text:
I'm dividing my answer to your inquiry into three parts.
- First I'll summarize and briefly comment on the mini-controversy you asked about, over the risk comparison of a car crash versus a mass extinction event.
- Then I want to make some points about the broader issue here: the challenge of communicating about high-magnitude low-probability risks.
- Finally, I'll return to car crashes and mass extinction events, and discuss what barriers have to be overcome to motivate precautions against either.
Car crash versus mass extinction event
The April 29, 2016 issue of The Atlantic included a short article by Robinson Meyer entitled "Human Extinction Isn't That Unlikely." The article's subtitle made a startling claim about risk statistics: "'A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,' says a new report."
The main point of the article was that a mass extinction event (such as a nuclear war, a catastrophic human-induced climate change, a deadly pandemic, an artificial intelligence takeover, or an asteroid collision) isn't as unlikely as people imagine. That point was drawn from a much longer report called "Global Catastrophic Risks 2016," recently published by a group called the Global Priorities Project.
In its discussion of the probability of such a mass extinction event, the Global Priorities Project report cited a number from an earlier report, the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change": a 0.1 percent (one-in-a-thousand) annual chance of human extinction. That 0.1 percent per year is the number that caused all the fuss. Once you accept that 0.1 percent number, the startling risk comparison is just simple arithmetic. As Meyer points out, "Every year, one in 9,395 people die in a crash; that translates to about a 0.01 percent chance per year." It's hard to argue with a claim that 0.1 is more than five times as great as 0.01. It is exactly ten times as great.
That's not the only way the report and the Atlantic article bent over backwards not to overstate their case. The Stern Review number was for "human extinction," which presumably meant everyone on the planet; but the Global Priorities Project report defined a mass extinction event more loosely, as one that kills at least ten percent of the world population. If there's a one-in-a-thousand chance of killing everyone on the planet next year, there's got to be a greater than one-in-a-thousand chance of killing one tenth of us.
So why the controversy?
After the Atlantic article came out, a scathing critique was posted on Tumblr. It pointed out that Stern never represented 0.1 percent as a scientific, empirical estimate of the annual risk of human extinction. It merely postulated 0.1 percent in a modeling exercise, as the basis for a philosophical discussion of how/whether to count impact on future generations when thinking about climate change. The Global Priorities Project made Stern's arbitrary number look like an actual risk estimate. That distortion became the basis for Meyer's article.
The Tumblr critique provoked an "Errata" post from the Global Priorities Project, acknowledging the basic validity of the critique. Both the Tumblr post and the Errata post trace the course of the distortion in laborious detail. They disagree on the extent to which it was motivated or inadvertent, but they agree on what happened:
- The text of the report said that the Stern Review "suggested a 0.1% chance of human extinction each year." This use of "suggested" was technically accurate but surely misleading; as used by the Stern Review, the "suggestion" was purely hypothetical. Other portions of the Global Priorities Project report did make clear that the authors realized it's not possible to estimate annual extinction risk robustly. But the misuse of the Stern modeling number implied otherwise.
- The problem was exacerbated by the inclusion in the report of a full-page two-sentence summary pull-quote: "The UK's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change suggested a 0.1% chance of human extinction each year. If this estimate is correct, a typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash." It's in the pull-quote that the misleading "suggested" morphed into the flat-out false "estimate."
- Meyer obviously thought the comparison was pretty stunning. Wow, he must have said to himself, you're a lot likelier to die in a mass extinction event than a car crash. He almost certainly didn't notice the distinction between a suggestion and an estimate, much less check the Stern Review to learn that the number was used there only as the basis for a hypothetical modeling exercise. Meyer's Atlantic article made that number its centerpiece, treating it as an unconditional claim.
The study authors conceded that the number they borrowed was a modeling assumption, not a risk estimate; and that they should have been clearer about that in the first place. They posted that pretty gracious "Errata" explanation, which even included a link to the Tumblr critique. They also got The Atlantic to change the online text of its article and add an italics introduction that reads:
An earlier version of this story presented an economic modeling assumption – the .01 chance of human extinction per year – as a vetted scholarly estimate. Following a correction from the Global Priorities Project, the text below has been updated.
[I can't resist noting in passing that this ital intro adds a new error. The number that got misused isn't a .01 chance; it's a 0.1 percent chance, which is a .001 (one-in-a-thousand) chance. But no matter.]
It's not rare for modeling numbers to get reified as risk estimates. In 2004, for example, a CDC senior health economist named Marty Meltzer pumped a set of modeling assumptions through his "FluAid" software program, which popped out the numbers "2 to 7.4 million" as the hypothetical number of deaths to be expected in a not-very-severe influenza pandemic … given those particular modeling assumptions. This model output was widely reported by the media as the CDC's "predicted" number of deaths from a human bird flu pandemic.
I think the Global Priorities Project people have done as much as we could reasonably expect to correct the misimpression and apologize for perpetrating it. And the point of their study isn't much affected by the misimpression that there is a valid statistical estimate of the risk of dying in a mass extinction event – as valid as our estimate of the risk of dying in a car crash. Their original point was simply that we take precautions against car crashes even though we know our chances of dying in a car crash are low. So why not also take precautions against low-probability mass extinction events – that is, why not do more to prevent global warming, nuclear war, disease pandemics, artificial intelligence takeovers, etc.?
True, we can't reliably estimate the likelihood of an extinction event. Only two events in history, both disease pandemics, have met the report's criterion of killing ten percent of the world population. A total extinction event has never happened, obviously, so there's no adequate way to calculate the probability of its happening. And then of course there are the unknown unknowns, the extinction events not yet on our list of possible extinction events. Nonetheless, most of us have an intuitive sense that there are a lot of risks in our world that might cause untold catastrophe. We know we can't measure or even estimate the probability. But we sense it's not trivial.
And yet we do relatively little to improve the odds. Why don't we do more? And how could risk communication convince us to do more?
High-magnitude versus low-probability: the role of outrage
In your follow-up email to me, you wrote: "This little flap about extinction provides a teachable moment. People are sometimes told they fear big scary events too much and don't appropriately fear mundane threats, such as car crashes and heart disease. Now The Atlantic is giving the exact opposite message."
Both claims are accurate.
People do sometimes overreact to high-magnitude low-probability risks, as you point out. But on other occasions we underreact to such risks, as The Atlantic points out.
Obviously, the high-magnitude low-probability risk has two key characteristics: It's awful and it's unlikely. Cognitively, these two are entirely compatible; most awful risks are unlikely. But they lead to incompatible conclusions. Awful means take precautions, whereas unlikely means don't worry about it. The combination is emotionally unstable. To resolve the incompatibility, we tend to fasten onto one of the two and ignore or dispute the other one.
Sometimes we focus on a risk's high magnitude: "OMG, look what could happen!" In that case, we either pay no attention to its low probability or we argue (as the Atlantic article did) that it's not really all that unlikely. Other times we focus on a risk's low probability: "Why worry about something so unlikely?" So we shrug off its high magnitude or insist it's not really all that awful.
What we don't seem to be very good at is holding in our minds simultaneously the thought that something is really, really bad and the thought that it's really, really unlikely – then deciding what precautions make sense. We overreact or we underreact.
What determines which response we pick? The biggest piece of the answer is what I call outrage: how upsetting the risky situation is. When I invented the label "outrage" some 30 years ago I had in mind the sort of righteous anger people feel when they suspect a nearby factory is belching carcinogens into the air. But as I use the concept now, it applies to fear-arousing situations as much as anger-arousing situations. High-outrage risks are the risks that tend to upset people, independent of how much harm they're actually likely to do.
A risk that is voluntary, for example, provokes less outrage than one that's coerced. A fair risk is less outrage-provoking than an unfair one. Among the other outrage factors :
- Familiar versus exotic
- Not memorable versus memorable
- Not dreaded versus dreaded
- Individually controlled versus controlled by others
- Trustworthy sources versus untrustworthy sources
- Responsive process versus unresponsive process
Another one of the outrage factors – central to our interest here – is chronic versus catastrophic. As I wrote in 1987, in an article for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Hazard A kills 50 anonymous people a year across the country. Hazard B has one chance in 10 of wiping out its neighborhood of 5,000 people sometime in the next decade. Risk assessment tells us the two have the same expected annual mortality: 50. "Outrage assessment" tells us A is probably acceptable and B is certainly not.
So catastrophic risks (that is, risks that are high-magnitude and low-probability, like Hazard B in my example) have a built-in advantage over chronic risks in the outrage competition. They typically have two other built-in advantages as well: familiarity and memorability. Chronic risks are usually familiar and not very memorable. Catastrophic risks are far likelier to be exotic and memorable.
All other things being equal, we're likelier to overreact than underreact to a high-magnitude low-probability risk. And we're likelier to underreact to a low-magnitude high-probability risk.
Car crashes and mass extinction events
It follows that all other things being equal, we're likely to be more worried about mass extinction events than car crashes. Yet as the Atlantic article rightly complains, most people act as if they were more worried about car crashes. Why?
Just as the theorizing in the previous section would predict, we are in fact more worried about airplane crashes than car crashes. Articles on risk perception often point out that driving is statistically a lot deadlier than flying; as pilots like to say, the riskiest part of your journey is the drive to and from the airport. Yet airplane crashes arouse a lot more fear (outrage) than car crashes, largely because plane crashes kill people in periodic mass casualty events that are memorable and exotic (and therefore intrinsically newsworthy), whereas car crashes kill people in smaller and more frequent events that are not so memorable and all too familiar (and rarely deserve much media attention). In the plane-crash-versus-car-crash risk comparison, the car crash is lower-magnitude and higher-probability and therefore arouses less outrage – arguably less than it deserves.
I have seen data showing that when people are asked to assess the relative size of various risks in their lives, they accurately put car crashes somewhere near the top. Nonetheless, we often behave in ways that exacerbate our risk of an auto accident. Why? Because it's a chronic risk we take every day; it's familiar; it's not memorable. Car crashes are low on some other outrage factors as well: not dreaded, voluntary, under our individual control, etc. Our risk-taking behavior behind the wheel is neither because of our assessment of the probability of death nor in spite of our assessment of the probability of death. We don't underestimate low-outrage risks as much as we fail to estimate them at all, in real time. They're simply not on our decision-making agendas. When we think about risks, we're mostly thinking about the high-outrage ones.
Given the low intrinsic outrage of car crashes, what's surprising isn't that people so often do risky things behind the wheel. What's surprising is that we often take reasonable care. Auto safety communicators have long understood that one of the best ways to get us to take care is to arouse more outrage about unsafe driving practices. Thus:
- The main reason people started wearing seatbelts had more to do with not getting a ticket than with not getting killed. And it had even more to do with setting a good example for your child, who was taught in school to make a fuss if mommy or daddy didn't buckle up. Even today, seat belt use is more about habit and social pressure than risk statistics.
- Similarly, organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving have made that behavior no longer socially acceptable – today we consider drunk driving not just dangerous but also immoral. And changes in law enforcement have made the risk of getting arrested for DUI far more vivid in many drivers' minds than the risk of getting killed in a crash.
- Much less progress has been made vis-à-vis distracted driving. If we ever manage to get people to stop using their cell phones while they're driving, it won't be because we impressed on them the statistical risk they were taking. It will be because of factors like social pressure and law enforcement.
- Those terrifying car crash movies we all watched in high school driver ed classes also worked to some extent. They worked by mobilizing outrage (fear in this case rather than disapproval), not by inculcating risk statistics.
In a nutshell, people would drive more safely if the risk of a car crash aroused more outrage. So auto safety proponents work hard to boost the outrage any way they can. And they've had some successes.
As we have seen, mass extinction events have a leg up on car crashes when it comes to outrage – three legs up, in fact: more catastrophic, less familiar, and more memorable.
So why aren't people taking more precautions to reduce the chances of a mass extinction event? Because mass extinction events have some big outrage-related disadvantages as well. I'll discuss five of them.
People may feel too much outrage about mass extinction events, leading to denial.
There is one important exception to the outrage-increases-perceived-risk rule: denial. Fear can be hard to bear. And when people cannot bear their fear, an emotional circuit breaker is tripped and they go into denial. (The availability of denial is one of the main reasons panic is rare. When we're at risk of panicking, we usually go into denial instead.) So the women who are most terrified of breast cancer may deny their fear and "not bother" to check for lumps.
At the height of the Cold War, similarly, many people underestimated the probability of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union, not because they weren't concerned but because they found the prospect too awful to contemplate. For an assessment of the role of denial in people's response to the risk of nuclear war, see my 1986 article with JoAnn M. Valenti on "Scared Stiff – or Scared into Action." Although terrorist attacks don't meet the 10% criterion for a mass extinction event, see also the section on denial in my column on 9/11 and my column with Jody Lanard on "Duct Tape Risk Communication."
Although fear is the emotion that's likeliest to rebound into denial, to a lesser extent so can anger, hurt, guilt, sadness, and the other emotions that add up to outrage. (See "Beyond Panic Prevention: Addressing Emotion in Emergency Communication." ) My 2009 column on "Climate Change Risk Communication," for example, talks about the many ways climate change activists inadvertently provoke denial in audiences they are trying to inspire into action. I might be more willing to reduce my carbon footprint if the enviros didn't keep yelling at me that my selfish over-consumptive lifestyle is to blame for overheating the planet.
The key point here: If people are in denial about a risk, treating them as if they were apathetic is bound to boomerang. They're already finding the risk unbearable. Trying to impress on them how serious it is will only push them deeper into denial.
People may feel futile about preventing mass extinction events, leading to paralysis.
If I'm worried about car crashes, I can wear my seat belt, drive slower and more carefully, buy a safer car, avoid driving late at night when the drunks are out, etc. Ask any driver what precautions are available to reduce the odds of having an accident, and you'll get a list. We may not do everything on the list, but we know what's on the list and we know we can always do more if we choose to.
Now ask somebody what he or she can do to reduce the odds of global climate change, nuclear war, an asteroid hit, or a takeover by artificial intelligence.
Activist groups devoted to these issues, like the Global Priorities Project, have answers to that question. They know what they want us to do. Some of their solutions involve small-scale individual actions like reducing our carbon footprint. Others involve collective action like supporting laws aimed at reducing the risk of extinction events. But their lists of mass extinction risk-reducers are a lot more debatable than our lists of car crash risk reducers.
Rightly or wrongly, many, many people are convinced that there is nothing to be done about these mass extinction scenarios. Or if they can think of steps that might help, they're convinced that something (short-term self-interest, government stalemate, international competition, maybe just human nature) will make sure those steps are never taken. Or even if they can imagine progress being made, they are convinced that nothing they can do individually can contribute in any meaningful way.
