text:
Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byElliot Beilby Modified over 2 years ago
T he colorful animal world As is known to all, in our beautiful earth, the human life, there are many other animals also,They not only and we live the same land, and as people have feelings 张瑞,高永辉,周利章,易望 高铁 313-2 班
Our national treasure -panda For companion has return to his hometown, in yunnan wild animal park "), "the giant panda has been blue scarlett, don't think eating, sometimes get grumpy. In the zoo, by giving it the way such as watching television, swing, let scarlett heavy smile more. Now scarlett had been restored version "ecru, weight also increased. Scarlett was watching TV.
Gorilla is our human blood closest animal, so they are beyond the wisdom of the other animals So they like to imitate human South Africa a gorilla at the zoo because like smoking is famous, has died, the only 52 - year - old gorilla named "Charlie" many years ago, because visitors threw a cigarette, it began to fall in love with smoking, then the "Charlie" smoking because of love, become the most famous animals in the zoo, therefore attracts thousands of visitors every year. "Charlie", however, is not the only animals with human vices, in February, there are media reports, a Russian gorillas often to tourists to alcohol, tobacco, and was sent to rehabilitation.
"Charlie" is smoking
Although these animals flee action failed, but still let a person di smile is not, isn't it? Finally caught back the kangaroo was lying on the grass to play
Do you believe that animals will work like a man? Believed to be. In August 2012, a kangaroo, a fox and a wild boar while night together out of a wildlife park in Frankfurt, Germany. Assistant director in the introduction, the three animals are made by fox and wild boar to escape from the hole, and may have the help of the wild animals of the forest in the region. Fox and wild boar has been "caught", while the kangaroo is still "free".
More than they would do strange it was! In December 2011, the Danish red fort on a tender feeling of zoo. A polar bear mother "at" because of the naughty child, but I didn't expect that the baby bear had a tender feeling offensive - it jump to embrace her arms around his mother's neck, as if to say "don't be angry mother." After the children embrace their polar bear mother seemed to lost temper, no longer "hold" the children's naughty. Staff said, "baby bear is very naughty, like jumped up and down, still love do mischief. Sometimes it is as if the test is mama bear patience exactly how many. However, every time it will use warmth tips let mother no longer angry."
Polar bear baby naughty make mother angry to send "bear hug" please forgive me
Similar presentations
© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.
All rights reserved.


text:
Tottenham Hotspur and Wimbledon, staggered by yesterday's one-season ban from Europe for failing to enter into the spirit of last summer's Intertoto Cup, will have the backing of the Association and the Premier League in their appeal to European football's governing body, Uefa.
The suspension - the third punishment imposed by Uefa in response to the under-strength teams fielded by Spurs and Wimbledon - will be active for five years. If either qualifies for any European competition within that period, they will not be allowed to enter.
After a hastily convened meeting with FA officials, Sam Hammam, Wimbledon's owner, and Peter Barnes, the Spurs secretary, announced their intention to fight the ban. Both Hammam and Spurs' chairman, Alan Sugar, reacted with incredulity rather than anger to the Uefa's bolt from the blue, each suggesting it must be the result of a misunderstanding.
An FA spokesman pledged legal and moral backing for Spurs and Wimbledon, although he argued that Lancaster Gate could not be blamed. "We can't be held responsible for what Uefa has decided to do," he said. Rick Parry, the Premier League's chief executive, offered "full support" to the clubs.
According to Sugar, Spurs had only entered the Intertoto "by way of a favour" to the FA and Premier League. They understood they had permission from the FA to field sides comprising loan players and reserves in the games, which were staged in June and July when most of their first-team squad were on holiday. With the pitch at White Hart Lane being re-seeded, they were also allowed to play at Brighton.
"There must be a major misunderstanding and I'm sure it'll be cleared up very shortly," Sugar said last night. He said the FA's sanction was confirmed in writing and that Spurs received an assurance from Uefa by phone that "nothing would happen if we proceeded on that basis".
He added: "Therefore, the wires have been crossed somewhere and I'm sure it will be resolved. I'm sure the FA and Premier League will back up exactly what I have said. All the other chairmen know this was the case as it was agreed at a Premier League meeting at which Rick Parry and Graham Kelly [the FA chief executive] were present."
Wimbledon also played at Brighton with a team reinforced by "outsiders". Hammam said: "I'm sure there's a misunderstanding. We went into the Intertoto not because of money but because of a threat that all English clubs would be banned from Europe if we didn't. We were proud to do that at the time."
Hammam was "optimistic" that the "honourable and able people in Uefa" would listen sympathetically to their appeal. "This isn't a case for Wimbledon to deal with. It is for the whole of English football to be united."
Uefa had already withheld the financial reward the two clubs were due for entering the Intertoto. Then last month it reduced from four to three the number of places for English clubs in next season's Uefa Cup because of the "poor attitude" of Spurs and Wimbledon. "We knew Uefa were unhappy," an FA spokesman said. "They felt the clubs hadn't entered into the spirit of the competition."
Spurs' captain, Gary Mabbutt, was "devastated" by the ban. Wimbledon twice missed out on Europe because of the ban that followed the Heysel disaster. The third English entrants, Sheffield Wednesday, escaped with a Uefa reprimand, having finished second in their section.
, page 26Reuse content

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We invite you to become a member of Delta Theta Tau.
Who we are:
Not a college sorority, we are a community based, philanthropic organization.
Non-sectarian, local community service group for women aged 18 and older.
Join us for an informational meeting at
Andrews House on Saturday, May 31 at 4:00
Contact Amy at email@example.com
Learn more about the sorority at www.deltathetatau.org [Read more…]


text:
Janus Adaptive Multi-Asset Strategy seeks to dynamically allocate investments based on both potential downside (expected tail loss) and upside (expected tail gain) to lose less in declining markets, participate in the upside to capture tail gains, and earn attractive absolute or relative returns.
|Designed to Maximize Compound Returns: The portfolio seeks to maximize compound returns by mitigating large tail losses and by profiting from large tail gains.
|Forward Looking Measures of Risk: We deduce forward-looking estimates of tail losses and tail gains from option market prices. We allocate towards assets that are expected to have limited tail losses and a high tail gain to tail loss ratio.
|Absolute Return: Given the multi-asset approach and absolute return orientation, the strategy aims to exhibit lower volatility than equities and bonds.
Past performance cannot guarantee future results. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal and fluctuation of value. Returns greater than one year are annualized. Returns are expressed in U.S. dollars. Composite returns are net of transaction costs and gross of non-reclaimable withholding taxes, if any, and reflect the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings.
The gross performance results presented do not reflect the deduction of investment advisory fees and returns will be reduced by such advisory fees and other contractual expenses as described in the individual contract and Form ADV Part 2A.
Net performance results do not reflect the deduction of investment advisory fees actually charged to the accounts in the composite but they do reflect the deduction of model investment advisory fees based on the maximum fixed fee rate in effect for the respective time period. Actual advisory fees may vary among clients invested in the strategy shown and may be higher or lower than model advisory fees. Composites may include accounts with performance-based fees. Returns for each client will be reduced by such fees and expenses as negotiated in any client contract as discussed in Form ADV Part 2A.
For a complete list of holdings as of the most recently available disclosure period, contact us.
The strategy aims to allocate dynamically to growth assets (equity & CDS) to accumulate wealth, capital preservation assets (G12 sovereigns) to preserve capital and inflation assets (linkers, inflation breakevens and commodities) to provide real returns. These are the sleeves that define our investment universe around which the strategy is built and risk is managed. We dynamically allocate among the securities in each sleeve and across the sleeves as expected tail correlations change and expected tail gain (ETG) to expected tail loss (ETL) improve and to reduce risk as ETGs to ETLs deteriorate. We adjust the risk level of the portfolio to keep it close to our target drawdown risk. If tail correlations are positive (or negative) among the asset classes, then diversification is not as powerful (or is more powerful) as a result, and we therefore reduce (or increase) the overall risk of the portfolio to maintain risk at our target levels.
Our goal is enhancing compound returns by enhancing the skew of the portfolio and maintaining the expected level of risk close to our target. A high ETG to ETL ratio for an asset or asset class indicates that the distribution of possible outcomes is more skewed to the right. Positive skewness enhances compound returns, and hence this would be an asset that we would want to allocate more towards. Keeping the portfolio risk levels close to target risk levels can also enhance compound returns.
During the fourth quarter, the assets that showcased improved skew were equities and commodities, while that of bonds deteriorated. As a result, our exposure to equities increased to over 50% from 43% at the beginning of the quarter, driven primarily by U.S. equity exposure and followed by emerging markets, in particular Mexico.
Our overall exposure to commodities did not change but our composition within the asset class did. Specifically, while our signals indicate upwards pressure to inflation, we do not see hyperinflation in the cards. We see is inflation normalizing, which we believe will lead rates to normalize. This is all part of what we call the return to the "old normal". Consistent with this view, the attractiveness of gold and precious metals fell as they will likely do well in an excessive inflationary environment with low growth, but characterized with normal inflation and promising growth according to our signals. We believe the demand for precious metals will be tepid at best. On the other hand, we saw improved attractiveness to industrial metals and agriculture given the growth and rising (yet controlled) inflation we see. The attractiveness of oil fell, likely indicative that the upside is capped as increased prices will drive increased shale supply. As a result, our exposure to industrials and agriculture increased from 6% to 12%, while our exposure to oil and precious metals fell commensurately, leaving our overall commodity exposure at 17%.
Finally, during the fourth quarter, our signals continued to indicate higher ETLs for global sovereigns, which we interpreted as "the safe has become the unsafe." Also of equal importance, our signals anticipated the relative attractiveness of TIPS vs. nominal bonds, as well as a steepening of the term structure, thus confirming that long-end rates are much more sensitive to inflation than shorter-end rates since inflation seems to be increasingly sticky and resilient. These signals led us to reduce the nominal duration from 2.4 years to -0.2 years at the end of the quarter and increase our exposure to break-even inflation by over two years. That said, we continue to believe global sovereigns have limited upside potential and, in fact, peak prices may be well behind us. Central banks around the world, especially the U.S. Federal Reserve, seem keen on starting the process of rate normalization sooner rather than later. As previously stated, we believe the Fed is now looking upon fiscal policy as the catalyst for faster rates of economic growth.
Overall, the scarcity of attractive investment opportunities in global capital markets continues. That said, we remain vigilant to capture opportunities as warranted by our signals.Read the full commentary


