text:
Editor's Note
Restoring the Rule of Law
Christopher H. Pyle
Torture and the Ideology of National Security
Robert Crawford
The Illusion of Accountability: The Idea of an American Truth Commission on Torture
Stuart Streichler
Deconstructing Ticking-Bomb Arguments
Catherine McDonald
Defusing the Ticking Social Bomb Argument: The Right to Self-Defensive Torture
Uwe Steinhoff
Torture Writ Large: The Israeli Occupation
Louis Frankenthaler
The Necessity Defence and the Myth of the Noble Torturer
Jessica Wolfendale
What Would Jack Do? The Ethics of Torture in 24
Donal P. OMathuna
The Torturers Apprentice: Psychology and Enhanced Interrogations
Bryant L. Welch
Algeria as Template: Torture and Counter-Insurgency War
Marnia Lazreg
Faith-Based Torture
Liaquat Ali Khan
Cranking up the Volume: Music as a Tool of Torture
Jonathan Pieslak
Book Review
'A Long Experience of War': Gaza in Historical Perspective
Michael Theodoulou
Book Review
Harmony amid Diversity: The Importance of Interfaith Dialogue
Adina Friedman
Book Review
Humanity and Its Landscapes: A Green History
Holmes Rolston III
Volume 12 ● Number 1 ● Winter/Spring 2010Working the Dark Side
Defusing the Ticking Social Bomb Argument: The Right to Self-Defensive Torture
However, we sometimes feel justified in violating the rights of a person because the stakes are so very high. If we could save humanity only by killing one innocent person, thus violating his rights, we might well feel justified in doing so. In the same vein, the proponents of what I call the ticking social bomb argument hold that in certain circumstances it is justifiable to violate people's right to self-defence (which also includes the defence of others) against a culpable aggressor by shielding this aggressor from torture (thus aiding and abetting him in his aggression), even if in the circumstances torture would have been a proportionate and necessary means of self-defence against the imminent threat posed by the aggressor. They say that this severe rights-violation is justifiable if such an act of self-defensive torture would have terrible social consequences. And they claim that acts of torture always have such consequences: any act of torture, according to them, leads to the institutionalisation of torture, to a pandemic of torture, to a social explosion of torture, as it were.
This is the ticking social bomb argument. I will argue here that it is sheer fantasy and that we should not cede our right to self-defensive torture to unrealistic consequentialist concoctions.
What happened? Well, I have mimicked—indeed mocked—the way quite a few absolutist opponents of torture deal with the so-called ticking-bomb argument (not to be confused with what I call the ticking social bomb argument): they like to pose as the defenders of human rights or of deontological constraints against evil or as deluded consequentialists who are intent on undermining those absolute rights and constraints by appealing to allegedly utterly unrealistic scenarios. Yet, unfortunately for these absolutist torture opponents, it is rather easy to turn the tables on them, along the lines of the introductory paragraphs. This is precisely what I will do here.
Is Torture Absolutely Impermissible?
Let me first note that practically all recent publications directed against the ticking-bomb argument do not provide any plausible deontological argument for the claim that there is an absolute right (as least as far as the real world is concerned) not to be tortured. Such a plausible argument cannot be provided by simply brandishing the concepts of "human dignity" or of "ends in themselves" or "human rights", etc.; rather, a plausible argument would have to show why torture in self-defence should be absolutely prohibited or would violate human rights or human dignity even while killing in self-defence is not thus prohibited or does not violate human rights or dignity. This is obviously a very difficult prerequisite, and in their desperation some absolutist opponents have resorted to dogmatically insisting that all forms of torture are worse than death.1 Well, they are not, as a moment's reflection can easily show. Would you prefer death to thirty minutes of "waterboarding"? Or even to a whole day of waterboarding?
Of course, more could be said on the failure of several deontological arguments, or better, pseudo-arguments—"pseudo" because they all beg the question or make preposterous empirical assumptions—but it has been said in other places already.2 However, let me nonetheless provide one example for my claim that recent critics of the ticking-bomb argument fail to provide arguments for their deontological claims.
My example is a very prominent one, namely that of Henry Shue. Shue has written an article on torture that is frequently referred to in the literature as "seminal" or "classic", and with good reason.3 In that article he claimed that single acts of torture can be morally justified in extreme conditions. He has since rescinded this position and become an absolutist opponent of torture.
However, in that older article Shue had at least developed an argument for why torture might always be impermissible even if killing is sometimes justified. I have criticised this argument elsewhere4—it is clearly wrong, and Shue no longer adheres to it. But instead of providing a new argument, he now just makes irrelevant references or blatantly wrong statements. As regards the former, he begins his article "Torture in Dreamland"—a favourite among absolutist opponents of torture—with the apodictic statement: "Torture is wrong."5 This short statement comes with a footnote that bears the whole argumentative burden: "David Sussman provides a powerful explanation of why torture is wrong in his article in this volume."6 Yet Sussman not only provides no powerful explanation of why torture is wrong, he provides no explanation at all, nor does he claim to do so. Instead, he offers as conclusion merely the following: "If life calls for a special kind of respect or concern from us, then torture, insofar as it aims to transform life into a kind of anti-life, must be morally offensive in a way that is different from and perhaps greater than even killing."7
Well, perhaps not.8 But however that may be, even if torture were morally more offensive than killing—by which Sussman means only, as is clear from an important earlier article of his, that torture "bears an especially high burden of justification, greater in degree and different in kind from even that of killing"9—this would not show that it is always wrong (and Sussman explicitly says that he does "not here contend that torture is categorically wrong").10 After all, killing someone is morally more offensive than breaking someone's finger, but that obviously does not show that it is always wrong to kill someone. It would at best suggest this if breaking someone's finger were always morally wrong—but it isn't. Killing someone is not always morally wrong, either. Therefore the fact, if it were a fact, that torture is always morally more offensive than killing could not show, or even so much as suggest, that torture is always morally wrong.
As regards making blatantly wrong statements, Shue claims in his most recent article on torture (and other issues), again apodictically: "Clearly torture is morally wrong—no one seriously suggests otherwise."11 Either Shue is using the term "morally wrong" in an entirely idiosyncratic fashion, or else he lacks an overview of the current debate—strangely enough for someone who vigorously takes part in it. Authors like, for example (completely aside from those who have not published in English), Winfried Brugger, Stephen Kershnar, Fritz Allhof, Seumas Miller, Francesco Belvisi, Mirko Bargaric, Julie Clarke, Jeff McMahan and myself, definitely do seriously suggest otherwise.
Thus, apart from dogmatic statements and imagined consensus, Shue has nothing to offer on the deontological front against self-defensive torture. I think that this is quite revealing.
Straw Man 'Idealisations'
Let us now turn to Shue's criticism of the ticking-bomb argument. "There is a standard philosopher's example which someone always invokes: suppose a fanatic, perfectly willing to die rather than collaborate in the thwarting of his own scheme, has set a hidden nuclear device to explode in the heart of Paris. There is no time to evacuate the innocent people or even the movable art treasures—the only hope of preventing tragedy is to torture the perpetrator, find the device, and deactivate it." While Shue had once seen "no way to deny the permissibility of torture in a case just like this",12 he has increasingly stressed the unlikelihood of this situation over the years, coming to the conclusion "that one should absolutely never torture".13 The "idealisations" Shue detects in this ticking-bomb case include the idea that the person to be tortured "is somehow known with certainty actually to be the person who planted the ticking bomb" and that the torture victim "quickly divulges the crucial information before the bomb has had time to explode".14
But whose idealisations are these? Shue claims that "someone" always invokes this ticking-bomb scenario, but note that in his description of the scenario those idealisations are missing. And in fact Shue never ever provides a reference revealing the identity of this mysterious someone engaging in the unrealistic idealisations that bother Shue so much. So who is it?
The fact is that it is Shue himself. He conjures up a ticking-bomb argument of his very own making in order then conveniently to detect idealisations in it that he himself has personally put there in the first place.15 If someone is being unrealistic here, it is Shue himself.
No one who has ever used a ticking-bomb scenario to argue for the permissibility of torture in the real world (instead of only to test the strength or scope of our presumably absolutist convictions) has ever used a scenario that involved the two idealisations just mentioned. And no one needs to, as we will see below.
The supposed "idealisation" Shue detests most, however, is that of the rare, isolated case, which holds that incidents of torture do not recur: "Once the original 'right man' becomes too hysterical to provide coherent information, the torturers do not simply move on to, as it were, the second-best 'right man.' And the torturers do not, operating on the principle that practice makes perfect, circulate from, say, Guantanamo to Bagram to Abu Ghraib to Romania to Poland."16 Shue, in contrast, proclaims that the ticking-bomb hypotheticals
are not simply imaginary but unrealistic, like an imaginary alcoholic who drinks two beers only a night. There are former alcoholics, who do not drink at all, and active alcoholics. To think that there may be rare alcoholics who drink moderately is to fail to understand alcoholism. Similarly, history does not present us with a government that used torture selectively and judiciously.17
The alcoholism analogy is the epitome of the social ticking-bomb argument: if an alcoholic has one drink, he will have many. Similarly, if just one act of torture is allowed to happen, many will follow—torture will "metastasize throughout the body politic".18 A single act of torture suffices to ignite the fuse that will lead to the social explosion of torture.
Of course, it is Shue who fails to understand alcoholism—as much as he fails to understand torture. He does not have a shred of evidence for his claims. While officially he stresses how important it is that "one immerses oneself in the empirical details",19 it seems that he does not actually really check the empirical facts. True, in cheesy Hollywood soap operas and drinking melodramas an alcoholic cannot have two beers only a night. In reality, however, he can20—a fact Shue could have easily discovered had he checked reality instead of taking urban legend at face value. Thus, one has to turn Shue's example upside-down: claiming that there cannot be rare, isolated cases of torture is like claiming that an alcoholic cannot have two beers only a night. It confuses fact and fiction. It is torture-opposition in dreamland.
The True Dreamers
Shue seems to have a second argument, though, which he offers under the heading of "abstraction" instead of "idealisation". Unfortunately, it is difficult to decipher what exactly the argument is supposed to be; Shue certainly is not particularly clear about it. Anyway, let us have a look at the decisive passages:
it is simply dreamy to think that all of a sudden we are simply going to stumble upon someone who happens to have the skills to make a man who planted a ticking bomb reverse the direction of his life and assist us in defusing his bomb. But this is very bad news for my attempt in 1978 ... to allow the exceptional case. Our ... problem is abstraction: we have abstracted from the social basis—the institutional context—necessary for the practice of torture. For torture is a practice. Practitioners who do not practice will not be very good at what they do ...
Either "torturers" are just thugs who have no clue what they are doing, in which case we need not allow for exceptional cases in which they rapidly and effectively extract invaluable catastrophe-preventing information, or some can have genuine expertise ... If we want it ready, we need to maintain, even nourish, the organizations and networks in which the expertise resides.21
This is an argument against torture based not on the bad consequences of acts of torture, but the preconditions of successful acts of interrogational torture and the consequences of the institutionalisation of torture. The argument seems to go like this:22
1. In order to torture someone in a way that will actually retrieve the vital information, the torturer has to be skilled and experienced.
2. Skilled and experienced torturers are available only if torture is institutionalised.
3. Torture by unskilled and inexperienced torturers is always unjustified.
4. However, institutionalising torture has very bad consequences; it will mean that torture will metastasise instead of being limited to one-off cases.
5. Conclusion: Torture is never justified (one should never torture).
If this is not Shue's argument, I do not quite know, I admit, what it is (and, again, the onus is on him to make his argument clear, not on others). Anyway, what should we make of this argument as stated here?
First of all, let me make clear that I whole-heartedly agree with premiss 4. Institutionalising torture (which is different from its mere legalisation),23 for example through "torture warrants", the training of torturers, the maintenance of torture camps, the production of torture instruments, etc., is a very bad idea indeed. I absolutely reject the institutionalisation of torture.
However, while I accept premiss 4, I reject the first three premisses. They are all wrong.
As regards premiss 1, it is simply not true that in order to torture someone in a way that will actually retrieve the vital information, the torturer has to be skilled and experienced. In a famous case in Germany in 2002, the mere threat of torture (and some think that threatening torture is torture) sufficed to make the child-kidnapper Magnus Gäfgen disclose the location of the child (who, however, had already been murdered by Gäfgen—but that does not speak against the effectiveness of torture to retrieve the truth in some cases).
Gäfgen wanted to avoid pain. Pain is a very strong motivator. Even if Gäfgen had withstood the threat of pain, the actual infliction of pain might very well have changed his mind. And it is simply not that difficult to inflict pain. It does not require long training and experience. To be sure, a skilled and experienced torturer will be more efficient in some cases, but in other cases he might not retrieve the information any quicker than an untrained torturer; and even if he did, the untrained torturer might still be effective enough to avert the danger in time.
But we do not have to speculate: eight-year-old Denis Mook was kidnapped in Bremen, Germany, in 1988. After the ransom payment the kidnapper was arrested. He refused to reveal the location of the child. The police then beat the kidnapper until, finally, he did reveal the child's location. The police retrieved the child alive from a wooden box (90 x 50 x 40 centimetres) in which he had been caged for thirteen days and thirteen nights (a treatment that certainly amounts to torture, in this case of an innocent child, and not of a culpable kidnapper). The child was alive and in relatively good health. Thus, if we follow Shue's advice and immerse ourselves in the empirical details, we discover what he fails to see: for self-defensive torture to be effective, you do not need torture experts. (Besides, more than twenty years after this act of torture, Germany has still not adopted the widespread use of torture—as Amnesty International will confirm. This is further proof that Shue's claim that there cannot be isolated cases of torture is "dreamy", to use his word of choice.)
Premiss 2 is also wrong. Even if it were correct that only a torture bureaucracy could produce torture experts (actually, it is not true, but I will not argue this point here), this still would not mean that you have to institutionalise torture, that is, create or maintain a torture bureaucracy, in order to have access to torture experts. It is enough that there once was a torture bureaucracy somewhere in the not too distant past. This is, for example, the case in Argentina or Chile. Thus, if they faced a Gäfgen or Mook case (or a ticking-bomb case), they would have access to trained torturers without having to rely on the existence (now) of a torture bureaucracy. Thus, there would be no metastatic effects involved.
That premiss 3 is wrong already follows from the falsity of premiss 1. However, it is worthwhile noting just how wrong premiss 3 is. The idea behind the premiss is of course that interrogational torture has to be likely to succeed in order to be justifiable. Sometimes Shue even sounds as though he thinks that torture actually has to succeed. That it does succeed is one of the "idealisations" Shue deplores.24 However, interrogational torture indeed sometimes does succeed, as we just saw. Pointing out this fact is not idealistic, but realistic, while denying it is unrealistic.
Moreover, it is not true that self-defence (self-defensive torture is no exception) has to be successful in order to be justified. If somebody tries to fend off a rapist with mace spray and fails, the use of the mace against the rapist was still justified. Might does not make right, and helplessness does not make wrong.
Still further, there does not even have to be a likelihood of success in all cases. Indeed, success may be highly unlikely. To recycle an example of mine: "Even if it were an empirically well-proven and commonly well-known fact that stopping a serial murderer and rapist by ramming a sharp pencil deep into his ear only works one out of 10,000 times, a victim of a rapist would still be well within her rights to ram a sharp pencil deep into the rapist's ear if that is the only option remaining that at least could have success."25 There is simply no reason why the victim of an aggressor, or people who come to help the victim, should forgo their last hope only in order to make sure that the aggressor is not inconvenienced by defensive measures that in all likelihood will not stop him anyway. They are allowed to try to stop him with improbable means if they run out of probable ones.
'Hard Cases Make Bad Law'
Thus, the attempt by Shue (and others) to justify violations of our right to self-defensive torture with consequentialist arguments fails. Of course, Shue (and others) do not want to couch what they are doing in terms of a programme for the consequentialist justification of rights violations. They want to pass that buck to the ticking-bomb theorist (or, in my case, the Dirty Harry theorist: while I think the ticking-bomb scenario is realistic, I do not believe that it ever really has been real). However, that does not work.
Consider the fact that already in his original article on torture—where he still conceded the moral permissibility of torture in certain circumstances—Shue vehemently opposed the legalisation of torture. "Hard cases make bad law" was his slogan, and still is.26 However, Shue overlooks that this slogan cuts both ways.27 As Volker Erb has rightly argued, someone who shields an aggressor from necessary and proportionate defensive measures by or on behalf of the victim (for example, by making such measures punishable or by physically obstructing them) actually aids and abets the aggressor and violates the rights and the human dignity of the victim.28 But this is precisely what Shue thinks should happen: the police and the law should prevent a would-be torturer from defensively torturing Mook's kidnapper, for example, thereby providing important support for the latter's aggressive torture of the child. Thus, as far as these cases are concerned, Shue suddenly does want to make exceptions to the general rules that prohibit aiding and abetting child-kidnappers, and, more generally, that allow just self-defence and prohibit hindering it. He demands that the victims' and their helpers' right to self-defence (and freedom and life) be violated and that the police and the law become the accomplices of the kidnapper. Whatever happened to "hard cases make bad law"?
The only justification Shue has for demanding that the child-kidnapper and child-torturer be aided and abetted by legally shielding him or her from defensive torture, however, is his consequentialist ticking social bomb argument. Since that argument, as we saw, is spurious and a pure fantasy, we must reject it and uphold the right to self-defence, including the right to self-defensive torture.
But Is It Self-Defence? Yes, It Is
But is torturing the terrorist in the ticking-bomb case really a case of self-defence? Well, I will not argue here that it is (although I do think it is and that even if it weren't, there would be a non-consequentialist justification—based on rights and on justice in the distribution of unavoidable harm—for torturing the ticking-bomb terrorist). Instead, I will focus on the child-kidnapping case. I can do this because Shue—and others—use the ticking social bomb argument to deny, as we saw, the permissibility of any act of torture, and not only the permissibility of torture in the ticking-bomb case. Thus, they are committed to the view that in the child-kidnapping case torture is impermissible, too.
Anglo-Saxon philosophers and lawyers arguing for an absolute prohibition of torture hardly ever consider the child-kidnapping case. This is somewhat ironic. It is ironic because they like to claim, as Shue does, that the "advocates of torture love a ticking bomb".29 Actually, however, it is the absolute prohibitionists who love it, or, more precisely, who are obsessed with it—so much so that they can hardly see beyond it. For the most part, they labour under the delusion that by "defusing" the ticking-bomb argument one defuses "the" argument for torture.30
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that two recent critics of the idea that torture can in some cases be justified by an appeal to the right to self-defence focus exclusively on the ticking-bomb case.
Whitley Kaufman's criticism relies on the distinction between what he (basically following Jeff McMahan) calls the "Aggressor" and what he calls the "Culpable Bystander". The latter is "a person who has committed a wrongful act, but is not now committing a wrong".31 The former is now committing a wrong, or is posing an imminent threat. Kaufman thinks that the captured ticking-bomb terrorist is only a Culpable Bystander and that violence to avert pending unjust harm may be directed only against Aggressors. I think that Kaufman is wrong on both counts, but will not argue this here. Instead, I simply want to point out that Kaufman's criticism is completely inapplicable to the kidnapping case since, as he himself admits, a "kidnapper ... is an aggressor simply by virtue of his holding you hostage".32 Thus, Mook's kidnapper, by holding the child hostage in a wooden box, thereby depriving him of his freedom and torturing him, is an aggressor, whether in custody or not. He is, after all, torturing the child right now while he is in custody. (This is also how German law, British law, and US law see it.)33 Thus, torturing the kidnapper to save the child would be a case of self-defensive torture even on Kaufman's own assumptions.
Daniel Hill assumes (without argument) that if you cause a person to perform a very specific action, then the action by which you cause this is not self-defensive. Self-defensive actions, according to him, are only those that prevent a person from doing something. I see absolutely no reason why one should accept this assumption. It is certainly not part of the meaning of self-defence.
More important, however, is that Hill further thinks that there is a big moral difference between preventing someone from doing something and making him do something specific. He tries to illustrate this difference with several examples, which, for reasons of space, I cannot go into here. Suffice it to say that I do not share his intuitions at all.
Yet, the decisive point comes when he tries to identify "the basis of this moral difference between preventing someone from performing an action that will cause a tragedy and causing someone to cause a tragedy not to occur".34 It lies, he says, in the difference between negative duties (not to do something) and positive duties (to do something). He elaborates:
It seems permissible, then, in some circumstances to inflict pain to force people to comply with their negative duties, but it does not seem permissible to inflict pain in order to force people to comply with their positive duties, even extremely important positive duties, such as the duty to avert an atrocity that the people in question have set in motion.35
The problem is that Hill has a remarkably simplistic—indeed mistaken—view of negative duties. To be sure, one can discharge negative duties by doing nothing whatsoever ever, but once one starts to do something one might be able to discharge one's negative duties only by doing something. As Richard Louis Trammel notes:
Drivers must correct the movement of their cars, and waiters and waitresses must hold on to hot dishes passing over their customers. Thus the requirement of the commands not to kill or injure is not that the agent refrain from initiating any causal processes tending toward death or injury, but rather that the agent not initiate any such causal processes without continuing to intervene to counteract the tendencies he has previously initiated.36
Thus, for the ticking-bomb terrorist and the child-kidnapper, the positive action of revealing the location of the bomb or of the child, respectively, is an obvious way to discharge their negative duty not to kill or torture innocent people unjustifiably. If they do not discharge this duty voluntarily, they can be forced to discharge it in self-defence—by self-defensive torture, if need be.
However, genuine cases of self-defensive torture are extremely rare, much rarer than cases of self-defensive killing. In fact, nearly all—but not absolutely all—cases of torture are unjustified, as are the overwhelming majority of cases of killing. Torturing so-called terrorists to find out more about their networks is not a case of self-defensive torture (and, as an aside, the necessity defence does not apply either). Finally, let me again emphasise that I am adamantly and categorically against the institutionalisation of torture, and thus against training torturers, torture warrants, torture camps and "rendition".
2. See in particular Stephen Kershnar, Desert, Retribution, and Torture (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2001), pp. 186−90; Rainer Trapp, Folter oder selbstverschuldete Rettungsbefragung? [Torture, or life-saving interrogation brought upon oneself?] (Paderborn: Mentis, 2006), pp. 103−85, 220−4; and Uwe Steinhoff, "Justifying Defensive Torture", in Torture: Moral Absolutes and Ambiguities, ed. Bev Clucas, Gerry Johnstone, and Tony Ward (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2009), pp. 47, 51−6.
3. Henry Shue, "Torture", Philosophy and Public Affairs 7, no. 2 (winter 1978). Henceforth, I will refer to the version reprinted in Torture: A Collection, ed. Sanford Levinson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
4. Uwe Steinhoff, "Torture: The Case for Dirty Harry and against Alan Dershowitz", Journal of Applied Philosophy 23, no. 3 (August 2006), pp. 337−8. Reprinted in War, Torture and Terrorism: Ethics and War in the 21st Century, ed. David Rodin (Oxford: Blackwell, 2007).
5. Henry Shue, "Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb", Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37, nos. 2 and 3 (2006), p. 231.
6. Ibid., n. 2.
7. David Sussman, "Defining Torture", Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37, nos. 2 and 3 (2006), p. 230.
8. For a criticism of Sussman's views see my "Case for Dirty Harry", pp. 338−40.
9. David Sussman, "What's Wrong with Torture?", Philosophy and Public Affairs 33, no. 1 (January 2005), p. 4.
10. Ibid.
11. Henry Shue, "Making Exceptions", Journal of Applied Philosophy 26, no. 3 (August 2009), p. 310.
12. Shue, "Torture", p. 57 (Shue's italics).
13. Shue, "Making Exceptions", p. 308.
14. Shue, "Torture in Dreamland", p. 233.
15. This is also the way David Luban proceeds. See his "Unthinking the Ticking Bomb", Georgetown Law Faculty Working Papers, Paper 68, July 2008, pp. 7−8 [http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers/68], and his "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb", Virginia Law Review 91, no. 6 (October 2005), pp. 1440−5.
16. Shue, "Torture in Dreamland", p. 233.
17. Ibid., p. 234 (see also p. 238). Shue adds in a footnote: "If anyone knows a case, I would appreciate an e-mail giving its name." May I add here that I would appreciate an e-mail from Shue giving me the name of a ticking-bomb theorist making the certainty assumption?
18. Ibid., p. 235.
19. Shue, "Making Exceptions", p. 310.
20. See "Can an Alcoholic Have an Occasional Drink?", BBC News Magazine, 10 November 2008 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7719522.stm], and David J. Hanson, "Alcoholics Can Recover from Alcoholism and Drink in Moderation" [http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/controversies/1109212610.html].
21. Shue, "Torture in Dreamland", p. 237.
22. Jessica Wolfendale's argument in "Training Torturers: A Critique of the 'Ticking Bomb' Argument", Social Theory and Practice 32, no. 2 (April 2006), seems to have a similar structure.
23. In my view, many absolutist opponents of torture, in particular those obsessed with the ticking-bomb argument, overlook this distinction between legalisation and institutionalisation. Some even overlook the distinction between legalisation and moral justification.
24. Shue, "Torture in Dreamland", p. 233.
25. Steinhoff, "Justifying Defensive Torture", p. 44. For another example to the same effect, see my "Case for Dirty Harry", pp. 342−3.
26. Shue, "Torture", p. 57; "Torture in Dreamland", p. 233.
27. This also true for the treatment of exceptions from moral rules. Not allowing exceptions from the moral prohibition of torture but allowing them from the moral right to self-defence is simply arbitrary.
28. Volker Erb, "Folterverbot und Notwehrrecht" (The prohibition of torture and the law of self-defence), in Ist Folter erlaubt? Juristische und philosophische Aspekte (Is torture allowed? Legal and philosophical aspects), ed. Wolfgang Lenzen (Paderborn: Mentis, 2006), pp. 30−2.
29. Shue, "Torture in Dreamland", p. 231.
30. I think this is true of Henry Shue, Jessica Wolfendale, J. Jeremy Wisnewski, R. D. Emerick, Yuval Ginbar and David Luban, to name a few. Only on the last three pages of his book on the ticking bomb (see note 1 above) does Bob Brecher finally mention the child-kidnapping case—and says that nothing can be done for the child. Denis Mook is lucky that the police in Bremen did not share this view.
31. Whitley Kaufman, "Torture and the 'Distributive Justice' Theory of Self-Defense: An Assessment", Ethics and International Affairs 22, no. 1 (spring 2008), p. 98 (Kaufman's italics).
32. Ibid., p. 115, n. 71.
33. Steinhoff, "Justifying Defensive Torture", pp. 43−5.
34. Daniel Hill, "Ticking Bombs, Torture, and the Analogy with Self-Defense", American Philosophical Quarterly 44, no. 4 (October 2007), p. 400.
35. Ibid., p. 401.
36. Richard Louis Trammell, "A Criterion for Determining Negativity and Positivity", Tulane Studies in Philosophy 33 (1985), pp. 76−7.


