text:
Reason #412,574,034 why I am close in spirit (in many ways) to mainstream "traditionalists" (as opposed to radical Catholic reactionaries).
Nothing against eucharistic ministers themselves (really). All I'm saying is that there is excessive use, and that I receive from the priest because he is the alter Christus / in persona Christi in a way that the lay ministers are not.
That's my entire argument in a nutshell. I discussed it with several priests: some agreed with me, one (very much) did not. But he's an esteemed friend with a great, thriving parish, so we can agree to disagree. No biggie.
I prefer to receive from a priest (and no one has of yet told me why I should not have that opinion or not be able to exercise it). One priest friend of mine could only argue that I would be disrupting the Mass. But I take great pains to not do that, and if it causes a "scene" I don't get in a different line.
Fr. Rod Allers (in blue throughout this section):there is absolutely no difference between the host in my bowl and that of an extra-ordinary minister.
I didn't say there was. The only difference is the status of you vs. them. You're a priest; they are not. And that is a significant factor. It's precisely why the use of EMHCs is supposed to be limited in the first place.
The EM (for sake of space) is exercising a valid ministry.
Of course; already acknowledged that; not an issue.
I think you should be serenely free to receive from who you would like, just so long as you understand that there is no difference.
Good. No difference in Who I am receiving; difference in the one I'm receiving from (and this cannot be denied).
Point I am trying to make is this… the Truth for all of us probably lies in a radical trust of God in our lives. I have also found that the Truth is usually found somewhere in the middle. I have watched a few traditionalists think the church is a haven for them rather than a mission to proclaim forgiveness and reconciliation and true freedom and fullness of humanity. I think both extremes have hindered this mission.
I agree. I'm not a "traditionalist". I am coming at this from a concern for the rubrics, and from the theology of the priesthood. I'm all for mission, of course, being an apologist and evangelist myself.
I have extreme respect for priests. May God always bless you, Father, as you serve Him! Thanks so much for your time and valuable input on this thread.
There is a sense in which one may receive a little more alongside receiving the Eucharist (which remains the same from either source): akin to a priestly blessing. I don't know if that is literally true or not but I suspect it is. The hand that consecrated the elements now distributes our Lord Who is there because of the miracle of transubstantiation wrought by his own hands.
To me it is (technically speaking) more of a liturgical or symbolic thing than eucharistic. The priest is the norm; therefore I prefer him if at all possible. He's out there distributing communion, too. I want to receive from the priest.
What possible objection could there be? The priest who commented on this thread fully agreed that anyone can receive from the priest. Certainly there is no canonical prohibition of it. We ought not disrupt the procedure to do so; we agree on that.
Those of us who prefer the priest don't usually "switch lines"; we simply get in the one where the priest is, without making a fuss.
I commend you for your service. As I have reiterated, none of this discussion requires any derision against EMHCs per se (have lots of friends who do this): it's only objecting to overuse of them, and poorly trained ones, or ones with objectionable demeanor or dress.
Nor does preference to receive from a priest necessarily imply any such derision at all. We want to receive from him, because that is the norm, and he is the alter Christus. It's not difficult to understand.
I agree that if this is accompanied with dumb attitudes and elitism, or disrupts a service, it then becomes wrong. I don't do any of that.
We're not trying to major in the minors. We seek to receive Our Lord from the alter Christus. Don't take it personally! It is not (or shouldn't be) any slam at you.
Even if one who takes this view holds that excessive use is in play, it's still not the fault of the individual EMHC, but of the priest who should know his rubrics better.
We have to be careful. If abuses take place, it's not the fault of every EMHC. If you do a perfectly fine, solemn, pious job you shouldn't be subjected to any criticism for it. As one who is subjected to bum raps almost every day online, I can deeply empathize with that. It's terrible.
As an analogy, I often criticize the public schools. But I rarely criticize teachers in them. I have the utmost respect for teachers of all sorts. It's a system vs. individuals in the system issue. So I can respect you as an EMHC, while continuing to object to abuses in the way it is carried out, as outlined in this thread.
But you and I both know that there are EMHCs who don't do a good job, and it is understandable that there is a lot of resentment and even anger over that. We've seen it in this thread. This sublimely sacred act — a sacrament — of Holy Communion shouldn't have to be accompanied by impious or inappropriate behavior (like my example of the lady with nice legs and a miniskirt).
It's a lot like abuses in the OF Mass. We are complaining about that, not the Mass itself (like the RadCathRs do).
Catholics believe that it is not only the Blood given under the appearance of wine but the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, under either and both elements or accidents. That's why if only one is given, there is no intrinsic loss in what is received. There is no necessity to receive both, as the host contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ (which is why the Church reserved the cup for many centuries). Both/and as usual in Catholicism. Anyone can do one or both, and they are receiving Jesus.
It's not about EMHCs; it's about wanting to receive from the alter Christus. Individuals who do this ministry may be the holiest, most pious ministers in the history of the world, but it remains the case that they aren't priests. That is the reasoning behind why I practice the way I do.
But I received from a deacon at my parish the last time. I didn't make a "scene" or get legalistic about it. I only "switch" to the priest if it doesn't disrupt anything.
My post was no more running down priests (quite the contrary!) than it was supposedly running down EMHCs. If it is a large parish, the Church allows for EMHCs. If not, it's a violation of the rubrics. That's not me saying that: it's Holy Mother Church (and writers like Jimmy Akin and Fr. Peter Stravinskas pointing this out). I didn't make the rules.
I'm not questioning the role of the EMHC at all. I am saying it is abused according to the rubrics, and that I prefer to receive from a priest. Having a preference carries no implication whatever that one is "against" the thing not chosen.
The Body of Christ is the Body of Christ no matter who you receive Him from.
Of course. Not the issue at all. I simply want to receive my Lord from the hands of the person who presided over the consecration. As a priest stated above, the Church says this is the "ordinary" way of receiving Holy Communion. I could see that offense could rightly be taken if I were bashing Extraordinary Ministers, but I'm not, as reiterated about 3,863 times by now. To criticize an abuse of a practice is not to criticize the practice.
It's also against the rubrics to raise hands during the Our Father or hold hands during it. But that is rarely ever taught, for some reason. It's harmless, yet the Church has the rubrics for good reason, I assume. 99% of the congregants who do it don't know it is against the rubrics.
Either the priests who allow it don't know what the rubrics say about that, or don't care, which I find disturbing. I think if they made a statement during the homily, 95% of Catholics would gladly obey the instruction.
"With over 2,000 people there is no way that I could distribute communion to even half of them."
Exactly, Father! That is a case where EMHCs are needed, and why the Church provides that assistance to the priest. Everything is great if folks will simply go by what the Church teaches, in its rubrics and in everything else it authoritatively proclaims.
If someone is completely against the EMHCs, they go against the Church. If someone rails against a person who simply wants to receive Holy Communion from a priest (the "ordinary" way), without being legalistic or spiritual prideful or disruptive, that is wrong, too: just as it was wrong to deprive Catholics of the right (by canon law) to receive kneeling and on the tongue: though many priests sought to deprive them of that.
Fr. Carlos (and to the other priests in this thread, on both sides of this issue),
There is no one I respect more than priests. You are extraordinary human beings, and my heroes. I immensely admire all the work priests do, and what you yourself (Fr. Carlos) do (reading your comments). I never claimed that any priest had to distribute Holy Communion to 2,000 people!
EMHCs FOR 2,000 PEOPLE IS NOT AN ABUSE OF THE RUBRICS. (I use caps because many people seem to be missing this elementary point in what I'm saying, or at any rate, have written elsewhere in other papers).
"You can decide that Communion should only be distributed by the priest because he is the most worthy person to distribute Our Lord."
That's not my reasoning at all (I can't speak for all others in the thread: they may have some erroneous thinking). My reasoning is that he is the alter Christus, and presided over the consecration. His personal holiness is technically irrelevant to this particular discussion, on the basis of the notion of ex opere operato. That was all decided definitively back in St. Augustine's time.
The Church does not forbid a Catholic from receiving from a priest if he or she wants to do that. It would be as legalistic and wrong to frown upon that or forbid it as it would be to do the same towards the EMHCs. Legalism can be present in either side of an issue.
"getting into the other line to receive Communion from the priest is not criticizing the abuse of the practice: it is criticizing the practice."
It's not criticizing anything! It's a personal preference in good faith, just as how we receive Holy Communion (standing / kneeling / hand / mouth) is: one acknowledged by the Church. There's really no argument against it.
I'm sure that some who do this are legalistic, prideful Pharisees, because legalism can be found in any belief-system or practice: we being sinful human beings. If a person is plainly being disruptive or has spiritual pride, then I am against that as much as anyone. But that has to be determined.
In any event, the simple preference to receive from a priest is not legalistic or prideful at all, in and of itself. Priests are the dispensers of the sacraments. They grant absolution. They baptize.
I received from the deacon in our parish last time I went to church. I'm not legalistic at all. He's not an alter Christus. And his being at the Mass was not an abuse.
"I am a Byzantine (Eastern) Catholic. We never use EMs – our priests don't seem to mind serving a lot of people."
This is another indication or continuance of the traditional way of doing that. Eastern Catholics comprise many many millions of Catholics. It was this way for a reason. So the Latin Rite now allows EMHCs. That's fine. The Church can do whatever she wants, and I defend her, and do so here.
At the same time, those of us who want to receive from a priest should not be insulted and frowned upon simply because we prefer to receive the way the Church dispensed Holy Communion for 1950 years. That's ludicrous. If the Church had said we must receive from the EMHC or never can receive kneeling or on the tongue, that would be entirely different. But of course that is not the case. Thus, legalism on either side of this is uncalled-for.
We've been through all this sort of argumentation regarding the TLM / EF. People who preferred that have been pilloried and insulted. Then all of a sudden JPII and BXVI started allowing it more widely. I had always advocated freedom of worship, since I became a Catholic in 1990. So I was ecstatic about all that. I myself prefer the OF. I want folks to worship as they prefer for themselves and not to be run down for it.
"I am more focused on WHO I am receiving, then WHOM I am receiving from…."
GOOD. SO AM I! The insinuation is that those of us who prefer to receive from a priest somehow think we get "more" of Jesus in doing so. No one I'm aware of is saying that, and it would be ridiculous if they did. No one is denying that Jesus is received, either way, and that that is overwhelmingly more important than any other consideration. That's not at issue. This is a question of liturgy and personal preference and piety (and what the Church allows).
"My position is if someone chooses to ONLY receive from a priest it is an act of pride."
I agree if they did that and decided never ever to receive otherwise, and/or blast the Church for allowing otherwise. But I'm not doing that, and I don't think most or all of the others on the thread who prefer the priest think that way, either.
"Life for Catholics would be a lot happier if everyone would just follow what the Church teaches."
Oh, I agree 100%. Now, can you be so kind as to tell me which Church teaching or canon law or rubric I violate for wanting to receive Holy Communion from a priest? Thanks. [it never came]
"One thing I've never understood, is why some people feel the need to publicly state that, "I only go to a Latin Mass", or "I always receive Communion on the tongue", or "I prefer to receive Communion only from a Priest." What is the purpose in making these public declarations?"
Fair enough; a fair question. Some people do do it in a prideful way, I think (I'm not saying who: God knows), because that is the human condition. Every good thing is corrupted by the devil. I agree that there is no particular reason to state this out of the blue. It usually comes up in discussions of liturgy.
It's not just a matter of some prideful bigot wanting to receive a certain way or else they'll condemn everyone including the priest, pout, and take their bat and ball and go home. It's a serious consideration regarding the Eucharist.
I've condemned legalism and pride and insults on both sides. All I'm doing is practicing my faith as I see fit, in good conscience, not trying to make any scene or disrupt anything or condemn anyone else.
"Why the need to stir up controversy with particular topics that we know will produce controversy?"
1) I think all topics regarding the Catholic faith are worth discussing.
2) Heaven help me, I am an idealist and will be to the grave, and I actually think that anyone ought to be able to discuss anything rationally, without rancor and acrimony, and that Christians should be able to do this and edify and learn from each other. The reality is often otherwise, but that is the cross we idealists bear. We keep trying.
3) Simply disagreeing is not the problem. Rather, it is when accusations of interior dispositions get slung around.
4) It's worth discussing, because there is a lot of erroneous thinking in this area about why people are doing what they do: the rationale for it, alter Christus, etc.
I agree that there have been some attacks on EMHCs too. I oppose those, not because they are never true, but because it makes the argument turn emotional, and folks get defensive. We must take pains to say that we're not against all of them because some do a lousy job at it.
"I don't think anyone is learning anything here, feelings are just being hurt."
I can't control how people behave. I expect adult Christians to conduct themselves with charity and sensibility.
But I will not refuse to have a discussion because certain folks get all in a tizzy about it. If a controversy is present, generally in my experience it is because of massive misunderstanding and/or ignorance. That's why people are getting mad. They say something about the other side that betrays their lack of understanding, then the other side gets insulted and hurt (since it misrepresents them) and it escalates.
The way to get beyond that is not to put our heads in the sand and go throw a Frisbee and sing Kumbaya around the fire, ending the night with a group hug. It's talking it through: listening to each other; interacting with opposing arguments. That's how adult Christians should be able to resolve things. But if some people want to manifest that they cannot engage in a discussion without getting angry and insulting, then it's a free country. All I can do is delete the worst offenses.
I refuse to give into the lowest common denominator. I'll keep being the biblical idealist and try to call people to a higher behavior, not give up and in effect admit that we are incapable of it, like we're a bunch of first-graders: not a whit different in behavior from the world we are called to be a witness to: offering something better and different, because of God's grace and the Holy Spirit in us.
According to 1 Corinthians 13, love "believes all things." That's part of love. I believe we can do better in talking about this.
One of the problems here is that people (on all sides of any issue) tend to think in terms of "either/or" or back and white; oppositional thinking, or what Louis Bouyer calls "dichotomous thinking": the incessant and annoying tendency of pitting one thing against another when there is no need at all to do so.
So if a person simply says, "I prefer to receive Our Lord at Mass from the priest" other people hear or think that means, "I am condemning all of you morons who receive from the EMHC and I'm spiritually superior to you."
One doesn't follow from the other. It's sort of like someone saying, "I prefer chocolate ice cream." Then the next guy says, "why are you condemning me for liking vanilla ice cream better? I'm not inferior to you!"
"Dave, you seem to ignore the fact that this approach causes division"
Jesus caused division. He said, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword; brother will be divided against brother . . ." Paul caused a big ruckus wherever he went (often riots). How is that any argument to not discuss something?
All I would have to do is delete comments from the folks who can't talk amiably to those with whom they disagree. I have deleted some, but generally I like to allow free speech as much as possible. I was a staff moderator of a forum for three years at The Coming Home Network, so I even have experience with that. We allowed absolutely no personal attacks. We were very strict about it. And I'm almost that strict on my Facebook pages.
"In fact the true Christian way, would be to be in the line least favorable, and let others receive the "best""
Okay; following that "logic" I'll seek out the crappiest, most insufficient Christian service I can find (with no sacraments, lousy sermon, ugly building, etc.), so I can be sure to exalt in my own humility in abasing myself and making sure that other folks get fed better than I do at a church service.
[That is what is called in logic, a reductio ad absurdum. Illustrating the absurdity of an opposing position by taking it to its logical extreme. St. Paul was quite fond of it.]
"I think switching lines is offensive…for any reason."
Why? Because you can't handle a person who believes in good faith in a thing you don't agree with? How does it affect you? Why must you be bothered by what someone else does? My view is, "worship and let worship." That's why I defend reception of communion in different ways, defend folks going to whatever kind of Mass they want, and now defend this choice if someone wants to make it, since the Church doesn't forbid it.
And another thing occurs to me. If this practice we are advocating is so extremely prideful: up there with the Pharisees: the most unimaginably wicked thing conceivable (receiving from a priest!), why is it that the Church doesn't simply forbid it once and for all: say that no one can choose to receive the Lord from a priest if they want to (where EMHCs are present)?
The Church has all kinds of other regulations, yet with this it says not a word (that I'm aware of). Instead we have folks condemning others for a thing the Church says nothing about.
"changing lines is not the answer to a problem."
It's not a "problem" at all: it's a preference.
"Does Jesus switch lines? no, He stays, so should you…..who is above the Master?"
Jesus didn't go to Mass; He started it. He didn't have to wait in any line. He served Himself.
Virtually all of us who do this, desire to do it "without causing a problem." Yet we're too often accused of being disruptive and raising a ruckus at Mass. People will believe whatever they want, if they have an emotional disdain of something and don't seem to even understand it in the first place. Clearly, people are out to sea on this, if they think we think it's because the priest is way holier than anyone else, or that we receive more of Jesus from him (as if Jesus can be quantified: that is rank heresy, denying His simplicity and self-sufficiency).
Nor are we saying that EMHCs are fundamentally evil and wicked and that the Church has no reason or right to allow them. Myths and fables abound.
We take three seconds max to get in one line rather than another, without causing the slightest problem. How does that somehow subtract from our adoration of our Lord?
"Maybe for the first time in their lives they feel needed? or welcomed by the church?"
Yes, maybe so. Wonderful! Good for them! Now kindly explain to me how that is any reason why I should be forced to receive Holy Communion from them?
Worship and let worship. I've never disrupted a Mass in my life. I've never personally criticized or have been rude to a priest, either in person or online (or an EMHC, either, for that matter). I always treat priests with the utmost respect and deference. I detest parish council meetings when they are filled with infighting, complaining, backbiting, trashing the priest (which seems to be, sadly, often), and refuse to participate in that (nor did I as a Protestant, with all their endless civil wars in congregations, etc.). I'm the last person in the world who wants to foster any division or bickering within a congregation.
Here is the simple solution, from m,y friend Patti Sheffield: "I just receive from whomever the Church says is okay to receive from, and don't mind if others prefer to go to a priest or a deacon. As long as nobody is disruptive it's no big deal."
The truth is so simple and right in front of us. Thanks, Patti! My variation of this would be:
"I prefer to receive from a priest whom the Church never says I should not receive from, and don't mind if others prefer to go to an EMHC. I'm not disruptive at all, so it's no big deal."
My friend Bret Bellamy wrote: "When I was Latin Catholic, my preference was to receive Communion from the priest or deacon. However, if I happened to be in a line with an EM, I continued in that line. To me, disrupting Communion for others due to my personal preference tramples on an important virtue overlooked by some/many on this issue as well as on a related issue that shall never be named. That virtue is Charity."
I agree 100% Bret. Thanks! As I've said, if I'm at another parish (since this isn't an issue at my own), I try to get into the line where the priest is, if it causes no disturbance. If not, I receive from the EMHC in the hand with no attitudes whatsoever of hatred, derision, haughtiness, arrogance, etc.
There are few other situations where my mind, heart and soul are so wholly concentrated on our Lord and adoration than when receiving Holy Communion. Any insinuation that I am supposedly thinking of all this other rotgut during that time is severely offensive to me.
***Of course "switching lines" could be disruptive. No one denies that. What we're saying is that we who do this don't cause a disruption, so it's a moot point: criticizing a thing no one is doing in the first place. Several times, we have said (in the previous thread) that if it causes a disruption, we receive from the EMHC.
Some people say they would never receive from an EMHC. As long as they don't disrupt, that's fine, but if they do cause a disruption or "scene" in order to receive from a priest, I say that that is wrong and inconsiderate of others.
***"on a personal level I am sure the vast majority [of EMHCs] are sincerely trying to serve the Church and do a good job."
I've said the same many times, too.
I'm not against the thing itself (EMHCs); I am for reform of the abuse of the thing. Huge difference . . . I don't say, "ditch all the EMHCs and what the Church wants; be gone with all of 'em." Rather, my view is: "there are widespread abuses; those should be reformed, and I personally prefer to receive from a priest, without judging anyone else, which is not my business to do."
This is completely sensible and can hardly be argued against.
***Someone also mentioned how if someone was at a Mass with the pope, wouldn't they try to receive from him? That would take it to another level still. It's still the same Jesus, but people want to receive from the pope, and there isn't one thing wrong with that.
There were actually three issues simultaneously being discussed (in the now-deleted, often acrimonious Facebook thread), and that confused things all the more:
1) Abuses in the practices of using EMHC (i.e., too many for too small of a crowd). That is the priest's fault: who should know better.
2) Abuses of some few individual EMHCs (clothes, demeanor, irreverence, ignorance of communion on the tongue). This is the individual's fault.
[neither #1 nor #2 implicate EMHCs as a class or a whole, because the fault lies with a priest or one EMHC, not the Church or the whole group]
3) The preference of an individual to receive Holy Communion from a priest. This is a permitted preference and it's no one's "fault" and does not inherently correspond with alleged pride or other unsavory dispositions. Nor does it automatically imply disdain of EMHCs.
Our reasoning is that the priest is the alter Christus who presided over the Eucharist in a way that the EMHC has not done. Thus we prefer to receive from him, as was almost exclusively done till Vatican II, still is among Eastern Catholics and Orthodox and even Anglo-Catholics.
It is not "anti-EMHC"; it's "pro-priest as the alter Christus." It's not running down EMHCs as a class or as individuals, as just clarified. They have their place. But it's often abused in numbers, and poorly trained ones do the whole valid ministry a grave disservice.
***I don't personally receive from the priest (if possible) because of any abuses among EMHCs because I have never personally been confronted with that. I go to the priest because he is the priest. Period. Its a very simple thing, really. The priest is a special person; he dispenses sacraments as part of his main duties. We want to receive our Lord from him.
***In one place I said that this perspective is not so much eucharistic (since the same Lord is received in any case) as it is liturgical and symbolic. This is why it is so misunderstood and pilloried, because traditional liturgical sensibilities and outlooks are so poorly known, primarily because many millions no longer practice them, and we are less familiar with what we have little or no personal acquaintance with.
***Another thought I have is that we shouldn't run down the special, extraordinary nature of the priest in emphasizing a greater role of the laity. As always in Catholicism, it's a "both/and" proposition." The priest remains special, while we figure out that the laity should have a greater participation, too.
I'm all for lay involvement and ministry, obviously. I've been a full time apologist for twelve years now. When it comes to EMHCs, however, that is part of the Mass, so there are obvious limitations. They can't perform the Mass, they can't consecrate (even a deacon can't do that). They can't give homilies. They can't hear confessions before Mass, or absolve. They can't give blessings. They are supposed to be used only in "extraordinary" circumstances, with large numbers, but we all know that is often (if not usually) not the case.
Quite obviously, then, they remain vastly different in status from priests, and so many of us prefer to receive from the priest. I'm truly sorry if someone is offended by that or imagines that it is "anti-EMHC." It's not.
There is also the fact that in the numerous cases of overuse of the EMHCs, partaking from them is literally participating in the abuse; knowing it is an abuse (if a person is aware of the provisions concerning them). Thus if one was trying to follow Church rubrics, there would be all the more reason to receive from the priest.
If we point out what the Church actually teaches about the use of EMHCs, all of a sudden some folks say we are disobedient to the Church? Huh? That's not even logical, let alone sensible. It's like saying that someone who loves the Bill of Rights is anti-constitutional.
If someone points out the abuses of those who do apologetics (which are many, usually in inverse proportion to how much a person knows about theology and apologetics, and how experienced they are), I readily agree and concur that it is a shame, and shouldn't happen. I don't fight against it and make out that the critic is "anti-apologetics" or hates me as a person. I don't get angry and defensive.
I join them in desiring to reform the practice that I love as my profession. I don't want to see it besmirched. Apologetics has always had a PR problem and is subject to many bum raps, so I think the less nonsense in the name of apologetics, the better.
My friend Paul Hoffer wrote: "The abuses you categorized above in 1 has as its effect a residual clericalism that improperly denigrates the importance of lay participation from the pews in the Mass."
Yes, unfortunately, any abuse gives a thing a bad reputation or name among many (we have seen the terrible tragedy and aftermath of the sex scandals in the Church). It's unfair but that is how it is. It's irrational, too, because if one notes, e.g., a bad teacher, clearly this has no implication as to all teachers or even all teachers in one school. All it proves is that that teacher was a bad apple.
The abuses you categorize in 2 is in effect a lack of theological understanding of what the Eucharist is. When I take the Eucharist to nursing homes, the home-bound sick and to hospitals, I still wear a suit and tie out of respect for the sacrament and I still pray that I am worthy to carry out this sacred office before I receive the hosts to be distributed. At Mass, when I am EMHC, I make the effort to spiritually prepare myself for the immense privilege to actually touch Our Lord and carry out His Command to take and eat. I could not even imagine irreverence before Our Lord like what you speak.
Well, I'm quite sure (because I know you) that you perform the ministry with the utmost diligence, reverence, and dignity.
That is why EMHC are only supposed to be appointed to that office for two years and receive additional formation and training to before being allowed to participate in that ministry in the future to remind of them of the awesome and humbling duties we are called to carry out.
Then how can it even be possible for an EMHC to be so ignorant of canon law and the rubrics, that they would roll their eyes at someone wanting to receive on the tongue? I guess it's clearly improper formation somewhere down the line (or screening as to character and qualifications).
Because, most parishes or dioceses for that matter do not follow the two year rule or require their EMHCs to read up on the Eucharist~Fr. Rolheiser's book "Our One Great Act of Fidelity" or Saint Augustine's sermons 227-229A, 272 or your "Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology" for example or encourage them to distribute communion outside of the Mass setting which impresses better the theology of 'missa' or mission or going forth to proclaim the Gospel which is why the Church used EMHC in the early Church in the first place.
Like I said, abusive practices lead to ignorance of theology or a failure to create a spirit of faith seeking understanding. [ . . .]
As for 3, I think it is all about attitude. If one wants to take communion from the priest to honor the mystery of the priesthood as spoken of by BL. JPII in Dominicae coenae (1980), that is laudable; but if one is doing it because one denies that EMHC's are a legitimate expression of our participation in Christ's priestly office, that is not.
I agree. My reasoning is not to deny the legitimacy of the EMHC; it's based on the undeniable fact that the EMHC is not a priest, and preferring the latter for the purpose of reception of Holy Communion.
Bottom line is this, the office of EMHC is subject to abuse like all ministerial offices, but if nonpriests did not have a legitimate role in the distribution of communion we would have no St. Tarcisius after whom I try to model myself after when I am called to carry out the office of EMHC nor would we have deacons distributing communion.
I think they do "have a legitimate role". Holy Mother Church has said so and I follow and defend her at all points. The biggest abuse by far is overuse, which is not the fault of the EMHC at all. They're gonna do what the priest tells them, and they should. But someone somewhere down the line has to communicate with the priest that there is such a thing as overuse.
if I switch lines at Communion because of my dislike for a priest or deacon, what message am I sending?
One that says you harbor sinful ill will. Of course most people wouldn't know the interior disposition, but I'm going with your example. That's not a theological or liturgical argument (at least not regarding the priest) but a personal grudge.
Does it not give the appearance that the mystical Body of Christ is not a reality?
It indicates a sinful attitude.
Switching lines because one does not want to take communion from a EMHC is no different.
One thing is sin and the other is a mere preference based on the status of the priest. We simply can't be forced to partake from the EMHC. No canon law that I'm aware of forbids a preference for the priest. Preferring one thing does not automatically entail disdaining the other: which I have constantly disagreed with as illogical and not necessarily following at all, using the (trivial but analogous) example of being in the line for chocolate ice cream and then someone else saying, "why are you against vanilla ice cream?"
Like a deacon expressed in my newer thread on this topic, there is nothing whatever wrong with that as long as it is expressed as a preference and not as a dogmatic or legalistic thing. The preference itself is for the alter Christus over the one who is not.
If the office of the EMHC is being rejected altogether, on the other hand, then your point is a valid one in that instance.
Such an attitude was declaimed by St. Paul at 1 Cor. 12.
That chapter is about different parts and offices of the Body of Christ all being valid and important. I have not denied that the EMHC is a valid office or ministry. I commend all who undertake it, provided they do so properly (as you, no doubt, do). Your argument would only hold for one who is doing that (and I think that was probably your intention).
St. Paul is teaching there that God distributes gifts as He wills. He also "distributes" various differences in how Catholics (in all good conscience) prefer to worship; differences in liturgy: what rite; various options within rites (and we must respect those, too, by the same token). Thus, this is one of those things. To simply prefer one way has no direct relationship to what our opinion of another way is, or of those who choose it. If we can choose entirely distinct Masses to attend, certainly we can choose one communion line over the other when they lead to those who hold different offices in the Church.
As another analogy, many people don't care much for apologetics (in fact, I know that for sure!). Some of them may be legalistic or biblically ignorant enough to actually say it is a worthless endeavor altogether (just because they don't like it). But most people, I think, would recognize that it is valid and important and modeled in Scripture: but just not their cup of tea.
That isn't sinful, if it is in the second, non-legalistic sense, nor is it running down altogether what one personally doesn't engage in.
Neither is the preference of receiving Holy Communion from a priest. The only argument that can be made against it is where disruption or excessive legalism are present, too, or, as you have been arguing, if the very role and office of the EMHC is "dissed." I heartily condemn both attitudes / actions, with you.
***It is clearly an abuse if use of EMHCs is seen as permanent and ongoing, regardless of how many parishioners are present. That's simply an abuse. It's supposed to be "extraordinary" use. Words ought to mean things. I don't think Paul defended that, or would agree with the scenario one person mentioned where there were 25 people at the Mass and three EMHCs were still used. That is plainly an abuse.
I can see three different scenarios where it would be perfectly acceptable to not receive from an EMHC:
1) Due to far too frequent experiences of abuses in the past (such as Michele was recounting). One is entitled to remove oneself from such annoying abuses; nothing wrong with that. That is a result of poor formation or selection of those EMHCs. No Catholic need be subjected to such unnecessary annoyances during this holy and sacred moment of the Mass. Thus, it is avoided by going to the priest.
2) Refusing to participate in an abuse (too many EMHCs being used, contrary to the rubrics). That is being obedient to the Church, by refusing to engage in acts that imply consent to an abuse.
3) Simply preferring the priest, as I have argued in various ways.
That's not just one good reason; it's three, and I don't see any way to refute or overthrow them. Abuse is abuse: the first two are two different abuses that occur, and the third is a perfectly valid preference.
The entire related earlier thread on my personal Facebook page, originally from August 2013, has been taken down, because:
1) The meme offended several people and doesn't adequately or accurately express my actual opinions. No sense offending so many people; and at the same time what they are offended by isn't even (at least based on one report of someone highly offended) my true opinion.
2) The thread itself was a free-for-all. I am fessing up to my part in causing that by an overly harsh and provocative meme.
3) I'm sorry that all the comments (450!) had to go with it, but I think, overall, it was best to take it down. I want good discussions to take place on my pages: not hurt feelings and rancor and misunderstandings all around.
Deacon Sean Smith: I guess I have a preference, too. In my view, it isn't about what we "prefer" and more about how we act. If our actions in service of our preferences are disruptive, then that seems to run counter to the very idea of "Communion". If our preferences are based on poor theology, then the theology should be reconsidered, and then maybe the preference.
I agree; as I stated over and over: there is to be no disruption of anything. Alter Christus and the special, extraordinary status of the priest are very good and true theological positions to hold, as far as that goes.
If we can act on our preferences in a manner that doesn't make them any more than preferences (I prefer Pepsi to Coke), then go for it.
I like that way of expressing it. Thanks! It's being overly dogmatic or legalistic from any perspective, or falling into dichotomous, "either/or" thinking, that creates problems and ill will.
I suspect a big reason this topic generated so much attention is that too many of us have experienced people absolutely being disruptive. If people acted as you described, then there really wouldn't be much to discuss.
I'm sorry to hear that. People fall short in any way that they possibly can, so it's no surprise that this happens (how often it does, I don't know), and I condemn it wholeheartedly along with you.
***I've never "switched" lines. If I can get in the priest's line, without making the slightest disturbance, I do. If not, I go to the EMHC (and receive in the hand) without the slightest disgruntlement, etc., or any other negative emotion or distraction from adoration of our Lord. I have no problem receiving in the hand because I know that it was very common in the early Church; in fact, it seems to have been the norm then, for some six centuries. Thus, I feel that I am participating in an equally valid liturgical tradition in doing that.
In my own parish, it is at the altar rail kneeling, on the tongue, which 95% of us do: all at the rail: some few in the hand.


