text:
Tagged: JJ Hardy
Spring Training Day 3
Our third day in Florida brought us to Ed Smith Stadium in Sarasota FL.
We got there a little before 10AM, which gave us over an hour to explore the exterior of the stadium and pick up our tickets at the will call window. The stadium had received a complete renovation over the offseason, and it showed. This was one of the nicest Spring Training stadiums I've visited.
Here's a look at the main gate of Ed Smith Stadium:
The Orioles incorporated lots of little things here and there that Amy noticed. She's always such an attention to detail, it always impresses me.
She noticed baseballs in the bottom of the gate, along with 'BB' for baseball.
She also pointed out baseballs in the supports of the awning above home plate.
I pointed out to her that the gates looked the exact same as the ones in Camden Yards in Baltimore.
Here is a look through the gate at the inside of the stadium:
It looked really nice for a Spring Training stadium.
Its hard to believe that it looked like this last year before being remodeled:
Its a completely different stadium now!
Here's a view to the left of the stadium:
And a view to the right:
The landscaping and exterior work was great.
Check out the giant planters pots with palm trees. Nice touch.
We walked back to the area behind left field, where there was a gate area that allowed a view into the park.
Upon peeking in, this is what I saw:
Cages were up, and the Orioles were out warming up.
This was the area in front of the gate area.
I decided that there was a chance that a ball could hit the concrete and leave the stadium, so Amy and I spent the next 45 minutes standing in the parking lot beyond left field.
I was able to see ball after ball fly through the air, many of them hitting inside of the left field area just in front of the gate in front of me, but getting caught up on chairs, trees, railings, or whatever.
Eventually a ball cleared everything and landed inside of a gated area to the left of the left field pavilion. It settled right up against the fence so I went over and worked it around to the middle of the gate and pulled it through.
It was my first ball of the day.
We stood around for the next 45 minutes and waited.
And waited.
Nothing else came out.
Eventually, it was time to go in, so I set up in the second row area.
It turned out to be a big mistake. The Orioles have lots of right handed power, and the first ground was pounding ball after ball over my head landing in this area:
Amy took lots of pictures of the Orioles' batting practice:
A view from left field of the stadium:
Some of the Orioles players. Its a shame that some players still wear their pullovers during BP, making it tough to identify them.
Press box:
Orioles batters kept ripping home runs,
but many of them were sailing into the area just out of reach to the left of the left field pavilion.
The Orioles are stacked with right handed power this year, such as Vladimir Guerrero, Mark Reynolds, JJ Hardy, Derrek Lee, Adam Jones, and Nolan Reimold.
I got to see about the last 25 minutes of Orioles batting practice. I was sure that I'd be able to snag a few baseballs during the Pirates batting practice, but for whatever reason, the Pirates weren't even at the ballpark yet.
There was no trace of them anywhere.
The groundscrew came out and took the screens and cage away, ending batting practice.
I had only snagged one ball at Ed Smith stadium, and it was before the gates even opened. It was a shame, because the left field area could've been pretty good for ballhawking. Check it out:
Anyway, here's the concession stand behind left field:
At that point, I decided to take a brief video to show you all that area:
Here it is:.
Check out the garbage cans at the stadium:
We walked over to the area behind home plate:
There was an Orioles player conversing with some of the fans,
I didn't bother him, I don't even know who he is.
Amy and I got our picture taken behind home plate before heading to the inner concourse and out of the sun.
Before heading out though, we took a panorama of the field:
Under the bleachers, there was a welcome sign near the Home Plate area:
Orioles Team Store:
The concourse:
A giant tree:
At this point, we decided to leave the game. We didn't feel like waiting around for an hour and a half for the game to start. So, we left.
To this point in the trip, I had snagged five balls over three days. Last year, I snagged 32 balls in three days. This trip became about much more than ballhawking. Ballhawking had taken a back seat to Amy and I enjoying our time together in Florida and squeezing the most out of every minute we had.
We decided to head back to Fort DeSoto beach, where we had spent a good chunk of time on Friday. On the way back though, we stopped at Pirate City in Bradenton.
The Pirates were wrapping things up on a practice field when we drove by, presumably before busing the short distance to Sarasota.
Here's a shot of the living quarters at Pirate City that Amy snapped:
We parked here,
and walked the very short distance to the entrance to the Pirate City practice Fields.
here's the entrance way. Notice the baseballs on the tops of the posts. Unfortunately, they aren't major league baseballs. They are generic.
Upon walking in, I was looking at the practice fields and the players off in the distance that had just finished their workout, when Amy noticed something.
Three baseballs just out of arms reach all in one area.
Well, it was glove trick time.
After untangling the string, I tossed it over the fence and knocked one of the balls closer so that I could reach right under the fence and grab it.
The second ball took a little more effort, but I was able to get that one too.
The third and farthest ball took awhile. There was a slight slope or indentation where it had settled, so it took probably fifteen or so attempts before getting it close enough to reach under and grab.
After snagging those three balls, we started looking around the practice grounds.
There were probably like six or so practice fields, with no action on any of them.
We looked around anyhow.
Eventually, we came to a roped off portion beyond the practice field fence. See the sign on the ground on the right hand side of the picture?
It said this:
It must've been posted on the rope at some point. But since it wasn't, we kept right on going and were now on a golf course.
This was the area straight ahead,
and Amy and I hurried along, and she pointed out ball after ball to me.
See the ball in the photo below? Well there was also a couple in those bushes, and one in that open shed area.
Here's a couple more:
Another one:
And another:
We eventually came to a maintenance area, that we didn't go into, although there were probably more 'Easter Eggs' back there. Eventually, a man on a golf cart told us we couldn't be back there and told us to leave. We did. But not before finding 8 balls back there.
That made it a double digit day!
After the twenty minutes or so that we spent at Pirate City, we went back to the beach. It was crowded, but we found some secluded spots to relax.
The spot was only reachable by crossing some rough terrain. The only visitors we had to worry about were birds.
We then moved back to the regular beach area.
And laid out for awhile, then went into the water, since it was much warmer today.
It had been an amazing, relaxing trip. We had kept busy every minute of the trip, which had really tired me out.
Unfortunately, our time in Florida had come to an end, as it was time for us to head back to Tampa International Airport, back to Pittsburgh and the cold. I'd like to thank Amy for such a great time in Florida and keeping me happy though out the trip. Ballhawking really took a back seat to her on this trip, but that's not because of her. It was all me, wanting to leave the games to go other places. Will my diminished ballhawking drive continue into the regular season? Who knows. Do I have any goals for the regular season yet? Nope. Will I attend more games in 2011. Probably not. Will I improve upon my 544 ball season from last year? I'd say the chances are slim. Amy will be with me in two weeks as I open the season on the road. Keep an eye out for that.
Here are the 16 balls I snagged in the three days on the trip:
And the sweet spots:
Opening Day will be upon us soon!
By the way, if you'd like to read upon my other spring training trips, you can click any of the links below:
3-19-10 game 2
5-5-09 PNC Park
I attended today's game with my wife. I had to wait for her to get home for work, so we didn't get to the stadium until 4:55 PM, just in time before the 5 PM gate opening.
Usually I get 1 ball during the Pirates portion during the week (they only hit for about 10-15 more minutes after the gates open). Today, though, I had 4 balls by 5:04. I've never gotten off to a start like that in my life.
Ball #1 was tossed from Nyjer Morgan.
Game: 10 balls (4 hit, 4 thrown, 2 device)
Season: 84 balls (32 hit, 43 thrown, 9 device)
Games: 16 games (13 with BP, 3 without)
Average: 5.25 balls per game
Career: 250 balls
Attendance: 9,775

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Browsing Creative Encounters (ICM/IKL) by Author "Csaba, Fabian F."
