text:
The Evil of Bleeding Heart Libertarianism
Some dude name Todd Seavey thinks bleeding heart libertarianism is evil. See here and here. I've read those two posts a few times, and my most charitable reconstruction of his argument against BHL goes as follows:
- Therefore, BHL is wrong and evil. [From 1-3.]
From his posts, I can see alternative interpretations of his main argument (e.g., some professor at Brown annoyed him, so therefore BHL is evil), but I believe in being charitable. None of the alternative reconstructions of his argument are more plausible than the one posted above.
In Bryan Caplan's thread on this here, there's a useful comment from David Friedman:
My complaint about the BHL, as may be obvious from the exchanges now going on, is that they insist that social justice ought to be part of libertarianism but are unwilling to tell us what it means. As far as I can judge by observations of usage, "social justice" means "ideas of justice that appeal to left wingers," and its practical implication is the rule that, with regard to any issue at all, the first question to ask is how it affects the poor.
Part of me wonders whether this is deliberative obtuseness. Libertarians often adopt an (ineffective) rhetorical strategy from Hayek: Whenever someone says "social justice", respond that you don't know what she is talking about. I think it's weird for David Friedman to say he doesn't know what we're talking about, since we've defined the term many times here. Let's define it again.
Here's a rather generic definition:
Social justice is a moral standard by which some people judge political and economic institutions. Advocates of social justice believe the moral justification of our institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of the poor and least advantaged. The basic institutions of society must sufficiently benefit all, including the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of society.
What makes neoclassical liberals distinct from hard libertarians?
Neoclassical liberals believe just social institutions must tend to benefit all, especially the most vulnerable members of society. Neoclassical liberals believe that liberal market societies are the best means to realize the goals of social justice. They advocate a high growth free market economy—with minimal barriers to entry, few or no immigration and labor restrictions, and little regulation—in part because they regard this as the way to fight poverty.
But, the hard libertarian objects, doesn't a commitment to social justice automatically entail a commitment to an extensive welfare state? No, as I explained here.
What does a commitment to social justice actually mean? Well, partly it depends upon what particular theory of social justice you endorse. But Kevin Vallier and I like to illustrate it via counterfactuals. See here (Kevin) and here (me). I'll quote and slightly modify my own post because it's shorter.
I have a thought experiment for you.
This is directed at libertarians…
Imagine that your empirical beliefs about economics have been disconfirmed. Imagine that a bunch of economists provide compelling evidence that life in a strictly libertarian polity would go badly. Imagine that they showed conclusively that if people everywhere were to live in a Nozickian minimal state or a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist civil society, with everyone strictly observing property right rules, that 10% of people would starve (through no fault of their own), 80% would be near subsistence (through no fault of their own), and only 10% would prosper. However, imagine that they also show that in a liberal social democracy with significant redistribution or social insurance, most people would prosper, just as many people living in such welfare states are doing pretty well right now.
If you are a hard libertarian, you respond to this thought experiment by saying, "Well, that's too bad things turned out that way. But, still, everyone did the right thing by observing property rights, and they should continue to do so." (If you are bad at understanding thought experiments, you say, "That's unrealistic." In response, see here.)
If you have at least some concern for social justice, you respond by saying, "If that happened, that would be strong grounds to change the economic regime. In that kind of society, it's unreasonable to ask people to observe the basic institutions and rules. They have a legitimate complaint that the rules works as if they were rigged against them. Perhaps we'd need to tweak property rights conventions. Perhaps we'd even need some sort of redistribution, if that's what it took."
When you see what social justice is really all about, you realize how it's a rather low stakes item ideologically. Yes, certain conceptions of social justice are incompatible with a commitment to property rights and economic liberty. (Fortunately, those conceptions are wrong, or so I would argue.) But it's pretty easy for classical liberals to adopt some conception of social justice. That's one reason why it's so damaging to the "ism" when they reject it. They appear to say, "Property rights, no matter what, thought the sky falls."
Yet once they admit that we shouldn't respect property rights thought the sky falls, then the question is just to what degree the legitimacy of property rights depends on how well they serve innocent people's interests.
You might think that BHL is rather statist, especially after reading Tomasi's book. One commentator on Caplan's blog said that BHL'ers just have a weak grasp of public choice. (I'm rather confident that doesn't apply to me.) I'm more or less an anarchist, for what that's worth.
One problem is that the word "social" is tacked onto well-known concepts in order to make them vague. For example, the "social contract" is like contract except it isn't written down and the terms can be changed at will by the other side, but not by you. "Social insurance" is like insurance except with no actuarial validity.
Given that history, it is really understandable that a term like "social justice" will be met with deep skepticism.
It seems to me that the word "social" in general is something that particularly tends to make many libertarians hem and haw skeptically, due to some ideological stuff that attaches connotations of something that rubs up against a sense of individualism to invokations of "society". And since the discourse of American libertarianism has been colored by *the right*, of course invokations of "social justice" wreak of big-baddie-"leftism" to many libertarians. But this is all just ideologically loaded word-association. Maybe if the libertarian would get past some pet peeves, they can discuss this openly.
Sure, Alex. But in fairness I did give two examples of where the word "social" is used to take a specific and useful construct (like "contract" and "insurance") and turn it into something nebulous and unmeasurable. This is not libertarians having "ideological stuff".
I am glad that people are trying to come up with a concept of social justice that might be measurable. And taxation to fund a level of basic care (the whole "safety net" concept) does not fill me with miniarchist horror. My concern about extending this to health care is primarily that, unlike provisions for food and shelter, the demand for health care is close to unfillable.
In response to the thought experiment suggested above, I view it as way too possible. I used to believe that technological change would be enough of a random factor to counter wealth concentrations, but that seems less likely to me now.
I'm not sure I would call some sort of redistribution/safety net "social justice" though, for the reason I stated above. It seems like a really pragmatic approach to keeping the society liveable and fun.
Ken S
I agree with you and the BHL's have done a good job at distancing themselves from the more peevish of libertarians on this issue. However, there are some other issues that aren't all that open to discussion that liberals are rather peevish about too.
It comes down to certain facts about differences in individual 'worth' in the current, far from 'perfect' but still 'decent' market mechanism operating today. If you start grouping these individuals in certain ways you notice patterns that annoy many liberals. A libertarian might ask why you were grouping these people in the first place, and it is a good question to ask but probably not an adequate retort to what many are concerned about. This is where Hayek's rhetoric can come in (which I learned at this blog so no take-backsies). How we interpret social group differences is a very difficult problem for science. How we fix them is another matter. There are some favored interpretations and canned solutions sold by mainstream liberals, but they are just plain dodgy, unscientific, and probably actually are based on hubris or indoctrination.
That said, the BHL's are in no way to blame for the current state of affairs that's for sure! Nor is it really necessary for them to address the issues I'm talking about right from the get-go. I'm saying all this as a person who was basically a mainstream liberal until this blog started and I decided to hear them out.
"In order to make them vague" is rather petty and disingenuous. It is not surprising that 'the social' is more ambiguous than, say, 'the individual.' That does not mean that people talk about 'the social' or 'social' things because they want to be vague.
I think that's true. The word "social" is also closely associated with "socialism," which is what I worry about as a BHL. Matt states in his Closing Remarks essay:"Libertarians sometimes worry that by allowing concern for the poor to play an important role in their theory of justice they are opening the floodgate that will inevitably let loose the tide of socialism."
Adrian Ratnapala
""" Social justice is… (see above for the actual quote) """
Thank you! I really had never seen such a definition before.
This sort of social justice you define sounds fine to me, at least intuitively and probably after reflection
too. But here is what I need to reflect upon: if the justice is to be judged by how good the outcome is for (XYZ), then does that not give a green light for whoever is in power to do whatever they can even vaguely argue is in the interest of (XYZ).
That's why I feel that (a) there should be a presumption in favour of non-intervention by government, and (b) getting over that presumption means more than just about the ends, people should also show that the means are acceptable. For example if you want to force people to buy health insurance, you must argue the law is acceptable not because the government has arbitrary power to regulate anything economic, it is because people demand de-facto insurance anyway when they turn up in hospital.
Does your bleeding-heart libertarianism extend to being nice to Todd Seavey? You say that you believe in being charitable, but it sounds more as if you believe in being catty.
In Jason's defense, Todd has gone on record claiming that we are evil for advocating a false and destructive philosophy, one that we know it is false and destructive, but that we continue to spread it because we pride ourselves on playing academic games. I'm not sure how nice a response that kind of talk deserves.
Brandon T.
There is a slight irony in Seavey's cui bono approach. I sympathize with BHLers on this because it is very difficult to prove that you haven't deliberately adopted your position in order to maintain and entrench your near-hegemonic power among libertarians.
I know. I'm not saying he's right. Even though I am an atheist, I'm advocating Christian charity.
Is BHL equivalent to ideal utilitarianism with social justice included as one of the intrinsic goods?
Kevin Vallier
No. Lots of BHLers are deontologists.
Right-Wing Hippy
Libertarianism is about interpersonal justice, which is to say justice. State socialists can't make a claim to justice, so they seek to subvert the language. A recent classic from this oxymoronic stable is "compulsory volunteering". It's just obscurantist political twaddle. Polluting libertarian theory with terms like social justice is unhelpful*. If you are worried that interpersonal justice won't address inequality then fine, but please be honest, don't try to steal the language, just admit that you are not purist libertarians. Accordingly, I suggest you change your strapline to "freeish markets with a little statist tinkering".
* Evil?
That's really not true at all.
The basic dictionary definition of justice is quite simply "the quality of being just," which is rephrased with similar terms like "righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness." There's nothing in there about what exactly is supposed to be just, it can be pretty much anything. A just person, a just society, a just government, whatever. As a matter of pure linguistics, interpersonal justice has no real monopoly on the term. And as a matter of history of philosophy, there have been many different models of justice posited throughout history, and long before liberalism arrived on the scene there were quite a few deeply collectivist theories of justice. (Just look at what Plato had to say about justice.)
Right-Wing Hippy
Justice means administration of law. Law is supposed to apply equally to everyone. The most consistent law available is the law of non-aggression against person or property. Anything else means making special exception to that law, such as theft is OK for officials whose objective is to give your money to somebody who needs it more; now that's not law that's sovereign decree.
Plato was a totalitarian, I wouldn't look to him for a theory of justice.
Justice means administration of law."
No it doesn't.
"Law is supposed to apply equally to everyone."
Says who?
"The most consistent law available is the law of non-aggression against person or property."
There are many much more consistent laws available. (For example, the law of 'do what I tell you to do, until I tell you to do otherwise').
"Plato was a totalitarian, I wouldn't look to him for a theory of justice"
Plato offers one of the first systematic accounts of a theory of justice, beginning by surveying many multiple competing definitions of justice. I'd look to him for a theory of justice before looking to, well, you.
Right-Wing Hippy
I go back to my original point, the abuse of language, which you seem keen to perpetuate.
It should be pretty clear to most everyone that the only person abusing language here is you. Words don't just mean whatever your pet definition is.
* You're insisting that anything broader than your ultra-narrow definition of justice is flawed. And yet virtually every moral and political thinker in history uses a broader definition. Not just Plato, but Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Aquinas, Grotius, Hobbes, Pufendorf, Locke, Leibniz, Hume, Rousseau, Smith, Kant, Hegel, Mill, etc. Indeed, justice is one of the four main virtues of classical and scholastic ethics. That means your ultra-narrow definition does not correspond to reality.
* You seem to be confusing the definition of justice (a lexicographical issue) with an account of what justice truly consists in (an ethical issue). Even if Plato is disastrously wrong about ethics, his writings are clearly relevant to lexicography. And even if an ultra-narrow account of justice is ethically correct, very little follows about the definition of the term 'justice'. Just as defining truth doesn't tell us what is true, defining justice doesn't tell us what is just.
* A law based on pure hedonist utilitarianism is every bit as consistent as one based on non-aggression. Consistency comes cheap, and consistent approaches to law are a dime a dozen.
Right-Wing Hippy
Justice follows law follows ethics. The term justice means administration of law for that reason, remove that middle step and you forfeit the claim to justice. Consistent approaches to law are not a dime a dozen, Kant (as you mention) wrote reams aimed at his categorical imperative or universal law and couldn't come to one of any practical use, it's actually quite difficult to come to a theory of law that isn't ripe with contradictions. If you have a proposal for a law based on pure hedonistic utilitarianism then I'd be interested to hear it, since utilitarianism is the elephant in the room here.
* I don't understand how your argument is supposed to go: why exactly can't justice be a matter of non-legal personal virtue?
* Surely you can't be arguing that virtually everyone who writes on justice is abusing language. After all, language is determined by how everyone uses it. It makes sense to disagree with everyone else's ethical views, but it makes no sense to accuse everyone else of abusing language.
