text:
Alzheimer's Disease Causes, Stages, and Symptoms (cont.)
William C. Shiel Jr., MD, FACP, FACR
Dr. Shiel received a Bachelor of Science degree with honors from the University of Notre Dame. There he was involved in research in radiation biology and received the Huisking Scholarship. After graduating from St. Louis University School of Medicine, he completed his Internal Medicine residency and Rheumatology fellowship at the University of California, Irvine. He is board-certified in Internal Medicine and Rheumatology.
Jay W. Marks, MD
Jay W. Marks, MD, is a board-certified internist and gastroenterologist. He graduated from Yale University School of Medicine and trained in internal medicine and gastroenterology at UCLA/Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
In this Article
- Alzheimer's disease facts
- What is Alzheimer's disease?
- What's the difference between Alzheimer's disease and dementia?
- Who develops Alzheimer's disease?
- What are the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease?
- Ten warning signs of Alzheimer's disease
- What causes Alzheimer's disease?
- What are risk factors for Alzheimer's disease?
- How is the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease made?
- What treatment and management options are available for Alzheimer's disease?
- Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs)
- Partial glutamate antagonists
- Non-drug based treatments
- Treatment of psychiatric symptoms
- What is the prognosis for a person with Alzheimer's disease?
- Caring for the caregiver and Alzheimer's disease resources
- Alzheimer's Disease FAQs
- Find a local Geriatrician in your town
What are the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease?
The onset of Alzheimer's disease is usually gradual, and it is slowly progressive. Memory problems that family members initially dismiss as "a normal part of aging" are in retrospect noted by the family to be the first stages of Alzheimer's disease. When memory and other problems with thinking start to consistently affect the usual level of functioning; families begin to suspect that something more than "normal aging" is going on.
Problems of memory, particularly for recent events (short-term memory) are common early in the course of Alzheimer's disease. For example, the individual may, on repeated occasions, forget to turn off an iron or fail to recall which of the morning's medicines were taken. Mild personality changes, such as less spontaneity, apathy, and a tendency to withdraw from social interactions, may occur early in the illness.
As the disease progresses, problems in abstract thinking and in other intellectual functions develop. The person may begin to have trouble with figures when working on bills, with understanding what is being read, or with organizing the day's work. Further disturbances in behavior and appearance may also be seen at this point, such as agitation, irritability, quarrelsomeness, and a diminishing ability to dress appropriately.
Later in the course of the disorder, affected individuals may become confused or disoriented about what month or year it is, be unable to describe accurately where they live, or be unable to name a place being visited. Eventually, patients may wander, be unable to engage in conversation, erratic in mood, uncooperative, and lose bladder and bowel control. In late stages of the disease, persons may become totally incapable of caring for themselves. Death can then follow, perhaps from pneumonia or some other problem that occurs in severely deteriorated states of health. Those who develop the disorder later in life more often die from other illnesses (such as heart disease) rather than as a consequence of Alzheimer's disease.
WebMD Daily
Get breaking medical news.


text:
Chandeliers > Santiago > P4586-102
- Category: Chandeliers
- Room Type: Hall & Foyer Lighting, Sitting Room Lighting
- Finish: Roasted Java
- Style: Traditional/Casual
- Family: Santiago
- Description: Three-light chandelier with a spiraled detailing, center column reveal scrolled arms enhanced by subtle twists. Highlighted by pillars of jasmine mist glass, each fixture creates a relaxed ambiance. Six feet of 9 gauge chain is supplied for ceiling chain mount. The Santiago Collection offers a distinct, elegant old-century style with a versatile design.
- $400.95
Technical Details
- Width/Diameter: 18"
- Height: 17"
- Lamp Quantity: three
- Lamp Type: Candelabra Base
- Lamp Wattage (Max): 60
- Notes:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Amsterdam Helicopter Game
I love this helicopter game!
In the game you get to fly a helicopter around Amsterdam visiting various bars and restaurants - and who wouldn't want to do that?
The address of the bar you have to find is displayed on the screen and its location is shown by a little red dot on the map. When you find the bar another bar or restaurant address appears. If you can't find a bar or restaurant you can use one of your three wild-cards and move onto the next bar. What's more you can add any of the bars and restaurants to your list of favourites.
Absolutely awesome! But remember kids don't try this for real.
Nomadic Milk Shopping
If flying a helicopter is not your kind of thing perhaps you would enjoy a more leisurely journey by milk cart.
Nomadic Milk Shopping is a 'GPS docu-fiction' by Esther Polak. The central theme of this 'docu-fiction' is the Opzeeland Dairy Route by night. Essentially Esther seems to have followed a mail cart on its night route and filmed the experience.
The route of the milk cart has been synchronised to the video so as you watch Esther's docu-fiction you can follow the current location of the film on a Google Map.
Kunst op de Kaart
Kunst op de Kaart is a Google Map showing over 2000 Museums and Art Galleries in the Netherlands. The museums are tagged on a Google Map and details of each museum is given in a handy sidebar. When you click on a museum in the sidebar its location is highlighted on the map. If you click on a tag an information window opens containing a link to the website of that museum.
Heebuv is a concept for including location specific chat on Google Maps. Currently the site is only a demonstration of how the concept might work. Active discussions are tagged on a Google Map. Clicking on a tag opens the chat feature, where you can read the discussion so far and add your own comments.
At the moment the site doesn't include the ability to start your own chat, but the idea is that users will be able to click anywhere on the map to start their own discussion.


text:
Remembering D-Day Photo Gallery and related media
Remembering D-Day
Faces of D-Day
Allied troops packed tightly into an aquatic landing craft wait for their turn to face the Germans at Normandy.
Related Photo Galleries (5)
Remembering D-Day
Remembering D-Day(11 Photos)
11 Photos
On June 6, 1944, known as D-Day, the Allies invaded Normandy, France, in the largest amphibious assault in history. View photos from this historic military operation.
Voices of D-Day
Voices of D-Day(9 Photos)
9 Photos
Our most powerful and genuine accounts of D-Day come from the veterans who live through this momentous piece of history.
Remembering the Holocaust
Remembering the Holocaust(14 Photos)
14 Photos
View photos from the Holocaust.
World War II Damage and Destruction
World War II Damage and Destruction(7 Photos)
7 Photos
View photos of the damage and destruction from World War II.
French Revolution
French Revolution(9 Photos)
9 Photos
The French Revolution
Related Videos (10)
Amphibious Assaults of World War II
Amphibious Assaults of World War IIVideo Clip (2:16)
Video Clip (2:16)
The landing vehicle tank was essential to the amphibious assaults on D-Day and throughout the Pacific theater.
D-Day Documented by Newsreel Cameras
D-Day Documented by Newsreel CamerasVideo Clip (8:56)
Video Clip (8:56)
Footage of the historic D-Day invasion from the United News. The best known D-Day is June 6, 1944 the day on which the Invasion of Normandy began. This video clip is courtesy of The History Channel.
D-Day Invasion of Europe
D-Day Invasion of EuropeVideo Clip (2:01)
Video Clip (2:01)
On June 6, 1944, Allied troops storm the beaches of Normandy in the largest amphibious assault in history.
French Resistance
French ResistanceVideo Clip (3:15)
Video Clip (3:15)
David Keran's grandfather was an OSS agent working with the French Resistance during WWII and left behind films of his experiences.
D-Day Battle Gear
D-Day Battle GearVideo Clip (2:24)
Video Clip (2:24)
In the summer of 1944, GI equipment was about to undergo the most extensive field test in history: storming the beach at Normandy.
D-Day Invasion
D-Day InvasionVideo Clip (3:07)
Video Clip (3:07)
On June 6, 1944, Allied troops landed on the beaches of Normandy and turned the tides of World War II.
Allied Advance Stalls at Normandy
Allied Advance Stalls at NormandyVideo Clip (3:33)
Video Clip (3:33)
After the D-Day invasion of France on June 6, 1944, the Allied advance is mired in the thick hedgerows of Normandy's bocage country.
D-Day Deception
D-Day DeceptionVideo Clip (3:24)
Video Clip (3:24)
During WWII, a shrewd deception dubbed "Operation Fortitude" convinces the German military command that Allied forces will land at Pas de Calais rather than Normandy.
Hitler's Military Blunders
Hitler's Military BlundersVideo Clip (3:27)
Video Clip (3:27)
During WWII, Hitler's decentralized and paranoid military command structure spells disaster on the battlefield.
D-Day Invasion of Normandy
D-Day Invasion of NormandyVideo Clip (3:19)
Video Clip (3:19)
On June 6, 1944, Allied troops invade German-occupied France and face near certain death on the beaches of Normandy.
Related Speeches & Audio (10)
Liberation of Paris
Liberation of ParisAudio Clip (1:55)
Audio Clip (1:55)
Street battles are heard in a live broadcast as American troops enter Paris, joining the Allied fight to liberate the city from German control. On August 25, 1944, after many days of fighting, Germany surrendered Paris to the Allied forces, ending four years of occupation.
Allies Liberate Bastogne
Allies Liberate BastogneAudio Clip (1:27)
Audio Clip (1:27)
In a broadcast on December 29, 1944, Gen. Anthony C. McAuliffe recounts the 101st Airborne's victory against overwhelming odds at Bastogne, Belgium.
U.S. Celebrates Liberation of Paris
U.S. Celebrates Liberation of ParisAudio Clip (1:29)
Audio Clip (1:29)
On August 25, 1944, Germany surrenders Paris, ending four years of occupation. In a radio broadcast, Jennings Randolph, a West Virginia congressman, sends his congratulations to the French people.
War Report on Battle of France and the Blitz
War Report on Battle of France and the BlitzAudio Clip (4:32)
Audio Clip (4:32)
Associated Press war correspondent Bill McGaffin provides a firsthand account of the Battle of France and the London Blitz in a radio interview on February 12, 1944.
Franklin D. Roosevelt's Fourth of July Address
Franklin D. Roosevelt's Fourth of July AddressAudio Clip (2:07)
Audio Clip (2:07)
In a broadcast from his home in Hyde Park, New York, on July 4, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt warns Americans who wish not to get involved in the war that "the United States will never survive as a happy and fertile oasis of liberty surrounded by a cruel desert of dictatorship."
Reagan Speaks on 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Reagan Speaks on 40th Anniversary of D-DayAudio Clip (0:41)
Audio Clip (0:41)
On June 6, 1984, in Normandy, France, President Ronald Reagan honors the heroes of D-Day, a pivotal moment during World War II.
Fall of Monte Cassino
Fall of Monte CassinoAudio Clip (2:03)
Audio Clip (2:03)
On location in Naples, NBC News reports the May 18, 1944, Allied capture of Monte Cassino, site of an ancient hilltop monastery that the Germans had transformed into a fortress along the Gustav Line.
Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Liberation of Rome
Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Liberation of RomeAudio Clip (1:51)
Audio Clip (1:51)
In a broadcast to the nation, on June 5, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt tells Americans that, with the fall of Rome, the first of the Axis capitals "is now in our hands."
First Allied Crossing of the Rhine
First Allied Crossing of the RhineAudio Clip (1:52)
Audio Clip (1:52)
Despite a partial news blackout, reporters are able to deliver some information about the U.S. Army's successful crossing of the Rhine on March 7, 1945, though it is not yet known whether the Allies have captured the Ludendorff Bridge from the Germans.
Germany Advances in the Battle of the Bulge
Germany Advances in the Battle of the BulgeAudio Clip (3:54)
Audio Clip (3:54)
On December 16, 1944, the Germans launched a counteroffensive attack intended to cut through the Allied forces. A dispatch describes the situation along the front as the Allies face great adversity in the ensuing battle.
Most Popular Videos on History.com
Newest Videos on History.com
Vietnam in HD Preview
Two For the Road
HISTORY says Thanks
Shop HISTORY
WWII in HD DVD Set
The only people to see the war like this were the ones who lived it. Until now…
WWII in HD DVD Set
The only people to see the war like this were the ones who lived it. Until now… Own this best-selling series today!
WWII in HD: The Air War DVD
Own this exceptional special from the HISTORY Shop - the untold story of the American 8th Air Force's bloody battle to defeat the German Luftwaffe in the months leading up to D-Day.
Email Updates
Keep up with the latest History shows, online features, special offers and more.Sign up


