text:
Backgrounder #2590 on Asia and the Pacific
August 8, 2011
August 8, 2011 | Backgrounder on Asia and the Pacific
Abstract: The scheduled autumn visit of China's next Communist Party General Secretary, Xi Jinping, to Washington is a good opportunity for the U.S. to re-examine its often mismanaged economic diplomacy with China. Policymakers from both parties frequently point to the seemingly exceptional importance of China to the American economy, yet have created an inadequate, almost random, set of institutions to guide bilateral economic relations. Heritage Foundation China and international economics expert Derek Scissors identifies the problems and offers ways to improve the institutional toolkit.
The U.S. has mismanaged its economic diplomacy with China for the past decade. There are some understandable, perhaps even unavoidable, reasons for this mismanagement but there are also mistakes that should be corrected. A good opportunity is the autumn visit to Washington, D.C., of the next Communist Party General Secretary, Xi Jinping. Vice President Biden is scheduled to travel to China in August to arrange the visit. The Vice President should use these exchanges to change the American approach.
One set of mistakes can be found in the institutional arrangements through which the U.S. engages with China economically. Senior American leaders of all partisan and ideological stripes speak as if China is exceptionally important to the American economy. This would seem to imply a high priority on having the right institutions to guide the relationship—being able to choose the right topics of discussion, to have the right people meet, and to make progress in a timely fashion. Yet the set of tools the U.S. uses to deal with the People's Republic of China (PRC) were built awkwardly, almost arbitrarily.
Improvement is possible. The management dimension of the relationship is overemphasized in institutional arrangements, while the strategic dimension receives little beyond lip service and grand dinners. The Sino–American economic relationship certainly needs managing, but changes must be made in order to avoid a strategic clash that could harm the U.S., severely harm China, and harm the global economy.
The U.S. should eliminate some of its unilateral reporting, reduce the ever-increasing number of bilateral dialogues, and de-emphasize many issues. This will help focus high-level diplomatic efforts on a few fundamental strategic objectives. In addition, new multilateral initiatives that do not currently include China, such as the Trans–Pacific Partnership (TPP), can be helpful in creating incentives for the PRC to make desired changes.
The present importance of the PRC to the American economy is usually overstated for political reasons. It is easier to blame another country than policies brewed at home. China did not instigate the financial crisis, nor did it create the federal budget deficit, and it is not nearly as important to the American economy as those looking for an economic scapegoat often argue.
Beijing's currency policy is routinely cited as the cause of American unemployment. The record shows this is untrue: China's sharp devaluation in 1994, which caused the yuan to be undervalued against the dollar, coincided with eight consecutive years of declining American unemployment. When unemployment then rose for three straight years in the early 2000s, the yuan's nominal exchange rate against the dollar had not budged.
Nor is the exchange rate costing American jobs now. Jobs have been lost by the millions over the past three years, while the yuan has either held steady or been rising against the dollar.
There are, of course, genuinely important economic links between the U.S. and China: Annual bilateral trade approaches $500 billion. The PRC has stored $2 trillion in balance of payment surpluses in U.S. securities.[1] Such large flows bring with them policy and commercial practices by both sides that can be exceptionally beneficial or exceptionally harmful. The practices can affect product quality, cross-national legal judgments, representation in multinational institutions, and the like. Items like these must be addressed, but can be handled in technical discussions. It is not necessary to address them in a high-level strategic forum.
On the other hand, there are fundamental issues that can only be addressed in a high-level strategic forum. These issues feature: (1) Chinese over-saving and American under-saving; (2) on the Chinese side, market access barriers typically tracked to privileges granted to state-owned enterprises; (3) on the American side, punitive threats aimed at market access; (4) Chinese holdings of U.S. government bonds; (5) intellectual property rights; (6) energy and environmental concerns; and (7) adherence to World Trade Organization (WTO) requirements.[2]
These issues require strategic decisions about priorities and sacrifices. If such decisions are ever made, lower-level policymakers can gather and work on technical aspects of implementation. That they have not been made has created a seemingly permanent sense of danger and insecurity in the bilateral economic relationship.
This outcome might be acceptable if the two countries had little contact. But the U.S. and PRC now have a great deal of contact, informal and formal. Annual summits, numerous visits by cabinet officials, multiple bilateral dialogues, side meetings of top leaders in multinational fora—China and America have more than enough opportunities to work out at least some differences.[3]
While certain disagreements may be effectively irresolvable, others are not. There has been little progress on core issues in bilateral economic relations since China's WTO accession in 2001. The U.S. is both the more powerful party and much more often the party that wants substantial change, so it is incumbent upon the U.S. to initiate an institutional structure which facilitates change. This has not been done. Instead, the arrangements that govern Sino–American economic relations mix strategic and management goals in a haphazard manner that stymies progress.
Institutional economic arrangements can be loosely described as multilateral, bilateral, and "unilateral." The last refers to actions that pertain to the relationship but are taken solely by the U.S., such as the publishing of congressionally mandated reports by cabinet departments. There are annual and special reports from congressionally established commissions that exclusively consider China. There is also serial reporting from the executive branch. Prominent here are the Department of the Treasury's biannual assessments of currency policy and the United States Trade Representative's annual trade estimates and intellectual property reports.[4]
Bilateral arrangements include both regular dialogues and scheduled meetings between principals. Almost the entire set might be labeled as under the umbrella of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). Indeed, this was part of the original justification for the then-Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED): to improve economic diplomacy between America and China by unifying increasingly far-flung components in a strategic conversation. At the creation of the SED, President George W. Bush indicated the "need to establish an overarching bilateral economic framework."[5]
This goal has not come anywhere close to being met. The initial announcement of the SED tasked it with examining long-term strategic issues "rather than seeking immediate solutions to the issues of the day."[6] Judging by the SED's and S&ED's development since, there appears to be a very large number of long-term strategic issues. There have been many communiqués. There has not been progress to justify the value of the overarching framework as initially envisioned.
The result, when the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) and other arrangements are included, is an incoherent proliferation of groups and discussions. These appear to have no logical relationship whatsoever—some topics can easily fit in three or more forums, and there is no functional relationship between any of the dialogues and working groups.
Too Much Contact, Too Little Success[7]
Intellectual Property Rights
Economic Relationship Rests on Two Very Different Pillars[8]
Established in 1983, the JCCT has since expanded in response to the developing bilateral relationship. The JCCT meets annually to discuss trade and investment, business development, industrial cooperation, commercial law, and export controls. The American side is now represented by the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative; the Chinese side, by a vice premier.
The SED was established in 2006 and became the S&ED in 2009. The economic track addresses broader issues than typically discussed in the JCCT, with emphasis on finance and energy. The U.S. Treasury Secretary leads the American side and a vice premier leads the Chinese side.
The now-constant trips by cabinet officials from both sides often overlap with the formal dialogues but also may include discussion of still more issues. The visits by chiefs of state, typically every 12 to 15 months, have the unique potential to depart from and alter the existing structure—helpfully or harmfully—though they have not done either recently.[9]
Finally, multilateral institutions, such as the Asia–Pacific Economic Community, offer two means by which the U.S. can engage the PRC. The first is the potential effects of multilateral agreements, such as the Doha round of WTO negotiations, a potential free trade agreement for the Asia Pacific, or from the presidential and ministerial G-20 conclaves. In principle, such agreements could powerfully shape bilateral economic relations.
The second is side meetings between the U.S. and China at multilateral events.[10] These are plainly informal but are a repeated and expected occurrence, offering the opportunity to coordinate on multilateral matters at hand and address any acute bilateral problems.
When Sino–American economic discussions are disappointing, as they usually are, the standard defense of the status quo is the value in "just continuing to talk."[11] While unsatisfying, there is some merit here. There is value to decision makers at all levels, in what are now the two largest economies, consulting on a regular and publicly disclosed basis. This is especially the case with economies and policymaking processes as profoundly different as those of America and China—where chances are high for a simple but dangerous misunderstanding.
Better understanding each other's broad concerns, constraints, and priorities is good use of time but, if this is the goal, the enormous U.S. economic diplomatic commitment to the PRC is wasteful. Government reports, such as on currency policy, which feign as if the U.S. is trying to accomplish meaningful things, are pointless on this score. So is the complex framework the S&ED has become. Simple discussion at the cabinet level is all that is necessary for better understanding.
The profound bilateral differences, however, indicate the need for progress well beyond continued talk. If the two largest economies cannot harmonize to some extent on investment and saving, for example, the imbalances that contributed to the financial crisis will worsen.[12] China's growing global share in GDP and other measures makes substantial progress more necessary as time goes on. When dealing with the PRC, national-government-to-national-government approaches are unavoidable and may in fact be the only way to force difficult change.
Among the core issues listed, the WTO settlement process itself is hardly ideal but is not driving U.S.–China disputes. Similarly, China's holding truly massive quantities of American debt is unhealthy but has not caused the problems routinely ascribed to it.[13]
The remaining issues show poor results. Protection of intellectual property does not appear to have improved despite years of American efforts. Market access to the PRC can arguably be said to be deteriorating, and market access to the U.S., though extensive, remains under constant political threat.[14] While energy and the environment are thought to be areas of notable bilateral cooperation, Chinese coal use and carbon emissions are now by far the world's largest and the rate of climb does not appear to be slowing.[15] Economic imbalances have clearly worsened, driven to a considerable extent by worsening Chinese overinvestment.[16]
Some ways in which America engages the PRC have proved more effective than others. The United States Trade Representative's annual report on intellectual property may have proved helpful elsewhere in the world, but not in China. The biannual currency report is close to a farce— its content never varies in meaningful fashion and it is now published on a political schedule.[17]
If a U.S. Administration does not have a coherent view of the PRC that permeates the bureaucracy, scattered reports from various agencies merely waste time and resources. They cannot build toward any achievement. The U.S. government's public reporting on Sino–American economic relations is purely for domestic political purposes; it has shown no value in advancing American goals and should be sharply reduced.