text: Welcome to Kilkenny Trail Riders home on the web! We are very excited to be the newest Northern NH ATV club and are proud to be part of the North Country OHRV Coalition. Our roots in the Southern tip of Coos County put our members in the ideal place to pursue 1,000+ miles of interconnected ATV trails throughout Northern New Hampshire known as Ride the Wilds. Northern New Hampshire's beautiful landscape offers an unmatched, premium riding destination. Nestled in quaint Lancaster NH, the Kilkenny Trail Riders club offers enthusiasts a unique offering of hospitable businesses including motels, campgrounds, restaurants gas stations, convenience stores and OHRV dealerships that fully support our growing sport.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Moleskine 2021 Weekly Notebook - Black Hard Cover
Planner Details
For 2021, the Moleskine Classic Weekly Notebook is dated from January 2021 through December 2021, with a week-at-a-view format.
The weekly notebook layout features the days of the week on the left, with a ruled page on the right for notes, lists, and memos. The weekly notebook helps you organize each day's appointments, one week at a time, and will help you keep track of the little details that make up your busy schedule.
- Pocket 3.5" x 5.5" | 9 x 14 cm | 144 pages
- Large 5" x 8.25" | 13 x 21 cm | 144 pages
- X Large 7.5" x 9.75" | 19 x 25 cm | 144 pages
- Dated January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021
- Weekly format, with the days of the week on the left and a ruled page on the right
- Durable black hardcover with rounded corners
- Acid free paper
- Pocket in back for loose notes
- Elastic closure
- Bound-in bookmark
- Imported
Moleskine planners are an essential tool for creatives and thinkers. The classic simple design offers endless custom possibilities, from company logos to personalized inscriptions. Choose from lots of cover colors, page styles, and sizes.
Personalization Details
Moleskine planners look great personalized with embossing. Add your name or inscription to make it uniquely yours.
- Font: Goudy
- Size: 18 pt - 36 pt depending on inscription length
- Color: Gold foil embossing
- Position: Lower right corner
- Max: 2 Lines, up to 20 characters and spaces per line
- Special requests: We can do the embossing blind (no color fill), and it can be in a different position if you prefer. Add a note to your order, we'll do our best to accommodate you
Click here to learn more about personalization
Add A Logo
Promote your brand by adding a custom logo. We have lots of ways to showcase your design. Foil stamping, blind embossing, custom typesetting, title pages, and custom belly bands allow you to customize a planner for your brand.
- No minimums
- Bulk discounts
- One-time logo setup fee
- Digital proofs and one-on-one consultation
- Fast turnaround time
- 100% guarantee