text:
The NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing Series kicks off its annual Western Swing this week with a trip to Bandimere Speedway near Denver, Colorado, home of the 35th annual Mopar Mile-High NHRA Nationals. The event takes place Friday through Sunday, July 18th through 20th and features all four of the NHRA's top-tier categories: Top Fuel, Funny Car, Pro Stock and Pro Stock Motorcycle.
2013 Top Fuel champ Shawn Langdon and his Al-Anabi Racing teammate Khalid alBalooshi are currently third and eighth, respectively, in Top Fuel points, both looking for a win at Bandimere, one of just four tracks on the circuit where Al-Anabi Racing doesn't have a win. Denver marks the first of three straight races that make up the Western Swing, continuing next week at Sonoma Raceway in California and concluding at Pacific Raceway near Seattle, Washington.
Langdon has fond memories of Bandimere, having clinched the NHRA Junior Dragster national championship for 14-year-olds at the track in 1997. He is currently the only Junior Dragster champ that has won an NHRA Mello Yello Drag Racing Series championship as well.
"I always enjoy the Western Swing," said Langdon. "It's nice to head out west and go to Denver. I love going to Bandimere Speedway. I have a lot of good history and a lot of good memories there winning the NHRA Junior Dragster national championship there 17 years ago. Then to head out to Somona is always great because it's one of my favorite race tracks on the Mello Yello tour. I always have a lot of family and friends at Sonoma (Calif.), and there's just a lot of history about the Western Swing. We're excited to go out there. Our race car is getting back to running well, and hopefully we can end up with a sweep."
Like Langdon, who won at Bristol a few weeks ago, alBalooshi has one win this season, the season opener at Gainesville. He's ready for the challenges Bandimere gives crews and drivers alike, thanks to its altitude – at more than 5,800 feet, the altitude affects engine tuning, aerodynamics, and more.
"Racing in Denver is always tricky, but at least we have a fast car now," said alBalooshi. "When we go over there, we don't know what's going to happen with the weather, the air and the tricky track, but we have a good car. When you have a good car, you know you are in a good position to know what's going on so you can do your best even though it is a tricky place to race."
Pro qualifying for the Mopar Mile-High NHRA Nationals kicks off Friday at 4:45 and 7:15 p.m. MT, concluding Saturday at 3:15 and 5:45 p.m. MT. Eliminations get underway Sunday at 11 a.m. MT. Keep up with the action at www.nhra.com.
Quotes in this piece provided by Al-Anabi Racing.
Check out Paula's Examiner columns on motorsports:
Follow Paula on:
· Facebook – Paula Thompson Freelance and Examiner.com Motorsports
· Twitter - @paulat14
· Website – paulathompsonfreelance.com
· Flickr – Paula Thompson Freelance
Contact Paula at email@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
MTA Employees Sick of Telling Confused Drunk People What Subway Lines to Take at Four in the Morning
There's now a late-night-only map.
So they've issued a limited-edition map that shows the subway as it operates late-night, with the four lines that don't run eliminated. Sober people will probably find it quite useful as well.


