text:
Sciatic Pain For Months....
I have been suffering with sciatic pain that goes from my right butt cheek around to the front and down the front of my leg from below my right knee down as far as my toes sometimes. It is a burning awful, nagging pain that I'm sure I don't have to describe to any of you that have had it. Most of the pain seems to settle between my knee & ankle. Though I have had one brief bout of sciatica on each side in the past 5 years, they were always relatively short-lived & seemed to resolve on their own with use of ice, rest and anti-inflammatory drugs. Not so this time around.
This most recent attack of sciatica happened in early November 2008 after my doctor sent me for some physical therapy after an episode of sciatica on my LEFT side had totally resolved itself. I was about to leave for a 3 week vacation & she recommended I go for the therapy so that I would not have a flare up while away. I went for only 2 sessions of PT & after the second one I woke up the following morning with excruciating pain on the opposite side..... down my RIGHT side from my buttocks to my foot. I couldn't put any weight on my foot or walk & was in absolute agony! I had not had an attack on my right side in 5 years & feel that the manipulations & exercises that the therapist had me doing must have aggravated something to cause a flare up.
I went on my vacation & was in terrible pain the whole time I was away. Though the pain has lessened as time has gone on, it is still there & the intensity can fluctuate. An MRI that my orthopedic doctor ordered showed some bulging disks. I've used OTC anti-inflammatory meds & some stronger prescription pain meds, but they help only sometimes. Using an ice pack on my lower back seems to give me the most relief. My orthopedic doctor has suggested that I either see how things go for a while longer or that I see a pain management specialist & consider having an epidural injection in my back. He claims that gives relief to some people, but doesn't help others.
At this point I am unsure what to do. I am scared about the idea of a needle in my back, but I am tired of hobbling around with a cane, being limited in what I can do & being in constant pain. My family doesn't understand the pain I am in.....seem to think I can just take a pill & <POOF>.... it will vanish!
I would love to hear comments from anyone who may have had experience with sciatic pain for this long. I'd also be interested in hearing if anyone has had problems flare up AFTER going for PT. Would also love to hear if the epidural back injection has offered any relief & if it is very painful to get. Thanks for having this community & for any sharing of your experiences.
hi i an new to this site but not new to pain mine is due to a ruptured disk l5s1 new i am on 9 tablets a day including lyrica,i can still feel pain but bearable,my leg has also stopped jumping,i have sciatica from my *** to my toe right leg,i cannot sit or walk without seves pain and i know that under the meds the pain is still there,my question is should i return to work which involves alot of getting in and out of cars as i am a vehicle inspector,will i do more damage or will i be ok i am 39 two kids and have a bad quality of life at the min and wife is under pressure too.I do not want to have this problem for life as its a poor life with it please help if anyone can,thanks shane.
I share your, and others pain. I had a herniated disk which I left untreated. The result was a crushed nerve through which I was leaking spinal fluid. The herniated disk also broke apart. I was in tremendous pain but after surgery I'm a lot better. I still have pain but not nearly like it was.
Have you heard of the XStop spacer surgery? A friend had it done Jan of 2010 and is doing beautifully. Won't work for me as it cannot be used between L5 & S1which is where my disc is totally gone and now is bone on bone.
I had a bilateral L2-L5 laminectomy for spinal stenosis. Now I have significant sciatica. Can't stand or walk too far as I get neural claudication. I'm not sure of my path at this point, but I'm hoping I can live without sciatica. Neurontin provides only marginal help.
Type your comment here...
Depends on the massage technique.. you do not have to have theraputic massage to relieve your pain.. massage comes in a thousand different forms and as a massage practitioner, I know, that pain does not have to be inflicted to easy your pain.. there is no gain to be had using that technique.. It's a very painful disorder and now you have a seperate issue with a herniated disc.2 things going on now. Have each one addressed in your treatment even if you start out with relaxation massage to see where your tolerance is and believe me it will much more enjoyable to have your pain relieved without increasing your pain first. Pain management will include this concept for you, so take any advise that your doctor gives to you and make it yours.. while one thing will work for another.. maybe not for you but you'll figure it out..Don't blames the pt.. you've had this existing problem for a long time but what phy, does for you is build the mucsle cores up ... and your's we're weak and they reacted please do not give up because the muscles need to be strengthened to support your back , listen to all of the advise that you get to best understand how to approach your recovery.
I have lived with nerve pain for about 8.5 years. so I guess you could say I am a pro. I have had 4 back surgeries within this time, also multiple injections. Unfortunately the surgeries only worked for a short time and then the pain came back even worse. None of the injections worked, but I have talked to many people who were very happy with the results.

My pain starts in my left hip and extends all the way down to my big toe. I am never without pain, but I get most relief when I am laying down on my stomach with an icepack on my back. Over the past few months I have had pain no going down my right leg and also if I sit for too long I get a pain in the middle of my back.

Most of my pain began as a herniated disc and now have what they call failed back syndrome. Where the discs are either herniated or bulging again and there is scar tissue pinching the nerve, which they can't do much with.

We've tried a Spinal Cord Stimulator, which worked for about a year.

Not sure of any of this helped, but I do feel your pain. My only advice would be, only use surgery as the last option. It was mine, but I have know many who didn't need it and are now worse off, but I also know many who have had surgery work for them.

Guess I was just "lucky"
hi I have just been reading your message, I was wondering if you went to physiotherapy? I had a baby 6 weeks ago and during labour I was in an awkward position witch caused my sciatica my doctor is no help she just keeps giving me painkillers and not none of them work, I haven't been able to walk for 4 weeks now my partner has to help me to the toilet its getting very difficult as he is now back at work and cant look after my son I have to ask my mum for help every day. I don't no wat to do and its making me depressed.


