text:
E3 2013: Reviews Are Mixed As Xbox One And PS4 Battle It Out
Gamers, developers and industry members streamed on to the floor at the annual video game convention, Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), on Tuesday (June 11) in Los Angeles.
It has been a week of new products and flashy presentations. On Monday (June 10) Microsoft announced the latest details of it Xbox One including a sell date of November and a price point of 499 dollars (USD) and Sony finally unveiled the PlayStation 4 at a media event with a price 100 dollars lower than its competitor.
Martin Rae, the president of Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences, says that even though the gaming industry has been in a bit of a dry spell, all of the new technology will spur some growth.
"Some people say Nintendo, their hardware may not be up to snuff with new consoles or whatever. They have a great library so, don't discount them," said Rae. "What I love about Microsoft and Sony right now is that the hardware is going to allow us to do some things that we've never done before and it's going to be really cool. So if you've been sitting on a console platform for 6-7 years and you've done your games and you really love them, what can I do with a new console. It's going to rejuvenate the industry and be a really big thing."
On Tuesday, gamers finally got the a chance to get their hands on both the Xbox One and the PS4 and the results were mixed.
"I'm going to wait and see. There's no way, day one, I'm going to go for it. Although, the Xbox One looks really good," said Xander Denke.
"Any game system, it comes down to the games. Sure you've got cool features, peripherals, but it all comes down to games," said Greg Walus.
"I'm excited with PlayStation 4 being a little more open which means better games," said David Suermann. "So yes, if there's better games, then yes, it's a win."
E3 is not just about hardware. Attendees got to check out new games, many of which were boosted by the hardware upgrades of the consoles.
The Xbox 360 is currently the best-selling gaming console in the United States, but global sales are almost on par with the PlayStation 3.
The new Xbox and PlayStation are both pricier than the 300 Wii U which Nintendo launched late last year but which has sold poorly, partly due to a dearth of new gaming titles.
The Electronic Entertainment Expo runs from June 11 through June 13.
Video Credit: Reuters
Feb 19, 2016 1:53PM
Feb 19, 2016 12:52PM
Feb 19, 2016 12:44PM
Feb 19, 2016 12:33PM
Feb 19, 2016 12:32PM
Feb 19, 2016 11:53AM
Feb 19, 2016 11:32AM
Feb 19, 2016 10:58AM
Feb 18, 2016 10:47PM
Feb 18, 2016 9:52PM


text:
Author of CA Death Penalty Law Has Change of Heart
Los Angeles Times columnist and radio personality, Patt Morrison, interviewed Donald Heller, author of California's current death penalty statute, on July 16th about why he no longer supports capital punishment. In the interview Heller cites "the enormous toll it [takes] on people involved" including defense lawyers, judges and other players in the system, the high cost and the risk of executing the innocent.
Heller, a former prosecutor, only became vocal about his opposition to the death penalty after the execution of Thomas Thompson in 1998, a man Heller believes was innocent.
He admits, "The way I look at it, what I created can and may already have resulted
in the death of an innocent person. And that's pretty heavy."
"The thing I regret most that I cannot change -- except by what I do now -- was drafting the death penalty initiative," Heller laments.
Read the full interview with Donald Heller.
Forensic Science Commission Issues New Guidelines, Waits to Assign Responsibility
The Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) issued sixteen recommendations on Friday, April 15th, which will provide guidance for investigators, attorneys, and lawmakers charged with looking into potential arsons. The recommendations, which include calls for more education and training for arson investigators, as well as a new system for reviewing closed cases as science evolves, represent good faith efforts to improve Texas' forensic science in the face of serious questions about the methods used to convict Cameron Todd Willingham, a Corsicana man who was executed in 2004 for allegedly starting a fire which took the lives of his three children.Mr. Willingham, an unemployed mechanic, consistently maintained his innocence throughout the course of his incarceration, and multiple posthumous investigations have revealed that there was no conclusive evidence that the fire was set intentionally. The nine-member commission has been tasked with sorting out exactly what happened in the Willingham case and its reports are designed to provide a framework which aligns Texas' procedures with the most modern scientific techniques.Unfortunately, the TFSC has faced resistance as it searches for the truth, much of it coming from the Governor's office. Governor Rick Perry seems to have a vested interest in suppressing debate over the circumstances of Mr. Willingham's conviction as it was he who ignored scientific studies which suggested that there was "nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire" when he denied Mr. Willingham's clemency request in 2004. Governor Perry has played politics with the Commission, changing its composition right before it was scheduled to review a report which took serious issue with the trial testimony used to convict Mr. Willingham. The new Commissioner cancelled this meeting, introducing another year of delay before a July 2010 panel issued analysis which condemned the prosecution's "flawed science."This sort of political gamesmanship is not completely absent from the Commission's current proceedings, as last week's report does not, and will not, include any official assessments of investigator misconduct until it receives word from the state's attorney general who will decide if such sanctions are within the Commission's jurisdiction. According to Sam Bassett, the Commissioner deposed by Perry in 2009, such judgments are already within TFSC's purview, and the current maneuvering indicates that "politics rather than science will influence the decision."In spite of these concerns, the report represents an important tool for preventing miscarriages of justice like those experienced by Mr. Willingham from happening again. As long as Texas continues to execute people at an alarmingly fast rate, there will be a premium on devising safeguards which will prevent further wrongful convictions, and in this respect, the new regulations are truly life savers.
DNA Evidence Offers Longtime Death Row Inmate a Chance at Justice
Last week Tommy Zeigler won an important battle for further DNA testing in his death penalty appeal. Zeigler was convicted of murdering his wife, in-laws, and a customer at his furniture store in Winter Garden, Florida on Christmas Eve 1975. Having sat on Florida's death row for decades, a judge has now ordered new tests to be performed on blood from the crime scene that Zeigler claims will exonerate him.
Zeigler was arrested and tried on the theory that he killed his wife to collect half a million dollars in life insurance, and that he shot himself to cover up his crime and frame it as an invasion. Zeigler has never wavered in his account of what happened, and passed polygraph tests asserting that he and his family were victims of a robbery that may have been motivated by Zeigler's involvement in uncovering a loan-sharking ring victimizing migrant workers.
Numerous injustices occurred over the course of Zeigler's trial and subsequent incarceration, including the misplacing and knowing destruction of evidence; reports offering exculpatory evidence were turned over to the defense team with very little time to prepare, or were not disclosed at all; a number of jurors in his original trial (half of whom first voted to acquit Zeigler, but were persuaded to convict) have come out in his support, and a couple have admitted to being prescribed Valium so they would be more amenable to convict a man whose guilt was in doubt. Prosecutors used witnesses that identified Zeigler as the killer while ignoring those eyewitnesses whose stories did not mesh with the state's fictionalized account.
Christine Cooper is the daughter of Robert Thompson, the former Central Florida police chief who was the first police officer at the crime scene. Cooper said she believes "the justice system failed" Zeigler. Thompson was involved as a mercenary in the arms trade in Central America in the 1980s, and his daughter says he died in 1999 "taking a lot of secrets with him." Thompson suppressed a report after the crime that did not surface until 1987 in which he wrote that the blood on Zeigler was dry when he found him, yet in its case against him, the state claimed Zeigler had just shot himself minutes earlier.
While the suspicions of the daughter of a deceased police chief are certainly not enough to overturn a murder conviction, Cooper's doubt and that of a number of witnesses and jurors lend credence to Zeigler's claim of innocence. It is clear that the case was mishandled, and justice was not properly served. Failed by the justice system on more than one occasion, Tommy Zeigler has been afforded his best chance in decades of receiving true justice with this admission of new DNA evidence. Should his sentence ultimately be reversed, Zeigler will join the nearly two dozen former Florida inmates who have been exonerated from death row since the 1970s. Please visit our Florida Action page to add your voice to those in favor of abolishing the state's failed death penalty system.
The Courts, they are a-changin'
The Roberts Court really hit its groove in 2010, stripping cities' gun control laws and destroying longstanding campaign finance regulations (or as they would have it: extending free speech rights to corporate Americans), but we're just one quarter of the way through 2011 and we have already seen far-reaching decisions by the Roberts Court resulting in an assault on Americans' civil liberties. The Court is ignoring and defying a mounting chorus of opposition to the death penalty both nationally and globally, and setting precedents that will not just harm violent criminals, but innocent citizens and their loved ones. The Supreme Court has had its share of death penalty advocates in its history, but John Roberts and his conservative cohort on the Court - Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and from time to time Anthony Kennedy (the "swing" voter) - have proven themselves willing to put finality above justice and fairness.
In 1972, by a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Furman v. Georgia that the nation's death penalty laws were constitutionally flawed because the statutes failed to narrow the use of the death penalty to just the worst of the worst. They extended a moratorium on new sentences until each state "fixed" its statute. Among those justices favoring the moratorium were William Douglas, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, and Thurgood Marshall. Those dissenting, who believed the death penalty to be constitutional as it was applied, were Warren Burger, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist. Four years later, the Court, with John Paul Stevens in place of Douglas, would vote to reinstate the death penalty 7 to 2 in its historic Gregg v. Georgia decision. Only Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented, arguing that the death penalty has no deterrent effect and that our society has evolved beyond the need to kill for retribution.
By the time the Court issued its 1987 decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia had joined them, replacing Stewart and Burger. Writing for the majority, Lewis Powell dismissed a statistical study that showed killers of whites were 11 times more likely to be sentenced to die than those whose victims were Black. Four other justices agreed with Powell, who said the study failed to "demonstrate a constitutionally significant risk of racial bias," and was insufficient to invalidate Georgia's death penalty.