text:
Courtside Archives
March 20, 2004
March 15, 2004
March 11, 2004
March 2, 2004
Feb. 24, 2004
Feb. 17, 2004
Feb. 10, 2004
Feb. 5, 2004
Jan. 27, 2004
Jan. 20, 2004
Jan. 12, 2004
Jan. 5, 2004
Dec. 23, 2003
Dec. 11, 2003
Nov. 19, 2003
Oct. 20, 2003
2002-03 Archive
2001-02 Archive
It's not Rodeo Week yet in Tucson, but there's a lot of bull-riding going on, courtesy of the Arizona women's basketball team. In the midst of its best season in three years, the Cats have hopped on the back of their sensational sophomore guard, Dee-Dee Wheeler, and they are hoping to ride her all the way to the NCAA Tournament.
The numbers are staggering. When Wheeler scores over 20 points in a game, the Wildcats are 6-0. When she doesn't play well, the Wildcats have trouble scoring. She has become the key to the Wildcat offense. She is Arizona's unquestioned leader and playmaker. She is the Arizona offense.
You can talk to me all day about great players around the nation and even in the Pac-10. But right now, at this point in the season, you can't show me a better player than Dee-Dee Wheeler. She does it all. She rebounds, steals, shoots the three and provides gritty leadership on a team that can sometimes be regarded as soft. In short, without number 11, Arizona would be nowhere.
Let's take Sunday's game in Wisconsin for example. The Wildcats struggled in the first half against a taller and more physical Badger team. But there was Dee-Dee, making big shots, scoring in double digits for the millionth time in her career and making plays that made jaws drop in the spacious Kohl Center. That win in Wisconsin was all about Dee-Dee Wheeler. Yes, Julie Brase made some big shots, and Natalie Jones played well, but the Dunbar High School graduate whose real name is Desire, carried her team on her back.
This weekend, Arizona travels to the Oregon schools for two "must" wins. You won't have to turn on TNN to see the best rodeo action in the country. No, on the Oregon Trail the Wildcats will be riding the back of a true pure-bred bronco named Dee-Dee Wheeler. Just think about how good she'll be on Rodeo Weekend!
See you on the radio!
Paul Johnson
Upcoming broadcasts of Arizona women's basketball:
Monday, Jan. 27 = The Joan Bonvicini Coach's Show, 6-7 p.m.
Thursday, Jan. 30 = Arizona at Oregon State, 7:30 p.m. for Wildcat Warm-up
Saturday, Feb. 1 = Arizona at Oregon, 12:30 p.m. for Wildcat Warm-up