text:
Monday, August 5, 2013
Each week, the Moultrie News and Mount Pleasant Recreation Department will feature local track and field athletes participating in the department.
Jayla Grant, 11, participates in the shot put and discus events with the Mount Pleasant Track Club. Ginger Arnold, 8, participates in the javelin, 800-meter and shot put events with the club.
Question: If you could be anyone for a day, who would you be?
Jayla Grant: I would be Beyonce, because I like her music and she is an amazing singer.
Ginger Arnold: Usain Bolt winning a race.
Q: What is your favorite Mount Pleasant restaurant?
JG: Shem Creek Restaurant.
GA: Carrabbas.
Q: What is the best moment in your athletic career?
JG: Qualifying for the National Junior Olympics.
GA: Being an All-American twice.
Q: What is the best advice you have gotten from a coach?
JG: Move your arm as fast as you can.
GA: If you don't beat me this race, you'll have to do another.
Q: What do you look forward to the most about being an adult?
JG: I want to be a psychiatrist.
GA: Being a coach.
Q: What do you think are the most difficult and most fun aspects of track?
JG: Most difficult is running in the heat. Most fun is water balloon relays.
GA: Practice is both!
Q: What is your movie and TV show?
JG: Movie: "Rags" and TV show: "Victorious."
GA: Movie: "Dennis the Menance" and TV Show: "Wild."
Q: If you could have dinner with any three people who would you choose?
JG: Mother, father and sister.
GA: Michael Phelps, Barbara Spotakova and coach Tami Dennis.
Moultrie News is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Moultrie News.
If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.
© 2015 Moultrie News an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.


text:
We invite you to join our outstanding teachers to explore the variety of ways that Zen Buddhist practice as well as other practices can inform and enrich your life.
There are a wide variety of ways to experience Zen practice at Tassajara. We warmly invite you to explore at whatever level you choose, and encourage you to ask any questions may have.
An opportunity to practice Zen meditation and work alongside the Tassajara residential community.
Explore Zen teachings, meditation, and work practice under the guidance of an experienced teacher.
Hiking trails are abundant around Tassajara, which is located in the rugged Los Padres National Forest.
The Japanese-style bathhouse has separate sides for men and women (the men's side has co-ed bathing in the evenings), and is clothing optional. Each side has two hot plunges, a steam room, communal showers, a private bath, spacious sun decks, and creek access.
An opportunity to discuss with a senior Tassajara student, in an open format, any aspect of Zen, Buddhism, or monastic life that may be of interest. Talks are usually offered on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday evenings from 8:00-9:00pm.
are also offered regularly by resident and visiting teachers and retreat leaders. Look for event times and locations posted outside the office and dining room.
The pool has a changing room, a restroom, and a cold shower. No lifeguard is on duty. While children are welcomed at all times at the pool, the suggested children's swimming time is from 1:00-3:00pm. At all other times, lap swimming takes precedence.
There is a Bocce Ball court in front of the Pine Rooms and instructions are available in the office.
Open for reading and browsing. Books are not available for checking out unless you are a student.
Articles and photos chronicling Tassajara's history and are found on the porch behind the office.
Several board games are available on the porch.


text:
Welcome to the BSMGP website
About stained glass
Stained glass is the art of manipulating coloured light within an architectural context. The use of glass in modulating light is a fundamental element in establishing the atmosphere and mood of buildings old and new. It is a technical art form in which the expressive elements of design are combined with the disciplines of a craft. The history of the medium of stained glass is one of continual innovation based on ancient tradition, exploring new approaches to the raw materials of coloured glass, lead and light. Britain has a rich heritage of stained glass from the Middle Ages to the present day, and British designers and craftsmen continue to make a distinctive contribution to its evolution.
About the BSMGP
The British Society of Master Glass Painters, founded in 1921, is Britain's only organization devoted exclusively to the art and craft of stained glass. From the outset, its chief objectives have been to promote and encourage high standards in the art and craft of stained glass painting and staining, to act as a locus for the exchange of information and ideas within the stained glass craft and to preserve the invaluable stained glass heritage of Britain. Its wide range of activities includes: lectures, conferences, exhibitions, forums, guided walks and other events connected with stained glass; an annual Journal of Stained Glass, a quarterly Stained Glass Newsletter and other publications; access to the Society's extensive reference library on stained glass and the online Members' Forum, as well as illustrated online design portfolios for some Fellows and Associates, who are the professionally accredited members of the Society. More
Membership is open to stained glass designers, painters and makers, historians, researchers and other academics, conservators, restorers, students, amateur stained glass makers and anyone with an interest in stained glass, including libraries and museums. Although the Society is UK based, there are a growing number of international members. More
Registered in England and Wales 173764
BSMGP Trust Charity Number 1145169
Registered office: 6 Queen Square, London WC1N 3AR
2-5 September: autumn touring conference - Cambridge
NB Conference is now full; click details to join waiting list
9 October: autumn lecture Dr Nicola Gordon Bowe Hon FMGP 'Behind the Mask: stained glass in the art and life of Wilhelmina Geddes (1887-1955)' details
Download 2015 AWG events programme/booking forms
Journal of Stained Glass:
Next issue: vol XXXVIII Available early August


text:
Dale Richardson is accused of kidnapping and rape, and he could soon be out on bail.
Circuit Judge Eugene Griffith Jr. ruled last week that Richardson's bail should be set at $250,000, as Natalie Caula reported. If and when Richardson is released, he is supposed to be under house arrest at his home in Summerville from dusk to dawn, with limited privileges to leave for medical or legal appointments, or to go to work or church.
That sounds good in theory. It sounds slightly less encouraging when you consider that Richardson was pastor of Freedom Freewill Baptist Church in Lincolnville, and that two of the alleged rapes happened in a trailer behind the church.
He would also be monitored by GPS, which is another protective measure. But this presents a false sense of security, said Pamela Jacobs, executive director of the S.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.
"It somewhat implies that there are only certain places that someone will commit rape, or certain times of day," Jacobs said. "There are some misconceptions about how and when sexual assault happens," she said. "While it's helpful to know where the perpetrator is, that won't necessarily guarantee the safety of the community."
The 1st District Solicitor's Office recommended that the judge deny bail. And one of the victims asked that Richardson not be released.
Worst case
1st Circuit Assistant Solicitor Don Sorenson said electronic monitoring can be effective if done properly. He said he was aware of the problems that had been reported in Charleston County, though.
"The problem is that there is nothing that is obviously perfect," said Scott Bischoff, who represented Richardson at the March hearing.
An electronic monitor is just that, a monitor. It is not a behavioral control device. It won't stop somebody from committing a crime.
"It does add some accountability, but definitely not as much as having the person incarcerated," Jacobs said.
In the worst-case scenario, as Glenn Smith reported last year, a Folly Beach rape suspect who was released on house arrest was accused of sexually assaulting another woman while he was wearing his GPS monitor.
Community safety
Now, Richardson has spent more than 600 days in jail, which is not unusual for someone accused of a violent crime, Sorenson said. "There are some people that stay in jail up until the time their case is disposed," Sorenson said.
Richardson also was evaluated by forensic psychiatrist William Burke, who said in a letter filed with court paperwork that "it is my professional opinion that Mr. Richardson can be safely contained in the community under my supervision." His lawyers agree.
"We do not have any concerns whatsoever about him being a danger to the community," Bischoff said after the March hearing.
In that same letter, Burke, who did not return a phone message Monday or after the hearing in March, also said that Richardson "falls into the medium level of risk category."
No word yet on whether the community was consulted, or is comfortable with a medium level of risk.
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.
We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click the X that appears in the upper right corner when you hover over a comment. This will send the comment to Facebook for review. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.