text:
JIM LEHRER: Now the views of Karim Sadjadpour, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He previously worked in Iran for the International Crisis Group.
And Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Iran, Israel, and the United States."
Mr. Sadjadpour, first, how do you read today's protests? What's the meaning of them, do you think?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: Well, this was the 10th anniversary of the 1999 student protests, and they're celebrated on an annual basis in Iran. And I think it underscores, again, the depth of people's sense of injustice and people's sense of outrage, given what transpired three weeks ago at the election results.
No one expected the scale of these protests to be similar to what we saw a few weeks ago, but still we saw by eyewitness accounts several thousand people throughout the city. And, again, I think it underscores people's sense of outrage, but also the bravery and the great courage of the Iranian people.
JIM LEHRER: Can you add anything based on your information that you got today as to the extent of these protests, Mr. Parsi?
TRITA PARSI, president, National Iranian American Council: They seem to have been throughout the city, but in smaller numbers. What the government has done is try to make sure that they prevent people from being able to gather in very, very large numbers.
But, nevertheless, the most important point I think is that people still went out, even though they knew the consequences. They've seen what has been happening to other protestors.
And I think it shows that, as the president pointed out, the dust has not settled in Iran. The protest movement, the dissent of the ordinary people that believe that the elections were stolen, that has not lied down. This is not something that has ended.
JIM LEHRER: What are they protesting? You think they're still protesting the election, or is there something more involved here, the whole rule of the government at this point?
Evolution of the protests
KARIM SADJADPOUR: I truly think it's evolved since the pre-election. Pre-election, people's demands were evolution within the confines of the Islamic system, but I think people are now asking for much more.
They're questioning the legitimacy of the Islamic system itself. They're questioning the legitimacy of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
And what's interesting to me talking to people within Tehran is that, behind the scenes, I think there's more happening than we know, given the fact that there is very little foreign media coverage in Iran.
I was talking to a friend of mine in Tehran who said that he lives in a neighborhood which is heavily populated by Revolutionary Guardsmen. And he said, at night, the...
JIM LEHRER: And these are the government guys?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Exactly, the people on the side of the government. And at night, what people have been doing is chanting, "Allahu Akbar," "God is great," kind of as a way to protest the...
JIM LEHRER: You're saying Revolutionary Guards are doing that?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Yes, this is within neighborhoods...
JIM LEHRER: Wow.
KARIM SADJADPOUR: ... inhabited by Revolutionary Guardsmen. So I think certainly the government has a monopoly over coercion right now, and the scale of the demonstrations has increased, but I think the fissures that exist behind closed doors we're still not privy to.
JIM LEHRER: Are you picking up those kinds of things, as well?
TRITA PARSI: Absolutely. And I think we've seen that, at the end of the day, just because people are not on the streets all the time fighting does not mean that the struggle in any way, shape or form is over with.
People realized rather quickly that, because of the fact that the government holds all the power and all the violence, it is not necessarily the best strategy to constantly go out and demonstrate. It's important to show that they defied the authority of Ayatollah Khamenei.
But once they've shown that once, it's enough. Now they need to use other tactics in order to be able to continue the protests, but while reducing the casualty rate.
JIM LEHRER: What other tactics are there?
TRITA PARSI: Well, they've been talking about strikes. They've been talking about other different ways that they can do so.
And we have -- and this is, I think, one of the points that really shows, this is not any type of protests that are being a Velvet Revolution or orchestrated from the outside. This is something that is genuinely coming from the inside.
And part of the evidence for that is that they're improvising. They don't have the handbooks of the Serbians or the Ukrainians or the Georgians. They are improvising the situation right now.
A hands-off approach for the U.S.
JIM LEHRER: Is it correct to say that the U.S. policy of hands-off is actually real and the United States is keeping not only its mouth shut, but its actions quiet, too?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Absolutely. Certainly, for the first few weeks after the elections, the Obama administration was very careful. They didn't want to insert the United States into this momentous internal Iranian drama which was unfolding for fear that we could potentially hurt those whom we're trying to help.
And I would suggest to the Obama administration to continue with that approach and not call prematurely for any policy of engagement, simply because I think that would be demoralize those people who are continuing to agitate against the government if they feel that the United States has accepted the outcome of these elections.
JIM LEHRER: Do you agree that there's nothing to be gained by the United States encouraging whatever is going on, that we don't know about, that you all have just told us about, in Tehran and the rest of Iran?
TRITA PARSI: I have not heard from anyone inside of Iran, at least not in large numbers, that they believe that there's anything in particular else that the United States should be doing at this point. It doesn't mean that there can't be things later on.
But most importantly, what I've been hearing from people is, they want the world to see what is happening. They know very well that, if the cameras go away, if the eyes of the global community starts focusing on Michael Jackson, on other things, it makes it easier for the hard-line elements in the government to continue to clamp down and even increase its brutality.
As long as the eyes of the world are there, I think elements inside of Iran of the protestors will still feel that they have an ability to continue to call into question this election.
Imprisonment of dissidents
JIM LEHRER: Speaking of the protesters, how did you -- what did you make of the fact that the government released 1,000 people who had been protestors and had been in jail for the last couple weeks or so? Was that considered a gesture of what? What...
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Well, I don't -- I think that the scale of repression is still very high.
JIM LEHRER: Still there.
KARIM SADJADPOUR: We're not seeing exactly what's transpired. I personally have about a dozen friends who are in prison now in Iran.
JIM LEHRER: Still in prison?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Still in prison.
JIM LEHRER: Not one of the thousand who were released?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: None have been released from solitary confinement. The government claims that about two dozen individuals have been killed. I think I've seen more videos of individuals being killed. Unofficially, the numbers I've seen are several hundred.
So I think the scale of the repression is very high. And when there's no foreign media there to report it, as Trita said, I think the government feels they can get away with a lot more.
JIM LEHRER: Do you have friends still in jail?
TRITA PARSI: Yes, we have common friends that have been put in jail. And what's quite fascinating about it is that these are not political individuals. Some of these individuals are journalists or not even that. They're running consulting firms and dealing with economic analysis and they have been put in jail.
So I think for the government to release some of them may partly be because there's a lot of pressure on them and they realize that a lot of the violence that they views as backlash.
But part of it is also because some of the people, a large portion of the people that they imprisoned, are actually part of this government. These are elements that were part of...
JIM LEHRER: Like what? Give me an example.
TRITA PARSI: Individuals around Mousavi that have been put in jail. These are individuals who were actually there during the revolution 30 years ago...
JIM LEHRER: The leader of the opposition.
TRITA PARSI: Exactly. You had, for instance, the daughter of the former president, Rafsanjani, being put in jail. It's very difficult for them to hold individuals like that for a long period of time.
Opposition vows to press forward
JIM LEHRER: What do you make, finally, of what we saw in the setup, Kwame's setup, that what President Obama said on Tuesday, that let's let the dust settle, as both of you referred to, before we decide whether to make any more moves in any kind of official relationship with Iran?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: That's absolutely right. I've always said that I defer to the leaders of the opposition themselves as to what's best for them. And now I see leaders of the opposition saying that the Europeans, the United States should not recognize this government yet. This fight isn't over yet.
JIM LEHRER: Not recognize Ahmadinejad?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Exactly, not recognize the results of this election. So I think this fight isn't over. There's still plenty of fight in the opposition.
And just as we, the United States, didn't want to tip the balance in favor of those in the government who are repressing people by coming out in favor of the opposition, I think the opposite is true, that we don't want to endorse the results of this election for fear that we're going to betray the millions of people who took to the streets.
JIM LEHRER: How do you feel about that?
TRITA PARSI: No, I would agree with that. And you can see that the opposition's fear is that, right now, Ahmadinejad has not managed to pass the goal line on his own. You see still these demonstrations. You see still more people from the clergy coming out and questioning the results.
The last thing they want to see is to have international community start dealing with Ahmadinejad in a manner that can help him pass and give him a push over the goal line when he cannot pass the goal line himself.
JIM LEHRER: In other words, keep your mouth powder dry, in terms of the United States?
TRITA PARSI: Yes, exactly. You know, engagement and diplomacy is still the policy. The United States' interest in the region has not changed, but there's no need to rush towards those negotiations at this point. As the president said, let's really make sure the dust settles first.
JIM LEHRER: And you agree with that?
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Absolutely.
JIM LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. Good to talk to you both again.
TRITA PARSI: Thank you.
KARIM SADJADPOUR: Thank you, Jim. Thank you.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
TEXDOC: Stata module to create a LaTeX document including Stata output
texdoc provides tools to create a LaTeX document from within Stata in a weaving fashion. This is especially useful if you want to produce a LaTeX document that contains Stata output, such as, e.g., a Stata Journal article or solutions to statistics homework assignments.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
|Programming language:
|Stata version 9.2 and sjlatex from http://www.stata-journal.com/production
|Date of creation:
|22 Mar 2009
|Date of revision:
|02 Feb 2017
|This module should be installed from within Stata by typing "ssc install texdoc". Windows users should not attempt to download these files with a web browser.
|Contact details of provider:
| Postal: Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill MA 02467 USA
Phone: 617-552-3670
Fax: +1-617-552-2308
Web page: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC/
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:
|Web: http://repec.org/docs/ssc.php
This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:
- Stata/Publication Quality Ouput in Wikibooks English ne '')
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:boc:bocode:s457021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F Baum)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.


text:
GREEN belt land in Benfleet is under threat from developers who want to build 140 homes.
Fox Land and Property is battling a council decision to turn down their proposals for 165 homes on land to the west of Glebelands.
But in an unexpected twist, the developers have put forward fresh plans for 140 homes.
Glebelands, which is the last remaining green belt site in Castle Point's St George's ward, has been coveted by the company as a place to build homes since 2010.
Clive Walter, Conservative councillor for St George's, said: "It seems to be jumping the gun with this one becausewe are still waiting to hear back from the court about its appeal.
"It is trying to pull a fast one.
Glebelands is a green belt site and must remain so."
Castle Point Council marked the site for 100 homes in it's draft local plan and campaigner Steven Guest, of Glebelands, believes the new proposals are no better than the original application.
Mr Guest, 38, said: "It is still green belt, so it should not be built on. The developers are wasting their money.
"The High Court decided against them and yet they are still trying to push their plans through."
The new plans include proposals to build 140 homes, to provide a network of public open spaces, play areas and pedestrian links to surrounding areas.
MP Rebecca Harris said: "The strength of the latest planning guidance updates issued in February, and what they mean for the protection of the green belt has developers scared and they are rushing to get this application in front of the council before they can sit down and change the direction of their New Local Plan accordingly.
"The community fought a long and tough battle over the application on Glebelands last time and I will stand there and fight with them even if they have to do it all again."
Tom Smith, 67, of Shorefields, added: "It is just shocking. They are not willing to stop and are trying everything possible."
The developers are appealing to the High Court for a second time after the original 2012 plan was thrown out in January.
Adecision is due in November


text:
Kathryn really wants her boss to choose her proposal, and she's willing to do whatever it takes. In this case, what it takes is seducing another employee named Curtis and distracting the competing presenter, Matt, with a clear view of her bare pussy during the presentations. It works perfectly, but she didn't count on anyone getting upset. Matt sure is, though, and she finds out right in the middle of a tryst with Curtis just how mad Matt is when she is forced to deepthroat him and has her first anal sex in the form of very rough double penetration!
Warning: This audiobook contains very explicit descriptions of sexual activities during a rough and reluctant office sex encounter. It includes forced deep throat, double team sex, rough sex, first anal sex, and double penetration. It is intended for mature readers who will not be offended by graphic depictions of sex acts between consenting adults.
©2012, 2013 Naughty Daydreams Press (P)2013 Lyrical Lip Service, LLC.
There are no reviews for this title yet.
Report Inappropriate Content
If you find this review inappropriate and think it should be removed from our site, let us know. This report will be reviewed by Audible and we will take appropriate action.


text:
Malian troops, backed by French air power, have pushed back Islamist rebels in the centre of the country and African nations have pledged troops to help Mali. Britain has promised technical support.
French President Francois Hollande has hailed the success of the operation but ordered tighter security at home in case of reprisal attacks from Islamic extremists.
French Mirage fighters carried out a second day of air strikes on Saturday to stop the advance of Islamist ground forces, Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told reporters. France suffered one casualty – a pilot killed carrying out air raids, he said.
Islamists have controlled the north of Mali since last March and had been threatening to push south. But Mr Hollande said French air power had halted their advance. "Our foes have suffered heavy losses," he said, stressing that the French intervention had "only one goal, which is the fight against terrorism".
A statement from Mali's interim president, Dioncounda Traore, said 11 soldiers had died and 60 had been wounded. He said that "they fell on the field of honour at Konna." Konna is the central town recaptured from the Islamists on Friday.
Earlier, a Malian officer in the central town of Mopti, near the front line, said dozens, possibly as many as 100, Islamists had been killed in Konna. Residents there described the bodies of men wearing Arab clothing and turbans.
Malian troops recaptured the town a day after it had fallen to the insurgents, who had threatened to continue their southward advance.
Human Rights Watch said at least 10 civilians, including three children, had died in Konna. Children forced to fight by the Islamists had been wounded and possibly killed in the fighting, HRW's Corinne Dufka said.
Konna lies 700 kilometres north-east of the capital Bamako but was in government-controlled territory near the demarcation line separating the Islamist-controlled north from the rest of the country.
The French intervention appeared to galvanise plans for a United Nations-approved African intervention force in Mali, which had not been expected to deploy until September.
On Saturday Burkina Faso, Niger and Senegal each pledged 500 troops for the force. Ivory Coast's African Integration Minister Ally Coulibaly said the first elements could arrive as early as Monday.