In the language of psychology, these are efficacy ("there's nothing to be done") and self-efficacy ("there's nothing I can do") problems. When people's senses of efficacy and self-efficacy are low, fatalism and paralysis set in. Sometimes it's a kind of apathy – people rationally choose not to worry about a problem they consider unsolvable. Sometimes it's a kind of denial – people can't bear to worry about a problem they consider unsolvable. Either way, insisting on how serious the risk is won't help.
People may feel little or no sense of personal responsibility for mass extinction events.
The risk of a car crash is personal. I realize that a crash can happen through no fault of my own; it could be the fault of equipment failure or another driver. Still, when I get behind the wheel I am taking personal responsibility for not crashing my car.
Preventing a mass extinction event, on the other hand, isn't meaningfully my responsibility. Some mass extinction events, if they happen, won't be anybody's fault. Some will be everybody's fault … which is almost the same thing.
So we reason thusly: "I have a lot on my plate already – tasks that really are mine, tasks I can't easily shrug off. Why would I voluntarily take even partial responsibility for preventing a pandemic or a nuclear war?"
People may find mass extinction events too unlikely to worry about.
As I've already pointed out, we tend to react more strongly to high-magnitude low-probability risks than to risks that are less horrific but likelier. But research by Daniel Kahneman and others has shown that this tendency has limits. Unlikely but possible catastrophes capture our attention more than the statistics say they should, and we perceive them to be likelier than they actually are. But extremely unlikely, just-barely-possible catastrophes stretch the elastic band of credibility past its limits; we round off "extremely unlikely" to "impossible" and refuse to take the risk seriously. That leaves the handful of people who do take the risk seriously isolated and alienated – and sometimes inclined to write articles urging readers to take another look.
In other words, it's probably easier to get people worried about a possible pandemic that would kill millions of people than a smaller, likelier pandemic that would kill only thousands. But it may be hardest of all to get people worried about a monster never-before-seen pandemic that would kill billions – a mass extinction event.
The point of the Atlantic article and the study behind it was that we may actually be likelier to die in a catastrophe that huge than in a car crash. Leave aside that the study authors used an arbitrary made-up estimate of mass extinction risk to "prove" their point. Even if they had used an indisputable risk calculation, a lot of people would have rationalized it away, reasoning as follows: "They're talking about a bigger catastrophe than I have ever seen or even heard about. So it has to be really, really unlikely. I'm not going to worry about something that unlikely."
Most of us carry in our heads a stereotype of somebody who wants to tell us the end of the world is near. He's a middle-aged man in a dirty robe and a scraggly beard, carrying a hand-drawn sign and accosting strangers on the sidewalk. He's a nut. We don't often pause to wonder if he's right and what precautions we might want to take.
People may feel more outrage about the proposed precautions to prevent mass extinction events than about the events themselves.
In the mid-1980s I was active in the nuclear weapons freeze movement, trying to stop the U.S. from expanding its nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. A significant segment of our audience agreed with us that the U.S.-Soviet nuclear competition posed a sizable risk of a mass extinction event, but worried that abandoning that competition posed a sizable risk of Soviet domination. And to many of them, Soviet domination looked scarier than mass extinction: "Better dead than red."
Similarly, the Achilles heel of climate change activism is the demand that we abandon our cars, our consumerism, and some measure of our control over our own lives. Our reluctance to give these things up constitutes a powerful reason to believe climate change isn't a serious risk (at least not a mass extinction risk).
And it doesn't help that so many climate change activists don't share our reluctance. People who like strong regulatory regimes and loathe high-consumption lifestyles find it easy – even convenient – to think climate change is a serious risk, even a mass extinction risk; the remedies they propose for climate change would be attractive to them even if there were no climate change. But people who worry about government overreach and enjoy their ATMs and air conditioners are motivated to find reasons to decide climate change isn't such a big risk after all.
A closely related issue is the impact of risk-benefit tradeoffs on risk perception. Logically, benefit assessment and risk assessment should be independent activities; you figure out how much good the activity does and how much harm it does, and then you can decide which effect is larger. But in practice, benefit perception and risk perception interact. Whichever one preoccupies you distorts your judgment of the other one.
So if I already strongly believe the benefit of X is high, I am motivated to decide the risk of X is low. And if I'm already convinced the risk of X is high, I'm motivated to decide its benefit is low. In risk controversies it's hard to find anyone advocating the "high-risk high-benefit" position. Almost everybody argues either "high-risk low-benefit" or "high-benefit low-risk." (I find the stock market refreshing because investors readily understand that the most potentially profitable investments are also the riskiest.)
A lot of mass extinction risks offer sizable current or potential benefits. The many tantalizing soon-to-be-achieved benefits of artificial intelligence make people not want to consider the risk of an AI takeover. The benefits of my highly consumptive lifestyle make me not want to consider its climate change risks. The same phenomenon holds true for lower-magnitude higher-probability risks, of course. Driving has huge benefits, which makes it harder to keep us focused on the risk of car crashes.
And when we change our minds about how beneficial a technology is, we're likely to revise our view on how risky it is to match. So far the absence of significant benefits from genetically modified food ingredients makes it easy to overestimate GMO risks; lots of people envision genetically modified monsters taking over the world. But diabetics who gratefully rely on genetically modified insulin shrug off any suggestion that that sort of genetic modification could pose worrisome risks. A GM food killer app (no pun intended) with obvious consumer benefits could undermine GM opposition almost overnight.
For all these reasons, and more, convincing people to take mass extinction events seriously isn't easy. That's true despite the built-in advantage mass extinction events have with respect to three outrage factors: chronic versus catastrophic, familiar versus exotic, and not memorable versus memorable.
So the experts who say we often tend to overreact to high-magnitude low-probability risks are right. And The Atlantic is also right in its claim that we're not paying enough attention to mass extinction risks.
Four additional points and one bottom line
Once you start trying to untangle the complexities of high-magnitude low-probability risk communication, a lot of other points come into play. Here are four more I can't bear to leave out of this response.
The usual risk communication task vis-à-vis high-magnitude low-probability risks is calming people's tendency to overreact. At least that's what my career has been like.
I distinguish a risk's "hazard" (how much harm it's likely to do) from its "outrage" (how upset it's likely to make people). Based on this distinction, I categorize risk communication into three tasks:
- When hazard is high and outrage is low, the task is "precaution advocacy" – alerting insufficiently upset people to serious risks. "Watch out!"
- When hazard is low and outrage is high, the task is "outrage management" – reassuring excessively upset people about small risks. "Calm down."
- When hazard is high and outrage is also high, the task is "crisis communication" – helping appropriately upset people cope with serious risks. "We'll get through this together."
In 40+ years of dividing my time among these three tasks, I have learned that when a client wants me to do precaution advocacy – increasing people's outrage – it's usually about a low-magnitude high-probability risk, something more like a car crash than a mass extinction event. When I'm brought in to work on a high-magnitude low-probability risk, on the other hand, my client is usually looking for outrage management help: help reducing people's outrage, or help telling people about some scary but unlikely possible catastrophe without unduly frightening them, or sometimes help telling them about that possible catastrophe without duly frightening them.
Not always. In my time I have worked to arouse public outrage about pandemics, nuclear weapons, and climate change, three of the mass extinction events that preoccupy the Global Priorities Project. But I only occasionally have a client that wants people to be more upset about high-magnitude low-probability risks. I often have clients that want people to be less upset about such risks. I have worked for scores of corporate clients that sought my help persuading neighbors of an industrial facility that they shouldn't be so worried about the possibility that the chlorine sphere might explode or the tailings impoundment might collapse or terrorists might crack open the containment vessel.
In 2004 I wrote a website column entitled "Worst Case Scenarios." My summary of the column read in part:
Most of this long column is addressed to risk communicators whose goal is to keep their audience unconcerned. So naturally they'd rather not talk about awful but unlikely worst case scenarios. The column … explains why this is unwise…. Then the column lists 25 guidelines for explaining worst case scenarios properly. Finally, a postscript addresses the opposite problem. Suppose you're not trying to reassure people about worst case scenarios; you're trying to warn them. How can you do that more effectively?
There's a lot of concrete advice in that column that I haven't replicated here. Except for the postscript, it's advice on how to tell people about high-magnitude low-probability risks without scaring the pants off them.
The risk communication seesaw is often a key dynamic in talking about high-magnitude low-probability risks.
When people are ambivalent about a risk, they tend to focus on the half of their ambivalence that isn't getting enough attention elsewhere in their communication environment. I call this the risk communication seesaw, and it's a critical aspect of many risk communication challenges. Risk-benefit tradeoffs, for example, are often a seesaw; whichever one you talk about, if I'm ambivalent I'll probably focus all the more on the other one.
High-magnitude versus low-probability is also often a seesaw. If you're out there warning me how horrific that possible catastrophe might be, I may respond that it's too unlikely to bother with. If you're trying to reassure me about how unlikely it is, on the other hand, I may respond that it's too awful to live with.
Only ambivalent people react that way, of course. If I have no opinion, I'll probably accept yours, and focus on whichever aspect of the risk you urge me to focus on, its high magnitude or its low probability. If I have a firm opinion of my own, I'll almost certainly stay focused on the aspect I started out focused on.
The paradoxical response happens when I'm torn, fully aware of both the risk's high magnitude and its low probability, and unsure how to reconcile them. If you want to keep ambivalent people calm, your core message should be: "Even though it's really unlikely, look how awful it is." Then your audience can use your low-probability information to tell themselves, "Yeah, well, sure it's awful, but it's really unlikely!" If they're less alarmed then you want them to be, on the other hand, switch seats on the seesaw. "Even though it's really awful, look how unlikely it is," you should assert, leaving your audience to respond in their heads, "Yeah, but it's really awful!"
Outrage about high-magnitude low-probability risks is often manipulated.
Organizations of all sorts – from multinational corporations to activist groups to public health agencies – have a stake in arousing outrage about some risks and suppressing outrage about others. That's not necessarily nefarious. Their goals may be selfish or altruistic (or both). The information they provide may be accurate or false (or somewhere in between). The communication strategies they deploy may be candid or devious (or, again, somewhere in between). As a consultant who has been paid for 40+ years to advise clients on how best to communicate about risk, I'm in no position to complain that there are forces out there choosing their words intentionally to try to get you to have what they consider the "right" risk response.
Think about some of the high-magnitude low-probability risks that various interest groups have warned the public about in recent years:
- The risk that ISIS might pose an existential threat to the United States unless we ramp up our military efforts
- The risk that measles might come roaring back in the United States unless we force hesitant parents to vaccinate their children
- The risk that transgender people might harm our children unless we control which bathroom they use
- The risk that Ebola might spread widely in the U.S. unless we quarantine returning volunteers from West Africa
- The risk that Zika might spread widely in the U.S. unless we do urgent preemptive mosquito control throughout the country
- The risk that temperatures could spike to unlivable levels unless we massively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
In many of these cases, but not all, there's some other interest group arguing the other side. You're not just making up your mind about risks – including the high-magnitude low-probability risks we're discussing at the moment. There are people trying to make up your mind for you.
Manipulating people's risk response is a lot harder than it might seem.
Since I earn my living helping clients "manipulate" outrage up or down with respect to specific risks, you surely can't trust my assurances that what they do isn't necessarily nefarious. You need to make your own ethical judgments about which risk communication strategies are acceptable and which are not. You may even decide that only truly neutral information is ethical – that no effort to influence other people's risk response in predetermined directions is honorable, no matter how altruistic its motives. That's not my view, obviously. But it's a defensible view.
But maybe you can trust my judgment that influencing other people's risk response is hard.
The hardest job is getting people upset about a risk they're already familiar with but not currently upset about – getting them upset enough to take action. Conventional wisdom says that takes at least a generation; that's how long it took to institutionalize hardhats, seatbelts, and smoke alarms.
- It's much easier to introduce people to a new scary risk and get them to overreact temporarily – what I call an adjustment reaction – before they put the risk into context and calm down again.
- It's much easier to teach people a new instance of a risk to which they already have a strong emotional response. For example, almost every pregnant woman worries about birth defects, so it's no great challenge to get her to worry about Zika, which can cause horrific birth defects. Most of the time what looks like a new fear being aroused is actually a preexisting fear being channeled.
- And perhaps the easiest task of all is getting the mass media, mainstream media and social media alike, to echo the claim that people are overreacting to some new (or newly newsworthy) risk. I have collected hundreds of media stories asserting that the public is panicking with no evidence at all, or at best a panicky anecdote or two in a U.S. population of 319 million.
But actually getting people upset, that's tough. And once they're upset, they tend to stay upset – not forever, but for a good while. Getting them quickly apathetic again is tough too.
And here, finally, is the bottom line:
I have spent a good portion of my career trying to get people more alarmed about three specific mass extinction risks: infectious disease pandemics, nuclear war, and climate change – exactly the sorts of high-magnitude low-probability risks that The Atlantic was focusing on. I know how hard that is. I have also spent considerable time trying to get people more alarmed about low-magnitude high-probability risks – for example, trying to convince homeowners to test their homes for radon or industrial employees to wear their safety gear. I know how hard that is too.
And I have spent an even bigger part of my career trying to get people less alarmed about risks like hazardous waste facilities, industrial emissions, and food additives, when it looked to my client (and to me) like the actual hazard was a lot smaller than some group of stakeholders thought it was. That's every bit as hard as the other two.
My one bottom-line conclusion from these efforts is that the biggest determinant of how serious people consider a risk is how upset they get about it. People don't mostly get upset because they think the risk is serious. People mostly think the risk is serious because they're upset. In my jargon, outrage causes hazard perception, far more than hazard perception causes outrage.
- Dengue and Zika are similar viruses spread by the same mosquito species. Dengue is a bigger hazard. But because of those photos everyone has seen of microcephalic babies, Zika is a bigger outrage. So the U.S. government proposes to spend far more money fighting Zika in the continental U.S. than it has spent here fighting dengue in any recent year.
- Letting your child sleep over at a friend's house is a lot more dangerous if the friend's parents have a swimming pool than if the parents have a gun. But at least in liberal suburban environments, swimming pools are a familiar, acceptable, low-outrage risk. Guns are not. So suburban parents protect their kids from guns much more carefully than from pools.
People do not get dengue-versus-Zika or pools-versus-guns wrong because they don't know the statistics. True, they don't know the statistics. But teaching them the statistics will do shockingly little good. That's the fundamental error the "Global Catastrophic Risks 2016" report and the Atlantic article made.
If you want to get people to take (or demand) more precautions about a risk, you need to find ways to make that risk a bigger source of outrage. And if you want them to stop taking (or demanding) so many precautions, you need to figure out how to make the risk a smaller source of outrage. That's true whether the risk is car crashes, or mass extinction events, or anything else.
Copyright © 2016 by Peter M. Sandman