Bilateral tools are more numerous and more diverse in performance. On its own terms, the JCCT has been successful. It was established at a time when China was a newly reforming economy with a small global presence, and bilateral economic problems were technical rather than strategic. The JCCT has maintained this focus, and progress has continually been made at the level of policy implementation. It was not designed to, and has barely attempted to, address matters of structural adjustment, leaving these unaddressed until the SED was created.
Beyond talk, the SED, and then S&ED, as a whole have failed. On strategic issues, such as market access, there has been negligible progress attributable to the S&ED or even deterioration. Worse, there does not appear to be a strategy—in the form of long-term priorities and preferred means to attain objectives—for either the Bush or Obama Administrations individually, much less a consistent approach across Administrations.
To illustrate, energy and the environment are typically presented as areas of cooperation, with multiple agreements inked at every major meeting. These agreements, however, did nothing to mitigate profound differences between the U.S. and China seen at the Copenhagen summit, for instance.[18] Further, China has not budged from its energy use path. A coal exporter when the SED was established, it became the world's second-largest coal importer just a few years later, as well as the second-largest oil importer, even while restricting some energy-related exports.[19]
In another area of emphasis, intellectual property rights, the U.S. and China have spent a great deal of time and effort with very few results. Simply because the relationship is important does not mean that every issue must be discussed, especially when this universalist approach has fared so poorly. Many of the components of the S&ED should just be disbanded.
At this point in the Sino–American economic relationship, meetings between heads of governments are necessary. There is considerable value in the principals having contact prior to a crisis such as seen in autumn 2008. Beyond that, some political theater is unavoidable. However, the high-level visits now often simply repeat the substance of scheduled bilateral dialogues with no discernable movement toward strategic objectives. The U.S. seems to take twice as long to accomplish the same things, which are fairly minor to start. As with the dialogues, there is obviously not a set of true economic priorities for the presidential summits. Individual cabinet-level meetings may have particular goals, but also lack any strategic direction.[20]
In multilateral arenas, the communication associated with the G-20 meetings immediately after the collapse of Lehman Brothers shows the value of Sino–American economic coordination. The appearance of conflict or misunderstanding between Beijing and Washington in autumn 2008 might have triggered global panic.[21] Since then, though, the G-20 has accomplished little, even while the utter lack of progress in rebalancing threatens another crisis. At the International Monetary Fund, modest Sino–American cooperation has helped shift voting weights in a sensible direction, but has done little in the far more important matter of China's balance of payments liberalization.
The WTO is perhaps the most obvious forum to make progress. WTO adjudication certainly seemed like an obvious solution to bilateral disputes at the time of the PRC's accession a decade ago. The WTO has since been revealed to be ponderous in dispute resolution, effectively permitting years of "illegal" behavior before penalties can be imposed.[22]
Sino–American communication at the WTO rounds has not only failed to speed bilateral talks, it has failed to assist in the long-delayed and perhaps greatly diminished Doha round.[23] The WTO inhibits protectionism—a worthy feat—but, as China has risen, it now does little more. A free trade agreement of the Asia Pacific is a superb vision but even its first step on this path, the Trans–Pacific Partnership (TPP), is years away from completion.
The current, U.S.-driven institutional structure looks like nothing so much as a way to portray the U.S.–China economic relationship as vital, while accomplishing little. At present, the balance of evidence suggests the PRC is not exceptionally important to the American economy.
Right now, China is one major American partner, among Canada, Japan, Britain, and Germany. There is no particular need for regional or most sector discussions, such as for transportation, and for a strategic economic dialogue solely with the PRC. The next few presidential summits can focus largely on security issues. Among unilateral actions the U.S. can take, China should be de-emphasized in American government economic reports (with the welcome effect of de-emphasizing the reports themselves). In multilateral forums, the U.S. can alleviate unwarranted fears of U.S.–China condominium by elevating discussions with other partners and de-emphasizing discussions with China.
China certainly has the potential to become qualitatively different than other important American partners. Not only is it bigger in GDP, it is now global in trade on a scope second only to the U.S. Present institutions are extensive but utterly unsuitable to create the best conditions for progress. Superficial engagement in the form of an explosion in bureaucracy is a very poor substitute for identifying difficult but necessary tradeoffs.
The various China reports issued by the U.S. government accomplish nothing in terms of changing Chinese behavior. Despite the encouraging name, bilateral discussions under the umbrella of the Strategic (and) Economic Dialogue never seem to have a strategic focus and, as they continue to proliferate, risk losing any coherence whatsoever. They have become the cover story for the failure to act on fundamental matters, that is, nothing was accomplished but the two sides agreed to create several more working groups.
In contrast, multilateral forums are underused. Forming coalitions to confront China in existing forums faces well-known obstacles.[24] But another tactic is available: use or create multilateral institutions where China cannot participate until it meets certain conditions. The obvious example at present is the TPP—a trade group that might be able to achieve liberalization well beyond the stalled WTO process. In addition, a Western Hemisphere free trade area would indirectly force Chinese trade practices to improve, at the risk of losing market share.
Such efforts have great value in themselves but, to assist American economic diplomacy with respect to the PRC, they must also contain a China strategy. If multilateral diplomatic work is consciously and persistently coordinated, the terms, the participants, and the timing and sequence of new initiatives will create incentives for China to change its behavior.
The U.S. therefore should:
For years, senior American officials and political representatives have talked as if the economic relationship with China is critical, while the U.S. has had no substantive strategy. U.S. interests have been poorly served by the ever-expanding pile of reports, dialogues, and side meetings.
The institutional structure of Sino–American economic relations must be considerably trimmed and reshaped. The new structure will include some of the bilateral management tools which presently exist but narrowly focus other bilateral arrangements on a few strategic objectives. Multilateral efforts can also play an important role, by indirectly pushing the PRC to change in ways the U.S. has been directly, but unsuccessfully, advocating.
—Derek Scissors, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Asia Economic Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.
Show references in this report
[1]U.S. Census Bureau, "Foreign Trade: Trade in Goods with China (1985–2011)," July 12, 2011,at http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2009 (July 22, 2011), and Derek Scissors, "Chinese Investment in the U.S.: $2 Trillion and Counting," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3169, March 1, 2011, at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/chinese-investment-in-the-us-$2-trillion-and-counting.
[2]Wayne M. Morrison, "China–U.S. Trade Issues,"Congressional Research Service, June 2, 2011, at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33536.pdf (July 24, 2011).
[3]For example, press release,"United States Hosts Third Meeting of the U.S.–China Forum on Combating Illegal Logging and Associated Trade,"United States Trade Representative, November 9, 2010, at http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/press-releases/2010/november/united-states-hosts-third-meeting-us-china-forum (July 22, 2011), and "U.S., China Haggle Over Deals Before Meeting," The Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2011, at http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/15/china-haggle-deals-meeting/ (July 22, 2011).
[4]For example, United States Trade Representative, "2011 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers,"March 2011, at http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2011-0 (June 24, 2011), and U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission, "Recommendations to Congress: Annual Reports (2002–2010),"at http://www.uscc.gov/annual_report/recommendations.php (July 22, 2011).
[5]Press release, "Statement by the President," The White House, September 20, 2006, at http://shanghai.usembassy-china.org.cn/u.s.-china_economic_dialogue.html (July 22, 2011), and David J. Lynch, "High-Level Economic Talks Planned for U.S., China," USA Today, September 20, 2006, at http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2006-09-20-china-talks_x.htm (July 22, 2011).
[6]Press release, "Statement by the President."
[7]Council on Foreign Relations, "Fact Sheet: U.S.–China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade, October 2009," October 2009, at http://www.cfr.org/china/fact-sheet-us-china-joint-commission-commerce-trade-october-2009/p20683 (July 22, 2011); press release, "U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue 2010 Outcomes of the Strategic Track," U.S. Department of State, May 25, 2010, at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/05/142180.htm (July 22, 2011); press release, "U.S.–China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade," United States Trade Representative, October 29, 2009, at http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2009/october/us-china-joint-commission-commerce-and-trade (July 22, 2011); press release, "Third Meeting of the U.S.–China Strategic & Economic Dialogue Joint U.S.–China Economic Track Fact Sheet," U.S. Department of Treasury, May 10, 2011, at http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1170.aspx(July 22, 2011); "Trade Policy Initiative: U.S.–China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) Working Groups," Export.gov, at http://export.gov/china/doingbizinchina/tradepolicydialog/eg_cn_026541.asp(July 26, 2011); "China's JCCT Commitments, 2004–10," US–China Business Council, January 21, 2011, at http://www.uschina.org/public/documents/2011/01/jcct_commitments.pdf (July 22, 2011); and
Nina Hachigian, "Looking Past the 'Orchestra Pit' on China," Democracy Arsenal, May 13, 2011, at http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2011/05/looking-past-the-orchestra-pit-on-china.html(July 22, 2011).