text:
Killurin Lodge4
Cornwall Killurin, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford
Price FromView Rooms
- Excellent
- 10 guest reviews
"A warm and welcoming stay...."
"Irish B&B..."
"A real friendly welcome. A proper home from home..."
"a friendly and homely place to stay, in a rural setting, but not far from the attractions of Wexford and Waterford..."
"Only one negative. The building was a lot smaller than I assumed from the photographs. The room was spotless, and comfortable, and contained..."
About the hotel
Killurin Lodge is a family run 4 star Bed and Breakfast offering quality service and value for money. A modern comfortable home nestled in the heart of the Slaney Valley in County Wexford, 5 minutes walk from the river and 2 minutes to a well stocked supermarket and lively country pub, serving food most evenings. It is only a 10 minute drive to Wexford Town, 15 minutes to Enniscorthy town or numerous beautiful beaches, less than 25 minutes to Rosslare Europort and 90 minutes to Dublin.
A private driveway lined with cherry trees ensures it's safe for children to play in the beautiful 2. 5 acre mature gardens and you are also assured of a traffic free night's sleep. We serve excellent home grown food from our vegetable beds. Also our fruit bushes and trees provide a constant bounty of delights. We also keep our own chickens and if you like, you can collect your own eggs for breakfast! All our rooms are on the ground floor and have ensuite shower room, flat screen TV, hairdryer and tea / coffee making facilities. In addition there is a bright south facing dining room where you can watch the many birds on the feeders while having breakfast. The decking area to the side of the house is ideal to sit and relax in the morning or evening sunshine and watch the rabbits when they come out to play.
Read MoreLess
Facilities Show/hide
- Main
- Hotel Non-Smoking Throughout, Babysitting services, Cots available, Tea/Coffee making facilities in each room, Hairdryer in each room, Wake Up Call Available, Ground floor bedrooms
- Parking
- Car parking available onsite, Car Parking Available Offsite
- Business
- Wi-Fi Available, In-room Broadband, Wi-Fi Available In Public Areas, Wi-Fi Available In Rooms
- In Room Entertainment
- TV, Satellite TV, Radio
- Dining
- Lounge Menu, Breakfast to go
Can't find the facilities you're looking for?
- Call us on 0333 300 1007 and we'll help find the perfect hotel for you
- Call
Useful Info Show/hide
- Between 16:00 and 21:00
- By 11:00 hours
- Up to 12 years old
- 02/07/2017 to 31/12/2018 - BOOKINGS AFTER 9 PM FOR THE SAME DAY WILL NOT BE HONOURED The price shown is based on the occupancy and dates you have searched for. Prices and availability are subject to change based on the arrival date, number of nights and occupancy searched for. All prices are inclusive of all local taxes.
- Pets are not allowed
Customer Reviews
Our reviews are from genuine LateRooms.com customers. We verify that the customer has stayed before leaving a review.
100% would recommend it to a friend
Customer service
Food quality
Room quality
A warm and welcoming stay....
Killurin Lodge
Irish B&B...