text:
MILLER has posted 12 goals, 11 assists, and 23 points in 27 games with the Mavericks during his professional debut this season. His 12 markers share second on the squad, while his 23 points hold third.
The 21-year-old forward split the 2011-12 campaign between the Western Hockey League's Calgary Hitmen and Moose Jaw Warriors. He amassed 35 goals and 52 points in 69 WHL contests between the two squads, included 32 markers and 49 points in 58 tilts with Moose Jaw.
Overall, the Redvers, Saskatchewan, native collected 60 goals, 57 assists, and 117 points in 242 career WHL tilts with Moose Jaw, Calgary, and the Spokane Chiefs from 2018-12.
In accordance with team policy, terms of the deal were not disclosed.
The Wolves host the Oklahoma City Barons at 4 p.m. Sunday at the Allstate Arena. For more information or to buy tickets to the game, visit chicagowolves.com or call 1-800-THE-WOLVES.


text:
Waite alumni award scholarships to uncommon groupWritten by Brigitta Burks | News Editor | email@example.com
WAITE Inc., an alumni organization for Waite High School, gave 10 scholarships to students who may or may not be used to receiving accolades on May 9.
The alumni group caters to students whose GPAs range from about 2.0 to 3.5.
"These are kids who a lot of times fall through the cracks," said Rhea Halloran, past president of WAITE Inc. and a member of the scholarship committee.
The group honored the students receiving the $2,000 scholarships at a breakfast at 725 Lime City Road, Rossford. The funds come solely from Waite alumni, family and friends, Halloran said.
"[The students] really appreciate the scholarship; more so than that, that they were recognized. That means a lot to them," said Ray Spencer, one of the founding members of WAITE Inc.
Spencer and fellow '40s grads Bob Businger, Jim Nauman and Bob Yenrick founded the group in 1996. Spencer was a certified professional accountant who was used with working with 501(c)(3)s, which has helped, he said.
Since its inception, WAITE Inc. has awarded about 150 students scholarships and collected more than $200,000. Recipients of the scholarships can reapply during their following years of college for $500 or $1,000 scholarships. About 14 students applied and were interviewed by the scholarship committee this year, Halloran said, adding that the group judges qualifications like "drive" in the students.
Recipients go on to successfully pursue different routes from university to trade school to community college, Halloran said.
Many in the 2012 group are attending the University of Toledo, including Elicia Garces who plans to study special education.
"I'm thankful for [WAITE Inc.] picking me because otherwise I wouldn't be able to pay for tuition," she said. "They actually look at what the students are doing."
Garces helps with her father's girls basketball team in addition to working concession stands at sporting events for Waite.
Catherine Craig, who plans to study to become a pediatrician at UT, is another student who said WAITE Inc. focuses on the student's contributions to the community and school. As vice president of her class, she said balancing her grades can be "overwhelming" so the fact that the group gives scholarships to students in the 2.0 to 3.5 range is helpful.
Amber Self, another recipient, plans to study prelaw at UT and go on to do criminal law. "I'm truly honored. I truly need that money to help me pursue my career," she said.
She also said giving back was crucial to the Waite community. "It's really important for Waite to give back to the community and the school and that's really what [WAITE Inc.] looks for," Self said, adding that if a student got straight A's and did no community service "no one's going to remember you."
The other recipients are Marquia LaPrise Fitch, Roy Johnson II, Jessica Kendall, Pedro Porras, Antonio Russell, Rogelio Sanson Jr. and Brittany Wallace.
Principal of Waite David Yenrick spoke at the breakfast, followed by guest speaker Jean Clark, president of the Waite Alumni Association, a group that also gives scholarships to students.
Clark praised the Waite alumni groups for giving back to the school and said it was because of their positive experiences during high school.
"There's no other alumni association like it in the City of Toledo, maybe the state," she said.
Tags: Amber Self, Brigitta Burks, Elicia Garces, Ray Spencer, Rhea Halloran, Scholarships, Waite High School, WAITE Inc.


text:
The Hushamok Organic MySeat creates a soothing, rocking motion that will keep infants calm and comfortable. The MySeat embraces the Hushamok modern eco-design with all the safety you expect.
Using both the Hushamok Dream Hammock (sold separately) and MySeat combines a sleeping and seating system that is easy to use and best of all eliminates all that extra clutter in your home. The removable neck support, harness, and hideaway tether system make it easy to adjust/adapt for older children (up to a maximum weight of 50 pounds.
The MySeat can be used for babies as they become more alert and interactive (approximately 12 weeks old). Simply use the attached tether, neck support, and harness system to ensure baby is secured safely into their MySeat.
MySeat is designed to fit any of Hushamok's stands (sold separately) Certified organic cotton from Turkey. *MySeat must always be used with a Hushamok stand.
- Organic MySeat: Made from 100% Turkish Organic Cotton
- Weight/Age: Hushamok recommends using MySeat for babies 12 weeks or older and up to a maximum weight of 50 pounds.
- Colors: Natural
- 34in x 17in x 5in : 12.5 pounds w packaging / 7.5 pounds assembled
Note:Children should never be left unsupervised when using MySeat.
Gift Wrap not available.


text:
Quick Links
Shop All Jewelry
BER10009 In Stock
Looking for something that reminds you of the olden days? Well with these Renaissance Style Gold Cross Earrings you have found exactly what you are looking for! Go back in time with the great detail in each earring. These Renaissance Style Gold Cross Earrings feature a large golden cross on the center on each earring with a beautiful scroll work design that really make the earrings pop! These comfortable lever back Gold Cross Earrings weigh only 6.4 grams each so they won't feel heavy on your ears. These earrings make a great gift and are a perfect accessory to any outfit.
Eve's Addiction.com wants you to be a happy customer. We want you to be completely satisfied with the sterling silver jewelry that you receive from us, as we only sell high quality silver and cubic zirconia cz jewelry. We do understand that you may not like your purchase for some reason.
You may return or exchange your jewelry within 60 days of purchase if you are not satisfied with it. The jewelry must be returned in its original condition for a refund or exchange. Engraved, personalized, photo, monogram, name and initial, chocolate and clearance items are not returnable or exchangeable.


text:
Bad idea.
Bad idea.
This would be the result all over North America!
why? I can't have a pink name?
You're blue now.
You say shark I say hey man, Jaws was never my scene and I don't like Star Wars
but...I want to be pink
@ Sniggles
hey who blue u
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


text:
Christmas is that time of year when the news media loves to write about the great things you all are doing as sponsors and donors. A recent OC Register article talks about one donor in Southern California who has put a new "spin" on God's command to be charitable to the poor and needy. He's driving clunkers and giving what would be a monthly car payment to Compassion. He's also encouraging others to do the same.
Read the story for yourself, and let me know if you are aware of anyone – maybe even yourself – who has come up with creative ways to give to those who are in need.
Photo by Niyaz Pirani, The Orange County Register


text:
added Mortal Kombat for 360 if anyone is interested
So I'm not sure if anyone reads this thread when I bump it, but hopefully someone comes across this.
I'm going to be liquidating pretty much everything on my list sometime within the next month, so LAST CALL. I realize my wants list is pretty strict and it might be hard to strike a deal, but I take amazon gift cards or MS points, or whatever, lets negotiate, but as far as games go, what I've been seeking is listed.
And that Falcons pog with the pterodactyl on it . Gimme that.
Last edited by Bulkmailer; 11-25-2011 at 05:05 PM.
I'd love to get Rage for my copy of Deus Ex, or I'm going to dump it off on goozex by the end of the weekend. Plz be someone out there thats interested.
I am interested in the Dead Space Book. Is there anything in particular you are looking for?
It seems that you had a lot of wonderful games to offer before, such as Tetris DS. I really wish that I could've joined this forum sooner so I could've traded my DS Lite for it.
Unfortunately, there isn't really much here that I want. It's sad to be late on this whole fiesta.
If anyone is interested, I updated my list and have the following 360 games available:
Assassin's Creed Revelations
Call of Duty: Black Ops (disc only)
Gears of War 3
Need for Speed Hot Pursuit
Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City
Silent Hill: Downpour
Looking for Left 4 Dead 2 for 360 as a christmas present to my brother. Can anyone help me out with a trade?
Do you care if there are Gamestop stickers on the case? If not, I'll trade for the Warcraft Battle Chest.
Flam came through for me! Thanks man.
Last edited by harry hood; 01-13-2013 at 10:16 AM.
I'm digging into my collection and offering all of my retro consoles for trade. They come with all of the hookups necessary. I also have some extra accessories for instance, like NES Zappers, Saturn lightguns, game genie, gamesharks, extra controllers, etc.
Super Nintendo
Sega Genesis Model 1
Sega Genesis Model 2
Sega Nomad
Sega CD
Sega Saturn (x2)
Dreamcast (x2)
PS1 (x2)
I'd prefer to trade these for a PS3 console first, but i'll listen to other trade offers.
The Nomad is the only Sega platform I don't have, so I'm interested. However, what condition is it in? Picture would be awesome as well.
Edit: Also, what model is your Sega CD?
I'll snap a picture sometime in the next day or two if you're really interested, but right now i have a head cold and i'm feeling immobilized. The sega cd is a model 2.
Do you have anything cooool to offer? Like I said, i was hoping to bundle some of the retro systems together for a ps3.
Damn, already have a Model 2 Sega CD. Unfortunately I'm not selling my PS3 as I just bought it before X-mas.
I do however have a shit ton of games.
I keep a list of my physical copies of games here.
While I say not all things are for sell, realistically, everything has a price.
damn thats a pretty cool list of games. i like that site too. i don't see anything there for me though :/. As far as games go, I'm just trying to keep up to date on my 360 wishlists, round out my last gen collection, and try to acquire some PS3 exclusives in anticipation of getting a PS3.


