
Corey James Dillon (Clock Killin' Corey Dillon)
Position: RB
Height: 6-1 Weight: 225 lbs.
Born: October 24, 1974 in Seattle, WA
High School: Franklin
College: Washington (school history) (Dillon college stats)
Drafted by the Cincinnati Bengals in the 2nd round (43rd overall) of the 1997 NFL Draft.
Weighted Career AV (100-95-...): 74 (477th overall since 1950)
4-time Pro Bowler (fine print)
Other SR Links: College Football at Sports-Reference.com


text:
Textured circle link bracelet, in 14K yellow gold. Bracelet is approximately 7.5 inches in length.
Item No. 10904480
This product is no longer available. Can we help you find something else?
FLAWLESS Eau de Parfum Bottle (1.70 fl. oz.)$85.00
FLAWLESS Eau de Parfum Purser (.25 fl. oz.)$35.00
Engravable Bar Bracelet 14K$239.00
Gold Bypass Bangle 14K$499.00
Mixed Cut Smoky Quartz, Citrine & Diamond Bracelet 14K$1499.00
Multi-Gemstone Line Bracelet 14K$1399.00
Mixed Cut Blue Topaz & Diamond Bracelet 14K$1499.00
Mixed Cut Amethyst & Diamond Bracelet in Rose Gold 14K$1499.00
Multi-Gemstone & Diamond Bracelet 14K$599.00
Find the perfect ring
Shop Engagement
Shop Now
Shop Signature Forevermark
A Ben Bridge Exclusive
Fashion Gets Real
Shop the Lisa Bridge Collection
Watches For Him
View Now
Gifts for Him
Shop now
See our selection
Color Her World
Shop Gemstone Rings
The PANDORA Spring Collection
Meet Your Must Haves
Complete Store List
For five generations, Ben Bridge has been committed to offering the finest jewelry and unsurpassed personal service at the best value.


text:
Miami Dolphins: Team wants more
MIAMI GARDENS — Before linebacker Karlos Dansby could respond, teammate Kevin Burnett decided to answer the question for him.
Dansby was asked if this was the best the defense had played this season. Burnett, dressing in the locker next to Dansby's, quickly blurted out, "No."
"Nope," Dansby followed. "We still left a lot of plays out there. We let them get six points and we really wanted to shut them out. That was our mindset going into the game and we didn't get the job done."
And there you have it.
The Dolphins are not only playing with confidence, but also getting nitpicky about their wins. That was the most telling story about this victory. Guys were happy, yet already thinking about what they could've done to make the performance even better.
After the game, running back Reggie Bush was complimentary of the offense putting up 28 points. He then dropped this line, "We would have liked to put together a few more drives toward the end of the game …"
It was as if the Dolphins were doing their post-game interviews after they had already broken down the game film. That attitude is why the Dolphins can keep this "loose" locker-room atmosphere and not have to worry about complacency.
Quarterback Matt Moore put together perhaps his most efficient game of the season. His performance for the time being should put an end to the "Suck For Luck" campaign. Maybe his slogan should be "Do You Want Moore?"
Still, Moore was kicking himself for the plays he didn't make Sunday.
"Well, I missed a couple there in the second half that kind of bummed me out a little bit," he said. "I can't do that."
A short week is probably the best thing for the Dolphins. There's little time to celebrate, with just a few days before Thursday's game at Dallas. As coach Tony Sparano put it, he will smile about the Buffalo victory sometime Sunday night while breaking down Cowboys film.
"Obviously, we want to put our mean face back on and get ready for Dallas," defensive end Jared Odrick said.


text:
This is the next in my series of interviews with my favorite women in philosophy (see the intro to my interview with Susan Haack for why I am running this series and how you can help me). Some won't appear…my favorite female philosopher of all time is Philippa Foot, who is sadly deceased (and thus unavailable for interview), and a close second is Martha Nussbaum, who as a practicing Jew does not count herself an atheist and so declined to be interviewed for this project.
Today I'm speaking with Elizabeth Anderson, who is the John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She is best known for her book Value in Ethics and Economics (Harvard 1993), which challenges the notion that all goods can be commodified (i.e. regarded as fungibly equivalent to money) and sees what follows when we abandon that notion; and most recently for her strong defense of reasonable affirmative action policies in The Imperative of Integration (Princeton 2010) [for more see her cv].
I agree a bit less with Anderson than with Haack, at least on some issues (I do agree with her on a lot of things, too, and in this interview, I agree with nearly everything), but her work has been important in making the best non-straw-man case for views different from my own, and has actually changed and improved my own views in result. In this respect she reminds me of A.J. Ayer, who helped me structure much of my thought, and it was precisely in answering (or improving on) him that led me to my current views (in his case, regarding epistemology and semantics; in Anderson's case, with regard to ethics, value theory, and politics). I am thus not a logical positivist, but I'm a much better philosopher for having taken the best of them seriously. So, too, Anderson.
Interview with Elizabeth Anderson
R.C.: Thank you so much for taking the time and agreeing to this interview for FreethoughtBlogs. As a philosopher myself, I often encounter the attitude that philosophers are useless to society, not important, they don't even do anything except dress up opinions in academic language, that philosophy is a career dead-end or a waste of potential ("Why didn't you become a doctor or a physicist or at least a lawyer something?"). I have my own way of responding to that. But I'm curious about yours. There's a lot of pain and labor and sacrifice and expense to get all the way to completing a Ph.D., so we have to be really driven by something! So why did you pursue a career in philosophy? And I don't mean as a teacher, but as a philosopher, actually doing philosophy, not just teaching it.
E.A.: I originally wanted to be an economist. I was entranced by the libertarian model of rational individuals freely cooperating in the market in ways that redound to the advantage of all. Economic theories of markets seemed to show the way. Ironically, given its reputation, philosophy brought me down to earth. Or, more specifically, Amartya Sen's work at the intersection of economics and philosophy. His deft deconstruction of the concept of "preference" in economics, which demonstrated a raft of ambiguities that blocked the standard inference from "P chose A when B was available" to "P is better off with A than B," led me to think that critical philosophical methods could yield important normative insights into the workings of social institutions and practices that pure economic modeling would not.
I've always been fascinated by big ideas—such as freedom, justice, and equality—but troubled by the simplistic ways people try to translate those ideas into practice. My mission as a philosopher is to develop ways of thinking about how to realize those ideas in ways that are true to the complexities of social life. Against the view that philosophy is useless, John Maynard Keynes once said "The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else." While I wouldn't go as far as "little else," Keynes was right that philosophical ideas are a force to be reckoned with.
R.C.: I agree. I've often made the point in my writing and speeches, that we all rely on philosophical assumptions, about nearly everything, in nearly every decision we make–whether we are aware of it or not. So we ought to be aware of it, and test those assumptions for validity or merit. Which entails doing philosophy! And once you get started on that, you find there is a lot to do.
But we each get more done on some things than others, and we can't all master everything. Which means philosophy, just like science or history, has to be a collective effort. Which brings me to my next question. Of all your work (books and articles), what do you think most represents you and sets you apart as a philosopher? And why that?
E.A.: My latest book, The Imperative of Integration (Princeton University Press, 2010), best shows what I am up to. It's a demonstration of how to carry out a pragmatist social philosophy for the present day. Dewey argued that moral and political judgments were of a piece with scientific judgments: they are subject to testing in experience. The fundamental test of any moral or political claim is to live in accordance with it and see if we can live with the results. Does it solve our problems, or at least make headway on them? This requires, first off, a diagnosis of what our problems are. Moral and political philosophy therefore must, from the very start, closely engage the social sciences. This requires [in turn] that social scientific inquiry be shaped by our moral and political concerns.