[8]Press release, "The First U.S.–China Strategic Economic Dialogue December 14–15," Beijing Fact Sheet,U.S. Department of the Treasury, December 15, 2006, at http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp205.aspx (July 22, 2011), and "Backgrounder: China–U.S. Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade," People's Daily Online, December 15, 2010, at http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/7231251.html (July 22, 2011).
[9]Press release, "U.S.–China Joint Statement,"The White House, January 19, 2011, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/19/us-china-joint-statement (July 22, 2011).
[10]"Obama, Wen Huddle in a Side Meeting at U.N.," CNN, September 23, 2010, at http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-23/world/un.china.wen.meeting_1_chinese-premier-wen-jiabao-global-economy-president-barack-obama?_s=PM:WORLD (July 22, 2011).
[11]Elisabeth Bumiller, "U.S. and China Defense Chiefs Agree to Keep Talking," The New York Times, January 10, 2011, at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/world/asia/11military.html (July 22, 2011).
[12] Steven Dunaway, Global Imbalances and the Financial Crisis (New York, NY: The Council on Foreign Relations, 2009); "CBO's 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook," Congressional Budget Office, June 2011, athttp://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/06-21-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf (July 22, 2011); and "Prepare for an Attack of the China Bears," The Wall Street Journal, May 25, 2011, at http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2011/05/25/prepare-for-an-attack-of-the-china-bears/ (July 22, 2011).
[13]Derek Scissors, "Misconception on Chinas Role in Financing the US Deficit," The Heritage Foundation Commentary on Deficits and China, March 24, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2010/03/Misconceptions-on-Chinas-Role-in-Financing-the-US-Deficit (June 24, 2011).
[14]Howard Schneider, "House Backs Tariffs on China in Dispute Over Currency Policy," The Washington Post, September 30, 2010, at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092907294.html (July 22, 2011), and Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, "U.S. Shifts Focus to Press China for Market Access," The New York Times, January 18, 2011, at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/asia/19prexy.html (July 22, 2011).
[15]Derek Scissors, "The 'Beijing Consensus' in Energy and the Environment," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2970, July 26, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/The-Beijing-Consensus-in-Energy-and-the-Environment.
[16]George Magnus, "China Risks Credit-Fuelled Minsky Moment," The Financial Times, May 3, 2011, at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44351852-75b5-11e0-80d5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Q3bIgTzL (July 22, 2011).
[17]"UPDATE 2–US Says China Yuan Undervalued, But Not Manipulated," Reuters, May 27, 2011, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/usa-china-currency-idUSN2717209820110527 (July 22, 2011).
[18]Bryan Walsh, "Frustration Mounts in Copenhagen as Talks Stall," Time, December 15, 2009, at http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1948020,00.html (July 22, 2011), and press release, "U.S.–China Clean Energy Announcements," The White House, November 17, 2009, at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/us-china-clean-energy-announcements (July 22, 2011).
[19]James Regan, "China's Rare Earths Export Cut Spurs Trade Concerns,"Reuters, December 29, 2010, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/29/us-china-rareearth-idUSTRE6BR0KX20101229 (July 22, 2011), and Rebekah Kebede and Michael Taylor, "RPT–WRAPUP 1-China Coal Imports to Double in 2015, India Close Behind," Reuters, May 30, 2011, at http://www.reuters.com/article /2011/05/31/coal-asia-idUSL3E7GV01620110531 (July 22, 2011).
[20]Michael Forsythe, "Chu 'Optimistic' on Climate Talks After China Visit (Update 1),"Bloomberg, July 16, 2009, at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aobOWRQQQqtU (July 22, 2011), and "The Hu–Obama Summit: Big on Symbolism, Less So on Substance," Knowledge@Wharton, February 2, 2011, at http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=2708 (July 22, 2011).
[21]"Paulson Praises China's Cooperation in Easing Financial Crisis," The New York Times, October 22, 2008, at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/business/worldbusiness/22iht-22paulson.17155092.html (July 22, 2011).
[22]"China Fails to Implement WTO Ruling in Audiovisuals Case, or What Did We Expect?" China Copyright and Media, March 24, 2011, at http://chinacopyrightandmedia.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/china-fails-to-implement-wto-ruling-in-audiovisuals-case-or-what-did-we-expect/ (July 22, 2011).
[23]"China Disappointing, India 'Mixed' on WTO Doha Talks: US," The Economic Times, January 13, 2011, at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-01-13/news/28428276_1_doha-negotiations-michael-punke-substantive-negotiations (July 22, 2011).
[24]Jim Randle, "Brazil Says US, China Both Cause Currency Problems," Voice of America, February 15, 2011,athttp://www.voanews.com/english/news/americas/Brazil-Says-US-China-Both-Cause-Currency-Problems-116252319.html (July 22, 2011).


text:
Facebook's Zuckerberg: Tech's Version of a Sellout?
You create a hit song. You let somebody market you. You make a ton of money, allegedly compromising your "roots" in the process and some of your "people" and other peanut gallery members chide you for "selling out."
While I don't consider The Goo Goo Dolls, Green Day or Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band sell-outs, I tend not to have a strong opinion either way. That said, you won't find me running around questioning their decisions. Creative people evolve all of the time; purists often want to preserve the past for their own emotional needs to the detriment of somebody else's growth or progress.
That said, I don't have a problem with how Facebook
On last week's Facebook earnings call , some form of the word "business" came up 27 times. For example, we heard Mark Zuckerberg tell analysts and investors, don't worry, we'll muck up the skyline with ads on Instagram as well! :
... we're building Instagram to be at business and that we expect that over time we're going to generate a lot of profit from it and probably through advertising.
That's a considerable departure from the sentiment Zuckerberg expressed in the letter he wrote to prospective shareholders in Facebook's IPO prospectus from 2012:
Facebook was not originally founded to be a company. We've always cared primarily about our social mission ... This is a different approach for a public company to take ...
Simply put: we don't build services to make money; we make money to build better services.
And we think this is a good way to build something. These days I think more and more people want to use services from companies that believe in something beyond simply maximizing profits.
By focusing on our mission and building great services, we believe we will create the most value for our shareholders and partners over the long term ...
We don't wake up in the morning with the primary goal of making money ...
Once again, Facebook exists to make the world more open and connected, and not just to build a company. We expect everyone at Facebook to focus every day on how to build real value for the world in everything they do.
Hey, it's all good. But it's instructive at the same time.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Franklin MLB Foam T-Ball Set
Product Information:
Every future baseball player has to start with the basics. The Franklin® MLB® Foam T-Ball Set is a perfect learning tool for your little one. The adjustable heavy-duty plastic batting tee comes with a 24" soft foam baseball bat and soft PU foam baseball. Start playing for hours of fun! Includes a manufacturer's 90-day limited warranty.
For additional information relating to the Manufacturer's Warranty, please contact 781-344-1111.
- T-Ball batting tee set
- Adjustable, heavy-duty plastic batting tee
- Includes 24" blue soft foam baseball bat
- Includes Soft PU foam baseball
- For ages 6+
- Manufacturer's 90-day limited warranty
- Model: 6635S3
- Franklin
For additional information relating to the Manufacturer's Warranty, please contact 781-344-1111.
Country of Origin: ChinaWeb ID: 12395444
Customer Reviews:
Rated 3 out of 5�by 5 reviewers.
Rated 5 out of 5�by Adc35 Don't believe the negative reviews This product was very easy to set up and sturdy. The ball and bat are made of good material. January 14, 2017
Rated 1 out of 5�by DoNotbuy Horrible stand The stand for this is horrible, I will be returning it. I have to sit next to it and hold the stem to allow my kids to swing at it. June 1, 2015
Rated 4 out of 5�by Joe Good for toddler Had some frustration with assembly. Then figured out that the black piece unscrews from the base. Nice height and durability for 3 yr old. Got mine half price. September 12, 2014
Rated 1 out of 5�by Nae Nae This product was not that good. I bought it for my grandaughter and I liked the bat and ball. The stand was really bad. I couldn't get it to stand, it was really flimsy. I could not get the pole through the two base bottoms as it had a couple of groves which it looked like it should fit but it as too large for the hole no matter how I tried it. This was very frustrating and i returned it to the store which was very dishearting to my grandaughter. July 8, 2014
Rated 4 out of 5�by t-ball mom Price is good for product... Got this for a 3 year old, he does well with it. I like that it is adjustable so he can play as he gets taller. Pretty cool because of MLB logo. Good price for what you get! May 11, 2014
1-5 of 5


text:
Before You Begin
This is your official enrollment confirmation for Utah State University, and we've packed a lot of information into the following pages. Make sure you take the time to read through the instructions and if you have any questions, please contact us at (435) 797-0283 or (800) 606-4878.
Student Must Be Present
If you are a parent or sibling helping an incoming student through the SOAR process, please make sure the student is present before you continue. (If your student is on a mission or in the military, you may complete this process on his or her behalf. Otherwise, please ensure your student is present.)


text:
I finally got to a gym with bumper plates but I don't want to go in there and just start wildly tossing weights around.
Any tips on how to properly drop weights? Right now the only lift I'll be dropping weights after are power cleans.
JP wrote:Spirulina is a badass crew, and they often just hang around in street corners looking to beat up proteins.
They oftenget confused by the fact that they are almost half protein themselves.
xrodolfox wrote:
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


text:
Topic: rubyonrails irc chat - are you on?
I'm wondering how many of you are how often in the #rubyonrails irc chat at irc.freenode.net?
Personally, I just hang around there when there's something interesting going in the rails scene on or when I have a special question.
By the way, my nick is komi or kommen.