Time and time again, however, the statistics would prove consistent - to this day those who kill whites are significantly more likely to face execution than those who kill African-Americans or Latinos. His decision in McClesky v. Kemp would become one of Powell's great regrets; Powell told his biographer in 1991 he would reverse his McClesky decision if afforded the opportunity, saying he had "come to think that capital punishment should be abolished."
Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens both dissented in McClesky, but qualified their statements, distancing themselves from Justices Marshall and Brennan, who since Furman had openly stated that they believed the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment in any circumstance and that it could not be made fair. Blackmun would wait another six years before finally declaring the death penalty system "fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice and mistake" (Callins v. Collins, 1993).
"The problem," Justice Blackmun said, "is that the inevitability of factual, legal and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution."
John Paul Stevens' position on capital punishment evolved over his three decades on the court, but he too eventually concluded in 2008 that capital punishment is both "pointless and needless." He offered further insight in a New York Times essay published in late 2010, in which he wrote, "While support of the death penalty wins votes for some elected officials, all participants in the process must realize the monumental costs that capital cases impose on the judicial system. The financial costs…are obvious; seldom mentioned is the impact on the conscientious juror obliged to make a life-or-death decision despite residual doubts about a defendant's guilt." Consider also the impact on corrections officials and medical personnel put in the position of executing a person whose guilt is uncertain.
"Many [inmates] have repented and made positive contributions to society," Stevens wrote. "The finality of an execution always ends that possibility. More importantly, that finality also includes the risk that the state may put an actually innocent person to death."
The Roberts Court would do well to heed the wisdom of three of its predecessors, appointed by Republicans, informed by years on the bench, who all reversed course on the death penalty after or near the end of their tenure on the Court. It seems clear, however, that they don't share Justice Blackmun's resistance to "tinker with the machinery of death."
Just last month, the Court reversed a jury verdict and lower court ruling that had awarded a wrongfully-convicted man, John Thompson, a $14 million dollar settlement for the 14 years he spent on Louisiana's death row. Prosecutors supervised by Orleans Parish district attorney, Harry Connick, Sr. had covered up exculpatory evidence that demonstrated Thompson's innocence. Though Thompson was able to prove that multiple prosecutors withheld evidence that would have exonerated him, the Court found with Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority that, "a district attorney cannot be held liable for the actions of his subordinates." Justice Thomas claims one must prove a pattern of similar violations exists in order to justify holding the city's government liable for the misconduct; one Brady violation in Thompson's case, albeit egregious and involving numerous prosecutors, just doesn't cut it.
The Court has issued a dangerous precedent in Thompson's case. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in her dissent, "The prosecutorial concealment Thompson encountered…is bound to be repeated unless municipal agencies bear responsibility." By saying the buck stops nowhere, the Court has effectively eliminated a defendant's ability to hold prosecutors accountable for willfully violating his civil liberties, giving prosecutors everywhere incentive to use similar underhanded tactics to achieve future guilty verdicts and death sentences.
Last week the Court's majority took the bizarre step of actually reinstating a death sentence in the case of Scott Lynn Pinholster, who suffered brain damage as a child that resulted in his intellectual disability, despite rulings by a federal judge and a federal appeals court that found Pinholster's attorneys had failed him by offering no mitigating evidence during his sentencing trial. You don't have to be a legal scholar to see the how knowingly ignoring evidence - exculpatory, mitigating, or otherwise, can lead to an injustice.
In light of its recent rulings, it is evident that a majority of the justices currently on the Court are willing to dismiss the opinions of those that came before them and a growing majority of the global community. The Court's majority has shown an indifference to human life and a willingness to erode civil liberties with no discernable benefits to our society.
If Justices Blackmun, Powell, and Stevens were able to travel back in time and reconsider Gregg v. Georgia, they would likely join Justices Brennan and Marshall in striking down the death penalty.
If just one of the Court's current sitting justices revised his thinking about the death penalty, we would likely see a drastic sea change on the matter.
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Petition by Troy Davis
After some uplifting news from Los Angeles in the case of Francisco Carrillo, freed from prison last week after faulty eyewitness testimony wrongfully put him there 20 years ago, there is distressing news from Georgia, where Troy Davis, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence in the 1989 murder of an off-duty police officer in Savannah, has had his final appeal denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. And though Davis has been here before - his execution has been scheduled on three occasions, each time stayed by a judge for review - barring clemency by Georgia's Governor or Board of Pardons and Paroles, Troy Davis will soon face execution.
Convicted with no physical evidence linking him to the crime, Davis was unable to convince a federal judge that seven out of nine eyewitnesses recanting their testimony suggested doubt about his guilt. Because prosecutors lacked any physical evidence, including the murder weapon, which might link Davis to the crime, they relied entirely on the eyewitness testimony of, according to original defense lawyer Robert Barker, a "cast of characters" including "jail birds, felons, [and] twice convicted felons." This served to limit Davis' options for appeal, forcing him to try and prove that the seven eyewitnesses who recanted their testimony were now credible, and that their recantations diminished the state's case against Davis. Despite evidence of police coercion and other underhanded tactics used to obtain witness identifications, and two witnesses claiming another man confessed to the crime, it was apparently not enough to sow doubt in the mind of U.S. District Judge William T. Moore, nor the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, nor the U.S. Supreme Court, which both declined to hear Davis' challenge.
Because the Drug Enforcement Agency recently seized Georgia's supply of sodium thiopental, the anesthetic used in executions which the state acquired illegally from sources abroad, Davis' execution will likely be delayed until the DEA completes its investigation or Georgia switches to another sedative in its lethal injection protocol. Arizona, Ohio, and Texas have adopted pentobarbital.
Execution drugs aside, serious doubts still exist about Davis' guilt, and they cast a pall over his death sentence. We know the dangers of relying on eyewitness testimony, and this case rests solely on the credibility of a pair of eyewitnesses, with nary a shred of physical evidence to tie Davis to the murder. How so many learned individuals are able to convince themselves Davis is guilty without a doubt is both astounding and disheartening. We must take action to ensure that justice is fairly served and not undermined, for Troy Davis, his family, and for the victims of this crime and others.
Please help stop the execution of Troy Davis by signing this petition to Georgia Governor Nathan Deal and the State Board of Pardons and Paroles today.
An Open Letter to Gov. Jerry Brown from the Former "Hanging Judge of Orange County"
Dear Governor Brown,
Welcome back. I offer here a few thoughts for your consideration.
After you were gutsy enough to appoint me, a right-wing Republican, to the Superior Court of Orange County, I served there from 1978 to 1993, after which I sat on assignment on death cases throughout California. In all, I presided over more trials than I can possibly recount. Among those I do remember, however, were ten murder trials in which I sentenced the convicted men to die in our state's execution chamber. As a result, I became known as "the hanging judge of Orange County," an appellation that, I will confess, I accepted with some pride.
The ten were deemed guilty of horrifying crimes by their peers, and in the jurors' view as well as mine they deserved to die at the hands of the state. However, as of today, one has died of natural causes in prison and none of the others has been executed, a fact that stirs deep anger within me.
Let me explain:
I am angered by the fact that our system of laws has become so complex and convoluted that a decision I was put in the position to make, one that I then believed promised resolution for the family members of the victims of those crimes, has been made a mockery.
I have followed the development of legal thinking and understand why our nation's Supreme Court, in holding that "death is different," required that special care be taken to safeguard the rights of those accused of capital crimes, especially those sentenced to death. Such wisdom protects our society from returning to the barbarism of the past. And while I find it discomfiting and to a significant degree embarrassing that appellate courts have found fault with some of my statements, acts or decisions, I can live with the fact that their findings arise out of an attempt to ensure that the process has been scrupulously fair before such a sentence is carried out.
I can live with it and, apparently, so can the men I condemned. The first one, Rodney James Alcala, whom I sentenced to die over 30 years ago for kidnapping and killing 12-year-old Robin Samsoe, was, just last year, again sentenced to death for killing little Robin Samsoe and four other young women who, it has subsequently been determined, were his victims at around the same time.
I need not here go into the permutations of Mr. Alcala's legal journey. Behind bars since 1979, he has not harmed, nor can he harm, any other young women. That's instructive because harm has been done and that's what infuriates me. Robin Samsoe's mother has been re-victimized time and time again as the state of California has spent millions upon millions of dollars in a series of unsuccessful attempts to fulfill its promise that her daughter's murder can be resolved and she can go on with her life.
Had I known then what I know now I would have given Mr. Alcala and the others the alternative sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Had I done that, Robin's mother Marianne would have been spared the pain of 30 years of misery, wondering if her daughter's murder would ever be finally resolved. She could have dealt then and there with the fact that her daughter's killer would be shut away, never again to see a day of freedom, and gone on to put her life together. Had I done that, the State of California would not have put her through the torture of hearing after hearing, trial after trial. Had I done that, the people of California would have been spared the hideous expense of hundreds of millions of their tax dollars that were squandered in this meaningless and ultimately fruitless pursuit of death.
It makes me angry, Governor Brown, to have been made a player in a system that is so inefficient, so ineffective, so expensive and so emotionally costly to those to whom it promises peace but delivers only pain.
I watch today as you wrestle with the massive debt that is suffocating our state and hear that you don't want to "play games." But I cringe when I learn that not playing games amounts to cuts to kindergarten, cuts to universities, cuts to people with special needs and I hear no mention of the simple cut that would save hundreds of millions of dollars, countless man-hours, unimaginable court time and years of emotional torture for victim's family members waiting for that magical sense of "closure" they've been promised by prosecutors once the perpetrator has been killed by the state.