text:
A development dream for hidden S.F. bayfront wildland
Builder has utopian goal for a bayfront property loved by locals
There's a tract of land in India Basin that's one of San Francisco's best-kept secrets: 14 acres of wild waterfront grassland that is home to coyotes and hawks and a destination for weekend anglers fishing for stripers.
Chances are it won't be secret for long.
Build Inc. has purchased the property at 700 Innes Ave. for $15 million and is preparing a proposal to construct about 900 residential units there. While the developer is putting together its preliminary planning application, company representatives have been meeting with the India Basin Neighborhood Association to discuss scenarios for the site.
"They have been running ideas past folks in the neighborhood, which is laudable," said resident Michael Hamman, whose building overlooks the site. "They are listening. Nobody is ready to start throwing rocks at them - yet."
Build Inc. principal Michael Yarne said his firm is leaning heavily on a "community vision" that the neighborhood association released in 2010. It calls for a "complete neighborhood," with a balance of retail, parks, maritime activities and housing. There would be a 300-foot-wide shoreline buffer zone, 40-foot height limits, a boating center and a restaurant row to the north.
"We want people who are going to move here, put down roots and raise a family," Hamman said. "We are pushing against the tide because the money for the developers is in bedrooms - nothing else."
Different visions
While the neighborhood plan envisions about a third of the number of units that Build Inc. is contemplating constructing, Yarne said his group is "taking that community vision seriously, and our vision has grown from that."
"We are committed to working with them to create a complete neighborhood, attracting services that are missing in India Basin right now, largely because there is not enough density to support them."
The Build Inc. property sits between two other significant projects. To the north, at 900 Innes Ave., the city recently purchased a 2.4-acre parcel to convert to parkland. To the south is the largest development project in the history of San Francisco: Lennar Urban's $7 billion, 745-acre redevelopment of the Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point. The first 247 units out of about 12,500 are under construction and are being marketed for sale. The fence that runs along the northern edge of Lennar's property marks the beginning of Build Inc.'s India Basin land.
The India Basin sub-district of Bayview-Hunters Point isn't crowded with residents. Houses line Innes Avenue, and up the hill are the San Francisco Housing Authority's recently renovated Hunters View residences. There's a variety store called Surfside Liquors - outside, retired men barbecue, chew the fat, and play cards or dominos.
Given the size of the Lennar project, and the fact that its early phases don't include retail, India Basin residents say the Build Inc. project has the potential to become a retail center for the entire area.
Kofi Bonner, executive vice president with Lennar Urban, said: "Our development is, obviously, very large. Hunters View is large. Build Inc.'s parcel is large. These three became data points for development, which typically spurs smaller infill developments, and that is where it really gets exciting for the community."
Whatever Build Inc. proposes is bound to be a vast improvement over the last proposal for the property. In 2004 the Acosta family, which paid $17 million for the property, proposed three 650-foot towers for the site, a concept dubbed Harbor Village Resort. The project was so out of scale with neighborhood zoning, and so contrary to what the Bay Conservation and Development Commission would allow, that the property owner was practically laughed out of City Hall. The project eventually went bankrupt and the lender took back the property.
Assets appreciated
Not to say that the current approval process will be smooth. The people of India Basin are fiercely protective of what they have. They currently have access to and enjoy the land now owned by Build Inc. They walk their dogs there. They build whimsical sculptures along footpaths and have improvised a little sitting area with barbecue equipment, a hammock and lawn chairs.
Hamman, a contractor who moved to San Francisco from North Carolina during the 1967 Summer of Love, lives in a converted boatbuilding barn that overlooks the property. Hamman has a rotund sheep named Shaun and half a dozen chickens. He keeps bees and tends a garden with corn, chard, tomatoes and blackberries.
"India Basin has the most fantastic weather on the planet. Look at these tomato plants, look at the chard, look at the corn," Hamman said. "If you told your readers that there is a guy growing corn in San Francisco that was as tall as he was, they would run out and say he was a liar."
He said the community is committed to protecting the sense of wilderness that currently exists, something that Yarne said he understands.
"One of the messages we have heard loud and clear is that the residents want to protect the wild and feral character that makes it so special," he said. "We think that's a laudable goal."
Yarne said Build Inc. is talking to the city about a joint project to create a seamless open space. The park could eventually grow even larger once PG&E completes cleanup of the shuttered gas power plant to the north of the 900 Innes land. "We are looking at the entire basin as an integrated whole," Yarne said.
PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith said the cleanup of the old gas plant is 95 percent complete. He said the city has a right of refusal to develop the property. "No specific long-term plan has been announced or determined."
Build Inc. is also talking to an affordable-housing developer about incorporating a significant amount of for-sale housing targeted at middle-income families, he said. Jack Gardner, president of the John Stewart Co., a developer and residential management company, said his group has been in talks with Build Inc. about the affordable-housing component.
"I'm glad we are not the only new kids on the block," Gardner said. "It's great to see other people come in and place bets on the neighborhood, not run roughshod over the existing residents, and make sure it doesn't gentrify or displace the existing community."
J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: email@example.com Twitter: @sfjkdineen