A lot of ink has been spilled over how to do this at a very abstract methodological level. But for a pragmatist, the proof is in the pudding. One must put the methodology through its paces through engagement with actual cases. In my book, I focus on the problem of systematic group inequality: the fact that enduring lines of socioeconomic and political advantage and disadvantage tend to track boundaries of group identity–by race, gender, ethnicity, religion, language, caste, class—identities that differ from society to society but tend to fall into typical patterns. I show how group segregation is the linchpin of group inequality, demonstrate how this works in the case of black-white inequality in the U.S., and show how racial integration is needed to overcome unjust race-based disadvantage and also make our society more democratic. Close engagement with empirical work in the social sciences is the hallmark of my method. Philosophers tend to put way too much stock in the a priori. We need to go out and study the world if we are to have a hope of shaping normative concepts suitable to it.
R.C.: Right on. I wholeheartedly agree. That's exactly how all philosophy should be done. And why science should be more informed and driven by philosophy, to help pursue better answers to philosophical questions. Ditto for political theory and practice. In my first book I argued (among other things) that political philosophy, and actual policy, must be evidence-based, not ideology-based. So we're definitely on the same page. And your analysis of the different kinds of affirmative action and their relative merits (morally and in practice) is the best of its kind. What are you working on now? And why that?
E.A.: I'm working on a history of egalitarianism, from the Levellers to the present. I'm casting it as the critical and experimental thought and practice of egalitarian social movements, such as radical abolitionism, feminism, socialism, and democracy. Egalitarians have always been very sharp about what they are against, which is social hierarchies of subordination, stigmatization, and marginalization. They aim to replace these hierarchies with social relations of equality. But what would a society of equals look like? That's always been contested, and many experiments have been tried. Some have failed (think of socialist communes), others have engendered huge improvements in the human condition (think of social insurance). It's another way to develop a pragmatist political philosophy.
[This] also functions as a critique of contemporary egalitarian theorizing, much of which has lost touch with the normative impulses behind egalitarian social movements and replaced them with wholly abstract notions of cosmic justice. Now some philosophers, such as Derek Parfit and Larry Temkin, imagine that egalitarianism is the view that equal distributions of goods across individuals, even if they live on different planets and have no causal interactions or even knowledge of each other, are intrinsically good. This has nothing to do with anything any egalitarian in the history of egalitarianism ever cared about. It's time to get back to issues worth caring about. I started to articulate what those issues are for egalitarians in "What is the Point of Equality?" in Ethics 109 (1999): 287-337, and a series of papers following that one. Doing history is another way to vindicate that project.
R.C.: I'll keep an eye out for that. It definitely touches on areas I'm interested in. I'm concerned about egalitarian extremism, but also interested in gathering together the egalitarian ideas that are valid. It sounds like your next book will be required reading there.
Related to the question of integration and egalitarianism is an issue I raised in my interview with Haack, inspired by my own observations, and even more so by the revelations of the Being a Woman in Philosophy blog, a project of the Women in Philosophy Task Force at MIT: the treatment of women in philosophy, even driving them away from it. As a major proponent of integration policies, this sounds like this would be right in your wheelhouse. My next few questions relate to that.
In the process of becoming a philosopher, and now in being a philosopher, have you met with any particular difficulties or annoyances because you are a woman?
E.A.: My first permanent academic position was at the University of Michigan, where I have remained. I was the only woman in my department when I joined it in 1987. At least 3 women prior to me had either been denied tenure or left when the handwriting was on the wall. One of my colleagues took me out to lunch on my very first day of work, to explain that the Department wasn't sexist, it was just that my predecessors weren't any good. Then he handed me his draft of a nasty review of a book by a female philosopher in his field whose reputation already outshone his. It concluded that many people have claimed that women didn't have the talent to be good philosophers, and this book offered no counterexample to that claim. (Another of my colleagues persuaded him to drop that last sentence, something that may have protected him but not me from damage.)
It wasn't just him. Several of my colleagues at the time were resistant to any suggestions that the lack of women in the department, and their failure to flourish there, was of any concern. The merest suggestion that this was a concern—coming, for example, from the Dean's office—would send them into an aggressive-defensive posture, where the basic reaction was to construe such suggestions as vile personal attacks on their character, to be rejected with outrage. Time and again, the focus of discussion in department meetings and other conversations turned away from how women in the department were doing to the infinitely more important issue of how the men's egos were being unjustly wounded by anyone raising the subject.
I wasn't much of a feminist when I started at UM. But these highly unconstructive and narcissistic responses led me to read a lot of feminist theory as well as social psychology. It also led me to build connections with scholars in Women's Studies. For many female academics, Women's Studies was and is a spectacular refuge, a wonderfully lively, sharp, witty and wise group of scholars where one knows one is always welcome and appreciated, where one can simply focus on ideas without the adolescent sparring and jockeying so common to philosophy and academia more generally, and without the sullen resentfulness of those who imagine that an invitation to share a concern is a scurrilous personal accusation.
It's hard to recognize quality in an atmosphere of sullen resentfulness, even on the part of those who don't personally feel that way, but who sympathize somewhat with those who do. Affirmative action in such contexts is undertaken with a guilty conscience, where the guilt is not over a history of exclusion but over what feels like lowering standards to let women in. That attitude doesn't do women any favors. It's remarkable how much people continue to trust their judgments of quality even when experiments show time and again how unreliable they are. It's even more remarkable when one considers that the opacity and cognitive biases of the mind are central themes in the canon of 17th and 18th c. philosophy, which every philosopher has read.
I am happy to report that things have improved dramatically. The presence of a critical mass of women enables everyone to recognize quality in female applicants, and to successfully cultivate their talent when they are hired. Offers to women have long since become a matter of course, enthusiastic, and guilt-free. That was the point of affirmative action all along. I explain all this in my book [The Imperative of Integration], complete with the relevant cognitive and social psychology, for those who want to understand what affirmative action is really about, rather than the dysfunctional guilty version that so many tend to confuse with the real thing.
R.C.: Do you think more women should pursue advanced degrees in philosophy? And what would you tell women that might inspire them to do that?
E.A.: Philosophy is still way behind most other fields with respect to attracting women. A majority of undergraduate majors in psychology, the life sciences, and most of the humanities are women. Half of all math majors nationwide are women. Yet only about 1/3 of philosophy majors are women. None of the standard stereotypes about biologically-based cognitive differences between men and women can explain this.
Reputation and marketing may have something to do with this. Jacquelynne Eccles, a psychologist at my university, is one of the leading investigators of why girls disproportionately drop out of the academic tracks leading to STEM fields as early as 9th grade. She has found that girls tend to find engineering unattractive when it is represented as an opportunity for geeks to tinker with cool hi-tech toys and games. They are much more likely to pursue it when it is represented as an opportunity to develop technology that helps people. It would be worth investigating whether philosophy also suffers from a reputation that drives women away. In fact, there are many, many different routes into philosophy. We should explore and highlight routes that would attract more women.
R.C.: What advice would you give to women already aspiring to be philosophers?