text:
I'm a firm believer that the future, whatever it will bring, is created here and now. And I'm often reminded of this perspective when thinking about the offshore wind industry – particularly with regard to the current situations in Germany and the UK.
Jens Frederik's Posts...
Safety as a competitive advantage
By Jens Frederik Hansen, CEO, A2SEA
Are heavy investments in safety management just part of doing business in offshore wind – or are companies who prioritise such investments better positioned to succeed?
In many other industries, CEOs are often quoted saying that safety and health is key for their company's success. But does the same apply to offshore wind construction companies? And is there a tangible competitive advantage for installation contractors who don't just react to client safety demands but proactively think beyond? Continue reading
Bold changes lead the way
By Jens Frederik Hansen, CEO, A2SEA
There's an old, wise English saying: "Charity begins at home". I believe it is equally true (although less poetic) to say that "Leadership starts in the company".
That's why at A2SEA, the largest player in installation and market leader for over a decade, we have now begun leading the way toward a new level of industry achievement – starting with ourselves. Continue reading

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Oliver Trailer (1983)
01 January 1983 Factual 45 mins
The first part of Deocampo's Ang Lungsod ng Tao ay Nasa Puso trilogy, Oliver follows a female impersonator who supports his family by performing in Manila's gay bars during the Marcos dictatorship. The film is one of the best illustrations of the fluidity of sexuality, as well as of the power of human agency in times of hardship. (From Pinoy Rebyu)
Watch the official Oliver 1983 trailer in HD below or find more Oliver videos on Vidimovie.