Now showing items 1-1 of 1
Skov, Lise; Skjold, Else; Moeran, Brian; Larsen, Frederik; Csaba, Fabian F. (, 2009)[More information][Less information]
Abstract: Not so many years ago, the fashion industry was called a 'sunset industry', and was deemed to have no future in the most developed countries. But recently, the New York Times has suggested that 'the sun never sets on the runway' (Wilson, 2008). Under this heading the article described the diffusion of fashion week organizations, with accompanying fashion shows, that are no longer limited to a handful of fashion capitals, but are spreading to small-country capitals and medium-sized cities all around the world. URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10398/7943
Files in this item: 1
Now showing items 1-1 of 1


text:
Product Description
Home Accents is a collection of the hottest, color-rich carpet on the market today. Features the R2X Stain and Soil Resistance System.
- Constructed of Anso nylon
- Limited Lifetime Stain & Soil Warranty (including Pet Urine)
- 20 Year Wear Warranty
- 20 Year Texture Retention Warranty


text:
Home / Ark servers list / Version / 184.108.40.206
Search and find the best Ark Survival Evolved server in our TOP multiplayer ARK Servers List.
In ARK Survival Evolved players must survive in a world populated by dinosaurs and hostile human players. The player must level up to evolve and get better equipment.


text:
The U.S. Justice Department tentatively approved Google Inc.'s planned $700 million acquisition of flight information company ITA Software on Friday, but only with a set of conditions that further underscore the government's growing apprehension about the Mountain View search giant's market power.
The DOJ said in strong language that the originally proposed deal would have "substantially lessened competition" among comparative flight search websites in the U.S., reducing choice and innovation for consumers.
ITA's software provides the flight schedules and pricing information familiar to anyone who's booked a trip online. A long list of major airlines and online travel services use it, including American Airlines, United Airlines, Hotwire, Orbitz and Microsoft Corp.'s Bing search engine.
Many of the Internet travel companies argued that once Google had control of ITA, the company would restrict access to the data in ways that would ensure itself a leg up in the sector.
The DOJ scrutinized the deal for the better part of nine months, lodging a rare second request for information and threatening to sue to block the deal.
On Friday, it said it moved forward with a civil antitrust suit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., but it simultaneously filed a proposed settlement that resolved its concerns. That agreement will have to be approved by the court.
Under the proposed settlement, Google will be required to continue to allow current and new customers to license ITA's software on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" through 2016. It must also provide a reporting mechanism for complaints if Google acts in an unfair manner and allow for mandatory arbitration under certain circumstances.
"The Department of Justice's proposed remedy promotes robust competition for airfare websites by ensuring those websites will continue to have access to ITA's pricing and shopping software," said Joseph Wayland, deputy assistant attorney general of the DOJ's antitrust division, in a statement.
While Google won its long-sought deal, the five-year conditions raise questions about the Internet company's room to maneuver moving forward and how it's now viewed by the government. It's the second set of ongoing restrictions that the government has placed on the company in as many weeks.
Last week, Google agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that its Buzz product employed deceptive tactics and violated its own privacy promises. Among other things, it required the company to submit to regular, independent privacy audits for the next 20 years and, for the first time in at FTC settlement, to implement a comprehensive privacy program.
It also surfaced in media reports this week that the FTC is preparing a broader antitrust probe into Google. The European Commission and Texas attorney general's office are already investigating whether Google is abusing its search engine dominance to undermine competitors or provide unfair advantages for its own products.
Internet travel services strongly opposed the ITA deal, seeing it as clear evidence the Internet giant, whose technologies have already disrupted the business models of a number of industries, was taking aim at their livelihood. Hotwire, Kayak, Expedia and others formed a trade group, Fairsearch.org, that argued the combination would limit competition in the sector, reducing consumer choice and boosting prices.
Both Google and those opponents spun Friday's announcement as a win.
"We're excited that the U.S. Department of Justice today approved our acquisition," said Jeff Huber, a Google senior vice president, in a blog post. "We're confident that by combining ITA's expertise with Google's technology we'll be able to develop exciting new flight search tools for all our users. Up, up and away!"
Fairsearch.org characterized the concessions as a "clear win" for consumers.
"The Department concluded Google's unrestricted control over ITA's key flight search technology would have violated the antitrust laws," the groups said in a statement. "By putting in place strong, ongoing oversight and enforcement tools, the Department has ensured that consumers will continue to benefit from vibrant competition and innovation in travel search."
It warned, however, that Google's "abuse of its search dominance" demands the ongoing vigilance of regulators and lawmakers.
Among other conditions of the settlement, Google will be required to: implement measures that will prevent it from glimpsing the competitively sensitive information of rivals; continue to develop and offer to rivals ITA's next generation product, known as InstaSearch; and avoid entering agreements that would inappropriately restrict airlines from sharing seat and booking class information with Google's competitors.


text:
KBTX TV -Bryan/College Station, TX
From The Ground Up by Kaliey Carey – Sposored by Producers COOP
The Women's Liberation Movement is documented as having begun in the United States during the 1960s, however, many believe that it was implemented many years prior to that on ranches across the country.
"When I went to Foleys, I used to laugh and tell all of them, because at the time that I had started with my career, was also when the Women's Lib movement started, and I said, you guys are way behind, because if you grew up on a ranch, you were treated just like the rest of the guys."
Today, Linda Jordens Galayda and her family own and operate the Seven Bar Seven Ranch near Elkhart.
"I used to laugh because I said my Mom was a wonderful southern lady and she would send us off to piano and ballet and my Dad would buy me horses and guns. It was the horses and cattle and guns that took, even though I ended up with this career in fashion, it was the other that was really my passion."
Linda admired her Dad's tremendous work ethic.
"When he said we're leaving at five, we were leaving at five, and you got called one time, and then you'd better be in the truck, and you better get your horse saddled, and you had to saddle your own horse."
"When we were working cattle, I was never treated as the little lady, and I was expected to ride like all the guys, and pain is not a factor, and tears were certainly not a factor."
Even as a little girl, Linda was treated like a business partner.
"In the meeting with people that, of course truly intimidated me as a little girl, he would say, what do you think, what do you think, what do you think? All along he was always prompting us into those decision making roles."
And her Dad wasn't star struck by his daughter's successful career in the fashion industry.
"It was always about, I don't care if you had lunch with Gloria Vanderbilt, we've got these cows to move off this pasture to this pasture, so he kept us very grounded."
When Linda's father's health failed, she had decision to make.
"When he passed away, it was an easy decision, it wasn't a hard decision. I was going to the ranch."
I'm Kaliey Carey, looking at Brazos Valley agriculture, From The Ground Up.


text:
Posts Tagged 'Politics'
New World Order for Fun and Profit
The Martial Lord of Wei asked one of his ministers what had caused the destruction of a certain nation-state. The minister said, "Repeated victories in repeated wars."
The Martial Lord said, "A nation is fortunate to win repeated victories in repeated wars. Why would that cause its destruction?"
The minister said, "Where there are repeated wars, the people are weakened; when they score repeated victories, rulers become haughty. Let haughty rulers command weakened people, and rare is the nation that will not perish as a result."
— Masters of Huainan (ca. 200 BCE)
What Just Happened?
Although many American voters feel alarmed and disoriented by Donald Trump's rise to power, this is nevertheless the direct, causal result of millions of Americans pretending that Democrats are an opposition party over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, for these naive souls, the real difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans are delusional while Democrats are in denial.