text:
Learn more about Little Colorado 089UNFST Traditional Twin Headboard - Unfinished-Star:
Manufacturer: Little Colorado
Mfg Part#: 089UNFST
Sku: 245992735
Package Weight: 44 lbs
See more in Bed Frames
|The next move when a child outgrows our toddler bed is the a twin bed. Our matching twin headboard easily attaches to a standard metal bed frame with the bolts we provide. Available unfinished or in natural, honey oak, white, linen and pastel finishes. Pastels also available in Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) construction. Also available in solid headboard or with a heart cutout. Traditional headboard with star cutout. Attaches to Little Colorado's standard metal bed frame (bolts included). Solid knotty pine construction. Pastel finishes also available in Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) construction. Ready to assemble. Top quality, non-toxic, environmentally friendly and easy-to-clean.


text:
Arizona Cardinals
Arizona Cardinals: Winning season meaningless without playoffs
TEMPE, Ariz. -- The great Vince Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."
For the 2013 Arizona Cardinals, winning truly is not everything. Winning enough, however, is.
At 8-5, the Arizona Cardinals have guaranteed themselves a non-losing record for the seventh time since moving to the Valley. With one more win, they'd have their fourth winning season in that span. As much of an accomplishment that may be (or indictment of the past, really), especially after the team won just five games a year ago, a winning record would not mean much if it does not lead to a playoff berth.
"It probably does to some people, but to me it's all about getting into the dance," coach Bruce Arians said. "That ensures all those other things, unless you're in the AFC."
This season, it appears likely nine wins will be enough get an AFC Wild Card spot. Unfortunately for the Cardinals, they reside in the other conference.
Along with being in the NFC, the Cardinals also have the misfortune of residing in what is widely understood to be the toughest division in the NFL. In part because of their record against NFC West foes, the Cardinals currently find themselves on the outside of the playoff picture. With the right combination of wins over their final three games and help from teams they are chasing, the playoffs could be a reality.
Or, they may end up falling just short, leading to regret over a couple of games the team let slip away. The sad part is, as receiver Larry Fitzgerald noted, opportunities to make the playoffs don't always come around.
"We've got a lot of guys -- Dansby and Dockett and Carson -- that we've been in the league 10-plus years," he said. "There's no 'that was a good season.' I don't know in my career if I'll ever have the opportunity to be this close to making the playoffs. You just never know."
Only thrice in their history have the Cardinals finished a season with a winning record, and each time they were rewarded with a playoff spot. In, 2008 they turned a 9-7 division-winning season into an improbable Super Bowl run.
At the time, NBC analyst Cris Collinsworth referred to the Cardinals as the worst team ever to make the playoffs. Now, though, they may be one of the better teams to miss them.
"I remember 2008, 24 years old, and I'm thinking this is something that's going to happen a lot, you know, continuously, every single year," Fitzgerald said. "You realize that there's no guarantees in this business, and when you have your opportunity, you've got to make the best of it. And we have an opportunity right now; I think everybody in this locker room understands that."
Fitzgerald added that if the Cardinals win their final three games, they'll make the playoffs, and that's the goal going forward.
Even if the Cardinals do run the table, that alone is not enough to guarantee a game past Week 17. They are one game back of both the San Francisco 49ers and Carolina Panthers -- the two teams they are chasing for a Wild Card spot. They will not have the tiebreaker over San Francisco, meaning the Cards will have to finish one game ahead of the 49ers in the standings to secure a berth. As for the Panthers, the Cardinals do hold the tiebreaker, meaning they need to win one more game than the Panthers do over the final three to clinch a spot.
So, the Cardinals can certainly help their cause with three more wins, but they'll still need some assistance from others, which they haven't really gotten of late.
"I definitely go through and see who did what," quarterback Carson Palmer said. "You can't help but do that. You can't help but be bitter that the Seahawks didn't hold on last week and win."
But, he also said none of that will matter if the Cardinals don't win the next game on their schedule, which is Sunday on the road against the Tennessee Titans.
"This team knows where it's at and we've got to win it on the road," Arians said. "And just take them one at a time, just one day at a time, one play at a time. We'll be fine."
After all, anything can happen over the final three weeks of the season.
"Everybody could lose out, everybody could win out," left tackle Bradley Sowell said. "Three games is a lot of ball left to be played in this league, so we're just going to have fun and play as hard as we can and see if we can make our way in there."
Most Popular
Cardinals Audio
- Glenn Parker, Pac-12 and Cardinals analyst - Tuesday July 28Glenn Parker discusses new Cardinals coach Jen Welter and the strength of the Pac-12 South.
- Hardware - Monday July 27The Sign of Our Times award, the 2nd Place Isn't So Bad award and more
- Bickley Blast - Monday July 27NFL Training Camp is almost here
- Darren Urban, AZcardinals.com beat writer - Monday July 27Darren Urban says Carson Palmer might be a big reason why Jermaine Gresham is a Cardinal.
- John Clayton, ESPN NFL insider - Friday July 24John Clayton says no news is the worst news for Daryl Washington.


text:
Quick Links
Shop All Jewelry
RG10539 In Stock
We're pleased to introduce our new collection of stackable rings, which all feature a slightly protruding centerpiece that makes for a unique layered look when worn together. The Yellow Daisy Enamel style pictured here features a cheery 9mm wide yellow-petaled daisy, which protrudes 3 millimeters away from the band. The ring weighs a breezy 2.7 grams, making it truly ideal for stacking with multiple other bands and wearing frequently!
Eve's Addiction.com wants you to be a happy customer. We want you to be completely satisfied with the sterling silver jewelry that you receive from us, as we only sell high quality silver and cubic zirconia cz jewelry. We do understand that you may not like your purchase for some reason.
You may return or exchange your jewelry within 60 days of purchase if you are not satisfied with it. The jewelry must be returned in its original condition for a refund or exchange. Engraved, personalized, photo, monogram, name and initial, chocolate and clearance items are not returnable or exchangeable.


text:
The 4th annual Napa Valley Film Festival (NVFF), scheduled for November 12-16, 2014, announced its Narrative and Documentary feature film competition lineups as well as Jury members. The 2014 Festival will screen 22 feature films in competition. The full film program line-up, including out-of-competition special presentations, sneak previews of awards season contenders, and narrative, documentary and animated shorts, will be announced in September.
"Our thoughts are with everyone in the Napa Valley who have suffered losses from the recent earthquake," said Co-Founder/Artistic Director Marc