text:
Accepting Guests
- 40% response rate
- Last login about 8 hours ago
Join Couchsurfing to see Tianjun's full profile. It's free!
About Me
Improve myself every day in every way that I can. Grow and help others grow; travel and help others travel.
who am I? hard to tell.because I'm growing up every day:)
luckily, born in an enlightened family,
always supported by love and trust;
only child but unspoiled.
lived for 18 years in a beautiful city called Wuxi by Tai Lake;
then went to the famous historical city of Nanjing for university;
and settled in an open,burgeoning city named Shenzhen for work.
be a passionate, trustworthy and humorous person, always!
tender,probably influenced by waters in my hometown;
enjoy looking for new things and beauties in the nature,in our hearts;
like meeting various people,but not as crazy as a party animal;
walk a lot,because never felt sad while moving;
have a soft heart but still keep own opinions on principles...
1.Life is a journey.Learn to enjoy it.Make it a journey of dreams, of love, of happiness, of constant learning,and of continual improvement.
Why I'm on Couchsurfing
The best nation is imagination!
Anything just feel free to add my wechat: angelwonder66
reading, languages, yoga, music, dance, observing the different lifestyles...
- animals
- dancing
- yoga
- partying
- reading
- traveling
- music
- languages
Music, Movies, and Books
Movies: Pixar's animations,Oscar-winning films,Julia Roberts,Meg.Ryan's romantic love stories etc.
Music: I enjoy listening to any sweet music.
Books: many kinds of,especially literatures.
I like Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tales, Alexandre Dumas' The Count Of Monte Cristo(Le Comte de Monte-Cristo),
O.Henry's short stories and Hoshi Shinichiï¼ã»ã ãããã¡ï¼'s mini novels etc.
One Amazing Thing I've Done
The most amazing thing is yet to come.
Teach, Learn, Share
cultures, values, languages, whatever I can imagine.
Countries I've Visited
Australia, England, France, Japan, Malaysia, Russian Federation, Thailand
Countries I've Lived In


text:
Mark 10:17-22, "And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."
If that were true, everyone who had great possessions would have the same problem. However, we know of men having wealth, such as Abraham and Job, who were pleasing to God. Therefore, we must conclude that possessions themselves are not the problem. So what was the real problem?
Luke 12:34 and Matthew 6:21 both tell us that, "where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." His heart was with his possessions instead of with God. Though he had kept the commandments, he loved his possessions more than he loved God.
In Mark 12:29-31 Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:4-5 in telling us the first of all the commandments, "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." He did not love God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength. He loved his possessions more.
To inherit eternal life, he lacked one thing and was unwilling to do what was needed. His heart was unable to let go of his possessions and take hold of God. He went away sad.
Do we love God with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength or do we have something we treasure more than God?
Are temporary things more important to us than eternal things?
Lust for material things?
Do we hunger more for the material than for the spiritual?
Do we think we don't need to be saved?
Are we too stubborn to be saved?
...preventing us from
hearing God's Word as we need?
...preventing us from believing that Jesus is the Christ, our savior, a sacrifice made for us?
...getting in the way of our repenting from sin? From turning our heart and mind towards God?
...stopping our mouth from confessing Christ before men? Do they cause us to be silent?
Are theses things preventing us
from submitting to God's will? Do they keep us from
going under the
saving water of baptism?
If they have, we can still change our minds and change our hearts.
Romans 15:4 tells us that, "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope."
Let's not be just good people, but those who have inherited eternal life through an obedient love for God.
We each need to decide for ourselves. When we face judgment, let's not hear, "one thing thou lackest".
Please let us know if we can help in any way.
-- Zachary Van Tassel, March 2004 --


text:
A savage and sensuous chronicle of a contemporary vampire seeking vengeance against God. For centuries Victor Decimus, former Roman officer under Pontius Pilate, has fed his rage with blood. Desperately in love with but ultimately rejected by the young Jesus, Victor turns on the citizens of Jerusalem in a frenzy of rape and violence, leaving him no escape but through entry into the chaotic world of darkness he finds as a vampire.
Two thousand years later, in the guise of a monk, Victor takes up residence in the monastery of St. Thomas, nestled in the Appalachian Mountains. In Brother Michael he finds a hint of the love he has sought throughout his dark existence. But his rage, his desires, and his vow of vengeance against the God of the Christians drive him to insane levels of violence against his prey, leading to an investigation of "Brother Victor" and the monastery.
As investigators close in, Victor launches his most daring effort: the transformation of Brother Michael. And with everything at stake, the consequences of interference are horrifying beyond mortal imagination.
We've sent an email with your order details. Order ID #:
Listen on the Audible app or these devices.Launch Audible App
-or-Download Free Audible App
To access this title, visit your library in the app or on the desktop website.
Listen on the Audible app or these devices.Launch Audible App
-or-Download Free Audible App
Audible does not currently have the rights to sell this title in your country.
Please consider another book.Continue Browsing
Please add a payment method to continue.Add a Payment Method
Please edit your payment details or add a new card.
If the problem persists, contact customer service at (888) 283-5051Review My Payment Method
If the problem persists, contact customer service at (888) 283-5051
Please add your billing address to continue.Add My Billing Address
Please select a default credit card to continue.Select Credit Card
It looks like you've already used the specified payment method for a free trial.
Please contact customer service if you think we have made a mistake. (888) 283-5051Start Your $14.95 Membership
If the problem persists, contact customer service at (888) 283-5051
If the problem persists, contact customer service at (888) 283-5051
Whoa! Review for whole series! But Woah!
- Candateshia Pafford
I am not shocked by the sacrilegious subject matter of this book; indeed as a gay Christian I was intrigued by the possible temptation of Christ by a male admirer. What disappointed me, is the idea that Jesus would be tempted by the lead character of this book. He is utterly devoid of any redeeming qualities. The book is trash; I could not finish it. Truly one of the worst books I have ever read.Additionally if a person is going to write historical fiction, do some research. The main character, while a soldier in Tiberius' legions talks about the Baths of Caracalla, which were not built for some 200 years after Tiberius. A small point but nonetheless one more reason to save your money and time by not buying this book.
- Franklin