E.A.: Find or create a community of scholars where you are unequivocally welcome, where you can let down your guard and just focus on ideas and not on how you are performing before others (a self-conscious stance that tends to degrade confidence and performance). Have the courage of your curiosity and follow it where it leads: there is nothing like the joy of discovery to keep one going. Read up on how bias works so you are prepared to recognize and deal with it.
R.C.: That's a good point. It's important to be aware of the cognitive biases science has confirmed in us, not just so we can guard against or compensate for them in ourselves, but also so we can detect when others are falling victim to them. And we should keep that in mind even when making choices of where to study. I'm thinking of great resources like Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) and The End of Diversity as We Know It. And of course the literature you cite in Integration.
I'd like to jump back now to my opening subject and explore the future of philosophy in general. Do you see philosophers as "useful" to society? In what ways?
E.A.: Philosophical questions arise from reflection on the tensions and contradictions latent in ordinary thought and practice. Once we notice them, there is no going back. Questions demand answers. One reflection leads to another. We find ourselves doing philosophy just as we find ourselves deliberating—because carrying on unreflectively is no longer an option. This is most evident for moral and political philosophy, where we must make moral and political judgments all the time.
But philosophical concerns arise in all the other disciplines. Think of how the social sciences wrestle with the obvious importance of values and human interests in their research. Or the metaphysical issues of social ontology: do races really exist? Epistemological concerns arise also in everyday life. I was once on a jury in which we had to think about what reasonable doubt meant in weighing evidence. If one could reasonably doubt each piece of evidence taken in isolation, did that mean we should toss out each doubtful piece one by one and never consider it again, as the defense wanted us to do, or should reasonable doubt be judged against the totality of the evidence? We took the correct Bayesian approach, which was to judge the totality of the evidence–but not before discussing the matter.
Even moral and political philosophy looks useless if we do not take the right timeframe. Recall Keynes's claim that ideas rule the world. While there is a lot of truth to this, we must keep in mind that it can take a very long time for an idea to triumph. Consider sovereignty. For centuries, unaccountability was considered an essential feature of sovereigns. The monarch, Burke insisted, was "perfectly irresponsible" —meaning that he answered to no one, that he didn't have to justify his actions, however arbitrary, to his subjects. That's subjects, not citizens. Now, the only people who think this are dictators. The citizens over whom they rule certainly don't believe it. Just look at the Arab Spring. Now, we think those who run the government are public servants.
This understanding, where the people are the principals, and government officeholders the agents, is a complete reversal of the relations of governors to people from that of the bulk of human history. We also think sovereignty is limited by human rights. This understanding is also global, certainly not exclusively or even primarily Western. The most forceful advocates of universal human rights have always been those who were denied them. But the idea of universal human rights is a deeply philosophical idea, cultivated for centuries by philosophers before coming to fruition.
R.C.: That's a good point. The notion of human rights was already being explored by Stoic philosophers before the rise of the Roman Empire (as I point out in Christianity Was Not Responsible for American Democracy), and became somewhat codified in various ways in Roman law even under the Empire, before it started to become increasingly ignored. Then it was picked up again in various ways later on.
Yet ironically, the Roman Empire is when the idea of sovereignty you refer to did its first switcheroo. Greco-Roman political philosophy advocated the modern view you mention: that rulers are agents of the people, and accountable to them. The notion of an emperor above the law only evolved over the imperial period and became more or less tacit by the end of the Roman crisis (arguably by adopting a then-Eastern model of sovereignty, in which the ruler was a stand-in for God, and chosen by God, which is also, incidentally, the model advocated throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New). This notion was then picked up wholeheartedly by Christians thereafter. It took a really long time to revive the earlier ideas of sovereignty, longer to make them a reality.
There's a story there. And it's a story of ideas. And of the arguments for and against them. And that's philosophy. Even if it's all going on among the commons and not the academic elite, or even if the academic elite are just articulating and giving structure and sense to the philosophy of the commons. It's philosophy all the same.
But there are still naysayers, who would say that that isn't really philosophy, it's just thinking out loud. Is philosophy just "dressing up opinions in academic language"? If not, then what is it?
E.A.: Some psychologists tell us that people will not change their minds on the basis of arguments, but rather will come up with arguments to justify whatever opinions they already hold. This is the source of the view that philosophy, which is all about argumentation, is inert, useless, and pretentious.
It is true that at the individual level, on-the-spot fundamental belief change in response to the force of argument alone is rare. That is the wrong model to take of how philosophical argumentation is supposed to work, however. There are really three points to make here.
First, recall my point above about timescales. Philosophers take the long view. In science, too, this is how reason works when the most fundamental issues are at stake. Thomas Kuhn famously remarked that new paradigms triumph not by changing minds, but by changing generations. The old guard is too hidebound, having staked their careers in a stagnant paradigm. The next generation is not just irrationally taking on new opinions, however, but rightly sees genuine prospects for advance in the new ways of thinking. The changing of the guard tracks a progress of reason.
From a pragmatist point of view this is only to be expected. Not only is habit change difficult and costly, but the most important reasons one can have for adopting a new view are ex post, demonstrated through the fruits of acting in accordance with that view. So it takes time for new views to be vindicated. Even within the lifetimes of individuals we can see significant changes of moral view. People do mature, wise up, with life experience. Disillusionment with one's former ideals in light of one's experiences in acting in accordance with them is not uncommon. Once we get away from thinking that a priori reasoning is the touchstone of philosophical argumentation we can abandon the presumption that belief change upon confrontation with arguments ought to be immediate.
Second, rationality is more a feature of collectives than of individuals. Individuals are stubborn and biased, but [just] get the organization of collective inquiry right, and the group is far wiser than the sum of its members. The march of reason is manifested on a larger scale than the individual taken in isolation.
Third, fundamental philosophical ideas like "democracy" always start off underspecified. Arguments and justifications invariably advance particular specifications of the big ideas, and commit people to developing and exploring those specifications, which get sharper through layers of objection and reply. Kuhn called this process "normal science" but the same kind of argument-induced within-paradigm change works in philosophy generally. At this level, argumentation is powerful even for individuals on short timescales.
R.C.: Thanks for that. Those three points are spot on. I hadn't thought of it so clearly before. Hey. That's even a demonstration of your every principle! You just did some philosophy that sharpened nebulous ideas in my mind, made them clear and numerable. And now I'll be spreading that meme wherever I have occasion to. And through those who pick it up from me, others will be infected by it in turn. It's reasonable to suspect the butterfly just flapped its wings. And so begins the slow march of change. Or if not now, then eventually, with some idea or other. Throw enough darts at the board and one is eventually going to hit. But none will ever hit if none get thrown.
Speaking of big ideas and long-term change, though, I have to ask now what many readers at Freethought Blogs will want to know. Do you identify as an atheist, or with any particular religion or worldview?
E.A.: Despite my last name I am considered Jewish under Jewish religious law because my mother is Jewish. There is a distinguished Jewish intellectual tradition of atheism coming out of Spinoza, who is one of the great moral and intellectual heroes of modern philosophy. I was raised Unitarian, another religion that imposes no confessional requirements on its members, and that also has a distinguished freethinking tradition.
A consequence of such an upbringing is that instead of accepting theism uncritically as a default presumption, or because of overwhelming social pressure to do so (as in evangelical Protestant churches, where there is an expected answer to the question "are you saved"?), I was free to demand a positive reason to believe. Dispassionate investigation finds no such reason. Indeed I have found overwhelming reason to believe that there is no God, especially not the God of the Bible. Those curious to know my reasons are welcome to read "If God is Dead, is Everything Permitted?," in Louise Antony, ed., Philosophers without Gods (Oxford University Press, 2007), reprinted in Christopher Hitchens, ed., The Portable Atheist (DaCapo Press/Perseus Books, 2007).
