text:
Male', MALDIVES – Football Association of Maldives has confirmed to maldivesoccer.com that MP of Galolhu Dhekunu constituency Ahmed Mahloof has been appointed as the new manager of National team.
An official of FAM said to maldivesoccer.com that Mahloof has been appointed as the new manager of national team and they will hold a press conference later today.
"We have finalized to appoint Mahloof as the new manager of national team. And we will announce it later today."
Mahloof, who has played for Under 16, 19 and 23 national team. He has also played for New Radiant and Valencia in the past, has left the football fields in later 2002 and he has been actively involved in politics.
He was elected to parliament in 2009.


text:
- About Us
- How We Help
- Events
- Resources
- News & Media
- Get Involved
- Donate Now
Contact: Elana Silber, Director of Operations
Telephone: 866.474.2774
E-Mail: email@example.com
Teaneck, New Jersey (April 11, 2014) - Sharsheret, a national not-for-profit organization dedicated to addressing the needs of women and families facing breast cancer and ovarian cancer, will celebrate its 12th Anniversary on Sunday, May 4, 2014. The event will attract more than 500 women and men at the Marriott at Glenpointe in Teaneck, New Jersey. This year's Benefit marks a significant milestone for Sharsheret, its Bat Mitzvah year. In celebration, Sharsheret will highlight the organization's B'nai Mitzvah Program and its participants.
Sharsheret will recognize the incredible contributions of Guest of Honor Blair Muss (NYC), an active Sharsheret peer supporter who speaks with other women facing breast cancer, and Batya Paul (Teaneck, New Jersey), recipient of the Lisa Altman Volunteer Tribute Award. The event will feature a silent auction showcasing valuable gift packages, electronics, jewelry, Judaica, sports memorabilia, and fine dining gift certificates.
"Just as a B'nai Mitzvah comes of age embracing communal responsibility, Sharsheret rejoices at this milestone with renewed strength, dedication, and commitment," said Director of Operations Elana Silber. "We are truly grateful for the continued dedication that has inspired thousands across the country to join us in our efforts to support Jewish women facing breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Together we have changed the cancer community, the Jewish community, and the young adult community." To date, Sharsheret's B'nai Mitzvah Program has welcomed nearly 100 young adults from across the country who have coordinated creative projects including Sharsheret Pink Shabbat®, challah baking, basketball tournaments, design and craft sales, fashion shows, and outreach to local healthcare professionals and community leaders.
For seat reservations, please visit www.sharsheret.org/benefit or call 866.474.2774. For more information and sponsorship opportunities, please contact Ellen Kleinhaus at email@example.com.
About Sharsheret
Sharsheret, Hebrew for "chain", is a national not-for-profit organization supporting young women and their families, of all Jewish backgrounds, facing breast cancer. Our mission is to offer a community of support to women diagnosed with breast cancer or at increased genetic risk, by fostering culturally-relevant individualized connections with networks of peers, health professionals, and related resources.
Since Sharsheret's founding in 2001, we have responded to more than 30,000 breast cancer inquiries, involved more than 2,500 peer supporters, and presented over 250 educational programs nationwide. Sharsheret supports young Jewish women and families facing breast cancer at every stage - before, during, and after diagnosis. We help women and families connect to our community in the way that feels most comfortable, taking into consideration their stage of life, diagnosis, or treatment, as well as their connection to Judaism. We also provide educational resources, offer specialized support to those facing ovarian cancer or at high risk of developing cancer, and create programs for women and families to improve their quality of life. All Sharsheret programs are open to all women and men.
Sharsheret offers the following national programs:
The Link Program
• Peer Support Network, connecting women newly diagnosed or at high risk of developing breast cancer one-on-one with others who share similar diagnoses and experiences
• EmbraceTM, supporting women living with advanced breast cancer
• Genetics for Life®, addressing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
• Thriving Again®, providing individualized support, education, and survivorship plans for young breast cancer survivors
• Busy Box®, for young parents facing breast cancer
• Best Face Forward®, addressing the cosmetic side effects of treatment
• Family Focus®, providing resources and support for caregivers and family members
• Ovarian Cancer Program, tailored resources and support for young Jewish women and families facing ovarian cancer
• Sharsheret SupportsTM, developing local support groups and programs
Education and Outreach Programs
• Health Care Symposia, on issues unique to younger women facing breast cancer
• Sharsheret on Campus, outreach and education to students on campus
• Sharsheret Educational Resource Booklet Series, culturally-relevant publications for Jewish women and their families and healthcare professionals
© Sharsheret 2014
© 2016 Sharsheret: Your Jewish Community Facing Breast Cancer
Sharsheret is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization ID# 13-4198529
Designed by Firefly Partners

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Business sector should be subject to strong regulations to avoid Earth grab, experts warn ahead of Rio+20
Ahead of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) to be held in Rio de Janeiro, from 20-22 June 2012, the importance of reforming the current global economic governance system as a means of adhering to internationally agreed sustainable development principles has increasingly come to the fore. Civil society activists have called on the Rio+20 participants to address the influence of the business sector on sustainable development issues, with unchecked corporate interests believed to significantly undermine the right to development and other fundamental human rights of poor people.
At the side event "Right at Rio+20: A Rights-based Framework for Sustainable Development" taking place on 27 April 2012 in N.Y and organized by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Missions of Germany, Maldives and Norway (and with Ibon International, the Center for International Environmental Law and The Council of Canadians, in collaboration with the UNDG-HRM) the spokesperson of IBON International pointed to the inconsistent approach of some developed countries to sustainable development principles, saying they are upholding human rights principles whilst at the same time supporting carbon market trading schemes and other mechanisms that are threatening the livelihoods of poor people. A joint civil society statement entitled "Ending corporate capture of the United Nations" cites the growing influence of certain companies and business sectors in UN negotiation processes, some of which have managed to "block effective solutions for problems related to climate change, food production, the violation of human rights, water supply, health issues, poverty and deforestation" .
The group believes this private sector influence is coming to the fore even more ahead of Rio+20, pointing to "behind-closed doors" business meetings on a green economy agenda. Such developments should be regarded with concern, the statement continues, as NGOs often lack the financial capacity of corporations to influence official negotiations at UN level.
"If the "Green Economy" is imposed without full intergovernmental debate and extensive involvement from peoples' organizations and civil society, [Rio+20] risks becoming the biggest Earth Grab in more than 500 years" a report published by the ETC Group warned in December 2011. The report entitled "Who Will Control the Green Economy?" calls for a restructuring of current governance structures in the UN, in particular in relation to agriculture and the environment. Such structures should be lead by governments alongside civil society and social movements and not subjugated to corporate interests, the report warns. "The goal is not to reject the green economy or technologies, but these are tools that must be guided by strong social policies", said Kathy Jo Wetter from the ETC Group. "New Green Oligopolies" which have positioned themselves in relation to the green economy agenda should not dominate, the report continues, pointing as an example to the need to take small-scale producers in developing countries into account to a far greater extent at Rio+20.
The report also calls for new innovative models to strengthen anti monopoly regimes, as supported by the Right to Food Special Rapporteur and UNCTAD with its Model Competition Law. Finally, is considered as essential to evaluate the impact of technology to protect the rights of both present and future generations. (This also ensues the Precautionary principle agreed at Rio 1992, by adopting "a process to negotiate/develop an international technology evaluation and information mechanism".)
The dominant role of corporate interests in the international global governance structure is also at the centre of a new report of the NGO CUTS International and the Centre for Economic Policy Research, entitled "Trade, competition and pricing of commodities". The report finds that developing countries often lack the capacity to tackle anticompetitive practices affecting their economies, due to a lack of resources and capacity. It proposes that in order to help them combat such distorting trading practices, an International Competition Fund should be created, deriving its funds from cartel fines imposed by developed countries at a global scale.
- Read the joint NGO communiqué "Ending Corporate Capture of the United Nations" here: UN Global Compact (pdf)
- Read the UN Global Compact Office's Response to Joint Civil Society Statement: UN Global Compact
- Read the report "Who Will Control the Green Economy?" here: ETC Group
- Read the report "Trade, competition and the pricing of commodities": VoxEU.org (pdf)


text:
Cyhi headlined FADER Magazine & Vitamin Water's show "Uncapped Live". Watch Cyhi perform "Sideways" with the mad violist.
Text PRYNCE to 30103 for updates on CyHi
Message & Data Rates May Apply Text STOP to 30103 to opt out. Text HELP to 30103 for more information. Up to 5 Messages/Month. Terms of Service http://www.mozes.com/go/tos , Privacy Policy http://www.mozes.com/go/privacy .