text:
Source- JoystiqYou might be skittish about dropping $250 on a new 3DS. It's okay, Amazon understands your fear and is currently offering a $25 credit with a purchase of the new handheld. The credit isn't restricted to games either, so you could used it on anything. Blinders for your very young children, perhaps.
To bad I got it at gamestop.........
Sent from my iPad using WiiHacks


text:
Ennis Cosby
News about Ennis Cosby, including commentary and archival articles published in The New York Times.
First Ennis Cosby Scholars Graduate
After an 18-month course, 20 New York City elementary-school teachers have become the first Ennis William Cosby scholars of Fordham University's Graduate School of Education. Named for the son of Bill Cosby, the Hello Friend/ Ennis William Cosby F...
January 16, 2002, Wednesday
Court is Asked To Set Aside Cosby Verdict
Lawyers for the man convicted of killing Bill Cosby's son have filed a petition to set aside his conviction, citing testimony in another trial that their client did not write letters admitting to the murder. The defendant, Mikail Markhasev, was...
January 3, 1999, Sunday
National News Briefs; Killer of Bill Cosby's Son Is Sentenced to Life Term
Mikail Markhasev, convicted of killing Bill Cosby's son, was sentenced today to life in prison without parole, the mandatory punishment, after the judge had rejected defense contentions of misconduct by prosecutors and the jury. Mr. Cosby was n...
August 12, 1998, Wednesday
Testimony Describes Killing of Cosby Son
The man convicted of murdering the son of the comedian Bill Cosby told a friend that the victim took too long to hand over money and that ''he just blasted him,'' according to newly released grand jury testimony. Michael Chang, a convict who re...
July 16, 1998, Thursday
Ideas & Trends: Paying for Justice; Money Can Help, But It Can Hurt, Too
IT was the lure of a $100,000 reward that solved the mystery of who killed Bill Cosby's son, but as prosecutors learned during the trial that ended last week, the solution created a problem. The reward, offered by The National Enquirer, provided t...
July 12, 1998, Sunday
Man Convicted In Cosby Death; Faces Life Term
A jury took less than six hours today to find 19-year-old Mikail Markhasev guilty of murdering Ennis W. Cosby, the son of the entertainer Bill Cosby. Mr. Markhasev smiled briefly in the packed courtroom as the verdict was read, then he stood ex...
July 8, 1998, Wednesday
Cosby Murder Case Goes to Jury as Father Appears in Court
As the comedian Bill Cosby sat with his family in the front row, a jury filed out of a courtroom here today to begin deliberating the fate of the man accused of murdering Mr. Cosby's son, Ennis. The appearance in court by Mr. Cosby, his wife, C...
July 7, 1998, Tuesday
Tabloid Offers Reward And Gets Small Thanks
Trial watchers here are saying People of the State of California v. Mikail Markhasev may not have come to pass were it not for The National Enquirer. In the prosecution of Mr. Markhasev, the man accused of killing Bill Cosby's son, Ennis, there...
July 6, 1998, Monday
National News Briefs; Prosecutor Abruptly Ends Her Case in Cosby Killing
After a courtroom appearance by a man who defense lawyers say is the person who shot Ennis Cosby to death in January 1997, the prosecution abruptly rested its case today. The man, Eli Zakaria, was escorted by sheriff's deputies into the courtro...
June 27, 1998, Saturday
Trial Starts for Defendant in the Killing of Bill Cosby's Son
Mikail Markhasev's own words prove he shot and killed Ennis Cosby as Mr. Cosby fixed a flat tire in the inky January night, just off a Los Angeles freeway, a prosecutor said today in the opening statements of Mr. Markhasev's murder trial. The p...
June 23, 1998, Tuesday
Rss Feeds On Ennis Cosby
Subscribe to an RSS feed on this topic. What is RSS?
Get Alerts On Ennis Cosby
Receive My Alerts e-mails on topics covered on this page.More Alerts >>


text: Anybody having weird low-pitch robot sounding voice when talking to other person on line? started yesterday on my incredible. My husband hung up on me thinking it was a prank call. Today my girlfriend said I sounded like Darth Vader. I don't use an ear piece and removed the cover with no difference. My freind asked me if I had downloaded an app that morphs voices. I told her no so now I am thinking it may be a virus??? No other problems noted with the phone except not able to accept new call when on the line. Please help. Thanks.


text:
We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox.
If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off "Compatibility View".
Handpicked brands for you
Yesterday in UK! #SummerSwineStomp2015 in #Hoghill Women Podium: 1. @stilettochillz 2. @lynders 3. April from @shoveitmag Shoutout to @ballerignar for taking 3rd in Freestyle! Congrats ladies! Repost from @arborcollectiveuk . #longboardgirlscrew...


text:
22 year old Matthew Sackett was arrested Wednesday on felony charges of first degree Assault and Reckless Assault of a Child.
Sackett is accused of assaulting a 22 week old child causing multiple skull fractures and broken ribs.
The child is currently at Strong Hospital.
Sackett was remanded in lieu of $75,000 bail in the Livingston County Jail.


text:
Malay rights group Perkasa wants Petronas chief executive officer Tan Seri Shamsul Azhar Abbas to resign over his recent statement that the country's oil and gas revenue does not "belong to the Bumiputera".
Its president Datuk Ibrahim Ali said Shamsul (pic) was savvy when he said Petronas resources belonged to all Malaysians as he was trying to imply that he was being forced to give handouts to Bumiputera companies.
"Shamsul should resign for his unprofessional conduct. This is very unbecoming," he said today at a press conference.
In the Edge Weekly report on June 21, Shamsul revealed that Petronas came under political pressure to back inexperienced businesses, adding that "bureaucratic interference made this difficult".
Shamsul stressed the importance of meritocracy and pointed out that he did not look at colour or creed.
"In 2010, we restructured the whole organisation, including the composition of the board… I brought in new capable people. The talk was that I had got rid of all the government servants, brought in the non-Malays, opened up Petronas, which belongs to the Malays, to the non-Malays.
"Are we not interested in competence? This is the predicament that I am facing at this point in time. There is a need for us to shape ourselves into a more professional organisation, but at the same time, I am being pulled back by politics, by interested parties, by parties with vested interests, by agendas that are outdated," he told the business weekly.
Shamsul also said he was not indifferent toward Malay entrepreneurs bidding for projects with the national oil company.
"I am a Malay too. I am proud to be one… You think I don't want to help my own people. Of course, I want to help them, but in the proper way. Not through handouts and spoon-feeding," he said.
Ibrahim, however, said Shamsul should remember that Malay, pro-Bumiputera affirmative action plans had to be continued as the community continued to lag behind other ethnic groups in the country.
Ibrahim also challenged Shamsul to a live debate where the Petronas chief could name the companies he was allegedly arm-twisted into backing, rather than make "sweeping statements" about bumiputera businessmen.
Ibrahim said although the Petroleum Development Act 1974 does not specifically mention Bumiputera, Petronas's policies should be in line with the New Economic Policy.
"After the NEP was introduced, the Petroleum Development Act 1974 was overridden and should therefore be in line with government policies," he said.
Ibrahim also raised the issue of Shamsul's performance, which he described as controversial, especially in light of criticisms from Bumiputera businessmen.
"Before Shamsul took over Petronas, his predecessor Tan Sri Hassan Merican did not attract so much attention.
"Moreover, Petronas performed well during Hassan's time at the helm," Ibrahim said, adding that Shamsul constantly attracted criticism.
Ibrahim also urged Petronas to be transparent in revealing the list of contractors who had dealings with the company, and invite them for a dialogue.
"For the sake of transparency, I urge Petronas to reveal their list of contractors who have been given projects."


text:
Note: In most cases, the TrkCollector will be accessed by off-node agents and PRT_UI's. In these cases, local and remote launch, activation and access will be required. However, review these settings based on your particular implementation and security requirements. It may be possible to run successfully with some of the suggested permissions turned off.
Steps to configure TrkCollector for Windows XP or Windows Server 2003 are as follows.
Open the TrkCollector dialog box.
Configure TrkCollector authentication.
Configure TrkCollector security.
Step 6. Connect to multiple projects.


text:
3712 MacArthur Blvd, New Orleans, LA 70114Request info Add to list
To view building contacts please sign in with your Pro account or create a pro account.
Stephanie H.
Company: requires Pro account
Email: requires Pro account
Phone: requires Pro account
- Available Spaces
|Space Type
|Office Space
|For lease: $1.25/sqft
|3,160 sqft
|View Details
|Office Space
|For lease: $1.25/sqft
|1,700 sqft
Building Details:
• Year Built: 1982
3712 MacArthur Blvd is an office property for lease in New Orleans, LA. The property currently has 2 office spaces for lease and is marketed by SRSA Commercial Real Estate.
This Class B, two-story medical office building is located on 2.38 acres just off General DeGaulle. The net rentable area is 27,636 sq. ft. and it is currently 100% occupied. There are 114 parking spaces. The building also has two elevators.
A full marketing package, including rent toll may be obtained by contacting the listing agents.
Request Property Information
Please describe your commercial real estate requirements. We'll introduce you to local properties that match your criteria.


