text:
In Their Own Words – Silent Language of Love
On Monday afternoons, Ethan, our ten-year-old with autism, attends a gymnastics class with eight other children who have a range of different special needs. Today has been a hard day for Ethan—there's a note from school referring vaguely to "an incident at the computers" and later, a refusal to do any math at all. I'm poised in the lobby by the window that offers a little view of the class, ready for the worst—a blow-up, a melt-down, something—and instead I watch Ethan blink with surprise at a new girl walking into class. Taller than him by at least five inches, she has striking red hair, glasses, and Down's syndrome. Right away, I can see that, for whatever reason, she has captured his interest. He flutters closer and examines her from different angles, a technique he usually reserves for particularly interesting machines. As they move through their warm-up routine, he positions himself as close to her as possible. A few minutes later, they are partnered to run through some somersaults and cartwheels together.
If I were in the room with them, I'd be barking directions and prompting conversations because I'm his mother and can't help myself: "Ask her what her name is!" "Tell her yours!" "Find out what school she goes to!" In my heart of hearts, I know he'd probably do as he was told and, I suspect, the interest would die because pushing him into the realm of ordinary conversation has never interested him.
Instead, as she cartwheels, Ethan squeals with laughter, bounces up and down, and then turns serious: "Nice cartwheel," he says, staring at her feet.
For Ethan, language is a perpetual stumbling block. Asking a question is a dangerous invitation to getting a question asked back, to launching in on the exhausting business of talking back and forth. Recently, though, he's learned that compliments serve nicely as predictable and brief conversation starters.
"Thank you," the girl says, nodding and readjusting her glasses.
Usually an exchange like this would do the trick for Ethan and be enough bonding for one day. He'd go off and find a heating vent or a light switch to examine close-up. But today, he stays with the girl, and—I can hardly believe it—never takes his eyes off her.
For the rest of the class they say nothing, but stay in each other's vicinity. There's a thumbs up at some point and even, when they get to the trampoline, a smile from her. At the end of class, they are meant to shake hands with their teachers, which Ethan usually does, but today he skips past his teachers to poke his hand out in the direction of his new crush. For a horribly long moment, it hangs there, hovering in the air between them. I send up a silent prayer: let her shake his hand, let her do something. Though he'd probably make a speedy recovery, I fear my heart will break if she doesn't.
Then she surprises everyone: she looks down at both her hands, chooses the wrong one and gives it to him. As the room empties around them, suddenly they are standing side by side, holding hands, looking—more than anything else—stuck.
Is this terribly awkward? Are they dying of embarrassment? The woman who must be her mother and I exchange glances. Should we sail in and fill this silent tableau with our chatter and the exchange of names? Because she holds back, I do too and eventually they manage to end the moment themselves. Ethan notices a light switch he hasn't flicked today; she spots her shoes, two ruby-red slippers to match her hair.
After it's all over, Ethan says only this: "I liked that girl."
Why, I wonder. Why did my son, who is afraid of new people, who needs to be prompted to notice other kids, take such a shine to her? I can only think he must recognize something in her face about what they share—that he knows, instinctively, the world is hard for her, too.
I'm still thinking about this scene the next morning at the bus stop. In our struggle to help Ethan gain speech, we have tried virtually everything that books have offered us. He's got some sign language, enough that any time we yell, his hand fly up to his chest and beat out I LOVE YOU over and over. We make him ask questions, two of us at every dinner, two of his brothers; we prompt him through stories, start his words for him. We have forced Ethan to talk every single day and though I'm sure this was right, I also wonder if we haven't learned something ourselves from his reticence.
When you don't talk much, there are many things you also don't do: you don't make up stories, you don't lie, you don't exaggerate the truth to make everyone laugh and/or feel sorry for you. You also don't manipulate, or bore people without realizing it. I've spent years being jealous of parents with chatty children until I got one myself and realized: Ah yes, some children do go on and on, in a way that isn't always dreamy.
At the bus stop, Ethan's two younger brothers are infinitely smoother than he. One chats up another mother with a story of closet monster, the other chucks sticks on a roof with his friend from up the street. Ethan as always, stands alone, humming, with a nervous eye on the horizon for the bus. Though he never talks at the bus stop—there's too much to do, watching for the bus—he's recently started a new practice of hugging the other mother and me as the bus pulls up. Usually he whispers what we should say before we can: "Have a good day, Ethan."
It's inappropriate, no doubt, and something we should probably discourage before he gets to middle school, but for now, the other mom loves it and smiles afterward. And there's also this; our blissfully typical six-year-old says goodbye by chucking me his stick form the bus steps and calling, "Hold onto that until I get home."
We have learned that silence is a cloud with its own silver lining. What Ethan manages to communicate in his odd ways—in his gestures, in holding hands with that girl, in his morning hugs—can seem, at times, truer than a half-hour of his brother's nightly laments about playground popularity. Is Ethan bonded to others? Does he communicate his feelings? Sometimes I think that in the absence of easy access to words, there's a way he says the real things better than the rest of us.
This "In Their Own Words" essay is written by Cammie McGovern and was originally published on AutismSpeaks.org.
If you have a story you wish to share about your personal experience with autism, please send it to email@example.com. Autism Speaks reserves the right to edit contributions for space, style and content. Because of the volume of submissions, not all can be published on the site.
May 8, 2010 at 9:52 am
This brought tears to my eyes and a light in my heart! I could have written a much similar story about my daughter…actions DO speak louder than words, and the pureness in what our children share with us and the world make all of the struggles worth it! Beautifully written! Thank you so much for sharing.
May 8, 2010 at 9:56 am
What a beatuiful story. In his world, he is saying more than enough words can say.. REmember he does talk in the language of LOVE, which by the story is something he knows that he is full of and has.
May 8, 2010 at 10:35 am
There is a beautiful song by Allison Krauss titled "When you say nothing at all"-that we made a photo slide show of our son, Michael, who has non-verbal Autism. very heart-warming.
May 8, 2010 at 10:44 am
That was so beautiful. Sometimes just a few words can put so much into perspective. Thank you for doing that for me!
May 8, 2010 at 11:00 am
my Jacob is so much like Ethan. He is a middle child of five, and the only one with autism. His older and younger siblings all talk very much (more than I like at times), and want him to talk back. But Ive always just told them he has important things on his mind and doesnt think they understand. All the other kids are in gifted classes at school and JACOB is what slows me down and reminds me what its like to truly enjoy a child.
May 8, 2010 at 11:00 am
Thank you for this post my six year old has some expressive language but mostly it's vocal stimms that we hear daily. I'm hopeful and confident that he'll get through thus phase and start to communicate better. Your story definitely helped fill up my tank which was running pretty low today.
May 8, 2010 at 11:21 am
My tank was running low too. Yesterday was a particularly hard day. I just spent hours crying because I did not know if Logan knew how much I loved him, or if he would ever understand what I mean by the words I love you. The funny thing is that I know how much he loves me just by the hugs he gives me each and every day. I never did realize that Logan is teaching me how to say I love you in his own special way.
May 8, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Thank you for sharing! This is a beautiful story and helps so many struggling with the same questions!
May 8, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Julissa Valdes :Many times in the midst of a busy day and overwheling feelings with everything thats going on at home, my son, almost six, also diagnosed with autism, and the eldest of three siblings manages to bring me down to earth by just looking at me or putting his hand on my hand…and it really makes me click…that perhaps I need to take it easy and things aren't as hard as I think…He has really tought me to enjoy the simpler things in life and above all not to be so rigid on what I expect out of everything. He has definately changed our lives as individuals and as a family…in my rare analysis of humanity…I think they are here to steer us to shore.
May 9, 2010 at 8:34 am
Thank you for your story. My son Sam is alot like your son Ethan. Sometimes he shows more love in his nonverbal ways than his brothers with all their talking. Thanks for reminding me that sometimes words aren't so important. Beautiful story.
May 9, 2010 at 9:00 am
Your story tugs at my heart. My son,Steven,(now 31) is autistic. He went from speaking to non-verbal, to gibberish. So slowly, words started to come back. Sentences made little sense. Trying to explain the ambiguous language we speak was impossible. At age 17, after he had been away for a week to a work camp, he rushed out the back door as I returned from a long day at work. He said, "I have to tell you thoughts in my mind." WHOA!! Where did he learn that? He had my undivided attention. His lip quivered. ????? And, then, for the first time, he said…I love you, Mom. I get chills to this day!
Then, he met Joanna. They have been "boyfriend and girlfriend" for 13 years. They spend hours on the phone watching "Blues Clues" together. I know they're ecstatic ,as I hear Steven shout "A clue. A clue!" Others might see them as an odd couple,but, they feel a dedicated love most of us never cherish.
May 10, 2010 at 6:47 am
A cure for Autism sounds unethical, monstrous and fascist, for all but the most low functioning autistics.
May 14, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Interesting interpretation of bioethics. Count me as a fascist monster.
May 15, 2010 at 8:30 am
This is a story of hope and understanding. I am a mother of two boys none of which are autistic, however our very dear friends son is, he too is non verbal as well. He has given my children the ability to respect people for who they no matter how different they appear. Cody has given us the gift of respect and understanding, something that can be very difficult to teach. He is always smiling and the biggest gift of all is when he hugs us and shows us how much we mean to him. The funny thing is that he has more love and respect from our family and every person who has had the honor of meeting him, just for being who he is, a WONDERFUL PERSON. Thank you Cody!!!!
August 29, 2010 at 1:01 am
Google: "challenging behaviors in autism" on you tube under "kgaccount" and you will see example of incessant vocalizations, or humming that is typical among non verbal autistic persons. And surely, this is a case of LF autism that would warrant the understandable desire to "cure autism" but ironically these parents don't push or advocate for cures, but rather treatments to get their son to his "highest functioning level." Truly inspiring. Creative.
January 18, 2011 at 6:55 am