You and I know, Governor, that there is no such thing as "closure" when a loved one is taken. What family members must find is reconciliation with the reality of their loss, and that can begin the minute the perpetrator is sent to a prison he will never leave. But to ask them to endure the years of being dragged through the courts with the promise that the state will end their pain by causing the death of another is a cruel lie.
So I agree that we should no longer play games, Governor Brown. You and I are both older now, so let's stop playing the killing game. Let's use the hundreds of millions of dollars we'll save to protect some of those essential services now threatened with death. Let's stop asking people like me to lie to those victim's family members.
I'm told you don't have the power to end the death penalty by yourself, but you can point the way. You can have a huge financial impact on California by following the lead of Governor Ryan of Illinois and commuting the sentences of all the men and women on California's death row - all 700-plus of them - to life without parole. And you can direct the millions you save to making some of our citizens' lives brighter and more promising.
Let's stop playing games, Governor. Let's stop lying to the people; let's stop being politicians and start behaving like the grownups we've become.
With Respect,
Donald A. McCartin,
Judge, Superior Court (Ret.), Orange County
Illinois Says No to Capital Punishment
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed a bill today which made his state the 16th to abolish its death penalty (Take action to thank him now). The bipartisan bill, which passed the state legislature in January, commutes the sentences of Illinois' 15 death row inmates to life without parole, and reallocates the funding previously slotted for capital defense to law enforcement training and increased restitution for victims' families. Quinn's decision is the culmination of years of public debate that has been raging since at least 2000 when then Governor George Ryan declared a moratorium on executions. For Governor Ryan, the state's system looked increasingly broken, and the probability that innocents would be executed was too great to keep moving forward with capital punishment absent serious modifications. In the following eleven years, the state created two study commissions and attempted to implement multiple reforms to resolve these concerns, but found that such efforts were both ineffective and too costly. Governor Quinn's decision marks an awareness of the diminishing returns intrinsic to the already extremely expensive system, as attempts to make capital punishment 'fair' were always going to be more costly and less effective than abolition. As Quinn put it, "Since our experience has shown that there is no way to design a perfect death penalty system, free from the numerous flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions or discriminatory treatment, I have concluded that the proper course of action is to abolish it." He went on to note that in a world of limited resources, it was wiser policy to take "the enormous sums expended by the state in maintaining a death penalty system [and spend them] on preventing crime and assisting victims' families in overcoming their pain and grief."Quinn did not make this decision lightly, as shown by the two-month wait between the bill's passage and his signing it into law. He carefully considered arguments from supporters and opponents, taking a particularly hard look at the feelings of the family members of murder victims. In his statement, the Governor acknowledged the unimaginable heartache that accompanies losing a loved one and made clear that he understood and could not blame families for desiring retribution. His decision to sign the bill, however, was motivated by numerous conversations with families who felt that the death penalty only prolonged their pain and suffering. By ensuring that murderers are locked away for life, Illinois' policy will help victims avoid years of painful hearings while also providing the state with the funding necessary to prevent similar crimes before they happen.Illinois decision to abolish should be understood as part of a national trend away from capital punishment, as it is the fourth state in as many years to end its death penalty. New Jersey and New York both removed all their prisoners from death row as of 2007, with New Mexico following suit two years later. Today finds the fewest number of states' practicing capital punishment since its reinstatement in 1978, and it appears as though the number could drop even lower as several other states are currently considering abolition with bills in various stages of debate in Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, and Washington. Governor Quinn's decision should provide inspiration for death penalty opponents nation-wide, as his actions show that there is nothing inevitable about capital punishment. As concerns over the cost and fairness of the death penalty rise, public opinion has swung increasingly against it, suggesting that a post-death penalty America may soon be a reality. Illinois is not the first or last step in the process, but it is an important one nonetheless, as each victory adds momentum to the push for more effective alternatives to capital punishment.
Texas Appeals Court Stops Death Penalty Hearing
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has decided to permanently stop the hearing in Texas v. Green, which examined the constitutionality of Texas's death penalty in light of the frequency of wrongful convictions.
The Court ruled that District Judge Kevin Fine did not have the jurisdiction to hear arguments on capital punishment's constitutionality, especially at the pre-trial stage of the process. The Court did recognize the seriousness of Green's concerns and urged the legislature to look closely at the problem.
While it is good to hear the Court recognize the seriousness of the risk of wrongful conviction, it is unfortunate that they were unwilling to take their responsibility to ensure that Texas's judicial system does its part to prevent the execution of innocents. The two days of testimony prior to the original stay represented an attempt to honestly and thoroughly investigate Texas's death penalty. This is a conversation that must be continued both in the legal system and in the court of public opinion.
Progress Being Made for West Memphis Three
The new year has breathed fresh life into the cases of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin, and Jessie Misskelley Jr., collectively known as the West Memphis Three. The three men were convicted in 1994 for the killing of three West Memphis children, though there has been persistent doubt about their guilt dating back to the original trial. The campaign to prove their innocence scored a serious victory last November when the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that a lower court must hold an evidentiary hearing to examine whether new DNA evidence which potentially exonerates the West Memphis Three, as well as accusations of jury misconduct in their original trials, sufficiently calls into question their sentences such that a new trial must be held.
January 4th marked the beginning of the preparation for the evidentiary hearing. Circuit Court Judge David Laser took meetings with attorneys for both sides, and set February 18th as a deadline for the submission of pre-hearing briefs. Judge Laser has replaced David Burnett as the appeals judge, which itself represents a positive development as Burnett had repeatedly upheld the original verdict. Judge Laser has made it clear that this case represents a top priority, and he stated plans to "get this done as soon as possible."
Among the issues discussed last week were concerns about scheduling the hearing in light of outstanding Rule 37 appeals for Mr. Misskelley and Mr. Baldwin which contest the adequacy of their representation at the original trial. Judge Laser agreed with arguments made by Mr. Echols attorney who said that while the Rule 37 appeals are certainly important, they cannot delay the evidentiary hearing for Echols as he is the only prisoner facing the death penalty. There was also discussion of new standards for DNA testing which included a commitment to greater transparency in the process. This point is of great significance in the case as the District Attorney's office had previously conducted secret tests when their original screenings of crime scene material appeared to clear Echols, Baldwin, and Misskelley. Judge Laser has also issued a gag order surrounding the case, in part to help create a new jury pool in the case of a retrial.
These developments represent significant gains for the West Memphis Three, who have persistently professed their innocence. We should all be thankful that it finally seems as though the courts will give them a real chance to prove it.
Stay in Texas case continues culture of silence around the death penalty
A hearing to determine the constitutionality of Texas' death penalty was stayed yesterday by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The hearing, which began on Monday in Houston as a pre-trial proceeding in the case Texas v. Green, sought to determine whether or not a high probability of wrongful conviction meant that capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
The case concerns John Edward Green, a Houston man charged with fatally shooting a woman in a 2008 robbery. Because Texas is seeking the death penalty, Mr. Green's attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of the punishment, and Judge Fine has provided the hearing as an opportunity for both sides to plea their case.
Prosecutors have declined the invitation to defend capital punishment, deciding instead to "stand mute." The Harris County District Attorney's office has repeatedly objected to the hearing, arguing that it concerns law which is settled and thus irrelevant to the Green case. They have also challenged Judge Fine's impartiality, and have claimed that the hearing is premature, as the question of sentencing will be relevant only if Mr. Green is convicted. Mr. Green's attorneys have responded to these claims by arguing that the high likelihood of wrongful conviction, combined with the impact of Texas death penalty laws which set an unreasonably high barrier for appeals, make taking the death penalty off the table before trial begins an imperative. The Court of Appeal's stay is meant to provide each side with the opportunity to file briefs arguing whether or not the hearing should occur.
The hearing itself represents a new and important turn in the death penalty debate, as it is the first time a Texas district court judge has heard arguments regarding capital punishment's constitutionality. The defense called on several prominent legal experts who spoke about the risk factors that lead to wrongful conviction, including flawed science and unreliable testimony. Before the stay was issued, the hearing was meant to feature testimony regarding the cases of Cameron Todd Willingham and Claude Jones, two prisoners who were executed on the basis of evidence which has been undermined. The prosecution's unwillingness to use this hearing to defend the death penalty speaks to their fear that it will not stand up to careful scrutiny. Even if their legal objections are correct, the hearing still represents an opportunity for a much-needed public debate about the problem of wrongful conviction and the legitimacy of capital punishment. If it is true that the death penalty system does not wrongfully convict people, then its proponents should be able to offer evidence to support that claim. If, on the other hand, innocent people are at risk of being executed, this is a fact that cannot be buried. Instead, this problem must be faced full on and should prompt a complete overhaul of the system to eliminate the risk of the wrongful convictions, or better yet, an agreement to move beyond the death penalty in search of more effective alternatives.
Breaking News on Damion Echols and West Memphis Three
I was thrilled to learn this morning that Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, who were convicted in the
1993 deaths of 8-year-olds Michael Moore, Christopher Byers and Steven
Branch, may have a chance to finally prove their innocence. A few months ago, we launched a postcard campaign calling for a new trial for Damien Echols, who is on death row.
This statement was released by Damien Echols' spokesperson Lonnie Soury:
"We are very pleased that the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered a new
evidentiary hearing to review the convincing evidence of the innocence
of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley...These young men were convicted of a brutal crime
someone else committed, and we hope the state moves quickly to overturn
their convictions and seek to prosecute those responsible."
"We are very pleased that the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered a new
evidentiary hearing to review the convincing evidence of the innocence
of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley...These young men were convicted of a brutal crime
someone else committed, and we hope the state moves quickly to overturn
their convictions and seek to prosecute those responsible."
Let's hope this hearing is the first step in correcting what we believe is tragic miscarriage of justice.