* I'm not sure why you assume Kant's ethics has no practical use. But in any case, that issue has nothing to do with the issue of consistency.
* I have no proposal on behalf of utilitarianism. I'm only saying that it's consistent. Or can you identify any inconsistency in it?
Right-Wing Hippy
"why exactly can't justice be a matter of non-legal personal virtue?"
It can, if you act in a lawful way then you are being just.
"language is determined by how everyone uses it"
Right, but when people abuse language they are relying on the generally accepted definition to pull the wool over people's eyes. Social justice advocates know what justice means and they are setting up an Orwellian contradiction in people's minds, the long term effect being a change of meaning or – more to the point – the removal of the original concept from the lexicon altogether. For instance, liberalism (which used to mean libertarianism) now means socialism; socialists didn't choose the word liberalism because it meant socialism, they chose it because it didn't mean socialism. The danger with BHLs approach is that in the long term we might lose the meaning of justice and libertarianism and struggle to express these concepts – or even to think about them.
"I'm not sure why you assume Kant's ethics has no practical use"
I'm not saying he was wasting his time, but it's impossible to live by his categorial imperative(s), they are too abstract.
"I have no proposal on behalf of utilitarianism. I'm only saying that
it's consistent. Or can you identify any inconsistency in it?"
Act for the greater good? That's a non-starter, I struggle to know what's for my own good.
* Personal justice might concern purely non-legal matters: e.g., being faithful to your significant other, keeping promises to friends, helping a friend who has helped you before, forgiving someone who deserves to be forgiven. Or are you saying that all this is an abuse of language, a use at odds with the very definition of justice?
* You have yet to show that social justice advocates are deviating from "what justice means". Again, language is determined by how people use it. And people have been saying for a very very very long time that there's something unjust about e.g. nepotism in hiring, some being born into wealth and others into poverty, being ostracized because of your ethnicity. You don't have to agree that these things are truly unjust, but you can't say such claims are an abuse of language.
* Your criticisms of Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, as far as I can tell, do not even attempt to address the issue of consistency.
Right-Wing Hippy
I think justice has to be enforceable, otherwise it falls under the moniker of fairness.
Social justice advocates generally mean to call theft justice in certain circumstances. Life isn't and can't be fair but it can be just.
There is no need for me to criticise Kantian ethics or utilitarianism since neither propose a single enforceable law, it is law that has to be consistent and objectively enforceable, not ethics in general.
Damien S.
"Anything else means making special exception to that law, such as theft is OK for officials"
Or calling into question the justice of the distribution of property, such as whether it was all acquired with complete justice; cf. all the surrounding blog posts about land theories and libertarianism. In this case "social justice" is concern not just about the justice of outcomes, which you might consider an invalid concept, but the justice of the starting position, which you should recognize as valid.
Right-Wing Hippy
I do. But justice in acquisition is simple justice, no need to appeal to social justice.
Bryan Mills
Please don't feed the trolls.
Right-Wing Hippy
The more disturbing way to read Seavey's take is that we should ignore social justice … simply it isn't "libertarian." Are we so enslaved to our schools of thought that we should forget the whole point of economic systems is that we should avoid letting people starve, go homeless, go without medical care, etc.?
"the whole point of economic systems is that we should avoid letting people starve, go homeless, go without medical care, etc.?"
Where are you getting this information from?
Wow — really? This is debatable? OK then, tell me — what's the goal of your economic system? Don't libertarians usually argue that *everyone* ends up better off under a system in which people are free to pursue their goals? Or does the rising tide only lift a handful of boats?
I'd wager that a certain variety of libertarian would say that the economic system has no goal (or point).
This would follow from something like, 'only individuals engage in intentional behavior, and the net effects of the sum of individual actions are not reflective of the intention of any one individual, ergo the sum of individual economic actions is not intentional, and as such has no point and no goal, though it may certainly have all sorts of effects'
Why do we think that economic systems should have a point? Economic systems are formed by the interactions of numerous people, each with their own separate goals. It's like asking what's "the whole point of the English language"?
People have tried to run economic systems dedicated towards a single point, but typically other people disagree with them. For example, Britain during WWII still had black markets, despite the society and the war having a significant degree of legitimacy. Was the point of the British economy to maximise the chances of winning WWII subject to a minimum living standard for the population? Or was it to get Mrs Brown a couple of eggs above her ration, and the egg farmer an extra woolly jersey above his? Surely the economy was serving, to some extent, all three interests, and a myriad of others beside.
Good question. But aren't libertarians frequently arguing that a particular economic system (free-market capitalism, regulated lightly if at all) is *superior* to other economic systems? And if so, what are the criteria for that judgment?
I think I misinterpreted your question. I think, if I now understand you right (I hope so!), you were saying something I'd phrase as:
Shouldn't we choose economic systems that avoid letting people starve, go homeless, go without medical care, etc.? Am I right?
I would think so. Granted, the "Mill" in my user name probably indicates my philosophical underpinnings.
But I'm also curious — if we're not judging the merits of economic systems by how well they treat everyone within them, then what criteria ARE we using?I've always understood — and occasionally agreed with — the notion that libertarian-friendly capitalist systems are best for everyone involved. The profit motive provides incentive for making better products, the prospect of wealth encourages people to work hard and get educated, and those incentives provide a better world for all. It's a principle that libertarians can sell to anyone — "liberals" (whatever that means these days), utilitarians, etc.
Then Seavey comes along with a "(bleep) the poor" attitude. If there's a moral justification for such an approach, I'd like to hear it. Maybe.
As we're people, probably lots of different criteria, many of them conflicting. Sometimes conflicting criteria within the same person.
For example, one of the basic institutions of our society is that people can freely make their own trade-offs between earning money and leisure – people are free to retire, to stay home to look after the kids, to cut back their hours, to chose to earn $30,000 a year as an artist rather than $200,000 as an accountant, etc, if they can figure out how to fund it. (of course, some people for physical or mental health reasons do have to quit work, I'm talking merely about people who chose to). I don't see how this basic institution benefits the poorest and least disadvantaged, nor do I see how it helps in eliminating poverty, homelessness, going without medical care. But it's common, even amongst those who aren't rabid libertarians, to take these personal decisions in their stride, and many people even advocate some of them. I myself find the idea of having the right to choose my work, or not to work, deeply attractive.
(Note, I'm not going to defend this on some basic principle from the bottom up, I've never come across a moral theory that I'm willing to adopt fully in all situations, they all seem to lead to some unpalatable conclusions, such as "it's fine to kill healthy people to give their organs to save the lives of 8 sick people", or "it'd be wrong to take a single saliva sample from a person against their will to cure cancer".)
Jeff R
For the record, I said, BHLers evinced a lack of respect for public choice, not that you had a weak grasp of it. 😉
There seems to be some bad spelling here that is confusing me greatly: "respect property rights thought the sky falls" x2 (???)
"the question is just to what degree the legitimacy of property rights
depends on how well they serve innocent people's interests."
I would be interested in hearing an expansion on this. Is the author saying that property rights should be accordingly eroded in direct correlation with the number of people in need of help from society?
How is this at all compatible with individual liberty?
The author also seems to have a very dim view of humanity as he sees a world where 10% control most of the resources and would let the bottom 10% starve out from under them. I take a more glass-half-full approach that people gain immense value from being benevolent with their wealth. Extreme pessimism about human beings seems to be a universal value of the left.
Damien S.
"people gain immense value from being benevolent with their wealth"
I'd love to see how you reconcile this with most of history.
History has not exactly been a font of liberty and freedom, individuals living in some close approximation to a free society would be a better starting point than the entirety of human history
While I agree calling BHL 'evil' etc. is silly and ineffective (I would consider myself one), this:
Advocates of social justice believe the moral justification of our institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of the poor and least advantaged. The basic institutions of society must sufficiently benefit all, including the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of society.
is self-contradictory (as well as rather vague) as a definition. Do 'advocates of social justice believe that the moral justification of our institutions depends on [how] well these institutions serve the interests of the poor and least advantaged' or do they believe that the 'institutions of society must sufficiently benefit all, including' the poorest. These are not the same ideas and that's precisely the question David Friedman has been asking at unbound (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/04/25/david-d-friedman/clarity-on-how-to-justify-economic-systems/ ). This question is fundamental to your position and deserves an answer. Come on.
"Advocates of social justice believe the moral justification of our
institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of
the poor and least advantaged."
1. I don't think that is consistent with the content of the BHL posts I have been responding to. Thus Z&T, responding to my attempt to get them to say whether their position corresponded to Utilitarianism (the poor count, but just as everyone else does) or Rawlsianism ("the interests of the least well-off have a very strong moral priority over the interests of everyone else"–their phrasing of it),wrote:
"This is a fine and important distinction for philosophers to make. But … ."
And never answered the question.
2. If that's really the definition, does it mean that if we have two alternative sets of institutions the one that better serves the interests of the poor is more morally justified–however else they differ? That gets you back to the Rawlsian position taken more literally than Rawlsians like to take it–to claiming that a society with one person getting 100 utiles and everyone else getting 101 is superior to one where one person gets 99 and everyone else gets 1000. Is that a position you are willing to defend? If not, perhaps you can provide a clearer explanation of what you mean by "social justice." What does it mean for "the moral justification of our institutions" to depend on something?
Kevin Vallier
Re(2): Can't we just assign the least well-off a higher weight via some kind of weighted expected utility theory? We don't have to go to the Rawlsian maximin-wall to give the alleviation of awful outcomes (serious poverty) greater weight in our distributive calculus.
I tried to describe a more or less coherent response to your concerns here: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/neo-rawlsian-libertarianism-two-principles-of-justice-for-bleeding-hearts/
This sounds reasonable to me.
I agree with this line:
"Advocates of social justice believe the moral justification of our institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of the poor and least advantaged."
and don't see why David thinks it is inconsistent with what I've been saying. In fact, in our first essay at Cato, we said:
"the fate of the class who labor at the lowest end of the pay scale under capitalism is an essential element in the moral justification of that system."
We then went on to point out that the point of our project isn't to give a normative defense of a particular conception of social justice. John Tomasi has done that in his book. I don't have a fully fleshed out theory myself, but my view such as it is is something like a hybrid of prioritarianism and sufficientarianism: The welfare of people who fall below a certain threshold have a certain but not absolute priority in considerations of distributive justice. (The worst-off people in a society where everyone is above the threshold of sufficiency, by contrast, would have no such claim).
So I when I pointed to the considerable overlap between utilitarian, natural rights, and other positions, I wasn't trying to dodge the issue. I was trying to make the historical point that is the subject of John and my book: that the classical liberal tradition is largely united in agreeing on the principle that the well-being of the poor is especially important in the justification of liberal institutions. Their reasons for agreeing on that principle might vary, and philosophers can imagine various counterfactual circumstances in which those different justificatory results would yield different normative prescriptions. And that's fine, and no doubt a worthy enterprise (I don't mean to belittle it at all). John and my point is just that it's worth noting that that strand is there, and that it seemed to fade a bit in the twentieth century.
Could you, Jason or another BHL please answer the question I asked immediately below. Thanks.
Utilitarianism already gives the alleviation of awful outcomes greater weight. What does "social justice" add to that, if anything?
And if that's all that it means, then "the moral justification of our
institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of
the poor and least advantaged" is consistent with "the moral justification of our
institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of
the rich and best advantaged." Everyone, after all, goes into the utility calculus.
(Second reply)
Having followed your link, I don't find a satisfactory response. You write:
"Liberty Principle:
Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equally extensive basic civic, religious, political and economic rights and liberties."
What makes a scheme "fully adequate?" Given that what people regard as rights differs among people, how in principle do we decide whether your claimed right trumps mine?
In your text, you try to fill that out with:
"The basic idea is that each person can claim against her fellows the moral authority to act in accord with her conception of the good and her sense of justice up to the point where this claim infringes on the similar rights of others."
Some people's conception of the good and sense of justice will necessarily conflict with others', hence essentially every such claim infringes on the similar rights of others.
"Social Justice Principle: Social and economic distributions should maximize the cooperative surplus and provide all with fair opportunities and a threshold of primary goods below which no one can accidentally and reliably fall."
I don't think the concept of "primary goods" is a useful or meaningful one–and you don't say what the threshold is. Further, you specify three requirements which are not in general consistent with each other. Are they in lexicographic order, so that you can only maximize the surplus (whatever that means–measured in utility? dollars?) provided that you give all fair opportunities etc.? If not, how are they weighted?