text:
I have five indian runners in my paddock, two drakes and three ducks and I haven't been able to find any eggs lately. They have a bath to swim in and today when I went to clean it out and refill it I found three eggs and a duck foetus . Is there anyway the bath is warm enough to incubate them?
post #1 of 3
2/26/16 at 4:54pm
Thread Starter


text:
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Shy Person's Social Guide, Blog Conference Edition
I'm speeding off in the Trophy Wife Wagon tomorrow to attend this conference , all the better to grow this blog readership to stupendous size and, once the selling out process is complete, to launch my eventual best-selling, nearly true memoir.
Or something like that.
Either way, I'll be in Dallas and very much looking forward to meeting you and you and many other yous. Yes, really - I'm going to attempt to suspend my whining for the whole - ok, most - of the weekend and attempt to just have fun. And I do emphasize "attempt":
As a recovering introvert, being in a room full of strangers doesn't come naturally to me. I like meeting shiny new people - it's just that I'm not terribly good at it. Especially, say, when conferences begin before noon (a.k.a. a socially acceptable cocktail hour). Ahem.
To make these things seem less scary, I'm trying to take my own advice by breaking my attendance goals down into less scary, more manageable bits - (1) enjoy learning at least one new thing, and (2) introduce myself to at least two people whose accessories I like best - whoops, I mean, the people who approach me first. Oh, nevermind.
To my fellow attendees - hello! I promise I won't bite, nor will I talk about my ovaries or yours. Princess Shinylocks's, however, are totally in play - sorry, K. Midd., but the world needs this information.
Any other conference attending advice? Shout-outs (do we still do "shout-outs" in 2012?) from my fellow attendees?
8 comments:
- Belle on Heels said...
ZOMG she is TOTALLY preggers!!!!!
OK, now that I got that creepiness out of my system...
I too am a recovering introvert. I've been accused of being (ahem) a snob, but it's really more that I am waaaaay too painfully awkward and shy to introduce myself to anyone. When you combine that with my Chronic Bitch Face, people just think I'm an unapproachable snot. Must work on that.
- September 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM
- Lilly said...
I am so excited to see you! I will admit that I was close to backing out before I saw you on the Twitter list (which was well played on their part). And getting the agenda today helped me to know that even if I completely freak out social skills wise I might learn what SEO stands for and stuff. By the looks of some of our fellow attendees I might also be learning a lot about couponing? That is a pretty big deal I am learning?
It's gunna be a partyyyy!
- September 13, 2012 at 3:04 PM
- Sara said...
I would totally love to meet you if I can get away from my crazy schedule this weekend!
- September 13, 2012 at 3:43 PM
- What Kate Wore said...
Now I know we were separated at birth. (Perhaps with a decade or two in the middle, heh-heh.) We use the same notes app.
Hopefully you will be able to relax and have some fun, I certainly hope so. I could never do it. Never-ever-ever. You are braver than I!
Sending you a smile,
- September 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM
- Carly Anne said...
I don't even remember how I survived networking events without an i-phone... God speed, my friend.
- September 13, 2012 at 7:26 PM
- Katie Clooney said...
I hope you write a blog about your experience. I live outside of Dallas but I haven't been blogging very long. I hope you have a great time!
- September 14, 2012 at 1:14 PM
- toko baju muslim said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- September 16, 2012 at 7:11 AM
- [dianegatorfan] said...
Can't wait to hear about your BBC experience. Oh how I wish I could be either there or at Blissdom to meet you!
I'm sure you'll do fabulously and a lot of those gals are just as nervous and shy as you!
- September 17, 2012 at 3:39 PM


text:
Thanks for your interest in the Vodafone Wireless Innovation Project.
The call for applications is closed. Please check back this spring when we will announce the three winners for this year, who will be featured on the Vodafone Americas Foundation website.
If you are interested in submitting a proposal, the next call for applications will start in November, 2017.


text:
Find Cupcakes Near You, Best cupcake Reviews
1 Result
La Parisienne Morro Bay, CA Cupcakes Pastries Bakery for birthdays, weddings, anniversary gifts, coffee, reviews, menus, best kids birthday cakes La Parisienne Morro Bay, CA donuts order online from La Parisienne
1140 Front St
Morro Bay, California 93442
Morro Bay, California 93442
United States
view phone(805) 772-8530
Give us a moment, we're loading in your results.
Cupcake Monster Cupcakes / Cake Bakery Directory
Get the CupcakeMaps app on your mobile phone. It's FREE and helps you find the best local sweets and desserts on the go!
Get the cupcake apps FREE Here!


text:
We the innocent, led by the unknown, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful! We have done so much with so little, so we are now qualified to do anything with nothing!
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Lowering VAT will not help average wage earner - GRA Commissioner General
Airing his views on a TVG programme titled "Under the Microscope" on Monday, Sattaur said a reduction in VAT would not benefit persons whose income are below the threshold since the items they consume on a daily basis do not get taxed.
2 comments:
- AnonymousApril 5, 2012 at 7:10 AM
Most zero rated items are vital food supplies. VAT is on items we can do almost without, such as those sportscars Christopher Ram son is bringing in the country to flaunt. I suspect that Rajendra is in a stolen car racket in Florida. Maybe those vehicles aren't paid out in full, or he violated leasing terms.ReplyDelete
Christopher Ram wants to lower the VAT so he can import vehicles for the female employees he's anally involved in. Fudge packer Mr.Christopher Ram.
- AnonymousApril 10, 2012 at 9:49 AM
Hope that some of these people had listened to that.The opposition is trying to mislead the people about this VAT,we has Guyanese need to read and learn more about the VAT and stop complaining and following the misleader.ReplyDelete