text:
CurrentCloud County Community College
MajorElementary Education
HometownLinn, Kansas
Follow William's Progress
Cloud County Community College (CCCC) is one of 26 public two-year community and technical colleges in Kansas and is coordinated by the Kansas Board of Regents. CCCC's service area encompasses a 12-county area primarily in north central Kansas with its...
Community CollegeCloud County Community College
LocationConcordia, KS 66901, KS
- Verified by Cloud County Community College
William Woerman Enrolls at Cloud County Community CollegeFuture T-Bird, William Woerman, Barnes, Ks, has enrolled at Cloud County Community College for the 2013-2014 academic year. Cloud County Community College (CCCC) is one of 26 public two-year commu...Fall 2013
Colleges across the country are recognizing students from Linn High School for their on-campus success. Click any achievement to discover alumni from Linn High School, view their personalized Merit pages, and learn about what they are accomplishing.
High SchoolLinn High School
TypePublic High School (7-12)
LocationLinn, KS
- Verified by Linn High School
Activities & Affiliations
William Woerman is cast in CCCC fall playA Midsummer Night's Dream will be the fall 2014 drama department production. The play was written by William Shakespeare. William Woerman, a Elementary Education major at Cloud County Community C...Fall 2014
William Woerman Named a Resident Assistant at Cloud County Community CollegeWilliam Woerman, of Linn, Kansas, was named a resident assistant for the Office of Student Life at Cloud County Community College for the 2014-2015 academic year. William is a Elementary Education ...Fall 2014
Work Experience
William has not added any work experience yet.


text:
As one of the leading venture capital firms in Wisconsin, New Capital Fund focuses on making early-stage investments in the life sciences and information technology industries, as well as growth-stage investments in advanced manufacturing. The firm was founded in 2006 and is currently investing out of its second fund, managing over $45 million. Notable investments by the firm include: TrafficCast International, Simply Incredible Foods LLC and Rapid Diagnostek, Inc.
Name: New Capital Fund
Location: Little Chute, WI
Website: http://www.newcapitalfund.com/
Contact(s): Charlie Goff
Preferred Industries: Life sciences, information technology and advanced manufacturing
Total Number of Active Investments: 16
Total Number of Wisconsin Investments: 16
Seeking New Investments: Yes
Preferred Deal Types: Early and growth stage investments
Will lead on a deal: Yes


text:
Baroque Flute Sounds
Telemann Quartet Grac.
Empire Baroque
Empire Baroque: Paris Quartet in E minor, TWV 43:312, Gracieusement (Loure) by Telemann
Empire Baroque
Music of Netherlandish Masters: In Celebration of the Quatercentennial of the Voyage of Hendrick Hudson 1609/2009 performed in November, 2009 in Picotte Recital Hall~Massry Center for the Arts at The College of Saint Rose
- Yvonne Chavez Hansbrough, traverso
- Ann-Marie Barker Schwartz, baroque violin
- Andre O'Neil, baroque cello
- William Carragan, harpsichord
Music by: Jacob van Eyck/Dowland, Benedictus Buns, de Fesch, van Wassenaer
Audio from live concert:
- Pavana Lachrymae by John Dowland, Divisions by Jacob van Eyck from Der Fluyten Lust-hof, accompaniment by William Carragan
- Sonata no. 3 in E Minor by Wassenaer, arranged for traverso and basso continuo by William Carragan
- Trio Sonata in C Major, Op. 12, no. 9 by Willem de Fesch


text:
I love watching television. If I can ever use a television program or a movie as an example, I jump at the chance! On a particular episode of "That 70's Show", one of the teens was accused of buying marijuana. In an effort to stop him or any of the other teens he hung out with from smoking, one of the father's gets an idea to put up a smoke detector in their hangout – his downstairs basement. Contrary to popular belief, smoking does not set off smoke alarms. (Unless you are in a bingo hall – man, those people can puff!)
Archive for
Cheap Cigarettes From Europe – Online Shops
Cigarette smoking is an addiction many people have, despite it being a life threatening addiction. Girls and boys, women and men all alike smoke all types of cigarettes be it discount cigarettes, menthol cigarettes or cheap cigarettes from Europe. Though there are so many types of cigarettes in the market today, they are all basically the same composition with a few changes in taste here and there.


text:
As a host of the lottery-funded GA Pre-K program we have been entrusted to prepare your child for kindergarten. The 6.5 hour day provides activities and learning experiences that help prepare your child for Kindergarten.
The child-centered environment helps your child become independent, self-confident and ready by developing good habits and routines. The program is designed to promote skills in the following seven areas:
- Lanquage and Literacy
- Math Development
- Science Development
- Social Studies Development
- Creative Development
- Physical and Health Development
- Social and Emotional Development
The Pre-K classroom is designed to facilitate learning experiences and the teacher's goal is to create a rich environment and develop lesson plans that foster a child's initiative and exploration and will ultimately lead to an enthusiasm for learning that will follow your child to Kindergarten.a Pre-K Infant Care, Toddler Care rest assured we can suit your preschool needs. We have been serving the communities of Windward Parkway, Alpharetta, Milton and the Metro Atlanta for more than two decades. You may know us as First Academy of Milton, First Academy of Alpharetta, 1st Academy of Windward, Boren Family Child Care, or First Academy Early Enrichment Center or just plain First Academy and we are proud of the reputation for excellence that we have established throughout the yearsSuccess Kids Learning Center.


text:
Rithvik Proposes to Asha Negi on TV
By IANS | Published: 19th December 2013 11:40 AM |
Last Updated: 19th December 2013 11:41 AM | A+A A- |
Small screen actor Rithvik Dhanjani went down on his knees and poured his heart out to his girlfriend, actress Asha Negi on a public platform.
The couple is currently a participant on the celebrity couple dance reality show "Nach Baliye 6".
According to sources, the actor sang a song for her. The romantic bit was that he had written and composed it himself.
"Nach Baliye 6" airs on Star Plus.


text:
Please let us know how we can help you. Are you ready to balance your life and get healthier? We have free demo class every Sat. and free trials the whole week. Also join us for World Tai Chi and Qigong day, the last Sat. in April.
tai chi, T'ai chi ch'uan, taiji, Yang tai chi, martial arts, push hands, qigong, qi, kung fu, Chinese swordsmanship, weapons, chinese martial arts, Yang Chengfu, Yang Jun, health, east brunswick, new jersey, news, rehab, alternative medicine, meditation, reduce stress, healthy-lifestyle, yin and yang, diabetes, cancer, arthritis, parkinson's disease, copd, heart failure, osteoarthritis, chronic