text:
Clifford Brown: Joy Spring
Joy Spring
Clifford Brown û Max Roach Quintet
Clifford Brown and Max Roach (Verve 314 543 306-2)
Clifford Brown (trumpet), Max Roach (drums), Richie Powell (piano), Harold Land (tenor sax), George Morrow (bass).
Composed by Clifford Brown.
Recorded: Hollywood, August 6, 1954
Rating: 96/100 (learn more)
Unlike 16th-century conquistador Ponce de Le¾n, Clifford Brown actually found the mythical Fountain of Youth. One swig of Dr. BrownÆs Magic Elixir, the aptly titled "Joy Spring," is guaranteed to refresh like a dip in the pool on a summerÆs eve. Besides Brownie's invigorating open trumpet, this easygoing tonic delivers salubrious tenorman Harold Land, stimulating pianist Richie Powell and vitamin-enriched smoothie drummer Max Roach. Tragically, after a life free of drugs and alcohol, Clifford Brown died in a car crash four months shy of his 26th birthday. No good deed goes unpunished. Thankfully, through his recorded horn, joy springs eternal.
Reviewer: Alan Kurtz
Tags: hard bop · joy spring · trumpet
Roger Strong
// Jun 01, 2009 at 07:51 AM
Joy Spring was my introduction to Clifford Brown and it still sounds as fresh now as it did then! Brown is clear and lyrical, his solos developing logically and beautifully. There is also another version recorded July 1954 but its somehow not so clear and shorter as well. I guess you love what you know!


text:
NEW 2008 DVD VIDEO INTERVIEW: "One On One with W Mitchell", 65 minutes. This is Mitchell off-stage in a revealing 65 minutes of in-depth insights based on his unique perspective and valuable wisdom. Mitchell answers your questions. $19.95 USD
"Against all odds, W Mitchell has faced some of life's insurmountable challenges. A man so passionately caring, he does not understand the meaning of giving up." Leo Hart, former NFL quarterback


text:
With Disneyland only a short five-hour drive from the city, Las Vegas have the perfect opportunity to participate in the "Give a Day, Get a Day" Disney program. By volunteering a day of service, participants will receive a one-day, one-park free admission ticket to either Disneyland or Disneyworld.
Volunteer opportunities are not limited to soup kitchens and park cleanup. There are currently 41 volunteer opportunities with non-profit Las Vegas organizations that have been approved as participants for the "Give a Day, Get a Day" program. Opportunities listed describe volunteers needed within the next 60 days. Check the website for a full list of volunteer opportunities eligible for the program.
To be eligible for the free Disney ticket, volunteers must register and sign up through the Disney "Give a Day, Get a Day" website. Participants must be at least 18 years old to sign up. Children must be between 6-17 years old and accompanied by an adult to participate in the program. Please note that some volunteer opportunities have their own age restrictions. Be sure to read the details listed under each opportunity.
For a sampling of some local volunteer opportunities for the Disney "Give a Day, Get a Day" program, click here.
To read the complete terms and conditions of the program, click here.
Want to know more about giving back to the Las Vegas community? Receive email alerts by clicking on the "Subscribe" button at the top of the page you can contact Gwen Navarrete directly at firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Welcome to Restore USA
Here at Restore USA we specialize in all fields of residential and commercial
remodeling, repairs, and complete fire, smoke and water damage restoration.
We are based out of Spring, Texas and are serving all of Harris County and
surrounding counties. We are out to serve not only your construction needs
but your highest standard of customer satisfaction, guaranteed.


text:
A Yellowstone earthquake registered a magnitude of 4.8 as it shook the northern portion of Yellowstone National Park on Sunday morning. The Yellowstone earthquake occurred at 6:34 a.m. at some 4 miles north-northeast of the Norris Geyser Basin, according to the University of Utah Seismograph Stations. The earthquake was felt in the towns of Gardiner and West Yellowstone – towns which border Wyoming and Montana and are located some 20 miles from the epicenter, according to a CBS News report on Sunday.
Tornadoes touch down in northern California
Yellowstone National Park – the first national park in the United States - sees quite small earthquakes on a regular basis.
Regarding the larger earthquake on Sunday morning, there have been no reports of damage or injuries. At this time of year, late March, there are usually very few visitors at the park.
Factually reported, Yellowstone National Park is located on a 'supervolcano' that erupted with massive proportions approximately 640,000 years ago. Scientific experts have calculated an estimation of another super eruption occurrence at 0.00014 percent annually. Or basically, another eruption is not going to happen.


text:
Cat adoption saves lives. Adopt a cat and you'll have a friend for life! Contact us, or contact another local humane society, animal shelter or SPCA.
All of cats and kittens have been, or will be, spayed and neutered. As well, they have been vaccinated, treated for parasites, and blood tested.
Adoption of a cat or kitten from Empty Cages Collective requires an approved application and a donation of at least seventy-five dollars (one hundred dollars if the cat or kitten has been micro chipped).
Please call us at 1-800-880-2684 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.com for an adoption application.
Why should you adopt?
Dog adoption and cat adoption saves lives. Adopt a dog or adopt a cat and you'll have a friend for life! What is the difference between adopting a cat or kitten versus getting cats for sale or kittens for sale from a cat breeder? When someone is breeding kittens, they are creating new cats who need homes. Some people are interested in a very specific breed of cat or kitten and they think the only way to find that specific breed is to buy a cat for sale from a kitten breeder. Yet animal shelters are filled with cats who must find homes. So rather than buying a cat or kitten for sale from a cat breeder, we encourage people to adopt a cat or adopt a kitten at their local animal shelter, SPCA, humane society or pet rescue group.


text:
Scrabble word: SCALED
In which Scrabble dictionary does SCALED exist?
Scrabble (US/Canada)
(9 pts)
Scrabble (UK)
(9 pts)
Official Scrabble (OSPD)
(9 pts)
(10 pts)
Words with friends
(11 pts)
Hanging with friends
(11 pts)
(6 pts)
Lexulous (US)
(9 pts)
Definitions of SCALED in dictionaries:
- verb - measure by or as if by a scale
- verb - pattern, make, regulate, set, measure, or estimate according to some rate or standard
- verb - take by attacking with scaling ladders
- verb - reach the highest point of
- verb - climb up by means of a ladder
- verb - remove the scales from
- verb - measure with or as if with scales
- verb - size or measure according to a scale
- adj - having the body covered or partially covered with thin horny plates, as some fish and reptiles
- adj - (used of armor) having overlapping metal plates attached to a leather backing
- verb - to climb up or over
There are 6 letters in SCALED: A C D E L S
Scrabble words that can be created with an extra letter added to SCALED
All anagrams that could be made from letters of word SCALED plus a wildcard: SCALED?
Scrabble words that can be created with letters from word SCALED
6 letter words
5 letter words
4 letter words
3 letter words
2 letter words
Images for SCALED
Other Resources
SCRABBLE is the registered trademark of Hasbro and J.W. Spear & Sons Limited. Our scrabble word finder and scrabble cheat word builder is not associated with the Scrabble brand - we merely provide help for players of the official Scrabble game. All intellectual property rights to the game are owned by respective owners in the U.S.A and Canada and the rest of the world. Anagrammer.com is not affiliated with Scrabble. This site is an educational tool and resource for Scrabble & Words With Friends players.