text:
|Page 1 of 4:
|[1] [2] [3] [4]
|35 reviews in total
This is a movie about an elderly man who has been chosen to be the next
Pope. But, beware: the operative word in the previous sentence is
"man", not "Pope", because the story is not about the challenges of
being (or becoming) Pope: the story is about the struggles of being
human. That's the reason why each and every one of us should be able to
easily follow and enjoy this funny, educated movie. Taking for granted
that all the viewers will be men (and women) themselves, it will be
easy for everybody to get in touch with the doubts, the fears and the
memories that the main character has to confront after he is called to
take on himself one of the greatest responsibilities that the world has
to offer.
Of course a lot of risks were involved in dealing with such issues as faith and self confidence using such an unusual and peculiar subject. But, just like a slim young acrobat on a flying trapeze daring to attempt a difficult exercise, the movie achieves the result of telling this strange story with grace, with humor, with kindness, and with a respect for the themes involved that, I think, the faithful part of the audience should be able to appreciate even more than those among us who wouldn't define themselves religious, or catholic.
Furthermore, I can't resist to notice how funny it is that a movie realized by an openly atheist author depicts catholic hierarchy with such a sympathetic view with tones much more friendly, I would say, than the ones of many mainstream blockbusters we have seen in recent years. So, go watch this movie with confidence (it's an entertaining, interesting work of fiction), and trust (it's soft-spoken, and respectful): you could take even your kids along and, go figure, even your confessor!
Every comment I see about Habemus Papam seems to focus a little too
much on the depiction of the Catholic Church and its figures of
authority, maybe because of the title. Let it go, it's not a critical
movie of the religious institution, and it's certainly not a mocking of
anyone's faith.
It is actually a story about a man's confrontation with great responsibilities, set in a very peculiar yet strangely believable scenario.
I'd say that the central plot and general feeling of the story could be reasonably translated into a different setting. The Catholic Church replaced with a government, the newly-elected Pope replaced with the newly-elected or crowned leader, etc. Maybe a different setting would fall short trying to depict the seriousness of the situation - can you think of a higher position of authority than that of the Pope? -, and maybe it wouldn't be such a charismatic movie if all the central influential characters weren't light-hearted old men, such as the cardinals in this instance... but it could definitely be done.
There are several high points in this movie, most of them straightforward enough that you don't have to be a cinema-nut to appreciate. The acting is terrific, the general quality is comparable with the most hyped Hollywood films (I'm guessing that not needing helicopters, extreme CGI and explosions really helps keeping the budget low). I'm not an 'artsy cinema nut' - and I loved it. (In fact, liking it so much and finding only reviews about it being about 'the Pope' bothered me, that's why I registered to write this review).
Anyway, this was different from everything I had ever seen before, and always in a good way. Well, at least never in a bad one! There is indeed some kind of fresh entertainment and novelty in knowing that your finely tuned powers of plot prediction are useless against a storyteller's unusual way of telling an interesting story. I don't even know who this storyteller is, but assuming it is the director Moretti - he did a good job.
Maybe a more 'conventional' viewer, if there is such a thing, might be unsatisfied because of the peculiarities - some open ended scenes, even one untied subplot; unexplained character reactions that seem entirely sincere nonetheless. While I noticed these things, they didn't annoy me enough to detract from the general experience. And as long as you watch it without a 'conventional viewer's' mindset and expectations, I can almost guarantee that you will be pleasantly entertained.
Let me clarify: don't expect situation jokes. Don't expect an inner journey into the darkness of a hero's troubled dark soul. Don't expect a wacky incarnation of comic relief. And let me repeat this one more time: you don't have to be an 'artsy cinema nut' to enjoy it; just don't expect to be presented to the same old situations and movie gimmicks.
It's actually worth a lot more than just for it's quirkiness, but if for nothing else, watch this so you can briefly purge your mind of the sameness that plagues the screens.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Nanni Moretti's film has an interesting premise - what if the Cardinal
elected Pope felt himself incapable of doing the job? That is an
intriguing idea to explore, and you could do it as political drama or
out-and-out farce. What you cannot do is have both. But more intriguing
than a man having an interior struggle with being elected God's
representative on Earth, would be the external struggles unleashed by
his public refusal to accept the office. That is where, unfortunately,
Moretti's film ends - at the point where it should start.
Meanwhile, imbecilic cardinals dance, clap their hands, throw hissy fits at card games and mess up in slow-mo volleyball. Is this pomp and costume reduced to its ignoble essence, or just poor characterisation? The Pope goes walkabout and ends up hanging out with an acting troupe. Is this religion as grand theatre, or Roman Holiday for a top clergyman? Tone, theme and satirical targets all lack focus in this under-realised piece. Moretti's own character has one scene of comic failure with the protagonist, and then seems merely to function as a cutaway from the main plot line. Excising this psychiatrist completely would go some way to tightening up a very disjointed piece.
Michel Piccoli is engaging as the Cardinal encumbered with a crisis of confidence, but that performance gets lost in the narrative failings that frame it. Such is the lack of focus that audiences come away wondering what the film is meant to be. A baffling film, and not in a good way.
This film has had a very diverse range of reviews, and this is probably
because its full appreciation requires a finger on the pulse of the
Catholic world.
Moretti makes a statement about the current state of the Church, which behind its omnipotent facade seems to be unable to truly face the challenges of remaining relevant to its followers. Rather than set up an intricate political plot of intrigue and betrayal, Moretti chooses to represent this powerlessness through a single person, an unassuming cardinal who feels unable to take on the responsibility. At the same time, though, he reveals that the state of unease is widespread among the cardinals, who dread the thought of having to take on this leadership, as much as the thought of losing their leader.
A banal way forward would have been for the cardinals to turn against each other, or against the Pope; instead, here they find relief in reverting to games and simple everyday activities, as if the isolation inside the Vatican walls is lifting an unbearable oppression from them, as they can do normal things as normal people do.
The film has several imperfections, and one feels sometimes the story gets somewhat contorted, especially when the new Pope rekindles his old love for the theatre. Still, it is a visually attractive film, sensitively scripted and well acted.
This is a surprisingly sympathetic film made by a non-believer who is often critical of the Church. Moretti is appreciative of the magnitude of the problem faced by the church, but most of all one has the impression that he cares deeply about the people involved: those on the balcony, those behind the curtains and especially those down below, in the square.
I would rate this film a four. But I would give a zero to the people
who caused it to be labeled a comedy. Yes, the premise could have been
comedic. A pope in need of therapy? One thinks of movies like Analyze
This with Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal. But there is little comic
about the way the pope's need for therapy is handled here. A pope
trying to flee his responsibilities by pretending to be someone else?
Perhaps you might expect an Italian farce, a la Roberto Benigni. Again,
you will be disappointed.
This movie is definitely not "A story centered on the relationship between the newly elected Pope and his therapist." The Pope spends very little time with his therapist and there is no "relationship."
This is a bittersweet meditation about what happens when a confused, inarticulate man, suffering from (perhaps justified) feelings of inadequacy, is given a huge responsibility. There are no laughs, and there are only a few potentially comic situations that could have been much funnier than they were. At most, you could call a three or four sentences of the dialogue "wry." The plot isn't much to speak of either. The church is treated with too much reverence, as though any sort of satire is too risky. Even devout Catholics will wonder about the missed opportunities. (A random episode of Father Brown takes more good-natured satiric risks than this whole film, and it's a detective series.)
If you go in expecting a melodrama, a character study, a premise for a story without much of a story, you may enjoy the fine acting, the scenery, and the elegiac mood. If you are expecting humor, fun, satire, and the satisfaction of a story well told, you are going to be puzzled.
I saw the movie a few days ago and, even though I did not like the
ending, I gave a 9/10, because I loved how the Cardinals were made to
look so godly and so human at the same time. Michel Piccoli did such
great acting.
Last but not least, besides being very entertaining, the movie now has proved to be prophetic, as Pope Benedict has resigned to everyone's surprise. That alone makes this movie, a great movie.
PS: For the person who wrote: "Waste of time, written by an atheist so what do you expect", and then complains of "an insult to all Believers". I am not an atheist; I believe in God. But my thinking brain felt deeply insulted as I was reading the rant.
The cardinals have gathered in the conclave in Rome to elect a new
Pope. Everyone is afraid to get the job. Cardinal Melville is elected.
As the faithful gathered outside waiting for the announcement, Melville
breaks down on the way to the balcony. The cardinals can't leave until
the announcement and the public cannot be informed without Melville.
They reluctantly bring in psychoanalyst Professor Brezzi to treat the
new Pope. Brezzi is surprised that he is also forced to stay inside
isolated from the world and his family. Brezzli's wife is also a
psychoanalyst and Melville is secreted to be treated by her. He manages
to escape from his escorts and roam the streets of Rome.
I don't think more sophisticated comedies translate well between different languages and cultures. There is an interior ingrainness of the religious world that I'm lacking. There is a bit of drama as Melville's interior conflict goes on. It would have been interesting to have an outsider or a media person investigating the situation and happens upon the cardinal on the loose. I can see the attempt at humor but it doesn't strike me as funny.
The description of the movie is wrongly understood. This movie is definitely NOT about the relationship of Pope and his therapist. The failed therapist has and episodic side-role. The movie is about a Bishop who cannot take the burden of responsibility and attention that falls upon him. How he struggles and how he finds courage to solve the situation. There is no relationship between a Pope and therapist who have a 10 sentence conversation. Even the other therapist - therapists wife does not have any major impact or role in the movie whatsoever. Okay she kind of connects with the Pope but has more of a satirical role considering the outcome and storyline. Misleading is this introduction. Please change it.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I loved Habemus Papam. It has a highly original plot and it takes place
in a highly unusual environment. Papal elections does not sound as an
intriguing movie setting, but the film is captivating. Who could have
thought that 200 elderly men all dressed in the same way could be so
entertaining?! But they are! The casting is excellent; everyone has a
face and an individuality. I am especially thankful for the casting
choice for the lead character, played by the great Michel Piccoli, and
"il portavoce", played by my favorite Polish actor Jerzy Sztur (I was
so happy to see him inhabit an Italian movie screen so comfortably).
Michel Piccoli's presence expresses perfectly the humanity and the
philosophical aspect of his character. And Jerzy Sztur lights up the
scene as a perfect comical actor.
And yet despite its unusual setting, the film deals with the classical plot of a person out of his own element. And as in every mistaken identity story, the journey into the unknown turns out to be a journey to oneself. You leave behind the familiar and you find the indispensable. Here, the Pope incognito roams the streets of Rome and gradually learns something important about himself.
At the same time, as Pope enters Rome, Rome enters Vatican. This happens through introduction of laypersons into the sanctum sactorum of Vatican, such as the psychologist (who brings with him not only atheism, but also the ball game) and the Swiss guard officer (who introduces the cardinals to the popular music).
I liked the nice small touches throughout the movie, like the fact that the Pope had a dream of becoming an actor in his youth (just like John Paul II), or the Chekhov's play Seagull serving as a pivotal reference on realization that you might have wasted your life, or the imperturbable portavoce losing his face and cursing in Polish
In general, it's an elegant comedy that combines philosophy with laughter and offers life's wisdom that not only Popes will find useful.
P.S. And speaking of Popes, Benedict XVI resigned a year after this movie was released, so
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Papacy and its institutions have attracted film makers in many
different ways. The Vatican or its clones have been used as sets and
stage for many movies in genres ranging from historical movies to crazy
comedies. Nanni Moretti's 'Habemus Papam' tries to be more and
different. It tries to say something important about the burden of
supreme office of the Catholic Church, while telling a story that
hesitates between social satire and comedy of situations.
A pope is dead, and a new pope needs to be elected. The college of cardinals gets together, doors close, cardinals start the election process. After a few inconclusive rounds, cardinal Melville (Michel Piccoli) is the unexpected winner. White smoke. The pope is to be announced and should bless the crowds gathered in the piazza in front of the San Pietro. However, there is a problem. The new pope seems to have second thoughts. The burden of responsibility? Stage fear? A shrink (Nanni Moretti himself), the best money can buy, is called in help. And then the pope runs away. Maybe he is looking to get back to his secret vocation for acting in theater, repressed in childhood? Maybe he will be convinced to get back, after revisiting his responsibilities?
The premises are exceptional for a very interesting film, maybe for more than one. This is actually the problem with 'Habeamus Papam'. Nanni Moretti seems to not have decided which film to make. The characters comedy with the shrink trying to psycho-analyze the pope, and the bunch of semi-idiots with teenager behaviors which seem to compose the cardinals crowd? The situation farce where a member of the guard plays the shadow of the pope to mask the fact that the head of the Catholic church just ran away to try to face real life? The drama of the man facing a huge burden and questioning whether he is ready to undertake it, doubled by the conflict between life as it happens and the deformed reality lived by priests? Each of these succeed to some extent, especially the later due to the superb acting of Michel Piccoli. The ensemble does not work as one movie.
|Page 1 of 4:
|[1] [2] [3] [4]
|Plot summary
|External reviews
|Official site
|Plot keywords
|Main details
|Your user reviews
|Your vote history


text:
Are you using an attribution model? This infographic helps you to determine the value of digital marketing channels with attribution models. This study used over 23 million multiple – interaction conversions across 30 domains.
Originaly posted by Slingshotseo.com, click below to see full infographic.
Share Your Thoughts
PersonaBold Audience Builder
We created a powerful tool to build personas of your target audience improving your marketing strategies and tactics.
Featured Case Studies