At present, Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats are blaming Russia for manipulating the election, which is pure propaganda. Russia probably manipulates every election. Russia, China, and others probably do too — just like we routinely interfere with theirs.
The real issue is both more nuanced and more troubling. In Wisconsin, for example, less than 1% of the vote separated Clinton from Trump. For comparison, in Florida after the 2000 election, a similarly narrow result triggered a recount by statute.
When one looks at what factors constitute that 1% of the vote in Wisconsin, however, the role of Russian involvement is not the decisive factor (though it may be a bit of a wildcard). Rather, a number of pervasive influences within American society amount to a far more profound influence:
1) Systematic black disenfranchisement due to Reagan-era federal sentencing guidelines (2.2 million voters nationally)
2) Systematic disenfranchisement through Voter ID laws (coordinated among statehouses through think tanks like ALEC)
3) Closed-source electronic voting machines with proprietary code that behave anomalously but can't be audited
5) Campaign strategies that game the electoral college (Clinton won the 2016 popular vote, just like Gore won the 2000 popular vote against Bush)
6) Citizens United Supreme Court ruling overturning campaign finance reform, opening a floodgate of un-traceable political manipulation
7) Sporadic election fraud by officials like Kathy Nickolaus in Waukesha
Of course, Barack Obama — in blaming Russia — cannot call attention to these issues, because it undermines the validity of the very system from which he derives his power, influence, prestige, identity.
This was the same reason Al Gore couldn't call for protests in the street after the 2000 election: he's part of the system and therefore needs to help preserve it. So now, instead of solutions, we get propaganda from the left in addition to the right.
What Does it Mean?
Historian Robert Paxton has analyzed historical fascist movements, and has discerned five distinct stages along the way to fascism:
1. Development of the ideology
2. Ideology takes root
3. Ideology gains power
4. Ideology exercises power
5. Open society overtaken by entropy or becomes a police state
In Paxton's analysis, the proto-fascist disillusionment with popular democracy begins in the rural around a rhetoric of renewal. The Greek Golden Dawn party, with seats amounting to about 10% of the European parliament, holds the phoenix as the emblem of their movement.
Popular with past Greek fascist movements, the symbol of the phoenix — which rises reborn from its own ashes — resonates with Trump's promise to "make america great again."
After a fascist ideology takes hold, traditional conservative elite adopt the rhetoric of the rural brownshirts to stave off a resurgent progressive movement. Which is to say: Hitler used the brownshirts but did not create them, just like the Republican Tea Party took advantage of American right wing militants.
Once the traditional conservatives regain power, the brownshirts become emboldened to act. This historically has often taken the form of attacks on farmers. It may seem appealing to suppose — given the current state of race relations in the United States and the animosity suffered between rural and urban areas — that a modern equivalent of this step may consist in right wing militants squaring off with disaffected black inner-city youth (who figure they have nothing to lose, since they'll be dead or in jail by the time they're 20 years old). However, for all the problems with policing, it is unlikely that many police would sit by idly while white militants pick off black folks indiscriminately. Moreover, rural folks are often afraid of the city, making such a scenario less likely.
While the rural folks are afraid of the city, however, they're not afraid of Mexican migrant farmers with no rights. They'll be the canary in the coal mine, or the sacrificial lamb, for the same reason a john beats up a hooker: she can't take it to the cops.
Once the traditional conservative elements try to restore order in the face of quasi-sanctioned vigilantism, two general outcomes typically result: entropy, or a police state.
Since Bill Clinton put the wiretaps in place, Bush switched them on, and Obama made it legal to use them, we would seem to have a pretty comprehensive system of repression in place already.
What's Next?
The panopticon principle makes it pretty clear that surveillance is not some passive proposition, but an active system of control. If you CAN be monitored at any time, but NEVER know exactly when, it is in your interest to behave at ALL times as though you ARE being monitored.
Foucault summarized Bentham's insight:
"Hence the major effect of the Panopticon: to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power…
"So… that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action; that the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary; that this architectural apparatus should be a machine for creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it; in short, that the inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers."
— Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 1975
The surveillance society depicted in George Orwell's novel 1984 is built along these precise lines:
"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to."
"You had to live–did live, from habit that became instinct–in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."
— George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
The social deviance of 1984's protagonist Winston Smith is eventually arrested through police entrapment, not through the efficacy of the surveillance infrastructure. Smith wanders into a forbidden part of town and rents a room from an undercover cop to use as a love nest.
In our world, these forces are already being brought to bear on the American population. What's needed first is a sober recognition of these realities.
Those who would organize an opposition should not do so over social media. Use of the element of surprise is a rudimentary component of any strategy — which would-be organizers surrender without fight when organizing on a wiretap.
Those who would organize an opposition should not report their activities on social media. The types of information gained through the elaborate system of hundreds of thousands of spies and informers utilized by the East German state is routinely handed over voluntarily today on FaceBook. The East German state maintain control by exploiting personal information, and our system is not likely to be much different.
Cellphones are tracking devices. Even with GPS off, they are in constant communication with cell towers. The slight time differential between when a phone's signal is picked up ad multiple nearby towers can be used to precisely locate any such mobile device.
The walls have ears. Cellphones speak and understand English now. Past movements — the labor movement, the women's movement, the civil rights movement — succeeded without social media. An opposition movement that has any chance of success today will be no different in that regard.
Government Accountability and Efficiency
In a recent talk about cyber security, NSA Director Mike Rogers claimed:
As it stands, Rogers explained, we're losing somewhere between $100 billion and $400 billion worth of intellectual property to theft each year. This, he said, is of particular concern to the Department of Defense, which watches as its contractors networks are regularly compromised by adversaries.
To the extent that his statement reflects how US tax dollars are spent, the situation is to a considerable extent the result of military downsizing under President Clinton, which wasn't really downsizing, but outsourcing. Issued on May 21, 1996, Executive Order 13005 – Empowerment Contracting states its objectives as follows:
In order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal procurement, it is necessary to secure broad-based competition for Federal contracts. This broad competition is best achieved where there is an expansive pool of potential contractors capable of producing quality goods and services at competitive prices. A great and largely untapped opportunity for expanding the pool of such contractors can be found in this Nation's economically distressed communities.
The problem is, this way of approaching "efficiency" leads directly to reduced accountability. Those who rail against government inefficiency don't understand that accountability is not efficient: it is not efficient to justify your actions at every step. So the push to make government more lean and "efficient" by outsourcing government functions to the private sector leads directly to an erosion of accountability. You can't have both accountability and efficiency as policy goals.
Pulitzer prize winning historian Gary Wills suggested that, for example, part of why the Manhattan Project was conducted with such extraordinary secrecy was specifically to evade accountability. The Russians knew what we were up to, the Germans probably knew too, it was the American people kept in the dark. Wills argues this was probably to avoid potential opposition to the development of nuclear weapons in light of the 1925 Geneva Protocols against chemical and biological weapons. Around the globe, people were shocked by the destructiveness of mechanized warfare during World War I and by the use of chemical weapons. The First World War and the technological horrors is brought were still very much in public memory by the time World War II came around.
Wills also points out that this use of secrecy to evade accountability was no isolated instance. When the US bombed Cambodia, the Cambodians knew it, it was US citizens kept in the dark. When the US invaded Cuba, the Cubans knew what was happening and the Soviets knew, it was US citizens kept in the dark.
Today we have active drone campaigns in at least eight foreign countries responsible for the deaths of thousands in what is essentially an undeclared global war. Insofar as the targets are terrorists, the terrorists know they're being targeted. Again, it's US citizens kept in the dark.