text:
You have a fantastic blog. I have read it daily for the past 6+ months and I am very grateful for all the time and effort you put into sharing ideas with the WoW community. I am a small-time earner (160K gold w/o gems or enchants), but one of these days I plan to kick things into high gear and establish a more formal system.
However, a question occurred to me and I think your response would make a interesting blog post. If making tons of gold is so easy using the glyph market (and I am not arguing with the results as it seems there are plenty of people there doing it), why haven't the Gold Farmers got in on the action on every sever and effectively destroyed the market? With a relatively low barriers to entry, it would seem a natural fit.
I'm sure they have Matt! The nice part about the glyph market is that it is so big no one person can really control it without devoting ridiculous amounts of time babysitting, organizing and crafting. Also, I'm not sure how much time farmers actually put into their gold making but there is a lot of setup required to properly run a glyph business; just organizing multiple characters with glyph bags and gathering of thousands of inks is a barrier to entry. These farmers often have quotas to meet, like 300 gold per hour or something, which is also why you see them selling items for so cheap on the auction house: they need their gold this hour to pay for their quota at the end of an eight hour shift. Factor in the gold required to get books of glyph mastery and very few farmers would be willing to do this, at least not the short term ones who basically just want to meet their quota and then allow the next farmer to take their place on the same toon. Many farmers leave nothing for the next person who will take over their shift, so if they tried to leave mats to make more glyphs than the next person would probably sell these to meet their own quota!
Professions in general are usually left to gathering for farmers since this requires no materials in the bags of the farmer to get the job done. A farmer would rather sell a bunch of herbs now for 20 gold than spend the five minutes it takes to turn these into inks and then products to sell for 100 gold over night. It's consistent and that's all a farmer really desires. I'm sure there are some gold selling companies out there who make gold with professions but they are few and far between. As far as individual farmers using professions to craft items goes, it's a rare sight indeed.
11 comments: on "Why haven't Farmers Attacked glyphs"
Stokpile said... May 13, 2010 at 8:33 AM
There's also about a full month of daily research that needs to be done for all the glyphs you can learn. And you'll never see a full glyph enterprise run by one person who farms all their herbs. I can go through over 2k inks in a single week and the amount of farming that would take is beyond imagining.
Asmrioth said... May 13, 2010 at 9:08 AM
Anything requiring more skill than *undercut by 1c* won't be farmed. Many crafted items sell for less than their mats. Think about that for a second, nearly 90% of everything that can be created sells for less than the bare materials (did you make money leveling a crafting trade skill?). Those mats however, always sell.
As for glyphs in general, the basic ones trained rarely make a profit. The ones from books can from time to time but you need to spend about 1K to learn them. The ones from research make more money because less people can make them. Sort of like JC, where it takes a long time before you have a good set of recipes to make money. Farming is all about the short term investment.
Gudshand said... May 13, 2010 at 9:10 AM
There's a couple of goldfarmers dedicating their time on the glyphmarkets on the lower populated servers in Europe.
I'm at this moment battling three of them, all in the same guild but not on the same account because they're all logged on at the same time and moving at the same time.
justarb said... May 13, 2010 at 9:24 AM
I would also expect that farmers avoid professions because the time (and gold) spent levelling them is time not making gold and they never know when Blizzard will drop the banhammer. Why invest the time and gold to level if that account might disappear at a moment's notice?
Anonymous said... May 13, 2010 at 9:31 AM
I'm beginning to wonder if a farmer isn't trying to make a little additional money on my server through glyphs. When ever I am online I can count on one of his 3 posting alts being online. I've checked 6am and various times during the day until well past midnight and always find one of his alts online. If I undercut him he will relist almost immediately. One day we played the undercut game for over 4 hours until I decided I'd had enough. I thought he'd get bored of the nonstop relisting but he's been doing this for over 4 months. He's either a farmer or really bored.
It's a good thing I'm diversified.
pagb666 said... May 13, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Haven't? HAVEN'T?!
I've been suffering a damn chinese farmer for 3 months now. He spends 24/7 (really) at the AH if necessary. He speaks poor english, and already has reached the gold cap.
Posting 4k glyphs at <2g each for weeks to discourage him didn't work.
They DO attack glyphs, and already did in other spanish servers.
Euripides said... May 13, 2010 at 9:40 AM
One reason I've always suspected that farmers leave it at farming is that if they were to adopt a more complex business model, they'd have to invest more time in getting their character's professions maxed, and when they get wave-banned, they'd lost that much more.
Anaalius said... May 13, 2010 at 10:01 AM
Be being a gold farmer i assume the account is more at risk of getting banned. the time it takes to level insciption would be too long and risk where as leveling mining / herbalism can be done with a automated bot program. a lot less risk in the time invested.
Farmers will always stick to farming materials as they are always needed aswell. loads of glyphs are obselete.
Anonymous said... May 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM
JC, enchanting scrolls and to a smaller degree glyph market is today being run by gold selling companies on quite a few EU servers. Blizzard are quite happy about it though it seems.
Fun thing is how they in 99.9% of the cases rather sell a "treated" product instead of raw when they have driven down the prices below mats cost.
Bobbins said... May 14, 2010 at 6:24 AM
Just because some people can't make money or are unable to compete with others doesn't mean they are competing against gold farmers.
I want to make money in the shortest time. I do not reply to mail telling me i'm doing it wrong. I do not get into deep conversations about how to control the market. I do not look at what sells.
I post everything if it sells i make money if it doesn't it goes to stock and gets reposted. I make money by volume and selling everything. I buy cheap herbs. I mill. I make stuff. I post.
Its quick it works. If other scribe wish to spend time tracking what I do so be it. I could make more - Yes. I could crash the market - Yes. But they take time so I don't.
Roboticus said... May 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM
On Stormreaver-US, Glyphs, Enchant Scrolls, and Gems are 80% controlled by 4 foreign farmers. I've made friends with them all, and they've described their working setup as "Independent Gold Supplier" where they work on contract from their own home. .014 RMB/Gold is the going rate that they get paid by their companies. Our server also has it's share of farm bots who employ the more traditional methods, but it is these skilled auctioneer gold sellers that wreak havoc on the market. Observing their statistics panel suggests they hit gold cap every 2 weeks.
Popular Posts
There's a lot of information to sort through when bidding, buying, or posting items on the auction house. In fact it's too much for any one ...
PCT means percentage or percentage market value for an item. After you have scanned with auctioneer enough you will have an accurate PCT for...
You mentioned the old essences selling pretty well, undeath being one of the big ones (8g 45s a piece on emerald dream). Well Zul'Mashar...
Of all my posts at Just My Two Copper , I think that this farming spot is going to excite my hunter readers the most. In this article I am ...
Don't forget to pick up the best farming trinket in the game. 1. Fire Revenants of Stormpeaks Eternal fires remain the most expens...
Hey Markco, Just wanted to tell you another gold tip. With patch 3.1 the JC pattern Citrine Ring Of Rapid Healing no longer requires 2 elem...
I requested the following information from Cithan, who had commented anonymously about the subject of speeding up auctioneer scans. His emai...
This post was submitted by Alisha as her application to write here at JMTC. If you enjoyed Alisha's post then please give her a thumbs u...
Mommar here. For anyone that leveled a jewelcrafter during Mists of Pandaria they are very familiar with obtaining patterns for blue le...
Learn world of warcraft bidding practices in this article that will help you win bids more frequently. Here are the four categories you w...


text:
Kirkman Labs, L-Carnosine, 200 mg, 90 Capsules (Discontinued Item)
You purchased this item onView this order
Shipping Weight:?0.18 lbs (0.08 kg)
Shipping Weight
The Shipping Weight includes the product, protective packaging material and the actual shipping box. In addition, the Shipping Weight may be adjusted for the Dimensional Weight (e.g. length, width & height) of a package. It is important to note that certain types of products (e.g. glass containers, liquids, fragile, refrigerated or ice packed) will often require protective packaging material. As such, these products will reflect a higher Shipping Weight compared to the unprotected product.
- Product Code: KIM-90277
- UPC Code: 999999902771
- Package Quantity: 90 Capsules
- Dimensions: 2.1 x 2.1 x 3.8 in, 0.15 lbs (0.07 kg)
- Important Note:
This item is being replaced by KIM-02090.
- Hypoallergenic
- Dietary Supplement
- Casein & Gluten Free
Tested for more than 950 contaminants!
- Heavy Metals
- Bacteria
- Yeast
- Mold
- Pesticides & More...
L-Carnosine (also known as carnosine) is a molecule consisting of the amino acids alanine and histidine. It is found in significant concentrations in skeletal muscle tissue, heart muscle, nerve tissue and in the brain.
Kirkman offers the highest quality, chemically pure L-Carnosine available. Our capsules are hypoallergenic, specially formulated for individuals with special requirements or sensitivities. They are made from plant cellulose (pine) instead of the traditional animal gelatin shell.
The specific biological role of L-Carnosine is not really known, but it is believed to have antioxidant properties and may also be a neurotransmitter. Because L-Carnosine is a dipeptide, it may be neuroprotective or may support frontal lobe function in the brain.
Despite the fact that little is known about the action of this nutrient, many doctors are utilizing the supplement with excellent reported results.
Suggested Use
1-4 capsules daily or as directed by a physician.
Other Ingredients
L-carnosine, plant cellulose, silicon dioxide, plant cellulose capsule.
Free of: Sugar, starch, soy, wheat, casein, gluten, milk, corn, preservatives, yeast, gelatin, flavorings, or colorings.
Store in a cool dry place and tightly capped.
Keep out of the reach of children.
|Supplement Facts
|Serving Size: 1 Capsule
|Servings Per Container: 90
|Each Serving Contains
|Amount Per Serving
|% Daily Value
|200 mg
|*Daily Value Not Established.
Many people do not realize the benefits and applications of this dipeptide. Carnosine can act as a natural scavenger of dangerous reactive aldehydes from the degradative oxidative pathway of endogenous molecules such as sugars, polyunsaturated fatty acids and proteins. carnosine is also able to extend the lifespan of cultured cells, rejuvenate senescent cells, inhibit the toxic effects of amyloid peptides. - - - - - - - - - - - - - The best application of carnosine is in eye drops. In such way can be used as a potent antioxidant to reduce certain types of vision disorders. Those who wish to improve distant and close vision, along with day and night vision, should consider. The price of this product is high but Krikman Labs don't use much fillers. 4 stars!!!