Review of Death by Fire
Check out this review of FRONTLINE's special Death by Fire by Ken Chan on the Justia.com: Law, Technology & Legal Marketing Blog.
Chan writes:
FRONTLINE recently examined the controversial execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. The State of Texas had executed Mr. Willingham in 2004 for the death of his children in a fire, which the State Fire Marshal had concluded was intentionally set by the defendant.
FRONTLINE recently examined the controversial execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. The State of Texas had executed Mr. Willingham in 2004 for the death of his children in a fire, which the State Fire Marshal had concluded was intentionally set by the defendant.
Regardless of where you stand on the death penalty, this provocative documentary raises many concerns. The issue is not whether an innocent person can be wrongfully convicted.
That question has been answered long ago by successive exonerations of
persons formerly condemned to death row. The truth is, despite all the
constitutional protections afforded to defendants in our system of
justice, mistakes will occur. So, knowing that our current system has
flaws, do we accept the possibility that an innocent person may be
executed as a permissible trade-off or do we take the only punishment
that is irreversible off the table?
It is an interesting read.
Human Error and the Death Penalty
Human beings are fallible, right? We're not perfect. Therefore we might deduce that human institutions are equally fallible and imperfect. This is the nature of the human condition. AND YET some people believe that the death penalty - a final and irreversible condemnation of one human being by others, can be immune from human error. An exemplar case of human imperfection and the dangers of the death penalty is that of Anthony Graves, who spent 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.
Mr. Graves was falsely accused at his trial in 1994 of assisting in the murder of a mother, daughter and four children. He was incriminated by the actual murderer, Robert Earl Carter, who afterwards confessed that he had lied. Nevertheless, the prosecutor, in an extremely flawed and imperfect case, manipulated the jury into finding Graves guilty, despite the fact that there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. Graves, an innocent man, was condemned to death.
Carter once again confirmed Graves' innocence while on his death bed in 2000, but the prosecution refused to concede that they could possibly have gotten anything wrong.
Graves spent 12 years on death row in Texas until his sentence was reversed in 2006 because of "prosecutorial misconduct." Since then, Graves and his attorney, with the assistance of the Texas Innocence Project and students of St. Thomas University, had been collecting evidence to support his claim of innocence. Meanwhile, a new district attorney was also re-examining the case and finally on Wednesday, October 27th, dropped all charges against Graves, claiming that his office could find no evidence against him and conceded that Graves "is an innocent man …. There is nothing that connects Anthony Graves to this crime."
Unfortunately, it was relatively easy to get Graves convicted and much more difficult to establish his innocence. This is quite alarming, and one has to wonder how many more innocent people are losing their lives, waiting behind bars--hoping to prove their innocence.
And how many innocent people have been and may be killed for crimes they did not commit? Nationally, including Graves, 139 men and women have been released from death rows across the country. Allowing the agents of the state to kill a man or woman in the name of justice ignores human fallibility.
It is dangerous to allow human beings to act like God. Better to act like mere mortals and avoid using the ultimate penalty altogether, leaving room to correct human error.
"Conviction" hits local theaters today
"Conviction", a film starring Hilary Swank and Sam Rockwell, about a real-life wrongful conviction case hits local theaters today! There is a good review in the San Francisco Chronicle. Let's hope this film stirs people and opens their eyes to the serious problems in our criminal justice system.
PBS's Frontline features the case of Cameron Willingham
Last night PBS debuted it's new season of "Frontline" with an episode about the case of Texas death row prisoner Cameron Willingham. The show titled "Death by Fire" has generated a tremendous amount of buzz. It is widely believed that Willingham was executed for a crime he did not commit. I encourage you to watch and decide for yourselves.
Larry King discusses the wrongful convictions of the West Memphis Three
Last night Larry King spoke with Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam and Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks about the wrongful convictions of the West Memphis Three. Damien Echols, one of the three, is on death row in Arkansas. Watch a clip of the show.
It is so great to see some attention being paid to this case, especially just days before the Arkansas Supreme Court is set to hold a hearing on Echols' case.
Last month, supporters sent Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe 4462 printed postcards and 4515
email-cards pleading for him to support a new trial
for Damien Echols.
I'll be posting updates about Damien's case as new developments occur.
New Developments in the Troy Davis Case
On August 24, U.S. District Judge William T. Moore Jr. rejected Troy Davis' claims of innocence, arguing that, although the new evidence presented casts some doubt on Davis's guilt, it mostly lacks "probative value" and is not enough to prove innocence. He called it "largely smoke and mirrors."
Davis's lawyers presented the evidence during a hearing on June 23 and 24 of this year. This federal evidentiary hearing was ordered by the U. S. Supreme Court (the first time the Supreme Court has ordered such a hearing in 50 years) after reviewing affidavits provided by Davis's lawyers that stated that seven of the nine original witnesses against Davis recanted their testimony. As there was no physical evidence connecting Davis to the shooting, the majority of the case against Davis was built around eyewitness testimony, so the recantations were a significant development.
However, Judge Moore said that of the seven witnesses to admit to falsely testifying, only one was completely credible (although not important to the conviction) and two were partially credible (but would "only minimally diminish the state's case"). The other four, he said, would have had no impact on the state's case.
Davis's lawyers had wanted to call several witnesses to the stand who had signed sworn declarations stating that Sylvester "Redd" Coles, who was present at the scene of the crime, admitted to them that he was the true killer. However, Judge Moore refused to allow them to testify, arguing that in order for their testimony to be valid, Davis's lawyers must have first subpoenaed Coles so that he could testify on his own behalf.
Judge Moore did, however, state that executing an innocent person would violate the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment. He then reiterated that he does not believe that Troy Davis is innocent.
Davis was convicted of shooting an off-duty police officer who tried to intervene in a fight between two men. Davis claims he was just a witness who ran away when he heard shots fired. Coles (armed with a lawyer by his side) almost immediately went to the police station to clear his own name and implicate Davis as the shooter. Although there was no physical evidence, the police arrested Davis for murder.
Due to the lack of evidence and the sheer number of witnesses who have recanted their testimony, Troy Davis's case has garnered international attention. Even the Pope has spoken out in support of Davis.
After 19 years, Davis's case has been heard by every level of the court and he has received a stay of execution three times. In his order, Judge Moore suggested that Davis appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Davis' lawyers are doing everything they can to make sure their client is not executed before he is able to prove his innocence once and for all.
Click here to take action.
A life you saved
This is the face of man whose life you helped save. "It feels like
the world has stopped...Our family has gone through a lot...I'd like to thank
Governor Strickland for being a just man," said Kevin's older brother Charles
upon hearing the news that his younger brother would live past September
15th--that he would live to embrace his family one more time and celebrate
another birthday.
Thanks to supporters and activists like you, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland
spared Kevin Keith from execution yesterday. Strickland, who is facing a
tough reelection battle and was presented with an 8-0 recommendation against
clemency from the Ohio Parole Board, managed to see past political ambition and
expediency and summoned the courage to do what was right. He recognized that
the execution of an innocent man could not be undone. He weighed his options and
cast his vote for life. This heroic decision is a reminder that
committed individuals can make a difference--that each and every one of our
actions matter--that one life matters. If you feel moved to thank Governor
Strickland, his contact info and a sample letter are below. Thank you
for standing with us as we work to end the death penalty. Thanks to you, the
tide is turning. Please consider
supporting the crucial work of Death Penalty Focus. We could not do it
without you.
Contact Info and Template Thank You Letter to Governor
StricklandGovernor's OfficeRiffe Center, 30th Floor77
South High StreetColumbus, OH 43215-6108Phone/FaxGeneral
Info: (614) 466-3555Fax: (614) 466-9354Online: http://governor.ohio.gov/Default.aspx?tabid=150
Dear Governor Strickland,Thank you for granting clemency to Kevin
Keith.As you noted in your commutation statement, many legitimate
questions have been raised regarding the evidence in support of Mr. Keith's
conviction. This evidence of innocence was never presented in its entirety
before any court or jury. It would have been a tragic mistake to execute Mr.
Keith when such grave doubts linger about his guilt. This year, you
demonstrated your commitment to improving the fairness and accuracy of Ohio's
criminal justice system by signing into law comprehensive reform legislation to
combat wrongful convictions. By granting clemency to Mr. Keith, you upheld that
commitment. I commend you for recognizing that there is no room for
error when a life is at stake.Sincerely,
Kevin Keith Could be Executed Despite Evidence of Innocence Unless Governor Intervenes
A possibly innocent man will die unless Ohio Governor Ted Strickland heeds the concerns of numerous law enforcement officials and tens of thousands of concerned citizens. Kevin Keith is scheduled for execution September 15th for a crime he likely didn't commit.
Mr. Keith's conviction centered on flawed eyewitness identification.
The key witness against Mr. Keith first told four people he could not
identify the shooter because the shooter was wearing a mask. It wasn't
until the police showed this witness a highly suggestive photo lineup,
with Mr. Keith's face made larger than the others, that the witness
picked out Mr. Keith. This blog is continued on CARE2...
Innocence Matters!
Check out my blog post about Damien Echols on Care2 today. Please add a comment and vote in the poll. We are trying to generate as many letters as we can to Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe before Damien's September 30th hearing. Take Action here.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
What subject did you excel the most in?
Posted by + Show Post
What subject did you excel the most in?
Due in October? Join us in October 2011 Babies!
Replies (11-19):
Math. I was excellent at math (except for trig, which I blame on the teacher, she was horrid) and was a year ahead from 6th grade on. Funny thing is I hate math!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
none of them.....i sucked at school! PE was my best and my favorite!
starting from gr 8, i got athelete of the year, every year..outta the whooooole school..being in gr 8 and beating out the gr 12s was a WONDERFUL feeling!!! :)
I did really well in English Lit. LOVED my teacher and LOVED writing book reports, so it worked out well!