Working at: http://www.abloom.at/
My blog: soaked and soaped http://soakedandsoaped.com/


text:
Official information may be found at the Java Client Library page.
Handling Timeouts
The Java client library has a set of synchronous and asynchronous methods. While it doesn't happen in most situations, occasionally network IO can become congested, nodes can fail, or memory pressure can lead to situations where an operation can timeout.
When this timeout occurs, most of the synchronous methods on the client will return a RuntimeException showing a timeout as the root cause. Since the asynchronous operations give finer grained control over how long is given for an operation to be successful or unsuccessful, this path throws a checked TimeoutException.
As an application developer, it's best to think about what you would do after this timeout. This may be something like showing the end user a message, it may be nothing, or it may be going to some other system for additional data.
In some cases, it may make sense to retry the operation, but this should be thought about carefully, as the cause of the timeout may be exacerbated. In the case of deciding to retry, doing this with a backoff or exponential backoff (see bulk loading below for an example) is advisable. This can be conceptually thought of as a pressure relief valve for intermittent resource contention.
Bulk Loading
When doing bulk loading of Couchbase Server, one can frequently overwhelm available memory in the Couchbase cluster before it can store data on disk. When this happens, Couchbase Server will immediately send a response back indicating the operation cannot be handled at the moment, but likely can be handled later. This is sometimes referred to as "handling Temp OOM" (where OOM means out of memory), though the actual temporary failure could be sent back for reasons other than OOM. Temporary OOM is the most common, however.
There are plans for future client support to handle this automatically, but handling it in your application is really a matter of a simple do-while.
One example of performing bulk loading when receiving temporary failures is:
package com.couchbase.sample.dataloader; import com.couchbase.client.CouchbaseClient; import java.io.IOException; import java.net.URI; import java.util.List; import net.spy.memcached.internal.OperationFuture; import net.spy.memcached.ops.OperationStatus; /** * * The StoreHandler exists mainly to abstract the need to store things * to the Couchbase Cluster even in environments where we may receive * temporary failures. * * @author ingenthr */ public class StoreHandler { CouchbaseClient cbc; private final List<URI> baselist; private final String bucketname; private final String password; /** * * Create a new StoreHandler. This will not be ready until it's initialized * with the init() call. * * @param baselist * @param bucketname * @param password */ public StoreHandler(List<URI> baselist, String bucketname, String password) { this.baselist = baselist; // TODO: maybe copy this? this.bucketname = bucketname; this.password = password; } /** * Initialize this StoreHandler. * * This will build the connections for the StoreHandler and prepare it * for use. Initialization is separated from creation to ensure we would * not throw exceptions from the constructor. * * * @return StoreHandler * @throws IOException */ public StoreHandler init() throws IOException { // I prefer to avoid exceptions from constructors, a legacy we're kind // of stuck with, so wrapped here cbc = new CouchbaseClient(baselist, bucketname, password); return this; } /** * * Perform a regular, asynchronous set. * * @param key * @param exp * @param value * @return the OperationFuture<Boolean> that wraps this set operation */ public OperationFuture<Boolean> set(String key, int exp, Object value) { return cbc.set(key, exp, cbc); } /** * Continuously try a set with exponential backoff until number of tries or * successful. The exponential backoff will wait a maximum of 1 second, or * whatever * * @param key * @param exp * @param value * @param tries number of tries before giving up * @return the OperationFuture<Boolean> that wraps this set operation */ public OperationFuture<Boolean> contSet(String key, int exp, Object value, int tries) { OperationFuture<Boolean> result = null; OperationStatus status; int backoffexp = 0; try { do { if (backoffexp > tries) { throw new RuntimeException("Could not perform a set after " + tries + " tries."); } result = cbc.set(key, exp, value); status = result.getStatus(); // blocking call, improve if needed if (status.isSuccess()) { break; } if (backoffexp > 0) { double backoffMillis = Math.pow(2, backoffexp); backoffMillis = Math.min(1000, backoffMillis); // 1 sec max Thread.sleep((int) backoffMillis); System.err.println("Backing off, tries so far: " + backoffexp); } backoffexp++; if (!status.isSuccess()) { System.err.println("Failed with status: " + status.getMessage()); } } while (status.getMessage().equals("Temporary failure")); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { System.err.println("Interrupted while trying to set. Exception:" + ex.getMessage()); } if (result == null) { throw new RuntimeException("Could not carry out operation."); // rare } // note that other failure cases fall through. status.isSuccess() can be // checked for success or failure or the message can be retrieved. return result; } }
This code sample originally appeared in this gist by [~ingenthr:Matt Ingenthron].
Configuring Logging
Occasionally when troubleshooting an issue with a clustered deployment, it may be required to gather additional information from the Couchbase Java Client's logging. It uses JDK logging and this can be configured by configuring a runtime define and adding some additional logging properties.
For example, if running a command line java program, run with -Djava.util.logging.config.file=logging.properties or put a logging.properties in your classpath.
handlers = java.util.logging.ConsoleHandler java.util.logging.ConsoleHandler.level = ALL java.util.logging.ConsoleHandler.formatter = java.util.logging.SimpleFormatter com.couchbase.client.vbucket.level = FINEST com.couchbase.client.vbucket.config.level = FINEST com.couchbase.client.level = FINEST
Other methods of enabling the additional logging may be appropriate depending on the deployment.
Since the Couchbase Java Client uses spymemcached and is compatible with spymemcached (we wrote it too, we like it!), if you want to set its built in logging to either JDK standard logging or log4j, simply use -Dnet.spy.log.LoggerImpl=net.spy.memcached.compat.log.SunLogger or -Dnet.spy.log.LoggerImpl=net.spy.memcached.compat.log.Log4JLogger


text:
Weber, Lenora Mattingly
Lenora Mattingly Weber 1895–1971
American young adult novelist and adult short story writer and journalist. Weber, author of the popular Beany Malone series, was for years one of the most widely read authors of books for teenage girls. She published her first book, Wind on the Prairie, in 1929. In her more than forty years as an author Weber wrote over thirty books, most of which are romances stressing old-fashioned values, the age-old boy/girl crises of adolescence, and the importance of family relationships. Many of her novels, particularly her earlier efforts, are set on a ranch, reflecting the fact that Weber spent most of her life in Colorado. Although Weber's fiction is frequently criticized today for its sentimentality, its restricted vision of a woman's role, and its failure to confront contemporary issues, it has without question been an important literary influence on several generations of American girls. (See also Contemporary Authors, Vols. 19-20; obituary, Vols. 29-32, rev. ed.; Contemporary Authors Permanent Series, Vol. 1, and Something about the Author, Vol. 2.)
Edwin L. Sabin
As with Mrs. Weber's preceding books, "Wish in the Dark" revolves around ranch life in Colorado. With its cast of striking characters bent upon making good or destined to be made good, and its element of mystery, it is again a tale capitally told…. In a rickety car Hope and the twelve-year-old twins, Becky and Baird, come from Iowa to Colorado, consigned, as orphans, to their Aunt Sarah who is assumed to be living in the town of Trail's End…. Their dramatic arrival in Trail's End, their rapidly growing list of new acquaintances, with lively ensuing adventures, brim a story that can be recommended to any family endowed with the spirit of the 'teens. (p. 356)
Edwin L. Sabin, in The Saturday Review of Literature (copyright, 1931, by The Saturday Review Co., Inc.; reprinted with permission), December 5, 1931.
The scene of this mystery story for girls ["Wish in the Dark"] is laid on a ranch in a Colorado valley…. The plot has plenty of thrills from the stolen telegram and the disappearance of the green shirt to cattle rustling on a large scale. In the end the threads are all tied up neatly—a heart of gold is found under each forbidding exterior in true Western style. In spite of the author's tendency to sentimentalize and to use stock character types "Wish in the Dark" is lively and amusing and much less stereotyped than the average mystery story for girls. (p. 8)
New York Herald Tribune Book Review (© I.H.T. Corporation: reprinted by permission), March 6, 1932.
Ellen Lewis Buell
The Malones [in "Meet the Malones"] are certainly worth meeting. They are individuals in their own right, but you will see in them something of the family next door or down the street, for these four motherless youngsters and their companionable father are very much alive and of this day. And of our time and our country is their unspoken knowledge that democracy really begins at home, around the family council table….
When Martie Malone [the father] went off to Hawaii he left his household running fairly smoothly….
Nonna [the glamorous, efficient step-grandmother] fixed everything beautifully—at first—and the Malones reveled in ease and comfort. But somehow the old, generous, helpful way of life was managed out of existence, the debts and plans were half forgotten, until the arrival of three small refugees made them realize painfully that you can't have things for nothing, that independence and integrity are dearly bought but worth the price.
As the Malones sift their values of living, older girls will find their family crises full of humor and revealing bits of characterization; and if the story occasionally verges on the sentimental, this is more than offset by the tonic tone of the whole.
Ellen Lewis Buell, "Family Crises," in The New York Times Book Review (© 1943 by The New York Times Company; reprinted by permission), October 17, 1943, p. 8.
May Lamberton Becker
"Meet the Malones" is a story in which the world of an American high school appears as it does in many an American city today….
[The Malone children are settling their family problems] very well in their own way when their step-grandmother, a high-pressure career woman, comes for a visit. She settles everything for them; all they need pay, for what they don't want, is self-respect. Nonna goes, but meanwhile there has been a series of demonstrations that Emerson was right when he said the highest price you could pay for anything was to get it for nothing. This is not a second "Little Women": we don't need one, having the first. But we do need good contemporary high school stories, and this is one. (p. 40)
May Lamberton Becker, in New York Herald Tribune Book Review (© I.H.T. Corporation; reprinted by permission), November 14, 1943.