text:
Coldplay Cover Bee Gees with Barry Gibb"We can bring out an actual Bee Gee. Here comes Mr. Barry Gibb. Let's be respectful," frontman Chris Martin said during the band's encore.
This Day in Music History - June 15thThis is what interesting stuff happened on today's date in music history.
This Day in Music History - May 25thThis is what interesting stuff happened on today's date in music history.
Coldplay Confirmed to Play Super Bowl 50 Halftime ShowAfter much speculation about who's playing Super Bowl 50, February 7th on CBS, it has been confirmed that Coldplay do the honors.
Duets Highlight Global Citizen Festival PerformancesWatch all of the big duets right here.
Pearl Jam & Coldplay Will Play Free Global Citizen FestivalPearl Jam is playing a show in New York City this fall, and you could get in for free.
2015 Oscar Nominations: The 10 Biggest Snubs for Best Original SongSometimes it's an honor just to be nominated. On the other hand, lots of great songs from films don't even get an Oscar nod for Best Original Song.
Chris Martin, Willie Nelson, Ed Sheeran, Usher to Perform at All-Star GRAMMY Salute to Stevie WonderThe all-star concert will take place two nights after the 57th Annual GRAMMY Awards.
David Bowie Rejected a Possible Coldplay CollaborationChris Martin revealed that he once wrote a song with the intention of having the iconic singer record vocals for it. He was denied.
Bruce Springsteen & Chris Martin Play Bono, Join U2 at World AIDS Day Concert: WatchKanye West and Carrie Underwood also performed—though not with U2.
Adele, One Direction, Bono Lead Band Aid 30 to Raise Money for Ebola Crisis in Africa with New Version of 'Do They Know It's Christmas?'The legendary 1984 single is being updated with another cavalcade of music stars, including Ed Sheeran, Sam Smith, Chris Martin and more.
Brian Wilson, Pharrell, Sam Smith, Elton John, Lorde and One Direction Among All-Star Cast on Beach Boys' 'God Only Knows' Remake: WatchFlorence Welch, Dave Grohl, Brian May and Chrissie Hynde are also among the marquee musicians involved in the charity single.


text:
Is Hillary Clinton really a lock for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination? According to many Washington insiders, she will face opposition and it may be formidable, according to Time Magazine this week.
Clinton may not enter the race at the best time for Democrats. The president's polling numbers are low and getting lower, Benghazi problems, her own record as secretary of state, etc. Will she be hindered by her own participation in the Obama administration?
There will be someone who does not consider 2016 a "Hillary coronation." From newly elected liberal Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, it's hard to imagine all the liberals to the left of Hillary sitting this next presidential election out. Running against Hillary in 2016 is the greatest growth opportunity in the Democratic Party.
Warren or Cuomo would be the hottest thing in American politics, at least for a brief amount of time. Would that candidate be able to cope with Hillary's massive campaign war chest is the question.
Running would enable a poorer candidate to reap all the free publicity in a turtle vs. rabbit race. What politician with national aspirations wouldn't want such a prominent platform? If the message is one that vibrates through the Democratic Party, Hillary could be in real trouble simply from overexposure and the label of "unbeatable."
Throughout history, the solid front-runner early has fallen during the long campaign. Names such as Al Gore, Edmund Muskie, Nelson Rockefeller, Thomas Dewey, etc. have ended up bulldozed down the road. Even Mitt Romney in 2012, with every organizational and fundraising advantage, barely beat Rick Santorum in the crucial Ohio primary.
What about the media? They will be bored to tears with the Democrats. No candidates to cover? No intrigue? The media hate a stale political narrative. The press is all for a challenger.
Hillary's campaign will operate on the basis of sheer blunt political force and cold hard cash. She's got the cash and the base to demolish even the most organized candidate. She never quit running when Obama beat her in the 2008 primaries. "It's my turn and this time, I mean it."
This time around there will be no one with the political skill of Barack Obama - certainly not Joe Biden. But some of the same factors that accounted for her vulnerability last time haven't gone away. She has a resume, but not accomplishments.
Hillary looked inevitable once before. The media jury is out as to if she can overcome overconfidence.
* If you have enjoyed this column, may I suggest you scroll down this page and press the SUBSCRIBE box? It's FREE. Thank you for your patronage.
** Send your comments to: email@example.com


text:
by William Shakespeare
Emilia Timeline and Summary
- 2.1 Emilia comes to Cyprus with Desdemona and her husband, Iago, who constantly mocks her.
- 3.1 Cassio asks Emilia if she can bring him to talk to Desdemona. Emilia agrees.
- 3.3 Emilia steals Desdemona's handkerchief and gives it to her husband. He isn't particularly grateful.
- 3.4 Desdemona searches for the lost handkerchief; Emilia says nothing. When Desdemona and Othello fight, Emilia suggests that he's acting jealous.
- 4.2 Othello interrogates Emilia about whether Desdemona is having an affair with Cassio. Emilia insists Desdemona is innocent. After Othello has another fight with his wife, during which he calls her a whore, Emilia tries to comfort Desdemona. She says Othello is acting just as crazy as Iago did when Iago thought that she and Othello were having an affair. Iago tells her to shut up.
- 4.3 Emilia helps Desdemona prepare for bed. Desdemona asks her if she thinks women really do cheat on their husbands. Emilia says she would cheat on her husband if the payoff were big enough. Then she rants about the double standard between men's behavior and women's behavior.
- 5.1 Emilia comes upon the chaos surrounding Cassio and his being wounded in a mysterious attack. Iago sends her to tell the news to Othello.
- 5.2 Emilia comes into Desdemona's bedroom to find Othello there and Desdemona lying near death. Desdemona says she has been falsely murdered, then dies. Othello admits to doing it and says Desdemona deserved it. Emilia, not caring if Othello kills her, screams and raises the alarm. As Othello keeps talking about the handkerchief, Emilia realizes that Iago must be at fault for Othello's misinformation. She accuses her husband in front of Othello and other witnesses. Othello realizes the truth, and Iago stabs Emilia in revenge. She dies next to Desdemona, pleased with herself for having spoken the truth.


text:
Jul 17, 2013 9:15 AM
What you read in a book doesn't have to remain fiction. Use these Dream Big Word Bookends ($49) to remind yourself that anything is possible. That's right: a love triangle involving a beastly werewolf and a mysterious vampire might just be in your future if you dream big enough.
If you've got a product or service that you'd like to promote on Outblush, click here to find out about our advertising opportunities.
Outblush is a blog for girls who love to shop. Our staff digs up the best clothes, home stuff, beauty items, and more. New items are posted every day — bookmark us and check out:


text:
/kWh †
Stable-rate and green products available!
Call now for our best rates!
Discover the Power to Choose Your Energy in San Antonio
You've got the power to choose your energy provider in San Antonio and customize an energy plan that's right for you. The Public Utility Commission of Texas helps you explore your options and compare top providers in San Antonio at its electric choice website, PowerToChoose.com, because you should be as informed as possible when you take advantage of your power to choose.
How to Exercise Your Power to Choose in San Antonio
Discover the benefits of being fully informed when you explore the easy-to-read pages of the PowerToChoose.com website.
- Deregulation basics: Learn the ins and outs of energy deregulation and understand why having the power to choose a retail electric provider (REP) rather than relying on your local transmission and distribution service provider (TDSP) is a big advantage in San Antonio.
- Why switch: You've got the power to choose – and that can include lower rates and better customer incentives. Discover the advantages of switching providers and find out how easy it is to get started with a new provider.
- All about smart meters: These newer meters can measure your electricity usage in 15-minute intervals, making your energy usage much easier to track and therefore easier to reduce so you can save money.
Find your city or town near San Antonio, Texas
|Bee Caves
|Corpus Christi
|Corpus Christi Army Depot
|Corpus Christi Naval Air Sta
|Cty by the Se
|McNair Village
|Missouri City
|Provident City
|Round Rock
|Sugar Land
|The Woodlands
Explore your options in San Antonio, TX, to find the lowest rates and the best energy provider for you. If the energy market is deregulated in your area, you've got the power to choose from a variety of competitive pricing and smart customer benefits. Learn all you can about the energy market in general as well as specific offers to make the best decisions for your home or business.
Updated: 7-14-15
Disclaimer: texaselectricityproviders.com is operated by Just Energy LP, and is not affiliated with Power To Choose, powertochoose.org, or the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT).