text:
What should you do if you're in a country on an overstayed tourist visa? Should you get in touch with local immigration for a visa renewal or keep your head down and hope for the best? These are questions that have confronted many travelers over the years and the answers to them will largely depend on individual choice as well as the country in question.
You might think that the European Union has a single policy on passports and visa requirements but this is unfortunately not the case. Twenty six members of the EU have signed the Schengen Agreement which allows free movement without passport controls or the requirement for a visa within what is called the Schengen Area Update 2013 : Croatia just became a new member. Ireland and the United Kingdom are the only EU countries outside the Schengen Area, which also includes four countries outside the European Union—Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland (Ireland and the UK have their own common travel area).
So what happens if you find yourself in a Schengen Area or EU country saying "I overstayed my tourist visa!" And more importantly, what should you do to avoid problems now and in the future?
The answers will vary from individual to individual and from country to country. It can also depend on how long you have overstayed your tourist visa. Many travelers from North America and the European Union inadvertently find themselves in countries on an overstayed tourist visa simply because there is no requirement to obtain a visa before you enter. It can therefore be very easy to overstay without even realizing that you are doing so.
In other cases, you may not notice that you're living in a country on an overstayed tourist visa for quite some time. It is normally only when leave and try to reenter a country that problems arise, usually at passport control. Turning up at passport control when you've overstayed on tourist visa can lead to either a refusal of entry or having to pay a large penalty fee depending on the country you're visiting. It can also lead to further problems if you try to visit that country (USA) or another in the EU/Schengen Area in the future.
Many US travelers end up on an overstayed tourist visas because they don't realize that you can only be in the Schengen area for 90 days out of each 180 before you need to apply for visa renewal. Even if you've previously remained in a country on an overstayed you may still be allowed reentry if you've got a return ticket, a valid reason for entry and the period you overstayed on your last visit wasn't more than a few weeks. Having said that, it is obviously still better if you don't overstay in the first place and if you do overstay apply for visa renewal as soon as you realize that you need to.
Outside of the European Union, the procedures for dealing with travelers with overstayed tourist visas vary considerably. Many North American travelers think that they can overstay a tourist visa in South or Central America without it leading to any real problems. While you may only have to pay a small fine – for example, fifty pesos ($12) in Argentina – it can still lead to problems with reentry in the future and it is far better to apply for visa renewal when you still have the opportunity to do so. Similarly in Southeast Asia, the cost of overstaying a visa may be initially just a fine of a few dollars but could be an issue if you want to return to the country in the future.
It is only if you've overstayed a tourist visa in the past and then have to apply for a pre-entry visa – for example if you want to travel to a country to work or study rather than as a tourist – that you are likely to experience more than routine problems obtaining authorization.
If you do remain in a country on an overstayed tourist visa, you may however still be denied reentry depending on the discretion of the passport control officer. Thus smile, be polite, and patient. You may also be denied visa renewal or a pre-entry visa from the country's embassy in your own country on the same grounds. At passport control, this can be a matter of small things including how closely your passport is inspected, the time of day you arrive, the person in front of you and what you look like.
So to reiterate, the best advice is simple: check how long your tourist visa allows you to stay in a country (or, if you are visiting the European Union outside the UK and Ireland, in the Schengen Area) and stick to it. If you're overstaying for a few days only, you'll probably be OK. If you know you won't be returning to the country, you might want to take your chances. But if you want to stay longer than you had intended in the country you are visiting, it is always much better to apply for a visa renewal than to remain on an overstayed tourist visa. That's the only way to ensure that you won't be denied entry or encounter other problems on your travels round the world in the future.
Useful links for Immigration Related Questions
Schengen fact sheet by the US Department of State
Department of Immigration and Citizenship in Australia
Philippines Bureau of Immigration
Immigration department of Malaysia
India bureau of immigrationVietnam Visa on Arrival
Have you overstayed a tourist visa? What did you do or are you going to do? What happened to you? Share your story with us in the comments section below, ask any question you might have, and please share this post if you liked it!


text:
- Vermonters for Better Education
Home - David Kirkpatrick's pages
Milwaukee Schools: Proving
that Vouchers, Charters and Choice Work
By David W. Kirkpatrick (December 06, 2007)
Senior Education Fellow
U.S. Freedom Foundation www.freedomfoundation.us
In a recent interview program on television one of the participants said that proponents of school vouchers suggest a number of positive results would occur, including advantages for students, development of effective alternative schools and programs, and improvements in the local school system, none of which have happened anywhere. Such ignorance (or deliberate distortion, but let's give him the benefit of the doubt) is neither unheard of nor rare. The sad part, too common, is that his remarks passed relatively unanswered.
Obviously he has not heard of Vermont where more than 90 or the state's 240 or so local communities lack an elementary school, a secondary school, or both. Instead they engage in what they call "tuitioning" whereby, as decided by local voters, the towns elect to provide financial support for students to go to a school of their choice. Not only that, the schools may be in or out of state or even, in rare instances, in other nations with financial aid for tuition but not for travel to and from, or residency expenses. For school success you may find hard to believe, see the November 9, 2006 commentary about the St. Johnsbury Academy in what is called the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont. Alternatively, a Google search for "St. Johnsbury Academy" will give you thousands of hits, including the Academy's website.
But what is probably Exhibit A of more recently inaugurated programs, began in March 1990 when the Wisconsin legislature, at the urging of Rep. Polly Williams, a Black Representative whose district involved part of Milwaukee, passed a school voucher program initiating an ongoing chain of events.
The program to date could justify a book, or several, but snapshots of then and now are illustrative.
The original program authorized a limited voucher for a maximum of 1% of the district's students. The educational establishment, of course, vehemently opposed the legislation, tried to limit its implementation, or have the legislation repealed. Initial and subsequent successes, however, were such that over the years both the amount and number of vouchers were periodically increased. Milwaukee's mayor and some members of the school board became among the program's strongest advocates. Today the voucher is worth about $6,500 and there is no enrollment cap - it was lifted two years ago.
In March of 1990 the district enrolled 93,000 students. It was reported that sixty percent of the students who managed to reach 9th grade failed to graduate and, of the 40% who did graduate, only one-fourth, of 10% of the entire student body could read at a minimally acceptable level. The situation was so bad that it was claimed that 62% of the district's teachers and administrators would not send their own children to the city's public schools.
The current picture may be summarized from a recent article by Alan J. Borsuk in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Today more than 30% of Milwaukee students receive public funding assistance to attend schools other than the normal Milwaukee Public School (MPS) offerings. MPA enrollment is now slightly less than 82,000. Another 19,000 are using vouchers to attend 122 private schools within the city. This is up more than 20% just since the enrollment cap was eliminated two years ago. If these students constituted a single unit, they would comprise the sixth largest district in the state.
The addition of charter schools also enters the picture. More than 5,000 students are in charter schools authorized by either the city of Milwaukee or the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. So much for the argument that new alternatives would not be created by choice programs.
Another 3,000 students are in charter schools authorized by the school district but not staffed by district teachers. Nearly 2,600 are in schools that contract with the district. More than 9,200 students attend charter schools authorized and staffed by the district. So much for the argument that choice will not improve local public schools.
Finally, 6600 city students attend suburban schools as the result of a voluntary racial integration program and an open enrollment law.
Perfection has not been achieved but, as Borsuk wrote, "it is clear...parents like the idea of having choices and are using the new avenues for school selection widely."
# # # # #
"There are some excellent individual schools in every urban district, but not one school district that can be described as excellentor even satisfactory...To able, experienced teachers in urban school systems, however, the school bureaucracy is recognized as a structure that has been systematically organized to prevent effective teaching and learning." P. 61, Martin Haberman, Star Teachers of Children in Poverty, West Lafayette, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, 1995
# # # # #
Copyright 2007 David W. Kirkpatrick
108 Highland Court,
Douglassville, Pennsylvania 19518-9240
Phone: (610) 689-0633


text:
Three months after winning the NWSL Championship, the Flash are leaving Western New York. Multiple sources have confirmed to The Equailzer that the club is in the final stages of being sold to a group that will relocate it to North Carolina. The players and staff were informed of the news late Thursday. A formal announcement is expected prior to next Thursday's NWSL draft in Los Angeles. FourFourTwo also reported the news late Thursday night. The club has scheduled a major announcement for Monday, January 9.
The club will now be under the umbrella of North Carolina FC which re-branded from the Carolina RailHawks late last season. At the time owner Stephen Malik said, "We aspire to be at the top level of both men's and women's professional soccer, so we are pursuing MLS and NWSL bids as well as a new stadium. We made a conscious decision to brand ourselves as North Carolina's professional club. A united soccer community will be one of the keys to reaching these goals."
The next three months figure to move at breakneck pace for the relocated franchise. North Carolina FC play at WakeMed Soccer Park. The stadium was opened as SAS Soccer Park in 2002 and housed the Carolina Courage of WUSA. Last year, Malik purchased the trademark for the name Carolina Courage. It is unknown what the now former Western New York Flash will be called.
The departure of the Flash from Western New York ends a short but storied history. They debuted as the Buffalo Flash in 2009 and a year later were champions of the USL-W League. Led by owner Joe Sahlen the team made an ambitious leap into WPS in 2011 and began playing home matches in Rochester while maintaining a training base in Buffalo. The arrival of the team helped save the league for that season and the likes of Marta, Christine Sinclair, and rookie Alex Morgan propelled them to the title.
The 2011 Flash also hosted the marquee event in league history when they hosted magicJack and hometown favorite Abby Wambach just days after the Women's World Cup final. A weary Wambach was reduced to spectator and autograph giver but the match drew an overflow crowd to Sahlen's Stadium.
A year later they struck again, this time in WPSL Elite before joining NWSL as a charter franchise in 2013. The four years in NWSL were a mixed bag. Wambach played there for two seasons, the first of which ended with the inaugural NWSL Shield and a disappointing loss at home in the NWSL Championship. Player revolt dotted the 2015 season and led to Aaran Lines stepping down as head coach and Paul Riley taking the reins.
In 2016, Riley guided a youthful squad all the way to the NWSL Championship. Unfortunately for Flash fans in Western New York they will be unable to see their team compete as defending champions this season.