The origin of the "state secrets" doctrine derives not from any law that Congress passed, but from efforts by the US military to evade accountability over flaws in the engine design of a new aircraft, which led to the deaths of several citizens.
Accountability is not efficient. To increase accountability with surveillance matters, there needs to be a reduction in contracting, which means, the government needs to get bigger. Edward Snowden — a contractor himself — would seem to be a clear cut example in support of this view.
Primer on Resistance and the Surveillance State
There's no Internet without surveillance. The Internet was built by the US military to be robust, not for privacy or security. Privacy was not part of the Internet's design goals.
The Internet became a commonplace household word in part because of the hype surrounding an economic bubble created during the presidency of Bill Clinton. Under Bill Clinton, the US Congress also enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act at the same time that Windows 95 introduced Americans to personal computers and the phrase "information superhighway" introduced Americans to networking. Surveillance was an integral part of handing the Internet over to commerce.
The relationship between commerce and the surveillance state is now well-established: Apple and Microsoft are suspect, and Yahoo has made surveillance a business proposition — as per 18 U.S.C. § 2706, Yahoo's 2009 rates ran as follows:
Basic subscriber records cost $20 for the first ID, $10 per ID thereafter; basic group Information (including information about moderators) cost $20 for a group with a single moderator; contents of subscriber accounts — including email — cost $30-$40 per user; contents of groups cost $40 – $80 per group.
Given that typical internet advertising revenue brings in only pennies per click, the current scale of Internet surveillance clearly implies that spying on customers is big business for online firms.
Other telecommunications carriers have made similar overtures, some companies have faced legal and economic reprisal for refusing to cooperate, and yet others have availed themselves of their free speech rights as corporate persons to engage in this dubious commerce.
It should be reason enough to be disturbed by NSA surveillance that the Founders prohibited this type of information gathering in the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. The excuse "I've got nothing to hide" misses the point. The government should obey the law, that's a core feature of what "rule of law" means. And the example of non-violent resistance through non-participation set by Ghandi and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and vegetarians and vegans offers a clear a lesson for how to resist the surveillance society: stop participating in an abusive system. The Internet is cruelty to human animals and it's bad for the social environment.
If it weren't for so many Americans purchasing data plans on "smart" phones, purchasing home Internet access, and dutifully reporting their daily thoughts and habits psychological makeup on FaceBook accounts, the costs to Uncle Sam for maintaining the current surveillance state would very rapidly prove prohibitive. That is, if the government had to pay your phone bill and your internet costs and pay a spy to follow you around to listen in on your conversations, it could no longer afford to spy on everybody. Through consumer habits and the cultural value placed on convenience, Americans effectively subsidize the surveillance state on behalf of the government. Dan Geer stated the matter succinctly: our online choices are between freedom, security, and convenience, but we can only pick two.
From a cost perspective, a "vegetarian" approach to resisting the surveillance state (that is, by simply opting out) is an inexpensive solution that aims at increasing the cost of surveillance to the state. This approach requires little social coordination other than a shared will to change prevailing circumstances — and a little personal initiative. Such a "vegetarian" approach also serves to inject additional uncertainty into what data is gathered (thereby diminishing the value of what data Uncle Sam does collect). This doesn't mean life without the internet any more than vegetarianism means life without food, it just means being more selective about where your internet comes from, where you take it, and what you do with it.
You don't need to be online all day. A good starting point would be to make a habit of leaving your cellphone tracking device at home once in a while. Just because your cellphone is wireless, that doesn't mean you need to take it with you everywhere you go. If you take it with you everywhere you go, it's more of a tracking device than a phone. When Uncle Sam looks through your cell tower data, changing your cellphone habits will increase the uncertainty as to your location at any given time during the day.
If you care to preserve "democracy," all that's really needed is a little social coordination and a willingness to put up with a little less "convenience." This may sound incompatible with the modern world, but there's good reason to get motivated: the modern world is incompatible with the perpetuation of the human race. There's more at stake than a little privacy, though the more fundamental problem is bound up with the psychology of consumer society: in a growth economy based on persuasion though advertising — where consumers must make choices about the allocation of their scarce resources — every new product requiring new investment must be presented as needful and fundamental to the modern way of life.
Many people know things have gone awry with the modern world: between the threats posed by persistent national militarism, thermonuclear war, war over resources, mass hunger, environmental degradation, climate change, shortening attention spans, new communicable diseases — something is clearly wrong. And yet, somehow, everyone looks to another for the solution. Nobody is willing to see their complicity and change their behavior. So: if you don't like internet surveillance, stop surveilling yourself. The problem isn't some nebulous "big brother," it's you. The government isn't going to change its behavior, so stop waiting for the government to save you from the government. You have to save yourself from yourself.
Myth-Making for a Conservative Nation
In 1988, Guy Debord observed:
"We believe we know that in Greece, history and democracy appeared at the same time. We can prove that their disappearances have also been simultaneous."
"To this list of the triumphs of power we should, however, add one result which has proved negative for it: a State, in which one has durably installed a great deficit of historical knowledge so as to manage it, can no longer be governed strategically."
This absence of historical knowledge manifests itself today. In Fall of 2013, after weeks of partisan gridlock, the US Congress managed to re-opened the Federal government with a last-minute deal. This partisanship, however, is not ideological: it is emotional, it is irrational, and its results are unpredictable.
In response to this minor "accomplishment" President Obama remarked:
"Let's work together to make the government work better, instead of treating it like an enemy, or making it worse. That's not what the founders of this nation envisioned when they gave us the gift of self-government."
The President's statement seems, on its face, uncontroversial — and that's a big part of the problem. His statement is profoundly anti-historical, and in the most problematic manner possible, reads present values into the past.
Until 1850 or so, only white men with substantial wealth — such as bankers, factory owners, or plantation owners — were allowed the vote. Renters, subsistence farmers, and the laboring majority — whites and blacks — lacked political representation at the time of the US's founding. The Constitution made no mention of suffrage until the 14th and 15th Amendments in 1868 and 1870 — almost 100 years after the original Constitution was ratified. In 1875, the US Supreme Court explicitly ruled that the 14th Amendment — which defined citizenship for the first time — did not give women the right to vote. Women didn't get the vote until 1920. Blacks didn't get full rights until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
That's an odd "gift of self-government." Truly, it sounds more like a long, hard struggle to obtain self-government — IN SPITE OF the Founding Fathers. Indeed, despite being subjects to the Crown, the British managed to outlaw the slave trade, abolish slavery, and enfranchise women before the United States. And despite being subject to the Crown, the British today enjoy many of the same rights — like freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech — that Americans consider distinctly American innovations under the Bill of Rights.
Though the myth of Democracy endures, it is plain to see that the Founders feared Democracy, and made provision to prevent its emergence in the New World. That so much time passed before American citizens obtained universal suffrage is testament to the effectiveness of the Founding Fathers' plans.
In arguing for a new Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, Founding Father Elbridge Gerry complained to the Constitutional Convention on May 31, 1787: "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy." Founding Father Edmund Randolf also complained about the "turbulence and follies of democracy." In Convention, Founding Father John Dickinson argued against expanding political enfranchisement: "The danger to free governments has not been from freeholders, but those who are not freeholders." Dickinson went so far as to claim that a constitutional monarchy was "one of the best Governments in the world."
Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, in Convention on June 18, 1787, expressed his belief that "nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy … you cannot have a sound executive upon a democratic plan." In The Federalist #10, James Madison wrote: "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property."
Thomas Jefferson — who did favor democracy — was not particularly effective in pushing his views. He was not even in the country when the Constitution was drafted and ratified.