text:
JEFFERSONVILLE - After loud protests that the region's only public radio station has lost touch with the public it serves, the top official at WJFF FM has resigned.
Station manager Winston Clark, who had come under fire for what many said was a top down management style, submitted his resignation at Wednesday night's board of directors meeting.
Come back to recordonline.com for more details.
Steve Israel
Location, ST | website.com


text:
NYFW Runway Look of the Day
Our favorite looks, straight from the NYFW 2014 catwalks
Vibrant Violet This is what happens when classic New York aesthetic meets bohemian femininity -- a signature Nanette Lepore look. The high neckline of the handloom dress with the short hemline is decidedly downtown cool, while the bold print in shades of rose, black and white lightly accented with orange feels boho-chic. Styled with the shearling winter coat of our dreams in violet (aka radiant orchid, aka SEE NEXT PAGE: Birds of a Feather
more stories
leave a comment
Home » Beauty Tips » Fashion » NYFW Runway Look of the Day
to top


text:
The Libertarian Three-Step Program
Wolf Blitzer: Youre a physician, Ron Paul, so youre a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.
A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: You know what? Im not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because Im healthy, I dont need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it. Whos going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?
This is the kind of question that libertarians usually give stupid answers to. Their first impulse is to stress that no one has the right to force other people to pay her medical bills which is true enough, but a weird place to start. This answer in effect treats the free market as the present system minus welfare, and so takes for granted that the problem described is likely in a free market. It also casts the sick person as a threat to others liberty rather than as a person who can be better helped by libertarian methods than by statist ones. If someone is looking to smear libertarians as people who want to let sick people die, this hands them the opportunity on a platter. (Of course it doesnt help if your alleged supporters are actually yelling in the background that the patient should die.)
Most libertarians second impulse is to mention charity. And their third impulse, if they ever get around to it, is to mention the point they should have led with that the high cost of health care is a product of state regulation.
In the last Republican debate (transcript here), Ron Paul went through the three stages in depressingly predictable order. First, demonising the victim:
Ron Paul: Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him. … But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced …. Thats what freedom is all about, taking your own risks.
Next, he finds his way to charity (though with a bit of stage one still mixed in):
Ron Paul: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. … And weve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it.
And only then, finally, does he get around to talking about the structural problems caused by corporatist regulations. Now to his credit, he does actually get to stage three, where many libertarians would not. But leaving it to the end forces him to rush through it with no pause for explanation:
Ron Paul: This whole idea, thats the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because they dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy; it becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar; we have lack of competition. Theres no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.
But when you lead with stage one, thats what people will remember; adding stage three as an afterthought will leave far less trace in peoples thoughts.
The right way to answer a question like Blitzers is to proceed in precisely the opposite order. Start by asking what causes people like the hypothetical patient to be in the plight theyre in. In other words, lead with stage three. Why didnt the patient buy insurance? Because the price was too high. Why is it so high? Talk about the specific ways in which corporatist policies drive up medical costs (and disempower the poor in other ways too).
Then, if you still have time, proceed to stage two. If someone doesnt have insurance and needs care, whats the most efficient way to get it to them? Talk about how charity and mutual aid are more efficient than government welfare, and how we therefore need to shift the venue of assistance from the latter to the former.
And then you can finish by pointing out that peaceful, voluntary solutions are not only pragmatically but morally superior to coercive ones.
Im not saying that one should generally stress consequentialist over deontological considerations; it depends on the issue. But this is one of the issues where starting with the deontological issue is overwhelmingly likely to be heard as Scrooge-like, and that perception will colour and even obscure whatever you go on to say after that which is, predictably, exactly what has happened in the aftermath of Pauls answer in the debate.
This impulse to start with stage one is a strategic and rhetorical error on libertarians part; but I dont think its solely that. I think its a symptom of incomplete emergence from a right-libertarian paradigm. The first impulse is to approach the issue as though our current system were a free market or close to it; and the left-libertarian point that it is no such thing is added as an afterthought because it is an afterthought. The problem is with the vision itself, not just with a strategy for conveying it.
I dont mean this as a rant against Ron Paul. As I said, the fact that he does advert to anti-corporatist considerations at all is a point in his favour. (I have other problems with Paul, but sufficit malitia diei sua.) But his recent answer on medical care was a highly visible instance of a widespread libertarian problem.
Pingback: Cordial and Sanguine, Part 17()
In fairness to Paul, an interviewer whose first question starts out "You're a physician… so you're a doctor" isn't exactly Mensa material either.
I think it was a conversational-segue "so," not an inferential "so."
It's not a contest. Wolf Blitzer isn't running for president. And most people in the USA will ask far dumber questions than that.
A physician is a type of doctor. Thus, it makes sense that being a physician implies being a doctor.
Kyle Walker
I agree he answered in the wrong order, but research on the serial position effect shows that people are most likely to remember things that come at the beginning and at the end.
Description of SPE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_position_effect
Given that this is the case, it might be better to answer: 1.) costs 2.) coercion 3.) charity.
Yes, but when one is giving brief answers in a debate one can't count on getting to the third point, so one should frontload the important stuff. (The same applies in job interviews, or any venue where the likelihood of getting interrupted is high.) If one has a fair bit of time and can count on not being interrupted, then yes, there's a case for moving an important point to the end.
Elizabeth Bernard
I think what is most pertinent here is what is obvious in EVERY appearance that Paul makes where he is pressed for time: He is NOT good at talking points, in fact, he is SO bad at it that it is surprising he has any success at all. I don't place any weight on the order of his answers. I am just grateful he gets the answer out at all.
You lead with what Paul said because it is not an empirical claim. Unless you have a reason to believe that no one would be unable to afford any form of medical care absent government regulation, then you must admit that the premature death of many people is to you an acceptable outcome. There is no escaping this conclusion.
Agreed. Sometimes bad things happen. We can still argument that under our preferred setup there would be fewer bad things and/or those things would be less bad.
Yes, but now you've given up the principle and are negotiating the price.
All else is posturing.
The only premature death is that caused by malicious intent or gross negligence of another human being. Health care creates the postmature death of those who acquire illness naturally or statistically. Natural death, even before reaching the average "life-expectancy" is an acceptable outcome. And I'm a doctor.
I'm so glad that my ancestors did not agree with you. I quite like living in a technological society wherein we've inherently decided (why else invent) that these outcomes are unacceptable.
I do hope that you one day either see the light or remove yourself to some place where you can live with and as the beasts.
You are just playing with words, not meaning. By premature, most people mean "medically preventable with modern technology at a reasonable price and by non-heroic means." That does not flow off the tongue quite as easily, though.
Also, even if you were trying to offer something other than clever word play, your point remains dubious. Are you saying non-gross negligence cannot cause premature death?
Nathan Stocker
Right. And unless there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that you think shouldn't be done in pursuit of preventing as many "premature deaths" as possible, you also must admit that such deaths are acceptable to you.
They are unacceptable to me and they should all be prevented lest the prevention results in lives which are worth less than they would otherwise be to those who live them (i.e., others may not starve so that you might live, no keeping people alive if they would prefer death to the suffering the method causes, etc.).
Anything less than this makes me wonder about your moral footing.
Nathan Stocker
Just pointing out that unless you accept full-out, anything goes consequentialism, you also are negotiating the price.
I'm not on about "should all be prevented", but which *means* are considered fair-game in pursuit of that end.
For the record, I'm not down with any ends that make fine and dandy with human suffering and death, but I'm also not down with means that make mere means of persons, either. And I don't let the first consideration elide the second.
If you accept balls-out consequentialism, you are always negotiating on price. That's kind of what defines the systems.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any moral system which made "mere means" of persons. With any of them, I could always make a Bayesian move to eliminate the objection.
Nathan Stocker
Yes, just like you could make an Orwellian move to make "coercion" into "cooperation".
BTW, I'm with you on organic governments. Just, if you think that characterizes the modern state, not so much.
I'm also with you on what's out of bounds for death prevention, but my sense is that I'd add on a few more to the list that — from where I'm meaning — I'd regard as regarding people as mere means, while you'd identify differently. I' guessing I wouldn't go as far as you would in all the directions you would, and I gather I regard many more things as outside my (or anyone's!) bailiwick than would you. (My sense is also that you even pre-condemned me for even pointing out that there is no such thing as a trade-off-less choice or action when you were writing exactly as if there was, so I figure I'll give you more sweets, here.)
Well, the Orwellian move woulf be invalid, merely redefining. The Bayesian move treats the system as an insurance function from which you have incidentally failed to benefit (just as if you never have a fire, you "don't benefit" from fire insurance).
I don't think, and never have thought, that the "mere means" statement usefully picked out a concept. I would argue that value maximization requires agency, since it's eudaimonic agents we seem most squarely concerned with. So anything which undermines that agency risks destroying value, the question is whether people realize more and more valuable freedom under some system.
Nathan Stocker
The concept I take it to pick out *is* (in this context) disregarding
others' agency. Perhaps that's just me. I mean it, I dunno – I'm just
Usually it means that you don't benefit; IIRC, this is how Kant uses the term. Killing you for food is the ultimate "as a means merely". The problem, as with most things like that, is it can be passed through filters to make it disappear.
Nathan Stocker
BTW, and a day late, and of no import or utility anyway, I'm sure: this first paragraph here seems to display a basic communication breakdown (or disagreement). [Partly for the same reason your bullet-biting projection was off-target. I wasn't trying to see if you'd bite the bullet, since I don't think anyone's really that silly. (Some are that monstrous, but y'no.) It wasn't an attack, though you responded as if it was. I said my initial comment precisely because you're *not* supposed to be that silly (or monstrous). Of course, you weren't: you did indicate that yes, indeed, there were some things you'd rule out-of-bounds, even in pursuit of the least premature deaths. And glad to hear it, though I had no doubt.]
To me, balls-out consequentialism means "For *that* end, what *shouldn't* be done?!!" It's exactly *not* negotiating on price because it ignores the price of the goal entirely. It's a price/morality-no-object stance.
Tobias Franke
While you are explaining this to the world, you should also be ready for the most common counterarguments:
1) Why is healthcare more expensive in an ideal socialized system then in an ideal free market. Current situation is, that healthcare is cheaper in more socialized systems ( like Germany) and more expensive in more market based systems ( like the us ). Why would it be wrong to extrapolate here?
2) Why is charity morally superior to safety nets? Psychological studies show that a reliable safety net is better for the mental wellbeing, and the risktaking needed for a mobile society. While an unreliable charity supports a static and caste based society, even if the average payout is higher.
3) Why is private charity more effective then government based ones. Studies about aid for Africa show that government aid is more effective in helping people then private aid organizations. This is commonly attributed to the religious missionary attitude of private aid groups. Why can this not be generalized to all charity?
1. "Less socialistic" doesn't mean "more market-based". Regulations, licensing fees, employer-based insurance, patents etc. raise costs tremendously, and while many social democratic states have similar things in place, they are able to counteract that with price controls, subsidized drugs and premiums, resource pooling and other things. Reason Magazine editor Matt Welch and mutualist writer Kevin Carson, among others, have made the point that socialized medicine isn't a terrible idea compared to the corporatist mess in USA, which lacks all the good things about free markets but also lacks the "socialized" part. That's not a point against free markets.
2. I would agree that a stable state welfare net is in many ways preferable to unreliable charity, but those aren't the only two options. Mutual aid organizations can provide the stability of a state welfare net without the coercion, and they have in fact existed long before the welfare state came about.
3. Umm… because not all private charity is religious? Your question makes no sense – does an organization like Doctors Without Borders have a religious agenda and attitude, and if not, why would you paint it with the same brush as ineffective bible-thumpers? I'd also like to see some of the studies you've read, because my understanding of government aid is that much of it goes straight to the hands of dictators and bureaucrats. Maybe that's inaccurate right-wing propaganda, and there may be many instances of successful government aid, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Besides, international charity and local charity are two different things. The former has a joint objective of providing a living standard for poor third world citizens plus helping boost economic growth (the effectiveness of which is dubious), the latter is meant as a last resort for first world people in need.
"Mutual aid organizations" are what governments actually are when they arise organically.
By "organically", I assume you mean "without coercion". If so, I doubt most people here would consider that a "government".
Yes, that's exactly what happens and most people would recognize it as a government. It busies itself with the business of human welfare; when and where it existed, that mostly meant settling disputes, harvest pitch-ins, fire watch rotations and irrigation planning.
Tobias Franke
So alliances in EVE are not governments. Even as they call them selfs communist nations, declare collective ownership of most goods, collect taxes and conduct wars?
Just because they have less coercive ability over their members then a house owner has over his renters?
Tobias Franke
1) But it, and your point too, is a point against all real changes suggested in the name of libertarianism. At least all I have ever seen.
2) If both worked equally well I also would prefer free systems. But historical reliable ( which usually means able to blackmail the populace when things go bad
(generally indirectly through the government)) systems have usually abused their power to assume all negative aspects of a government.
3) This leaves you with the problem that free charity is still less efficient. Unless you want to forbid religion, like the Andrew Ryan model. And even then it might turn out that to be caused by an incompatibility of free markets with a service like charity.
Much of the high cost of US health care is a creation of the health care industry which the federal government allowed to happen. Prescription laws were passed in 1938 because these laws benefitted doctors. Gave them higher incomes than what they had before because with these laws, people had to pay the doctor to write a prescription for something that beforehand they only had to pay the actual of. One very obvious example of this is heart worm pills for dogs now require a prescription. The only one who benefits from this is the "vet". Added money in their pocket. The economic term for this is "rent seeking". That is you have to get "permission" (which you have to pay for) in order to do something. Rent seeking is something governments have been doing for a long time. However organized groups of individuals now can do the same thing. It is an economic benefit to the to the "rent seeker", and is a net loss to everyone else. Health care without government involvement would be much cheaper. No just with prescription laws, but with everything else relating to health care. The major difference between the US system and the systems used in the rest of the developed world is that their governments act on behalf of their people, while the US government is more the "tool" of the organized well off.
When you compare the two systems, health insurance was invented in the US to secure the provider (a hospital) of revenue via contracts with employers/companies (bigger companies had better deals), while in Europe health insurance was started to secure an individual for unexpected costs .
1) "Cheapness" of healthcare is a function of how much you allow people to consume. Just comparing dollars (or euros) spent does not mean anything. If you mandated a limit of only one doctors visit per person per year in the U.S. regardless of ailment, you would make our system "cheaper," too.
2) I'm not being snarky here, but my 8-year-old son knows why charity is morally superior to safety nets. I asked him these questions:
Q1: "If I have some extra money, and I give it to people who use it to feed the hungry, is that a good or bad thing?"
His answer: "That's a good thing."
Q2: "If a man points a gun at me and says, 'Give me your extra money, I'm going to give it to people who use it to feed the hungry!' is that a good or bad thing?"
His answer: "That's a bad thing."
I tried very hard to convince my son — that the same money was going to the same people to do the same thing, and that the man with the gun wasn't going to keep it, he wanted to help those hungry people. It didn't matter. "It's mean to take people's money with a gun." And make no mistake — taxes ARE taking with a gun. It may not be tomorrow or next year.. but if you don't pay your taxes, eventually, there will be guns pointed at you.
Also — I completely disagree that a reliable safety net is better for the risk-taking needed for a mobile society. I defy you to name one single entrepreneur who ever said, "It's okay if this investment fails, I can always go on welfare."
3) Because people spend their own money better than they spend other people's money. The money that is in a charity is theirs. It was given to them with the understanding that it will be used well, and if they don't use it well, the donors will stop giving. Government has no concerns about ever losing its funding. It can always charge more in taxes (backed by guns) so there is never any incentive to be effective.
If I have the choice in giving to charity, suppose you give 10% of income and I give 0%? Since "the shopper is always right," how can you criticize my lack of contribution?
This robbing at gun point metaphor is always trotted out by libertarians but it is never accurate. The government is democratically elected, and the robber is not. This means that the government has validity even when you do not agree with it. So ask your 8 year old son this: "if a duly and constitutionally elected body of government pass a constitutionally valid law, but you disagree with it, do you still have to comply?"
Just what doesn't election validate?
Not sure I understand the question, but obviously actions forbidden by the constitution are not valid even if they are the result of democratic decisionmaking.
"actions forbidden by the constitution"…as defined by who?
I suggest you take a basic government course and then come back to this conversation. I am not going to give you Civics 101 in this forum.
I was seeing if you realized that within your formulation the ones responsible for interpreting the boundaries of government action are government agents — which poses a dilemma for constitution-as-limit.
If you assert in some way in response to that "well, the REAL determinants are US", then you're either assigning democratic legitimacy to anything an elected government does, constitution be damned, or you're opening the door to civil disobedience in response to abuse regardless of if the democratically-elected government says what they're doing doesn't count as abuse.
If legitimacy still attaches, then constitutions mean squat. If it doesn't, then the real limit is what the public is willing to literally fight over, and no further.
This robbing at gun point metaphor is always trotted out by libertarians
but it is never accurate. The government is democratically elected, and
the robber is not.
Well, great: they haven't got your consent; but they have got majority support.
So before you just had a robber; and now the robber has a posse.
This means that the government has validity even when you do not agree with it.
That conclusion does not follow from the premises that you've listed. You will at least need an auxiliary premise that democratic elections are sufficient confer legitimacy on the use of legal force. But of course there's no reason why a libertarian need believe that that's true. Most libertarians believe that there are at least some limits on what any government can legitimately force you to do, no matter how popular that government or that policy may be.
So ask your 8 year old son this: "if a duly and constitutionally elected
body of government pass a constitutionally valid law, but you disagree
with it, do you still have to comply?"
Good Lord. If I had an 8 year old son, I'd hope that I would have brought him up better than to think that constitutions or majority votes ought to be treated as a veto on your conscience. As a notable Baptist minister once pointed out, "One may well ask: 'How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying
others?' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws:
just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One
has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.
Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I
would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.'"
Tobias Franke
1) Its not about cheapness its about effectiveness. While measures of effectivity are disputed, there has never been one which was not correlated to socializedness.
2a) So if I agree that you can monopolize some land it is good. But if you enforce your exclusiveness of use, on your land, with a gun you become evil. So I can just come and camp on your lawn. Few libertarians would say that. Respect.
2b) I would say taxes existed before guns. But I know many American libertarians would disagree and say that rents payed to a king who owns all the land are perfectly just and moral.
2c) "It's okay if this investment fails, I can always go on welfare." no they won't say this. But when psychologists look at their behavior they find that most secretly think this.
Or would like to think so instead of thinking: "My Parents are rich, so I can invest riskily and later pretend I got rich myself" or "The current safety net is too weak, I have to bear with my employer abusing his near monopoly".
But it is true that risk aversion behavior is a subject where many people say the opposite of what they do.
3) So the studies that show the opposite of what you assumed, not only show that the free market is unsuitable for charities, but also disprove the effectivity of the free marked in general… I would never have went that far.
"I would say taxes existed before guns."
Before the invention of guns it was taking money with a sword.
"But I know many American libertarians would disagree and say that rents payed to a king who owns all the land are perfectly just and moral."
If he really owns the land, yes. But the thing is that actual kings throughout history did *not* own their land. Not in the libertarian sense of owning.
Tobias Franke
Could you explain this libertarian sense of owning?
In its most common use it just seems to mean "owned by libertarians", which does not necessarily exclude said king.