R.C.: Knowing that thousands of atheists are reading this–in fact you have an audience of thousands of them at this very moment–what do you most want to say to them? (And hey, it can be encouragement, advice, or criticism, anything.)
E.A.: We atheists are living in the midst of a tremendous revival of politicized religious enthusiasm, and a reconfiguration of religious coalitions in which denominations that were once enemies—such as evangelical Protestants and Catholics—are now allied. It is a telling fact about the U.S. today that voters report a greater willingness to vote for a Muslim than an atheist for President, despite the anti-Muslim rhetoric pervading the political scene. Atheists will survive this. Far more dangerous is the adoption of an essentially religious, dogmatic, anti-scientific epistemology for politics generally. When the overwhelming scientific evidence for global warming is rejected on the basis of a reading of Noah's covenant with God, in which God supposedly promised humans that he would never again destroy the earth, humanity itself is in big trouble.
There is a vital practical question of how to respond to this. Atheists are divided between a militant, in-your-face critique of religious belief on rational and scientific grounds, and a conciliatory approach, which tries to persuade the religious that science is not threatening their faith, so they should come on board the scientific project.
At its most extreme, the conciliatory approach leads to Stephen Jay Gould's view of science and religion as having "nonoverlapping magisteria," with science having authority over facts, and religion having authority over values. I find this view repugnant. Religious authorities have no authority whatsoever over moral and political values. American religious faiths today, and orthodox and fundamentalist faiths worldwide, insofar as they speak about these values, are dominated by a toxic brew of classism, militarism, nationalism, patriarchy, homophobia, and obsession with sexual repression. There is nothing remotely moral or just in any of this. The revelation of the Catholic Church's worldwide conspiracy to protect thousands of child rapists in its ranks for decades reveals the consequences of moral deference to organized religion. In any event, Gould's view is a complete nonstarter for the religious themselves, who reject the idea that religion makes no ontological claims.
On the other hand, so-called "militant" atheism, while intellectually far more rigorous and satisfying, may be counterproductive in the short run. Given the urgency of getting people on board the scientific project, it is not necessarily a good strategy to stress the atheistic implications of contemporary science. We atheists need a deeper understanding of the social and political psychology of religious faith in the modern day to figure out the most effective response.
R.C.: Yes. To harken back to your methodological point earlier, we do need some real, evidence-based, sociological research here.
But just so my readers are aware, my view is that confrontational atheism is the only strategy available. Because there is no getting the cat back into the bag. We could not hide the fact that science discredits all religions, even if we were disingenuous or unscrupulous enough to try. Religion is in fact the primary barrier to accepting science. Conciliation is not going to get past that–unless it aims to convert people to more liberal versions of their creeds, which outsiders can never do (so that's a fool's errand as far as I can see). I also have seen the critique of religion (when honest, accurate, and well articulated) work. That is, I know a lot of people who have left the faith, or softened their faith, when persistently confronted with it. I know of no one who left religion without it (just those who never had religion to begin with).
But I also think we need a more practical second wing, a positive atheism or social goods wing, that builds and promotes the benefits of atheism and a godless community, making both more attractive, and their good works more visible (a really good book to read on this point is Sikivu Hutchinson's Moral Combat).
But again, those are just working hypotheses. It would be nice to have some scientists working this question. (I do try to nudge young future scientists to do that, wherever I meet them.)
The intellectual part of the positive atheism program, however, is one I myself have embarked upon, that of building credible, useful godless worldviews that can do all the work that religious worldviews claim to, only with empirical, rational and non-dogmatic elements and foundations. Which brings me back to my concern over the future of philosophy.
In 2001 Mario Bunge wrote a book called Philosophy in Crisis, in which he outlined ten ways philosophy was failing as a field, ten ways in which philosophy had lost its way. His basic point was that philosophy used to be more relevant to the common man, more engaged with the real world, and more interested in making progress in its conclusions. Before I read that book I had come to some of the same conclusions on my own, and I have since read some other things making similar points, and I've heard the same from others both inside and outside the field. So I'm always curious what professional philosophers think about this.
Not all of Bunge's complaints are of equal worry or true of all philosophers. But some of them do seem to be worrying trends that have sapped the relevance out of philosophy for most of the public. It would be too much to talk about them all. So I'll just pick two of the five or so that I find most important…
E.A.: I don't know Bunge's work. But it reminds me of Dewey's Reconstruction in Philosophy, which was a call to philosophers to work on problems arising in real life, rather than pure a priori speculation about matters that can never make a difference.
R.C. Right. One of Bunge's points, though, was that philosophers are no longer building worldviews. Instead, it seems like all we have are isolated specialists, who don't do any work in establishing the foundations even for their specialty. Aristotle wrote on epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, and politics and sought to integrate them all into a coherent system, so that each could rest on the foundation of the other, and if they couldn't, he knew he had to adjust one or the other. Other philosophical schools then built their own systems and debated whether theirs was closer to the truth than his. But no one does this anymore.
When I wrote Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism (AuthorHouse 2005) it was to fill this gap, presenting and defending a complete worldview, covering all five Aristotelian categories and showing how they were interrelated and built on the facts so far ascertained by the sciences. It bothers me that no other book in the modern era did what that book does, nor has any book since. So my (very ambitious) questions about this are: Why are philosophers no longer doing this? Shouldn't they be?
E.A.: Like all the other disciplines, philosophy has gotten specialized. There is just too much to know to fit into a single picture. Even though Dewey was the last completely comprehensive philosopher, in the sense of someone who wrote book-length treatises on every single subfield of philosophy, offering a unified view of the whole, I don't think he would necessarily regret the downfall of comprehensive systematic philosophy. From a pragmatist perspective, I don't find this regrettable either. I find contemporary philosophy of science, for example, at its best and most illuminating when it is focusing in on specific theories, findings, methods, and practices in particular sciences, rather than offering up completely general theories of laws of nature, for example.
R.C.: I agree there's merit in that. But, again to my readers, I don't think one can be done without the other. All those specialized, focused studies rest on a foundation of assumptions in all the other areas of philosophy (epistemology generally, overall metaphysics, metaethics, political assumptions, aesthetic assumptions). Personally, I think it can't tend to any good if they are left unexamined and no one even asks whether the system of assumptions they are resting on is even coherent, much less true. I also think what people need is a comprehensive and coherent worldview, into which they can fit (and make sense of) all those more particular results. Because lacking that, they pull to religion, the only business currently selling that product.
But as I said to Dr. Haack, that's my own soap box to stand on and drum to beat.
Which relates to another concern of mine. Bunge's second most worrying point (to me, at least) was that philosophers aren't defending any standard of progress in their field. I would assume anyone committed to logic should agree that a conclusion reached by logically valid argument from premises whose truth is highly probable should be agreed upon as most probably the correct conclusion. For example, it can be proven that "free will" can be defined in various ways, and that on some of those definitions, given present scientific facts, "free will" almost certainly exists, and on others it almost certainly does not (and only new scientific evidence could change either conclusion).