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.


text:
HugeThing is over. We woke up in a new reality, without daily newsletters describing the meetings we attended and without agendas for the next day, which included daily talks with mentors, other participants and the SpeedUp team. Without cookies, apples, tea, or free pizza from Microsoft ;).
It means it's time to sum up.
It was an incredibly valuable experience for us. We already had some experience related to startup-like events and workshops, however, what we've been offered by SpeedUp was incomparable to anything else. 15 days packed with knowledge. The majority of sessions have provided us with pointers we can now implement in our current project, whilst volumes of valuable notes were growing in size. The evolution of our pitch – its initial and final form, on the Demo Day – is its own proof. We have a product which isn't easy to describe. It had been difficult to explain in the least, until we met Bianca Praetorius from Berlin. She guided us on how to present it (storytelling) in a way that'd be comprehensible to everyone. We suddenly got enlightened on how, in a simple manner, to convey to everyone the gist of the whole mechanism – thanks Bianca!
Aside from the workshops, we were able to gather a lot of information and advice from the conversations we had with the mentors. We found that meeting Maks Salamonowicz from ACR Systems, who works in hardware in our current target market, was particularly valuable.
It was a one-of-a-kind opportunity for networking. In a friendly and laid-back atmosphere, at times over beer, we could expand our network. Within this group of organizers, workshop conductors and other participants, are people who are able to help your startup, quite often unconsciously or with zero effort. Try to pitch your product as often as possible – that's how I gained contacts to potential customers in Malta, India, Croatia, and South Africa. How cool is that? ;).
We're aware it was the kind of event whose benefits haven't completely materialized yet, since they're still ahead of us waiting to unfold. We're unable to thank each and every one personally for these three weeks. It was a pleasure working with you. We're proud we could be a part of HugeThing.
How did we end up at HugeThing? We're a startup located in Łódź, which designs and builds robotic camera operators. It makes recording high-quality video cheaper and simpler. Its beneficiaries are video-bloggers, whose goal would be achieving great effects without the need for hiring a professional operator, as well as people who make a living from making movies, interviewing, or music-video production on a daily basis.
A basic tool designed for this purpose is the so-called camera slider. It produces smooth dynamic shots, as you can see here: https://youtu.be/Scxs7L0vhZ4?t=35s. Udrive is a manufacturer of devices performing a camera-operator's job for you; namely, camera slider drivers. Within 30 seconds setup, you're able to film a wonder like from the link above. Sounds good? I only want to add that it's the world's first driver capable of being mounted on any camera slider, which had been impossible until now. So far, production studios, videographers, or filming equipment rental businesses were using numerous sliders, thus they were forced to generate multiple costs by purchasing many drivers. Thanks to Udrive, one driver is all it takes, and your money stays in your pocket :).
On top of everything, a beautiful wireless pad with the largest (3,2") display available; featuring a mobile application, presets allowing you to store and reuse programmed shot-settings, very quiet operating along with feature-and-mode rich variety. Please visit us at www.udrive.pl and check how else we may help you to record something amazing.
Aleksander Grzelka, Udrive


text:
Michael Affuso is a 2-year-old on a mission.
He looks over a sand-digger contraption at a Narberth playground, trying to figure out how the apparatus works.
His father helped him with it a few days ago, but this is the big leagues for the little guy - doing it himself. He furrows his barely formed brow and heaves and pulls on the controls. Michael makes all the right moves, but the handlebars are just too heavy, and Mom has to come to the rescue.
Frustrating for Michael? Probably. But in those few minutes when he was on his own, in the view of local experts, Michael was learning in the best possible way - through "free play."


text: Whatever He throws at us, we have to accept. We say it is all part of His plan and we are merely the pawns on the chessboard of life. My father olov hashalom said it is not the problems we have to endure but the way we deal with them that counts. In one year, I have lost my father, my mother-in-law and have a son, Gideon, with Hodgkins Lymphoma. In addition, my brother has had a stroke so positivity is just a word. However, with the help and support of my friends life indeed does go on and each day brings fresh challenges which can only strengthen one's character.


text:
Get noticed easily with this compact sized custom drawstring backpack featuring dual reflective stripes.
This classic logo sweatshirt is crafted from a cotton/poly blend.
Put some promotional punch in lunch with these custom lunch bags with a Velcro closure and ID card pocket.
This color-banded custom messanger bag has all the features a business professional can want at a great price!
Made of vinyl, this clear custom drawstring backpack is perfect for fans packing their stadium and event day items safely.
A unique and fun shaped Imprinted basketball drawstring backpack that is perfect for summer camps & school teams
100% ComfortSoft cotton Hanes custom t-shirt offers a comfortable and tagless logo t-shirt.
Carry hot or cold beverages in style with these large custom tumblers that are double wall insulated to keep drinks at the perfect temperature.
This lightweight custom hooded speatshirt is one of our most competitively priced sweatshirts.
A successful promotional campaign is right around the corner with education promotional items from ePromos. We have plenty of items for multiple areas of education such as school, art, dance, online training and automotive. Whether you're looking for specialized products for each field or looking for promotional pens, or promotional stress balls that can be used for any type of field, ePromos has what you are looking for.


text:
Nonito Donaire Spars Twelve Rounds, Looking Good
by Ronnie Nathanielsz
World Boxing Organization super bantamweight champion Nonito "The Filipino Flash" sparred twelve rounds with two tall sparring partners and looked good.
Trainer Robert Garcia told BoxingScene.com/Manila Standard that Donaire "looks very strong and very, very quick so he's ready."
Donaire makes the first defense of the title he won from former champion Wilfredo Vazquez Jr last February at the Alamadome in San Antonio, Texas against International Boxing Federation champion Jeffrey Mathebula of South Africa who stands 5'10" tall..
The fight will take place at the Home Depot Center in Carson, California on July 7th and will be telecast by ABS-CBN on its pre-eminent Channel 2 with a replay on Studio 23.
Garcia said Donaire went six rounds a piece with Mexican featherweight Gilberto Sanchez Leon who is 5'11" tall and junior lightweight Robert Rodriguez of Colorado who is almost the same height.
The trainer and former world champion told us "I'm sure he (Donaire) is ready" even though he said the champion "still got a few pounds to lose but we will leave that to the last week or so, about 4-5 pounds."
Garcia said "he is very strong and gained a lot of muscle. He is not really doing weights but all the work that he is doing with Olympic track coach Remi (Korchemny) and (James) Bassel is putting on a lot of muscle."
The camp of Mathebula made up of well-known promoter Branco Milenkovic and trainer Nick Durandt are not concerned about what Garcia believes, predicting that Mathebula's "height and reach advantage will make a difference."
Promoter Branco also thinks that Mathebula is actually a natural junior featherweight and that could give him an edge.
Mathebula won the IBF title from fellow South African Takalani Ndlovu and returned to the gym just three weeks after he won the title last March 24 and said he has been in very hard training as he was preparing for a voluntary title defense when the offer to fight Donaire in a unification title bout was made.
The IBF champion trains three times a day and Milenkovic told us he'd be ready to fight even this weekend.
Respect to Nonito. Thinking about going to see this live but undercard is looking bleak.Comment by DeadLikeMe on 06-19-2012
I read the first sentence and thought, is Ronnie N writing about Donaire now? I wasn't wrong.Comment by CHOWWOKKA on 06-19-2012
Pfft if Donaire is going to be fighting Floyd in Dec, he better do more then just 12 rounds of sparring...Comment by Oh you out son on 06-19-2012
[QUOTE=richardt;12256823]Bottom line - if the public demands Donaire vs Rigo, we will get the fight. If it does not, other fights for the two will take place untill the demand is high enough.[/QUOTE] there is no public demand for this…Comment by richardt on 06-18-2012
Bottom line - if the public demands Donaire vs Rigo, we will get the fight. If it does not, other fights for the two will take place untill the demand is high enough.Post a Comment - View More User Comments (6)


text:
I have an idea. To show good faith, that BA and the UK is sincerely, honestly and genuienly interested in opening up LHR to more USA service. I have an idea. Why dont the US and UK make a good faith start like Germany did when their openskies was being negotiated. Let VS move their LAS flight from LGW to LHR, let BMI start 1 or 2 flights from LHR to points in the
US, let 1 or 2 US carriers move an equal number of flights from LGW-LHR and if need be let BA move 1 USA flight from LGW-LHR. I know this is a small start, but it also clould add considerable goodwill to all parties after 12 plus years of this haggling and going no where. Bermuda II would have to be amended, but it is at least a start.I think that if that proposal was put forward, that BA would probably still balk. It would only prove to the world that it is the mindset and mentality of BA that is obstructing progress.


text:
cardiac qa
English sites
Progressive Cardiac Services helps physicians to do a Holter Monitor test right in their office in Canada and US. We provide our portable Holter monitor equipment free with no leasing charge. We only charge the scan and also provide discount on high volum
Great Health Care Information for human health from Cardiac Core Lab Satstfrancis Hospital that inspires health care fitness with steps to grow your physical & mental fitness.
Heart Disease and Heart Health information about Heart Disease and Heart Healthy Living
Cardiology Forum for students, medical professionals and patients. Download free medicalbooks, medical videos, Ccardiology Powerpoints, Case studies
Canadian enter,Cardiac Care,Cardiac Center,AED & CPR (LEVEL C) TRAINING,HEALTH CARE PROVIDER (HCP) CPR & AED,STANDARD FIRST AID WITH AED & CPR TRAINING (LEVEL C)


text:
tac·tic [tak-tik]
A plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result.