Abstract property ownership is always given by the government, it allows one person to monopolize the use of said property, by using force on people who try to use said property without their permission.
Without government backed property, others are only morally prevented from preventing your use. Then property is what you can defend. Until you band together with others and become a government
"Could you explain this libertarian sense of owning?"
There are basically two ways of becoming an (legitimate) owner:
– original appropriation
– voluntary transfer of (legitimate) title, either as a gift or through trade.
"In its most common use it just seems to mean "owned by libertarians", which does not necessarily exclude said king."
Where's that coming from?
"Abstract property ownership is always given by the government"
I don't know what you mean by "abstract ownership" and I don't know what you mean by "given" in this context.
"Without government backed property, others are only morally prevented from preventing your use. Then property is what you can defend. Until you band together with others and become a government"
Really? Is a drugs gang which protect it's stash and money a government?
Tobias Franke
Said King has as much right as anyone else to pretend to be in legitimate succession to the original creator of the land ( title ).
Especially if there was no acknowledged system of ownership titles before said kingdom was founded.
In fact can you name any piece of property ( especially abstract property ) which is legitimately owned according to your decision.
Abstract Property is the exclusively modern concept of property. Either of abstract objects like land or ideas. Or monopolistic concepts of property, where property ownership means prohibiting the use of said property by other persons, instead of only preventing others from preventing the owners use.
These concepts of abstract property have no moral justification and are relatively modern constructs. Especially the idea of a title to a property. A title can not exist without a legal system/government defining its form.
A Gang becomes a government once it claims the right to manage (give) property titles (without resorting to the rules of transfer or creation of ownership deriving from a different government).
It would also become a government by claiming moral legitimacy of it's rule system. Or by claiming a monopoly on the use of force.
I might accept a requirement of all 3 factors to become a true government.
"Said King has as much right as anyone else to pretend to be in legitimate succession to the original creator of the land ( title ).
Especially if there was no acknowledged system of ownership titles before said kingdom was founded."
Where there people living on the land at the time the kingdom was founded?
It's still not very clear to me what you mean with abstract property, but I'll tell you my view on property. First of all, in my opinion ideas cannot be owned. Land on the other hand can be owned. How exclusive this is depends on the use of the land. People are not allowed to enter someone else's house or garden without permission. But if it's a pasture, people have a right to pass over it as long as they don't disturb the livestock.
"A Gang becomes a government once it claims the right to manage (give) property titles (without resorting to the rules of transfer or creation of ownership deriving from a different government).It would also become a government by claiming moral legitimacy of it's rule system. Or by claiming a monopoly on the use of force.I might accept a requirement of all 3 factors to become a true government."
So simply banding together to protect property does not a government make…
Georgian Tutuianu
In the context you are describing the only legitimate way the King can create title to the land and have it mean anything to anyone is if the people who were using the land before the King gave direct consent to the idea of abstract property. Just because a piece of paper says the King owns the whole universe does not make it true.
By government I think you mean association of people making up the state willing to use possibly legitimate force to pursue their goals or enforce their potential titles.
I don't think the gang as previously described would be a government or a state. I think they are simply a collection of people willing to use force to defend their property.
You can find comparisations of different systems. Try and get to learn about it in stead of these assumptions and ridiculous self-serving metaphors.
Classic. This article was all about the fact that the US doesn't have a free market system. So your first counter-argument is not on point. A zillion US regulations favor corporate medicine & stomp out smaller competitors, allowing corporate prices to rise. That's just one reason why the US has expensive medicine. There are other regulatory causes for high prices, too, and few of them show people the respect for their choices that are the hallmark of a market-based system.
Charity is better than stolen / taxed money, because charity doesn't empower the political class, which causes them to become totally corrupt and declare the next war.
Lastly, peaceful alternatives, like charity and respect for a competititve market (as long as there's not force or fraud), promote an overall notion of civilization and what it means to have respect for others.
Hopefully, one day you'll stop using terms like "safety net" to cover up the fact that the kind of power necessary to force everyone into a universal medical collective is not only uncivilized, but has corrupted the political class, and is therefore responsible for all of the big-government scams that you probably hate, like aggressive wars, and bigoted laws that promote alcohol over marijuana.
Beyond the criticisms outlined in the post (which I think are spot-on), I'd add another one: The responses made by Ron Paul and others reinforce the impression many people have that the costs of putting libertarianism in practice would primarily be borne by (typical) individuals, while the benefits would primarily accrue to corporations and those (less-typical) individuals who are major shareholders in them.
So in reversing the sequence and first emphasizing the role of government regulation in distorting the health care market and raising health care costs, you could also talk about the responsibility that needs to be placed on the health care industry and those who invest in it, including in particular the responsibility of finding ways to make a living that don't depend on laws and regulations that discriminate against providers of generic medications, that prohibit nurse practictioners from providing routine medical services not requiring an MD degree, and so on–basically all the ways that health care providers and other industry players leverage government to rig the system in their favor.
"the impression many people have that the costs of putting libertarianism in practice"
Exactly, my intuition is that after the great libertarian medical deregulation of 2015 , the regulations that restrict the powerful will be gone, but somehow the regulations that "health care providers and other industry players leverage government to rig the system in their favor" will have miraculously survived.
And the libertarian theorists will walk around looking confused muttering, "if only they had followed our plan correctly."
That's certainly possible, and the vast majority of deregulation that's passed in DC always seems to have big money behind it. Although it's true that many regulations, subsidies and tax increases tend to benefit the rich, it's also true that there are regulations that the rich don't like very much. Therefore I don't blame liberals for having the impression that deregulation = big business wet dream. This miscommunication needs to be taken seriously by libertarians, and aligning with "business-friendly" conservatives and the Chamber of Commerce is the last thing they should do, even if they are ostensibly against the socialist boogeyman.
'There is another theory which states that this has already happened.' -Douglas Adam
Excellent advice, Roderick.
I would add two additional blunders he makes. The first is to dig in and defend an extreme libertarian position when I don't think that's the turf he really cares about. He could have said that no, he wouldn't let someone like that die, but that doesn't mean we should have a large entitlement program that pays for myriad routine (i.e. not life-or-death) expenses for the middle class.The second additional blunder is not to point out that Wolf's question is not a very helpful one in trying to decide what legal regime we want to live under. (In truth, I find it a bit sanctimonious.) We "let people die" all the time. We let them die when we subscribe to Netflix, although the same amount of money could alleviate malnourishment in the third world. (Peter Singer is good on this point.) Wolf Blitzer let people die when he bought a nice suit. The current health care regime lets people die when they are uninsured and can't afford expensive procedures. Any alternative single-payer system that proposes to spend less than an infinite amount on a particular case will also let people die. A more constructive question is, what kind of rules will let the fewest people die while also maximizing resources for other things that we like (education; comfortable homes)?
The audience members cheering for the death of a hypothetical man highlights one of the main problems with the right-libertarian alliance: the "right" part of the alliance finds libertarian solutions appealing because of their rage against "parasites," "freeloaders" and people outside of their tribal affiliations. If the market is used as a sword against those we dislike, it will never be seen as beneficial to society as a whole.
The BHL project takes a stab at this problem, but until the personal rage dies down, libertarianism is doomed to be the political province of academics and the sort of people who always have someone else to blame (usually the politically and economically powerless) for the state of the country.
Pingback: links for 2011-09-15 | Credit Writedowns()
It seems to me that trying to explain, in 15 seconds or less, how the current mixed private-socialized medical system causes these catastrophically rising prices, is an impossible task. It could only be brought up as a statement which would have to be taken, by the audience, on faith, and then perhaps researched by them at a later time.
I once plugged my nose and read George Reisman's lengthy piece, I believe entitled 'the real right to medical care versus socialized medicine' and while I definitely did not agree with it completely, I have to say that of anything I have ever read, it did the best job of making me understand the technical economics of how prices rise in our system. No way could those ideas/explanations have been made very succinctly, within the format of a debate. At least not by Ron Paul…and it pains me to say anything in criticism of someone who stands up in public and makes arguments in front of millions of people the response to which would humiliate most people into silence within the circle of a small group of their friends.
One of the most important thoughts in the entire Reisman essay was made at the outset, quoted here:
"I will have a great deal to say in criticism of the Clinton administration's proposal later on. Here I want to stress that I do not believe that the most important or fundamental objective that must be accomplished in connection with the Clinton plan is to explain why it should be rejected. It certainly should be rejected. But the mere rejection of the administration's proposal will serve only to maintain the status quo. The status quo with respect to medical care does not deserve to be preserved. It does bear the earmarks of financial lunacy. It does call for reform – for radical reform. The question is, what kind of radical reform?"
I would have first pointed out that if the theoretical guy survived and cam out of the coma within say 10 years he could be handed a bill that he could amortize over time.
Steven Horwitz
This is indeed excellent advice from the esteemed Prof. Long.
The real problem is that libertarianism isn't communicable in sound bites. We believe in a complex world, and that requires complex explanations more often than not. Democrats and (the rest of the) Republicans believe in a simple world with simple solutions. Those are conducive to sound bites. We are stuck with that problem. Nevertheless, I think Paul did well, even if I do have to agree that the order was wrong. I also agree with Kyle Walker's order. We remember first and last best. He at least ended with the most important point first.
There are as many simpletons on the libertarian side as any other
We are the ONLY industrialized country to NOT have a national healthcare plan ,putting the costs onto business.So how do we compete ?…In your "complex world…..
Please learn what the words "complex" and "complexity" mean, then we can talk.
It was a legit question. Do you have a legit answer?
It's a confusing question. Ignoring the presupposition that being like other industrialized nations is the superior thing to do, it remains difficult to answer a question that might as well be asking "How do we live?"
I think some background must be set and some terms defined before the question is answered.
" his recent answer on medical care was a highly visible instance of a widespread libertarian problem"
I agree that if his first thoughts were genuinely libertarian he'd answer the way you suggest. Instead I suspect he answered in exactly the order he, and his cheering section, think about this, leaving the actual libertarian answer as almost an afterthought once he got his real feelings out of the way:
a) I don't care who they are, I'd rather see them die than feel obliged to lift a finger to help them.
b) If we can sucker churches into helping, they may be soft-hearted and stupid but whatever, I'm not obliged to waste my money on churches either. (See his mentor Ayn Rand's opinion of churches and voluntary charities in general.)
c) Oh, and "to be sure," blah, blah, corporatist price controls, blah, blah, blah.
Pingback: The War Between the Statists and the Libertarians Continues: One Loves the State, the Other Loves Freedom » ReasonAndJest.com()
As a doctor Paul knows better.ALL hospitals used to be NOT FOR PROFIT!!THATS why costs have exploded.And where are those "community " and "charities " NOW when we need them?The same place they were during the Irish famine and Victorian England.In his IMAGINATION!!"
So where is all that "charity" ?We have the largest uninsured population of all the industrialized countries so why have they stepped up?Because they DONT thats why.Unlike "libertarians " I live in the REAL World not some fantasyland where everyone plays fair and does the right thing.
Republicans cheer onWAR.They cheer onTORTURE.They cheer onEXECUTION.They cheer on leaving a person toDIE.If thats the party of "life"….…..oh right ..only if your NOT BORN YET!!"
So where was that disgust` by the candidates when IT HAPPENED??They cheered Perry executing people too.Also WARS and TORTURE.At what point do you say the PARTY is DISGUSTING?What does it take?Eating abeatingHUMANHEART?"
Yes and it is up to LEADERS to correct their FOLLOWEI;.FYI..Paul is the best they have and he is a follower of the supremeSociopathicCULT of Ayn Rand.She would gleefully say "let them die"If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.Ayn Rand"
What do you think that means eh?
Tobias Franke
Well, it means that one of the points of appeal of libertarianism is, that some of its opponents babble around like crazy drunks.
Ayn Rand's First Love and Mentor Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who
Dismembered Little Girls
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic
qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they
should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that
society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true,
innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other
people.'"This echoes almost word for word Rand's later description of her character
Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: "He was born
without the ability to consider others."
Blitzer's insistence on conflating "society" with "government program, funded by theft instead of open hearted charity" … that's the real crime here. he set up Ron Paul with a 'when did you stop beating your wife?" scenario … Ron might have responded with his 3 points in reverse order, but failed to do so. sad, but under the gun, perhaps was inevitable.
Superb advice.
I agree about the complexity of communicating the third point, but I typically approach it by beginning with the general claim, "In a properly structured system of free enterprise, goods and services that benefit humanity constantly become lower cost, higher quality, and more widely available – typically dramatically so. Whenever we do not see such phenomena taking place, we are not actually seeing a properly structured free enterprise system." This approach then leads to unpacking the notion of what a "properly structured system of free enterprise" is, but at least it immediately puts forth the hypothesis that under some set of conditions free enterprise always leads to faster better cheaper. The intellectually curious, non-partisan mind then begins to wonder about what those conditions might be.
Pingback: The Libertarian Three-Step Program()
Pingback: - eHealthCare.com()
Pingback: "Structure? What structure?" | Psychopolitik()
Pingback: Fredagslinks 16/9/11 | Agorist.dk()
Church's will never pick up the tab. That is pure fallacy. They never did. Saying they did is a lie.
Why do people buy this crap?
I know this to be false. A church in my town does pay for some of its indigent parishioner's medical expenses. This church, then, picked up a portion of the tab (for some people, all of their tab).
Pingback: Libertarians and Charity | jasonpbecker()
Pingback: Letting The Uninsured Die : Conservative Cabbie()
This is all wrong.
The correct answer is that everyone will receive SOME TYPE of care. Don't budge from that.
Then that like ALL things, different types of care have different prices, and different types of care, have different outcomes. This makes it a menu of services issue.
We balance risk based on cost everyday, we cannot spend unlimited amounts of money, but we can deregulate the market to make things even riskier / less expensive. This increases the menu.
THEN you say, those poeple wil insurance will OBVIOUSLY receive BETTER care.
This is the real issue with Obamacare – the 70% of the haves DO NOT WANT the bottom 30% to consume resources that the 70% would get for themselves.
Damien S.
"that the high cost of health care is a product of state regulation"
Does this pass empirical examination? Taiwan had a mixed system 10-15 years ago, before deciding it sucked, looking carefully all over the world, and creating Medicare-for-all single payer. Did they have state regulations analogous to our own driving up cost?
Mexico and India are destinations for medical tourism because they're cheap compared to US incomes. (Especially higher US income.) Are they cheap compared to Mexican and Indian income? Chile and Thailand and all of Europe and Japan have public or regulated health care and insurance; why?
The UK and some other countries go past state regulation of medicine or insurance to actual state-run (mostly) health care. They're also a lot cheaper than the US. Why?
Canada, UK, and US have all about the same number of doctors per capita; other European countries have considerably more. We might blame the AMA and limited medical schools for our numbers, but what's going on elsewhere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_compared#Cross-country_comparisons
Pingback: Cordial and Sanguine, Part 18()
It's rather astonishing how _every single_ one of those points can be wrong.
Firstly, yes, in the hypothetical question, that guy 'choose' to not get insurance. However, in the actual real world, plenty of people who do not have insurance are not 'choosing' to not have insurance. They cannot afford it, or it's even possible that insurance companies will not sell to them. (And will continue to not sell to them until 2014 thanks to idiotic compromises.)
Second, to skip ahead, as Damien S. said…just
saying 'Government regulation makes health care costs high' does not
make it true. The level of government regulation appears to have
absolutely no effect on health care costs when doing comparisons worldwide.
And last, to skip back, if charities can fix this…where are they? What, _exactly_, is stopping charities from stepping in and providing medical treatment?
Well, nothing…there are, in fact, a lot of such charities. A void exists, and charities have stepped in. Tiny, overworked one run out of basements of food pantries, that operate one day a week and have a two month wait to get in. (Waits, of course, are only bad when they are 'socialized' waits. I guess it's fine when it's at the free clinic.)
And the big, traveling charities that show up and are _blanketed_ with people. They show up in a city, hundreds of thousands of people show up for care, and end up getting turned away. (Getting turned away from medical care, of course, is fine when you're poor or uninsured. It's horrible when you'd have the money to pay for it but the medical professionals think you don't need it.)
There is literally nothing stopping such charities form existing, no magical barriers to them. Charitable donations are still, as far as I know, even tax deductible. And we need about a _hundred_ time as many currently exist.
_ALL_charitable giving in the US, added together, totals $300 billion a year. Let's pretend all charitable giving went towards those medical bills.
Let's also pretend that only 20% of the population had trouble with medical bills. It's actually 50%, but let's pretend that we'd only need to pay the equivalent of the total cost of 20% of them. Some we'd be paying 100%, but some only 10%. This is incredibly lowball, but let's just go with 20%.
Dividing $300 billion by the population gives us $1000 each, and dividing that by 20% gives us $5000.
Now, of course, the people can't get insurance and have trouble paying their bills probably have _more_ than the average medical costs, but let's pretend that, hypothetically, they pay exactly average.
Average per capita spending on health care in the US in 2008? $8,327.
Crap, we're an entire 1/3rd short of being able to cover people even under our utterly insane, impossibly-best-case scenario.
So what's the theory here? Saying 'charity' is not a fucking answer. Things don't just magically arrive out of thin air because someone says 'charity could provide it'. If all current charitable donations in the entire country went into paying medical bills, we _still_ wouldn't have enough.
Hell, we don't even have enough _homeless shelters_ in this country, and those are much cheaper than medical care to set up and operate.
Pingback: Rad Geek People's Daily 2011-09-17 – Majority Support()
Pingback: Money Management and Financial Markets » Blog Archive » Reflections on Rod Long's "Libertarian Three-Step Program", by Bryan Caplan()
Pingback: Blogging 'The Conscience of an Anarchist' by Gary Chartier - Forbes()
Pingback: Blogging 'The Conscience of an Anarchist' by Gary Chartier | buy stock picks()
Pingback: Blogging 'The Conscience of an Anarchist' by Gary Chartier | Up2dateNews()
Pingback: Blogging 'The Conscience of an Anarchist' by Gary Chartier | Affiliate Review()
Pingback: The Anarchist Township» Blog Roll Call for the week of 9/12/11()
Pingback: Answering Wolf Blitzer | John Goodman's Health Policy Blog | NCPA.org()
Pingback: Attack the System » Blog Archive » Blogging 'The Conscience of an Anarchist' by Gary Chartier()
Pingback: "Structure? What structure?" « The Jefferson Tree()
Pingback: The Anarchist Township» Reaffirming the Non-Emphasis on Politics and Government: A Second Reply to Mr. Stolyarov()
Pingback: The Libertarian Three-Step Program « Brave New Libertarian World()
Beautiful advice.
I find most such arguments are based in the "extreme 1%" of cases at the detriment of the middle 90%. Another good example is public school where out such fear-based hypotheticals (Johnny doesn't have enough to get an education!) we subject the other 90% of Johnnys to mundate sub-par education.
Pingback: O programa liberal em três estágios | Ordem Livre()
Pingback: Another reason why I despise Ron Paul()
Long merely evades the hypothetical as long as he can. The question was about what happens if health insurance costs more than an individual is willing to pay. RP answered straight up.
Pingback: Theory, Meet Practice — The League of Ordinary Gentlemen()
Pingback: Left libertarians | Libertarian Book Club()
Mutual aid might be more efficient than "government welfare," but I'm not about to ask my neighbor to take out my appendix.
. . . The "mutual aid" societies are intended to help you pay for the appendix to get taken out. Not to help you out with direct service provision. (At least, that's certainly how self-described mutual aid societies and friendly societies operated when they were relatively common, in the late 19th/early 20th century — as a form of grassroots, consumer-owned insurance.) For that matter, the welfare office doesn't cut out your appendix either; they give you money which you pay to the doctor who does the cutting.
Pingback: Rhetoric matters | MediBlog()
Pingback: O programa liberal em três estágios - Portal Libertarianismo()
Pingback: Robby Soave, Reason Magazine, White Privilege, and PCU | Spatial Orientation()
Posts by Guest Authors
- Brink Lindsey
- Charles Johnson
- Christopher Morris
- David Gordon
- David Schmidtz
- Deirdre McCloskey
- Elizabeth Anderson
- Eric Mack
- Fred Foldvary
- Hillel Steiner
- John Holbo
- John Tomasi
- Kevin Carson
- Massimo Renzo
- Michael Huemer
- Michael Strong
- Peter Boettke
- Richard Arneson
- Samuel Freeman
- Will Wilkinson
- Zachary Gochenour
Our Books
Recent Comments
- Pajser on How Can a Libertarian Say That? (On Incompetent Voters and Competent Market Agents)
- j_m_h on How Can a Libertarian Say That? (On Incompetent Voters and Competent Market Agents)
- j_m_h on How Can a Libertarian Say That? (On Incompetent Voters and Competent Market Agents)
- Ace on Private prisons
- LLC on Are Ethicists More Moral than Others? What's the Purpose of Moral Theory?