text:
President cashes in on swanky soiree with Organizing for Action mega-funders.
Organizing for Action (OFA), Barack Obama's former campaign apparatus reincarnated as a nonprofit advocacy group, initiated a two-day "founders summit" on Wednesday at the St. Regis hotel, located two blocks from the White House. The group characterizes themselves as a grassroots organization, driven from the bottom up. "This is going to be absolutely local," said OFA chairman and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. "Members will decide what issues in their community they most care about." OFA has come under criticism for effectively selling access to the president, who addressed OFA attendees at a dinner Wednesday--one that cost $50,000 per person to attend.
Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21, a campaign finance reform group, explains the reality hiding behind OFA's populist facade. "It is operating as an arm of the presidency and it's funded by private money including large contributions and bundlers raising large amounts," he reveals. "So this private funding arm tied to the president creates opportunities for donors to obtain corrupting influence over government policies and decisions. This is an unacceptable entity. It's almost like outsourcing a portion of the presidency," he added.
Jon Carson, a former White House aide who is now OFA's executive director insists otherwise--in Orwellian fashion. "We are not a partisan organization," he contends. "We are here to move this shared progressive agenda forward, and we will advocate for Democrats to move this agenda forward, we will advocate for Republicans." Jim Messina gets a little closer to the truth. "For every lobbying group that puts a dollar on the air tearing down the president's agenda, an OFA volunteer will mobilize around the country to counter that," he promised.
The above statements are utterly disingenuous. Carson knows that the likelihood of any Republican supporting OFA's the hard-left agenda is virtually nil. As for Messina, the idea that OFA is intent on preventing the president's agenda from being torn down means the organization is marching in lockstep with an individual, not a political ideology. Since this president is known for taking two diametrically opposed positions on issues, such as his newly evolving support for gay marriage, or his amassing of $5 trillion in national debt after calling George W. Bush "irresponsible" and "unpatriotic for doing the same thing, one is left to wonder whether OFA will be equally "flexible." If they are, talk of nonpartisanship is just that--talk.
Even the reliably leftist USA Today is skeptical regarding such claims. "OFA was created in January by Obama's top campaign lieutenants," the paper notes. "It looks for all the world like an extension of the White House. It is collecting money and pushing Obama's agenda, two things that sound awfully political, while masquerading as a 'social welfare' organization under the tax code."
It is not masquerading as a social welfare organization. It is an IRS-designated 501(c)4 social welfare organization, beyond the jurisdiction of Federal Election Commission statutes that limit campaign donations and require the disclosure of donor names. That such statutes apply to political groups reveals the rank hypocrisy that attends OFA, whose website reveals every one of its seven "social welfare" issues--jobs and the economy, taxes and the budget, health care, education, environment, energy and immigration--bear a striking resemblance to the major political issues currently dominating the national conversation.
Messina promises that OFA is committed to maintaining transparency. He has changed his mind about OFA's original intention to accept money from corporations, federal lobbyists and foreign donors, and further insists that "every donor who gives $250 or more to this organization will be disclosed on the website with the exact amount they give on a quarterly basis." In other words, skeptics will have to take Messina's word that everything will be on the up and up. Perhaps it will be. But if that is the case, why wasn't OFA organized as a political group instead of a nonprofit?
Some of Obama's largest donors are reportedly unenthused about getting hit up again for cash so soon after the election. Many have opted not to attend the summit. Mel Heifetz, a Philadelphia real-estate investor and gay-rights activist, who donated $1 million to a super-PAC for the 2012, race explains. "I'm just not ready to start writing checks; it's only 60 days since President Obama got sworn in," he said.
Yet when the time came for Obama to speak, approximately 75 supporters packed themselves into a restaurant inside the hotel. Obama told them that OFA can play a powerful a role in shaping his second-term agenda. Yet he also addressed concerns expressed by Republicans and others that OFA was intent on helping Democrats capture the House in 2014. "I actually just want to govern, at least for a couple of years," Obama contended. The president, who held a meeting with Republicans earlier in the day to address several issues, including entitlement reform, jobs, energy and leadership, expressed optimism that both parities could overcome the gridlock that has paralyzed Washington, D.C. "Members sometimes are scared about making the right decisions," Obama said.
He reiterated his contention that Washington can't be changed from inside, and said that OFA could make the difference in ensuring that the people who elected him have their voices heard when it comes to formulating policies that may be difficult to achieve. After his brief remarks (made without a teleprompter) were concluded, reporters were escorted out of the room while the president continued to mingle with the attendees.
J. Gerald Hebert, executive director of the Campaign Legal Center, reiterated concerns about Obama's relationship with OFA, insisting that it "not only raises policy concerns relating to the purchase of influence over the administration, but also may cross the line in terms of the federal law banning the soliciting of gifts by any member of the executive branch, including the president."
OFA countered that they were on solid legal ground, contending that Obama can appear before any nonprofit group that is promoting social policy issues, a position taken by Messina in an op-ed in early March. "Whether you're a volunteer or a donor, we can't and we won't guarantee access to any government officials," Messina wrote. "But just as the president and administration officials deliver updates on the legislative process to Americans and organizations across the ideological spectrum, there may be occasions when members of Organizing for Action are included in those updates. These are not opportunities to lobby--they are briefings on the positions the president has taken and the status of seeing them through."
Carson echoed that contention last night. "Our role, quite simply, is to change the balance of power by being an organization, a network of grassroots strength, that is going to stand up for that agenda," he said.
That would be a "network of grassroots strength" intentionally set up to avoid FEC restrictions, run by Obama's former reelection team that occasionally charges $50,000 a dinner for "incidental" access to the president. Sounds remarkably like a giant community organizing apparatus whose promise of transparency is undoubtedly as trustworthy as the president the group was instrumental in getting reelected.
Ironically, it behooves the same mainstream media that has carried this president's water innumerable times to keep close tabs on OFA. Not for the noble sake of keeping the public informed, but for the ignoble ability to insure the continuity of their own access to the president. OFA has a technological infrastructure with access to Obama's 2 million volunteers, 17 million email subscribers, 22 million Twitter followers and virtually every registered voter in the country. Used properly, it could make those mainstream media water-carriers largely irrelevant.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


text:
Posted By
David Asp, Ed.D.
Psychiatry & Psychology
Recent Posts
Patient StoriesThe skinny on skin cancer: One doctor's personal experience (Part III)May 24, 2016
Patient StoriesThe skinny on skin cancer: One doctor's personal experience (Part I)May 24, 2016
Speaking of HealthSports psychology for young athletes: Powerful motivatorsSeptember 23, 2013
The skinny on skin cancer: One doctor's personal experience (Part II)
Most people enjoy a beautiful sunny day, and there are many benefits of sunshine. In addition, our culture tends to project the image that the sun is healthy and that a tan body is better, healthier and more beautiful than a white body. As a result, many people spend hours in the sun or going to tanning beds to tan their skin. However, we've learned that there is a tremendous danger to our skin when we use tanning beds or overexpose our skin to the sun's ultraviolet rays.
Some exposure to the sun is not entirely bad. A measured amount of sun exposure will facilitate vitamin D production, which is good for bone health and supports the health of the brain and immune system. Also, some sun exposure helps treat skin disorders, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. Sunlight can assist people affected by seasonal affective disorder and can give people a sense of well-being. On the flip side, too much ultraviolet radiation from the sun leads to premature skin aging (wrinkles, lax skin, brown spots) and damage to our DNA, which causes mutations in skin cells that cause skin cancer.
Stats on skin cancer
It's a myth that skin cancer is a disease that affects only old people. Anyone can get skin cancer, and it occurs in people of all skin colors and ages. According to the Melanoma Research Foundation, one in five Americans will get skin cancer in their lifetime, and the incidence of melanoma is increasing. Melanoma has one of the fastest rates of increase compared to other types of cancers. Here are some other statistics you may not know about:
- From 1960 to the present, melanoma is increasing roughly 20 to 50 percent every five years.
- From 1980 to 2004 the incidence of melanoma in young women increased by 50 percent.
- Melanoma is the second most common cancer among 15- to 29-year-olds and is the No. 1 cancer in young adults age 25 to 29.
- In males ages 15 to 29, there has been a four-fold (333 percent) increase in melanoma from 1970 to 2009.For females ages 15 to 39, there has been an eight-fold (706 percent) increase.
- In males ages 40 to 60 from 1970 to 2009, there has been a four-and half-fold increase, and in females age 40 to 60 in the same timeframe a 24-fold (2,333 percent) increase in melanoma!
When there is damage to the skin cell's DNA, this prompts the skin cells to produce more melanin, which is the pigment that gives our skin its color. The melanin production signals there is DNA damage and tries to protect the skin from further damage. Repeated ultraviolet exposure continues to accumulate. Therefore, the risk of skin cancer increases.
Any tan, whether you get it on the beach or in a tanning bed, is bad news because it is an indication of skin cell damage caused by harmful ultraviolet radiation. There is no such thing as a safe or protective tan as any tan is a sign of skin damage. According to the Melanoma Research Foundation, individuals using tanning beds are two-and-a-half times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma, one-and-a-half times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma and 75 percent more likely to develop melanoma than those who do not tan.
Many states, including Minnesota, outlaw tanning bed use for anyone under the age of 18.Tanning bed equipment has been classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as carcinogenic and is placed in the same category as tobacco, arsenic and plutonium.
David Asp, Ed.D., is a psychologist at Mayo Clinic Health System in Red Wing.
Read parts one and three of Dr. Asp's personal experience with melanoma.


text:
Date Posted: Monday, July 6th, 2015
Categories: Consumer Protection Department of Justice DOJ Press Releases
WILMINGTON, DE – The Consumer Protection Unit of the Delaware Department of Justice is warning Delawareans of a number of scams involving wire transfers and prepaid debit cards.
The message is simple – don't wire money to anyone who asks you to. Wiring money is like sending cash. Once it's gone, it's gone. The same is true for prepaid debit cards. Do not put money on a card at the request of anyone who asks you to. Scammers may try to trick you into doing so using the following scams, so please protect yourself and your money and don't fall for them:
Scenario #1: A loved one is in jail or otherwise in serious trouble (perhaps while on vacation) and needs you to wire money immediately to help
What you should do:
Stop. Don't act immediately no matter what the crisis may be and no matter that the scammer appears to know information about your family that no one else could know.
Check with the person who seems to be in trouble at a trusted phone number or email address. If the caller says not to tell anyone or that if you delay then the loved one will suffer some consequence those are signs of a scam.
Don't send money. If the caller wants money to be wired or a prepaid debt card, you know it's a scam.
Scenario #2: The sheriff or some other local law enforcement agency is going to arrest you for failing to report for jury duty unless you pay money immediately
What you should do:
Do not wire cash or provide the caller with a prepaid debit card. Scammers can spoof a telephone number on caller ID so that it looks like the call is coming from a legitimate source such as a courthouse or a sheriff's office – but it's not. Law enforcement or court personnel never make a call like that.
Stay calm. Don't let the caller scare you. Note as many details about the call as you can, such as the phone number the caller appears to be calling from and who they claim to be, and end the call.
Call the Consumer Protection hotline at 1-800-220-5424 to report it.
Scenario #3: The IRS is calling because you owe them money and need to pay up
What you should do:
Do not send money or give the caller any personal or financial information. The IRS would contact you by mail, not phone.
Stay calm. Although the caller ID may indicate that the call is coming from the "IRS", that number is being spoofed. Write down as many details about the call as you can, such as the caller ID number and who they claim to be.
Contact the IRS directly if you are worried that the call is real at 800-829-1040 or go to irs.gov.
Report the call to the following agencies:
• The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) at tigta.gov or 800-366-4484.
• The FTC at ftc.gov/complaint or 877-FTC-HELPRelated Topics: consumer protection • Consumer Protection Unit • Delaware Department of Justice • Division of Fraud and Consumer Protection • Scams • Wire Transfers
Delaware's Governor
State Agencies
Elected Officials
General Assembly
Delaware Courts
State Employees
Cities & Towns
Delaware State Code
State Regulations
Business First Steps
Phone Directory
Locations Directory
Public Meetings
FOIA Requests
Health Insurance
Tax Center
Personal Income Tax
Privacy Policy
Weather & Travel
Contact Us
Franchise Tax
Gross Receipts Tax
Withholding Tax
Delaware Topics
Help Center
Mobile Apps
E-mail / Text Alerts
RSS Feeds
Built by the Government Information Center
©MMXIV news.delaware.gov