text:
England series has steeled us: Wallabies
Sean McMahon says the fighting spirit displayed in Australia's past two heart-stopping victories was forged in their humiliating 3-0 series loss at the hands of England this year.
The Wallabies kept their unbeaten Spring Tour record intact on Saturday night with a gutsy 25-23 win over France - one week after breaking Scottish hearts with a one-point victory.
They were far from perfect in either Test, but prevailed on the back of guts and grit, including defending a man down at the back end of the game against Scotland.
At Stade de France on Saturday there were desperate cover tackles from winger Sefa Naivalu - who put his hand up for a regular starting spot with an inspired display - and the effort shown by replacement half Nick Phipps to force a missed field goal attempt from France.
To McMahon, who returned to the starting lineup for the first time since suffering an ankle injury against the Springboks last month, those are the plays that define this team's spirit.
"People might not recognise those opportunities watching from the telly," he said.
"But those are the things as a team when you look back on a game and you might say 'oh, someone's made that cover tackle', but to us that's better than a try.
"That's saving a try or stopping a phase so to us that's huge and that's what we're trying to buy into and create an identity around, just not giving up."
The Wallabies believe that sort of desperation has been a long time coming - and was built during their horror start to the year in which they lost three matches to England and two to the All Blacks.
"As a team when you're in a losing locker room, you all sit down and you start thinking about how much it hurts," McMahon said.
"I think we've just built throughout the year and said 'that's it, it's time for us to step up'."
More in News
McCully search no big deal: PMNZ Newswire
The mistake 4,816 people made on Anzac DayMamamia
'Trump will walk away wealthier'The Guardian
First China-made aircraft carrier launchedBBC News
Fisherman finds body in Manukau HarbourRadio New Zealand
Teen who lost legs in crash thanks 'hero' sisterSky News


text:
Ideate, design, create.
We will do the rest
We will do the rest
Design management made easy
With Pics.io you can keep all files in one, central repository so that you can always find what you need. You can even link files if they belong to the same design iteration.
Track design revisions
We've developed a transparent and interactive version control feature, to help you easily spot the changes between different iterations of the same design. Liked the old one better? Simply restore it with a click of a button.
Find any file in seconds
As designers ourselves, we know how it feels not to be able to find what you need. We equipped Pics.io with custom filters feature and a powerful search language that comes with our platform and personalise your assets library to match your workflow.
Optimise your design library
From colour marks, file ratings, image collections to descriptions and custom filters — we provide you with a range of tools to optimise your file management process and speed up work.
Collaborate faster than ever
Pics.io will help you finish projects faster by reducing the time between client feedback and design implementation. Comment on any file and get notifications in real time — desktop messages, emails or even our Slack bot.
Create portfolio websites
Good work defends itself, but first impressions are powerful. We make it easy to showcase your designs by creating beautiful websites in just two clicks. Simply drag and drop your best designs from the library and share it with your client as a sleek and responsive website.
Whether you're using a Mac or a Windows, PSD or Sketch,
Chrome or Firefox — we work with all.
Simplify your workflow, speed up your work and win better projects
Chrome or Firefox — we work with all.
Simplify your workflow, speed up your work and win better projects


text:
followers view all
following view all
|paulwright032 is not in any groups
Avoid External Tumors Naturally and Stay Cancer-Free!
External tumors that lead to cancer can be prevented by living a healthy lifestyle. The first step towards defending this deadly disease is to diet, exercise and avoid tobacco. Apart from these well known facts, there are many simple and innovative strategies available for reducing the risk of breast tumor and other tumors.
· Filter drinking water: Drinking filtered tap water can be much safer than buying bottled water. It will reduce the exposure to carcinogens.
· Avoid fuel spill: It is necessary for people to stop topping off fuel tanks in vehicles after the nozzle automatically shuts down, as it may lead to spillage and create damage to the vapor recovery system. The malfunction of this system will cause the emission of toxic chemicals, like benzene, which can cause lungs tumor and skin cancer.
· Marinate meat: It has been scientifically proven that processed or charred meats can contain heterocyclic amines which are released into the meat when subjected to high temperatures.
· Caffeinate: People who include coffee in their regular diet show decreased risk of brain and head tumor. Caffeine present in coffee is found to be much more effective than decaf and tea.
· Water: Drinking water and liquids reduce the risk of kidney tumor as they dilute the cancer agents present in the urine and flush out of the system quickly.
· Go Green: Greens, containing chlorophyll, is rich in magnesium should be included for a healthy lifestyle, as they lower the cause of colon cancer and belly tumor.
· Brazil Nuts: Brazil nuts are considered to be the best antioxidant available which can prevent the onset of stomach tumor. People with high selenium amount in their blood have reduced risk of throat tumor and colorectal cancer.
· Burn calories: Regular exercise like brisk walking everyday can help people to reduce the risk of joints and elbow tumor. It can not only burn fat and calories but can also help to stay fit and healthy.
· Color the outfits: Wearing red or blue colored outfits can protect the person from skin cancer while getting exposed to harmful UV rays. Covering up the skin from direct exposure of sunlight can help in preventing melanomas.
· Organic food: Many cancer institutes recommend purchasing foods that are free from added hormones or pesticides which can cause endocrine problems and testicles tumor.
Implementing healthy diet and regular body cleansing can help people to stay healthy. Even though the cure for cancer is still underway, simple lifestyle changes can help in reducing the risk of tumors and cancers.
For more info visit - http://www.subparticlesalternative.com
|like 3
|148 views


text:
Earlier this month, the BBC's Newsnight programme broadcast at length and in detail the lynching of a young woman by more than 100 enraged men who beat, kicked, ran over, stoned and burnt their victim while police stood by. It was right to do so. True, Newsnight suppressed the mob's final assault on 27-year-old Farkhunda Malikzada, a student of Islamic law falsely accused in Kabul of burning a Koran. Still, the camera lingered unbearably longer than it usually does. Made with tact and courage by Zarghuna Kargar, the film put the atrocity in context, interviewed both Farkhunda's family and her persecutors, and explained why murderous misogyny remains the norm in a supposedly liberated nation. Anyone who still believes that Western armed force in Afghanistan has achieved even a tiny fraction of its stated aims should view the report.
Images, even images of death, have no single meaning in themselves. The old adage is exactly the reverse of true: a word – or at least the right word at the right time – is now worth a thousand pictures. Zarghuna Kargar gave us that. Thread the visual enormity into a narrative that makes some human, and humane, sense of it, and even the most "graphic" frame – to enlist the newscaster's favourite weasel adjective – may justify its place. Online, that seldom happens. When, this week, TV reporter Vester Flanagan shot his two former colleagues live on air in Virginia and then uploaded the film of his crime, the "autoplay" function on Facebook and Twitter accounts went on circulating this record of a double murder even after social-media bosses pulled the plug. Ghouls, psychopaths and prurient teens aside, many users became involuntary witnesses of violent death.
From the chamber of desert horrors digitally edited by Isis to raw footage of shoot-outs and aircraft crashes, we all know in theory if not practice that the net delivers a 24/7 "atrocity exhibition". That was the title chosen in 1970 by the prophet of new-media delirium, J G Ballard, for a batch of stories inspired by the endlessly recycled film of J F Kennedy's assassination in 1963. Even in the grainy 8mm Kodachrome stock of the Sixties, Ballard saw what lay in store for us.
It's easy enough to mount a moral grassy knoll and censure the voyeurs, thrill-seekers or downright maniacs who go online to gawp at Isis torture videos, murder recordings or the aftermath of disasters. However, might our media conventions of "decency" and "discretion" also enshrine lapses of taste, even blatant cruelty? Consider the Shoreham air show crash. We see on primetime screens the aircraft's doomed descent and the resulting fireball. Somehow, the moments of impact – the moments of death – remain utterly taboo. Why?
As death has retreated from life in the affluent world, no longer an everyday companion but a sanitised medical mystery, so the prohibition over showing it in fact rather than fiction has deepened. The vigils and wakes that sent the departed on their journey in consoling rituals have by and large given way to the quietly drawn curtains on the hushed ward. Most people in Britain still die in hospital, although it turns out that the number who quit this life in their "usual place of residence" is actually on the rise again: up from 38 to 44 per cent between 2008 and 2012, according to Public Health England. Remember, though, that the usual residence will often be a "home" and not their home.
Fewer of us now view the dead, even the dead who mean the most to us. We should. Because their presence proves their absence. Whatever your beliefs, you must recognise that they have left that empty shell and now dwell elsewhere – even if only in the memories you keep of them. Yet the visual euphemisms of the polite media – with their command to "Look away now", having titillated us up to the brink of slaughter – also connive in this new mystification of death.
One of the most striking stories to emerge from the Shoreham crash was that of Terry Hallard. He saw the aeroplane fall, almost 63 years after – as a boy of 12 – he had witnessed the Farnborough air show crash. In September 1952, 29 spectators and two crew died when a prototype De Havilland 110 fighter broke up in mid-air and its burning engine crashed into the crowd. In Empire of the Clouds, his history of post-war British aviation, James Hamilton-Paterson evokes the near-incredible stoicism of the Farnborough scene. "An extraordinary silence" followed the impact. The wife of pilot John Derry turned to a colleague and asked, "There's no hope, is there?" "No, none." The show went on even as ambulances arrived and medics tended hideous wounds.
Almost immediately, test pilot Neville Duke flew a Hawker Hunter – the same type, now a vintage curiosity, that crashed at Shoreham – through the sound barrier. Seven years after the end of the Second World War, that choice "was perhaps more comprehensible to those who could remember active service, and how in war there was seldom time to grieve". In the crowd, many who had not fought themselves would have endured the Blitz. The next day, Prime Minister Winston Churchill sent Duke a message of support: "Accept my salute." No one dreamed of suing the manufacturers or the organisers. As Hamilton-Paterson writes, "Many things about Britain some 60 years ago were strange, even quite brutal."
Bitter experience of loss had cemented millions of stiff upper lips in place. Now we circle obsessively around the circumstances of death but recoil from its sight. Yet the serious broadcaster's rule – show the preludes, the outcomes, but not the fatal event itself – betrays a queasy kind of fetishism. The bodies of the dead merit sacred seclusion but the anguish of the living, however extreme, is fair public game. Cut from the corpse, focus instead on the fear and grief of victims, survivors or relations, and you stay safely within our bizarre laws. This week, a newspaper that likes to lecture public broadcasters about ethics displayed on its front page the face of the young journalist in Virginia as Flanagan took aim at her. That last look of shock and terror presumably violated no guidelines. There was no body and no blood. I still found it obscene.
In the past, representations of the dying and the dead served many purposes. For medieval Europeans, no image merited more reverence that the horrifically tortured Christ on the cross, dying his slow, slave's death. To late-Gothic artists, the worse the suffering, the holier the image. In the Crucifixion altarpieces of Matthias Grünewald, the scourged, ravaged, purulent, moribund body inspires devotion to a Jesus who (in the words of novelist J K Huysmans) dies "like a thief, a dog… He had sunk himself to the deepest depth of fallen humanity". Some viewers may find these images distressing? That was the whole point.
As faith withdrew to the margins of European life, death masks cast in plaster or wax preserved the face of genius, fame and power. Widely reproduced, the visage with which a Cromwell, a Voltaire or a Napoleon departed became as much a part of their posthumous glory as any studio portrait. Whether serene or struggling, the face of death in a great one brought honour and not shame.
Even the advent of photography failed to banish pictures of the dead from polite society. During the Victorian age, advances in the technology of print and image far outpaced progress in medicine. The result was the fashion for post-mortem photography, with depictions of dead children – often garlanded with flowers – treasured by bereaved families or made into calling cards. Grieving parents saw nothing macabre in the custom. Only hindsight finds it morbid.
Today, media codes dictate that invisibility alone can confer respect. To reveal is to desecrate. The meaning of mortality in photographs, however, will change from viewer to viewer. After Che Guevara's death in Bolivia in 1967, the critic John Berger published an essay that compared this image – transmitted to prove the guerrilla leader had really been killed – both to Rembrandt's Anatomy Lesson of Professor Tulp and Andrea Mantegna's painting of the dead Christ. Both Rembrandt and the CIA-backed Bolivian army, Berger writes, wanted to "make an example of the dead". However, the dead Che was seen around the world not as proof of "the absurdity of revolution" but an emblem of its dignity and value.
The Isis curators of execution-porn sites need no further curses here. We know what they do and why they do it. Likewise the mercenary ringmasters of freak-show video aggregators such as LiveLeak (trending on the site today: "teenager in agony after being shot in the head"). Think twice, though, before assuming that the closed eyes and the covered lens always represent the better way. In 1955, the 14-year-old Emmett Till was tortured and killed in Mississippi after he had allegedly flirted with a white woman. Before the funeral, in Chicago, his mother Mamie insisted on an open coffin. About 50,000 saw the mutilated corpse; African American magazines carried the image to millions more. Emmett's ruined face became an icon of the growing civil rights movement. As Mamie Till said, "I wanted the world to see what they did to my baby."Reuse content