What Is Muscle Tactics?Hey, my name is Jeff Masterson. I'm the founder of Muscle Tactics and creator of the popular Weight Gain Blueprint program. I've also partnered with other fitness experts to bring you the absolute best, most cutting edge muscle building and fat burning information available today.
From day 1 of this business my goal was to create valuable products and services that help skinny guys gain weight and build muscle fast. Why did I start this business? Because I used to be a skinny guy too! And after I discovered some very powderful techniques for gaining weight and building muscle mass quickly, I knew I wanted to share this with every other guy who needed it.
The enormous success of the Weight Gain Blueprint program has surpassed my expectations, and the feedback has been amazing. It's now being sold in over 40 countries worldwide and has created countless success stories from guys who were once struggling to gain weight and build muscle... but are now using the secrets I've shared inside the program for building muscle quickly.
Here are just a few of those success stories:
How Can Muscle Tactics Help Me?If you want to transform into a more muscular and shredded version of yourself then use the links below to help get you where you need to go:
The Muscle Tactics "Get Results Or It's Free" 100% GuaranteeI personally stand behind all of my products... because they flat-out work! That is why I offer a 100% money-back guarantee on any product listed on MuscleTactics.com.
You can try the product out for a full 60 days, and if you're not completely thrilled with your results, then I don't belive I deserve your money!
If you don't get your desired results, (VERY unlikely) of if you're unhappy with your purchase for ANY reason at all... Then you can simply contact us at support (at) muscletactics (dot) com and let us know. You'll get a prompt and courteous refund of every penny you spent.
I truly couldn't be any more fair than that!
Your coach,
Need Help?If you have purchased one of our products, you can contact us at support (at) muscletactics (dot) com if you have questions about your order. Shirley Myers is our friendly customer support assistant who can help you out with your order.


text:
limit to what you can lose-- unlike going longlosses can be infinite and painfulshorting at the lower end of range is not a wisedecision-- statistically-- the odds against you increaseexponentially
shorting should not be allowed if only few MM's and their friends can get shares.. SECURITY is A JOKE, they are not looking out for retail investor.
Only a fool would not have cut loss in place to limit his/her loss. This notion "infinite loss" is just a myth.


text:
Yesterday, I learned that my great aunt Margaret died.
According to my sister, who has taken care of her recently, Margaret had not been doing well. She was disoriented often, and angry most of the time she spent with my sister. But this is not how I remember my great aunt Margaret, because the last time I saw her was 2007 (or maybe 2006), nearly a decade ago.
At the time, she was kind and nice. We had a cordial relationship. When I saw her, I'd give her a hug and say hello; she'd return the greeting, and then I'd go sit elsewhere in the house. It was a neutral relationship.
It wasn't always like that. I have fond memories of being close to my great aunt Margaret. I remember being so excited to go to her house in Pensacola, Florida, and listen to the waves on the beach. I remember sleeping upstairs in the guest bedroom and reading The Lord of The Rings for very first time. I remember how she'd buy her meats and cheeses sliced much more thinly than any other person I know, and how I adored the sandwiches she'd make for lunch. I remember the strange-looking ashtrays she had in her house, and the air purifier that ran constantly. I remember the organ I used to play on, and the deck from which my uncle Michael threw me into the Gulf against my screaming protestations, all while he claimed that this was the best way for me to learn how to swim. I even remember watching my sister crawl for the first time while my great aunt Margaret sat looking on in her rocking chair with a smile on her face.
I have all these great memories. But at the same time, I can't be sure that any of them are really true.
They certainly feel true. They feel as real to me as when I ate at a restaurant yesterday, or as the time that I first went to The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas.
But I have good reason to doubt my older memories. I have a clear vision in my head of a wishing tree in my backyard as a child, through which I threw coins and made wishes that inevitably came true. I only ever wished for small things, like getting to go out to eat that evening, or getting some small toy that I wanted (I was a kid, after all), but I have a very clear memory that after dozens upon dozens of secret wishes I made at that tree, every single one came true. This seems unreasonably accurate, so my current guess is that I'm misremembering the times when my wishes did not come true.
When it comes to my great aunt Margaret, I have even stronger evidence that my memories are faulty. Every memory I have as a kid involving her is exceedingly positive. I recall going to her house and having fun every time. I remember it clearly as something that happened repeatedly and always positively.
So, in my teenage years, when I began to have very strong negative feelings about life and did not know where to turn, I found myself retreating to the family member for whom I had the most positive associations: my great aunt Margaret.
I came to her doorstep in tears, hoping for affection, love, and understanding. I don't know exactly what I needed back then, nor even what I wanted, but I did know that whatever it was, I needed it badly. My life felt like it was tumbling down around me at the time, and I was starting what would turn out to be a lengthy (but temporary) bout of depression.
I knocked on her door. She greeted me. I think she was uncomfortable with my tears. I just asked for a hug.
After a short while, she asked: "Why have you come to me?" She was wondering, I think, why I would choose her company over others. So I explained how I had so very many memories of being around her. Of coming to her house and enjoying her company. Of the board games we would play on her glass table, and of all the times that family would come and visit all at once, for some holiday or another.
She looked at me strangely as I said these things. By the time I stopped talking, she looked like she was scared for me -- or maybe scared of me. She told me that we had only met two or three times, because she lived in Florida, and I had lived in Alabama. She told me that my memories were wrong, and that I was expanding a few short visits into the mistaken idea that I had come to see her often as I grew up.
Today, when I relate this story to others, they ask: "Did she have dementia?" or "Maybe she just wanted to be mean." But no, she was not like this. She had a sound mind at the time. She was a nice person. It was my memories that were at fault here, not her.
So I don't even know what to say about my relationship with my great aunt Margaret. On the one hand, I have such strong memories of so many happy times with her. But when I think of them, an image of her from my teenage years beckons, telling me that I am wrong, that we are not close, that it is weird for me to come to her crying in such a state as I was in.
I am sad to know that she has died. I feel like I loved her as a close family member. But maybe it was all in my head. I don't know how to tell the difference. Either way, I mourn her passing.
An ethics-oriented weblog celebrating effective altruism, philosophy, and other beliefs Eric holds. Also, a place to post random thoughts.
31 March, 2016
My Great Aunt Margaret
Posted by Eric Herboso at Thursday, March 31, 2016 6 comments:
Labels: life, skepticism
27 March, 2016
Gender Identity & Cis by Default
|I mean the other kind of cis/trans distinction.
But there's at least one issue for which I feel certain enough to be able to post my thoughts: my personal gender identity.
I don't have a strong sense of my own gender in terms of internal mapping. But I do have a moderately strong sense of my male gender as a social construct that I've latched onto.
If I awoke tomorrow, finding that I was female, and everyone just already thought of me as female, so that there were no issues with respect to the change itself, then I don't think I'd particularly mind. I don't have any internal drive that tells me that I should be a man, but I also don't have any kind of feeling that I should be a woman. Neither do I have any stake in the concept of being agender. When it comes to gender, I just don't really care one way or the other.
So I'm cis by default. I was born male, so I "identify" as male, but I have no strong internal mapping saying "I am male".
Yet: at this point, I have lived so long as a male that I identify strongly with my maleness in regard to social situations. I feel about my maleness the way I do about my skills with percussion: If I were reborn as a horn player, I wouldn't think to myself that really, I'm a percussionist at heart, but I'd still lament the fact that all that time was wasted perfecting percussion when now I'd have to don a trumpet.
It's not just that I'm familiar with my own male identity, but that I have invested in my male identity such that it feels like home to me. When I dream, my dream identity is male. (And wears glasses.) But I don't feel strongly that it is important to be male. (Or have glasses.) When I play rpgs, I choose a female avatar as often as a male one.
But maybe all of the above theorizing is mistaken, and the reason I don't feel a strong sensation one way or the other about gender is because I am cis. As in, maybe the whole reason that my gender preference doesn't occur to me is the same reason a fish might be less aware of water. But I don't think this is the case. I think that at heart, I don't really care about what gender I happen to be, and am cis not because I feel like my gender is correct, but because cis is just the default thing to be in our culture.
Meanwhile, I am fascinated that there is an internal experience of gender that lots of other people are having that I just don't seem to have at all. I feel sort of similar to how I feel about tetrachromats; I'm apparently missing out on an internal experience that others have. But unlike tetrachromats, the number of people with an internal gender identity seems fairly high. I don't know of any research that verifies this, but anecdotally, internal gender identity is much more common than I'd previously suspected.
All of this is to say that finally I have a post I can write about a feminism-adjacent topic that I don't feel hopelessly stupid for writing some ten minutes after composing the initial draft.
Posted by Eric Herboso at Sunday, March 27, 2016 No comments:
Labels: life, philosophy
22 January, 2016
Kissing, Self-Modification, & CEV
This is odd. I don't really know anyone else who shares similar feelings about kissing on all these fronts. I've mostly dealt with it by avoiding kissing when appropriate, and 'doing my duty' when needed. Most either don't notice or at least pretend not to notice, but there have been a few that have questioned me about it.
It started when I was young -- younger, I think, than I can reliably remember. I think that my mother held her hand in front of my eyes whenever people would kiss on television, and this gradually turned into a habit of averting my eyes whenever an onscreen kiss would occur. To this day, if I am watching television and two actors kiss, I am immediately taken out of the story and have to consciously use willpower to not turn my head away from the screen. For me, kissing ruins otherwise good stories, though I do look past it when I can. (Similar to how I notice and am annoyed by superheroes that ignore newton's laws of motion or space battles with audible explosions that should be silent; I look past these as well and try to engross myself in the story whenever possible, but these things always take me out of the storyline at least temporarily.)