text:
This was pretty cool!
Unsold SciFi and Fantasy TV Pilots:
Includes Doctor Strange!
Labels: craptacular, speechless, TV goodness, youtube
South-Central Pennsylvania's Ultra-Hip Pop Culture Mecca™! Since its founding in 1988 by local fans Ned Senft and Bill Wahl, Comix Connection™ has served the Pennsylvania comic-reading community for over 28 years. From its humble beginnings in the old York Book Emporium in downtown York to its current globe-straddling locations on White Street in York and on the Carlisle Pike in Mechanicsburg, Comix Connection™ has always provided the very best in customer service, selection of neat stuff and attention to detail. Visit us today! Questions? Comments? Call or Email us! Of course, all images are © and ™ their respective copyright and trademark holders! No matter where you go, there you are.
Unsold SciFi and Fantasy TV Pilots:
Labels: craptacular, speechless, TV goodness, youtube
hahahahaaha thank you mr. spock now thats some funny stuff
Houw about a series called.. "The Counter Monkeys with the Power!" Nice ring to it.
Kind of interesting- most of those clips appear to be early to mid 70's era and deal with some kind of mind power- wonder if there was some kind of connection there between the writers and the "Acid trips" of the late 60's and so on.
Still, gotta love- THE MAN WITH THE POWER!!!
I think I will have that iron-lettered onto the back of my Comix Connection T
Hmmm... ESP an related stuff was big back in the early - '70s too. I think you might be ON SOMETHING!
Get it?