text:
Crew centerback Giancarlo Gonzalez has drawn rave reviews for his play as the anchor of Costa Rica's defense at the 2014 FIFA World Cup. Most notably, the defender was named to ESPNFC's Best XI from the Group Stage. That nomination even occurred before perhaps Gonzalez's best individual match of the tournament in the penalty shootout victory over Greece, where "Pipo" played all 120 minutes (including one full-field sprint in the waning moments of the match to help break up a Greek five-on-two) and even slotted a spot kick in the shootout.
The praise simply hasn't stopped. Gonzalez was named to The Guardian's "10 emerging players who have lit up the tournament" list. His face adorns a new banner on Crew Stadium. Costa Rica flags have popped up in the Nordecke. It's Pipo Mania in Columbus – and it's completely deserved.
Consider the gauntlet which the Ticos emerged from in winning their group. Finishing tops among the likes of Italy, Uruguay and England is impressive enough on its own, but Gonzalez and Costa Rica did so while allowing zero goals from the run of play. Pipo played all 270 minutes of the group stage, which included 90 minutes against Edinson Cavani, Mario Balotelli, Andrea Pirlo and Daniel Sturridge, in addition to 60 minutes of Diego Forlan and 14 minutes of Wayne Rooney. Save for a penalty by Cavani, the Ticos were unflappable in defense.
That continued on to the Round of 16, where a late Greek equalizer against a 10-man side was the first goal scored from the run of play against Costa Rica, but still not enough to set them out of the tournament. Now, Gonzalez and the Ticos are set to face a dangerous Netherlands side in the next huge chance on the big stage for the Crew centerback and his teammates.
The fact is, Gonzalez has performed like one of the best defenders in the world over the course of this tournament, and FIFA metrics back that case up.
At the heart of the Ticos' five-man backline, Gonzalez has blocked five shots in this tournament. That's tied for sixth in the entire FIFA World Cup and second among players whose teams are still alive in the tournament, which is key in this instance because it stands to reason that better teams concede fewer shots. When called upon, Gonzalez has gotten the job done.
Pipo also is tied for 12th in the tournament in recovered balls, with 27. And remember that full-field sprint against Greece? That was just a small sliver of the 25.7 miles that Gonzalez has ran over Costa Rica's four matches, an average of 6.4 per contest. Only four central defenders have covered more ground than Pipo, who ranks 38th out of all players in the statistic, impressive enough because you often think of box-to-box midfielders, pressing fullbacks or high work-rate strikers as the players covering the most ground.
This might be the most impressive aspect of Pipo's tournament, however: of the 25.7 miles, 10.3 have come with Costa Rica not in possession of the ball. That total ties Pipo for the lead among all central defenders, and it also ranks him 11th in the whole tournament. Simply put, no centerback has done more in terms of hustling for position to properly defend without the ball.
There's also the Castrol Index, which is a catch-all numerical rating system that FIFA says measures every pass, tackle and move on the field, assessing them to see if they have a positive or negative impact on a team's ability to score or concede a goal. By this metric, Gonzalez has been the 18th best central defender in the entire tournament, which doesn't sound too impressive until you consider the names he ranks ahead of: Sergio Ramos, Per Mertesacker, Gary Cahill and Giorgio Chiellini, just to name a few.