text:
|In partnership with Red & Yellow Care
Living with someone with Alzheimer's(6 Posts)
Blossombee Sun 13-Nov-16 19:10:30
Jenijena Sun 13-Nov-16 19:14:25
Blossombee Sun 13-Nov-16 20:00:07
Jenijena Sun 13-Nov-16 20:21:45
Blossombee Sun 13-Nov-16 20:38:44
Haribogirl Sun 13-Nov-16 21:01:52
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.


text:
Taking Trump Literally And Seriously
February 23, 2017 § 1 Comment
Everyone will recall the debate that unfolded during the 2016 presidential campaign over how to treat Donald Trump's utterances on various policy issues. His detractors were increasingly alarmed by the ideas that spilled forth from his lips at rallies, many of which seemed to be blurted out without much thought into their wisdom or the details of their implementation. Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it; ban Muslims from coming into the country; slap a tariff on American companies making products overseas. His defenders exhorted those who were panicking at what seemed to be a litany of questionable proposals to stop taking Trump literally, and instead to take him seriously. So, for instance, when Trump threatened to punitively tax companies that were moving jobs overseas, the interpretation was supposed to be not that he would follow through, but that he was serious about finding a way to increase domestic job growth. It turns out, however, that taking Trump literally was not as silly as his campaign surrogates suggested, and that his words do indeed provide a guide for where he will initially land on policy. So applying this frame, what does it mean in the Israel context?
Largely forgotten alongside his more famous comments about wanting to make the "ultimate deal" between Israelis and Palestinians is that early in his campaign, Trump actually laid out a precise roadmap for how he was going to approach Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In some of his first comments on Israel during an interview with the Associated Press in December 2015, Trump refused to be pinned down on a host of specific Israel-related issues, which in itself was a strategy. But he did say enough to make it easier to predict what he is going to do going forward, and figure out how it meshes with his comments during the joint press conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu last Wednesday.
Talking to the AP before the first primary votes had been cast, Trump said that the first thing he was going to do was sit down with leaders in the region to gauge not only their feelings about the contours of a deal and whether it is workable, but also to test their commitment to peace. He said that "I'll be able to tell in one sit-down meeting with the real leaders" what is possible, and that he would know for sure within six months of taking office. He also said that he was not convinced that either Israel or the Palestinians were serious about an agreement and that he had greater concerns about one of the sides, but refused to say which side. He did, however, very clearly place the burden of resolving the situation on Israel; "A lot will have to do with Israel and whether or not Israel wants to make the deal — whether or not Israel's willing to sacrifice certain things. They may not be, and I understand that, and I'm OK with that. But then you're just not going to have a deal." He also, in what is now a familiar refrain, would not commit to moving the embassy, would not refer to Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, called settlements "a huge sticking point," and would not commit to a two-state solution so as not to prejudice negotiations ahead of time. On whether he would want to dive into Israeli-Palestinian negotiations as president, he said, "I think if I get elected, that would be something I'd really like to do. Because so much death, so much turmoil, so much hatred — that would be to me a great achievement. As a single achievement, that would be a really great achievement."
The Trump playbook so far has followed the literal script he laid out before the politics of the campaign forced him to adopt more traditionally hawkish positions. The first thing he said he would do was talk with regional leaders. Not only did he sit down with Netanyahu early on, he also sat down with Jordan's King Abdullah, spoke with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, and White House aides have been making the rounds of Arab ambassadors in Washington. He said that the burden would be on Israel to resolve the situation, and lo and behold he stood next to Netanyahu and warned him that both sides would have to compromise and again alluded to settlements being a sticking point in asking the prime minister to hold off on them for awhile. If we take Trump literally as we should, it means that he is going to make a very heavy early push on getting the two sides together, and will lean on Israel to stop taking actions in the short term that make a negotiated solution more difficult.
In this light, Trump's pronunciations at last week's press conference should not have come as a surprise. His infamous "I'm looking at two state and one state, and I like the one that both parties like" is not a declaration of policy. It is a declaration of tactics. Similarly, his repeated characterization of settlements as problematic in some limited way, in the AP interview and in the White House statement following Netanyahu's announcement of new construction and then in his request of Netanyahu to "hold back on settlements for a little bit" is not a policy position but a tactical position. Trump wants to get to a deal and he doesn't terribly care what is in it, so his primary strategy is to not get pinned down on any specific variable. He will focus on the tangible things, like Palestinian incitement and Israeli settlements, that each side points to as a specific barrier, and he will ignore what the actual end result will look like.
It is important, however, not to ignore the other part of the equation that is clear from Trump's words. He wants to get a deal, and he thinks the burden is on the Israelis to do the heavy lifting, but he also does not want to waste his time on a drawn out process and has no interest in convincing a party that does not want to be convinced. Contrary to President Obama and Secretary Kerry, he is not going to keep going back to the well if he is not able to work out an agreement in his first year in office, and he is not going to pressure Israel into changing its mind if it is unwilling at first to sacrifice in the ways that he asks. What the larger consequences of that may be for either Israel or the Palestinians are unknown, but if there is one thing that we know so far about this president, it is that he is deeply transactional. Understanding Israel's reluctance to take certain steps is not the same as giving Israel free rein on every issue without fear of blowback for that reluctance. Hopefully Netanyahu is wise enough to take his new American partner both literally and seriously.
Trump and Netanyahu, Round One
February 15, 2017 § Leave a comment
After spending his entire tenure as prime minister chafing under the strictures placed upon him by Democratic presidents, Prime Minister Netanyahu finally gets his wish today: his first face-to-face Oval Office meeting with a Republican president. And not just any Republican president, but President Trump – the man the Israeli right has hailed as a savior from the day he was elected and upon whom they have placed their hopes and dreams. There is no question that Netanyahu is looking for a vastly different relationship with the current president than he had with the previous one, and also no question that both men will emerge from their meeting with ear-to-ear grins and acting like best friends, irrespective of whether the meeting warrants it or not. There are some obvious reasons for this, from the fact that both men lead right of center parties and are broadly ideologically similar to the simple desire to get off on the right foot. The current moment, however, also provides some more detailed and specific reasons for the two men to avoid disagreements, and provides some guide as to what they are likely to discuss, what they are likely to avoid, and what they should discuss if they want to keep the relationship on an even keel.
What Trump needs out of this meeting is simple. He is being buffeted on all sides with headache-inducing crises, be it the North Korean ballistic missile test, the resignation after only twenty four days of his national security adviser Mike Flynn beneath a cloud of allegations of his being compromised by Russia, or questions over the basic competence level of his senior aides and his continuing inability to staff the government beneath the cabinet level. Trump also has clearly not yet formulated a coherent policy on Israel, with different advisers pulling him in different directions and his own thoughts apparently still unsettled. Whether it be the embassy move or the role of settlements in preventing Israeli-Palestinian peace, Trump's positions from the campaign have shifted, and in the case of settlements they have subtly shifted between the statement issued by Sean Spicer two weeks ago and Trump's interview with Yisrael HaYom on Friday. What Trump needs while he is sorting through everything else in the Middle East is regional stability, not having Israel as a constant issue to manage, and above all no surprises. For now, he wants Israel to be something that he doesn't have to think about or worry about, since if that wish is fulfilled, it will be just about the only issue that clears that bar.
What Netanyahu needs out of this meeting is even simpler. He arrives in Washington in the midst of the biggest threat he has ever faced to his tenure as prime minister, namely the four separate investigations being carried out into various allegations of corruption and improper behavior. Should he be indicted, as most Israeli analysts and journalists expect, he will be under enormous pressure to resign, and only the complete and unbroken support from every member of his coalition will keep him in office. Even if none of the four investigations end with an indictment, Netanyahu is still in a precarious position, down in the polls to Yair Lapid and under constant demand from his Bayit Yehudi coalition members and many of his Likud coalition members to definitively reject the two-state solution, support annexation of Ma'ale Adumim and perhaps even larger parts of the West Bank, and to completely alter the paradigm with the Palestinians under which Israel has operated. None of these are things that Netanyahu has ever particularly appeared or appears now to want to do, but he is in danger of being swallowed up by the Israeli right, for whom ideological purity tests are increasingly important. More than any specific policy victory or understanding with Trump, Netanyahu needs something that will help his domestic standing back home, and the only thing that can provide that is a black hole in which no daylight between the U.S. and Israel escapes. Netanyahu was reportedly able to mollify Naftali Bennett and other cabinet members before his departure from Israel by appealing to his stewardship of the U.S.-Israel relationship, which is truly an Israeli existential issue, and he has to return home with an unambiguous demonstration of his ability – and his ability alone – to keep that relationship unbreakable. Netanyahu does not need a green light to build in the West Bank or a commitment to move the embassy or a vow to tear up the Iran deal. What he needs is no hint, no sign, and no leak of even the slightest public or private disagreement with Trump on anything.
In theory, this should be an easy plan for Trump and Netanyahu to execute. The problem is that Netanyahu is dealing with a president whom he expects to be an easier interlocutor than President Obama, but one who is unpredictable and unprepared to an unprecedented degree. Netanyahu cannot be sure what Trump will say, whether what he says can be trusted as an accurate predictor of what policies he will actually pursue down the road, to what extent Israel should rely on Trump's assurance on various issues for its own policy planning purposes, and whether Trump has even devoted any real attention to planning for the conversation given that his national security adviser will have been replaced less than 48 hours earlier.
Given all of this, the one topic that is guaranteed to be on the agenda is Iran. As my colleague Ilan Goldenberg ably laid out earlier this week in his own preview of the meeting, Trump and Netanyahu have both focused on vigorously holding Iran to task and calling Iran out on its destabilizing actions in the region. It is unlikely that even Netanyahu is sticking to a position that the Iran deal needs to be scrapped, and both men might hold the view that even if the deal should be torn up, there are ways to make Iran be the actor that abrogates it through additional sanctions and testing the boundaries of Iran's breaking point much as Iran has done since the JCPOA was implemented.
What both leaders want to avoid is any robust discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, settlements, or the two-state solution. Whatever Trump's positions end up being, they are not going to be the positions pushed by Bennett and the annexation caucus, and Netanyahu cannot politically afford right now to publicly endorse two states. Neither Trump nor Netanyahu wants to start things off with a fight over where Israel will and will not build, and so my hunch is that they will both try and avoid any related subjects to the greatest possible extent.
There are two issues, however, that Trump and Netanyahu should discuss whether they want to or not in an effort to avoid any surprises or misunderstandings down the road. The first is Gaza, where Hamas's newly installed leader Yahya Sinwar is far more hardline and confrontational than his predecessor Ismail Haniya and may be more willing to break the uneasy quiet that has largely held for two and a half years. It would be wise of the president and the prime minister to discuss how far Israel is willing to go in Gaza when the next war breaks out, what the plan is to deal with any wider regional fallout, and how the U.S. would like to manage a coordinated response with Israel and Egypt. This does not have to be a difficult conversation, and both men may be precisely on the same page, but it is easier to do it now than when the rockets start falling on Tel Aviv and the world is up in arms over civilian casualties in the Gaza war zone. The second issue is Syria, where Trump and Netanyahu may not be on the same page but cannot afford to let any differences of opinion fester. Rhetorically at least, Trump wants to make fighting ISIS in Syria a priority, which will be difficult to do while squaring completely with Israel's objectives of maintaining its own freedom of movement against Hizballah weapons convoys and not allowing any long-term Iranian presence in Syria. If there will be disagreements on these issues, they should be dealt with up front and in private since any public blow up later will be far worse.