So my next questions are: Shouldn't conclusions reached by logically valid argument, from premises that are agreed to be very probably true, be considered by all philosophers as resolved? Couldn't we just catalogue all this progress as "established philosophy" so philosophers can build on that, rather than having to reinvent the wheel over and over again? Or is there no such thing as progress in philosophy?
E.A.: The former President of the University of Michigan, James Duderstadt (an engineer), once suggested a similar project for the humanities generally. Why not get all the top Shakespeare scholars together at a conference to work out the definitive interpretation of Hamlet once and for all, and put the results online? That would put an end to all the academic squabbling and make the humanities genuinely progressive disciplines with an accumulation of knowledge over time.
I think you can see where this is headed. In any interpretive discipline, results can never be final because we are always coming at the subject from different angles, which partially constitute the object of knowledge itself. Every generation, each individual reader even, brings a somewhat different set of concerns and orientations, problems and conceptual frameworks, to bear on the object of study. This is why it is always possible to read the classics afresh and find new insights in them.
Philosophers pretend that this is not so for our discipline. We are all trained to write as if from nowhere, in an impersonal voice, as if asserting claims that are true in all possible worlds. This is part of our obsession with the a priori. In reality we are all responding to problems and questions that are not eternal, but inevitably reflect engagement with historically and culturally contingent configurations of concepts, methods, analytical tools, and real-world problems. The particular ways we abstract from our present predicament always leave their traces in the abstractions themselves.
Thus, when I teach the history of political philosophy, I put the theories in historical context. We read Hobbes' Leviathan in the context of Behemoth, Hobbes' account of the causes of the English Civil War. We read Rousseau's Social Contract in the context of the constitutional crisis of Geneva in his day. We read Mill's The Subjection of Women in the context of the common law of coverture, which denied married women any standing as legal persons independent of their husbands. Dozens of puzzles about these works are solved once we put them in historical context. So even when we think we are asking the same question as Plato was asking, in reality we are reconceiving what the question is really about. Plato's question, "What is justice?" simply isn't the same as our question today, although we like to suppose otherwise. That, plus new tools, leads to different answers.
We should not despair of this, but frankly acknowledge what the philosophical voice refuses whenever it pretends to sketch a view from nowhere. Philosophy is immeasurably more lively, interesting, illuminating, and useful when it starts from the particulars of our current self-understandings and predicaments and engages questions arising from everyday life and practice.
R.C.: I certainly agree with that. But I believe there are also universals underlying the particulars. There is, in other words, a relevant sense in which Hobbes (for example) was either right or wrong, his premises being either true or false, his inferences from them being either logically valid or not. That's entirely apart from his historical context, or the particularity of his concerns and answers, which are all still valid facts to take into account. Even science must always deal with the historically-bound particular (there is no universal vaccine, no universal car engine, no universal chemical; new planets, new species cannot be deduced from physical laws, you just have to keep looking for them; etc.) yet still lays a foundation for them in general laws (the frameworks of astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc.).
That's why I'd say philosophy differs from literature. There can be infinitely many things you can get out of literature, and therefore infinitely many ways to use or interpret (for example) Shakespeare, which are all mutually compatible (they can all simultaneously be true without contradiction). This is not the case in philosophy. Or science. Or even history. Although history can permit more possibilities to be argued, for lack of data to pin down which one is definitively true. Nevertheless, even history as a field makes progress by establishing or ruling out possibilities and the relative degrees of evidence supporting each. Its methods become more advanced. In most areas it builds an ever-larger foundation of well-established facts and pursues further inquiry by resting on those foundations. And so on.
Philosophy has within it subjects as data-poor as history, but also subjects nearly as data-rich as science (as you yourself note, philosophy should even be building on the foundations of science). And yet if even history makes measurable progress in its understanding, I must conclude, so should philosophy.
You might have something to say about that, though.
E.A.: I agree with you that there is progress in philosophy in the way you define it. Hobbes thought governments with divided sovereignty (say, between legislative and executive branches) were inherently unstable. We now know how to design constitutions like this that support highly stable governments. Hobbes was wrong, and our knowledge of this is certainly progress. I'm less persuaded that this marks such a stark contrast with literature. It is possible to rule out some interpretations of literary works with a high degree of confidence. But because interpretive elements are inescapable in philosophy, literature, and indeed all of the human sciences, that still leaves us with a lot of room to play with.
R.C.: Agreed. Which, of course, I think should be treated exactly as such: just as in history, for example, wherever there really is a lot of room to play with, then certainty ought not be claimed. Philosophers should be humbler in those cases than often they are. But you certainly agree with me there. Now let me ask you what your own soap box is. Do you yourself see anything about the way philosophy is done today that could be changed for the better?
E.A.: As I have been saying, philosophy today puts way too much stock in the a priori. It wasn't always so. This is the historical legacy of the evolution of the academic disciplines. As so many disciplines—psychology, economics, sociology, linguistics—split off from philosophy, philosophers were left trying to stake out a territory of their own, and basically decided it was that part of the domain of the a priori that mathematics had not already claimed. The effects of this have been mostly baleful. There are important countercurrents to this: feminist philosophy, social epistemology, experimental philosophy, and philosophy of science (when practiced as it normally is today, in close engagement with particular scientific theories) offer vital alternatives.
R.C.: Amen to all that.


text:
UNCW ordered to promote professor, pay back pay
Published: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 10:33 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 10:33 p.m.
Wilmington | The University of North Carolina Wilmington was ordered Tuesday by a federal judge to promote an associate professor who sued the school and won, and to pay him $50,000 in back pay.
Mike Adams, an associate professor of criminology at UNCW, sued the university in 2007 and won his case against the school this year in U.S. District Court in Greenville.
Adams accused the university of religious and speech-based discrimination when he was not promoted to full professor in 2006. A jury ruled March 20 in Adams' favor. In his lawsuit, Adams claimed he was denied promotion because of his religious views.
In a March 20 statement, UNCW said it "respectfully disagrees with the jury's verdict and will fully explore its options for appeal."
In his ruling Tuesday, Senior U.S. District Judge Malcolm J. Howard ordered UNCW to promote Adams to full professor effective the same day, "with pay and benefits in the future to relate back to August 2007."
UNCW's motion for a new trial was denied.
– Jim Ware
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Courtesy: Ilya Pinchuk (Moscow, Idaho)
|Idaho is just short again
LAS CRUCES, N.M. – Similar circumstances, same brutal result for Idaho men's basketball in a 76-74 loss against New Mexico State on Thursday at the Pan American Center.
Idaho trailed by 11 points with six minutes to play and battled back to tie the game on a Connor Hill 3-pointer with one minute left. The Vandals fouled NM State's Bandja Sy with 26 seconds to play and rebounded his front-end miss on a one-and-one free throw.
On the ensuing possession, Idaho turned it over and fouled New Mexico State's Daniel Mullings with 14 seconds to play. He made both and Idaho missed three shots in the final seconds before senior center Kyle Barone's tip-in that couldn't beat the buzzer.
It was eerily similar to Idaho's Jan. 12 game at the Cowan Spectrum in which the Vandals closed out a 17-point deficit and tied the game with three seconds to go, only to foul Mullings on the ensuing inbounds play in a 71-70 loss.
"We did a lot of really, really good things tonight," Idaho head coach Don Verlin said. "There's not anyone who feels worse than those players in the locker room, because there's two games in a row, for lack of a better term, where we gave it to them."