The attainment of self-government in the United States was no "gift." President Obama is either unaware of this nation's history, or perhaps he has no problem brushing it aside in his public statements. Perhaps he is content that the myth of America's long history of revolutionary self-government is a suitable expedient in the short-sighted calculus of contemporary electoral politics.
Assuming a political narrative where "liberals" oppose "conservatives," one might think the first black president in the United States would show some slight interest in calling attention to the heritage of liberal reformers and progressives who paved the way for him to attain high office. One might suppose it would be in his political advantage to make it clear for all to see that the rights most "conservatives" today enjoy are the result of the efforts of their political adversaries.
Instead, the President's choice to ignore this history — and to implicitly endorse the a-historical nationalist myth favored by self-described "conservatives" — obscures real threats to what measure of democracy Americans have gained by long struggle.
"Conservatives" who think they are defending the "gift" of democracy vehemently favor so-called "voter ID" laws — which have the effect of disenfranchising students and the elderly. The ostensible rationale for these laws — that they prevent voter fraud — not only points to a problem that does not appear to exist, but affects a sort of bait-and-switch. These laws brush aside legitimate concerns about election fraud — they ignore systemic flaws with electronic voting machines, irregularities in the 2004 elections which may have been covered up, voting irregularities and questionable legal activities surrounding the contested 2000 election, and ongoing voting irregularities in parts of small town America like Waukesha, Wisconsin.
In addition to enacting "voter ID" laws, "conservative" governors have been purging voter rolls, and continue to push for national policies — such as the failed War on Drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing laws — which have had the net effect of leaving one in five black men disenfranchised.
The "conservatives" perhaps don't know to what condition their "traditionalist" views are returning this country — and our "liberal" President does not seem particularly concerned with remedying the matter. And for all the lofty speech of "history" surrounding the 2008 elections, the word was routinely used not by way of elucidating the past, but by way of branding what was then the present moment.
All this is perhaps fitting. President Obama's policies are by and large center-right. With the exception of gay marriage, he has a dismal civil rights record, that includes granting amnesty to CIA torturers, failing to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens, requesting indefinite detention provisions in the 2012 National Defence Authorization Act, negotiating secret treaties, expanding and legitimating Bush-era surveillance programs — despite well-documented evidence detailing what these programs can lead to, violating the sovereignty of foreign nations with drone strikes, prosecuting whistleblowers with a vengeance … and the list goes on.
Mr. Obama's calls for "unity" are perhaps well-intentioned, but cannot be strategically effective in the absence of historical knowledge among the population. Something closer to a one-party system is unlikely to mend the damage caused by a dysfunctional two-party system. What America needs is not "unity" but a real opposition party — a role that, in the face of "conservative" efforts in the Tea Party Caucus — the Democratic party seems unwilling or unable to fulfill.
Marijuana and Medicine
Although many states in the US have been passing laws allowing for medical and even recreational use of cannabis, the substance remains illegal at the federal level. Specifically, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. This classification is on the basis of three main criteria:
1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Cannabis is classed with Heroin and LSD. Cocaine, Morphine, and Oxycodone are less tightly regulated Schedule II substances.
As cannabis use persists among teenagers and adults, both legally and illegally, more and more people — especially young people — are seeing first hand that the risks associated with the use of cannabis don't square properly with the federal government's treatment of cannabis. If the government has an interest in protecting young people from the risks of substance abuse, they also have an interest in providing accurate information and formulating sensible policies that don't simultaneously undermine their own credibility.
Problems with the Current Classification of Cannabis
The Schedule I classification of cannabis has a number of problems. First, abuse is hard to quantify, and just what patterns of cannabis usage fall under this rubric are not well defined. Second, there are few quantifiable safety concerns with cannabis: the substance is profoundly non-toxic, and it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to overdose on cannabis. This distinguishes cannabis from other Schedule I substances like heroin, and even from legal recreational drugs like alcohol, which is a contributing factor in the death of some 80,000 Americans each year. Third, the current federal scheduling of cannabis does not take into consideration the accepted medical use of cannabis in a number of states. The Department of Veterans Affairs has issued a formal directive permitting the clinical use of cannabis in those states where medical uses are approved. Researchers studying the relative risks and merits of the substance encounter great difficulties acquiring suitable samples to study, and their findings are of limited applicability to the way the substance is routinely consumed in a non-standardized, non-regulated black market.
Perhaps the most dramatic difficulty with the federal government's position on cannabis is that the US Department of Health and Human Services holds a patent on medical uses of cannabis. Issued in 2003, US Patent #6630507 is titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants." The patent examines a molecule found in cannabis, CBD, though the chemical mechanism the patent identifies should be present in all cannabinoids, including THC. The patent notes that "cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia," and also indicates that cannabinoids offer a unique delivery mechanism due to the facility with which these molecules can cross the blood-brain barrier.
When cannabis was originally listed as a Schedule I substance in 1970, the classification was intended to be provisional, pending the results of an ongoing study. The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse issued the study findings in 1972, finding that there "is little proven danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental or intermittent use of the natural preparations of cannabis." Although the study recommended de-criminalizing cannabis and treating use or possession akin to alcohol, President Nixon chose not to implement the Commission's recommendations, and marijuana has remained a Schedule I substance since. Although whole-plant marijuana remains a Schedule I substance, the synthetic THC called dronabinol — sold under the brand name Marinol — is classified as a less-restricted Schedule III substance.
Social Attitudes Affecting Cannabis as Medicine
In the United States, a lot of opposition to medical cannabis laws have presumed that such laws are just a "first step" towards outright legalization. While there is little to suggest such an outcome would be inherently detrimental, there is also ample evidence that supports medical uses of cannabis on the substance's own merits.
What presents a more profound problem to the public is in part a tacit sociology of medicine that limits and proscribes how individuals view treatment. Politicians have adopted these cultural attitudes unquestioningly — indeed, the authoritarian personalities of these politicians wouldn't allow them to ask such questions. Those who are open to such questions don't dare assert themselves, despite polling results that show 70-85% of Americans favor significant changes in current federal policy.
Of particular note in this regard is the unexamined notion that medicine has to come in the form of an expensive bitter pill. The notion that medicine might also be pleasurable is anathema, and that healing might be enjoyable is equally heretical. Medicine is still penance, disease is sin, the new medical complexes are cathedrals, and doctors are the high priesthood, mediating between this world and the next, serving as both the front line and the last defense against the forces of corruption, decay, and disorder.
We apologize when we call in sick to work, and are stigmatized by our ailments. Just as the medieval church was one of the largest landlords in Europe, today's medical industry claims vast swaths of the GDP. In the US, healthcare spending exceeds the 10% tithe commanded by the medieval church. The religion analogy is quite complete, and includes the irreligiousness of the most ardent devotees. Hospitals, gathering together the diseased, are diseased. They are morally perverse and rotten with wealth.
Along with unexamined notions of how medicine fits into our culture, there is another factor promoted by our culture, related to the ideology of Progress. Progress holds that the future will always bring improvements, that all new technology is better technology, and that what is new must replace what is old. From within the confines of this ideology of Progress, it seems on the face of things obvious that any new pill is inherently superior to "natural preparations." This is, unfortunately, quite difficult to establish with any certainty.
There are easy-to-identify counter-examples where modern medicine has delivered a harmful product: the recall of pills like VIOXX make a big splash in the media, and create the impression that these are exceptions to the general rule that modern medicine routinely delivers improvements. But these issues have been with medicine for a long time: heroin, for example, was originally invented by the pharmaceutical company Bayer, and marketed as a non-addictive alternative to morphine.