Today's meeting will be the first of many, and we may not have any greater clarity after it has concluded than we do right now. Many assume that Trump and Netanyahu will set a new standard for the relationship between an American president and Israeli prime minister, but no matter what their personal relationship turns out to be, there is going to be friction over policy issues big and small. The most important question going forward will not be why and where there are disagreements, but how the two men manage them.
Trump's Time Machine Settlements Policy
February 9, 2017 § 1 Comment
A few weeks into the Trump presidency, the nascent stirrings of an Israel policy appear to be developing. Where President Trump will land on two states, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the embassy move, or the American government's relations with the Palestinian Authority are still more unclear than not, and will remain murky until his February 15 meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, if not for longer. Nevertheless, Netanyahu's announcement last week that Israel intends to construct a new West Bank settlement for the first time in over two decades prompted a brief missive from the White House on the issue, and it yields some clues that the past may be prologue when it comes to the U.S. and Israel.
The salient sentence of the four contained in the statement is: "While we don't believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal." With the qualification that it is unwise to read too definitively into the White House's words – it was issued in Sean Spicer's name rather than the president or national security adviser's, there is no way of knowing who wrote or influenced it, and no way of knowing whether it represents official policy or was issued off-the-cuff due to the demands of the news cycle – it represents a departure in two ways.
First, it is a clear departure from the Obama administration's policies on settlements, which should surprise nobody. The people currently serving as the administration's top Israel advisers – one of whom is now the nominee to be the American ambassador to Israel – are of the view that settlements do not impact the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and nobody should expect the Trump White House to suddenly embrace a view on settlements to which it has been diametrically opposed. Obama's stance on settlements was that they are all problematic, no matter where they are located, and his administration included neighborhoods of Jerusalem beyond the Green Line in that calculus. The White House statement is clear that the Trump administration does not view the presence of settlements to be a problem, full stop. This is not only a departure from Obama, but also an unprecedented departure from all previous presidents since 1967, both Republican and Democratic.
Second, the White House statement is a departure from the baseline that many had assumed for the Trump administration, which was that Israel would be given a complete free hand to do whatever it wants in the West Bank. The celebratory atmosphere on the Israeli right, resulting in the exuberance driving the Regulation Law and efforts to annex Ma'ale Adumim, was born out of this assumption. It appears that even the Trump White House has limits, however, that rest on Israel maintaining the territorial status quo (although not the population status quo). This is certainly not a victory for those who have been pining for the Obama policy since noon on January 20, but neither is it a blank check for the Israeli government. It further demonstrates why Israel would have been wise to exercise caution from the start and proceed as if it was operating in an unknown environment rather than throw an indulgent settlements bacchanalia. Instead, it forced Trump's hand in the first month of his presidency and resulted in a rebuke, no matter that it was as mild as could be.
There is an enormous amount of space between "all settlements are bad" and "settlements are fine as long as their footprint remains static" and the question is where precisely in that space Trump will land. The most likely possibility in my view is a return to the Bush-Sharon understandings, under which construction in the blocs was viewed as implicitly kosher so long as Israel froze construction everywhere else. As I have written time and again, I think such a policy is a good one that would lead to tangible progress toward a fair and viable two-state solution. But it is important to understand what precisely Bush and Sharon agreed to, since the Bush-Sharon letters are often bandied about as shorthand for justifying Israeli building in some places without any real concurrent Israeli obligations to take active measures against other settlements.
In their exchange in April 2004, President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon indeed landed upon a formula in which the U.S. would tolerate construction in the blocs, but it was not a free lunch. The arrangement began with a letter from Sharon, in which he pledged to undertake a number of initiatives and fulfill a set of obligations related to the Roadmap. The one that most remember is that Israel would disengage from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, but that was not the end of the quid pro quo. Sharon also wrote, "In this regard, we are fully aware of the responsibilities facing the State of Israel. These include limitations on the growth of settlements; removal of unauthorized outposts; and steps to increase, to the extent permitted by security needs, freedom of movement for Palestinians not engaged in terrorism." In return for this complete package, Bush declared it unrealistic for Israel to return to the Green Line without acknowledging "new realities on the ground" in the form of "already existing major Israeli population centers."
There is no scenario in which the Regulation Law passed by the Knesset this week does not obliterate any good faith commitment on Israel's part to limit the growth of settlements or remove unauthorized outposts. It is, in fact, purposely designed to do the precise opposite. This is why the government's actions this week are so damaging to even getting back to the deal reached with the last Republican administration. It is possible given Trump's apparent preferences and Israel's long-standing frustration with outsiders who make no distinction between different types of settlements to return to the Bush 43 policy, even despite the fact that the population of the blocs has enormously increased in the last decade. But it is incumbent for those who want to see such a policy emerge to also demand that the other side of the ledger is complete; namely, that the Israeli government not only halt settlement growth elsewhere, but take active steps to remove settlements that have been illegal under Israeli law from the start. This does indeed involve regulation, but not the kind that the Knesset appears to envision.
How To Rebalance The Shifting Settlement Debate
February 2, 2017 § Leave a comment
Over the last couple of years, a disturbing and worrisome shift has taken place in Israeli political discourse. For decades, the prevailing debate within Israel over the West Bank was about maintaining the status quo versus withdrawing in some form. Before Oslo, withdrawal was largely discussed in terms of a federation between Jordan and the Palestinians in the West Bank, and after Oslo it shifted to the idea of a Palestinian state. But whether it was in the context of negotiations or of unilateral withdrawal – as was done by Ariel Sharon in Gaza – the debate has been over maintaining the current status of temporary military occupation in the West Bank or leaving it.
This is no longer the case. Between the Regulation Bill that would legalize currently illegal outposts, the push by Naftali Bennett and other MKs in Bayit Yehudi and Likud to annex first Ma'ale Adumim and then the rest of Area C, Tuesday's announcement of another 3,000 homes in the West Bank, and yesterday's statement by Prime Minister Netanyahu that he will build a new settlement to replace the evacuated Amona, it is clear that the debate over the West Bank has a new center of gravity. Rather than policy arguments over the status quo or easing Israel's presence in the West Bank, the new fault line is between those who want to maintain the status quo and those who want to deepen Israel's hold on the West Bank. The reasons for this shift are numerous, from the disappointing failures of Oslo to the bloodshed and terror of the Second Intifada to a more rightwing population and Knesset. The result, however, is that Israel is entering a dangerous period where the government is perilously close to the point of no return. This only reinforces why a saner policy on settlements must emerge, that combines an understanding of what Israelis will accept politically while preserving the possibility for two states, and it must start with a focus on the settlement blocs.
Shaul Arieli wrote brilliantly last week about why annexation of the West Bank would be so dangerous, using the example of Jerusalem as a canvas for what precisely will go wrong. In the current environment, with the prospect of successful negotiations as dormant as ever, separation without withdrawal – as advocated by the Commanders for Israel's Security – is the way forward, as it maintains Israel's hold on the blocs while laying the foundation for Israel to one day in the future cede the rest. But this only works in keeping Israel secure, Jewish, and democratic if the distinction between the blocs and everything else is maintained. Otherwise, separation does not – to use the infamous term – create facts on the ground in support of two states but instead contravenes it. Employing an inviolable bright line between the blocs and the rest of the West Bank is also critical to Israel's credibility; increasingly fewer governments and international observers will buy the rhetoric that settlements are not the primary obstacle to peace when the government is building up areas outside of any reasonable consensus of what Israel will keep in a deal. Not only will this be a better policy, it will eliminate some of Israel's public opinion headaches and lessen the chances of future nasty diplomatic surprises in the vein of UNSCR 2334.
There are two steps that should be taken right away in order to rebalance the conversation over settlements and Israeli policy. The first is for the Netanyahu government to actually define what it views as blocs. The debate surrounding settlements right now is rife with purposeful misunderstanding, as everyone talks about the blocs as if they have been divinely decreed when the truth is that they mean different things to different people. Most everyone would include the blocs in the Jerusalem triangle – Givat Ze'ev, Ma'ale Adumim, Gush Etzion – along with Modi'in Illit and Alfei Menashe, areas that have the largest Jewish populations and are close to the Green Line. But there are other large population centers that cut farther into the West Bank, such as Ariel, or smaller population centers that encroach on large Palestinian cities, such as the Kedumim finger. Netanyahu himself has said that he envisions Beit El and Kiryat Arba as parts of blocs too, which takes us into the realm of the absurd. If any government is going to adopt a policy of building in the blocs to the exclusion of the rest, it first must adopt a hard definition of what it views as blocs.
Second, once the official Israel view of the blocs is set forth, the borders of those blocs must be defined. For instance, Ma'ale Adumim is the part of the West Bank that is least controversial in the eyes of most Israelis; it is hard to find virtually anyone who does not envision it as part of Israel one day, which is why it is the first target in the current annexation push. But the land slated to be annexed along with Ma'ale Adumim encompasses an area six times that of the settlement itself, and those borders include E-1, which has been a redline for both the U.S. and the European Union. Building in E-1 will destroy Palestinian contiguity in the West Bank by cutting off any direct access between Ramallah and Bethlehem, which is why it is such a big deal and why neither Sharon nor Netanyahu has taken that step. If Israel is to build in blocs while freezing the rest, does Ma'ale Adumim include its entire current municipal border? As another example, does the border of the Givat Ze'ev bloc include Beit Horon, which incorporates more Palestinian villages and agricultural land to get another 1000 Jews inside the border? Do the borders of the blocs remain fixed, or do they constantly expand to allow for natural growth? It is very easy to abuse the notion of building inside the blocs without knowing exactly what the borders of the blocs are.
Israel has to make a choice about what its core strategic interests are. Does it want to move toward a sustainable position in the West Bank that incorporates the overwhelming majority of settlers while maintaining somewhere upwards of 95% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state, or does it want to try and incorporate 60% or even all of the West Bank into Israel? One of the reasons that the announcement two days ago of new construction is so damaging – perhaps even more so than the Regulation Bill, which will be struck down by the High Court if passed – is because some of it is outside the blocs, which is doubly counterproductive by raising the temperature on the settlement issue writ large and seriously calling into question not only the Israeli government's motives but the continuing viability of a Jewish and democratic Israel.
I have spent days in all parts of the West Bank over the past half year seeing the precise layout of settlements and topography with my own eyes. Territorial contiguity for a Palestinian state is still very possible and can be maintained while incorporating nearly all of the settlers into Israel, but only if Israel immediately takes the steps outlined here. Otherwise we slide quickly down a slippery slope that only ends with an Israeli defense of annexing all of Area C because of new facts on the ground that make doing anything less infeasible, and that is not a day that I ever want to see. The only way to ward this off is to reshift the debate away from annexation, and this is how to start doing it.