text:
$util.date("MMMM d, yyyy",$topLevel.timeZone)
1 chicken Course salt Ground black pepper 1/2 cup grainy or smooth French mustard 1 cup toasted bread crumbs 2 Tbsp. chopped fresh tarragon 2 cloves garlic minced 1/2 tsp. hot red pepper flakes 2 Tbsp. melted butter Lemon wedges Tarragon leaves
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
While touring Fort McMurray, Alberta, and Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, board members had the opportunity to view the landscape the same way ducks and geese do: from the air. Daily excursions included surveying the breeding habitats of North American wigeon, green-winged teal, ring-necked ducks and many other species.
"We chose the Boreal Forest as our gathering point because of its importance to the viability of waterfowl and Neotropical songbirds worldwide," said WAT COO Dan Thiel. "The vast Boreal Forest is the best place on earth to secure large-scale conservation and sustainable development through the proactive application of conservation science."
Encompassing more than 1.5 billion acres, the Boreal is a DU conservation priority, and the organization has undertaken the world's most ambitious conservation campaign to protect the forest. The Boreal provides habitat for 5 billion birds that migrate throughout the continent. The Pew Charitable Trusts created a partnership ultimately known as the International Boreal Conservation Campaign (IBCC), of which DU and Ducks Unlimited Canada are central partners. Early on, the IBCC was successful in conserving 500 million acres. Now, the goal is to permanently conserve an additional 500 million acres while allowing sustainable development on another 500 million acres.
Threats facing the Boreal include agricultural expansion at the southern boundary, petroleum exploration and development, forestry, hydroelectric development and mining expansion throughout the forest. By 1999, a consortium of aboriginal, federal, provincial, and territorial governments, non-governmental conservation organizations and visionary industries began working toward the common goal of conserving a substantial portion of Canada's boreal region.
"The Boreal and Prairie Pothole Region are the two most important breeding habitats for North American waterfowl, with as much as 40 percent of the continental duck population and the majority of Neotropical songbirds utilizing the boreal," said DU Chief Conservation Officer Paul Schmidt. "Through DU's Boreal Forest Initiative and the coordinated efforts of the IBCC, the vast and often-remote breeding grounds of Alaska and Canada will be conserved for future generations of waterfowl, wildlife and people."
For more information about the Boreal and DU's work in the region, visit www.ducks.org.
Ducks Unlimited Inc. is the world's largest non-profit organization dedicated to conserving North America's continually disappearing waterfowl habitats. Established in 1937, Ducks Unlimited has conserved more than 13 million acres thanks to contributions from more than a million supporters across the continent. Guided by science and dedicated to program efficiency, DU works toward the vision of wetlands sufficient to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever. For more information on our work, visit www.ducks.org. Connect with us on our Facebook page at facebook.com/DucksUnlimited, follow our tweets at twitter.com/DucksUnlimited and watch DU videos at youtube.com/DucksUnlimitedInc.
Matt Coffey
(901) 758-3764
Receive a free DU decal when you signup for our free monthly newsletter.
need help logging in?
My DU is your personal portal to the hunting, conservation and local DU information that you care about the most. Learn how it works.
Create your free My DU account today!
*Note: If you have a member login from the previous website, you may enter it here to access your My DU account. Visit our FAQ page for more details.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act into law.
First duck stamp, designed by Pulitzer-prize winning editorial cartoonist, Jay N. "Ding" Darling, issued.
Prairie drought peaks.