May Lamberton Becker
Ever since I read "Sing for Your Supper" I have kept an eye out for anything by its author … because she writes about the West, old or contemporary, with a juicy vitality needed in stories about it. For "Westerns" tend to become stereotyped: her stories, for young people growing up, stay within the frame of this fiction, but make it seem as if it really happened.
Thus the bookful of short stories ["Riding High" has] basic elements one expects from ranches in fiction [a sweet young girl, a devoted foster-parent, a bow-legged cowboy confidant, and a young hero].
There is, incidentally, a good deal about habits and education of ranch horses…. If grown-up Westerns had as much in them, I might be able to read the things. (p. 7)
May Lamberton Becker, in New York Herald Tribune Book Review (© I.H.T. Corporation; reprinted by permission), July 21, 1946.
Ruth Hill Viguers
In spite of her name, Beany Malone is a character one is likely to remember. The most reliable, although the youngest of her delightful but not always accountable family, Beany takes over the responsibility of the welfare of her brothers and sisters when their father, the overworked editor of the local paper, goes to Arizona to recuperate.
There is a story and a problem behind each member of the family [in "Beany Malone"]….
There is warmth, quiet humor, and excellent suspense in this story of a young girl's growing up. The Malones are charming, loveable people with a strong sense of values and a fine social outlook, whose problems are real enough to become the problems of the reader.
This is a fine novel, well written, convincing and alive. (p. 36)
Ruth Hill Viguers, in The Saturday Review of Literature (copyright, 1948, by The Saturday Review Co., Inc.; reprinted with permission), August 14, 1948.
[Leave It to Beany!] is another story of the charming Malones. Sixteen-year-old Beany, in the midst of a high school romance and diverse energetic family projects, finds that her desire to help people in unorthodox ways leads her into several ridiculous and difficult situations…. The cousin Sheila episodes, concerning the attempts of the Malones to stuff the lonely, glum girl into a pattern of the American Girl, present an amusing and often perceptive study of the iron defense mechanism which may be built up by a girl outside the magic circle of a high school clique. A warm-hearted, very human story. (p. 63)
Virginia Kirkus' Bookshop Service, February 1, 1950.
Louise S. Bechtel
["Leave It to Beany!" the fifth] book about the Malones will please all their fans in Junior High. Beany, the youngest, now sixteen, is shown in a humorous portrait, over-doing her role of helping every one and managing everything…. It is all fairly improbable, even for the high air of Denver, but it is at the same time warm-hearted and a good family portrait. It is rather a relief to find, in a children's book, a family going to mass together.
Motherless Beany rings true, so does the cooking by young and old, and the newspaper background. John's struggles with his history of Denver make a clever sub-plot, and the glimpses of several teachers are well done. The romance is played down, in a...
(The entire section is 245 words.)
Louise S. Bechtel
["Beany and the Beckoning Road"] begins with Beany having a sad tiff with her beau Norbett. It sends her from Denver to San Diego to cure her troubled heart. On this wild jaunt by auto Beany and her absent-minded older brother take turns at the wheel. Their adventures are told with the mixture of humor, sentiment, and realism that have given the Malone books their wide appeal to junior-high-age girls. The horse in the trailer, the mysterious old lady, the trunk full of gold, all are utterly preposterous, yet cleverly related to Beany's love affair. That the lovable three-year-old could live through such a trip is the most miraculous touch of all. Those who already like the sensible, warm-hearted, direct Beany will...
(The entire section is 243 words.)
Jennie D. Lindquist
Already well known for her lively Beany Malone stories, Mrs. Weber has here written [My True Love Waits,] a book no less lively but of more permanent value…. The larger part of the book—and the best of it—is devoted to the hardships and adventures that Mary and the five people who go with her meet on their covered-wagon journey to Denver City. It is a realistic story that does not soft-pedal the grim side of such an undertaking, though the book has a happy and satisfactory ending. (pp. 128-29)
Jennie D. Lindquist, in The Horn Book Magazine (copyrighted, 1953, by The Horn Book, Inc., Boston), April, 1953.
[Beany Has a...
(The entire section is 265 words.)
Alberta Eiseman
At 16, Beany, youngest of the Malones—a family well known to teen-age girls—was happy with the status quo. Then suddenly everything began to change [in "Beany Has a Secret Life"]…. For over 200 pages the author puts every possible obstacle in the way of a reconciliation between Beany and her stepmother, but finally our freckle-faced heroine sees the light.
The Malones are a nice family and, as always, fun to read about. One wishes, however, that the author had not thrown so many contrived misunderstandings their way and had not tied everything up quite so neatly at the end. (p. 24)
Alberta Eiseman, in The New York Times Book Review (© 1955 by The...
(The entire section is 119 words.)
Barbara Joyce Duree
While more hackneyed and contrived than some of its author's earlier books, [The More the Merrier] will be welcomed by Beany's many fans. Left with her brother Johnny while their parents are in Mexico, Beany decides to turn the big Malone home into a boardinghouse, thereby earning enough to make a rumpus room in the basement. Although her boarders … bring the kindhearted Beany more problems than profits, the summer ends happily for everyone concerned. (p. 160)
Barbara Joyce Duree, in The Booklist and Subscription Books Bulletin (reprinted by permission of the American Library Association; copyright 1958 by the American Library Association), November 15,...
(The entire section is 100 words.)
Barbara Joyce Duree
[A Bright Star Falls] finds its popular heroine [Beany Malone] now a senior at Harkness High and editor of the school paper…. The seriousness of … new situations and problems makes the book seem somewhat more significant than many of the earlier titles in a growing series. (p. 124)
Barbara Joyce Duree, in The Booklist and Subscription Books Bulletin (reprinted by permission of the American Library Association; copyright 1959 by the American Library Association), October 15, 1959.
(The entire section is 72 words.)
Helen Oakley
In [The Winds of March, a] sequel to Don't Call Me Katie Rose, the heroine, a sophomore at Adams High, has the smugness blown out of her by "the winds of March." In this month she has two chastening experiences. First, she must learn to stand by while the irresistible Bruce Seerie overlooks her intellect in favor of her sister's exuberance. The other crisis, a horrifying kidnapping, well handled by both Katie Rose and the author, helps her revise some of her lofty attitudes. Mrs. Weber's teenage dialogue and school setting are authentic, and there is enough action to satisfy girls who can easily identify with this "delightsome" heroine. (p. 2039)
Helen Oakley,...
(The entire section is 273 words.)
Emma Kirby
Despite the predictable plot and characters and the story's pat resolution, [A New and Different Summer] is highly readable and has great appeal in its evocation of a happy, loving family. Not challenging fiction, but lighthearted and fun to read. One unnecessary scene gives the story an ugly flaw. At a baby shower, Katie asks a Negro girl if she is married.
"'I was' came the casual answer. 'I got me two little kids, but right now I ain't got no man'."… The scene and comment are extraneous to the plot and needlessly perpetuate the stereotype of the shiftless Negro. (p. 174)
Emma Kirby, in School Library Journal (reprinted from the May, 1966...
(The entire section is 127 words.)
Zena Sutherland
The writing [of A New and Different Summer] has an easy flow, but the story moves slowly; it has the appeals of familiar characters, a modest home setting, and realistic events, but the main theme (Katie Rose's menus and shopping extravaganzas) is somewhat belabored. (p. 172)
Zena Sutherland, in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (copyright 1966 by the University of Chicago; all rights reserved), June, 1966.
Katie Rose Belford, who seemed, in earlier installments, to have some sense and spirit as well as brains … submits to the appeal of Gil(martin) Ames [in I Met a Boy I Used to Know]…. Gil is clearly a...
(The entire section is 411 words.)
Zena Sutherland
As in all the Beany Malone stories, [Come Back, Wherever You Are] is a smooth pastiche of family life and the problems of Beany's circle of friends and acquaintances. Here the crucial situation is that of a small, disturbed child whose mother, Beany's old friend, dies of leukemia. Beany's efforts to make little Jodey feel secure are partially successful…. Although the story has a burden of subplots and minor characters, it is realistic, warm, and capably written. (p. 135)
Zena Sutherland, in Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (© 1969 by the University of Chicago; all rights reserved), April, 1969.
(The entire section is 97 words.)
Pilar Schmidt
[Angel in Heavy Shoes] is above the level of the ordinary because it attempts to treat relations among people from various socio-economic levels of society. In spite of some weaknesses, Angel in Heavy Shoes generally warrants consideration because it deals with the struggles of a middle-class teen-ager who tries to overcome distaste for a family of a lower socio-economic class and because it touches on the seamier side of life: alcoholism, juvenile delinquency, and crime. Even though the background details of the unfortunate Flood family are revealed rather awkwardly through Rita and Lennie Flood's mouths, the gradual change that occurs in Katie Rose Belford's attitude towards the Floods is well done and...
(The entire section is 231 words.)
Zena Sutherland
A protagonist familiar to Katie Rose fans, younger sister Stacy Belford takes a summer job as driver-helper to an elderly man [in How Long Is Always?]…. Stacy has the usual problems of adapting to a new situation, falling in love with an older man, trying to thaw her employer's wife. The events are natural and realistic, although the book lacks the warmth of the Belford family stories; the characterization and story line are adequate, the writing marred by a trick that is overdone: Stacy has trouble with long words … and this becomes a bit cute. Stacy also exhibits occasional gaps in knowledge or intelligence that don't quite ring true. (p. 186)
Zena Sutherland,...