text:
Log in
Buck 65 megamix by BUDDY PEACE on Urb.com!
View previous topic
View next topic
Strange Famous Forum
Joined: 01 May 2003
Posts: 2711
Location: wiscompton
Buddy, you are much too modest.
Everything I've heard from your lab is grade A - top notch, you humble bloke.
Keep up the stellar work!
Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:23 am
Casey Carver
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 1030
Location: minnesota
this is fucking great.
i don't think i've heard anything buddy's done that i didn't love. i still bump the discs he sent me a few years back on a pretty regular basis.
Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:35 am
My Friend Shalem
Joined: 11 Oct 2006
Posts: 427
buddy!!! im only half way through this mix. shit is bananananananas! i love it!
Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:57 pm
Buddy Peace
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 1651
Holy heck folks, thank you.
This was such a dope task, I couldn't be more pleased to have been a part of it. Cheers for peeping it!
Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:19 pm
the contortionist
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 707
Location: Brighton, UK
So many good ideas crammed onto one mix. Does anybody do this type of mix any better?
Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:03 pm
tom inhaler
me too!
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 4397
Location: providence
the contortionist wrote:
Does anybody do this type of mix any better?
definitely not
Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:38 pm
Joined: 13 Jan 2004
Posts: 62
Location: B-A
Is anyone else having trouble downloading this mix? I've tried +10 times and it always cuts off before it finishes; always at different points in the download. I really want this mix. The 1 minute I'm hearing sounds so good.
Can anyone put it up on a yousendit thingy or something for those of us who are in the 3rd world?
Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:27 am
Buddy Peace
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 1651
Someone on the Ninja Tune board actually uploaded it, as I think some folks were having problems getting it all too...
Give that a go but if it doesn't work I'll see what I can do... I DL'd it from Urb just to check and it worked okay for me, I have no idea! Oh well. Check it and see...
**EDIT** the mix is now available without problems at
Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:39 am
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21790
is this a problem with Urb.com?
If so, that's unfortunate. I should hit them up about that.
Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:46 am
Buddy Peace
Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 1651
It seems so - some people got it without problems but some people only got one or two minute portions... I'm just never sure with things like that if it's a problem over there or a problem with individual computers. But if you were to give them a shout that'd be ace. I'm sure they could sort it out quickly.
Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:56 am
tom inhaler
me too!
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 4397
Location: providence
you can now download the mix direct from strangefamousrecords.com , or stream it if you'd like.
Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:46 pm
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 619
Location: Berkeley
Buddy, this is a huge treat. Thanks so much.[/i]
Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:00 pm
Jump to:
Select a forum
Strange Famous BBS
The General Forum
SFR Artists, Albums & Merch!
Hall of Fame
Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE
IF YOU WANT TO JOIN THE FORUM, READ THIS 1st
Old Shows. Come meet the ghost of performance past.
Goto page
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Wed Aug 31, 2016 1:54 am
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Oldest First
Newest First
Powered by phpBB: © 2001
phpBB Group
Template created by
The Fathom
Based on template of
Nick Mahon

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Paper Chase is a research database designed to offer abstracts of research articles published in journals that have a highly rated impact factor as determined by ISI Impact Factor and PageRank. Abstracts are organized by date, with the most recently published papers listed first.
Paper Chase
An epigenetic mechanism of resistance to targeted therapy in T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
1] Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. [2] Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. [3] Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. [4] Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA.
The identification of activating NOTCH1 mutations in T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) led to clinical testing of γ-secretase inhibitors (GSIs) that prevent NOTCH1 activation. However, responses to these inhibitors have been transient, suggesting that resistance limits their clinical efficacy. Here we modeled T-ALL resistance, identifying GSI-tolerant 'persister' cells that expand in the absence of NOTCH1 signaling. Rare persisters are already present in naive T-ALL populations, and the reversibility of their phenotype suggests an epigenetic mechanism. Relative to GSI-sensitive cells, persister cells activate distinct signaling and transcriptional programs and exhibit chromatin compaction. A knockdown screen identified chromatin regulators essential for persister viability, including BRD4. BRD4 binds enhancers near critical T-ALL genes, including MYC and BCL2. The BRD4 inhibitor JQ1 downregulates expression of these targets and induces growth arrest and apoptosis in persister cells, at doses well tolerated by GSI-sensitive cells. Consistently, the GSI-JQ1 combination was found to be effective against primary human leukemias in vivo. Our findings establish a role for epigenetic heterogeneity in leukemia resistance that may be addressed by incorporating epigenetic modulators in combination therapy.
View Papers by Journal
View Papers by Institution
- Harvard Medical School
- Harvard School of Dental Medicine
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
- Boston Children's Hospital
- Brigham and Women's Hospital
- Cambridge Health Alliance
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
- Harvard Pilgrim Health Care
- Hebrew SeniorLife
- Joslin Diabetes Center
- Judge Baker's Children's Center
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear
- Massachusetts General Hospital
- McLean Hospital
- Mount Auburn Hospital
- Schepens Eye Research Institute
- Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital
- VA Boston Healthcare System


text:
Remove Ads x
The SIMS 2 - download at 4shared. The SIMS 2 is hosted at free file sharing service 4shared.
| Uploaded via: 4shared site
Share Add to my account
Is owner
View only
Upload & Edit
Members may only view items in this folder.
Members may view, add, edit and delete items in this folder.
Checked by McAfee. No virus detected.
23 comments Add new comment View all
Wrong code entered. Please, try again.
Enter the code above to post message:
schiffertam 1 year ago Reply Spam SpamCancel
Rizaldy M. 2 years ago Reply Spam SpamCancel
nipu kaga nih ?
elssonhabil 3 years ago Reply Spam SpamCancel
Remove Ads x
Download all files from this folder
Download folder as:
This file will be created in your 4shared folder
File name:
Zip as:
Download as B1
The SIMS 2.rarFile QR Code


text:
USA, 2012, 144 Minute Running Time
Genre/Subject: Drama
MUST END Thursday, February 14th
Nominated for THREE Academy Awards!
35mm presentation - The Master unfolds the journey of a Navy veteran (Joaquin Phoenix) who arrives home from war unsettled and uncertain of his future—until he is tantalized by The Cause and its charismatic leader (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights), the drama co-stars Amy Adams and features an original score by Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead.
Read Rolling Stone's Peter Travers review of The Master, his pick for Best Movie of the Year
DIRECTOR: Paul Thomas Anderson
Screenwriter: Paul Thomas AndersonPrincipal Cast: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix and Amy AdamsUS Distributor: The Weinstein Company
Official Film Website
CLICK IMAGE for the Member Newsletter
CLICK IMAGE to submit to the Denver Film Festival. Withoutabox logos are trademarks of Withoutabox, a DBA of IMDb.com Inc. or its affiliates.
CLICK IMAGE to Renew or JoinMembership Updates and Sign Up
CLICK IMAGE for Information
CLICK IMAGE for more information
Site powered by: Luminate