Consider the situation where someone falls below your threshold because of characteristics, such as birth defects or disease, that can be dealt with, but only at a cost of billions of dollars a year. Do we judge a society better if it does or does not do so?
I'm sorry, but this still strikes me as rhetorical fluff. I have a reasonably clear idea of what act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism mean, despite some fuzziness at the edges. I have some idea of what natural rights libertarianism means, despite lots of fuzziness at the edges. I cannot tell from what you write how, in principle, you would resolve any conflicts among what different people want, consider just, or believe they have a right to.
BHLs/Classical Liberals/Neoclassical liberals (I think these terms are more or less interchangable) believe that government should perform certain functions (typically, national defense, law formulation/enforcement, and, if required, promoting social justice). What logic or moral considerations differentiate the functions that are legitimate for the state to perform vs. those things that are morally objectionable. If the answer is, "when the state can do it better than leaving it to voluntary action by private citizens," does this commit you to consequentialism as a political/moral theory? Thanks.
That's a bit of a big question for the comments thread of a blog post, isn't it? The answer certainly isn't "when the state can do it better than private citizens," and it's also not a merely consquentialist approach. Most of the BHLs here believe in moral rights, even if we don't believe those rights are as absolute as Nozickian side constraints seem to be. So state action that produces benefits only at the cost of violating rights will generally be impermissible.
But like I said, a full response takes a bit more time and space to elaborate than I have available to me here. Gaus gives one broadly BHL-ish account in his Order of Public Reason. Tomasi gives another in his Free Market Fairness. Have you read those?
For the reasons I outlined in two of Kevin's earlier posts on public reason, I find this approach to morality entirely unconvincing. So, if BHL relies on this moral perspective, it will not appeal to me. But, hey, that's just one guy's opinion.
While I would certainly be pleased to hear you announce your conversion, I certainly wasn't trying to talk you into it. Just trying to answer your question as best as I could within the confines of the medium. But again, I'd recommend looking at the books rather than just the blog for a fuller defense of the theory. As good as Kevin's discussions of Gaus have been, they of course don't do nearly as thorough a job at anticipating and responding to the sorts of concerns you raise as does Gaus' massive tome.
Well, I read Gaus's exchange with Richard Arneson and Eric Mack at "Cato Unbound" a little while ago, and didn't find his responses there especially convincing, but maybe the tome itself will do it for me.
I think, for what is worth, that Arneson and Mack demolish Gaus on this point.
Thanks. I'm glad I'm not the only one with that impression.
Damien S.
Of course, we can generalize the basic question. Libertarians generally believe that libertarianism will lead to greater economic growth and total weath. For a while I believed that even after turning modern liberal, figuring as many do that helping the worst off is worth reducing growth a bit. But what if it were shown undeniably that libertarianism was significantly inferior even here, due to real externalities and other market failures? How many libertarians would stay the course? IIRC Milton Friedman claimed in _Capitalism and Freedom_ that it was a happy coincidence that freedom maximized wealth, and he would support free capitalism even if it didn't — but of course, that's an easy declaration to make when you don't have to follow through on it.
It's a pretty common double-counting trick. "I follow principle, and am not a conequentialist, but happily my principles yield the best consequences anyway." "No, mine do! Not that I'm a consequentialist either."
Majors Bruce
Actually in any society, including a social democratic welfare state supported by foreign donations or remittances or rents from some fortunate occupation of a natural resource (like petro dollar statism) will always fail to protect, nurture or subsidize some percentage of the most disadvantaged.
To make sure every illness is caught in time for treatment, every child receives adequate prenatal care and nourishment, every person is saved from suicide after a loss of love or income, etc., you would have to erect a totalitarian surveillance state and micro-managed central planning.
What you mean is you would like a level of coddling for the less successful such that your sensibilities or those of your social democratic friends are not discomfited.
Who gives a fuck about you or your sensibilities? I'd rather shoot you when you try to institute statism myself.
Glen Whitman
I agree that David Friedman's challenge isn't getting the attention it deserves. Most of the BHL's have been dodging the difference between "the poor deserve special consideration or extra weight" and "the poor count, but only as much as everyone else."
Kevin Vallier is the only BHL I've seen give a direct response to Friedman's challenge. Vallier offers the following: "Then the least advantaged only have a claim on the cooperative surplus
if it is required to ensure that their lives meet a decent threshold.
Otherwise goods should be distributed in accord with the Liberty
Principle. For this reason, I think the neo-Rawlsian principle of social
justice is *sufficientarian*."
In other words, in Vallier's version of BHL, everyone should achieve some basic minimum level of well-being. I see some potential problems with this, but at least it's a direct answer to DF's question. Are the other BHL's are willing to sign onto this position?
(The biggest potential problem I see is that it runs into a version of DF's second challenge. Between two societies, the first of which has everyone achieving the specified minimum level of well-being, and the second of which has one person falling slightly below the minimum but with everyone else much better off than in the first society, Vallier's position would seem to say we have to take the former.)
"Most of the BHL's have been dodging the difference between "the poor deserve special consideration or extra weight" and "the poor count, but only as much as everyone else.""
To be honest, I think this is mostly just silly nitpicking. We can very well bridge the difference by saying "the poor count as much as everyone else – and deserve special consideration to the extent that they obviously are not being counted as much as everyone else". There's a leveling involved already in the notion of everyone counting as much as everyone else – the moment we approach a world with vast, entrenched inequalities of power. And since the poor are often in positions in which they obviously do not have the same oppurtunities as others, there is a special consideration for them relative to the basic egalitarianism of everyone counting.
Glen Whitman
Just because the two principles may lead to *some* of the same (left-leaning) conclusions doesn't make them identical. The "special consideration for the poor" position, especially in its Rawlsian difference principle variety, ends up justifying substantially greater interventions. Maybe this is nitpicking to you, but I think there a lot of people to whom the distinction matters. Or is the purpose to pick a principle, any principle, that justifies libertarians moving leftward?
You (and other BHLs) endorse this notion of social justice: "the moral justification of our institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of the poor and least advantaged. The basic institutions of society must sufficiently benefit all, including the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of society." As stated, this proposiition is intuitively atttractive and thus plausible. However, I believe this is so because no attempt is made to define "interests" or "benefit," and thus everyone reads into this concept what appeals to them.
Imagine that a policymaker has a choice between two worlds. In the first the "least advantaged" group is in really bad shape from the material point of view. But, all their rights, including economic ones, are respected, and they enjoy true equality of opportunity with all other members of this society. The policymaker can realistically expect that over time, even if it takes a few generations, the lot of the worst off group will greatly improve so as to satisfy whatever social justice concerns you have.
In world #2, the worst off group enjoys a substantially better standard of living than in world #1, but none of their rights, including economic ones, are honored, and they are denied equal opportunity with the elite members of this community. It is possible that over time their material condition will not only stagnate, but deteriorate. Which is the more just (or socially just) world?
If it is not obvious by now, I think that the idea of "social justice" is pretty vacuous without an underlying and logically anterior moral theory against which the justice of any community can be evaluated. So, along with any calls for "social justice" that the BHLs might make, I think it is incumbent upon them to specify the moral theory they are proposing. What do you say?
Jason, your thought experiment reminds me so much of the kinds of tricks played by religious fundamentalists to try to fool or scare people into submission. It's just absurd. Hopefully no one takes you seriously on this. My reply to your experiment would be to say that if you want to restrict someone's freedom, then the burden of proof is entirely on you to show that one person's freedom would cause another person harm.
Social justice is a moral standard by which some people judge political and economic institutions. Advocates of social justice believe the moral justification of our institutions depends on well these institutions serve the interests of the poor and least advantaged. The basic institutions of society must sufficiently benefit all, including the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of society.
Does this make sense? Starting point, which I believe is pretty uncontroversial, the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of society are people who are poor and deeply mentally disabled (eg paranoid schizophrenics who wrongly believe that everyone is out to get them, people for whom every mild frustration produces overwhelming rage, etc). Indeed, I don't know if it's better to be poor and reasonably mentally competent or rich and mentally incompetent, but poor and badly mentally incompetent is definitely a bad deal.
Now someone deeply mentally incompetent can't enter into an institution like marriage, and they can't benefit directly from things like a stable money supply. Does that mean that institutions like marriage, or an independent central bank, or dating websites are not morally justified, no matter how many benefits they may bring to the rest of society? Or are they justified on the basis that the least advantaged and most vulnerable benefit from an overall improvement in society making those able to take care of them better off even if they can't benefit from these institutions directly? And if it's the latter, then how does "social justice" differ from a utilitarian "what's good for the most people in society" rule?
Todd Seavey
Rather than weighing in on the important philosophical issues raised, I really do just want to pop back in to note as an aside — not out of anger but just as a public service — that Jason Brennan is a complete asshole (indeed, without even knowing him, I'm going to guess he's one of those guys who introduces himself by saying things like, "Heh, I guess I have a reputation for being, y'know, kind of an asshole or whatever, heh").
Now, that may _at first_ seem irrelevant to the important academic endeavor going on here — but that's the thing. I hadn't realized the guy is a PhD in philosophy(?!?). And yet he "charitably" reconstructs an argument in which I've essentially been engaged — and winning — for years as either a complete non-argument or as a reaction to one hypothetical bad Brown professor. Think about this, other academics: WHAT DO HIS STUDENTS, if any, THINK READING THAT, if _they_, unlike Jason, know who I am, or at least recognize that I have arguments? How "charitably" would they expect this guy to interpret _their_ arguments (the interpretation of arguments being what philosophy professors do, after all)? I, for one — and let me put this as "charitably" as Jason might — would not want this stupid piece of shit (or SPoS) grading my paper. Would you? _Would anyone?_If Jason were a journalism professor, the world might be worse off — since he'd be far more relevant — but at least then he might have felt compelled to mention by way of disclosure that he is himself a former (assistant) professor at Brown and thus perhaps a bit biased in favor of _hypothetical bad Brown professors_. I don't anticipate, no matter how long the BHL argument drags on, having to worry that he'll say anything worth rebutting, so it's mutual, pal. The others I'll happily talk to.
In DC on May 8, in fact, if anyone else is in town and wants to have lunch. As long as I can get to the National Press Club by 4 and Brennan's not there, we're golden.
As a _journalist_, I'm kind of wondering why _you_ don't have a slightly _thicker_ skin than this, particularly given the _snide_ tone of _your_ original _posts_, and whether _you_ _will_ be in for a _rude shock_ when you go to the National _Press_ Club.
… _ _ _ …
Pingback: BHL's & UBI's | Bleeding Heart Libertarians()
Pingback: Some Final Thoughts | | Cato Unbound()
Let me add, to Tracy W's points, the observation that most of the least
advantaged *Americans* have *more* advantages than a great many
non-Americans. The "social justice"
thinkers must want American institutions to be judged on how well they serve the
*mostly foreign* disadvantaged.
Pingback: The Able Slave, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty()
Pingback: Stephen Hicks, Ph.D. » Bleeding-heart libertarianism?()
Stephen Hicks
My thoughts here: "Bleeding-heart libertarianism?" http://www.stephenhicks.org/2012/05/01/bleeding-heart-libertarianism/
Pingback: Bleeding Heart Libertarians = Left-Statists « Politics & Prosperity()
From the "definition" of social justice:
The basic institutions of society must sufficiently benefit all, including the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of society.
This doesn't feel like a definition at all… It permits anyone to say any institution or set of institutions fail the sufficiency test because it doesn't define sufficiency… I have no problem voluntarily donating to the level of my definition of sufficiency. I have a very great problem being forced to donate to Bernie Sander's definition. I have no problem with Bernie attempting to persuade me I should be more generous. I have very great problem with Bernie using force.
Social institutions are *not* government institutions, just as society is not defined by government. So while I am very VERY sympathetic to the idea that society should take care of the least advantaged and most vulnerable members of society, I really want BHL to define the limits of that proposition… until then, the stakes appear to me to be quite high, based on the available evidence of the American Experiment.
All the philosophy is wonderful… but it's too abstract. At the end of the conversation, a bill will be presented. That will diminish me and enrich someone else (assuming the incentives do not tilt so far that even someone with my work ethic doesn't switch sides.) With government as an intermediary, the provider has no incentive to be more generous because they do not see the value to the recipient. Similarly, the recipient has no incentive to be less demanding because they do not see the cost to the provider.
Another problem with the definition is the lack of a time frame… Must the institutions of society benefit "instantly", "soon", or "eventually"? If a 'benefit' provided is squandered by a recipient, must it be replaced repeatedly? Without these parameters, and with the vagueness of "sufficiently", many people can justify expending all of the assets available to society "today", even including the "full faith and credit" of future generations as yet unborn (especially those with no kids).
Pingback: Google()
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