(The entire section is 216 words.)
Rebecca Ricky Friesem
Lenora Mattingly Weber's latest teen romance [Sometimes a Stranger] again pits stereotyped wholesomeness against stereotyped evil. Spirited Stacy Belford breaks off her romance with Bruce Seerie because he has not yet asserted his independence from his meddling, snobbish mother. While Stacy plunges into a whirl of activity to forget him, Bruce belatedly cuts the umbilical cord and consequently plunges into a deep depression…. Will these two finally get together? Of course, with the help of some new types for a Weber novel—hippies with hearts of gold. A further nod in the direction of the new age is Stacy's plan to embark on a career with no mention of marriage and "working 'til the baby comes."…...
(The entire section is 157 words.)
John W. Conner
Sometimes a Stranger is a fitting finale for the talents of Lenora Weber. She had an ever-present finger on the reading pulse of younger adolescent girls.
In Sometimes a Stranger, Stacy Belford's on-again-off-again-then-on-again love affair with wealthy Bruce Seerie is traced through Stacy's senior year at St. Jude High School and into the summer following her graduation. (pp. 1385-86)
Hours of heartache and moments of happiness alternate in Sometimes a Stranger, much as they do in an adolescent reader's own life. This element, of course, is what makes Lenora Weber's stories meaningful for her many readers. Stacy and Bruce both begin to face the future more...
(The entire section is 183 words.)
Rebecca Radner
[The Beany Malone series is mentioned in Rebecca Radner's essay discussing the limiting effect on girls of some of the teenage literature written during the nineteen-forties and fifties.]
Recently I became curious about just what in these books exerted such a strong pull on our young imaginations. (p. 789)
The basic elements of this sort of story are simple. The sixteen or seventeen year old heroine meets the right boy and the wrong boy. We can tell them apart instantly, but she can't until the end of the book. While her mother is cooking and cleaning for the family, our heroine goes through an identity crisis, usually brought on by a desire to impress the wrong boy. This leads to a...
(The entire section is 1191 words.)


text:
The Dallas Foundation has a number of scholarship funds, each with a different purpose and eligibility requirements. We offer assistance to donors interested in setting up a scholarship and students interested in applying for financial aid.
If you are interested in setting up a scholarship fund? The Dallas Foundation will provide complete turnkey service, including drafting scholarship criteria, publicizing scholarships, and evaluating candidates. Contact Gary W. Garcia for more information.
Before applying for a Foundation scholarship, review carefully each description of available Dallas Foundation scholarships to see if you might be eligible. Questions? Call or write the contact person listed in the "How to apply" section of each profile.
Reagan Place at Old Parkland | 3963 Maple Avenue, Ste. 390 | Dallas, TX 75219 | 214.741.9898 | Contact Us | Directions


text:
NMU Hockey 2012-13 Season Wrap-up: Wildcats' Seckel tired of focus on big picture, rankings
MARQUETTE – College hockey media love analyzing the PairWise rankings week-in and week-out, often claiming to be bracketologists.
The media does so because anxious fans often get into it, wanting to know where their team stands in the postseason picture.
Since the Northern Michigan University hockey team made the NCAA tournament in 2009-10, the Wildcats themselves have also gotten into the ranking system that determines who goes dancing and where teams are seeded.
There's one exception in the Wildcats' locker room, apparently, in sophomore forward Reed Seckel. He wants his teammates to join him.
Correction. Seckel demands his teammates join him.
"We look at the big picture, we look at the rankings, we look at that, we look at this," Seckel said. "This team's got to do this. This team's got to do that.
"I. Do. Not. Care. Look at the small picture. Look at what you're doing. All you have to do is worry about ourselves and that's all we have to worry about."
After being upset by Bowling Green State last season in the first-round CCHA playoff series at the Berry Events Center, Seckel gave a passionate postgame press conference pledging to right the wrongs of the 2011-12 season.
A year later, Seckel gave another impassioned interview in those same BEC hallways, asking for more of himself and his teammates just days after being swept by Michigan in a CCHA first-round series in Ann Arbor.
"Personally, I failed," Seckel said. "Looking back, maybe I had a couple goals, I had a decent year. Looking back at it, I don't think I was consistent. I failed as in the team, as in winning in the playoffs. A lot more stuff was not good enough. We have to be better next year, a lot better next year.
"We need to put our heads down, grind and not look at the big picture."
Seckel, an assistant captain this year as a third-year sophomore and candidate to captain the 'Cats as a junior in 2013-14, led his team in goals scored with 13 after scoring eight as a redshirt freshman.
He had 12 assists for the second-straight season to finish second on the team in scoring with 25 points.
NMU head coach Walt Kyle said Seckel had an outstanding season and when it comes to energy and caring about the game, Seckel is the prototypical player.
Seckel, who missed three games all year due to injury, was a bit harder on himself, knocking his own consistency. He only scored goals in back-to-back games played twice, his longest point streak was three games and in the Wildcats' final 13 games of 2012-13, Seckel only finished with a positive plus/minus rating four times and never in back-to-back games.
"I don't think I did that good," Seckel said. "I look back and see myself have a good Friday night and a bad night on Saturday – not consistent. I'll see myself have a really good weekend and the next weekend I really don't do too much."
Despite the inconsistencies, Seckel and his linemates – senior Matt Thurber and junior Erik Higby – drove the Wildcats' offense. All three increased their offensive output from 2011-12.
Thurber led NMU in scoring with six goals and 26 assists for 32 points in 30 games after posting 11 goals and 19 assists a year ago.
Despite missing six games due to suspensions and the two postseason games at Michigan with a broken leg, Thurber finished seventh in the CCHA in scoring and entered the postseason as the league-leader in assists.
"When we lost Matt, I think we lost a lot of confidence as a group," Kyle said. "They're not stupid. They know what's going on."
Higby took a giant leap as a junior. Despite battling injuries for the second-straight season, he went from two goals and five assists as a sophomore to nine goals and 12 assists as a junior.
Sophomore Ryan Daugherty made a similar leap to Higby, going from three goals and three assists and a true freshman to 10 goals and eight assists this season.
Daugherty's linemate, junior Stephan Vigier, didn't take a jump, however. After scoring 13 goals and 13 assists last season, Vigier finished his junior year with seven goals and 14 assists.
Kyle said Daugherty had a good first half, but only "an honest second half" as a sophomore.
Vigier, meanwhile, had a subpar year with minimal impact on the game, Kyle said.
"(Vigier) is a tremendous character player who really shows an ability to contribute offensively and has really shown an ability to be an impact guy on the power play," Kyle said. "This year, he was not an impact guy on the power play and did not perform to the level he expects offensively.
"For us to be good, Stephan Vigier is going to have to have a big bounce-back year."
As Kyle projected in the preseason, NMU lacked the top-end scorers it had in 2011-12 when senior Justin Florek of Marquette scored 19 goals and 17 assists, and senior Tyler Gron posted 17 goals and 20 assists.
The 'Cats did have more depth, though, as Kyle hoped they would.
A year ago, 74 percent of NMU's 106 goals came from its top two lines, led by Gron and Florek. The third and fourth lines contributed 11 percent of the scoring and defensemen accounted for 15 percent.
This season, Thurber, Seckel, Higby, Daugherty and Vigier – the consistent top liners – finished with 50 percent of the team's 90 goals. Defensemen scored 20 percent of the goals, while the rest had 30 percent.
Leading 'the rest' was freshman forward Darren Nowick, who scored seven of the rests' 27 goals, though four came while playing on the Wildcats' top two lines. He finished the year alongside Daugherty and Vigier.
"If you look at our third and fourth lines last year, the goal totals were really, really bad – abysmal," Kyle said. "This year, it was much better in those groups. We were able to roll four lines this year, which at times, we couldn't do last year."
Matt Wellens can be reached at 906-228-2500, ext. 252. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/mattwellens


text:
Skip to comments.What am I Missing? [Vanity}
Posted on 07/06/2012 4:25:12 AM PDT by ShadowAce
OK, this was this first thing that sprung to mind last week when SCOTUS announced its decision. Since then, I've been surprised by both the Administration's response and the media. No one has brought this up:
Since the opinion read like Obamacare is only constitutional as a tax and not under the Commerce Clause, and since (to my utter surprise) everyone in the administration insists on calling it a penalty and not a tax, doesn't that make the whole law unconstitutional?
Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?
Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?
..no one in Government can make a decision, ONLY the libtard media can
Well, one way of looking at is that they are moving the Overton window so as they do other openly unconstitutional things, no one will be surprised.
It is all spin to take your attention away from the economy, period!
Smoke and mirrors.
it all depends on what the definition of is is.
I agree completely. Romney's safe approach so far won't allow him to point such things out. I sure hope his troupe change their tune into a more, Levin-style attack and campaign. Stark differences and loud pitches in one's voice - err, a little emotion would be nice.
That's the easiest way of getting rid of this thing.
The others are there on behalf of Obama's campaign throwing smoke screen, since a tax obviously will hurt Obama's chance.
Another thing is they obviously also 'hope' the longer we talk about Roberts, the less we will pay attention to his other performance (UN gun control, Sea Treaty, miserable handling of ME, etc) let alone consistently bad economy.
How does Congress nullify it without a vote?
Sure, just 'nullify'! Er, what's nullify? Has it been used in the last twenty years? Is 'nullify' the good twin of 'deem it passed'?