text:
Every time I get into an argument with people about the Second Amendment, they inevitably bring up the idea that the rights enshrined within the Bill of Rights have limits. And the one thing they constantly fall back on is the example that "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." That even the First Amendment has limits and so we should allow restrictions on the Second Amendment, too. What they don't realize is that they have no idea what they're talking about . . .
The idea that some speech is so dangerous that it isn't protected under the First Amendment is a concept that comes from the Schenck v. United States supreme court decision of 1919. Schenck was agitating against a draft based on Thirteenth Amendment grounds (the one against involuntary servitude) but did so in a way that advocated for enlisted men to disobey orders. The supreme court ruled that in a time of war, the First Amendment needs to take a backseat to the needs of the country and that Schenck needed to shut up and sit down.
That's probably not a perspective that 70's draft dodgers and protesters would appreciate. You know, a lot of the same people who are now advocating for more gun control.
The unanimous decision used the example of shouting fire in a crowded theater, which is where we get the phrase still in use today. However, the ruling was later revised in Brandenburg v. Ohio to mean that the First Amendment didn't apply ONLY to speech that was promoting an imminent lawless act. And NOT when the speech that may cause harm somewhere down the road (as in Schenck). Note the use of the word "imminent." So in the later ruling, Shenck would have been OK.
In both of these cases (the second involving a KKK leader and some hate speech on TV, where the court overturned the conviction) the plaintiff had their first amendment rights completely and totally unrestricted until the moment they decided to act. Right up until the point where they opened their yaps and formed the words inciting mutiny or violence, they were presumed innocent and enjoyed their full rights.
There were no censors standing over their heads making sure that they didn't write anything seditious.
There was no waiting period while their background was checked before being allowed to speak.
There was no requirement to register your newspaper or blog with the government.
There was no government organization that kept a list of approved publications and required a $200 tax to move that instrument of speech between people.
These men were allowed the full exercise of their rights up until the exact moment when they decided to speak in a way that was imminently against the public interest. And, in the Brandenburg decision, even after that point.
When people say that there are restrictions on the First Amendment, they don't understand what they're saying. Sure, there are restrictions on what you can say, but there is always the presumption of innocence. It's only in reaction to an act or speech that those restrictions kick in.
We should have the same kinds of restrictions on the Second Amendment. Just as with the First, you should have the full and complete enjoyment of your rights without any reservations or restrictions until you do something that proves your motives are against the public interest. Like murder, for example.
I should be able to walk down Broadway in New York City with a fully automatic grenade launcher all locked and loaded, and have it be completely legal until the moment I pull the trigger.
Up until the moment that you use a gun for evil purposes, there should be no restrictions on your rights. Just as with the First Amendment.
So I completely agree. The restrictions on the Second Amendment should be identical in nature to those on the First. That you should have complete and total freedom until you prove you aren't responsible enough to handle that responsibility.
Because "innocent until proven guilty" isn't just a phrase — it's supposed to actually mean something in this country.
106 Responses to The Second Amendment, the First and Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater
ah, yes, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you can't fire a gun in a crowded theatre. Makes sense. Not allowing people to carry a gun into a crowded theatre is akin to duct taping your mouth before you go to the movies.
Exactly Mr. Paine. Yelling fire in a crowded theater will most likely result in actual harm to the panicked patrons. Discussing politics (before the movie starts) will cause no harm. Using a weapon in a criminal act of violence again most likely results in actual harm. Carrying a weapon, not so much. Punish those that cause harm, not those you think might cause harm.
Thank you for stating this … I was going to say the same thing.
I love your name sir.
And taking it a step further, how many times per year do lunatics have to yell "fire" in a crowded theater (leading to at least a half-dozen deaths each time) before government mandates that citizens don muzzles or duct tape before entering theaters?
Re: your "fully automatic grenade launcher on Broadway" example
How do you address the very next thing that's going to come out of their mouth? That is, words to the effect of, "A grenade launcher is much more dangerous than mere words." You said it should be "completely legal until the moment I pull the trigger," as it is with speech. The major difference is that when you pull the trigger, people die, effectively immediately. The same cannot be said of the person who suddenly starts screaming restrictable speech.
I know, I know, "Fire in a crowded theatre" could lead to injury, but you go scream "Fire!" in 10 random theatres and count the number of injuries, and then go pop off 10 grenades, individually at random locations, and see how it stacks up. The potential for injury is astronomically higher.
Please understand, I agree with the point you're making, but I've been in enough of these "discussions" to know where the next step is, and I don't know how to refute it. If I was a politician, I'd change the subject or mention "the children," but I'm not, so I want to be able to provide a real answer.
Change the theater setting to the Super Bowl and you're the in-stadium announcer about to say "There's a bomb! They have bombs!!"
Try that versus the grenade launcher scenario. The theater is too small.
Just off the top of my head, Hitler. Hitler sort of kicked off a huge war and genocide by speech. That's really downplaying it, but still.
You are 100% right, but there's a jump you're making that presumes OWNERSHIP = ILLEGAL ACTION.
The ACT of ownership harms no one. Just ask David Gregory about his 30rnd magazine.
The ACT of screaming 'Fire' falsely has and does cause deaths: People have indeed falsely shouted "Fire!" in crowded public venues and caused panics on numerous occasions, such as at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall (London) in 1856, in Harlem in 1884,[1] and in the Italian Hall disaster of 1913, which left 73 dead.
Again, I agree with you, the POTENTIAL injuries are higher. But so is me driving my car through the theater. But that doesn't stop me from owning a car, or driving anywhere else. The ACTION under scrutiny as to whether it should be illegal must, by itself, cause imminent lawless action. Owning AR15's and 10+ round magazines does not produce said action.
I think you have the right to possess an "automatic grenade launcher" NO QUESTIONS ASKED. Every person is sovereign until they hurt somebody. Bringing a grenade launcher to a theater is going to be nixed by the property owner because you'd scare fellow customers. You need to leave your launcher at home because that is the wish of the owner and you are a guest.
Another answer is that we already allow the most dangerous people in society to have whatever they want, no questions asked. These people use these weapons in an orderly fashion, just not against us, the "homeland", at this time. Innocent people across the globe, not so lucky. Saddam Hussein allowed his people to have RPGs. I don't think it was a problem until the glorious "liberation" in 2003.
If the most dangerous element in society, the government division, has them, then we should have them.
Now, there has to be a subjective limit. If the guy in the apartment next to you had 500 pounds of dynamite in his closet, I think you have a legitimate claim against him. For example, what if there were a fire? That could be seriously dangerous.
I also think some true weapons of war are inherently immoral, such as nuclear weapons and biological weapons. In any claim, the grievance is between you and another individual or small group of individuals. I think it is morally wrong to nuke a city of 1 million because there are 1,000 enemy soldiers in it. We can assume no person or entity should have that kind of power, especially a government.
In summary, I think that if individual police officers or foot soldiers can carry it, you can at least buy it and keep it in your home without any meddling from the state. This is the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
How about a person with reloading components or 10,000 rounds of mixed caliber ammunition?
Michael Z Williamson's book Freehold addresses this type of society beautifully imho. As we've already discovered, what constitutes a reasonable amount of explosive material varies depending on the person and the intended use. I'm playing devil's advocate here, I can't think of a reason that would outweigh public safety for a person to walk around with a nuclear device…until we develop portable nuclear power sources anyway. Everything is relative.
Instead of a novel, we should look to the Swiss citizen-soldier example of what the Constitution meant by an "organized," "disciplined," and "well regulated" Militia.
"The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791
It was successful then, it's successful now.
It was even successful at defending the Swiss nation while surrounded by the Axis Powers. And it costs 1/7th of the present Standing Army, which is a bunch of Mafia-enforcement thugs for Wall Street that act as economic hitmen to extract wealth from other countries, which has been the reason for terrorism.
"inciting imminent lawless action" is the benchmark. Brandenburg vs Ohio was about an armed KKK rally with speeches calling for revenge against African Americans and Jews. That was found to be not substantial enough to either forbid them from holding such rallies or taking their guns away.
It depends on whether the grenade launcher is considered arms or ordinance. Note, the Second Amendment only cover the arms that a infantry solider would carry. If the grenade launcher is considered ordiance it is not covered by the Second Amendment.
Now for the argument that the draft violates the 13th Amendment. The authority to draft citizens in the defense of their country is found in the dependent clause of the Second Amendment, i.e., "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…" All citizens in the age bracket defined in statute are members of the unorganized militia. The draft is nothing more than a call up of this unorganized militia. The reason that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is still important today is that a citizenry well versed in the handling of firearms can be more quickly trained and fielded. A person who can shoot a 22lr can quickly learn to accurately fire an M-1, an M-14 or an M-16/M-4. He can also assist in the training of the part of population that has never fired a gun prior to his call to service. During the Second World War the US Army had many tactical and organizational shortcomings but the one thing that our enemies will tell you is that Americans were deadly opponents when it came to a firefight.
The right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right that pre-exists governments and the arms are not limited in any way. There are uses for arms other than defending the security of a free state. The Second Amendment codifies part of the right to arms, the arms that are necessary to the security of a free state. I don't see the phrase "the right of the people to keep an bear arms that an infantry soldiers would carry shall not be infringed" in my copy of the Bill of Rights. Maybe I have an old copy or something. Because a government may wage wore on its people, those people have the right to all weapons of war that might be needed to fight of such a government.
In 1787 weapons were divided into Arms and Ordinance. Arms were things that an indvidual soldier would carry and ordinance was a big thing like a cannon.
Arms were pretty basic back then – the Brown Bess Musket or a long rifle. They did not have the variety of long guns and pistols that we have today.
Arguably the only weapons covered by the Second Amendment would be individual weapons carried by regular troops — the select fire versions of the M-16/M-4 and the M-9 handgun. A more broad interpretation would be any select fire rifle or carbine using the NATO 5.56 Cartridge and any 9mm full size automatic. If we really believe that Second Amendment is about defense and not hunting this interpretation is more valid than the one used by the gun grabbers.
Is a grenade launcher arms or ordinance? Beats me.
I'd call a grenade launcher ordnance, because it's indiscriminate. You may be able to aim where it lands reasonably well, but when it pops, it still hits everything within range.
This is nitpicking, but if you would be hard pressed to get a most 40mm grenades to detonate inside a theater – not enough room to arm before impact. Just sayin'
Perhaps overly pithy and cliche, but the pen is mightier than the sword. That is my response. Given the number of people killed by governments in the 20th Century, I'd say that speech can be far more dangerous than individuals possessing weapons.
Please clarify. You said, "However, the ruling was later revised in Brandenburg v. Ohio to mean that the First Amendment didn't apply ONLY to speech that was promoting an imminent lawless act. And NOT when the speech that may cause harm somewhere down the road (as in Schenck). " Did you mean "…the First Amendment applied ONLY to speech…"?
The construction Nick used was a little awkward, but correct.
…the First Amendment didn't apply ONLY to speech that was promoting an imminent lawless act.
…the First Amendment ONLY didn't apply to speech that was promoting an imminent lawless act.
…the First Amendment ONLY didn't apply in cases where speech was promoting an imminent lawless act.
……the First Amendment didn't apply ONLY in cases where speech was promoting an imminent lawless act.
They all mean the same thing.
When people say that there are restrictions on the First Amendment, they don't understand what they're saying. Sure, there are restrictions on what you can say, but there is always the presumption of innocence. It's only in reaction to an act or speech that those restrictions kick in.
You're wrong. Look at the requirement to obtain a permit to protest as a classic example, it is pretty much the same as paying the $200 NFA tax.
And our Constitution says 'Congress shall have the authority to levy taxes for the purposes of raising revenue.' Only. The supreme court has ruled it illegal for taxes to be enforced for punitive or disincentive purposes; they can't (legally) charge $200 to dissuade someone from registering something.
You're forgetting something- you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater UNLESS THERE'S A FIRE. Just like you can't murder someone, but self-defense is a-ok.
The supreme court has ruled it illegal for taxes to be enforced for punitive or disincentive purposes
See Sin Taxes. And if this were so, wouldnt Phillip Morris and other companies be suing the Cook County and NYC for their outrageous punitive taxes? It costs over $10 a pack here in Chicago for Marlboro Lights.
"wouldnt Phillip Morris and other companies be suing the Cook County and NYC for their outrageous punitive taxes?"
The unfettered power and resources of the government are above even the resources of large corporations. Thus, it becomes easier for the government to infringe the rights of people and harder for the people to fight back. That is why we find ourselves in this situation. We were too cowardly to limit the government to the confines of the Consitution. As long as they allow us to have beer in the fridge, mind-numbing shit on television and gas under $15 per gallon, we just don't give a damn.
the reasoning behind those taxes is usually to generate revenue equal to the expenses generated by having the paperwork processed
Prior restraint, such as the protest permit you mention, is only lawful if it is content neutral.
Protests are noisy events which can cause permanent hearing loss to those in the area protest is held.
They can also prevent assemblies on private property with things such as fire codes (max occupancy) and noise ordinances.
If theaters are not 'Free Speech zones', how does Quinton Tarantino get away with so much?
Also the most misquoted, you cannot falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater and then use your first amendment right as protection against being sued for injuries that result.
So you legally can shout fire in a crowded theater, even if there is no fire, you are just liable to criminal prosecution if someone is trampled to death in the rush to escape.
Not to be a wet blanket, but there are brandishing laws for a reason. A gun doesn't need to be fired to be used in a non-legal manner, in fact I would guess most muggings or store robberies with a gun occur without a shot being fired but with the weapon being brandished. So while I agree we should be allowed to own grenade launchers, that wouldn't mean we could carry them everywhere, since some locations would create a danger, not by the gun but by the location itself… Say you walked into a bank holding that grenade launcher? So if others view your actions as threatening it becomes illegal, even if you don't mean it that way.
I agree completely. The article loses much of its power when it asserts that pulling the trigger is where the line is crossed. Walking down the street with the launcher can reasonably be seen to expose passersby to imminent harm. A holstered handgun, not so much.
Using hyperbole hurts the argument.
"So if others view your actions as threatening it becomes illegal, even if you don't mean it that way."
This is nothing but a heckler's/rioter's veto.
A promise of LEGAL recourse is not a threat.
People do not "threaten" to call the police on vandals, they 'warn' the vandals of the legal consequences.
The general public is misusing the word (in a legal sense).
I agree with you in spirit, but Brandenburg did NOT revise the Schenck series of cases. In Brandenburg, the court decided to go in a different direction but never expressly revised or overturned Schenck. Schenck, consequently, is still good law and federal courts to this day apply the Clear and Present Danger test instead of the Brandenburg doctrine. It's a strange bubble in Constitutional law.
If you actually believe that there is fire and a theater and you yell "FIRE!" in a theater, I don't believe you have broken the same law. Intending to cause panic is not the same as intending to report on actual events.
They say the greatest burden a prosecutor faces is proving the 'Intent' of the accused to cause harm. I believe that to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater is a declaration of that intent. But it is the threat itself that can be 'illegal', not the words used to communicate that threat.
If words became illegal under certain circumstances, there is no reason not to prosecute actual reports of danger the same as fictitious reports, as they CAN cause just as much panic and injury as false claims. THAT would put the final nail in the coffin of our 'Freedom of the Press'.
Up until the moment that you use a gun for evil purposes, there should be no restrictions on your rights. Just as with the First Amendment.
This is where your argument becomes subjective–define "evil purposes". Was Adam Lanza's mother guilty of "evil purposes" in teaching her mentally disturbed son to load and shoot firearms? What about people in general who leave firearms within relatively easy access of people who are not trained in their proper use? You could argue that both instances are merely examples of foolishness, but foolishness and evil CAN co-occur. I would say that in both instances, legitimate gun owners (under the second amendment) relinquished their right before firing a shot.
"The Congress shall have Power … To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." ~Article 1, Section 8, U.S. Constitution
"A well regulated Militia…" ~Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights
There is nothing in the Constitution about "organizing" and "disciplining" a "well regulated" Press or Speech.
But there is distinct provision in the Constitution for "organizing" and "disciplining" a "well regulated" Militia.
Unfortunately, the lovers of the Standing Army have eviscerated the purpose of the Second Amendment, i.e., to PREVENT a Standing Army.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…." ~Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
You can keep banging-away about an absolute individual right, and indeed it is, but you're ignoring things in the Constitution that are there, but you don't want to admit, that specifically address the reason for that individual right.
By supporting a Standing Army, the Right have a eviscerated militia, unnecessary to the defense of the nation, and that gives much power to the Left who wants to disarm such an unnecessary, undisciplined, unregulated armed horde.
It's time to support the COMPLETE 2A; it will make the 2A stronger, it will make our nation safer, and will get rid of the warmongering profiteers who make War a Racket and cause harm to innocents, as Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, put it so succinctly.
You really are a one-hit wonder with the Elbridge Gerry and Smedley Butler quotes, aren't you? I'm pretty sure upwards of 50% of your posts have contained one, the other, or both. Not only are they tiresomely repetitious, they're not even topically on point in this case.
He's a 1 trick pony, Matt. Now he'll scream we're both pissing on the constitution and support difi cause we dared to say something he doesn't agree with.
And for the record. In a world with near instant lines of communication, in the military sense, with countries like China and Putin's Russia and let's not forget places like North Korea I want a professional standing army.
Keep whining, just like DiFi does about the 2A. You anti-2A ilk who don't support the complete 2A just as intellectually bankrupt as she.
Looks like you called that one.
Switzerland seems to do ok without a standing army. No one bothers them cause they don't stick their nose in other people' s business.
If you don't like the purpose for which the founders wrote the 2A, then it seems the Leftists in Congress have lots of company.
You've been as corrosive to the 2A as those you blame. Time to man-up, Matt, and understand the 2A's intent.
See, Matt. He really is a 1 trick pony. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
Yeah, advocating for the 2A is a "one-trick pony act." Uh, huh. Do you get your talking points from the Brady Bunch?
You sure as hell can't seriously discuss a single thing I've said. So you run a smear campaign against me, the only advocate of the COMPLETE meaning of the 2A.
Wha…? What in the holy hell are you talking about? Are we speaking different languages?
Where did I say I didn't like the founders' purpose? How exactly does pointing out that the horse is dead and you might want to stop swinging make me a Leftist? What kind of logical contortions did your fever-addled mind have to go through to turn my comments into "corrosive to the 2A?"
I understand the purpose of the 2A. I understand what you say the purpose is. I didn't even say I disagreed with you. I just made the observation that your rote repetition of the same information is tiresome, and you should broaden your approach. Those quotes and the points you made around them sounded good and made sense the first couple times, but now, after easily a dozen repetitions in the past four days, it's just noise. You've gone from the guy who sends me an astute, informative email to the guy who stands on the corner chanting the same ten word sentence over and over. It's noise, and it's not helpful, and it makes you look like a loon.
People selectively piss and moan about that which they don't like, Mr. Equivocating Weasel boy.
And now I'm a loon for tenaciously advocating for the 2A, huh?
Like I asked before, do you get your talking points from the Brady Bunch?
I see you answered none of my questions, you just threw a couple more ad hominems at me. Well, I guess "at me" because you propped up your strawman with "people." But you really meant me.
The funny thing is, I still haven't disagreed with your message, you colossal imbecile, only its delivery.
I have now, in the space of 30 minutes, been declared a corrosive Leftist un-manly equivocating weasel-boy who disdains the true meaning of the 2A by someone whose points I largely agree with. I can't take any more abuse before I cry, so I'll withdraw from this conversation and you can declare yourself the winner. With friends like this, I don't need enemies.
ivy as ive rebutted several times,
a army can be raised. whether its current configuration is constitutional or not is debatable (and i would agree strongly with you that its not), however, you seem to think the 2nd means NO standing army, which is incorrect. If you dont mean this, you sure as hell are implying it.
and stop with the ad hominem attacks. when you resort to personal attacks you dont give the opposition the opportunity or incentive to ascertain your viewpoint.
and im aware of who major general smedley butler, united states marine corps, is. ive posted his quotes several times on here over the past couple months.
The Mike twins, B and I, take the two opposite extremist view of the Constitution. Mike B thinks the Militia clause obsolete because we don't do that way anymore. (We haven't done it that way since the Black Hawk wars.) I sort of explained why B-Mike was wrong in my post above and now I will finally deal with I-Mike in the current the thread.
I-Mike contends that the Constitution requires that the Army be disbanded after two years based on Article I, section 8. However, as stated in an earlier thread, the two year rule refers to all government appropriations and not only defense. The two years is a reference to the term of Congress.
I-Mikes two year claim is ridiculous on its face. The only reference frame that the founding fathers had on the length of a war are the Seven Years War (1756-63) known in North American as the French and Indian Wars and the Revolution itself (1775-83). Both wars exceeded two years by a long way. I think we can assume that the founding fathers believed that wars could last longer than two years. In would be ahistorical to interpret the Constitution as requiring that the Army be disbanded after two years. Let's apply that logic of the two year rule to WWII . We raised an Army beginning in summer of 1940. That would mean that we would have disbanded the Army just as we were about to go on the offensive in both Pacific and European theaters. I guess we would have to raise another army which would have been forced to disband on the beaches of Normandy in the summer of 1944. You can see how this would not meet the framers view on securing the freedom of a free state. I-Mike is doing two things wrong. He is deliberately misreading the Constitution and he has no historical insight into the founding fathers' worldview other than a couple quotes out of context.
The founding fathers did not like standing armies but their experience in the world of first two decades of the Republic which took place against the background of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars forced them to change their views on the necessity of a standing army. I-Mike has never answered the question that pose before: do he think that Jefferson "pissed" on the Constitution when he accepted the notion of a standing army.
(note: I have to make a tee time so I am sure their are a few of my usual typos in here.)
Oh dear, I hurt the tender feelings of a bunch of crybabies. Do you need mommy dearest to dry your tears?
forced them to change their views on the necessity of a standing army
Cite? (this should be fun)
Do you get your talking points from Diane Feinstein? I could swear she says that modern circumstances has forced her to change her views.
Oh wait, the Swiss STILL have a Militia that successfully defends their nation. Did you forget that while you're tripping over yourself trying to eviscerate the Constitution with the "modern times" tripe?
Evidence? How about the standing Army that existed during Jefferson's term? Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, didn't disband it. So I think it is safe to assume they recognized the national need for standing military force after all. Now go away. You are giving the gun grabbers ammunition.
Ah, you don't have a cite. All you have is evidence of the Constitution being ignored, which politicians have been doing since the ink dried.
By your way of thinking, the Clinton era gun ban is just fine, because, hey, it existed!
The next time everyone here has a conversation with an anti-gun zealot, make sure you remind them that the 2nd Amendment promises a CIVIL RIGHT, cuz i'm not sure they realize it.
They see themselves as defenders of 'Civil Rights', but ignore the fact that the right to bare arms is #2 on the Bill of Rights. They demand compromise on THIS civil right, but they are outraged at suggestions that we "compromise" on any other basic rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Should we "compromise" on slavery?
Should we "compromise" on due process"?
Which exactly, if any of our civil rights, are anti-gun types willing to "compromise" on, and SURRENDER 50% of their freedoms to meet the opposition half-way?
Then we have a civil right to have a "disciplined" and "organized" and "well regulated" Swiss-model citizen-soldier Militia, instead of being subjected to the expense and tyranny of a Standing Army.
It's time to support the COMPLETE 2A.
"The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." ~Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791
Let us emancipate ourselves of the inherent "tyranny" of a Standing Army once again.
You are for civil rights, right?
I too support a "right to bare arms", but it's downright silly in many parts of this country in January.
In the McDonald v. Chicago opinons, four justices stated due process is the standard for decisions. One justice stated Privileges and Immunities, which is the standard for speech.
Legal scholars argue that because there is no majority only a plurality, there is no standard. Which is why the courts are using different standards, and the cases all are turning out different.
As for gun ownership under 2a pistols, rifles, even machine guns, or more correctly full auto should be allowed. Anything our citizen police can have any citizen's should be able to have.
However, I draw the line at things like RPG's, claymore's and NBC weapons. These should not be in residential neighberhoods.
So you and DiFi differ only on the caliber of arms to be prohibited.
Geesh, I thought the 2A was to be interpreted as only an individual right–and now you're impinging on it.
The reason for your confusion is because you don't support the complete 2A.
Congratulations. You aren't just the most obnoxious commenter to show up in recent memory, you have earned the title of King Jackhole. Quite an accomplishment considering some of the personalities that grace these discussions.
Your antics are actively detracting from the value and enjoyment I derive from TTAG. I believe this is true for others as well. Kindly moderate your tone or STFU.
Feel free to reply; I will not respond, as I do not feed trolls.
I support the complete 2A. You don't. That lack of support for the complete 2A has been noxious to the 2A.
Did anybody else hear that? It sounded like the distant quacking of migrating ducks, or perhaps the sound of a pretty girl discreetly passing gas on a first date…
Deliberate ignorance. Did you copy that strategy from Schumer or Cuomo?
Did you hear that, guys? I'm telling you, I heard something!
quack… quack… quack…
I'm telling you, I heard something!
It was probably just a gust of wind.
Silent contempt for the complete–anti-standing-army–2A. That's exactly what has destroyed it. Nice going, dummies.
Thats no gust of wind. Its flatulence from a standing army.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not speech it is an act. It is an act designed to cause injury and death to others. It is to the first amendment what pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger is to the second.
If there is a fire in the theater, then yelling "fire!" is an act to save lives, not take them. Context is everything.
I refer to context as the "totality of the circumstances." Of course, justice and the law are two different things, and I'm sure you have a healthy appreciation for that.
That's the beauty of not taking an enforcement action, or merely issuing a warning. I wouldn't want to do my job without the benefit of discretion.
They confuse specific Illegal acts with lawful ownership.
Hypothetically, what would keep one NYC hate/terrorist group amassing one-hundred grenade-launcher carrying members from quietly and legally walking into the crowded neighborhood of another unarmed group they hate until the moment they go ballistic? I'm fine with law abiding good competent citizens walking around with a gun for self-defense. I'm am against people having the right to legally walk down Broadway in NYC with a grenade launcher until that person starts using it.
Aharon … nothing stops such a group from doing what you described right now. They might have to conceal their grenade launchers but they can nevertheless do it.
That is a good point. hhmmm….
Huge difference between open and concealed, especially when you are talking about area-effect weapons like grenade launchers.
"… you should have the full and complete enjoyment of your rights without any reservations or restrictions until you do something that proves your motives are against the public interest."
Even this position is the wrong approach to rights. How in the world can anyone objectively establish that a person exercising their rights is against the public interest? And it is even more difficult to establish that a person's motive for exercising their rights is against the public interest. I won't even ponder how someone determines exactly what is the public interest.
There was a time that the "public interest" was denying rights to minorities. That was wrong then and always will be wrong.
Rights are not subject to public interest. Rights are only subject to respecting the rights — not the feelings or interests — of others. If there is ever a conflict of rights, the simplest resolution that preserves everyone's rights is the correct resolution.
Example: a citizen that wishes to demonstrate in front of City Hall can demonstrate just as effectively on the sidewalk or the road. But demonstrating on the road interferes with the right of citizens to drive down the road whereas demonstrating on the sidewalk does not. So the citizen simply demonstrates on the sidewalk and no one interferes with anyone's rights.
The only time there is conflict is when one party WANTS to interfere with the rights of another. We call that BULLYING. Gun control and citizen disarmament is nothing more than bullying, plain and simple. It may be on a large scale and cloaked in all sorts of arguments; it is bullying nevertheless.
Because if we did make a "public interest" test on the restriction of rights, then we'd ban publication, dissemination, discussion and study of Karl Marx's twaddle, seeing as 60+ million people have been killed by adherents of this grifter's scribblings.
60+ million is a pretty large pile of stiffs. I think we could objectively agree that it is the largest pile of stiffs killed in the name of an ideology in human history, and therefore is a malum in se and worthy of prior restraint.
Absolutely, you can and should yell "FIRE!" in a crowded space. When there's a fire. You're taking action to guard against loss of innocent life.
How might this apply to gun ownership? Hmm, I wonder.
Where I come from, "Fire!" is a command that immediately follows "Prepare to fire!"
Ralph, That is braggadocio bullcrap.
Piers Morgan would love to broadcast your statement that, "I should be able to walk down Broadway in New York City with a fully automatic grenade launcher all locked and loaded, and have it be completely legal until the moment I pull the trigger."
As a former draft dodger, I REALLY resent being compared to gun-banners. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for an apology, however. I objected to being required to kill folks I had no beef with, just as I now object to those who would limit my constitutional rights.
I have a right to expect better.
William, you will always be a draft dodger; you can't just push that aside, You could have been a medic, a mechanic or 'Mine Removal Technichian' and not have to kill anyone, Poor excuse for blatant cowardice. How was Canada or wherever it was you fled.
A "reasonable" restriction on the Second that takes away our semi-automatic rifles would be like a "reasonable" restriction on the First that doesn't allow anyone to say anything negative about our government. "It could lead to protests and instability. We're all so much safer if the government is never questioned and the people just accept it. You still have your freedom of speech. These restrictions are for the good of society as a whole."
Nick you are only partially correct. Some laws are preemptive and you had better know what they are. The injunction that you may NOT yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater is a preemptive piece of legislation. Common sense is the 'common' denominator. That one small piece of your argument, "Walking down Broadway…" is pure nonsense. If i as an old retired Military man, saw you, I would immediately take you into custody, if you resisted, I'd blow yoyr foolish head off with my CCW a 1911 A-1 Colt, .45 Cal Ace.You see, son there exists a perception of intent and that does not bode well for society. A militia by definition is not set in stone, It may be simply, every person in a community willing to fight for their God-given rights; therefore The Second Amendment properly addresses the issue but you may not extrapolated from the Constitutions wording that you have carte blanche liberties.
Common Sense is the First consideration. not all this name calling and twisting of the meanings of words.
The comparison between free speech and having a gun is much too simplified in this article and the comments that follow it. Leaving hypotheticals aside, guns have PROVEN to do more immideate harm to LIVES than speech… I just dont see the value of comparing such different things.
Speech market isn't propped up by an enormous defense budget.
I don't understand what you are saying by "imminent lawless act." If a police officer thought that you were about to rob someone or something while you are walking down the street with your grenade launcher, he should be able to arrest you. And in my opinion any gun that is loaded is an imminent lawless act. So…
"And in my opinion any gun that is loaded is an imminent lawless act."
I don't understand. You mean the mere fact of a gun being loaded is grounds for arrest? Does that include police officers? I mean after all, their guns are loaded every time you see them in public. Or are they somehow set apart? If so, why?
To the author,
Your argument would only begin to be slightly less illogical as a result of either of two fictional presumptions. 1. That the second amendment dealt primarily with the right to fire arms as opposed to bearing them. (Or) 2. That the first amendment dealt with some sense of the right to abdtractly posses speech as opposed to using speech.
You're short comings are clearly a result of you falsely believing either of these imperatives to be true; unfortunately for you, neither are.
You can't run into a crowded building and yell fire, an argument used by most people saying rights must be and can be controlled, even free speech.
Last I checked LYING wasn't protected under free speech! In fact if it was think of all those people who lie under oath who would start saying they were exercising their right to free speech? Anyone who says that yelling fire in a crowded building is a control of free speech is an idiot!
PS if someone does yell fire in a building, is there anyone but me who looks and smells for smoke?
[…] Article: The Second Amendment, the First and Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater Written by Nick Leghorn on January 13, 2013 and appears on the website: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/the-second-amendment-the-first-amendment-and-yellin… […]
[…] in a crowded theater. Of course you can. It's what one intends with the action and the consequences of that action that are […]