text:
Nothing is useless in this world. It is we who because of our unawareness throw away mostly so many used things wrongly assuming that they have ended their service life. This we do just because we don't know the art of creating the second life of any used item more particularly of common kitchen items.
3 dazzling benefits of giving second life to a used item
Generally every type of used item from car to kids clothing could be reused or re-purpose to save:
- A lot of time to buy a thing that could be created by repurposing a used item
- Money by not buying a thing and get it by repurposing an old thing
- Environment by not throwing a used item in garbage and not adding pollution load on our earth
These are the three most distinct benefits of giving a second life to any used item. Just a little awareness on how to do that you need and can achieve the above benefits quite easily.
When it comes to common kitchen items it becomes easier to give your used kitchen items a second life. You need not to re-purpose them for any usage outside kitchen. Most of the things could also be used for another purpose inside kitchen.
1. Kitchen garbage is gold
The most precious thing in the kitchen that apparently does not have any value is your kitchen waste. It could be converted into natural manure to grow plants in your lawn without any fear of negative impacts that usually have by using chemical fertilizer.
Just one time effort is required to shift the organic garbage of your kitchen that consists of peels and unwanted pulp of vegetables and fruits apart from things that were fully extracted after deriving their juice or soup. You can just bury them in a separate chunk of land in your garden or in soil of your courtyard for a few days and then get the natural manure easily. This entire process is called composting.
Here is the step by step guide to do composting by your own and avoid using chemical fertilizer to grow plants in your garden.
So by growing vegetables with the composted natural manure you can cook so many tasty dishes in your kitchen and save money that you have to spend otherwise for buying these vegetables from the market.
2. Boxes and wrappers
It is so common to put out a newly bought item from a box or unwrap it for use without any care and damage it just to get that item quickly. In this way we make that box or wrapper unusable for any other purpose.
So from now open any box or wrapper with the thought in mind to reuse it for any other purpose. Inside your kitchen you can reuse all such boxes and cans that are of edible items like milk, egg or coffee.
Metallic boxes could be reused permanently for keeping pulses and spices into them. So never buy jars for keeping such items of daily use and just aim to get them from packed items be they tins or metallic boxes.
Yes, paper or card board boxes and wrappers could be used just once and at least they could be used to put the kitchen garbage into them to easily transfer the waste into the main dustbin of your home.
3. Crockery
Once crockery gets older or out of fashion you stop using it as serving food on table. So you can use it inside kitchen for washing cooking items like meat, vegetables or pulses. So always reuse crockery inside kitchen for keeping things for the time being into them.
These are the three easiest ways to give second life to your used kitchen items. Do you think there are some other ways to do that? Just share your views in comments section below.
Get more stuff like this
Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.


text:
Italian economy buckles as it heads for economic collapse:
Italy must make more progress with its financial reforms to avoid being targeted by traders looking for the "next in line" for an international rescue after Spain's request for help.
Economists and analysts warned that Italy could face a turbulent few days amid concerns about contagion from Spain.
Daniel Gros, head of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels, said: "After Spain, there will not be the margins to help Italy. It will be defenceless and forced to help itself if the situation deteriorates."
The Italian business newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore said the €100bn (£80bn) deal to prop up Spain's banks "represents the removal of the filter that separates our country from the group of other countries in difficulty". Another paper, Corriere della Sera, said: "Italy is now the only country in difficulty that has not had to ask for a bail-out."
Compared to Spain, Italy's banks are stronger and its borrowing lower. But last week Moody's said Spain's banking troubles could be "a major source of contagion" for Italy. The rating agency downgraded 26 Italian banks last month, including UniCredit and Intesa Sanpaolo.
The Spanish rescue was designed to calm markets ahead of the crucial elections in Greece next Sunday. However, this weekend the anti-austerity leftist party, Syriza, was maintaining its lead in the polls. Evangelos Venizelos, head of the mainstream Pasok party, today said that he had written to the other political leaders warning them of a "bogus impasse" that threatens to return another hung parliament.
Spanish and Italian bond yields rocket:
European airlines risk going bankrupt as business plummets:
UKs largest supermarket Tesco reports business in UK plummeting as austerity intensifies:


text:
FREE SHIPPING on orders of $85 or more
An excerpt from www.HouseOfNames.com archives copyright © 2000 - 2017
Origins Available: English, Scottish
Broomette Early Origins
family seat from the Middle Ages.
Broomette Spelling Variations
Broomette Spelling Variations
Spelling variations of this family name include: Brownett, Brownette, Brunenote, Brunote, Brunet, Brunett, Brunette, Brounnhote, Brownet and many more.
Broomette Early History
Broomette Early History
This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Broomette research. Another 495 words (35 lines of text) covering the years 1279, 1294, 1310, 1327, 1500, 1674, 1676, 1779 and 1800 are included under the topic Early Broomette History in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.
Broomette Early Notables (pre 1700)
Broomette Early Notables (pre 1700)
More information is included under the topic Early Broomette Notables in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.
The Great Migration
The Great Migration
Some of the first settlers of this family name or some of its variants were: George Brownette who arrived in Ontario in 1879.
Broomette Family Crest Products
Broomette Family Crest Products
See Also
See Also
Other References
The Broomette Family Crest was acquired from the Houseofnames.com archives. The Broomette Family Crest was drawn according to heraldic standards based on published blazons. We generally include the oldest published family crest once associated with each surname.
This page was last modified on 7 March 2012 at 14:47.
Sign Up
FREE SHIPPING on orders of $85 or more


text:
My Nonprofit Reviews
Diane Kazala
Review for Good News India, Phoenix, AZ, USA
This organization is amazing! The trip to India was well planned, very insightful, and a great opportunity to witness God in action. I was blown away by these children that others had thrown away. Beautiful, talented, thankful, prayerful children. Thankful for every thing others take for granted like food, clothing and the chance to go to school. They are willing to do whatever it takes to share the gospel and will not compromise their faith. I came home and immediately started saving for my next trip. My husband and I have added three children to our family and hope to add many more.
More Feedback
Would you volunteer for this group again?
For the time you spent, how much of an impact did you feel your work or activity had?
Did the organization use your time wisely?
Very Well
Would you recommend this group to a friend?
When was your last experience with this nonprofit?


text:
Once a month Fruity King mobile casino gives you the chance to win up to £100 with the Big Cash Weekend Race. What could be a better way to spend your weekend than winning a juicy cash prize at this top casino site?
Win Up to £100 at Fruity King mobile casino!
How to Enter
If you want to participate in the Big Cash Weekend Race, all you have to do is play any game from the huge selection on offer between Friday and Sunday on the specified weekend.
As you play, you will collect VIP points and the more you bag the better chance you'll have of winning. At the end of the race, the top three players who have collected the most VIP points will win a cash prize.
The prizes include £100 for first place, £75 for second place and £50 for third place. If you're one of the lucky winners, you'll be notified by email within 24 hours so make sure your email address is up to date because you will forfeit the prize if Fruity King can't get in touch with you. You've been warned: it will go to someone else!
If you manage to scoop up a prize it's entirely up to you what you do with it. If you decide to withdraw your winnings, then you'll need to meet a 50x wagering requirement first, but you might prefer to spend it on the site for the chance to win an even bigger prize.
Welcome Offer
The icing on the cake is a 100% casino bonus so if you're not already a member of Fruity King we highly recommend you join today.
You never know it could end up the best decision you've ever made. Once you've registered, all you have to do is make a first deposit of between £10 and £200 and you'll get double the money to play with! This site sure is fit for a King.
Win Up to £100 at Fruity King mobile casino!


text:
lf you send an intimidating text or message with use of Internet is cyber bullying.bullying. Cyber bullies are those guys who just want other kids to feel bad about themselves and this is not even different from the normal bullying. The increased rate of use of the Internet by teenagers has also increased the rate of cyberbullying ,to extent that they create pseudonymous names just to torment and leaving other peoples kids feeling embarrassed and humiliated. To those who think cyber bullying is a joke they should just STOP !!'cause cyber bullying is for people who have problems at their homes and just to feel good by stepping on the vulnerable kids .
NB: To those guys being bullied on-line do not reply with nasty words 'cause it will never change anything but it will only go from bad to worse as would have become one of them! Seek help from your parents ,an elderly person,teachers or anyone who can be of your help


text:
All reviews seem negative
3 Issues:
#1: Was sold a VERY sick dog and were not notified. KS law requires pet stores to maintain the health of the animals. Our puppy had been treated several times for co...
From family friendly trips with kid friendly activities to local plumbers lawyers, spas, and contractors. Judy's Book has millions of listings and reviews for the best and not so great. Whether you're looking for a specific business or just trying to discover great places we make it easy. We're a family oriented site focusing on bringing trusted reviews and recommendations to moms and others. Green and Sustainable places are becoming more relevant to Judy's Book users, have a favorite place? Write a review and tell users why it's Green!