This is especially weird when watching porn. I have no problem seeing many sex acts, but as soon as the actors kiss, I feel squicky. I suppose this is because I was trained to look away from kisses, but I never had a parent make me look away from actual sex acts, since I never had a parent in the room when those sex acts occurred on screen.
And then there was N—. She wasn't the first I'd kissed, but was still one of my first. She broke up with me for one reason or another, as young people sometimes will, and I asked her why. Looking back, it wasn't a particularly good question to ask, because she was annoyed with me at the time, and was very likely to lie. But for some reason, when she said it was because I was a terrible kisser, I believed her. I was barely a teenager at the time. Now, I know better. She was just being mean, or at the very least rude. But the thought stuck in my head anyway, and never really went away.
Of course, there's also the issue of my teeth. Today, I like my teeth. I like their distinctiveness and I have grown quite fond of the shape of the hole I make when biting into an apple. But it may be easy to understand why I haven't always felt this way. Those who know me in person will no doubt have noticed that one of my front teeth skews forward at a slight angle. It's significant enough to not be easily missed by anyone who talks with me in person, let alone any who kiss me. For a long time, I felt embarrassed by it, and even though I now like it for its many benefits (distinctive whistling sounds, ease of dental identification should I die in a fire), it is nonetheless something I consciously think of whenever I kiss someone, and that's not really a good feeling.
So today, whenever I kiss someone on the mouth, it is quite a conscious experience. It is never 'in the moment'. Like with tv, if I kiss someone lips to lips, I am very much aware of what I am doing, how I am doing it, and what the other person might be thinking of the experience. It is not sexy, nor romantic, nor in any way a positive experience for me. It takes me out of the experience and very much turns me off. Nevertheless, I usually just soldier through it, which isn't particularly difficult to do. I do kiss; I just don't really enjoy it.
What makes all of this even more strange is that I'm the sort of person who will kiss new people I meet on the cheek. It's a kind of greeting that I've inherited from my family, for whom kissing is the most appropriate way to greet any person you're saying hello or goodbye to. But as this is the cheek, not the mouth, it doesn't bother me at all.
In fact, most kissing does not bother me. I enjoy kissing others, and being kissed in return, just as much as I love close contact with friends and family. So long as it is not on the mouth, I'm very much in favor of kissing, whether it is with a partner or a family member. But the thought of kissing someone I'm romantically involved with on the mouth.... Even as I write that last sentence, I found myself shudder involuntarily (though only slightly).
It's not really a rational preference. I get that. I'm sure that with practice and a little self-reflection, it's the kind of thing that I could 'fix'. But I've never really felt a desire to fix it, just like I have never really felt a desire to 'fix' my distaste of brussels sprouts, or the fact that I'm sapioromantic rather than someone who feels romantic attraction to others for more physical qualities. It's never really been a problem -- at least it hasn't been in the past.
But, for some people, kissing is important. Important enough that my enjoyment of kissing (on the mouth) would be required for them to enjoy any kind of romantic contact. So the question arises: what level of brain modification am I okay with?
When I first learned about the horrors of industrial agriculture, I felt compelled to abstain from eating meat. When I fully realized the impact I could make through effective altruism, I began donating a significant amount of my income. When I learned about my own invisible privilege, I took steps to try to make that privilege more visible so that I could act more appropriately. Each of these were a beneficial type of information hazard that spurred me to action once I learned the underlying truth of reality. In each case, I felt it was appropriate to modify the normal behavior of my own brain so that I could become a better person. I anticipate making many more such changes in the future, and a large part of my idle thoughts go towards predicting what my coherent extrapolated volition might be once I become aware of more beneficial information hazards. (Infohazards are quite well named, given that they demand immediate self-modification when viewed, even if that change is 'beneficial', since, from the point of view of the pre-changed mind, that change is, by its very definition, hazardous.)
Yet this is a peculiar situation. This is no beneficial infohazard. This case is more like someone asking me to self-modify to enjoy the taste of brussels sprouts. It is a lateral change; not a positive one (from my perspective). Sure, were I to self-modify to enjoy kissing, it would give the other person utility -- and, in a way, I'd gain utility by creating a new way for me to enjoy reality (plus, I'd gain the utility from enjoying being with this person) -- but if I were to accept this kind of self modification as being acceptable, then I should also be okay with self-modifying to like brussels sprouts.
In Douglas Adams' Restaurant at the End of the Universe, there is a cow that wants to be eaten. Much has been written about the idea of a rational being that places utility in others doing something to it that we would otherwise consider harmful, but I'd like to focus on the part where this being was effectively made to desire something that we would ordinarily expect it to not desire at all. In the book, others made the cow to be born with such a desire -- but imagine, instead, that it self-modified to have such a desire.
If I were to be taken as a slave, and had access to an oracle AI that informed me that I'd be a slave for the remainder of my life, then would it be rational for me to self-modify my utility function to desire being enslaved? If yes, then surely I should also be willing to self-modify to enjoy brussels sprouts or enjoy kissing. But I think the answer is no, which doesn't necessarily mean I should or shouldn't self-modify for lateral utility changes.
I'm a consequentialist, but I have no desire to permanently enter Nozick's experience machine, mostly because I place some value on being hierarchically higher when choosing between a simulation and reality (or between two simulations). (Friendship is Optimal is a horror story, no matter what anyone else tells you. It is most definitely not in my CEV.) So if entering the experience machine is bad, then doesn't that imply that self-modifying to enjoy brussels sprouts would also be bad?
I don't know. I'm not sure I'm really thinking straight about this, because I'm tempted to think that maybe self-modifying to be vegetarian would be bad from my own point of view, and is only justified because of others' points of view (like the harmed animals). But if that is the justification for why it is good to become vegetarian, then I shouldn't I also self-modify anything that would cause more good overall? Like maybe undergoing plastic surgery, or losing weight, or having less extreme political views, or even wearing orange less often. Let's not bring up gay conversion therapy, which is much more serious than these other ideas. Yet even these other ideas seem terrible to me. They seem obviously wrong, and so something has surely gone awry in my thinking on this topic.
(In any case, I should point out here that none of the above thinking applies to situation of getting children to try out vegetables they don't at first like. From what I understand, humans evolved to have children find sweet things pleasurable and bitter things unpleasurable at a first taste, but to grow to like bitter things after repeated eatings, so that parents can get children to eat the farmed vegetables while still having them avoid poisoning themselves on wild plants. On this theory, children are primed to learn to eat new bitter tastes after a few tastings, even though adults have a much more difficult time of learning to like the taste of something they previously disliked.)
Posted by Eric Herboso at Friday, January 22, 2016 No comments:
Labels: life, philosophy, polyamory
07 January, 2016
The Double-Crux Game
One of the greatest joys I've personally experienced is that feeling you get when you genuinely change your mind. It's especially rewarding when you can feel the dominoes falling as each step in a logical sequence causes you to change your mind on increasingly complex lemmas after a basic premise's truth value switches.
Now you must find a double-crux of A. Let's say that you think A is true. Then you need to find a crux B of A such that you also think B is true, but if you could be persuaded that B were false, then it would also cause you to change your mind about A. Meanwhile, your partner will be trying to find her own crux, where they will believe B to be false, but if they could be persuaded that B were true, then they'd change their mind about A. Your goal is to find the exact same statement B that serves as a crux for both you and your partner, hence the term "double-crux".
The games flows more smoothly if both people are familiar with Bayesian priors/posteriors, and if every statement has a degree of belief listed, but I've successfully played the game with non-Bayesians using Boolean statements with only 100%/0% degrees of belief and it has nevertheless worked well.
If you're having trouble finding double cruxes, Regex has come up with something called the Duct Tape Contention technique that helps to identify a double crux by explicitly graphing out the reasons for each of your beliefs. It takes a long time to do it this way, but it can be helpful if you find yourself stuck without knowing how to find a double crux. You may want to check out this sample duct tape graph that Regex provides to show how the technique can identify double cruxes.
In everyday life, this kind of thing is somewhat of a rare occurrence. But it doesn't have to be.
|The double-crux game originated at CFAR.
I first learned about the Double-Crux game when McKenzie Amodei and Andrew Critch of the Center for Applied Rationality taught a workshop on it at EA Global 2015 in Mountain View. The idea is to get you and someone you disagree with into a situation such that hopefully one of you will be able to change your mind. It is genuinely one of the most awesome experiences I've ever had, and it is well worth the amount of effort that is involved in really and truly thinking it through.
- First, you need a friend who's willing to do this with you. It only works if you're both intellectually honest, willing to change your mind if presented with sufficient evidence, and excited about the progress of getting closer to truth, even if that means that one's current view is incorrect.
- Second, you need to identify an intellectual disagreement that you have between the two of you that you'd like to focus on. The process doesn't always work, but if it does, one of you will be changing your mind on this issue. The first time you try this, it will work best with a binary boolean of the form A or ~A. But once you get the hang of it, you can also use it for non-binary disagreements, like believing A is true with 90% confidence or 60% confidence.
- Third, you might want some paper to write down your thoughts. It's not strictly necessary if you have a good memory, but it's definitely helpful at least the first time you attempt it.
To start, write out statement A, for which the two of you disagree. For your first attempt at this game, one of you should think A is true; the other should think A is false.
|From Richard Acton.
If you've done this correctly, then you will find that there are now two statements that the two of you disagree on. You think both A and B are true, while your partner thinks both A and B are false. Further, you honestly believe that, if B were false, then A would be false, too -- and your partner believes that, if B were true, then A would be true as well. This means that if either of you were to change your mind about B, then that person would also change their mind about A.