text:
Ford miami florida for sale on US's largest classifieds sites (7 results)
2016 Ford Fusion SE 4dr Sedan
2015 Ford Fusion SE 4dr Sedan
MCCARS is a family owned, first class used car dealership in Miami, selling only clean, no accident like-new vehicles. We at The Showroom Miami understand that buying a vehicle consist of a lot of time and hard work, which is why we offers excellent service to make your car
41,600 Miles
Year: 2015, Make: Ford, Model: Fusion
2013 Ford F-150 4x4 XLT 4dr SuperCrew Styleside 5.5 ft. SB
2008 Ford F-250 Super Duty XLT 4dr SuperCab 4WD LB
Airbags - Front - Dual|Airbags - Passenger - Deactivation Switch|Reading Lights Front|Child Safety Locks|ABS Brakes (4-Wheel)|Electronic Brakeforce Distribution|Child Seat Anchors|Power Steering|Driver Seat Manual Adjustments: 4|Drivetrain Transfer Case: Manual Hi-Lo Gear Se
Year: 2008, Make: Ford, Model: F-250
2006 Ford Explorer XLT 4dr SUV w/V6
Abs - 4-Wheel, Airbag Deactivation - Occupant Sensing Passenger, Antenna Type, Anti-Theft System - Engine Immobilizer, Axle Ratio - 3.55, Center Console - Front Console With Storage, Child Safety Locks, Child Seat Anchors, Clock, Compass, Cruise Control, Cupholders, Dash Tri
121,826 Miles
Year: 2006, Make: Ford, Model: Explorer
Eddie Bauer Edition Ford Explorer - $1971 (south florida)
Hi I`m selling my Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer, AWD, 2000 model !! This truck runs great with no problems, It has 70k miles,power moon roof,It is in very good condition with no rust or dents, I just put new tires and new brakes on it. the inside is clean with no rips or tears, cd player, power seats, po...
Year: 1971, Make: Ford, Model: Explorer


text:
Free personalized radio that
plays the music you love
Smaller Babies (Z-Trip's Banjo Breaks Mix)
Features of This Trackbluegrass influences
danceable beats
the use of chordal patterning
use of tonal harmonies
use of banjos
a dry recording sound
trippy soundscapes
a synth-acoustic sonority
and many other similarities identified in the Music Genome Project
These are just a few of the hundreds of attributes cataloged for this track by the Music Genome Project.show more
Similar Tracks
Don't have a Pandora account? Sign up
Already have a Pandora account? Log In


text:
"Thanks Gabriela, Alfie is really enjoying spending time with you."
"Susan is lovely "
"Charlotte was amazing. She sent pictures and videos throughout the time I was away and swear my dog ..."
"Tegan was amazing, very happy. Tren took to her straight away and had a good time. Will use Tegan..."
"Cindy was available at the very last minute and did a wonderful job. Isaac was more anxious than I..."
"Natalia is a warm, friendly lover of dogs, with much experience. She responded quickly to all our..."
"Grace was very courteous and helpful. "
" Awsome ***** Denise is the best person you could ever get to look after your dog , she is like..."
"Amy is amazing !!! I'm so happy and satisfied! During my stay overseas she looked after zhazha..."
"Lauren was super easy to deal with and Florence obviously had a great time staying with her."
"This was the first time I had left Gary with anyone else and he loved it. Very happy pup the..."
"Lisa is awesome ... accomodating to last minute change and keep me updated with Choki's day. I bet..."
"Evie was absolutely fantastic. Our dog Toby was so comfortable with her from the first meet and we..."
"Steph and Angus were wonderful sitters, they looked after our pets and home and kept us updated..."
"Daniela was great - arrived home to find everything as I had left it. Thanks!!"
"Kay is very accommodating and caring. Buddy enjoyed his stay. Timely photos and updates of Buddy..."
"Awesome! Chloe was wonderful with our pets, sending regular updates, and following our instructions ..."
"?????????? Michelle was awesome!"