Whatever the process is.
If the intent of the law was not a tax...and the court said it is only valid as a tax...then the law is unconstitutional under any other interpretation. As Carney called it a "tax fallacy," then the law cannot stand according to the Court. Right?
You have one problem with your argument. It might have been ok before the judgement, but today, it is a tax.
There is no valid argument to the contrary
It is a tax and the law of the land........ period
They're not. Call them on it. Declare this thing unconstitutional and then see their reactions.
The whole damn thing is unconstitutional. However, Roberts, Kagan et al said otherwise.
Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?
I'm not sure that everyone is going along, but so what. Roberts & company said it was OK, so it is now established in case law.
Doesn't this give Congress the go-ahead to nullify it even without a vote?
Not sure I get what you're asking.
That's my interpretation of what happened.
If it is a tax, then shouldn't the bill have originated in the House of Representatives and not the Senate? Shouldn't that have rendered it unconstitutional due to process if not content?
Another excellent point.
While seldom done, I agree that Congress can end a tax.
And if it's a Penalty, Congress again can nullify a penalty.
Just getting it thru the Senate will be the problem. I doubt GOP will win Senate.
Actually, there's no mechanism for Congress to as you say, nullify it.
Perhaps you mean repeal it.
You said nullify it without a vote? That's a dog that won't hunt. Congress has to vote in order to do something about whatever it might be.
Perhaps you are thinking of the state nullification possibility. States, unlike Congress, could nullify this law by refusing to implement it (and by passing laws in their legislatures followed by governors signing them, saying their state citizens do not have to comply with Obamacare).
There is a very good thread on this based on Rush's sub, Dr. Walter E Williams, advocating this very thing.
Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare
As to what to call it, a tax, and on the basis of the Robert's opinion act against it in whatever way, there I see that as quite murky.
I'm not certain what force of law the Robert's opinion has. He certainly failed to overturn Obamacare, because he refused to join with the four justices who voted to overturn.
Where I get lost in the weeds is, how can he simply CALL it a tax in his writings, when it didn't come before him as tax because it was not passed in Congress as a tax...at least everyone behind it screamed it was not a tax.
And how can he as one man get away with claiming it is upheld as a tax even though there's a law that says tax cases cannot be brought until people are having to pay the tax.
Also, it was my understanding that the libs did not agree with Roberts to call it a tax. They wanted to hold that it stood under the Commerce Clause, not even to mention that it even might be a tax, much less it is one.
I do know they agreed with him not to overturn the law, but they were writing their own views as to why.
What, do we have rule by a one man dictator, John Roberts?
So, states CAN nullify, and they can do so no matter what Roberts wrote or what it means.
Congress can repeal, by voting, but it must pass the Senate which means Reid must go, and a new president must sign the repeal
Why yuh gotta be a hate-uh? /s
The court said the mandate wasn't valid under the Anti-injunction Act as such.
The court said the mandate wasn't valid under the Commerce Clause either.
Those two rulings make it very clear it must be a tax in order to be Constitutional.
You also see in the ruling where the government changed positions and basically said, 'fine...it is a tax.' And argued that it was a tax. Now the regime is standing by post ruling saying it is NOT a tax.
There is the other saying too...when your enemy is falling on his sword...don't stop him.
The intent of the law before the ruling was it was not a tax under the two provisos. The court struck that idea down.
The intent of the law was not to lay it as tax, but the court said it looks like duck, quacks like duck...then it must be a duck.
Post ruling they are still crowing it is not a tax...?
Then logically, they cannot implement it and the government committed perjury in the Supreme Court in an attempt to argue the law as a tax.
I just want to point out Obamacare wasn't challenged in toto. The court, unless I'm mistaken, only considered the Medicare and individual mandates. It can be challenged again and again as other issues arise, like forcing religious institutions to violate their beliefs by providing insurance with contraceptive and abortion services. It's NOT carte blanche for the administration to do whatever it wants.
Additionally, even the individual mandate stands only as an income tax. It can be legislatively rescinded.
Oh brother!
Maybe they can nullify the law of gravity (without a vote) while they are at it too.
.....then nullify Obama's 2008 election without a vote.
You think congress has a magic genie?
Basically, what happened was that the Senate took an unrelated bill that originated in the house, "amended" it so that the original language was removed and replaced with the text of the Obamacare bill, and passed that bill. So, technically, the bill did originate in the house. It's a parliamentary trick the Senate uses from time to time.
Post #11
Unfortunately...and very few people know this...the bill DID originate in the House, TECHNICALLY.
In substance, it ended up as a bill that had in it what Harry Reid wanted it to have, in the Senate, then it went to the House...the reverse of what a tax bill is supposed to do.
However, Reid pulled a technical trick.
He took a bill that came to him from the House, which wasn't even about healthcare, and literally kept the NUMBER of the law, then added the Senate NUMBER, which is routine, then stripped out the words in the bill and substituted the words of his version of Obamacare.
Yes, apparently this is a legal loophole.
It is totally deceitful and wrong, but apparently Reid could do that. THe Democrats get away with this kind of stuff all the time. Most of the public never knew it happened. Even you did not, and you care about this.
THerefore, the law has been treated as a legitimate law and would be so even if described as a tax, because of the trick Reid pulled by using a vehicle, a piece of paper passed from the House, with a number on it, to make it a Senate bill with a number, and claiming it originated in the house even though every word was obliterated and Obamacare was substituted.
-By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million
are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its
Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator,
a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has
the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con
regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker,
who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving
appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members,
not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted — by present facts — of incompetence
and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth
that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice
they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you
into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take
an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Yes, but it didn't thanks to John Roberts and his act of what Sowell rightly called 'judicial betrayal'.
Congress can now tax or regulate anything it chooses. SCOTUS was supposed to serve as a check on such things. I'm not sure a lot of folks are getting just how bad this decision screwed the country.
What you are missing is that bills do not become unconstitutional because of what people in the administration call them. The Supreme Court ruled (incorrectly) that Congress passed Obamacare constitutionally, based on Congress's taxation power. The fact that people are (for political purposes) now calling it something other than a tax does not mean that the bill is now magically overturned.
Do you have any idea how the constitition setup the Federal government to operate? A introductory course sounds in order.
What you're missing is that the RINOs have a new political toy to play with for the next umpteen years, while they dally and tinker with this unconstitutional monstrosity. Within a year or two, no one will even pretend to be talking about repeal, it will simply be "Vote for us, WE can do government intrusion the RIGHT way!"
Obama's presidency and his handmaidens on the Left have furiously tried to hammer a square peg into a round hole and cannot make it fit.
Debate over definitions and Constitutionality of this "laughable" "Cornhusker Kickback" bill of deception (while the country sinks into an abyss of debt due to it) shows the pure evil and twisted methods done to assist Obama's socialist push to control our rights.
This is Obama's legacy.
Justice John Roberts cannot paper over and rebrand this slap in the face.
The people must go to their governors and state legislators and demand action.
Roberts essentially ruled that the administration and Congress can call the tax whatever they want. It doesn't change a thing. They could call it a ham sandwich if they wanted, but from a SCOTUS perspective it's still a tax. I think the four conservative justices had it right, but I didn't think Roberts' ruling was incoherent.
I don't agree with it, but it's politcally, twistedly, logical.
You're asking the wrong guy here ShadowAce. I've been asking some of my friends the same thing; they don't know, and I still don't know.
Let me spell this out for you, the process to repeal it is identical to the one used to pass it:
1) Repeal it in the House
2) Repeal it in the Senate, full repeal 60 votes, partial repeal 50 votes +VP
3) get the POTUS to sign the common bill
That is how it was passed, that is how it is repealed.
My original question asked how could it be constitutional?
I believe my question was answered in Post #30.
Once Post #30 is taken into account, then I can see the process as you outlined it (and I knew it to be for "normal" laws).
Thank you.
Then are you saying it is unconstitutional?
If the Admin. want to call it a mandate/penalty, they should be asked why they support an Unconstitutional law.
The law was intended to be a tax all along, it never would have passed as one, so they called it a mandate to more or less get it through Congress. Knowing they already had 4 votes on SCOTUS to support it, no matter what it was called; all they needed was to convince 1 of the other 5 to go along. In rode Benedict Roberts(apologies to Benedict Arnold) to save the day.
So now the Admin. is trying to have it both ways. They're calling it a penalty now, so they don't have to defend passing the largest tax increase in the history of the world 4 months before the election. They hope if they say it enough, they'll convince enough people that it is so. They're counting on the stupidity of the American electorate.
Sorry, but that is not how I interpret the ruling.
Roberts ruled it can be applied as a duck(tax), but not as a fox or a snake.
The regime insists on calling it a fox/snake, not the court...the court said duck.
All Levin's rants amount to is this - The ONLY thing you serfs can do about this is VOTE FOR ROMNEY!!!
When is a tax not a tax, when it is a penalty.
"Why is everyone going along with the idea that the law is OK no matter what it is called when the ruling made it very clear it is OK only as a tax?"
Because they don't have the stomach for a fight with their masters.
constitutionality of laws is not decided on the Hannity or Rush shows believe it or not. just because they dont like the laws doesnt make them automatically nullified.
Obama only argued it was not a tax to the MSM to get it passed, they dont care about that now. In court they argued it could be seen as a tax making it constitutional. (And it does look like a income tax.)
It's long past time to move on from this silliness.