text:
Online Inductions
Inductions & eLearning
A key mandatory employment responsibility today is the delivery and management of a robust WHS Induction and EEO training program for new employees.
WorkPro recognises the complexity of this fundamental compliance management element and has partnered with legal specialists to develop a broad course library of practical job and industry related work health and safety induction modules, delivering relevance and minimising the risk of work related injury.
Why is a comprehensive employee induction so important?
Research suggests that businesses are developing a better understanding of health and safety in the workplace. The rate of work-related injuries and illnesses dropped from 6.4 per cent in 2005/06 to 4.3 per cent in 2014, according to figures collated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. While this is certainly a step in the right direction, it's also clear that there is still a lot of room for improvement.
Developing a strong WHS induction process is a significant commitment and investment in light of constantly changing legislation and regulations.
Keeping abreast of changes is vital to ensuring your work health and safety program remains relevant and complaint and mitigates the risk of injury to your workforce, and that's where we come in.
What are the advantages of WorkPro's induction solution?
WorkPro understands that staff inductions are an imperative business requirement. Our solution provides a simple-to-use, cost-effective employee on-boarding and work health and safety induction program. Both intuitive and robust, the system makes it easy for your organisation to meet its legal compliance obligations.
Each enterprise is different, which means your employee induction requirements will be unique. WorkPro provides you the ability to build tailored staff inductions based on an extensive course library, choosing the content that best meets your employees' roles and your organisation's risk management and compliance goals. That way, your work health and safety training will fit seamlessly into your enterprise's broader strategies.
Not every employee has the same learning style. WorkPro recognises this and has designed a system that is self-paced, and includes a variety of rich media to accommodate a breadth of learning styles. Each course includes audio, static images, YouTube clips, graphics and words, so you can be assured that the delivery is engaging, relevant and suitable.
WorkPro's work health and safety induction process is today known as an industry best practice, having set the standard for inductions across a multitude of industries. Once users complete their work health and safety training, the module remains current for two-years. They can then share their training results with other licenced WorkPro companies in the future.
For employees, this can drastically reduce induction fatigue, and for employers, it may eliminate the need to re-deliver the same or similar training content, reducing the time-to-hire. This unique feature could make it easier to on-board new hires, as staff that has already completed this training can be fast-tracked through induction programs.
As a comprehensive staff induction solution, WorkPro also integrates the Fair Work Statement, work rights and licence/ticket management and background checks into its suite of services.
Additionally it is possible to customise the program to suit your business and compliance needs, including building your own custom content. The result is a tailored employee onboarding program centralising a range of Workforce compliance in a single system.
What makes WorkPro different?
To mitigate compliance and other risks, you need staff inductions that are relevant for your specific industry and operations. WorkPro offers a wide range of modules that are tailored to particular industries, roles, and hazards. With this diversity at your disposal, you can create a stronger employee induction process that addresses your company's unique needs and safety challenges.
Every module in the WorkPro library has been developed in partnership with legal specialists to ensure the content continues to align with National Work Health and Safety laws. The content is regularly reviewed, ensuring it remains fresh and legislatively correct.
Coupled with the industry-specific module library, WorkPro's online process and two-year currency for each course sets it apart. The system generously reduces the work health and safety compliance burden for both the learner and the employer. More relevant content fuels more efficient training, while recognising induction achievements for two years reduces redundant processes.
If you employ people, whether they be permanent, contractors or volunteers, you have a legal responsibility to provide WHS and EEO induction training to minimize the risk of work related injury.
WorkPro takes the complexity out of this compliance for you and provides a solution that delivers and manages these mandatory training requirements.
Easily and confidently fulfil your legal obligations, protect your staff and access your information whenever and wherever you need it.
Partnering with legal specialists, WorkPro have developed a broad course library of practical job and industry related work health and safety training modules, so your staff can complete specific training that is most relevant to their role. Modules are constantly reviewed and updated to ensure they are relevant, and in line with current legislation.
WorkPro has integrated the Fair Work Statement as part of the suite of modules to further centralise the employee's induction.
This system is delivered online, via a secure, user friendly web platform. With a single login you can track and manage completion of employment related training.
The WHS modules cater for an individual's unique learning style by delivering the content using words, images, movies, audio and graphics in a self-paced environment.
All modules include competency-based assessment to confirm that the learner understands the content.
807,040 + inductions completed across australia and new zealand.
The MCG has a 90,000 capacity. We fill 8 MCG's with WorkPro users.
Our customers have completed 1.2 million inductions using WorkPro.
We can fill the population of Canberra with WorkPro users.
We can help you with:
Take your business to the next level by Customising WorkPro for your business
Did you know, that as an Inductions customer, you can brand WorkPro and tailor it to suit your business needs?
- Provide brand consistency across your on-boarding process
- Centralise all of your staff compliance
- Streamline and enhance the individual's induction and on-boarding experience
- Give new staff a quality experience
- Release you from messy paperwork
- Make your job easier
We can also help you with
Access a practical course library that is job and industry based.More
Minimise risk, meet your legal obligations and protect your business with comprehensive probity and background screening services.More
Track & manage the currency of your employees licences.More
Access to instant, transparent information through seamless VEVO integration.More