text:
Justice Kennedy's Logic Puzzle
Michael Peppard March 26, 2014 - 3:05pm
Everyone knows the power granted by Justice Kennedy's middle position on the Supreme Court. Indeed Paul Clement, the advocate for the plaintiffs in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, seemed to direct most of his arguments toward the concerns he imagines Kennedy to have about the case.
But even in Clement's most hopeful fantasies, he could not have imagined the gift that Kennedy would present him during questioning of the Solicitor General. Kennedy introduced the idea that, by the logic of the government's case -- in some future scenario, at the calamitous bottom of a slippery slope -- for-profit corporations could be forced to "pay for abortions."
When following the live blogs, I thought surely this must have been reported incorrectly, but here it is from the transcript:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Under your view, a profit corporation could be forced – in principle, there are some statutes on the books now which would prevent it, but – could be forced in principle to pay for abortions.
Verrilli's first response is the obvious and correct one: the hypothetical scenario is already illegal and not relevant to this case.
GENERAL VERRILLI: No, I think, as you said, the law now – the law now is to the contrary.
Now maybe Justice Kennedy's modus operandi is to present false slippery slope arguments and then see how advocates squirm. During oral arguments about the Affordable Care Act, the court famously discussed if the government could mandate that citizens buy broccoli. It was a memorable line, and perhaps useful in some way. But it was a true hypothetical, since Congress has not enacted a statute against forcing citizens to pay for broccoli.
In yesterday's case, though, the format was:
- "If the government compels A, what is to stop it in theory from forcing B?"
- "But sir, the Congress has already outlawed government from forcing B."
In other words, a hypothetical "slippery slope" situation was presented for which a law already exists to define precisely the stopping point that makes the slope not slippery. It's no wonder Verrilli was confused.
Verrilli eventually admitted than in some theoretical land, yes, there is nothing in principle to stop the scenario about which Kennedy asked. He hastened to repeat, though, "There is no law like that on the books. In fact, the law is the opposite." Even despite Verrilli's accurate protestations, the exchange was – rhetorically at least – an embarrassing moment for the government's case.
Then Chief Justice Roberts pressed further, sensing the opening created by Kennedy's question. "Isn't that what we are talking about in terms of their religious beliefs? One of the religious beliefs is that they have to pay for these four methods of contraception that they believe provide abortions. I thought that's what we had before us."
As I understand it, though, the court was not tasked with answering the question of whether the plaintiffs are correct that certain pharmaceuticals classed as contraceptives are actually abortifacients. The court was not tasked to define whether pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation, nor the mechanisms by which pharmaceuticals work. In the same way, the court was not tasked in U.S. v. Lee (1982) to define the precise way in which Social Security is a burden on the conscience of the Old Order Amish or in Employment Division v. Smith whether peyote really is a hallucinogenic necessary for anyone's free exercise of religion.
Verrilli responded by citing the plaintiffs' "sincere" belief in this "difficult case," while making clear that state and federal law reflect line-drawing on the side of the government's position. Furthermore, he returned to the implications of ruling on the accuracy of their religious beliefs about the matter: "the implications for entanglement and making the judgments when you move past that group, the administratability problems, and the problems of inviting the kinds of claims that are predictably going to impose harms on third parties."
After this response, questioning moved on to Justice Alito's "kosher or halal butcher vs. humane treatment of animals" analogy, one which has the great benefit of being legally relevant and possible to imagine happening (unlike Kennedy's hypothetical).
But for Verrilli, it was too late. By raising the hypothetical of paying for abortions, Justice Kennedy introduced both a scenario that is already illegal and an issue of embryology and theology that the court is not tasked to decide (and indeed cannot decide). Kennedy's hypothetical also just so happens to coincide with exactly the scenario that the plaintiffs want people to fear – even though it is already illegal. It was no surprise, then, that Clement's first point in his rebuttal centered on abortion.
The phrase 'paying for abortions' did one final disservice to our public discourse about the Affordable Care Act. Employers are not paying for specific health care services. They are required to make available health insurance providers that provide access to certain services, which employees may or may not use. The degrees of cooperation here are both morally and legally relevant, and to conflate the distance between health care premium support and the procedure itself obscures our understanding of insurance and the law in question.
Now the court may decide, in the end, that any degree of cooperation with what a 'person' (in this case, a corporation) views as religiously forbidden is too much cooperation for the government to coerce. They would have Thomas v. Review Board as a potential precedent there. The Tenth District used Thomas to explore whether the "substantial burden" or "substantial pressure" on free exercise exhibited in Thomas would also apply to Hobby Lobby.
The Tenth District made the analogy to the irrelevance of "line-drawing" in Thomas: "Once the plaintiff drew this line [between making the steel to be used in tanks and making the weapons themselves], it did not matter whether the line was "acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection."
But regarding the Hobby Lobby case, the court might draw its own line about degrees of cooperation, splitting off Thomas (in which the worker would physically be manufacturing material for weapons of war) from other scenarios that require, for example, pacifists and conscientious objectors to pay overall taxes, some of which go toward the waging of war. Is paying health insurance premium support more like paying taxes or is it more like manufacturing steel? And there are, of course, several other types of rulings possible.
But however the court rules, Justice Kennedy's logic puzzle about abortion did not aid the process of getting there.
Commenting Guidelines
Granted - and your point about no one arguing about this:
"The phrase 'paying for abortions' did one final disservice to our public discourse about the Affordable Care Act. Employers are not paying for specific health care services. They are required to make available health insurance providers that provide access to certain services, which employees may or may not use. The degrees of cooperation here are both morally and legally relevant, and to conflate the distance between health care premium support and the procedure itself obscures our understanding of insurance and the law in question."
OTOH - doubt that this specific phrase will live and ocntinue in SCOTUS internal discussions.
In terms of the slippery slope - you focus on Justice Kennedy but the slippery slope was almost the very first question from one of the female justices.......using examples such as vaccinations, HIV, blood transfusions, etc. It works both ways and one difference is that the federal government has already prevented abortion payments via legislature dating back decades. Wonder if you are inflating one tiny question beyond what it has legs to support?
To Vermilli's credit, he accepted that Hobby Lobby's religious stance is in good faith - how often does that happen? Thus, he gave away one line of argumentation because he will argue this without casting aspersions, questionning motivations, etc. Will the other side do the same for the ACA and the individual mandate and the need for access to universal healthcare including birth control\ as part of the common good?
Bigger line of question, IMO, had to do with Chief Justice Roberts off hand comment reinforcing Sotomayer's comment about - it is NOT a penalty; it is a TAX. That is where you need to do some homework and analysis.
5-4 and at least three opinions
But for whom?
My tea leaves think that government case will prevail on the basis on the lack of ability to identify the religious identity (and thus freedom) of the corporation as a moral "person" despite Citizens United(lawyers would say this better!)
All misogynistic Troglodytes are still clinging by their fingernails to any crack on the rock face of the law to help them maintain the hegemony of their anti-feminine ideology over the rest of us.
I suppose these rear-guard action(s) will be with us for some time into the future - well at least until the Roman Catholic male cabal on the right-wing of SCOTUS start to retire or die-off.
Please O Lord, delivers us from the insufferable chauvinist Scalia!
Speaking of Scalia: Did you notice that in Tuesday's arguments he completely reversed himself from his own opinion in the Employment Division v. Smith case (1990) that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual?
Scalia then reasoned that although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. In other words, Scalia argues against personal religious beliefs trumping state laws - just the opposite of what he now says in the Hobby Lobby case now before the court.
Scalia is sooooooo political! Watch him now shift his ruling to fit his own personal agenda.
Let's see what kind of pretzel Kennedy will twist himself into in order to side with either the girls or the boys on the court.
It's time for term limits for Supreme Court justices!
Thanks for a fine post. I'm especially interested in the conflation of the corporation with the owner of the corporation. Does a company automatically share the "deeply held religious beliefs" of its owner or founder? Do the religious beliefs of its employees figure into the company's "deeply held religious beliefs," or do ONLY those of the owner/founder count? (See, e.g., http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobb..., which also notes the lack of corporate support for this suit.)
Also want to second your point that insurance coverage does not mean "paying for" a particular procedure. Insurance isn't a perk--it's part of an employee's compensation, no more liable to the moral strictures of the boss than is the cash that's also part of compensation.
Or can a company refuse to give its employees cash at all, given the possibility that such a fungible good can easily be turned to purposes of which the employer might disapprove? (In fact, wouldn't anybody with a lively sense of sin--say, any Calvinist corporation--refuse to pay cash on exactly those grounds? "Here you go, dear. I'll pay your rent, and here's a nice box of groceries for your week's pay. And we'll consider your request for new clothes. That skirt you asked for looked like it might show a little too much ankle..." )
My philosophy taxation and spending never are a unconstitutional burden on people's consciences even if the taxation and spending is done through indirect means such as mandates.
The government certainly could provide contraceptive coverage. The owners of Hobby Lobby would have to pay for (through their taxes) contraception just as much as they are now. Providing coverage to those who have private plans via a mandate doesn't change anything.
Having to do something contrary to one's religion (or not do something mandated to one's religion) is a violation of conscience.
Having to pay for something morally objectionable is an unavoidable consequence of government.
The court was not tasked to define whether pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation
Several articles I have read recently say that the legal and m
The court was not tasked to define whether pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation
Several articles I have read recently say that the legal and medical definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that has already reached implantation.
Verrilli's first response is the obvious and correct one: the hypothetical scenario is already illegal and not relevant to this case.
Better than "already" is Kennedy's "currently." The Hyde amendment, which prohibits federal funding for elective abortions, is a statute that has to be passed again year after year. True, it's been passed every year since it was first enacted. But public opinion may change, and if it does, there's no reason to assume that this already controversial restriction will be continued. Many proponents of the contraception mandate also think that all insurance policies ought to include coverage for surgical abortions, since it is a legal medical procedure with a bearing on women's health. So we can't really treat Kennedy's line of questioning as fanciful. The fact that compulsory insurance coverage for abortions isn't possible now, for political reasons, doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the case at hand. Nor can we assume that the Supreme Court's decision will imply that every conscientious objection to services covered by the HHS mandate should be treated the same way. Contrary to one liberal version of the slippery slope argument, a decision that ended up allowing religious businesses owners an exemption from the contraception mandate would not necessarily entail similar exemptions for business owners who believe that, say, blood transfusions or psychotropic drugs are immoral—any more than a decision in favor of the mandate would necessarily imply that the Supreme Court would rule the same way about an abortion mandate. Still, if there are to be such distinctions, we need a legal framework for them; and that's exactly what Kennedy seems to be looking for here.
As I understand it, though, the court was not tasked with answering the question of whether the plaintiffs are correct that certain pharmaceuticals classed as contraceptives are actually abortifacients. The court was not tasked to define whether pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation, nor the mechanisms by which pharmaceuticals work. In the same way, the court was not tasked in U.S. v. Lee (1982) to define the precise way in which Social Security is a burden on the conscience of the Old Order Amish or in Employment Division v. Smith whether peyote really is a hallucinogenic necessary for anyone's free exercise of religion.
These last two questions both involve normative evaluations. The question of whether certain kinds of emergency contraception are abortifacients is a (disputed) question of fact. If members of a religious community were to claim that they cannot keep any chemical poisonous to humans in their homes or businesses, the Supreme Court would have no businesses adjudicating the rationale for that belief. If members of the same community were to claim—and, admittedly, this is a fanciful speculation—that bananas contain high levels of arsenic, it would not be improper for the Court to challenge this claim, or to dismiss it as the basis for a special exemption from some generally applicable law (I'll let you imagine what such a law might be).
Sorry, hit the button accidentally. Starting over:
The court was not tasked to define whether pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation
Several articles I have read recently say that the legal and medical definition of abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that has already reached implantation. This is different from the Church's view (apparently shared by the non-Catholic Hobby Lobby and Conestoga families) that preventing implantation is also abortion.
Three cheers for Hobby Lobby for pursuing this case as a model socially responsible capitalist firm. Which Catholic university or business school will choose one of the owners as a convocation speaker?
They get extra credit for rejecting the Sotomayor-Kagan recommendation to just pay the tax/fine/penalty, drop health insurance for employees, be done with it and save some money for themselves in the process.
John Hayes,
I don't think it should matter. The courts cannot get into the question of whether a religious belief is true, whether a religious belief is sincere, or whether a violation of a religious belief would be trivial or substantial. If having to buy insurance that covers legal but morally objectionable abortion is an unreasonable burden, so would having to buy insurance that covers legal but morally objectionable contraception.
Unlike the Church, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are not opposed to contraception. They are willing to provide insurance covering most contraceptives. Their objection is to covering four out of twenty (currently) contraceptives that, in their view, cause abortions by preventing implantation.
I think Chief Justice Roberts was exactly right in saying that this case is about abortion - but it is about abortion as defined by the Church and Hobby Lobby, etc - and apparently not abortion as defined by law and medicine.
There are disputes as to whether all four of those contraceptives prevent implantation, but Hobby Lobby doesn't have to prove that they do. It also doesn't have to convince anyone else that preventing implantation is wrong.
The definition of pregnancy may or may not correspond to the definition of conception, which is the more important definition for the Church's teaching about abortion. We tend to assume, reasonably enough, that there can't be an abortion before there is a pregnancy, but it may be that it makes sense to define pregnancy the way medicine does and conception the way the Church does, in which case there is a gap between the two.
As I said, I don't understand why the abortion aspect should matter to the courts. If one group says that abortion is a sin as grave as murder, another group says that using contraception is a sin as grave as murder, and another group says that blood transfusions are a sin as grave as murder, I don't see how the courts should listen to the abortion group and ignore the others.
Our laws do treat abortion differently than other things, but this is a legislative choice rather than a constitutional obligation.
"Now maybe Justice Kennedy's modus operandi is to present false slippery slope arguments and then see how advocates squirm. During oral arguments about the Affordable Care Act, the court famously discussed if the government could mandate that citizens buy broccoli. It was a memorable line, and perhaps useful in some way. But it was a true hypothetical, since Congress has not enacted a statute against forcing citizens to pay for broccoli."
To reiterate Matthew Boudway's point, I don't see why the fact that Congress having made it illegal to force companies to pay for abortions makes Kennedy's hypothetical a "false slippery slope." Legislatures are free to make legal what is illegal and vice versa any time they please. Otherwise we wouldn't have any Japanese-born citizens and couldn't drink alcohol. There is no doctrine of stare decisis for legislatures.
A lot of people seem to confuse the question of whether something is a bad law and whether something is or should be an unconstitutional law. Fixing bad laws via the courts can lead to creating precedents that mess up a lot of other areas or create a new law that is also bad but now much more difficult to fix.
Ryan Rowekamp, Justice Kennedy's question was aimed at the government's position that a corporation can't make a religion-based claim. That's a question of whether they can even get a hearing, not how the case ought to be decided
Essentially, Kennedy asked if Verelli would carry that so far that a for-profit corporation wouldn't be able to get a hearing even if if they were required to pay for insurance for abortions.
after a while, Verelli replied:
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, I think that if it were for a forprofit corporation and if such a law like that were enacted, then you're right, under our theory that the forprofit corporation wouldn't have an ability to sue. But there is no law like that on the books. In fact, the law is the opposite.
In his reply, he ignored the differing definitions of abortion and that is what Chief Justice Roberts corrected in his comment.
What is the law that is already on the books that would prevent a company from being forced to pay for abortion? The only one I am aware of that might do that is RFRA, the applicability of which to this situation is precisely what is being reviewed by the court. The Hyde amendment applies only to federal funds and wouldn;t apply to requirements for private companies. Is there a law I'm not aware of here?
The short answer to your question is: the Affordable Care Act. But you're right: strictly speaking, the Hyde Amendment does not apply to the ACA, and there is no parallel law that specifically prevents the government from requiring private employers to offer health insurance that includes abortion coverage. Instead, it is implicit in the provisions of the health-care reform law, which was designed to honor the principle behind the Hyde Amendment. Hence the segregation of federal subsidies for individual insurance policies from abortion coverage, and hence the requirement that every insurance exchange include a policy that doesn't cover abortion. The HHS mandate applies to all insurance policies—both employer-based policies and the individual policies available on the state exchanges. So if every exchange must include a policy that doesn't cover elective abortion, then the HHS cannot include elective abortion on its list of things every health-insurance policy must cover (the list that now includes contraceptives). The Hyde Amendment remains important as an index. The day when there aren't enough votes to renew Hyde will be the day when there are enough votes to amend the Affordable Care Act so that the government can require all health-insurance policies to cover abortion.
I was just about to type what Matt said, but he said it (as usual) more succinctly.
I should add that trends from 1960 to the present do not lead me to believe that our citizenry or our representatives will become more comfortable with abortion funding or abortion coverage mandates in the foreseeable future. I still think the hypothetical muddied the debate and invited equivocation on key terms as used by Kennedy, Roberts, Clement, and Verrilli, such that one side was talking about abortion as defined by law and the other as defined by Hobby Lobby's founder's conscience.
Thank you for adding that, Mr Peppard. Found Mr. Boudway's point to be contrary to both the historical record to date and current and past voting patterns of US citizens. Talk about making a hypothetical argument from left field - would suggest that the risks from the other side will happen quickly and frequently if every corporate customer can be allowed to make their case based upon the owners' religious beliefs.
What is also left out in this discussion are any concepts of catholic social justice thought or the thinking of VII's Dignitatis Humanae that places the dignity of every person and their conscience above some imagined right of a religiously inclined business owner. As John Courtney Murray stated years ago, the implications and impact of this document have yet to be fleshed out and will have a significant impact. (he was refering to those who hold a rigid and narrow concept of truth or even religious liberty and is most skewed by our current crop of US culture warrior bishops)
Bill deHass,
Oddly, you and I probably agree about the underlying issue of contraception. We may even agree, more or less, on the HHS contraception mandate. I do think it was ill-advised, but I don't think it's outrageous—not even from the point of view of someone who believes artificial contraception is a grave sin. Church teaching does not forbid the kind of remote material cooperation with the provision of contraceptives that the mandate requires.
That said, I also find your description of the issues at stake to be tendentious and misleading. The conflict is not between those who believe that women have a right to decide for themselves whether they will use contraceptives and those who believe that Catholic employers ought to have the right to keep their employees from using contraceptives. The question here is whether the federal government has a good enough reason to make Catholic employers pay for health-insurance policies that cover contraception. No one is talking about forbidding anyone from using contraceptives, and you cannot violate my conscience by refusing to pay (however indirectly) for something that vioates yours.
Nor is the issue of abortion as settled as you pretend. The provisions of the Affordable Care Act that keep the government from subsidizing coverage for elective abortions had to be fought for, as did the provisions that (now) make it impossible for the HHS to mandate that all insurance policies cover abortions. Most of the people who voted for the Affordable Care Act would have been happier without those provisions, believing, as they do, not only that abortion is a fundamental right but that all women should have access to it irrespective of their income—in exactly the same way they should have access to every kind of contraceptive.
I think Kennedy's hypothetical was a necessary part of the discussion. In the end, the court is going to have to decide whether a forprofit corporation can bring a religious exercise claim. If the answer is "no", as Verelli argues, there is nothing else to decide in this case.
The problem I see is how can you test the sincerity of a corporation's beliefs? That may lead to the outcome Roberts mentioned - allowing closely held corporations to sue on the assumption that there you can test the sincerity of the owners' beliefs as a surrogate for the corporation.
Verelli's comment on that was:
12 And if you disagree with our position at the
13 threshold that corporations that even though you have
14 a situation, and we acknowledge you can have situations,
15 in which a tightly knit group of a small group of
16 tightly knit individuals own and operate a corporation
17 where there is appeal to that, to the argument that they
18 ought to recognize a claim of exercising religion in
19 those circumstances.
20 The problem, I would submit, is with the
21 implications of doing it, the implications for
22 entanglement and making the judgments when you move past
23 that group, the administrability problems, and the
24 problems of inviting the kinds of claims that are
25 predictably going to impose harms on third parties.
My guess, right now, is that that is the way the court will go on the standing issue
However, I don't think that gives any clue to what they will decide about the substantive issue of whether the the government's interest in getting free contraceptives to all women justifies the burden on Hobby Lobby
Formatting problem. Everything after 15 is my comment, not part of the quote.
Thanks for this great piece. We're also following the Hobby Lobby case on our blog at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp/blog
Okay - but two points:
- allow me to modify your statement above.....*the question here is whether Hobby Lobby's owners have a good enough reason to make their employees pay for contraceptive coverage when the *public good* is to cover contraception. (keep in mind, the Greens only object to four contraceptives and not the other 16 available and covered).
- their *contraception* conscience approach will not be a part of this debate but, in reality, it contradicts accepted medical and scientific studies, results, and conclusions that have been testted and found correct.
- you state - "No one is talking about forbidding anyone from using contraceptives, and you cannot violate my conscience by refusing to pay (however indirectly) for something that vioates yours." Sorry, this may be technically correct but it avoids reality.....it is like some catholics who argue that immigration reform is not needed because American society already offers them *opportunity* and in their belief, catholic social thought is only about *opportunity* not actual rights to have certain things based upon human dignity e.g. insurance. In fact, by not covering contraceptives (remember, ACA makes this part of wellness covered visits (free) with low co-pays for prescriptions) the result will be that some employees will not have the *freedom* to make that decision - it will be made for them.
Finally, you say: "Most of the people who voted for the Affordable Care Act would have been happier without those provisions, believing, as they do, not only that abortion is a fundamental right but that all women should have access to it irrespective of their income—in exactly the same way they should have access to every kind of contraceptive." Sorry, unless you have documentation on this or can read the minds of Democrats who voted for the ACA, this is merely an unsubstantiated claim.
My guess projection is that this will be resolved via *tax* understanding - not in a broader sense.
I don't see how making people indirectly fund abortion would be different from making religious pacifists indirectly pay for war.
Ryan Rowekamp. The courts have determined that religious pacifists must pay income taxes, even though those taxes pay for war.
Bill deHass,
You caught me. I didn't have any documentation at my fingertips when I wrote that last comment; I was hazarding an educated guess—or rather, a vague memory. So I looked it up, and here's what I found. The Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3490) passed the House in 2010 by a vote of 219 to 212. All of the Aye votes came from Democrats, and most of those Democrats had voted against the Stupak Amendment to the House version of the Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3962), which prohibited the federal government from paying "for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion." (The Stupak Amendment passed 240 to 194, most of the Aye votes coming from people who would go on to vote against the Affordable Care Act.) Here are the two lists; you can compare them for yourself. True, the restrictions on abortion funding in the Senate version of the bill that became law were not exactly the same as those in the Stupak Amendment, but I still think it's fair to say, as I did, that "most of the people who voted for the Affordable Care Act would have been happier without those provisions"—that is, without the provisions that keep the Affordable Care Act from using federal money to subsidize abortion coverage.
Thanks, Mr. Boudway and agree with your comparison, link, and conclusion. My only quibble would be that this was in the context of a hard fought debate over the ACA......will hazard a guess that in another context, some (many) Democrats might have felt free to support abortion payment restrictions, limitations, etc. Just think this issue gets emotional and inflated and that some Democrats who voted saw the total wisdom and advantages of the ACA - its support that allowed women to make these decisions in consultation with their MD; making healthplans gender neutral in terms of monthly premiums, etc.
Always amused that this whole Hobby Lobby snafu is over four contraceptives which all impact women - wonder if the same argument would happen if it included some male contraceptive prescriptions. It never seems like this is a balanced issue.
Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell has a thorough analysis of the HL case.
"Ultimately, the government's problem here is that it has essentially reduced its own compelling interest to a funding question: Who should pay for the contraceptive coverage the government has decided people should have? Almost by definition, where the government's claimed interest is merely a question of who should fund something, there will always be less restrictive alternatives, because the government can always choose to fund its own priorities"
t's interesting that McConnell recommended that the University of Chicago Law School recruit onstitutional scholar Obama
Thank you for the link. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to be a good analysis, especially of the government's compelling interest arguements, and the financial burden on businesses ,even if they choose to pay the tax rather than offer the coverage. However, I do have some knowledge of employer health plans, and I would like to point out that all employers over a certain size, whether profit or non-profit, pay their employees' medical bills, albeit indirectly through their insurance company. An insurance provider's main role is to act as a broker for the employer - to negotiate the fees for services, network of providers, formularies of drug coverages,etc. Those bills are paid by the insurer, and then the costs are passed on to the employer. That's why health benefits are such an unpredictable cost to companies. Companies already choose which drugs to cover, based on elaborate tiers of drug formularies. They may choose to cover certain blood pressure or cholesterol medications over others, and may choose not to cover certain drugs at all such as Viagra or fertility drugs. Or they may choose to cover them, but charge the employee a large deductible if the employee wishes to still take that drug. My point is that these employers get to choose, because they pay the bills. My question is why did the HHS choose to make those 4 contraceptives REQUIRED for employers to cover, and not other drugs? Also, please note, that I am female.
David Gans draws the parallel to Lee:
The Court's pre-RFRA case law interpreting the Free Exercise Clause recognized that the rights of employees do matter. That was the lesson of United State v. Lee– a case discussed at length during the Hobby Lobby argument – in which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an Amish business owner's claim that he was entitled to a religious exemption from having to make Social Security payments on behalf of his employees. The Court in that case could have said that, to accommodate Mr. Lee's religious beliefs, the government should pay for Social Security benefits for Lee's workers or should create a new exemption to protect his ability to run a business consistent with his religious beliefs. But it did not. Rather, the Court held that Lee was not entitled to a religious exemption that would "impose the employer's religious faith on the employees." That's exactly what Hobby Lobby is seeking to do here.
My question is why did the HHS choose to make those 4 contraceptives REQUIRED for employers to cover, and not other drugs? Also, please note, that I am female.
The requirement is to cover all FDA-approved methods of contraception without cost to the employee (no co-pay or deductible).
Currently, there are 20 methods. The "four" comes about because Hobby Lobby considers that those four cause abortions. They don't object to paying for the other 16.
Sixteen different options of free birth control aren't enough? The contraception mandate is absurd.
Sixteen different options of free birth control aren't enough?
They don't all do the same thing. Two that HL objects to are Plan B and ella, which are the morning-after pills. Catholic hospitals use Plan B for rape victims.
The other two are IUDs. The argument from the government is that they are much more effective than birth control pills but are too expensive ($500 to $1000) for many workers to use if they have to pay themselves.
RU-485, the recognized abortion pill, is not required to be covered.
It's disputed whether these all prevent implantation, but HL doesn't have to prove that they do, as long as they sincerely believe that it would be wrong for them to cover them in their insurance.
Thanks, John....JP, how embarrassing.....your comment reveals that you haven't done your homework on this issue and thus shoot from the hip (so, now Fox News is your method of analysis). Also, you don't appear to understand the medical issues involved with women? Reminds me of those simplistic folks who think that NFP works for everyone.
And, JP, have you ever wondered why the contraceptive discussion is only limited to medications for women - what would happen if this also include male contraceptives?
Mr. Boudway - excellent description and analysis of abortion coverage in the ACA - federal and by state exchanges.
A couple of highlights:
- No provision in the A.C.A. expressly appropriates money for abortions themselves. As explained above, it is the absence of an express exclusion that, under existing jurisprudence, creates the problem.
- proposal that would settle many such issues is the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" (H.R. 7, S. 946). As approved by the House in January, H.R. 7 would codify the policy of the Hyde Amendment and similar provisions, so they would no longer be subject to annual attack during the appropriations process. This policy, made consistent across the federal government, would also govern the A.C.A. and future legislation.
- If the A.C.A. further increases the role of the federal government in health coverage and applies this same policy to federal subsidies for a broader class of Americans, this may produce a "tipping point" at which health care without elective abortion becomes the norm. Abortion and abortion coverage will still be legal and available, but rare.
In raising the question of what the employer is paying for, that is, is required to pay for, the author provides his own answer. In doing so, he not only muddies water he claims to be clearing up, but displays the fact that he has long since slid down the slippery slope and lies at the bottom of a ditch.
The employer is required to cover expenses in a contract which includes payment for, and therefore acquiescence to, procedures which are repugnant to his or her firmly held religious beliefs. Those procedures included are the decision of one man in the federal government, the president, who is charged with determining how to implement he law. If this plaintiff loses, there will be no return: the determination of what is authentic religious belief will in the future be in the hands of the secular federal government,
To complete: the determination of the individual citizen's most intimate thoughts, and his contract with God, will no longer be his property, his decision to exercise freely. Matters if individual conscience will be In the hands of another, the secular government.
Such is the law right now.and that this author neither gets it nor expresses outrage against it, should be a concern for all citizens, not just Catholics.
Mr. McDonald,
The Supreme Court has already ruled multiple times that sincere free exercise burdens can be overriden by compelling government interest. That's not new. We have been doing this tinkering of the balance of rights and responsibilities for a very long time. Now it's possible, maybe even likely, that Clement demonstrated sufficient problems with the government's compelling interest part of the balance. He certainly was an impressive oral advocate. But your point of concern was already addressed in Lee (1982) and Smith (1990) and in a way as far back as Reynolds (1878).
I think it's more likely that it would be decided that HHS overreached in administering a specific law and rule on those grounds, without having to decide in general about free exercise rights of a corporation. But it's hard to tell.
(written from "the bottom of a ditch")
Mr. Boudway - excellent description and analysis of abortion coverage in the ACA - federal and by state exchanges.
When I read Mr. Doerflinger's articles i never get the feeling that he wants to negotiate solutions with people who have different views. I keep hoping that the USCCB will appoint an effective negotiator to take a creative role role working with the administration and Congress in improving the ACA.
The Hyde amendment itself is a compromise - but better to have than not, even though it allows government funds to be used to pay for abortions (rape, incest, life of mother) that the Church teaches are wrong.
Mr. Hayes - typically I would agree with your assignment of this gentleman...but, actually, feel that he is trying to offer a middle ground here.
actually, feel that he is trying to offer a middle ground here.
i don't want to do a detailed response to his article, but to address just one item , his part 2, and HR7, the bill he supports, are a bomb-throwing exercise that proposes that anyone who qualifies for a federal subsidy to buy insurance on a health exchange must forfeit that subsidy if they buy a policy that includes coverage for abortion.
This was discussed at great length at the time the ACA was passed and the current arrangement is what people managed to agree on after long negotiations. The situation now is that people who buy a policy including abortion coverage have to pay out of their own pocket the added cost of the abortion coverage, so that no federal funds are used for that. This was modeled on the already-existing Medicaid program that required states that wanted to provide abortion coverage as part of Medicaid to pay for it out of state funds so that no federal funds subsidized it.
The discussion of that solution went on forever back then and I don't want to suggest people reopen it here. However, there is zero liklihood of that proposal getting into law, which is why HR 7 has been dead in the water since January.
Negotiations don't work if you keep reopening issues that have already been dealt with unless you can come up with a new proposal which is attractive to the other party.
There are issues in the ACA which should be revised, which is why I hate to see time being wasted this way.
Is this supposed to funny? The topic is of the greatest religious significance, namely, life, and the threat both to life itself and to those who feel compelled to protect it. Your attitude I find appalling.
You think the issue gets "emotional and inflated"? If one does not get emotional about the issue of preserving life, of preventing government from making moral decisions which are the property of individual conscience, and stopping one man, the president of the United States, from interfering with the duties and responsibilities of the Church, exactly when, in your view, should one get emotional?
As far as your use of the derogatory term "inflated," I can only say that it represents an arrogance on your part, and a condescending attitude to those of us who are rightfully concerned about the most important issue there is, human life. If you do not respect the danger faced by the unborn,I don't know who or what you do respect.
"Kennedy introduced the idea that, by the logic of the government's case -- in some future scenario, at the calamitous bottom of a slippery slope -- for-profit corporations could be forced to "pay for abortions.""
Leave aside the obvious rejoinder that paying for (possible) abortions is not so much the calamitous bottom of a slippery slope but the very thing that Hobby Lobby believes it is being required to do right now.
The real problem with your argument is the notion that just because something is supposedly "illegal" under current law, Supreme Court Justices should not bother to notice that an argument pressed upon them would eliminate any basis for objecting if the legislature were to change its mind, as legislatures sometimes have been known to do and as many ACA supporters would very much prefer in this case.
To put it more concretely, if the Supreme Court accepts the contention that religious freedom does not include Hobby Lobby's right to object to complicity with what it believes (truly or not) are possible chemical abortions, then if Congress tomorrow decided that all health insurance plans must cover third-trimester abortions as well, the Supreme Court would have already implicitly blessed such a move as consistent with religious freedom. Worse than that, the Supreme Court's decision would itself give a strong impetus to abortion proponents in Congress, as they would readily find strength in pointing to the Supreme Court's implicit blessing on their wish to support abortion more freely.
It would be reassuring if a religious magazine could be more friendly towards religious liberty claims, rather than so frequently offering specious support to secular statists who would be the first to toss you to the bottom of what you think a merely hypothetical slippery slope.
Mr. Pepperdine,
Thanks for the legal brief, brief indeed, in content. This is a bigger issue than you can comprehend apparently. You are not only in a deep, deep ditch, you are in the proverbial box. Time to find a way out and meet this horrendous danger on the plane of existence: human life and God.
Commonweal has been very concerned with religious liberty claims. Indeed the homepage is featuring an article right now. I myself had a piece just two weeks ago in the Washington Post suggesting that religious liberty claims need to be front and center these days, and it has been discussed here on the blog too.
What I do refuse is the apocalyptic tone of most of the debate on both sides. I do not think we are in a battle between religion and secular statism. Far from it. We are trying to balance rights in the most pluralistic society the world has ever known. I take it very seriously. Nothing about this case is obvious -- that's why it's before the Supreme Court. It is not obvious that corporations should have religious free exercise rights, nor is it obvious that the government has proven its compelling interest in the particular case of the HHS mandate.
About the Author
Michael Peppard is assistant professor of theology at Fordham University, author of The Son of God in the Roman World, and on Twitter @MichaelPeppard.