text:
Recently the MECHANICAL PIG joined Twitter. Now the pig has been upgraded to take advantage of the emergent collective intelligence of web 2.0! The MECHANICAL PIG can now be controlled via the remote PIG TERMINAL. Users upload programs in the PIG CONTROL LANGUAGE for the pig to execute on Twitter!
Posts tagged pig
MECHANICAL PIG goes web 2.0
August 23rd, 2009
MECHANICAL PIG update
July 7th, 2009
Attention Web 2.0 fans! The MECHANICAL PIG is now Twitter-enabled! You can follow its progress here: http://twitter.com/MECHANICALPIG
More to follow!


text:
Hilary Rosner has an interesting piece at Wired Science on the campaign to keep the critically endangered Devils Hole pupfish from going extinct.
Background: during the Pluvial period there were a lot of occasionally interconnected lakes in the American southwest, and some of those lakes had little fish in them of what we'd later call genus Cyprinodon. Climate changed, the desert dried up, and desert Cyprinodons found themselves restricted to smaller and smaller bodies of water in the desert. Predictably, speciation occurred when populations were separated, and now five species live in the little bits of remaining fresh and not-so-fresh water in the desert.
Cyprinodon is a cosmopolitan genus, and many of its member species are doing okay, but desert Cyprinodons are having a tough time, as you might expect of freshwater fish in the desert. The Devils Hole pupfish, Cyprinodon diabolus, is facing the biggest threat of all: its only remaining natural habitat is Devils Hole with no apostrophe, a geothermal spring (92°F/33°C) in a limestone cave in Nevada, with the breeding habitat of the entire species limited to a small rock shelf just beneath the surface of the water. A century of groundwater pumping for agriculture has made that habitat even more tenuous. The fish live a year, and there's a significant seasonal population crash each winter when less light means less algae. In September, according to Rosner, the global population of Devils Hole pupfish dropped from its usual level in the mid-100s to about 75 individuals.
There's some question rising whether the Devils Hole pupfish is actually a "good" species, or simply a perpetually starved and overheated strain of the neighboring Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes, the Ash Meadows pupfish. (Cyprinodon nevadensis is commonly split up into six subspecies, all of them but the extinct Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae still holding on slightly better than their cousin in Devils Hole. As Rosner describes, when an Ash Meadows pupfish somehow snuck into a holding tank with some Devils Hole pupfish in it, the pupfish suddenly started breeding more successfully, and within a few generations all the fish had Ash Meadows ancestry. Predictably, a pupfish biologist has suggested that a few Ash Meadows pupfish be slipped into Devils Hole to reinvigorate the population, and just as predictably others are horrified at the idea.
Rosner's got a pretty good rundown of the politics involved, though she stumbles a bit in her handling of the definition of "species":
Martin wants to cross two separate species. That's supposed to be a no-no. In fact, by one definition of what constitutes a species, it shouldn't even be possible. Scientists have long thought of species as reproductively isolated units. In the days before Darwin, if two animals couldn't produce fertile offspring, it meant they were different species. Then things got complicated.… But it turns out that biology doesn't even adhere to those categories. For example, the ability to reproduce can evolve far more slowly than other traits. So when one species branches off from another, it may still be able to breed with its relatives up the evolutionary tree. "It raises the question, what really is a species? It's very hard to clearly articulate," says M. Sanjayan, lead scientist for the Nature Conservancy. "There are lots of things that can breed together but look morphologically and genetically different." That means scientists triaging endangered species might have more options than they thought.
Rosner seems to be saying that wildlife biologists are largely unaware of the vagaries inherent in applying the Biological Species Concept to real life, which would be news to any of the biologists I've met working in the desert. A species is a rough, somewhat arbitrary pigeonhole that we lean on because we want there to be a Basic Unit of Biodiversity. Biologists working in the field to help conserve that biodiversity end up improvising to fill in the gaps in the species concept. For management purposes, species are subdivided into subspecies, varieties, Evolutionarily Significant Units, Recovery Units, and probably half a dozen other terms of convenience I'm forgetting.
All those categories and subcategories are at least partially subjective ways of parceling out a flood of organisms into relevant family groups. Due to those subjectivities, one person's revitalizing a genetically depauperate fish population with a sibling stock is another's swamping a native population with an invasive exotic fish species.
As Rosner points out, the issue is relevant beyond the steep walls of Devils Hole. I spent the weekend at a meeting of the Sierra Club Desert Committee, listening to activists and agency staff give updates on regional environmental issues, and one of those updates was on plans by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to start depopulating the controversial Desert Tortoise Conservation Center. There are about 2,700 tortoises at the center south of Las Vegas, most of them collected in the years when Vegas was busily sprawling out into the desert, but a substantial minority consisting of surrendered pets and their offspring. The Center, which is run by the San Diego Zoo, is overrun with torts. Before the San Diego Zoo took over management a few years back, there were so many tortoises there and such poor veterinary management that some desert wildlife biologists referred to the place as the Desert Tortoise Concentration Camp. Everyone I've talked to about the place says the Zoo has made things a lot better. Still, taking care of three thousand torts is expensive, so the Center wants to release some of the healthier ones into what it deems appropriate places: 17 wilderness areas, five wilderness study areas and other land in Nevada, including a stretch of land in the northern Ivanpah Valley that's already had 9,000 tortoises relocated there.
Tortoises have recently been split out into two species, one for each side of the Colorado River. Within the western species there's a whole lot of regional genetic diversity, unsurprising for a long-lived, slow-moving species that prefers not to migrate far from its home territory. Tortoises in Southern Nevada have a fair bit of genetic distinctness from those in California's Colorado Desert, and they're both distinct from torts in the West Mojave near Los Angeles. Historic attempts to translocate tortoises from one place to another have been done with those genetics in mind, for the most part.
That seems to be a thing of the past, though. The USFWS representative at the meeting pointed out that the resources aren't there to scrutinize each released tortoise's genome; apparently, the Center's answer is to eyeball each tortoise and figure out whether each one looks Nevadan. Problem is, many of those surrendered pet tortoises might well have come from the extreme western edge of the species' range, several Recovery Units away. Records are lacking.
So like with the Devils Hole pupfish and its neighboring cousins, the question becomes: to what degree do we preserve the local native genome of a population? It's very likely that local populations of tortoises have some traits that serve to help the animals contend with local conditions, but other traits may well be a fluke of inheritance. Where do we draw the line?