text:
The G20 finished yesterday. He told the world to stop expecting so much from him. He says he's trying, but not really getting any help from anyone these days. Nothing was accomplished, but like always, it was a great photo op.
There also aren't any crazy viral videos from the 20,000 protesters in Seoul this weekend. The G20 summit was a success for South Korea in that they controlled the more than 200 registered protest groups. Here is some video of them not doing anything too crazy.


text:
ESXi Server with 12 physical cores maxed out with only 8 cores assigned in virtual machines
I have an ESXi 5 server running on a 2-processor, 12-core system with hyperthreading enabled. So: 12 physical cores, 24 logical ones. On this server are 4 Windows 7 VMs, each configured for 2 processors, each running VMware Tools.
Looking at my stats in vSphere, my "core utilization" is constantly maxed out. Yes, these machines are working hard, but only 8 cores have been allocated. How is this possible? Should I look into reducing the processor count per machine as in this post: VMware ESX server?
I checked to ensure that hardware virtualization is enabled in the BIOS of the machine (a DELL R410). I've also started reading up on configuration, but being a newbie there's a lot of material to catch up on. It also seems I should only bother with advanced settings and pools if I'm really pushing the load, and I don't think that I should be pushing it with so few VMs.
I suspect that I have some basic, incorrect configuration setting, but it's also possible that I have some giant misconceptions about virtualization. Any pointers?
Given the responses I've gotten so far, it seems that this is a measurement problem and not a configuration problem, making this less critical. Perhaps the real question is: How does the core utilization of the server reach a higher percentage than all individual cores' core utilization, and given that this possibility makes the metric useless for overall server load, what is the best global metric for measuring CPU load on hyper-threaded systems?
Overall host core utilization metric will often hit 100% on lightly loaded hosts. I don't have any document that would confirm it, but my hunch is that this metric is based on whether or not any core on the host is used at any given moment.
Instead, select all numbered objects in the Customize Performance Chart dialog box. Those are individual cores, and the results will reflect their actual load.
Better yet, ignore this metric altogether if you want to see overall host load. The Usage value, which is the default in the performance graph for CPU, will tell you exactly what you're looking for.
Check more discussion of this question.
Related posts:
- Can I utilize the full performance of a hypervisor's physical CPU cores when running a high CPU usage appliciation inside a VM?
- Can a Single Virtual Core on a ESXi VM use more then 1 physical core?
- Can I create a virtual internal network for my virtual machines in ESXi without using a physical nic?
- Can a VM perform better when only two cores instead of four cores are presented to it?
- For sharing storage between virtual machines using ESXi should I use shared virtual drives or a shared physical hard drive?