text:
Is free software really capable of serving end users or not? This issue has political consequences, which is part of what makes it important: either free software is "minor league" or it's "major league". Which we believe has a big impact on what our expectations can be and what our political and ethical stance towards proprietary and free software should be.
If it's "minor league", then we get to use the excuse that "Hey, we're volunteers, you can't expect us to compete with the big-money teams!" and not being usable by end-users is just par for the course. Therefore, we should stop trying to market GNU/Linux as a viable alternative to proprietary operating systems for end users. For the consumer market, Microsoft wins, we lose. End of story.
If it's "major league", then we get to thumb our noses at Microsoft, but at the same time, we have to be willing to be judged by the same end user standards as any proprietary system. In other words, "unreasonable" end user expectations are just par for the course.
If it's "major league", then we get to thumb our noses at Microsoft, but at the same time, we have to be willing to be judged by the same end user standards as any proprietary system
We can't be both at the same time. Certainly, we can't try to excuse all flaws with the "poor little unpaid us" excuse while simultaneously beating war drums over proprietary software.
Historically free software has always faced issues of limited time available from qualified developers. But instead of solving them by throwing money at them (which is the essence of the proprietary approach), we've found ways to increase efficiency, simplify the process, and coordinate the chaos of developer contributions.
Debian's current packaging and quality-assurance system is already an amazing example of the control of complexity that that requires.
I agree that problems are inevitable. I agree that developers are overworked and don't have enough time. I agree that users should (be willing and able to) contribute more. I agree that poor communications are often at the heart of the problem.
What I hope is that there is a way to make a system that responds better to end user needs -- probably by increasing the ways that end user values can be communicated. I think there are already people (both paid and unpaid) who would be willing to fix problems that cause end user difficulties. But I think they don't necessarily know what to fix, and often wind up fixing the wrong things (or fixing them wrongly).
From politics to ethics
The Free Software Foundation likes to talk about free software in "ethical" terms, claiming that users should have a fundamental right to the "four freedoms" in all software (i.e. that proprietary software shouldn't exist).
This is the strong claim for free software. But as an ethical claim, it's predicated on the assumption that free software can fill the niches that proprietary software does (although you wouldn't guess that from most of the rhetoric that has been published).
If it can't, then eliminating proprietary software deprives users of fundamental functionality. You have no freedom in software that doesn't exist. As such, if the software cannot be written as free software (e.g. because the business model is just too thin and no one wants to volunteer), then losing the proprietary alternative represents a net loss of end user freedom.
You have no freedom in software that doesn't exist
Because of this, the Free Software Foundations dismissal of the "merely technical" issue of community process producing higher quality software (usually presented as the "Open Source" perspective), is not consistent with its stated goals. You can't have an ethical discussion about free software and its impact on society unless you face the fundamental issues of production.
It is no more ethical to promote a system of free software when doing so will result in no software being written than it would be to promote a free produce initiative when doing so would mean no crops get planted.
The concerns of producers become the concerns of consumers when production stops (or even when it merely slows). Thus, if not being able to charge per-copy prices for software means not being able to write software (as proprietary software advocates claim), then it isn't ethical to fight proprietary software (as the Free Software Foundation has been doing for years).
This would be a bit like calling for a federal ban on "non-organic produce" when you know that you can't possibly produce enough "organic produce" to feed everyone in the nation. A policy which starves the majority in the name of some idealistic notion of the "best way" to grow crops would clearly be unethical.
A policy of promoting free software and opposing proprietary software no matter what the production consequences are is unethical. Pragmatics matter!
Likewise, a policy of promoting free software and opposing proprietary software no matter what the production consequences are is unethical. Pragmatics matter. The ability to produce the work matters. In other words, the so-called "Open Source" platform of software quality is essential to the goal of the "Free Software" movement. They are not separable goals.
Free software advocates, if they want to be socially relevant, if they want to get beyond being merely a niche "counter-culture" phenomenon, need to embrace the fundamental design problems involved in producing a competitive alternative.
This is why I have always maintained that drawing a political line between so-called "open source advocates" and so-called "free software advocates" is specious. You can't have "open source software" (in the sense that open source advocates mean the words) without also having "free software" (in the sense that free software advocates mean the words). Both are merely contractions of "free-licensed open source software". The definitions promoted by both groups (the "Open Source Definition" and the "Free Software Definition") include both legal freedom to modify and share the code and the pragmatic access to it.
Richard Stallman wrote in his "Four Freedoms":
"The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
Likewise, Bruce Perens begins the Open Source Definition with:
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria".
Does it matter whether you say that "freedom to modify" entails "ability to modify" or the reverse? Not nearly as much as knowing that they are irrevocably interlocked!
Does it matter whether you say that "freedom to modify" entails "ability to modify" or the reverse? Not nearly as much as knowing that they are irrevocably interlocked!
"Free Software" and "Open Source Software" is the exact same artifact, no matter who is promoting it, nor on what advantages of it they promote.
In few other areas of politics will you find people passing judgment on the internal psychological states that lead to their platforms -- it's enough that you find allies that support your goals!
The pragmatics of missionary enterprise
That's part of being a "major league" phenomenon: the real world is a big place with lots of different people who think in lots of different ways. Trying to convert them all to your own way of thinking is probably a lost cause.
The real world is a big place with lots of different people who think in lots of different ways
This is why the "open source" approach was conceived. Instead of talking about ideology, it simply looks at the objective, verifiable facts. You can collect data about how well "open source" software works economically: how easy it is to develop, how much it saves you in your daily business, how much it promotes further innovation, and so on.
These things are much harder to refute than abstract ideological ideas which may sound fine on the surface, but usually turn out to be predicated on assumptions you didn't even realize you were making. And when somebody from a very different world view challenges those assumptions, what are you going to do? Most such advocates just get angry and attack such challenges as somehow "unfair", interpreting them as an attack of some kind.
Objective arguments probably aren't as satisfying on some spiritual level. But it is really amazing the degree to which people will bend their spiritual beliefs when doing so relates directly to their livelihood and well-being
Objective arguments probably aren't as satisfying on some spiritual level. But it is really amazing the degree to which people will bend their spiritual beliefs when doing so relates directly to their livelihood and well-being. Is that cynical of me to say? I don't think so -- people know instinctively that even the most abstract idea has to work in the real world, not just sound pretty, in order to be valuable.
In this sense, the "open source" argument is every bit as "ethically" motivated as the free software one. For people who are inclined to identify with producers, the practicality of production is an unavoidable concern. They easily understand that if you can't afford to make a thing, then it's not going to matter how free you are to use it.
Are we up for it?
So that's the question we still have to answer: are we up for it? Can we really make a free software system that is every bit as usable as the proprietary alternatives? Can we make them work for non-expert end-users the way that proprietary companies like Microsoft can?
There's no room for excuses. Let me debunk one right here, though I know this one is going to hurt:
Microsoft's strangle-hold on the computer hardware production market is actually a benefit to users! Since they use their massive economic power to control the marketplace, they create an enormous incentive for manufacturers to ensure their equipment works with Microsoft software. As a result, nearly every consumer device you pick up at the local discount store will work in Windows. You will have to be a lot pickier with GNU/Linux. Unfair? Monopolistic? Absolutely! But it's still true, and we pay this cost when we opt for free software.
There are a lot of tough questions in this direction. But being truly competitive means facing them, not avoiding them
That's tough to beat. We need an answer for it. On this uneven playing field. Do we whine and cry foul? Do we try to find a way to bend things our way? Or maybe we accept the loss, acknowledge that we lack this advantage and then try to explain why it's worth making that sacrifice.
There are a lot of tough questions in this direction. But being truly competitive means facing them, not avoiding them. We can't pull the wool over the eyes of the marketplace (another unfair advantage Microsoft has over us). Our specialty has to lie in lifting the veil and showing how things can work, and in making systems of software production and refinement that proprietary competitors can't match.
Licensing Notice
This work may be distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, version 3.0, with attribution to "Terry Hancock, first published in Free Software Magazine".
One of the best dissertations I heard in a while...
Just took a minute to express my appreciation for this article. Insightful and pragmatic. Elegant in its formulation. Very enjoyable to read.
My favourite bit: « Does it matter whether you say that "freedom to modify" entails "ability to modify" or the reverse? Not nearly as much as knowing that they are irrevocably interlocked! »
Well done!
Awsome article
Thanks Terry for such a good read!
unjustified dismissal
Great article, and I'm very glad to see articulate discussion about these core subjects. Not enough is said about these matters.
However, I disagree strongly on several points that your article raises. I'll take it point by point in an effort to not misrepresent your views and keep focussed on the statements that you have made.
"What I hope is that there is a way to make a system that responds better to end user needs — probably by increasing the ways that end user values can be communicated"
I hope this too, but lets not forget that there is very likely already more voluminous, frequent, and high quality dialogue between Free Software end users and developers than in any large scale software project on earth. Your statement sounds like this communication problem is unique to FOSS, and that it is a particularly pernicious problem for the community. I don't believe that this is so, and in my view the current level of organisation of interaction in the most important projects is already an incredible achievement of technology and collaboration. Look at launchpad, for instance (now GPL) - every aspect of development of an application like Inkscape is public and interactive to users, from bugs to release schedules, to blueprints of features, to translations, to feature requests and more. This is a level of project management and user dialogue that I have never heard of in any non FOSS application, so lets not generalise the issue of communication to make it into a unique and crippling problem for FOSS - the situation is building upon existing achievements day by day and already exceeds what the commercial sector can match.
"If [FOSS can't match proprietary functionality], then eliminating proprietary software deprives users of fundamental functionality. You have no freedom in software that doesn't exist"
"You can't have an ethical discussion about free software and its impact on society unless you face the fundamental issues of production"
"It is no more ethical to promote a system of free software when doing so will result in no software being written than it would be to promote a free produce initiative when doing so would mean no crops get planted"
This is one of the most important points of your article, in my view. The statement that you make can, on the surface indeed seem true. For instance, if AutoCAD (for which there is currently no true FOSS alternative) cannot afford to continue development or switch to a free platform and goes under, then users will have lost functionality, they will have gained nothing, but no longer have the powerful tools that this application previously afforded. It doesn't matter why there's no FOSS alternative, but it could be because such a complicated application requires intensive paid development. What's the good in that? Useful software got killed by FOSS. So goes the argument.
I believe that this reasoning overlooks fundamental principles about free software that are key to its success and nature. I believe that your view is inaccurate.
Your argument assumes that FOSS is to some degree static, or at least that it will be in relation to the lost application of functionality. If AutoCAD ceased to exist, your argument implies, the niche that it served would remain forever unfilled, and those people affected would suffer. This is not so. FOSS is better placed than any other type of software to find the needs of people, put them in touch with each other, and enable them to create something that fills their needs quickly. If AutoCAD went under, it would be a great day for AutoCAD users in fact! This is because a new application, or set of applications would come to exist to meet the needs, but this application WOULD BE FREE. The application would be free and remain free, and thus CAD software would be liberated once and for all. Once the liberation process of a niche has been completed, history teaches us that it rarely reverts. The field would be opened up, and whatever replaced AutoCAD, which may well be basic and underdeveloped during its initial years and would likely not match previous AutoCAD functionality, would only be built upon, and in a way that was more tailored to user needs than ever before.
Free Software evolves and adapts. The greater the need, the greater the response of the community and the faster a solution is developed.
This idea may seem hard to swallow. Would I honestly thank you for destroying the commercial gaming industry by advocating FOSS, when Free games don't come close to matching what commercial companies previously offered? Would I thank you in my bored evenings in which I used to play grand commercial titles that had cost millions to make?
In light of the short term goal of expelling my boredom, no, I would not. Indeed you would have deprived me of something important and valuable to me. Long term however, a games development community would arise that would be Free of charge and restriction, that reflected my wants better than before, and which was overall better quality and more diverse. I would, for the first time, be a member of the community that was responsible for the games that I played, and I would be a contributor to my own happiness and satisfaction. For that I, and more importantly the world at large, would thank you, in time. The industry would have been freed, along with all game enthusiasts.
Thus FOSS is not static. It fills niches. It grows organically in amazing ways with untold creativity and diversity. It is a better way of meeting needs, and turns consumers into contributors. One scrap of free software functionality is therefore more valuable to the individual and the community of computer users at large, than a vast edifice of commercial software. One has the potential to grow, collaborate, give back, diversify, address needs in an honest and progressive way. The other does not.
This view I have expressed reflects a faith in FOSS that the article author may not share, and I am happy to discuss these in their own right and defend my standpoint if it is so desired.
"You can't have "open source software" (in the sense that open source advocates mean the words) without also having "free software" (in the sense that free software advocates mean the words)"
"'Both are merely contractions of "free-licensed open source software'"
"'Free Software' and 'Open Source Software' is the exact same artifact [sic], no matter who is promoting it, nor on what advantages of it they promote"
This, in my view, is wholly incorrect. Richard Stallman, who has probably written and publicly said more about the philosophical and ethical nature of FOSS than anyone else, addresses this particular point in his article "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" (found here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html).
Eric Raymond and the OSI chose the term open source for a reason - that it did not convey the moral, ethical or social aspects of Free Software. In this way it appealed to business players whose support was valuable in spreading the prevalence of FOSS. Open Source is something that big business can understand and on occasion even accept. It is a development model, and for thousands of companies a business model too. It means very little when compared to Free Software. Open Source projects abound with a mess of different licenses, restricting freedoms here and there, ensuring the control and commercialisation of the project in question. Open source is the hip new buzzword of marketing execs - its a get rich quick scheme for businessmen all over the world. There is no depth to the term, there is no responsibility implied or association with freedom. Some companies and individuals may assume a greater meaning to the term open source, but that is superimposed by them - it is not part of the meaning of the phrase. Open source is the sanitised, baggage free version of Free Software. All the business benefits, none of the responsibilities or inconvenient drawbacks.