text:
Free Delivery to UK Mainland if you spend £250 or more
Close [x]
ACHICA Inspiration
ACHICA Living
Christmas Shop
0 Item(s) £0.00
Furniture & Lighting
New Promotions
A Christmas Twinkle
ACHICA Debut: Festive illuminations
Danish Light & Interior
ACHICA Debut: Elegant scandi lighting
Dine in Elegant Style
A chic space for entertaining
Sphere inter: Furniture
Furnishings for laid-back living
Stella Cadente Maison
Sophisticated seating
Sumptuous Fabric Beds
Luxuriously upholstered
Ending Soon
A Bistro Mix
Décor with a Parisian café feel
A Colourful Christmas Room
ACHICA Debut: Merry & bright
A Grand & Graceful Dining Room
Perfect for elegant entertaining
Ambient Grey Bedroom
Upholstered bed frames
Angel Cerdá
ACHICA Debut: Simple & modern
Aspire: Beds & Mattresses
Quality designs for your boudoir
Autumn Chandeliers
Luxe lighting
Bohemian Brights
A vibrant & eclectic mix
Easy Living: Furniture
Practical pieces for homes
Eclectic Home Finds
Make a feature of your furniture
Gallery: Furniture
Effortlessly elegant designs
Gallery: Mirrors
Reflective features for every room
Mid-Century Nordic Lighting
On-trend interior additions
Relyon: Natural Collection
Made with wool, cashmere & silk
Select Your Style: Furniture
With designs for every décor
The Guest List: Sofa Beds
Space-saving designs
The Heritage Bed Collection
Sophisticated, upholstered frames
The Julian Bowen Collection
Beautiful bedroom furniture suites
The White Collection
Beautifully upholstered seating
Timeless Neutrals in the Bedroom
Classic shades for a serene scheme
Timelessly Traditional Living
Charmingly vintage furniture
Kitchen & Dining
New Promotions
BODUM: Kitchen & Dining
Vibrant electricals & appliances
Dining Spectacular
Featuring RICE & Sophie Conran
Express Ironing
Featuring Morphy Richards & Tefal
Ending Soon
Camilla Engdahl: China
Cheerful Scandi-style tableware
Sophie Conran: Christmas
Festive tableware
The Kitchen Kit
Featuring Tefal, Swan & more
Bed & Bath
New Promotions
Flamenco: Bed Linen
Crafted in 100% cotton
Hotel Living: Design Towels
Super-soft designs
The Bed & Bath Shop
Plush bed linen, bedding & towels
Ending Soon
belledorm: Egyptian Cotton
Premium linens for your bed
Glamorous Bed Linen
Gorgeous, embellished designs
Hotel Living: 1000 Thread Count
Beautiful bed linen
Hotel Living: Duvets & Pillows
Surround yourself in softness
Orla Kiely: Towels
Vibrant designer patterns
Home Furnishings
New Promotions
Christmas Spirit
Get that festive feeling
Dreamweavers: Cushions & Rugs
ACHICA Debut: Textural touches
Inspiring Ideas: Gifts
Perfect presents for everyone
The WaggyDogz Collection
Adorable puppy printed accents
Ending Soon
A Soft Approach
Cosy touches for autumn
Bedroom Trend: Darker Florals
Dramatic & romantic
Eastern Treasures
Antiques from the East
Iron & Clay
Chic accents crafted by artisans
Kilim Me Softly
Vibrant, tactile rugs
Fill your home with fragrance
New Season Trend: Darker Design
Add depth & drama to your décor
Style an Elegant Entrance
Create a welcoming hallway
The Perfect Ambience
Featuring NEOM, Bahoma & Gucci
Art & Design
New Promotions
Sara Habgood
Contemporary silver leaf paintings
Ending Soon
Animal Maps of the World
Learning through art
Humour Books for Gifting
Relax with a good read
Personalised Santa Sacks
Send something special this Christmas
Tamasyn Gambell
ACHICA Debut: Celebrating pattern
The Book of Christmas
Give something magical
Garden & Pets
New Promotions
Where I'd Rather Be
Umbrellas designed in Australia
Ending Soon
Autumn Garden: Furniture
Rattan weave & wooden pieces
Kent Collection: Solar Lights
Illuminate your garden
Clever grow-your-own planters
Baby & Child
New Promotions
LEGO Storage
Make tidying fun
Ending Soon
Mini Vanilla
Adorable children's nightwear
Orange Tree Toys
Keep children entertained
Fashion Accessories
New Promotions
Armani: Watches & Sunglasses
Signature designs for him & her
Glam Handbags
ACHICA Debut: Crafted in leather
G-Ride & FUL Luggage
Ideal travel companions
Ending Soon
Embers Jewellery
Designed & crafted in London
Fashion Trend: Monochrome
Autumn's hottest colourway
Hurleyburley: Accessories
ACHICA Debut: Jewellery & scarves
Jewellery Gifts under £25
Spectacular savings
Luxury Skincare
Age-defying formulations
Richtenburg Watches
A gift-worthy range of wristwear
Find more remarkable savings on ACHICA favourites
View All Products
Some of our luxury lifestyle brands won't be viewable until you log in or register
Sale closed
For over a century, WMF has been transforming the cooking and dining experience in the home and in the catering industry worldwide. Consistently providing fresh inspiration and great quality, WMF combines sleek design with style and reliability.
Quickfind Promotions
The Company:
About Us
Job Opportunities
Terms & Conditions
Help & Policies
Contact Us
Delivery & Returns
Cookie Policy
Upcoming Promotions