Now we can recursively go through the above steps, replacing A with B. The two of you find a double crux for B which will be called C. Then a double crux of C called D. And so on. At each step, write down the double crux statement. Each time you do so, make sure it is a genuine double crux. This doesn't work if you grudgingly accept a statement as a crux; it only works if you honestly believe that the truth value of the crux is causally related to the truth value of the former statement.
Eventually, the two of you may reach a double crux statement Z for which data can be looked up. This is the goal of the cooperative game. It should be an issue that is easy for the two of you to agree upon, perhaps because you can look it up directly in Wikipedia, it might be easily computable in Wolfram Alpha, or it might be easy to simulate on Guesstimate. Once this happens, the two of you will agree on statement Z. For one of you, this means that you have effectively changed your mind on Z.
Because Z was a crux of Y, that person should also change their mind on Y. And X, W, V, U, etc., all the way to A.
If you are both intellectually honest about what really does consist of a double crux each time, then once you reach the end condition of finding a checkable statement Z, it means that one of you will correspondingly change your mind about A.
The experience of changing one's mind through this method is absolutely breathtaking. Being able to watch as your brain goes through each step, legitimately changing your mind on increasingly complex lemmas until you reach the main statement of disagreement is literally awe inducing. It is one of my favorite feelings, and I highly recommend trying it out for yourself.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. I've often gotten into situations where my partner and I can each find a crux, but not a double crux. And sometimes when working with people new to the double crux game, we run into the issue of someone claiming something is a crux when it actually turns out not to be. But even in these "failures", I've found the double crux game to be an immensely rewarding experience, because it usually helps both sides to understand the perspectives of each other much more.
Amodei lists a few additional hints on how to play the game:
- It can be easier to look for your individual single cruxes first, then to check with your partner to see if it might be a double crux with them.
- You can find your single crux by asking "what things could, in principle, change my mind on this topic?"
- Cruxes are better when you make the claim concrete and specific. Vague claims might be legitimate cruxes, but it will be very difficult to recursively work with something too vague. Be specific; quantify your claim; put a percent of likelihood on your predictions. That way you won't run into a situation where you won't be able to find a double crux for a too-vague statement.
- Once you understand how to do this with a boolean statement, feel free to move on to more complex disagreements. If you believe A is 90% likely while your partner believes it is 60% likely, that disagreement can be resolved by the double crux game as well.
|From Regex.
Richard Acton has created a presentation that gives a great example of two players playing the double-crux game. It's short, but it can be helpful to see a real life example of finding a double crux from a statement of disagreement.
Once you're familiar with the double crux game, PeteMichaud points out that you can use the game to resolve cognitive dissonance by examining your internal epistemic rationality, or even to build deep, sustainable caring by playing between the parts of you that thinks some part of the world matters and parts of you that are afraid to look in that direction. Of course, this requires that you first know how to notice and parse out these parts of yourself, and it might not be helpful to people who believe they have an intuitive grasp of value. But for those of us who are moral anti-realists that wish to construct value anyway, this seems like a promising technique to get the entirety of your brain on board with a consistent ethical position.
If you want to learn more about the double-crux game, or if you want to experience it first hand in a setting with others that are similarly interested in better navigating intellectual disagreement, you may be interested in going to one of the Center for Applied Rationality's workshops. Or, you might want to invite me to work through a mutual disagreement. Regardless, I heartily recommend playing the Double-Crux game. It's well worth the effort needed to work through each level with a trusted friend.
Posted by Eric Herboso at Thursday, January 07, 2016 18 comments:
Labels: effective altruism, philosophy, skepticism
04 January, 2016
Time for Work
Wake up. We don't want to be late for work.
Groggily, I stir. No music or podcast to help me wake this morning because I left my phone downstairs. I try to open my eyes. It doesn't work. It's the first day of work after a long holiday vacation, and I'm still not in the right headspace for getting up this early. But I manage anyway, mostly through a combination of masturbation and pointing a fan directly into my face.
Within the hour, I'm stepping outside the car and walking into Panera. I order a spinach and artichoke soufflé and a cup for iced tea. Four refills later, I'm finally ready for the metro.
Usually I like the metro. Living in Germantown, MD, and commuting twice each week to Alexandria, VA, really isn't that bad when you have podcasts and a comfortable pillow. But today is the first cold day of winter, despite it being january 4, and I left my phone at home. So I pull out my 3DS and play an old copy of Link's Awakening for the entirety of the trip.
Once at the office, I feel like I can finally relax. I know exactly what I need to accomplish today, and I'm anxious to get started. Long breaks have their ups and downs; when I'm away from work for too long, I generally start to worry. What if the automation I set up breaks? What if the tracking codes I set up aren't tracking correctly? What would ordinarily be a mild inconvenience can turn into a moderate disaster when I'm away from the office for a few weeks at a time. But now, I am back, and more is right with the world.
So now: the problem solving.
Okay. The rest is analysis, which I need dedicated time to spend on, so I should fill out this form and grab my keycard first. When I get back, I can begin checking up on how well the store performed over the holiday season.
But first, I should probably publish this blog entry.
Groggily, I stir. No music or podcast to help me wake this morning because I left my phone downstairs. I try to open my eyes. It doesn't work. It's the first day of work after a long holiday vacation, and I'm still not in the right headspace for getting up this early. But I manage anyway, mostly through a combination of masturbation and pointing a fan directly into my face.
Within the hour, I'm stepping outside the car and walking into Panera. I order a spinach and artichoke soufflé and a cup for iced tea. Four refills later, I'm finally ready for the metro.
Usually I like the metro. Living in Germantown, MD, and commuting twice each week to Alexandria, VA, really isn't that bad when you have podcasts and a comfortable pillow. But today is the first cold day of winter, despite it being january 4, and I left my phone at home. So I pull out my 3DS and play an old copy of Link's Awakening for the entirety of the trip.
Once at the office, I feel like I can finally relax. I know exactly what I need to accomplish today, and I'm anxious to get started. Long breaks have their ups and downs; when I'm away from work for too long, I generally start to worry. What if the automation I set up breaks? What if the tracking codes I set up aren't tracking correctly? What would ordinarily be a mild inconvenience can turn into a moderate disaster when I'm away from the office for a few weeks at a time. But now, I am back, and more is right with the world.
So now: the problem solving.
- First, a new keycard system has been implemented. My current keycard won't let me onto my floor, so I need to get a new one. But that's several floors away, so first, a coworker buzzes me in and I see what else I need to do before getting a new keycard.
- Ah, a form needs to be filled out. This happens at the beginning of every month, but for some reason I always forget until my calendar reminds me. This needs to be submitted to another floor as well; I should fill this out and submit immediately after getting my new keycard.
- Hm... I have uncashed checks? These emails always throw me for a loop. I have two checks from the company that I apparently never cashed; one back in January of last year and one this past June. For a moment, I scold myself. Am I really so bad about money that I can just forget to cash two checks from my employer like this? The email is asking if I need the checks re-issued. .:sigh:. I guess I should look and see if I have the checks first. The last time I misplaced a check it was because I used it as a bookmark, thinking that there'd be no way to lose it, since of course I'd come back to the book and find it. Except it took me several months before I opened that book again. /c:
- Next is a reminder that I'm supposed to take a lunch each day. I didn't in my last two work days, because there was so much to do at the end of the year and I went without lunch. I need to remember not to do that kind of thing. I still remember the time in a previous job when, to hit a deadline, I worked all night long, literally sleeping at my desk that night so I could finish on time. Back then, I thought it said something positive about my work ethic. Now I realize it said something negative about my ability to plan ahead. I haven't done anything that bad since, but skipping lunch two days last month is a move in that direction, and I don't like it. I'll definitely take a lunch today.
- Next up is the monthly report. I only work two days each week at this place, so compiling a monthly report takes up way more time than it should. I really need to code up an automated version, but I won't have time to do that today. Maybe next month.
Okay. The rest is analysis, which I need dedicated time to spend on, so I should fill out this form and grab my keycard first. When I get back, I can begin checking up on how well the store performed over the holiday season.
But first, I should probably publish this blog entry.
Posted by Eric Herboso at Monday, January 04, 2016 9 comments:
Labels: life
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
Showing Results: Most Recent
This review is from: MSI GeForce GTX 480 (Fermi) DirectX 11 N480GTX-M2D15-B 1536MB 384-Bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card
Pros: amazingly fast card, much faster than my 2 5770's in cfx. completely satisfying. i want another just for the e-peen!
Cons: it runs a little hot and loud, but not like the horror stories floating around.
Other Thoughts: do it!READ FULL REVIEW
This review is from: Linksys WRT120N-RM 802.11b/g/n Wireless Home Router up to 150Mbps/ 10/100 Mbps Ethernet Port x4
Pros: doesn't not work
Cons: noneREAD FULL REVIEW
This review is from: Western Digital Black WD7501AALS 750GB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Hard Drive Bare Drive
Pros: works well, no bad sectors
Cons: noneREAD FULL REVIEW


text:
Created in this Craftsy class
Craftsy Block of the Month 2012 taught by Amy Gibson
In Craftsy's first-ever Block of the Month, Amy Gibson brings you 10 specific quilting techniques - appliqué, string quilting, paper piecing and more.
Other projects made as part of this class:
QuiltingSomething old for somebody new quilt
QuiltingAmy's Block of the Month
QuiltingMy first Quilt
Offer some kudos...
Join the conversation...
Ask a question...
Add your comment...
It looks amazing, well done! Could never tell that this is the first time you;ve done something like this.
07/25/2012 Flag
I love this! The unique green and blue colors are so spirited and subtle, at the same time. Realy fun fabric choice!
07/27/2012 Flag