As a user myself, Freedom means something to me. Whether I am able to read the proprietary code of an open source project has no impact whatsoever on how I use software however - how I obtain it or how much it costs. Being able to study the project is about the only discernible advantage of an open source app. 'Look, but don't touch, but give me credit like you could do both'. Free Software however is a totally different phenomenon. Free Software is revolutionary. It is participatory. It respects and welcomes the user, all users, all human beings in fact. Many business and individuals are united in their interest in open source in order to make more money more quickly. Free Software advocates are united by far more profound and important objectives. I think that this is a distinction worth preserving.
"even the most abstract idea has to work in the real world, not just sound pretty, in order to be valuable"
In a few paragraphs which encapsulate this quote you imply that FOSS is not as productive or effective at production of software as commercial software is. I strongly believe the contrary - Eric S. Raymond thoroughly establishes FOSS as a superior method of producing high quality code efficiently in his collection of essays "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", the details of which I shall not go into here. Whether or not FOSS can match commercial methods of software development is an important question that deserves continued study, but you don't bring any new evidence to the table here to discredit research already conducted, and therefore I don't feel that its reasonable that you call FOSS' productive efficacy into question in the quiet way that you do.
"if you can't afford to make a thing, then it's not going to matter how free you are to use it"
Eric S. Raymond also addresses the question of whether a world of FOSS developers equals a world of unemployed penniless developers. He clearly argues to the contrary and elucidates his belief that the contrary is far more likely - a world with more, higher skilled developers than ever (and in which they can afford to eat).
"Can we really make a free software system that is every bit as usable as the proprietary alternatives? Can we make them work for non-expert end-users the way that proprietary companies like Microsoft can?"
Why do you address this question to the future? We already have, and have had for several years the ability to offer end users a better product than Microsoft. Usability tests, conducted by Suse and others, have shown many times how KDE and GNOME are at least as intuitive and usable as commercial operating systems. With my own eyes I have seen user after user sit down at a GNU/Linux machine and 'simply know' how to most of what they want. What's more usability is constantly improving in response to forum discussions, polls, surveys (and the odd executive decision) - a fluidity of meeting need that is not matched elsewhere.
In terms of fundamental computing tasks, such as word processing, surfing the internet, emailing, playing media, I think many GNU/Linux distributions have offered the best experience for years. This is arguably a matter of opinion, but I am no means alone in my views on the matter. With more advanced users it becomes very much more tasks specific, and the quality of a particular application can make or break the possibility of a 100% FOSS solution. Even here however FOSS is pushing the boundaries.
Are we up for it? What a question! The quality and pace of development in applications like Inkscape, Gimp, Ardour, kdenlive, KDE, OpenOffice, Eclipse and others leaves you in any doubt?
"Microsoft's strangle-hold on the computer hardware production market is actually a benefit to users! Since they use their massive economic power to control the marketplace, they create an enormous incentive for manufacturers to ensure their equipment works with Microsoft software"
Again, in my opinion this statement is totally fallacious. GNU/Linux relies on tens of thousands of reverse engineered drivers. The community has had to work in the most hostile territory imaginable when pursuing device compatibility! GNU/Linux now has better hardware compatibility than any other OS on earth - for in Linux compatibility only grows, there are no regressions, unlike windows which leaves thousands of devices in the dust with each new version. If FOSS can produce better compatibility than commercial competitors when it is given no information or support by manufacturers in most cases, where it not only faces technical but also legal antagonism (even when new drivers are written from scratch!), and where the variety of chipsets and devices number in millions (many wireless technology retailers change their chipset vendors every few months without any notification, documentation or announcement), then how can you say that Microsoft is responsible for a better environment for its users, an easier experience, a more reliable computer, better choice, or any other overarching advantage? As we can see - coercing manufacturers into ensuring compatibility with a monopoly results in neither compatible hardware or the best user experience! Think then what could be achieved if FOSS was actually supported rather than relentlessly attacked by hardware manufacturers.
"nearly every consumer device you pick up at the local discount store will work in Windows. You will have to be a lot pickier with GNU/Linux"
This maybe true, but you miss a crucial point here - most hardware in use today is not currently purchasable from your local discount store. Most hardware is 'old' by commercial software terms, unsupported by the latest commercial operating systems, and useless to end users with new computers. As I have already stated - GNU/Linux has the widest hardware compatibility in the market. Not only the widest, but in some cases Free drivers supersede those supplied by the manufacturer (my USB wireless dongle gets approx. 40% extra range with Free drivers than if it uses its windows driver using a compatibility wrapper).
Microsoft cannot therefore offer the user a better experience. Its often nightmarish upgrading to Windows 7 from XP and wrestling with your sound card, your old printer and scanner, your graphics tablet, and a whole host of other devices. And that's just hardware!
"That's tough to beat. We need an answer for it. On this uneven playing field. Do we whine and cry foul? Do we try to find a way to bend things our way? Or maybe we accept the loss, acknowledge that we lack this advantage and then try to explain why it's worth making that sacrifice"
It is hard to beat, it was hard to beat, but the community has already effectively beaten it. We have an answer for it - its called Free Software and it encompasses all technical problems in a unique and unmatched method all its own. Were this not the case, were GNU/Linux compatibility as bad as it was ten years ago (win modem hell, poorer printer compatibility etc.) then, as you say, it would be worth making the sacrifice. But today, for many users it is not a sacrifice, as they do not want to go and spend a thousand dollars to get all new peripherals, they want to use their perfectly good devices for which they have already paid their Microsoft taxes.
"Our specialty has to lie in lifting the veil and showing how things can work, and in making systems of software production and refinement that proprietary competitors can't match"
I agree with your conclusion. However, as you have done throughout your article, you underestimate the value, power and achievement of what we already have. We are showing how things can work for FREE, we have been doing for a long time, and we are now at a stage of superseding commercial competitors in a variety of fields in terms of functionality, efficiency and ease of use.
This is my primary complaint with your article - in underestimating ground already consolidated by FOSS you undermine the whole phenomenon. Your stance is reminiscent of a Microsoft lackey, paid to pretend to know about FOSS and its advantages, but who presents a consistent vision of intrinsic inability and failings.
Your subtle insistence that FOSS is currently unsuitable for most environments and users stems, I believe from your fundamental lack of faith (or is that misunderstanding?) of the Free Software model. This comes across particularly clearly in your statements about killing commercial functionality without a replacement - how can you assume that superior alternatives will not spring up given the miraculous achievements of existing FOSS projects today?
Bashing FOSS is important where its due in order to rectify problems that can be identified. I feel however that your article seditiously undermines what FOSS has to offer, and does so in a space that ensures the trust of the reader. Telling FOSS advocates that Free Software is currently poor without a single comment of complaint - shame on the readers!
I am very thankful to the author for publishing this well written piece and sparking debate. As a consumer (or am I now a participant?) of your article I thank you for your time and hope that you see my extensive response as constructive, honest, and written with the best of intentions. I am sure that I have misrepresented you to some degree, so too am I sure that this being the case you will act on your responsibility to correct my words and analysis. With a response.
playing to strengths
You quite rightly note that I am asking for free software to be better at things it already does better than any proprietary software. That is precisely the point, though -- we are not in a "fair fight" nor are we on a "level playing field." It's not enough to be a great player -- we want to win (or don't we?).
Therefore we need to play the advantages we have, and play them hard if we want to win (or... we can concede the big game and play for a niche).
We have far too many apologists in our community ready to jump up and make excuses for why free software can't keep up with proprietary software in various areas (or equivalently that we would actually be better than the competition if the playing field were level). Most of what they say (you've included several of the standard arguments above), is entirely true. I agree 100%. It's totally unfair -- the deck is stacked, etc, etc. Those arguments would be great if we were trying to pass out moral judgments or decide who the best players were -- but the discussion here is about winning games.
Here in the pages of Free Software Magazine, I can assume we are all pretty much in agreement that free software is intrinsically superior to proprietary software -- but if that's true, then why isn't everyone using it? That gets beyond the software -- into how it is used, delivered, and integrated with the rest of the infrastructure. The proprietary world is still beating us there, and that's why we're still a niche player among end users.
If we are satisfied to remain in our niche, then the apologists have a point, and we can just sit back on our laurels. In other words, we can remain "minor league".
On the other hand, if we want to become mainstream ("major league") and seriously threaten big players like Microsoft who have bags of money to throw at the problem, then we need to be "better all around", not "just as good" or "better in some ways". If there are some areas where we can't close the gap (because the industry is just so unfair), then that means we have to be that much better in the areas where we can be.
I would argue that the people who are so worried about criticism that they think only complementary posts patting developers on the back should be published, are the ones who don't believe in free software. Clearly, they think it needs to be "protected" and "sheltered" or it will wither and die. I think sheltering it is the worst thing you can do to it! Personally, I think it's like a cultivated weed that you can't kill if you tried to -- and therefore I think it's entirely appropriate to talk out in the open about how it can be improved. After all, we don't have a backroom channel between "marketing" and "development" -- we have to have our talks out here in the open.
Right now, there continue to be serious misfits with respect to true end users. These create gaps that proprietary software fills. You are completely correct to point out that from a long-term social-utility perspective, these niches would be better filled by free software. But that's not how these decisions are actually made in a free market. In a free market, people make their decisions based on short-term individual utility -- that is to say, immediate value to the user. Being focused tightly on that need is essentially what defines a person as an "end user"!
And we're not going to win until we are providing that individual utility better than the proprietary competition is. That would be a great loss, precisely because of the poorer social utility of proprietary software (e.g. it dies and is lost when the producer abandons it). But that loss is going to happen so long as we are content to sit back and watch instead of doing something about it.
And all those folks clamoring so hard to "defend" free software from criticism: sorry folks, but you're harming the thing you love.
A few additional remarks
BTW, thanks for the civil tone in your post -- I didn't mention it before, but it is important if any meeting of minds is ever to happen in discussions, and I do appreciate it.
I don't think we disagree as much as you imagine we do.
For myself, I agree 100% that the trades are very much in favor of using free software. However, an objective analysis of my time shows that I do indeed spend a significant part of my working day struggling to get free software working with inadequate documentation and packaging on hardware that frequently is not supported well. Needless to say, I manage to overcome these obstacles, and it doesn't take a "genius" to do that -- but I'd be a fool not to notice that these are obstacles that would stop less experienced users.
When I point out these gaps however, there is frequently a chorus of "you're an idiot for not checking thus-and-such forums or documentations, etc". To which my response is "actually I did check those places and I solved my problems" and "this is not about me, it's about people less experienced than me -- end users".
Then there's the excuses about how you can't expect volunteers to come to your service, etc. etc.
The message of such responses is that free software isn't for end users. Which contradicts the message (often from the same people) that free software should totally displace proprietary software (and be for everybody).
The point of this article is to point out that there are two self-consistent views of free software -- you can't just mix and match to suit your mood:
EITHER it's a niche-product serving technically literate users (i.e. "minor league"), in which case we don't have a lot of room to criticize the proprietary players who are serving the people that we as a community refuse to serve.
OR it's a general-purpose mainstream market product for everyone (i.e. "major league"), in which case we must be willing to serve all users. In that scenario, the systems we have just aren't good enough yet -- they still require too much from the user to be considered competitive. That may not be obvious to people who take their own expertise for granted, but yeah, it's still true.
It doesn't matter that existing free software systems are "better than the proprietary equivalents" -- because the proprietary ecosystem has other advantages that we apparently can't touch (mainly a great deal more monetary capital). IOW, sure our tech support is better -- but most people never actually get to the point of using tech support! Proprietary software tech support sucks -- but is largely unneeded. Free software support isn't really competing against proprietary tech support -- it's competing against not needing tech support most of the time.
Why? Well a lot of it is stuff we can't do much about: pre-installation of software (so technicians do the hard work); highly-visible and available retail distribution and service chains (easy to get a pre-installed system, easy to get software installed for you); ability to influence law and policy to their favor; de facto standards-setting; control of the hardware marketplace; and so on.
Why do they have those things? Because they have more money. Why do they have more money? Because 1) they charge money for most copies of their software in use and 2) they've been doing it for a long time without effective competition from free software. Their business models have much thicker margins than ours and they use that margin to secure their advantage. It's a harsh truth, but no one is served by hiding from it.
That's what makes them "Goliath" and us "David". My thesis is that we need to improve our slingshot skills. The fact that we are already a great deal better with a slingshot than Goliath is, is beside the point -- he doesn't need one to kill us.
Using free software must be a sufficiently better immediate experience than using proprietary software for users to switch over. They need to see that for less time, effort, and money they can do more of what they want using free software. They need to be able to do that without becoming experts (because they don't want to be experts -- much as you and I love computers, a lot of people just don't and won't).
Think then what could be achieved if FOSS was actually supported rather than relentlessly attacked by hardware manufacturers.
What you need to be asking yourself is "how are we going to achieve that end?" The manufacturers aren't "attacking us". They are supporting the people who feed them.
I haven't spent a lot of time promoting the advantages of free software in my article above -- I have done that in other articles (read 'em) and I want you to do that, but keep in mind the target. This is not about convincing people like me to use free software (because I've been using it for years), it's about convincing people who aren't even reading this because they think it's too technical (or boring) for them.
how can you assume that superior alternatives will not spring up given the miraculous achievements of existing FOSS projects today?
I am assuming precisely the opposite. But it won't happen unless people get motivated to make it happen. Hence the article.
The Prime Disadvantage of the Proprietary Model
When I worked as a tech writer for a small software company, I discovered the prime disadvantage of closed source software.
One day, a programmer suggested that the company release a new version that would simply eliminate all the accumulated bugs. The project manager laughed at him, saying "Do you think customers will pay to get all the bugs fixed?". So the prime disadvantage of proprietary software is that there is no incentive to fix the bugs in their software.
This is not a theoretical position. In Microsoft Word, there is a bug outstanding and well-documented present in the software since the 1990's. This bug relates to Master Documents (Random characters disappearing from documents). The equivalent bug was identified and cleared in openoffice.org Writer.