The litany of prescription painkillers marketed since Bayer invented heroin have now surpassed car crashes in the number of annual deaths they cause, accounting for some 90% of all poisonings. The number killed by these drugs amounts to about ten 9-11's each year — every year. Instead of figuring out how to deal with this plague, however, the US throws more and more money at the medical industry, which keeps developing new drugs with serious side effects and abuse potential. The broader, social implications of this are even more troubling.
The Decline of Western Medicine
Most of modern medicine is unnecessary. After sanitation and hygiene, antibiotics, analgesics and anesthetics, and vaccines, most of modern medicine is devoted to coping with the side effects of industrialization. This effect can be seen in diet particularly, but also with respect to such vectors as environmental pollution. Environmental pollution may take the form of contaminants in the air and water, particulate matter in the air (which causes diseases like asthma), or increased radiation in the environment (due to industrial processes, residues from atmospheric nuclear testing, or because of solar radiation that is increased by a depleted ozone layer in the upper atmosphere).
If he or she lives past the age of 15, the typical hunter-gatherer stands a reasonable chance of remaining healthy and active into their 70's, with a strong social support network to care for them as they age. The modern US health care industry really doesn't do all that much better. A sizable portion of the modern improvements in life expectancy over what is offered by a hunter-gatherer society come from improved infant mortality, a hygiene problem identified by Ignaz Semmelweis in 1847. Hand washing is a an extraordinarily cheap and effective medical technology. Antibiotics, which were developed for around $20,000 of basic research, have saved many more individuals from childhood disease, and increased the range of surgeries that are possible.
As modern medicine grows more expensive, its productivity declines precipitously. This decline in productivity can be measured in terms of substantive outcomes or in terms of the cost per patent. Either way, the role of diminishing returns in this field is not adequately addressed in the contemporary discourse.
Most of the big medical breakthroughs of the last 300-500 years were inexpensive. Everything recent is increasingly expensive and of rapidly declining effectiveness compared to basic innovations like sanitation or antibiotics. Most modern medicines and medical procedures could be avoided through less expensive means, specifically, through dietary and behavior modification.
The cost of medicine detracts from other public welfare programs, such as nutrition, food security, education, and mass transit, all of which yield a far greater return on investment than modern medicine.
At some point, the moral aspects of modern medicine need to be evaluated in terms of the social cost. For example: as a percentage of GDP, the US spends three times more money on the healthcare industry than on education. We know that basic education makes us smarter, better socialized, and better equipped for employment; but most medicine isn't really making us all that much healthier.
Marijuana and Medicine
Progress makes a raw agricultural commodity like cannabis seem suspect as a medicine, through really, it is modern medicine that should be suspect. Whereas a typical television commercial for a new pharmaceutical product will often devote more than half its airtime to potential side effects, no similarly funded social initiative exists to teach Americans how to eat properly, or how to prepare nutritious foods. Nutritious foods or vegetarian diets are routinely mocked by Americans.
Somehow, none of this is a medical problem. Rather, in the discourse, these are treated as political problem. So doctors, not being politicians, stay out of politics; and, somehow, proper diet is only of tangential concern to the medical industry, while new drugs of dubious effectiveness are promoted as indispensable innovations.
Somehow health is not a medical issue, only disease warrants attention. And where medicine and politics do intersect on this issue of cannabis, instead of informed discussion, the public is treated to a wall of silence, or else jokes about hapless stoners.
Mass Shootings, The Media, and Politicized Narratives
In the wake of this most recent school shooting in Connecticut, it is important to remember that these are still isolated incidents. That these cases become public spectacles represents an ideology of indoctrination more than they represent symptoms of a peaceful society changing into something frightening and more violent.
The Problem
Our society is already violent. 12,000 gun homicides annually ranks our "peaceful" Homeland among many war zones. This is a 10-year low. For every gun homicide, there is roughly one accidental gun death. But very few of these deaths take place in mass shootings: they are overwhelmingly the results of domestic disturbances, armed robberies, and gang violence. Yet, when these more common types of shootings occur, the media is largely silent. If it were otherwise, the news would be about nothing but shootings.
When the media picks up gun violence as a topic — typically when a rare mass shooting occurs — the narrative the media propagates tells audiences that these acts are result of some "disturbed" individual. Now, clearly, shooters in domestic disturbances are "disturbed" at the time, but the media means to say something about psychological pathology: that mass shooters are somehow unhinged and acting irrationally. Relatively little attention is paid to what sorts of social pressures these mass shooters may have been under. And almost no attention is paid to the significance of the fact that these shooting sprees often end with a suicide.
The Suicide Shooter
What should be deeply disturbing to media consumers is that the sensationalism of the media coverage is oriented more towards inflicting emotional trauma on audiences than providing a useful description of what gun violence in the country actually looks like.
The media seems to be operating under the premise that when American audiences see coverage of events like this, audiences implicitly understand that these events are stand-ins for countless other events that vary widely in their specifics. All the Tweets and FaceBook posts to the effect that, "if only more teachers carried weapons in the classroom" seem to contradict such an assumption. I would wager that if more teachers were armed in class, there may be more school shootings: it is not safe to assume that all teachers love children unconditionally, or are a paragon of infinite patience.
Perhaps most disturbing about the media coverage of these events — in a sociological sense — is the uniform lack of discussion of the frequent suicidal climax of the killing. Perhaps the media feels it is enough to state that the shooters are "disturbed," and that suicide therefore seems natural enough as a conclusion to such a "disturbed" episode. But we do have another paradigm for suicide attacks like these: suicide bombers in the Middle East.
It is not so easy to write off Middle Eastern suicide bombers as uniformly "disturbed." They are trained in their attack strategies — much like our suicide shooters plan assaults. Suicide bombers are motivated by ideology or other political goals — which often enough appears to be the case with our suicide shooters. While suicide bombers are promised great rewards in the afterlife, our suicide shooters live in a culture saturated with aesthetic treatments of violence, such that the rush of a real-life shoot out and the subsequent notoriety may be reward enough.
Often enough, the perpetrators of these acts of mass violence do have reasons, though, due to the media's sensationalism and lack of analysis, we never get any closer to understanding those reasons or, consequently, understanding what we can do address them. All we are left with, as a nation, is televised grieving, emotional trauma inflicted by the media over distant events, and nebulous debates about "gun control."
The Calculating Killer
Joe Stack, who after several failed attempts at pursuing the American Dream through entrepreneurism, eventually committed suicide by flying a private plane into an IRS tax office in Texas. Joe Stack wrote a suicide note, titled, "Well Mr. Big Brother IRS man… take my pound of flesh and sleep well." In it, he stated:
"If you're reading this, you're no doubt asking yourself, 'Why did this have to happen?' The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn't enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I'm not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.
"We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was 'no taxation without representation'. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a 'crackpot', traitor and worse."
Joe Stack doesn't sound like his reason has become unhinged, he sounds like society pushed him to the breaking point.
Some time earlier, the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, wrote in in his Manifesto:
"96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people."
Say what you will about his methods, but his thinking was not delusional or unhinged from reason: this was a man pushed by society to his breaking point. His actions were not the result of an irrational outburst. He sought social change.
The Media
For a media apparatus that literally sold us the lies that lead up to our 2003 invasion of Iraq; that has been largely silent on the erosion of the 4th Amendment under the FISA amendments and the free reign given to the National Security Agency; that has been largely silent on the erosion of the 5th Amendment under the 2012 NDAA; that is silent about illegal drone campaigns in foreign countries, extrajudicial assassinations of US citizens without trial, that still hasn't gotten to the bottom of our war crimes in Fallujah, or what actually happened in the 2000 elections; that allows the sprawling security state unchecked growth, and that even cheerleads for the technologies that make it all possible, subsidized by mass production yields in consumer goods … all the media's moralizing on issues like this rings hollow.