text:
How many things in life are actually bullet-proof? I would venture to say not many, but in sports there are a few things that really are bullet-proof and can't miss.
The Super Bowl is bullet-proof. By that I mean it doesn't matter which two teams play in it, it's going to draw the biggest television audience of the year. The tickets will be more money this year than they were last year and the commercials will also be more expensive than they were for last years' game. There will be parties at residences and restaurants everywhere the day of the game. And if you are traveling on the road while the game is being played, you can count on no traffic. No, it doesn't matter if the game is between the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Arizona Cardinals. If the Jaguars and Cardinals ever met in the Super Bowl, it would be the biggest and most widely covered game of the year regardless of the fact neither team has much juice outside of Florida and Arizona. So you see, the NFL can't lose regardless of what two teams meet for the Lombardi trophy on the first Sunday of every February.
Unlike the Super Bowl, the World Series, NBA Finals and the Stanley Cup Finals need at least one big market or establishment team in it to draw really big numbers. Can you imagine the putrid numbers a San Diego Padres vs. Tampa Bay Rays World Series would bring? Or an NBA finals featuring the Charlotte Bobcats vs. Memphis Grizzlies? MLB and the NBA along with the television networks broadcasting the games would be praying for some kind of monumental controversy to stir interest if they were stuck with a Padres-Rays World Series or a Bobcats-Grizzlies NBA final.
Some say professional boxing is on the decline. However, boxing has it's own version of the Super Bowl, it's titled Mayweather vs. Pacquiao. And it is as completely bullet-proof as the Super Bowl.
You can bet the house on it that the moment it's announced and becomes official, look out, because it'll dominate everything boxing until the night of the fight. I remember in 2009/2010 it was Mayweather-Pacquiao 24/7 but it never happened. I say because of Mayweather's reluctance, but there are those who disagree. Back then it was a legitimate Super Fight and a case could've been made for either fighter winning, which is paramount in the making of a Super Fight. (Of course that is by no means the case today.)
Last weekend, Pacquiao avenged his decision loss to Timothy Bradley from two years ago. And ever since the moment his hand was raised in victory, all talk has centered around when he's going to fight Mayweather. In less than three weeks Mayweather will fight and handily defeat Marcos Maidana, and after the fight all anyone will want to talk to him about is fighting Pacquiaio.
Remember when they were both thought to be unbeatable about four years ago? A lot has changed since then. As of this writing Mayweather is 37 and will soon be on the decline, I think. Pacquiao is 35. In addition to that, Pacquiao has been officially defeated twice, has been knocked out cold for two minutes lying face down on the canvas, and he hasn't won by knockout in five years. What will it take for the boxing media and fans to grasp that Mayweather-Pacquiao isn't a big fight and there's no longer a scintilla of drama as to who will come out on top? Is there really one boxing observer left who doesn't think that Mayweather played his hand perfectly waiting Pacquiao out and for him to shows signs of undeniable erosion? Are there still boxing aficionados around who don't see Mayweather administering a one-sided boxing lesson to Pacquiao once they step into the ring when they finally meet? It's blatantly obvious that Pacquiao no longer has the punch or power to make Mayweather do anything that he doesn't want to. And without that he really has nothing else to fall back on to swing the fight in his favor. With Floyd not having to worry about getting stopped or really stunned to the point where he can't recover, he can do what he wants in order to control the fight.
It seems that nothing matters, all boxing fans care about is Mayweather and Pacquiao fighting. I could see if Manny was still the non-stop punching dynamo he used to be, but he's no longer that fighter. Even if you think he beat Bradley the first time, and he did. There's still a great case to be made that he should've lost the decision to Juan Manuel Marquez in their third fight. It was close but I had it for Marquez. And the disputed decision in their third meeting is what really prompted their fourth fight, and Pacquiao was knocked out in one of the most devastating fashions we've recently witnessed in that bout. Also, has everyone forgotten that Mayweather tortured and dominated a younger Marquez over 12-rounds back in late 2009? In fact Marquez didn't win a round, no, he didn't win a minute of that fight. Yet for some reason Mayweather and Pacquiao have to fight so the world keeps rotating?
I can't explain why but the media and fans feel their lives won't be complete if they don't see Mayweather and Pacquiao fight, regardless of the fact that there isn't a morsel of a doubt as to who will win. In fact, I bet the day of the fight Mayweather is about a 12-5 favorite and nobody will bet Pacquiao without getting odds. If Mayweather-Pacquiao were really so intriguing why will those betting Mayweather have to lay over 2-1 in order to bet him in the fight? That's pretty overwhelming in favor of Mayweather for a fight that's supposed to be must see and a toss up.
I really believe Pacquiao could fight and get knocked out by the Marquez-Alvarado winner in the first round, yet if he announced at the post fight press conference that he's signed to fight Mayweather five months from now, the fight would still be the biggest grossing bout in history. Actually, I'll go one further. Pacquiao could fight and get knocked out by Marquez and Alvarado in consecutive fights and still meet Mayweather five months later and break all PPV buy records. I've lived through big fights during my time, like Ali-Frazier I, II & III, Ali-Foreman, Leonard-Duran I & II and Leonard-Hearns...and believe me Mayweather-Pacquiao is nothing compared to those Super Fights.
Mayweather-Pacquiao is about as bullet-proof as any sporting event or fight that I've seen in my life. There is only one thing that could derail a fight between Floyd and Manny, and that too is bullet-proof. You know what that is, if Mayweather lost before they fought. That might be its death blow. But what are the odds of that? First of all there's nobody around Mayweather's weight who can beat him, and if that fighter existed, say a prime Paul Williams who forced Mayweather to retire once already, we know Floyd wouldn't fight him. So the only thing that could cancel Mayweather-Pacquiao can't happen. And once it's official, regardless of how eroded Pacquiao may have looked in his previous bouts, the moment his name is joined with Floyd's, it'll become the latest fight of a life-time.
There's nothing that can change that won't make it a big deal once it becomes official. I've never seen anything like it where clear thinking, reason and logic have been so completely rejected and thrown out the window. Since 2010, Pacquiao has been defeated twice, knocked out and lost a decision he should've won and was given one he should've lost. But that doesn't matter because everyone wants to see if he can beat Mayweather, despite there the fact there isn't a morsel of evidence to suggest that he can. When Mayweather and Pacquiao are mentioned most boxing fans are like sharks during a feeding frenzy. In other words, Mayweather and Pacquiao are going to fight, I don't care that Pacquiao is eroding and the result is a forgone conclusion. And that's exactly what makes Mayweather vs. Pacquiao bullet-proof.
Frank Lotierzo can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.com
The fans want it even if it past it's due date. It will gross the most money in history. Floyd might even be favored 2-1 by the books . I still think PAC has a chance to pull it off. The fans deserve this fight. Floyd was upset and nervous because when it was time to make the fight years ago PAC was the the favorite 8-5. Floyd wants that 0 at any costs. He thinks if he retires 49-0 he can be mentioned with Robinson or better. Just make the fight before time runs out.
The fight should still happen, and I think Bob will make it once he's milked Manny enough.
For whatever reason, this matchup has captured the general public's imagination.
The hardcore fan base, from a PPV standpoint, does little to propel buys to the seven-figure stratosphere.
Moreover, the casuals have little to no knowledge along with a notorious short-term memory.
Like Frank points out, Manny Pacquiao can get flattened three more times and people would still buy.
You may recall, Mike Tyson, prior to challenging Lennox Lewis, hadn't looked sharp in decades nor had he even had a decent performance in years.
You guys may also remember the Pacquiao-Shane Mosley fight.
Hardcores crapped all over it, but savvy promoter Bob Arum couldn't care less.
"Sugar Shane Mosley resonates," said Arum, referring to the casual fan base.
Sure enough, these two fights did a combined 3.4m buys with each event being Lewis', Tyson's and Pacquiao's biggest PPVs to date.
When the x-factor -- perceived power -- is involved, the casual fan is convinced that the power will make that difference.
Of course, they're ignorant to the fact that power on its own is worth little more than a luxury vehicle without gas...
For that reason, I would agree with Frank.
This fight is Teflon. And I think everyone involved is well aware of that as well.
Money May is luvin' it. But he will never take dat step in dat squared jungle with Da Manny. Da Manny is too uncanny.
Money May is built like the Titanic. He's been built up not to sink. But he will, and all the Kanos will panic. They act like Money May's poop poop doesn't stink.
He's the smart one. Da Manny would beat him silly, and spread him all over the canvas like mustard on a hot dog bun..
Down will go another myth about _____ ______ superiority. On what should, could and would happen, never listen to a bias authority.
Through the ages, there have been tons of impossible to win fights for underdogs. But the favored fighters have constantly ended up getting slaughtered like hogs. Holla!
Not interested. The mere thought of the antics of Floyd & family up until fighttime make me sick, and the fight itself wouldn't deliver enough to compensate for it.
Thought of note: there must be a reason - beyond pride or narcissism - Floyd hasn't responded to the lure of neither the cash nor the possibility to win this, in the eyes of a majority of the boxing world, supposedly easy fight. Floyd is, quite right, considered a superb analyst. Could it be he sense it wouldn't be quite as easy? Is there one fight that still can bring the absolute max out of Manny Pacquiao, it's this one. All the insults, all the sqornful smiles, would be his driving gasoline thru twelwe rounds of high energy. I've said it before: Floyd knows - victory or no victory - this would be a painful one, and all his other qualities aside: he doesn't like to bleed.
I don't get this article; yes Pacquiao has officially lost twice, but why give that any credence to that when the first was a robbery?
And apparently there's not a morsel of evidence he can win, but he just beat the number 2 guy at welterwight, EASILY, so who the hell else should Mayweather be fighting at this juncture?
Finally...Floyd played his hand perfectly? By blatantly ducking his most natural opponent for the last several years? No. He set himself up for a lifetime of questions as to why he didn't fight Manny when he should have, and irrevocably tarnished his legacy in the process.
The acrimony between the camps continues. As long as Arum is involved the fight will not happen, Mayweather has made that point
abundantly clear. So you writers should drop the it until something changes . It's becoming a tired subject that's suffering from
over exposure already. I urge you to concentrate on reality, there are other interesting matchups for both men as they approach retirement.
I wanted to see the fight circa spring 2010 when it should have been made and actually would have been a real Superfight. It's almost as bad now as if Holmes and Foreman would have fought in the 90's and thinking that would have been an indicator of how the fight would have went circa 79-80 had Foreman remained active. I don't even want to see the fight now. Mayweather will win and it won't prove anything to me. Sorry.
its so far past its fresh date that anyone whod think it be the fight of 5 yrs ago is hallucinating, right now it wouldnt mean a damn thing or prove anything... thx floyd for ruining what could of been one great fight ..
well the fight was just a drug test refusal away from happening, and just recently GB won a purse bid that will feature a TR guy and an Al Hayman fighter. Stranger things have happened.
and when it happens, we will see Manny escorted to retirement in glory... sent on his way by one of the best ever.
Who will win the Sergey Kovalev vs Andre Ward fight?


text:
Akan, Ghana, Soul Washer's Badge, early 20th century, gold, the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Museum purchase funded by Alfred C. Glassell, Jr.
Beck Building
5601 Main Street
Law Building
1001 Bissonnet
The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in partnership with the Houston Museum of African American Culture, presents "One Night in the Kingdom of Gold," a multi-venue event celebrating the rich history and heritage of the Ashanti Kingdom of Ghana. The event includes private tours of the MFAH Glassell Collection of African Gold and the HMAAC exhibition Kingdom of Gold: Photographs of Ghana, featuring more than 30 images by Ellen Kaplowitz that capture the enstoolment of Asantehene Otomfuo Osei Tutu II as king of the Ashanti Kingdom.
5:45 p.m. Registration and networking at HMAAC
6 p.m. Talk & Tour at HMAAC, led by Jared Stellar, professor of African history, Rice University
7 p.m. Talk & Tour at MFAH, led by Chelsea Dacus, assistant curator, Museum of Fine Arts, Houston
7:30 p.m. Happy Hour Thursday at MFAH
This program is sold out. Contact us for questions.


text:
The Sleep Specialist
For the novel, I've changed the setting to New York City in 1934. Robert and May Sinclair arrive in town with two suitcases, Robert's portable typewriter, and May's three-way mirror. He's an aspiring playwright, she's an actress, and they're desperately poor. But Robert is hired as the superintendent of a building – twelve dollars a week and a free apartment – and it looks as if the two of them just might survive.
Robert is an insomniac: by day he works frantically on his first play, by night he walks the dark and dangerous streets of the city. He finds himself drawn into the life of a mysterious man named Orson Price – and into an unlikely friendship with Mrs. Amalfi, the Sleep Specialist, who attempts to help Robert overcome his insomnia. Robert's encounter with the city takes him from an exotic apartment house in Gramercy Park to a seedy hotel in Hell's Kitchen, from the wards at Bellevue to the literary world of Greenwich Village. As he struggles with emotions that terrify him, Robert is plunged into depths that nearly do him in. But he finishes his play. And, many years later, when he looks back on what happened to him during that desperate time, Robert sees how crucial it was to his development as an artist – and to his pursuit of the life he was meant to live.