Yes, but they do have a backup plan to keep the federal law regulating all medical treatment in place even if they lose the election. It's called Romney. It's also called "repeal and RELACE".
The law of land you say. And when a law favors some to the exclusion of others, is it still a law? When some are prosecuted while others escape, is it still a law?
Here are three charges against the King contained in the Declaration of Independence:
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
Sound like anyone we know? What was true then is still true. I REFUSE to accept this as law. It is a bureaucratic mess designed to rob us of our freedoms - AT BEST. At worst, it is a cold and calculated way to install a tyrant.
I agree bills don't magically become unconstitutional based on what people call them.
I say they don't magically become constitutional based on what one man calls them either.
I also say, everything governmental has a process. That process needs to be followed in order to produce the desired result. So there's no magic there, either. There's a process.
Please see the thread by cincinatus'wife on Dr. Walter Williams calling for nullification by the states.
Walter E. Williams: States should nullify Obamacare
And please see post #33, here, for another, excellent summation and overview of where we stand with this law.
Final words: don't look to Roberts for the guideposts on how to proceed.
Do look to Congress, as it passed there, and to the Presidency, as it was signed there, to undo it, if we elect enough of the right people and hold them accountable, to REPEAL IT.
But the BEST way of all is to look to the STATES.
Sadly that's the hand we've been dealt.
I think we're writing essentially the same thing. The Obama administration says the mandate is a penalty (even though they defended it before the SCOTUS as a tax). Congress called it a penalty. Roberts ruled it's a tax. Like you wrote, a duck is still a duck even if someone says it's a snake. (I wonder if a duck is still a duck if everyone knows it's a snake, but that's another issue entirely).
Roberts seemed to make the argument that legislative wording aside, constitutional interpretation cuts to the heart of what a bill does, not just what it's called. As I recall, he claimed the mandate couldn't be a penalty because it didn't have criminal penalties, the IRS couldn't enforce it the same way as other penalties, etc.
I'm not really defending Roberts so much as saying I think I under what he was getting at. I personally find the four conservative justices better, because they took the bill at face value. Even if the mandate really is a form of income tax, Congress passed it as a penalty. Should the SCOTUS uphold the right of Congress to deceive people in the bills it passes? The whole Obamacare fiasco is one deception layered on another. The whole thing is sickening.
Even if the US Constitution is null and void except for the favored few: abortionists and sodomizers, let's not forget ANY of these expansions can be eliminated. Just because the SCOTUS says regulating interstate commerce means telling people they can't grow their own wheat on their own farm for their own use, Congress doesn't have to do so. The behemoth can be rolled back if we win elections. All Roberts did was prove the SCOTUS doesn't have our backs. We must win elections.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Hi there!
So Front of House is in action again!
The first mission is to make a banner (don't freak out: no cheesy colors, no too normal stuff and no clocks involved..) - saying the word: VOLUNTEER - above the kitchen (where the big white blank space is now). The request came from the kitchen managers+margarida+keni (correct me if not).
So Alba and me had the idea of make the letters out of objects (such us cups, leftovers, lighters, random beautiful and ugly stuff what you can usually find on a table...well to be honest this can be anything looking at my table just now...not mentioning the tables at the forest...). So we want to glue these objects in the shape of the letters on a wooden board (we have some in the hall) and hang it above the kitchen.
The idea is mainly coming from the works of an artist I love, Daniell Spoerri. You can check out some of his works here http://www.google.com/search?q=rubbish+art&hl=hu&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:hu:official&biw=1148&bih=595&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=h8YVTonuBITRhAeXy-Fh&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQsAQ#hl=hu&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:hu%3Aofficial&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=daniel+spoerri&oq=daniel+spoerri&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=71545l74918l0l18l17l0l5l5l0l215l1758l2.7.2l12&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=2006b927d5c2c954&biw=1148&bih=595 to get an idea what I'm talking about.
What we need to make this thing happen:
- Tell us what you think before Saturday night
- materials:
wood (we have to check the exact size but I assume that we have something at the hall that would do)
glue pistol (anyone has a spear one? or if not can we buy one?)
lot's of random objects (from flowers to napkins, weird things, preferably not too big ones: we can get these from freeshop, forest, eca bin and maybe sunday market for some special stuff...)
- a space where we can work on it (balcony?)
- a handy man (Jamie? ) who can help us to cut the wood to the perfect size and put it up above the kitchen when it's ready.
p.s: If you have anything that would like to see up there, please give it to us.


text:
I have two Les Paul guitars in which I want to install piezo bridge systems. Both guitars are relatively new (last 2-3 years). I have after-market bridges on both--one from TonePros and one from Callaham. Sustain and intonation is much improved on both. My question is this... both the Callaham and TonePros use billet steel (they are milled from solid stock), can I use these existing bridges and simply drop in the Baggs piezo saddles into them? If not, I can put the Callaham and TonePros into other guitars. How are the T-Bridge components milled?
Thank you for your help.


text:
by Anton Shilov
In an attempt to offer the best platforms for new processors from Advanced Micro Devices, its long-term partner Nvidia Corp. plans to release a series of PCI Express 2.0 supporting chipsets this fall. It is highly likely that by fall the world's No. 1 supplier of discrete graphics processors unveils its graphics chips compatible with PCIe 2.0.
The new code-named MCP72 core-logic series will fully support new AMD Phenom processors based on AMD's new micro-architecture that belong to the "Stars" family of chips. All versions of the MCP72 will support HyperTransport 3.0 processor bus as well as PCI Express 2.0 interconnection, which will be the key-features of the new array of chipsets.
Initially three versions of the new Nvidia nForce 7-series chipsets will be available: MCP72XE, MCP72P, MCP72 Ultra and MCP72V. Mass production of the first two will start in October, according to sources familiar with Nvidia's plans, the schedule for MCP72 Ultra is undecided, whereas MCP72V will be produced only in 2008, in time for mass production of AMD's new processors for mainstream and entry-level systems.
The most powerful flavour of the new core-logic series – MCP72XE – is projected to consist of two chips so that to support two PCI Express 2.0 x16 lanes for two (or more) add-on graphics cards and three PCIe 2.0 x1 lanes for other expansions. The enthusiast-oriented MCP72XE will also support memory modules with enhanced performance profiles (EPP), 1GbE network controller, six Serial ATA ports with RAID capabilities, two Parallel ATA drives, twelve USB 2.0 and other capabilities.
The less advanced version of Nvidia nForce 700a-series – MCP72P – will consist of one chips and will feature similar I/O capabilities compared to the higher-performance version, but will not support EPP memory modules, will only have two PCI Express 2.0 x8 lanes for multi-GPU capability and two PCI Express 2.0 x1 lanes for other add-in cards.
Nvidia's code-named MCP72 Ultra core-logic will also consist of one chip and will have similar feature-set compared to the MCP72P with the only exception being the lack of multi-GPU support and presence of one PCIe 2.0 x16 lane. MCP72V version will also not support multi-GPU and will come with lower amount of expansion capabilities.
Nvidia traditionally does not comment on unreleased products.


text:
On March 18, 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to a packed room of diplomats from around the globe, non-governmental conservation advocates, and others about the urgency of protecting our vast oceans. New Zealand Ambassador to the United States Mike Moore and Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, two good friends of the United States and of oceans, joined the Secretary on the podium at this important event.
The Secretary spoke passionately about our connection and responsibility to the oceans as a people and a nation, and how ocean acidification, pollution, and fishing pressure are challenging our ability to sustain the sea and the benefits it provides to us all. You can read and watch his full remarks here.
These threats to the oceans are why the United States is so firmly committed to the protection of Antarctica's Ross Sea, one of the last and greatest ocean wilderness areas on our planet. This unique region is home to a highly productive and diverse ocean ecosystem that supports vast numbers of whales, penguins, seals, and other marine life.
Joined by New Zealand, we propose establishing a marine protected area in the Ross Sea roughly the size of Alaska. If established, it would be the largest protected area in the world. The protected area would specifically conserve critical habitats, marine life, and areas of ecological importance in the Ross Sea. Other areas of the Ross Sea would remain open to sustainably managed fisheries, allowing countries like New Zealand with an economic interest in the sea to continue to benefit from this rich area. This will give us both a baseline of untouched ocean and comparison regions where we can study the direct impact climate change and fishing are having on the oceans.
It is my sincere hope that the members of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources approve our proposal at their next meeting this July. The United States will continue to work closely with all the members of the Commission to seize this historic opportunity. As Secretary Kerry said, "The world has shown that we can work together to ensure that Antarctica remains a place devoted to peace and devoted to expanding the human understanding of this fragile planet that we live on. This is one of the last places we could do this, and I think we owe it to ourselves to make it happen."
Palgye in South Korea writes:
Australia and New Zealand, Oceana, not watching
Always a healthy natural environment and uncontaminated milk and small, beautiful and boring tourist lure us, but
Nowadays, growth is expected to be discovered oil and natural gas, but
Population, the lack of emphasis on the welfare of the people and policy-oriented, difficult and Personally I think expectations that we require a large-scale economic consumption and policies to help.
Create a single unified economic map in Australia.
Such a way to provide assistance to the area, and we'll do it.


text:
from Hayley, Jeremy & Taylor of Paramore:
Merry Christmas and happy holidays! Here is the last of the footage that Lindsey shot from our year around the world. Our first trip to the Pacific Rim was such an amazing experience, thank you to all our fans there for a warm welcome and thanks to the entire Paramore Family for an unforgettable 2011.
See you all next year!
Hayley, Jeremy & Taylor