Anarchist thinker Emma Goldman had a different take on events like these:
"To Analyze the psychology of political violence is not only extremely difficult, but also very dangerous. If such acts are treated with understanding, one is immediately accused of eulogizing them. If, on the other hand, human sympathy is expressed with the Attentäter, one risks being considered a possible accomplice. Yet it is only intelligence and sympathy that can bring us closer to the source of human suffering, and teach us the ultimate way out of it."
Emma Goldman suggests that such violent outbursts are the product of an unusually sensitive soul, not an irrational madman or an unfeeling sociopath. She does not condone these events, but seeks to understand them both emotionally and rationally, as part of a larger program towards making the world a more just and equitable place. The media could learn a few things from her approach.
The Public
When the media or politicians raise the spectre of "gun control" following such incidents — which is logical enough, given the total lack of any more substantive debate about the causes and conditions underlying such violent outbursts — a certain highly vocal group of Americans starts clamoring about their rights.
Recent Supreme Court rulings depart from precedent dating back to the 1930's, mainly, the Miller Case, which affirmed that a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia weapon, and that individual ownership of such weapons can therefore be curtailed.
The decision in the 1939 Miller case reads, in part:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
In their close-reading of the text of the Constitution, the justices in Miller asserted:
"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power —
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
The Second Amendment, in the strictest sense, is not the "gun" amendment, but the "militia" amendment. The introductory clause, "A well regulated militia," serves the legal function of a "whereas" clause, delineating the scope of the provision. In the Second Amendment's equivalent clause under the Articles of Confederation, the text is explicit in that arms are to be kept "in public stores."
This is not to say there is not a Constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear privately-owned weaponry; but if the individual right to own a private firearm derives from the Second Amendment, it is the result of activist judges rather than the original intent of the Founding Fathers. An individual right to own a firearm is more plausibly found in the 9th or the 10th Amendment.
Gun advocates, however, do not make this argument, because although they frequently want smaller government and despise activist judges, there is no judicial case history testing gun rights under these more plausible Amendments.
Moreover, if individual gun ownership derives from the 9th or 10th Amendment, this also opens the door to State regulation of gun ownership — something these anti-Federal government, States-rights gun advocates paradoxically want to avoid (opposition to the Chicago and DC handgun bans illustrate this point). They want to have their cake and eat it too, where the Federal government and gun rights intersect.
Now, we are all accustomed to restrictions put on legal products to which we otherwise feel we have a right to purchase: there is a minimum drinking age for alcohol, all cars must drive on the same side of the street and stop at red lights, all electronic devices must limit their electromagnetic interference. There are countless other instances which, under certain conditions, may represent an inconvenience, but which, on the whole, represent the needs of a greater social good.
But, by and large, the largest source of confusion and agitation on this point comes from the National Rifle Association. Started as a support group for Marines, the powerful lobby completely ignores that gun ownership today is a completely different proposition that it was in the early days of the Republic. The group's position is completely a-historical.
In the Revolutionary era, guns were hand-made artisan items, not mass-produced commodities. Maybe one out of eight men owned a gun. As many as half these guns didn't work, but were viewed as property nevertheless and passed on from generation to generation. They weren't essential for hunting, as many Americans lived in cities or raised crops and livestock as farmers. There weren't organized municipal police forces at the time. The original "individual mandate" from the Federal government required that able-bodied me purchase firearms due to a massive shortage.
Today, there is one gun per man, woman, and child in the country. It is a very different situation. And here, perhaps, lies the most atrocious facet of the NRA: it is little more than an industry trade group masquerading as a civil rights organization.


text:
We use cookies to give you the best experience on our site. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies
5 results
items in your basket)
Thank you!
You are now signed up to our email
Not a valid email!
Please double check the email you have entered!
Something went Wrong!
There was an error please try again.
You are already signed up to our email!
2020 © The Hut.com Ltd.


text:
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is the newest media darling -- while being one more bad example that parents might want to keep away from their kids.
Grayson became a You Tube sensation last week ago when he declared that the Republicans' health care plan was about hoping that people who got sick would, "die quickly." The GOP kvetched about the need for Democrats to reprimand Grayson -- much like the House rebuked Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) after the "You lie" incident. Forget that!
Grayson's aggressive behavior is instead being rewarded at the place where it counts the most right now -- the bank account:
U.S. & World
"The campaign has over half a million dollars in the bank and over 5,000 first-time contributors in the past three days," Grayson told CNN Saturday, saying he has his floor speech to thank for the influx of cash.
According to Grayson press secretary Todd Jurkowski, who received the latest fundraising totals from senior campaign adviser Julie Tagen, of the over half-million dollars in the bank, more than $150,000 has come in since Grayson's pitch to Congress Tuesday night.
Unfortunately, the instant-response aspect of the Internet allows for the immediate rewarding of bad or intemperate behavior. Not only has Grayson profited from this outburst, both the aforementioned Wilson and his Democratic opponent have raked in millions in contributions because one member broke the protocol of decades and called the president a liar on the House floor.
Rick Larsen (D-WA) may have had a point last week when, while participating in the Funniest Celebrity in Washington contest, he joked that one of his Democratic colleagues voted against rebuking Wilson because he "wanted to reserve the right to call a future Republican president a dumb s---."
You know it's only a matter of time.
The saddest part of the Grayson affair is the "lesson" that he has taken away from it. Forget about the lesson that being rude or intemperate to one's colleague's is financially worthwhile. There's also this: "People want to see a congressman with guts...America likes to hear the truth."
People can decide for themselves whether the fact that Republicans have different plans means that they have no plan. However, when did intemperate, rude language suddenly equal "guts"? Really? This is what we've come to?
Having a loud mouth and being able to mischaracterize one's political foes is now an example of toughness? Any chance that some integrity can go along with that? Fat chance.
Shhhh...don't tell the children.
New York writer Robert A. George blogs at Ragged Thots. Follow him on Twitter.


text:
2006 Honda Civic Si
TOCHIGI, JAPAN - Throw the 2006 Civic Si into turn 1 of the Twin Ring Motegi road course, and it's immediately clear that this is the best Civic ever built. It gobbles up corners, rotates willingly, and steers effortlessly on the throttle like some sort of a poor man's Lotus Elise. With 197 hp-37 more than the outgoing Si's engine-its 2.0-liter DOHC i-VTEC four shrieks to its 7800-rpm redline, sounding better than any Honda engine in years. Lap after lap confirms that, once again, the Si is a real car, a credible performance flagship for a new, eighth-generation Civic.
And what a difference the new car is from the outgoing Civic. Although reliable, well built, and a huge seller since its 2001 debut, it no longer was the innovative, class-leading small car that we had come to expect since the 1973 original. The utterly lackluster Si hatchback was an especially bitter pill for the Honda faithful to swallow. Sport-compact enthusiasts sought their medicine elsewhere or tended to their old, sixth-generation Civics.
There's no need to tack on yet another new rear wing, guys. Having met the Ohio-based engineers who were responsible for the 2006 Civic Si, we can understand how it got its mojo back: these rabid enthusiasts own Civics, drive Civics, race Civics, live and breathe Civics, and clearly were embarrassed by how far the last car had fallen in the estimation of the influential sport-compact crowd. With the help of the home team in Japan, they've created not only the superb Si but also a full range of Civics of which they can be proud.