With the loss, Idaho slips to 9-13 overall and 5-7 in the Western Athletic Conference. New Mexico State moves to 16-8 overall and 10-2 in conference play.
Barone notched his sixth 20-point game of the season with 26 on 10-of-19 shooting, along with seven rebounds, two assists, one block and one steal. Hill, a sophomore guard, notched a career-high 21 points on 6-of-9 shooting and cracked Idaho's career top-10 with three 3-pointers. He already has 109 in his career, which is 10th-most in school history.
As a team, Idaho went 25-of-54 (.463) from the field and 7-of-12 (.583) from 3-point range. The Aggies went 30-of-56 (.536) overall and 8-of-18 (.444) from 3-point range. The main difference was at the free throw line, where Idaho was 17-of-21 (.810) and NM State was just 8-of-12 (.667).
The Aggies out-rebounded Idaho by a 32-28 margin, but got more out of their offensive rebounds. NM State had just nine o-boards to Idaho's eight, but the Aggies turned their second chances into 12 points and the Vandals got just two from theirs.
Idaho turned the ball over just 11 times in the game, but nearly every one was of the offensive foul or traveling variety. The Aggies only had two steals in the game, but 13 points off Idaho's giveaways. The Vandals scored 18 points off NM State's 15 turnovers.
Mullings, NM State's leading scorer, wasn't much of a factor in the game until his late free throws, but in his stead, guards Kevin Aronis and Remi Barry came off the bench to combine for 16 points on 6-of-12 shooting. The duo entered the game averaging just 5.8 points per game, combined.
New Mexico State got 20 points on 8-of-8 shooting from center Sim Bhullar and 12 points each from Terrel de Rouen and Renaldo Dixon. Forward Banda Sy had nine points and a game-high 15 rebounds.
Verlin said that Idaho's plan from the beginning was to compact the interior of the court to try to counter NM State's size and athleticism, but the Aggies responded by hitting 3-pointers in open space.
"We felt like we had to make them beat us from three," Verlin said. "They were making three a game, but they step up here and make eight. By keeping our defense packed in, we were able to keep them from driving the basket and drawing fouls."
Up next for Idaho is a road trip to Denver, which is 14-8 overall and 10-2 in WAC play after a 72-55 home win over Seattle U on Thursday. The Pioneers took a narrow 55-49 win against the Vandals earlier this year at the Cowan Spectrum.


text:
WDHS Beta Club completes Easter drive
Published: Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 12:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 9:38 p.m.
In preparation for Easter this year, the West Davidson High School Beta Club held an Easter Drive for patients in a nursing home.
The drive was open from March 1-20, and items were collected to fill Easter baskets for senior citizens. Items requested for donation included Easter baskets, Easter grass and eggs, candy and crossword puzzles.
Club members spent the afternoon of March 21 filling various baskets for the senior citizens at Brookstone Retirement Center.
Beta Club members left directly after school Tuesday to deliver these baskets to the special recipients. While they were there, club members relaxed, met some of the patients and even played a few games of bingo..
"It makes me feel good to give back to the elders who can't get out and about anymore," says Louisa Garner, a senior Beta Club member. "They've helped us before, so now it's our time to help them."
Another senior member, Nikki Isenhour, says, "It makes me feel proud of our school, students and faculty for being willing to donate time and gifts to our older citizens."
Karstyn Orrell, Beta Club project manager, says, "My favorite part of this entire process is seeing students come together and give their time to the generations before us."
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Top Deals
All Coupons & Deals (Total: 395 Coupons & Deals)Deal of the day
Airparks (All Airparks Deals & Coupons)3% off Parking with no credit card or debit card charges. Discounts are not obtainable at airport owned products at Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Gatwick, Glasgow, Heathrow, Luton, Stansted, Southampton.
End: 2018-03-06
| Start: 2013-03-06
Code: WM280
allbeauty.com (All allbeauty.com Deals & Coupons)This Week\'s Special Offers: 100 Fantastic Deals!
End: 2018-07-10
| Start: 2014-07-10
Alpaca Direct (All Alpaca Direct Deals & Coupons)Find Clearance Alpaca Apparel at Alpaca Direct
End: 2037-12-31
| Start: 2008-06-19
Code: None required
Apex Hotels (All Apex Hotels Deals & Coupons)Save 15% by booking and paying in advance
End: 2017-02-13
| Start: 2015-02-13
Art.co.uk (All Art.co.uk Deals & Coupons)Get inspired with new paintings, prints, photographs & more at Art.co.uk! Shop modern, vintage and fine art today!
End: 2017-04-20
| Start: 2015-04-20


text:
Davidson County Republicans to hold meetings and convention
Published: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 10:22 a.m.
The Davidson County Republican Party will hold its 2013 precinct meetings and county convention concurrently March 23 at the Central Davidson High School cafeteria.
Registration will start at 9:30 a.m. The precinct meetings will begin at 10 with the convention immediately afterward.
The precinct meetings are the primary method for grassroots Republicans to become active with their party and have a voice in party organization, according to a release from the party. Those attending the precinct meetings and being named delegates will be seated at the convention and be allowed to vote on party officers. Party officers being elected at the convention are chairman, vice chairman, treasurer and secretary.
"The last two election cycles have been the most successful ever for Republicans in Davidson County, however, we expect a large turnout as challenges are expected for all positions," said Chairman Lance Barrett. "Central Davidson High School is a great venue for us, and we are excited to have it there again."
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Hotel San Samuele Venice official site
1) This is the ONLY official website of HOTEL SAN SAMUELE in Venice !
All the others sites advertising our hotel are TRAVEL AGENCIES-owned (Booking, Expedia etc.): they earn commissions on successful bookings and require us to pay fees as well.
We guarantee you the best rate on the Internet. By booking directly with us you will get an extra 10% discount right away by entering the Promocode "CRAZY10" in the box above, plus FREE CHECK IN AFTER 8:00 pm (if you book through agencies, you need to pay extra 15 Euro).
2) Our location is truly unique as we are less than 5 minutes walk away from two of the most stunning attractions in Venice: Piazza San Marco and Ponte di Rialto.We are tucked in the heart of the quiet, elegant and bohemian "Sestiere San Marco" (San Marco district), littered with antique shops and art galleries.In the immediate hotel surroundings, you can find excellent small restaurants and a grocery shop for your basic needs. The nearby Campo Santo Stefano is surrounded by outdoor cafes, cute cafeterias serving delicious breakfast and the famous Paolin's ice cream shop, where Venetians use to meet for a drink. A pharmacy and a supermarket, just few minutes walk away, complete the range of services available at hand.
3) Hotel San Samuele is easily reachable both from Piazzale Roma and "Santa Lucia" railway station. In just 20 minutes you will be in Hotel as we are only two 'vaporetto' (water bus) stops away. Line 1 stops at SAN ANGELO while Line 2 or N stops at SAN SAMUELE. From there, it will take only 2 minutes walk to get to our hotel.
4) From "Marco Polo" AIRPORT, the comfortable and speedy Alilaguna ORANGE LINE boat will take you in just 1 hour to our SAN ANGELO stop.
5) We warmly welcome you with a smile, making you immediately feel at home in a cozy and friendly environment. We at San Samuele Hotel are all international friends deeply in love with Venice whose secrets we are willing to share with our guests, by giving you precious advice on how to avoid the crowds, the best times to visit museums or how to build customized itineraries based on your interests and stay length, letting you discover Venetians' favorite places.