text:
I love this lipstick! It's really easy to get a crisp line straight from the bullet with this formula. It never gathers or looks dry. It's not moisturising, but it's not drying either. I always prep my lips with MAC Lip Conditioner before I wear their mattes, blot my lips then apply the lipstick. After about 4 hours of wear I dab a tiny bit of Lip Conditioner over the top and that keeps my lips happy. I can skip that step without
On my NC20 skintone (I have neutral-to-warm undertones) it looks like a warm-toned red, super flattering and lovely. However on my NC40 friend, it looks straight orange (though just as lovely)! I was shocked to see it's such a chameleon!
Such a showstopper of a red color! It's super flattering on my warm skin due to it's orange tones and is my bright, sexy red (Russian Red is my darker red shade). Lasts probably 4-5 hours and leaves a slight stain behind. I would definitely recommend going into a MAC store to try it on before buying it as it is a very bright shade. It's a great shade of red for summertime!
1 out of 1 users found this review helpful
Was this review helpful? Yes No
MAC Lady Danger Lipstick ($15.00 for 0.10 oz.) is described as a "vivid bright coral-red [with a matte finish]." It's a bold, brightened orange-red with warm undertones and a matte finish. It leans more red than orange, but it's not full-on red. Maybelline Orange Edge is glossier. Maybelline Vibrant Mandarin is less red. Maybelline Neon Red is slightly more orange. MAC Scarlet Ibis is similar. MAC Sail La Vie is glossier. Buxom Rogue is more orange. OCC Psycho is more orange. See comparison swatches.