text: 10 Reasons You Should Definitely Drive A Mini By Stirling Matheson Stirling Matheson is an automotive writer, reviewer, and spewer of sarcasm of Indianapolis, IN. When not playing with cool cars, he is working as the Artistic Director of Ballet Theatre of Indiana. Hear his pseudo-sane quips on Twitter, Google+, and Facebook. Share Tweet 0 Watch Now Tags: Galleries, Lists, Mini Cooper, Rides Like Follow Chat SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER Enter Show Comments


text:
Summer snacking doesn't have to be a belly-buster
Published: Monday, June 25, 2007 at 8:18 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, June 25, 2007 at 11:05 a.m.
Schools out, and with summer comes lots more snacking.
Since most children have more free time during the summer months, many find themselves making frequent trips to the refrigerator and pantry, looking for something to eat.
But by making sure those snacks are healthy, frequent snacking doesnt have to be a bad thing, said Simone Camel, coordinator of dietetics at Nicholls State University.
"When they are out of school and they are more active, theyre more likely to snack often," she said. "If you are providing healthier snacks and allowing children to regulate their own food intake, they will know what they need and dont need."
By making an effort to provide healthy treats for your children, the summer can be a lesson in eating right instead of unhealthy snacking. And with just a little advance planning, you dont have to make bad choices when youre on the go, running to sports activities and summer camps.
Heres a few tips offered by Camel to promote healthy summer snacking:
The following is a healthy recipe to get you started on a quest for healthy snacking this summer:
Snack Mix
(Recipe provided by the Louisiana State University AgCenter)
2 tablespoon margarine
2 1/2 cups cereal (unsweetened)
1/2 to 1 cup assorted nuts
1/4 teaspoon onion powder
1/4 teaspoon chili powder
1 1/4 teaspoon garlic powder
1 teaspoon paprika
Preheat oven to 250 degrees F. Melt margarine in small saucepan on top of the stove.
Add seasonings. Put cereal and nuts in large baking pan. Sprinkle half of margarine/seasoning mixture and stir well to coat pieces. Sprinkle remaining margarine/seasoning mixture and stir again.
Spread evenly in pan. Bake uncovered for 20-30 minutes or until cereal begins to brown, stirring occasionally.
Serve warm or cool. Store cool mixture in tightly closed container.
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.
Comments are currently unavailable on this article


text:
went to watch the underground show last night…the turnout was totally amazing! i think there was at least 100 people there. but it was kind of hard to tell because it's a small place so even a handful of people will make it look packed. but it did a very nice underground feel – it reminded me of the first time we played in Kuala Lumpur – the same type of bar…it would be great to have some hardcore shows there i think!
yesterday i took more of the zines to shops around Hong Kong so i'm excited that they're getting out there for all YOU people to check out! also, yesterday i went to a shop in HK – a big chain CD store (take a guess) – and they rejected the zine saying it was not "up to their standards". that was quite a strong blow but it just reminds me that punk/hardcore really isn't for the masses. the small few of us who actually understand and appreciate this know what it's about…we know that its not about the "image" we portray but the message BEHIND the music that matters the most…
check out the list of places that the zines are available:
anyway – our pal Bob has a new punk band! check them out: www.myspace.com/thesquawk


text:
Evidence Collection Kit at Middlesex Hospital
A rape kit is administered by specifically trained nurses at the hospital in order to collect physical evidence that can be used at a later time in a criminal case. Even though this is a hard first step to take, it is crucial to do before showering or changing, within the first 72 hours, just in case a survivor wishes to pursue criminal charges at a later date.
Need Someone to Confide In?
Help and support is available for students who want to talk in detail about their assault, but is not sure if they are ready to report to the University. [Read more]
Other Sources of Support
Guidance and advice for students who are not entirely sure if they are ready to file a formal report (with either the University or the Police) [Read more]
Consider Making a Formal Report
Public Safety and counselors from the Women and Family Center can assist students with filing a report to the police. In cases where the incident is reported to both the police and the University, the police investigation is normally done first with the assistance of university resources. [Read more]


text:
The United States found its fourth case of mad cow disease, in an adult dairy cow in central California, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today. But officials cautioned that the animal did not enter the food chain and there was no threat to beef or milk.
USDA said did not have information such as the age of the information or the timetable of events in which the mad cow finding was discovered.
"It was never presented for slaughter for human consumption, so at no time presented a risk to the food supply or human health," said John Clifford, USDA's chief veterinarian.
The U.S. has found three cases of mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy. The first case was found in December 2003 in a cow imported from Canada to Washington state. Two subsequent cases were found in cows born and raised in the United States, one in Texas and one in Alabama. The animals never entered the food chain.
The initial cases of mad cow disease caused Japan and other countries to block U.S. beef shipments. In some cases, trade has yet to resume to pre-mad cow levels.
Officials are still trying to determine how the cow was infected. A USDA official said the finding was an atypical case of mad cow disease, which is very rare. Atypical cases do not come from eating infecting animal feed.
Mad cow disease is a progressive neurological disorder in cattle. Humans can become infected by eating tissue from diseased cattle and develop a fatal brain disease.


text:
TULSA, Okla. (January 14, 2014) U.S. District Judge Terence Kern Tuesday struck down Oklahoma's gay marriage ban, ruling that it violates the U.S. Constitution.
Kern issued the ruling Tuesday in a lawsuit filed by two same-sex couples.
The ruling was immediately stayed pending appeal, meaning gay marriages won't immediately begin in Oklahoma.
The gay couples sued for the right to marry and to have a marriage from another jurisdiction recognized in Oklahoma.
Kern ruled on a constitutional amendment approved by Oklahoma voters in 2004 that says marriage in the state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
He said it violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office did not immediately have a comment on the ruling.
State Rep. Sally Kern, who opposes gay marriage, attributed Tuesday's ruling to"activist judges."


text:
Forecasting & Simulating Severe Weather
Online 4.1: Uncertainties in Numerical Prediction Models:
Examine a forecast that illustrates the uncertainties that are inherent in numerical weather prediction. View animations of 300mb and 850mb upper air forecast maps, sea level pressure forecast maps and the verification of the forecast.
Online 4.2: An Example of Ensemble Forecasting - The Spaghetti Plot:
Examine a 14-day, 23 member ensemble forecast of 500mb heights. Early in the forecast period the lines remain relatively close together, indicating
that the ensemble members have more agreement in the forecast with increasing disagreement as the forecast progresses.
Courtesy of Climate Diagnostics Center/NOAA/NCEP
Online 4.3: Using Models to Isolate Features of Storms:
View two short movies that show convection developing in different shear environments. The
effect of a particular variable or parameter such as wind shear can be determined by varying
that parameter in two, otherwise similar, simulations.
Online 4.4: Studying Severe Weather through Numerical Models:
Observe the inner-workings of a hurricane, supercell thunderstorm and squall line by viewing
animations of the results of a research model. High resolution, small scale models allow for the exploration
of weather phenomena from perspectives otherwise unavailable.


text:
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
Get it today!Shop Now
OrAdd to Wish List
Babycakes Cupcake Maker, Red: Bake 8 mini cupcakes in minutes Nonstick coating Red cupcake maker includes 4 stainless steel decorating tips, icing bag and recipes. Price: $15.00
© Copyright 2016 - Christmas.com. All rights reserved and protected by Christmas Spirit


text:
NEW DELHI: Ajit Singh isn't the only one. The US now says it is "carefully" monitoring the rice crop situation in India this year. In fact, USA believes India's rice production this year will drop by 10 million to 80 million tonnes, making it the lowest Indian harvest in seven years.
With less rice to sell, Indian exports in 2002-03 could also drop by one million tonnes to reach only 4mt, say US officials.


text:
Please log in or register to manage your account
Model: 0635V212Item: CNM0635V212
Smooth, 100% rag-based paper is bright white and acid-free. Museum quality for excellent image sharpness and optimum color gradation. Specifically designed to meet the needs of photographers or artists using digital photographic output for greeting cards and computer-generated artwork. Compatible with large format inkjet printers. Size: 24" x 39 ft; Paper Color(s): Bright White; Paper Weight: 11.5 mil.
Printerbazaar is a one-stop destination for all your office supplies. From highly durable branded printers to a plethora of accessories, you can get your suitable product at a competitive cost.
At Printerbazaar, we are committed to make your shopping experience hassle-free by conveying the best information. We understand that office related purchasing decisions are vital and thus the right comparisons are necessary before buying.
Canon® Compatible BCI-21 Black Ink Tank (Canon BCI-21BK)
$1.43$090 / each
Canon® Compatible BCI-21 Color Ink Tank (Canon BCI-21)
$1.76$120 / each
Canon® Premium Compatible Canon 104 Toner Cartridge
$27.86$1950 / each


text:
In reply to:(tozzpots) It was decided by the site administrator to ban anyone from this thread who were agreeing that this was a good idea.
(tozzpots) It was decided by the site administrator to ban anyone from this thread who were agreeing that this was a good idea.
Except that wasn't in the original BowieZone rules, was it? Perhaps you need an extra clause stating that anyone found mocking BowieZone on a completely different site, regardless to whether their intention was humorous or not (the subjectivity of humour, I imagine, being far too difficult to legislate for), despite having been a member for some time (as EJ had) and only contributing posts of a non-malicious nature (which EJ did), will be banned. Why don't the BZoners admit that they overreacted and screwed up? No credible message board, official or unofficial, Bowie or otherwise, bans members before they've even posted on the premise of a single post made by a single poster of a completely different site.* BowieZone, I admit, is a new site and the Mods there are probably very inexperienced and keen, although they really ought to gauge the (non)presence of Admin staff on other sites to see how to take jokes and different posters' styles in their stride. BZ is a now a laughing stock and its moderators revealed as illiterate and draconian. * And before you reply, predictably, with a lame 'But EJ agreeeed!' retort, I posit that EJ was agreeing the absurdity of the rules and Mxy's debunking of them as opposed to his vowing to attack your site. Indeed, your forum rules are so vague and woolly ('abuse'? Copyright of pictures?) that any poster with a vocabulary greater than five words would probably unintentionally break those rules within their first 10 posts.White Prism - Clonezone Moderator