6) Remember that we are a small, 1-star hotel!As we are located in a charming, old Venetian residence dating back to '600, no elevator is available. Smoking is not allowed throughout the hotel. Rooms are simply furnished with an antique touch that gives them a lovely look. Towels and linens are provided and rooms are cleaned and tidied every day. As we want you to dip in the magical Venice atmosphere while ensuring you the utmost relaxing stay, we have chosen not to equip the hotel rooms with TV set. Laundry and ironing service are available upon request.
7) Free Wi-fi is available throughout the hotel. In addition, a computer allows you to browse the Internet and to print your boarding pass at no charge.
8) As the authoritative Guide du Routard states, ours is "A true travelers' hotel" - one of the best compliments a hotel can receive!


text:
Troop contributions
When a NATO operation or mission is deemed necessary, NATO member and partner countries volunteer personnel, equipment, and resources for the mission. These national contributions operate under the aegis of the Alliance.
- NATO is an alliance of 28 sovereign countries which does not possess military forces of its own.
- Personnel serving in a NATO operation are referred to as "NATO forces", but are multinational forces from NATO countries and, in some cases, partner or other troop-contributing countries.
- "Force generation" is the procedure that ensures NATO operations or missions have the manpower and materials required to achieve set objectives.
- National capitals take the final decision on whether to contribute to a NATO-led operation or mission.
- Allied Command Operations, commanded by the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR), is responsible for executing all NATO operations and missions, and the Deputy SACEUR coordinates troop contributions.
NATO is an alliance of 28 sovereign countries, which does not possess military forces of its own. While personnel serving in a NATO operation are often referred to collectively as "NATO forces", they are actually multinational forces composed of individuals, formations and equipment drawn from NATO member countries and, in some cases, partner countries or other troop-contributing countries.
The procedure for staffing an operation or mission is often referred to as "force generation". This procedure ensures that Alliance operations or missions have the manpower and materials required to achieve set objectives.
Obtaining troop contributions for operations and missions
The final decision on whether to contribute troops and equipment to a NATO-led operation or mission is taken by national capitals, which communicate continuously with NATO through their permanent diplomatic missions, national military representation, or partnership liaison teams.
Force generation
When a NATO operation or mission is deemed necessary, NATO's military authorities draft a concept of operations – referred to as a CONOPS – which outlines the troop and equipment requirements necessary to meet the operations' or mission's objectives. Upon approval of the concept of operations and the release of a "Force Activation Directive" by the North Atlantic Council, Allied Command Operations (ACO), led by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, initiates the force generation and activation process.
In general, the force generation process follows a standard procedure. For a given operation or mission, a list of personnel and equipment requirements (the Combined Joint Statement of Requirements), is produced by ACO and sent to NATO member countries and, in some cases, partner countries.
National offers to provide personnel are addressed during conferences attended by representatives from NATO and partner countries. These conferences take place on an ad hoc basis as required. For example, a force generation conference will take place prior to the start of a new operation or mission, or if there are significant changes in an ongoing operation. In addition to these conferences, an annual conference is held for all operations and missions, the Global Force Generation Conference.
Contributions by individual countries, both NATO members and partners, are subject to their overall national capacity, taking into account prior commitments, force size, structure, and activity level. Every contribution, whether big or small, is valuable and contributes to the success of the operation or mission.
In many cases, NATO or partner countries will commit complete or formed units to operations or missions. A country may volunteer to send a complete battle group, which – in the case of ground forces – could include infantry personnel, an armoured reconnaissance element, an artillery battery to provide fire support, and service support personnel.
Countries that provide leadership for an entire operation or mission, or take responsibility for central elements, are identified as "lead." For example, the lead country for a given operation or mission might provide the command element and a significant part of the forces, and will also be responsible for filling the remainder of the force required.
Although NATO as an Alliance does own and maintain some specialised equipment, such as the AWACS aircraft and strategic communications equipment, troop-contributing countries generally commit the equipment necessary to support their personnel in pursuit of operational objectives.
It is during the force generation process that caveats are stated. While national contributions to NATO operations are expected to operate under the Alliance's chain of command, the provision of forces by NATO and partner countries is sometimes conditional on factors such as geography, logistics, time, rules of engagement, or command status. Known as "caveats," these conditions can restrict NATO commanders by limiting their flexibility to respond to situations on the ground. For this reason, the Alliance seeks national contributions with as few caveats as possible.
Provincial Reconstruction Teams
The Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) established in Afghanistan under the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), constituted an exception to the normal force generation process. These formations, which in agreement with the Afghan authorities were gradually closed by end 2014, were interdisciplinary in contrast to traditional military operations. That is, they were comprised of development workers, military forces, diplomats and civilian police, who worked to extend the authority of the central Afghan government in remote areas, and to facilitate development and reconstruction.
Because of the unique combination of personnel, NATO was involved in generating forces for the military component of a PRT, while it was the responsibility of the contributing country to staff the civilian components. As a result, PRTs were a hybrid of personnel who fell under either NATO or national chains of command.
Coordinating troop contributions for non-NATO operations
Over the years, the Alliance has developed significant expertise in coordinating troop contributions for multinational operations. In the past, it has offered this expertise in support of non-NATO operations.
Under the Berlin Plus agreement, the Alliance cooperates closely with the European Union (EU) in the resourcing of selected operations. When requested by the EU, NATO's Deputy SACEUR and his staff provide support in coordinating member countries' troop contributions. For example, the Deputy SACEUR was identified as operational commander for Operation Althea, the EU-led operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and was responsible for force generation.
NATO also provided force generation support to Germany and the Netherlands, during their leadership of the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force in 2003 in Afghanistan, prior to its conversion into a NATO-led operation.
Who decides?
In determining troop contributions, ACO engages with the Military Committee, the North Atlantic Council, and individual countries, all of which have critical roles to play in bringing Alliance operations and missions to reality.
ACO, commanded by SACEUR, is responsible for executing all Alliance operations and missions. The Deputy SACEUR and his staff coordinate troop contributions.
Force generation through time
For much of NATO's history, the Alliance's primary operational commitment was focused on the former border between East and West Germany. For over 40 years, NATO strategists spoke of medium and long-term "force plans" rather than "force generation" for specific operations. This was because during that time, the Alliance maintained static, "conventional" forces in former West Germany, poised for an attack from the former Soviet Union.
Beginning 1986, conventional forces were reduced and, following the end of the Cold War, bases of individual NATO countries in Germany were largely dismantled or converted to other use, although some remain functional to this day.
NATO's first major land expeditionary operation took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a result of the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords. The NATO force generation process, which is still in use today, was developed during the NATO-led operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and later in Kosovo.
Transforming to meet operational needs
While the core procedures for contributing troops and equipment remain valid, the process has been refined in tandem with NATO's transformation. At their May 2002 meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland, NATO foreign ministers decided that: "To carry out the full range of its missions, NATO must be able to field forces that can move quickly to wherever they are needed, sustain operations over distance and time, and achieve their objectives."
NATO's engagement in Afghanistan in 2003 posed a number of new problems for force generation. It soon became apparent that the nature of the mission was different from previous tasks. Greater flexibility was needed in types and numbers of forces, from rotation to rotation, and from area to area. In addition, with many countries moving to smaller, more highly trained and highly equipped forces, it became unrealistic to expect large standing commitments from individual countries.