text:
Todd McFarlane Productions and Namco Hometek Inc. announced the official name of Mammon, a character known by many Spawn enthusiasts for his mysterious appearances in numerous past comic book episodes. Until today, Mammon has been portrayed as a background character that appeared in dark shadows. Mammon is now slated to take on a much more proactive role in both the upcoming video game as well as in future issues of the Spawn comic book series, with appearances beginning in issue 133. The video game Spawn: Armageddon is scheduled to release in November 2003 on the PlayStation 2 computer entertainment system, the Nintendo GameCube and the Xbox video game system from Microsoft.
Ever enigmatic in his past actions and future intentions, Mammon has been described as Spawn's personal guide and mentor whose wisdom is often sought during Spawn's ongoing conflicts between the forces of Heaven and Hell. Though his motives remain unclear to Spawn, Mammon is extremely knowledgeable and Spawn has little choice but to use Mammon's wisdom to his advantage.
"Bringing Mammon, his personality and the history between Mammon and Spawn to the forefront of the franchise's storyline is something that I've been thinking about since I originally wrote the character into the script," said Spawn creator Todd McFarlane. "When the opportunity arose to introduce Mammon through the Spawn: Armageddon video game, it was obvious that this was the way to roll out the red carpet for the character. Good, neutral or evil, it's safe to say that Spawn fans will have the opportunity to get to know Mammon in much greater detail over the next several comic book issues and, of course, in the new Spawn game."
The true nature of the relationship between Spawn and Mammon remains ambiguous. Mammon keeps a low profile when he isn't talking with Spawn, preferring to let Spawn act for him. He wears many faces, but usually prefers to exhibit the air of a well-mannered and intelligent gentleman.
"We are proud that Todd McFarlane has chosen Namco's game as a place to reveal more about this intriguing character," said Glen Cureton, producer at Namco Hometek Inc. "Fans of Spawn can finally put a name to this mysterious character, who has played, and will continue to play, such an important role in the dark hero's story."
For more information about Spawn: Armageddon, check out previous spawn.com news stories or head over to www.namco.com.
Spawn, and its logo are registered trademarks of Todd McFarlane Productions, Inc., as are many of its characters and symbols. Comic Spawn 2003 Todd McFarlane Productions, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Video Game Spawn: Armageddon is developed by Namco Limited under license from Todd McFarlane Productions, Inc. Video Game Spawn: Armageddon 2003 Namco Limited. All Rights Reserved.