text:
Perfect Party March 2014
Here's who we'd invite if we could entertain this month's most interesting visitors, locals, and newsmakers.
Harry Bailey
Is it weird that his name makes us think of George's brother in It's a Wonderful Life? Here's hoping SPD's new interim chief becomes our new favorite Harry Bailey by helping to put the department on a desperately needed new course
By skewering Cristal-and-Maybach culture with "Royals," the 17-year-old chanteuse from New Zealand has become the biggest thing in pop—and she didn't even have to twerk or stick out her tongue to get there. (WaMu Theater, Mar 24)
John Legere
The Bellevue-based T-Mobile CEO further cemented his bad-boy image when he crashed a party held by rival AT&T at the International CES show in Las Vegas. But in his defense, Macklemore was performing at the shindig.
Marilyn McKenna
Rob's wife has been a force of nature on social media for a while, and her latest salvo—calling "bullshit" on Facebook for removing photos of her weight loss—reminds us that Facebook does kind of suck.
Scott Golder
We'd love to buy dinner for the local linguistics researcher who came up with the crazy-fun New York Times dialect quiz that went viral this winter. Or is it supper? Or both? Apparently there's a difference.
Sonia Sotomayor
The first Latina Supreme Court justice is on a book tour for My Beloved World, in which she recounts her journey from poverty in the Bronx to a seat on the high court. ¿Cómo se dice "badass"? (Town Hall, Mar 10)