The procedure for staffing an operation or mission was made more responsive to operational requirements. Communication between NATO commanders and member/partner countries was improved, allowing potential troop-contributing countries to be better informed about evolving operational requirements.
The first Global Force Generation Conference was held in November 2003. Prior to this, force generation meetings had been called on an ad hoc basis as required. During this annual conference, troop and resource requirements for all NATO-led operations and missions are addressed at the same time.
While ad hoc meetings are still necessary to address immediate needs, rolling numerous meetings into one facilitates improved coordination between and within troop-contributing countries and NATO military authorities.
Lastly, NATO military planners are taking a longer view of force generation. While developments in operations, as well as political developments within troop-contributing countries, prohibit definitive troop and material commitments far into the future, NATO military planners are looking beyond immediate needs, allowing both the Alliance and troop-contributing countries to plan their resources better.


text:
Junior Candice Warthen scored 16 points, but Arizona women's basketball fell to Washington, 55-52 in its first conference game on Friday night.
Warthen shot 6-of-15 from the field, grabbed five rebounds and had two steals for the Wildcats. It was her eighth game this season scoring in double digits.
Freshman LaBrittney Jones also had her second double-double of the season with 10 points and 11 rebounds. She also added three blocks in the game for her fourth game with three or more blocks this season.
Senior Kama Griffitts added seven points and eight rebounds.
As a team, the Wildcats outrebounded the Huskies, 45-44 and outscored them in the paint, 32-18.
Defensively, UA held Washington to 55 points, 20 points below their season average of 75.6.
"I didn't think we made plays when we needed them, but I thought our kids fought," Arizona head coach Niya Butts said. "We did enough defensively, we just went too long without scoring and didn't hold some of their major scorers down."
Arizona fell behind by as much as 16 in the first half after hitting six three-pointers, but a 7-0 run to end the second half (all scored by Warthen) pulled the Wildcats to within nine going into halftime.
UA came out big in the second half, outscoring the Huskies, 31-25. Arizona led for the first time in the game with 2:18 remaining, but Washington executed a 6-2 run to finish the game.
"We just have to stay the course and I think we will be ready," Butts said. "We executed the game plan the way we wanted to execute it, so that's all you can ask for as a coach. We just have to put the ball in the basket."
Junior Aminah Williams led the Huskies with 13 points and 16 rebounds.
The Wildcats will head to Pullman, Wash. to take on Washington State on Sunday, Jan. 5 at 1 p.m. MT. The game will be live on the Pac-12 Networks.
For complete results and continued coverage of Arizona women's basketball, visit ArizonaWildcats.com, or follow on Twitter @ArizonaWBBall.


text:
I'm not really big on mints or minty candies, but I couldn't help pass up this beautiful box of the new Tic Tac Citrus Punch assortment. I'm a sucker for fruity, especially citrus flavors, so I knew these would be worth giving a try.
Tic Tacs are an interesting item in my mind, as most mints really try to make themselves look like candy. But Tic Tacs look like candy and are actually mints! There's three flavors in the mix: grapefruit, orange and lime.
Grapefruit is the flavor I looked forward to trying the most. The flavor is wonderfully captured, it's fresh and zesty with that nice sweet/sour note the grapefruits have. The minty aspect doesn't kick in until the fruit flavor fades, which I really like.It leaves a nice light citrusy/minty flavor in my mouth and it's refreshing. I found myself picking these out of the assortment and finishing them off first.
Orange is sweet and flavorful with a good orange flavor that is more "real" than other orange mints I've had. It gets a little tart at the end which is a nice touch.
With the Lime flavor I immediately notice that it is different in texture. Strange! It breaks much easier in my mouth than the others. It's tart, sweet and very citrusy and like the others I feel the flavor is very authentic and I immediately think of limeade.
I liked this assortment a lot. The three different flavors kept things fresh and interesting, and they both fulfilled my need for something candy-like and to freshen my breath a little. A plus for any mint in my book. My only complaint that, even though the box of these was on the larger side, I did manage to finish them in record time. Oops.
Rating: Will Buy Again
Tic Tac Website


text:
Our Publications
- Aspen
- Atlanta
- Chicago
- Dallas
- The Hamptons
- Hawai'i
- Houston
- Los Angeles
- Miami
- New York
- Orange County
- San Diego
- San Francisco
- Scottsdale
- Washington, D.C.
EXPO CHICAGO After-Party
CS and EXPO CHICAGO invited premier members of the interior design community, artists and collectors to the official EXPO after-party at The James Hotel Chicago. After spending the day at the contemporary art exhibition, guests headed to The James Hotel Chicago to enjoy delicious bites, Effen cocktails and the coolest beats by DJ Jorge of Spin-Chicago.
Photography By: Donna Binbek


text:
By Alice Kenny
At the largest public Christian peace witness in New York City, Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New York Director of Justice and Peace Thomas Dobbins stood with Sr. Maureen Jerkowski, a member of the Lifeway Network of Religious Against Human Trafficking, as she read at the Catholic Charities of New York-sponsored Tenth Station of the Cross; Jesus is Stripped of His Garments, on Good Friday, March 29, 2013.
More than 500 people joined with them at this thirtieth annual Good Friday Way of the Cross, a modern-day enactment of the Stations of the Cross, to pray for peace and justice on the streets of New York. The walk began at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza (47th Street at First Avenue) and proceeded along 42nd Street to Ninth Avenue. Participants were encouraged to reflect on "How do I do for others what Jesus is doing for me? How am I called to live in this world?"
Catholic Charities and the LifeWay Network chose the tenth station of the cross to raise awareness of human trafficking. LifeWay Network's mission is to provide safe housing for survivors of human trafficking and to offer educational opportunities for the general public. Catholic Charities helps immigrants reunite legally with their families, obtain proper work authorization, learn English and civics, and prepare to pass citizenship exams. The organization also assists immigrants, non Catholics and Catholics alike, to avoiding exploitation by unscrupulous practitioners by providing correct information and realistic counsel about immigration status.
The Good Friday Way of the Cross is organized each year by Pax Christi Metro New York, a regional section of Pax Christi, the international Catholic movement for peace.
"The Pax Christi Good Friday Way of the Cross has become an important part of my Good Friday observance over the past few years," Mr. Dobbins said. "It helps me to remember that Good Friday is not only a commemoration of events that took place 2,000 years ago, but more importantly is a call for us as Christians and people of good will to reach out and assist the victims of today's crucifixions – the poor and the marginal, victims and refugees of war and violence, trafficked persons and others in desperate situations who don't know where to turn – that, through our services, we at Catholic Charities seek to assist not only on Good Friday, but every day."


text:
Uploaded By:tellybuzz
Courtesy: Star Plus
Rishi and Randhir Kapoor on tv show Master Chef India - Wallpaper (Size:1024x768)
Please Note: Images may have been watermarked to prevent other sites from hotlinking or scraping.
Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.
Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy


text:
Ronald John Kramer
Position: E-TE
Height: 6-3 Weight: 234 lbs.
Born: June 24, 1935 in Girard, KS
Died: September 11, 2010 in Ann Arbor, MI
High School: East Detroit
College: Michigan (school history) (Kramer college stats)
Drafted by the Green Bay Packers in the 1st round (4th overall) of the 1957 NFL Draft.
Weighted Career AV (100-95-...): 34 (2861st overall since 1950)
1-time Pro Bowler & 1-time First-Team All-Pro (fine print)
Other SR Links: College Football at Sports-Reference.com