text:
TOMMY ARMOUR Men's 845 Speed Chamber 5H Hybrid
$129.99 $29.97 You Save $100.00 or 76%
Item # 13335961
|Eligible for Free Shipping on Orders $49 or More! (see promotion details)
|Members of The League get 5% back when you spend $100! (see promotion details)
Product Details
Send 'em sailing on every swing with this TOMMY ARMOUR® 845 5H hybrid for men! Speed Chamber technology on the head creates a hotter face for increased accuracy and distance, while a Swing Tack™ textured handle provides a solid and comfortable grip.
Get your new TOMMY ARMOUR® golf club today from Sports Authority.
- 5H right-hand hybrid
- Speed Chamber technology creates a hotter face for increased accuracy and distance
- Apollo® graphite shaft
- Swing Tack™ textured handle
- Loft: 25 degrees
- Lie: 61.5 degrees
- Length: 38"


text:
42 mm Mini-Maxi travelers bring the ease of dinghy traveler adjustment to large offshore boats. Cars ride on two rows of recirculating Torlon® ball bearings and roll freely under high, nonvertical loads. Torlon® is a registered trademark of Solvay Advanced Polymers.
DO NOT use Harken Equipment for Human suspension.
Address InformationTel: 262.691.3320 | Fax: 262.701.5780 Email: firstname.lastname@example.com Technical Service: email@example.com our other locations


text:
Click Here to Watch the Whole Video in HD at On The Hunt
OnTheHunt.Com features real Manhunt members in real amateur hookups. Updated twice a week with a brand new full length feature and a hot behind the scenes bonus video.
A hot straight muscle dude gets his hole licked deep and the camera man gets so rnexcited watching that he jumps in to tongue this dude's hole too!
Pixels: 320X240 | Bitrate: 350K
Pixels: 640X480 | Bitrate: 700K
who are the models?
The camera man is Jeremy Hall I think...
Good lawddddddddd!!!!!! that was off the hook!!!! especially how the camera guy ate that ass!!! shit, that's almost as good as getting fucked!!! i would love for the camera guy to eat me out like that!!!!
I can see why the camera man wanted to join in.
What a hot video the camera man was so HOT.


text:
Smart Bond Investing—Money Market Securities and More
Money Market Securities and More
- Asset-Backed and Preferred Securities
- Auction Rate and Event-Linked Securities
Money Market Securities and More
A number of other bond categories exist that are primarily traded by professional investors and differ from Treasuries, munis, corporates, agencies and mortgage-backed securities.
Money Market Securities
Money market instruments include bankers' acceptances, certificates of deposit and commercial paper. Bankers' acceptances are typically used to finance international transactions in goods and services, while certificates of deposit (CDs) are large-denomination, negotiable time deposits issued by commercial banks and thrift institutions. Commercial paper takes the form of short-term, unsecured promissory notes issued by both financial and non-financial corporations.
Some combination of these products makes up a money market fund. All money market funds are required to have a dollar-weighted average portfolio maturity that cannot exceed 90 days. While money market securities are highly liquid (you can usually receive your money in a few days, compared to months or years with a CD), the interest you earn on your money tends to be quite low and may not keep pace with inflation.
Related Links
Download the print version:
- in English
- en Español


text:
Central Illinois Section Meeting
Corrosion Prevention: Concepts, Processes and Product Types
March 6, 2013
Corrosion Prevention: Concepts, Processes and Product Types
Daryl Adams, Product Manager with Quaker Chemical
Daryl Adams will discuss corrosion mechanisms and corrosion on various substrates. He will also cover product types and chemistry, proper products selection, corrosion testing, product application & storage and field concerns.
Meeting Location:
Golden Corral
3525 N. University
Peoria, IL 61604
5:30-6:30 p.m. Dinner and Networking
6:30-7:30 p.m. Presentation
7:30-8:00 p.m. Questions/Discussion
$ 20.00 per Person
$ 15.00 for students and retired members
To make reservations, contact Mike Davis at (217)855-8828 or email email@example.com.
Upcoming program:
April 3, 2013 - Amines 101


text:
1303 W Walnut Hill Suite 226
Irving, TX 75038
United States
Elegant Beauty Day Spa specializes in makeup & skin care for beauty. We have services for the traditional, non-traditional and specialty bride. Specialty makeup services include bridal boudoir, pin up girl and non - traditional brides. Licensed & insured our spa offers brides affordable professional services. Bridal beauty services include; licensed estheticians, makeup artist, Individual Flare Lashes, body wrap technicians, eye brow arch & wax experts in addition to body wrap technicians, lose 4"-15" inches each body wrap treatment guaranteed! (Contact us for more information.)
As the bride you will be treated with hands on, hand held service. We are dedicated and committed to making your special day as perfect as possible. Let us walk you through this process with ease. We look forward to meeting you. Featured Candice Baker & London Woodward.
Congratulations, brides we look forward to serving you!
Nicole A Moore
Licensed Esthetician
Owner Operator
We are delighted to introduce Elegant Beauty Day Spa. Your Dallas-FT Worth mobile spa and salon on the go! Providing upscale services for individuals, corporate, commercial, professionals & events.