subset: commoncrawl


text:
There all pretty much just a mix of mini games, um check yutube or hire them out to see wich ones have the minigames u prefer... Personaly i like mario party but thats just a preference...
Hi everyone.
Are these all pretty much the same things?
If they are not, what is the difference?
If they are, which one would you recommend me getting,
Rayman Raving Rabbids, Mario Party 8 or WarioWare Smooth Moves.
There all pretty much just a mix of mini games, um check yutube or hire them out to see wich ones have the minigames u prefer... Personaly i like mario party but thats just a preference...
Wario For Quick Party games and lots of laughs
Mario for competitious party game which takes a while but is so very fun
Rayman for any other needs. Rayman is not much of a party game.
Edit: Oh, i reccommend Wario if you play on playing with freinds, or if you plan to play with...noone else/ other people occasionally, Mario party.
Or get them all like me. HAHA! Oh, yes, thats quite sad.
Warning: Adult Themes
Spoiler Alert!Originally Posted by Name RemovedOriginally Posted by Sam_Harris
Well, I haven't played MP8 or WW, but just on the videos alone I'd say Wario is the must-have game for Wii parties. It looks hilarious.
It's too bad that there doesn't seem to be any way in Rayman to just randomly shuffle the mini-games and play them in a row, although perhaps this is an ability that is unlocked once you finish the story mode. Be nice to have it from the get-go though, as it would make a pretty good party game too.
Wii Buddy Code: 3228-1603-8139-8807
Stick to Wii Sports for friends and family, 5 of us yesterday spent like all day playing it.
Waiting for Wii Sports 2!
Trading my Wii again! Come on home 360!
Games: Metroid Prime 3, Super Paper Mario, Ghost Squad, Link's Crossbow Training + Wii Zapper, Geometry Wars, Battalion Wars 2
Can someone explain Mario Party and WarioWare more deeply?
Mario Party is basicaly 4 characters competing at the same time - the combination of humans and computer players doesn't matter
In sum:
You roll a dice to make your charecter move around the course (like monopally) and depending on what you land on you will either gain coins, loose coins, or get something special such as a mini-game/change the course a bit/steel from players
The main purpose of moving around is to get stars which are the main objects - stars determine winners but you need coins to buy them
After everyone rolls and does a task, shall they get one, they all compete together in one big mini-game (big variety of games) the winners will gain coins and the losers will either get nothing or loose coins
It's a competitive party games that can last from 20 minutes to 2 hours (depending on the number of terms, what map, what games, ect...)
Mario Party's are competitive party games but it's friendly fun and most people enjoy it.
I've yet to play the other games only because they don't seem like my style at all but they don't seem like they can stand up to Mario Party
Last edited by StevenNevets; 12-18-2006 at 03:00 PM.
I definately like the look of Mario Party.
I forgot to mention that it will only be played by maximum of 2 players. Does that mean the rest of the 4 players are AI or just not there?
I edited my post to a clearer explanation.
Mario Party is also good for 2 players sense there will still be 2 computers who you will either be competing against and at times, with.
Thanks Steven


text:
PappaPC Computer Home Business
Are you ready to start a home based business? Are you willing to work hard to get what you want? Are you sick of the get rich quick scams? Well folks, this is the real deal. Make $150K per year removing viruses and spyware from customer computers. You don't need to be computer smart, just business smart. Almost zero start-up cost. Money back satisfaction guarantee.


text:
Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. increased its stake in dialysis provider DaVita Inc. above 10 percent as the billionaire chairman empowers deputies to expand their stock portfolios.
Berkshire held 10.2 million shares of the Denver-based health care company as of Sept. 28, according to a filing today from Buffett's firm. That compares with 9.3 million shares at the end of the second quarter. The holding climbed to about 11 percent according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Buffett, 82, has been ceding more responsibility over Omaha, Nebraska-based Berkshire's $86.2 billion stock portfolio to Todd Combs and Ted Weschler, whom he brought on in the past two years to help manage investments. DaVita was among the largest holdings at Weschler's hedge fund before he was hired by the billionaire's firm in September 2011. Berkshire began building its stake in last year's fourth quarter.
"We just we keep moving more money over to them," Buffett said of Weschler and Combs in a July interview with Bloomberg Television's Betty Liu.
DaVita has climbed 37 percent this year to $103.61 through Sept. 28, as the company struck a deal to acquire HealthCare Partners, which manages medical groups and physician networks. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index has advanced 15 percent in 2012.
Peter Grauer, chairman of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, has served on DaVita's board since 1994.


text:
What to Pack
You should plan to dress comfortably throughout the week; the pace of the Institute involves 10- to 12-hour days, with three to five miles of walking throughout the day being common. The summer weather in Virginia is usually 90+ degrees with high humidity and occasional afternoon thundershowers. The extremely hot and humid weather can take its toll on those who are unprepared. Cool and comfortable clothing is a necessity.
Shorts and comfortable walking/athletic shoes are highly recommended. Laundry facilities are not available on site, so please pack appropriately.
Be sure to bring:
- hat
- sunglasses
- sunscreen
- bug spray
- umbrella or poncho
- any medications you may need during the week
- photo identification
- mobile device, such as a smartphone, tablet, or laptop and its charger (for ease of use and portability, smaller devices are suggested)
- camera and memory cards
- extra batteries and/or recharging cords
Please Note: All of our Teacher Institute programs now require participants to have and use a mobile device throughout the week. It may be a smartphone, tablet, or laptop (for ease of use and portability, smaller devices are suggested). We have switched to a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) model in order to keep pace with technological advancements and classroom requirements. Using these devices, we will demonstrate methods for enhancing resource accessibility and the student experience through technology. While on site you will use your device to download content, participate in online forums, explore resources, and complete evaluations.
What if I forget something?
Items such as toothpaste, shampoo, beverages, etc., may be purchased at the hotel gift shops or vending machines.
Before you arrive, please be sure to
- register
- make your travel plans
- inform us of your travel plans and inform us of those plans
- inform us of any health or dietary restrictions (part of your online registration)
- complete any required readings or other pre-Institute requirements
- read and respond to any emails sent to you by the registrar, session coordinator, or Master Teacher


text:
View all projects, comments and results for your local area!
View projects, comments and results below!
Please find below all Project Proposals submitted for your Community Forum area. Each of these projects have requested a share of the £12,500 allocated to your Community Forum area.
You can also view the comments posted on each proposal. The comments helped inform discussions at the Community Forum Budget Decision Night. Please note comments will not be counted towards the voting on the Community Forum Budget Decision Night.
For any of these projects to be offered funding, Leicestershire County Council has to consider them appropriate, feasible and sustainable.
Decision Night results now in - please click on the link below to see what happened and which projects were successful.
- Ashby, Measham & Moira Community Forum 2012 Results (PDF, 62 Kb)
When offering comments on each of the Project Proposals please consider:
Do you have any ideas that would further improve the proposal?
Do you know of projects and activities that this proposal could link up with?
Do you know of other people, groups or organisations that could help to make this proposal a reality?
Is there a clear community need for the project?
Are the costs of the project in proportion to the likely benefits (value for money)?
Is it likely that the project will be completed by the end of March 2013?
What are the long term benefits of the project to the community?
Does the project rely on future public funding?