text:
About Collector-Cable
Collector-Cable is a new company but it comes to you with over 50 years of drag racing experience behind it. We have seen certain rules come and go.
It ws "our mission" from the start to make a product that was NHRA-accepted , IHRA legal and "Racer Friendly" as far as pricing. We know it costs a lot of money to go racing and it seems it costs more everyday. To that end we are offering you a great product at the lowest prices available (plus Free Shipping!).
We make the Collector-Cables in our shop and at the races we attend.
You can reach us at:
Jok Nicholson: call or text (319) 404-7001. email: email@example.com


text:
Tamworth Early Learning ProgramA School Readiness program for 3 year olds (Gumnuts) and 4 year olds (Prep) in a real school environment.
Now offering a Prep To Kindy Rebate.
Tamworth Junior School
Find out why these beginning years at school are critical in developing a student's confidence as a learner.
Read more
Tamworth Middle & Senior School
Middle School at Carinya provides Years 5 to 8 students with a discrete transition from primary school to the environment of secondary school. Read more.
Senior School addresses the personal and educational needs of students from Years 9 to 12 as they prepare for post school vocational and education. Read more.
Gunnedah Prep SchoolThe family-like environment encourages maturity and confidence, and ensures that your child experiences consistency and security as they make the transition into Kindergarten.
Read more
Gunnedah Primary SchoolAn advantage of being a small school is that each child is known by all staff and plays a unique role in the close school community.
Read more


text:
Skydiving.com now has a network skydiving location serving Guntersville and Marshall County in Alabama. Call Skydiving.com at 1-800-617-7948 for details, free information and specials on skydiving in Guntersville, AL today!
Popular Tags for Skydiving Guntersville:
Skydiving Guntersville, Skydiving in Guntersville, Sky Diving Guntersville, Skydive Guntersville AL, Skydiving 35976, Guntersville Skydiving, Skydiving Guntersville Alabama, Skydiving near Guntersville, Skydiving in Guntersville Alabama, Guntersville Sky Diving, Skydive 35976, Skydiving Guntersville AL, Skydive Guntersville, Skydiving Marshall County, Skydive in 35976, Skydiving AL, Sky Diving Guntersville AL, Guntersville, Alabama
Sign up for our newsletter and receive updatesand specials on skydiving across America!


text:
Hook Up Tonight
Local Wet Sluts
Erotic Local Sluts
Hot Local Sex
Sex Ads
Homemade Porn
Cheating Wives
Get Laid Tonight
Free Sex Chat
Hot New Pussy
Hidden Voyeur
Free Hot Cams
Casual Sex
Niche Galleries
Top Pornstars
Popular Videos
Discreet Fling
Adult Forum
Local Fuck Finder
Get Laid Tonight
Elegant Amateur Babe Sucks A Big Pecker And Swallows Jizz
This beautiful brunette babe sucks some mean cock and always swallows
You should see Pussy.Org's Flash Movie Player here. If you don't, then you need to
install Adobe Flash
and reload this page to watch this movie!
Submitted by
Amateur Allure
01min 03sec
Lush looking babe poses for the camera with her perfect curled hair. She has the most amazing brown eyes and a super appetite for stiff cock. The dude is in luck as she gets straight to work sucking his stiff cock. She throats his pecker with ease, and licks at the bell end. The dude doesnt last long with this vacuum seal around his throbbing cock, squirting his load into her mouth. She gargles his hot cum in her sweet mouth!
Download this Free Movie
(to play this movie you need a
FLV Player
(to play this movie you need a
FLV Player
Related Videos:
Young and extremely sexy lesbians having black...
0 views -
28 Mar 14
Length: 00min 30sec
Nice and petite teen mai horiuchi with friend...
0 views -
28 Mar 14
01min 00sec
Experienced beautiful chick rubs her sweet...
0 views -
28 Mar 14
Length: 00min 55sec
Drunk shorthaired business woman seduces her...
0 views -
28 Mar 14
Length: 00min 35sec
Two raunchy babes janet and misty please...
0 views -
28 Mar 14
Length: 00min 59sec
Hottie has cum dripping from her perfect boobs
0 views -
28 Mar 14
Length: 00min 38sec
European vixen mia moon slurping a monster penis
0 views -
28 Mar 14
01min 18sec
Avy scott enjoys a hard fucking both ways
0 views -
28 Mar 14
01min 21sec
Tempting big breasted pornstar hottie getting...
0 views -
28 Mar 14
01min 08sec
Sexy young blonde bimbo stripping and showing...
0 views -
28 Mar 14
Length: 00min 30sec
Other Great Free Porn Sites
Amateur Gone Wild
89 Galleries
Hardcore Pub
Sexy %26 Hot Babes
Natural and Hairy
ATK Models
Mad Mammas
Wow Hairy
World Sex
Geeks Nude
Top Porn Pictures
Horny Karen
Pornstar Book
Free Pic Series
Hairy Erotica
Private Voyeur
Pink World
Wife Movies
Aunt Mia
MILF Film
Caught Nude
Bravo Teens
Nerd Nudes
Library of Thumbs
Porn 365
Your Mom Has Sex
Pretty Hot Babes
Fucking Free Movies
Ass Filled
Moms Here
Lion Porn
Elephant List
Younger Babes
Home Made Videos
Teenies XXX
Candy List
Young Leafs
Ultra Donkey
Hair Everywhere
Virgin Fucked
Teen Boat
My Fuckin Wife
Indian Sex Passion
Hairy Pussy Post
Solo Girl Pussy
XXX Dessert
Hairy Girls Fur
Bone Me
Hairy Sex TGP
Mature Passion
Mature Bitches
All Vids
I Want Mature
The New Shemp
New Galleries
Porn Plus
Jambo Porn Tube
BustNow Tube Porn
Bulldog List
Nude Amateur Babes
Lingerie Mania
All Indian Sex
Mom Facial
All Of Teens
FTV Angels
Prime Matures
Young Galleries
Free Porn Pics
Hank's Galleries
India Mafia
Free Gonzo
Nude Babes
Screw My Indian Wife
Search Galleries
Mature Hit
Sleazy Dream
JR Movies
Search Porno Videos at Ro89
French Cum
Mature Post
Free Big Movies
Amp Land
Movie File Downloads
In Sex
Q Porno
Sun Porno
Hardcore Sex links
Japan Whores
Clit List Sex
Copyright © 2008 Pussy.org -
18 U.S.C. 2257 Statement
Privacy Policy
Terms And Conditions
Advertise With Us


text: Practice Mini Photo Gallery 0 - Published January 31, 2013 by Coach Tumbas in Games/Practice Four photos from a recent practice. Team duffel bags by Jensen Lee lined up in the lobby. Shooters and sweats lined up for distribution. Freshmen David Sandberg and David King at work. Team helmets are on the way. A few guys stayed after practice to work on their craft. We're fortunate to have a well lit indoor facility at our disposal. View footage from last year's indoor training sessions here. @IULax Dominic Guarino Commits to Indiana Introductions


text:
Lack of detection of a putative retrovirus associated with haemic neoplasia in the soft shell clam Mya arenaria
Haemic neoplasia (HN) is a leukemia-like disease that affects at least 20 species of marine bivalves including soft shell clam, Mya arenaria. Since the disease was discovered in 1969, the etiology remains unknown. A retroviral etiology has been suggested based on the detection of reverse transcripta...


text:
Army pitcher Logan Lee
May 28, 2012
Courtesy of Army Athletics
WEST POINT, N.Y. -- For the fourth time in nine years, and the fifth time in program history, the Army baseball team is headed back to the NCAA Regionals. On Monday, the Black Knights learned that they will face Virginia at the Charlottesville Regional on Friday.
The field of 64 for the NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament was announced on ESPNU, and Army's pairing was announced approximately 10 minutes into the hour-long special. The Black Knights gathered as a team to celebrate the special moment.
In addition to top-seeded Virginia (38-17-1), second-seeded Oklahoma (38-22) and third-seeded Appalachian State (39-16) will join No. 4 seed Army (41-13) at the Charlottesville Regional.
The Black Knights, who have won a program-record 41 games this season, head to Charlottesville, Va., on Wednesday to prepare for its first-round matchup with the nationally-ranked Cavaliers. Virginia is currently ranked among the Top 25 in all of the major national polls. Oklahoma and Appalachian State will meet in the other first-round contest.
The four-team, double-elimination tournament begins Friday and continues through Monday (if necessary). The winner of the Charlottesville Regional will advance to face the winner of the Columbia Regional in the NCAA Super Regionals (June 8-11).
Army and Virginia have met five times previously, and the Cavaliers own a 3-1-1 advantage in the all-time series. The two schools have not squared off since 1913. Army and Appalachian State faced each other in 2006, with the Mountaineers taking both games (11-8 and 4-2). The Black Knights and Sooners have never met on the baseball diamond.
The 64 teams in the NCAA field will open play Friday, June 1, at 16 regional sites across the country. The winners of each of the 16 regionals advance to the best-of-three Super Regionals, taking place June 8-11. The eight Super Regional winners travel to the College World Series to be held June 15-26 at TD Ameritrade Park in Omaha, Neb.
Full Army Athletics Release
Friday, June 1
Game 1: #1 Virginia vs. #4 Army - 4 p.m.
Game 2: #2 Oklahoma vs. #3 Appalachian State - 8 p.m.
Saturday, June 2
Game 3: Loser Game 1 vs. Loser Game 2 - 1 p.m.
Game 4: Winner Game 1 vs. Winner Game 2 - 6 p.m.
Sunday, June 3
Game 5: Winner Game 3 vs. Loser Game 4 - 1 p.m.
Game 6: Regional Championship Game (Winner Game 4 vs. Winner Game 5) - 6 p.m.
Monday, June 4
Game 7: Second Regional Championship Game (Winner Game 6 vs. Loser Game 6) - 6 p.m.
**Played if Game 5 winner wins Game 6**