text: Bravo chief Andy Cohen's three ring circus of a talk show Watch What Happens Live can get pretty crazy but tonight it went to new heights. For some terrible reason, Cohen decided to fill the room with fifty odd "Bravo-lebrities" and things unraveled fairly quickly into a mess of dumb games and scattered shouting. The show had it all - technical glitches, cringe-worthy singing from two (two!) Real Housewives, those terrible focus group for their baby name people, and next gen Bravo star Julia Allison. Here are all the craziest moments from Andy Cohen's All Star Bash.


text:
Wednesday's letters: Broader tax base
Published: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 at 6:24 p.m.
To the editor: The Obama/Biden campaign is promising to fight for the middle class by lowering their taxes. Democrats lowering taxes? Yes, but they simultaneously promise to raise taxes on those more fortunate, making them pay their fair share. Lets analyze just how well that would work.
Could the middle class use a tax cut? Who couldnt? Unfortunately, if Barack Obama/Joe Biden have their way, many of those middle-class folks will have their tax burden reduced to zero because theyll be out of a job.
Many of those more fortunate folks (who pay most of the taxes already) are employers and taxes are part of their overhead. If their tax overhead goes up, they may have to compensate by cutting another part of overhead: wages and benefits.
Tax cuts can be an alluring thing, but voters need to look before they leap. While a tax cut to zero would be nice, it wouldnt be so nice if it came as a result of no paycheck.
Conversely, a tax cut for employers would lower their overhead, allowing them to raise wages and hire more people. The result would be a broader tax base and higher federal revenue. It works every time its tried.
Ed Nielsen
The 47 percent
To the editor: After calling 47 percent of the nations population victims who wont take personal responsibility, Mitt Romney says he cares about 100 percent of the people. But thats hard to believe when he says its OK for 40 million to not have health insurance they can just go to the ER. He said this in a recent 60 Minutes interview, and repeated it to other media outlets, saying, You go to the hospital, you get treated, and its paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital.
I ask the questions: What charities will pick up these tabs? Have hospitals started donating their services? Which government is he referring to: Federal? State? Local? How will these governments pay for this health care?
President Barack Obamas Affordable Care Act, on the other hand, does things differently. It establishes mechanisms so all Americans will be able to get insurance. With everyone covered, the cost of premiums goes down. Finally, the ACA has many provisions that protect consumers from the predatory practices of insurance companies, such as capping payouts, refusing coverage and arbitrarily canceling insurance.
Mr. Romney has no health insurance plan. Vote for President Obama to ensure that all Americans have access to health insurance.
Dawn Kucera
Simple math
To the editor: I was amused when I read the article about the Democratic Mens Club discussing the advantages of Obamacare.
I recently had my first personal experience with Obamacare. I called three specialists in the Hendersonville/Asheville area. Two of them said they no longer accept Medicare due to cuts in their compensation. The third said he could see me in November. When I asked why it would take so long, I was told that as more and more doctors refuse Medicare, their appointment books get filled faster; and many people who would not even consider making an appointment now do so as it costs them next to nothing.
They said it was simple math. When you keep the same number of doctors and you add 20 million new patients, the wait will get longer and longer. Be prepared.
Peter Hobson
District judges
To the editor: Vote both for Emily Cowan and Peter Knight for District Court judge.
Confused? So are many, so I went on the Board of Elections website to take a look at a sample ballot. There are two contested seats for District Court judge in District 29B (Henderson, Polk and Transylvania counties).
Judge Peter Knight, serving 2008-12, is up for re-election for his current seat. I have known Peter most of the 32 years he has served as a lawyer and a judge. We need him to continue his work on our behalf! So vote to re-elect Judge Peter Knight.
Emily Cowan, with her familys support and commitment, is running for the District Court judges seat vacated by Judge David Foxs retirement. Emilys professional and volunteer experiences have led to this election. Her focus is on family and childrens issues. She knows her stuff. Vote Emily Cowan for District Court judge.
Kristin L. Huntley
Flat Rock
A bonafide hero
To the editor: Thank you, Times-News, for the Oct. 5 front-page article, Quadruple amputee comes home as war hero, telling the story of Travis Mills and how his life was changed forever on April 10, losing parts of all four of his limbs after stepping on an IED in Afghanistan.
I have been following Travis journey on his website since April, and he is an amazing young man with an amazing wife and a 1-year-old daughter who are on this journey with him. Travis positive attitude and constant smile are infectious, and you cannot help but smile with him even knowing the many challenges he faces.
Heroes are not movie stars or ballplayers. Heroes are men and women like Travis Mills who are willing to lay down their lives to protect us. Let us not forget them as we go about our daily lives, and take every opportunity to say thank you. They are two little words that let our protectors know how much they are appreciated.
When I am having a bad day, I think of Travis and other wounded warriors, and I realize that my day isnt so bad after all!
Jocelyne Wakefield
Horse Shoe
Illegal activity
To the editor: As the election draws closer, I would like to remind Democrats and our supporters that vandalism, theft and harassment are crimes. Removing candidate signs and trespassing are illegal, too. The victims of these acts are our friends and neighbors, co-workers and Americans in general. I will not encourage or condone any illegal or mischievous activity.
On Nov. 7, the election will be over, and we will all get back to the business of carrying on with our daily lives. The next-door neighbor who had the yard sign and bumper stickers that were opposite what you had will still be there. Our children will go to school together, and we will still work, shop, worship and be citizens of this great country together.
Please try to remember that before you do something in the heat of the political moment. The differences in our political ideologies make our system of government strong. Ultimately, that is what we all want.
Shelly Kingsley
First Amendment
To the editor: Our country was founded on choice. Today, we cherish our right to choose: our religious beliefs, schooling for our children, where to live, and what to agree and disagree with.
Our First Amendment rights were written down as a promise to the states rights Founding Fathers who were afraid of a central government that would not honor our right to choose.
Our choices were more clearly defined in the vice presidential debate. Which candidate upholds the First Amendment? Which candidate does not? Lets look at these choices with respect to abortion.
Martha Raddatz: This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal view on abortion. Both candidates answered this question with equal eloquence, both indicating how religion defines who they are and how life begins at conception.
But here is where we have to choose. Barack Obama/Joe Biden refuse to impose their religious beliefs on American women. Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan believe this personal situation should not be made by choice but by legislation.
Our Founding Fathers gave us religious freedom. Why do the Republicans want deny us our First Amendment rights?
Judy Ader
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
For All Things Natural™
It is our mission to spread the Natural and Organic bounty of nature through our products
Order ships within 3-5 business days
Each product is made fresh to order. FREE Samples with All Orders!
So who is the Flavor Guy? The Flavor Guy is me, Bill Sabo. I am the CEO of Natures Flavors.
I first started creating flavors in my garage at the ripe age of 17 years old. I created flavors using techniques that I learned from my great uncle and grandfather, and discovered that the creation of flavors was something I was passionate about. My passion for flavor and using natural ingredients has led me to find the true meaning of what flavor is by traveling around the world exploring remote places, and seeking the raw materials that make up our flavors. I am now sharing my story while my adventures exploring the world for the essence of true flavor continues.
Read More: Facebook.com/TheFlavorGuy Or click here to Learn more
Flavor Oils are used in Oil-based products, such as chocolate oil and lip balm oil.
Need more information about our Flavors?
Three ways to get answers:


text:
- Nos Differences Nous Unissent
- Currently Unavailable
Nike's new design for France's away jersey aims to capture the spirit of the French team while delivering superior performance innovation and unparalleled elegance on pitch.
Inspired by the mariniere, (which means mariner's style) the jersey is white with blue stripes. The blue and white stripes are a piece of French history and now a French style icon. The stripes first appeared as the uniform of sailors in the French navy in the 19th century.
The jersey has a tailored fit that allows freedom of movement on pitch.
Dri-FIT moisture control.
High tech fabric made from 96% recycled polyester and 4% organic cotton for rapid moisture absorption and high performance evaporation. The use of cotton on the inside of the fabric provides another level of comfort for the players.
Lamentamos que todavia no hay descripción en español para este producto.


text:
South East Cornwall Cottages
Just show me Cottages in South East Cornwall
From Bodmin Moor and the Tamar Valley, to the heavenly sands of Polperro, South East Cornwall is one of the UK's most beloved holiday destinations. This is a place where pretty, age old fishing villages litter striking sunlit shores and beautiful moorlands stretch for mile after mile. A place of remote coves, spectacular valleys and ancient ruins, where young and old feast on provincial seafood and take part in wonderful activities. Have we got your attention? Scroll down to browse our self-catering cottages in South east Cornwall, or read on for even more reasons to visit this incredible region.
Let's start in Looe, a coastal town alive with culture, art and heritage. Famed for its proximity to some of Cornwall's most coveted beaches, Looe is a mecca for water sport enthusiasts and sun worshippers alike. Families with children can enjoy splashing about in the safe waters of East Looe beach, whilst those who love to explore may favour the craggy rock pools of West Looe cove. Diving is also a popular pursuit in the town, with safe scuba diving zones located just off the coast.
Land or Sea? The choice is yours with a
cottage in South East Cornwall
For those who'd prefer to keep dry on their cottage holiday in South East Cornwall, Bodmin Moor is an essential daytrip destination. Shrouded in mystery and folklore, this wild and wonderful stretch of moorland stretches for miles across the Cornish landscape, and is home to some of the county's best walking routes. Hike the Copper Trail between the villages of St. Cleer and Warleggen, before stopping off for a well-earned Cornish pasty in St. Neot.
Wherever you choose to decamp in South East Cornwall, make the most of your holiday with a wonderful Cornish holiday home from Sykes Cottages.
Please find below self catering holiday cottages in the South
East Cornwall region.


text:
A high quality paintball marker is not a cheap investment and like most expensive items, you want to ensure it lasts for a long time. Proper paintball marker usage, maintenance, and cleaning are the key tasks to keeping your gun working efficiently for years to come. Whether you're a professional paintball player or just a weekend warrior, following these simple tips will keep your paintball marker operating at peak condition.
Important Note: Always remove the air source from you paintball gun before performing any maintenance or cleaning.
Clean Your Marker
Mud, dust, and dried paint are like a disease that will slowly kill the performance of your marker. A dirty marker is less accurate, jams frequently, and will not re-cock properly. A little bit of routine cleaning will make a huge difference in the reliability of your paintball marker. First, always make sure to wipe down the marker after every use. Pay attention to removing all mud and dust from any moving parts. The increased friction from dirt will cause premature failure to those parts. Next, disassemble the marker and wipe down each piece with a water dampened cloth. Make sure that you do not use any chemicals or cleaners that may hurt the finish or integrity of the gun material. Finally, the barrel is an essential part to clean. Take a squeegee and make sure all wet or dried paint is removed from the inside of the barrel. Residual paint in the barrel will decrease accuracy and may even cause paintballs to break apart. Remember that a clean paintball gun is a fun paintball gun.
Properly Lubricate Your Marker
The most important thing to do before lubricating you marker is to read the instruction manual. The instruction manual will identify what type of oil or grease is specifically needed for your marker and the interval frequency suggested for lubricating your marker. Paintball markers all have moving parts and need this lubricant to function properly. Remember to use lubricant in small increments. Too much lubricant is just as bad as no lubricant. Excess oil and grease will attract dirt to the moving parts of the marker. A properly lubricated marker will be more accurate and experience fewer failures during game time.
Always Check the O-Rings
Compressed air propels the paintballs from your marker. The o-ring seals that hold the compressed air in the paintball gun are essential to achieve peak performance. Listen for any audio cues coming from your gun. If the marker is consistently hissing, it probably has a busted o-ring. Before removing and inspecting the o-rings, please read your owner's manual. It is important to identify the location of each o-ring on the marker for reassembly. Visually inspect each o-ring for any cuts or tears and replace as needed.
Change Your Batteries Regularly
Sometimes you marker will just not work properly – this is a good hint that your battery may need charging or replacement. A marker that has enough battery power to fire may not have enough power to work at its best. Many times the fix to the problem requires a simple battery change. Having sufficient power in the paintball gun will save you many headaches on game day. Make sure to check your batteries before every usage and to keep a spare set of batteries while playing.
Keep It Out of the Muck
A clean paintball gun makes a happy paintball player. Unfortunately, paintball is always the most exciting when enjoyed in not-so-clean settings (such as the mud and rain), conditions that can wreak havoc on maintaining a properly working marker. When playing in these circumstances, try to avoid fully submersing your gun in the water or mud. A good idea is to use a plastic wrap over the top of your paintball marker to keep it out the elements. It isn't always easy to keep your marker completely free of mud and water, but doing so will keep it running smoothly for years.