text:
Traveling for Thanksgiving? Take your time
State transportation officials urge drivers to allow extra time to reach their destinations through Thanksgiving.
Forecasts for the state through Thursday range from heavy snow locally to heavy rain.
"Drivers should build extra travel time into their schedules, especially with varying winter weather across the state," Transportation Secretary Barry Schoch said in a prepared statement Tuesday.
Thanksgiving is the most-traveled holiday in Pennsylvania and has the highest number of vehicle crashes compared to other holidays, Schoch said.
According to state police, there were 1,124 crashes and 13 fatalities over the five-day Thanksgiving holiday in 2012.


text:
Editor's Note: 'Players We Watched' is Colts Authority's annual film review of specific players' performances during the preseason. The series is predicated on the idea that the importance of preseason lies in the play of individuals rather than the team as a whole. Roster battles and crucial practice squad spots are often decided by preseason showings, and we take it upon ourselves to highlight the performances that stuck out the most to us.
But even in those performances, take everything with a grain of salt. We shouldn't let the small sample size of one preseason game reverse our previous notions of a player, but merely add it to the pile of evidence built up for a player's relatively poor or impressive reputation. – KJR
As unfortunate as it is, Vick Ballard's season-ending ACL tear opened things up for Dan 'Boom' Herron to make the roster as a third or fourth back. When Chris Rainey was cut from the team, for what may or may not be playing with a fire extinguisher, Herron became the de facto third back.
It was not an ideal situation for the Colts, with Trent Richardson coming off of a very disappointing season and Ahmad Bradshaw returning from a season-ending neck injury. With questions at the top, depth will be key for the team in 2014, especially for a team that wishes to run the ball effectively.
But during the Colts' preseason loss to the Jets last week, Herron impressed, scoring the Colts' only touchdown of the game and generally impressing. Herron finished the game with a grade of +2.0 from Pro Football Focus.
Running the Ball
Herron's overall stats running the ball weren't great: 26 yards on seven carries (3.71 YPC). But, on a team where the offensive line depth includes an office chair and a dummy made of packing peanuts, Herron's 3.7 yards per carry was the best on the team. The next YPC was Trent Richardson's 2.6.
Ladies and gentlemen, your 2014 Colts offensive line!
Herron's biggest asset when running the ball is his burst. Herron accelerates very quickly and has good balance. He's a small back, with limited strength, so he goes down fairly easily if he doesn't make the defender miss completely. In the limited sample, he didn't show exceptional vision or anything like that. Using him in an I-formation and forcing him to find limited space between the tackles generally wasn't very successful.
But he certainly is quick.
(Apologies for the choppiness of the GIFs today. My internet connection is acting fickle)
Herron finished with a +0.1 grade in the run game, which seems about right. If you can get him in space, his acceleration is great, but he's not going to get you much more than what's there otherwise.
This is where Herron really made his mark. The back caught six passes for 36 yards and a touchdown, and looked very natural catching the ball. He caught all six of his targets, displaying soft hands, and could use his speed and agility in the open space to gain extra yards.
But while Herron is agile and quick, most of his extra yards weren't gained by ankle-breaking cuts or spin moves. Rather, Herron excelled at simply out-running defenders to spots, or making slight shifts in his direction.
On Herron's touchdown, for example, he simply out-runs the linebacker to the corner, despite a slight trip, and reaches out for the score.
Pass Protection
One thing to note: Herron was just in for pass protection once or twice, but missed a read that led to a sack on third down.
The Colts line up in 11 personnel, with tight end Weslye Saunders in the slot on the left. Herron is in the backfield to Matt Hasselbeck's left.
With a nosetackle lined up over the center, two defenders showing rush across from the right guard and tackle and just one defender "showing on the offense's left side, the question is where is the blitz going to come from. There are four main defenders to account for, with a possible fifth from the slot corner on the right side (not likely).
As Hasselbeck drops back, the left inside linebacker to Herron's right blitzes. The other ILB drops back in a very shallow zone, while both slot corners stay with their man. With just one guy rushing the left side, one of the Mewhort/Castonzo duo can come free if the RILB comes on a delayed blitz.
Herron needs to make the read here and slide over to pick up the LILB.
By no means is it an easy play to read and make, and Herron is a small back, so his vision is limited.
It's difficult to see from the broadcast angle (Dear NFL, All-22 for the preseason would be fantastic), but Herron doesn't seem to see the inside linebacker at all, who has looped around Hugh Thornton to go between the right guard and right tackle (yellow). Herron, meanwhile, doesn't see any free blitzers, so is making his way between the Thornton and Harrison to leak out for a dump-off.
Nobody touches the linebacker as he sacks Hasselbeck and ends the drive.
All Together Now
It was a nice day for Herron overall, but don't get any delusions of him pushing Richardson or Bradshaw for their roles. He can come in for depth as a change-of-pace back, and be productive in that role, but his size and minimal awareness/vision were on display against the Jets.
In the coming weeks, I'll be watching for his pass protection on a larger sample, something that could play a big role in his push for playing time.
From what we've seen so far, Herron is clearly the third back, and the quickest one on the roster. There is a role available for him as long as he stays healthy. How big that role is likely depends more on the health of Richardson and Bradshaw, but Herron's play against the Jets at least gives fans confidence in his ability to be productive if used properly.


text:
The reason the Seahawks felt comfortable dealing CB Josh Wilson to the Ravens right before the season started is that Walter Thurmond (and Kelly Jennings) were coming along much better than they could have reasonably hoped for. With Jennings sidelined with a hamstring injury that he suffered in the second quarter of the Bears game, it looks like the fourth-round pick out of Oregon is due to get his first start this Sunday.
Thurmond's first test was really last week, and he performed about as well as could be expected, maybe a little better. Nothing spectacular, but nothing terrible. This week, the test will be a bit more intimidating as he will be lining up opposite WR Larry Fitzgerald, arguably the best offensive player in the NFC and almost certainly the NFC West. Fitzgerald will have rookie QB Max Hall throwing him the ball though, so that might take some of the edge off, but regardless, this is as big a test for Thurmond as Julius Peppers was last week for Okung.
Here was our initial write-up on Walter Thurmond for some scouting reports. Basically: he's a playmaker with good length and ball skills, but doesn't always use his skill set to its full potential.


text:
"Opa!" for Island Deals
Once a playground for gods of ancient mythology, the Greek Islands today serve as a paradise for mortals. It's where white-washed homes and blue-domed churches hug white-sand beaches and beautiful blue waters.
With 6,000 islands scattered across the Aegean and Ionian seas, choose from the 227 inhabited ones that welcome tourists from spring to early autumn.
An easy solution: Consider a cruise or packaged vacation that bundles popular islands such as Crete, Corfu, Santorini and Mykonos -- all also accessible by ferry or plane from Athens.
These Destination of the Week Deals are no longer available, but you can check our latest Destination of the Week or visit one of our travel deals categories including flights, hotels, cruises, vacations and local deals.
Please go to your email and confirm your subscription.


text:
The Natalee Holloway Resource Center opens Tuesday night in Washington, D.C., where families of missing persons can get help managing their crisis, and high school and college students can get advice for traveling safely.
Named for the Mountain Brook teenager who disappeared five years ago on a class trip to Aruba, the nonprofit center at the National Museum of Crime and Punishment was co-founded by Natalee's mother, Beth Holloway.
The center's opening comes just as Holloway's case has returned to the international spotlight with the arrest of Joran van der Sloot in the death of a woman in Peru. He was the main suspect in Holloway's case, and was charged by federal prosecutors in Birmingham last week with trying to extort $250,000 from someone in exchange for information about what happened to the girl.
Beth Holloway partnered with museum officials after they added Natalee's case to the unsolved section of the museum last year, said Janine Vaccarello, chief operating officer of the museum and co-founder of the Holloway center.
"Beth made a list of what she went through when Natalee was first reported missing and most of the things had to do with her not having resources," Vaccarello said. "It was about her not knowing what to do next."


text:
Nationwide REO Services | A Leader in Property Preservation
Vendor Supplies
Vendor Login
Vendor Application
Vendor Portal
© 2013 Nationwide REO Services. All rights reserved.
It's about
proven process
to ensure timely
Property Preservation
Call us at (410) 205-2654
A Leader in Regional Property Preservation
Nationwide REO Services provides our clients with comprehensive expertise in all phases of property preservation.
Our fully-staffed offices, processing team and experienced field representatives ensure on-time compliance with investor guidelines and the needs of your organization. We are a national property preservation company that works within guidelines for all GSEs and institutional lenders nationwide.
All work performed to client specifications,
including HUD, FHA & CV.
Bids are checked against HUD-approved
software, minimizing denials.
Put our process to work for your Department today.
REO Property Preservation and Grass Cut Service areas include Baltimore, Salisbury, Cumberland, Dover, Washington DC, Fairfax, Alexandria, Roanoke, Miami, Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Orlando, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Reno and major metropolitan areas nationwide.
Are you interested in joining a national field services property preservation company?
Click here.