text:
There are two ways to view investors: quantitatively and qualitatively.
You can quantify investors by doing an audit of the current investor base. Who are your dominant investors? Which categories are overweight compared with market, industry, or peer group averages? These investors are the ones that are most attracted to your current value proposition. If you aren't attracting the type of investors that represent a natural fit with your value creation strategy, how can you address the issue?
The qualitative view requires the business to engage in a rich dialogue with dominant investor groups. This goes far beyond what passes as traditional investor relations at most companies; it's taking the time to really understand investor attitudes and requirements. Ask the tough questions, and listen carefully to the answers.
BCG can help businesses combine qualitative and quantitative measures to deliver a clearer picture of what investors are looking for when they buy your shares. Knowing how investors view your business and assess its performance can help identify and address potential disconnects.


text:
Mid-Rise Compression Tight
$99.95 $79.00
Mid-Rise Compression Tight
$99.95 $79.00
Engineered with our new wide waistband for greater coverage and support, the 2XU Mid-Rise Compression Tights offer maximum comfort and coverage. Perfect for any activity or post-exercise recovery.
Product Variations
- Color:
- Size:
Product Actions
Technical specifications
Item No: WA2864b-BLK_MCZ-XS-cto
Product Details
The 2XU Mid-Rise Compression Tights are a versatile and essential piece for any activity or post exercise recovery. These graduated tights are breathable and lightweight, yet supportive to major muscles. A high comfort wide waistband supports the core for enhanced technique and stability during activity. Body firming and ideal for both low and high impact training, competition or recovery demands.
- Graduated compression engineered to promote maximum blood flow
- Faster pre-exercise muscle warm up
- Reduced fatigue through less muscle oscillation
- Reduced muscle soreness
- Reduced long-term overuse injuries
- Greater power output
- Heightened proprioception and awareness of limb placement for agility
Delivery & returns
Estimated Shipping Time is 1-5 business days Australia wide.
Upon dispatch you will receive an email confirmation containing the Tracking details and estimated time of delivery of your order.
Garments can be returned or exchanged within 30 days of purchase, provided the garment is in sellable condition.
Click here to organise an exchange or return of an online purchase.
Care instructions
For wetsuit care instructions: Click Here
To best care for 2XU garments:
- Machine wash in cold water with like colours.
- Do NOT Tumble dry.
- Hang to dry in a cool shady area away from sun.
- Do not use bleach, fabric softeners or dryer sheets.
- Do not iron.
Garment Features
- Compression support to adductors, glutes, quadriceps, hamstrings and calves to reduce muscle movement
- Graduated compression increases circulation for improved recovery and reduced muscle stiffness post-exercise
- PWX 70D front panel for heightened flexibility and PWX 160D back panel for greater coverage
- Wide Power Mesh waistband for a comfortable yet secure fit
- Body-firming and sculpting fit
- Hidden pocket in waistband for phone and essentials
- Flatlock comfort seams to reduce chafe


text:
No matter how many times James Franco has denied reports that he's a closeted gay man -- fueled in part by his choice of roles -- the rumors and jokes still persist.
Comedy Central's September 2 "Roast of James Franco" included so many gay jokes that Buzzfeed felt compelled to count them (26 in total).
But Franco told The Daily Beast in a recent interview that he wasn't bothered by all the references to his sexuality.
"Great! Bring on the gay jokes!" because these aren't insults at all," the 35-year-old said. "I don't even care if people think I'm gay, so it was like, "Awesome!" I mean, I wish I was … I wish I was gay."
When asked why, Franco said that he's "fine" with his public image.
I mean … we don't have to go into it. But as far as that larger phenomenon that you're talking about that happens to other actors, part of it is that movies are a place where people can project things and identify with characters, and it's the same thing with actors outside of their roles—and it's been that way since Hollywood was around. That's why there's a lot of conjecture. That's been one of my things, too. My relationship with my public image over the past four or five years has just become weirder and weirder, because I look at it and it's me, and it's not me, so if other people want to use that for their own purposes or needs, I'm fine with it.
Franco directed and starred in his latest film, "Child of God," based on a novel by Cormac McCarthy.


text:
|About SKC
|Terms of Use
|Privacy Policy
|© Copyright 2020 SKC Inc.
|The BioSampler® collects bioaerosols in liquid for sample times up to eight hours when used in connection with the sonic-flow BioLite+ pump. Use BioSampler for IAQ investigations, infection control in hospitals and veterinary clinics, biological research, infectious disease investigations in public buildings, safety concerns in the food handling industry, and workplace exposure in pulp and paper mills and wastewater treatment plants.
|Up to 8 hours
|Sonic flow through BioSampler nozzles (12.5 L/min)
|Sample Pump
|Sample Media
Water or more viscous, non-evaporating liquids such as ViaTrap mineral oil
|1/4-inch ID and 3/8-inch ID
Bioaerosols are airborne particles of biological origin (e.g., bacteria, fungi, pollen, viruses) and their by-products such as endotoxins or mycotoxins and other fragments. While there is no standardized method for bioaerosol collection at this time, many organizations, including SKC, are researching improved measurement techniques. The BioSampler is a result of SKC's work with leading scientists at the University of Cincinnati.
|All-glass Impinger (AGI-30) 30 refers to the distance in millimeters between the inlet stem or jet and the base of the impinger.
Sampling with the BioSampler
The BioSampler must be operated with a sonic flow pump, such as the BioLite+ Sample Pump, that can maintain 15 inches mercury or 0.5 of an atmosphere of downstream pressure in the system. The BioSampler's three tangential nozzles act as critical (sonic) orifices, each permitting 4.2 L/min of ambient air to pass through for a total flow rate of approximately 12.5 L/min.
Analysis Methods
BioSampler samples provide many analysis options. Contact a laboratory for collection liquid requirements.
Performance Criteria
Although the topic of much discussion, no performance criteria for bioaerosol sampling have been adopted at this time (i.e., experimentally determined values to assess the suitability of a collection method for a specific application).4
Two performance characteristics are critical when choosing a bioaerosol sampler:
Figure 1. (click to enlarge)
Test particle: PSL (Polystyrene Latex Beads)
Collection fluid: 20 ml deionized water
Sampling flow rate: 12.5 L/min BioSampler Collection Efficiency
* ViaTrap mineral oil may not be suitable for PCR analysis.
SKC BioSampler Spec. Sheet (PDF)
SKC BioSampler Operating Instructions (PDF)
BioLite+ Operating Instructions (PDF)
BioSampler Analytical Laboratories Reference List
Gruber, Matthew L. Using QPCR for Rapid Quantification of Occupational Exposures to Brucella abortus. MS thesis. Montana Tech of The University of Montana, 2012. (PDF)


text:
Empress Pearl Bracelet Set
Or 4 installments of $10.50 by afterpay Learn more about Afterpay
Estimated Delivery : Dec 09 - Dec 10
FREE 2-day shipping on all orders within the US.
Returns are FREE in the US via:
- In person with Happy Returns
- The mail
Returns are accepted within 30 days of purchase for a full refund and 60 days for an exchange or store credit. Restrictions apply.
Return within 30 days if unopened and unused
- 18k gold plated brass bracelet set
- Stretch bracelet
- Swarovski pearl
- Set of 3
- Made in USA
- Revolve Style No. SHAS-WL259
- Manufacturer Style No. EMPRESS
In 2009, designers Yuvi Alpert and Danna Kobo debuted Shashi, an everyday jewelry line that holds to the unique quality of their luxury brand Ruby Kobo. As the free-spirited, bohemian-inspired sister collection to their main line, Shashi is fraught with dainty jewels and beaded pieces, architectural rings, and bright friendship bracelets. Pile them on or wear them alone for a style that is all your own.
If an item you would like to purchase is out of stock, you can place a Special Order Inquiry. REVOLVE will then check the availability and obtain an approximate arrival date for the item, if available. Typically, it takes up to 3-4 weeks to verify this information.
Placing a Special Order Inquiry is absolutely free and there is no obligation to follow through with a purchase.
- You will be notified by email once we receive the item.
- You may cancel at any time without penalty
- Your card will ONLY be charged when your order is shipped.
- Availability is not guaranteed.