text:
The calculator computes a cooling performance metric called the capture index that assesses the local airflow around each rack and evaluates cooling performance and the scalability of cooling architecture.
Read Full Article
1) How can I convert this to a primitive variable based program?
2) How can I convert this to a compressible case?
3) Does the turbulence result in compressible case differ from incompressible case?
4) How can I do shock wave interaction with this turbulence model? Can someone help me with this idea?"
Post Comment
The performance is complimented by major additions to the renowned FieldView presentation capabilities. The latest release of FieldView brings many new tools to help CFD practitioners improve their capability, productivity, and impact.
Read Full Article | New Software
The event is being held in Baltimore, Maryland September 23-25, 2008 and will include special visualization training seminars, presentations on new software developments by CEI staff, and user presentations.
Read Full Article | Events
Version 9.3 of FLOW-3D offers more powerful solutions for a wider variety of multiphysics modeling environments, and includes further improvements to simulation speed, ease of use, and ability to secure powerful, meaningful results.
In the exact words of the RSC, "Being elected a Fellow of RSC (FRSC) is
the highest Canadian academic honour a scholar can achieve in the Arts,
Humanities and Sciences."
Monday August 18
Thursday August 14
Wednesday August 13
Friday August 08
Tuesday August 05
Wednesday July 30
Older Articles
Yesterday's Edition


text:
Monday, August 1, 2011
Rob Crow Debuts "Sophistructure" on Entertainment Weekly
[music-mix.ew.com] Rob Crow has been associated with a colorful cavalcade of monikers over his long career, including alt heroes Pinback, Heavy Vegetables, Optiganally Yours, Physics, and Snotnose.
But his latest release, He Thinks He's People (which comes out on October 18), will be coming out under his own name.
If first single "Sophistructure" is any indication, it's an appropriate use of his government-recognized handle. Though Crow has an affinity for the circular structures and odd angles of math rock, "Sophistructure" builds a confident head of steam via guitar crunch and low-fi histrionics that help marry the twitches with a subversive sense of melody.
It's three minutes of turned-to-11 psychedelia that brings together most of the things Crow obsesses over in his music.
You can check out the exclusive EW premiere of "Sophistructure" HERE!
Posted by Dan Goldin at 7:47 PM
No comments:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
|Home | Contact us | Links | Archives | Search
Somaliland Foreign Minister briefs the House of Representatives
Issue 316
Hargeysa, February 9, 2008 (SL. Times) - The Somaliland Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abdillahi Mohamed Duale presented a report to the Somaliland House of Representatives Standing Committee in Hargeisa.
Abdillahi Mohamed gave the report on the efforts by his ministry and other Somaliland government bodies in regard to establishing overseas ties and on the issues of international recognition.
Abdillahi Mohamed began by stating that "since 1993, Somaliland has been engaged in efforts to secure peace, strengthen state institutions and disarmament, unfortunately, there were some setbacks, such as the brief internal strife during the mid 1990's and frankly the message to Somaliland from the international community at that time was to 'put our own house in order' and then we could begin to engage these communities. I recall that in 1993 there were several foreign nations who were willing to assist Somaliland in the development of a national structure, whilst others were not so forthcoming with assistance, and now, Somaliland is being given the benefit of the doubt, the international community is receptive to our case, and this is due to our own achievements.".
Abdillahi Mohamed emphasised that Somaliland currently has representation in many countries and stated: "Somaliland Foreign Ministry has been able to forge new and strong relations with the international community. Somaliland has offices in the United Kingdom, Ethiopia, the United States, South Africa, Belgium, Ghana, Norway, Germany, Sweden, Kenya, Malaysia and Yemen, which by the way, is the only Arab League nation which has allowed us to establish an office in their country."
Abdillahi Mohamed continued by stating, "We are strengthening our ties with Italy, and Mohamud Salah Nur was recently appointed the Somaliland representative to France, and we also remain hopeful of establishing an office in Libya."
On the issue of Somaliland's international recognition, Abdillahi Mohamed maintained that "the issue of recognition should be one of co-ordinated efforts by all of Somaliland's institutions, the executive, legislative, judiciary, business, media, education, and the general public, because everyone has a role to play."
Abdillahi Mohamed informed the committee on the various overseas visits made by delegations from the Somaliland government, and the concerted efforts to take the issue of Somaliland's international recognition to the diverse political arenas of the world.
The Minister described the recent visit by President Rayale to the United Kingdom and the United States as historic, which according to him have already had results, such as the reciprocal visit to Somaliland by Dr. Jendayi Frazer from the United States State Department, the first official visit by a senior American dignitary since 1991.
Abdillahi Mohamed also remarked on the visit by members of the Somaliland House of Representative who have been meeting with their British counterparts at the House of Commons in London.
In his concluding remarks, Abdillahi Mohamed called on the people of Somaliland to "maintain the unity, peace and the progress of the nation. Somaliland's case for international recognition is at a delicate stage and we must be vigilant in our efforts to reach our goal as a united and strong nation."
On his part, the Chair of the Standing Committee, Mohamed Barkhad Migane thanked the Minister and his staff for coming before the committee and praised the efforts of the Somaliland foreign ministry and its leadership.
Barkhad also stated that the Minister's report will be put before the incoming sixth session of the House of Representatives for deliberation.
Omar Mohamed Farah, Hargeysa, contributed to this report
Home | Contact us | Links | Archives | Search


text:
Undressed stuffed animals JUN 17 2008
Photos of singing/talking stuffed animals, dressed and undressed.
I've always been curious about stuffed animals that sing, dance, light up, or talk back. There must be a fascinating robot underneath the fur and fluff, right? Surely the robot hiding in the bear's clothing, vestimentis ursum, is impressive. So: armed with my childish curiousity and the spurious excuse of 'product design research,' I set out to discover what, exactly, these creatures are hiding.
(thx, janelle)


text:
Definition of airfreight in English:
noun[mass noun]
1The carriage of goods by aircraft: [as modifier]: the airfreight business [as adverb]: the exhibit was flown airfreight
More example sentences
- To a company planning to ship airfreight on a daily basis, it is.
- In his email, Murzello laments that 'we cannot send them (the men, that is) airfreight, which would assure a quick, guaranteed delivery!'
- If your shipment is urgent we can ship it airfreight, which will typically allow your order to reach an airport near you in about a week.
1.1Goods in transit, or to be carried, by aircraft.
Example sentences
- A new system introduced by the city government has cut the average time spent on customs clearance and cargo handling for airfreight at Shanghai's Waigaoqiao Free Trade Zone by half, to six hours.
- The company, which is the largest carrier of airfreight for other airlines, lost its way early last year.
- Air freight that has been lost, delayed, or damaged, must first be reported by the shipper or consignee (receiver) to the local cargo office before completing a claim form.
verb[with object]
Carry or send (goods) by aircraft: airfreighting them out would be much more reliable, though costlier
More example sentences
- Deciding to take a gamble, he packed up and airfreighted much of his stock to New York City, bought a round-trip ticket (as required for a six-month business visitor's visa), and set out to make his fortune.
- Live coral reef fish, from the Great Barrier Reef and Pacific Island nations, are airfreighted to Asia for restaurants, where they fetch large prices as status symbols.
- Manufacturing switches from the general to high-value technologically advanced products, many of which are airfreighted overseas.
For editors and proofreaders
Line breaks: air|freight
Definition of airfreight in:
What do you find interesting about this word or phrase?
Comments that don't adhere to our Community Guidelines may be moderated or removed.
= trending


text:
I Am the Cheese
by Robert Cormier
I Am the Cheese Chapter 26 Summary
- Adam begins this session by telling Brint about his mother's "Never Knows" (26.1), which she told him about when he came home early from school one day.
- His mother's fear came from never knowing who was good and who was bad. Although the family had been kept together, she was always wondering what might happen next.
- Adam's mother was also concerned about the level of control that Mr. Grey (who is given another identification here, government worker #2222) had over their lives. They couldn't even go on vacation without his permission (which he never granted).
- Of course this made Adam fearful, but with this fear came a greater closeness with his family and more appreciation for what he had in life. (We could all use moments like that, couldn't we?)
- Adam then tells Brint how he struggled with his identity, especially when his mom showed him a box of things she had kept, memories of their old life. Among them were his father's military jacket and old hat.
- Amy Hertz came to Adam's house in the middle of all this, and he recalls how he missed spending time with her. His new fears had made him less social.
- Back in the conversation with Brint, Adam starts having a panic attack. For the first time, he begins to think about his mother and father in the present tense: "Where are they?" (26.42).


text:
Synonyms of sober in English:
1 the driver was clearly sober
not drunk, clearheaded;
informal on the wagon
[Antonyms] drunk
2 a sober view of life
serious, solemn, sensible, thoughtful, grave, somber, staid, levelheaded, businesslike, down-to-earth, commonsensical, pragmatic, conservative;
unemotional, dispassionate, objective, matter-of-fact, no-nonsense, rational, logical, straightforward
[Antonyms] frivolous
3 a sober suit
somber, subdued, severe;
conventional, traditional, quiet, drab, plain
[Antonyms] flamboyant
verbBack to top
It is sobering to consider that when Mozart was my age he had already been dead for a year.
Tom Lehrer, American satirist and musician
Definition of sober in:
What do you find interesting about this word or phrase?
Comments that don't adhere to our Community Guidelines may be moderated or removed.
= trending