text:
Last week I was flipping through the channels and came across a rerun of "The Late Show with David Letterman." Who was the comic featured that night? Nick Griffin. That's when I realized that not only was Nick going to be here this week, but that he's already been on Letterman seven times. Just six weeks ago, he was on the "The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson" and before that Conan O'Brien. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that we're fortunate to have Nick back here because he's based in New York and doesn't get out to Tahoe much unless he can tie it in with other projects he's doing in southern California.
Nick probably spends more time on the road than he does in his own bed in New York, so he tries to get booked into places where he feels most at home, in addition to getting paid decently. I've known Nick for well over 15 years when he used to be based in southern California but, since he relocated to New York, we still text every now and then on what our favorite movie is for that particular week. Nick has written scores of screenplays in addition to writing for others while based in L.A. but, ironically, his career really took off once he made the move to the East Coast. Immediately he was accepted by the New York scene and found himself a favorite among the other comics and was getting booked pretty regularly into every comedy club out there.
Nick's been performing since he was 19 in Kansas City, where he grew up, slowly working the Midwest before making his way to the coast to get his career going. Nick's latest CD, "Bring Out the Monkey" has been selling pretty well and is probably his best release ever and he still has enough material to already put out a new one so hopefully that will be in the works soon. This time of year is special for Nick because he's into horror/sci-fi movies (having written or co-written a dozen scripts on the genre) and we're still in that post-Halloween high and it's still too early for the holidays, which can be kind of depressing for some comics. That's why Tahoe is special for Griffin and he sometimes refers to this place as a special haven where he holes up and writes and, when his head is full, he can take a stroll down by the lake and re-energize his template for more ideas on monsters. I always know when it's time for Nick to make a trip out here after reading his online journal, commenting how things are going for him. For example: the entry in which he posted, "Things have been okay lately, which is huge for me, because I always expect the worst," means now would be a good time to get back to Tahoe.
You know you've made a distinct impression on a comic when they say to you, "I'm sorry ... and you are?" Such is the case with one of my favorites, David Gee. His last big national exposure came earlier this year when he appeared on Rita Rutner's Showtime special, "Rita Rudner And 3 Potential Ex-Husbands." He killed, having the sold-out crowd of 1,700 laughing hysterically. Personally, (with apologies to the other acts), I think Gee stole the show.
Gee (who dropped the 'k' for professional reasons) includes a lot of Tahoe into his act - not just because the locals appreciate it, but because David has a long history up here being from the Bay Area. Although a Dodgers fan - he hasn't spoken to me since my SF Giants got into the playoffs and World Series - Gee can still remain civil when I bring up my love for not just the Giants, but the 49ers, too. David hosts a number of celebrity golf tournaments lending his time and talent whenever he can. In addition to his stint on Showtime, David has appeared on "The Tonight Show," was a semi-finalist on ABC's "The Next Best Thing," "Access Hollywood," "Entertainment Tonight" and, as mentioned earlier, is always asked to be the host for numerous fundraisers.
A highlight of David's show would have to be the impressions he does of famous actors. Not only does he do their voices spot-on, but also recreates memorable scenes from some of their most famous movies. He also does some of the best sports announcers you'll ever hear, too. It's going to be a week of first-class humor.


text:
Stark State College will offer a 15-week daytime police academy course starting next month, according to a media release from the college.
Classes will run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Thursday, Saturday and some Sundays beginning Jan. 13. The sessions will provide the training needed to become a peace officer in Ohio as required by the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy.
The college will host two informational sessions — one at 11 a.m. and one at 4 p.m. — Jan. 6 at the Advanced Technology Center, where potential applicants can get the necessary paperwork. Candidates should not have domestic violence or felony convictions and must be in good physical and mental health, according to the release.
Applications for the program are due Jan. 10.
Those interested in learning more should contact Jerry Snay, law enforcement coordinator, at firstname.lastname@example.com or 330-494-6170, ext. 4414.
Location, ST | website.com


text:
Ackman Sees Big Upside to Fannie, Freddie Bet
William Ackman is taking a big gamble on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but recently said at an investment conference he sees a huge upside on the bet: the hedge-fund manager said he believes the common shares of the mortgage-finance giants could be worth more than 10 times their current value in several years.
In his first extended comments since he bought sizable stakes in Fannie and Freddie, Mr. Ackman said he is convinced shareholders will win their lawsuits against the U.S. government that challenged the Treasury Department's bailout agreement with the two companies, according to people who heard Mr. Ackman's remarks.
Mr. Ackman predicted the Supreme Court would side with the plaintiffs if the suit reaches the court. He said the common shares upon a legal victory would then be worth about 10 to 15 times their current value, according to the people who were there.
Mr. Ackman also said that despite various legislative proposals in Congress that would create new mortgage guarantors, he believed Fannie and Freddie would escape liquidation and instead be revamped, perhaps with increased capital requirements and other protections.
Mr. Ackman made his comments at the annual meeting of Entrust Capital, a New York firm that invests billions of client money in hedge funds. The event was closed to the press.
His remarks place him in a camp with other big shareholders that are bullish on Fannie and Freddie. But the others, including Bruce Berkowitz of Fairholme Capital Management LLC and Richard Perry of Perry Capital LLC, hold preferred shares. Perry and Fairholme are among the firms that sued the U.S. Treasury last year challenging the government's bailout terms.
Mr. Ackman's Pershing Square Capital Management LP bought nearly 10% of the firms' common shares. Those are seen by some as riskier investments because the U.S. government has warrants that it hasn't yet exercised to acquire nearly 80% of those shares, a move that would dilute current investors. In filings last November, Pershing Square said it had spent about $400 million on its investments.
Mr. Ackman's bet on the common shares reflects his conviction that they have more upside than the preferred shares if the companies are ultimately restored as privately owned entities, according to a person familiar with Pershing Square's thinking.
The bet is also in some ways a bluff that Congress and the White House will follow through on pledges to liquidate Fannie and Freddie. If the government does liquidate the firms without exercising the warrants, it would be foregoing a major windfall. The only scenario in which stockholders would make money is one where taxpayers see that windfall.
On Friday, Fannie reported an $84 billion annual profit for 2013, and said it would pay $7.2 billion in dividends to the Treasury next month. That means it will join Freddie Mac in having paid dividends that exceed the Treasury's investments in the firms between 2008 and 2011.
Fannie and Freddie aren't listed on a major U.S. exchange, following a 2010 delisting, and their common shares have mostly traded at about $1 to $2 each since the government rescued the firms. On Friday, Fannie shares fell 0.3%, or 1 cent, to $3.28, and Freddie added 2 cents, or 0.6%, to $3.24.
Fannie and Freddie don't make loans but instead buy them from lenders who package them into securities. They have built deep and liquid markets for those bonds, and those markets, in turn, provide the primary way Americans are able to access the popular 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage, which isn't widely available in other countries.
When the U.S. took over Fannie and Freddie in 2008 through a legal process known as conservatorship, it agreed to inject nearly unlimited sums of aid—ultimately around $187.5 billion—and received in exchange a new class of "senior preferred" shares that initially paid a 10% dividend, along with the warrants for the common stock.
Because the common and preferred stock wasn't ever wiped out, investors continued to trade them. Some concluded—accurately, it turned out—that Fannie and Freddie had reserved more money for loan losses than they would need, and that they would one day return to profitability.
The Treasury revamped the bailout terms in August 2012, eliminating the 10% dividend and requiring all of their profits instead. A dividend is no longer required in periods when the firms report losses. The changes prevent the companies from retaining most of their earnings, and dividend payments can't be counted towards paying down the government's investment.
Investors have argued that the changes ran afoul of the law that gave the U.S. the power to put Fannie and Freddie into conservatorship, and that they amounted to illegal self-dealing between the Treasury and the firms' regulator, which is tasked with overseeing the companies during the conservatorship.


text:
No products
This item is currently unavailable
Warning: Last items in stock!
Availability date:
Team Durango Shock Spring Front White 87gf/mm Blue DNX408T TDRTD330416This is the Shock Spring Front White 87gf/mm Blue DNX408T TDRTD330416 by Team Durango
Recipient :
* Required fields
or Cancel
|Main Category
|R/C Parts
|Car & Truck Parts
|Shock Springs
|Part Type
|Stock Parts
|Free Shipping
|Free Shipping
Recommended Products
No customer reviews for the moment.
No customer questions for the moment.
|Ask a question
Recently Viewed products


text:
Center Basket for Four-Arm Hanger
Item# 38-679
$19.95 $12.99
Product Actions
Additional Information
Exclusive | Center Basket for Four-Arm Hanger
- Designed specifically to fit the Four-Arm Plant Hanger
- Basket is 18" in diameter
- AquaSav Basket Liner included
If you already have one of our Four-Arm Plant Hangers, add this center basket to create an even more impressive floral display on your deck or patio.
Product Details
- Basket is powder-coated steel
- Liner is coir and plastic
- 18" in diameter x 9" H
There are no special shipping restrictions or charges associated with this item. For detailed information about our delivery methods and charges, click here.
We're proud of the fact that this item is shipped to you directly from our warehouse in Vermont, by one of our 250 employee-owners. In-stock items are packed with care and shipped within the next business day to ensure prompt delivery to your home and garden!
$19.95 $12.99
$44.95 $24.89
$279.00 $249.89
$54.95 $44.89
$59.95 $49.89
$105.00 $84.89
$29.95 $24.89
$29.95 $19.89


text:
Disbling buttons when new record is created in ADF form
By Arunkumar Ramamoorthy-Oracle on Jan 23, 2014
In some cases, we might want to disable some of the buttons / items in the page (say navigation buttons), when a new record is created in the form.
To achieve this, we would start from Sireesha's excellent blog : https://blogs.oracle.com/adf/entry/highlighting_new_rows_in_adf . In this blog, insight is given on entityState of a row.
Before starting, assuming that we have a Form (Say based on Employees), with navigation, create, commit and rollback buttons.
Our usecase is to disable the navigation buttons when the user clicks on CreateInsert button. For this, we could set an EL to the disabled property of the navigation buttons.
Code snippet of the First button.
<af:commandButton actionListener="#{bindings.First.execute}"
disabled="#{bindings.Empno.currentRow.entities[0].entityState == 0 or !bindings.First.enabled}"
partialSubmit="true" id="cb2"/>
Here Empno refers to the one of the attribute binding of the form (Primary Key attribute to be precise).
This approach disables the buttons when the form goes to Insert mode (refer the blog mentioned above to find out more about entityState EL).