text:
Woodland Heights residents Arthur and Vicki Mournian are those kind of unsung neighborhood heroes whose purpose around here is not just to enjoy this great Heights area but to spread that particular gospel around whenever they can.
The particular niche that the Mournians have occupied is to welcome the tens of thousands of visitors who plan to come through here in the early morning hours of Feb. 18. None of the visitors plan to stay very long, but if the Mournians have their way, each and every one of them will feel like the Heights exists just to give them a big howdy, a pat on the back and a cheer. And if you think about it, wouldn't we all like to have just that experience to start our year?
The visitors will be coming through here as participants in the 2009 edition of the Chevron Houston Marathon Jan. 18. The Mournians, however, are once again chairing the wonderfully-named Woodland Heights Marathon Hoopla Committee.
They have a work party set for this Saturday, as well as next Saturday, 10 a.m.-2 p.m. at their house at 1109 East Seventh, to make signs and formulate plans to give the runners a proper welcome.
The marathon's route has it coming into the neighborhood along White Oak from the east, north on Michaux to East 11th, west to Studewood, and then south along the newly-refinished thoroughfare and on to the rest of the route under Interstate 10.
In an e-mail, Arthur Mournian wrote that the committee is: "still looking for names and bib numbers to put on the signs to cheer the runners along. If you have a name and/or bib number, send it to the CC above and we will make a sign to be placed along Studewood, between 6 ½ and 7 ½. If you want to place it somewhere else and cheer a runner personally, that is fine, we will make the sign for you or you can come to one of the work parties"
For more information on how to help out, call the Mournians at 713-202-3018 or e-mail them at firstname.lastname@example.com.


text: I have four children ages 23-15. My life is very full. I own my own business, and my children are very involved with athletics. My oldest daughter is getting married next June and my second oldest is at West Point, U.S. Miltiary Academy. So why would I take anything else on? Two years ago my grammy became ill and after her recovery our entire family decided it was best for her to move in with us. So I got blessed with my 95-year-old grandmother. She had been living in Merrill Gardens for almost seven years. Not knowing how long it was going to be, we just wanted her final time to be the best surrounded by family. What we discovered is that it's not just doctor's appointments and bed pans. It has been wonderful hearing stories of her growning up and meeting my grandfather who passed five years ago from Alzheimer's which took its toll on her after being married 67 years. We have learned about her life in such detail and the way life in general has changed from no telephones to iPhones that she can use to facetime her family that live all over the country. We never get tired of listening. When eat dinner together most ever night she captures everyones attention. Not only my 15 and 16-year-old children, but my husband and I have truly enjoyed having her with us. I can't deny that we have crazy moments of daily appointments and Friday hair-do's, but we have to do a lot of juggling to make sure everyone is happy and where they need to be, which at times looks like total chaos. We live in a throw away society, family, parents or grandparents getting to a certain age that we just put them in a home, only seeing them on holidays for a couple hours. What I have learned from this amazing experience is so much about the little details in life. If you have the opportunity to care for a parent or grandparent, grab the chance. In the end there will be more good days then bad. Ultimately family matters. I love you, Grammy.


text:
Top Definition
Something that is worthy of loling at
"Dude that bitch looks like she got penetrated by a donkey"
"Ha thats lolable!"
"Ha thats lolable!"
av Joe Griffiths 17. juni 2007
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?
Something that has the potential to be "lol"'d or Laughed Out Loud at.
That joke about the bird was very lolable -- I laughed at it very hard.
av tealmarie2010 19. juni 2009
Something worthy of a "LOL"
That joke was definitely lolable.
av JiiRAHhh_ 12. august 2010
Something that is lol's worthy but did not actually receive a lol at the time.
That was a dumb joke - Hayden
Oh come on it was Lol'able - Ian
Oh come on it was Lol'able - Ian
av Ian Incinerate 16. mars 2009
Adj- something to lol (laugh out loud) at, something funny you are able to laugh at.
-the cranberry sauce is better than last year!
-ha thats so "lolable"
-ha thats so "lolable"
av Jujume 24. november 2011
The noob way of saying 'laughable'
OMG,that is so lolable!
av The Gimboid 20. juli 2006
an extention of lol with (that means absolutley nuffin ) 'able' t the end.
'able' - say it like apple but itstead of a 'p' its a 'b' .
'able' - say it like apple but itstead of a 'p' its a 'b' .
no example :) lolable
av leezah j 3. september 2008


text:
The NBA "family tree" of the San Antonio Spurs has grown over the years and it appears it might continue to grow even longer next season. Less than a year after losing both Mike Budenholzer and Brett Brown, it seems the Spurs might be in danger of losing yet another assistant coach.
A source close to Mike Monroe of the San Antonio Express-News has said that Spurs assistant Jim Boylen is Utah general manager Dennis Lindsey's top candidate to replace the now-fired Ty Corbin as the next head coach of the Utah Jazz.
Lindsey spent time in San Antonio as an assistant general manager from 2007 to 2012. Lindsey was also an assistant GM for the Rockets when Boylen was on Rudy Tomjanovich's coaching staff.
Boylen has coached in Salt Lake City before when he was at the helm for the University of Utah Utes from 2007-2011.


text:
First off: I was not praising. I vote for who I think is likely not ones I praise. However praise of the game they came from I will praise.
Toon Zelda might not be the most original character but Phantom Zelda and Tetra are, making half of her moveset completely original.
Second, the forbidden seven I believe were cut for a reason or may not have been playable in the first place. They could have been a re-texture, or slightly different clones, or enemy only for all we know.
Sure Dixie Kong is important but not as important as Krool.
Also no data was in those .pac files so we have no idea how far they gotten with actually creating the character. The most likely scenario is that they haven't even started making them, which I would deduce that none of them were close to getting a spot. More like they were conceived and that is about it. Just an inception.


text:
|Tour Guide
The Peace Curling Tour consists of the three major cash spiels in the Peace Region.
Cash Spiels
Teams competing in the cash spiels earn points toward the Tour Championship in Sexsmith January 3-5, 2013.
Cash spiels
Entry Fees
Tour Championship
A team travelling with a coach may call one 1-minute timeout during each tour game and the coach may access the ice. The coach must be identified to the opposition prior to each game. An extra end also allows for one time-out per team (regular time-out not used is not carried over).
Draw for hammer
Winner of the coin toss prior to each game will have choice of second practice or color. Each team will identify one player who will throw 2 practice draws, one up and one back and then a third draw to the button for hammer toward the home end. Brushers and a target broom are permitted. The team closest to the pin has hammer in the first end. If both teams cover the pin or miss the house, a coin toss will determine hammer.
Substitution for Cash Spiels
Substitution for Tour Championship
Pomeroy Inn & Suites Prairie Showdown
Pomeroy Inn & Suites also sponsors a $100,000 World Curling Tour Event in March.
On the men's side, the top three finishers in the competitive division at the Tour Championship qualify for the Prairie Showdown. If there is one playoff game required to determine the third and final berth that will be played Sunday during the Tour Championship finals. If more than one playoff game is required, the teams involved will determine a suitable location and time to play within two weeks.
On the women's side, the top three finishers in the competitive division (championship and then tour standings), will earn berths. If there are not three women's teams in the competitive division, then the berth will be forfeited to the Prairie Showdown event.
For both the men and women, if any of the qualifying Peace Curling Tour teams earns a berth through another means (WCT, AB Curling Tour or returning qualifier) then the number of qualifiers from the Peace Curling Tour is reduced by that same number.
In the event that the Prairie Showdown is in need of teams, priority will be given to Peace Curling Tour competitors.
The qualification process will be reviewed annually.
Teams qualifying through the Peace Curling Tour are responsible for the entry fee to the Prairie Showdown.
For more information regarding the Pomeroy Inn & Suites Prairie Showdown, please view their website at www.prairieshowdown.org.
Rules Committee
The Rules Committee of the Peace Curling Tour is Darrel Veiner, Chris Wall and Del Shaughnessy.


text:
shoppers recently viewed this!
Python Clutch
- Color:
- roccia natural
Qty: 1
- 1
- 2
- Large clutch bag
- Python with leather trim throughout
- Flap opening with clasp closure
- Canvas interior lining with two main compartments and single zip pocket
- Body length 12 inches; height 7 inches; width 3 inches
Please note each python handbag may have slight variations due to the material content. As each handbag ages, the scales naturally lift and curl.
Please note: Gilt cannot ship Python to California.
Material: Python, Leather
Brand: Casadei
Origin: Italy


text:
No Hint Of Dissension On Winless Jaguars
Unlike another winless NFL team 200 miles southwest of Jacksonville, you don?t hear reports about the Jaguars having any rifts being traced to the head coach?s abrasive style or his conflict with the starting quarterback.
Despite the Jaguars being 0-3 and not having a chance to win any of those games, there are no whispers of dissension coming from their locker room, as is being talked about with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
While Greg Schiano is trying to calm the waters in Tampa, the Jaguars resumed practice Wednesday after a 45-17 blowout loss to the Seattle Seahawks feeling as upbeat as when training camp began.
Source: Gene Frenette, Jacksonville.com