text:
For Immediate Release, December 16, 2013
Lawsuit Seeks to Protect Whales, Dolphins From Deadly Navy Sonar in Pacific
Millions of Marine Mammals Face Injury, Death Off Hawaii, Southern California
HONOLULU— A lawsuit filed in Hawaii federal court today challenges the National Marine Fisheries Service's approval of a five-year plan by the U.S. Navy for testing and training activities off Hawaii and Southern California. The Navy and Fisheries Service estimate this training, approved last Friday, will cause 9.6 million instances of harm to whales, dolphins and other marine mammals. The operations will include active sonar and explosives, which are known to cause permanent injuries and deaths to marine mammals.
Ocean mammals depend on hearing for navigation, feeding and reproduction. Scientists have linked military sonar and live-fire activities to mass whale beaching, exploded eardrums and even death. In 2004, during war games near Hawaii, the Navy's sonar was implicated in a mass stranding of up to 200 melon-headed whales in Hanalei Bay, Kaua'i.
The Navy and Fisheries Service estimate that, over the plan's five-year period, training and testing activities will result in thousands of animals suffering permanent hearing loss, lung injuries or death. Millions of animals will be exposed to temporary injuries and disturbances, with many subjected to multiple harmful exposures.
Earthjustice represents Conservation Council for Hawai'i, the Animal Welfare Institute, the Center for Biological Diversity and Ocean Mammal Institute in the case.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires that a range of alternatives be considered — including alternatives that could be pursued with less environmental harm — and that the public have an opportunity to review and comment on that analysis. The groups have gone to court because the Fisheries Service approved the Navy's plan without evaluating any alternatives that would place biologically important areas off-limits to training and testing.
"Live-fire and ocean sonar training harms critically endangered marine mammals like Hawaii's insular false killer whales, which number only about 150 individuals and rely heavily on their acute sense of hearing to survive," said David Henkin of Earthjustice. "When federally protected species are on the line, the law requires the Fisheries Service to take a hard look at ways to avoid harming them and to involve the public in examining alternative courses of action."
"Some of the marine mammals threatened by Navy activities are already on the brink of extinction, such as the Hawaiian monk seal, our state mammal and one of the world's most endangered species. The Fisheries Service has determined that Hawaiian monk seals in the main Hawaiian Islands are essential to the species' survival. Under the plan it just approved, however, each one of these seals will be harmed by sonar an average of 10 times a year," said Conservation Council for Hawai'i's Marjorie Ziegler. "If we can save even a few seals through better planning, we must. Much of this harm can be avoided and mitigated, if only the Fisheries Service had the backbone to require it."
"The whales and dolphins who wind up in the middle of the war games don't stand a chance against the Navy. This proposal increases the predicted harm to marine mammals by more than 10 times. The Fisheries Service needs to do better to protect our oceans by preventing harm to the animals that call those oceans home," said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
"The lawsuit is not asking to stop the Navy from training," said Susan Millward, executive director of Animal Welfare Institute. "Rather, we are asking our government to take the required 'hard look' before inflicting this much harm on vulnerable marine mammals populations and to consider alternatives that would allow the Navy to achieve its goals with less damage. For taxpayer-funded activities at this scale, citizen oversight often helps create a better plan."
"The science is clear: Sonar and live-fire training in the ocean harms marine mammals," said Dr. Marsha Green, Ocean Mammal Institute's president. "There are safer ways to conduct Navy exercises that include time and place restrictions to avoid areas known to be vital for marine mammals' feeding, breeding and resting. With a little advanced planning and precaution, the Navy can conduct training and protect marine species in the Pacific Ocean."
Additional Resources:
Watch a video shot by the Center for Whale Research in Washington state. Hear what Navy sonar sounds like and see what it does to marine mammals (in the video, orcas).
Earthjustice is a nonprofit, public-interest, environmental law firm. The Mid-Pacific office opened in Honolulu in 1988 as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, and has represented dozens of environmental, native Hawaiian, and community organizations. Earthjustice is the only non-profit environmental law firm in Hawai'i and the Mid-Pacific, and does not charge clients for its services. For more information, visit www.earthjustice.org.
Conservation Council for Hawai'i is a Hawai'i-based, nonprofit environmental organization founded in 1950 to protect native Hawaiian species and ecosystems for future generations. For more information, visit www.conservehi.org.
Animal Welfare Institute is a national nonprofit charitable organization founded in 1951 and dedicated to reducing animal suffering caused by people. AWI engages policymakers, scientists, industry, and the public to achieve better treatment of animals everywhere—in the laboratory, on the farm, in commerce, at home, and in the wild. For more information, visit www.awionline.org.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 625,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. For more information, visit www.biologicaldiversity.org.
Ocean Mammal Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to doing ecologically sensitive research on cetaceans and their interactions with humans and on the protection of marine life and marine ecosystems. For more information, visit www.oceanmammalinst.org.
Go back


text:
The Vietnam War | Broadcast Version
Vietnamese Subtitles: Combat is an Enormous High |First Look
Clip: Season 1 | 1m 12s
A soldier describes the enormous high and enormous cost of being in combat. One of many perspectives in The Vietnam War: An Epic Event from Ken Burns and Lynn Novick. #VietnamWarPBS
Aired: 09/06/17
Buy Now:
Problems Playing Video? | Closed Captioning


text:
About My Pogo Backdoor
My Pogo Backdoor lets you get into pogo game rooms even when they are listed as full on pogo. More backdoor information.
Contact My Pogo Backdoor
To let us know that a backdoor isn't working, or that there's some other problem with the site, email this address; send all other enquires (such as advertising offers) to this address.


text:
BOYS BASKETBALL: Wilcox Tech defeats Litchfield on the road
LITCHFIELD >> Stars shone bright on both teams Monday evening in a 70-57 Wilcox Tech win at Litchfield High School.
In the championship consolation game for a snow-delayed Litchfield Hills Holiday Showcase, Litchfield's Steve Rinquist (20 points, six 3-pointers) beamed for 14 straight Cowboy points in the first half, including all eight of Litchfield's first quarter points before teammate Darrin Newbury kicked in with a layup early in the second period.
Newbury's star turn came in the second half with 15 of his 21 points for the night.
The Indians had just one star in the showcase, Roosevelt Shider. He was all they needed.
"He out-shone both of our stars," said Litchfield coach Keith Lipinsky.
Shider (41 points, six 3-pointers), a 5-foot-8 junior guard, had 16 in the first half, 25 in the second and seven in a 13-6 Wilcox run that took the Indians' fourth-quarter lead from 55-49 to 68-55 in the final four minutes of the game.
Shider was the CIAC's fifth leading scorer as a sophomore. This year, he's averaging about 27 points a game, hoping to field offers from low Division I Schools like Sacred Heart.
Fans at Litchfield Monday can endorse his qualifications.
"Without him, we wouldn't be the same team," smiled Wilcox Tech coach Jack Smith.
Without the Litchfield stars, the game would have been a rout.
Nevertheless, stars at any level can't do it alone.
"The keys we put on the board before the game were: one, stop Shider. Obviously, we couldn't do that," said Coach Lipinsky. "The second key was to control rebounds at both ends of the court. We got killed on offensive rebounds. They had multiple shots at the basket, especially in the second half."
The wonder, in light of those truths, was the Cowboys' ability to keep it close.
"We played extremely hard for four quarters," said Lipinsky.
Rinquist kept the first quarter reasonable. Down 4-0, the 5-foot-7 junior guard hit his first 3-pointer midway through the period, then buried five more points. He outscored Shider 8-6. Shider had help in a period that ended 17-8.
When Rinquist got help in the second quarter, the Cowboys caught up.
Rinquist nailed two more 3-pointers in the first two minutes, 21-14. Then Newbury and the Litchfield defense took over. The junior forward battled for eight points in the next three minutes, while a Litchfield press produced two steals from junior guard Spencer Persechino and another from Christian Wiles Lafayette.
With almost two minutes left in the half, a 3-ponter from Persechino hoisted the Cowboys to a 27-26 lead.
Wilcox Tech's Shider was there with a 3-point answer.
With a minute left in the half, Matt McCarthy joined the 3-point club for another Litchfield lead, 30-29.
Shider answered with a 3-pointer, 32-30.
The Cowboys double and triple teamed the Wilcox Tech star. He's quick enough to create his own shot anyway, deadly enough to sink his shots from off-balance angles.
Shider began the second half with back-to-back 3-pointers just that way. Rinquist had another of his 3's; Newbury battled for eight points in close, bringing the Cowboys within a point, 42-41 with 2:28 left in the quarter. Foul shots by Wiles-Lafayette kept it to 45-43, 33 seconds left.
Shider had a 3-point answer, 48-43.
A layup by Newbury midway through the final period kept it close for the last time, 55-49. Rinquist made his final 3-pointer two minutes later, 59-52.
Then Shider made his final run.
Call him a star turned meteor racing to the final blow-out seeming score.


text:
Home prices across Southwest Florida kept pace with national housing markets in December, as demand from buyers tightened the available inventory and pushed prices higher.
But an overabundance of distressed transactions -- foreclosures and short sales at reduced prices -- have continued to drag down the market, according to a reported released Tuesday by housing data provider CoreLogic Inc.
Home prices in the Sarasota-Bradenton-North Port metropolitan area jumped 13 percent in December compared with a year ago, and increased nearly 3 percent from November. Excluding distressed sales, year-over-year prices in Sarasota grew by 10 percent over the year.
"Of the properties that are decent, we're starting to see modest appreciation, and that's exactly what we want," said Debbie Roth, a Re/Max agent in Bradenton. "We don't want prices to skyrocket. We all saw what happens then."
The increases in December came as existing home sales in Sarasota capped off one of their busiest years on record, with 9,169 properties in the area changing hands -- a number only outperformed by the boom years of 2003, 2004 and 2005.
That demand has eaten away the area's housing stock to just 3.9 months' worth at current sales pace, a trend that has also generated higher prices. Markets are considered in equilibrium when six months' worth of inventory is available. Less signals a sellers' market.
The phenomenon was similar across the nation and in Florida.
U.S. home prices in December climbed 8 percent over the same time in 2011 -- the largest annual increase since May 2006 and the 10th consecutive bump up in home prices nationally.
Across the Sunshine State, prices were similarly up 9 percent, according to CoreLogic.
Many agents still believe those figures are misleading, however.
They contend that the majority of appreciation came from lower-end properties now in high demand by institutional investors, who are buying them as rentals. They expect prices to rise a more modest 3 percent in 2013.
"We have absolutely seen bottom, but when you drill down into the numbers, we're not seeing those material gains in the mid- to upper-level properties," said Robert Goldman, a Realtor, attorney and developer in Venice.
"The $350,000 home you or I would want to live in is barely appreciating," he said.
Home prices across Southwest Florida kept pace with national housing markets in December, as demand from buyers tightened the available inventory and pushed prices higher.


text:
"60 MINUTES" MAKES THE TOP 10 Up AGAINST GOLDEN GLOBES
CBS Newsmagazine is on Nielsen List for the Fifth Time in Six Broadcasts
60 MINUTES made the Nielsen Top 10 for the fifth time in six broadcasts, managing to finish among America's most-watched programs despite airing at the same time as the Golden Globe Awards. 60 MINUTES drew 14.05 million viewers to finish at #9 for the week.
It also made the list in households (8.9/13), landing at # 8 in that measurement, according to Nielsen live plus same day ratings for Sunday, Jan. 13, 2013.
It was the ninth time 60 MINUTES made the list in 15 broadcasts this season.
Sunday's program featured Steve Kroft's story about the rise of technology in the workplace and its effect on workers, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's first broadcast interview done by Scott Pelley, and Bob Simon's report on the extreme and dangerous sport of free diving.
CBS News Chairman Jeff Fager is the executive producer of 60 MINUTES, America's #1 news program.