text:
GEORGETOWN, Ky. (WKYT) - Georgetown Police want this man off the street, and with each day that passes they're learning more about the string of crimes he's leaving in his wake.
"We have been working with the Lexington police department and with loss prevention from several different stores and identified this individual as a suspect in several thefts," said Georgetown Police Chief Mike Bosse.
On November 1st, the suspect is accused of breaking into car at the Pavilion, in broad daylight. There he stole several credit cards and was later seen using one inside a Radio Shack, but that wasn't all as he hit several other stores.
"We fully suspect that he's involved in other thefts as well, they just haven't been reported yet or that we haven't connected this individual to."
The Georgetown Police caught a break in the case, thanks to the employees at the Radio Shack talking to employees at a Lexington Walmart. As the two stores networked, they learned the same suspect pulled off similar crimes just days apart. That information was quickly passed on to police.
Investigators believe the same man snuck into a staff member's office at Transylvania University, where he stole a credit card.
"He's just compounding the problem the more it goes on," stated Chief Bosse.
Police at Transylvania say the suspect also stole the credit card during the early morning hours, then went on a spending spree down Broadway and into Frankfort stopping at roughly ten stores.
"We're in the thousands of dollars at this point," estimated Chief Bosse, "we know we have a felony charge out of Georgetown, and we also know that Lexington has at least one felony charge down there."
Investigators believe the suspect was driving a white, single cab pickup during the November 1st theft. Police say they are continuing to gather surveillance video from several different stores and are optimistic that the image will stand out and lead to this man's arrest.
If anyone has any information, they are asked to call the Georgetown Police at 502-863-7820.


text:
firefly wrote: So what's your point then?
firefly wrote: I'm sorry if it made you feel that way. I really wasn't trying to offend people.
I read your thread about your Grandpa. I'm really sorry to hear about that. I lost my Grandpa to the same disease and now my Grandma has it too.
breakreep wrote: More to the point I think, why would it be in poor taste to post an article you think is cogent and correct one day than, say, another day? Seems like the article would be equally tasty no matter what day you read it on.
Charlie Foxtrot wrote: Holidays are open to interpretation.
Christmas can be about:
A) The birth of Jesus Christ
B) Commercialism
C) Charity and goodwill towards others
Veteran's Day can be about:
A) Honor, pride, glory and other mythical concepts that are in no way reflected in actual war
B) Jingoism, which is often related to/based in A)
C) Reflecting on the sacrifices of Veterans who have fought Just Wars (what wars, if any, have been just is open to debate)
D) Reflecting on the tragedy inherent in all wars, the pointless suffering, the fact that wars should never happen at all
E) Reflecting on our relationships with veterans we know/have known
The Veteran's Day some people are criticizing is not necessarily my Veteran's Day.
firefly wrote:
It's all about imaginary days and imaginary lines which are sometimes more real to people then facts and real things.
Raoul DeGroot wrote: Why isnt this just like the killjoys who post antiimperialism stuff on thanksgiving?
I think that's an appropriate counterbalancey thing to do, even though I like Thanksgiving and my particular interpretation of it.
Yknow, I recognize that it's not crazy to bing that issue up on that day. Regardless of how remedial you dudes seem to think it is- there's clearly a wide gap in how exactly we all consider and justify these days.


text:
Your Fourth of July may have gotten a whole lot brighter.
The Assembly has voted to legalize the sale of firework sparklers and other sparkling devices to people over 18 years old but you can only but them between June 1 and July 15 or from December 26 through New Year's Day. Other fireworks are still against the law.
That bill still has to be signed off by the governor he vetoed a similar bill in 2011.
Courtesy WHEC.com
Location, ST | website.com


text:
CORPUS CHRISTI – Former Texas A&M – Corpus Christi men's basketball player Chris Daniels is one of the 15 players selected as a finalist for the 2011 USA Men's Basketball Pan American Games Team.
The finalists underwent five training sessions held from Oct. 14-16 and will continue training in Tulsa, Okla., through Oct. 22. The USA's official 12-man USA team will be announced before the team's departure for the Pan American Games held in Guadalajara, Mexico.
Of the eight teams featured in the men's competition, the USA men were drawn into Group B for the Games and are joined by Brazil, the Dominican Republic and Uruguay. The U.S. men open preliminary round play Oct. 26 against the Dominican Republic, then face defending Pan Am Games champion Brazil on Oct. 27 and conclude preliminary play with Uruguay on Oct. 28. Semifinals action will be played Oct. 29 and the finals will be contested on Oct. 30.
Throughout Daniels' Islanders basketball career (2004-08) he set school records in field goals made (537), field goal attempts (949), blocks (170) and points (1,407). He also holds the single-season record in blocks (53), and led the Islanders to their lone Southland Conference title in 2007, when he was named the league's Player of the Year.
Daniels has played professionally in Puerto Rico and South Korea since wrapping up his Islanders career. He averaged 15.2 points and 8.8 rebounds for KCC Egis in 2010-11.


text:
Lessons From 2011: What Will Happen to the Economy After a Cliff Deal
The on-again/off-again fiscal cliff negotiations look like they may finally be nearing a deal — although such rumors have come and gone repeatedly in recent weeks. But assume for a second that Congress and the President really have reached an 11th hour deal to avert the worst of the cliff's tax hikes and spending cuts—how lasting will the damage be from the weeks of brinksmanship?
This is a separate question from the impact of the actual policies contained in a deal. Pretty much any deal that could pass muster in both houses of Congress would involve tax increases and likely also spending cuts, and would therefore be at least a short-term drag on economic growth. (The longer-term impact of a deal that grappled seriously with the nation's budget deficits is harder to gauge.)
But what about the debate itself: Would policymakers' willingness to play chicken with the economy — and their apparent inability to reach a deal until the last possible moment even in the face of near-certain recession — have its own impact on economic growth? Odds are that we'll know for sure in a matter of weeks. But in the meantime we can look at the closest recent parallel: last year's battle over raising the debt ceiling.
A quick refresher: In the summer of 2011, a battle broke out in Washington over whether to raise the nation's borrowing limit, which had until then been a fairly routine practice. The prospect of hitting the ceiling — which in theory could have forced massive cuts in government spending, or even led the U. S. to default on its debts — roiled financial markets and led to a steep drop in consumer sentiment. Congress eventually agreed to raise the debt ceiling via a last-minute agreement that ultimately paved the way for the current crisis. But the stopgap deal wasn't enough to prevent Standard & Poor's from downgrading the nation's triple-A credit rating, which further hurt both markets and confidence.
But the lasting impact of the debt-ceiling drama is far from clear. Consumer sentiment took months to rebound, and markets didn't return to pre-crisis highs until early 2012. However, most measures of real economic activity either quickly rebounded or never fell at all. Growth in Gross Domestic Product slowed to 1.3% in the third quarter of 2011, down from 2.5% in the second quarter, but bounced back to 4.1% in the final three months of the year — the best mark in the recovery. Consumer spending actually accelerated in the third quarter of the year, as did measures of business investment and manufacturing activity. Job growth did slow markedly in the summer of 2011, a possible sign of caution among businesses, but there were similar hiring slowdowns in both 2010 and 2012 — and in any case, hiring rebounded in late 2011 and early 2012.
It's always risky to read too much into just one data point, and there are clear differences between last year's situation and the current one. For one thing, the debt-ceiling debate was a more or less binary event: Either Congress would raise the debt ceiling, or it wouldn't. Once it did, the immediate threat passed. This time, there are a wide range of outcomes, nearly all of which would involve at least some short-term drag on growth. The debt ceiling was also a mostly theoretical issue for most Americans, whereas the fiscal cliff would mean an immediate tax increase for virtually all U. S. workers. Moreover, repeated flirtations with disaster could have a cumulative effect, leading investors and consumers to lose confidence in their leaders.
Still, there are some similarities between the two situations. As the Journal noted today, consumer confidence and stock prices have already taken a hit from the cliff debate. But as in 2011, actual economic activity is sending more mixed messages. Business investment has slumped severely in the second half of the year, perhaps due to fears of the looming cliff. But hiring has remained fairly steady, and income and spending figures came in stronger-than-expected in November. One reading of the 2011 experience would be that if Congress and the President reach a deal, the big drop in confidence won't translate into a real hit to economic growth.
Of course, if there isn't a deal, then all bets are off.