text:
Facing rainy, gloomy conditions Wednesday in the Division III sectional at Riverview Golf Course, John F. Kennedy stepped up its game yet again this season, shooting a 311 to easily win the event by 17 shots over runner-up Mogadore.
"Very satisfying today," Kennedy coach Jim St. George said. "I was pretty confident with the team coming in, with the inclement weather a good test of their mental fortitude. I felt the kids played very well in that atmosphere. Riverview did an outstanding job in getting the course in shape. My guys went 1-2-3 and my five guy stepped up today. Daniel Lapolla stepped up and shot 85. I'm very proud of Daniel in his first sectional tournament.
"Our goal is always to shoot 320, so to shoot nine under our goal in those conditions was really good."
The Eagles took the top three spots in the individual scoring, with medalist Ryan Fowler shooting a one-under par 71, Billy Phillips with a 77 and James Lapolla with a 78.
"Ryan is a very consistent player," St. George said. "Nothing seems to bother him. He made some good par-saving putts today. To shoot under par in those conditions shows a lot of adversity on his part. Only four people broke 80 in the tournament today and three of our guys were among them. I'm proud of Billy and James, who also were able to break 80 in those conditions.
"It was definitely a total team effort with Daniel Lapolla really contributing. That's what makes a team to have the five man step up."
Also advancing to the district tournament was Mineral Ridge, which shot a 347. The top three individuals not on qualifying teams who advanced were Steve Gill of Lordstown, with a 78, plus Western Reserve's Payton Snyder (81) and Stephen Politano of McDonald (84).
Kennedy, Mogadore and Mineral Ridge advance to the district tournament, which will be held Thursday, Oct. 4 at Seven Hills Country Club in Hartville.
After finishing the regular season with a record of 11-3 in dual matches and 69-10 in invitationals, St. George feels Kennedy will be one of the teams to beat.
"It's a tougher stage," he said. "Us, Gilmour Academy and St. Thomas Aquinas seem to be the favorites. Only two teams and two individuals will go but we plan on being one of them."
Also on Wednesday, the Lakeview girls golf team set a new standard for itself by shooting 356 to edge out Hubbard by four shots in the Division II sectional at Pine Lakes.
The Bulldogs advance to the district tournament, which will be held Tuesday at Tam O'Shanter's Hills Course in Canton. The top three teams and top three individuals not on qualifying teams will advance to state.
"It feels pretty special," said Lakeview coach Mike Turco, who led his team to a 10-7 record in the regular season. "This is the first Lakeview team that has ever won a sectional tournament. I'm proud to be a part of it."
Sophomore Ryan Rosenberger led Lakeview with an 80 on the par-73 Pine Lakes course. Kaylee Neumeister shot an 83, while Lizzy Konitsney had a 95 and Nikki Bradley finished with a 98.
"I'm very proud of the girls today," Turco said. "I had a sophomore step up and shoot her career low with an 80. She shot lights out. She hit some long putts today in some grueling weather. She really stepped up to help us win a lot. The biggest part of that was in her putting.
"Kaylee is always a competitior. She came out and shot 83 for us. Even the other girls, Nikki and Lizzy, they shot right where I expected them. This team today reached their full potential, which I've been waiting for most of the season. They did it on the right day. It was a tough field. We are always competitive with Hubbard. They played well today. It took everything my girls had to do what they did. Poland was there and they're always a tough competitor. They've been to state how many times."
Melinda Hannon of Poland and Hubbard's Gina DePasquale were the co-medalists, each shooting 79. The four individual qualifiers were Brittany Schneider of South Range (84), Ashley Lydic of Champion (95), Rachel Marchese of Struthers (96) and Mooney's Cait Butler (98). Poland (367) and Salem (412) were the other team qualifiers.
Turco gave his assessment of Tam O'Shanter's Hills Course. The top three teams and top three individuals from the district tournament will advance to state.
"It has a lot of elevation changes," he said. "It's a bit similar to Pine Lakes in yardage but the girls will have to manage this course even better than Pine Lakes. It'll be a different day. The girls will have to go out and do it again and start over. The competition will be much stiffer in districts."


text:
If you need immediate assistance, call 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States, 8:30AM to 6:00PM U.S. Eastern, Monday - Friday.
Enron, Corporate Governance
convertible debt, valuation, capital markets, puzzle
Enron, corporate governance, corporate malfeasance
FASB, IASB, conceptual framework, accounting standards, financial reporting
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.203 seconds


text:
Hello, Santa Clarita Valley! Welcome to The-Signal.com's Daybreak, your point of entry for the day, and a quick journey through the past, present and future. Let the adventure begin:
Today is Monday, June 15, the 166th day of 2009. There are 199 days left in the year.
Today's Highlight in History:
On June 15, 1215, England's King John put his seal to Magna Carta ("the Great Charter") at Runnymede.
Ten years ago: Vessels from North Korea and South Korea clashed on the Yellow Sea.
Five years ago: The Southern Baptist Convention quit a global federation of Baptist denominations as SBC leaders denounced the Baptist World Alliance and other groups for accepting liberal theology.
Watercooler Talk
CLIFTON PARK, N.Y. (AP) - A high school computer whiz didn't get a high grade for a recent feat: designing software to shut teachers out of the grading system.
A New York State Police spokeswoman says 16-year-old Matthew Beighey has been charged with unauthorized use of a computer and third-degree identity theft. He was ordered to return to court Wednesday.
The school district says the teenager temporarily blocked teachers' ability to enter grades at the high school in upstate Clifton Park. They needed technical support to regain access.
Mega Millions
6-11-20-32-44 Mega: 38
Draw date: Friday, June 12
Jackpot: $46 million
6-11-29-31-44 Mega: 1
Draw date: Saturday, June 13
Jackpot: $37 million
Fantasy 5
Draw date: Sunday, June 14
Daily 4
Draw date: Sunday, June 14
Daily 3
Midday: 8-6-8
Evening: 8-1-7
Draw date: Sunday, June 14
Daily Derby
1st: 07 Eureka
2nd: 12 Lucky Charms
3rd: 02 Lucky Star
Race time: 1:48.20
Draw date: Sunday, June 14
Former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo is 77. Actor Aron Kincaid is 69. Rock singer-actor Johnny Hallyday is 66. Singer Russell Hitchcock (Air Supply) is 60. Rock singer Steve Walsh (Kansas) is 58. Actress Julie Hagerty is 54. Baseball Hall of Famer Wade Boggs is 51. Actress Eileen Davidson is 50. Bluegrass musician Terry Smith is 49. Actress Helen Hunt is 46. Actress Courteney Cox is 45. Country musician Tony Ardoin is 45. Country musician Michael Britt (Lonestar) is 43. Actor-rapper Ice Cube is 40. Actress Leah Remini is 39. Actor Jake Busey is 38. Actor Neil Patrick Harris is 36. Actor Greg Vaughan is 36. Rock musician Billy Martin (Good Charlotte) is 28. Cleveland Browns quarterback Derek Anderson is 26. San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum is 25.


text:
(1) Work out the over all gain Av(=VL/Vs) in terms of thecircuit parameters.
(2) If Rs =2.86 Kohms,Ri=1.4Kohms,Ro=5Kohms,RL=5Kohms,gm=57.14mA/V and Vs=5mV.CalculateAv in dB
(3) For the load conditions given in part (2),Determine thevalues of VL and I2.
(4) Work out draw the thevenin's equivalent circuit as seenfrom the output terminals a and b.


text:
Quality Education in the Benedictine Tradition
< Back to 's Blog
Professional Development : Bullying Prevention
Posted Mon., October 14, 2013
On Sunday, October 6, 2013, approximately 50 education majors attended the first of three professional development lectures linked with bullying prevention. Lecture I was presented by Pam Countoris, PA Cares Bullying Prevention Specialist, and PA State Trooper Dempsey, a law enforcement officer who has worked especially in the field of cyber bullying prevention.
Both speakers were exemplary in that they provided the students in attendance with new knowledge linked with the topic of bullying in schools and in the communities. The students consistently wrote on their evaluations that the information provided was valuable and, in the case of Trooper Dempsey, "extremely interesting, shocking, and revealing". Students gained insight into the statistics linked with bullying and the affects that being bullied can have on students, as well as the negative impact that the social media has had on children and teenagers throughout the past years.
Lecture 2 will be presented on Thursday, October 24 between 5:00 and 8:00 PM. Don Smith, Emergency Crisis Coordinator of Center for Safe Schools from the PA Department of Education, will present information linked with School Safety…a topic that every education major who is preparing to be a teacher should understand. On Sunday, November 23, between 9:00 AM and 12 PM, Lecture 3 will be presented by David Keller Traviskis, a PA Bar Association Member and co-author of the book
2013 School Law: Legal Framework, Guiding Principles, and Litigated Areas
. Both sessions will be held at the Luparello Lecture Hall in the Dupre Science Pavillion. SVC students must be registered in order to attend the presentations.
Dr. Veronica Ent, Chair of the Education Department at Saint Vincent College has stated that professional development during teacher preparation at colleges is very significant in that it helps pre-service teachers develop an understanding of "continuing professional development that will eventually be a part of the new state system under which they will be evaluated as professionals." In addition to Dr. Ent's efforts, Jacqueline Colland, Adjunct Lecturer at SVC, developed the grant and has created the three lectures which are being presented on campus. Thanks to both of these dedicated educators for enabling the education majors at Saint Vincent to have opportunities learning about one of the most important topics in education…that being the topic of Bullying Prevention.
Comment on this:
Post Comment
Blog Author
Make a Gift
Work at SVC
Legal Info
© 2016 Saint Vincent College | 300 Fraser Purchase Road Latrobe, PA 15650-2690 | P: 724-532-6600


text:
Yes – in a manner of speaking, anyway, says feisty TV chef Giada De Laurentiis.
"I think it can be hard for any man to sometimes be upstaged by his wife," she explains in the February issue of Redbook. "So when I'm home, I work very hard to be Todd's wife and Jade's mother. I have no problem going back to those traditional roles."
The star of Giada at Home, 40, is married to Todd Thompson and mom to Jade, who turns 3 in March. She adds that it helps in the romance department to put the focus on her husband.
"I try to be Giada, the young girl that he met 20 years ago and fell in love with," she says. "All men want to be treated like kings in a relationship, and I think if women don't indulge that sometimes, their men are likely to stray and look for someone who can give that to them."
De Laurentiis also tackles past rumors that she cheated on Thompson with notorious lothario John Mayer one weekend when both were staying at the same hotel in New York – along with her husband.
"The John Mayer incident was completely unexpected," she says. "I was shocked. And not so much for me, but for my husband and family … Todd was embarrassed that his family in Michigan would see it and think, 'What is going on over there in Hollywood?' "
Adding that she hasn't had any contact in years and barely knows Mayer, she says, "Maybe we chatted for five minutes, but I wouldn't consider that intimate."
De Laurentiis also talks about the importance of food in her life, and makes no bones about her favorite restaurant. "Uh, my house," she says. "It's more intimate. Food can connect people in a forever sort of way."
See what other readers have to say about this story – or leave a comment of your own


text:
M50 Barrier Free & other Toll Bridges
There are a number of toll station in Ireland situated along major motorways. The M50 Barrier Free toll is unique in the fact that all toll costs are paid for by Europcar so there is no need to worry if you pass through. All other toll stations require payment on the stop which rangwe in cost.