text:
I'm New
Community Church exists to help people Meet God, Meet Friends, and Live Life Better. These three core initiatives drive everything we do.
Meet God
We are devoted to the corporate celebration and instruction of God on the weekend. Down to our core, we believe in and are devoted to the local church…we believe it is the hope of the world. Everything we do on the weekend is prayerfully designed to introduce people to a life-changing relationship with Jesus. We anticipate that when the church gathers together, God speaks to us and we are empowered to change the world. Whether you are experiencing church for the first time, or have been part of a church for a long time, a weekend service at Community Church is an experience unlike any other.
Meet Friends
We are devoted to building life-changing relationships with people through small group participation. We believe that life is better when we are connected to other people. Our relationship with God isn't intended to be done alone. Connect Groups are how we make our big church feel small and get people connected to one another. Get connected here.
Live Life Better
We are devoted to serving others. We believe that life is better lived in service to other people. Jesus came to serve, and so we believe we are called to lives of service. Whether you are serving at one of our weekend services or out in our community with one of our community partners, you life will never be the same. Start serving now.


text:
Sep '09 - Aug '10
Orientation is officially over for the here at the AA and the beginning of classes looms large as Monday approaches. Through lectures, orientations, speeches, boat tours, office tours, exhibition tours, picnics, gallery shows, symposiums, parties on the terrace and a lot of waiting in line, the AA has done an excellent job of revealing a glimpse of the world we are about to enter. Conclusion: AA-Land is an infinitely foreign place where the best projects from last year could eat you but in all other regards defy explanation. Almost everyone I have met so far who will be studying in the DRL has chosen this program because it represents the antithesis of their experiences so far. They too desire to be exposed to a whole new way of thinking with different values and different goals.
While watching a symposium of AA FAB winners present their research it became clear to me how different that thought process and value system was. Hearing them explain how their process evolved, I couldn't help but think that they were forecasting the radical conceptual and cognitive adjustments that we would all undergo if we fully surrendered to the program. It's a little bit like realizing that to succeed you have to allow yourself to be completely brain washed if only for 16 months. To test out this thesis, I questioned a number of current DRL students as they popped on and off the terrace for a quick brake from their work.
They covered the whole spectrum from those who were vital, healthy, impassioned and regretting that their time in the DRL was coming to a close to those who were much nearer to death in appearance and spirit. Over drinks, in the cool night air I learned from them that their previous experiences before the DRL had very little to do with how successful they felt in the program. I had thought that the ones with stararchitect backgrounds would be the happy, healthy stars but what emerged from our conversations was the word "surrender." It turns out that even stararchitect firms make buildings and so the DRL process was equally foreign to everyone. What separated those on life support from those with a spring in their step was the ability to dive wholly into this new process and suspend all sense of expectation or reality. One vibrant woman told me about how upon returning home on brake her friends and co-workers accused her of being brain washed. She had to admit that it was true and with a smile she said 'yeah, you just have to try it.'
It's a funny proposition for someone who is used to making reality they way we want it to be to go the opposite direction and give up all control. Becoming instead the thing that is changed. We pride ourselves on questioning the norms around us so this notion of surrender came as a bit of a shock to me but, it is beginning to make a lot of sense. This is a long way to come and a lot of money to pay just to fight a system. Just to hold onto your perceptions and leave with the same architectural process that you came in with.
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?


text:
Corn futures ended the day with lower quotes. That marked the seventh consecutive session of weakness. The corn prices fell to the lowest since August 2010 on a continuous chart. The market was depressed by the ideal crop weather conditions as the crop moves into pollination. However, talk of sizeable export sales to unknown destinations and Japan limited the sustained losses. Traders are anticipating USDA to raise the yield to an average of 166.8 from USDA's estimate at 165.3 in June. September corn dropped 7.00 cents to $3.9125/bushel, while December dove 6.25 cents to $3.98.
The soybean market closed mostly lower on Wednesday. Futures were undercut by the short-covering actions. However, there were some bargain buying interests for July contracts before expiration. Downward pressure was from beneficial crop weather that boosts the prospects for a promising harvest in several months. The Brazilian government raised its 13/14 soy production estimate to 86.27 mmt from 86.05 mmt in June. Ahead of the Friday WASDE report, USDA is expected to boost the U.S. 2014/15 ending stocks projection to 415 to 420 million bushels, up from 325 million last month. August soybeans fell 2 cents to $12.4625/bushel, and November plunged 12.5 cents to $11.0375. August soyoil dropped 0.74 cents to 37.14 cents/pound, while August soymeal gained $4.2 to $406.1/ton.
Wheat futures were mostly lower Wednesday led by KC hard red winter wheat that dropped 2.2%. Winter wheat harvest, favorable spring wheat prospects in the U.S. and uncertain export demand weighed on the market. USDA will issue their first spring and durum wheat production estimates of the season and update winter wheat production as well Friday. USDA is expected to raise total wheat production to 1.972 billion bushels from USDA's June estimate at 1.969 billion. The increase in production would also boost the ending stocks projection. September CBOT wheat futures lost 5.00 cents to $5.5125 bushel, September KCBT wheat futures plummeted 11.00 cents to $6.5325/bushel and September MWE futures dove 9.75 cents to $6.4725.
Cattle futures have turned sharply lower on Wednesday. Futures selling stemmed from long liquidation by the funds, particularly once the August contract broke below near-term support at 153.00. Futures traded down the 3 cent limit at one point, but bounced back to close off the intraday low. Initially, the cattle market garnered buying support from higher beef prices. Beef prices were higher Tuesday and again at midday on Wednesday. The Choice cutout was 85 cents higher to $250.83/cwt at midday. However, the trade remains nervous that high prices will begin to throttle beef demand, particularly during mid to late summer, a time when beef demand tends to soften. The trade is also anxious to see how the cash market responds to a higher supply of market-ready cattle this week. August cattle settled 2.72 cents lower at 150.80 cents/pound while December was 1.30 cents lower to 154.05 cents. Meanwhile, August feeder cattle closed 2.30 cents lower to 213.60 cents/pound.
The hog futures were rather choppy today. They posted impressive gains in the morning along with the strength exhibited in cattle prices. However, prices suffered a setback and end mixed as cattle futures plunged. Support stemmed from the higher cash prices in the result of smaller year-over-year slaughter number. However, weights are surged. August hog futures are down 0.05 cents at 129.80 cents/pound and December was up 0.750 cents to 105 cents.