text: Show Hide image Culture 4 October 2012 Exploring the capital with London's greatest novelist The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens's London - review. Sign-up The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens's London Judith Flanders Atlantic Books, 544pp, £25 In the period of its most rapid expansion, London found its greatest novelist. Charles Dickens took his inspiration from the evolving city, setting nearly all of his novels there. He was fascinated by the details of London life. His novels teem with the things, people and places he would have encountered in the city. Judith Flanders's enjoyable new book, The Victorian City: Everyday Life in Dickens's London, is sympathetic to these creative inclinations. It is wide-ranging and captures many facets of the city as it was experienced by ordinary people in Dickens's time. Flanders shares the novelist's fascination with the stuff of everyday London life, with its smells and sounds, its street scenes and many voices, its endless variety and, above all, its stories. She has a flair for an illuminating anecdote and each of the book's four sections starts with a short description of an unusual incident in the history of the city, preludes that add colour and life to the narrative. The chapters bulge with fascinating observations, drawing on lively first-hand accounts from Dickens, Henry Mayhew, Arthur Munby, Alfred Bennett and others. The book is also refreshingly free from the theoretical over-complications that sometimes attend the topic. Flanders writes engagingly about everyday life in the city, with a kind of Mayhew-meets- Claire Tomalin documentary elan. Dickens's novels abound with minutiae reflecting the ordinary realities of life in London in the 19th century. Characters frequently turn into side streets to hear one another more clearly. Mr Dorrit's coachman drives him across the river and back again en route from the City to the West End. After his arrest, Magwitch is able to buy a new suit of clothes from a nearby pub. Writing about his native city, Dickens drew on his local knowledge. Flanders gives a historical rationale for each detail – providing the sort of information usually only found hidden in the annotations of scholarly editions of the novels. Dickens is Flanders's best source for arresting real-life detail but it is the city, rather than Dickens, that provides the book's organising focus. Dickens is a fellow guide on this walking tour, though one suspects that he has claims to be one of its main attractions. Flanders does not deal primarily with Dickens's creative preoccupation with some of the places discussed or with what makes his fictional treatment of them so remarkable. Her aim to "look at the streets of London as Dickens and his fellow Londoners saw it" doesn't give enough weight to the peculiar intensity of the novelist's imaginative vision; meanwhile, her interest in the "native customs" and other aspects of city life that the novelist "reproduced faithfully" is true only to one side of an imagination that was often astonishingly precise but was just as frequently extravagant and transformative, promising to reveal "the romantic side of familiar things". Yet as an account of ordinary life in London, during the years in which it underwent some of its most dramatic changes, Flanders's book is fascinating. There are chapters on transport, on Victorian London's buried rivers and its sewer-building projects, on the 19th-century city markets, on various outdoor spectacles, on pubs and clubs, on riots and public executions. The 13 chapters are organised around imaginatively connected topics and are gathered loosely into four parts: "The City Wakes", on the working population and on travelling; "Staying Alive", on the dangers of slums, sewers and markets; "Enjoying Life", on street performers and other entertainments; and "Sleeping and Awake", on the city's night life. Although Flanders's narrative style is mostly unobtrusive, occasionally a partisan perspective intrudes. For example, some broad-brushed criticisms of the Victorian middle class include a reference to "the middle-class disdain for the poor", which seems unfairly impressionistic and at odds with the charitable endeavours she goes on to discuss. Flanders captures the variety and colour of 19th-century London, stirring admiration and indignation by turns. To lead us through the Victorian capital, through its hustle and sprawl, its dangers and its entertainments, you couldn't hope for a better guide. Daniel Tyler is the author of "A Guide to Dickens's London" (Hesperus Press, £12). Subscribe For more great writing from our award-winning journalists subscribe for just £1 per month! This article first appeared in the 08 October 2012 issue of the New Statesman, Conservative conference special SUBSCRIBE More


text:
Five days hiking in Lapland
Lapland is Europe's last wilderness. Its barren, beautiful natural landscape has an irresistible charm, and the changing seasons are more strongly and more clearly evident on the northern side of the Arctic Circle than anywhere else.
There is a huge contrast between winter and summer, and this is why even Finns consider a trip to Lapland to be the only way to see the true face of their country. Countless visitors repeatedly return to the north simply because they have lost their hearts to this region and that is exactly what happened to me.
Our all-male group spent an unforgettable five days hiking in Urho Kekkonen National Park, considered to be one of Lapland's most pleasant and most varied destinations for walking holidays. It is Finland's second largest national park, covering 2,550 square kilometres, and encompasses a wide range of varied landscapes, from mighty fells and vast bogs to forested areas. There is a large selection of marked trails that make it easy for inexperienced hikers to explore the huge park, while the wilderness areas are perfect for longer and more demanding hikes.
In Lapland, swapping the hustle and bustle of ski resorts and cities to the peace and quiet of the wilderness takes mere minutes.
Related Links
You might also enjoy these
Autumn leaf colour, "ruska", is a spectacular natural phenomenon in Finland.Read More
Tinja Myllykangas is a young woman who traded city life to a wilderness hut in Lapland. She now runs a sled dog safari business and shares a deep bond with the wild.Read More
What exactly do you do in a Finnish sauna and what not?Read More
Whether sightseeing, relaxing, or getting active is your thing, Åland is definitely worth a visit. Everything happens by the sea, naturally.Read More
Here, traffic jams are unknown – enjoy an uncrowded holiday.Read More
Cycling is becoming more and more popular around the world. One of the most up-and-coming and versatile locations for biking is Finland.Read More


text:
Switzerland was in Manhattan - Luxury Real Estate for non-Swiss
Nov 15, 2012, 05:39 ET
NEW YORK, November 15, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --
Henley Estates brought Switzerland to Manhattan Wednesday evening for an elegant and authentic Swiss experience - and to share a very interesting message. The red carpet was out at The Setai Fifth Avenue to invite the firm's private clients' to learn that for the first time in memorable history, foreign non-Swiss residents and therefore practically everyone in Manhattan, now have the right (for a limited time) to acquire residential real-estate in one area of Switzerland without any government restrictions or approvals.
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20121115/574191-a )
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20121115/574191-b )
Guests enjoyed an Après-ski themed setting, hors d'oeuvres, and experienced everything about this one area of Switzerland, the destination of Andermatt Swiss Alps; home to the recent Swiss Federal Lex Koller exemption. This exemption is unique in many ways and as one example, it created the only 28 large luxury villas (over 2690 square feet) in all of Switzerland that may be owned by any foreign non-Swiss resident.
The event was attended by a variety of distinguished guests, many who have already prioritized travel to Switzerland to be the first who take advantage of this rare opportunity.
Henley Estates
Henley Estates is a leading authority in strategic international real-estate advisory for private clients and developers, is a member of the Henley & Partners Group, and the Private Client Group of Switzerland. Henley Estates is the preferred partner of the worlds most established private clients and has the experience and knowledge needed to assist with all high-end international real-estate requirements. http://www.henleyestates.com
Andermatt Swiss Alps
Andermatt Swiss Alps is the largest integrated year-round holiday destination recently developed in the Alps, and the only development with a full exemption to the Swiss Lex Koller regulations that restrict foreign ownership of residential property in Switzerland. The location encompasses in its final shape six 4 and 5 star hotels, 490 apartments in 42 complexes, 25 villas, 1970 parking spaces, 35'000 sqm of commercial space, a sports and leisure center, conferencing space for 600 delegates as well as an 18 hole golf course. While the resort is being developed, the skiing facilities between Andermatt and Sedrun will be modernized and linked. Andermatt Swiss Alps AG is a full subsidiary of Orascom Development Holding AG (ODH), listed on the Swiss Exchange SWX. For further information please check http://www.andermatt-swissalps.ch.
For further information, visit http://www.henleyestates.com/andermatt, email [email protected], or phone Barbara Young on +1-800-640-3988.
SOURCE Henley Estates


text:
"Because of our strategic partnership with Citrix we provide a single point of expertise and ownership for our customers' mobility services, delivering the highest service standards possible and a performance our customers can rely on."
Chris Nees
Director Mobility Enterprise Solutions
International Business
Fujitsu has been delivering mobile services to customers since 2004 and Fujitsu Managed Infrastructure Service Managed Mobile is an enterprise-class, cloud-based service that focuses on managing organizations' heterogeneous and geographically dispersed mobile infrastructure – smartphones and tablets including BYOD - in a secure manner. Fujitsu Managed Mobile is part of our End User Services portfolio and leverages the latest Citrix Endpoint Management Enterprise technology. It complements our Virtual Client Services (VCS) offering which is based on Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops technology.
Fujitsu Managed Mobile builds on our extensive experience and track record in enterprise mobility where we have helped clients to mobilize their workers and deliver apps and data in a secure method so they can increase agility and flexibility, reduce costs and improve the user experience – without increasing the risk to the business.
Fujitsu Managed Mobile enables customers to deploy, manage and secure all types of smartphones and tablets (whether corporate or user owned), deliver mobile applications and data securely as well as providing 24x7 support for end users. We have a range of professional services to help clients mobilizes business processes, corporate applications and provide sophisticated security to meet their specific needs.
The service is appropriate equally for both public and private sector organizations and can be used to support a variety of different workers, workstyles and roles, for example field based staff, mobile workers, and people wanting to work out of standard offices hour and locations as part of a better work/life balance.
Fujitsu Managed Mobile supports both corporate and employee owned devices, for example for clients with a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) scheme, and delivers advanced security — including the smart ability to lock down and wipe out all data on corporate devices and erase just corporate data on personal devices.