text:
Martin Codax Burgans Albarino 2011
If you have not yet discovered Albarino from its native Spain, you will do well to start here. I doubt that you forget it from the eye catching label but I have always been taught that it is what is inside that counts. Here the texture and flavours will leave you wanting another sip – and all for change for a $20 note.
Aromas of orange blossom, white peach, lychee with a smoky mineral edge spill from the glass. There is satisfying fruit weight combined with a taut balance that is well modulated along the length. There is some fine spicy floral notes on the palate that finishes dry with sweetly ripe fruit. Enjoy with goats cheese tart and a crisp salad but don't overchill it.
Date: November 2012 Price: $17 Value: $$ Drink: Now


text:
Honda's handsome SUV, the CR-V, was once a best-seller, the leader in its segment, and had quite a cult following in India. But since the last model launched in 2007, the SUV market has become quite a different place. There is much greater and more varied competition than before, much of which offers higher specifications, rupee for rupee. But the car's biggest downfall, always a thorn in Honda's side, has been the lack of a diesel engine option. It's no wonder then that while the company managed to sell 3,115 units in 2007, only 294 CR-Vs left Honda showrooms in all of 2012.
While the market conditions did play a role in last year's relatively poor performance, it's also likely that potential customers were holding out for the all-new, fourth-generation model they heard would be arriving in 2013.
These are our first impressions of the car.
From just about any angle, it's quite clear that this is a CR-V—the design is more evolution than revolution. However, some of the fussy detailing has been replaced by neater, more cohesive elements in order to make the car appeal to a wider audience. The upswept headlights seem to grow out of the car's grille, the high-mounted tail-lamps have been given a more 3D look, and the window line now kinks upwards into a prominent tilted "V" shape.
While the updated styling may make it look bigger, the new CR-V is actually shorter in overall length and lower than its predecessor. But thanks to clever interior packaging and a significant 225mm increase in cabin length, Honda has managed to make the interior roomier than before. The cabin feels altogether wider, and rear-seat passengers get plenty of room to stretch their legs. The boot, at 589 litres, is bigger too, and that's before you flip the rear seat forward.
The design and layout of the cabin will be familiar to Honda owners, with a neat look and good quality of material. However, some of the plastics feel a bit hard to the touch, something that takes away from the car's premium image. But the minimalist white-on-black instrument panel looks smart and the pair of screens in the dashboard gives the CR-V a modern feel.
When it comes to engines, what will disappoint most Indian customers is that there is still no diesel engine option. The good news is that the previous CR-V's two very capable petrol motors are back, and have been updated for more power and better economy. The 154bhp 2.0-litre engine is available only in two-wheel drive, with either a six-speed manual or five-speed automatic gearbox. The 187bhp 2.4-litre engine is only available as an automatic with permanent four-wheel drive. All cars now get a novel "Eco" mode which, when activated, adjusts the gearing and the air conditioning to deliver maximum economy. Lights in the instrument panel also glow green when you drive efficiently, encouraging you to be more economical with your inputs.
We drove the 2.4, and while it's very responsive, it is let down by the slow-shifting automatic gearbox; more gears and quicker shifts would have been ideal. Once past this hiccup, however, things get much better, and reaching high speeds is quite easy. It feels quick too, but the ever-audible engine can be an annoyance. That said, however, this car retains its predecessor's car-like driving characteristics—after a while, it's easy to forget you're in a big SUV. The only difference is the electric power steering, which doesn't offer quite the same feel as the old hydraulic power system.
The new CR-V is well equipped too. This top-end AVN model gets a sunroof and a 6.1-inch touch-screen system for audio, video and navigation. However, all models get leather seats, a rear-view camera, steering-mounted audio controls and cruise control.
The CR-V has always had a certain aura to it that made it stand out from the usual crop of SUVs. This could be attributed to Honda's premium market position and the reliability its cars offer, or perhaps it is this SUV's friendly, car-like driving manners and handsome looks. Whatever the reason for the appeal, suffice to say it is bigger and better than ever before with this new car. But is it good enough for Honda to replicate the success of the original CR-V and win back some of the customers it lost along the way?
The CR-V will be assembled in India for the first time, and this means prices are more competitive than the fully imported previous model's—the base 2.0 litre model starts at a very attractive Rs.19.95 lakh and the top-end 2.4 AVN version costs Rs.23.85 lakh (ex-showroom, Delhi). The lack of a diesel engine is certainly a glaring chink in the CR-V's armour, but if the gradual market shift back towards petrol continues, this is a car that holds a lot of promise.
Content powered by Autocar India.


text:
Warren Falcon
Archeology - What The Stele Says 'Upon Taking A Much Younger Lover' - Poem by Warren Falcon
I am uncovered, thin, bared upon thinner
sheets the man-ripped to many images,
torn into, landscaped to former curves.
No longer do I grieve enclosure, touching
only myself, delivered from layers.
What begins to be, earth swell, breaks
root-room open to blood means.
All hurt now stings twilight quaked into being.
Your breath falls upon me now, taut, sinew,
bruising hands, purple insides flare warrior nerves
to unknotting surprise.
Magpie dances.
Lines, veins, strung between Pole Star
and First River Mouth, an embedded ruin uncovers in milk floods.
Touch gently first what has been too long concealed.
Hard touch congeals once was telling mud remolded into
"Not again. Not yet the bleeding Centurion."
Wield roughly then through gates too long shut.
When I cry out, do not mind. Blindly ram. Do not stop.
Magpie, my keeper, is flying.
Comments about Archeology - What The Stele Says 'Upon Taking A Much Younger Lover' by Warren Falcon
Leslie Alexis (heaven Is My Home) (3/24/2011 10:37:00 AM)
The language in this is beautiful. It's had to perfect cadence as you did in this piece. The imagery also is wonderful. I saw the bursting! beautiful write. (Report) Reply
Read this poem in other languages
This poem has not been translated into any other language yet.
I would like to translate this poem »
Warren Falcon's Other Poems
Famous Poems
Phenomenal Woman
Maya Angelou
Still I Rise
Maya Angelou
The Road Not Taken
Robert Frost
If You Forget Me
Pablo Neruda
Langston Hughes
Annabel Lee
Edgar Allan Poe
Caged Bird
Maya Angelou
Rudyard Kipling
Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening
Robert Frost
William Ernest Henley


text:
The Art of Recycling
For those people who look at art and say "I can do that," this show is for you. Especially those of you who find comfort in not throwing trash away. The Goss-Michael Foundation will be presenting the works of Tim Noble and Sue Webster, who create mind-blowing sculptures from trash and junk and just might inspire you to do something with those stray pudding cups. Upon first look, you'll see a glorious pile of rubbish that would do any packrat proud. But instead of taking a closer look, step back to see its true glory. The mass creates a bewildering shadow that is usually a self-portrait of the couple. And now we get to see the British artists' works up close...well, not too close because then you'll miss it. The Goss-Michael Foundation, 2500 Cedar Springs Road, will host the works till September 30. Just don't expect to run into George Michael at the show. The "Michael" part of the Foundation is a little busy doing his North American tour. The Foundation is open Tuesdays through Saturdays and Mondays by appointment only. For more information about the collection and the gallery's schedule, call 214-696-0555 or visit gossmichaelfoundation.org.
Tuesdays-Fridays, 10 a.m.-6 p.m.; Saturdays, 11 a.m.-4 p.m. Starts: May 15. Continues through Sept. 30, 2008
Get the Things to Do Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly guide to events in Dallas, and never be bored again. With suggestions for every day of the week, our recommendations will keep you busy on any budget.
Popular Stories
Upcoming Events
Event #1A: $50,000 Guarantee Monster Stack
TicketsThu., Oct. 26, 12:00pm
Event #1B: $50,000 Guarantee Monster Stack
TicketsThu., Oct. 26, 5:00pm
Event #2: Deep Stack Nightly
TicketsThu., Oct. 26, 7:00pm
TicketsThu., Oct. 26, 7:00pm
Sponsor Content


text:
SCCA brings to you the expertise of three internationally renowned cancer care institutions: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington Medical Center, and Seattle Children's. As a result you can expect to receive the best medical care available.
From the latest research to the newest technological advances, SCCA strives to win the battle against cancer for each patient, every day.
Men choose SCCA for the expertise of our doctors who treat testicular cancer. Their expertise is important to you and your long-term survival.
- State-of-the-art care by doctors who are specialists in medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgery. They focus exclusively on treating men with testicular cancer. Many of these doctors are internationally acclaimed.
- Outstanding technical expertise, including leading-edge radiation therapy approaches and world-class surgical outcomes using methods that include microsurgery, nerve grafts, and laparoscopic surgery often using robots.
- A closely knit support team of nurse case managers, patient care coordinators, nurse practitioners, and others who play an important role in your care.
- A beautiful facility, the SCCA Prostate Center is located in the state-of-the-art Surgery Pavilion at University of Washington Medical Center.
- Access to clinical trials, some based on pioneering research by the same doctors who will be treating you.
- Great support for you and your family while you are going through treatment.
- Follow-up care after you have completed treatment, by the same team of specialists.
All of the doctors who care for testicular cancer patients at SCCA are faculty members at the University of Washington School of Medicine and are affiliated with the world-renowned Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. Our team includes urologists/oncology surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and pathologists. In addition to offering topnotch patient care, these doctors are leading the way in testicular cancer research.