As the crown prince of the Civic lineup, the Si naturally gets special chassis tuning. Differences from the stock Civic include higher spring rates, stiffer dampers, a solid front antiroll bar, bigger front brake discs, and beefier suspension linkages, plus a slick six-speed manual transmission and a limited-slip differential, crucial to smart on-track behavior. The Si's bigger engine block accounts for most of the car's 95-pound weight gain over its predecessor: at 2877 pounds, the Si is, unfortunately, the heaviest of all Civics. All-season 215/45VR-17 tires are standard, but Michelin Pilot Exalto PE2 summer tires are available. Honda Factory Performance offers eighteen-inch wheels, as will, you can bet, half the booths at the SEMA show in November.
The Civic sedan is longer, wider, and slightly shorter than the 2005 model, while the coupe gets its own wheelbase for the first time and loses three inches in height for a hunkered-down, sportier stance. In both cars, Honda's SOHC four grows from 1.7 to 1.8 liters and sends 140 hp through a five-speed manual, up from last year's 115 or 127 hp. We drove an outgoing sedan back-to-back with the 2006 Civic on the high-speed oval at Honda's Tochigi proving grounds. Whereas the 2005 Civic required frequent steering corrections, the 2006 model tracked beautifully and was utterly composed as it entered the banking. The outgoing engine sounded coarse, ran out of steam earlier, and worked the automatic harder, but the '06 produces a muted mechanical purr up to an indicated 122 mph and works well with its optional five-speed automatic. Though not quite as sporty to drive as the Mazda 3, the Civic, overall, is very refined, with a supple but not soft ride, communicative steering, and strong brakes.
Get into the old Civic, and the cabin feels as cramped, claustrophobic, and dated as a middle-school classroom you haven't seen in twenty years, but the new car has a small, handsome steering wheel, an ergonomically pleasing sweep of instruments, expansive sight lines, and storage cubbyholes everywhere, including a center armrest bin for twenty-four CDs. Honda is still using up its lifetime supply of 1980s mouse-fur seat fabric, but the headliner would do Volkswagen proud.
Honda often has been stingy with safety equipment, but the Civic now has six standard air bags and ABS. Honda could have shown more safety leadership with standard stability control, which the Accord finally gets this year in V-6 models. In a 62-mph-closing-speed offset frontal collision with an Odyssey conducted for the media at the Tochigi facility, though, two test dummies sustained minor theoretical injuries, and the Civic's passenger cell remained intact.
We'll again get a natural-gas-powered sedan and the hybrid sedan. An improved version of Honda's Integrated Motor Assist powertrain allows the hybrid to cruise solely on electric power for a few minutes from 10 to 30 mph. Honda expects the hybrid to deliver 50 mpg in both city and highway cycles, increases of 3 mpg and 2 mpg, respectively. As before, the hybrid is nearly identical to the regular Civic in both looks and driving.
Honda generally raises the small-car bar with each succeeding Civic generation, but it failed to do so with the 2001 model. The company redeems itself for 2006. After all, sport-compact enthusiasts can't be expected to drive their sixth-generation Civics forever.
Price: $19,500 (est., Si)Engine: 2.0L DOHC I-4, 197 hp, 139 lb-ft (Si)Drive: Front-wheel


text:
Holiday Pork Roast with Ginger Gravy
This special dish is perfect for Christmas or New Year's Eve. A mouthwatering ginger gravy and tender vegetables complement the moist herbed roast. —Mary Ann Dell, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania
Total TimePrep: 30 min. Bake: 1 hour 40 min. + standing
Makes16 servings
- 1 boneless whole pork loin roast (5 pounds)
- 1 tablespoon minced fresh gingerroot
- 2 garlic cloves, minced
- 1 teaspoon rubbed sage
- 1/4 teaspoon salt
- 1/3 cup apple jelly
- 1/2 teaspoon hot pepper sauce
- 2 medium carrots, sliced
- 2 medium onions, sliced
- 1-1/2 cups water, divided
- 1 teaspoon browning sauce, optional
- Place pork roast on a rack in a shallow roasting pan. Combine the ginger, garlic, sage and salt; rub over meat. Bake, uncovered, at 350° for 1 hour.
- Combine jelly and pepper sauce; brush over roast. Arrange carrots and onions around roast. Pour 1/2 cup water into pan. Bake 40-50 minutes longer or until a thermometer reads 145°. Remove roast to a serving platter; let stand for 10 minutes before slicing.
- Skim fat from pan drippings. Transfer drippings and vegetables to a food processor; cover and process until smooth. Pour into a small saucepan. Add browning sauce if desired and remaining water; heat through. Slice roast; serve with gravy.
Recommended Video
Feb 9, 2013
this recipe is good with chicken wings
Dec 12, 2012
Will definitely make this again. But, didn't use the sage; we don't like sage. It was delicious!
Dec 31, 2011
This is a very good recipe. It helps to read all the words in a recipe. 2 carrots are plenty for what they are used for.
Dec 30, 2011
I will definitely not make this again. No one liked it and it probably was the sage in combination with the other ingredients.
Dec 30, 2011
Very good...but I recommend more carrots. 2 medium carrots will not feed 16 people.
Dec 29, 2011
this was so tender and tasty!! made wonderful sandwiches later also...will definately make this again..


text:
This year's Nobel Prizes are being unveiled this week. Are there any predictors that point to who will be selected? Here's George Beadle's (medicine, 1958) response: «Study diligently. Respect DNA. Don't smoke. Don't drink. Avoid women and politics. That's my formula.»
Is precocity in childhood a predictor? When the 2001 economics laureate, George Akerlof, was in second grade, he was asked what he wanted for Christmas, and he said, «A steel mill.» Asked the same question by his scientist father, Roger Kornberg (chemistry, 2006) said, «A week in the lab.»
But early privilege is not essential. Mario Capecchi (medicine, 2007) was an abandoned child on the streets of wartime Italy. Albert Camus (literature, 1957) grew up fatherless, in poverty in Algiers.
In addition to childhood hardship, many Nobel laureates, men and women, at some point in their lives suffered imprisonment. Nelson Mandela (peace, 1993) set a record with his 27 years in prison in South Africa. Autobiographies show that prison strengthened the convictions of future laureates and toughened their resolution.
Childhood deprivation and adult imprisonment are, however, atypical. The typical Nobel laureate in science is a male, born in a Western country into a middle-class family. His father is a professional, manager or professor. His family is Protestant, agnostic or Jewish. His parents seek out good K-12 schools for him, and he proceeds to a good university. He receives his doctoral degree before he is 25 and undertakes post-doctoral work under a Nobel-level supervisor. He does his groundbreaking research in his late 30s or early 40s, for which he is awarded the Nobel Prize 15 years later.
Rosalind Yalow (medicine, 1977) told women, «You can have it all!» But only 43 of 862 laureates have been women. The prizes got their start in 1901, before women won universal suffrage in most nations, let alone an equal share of education. In the sciences, even in contemporary times, the difficulty of combining motherhood with experiments that have to be checked at 3 a.m. has channeled many women into teaching universities rather than research institutes.
In their autobiographies, many Nobel laureates pay tribute to an outstanding mentor. Five of Enrico Fermi's (physics, 1938) post-docs went on to win the Nobel Prize, and 12 of Ernest Rutherford's (chemistry, 1908). Otto Warburg (medicine, 1931) advised an American doctoral student, «If you wish to become a scientist, you must ask a successful scientist to accept you in his laboratory, even if at the beginning you would only clean his test tubes.»
Is eccentricity a concomitant of Nobel-level genius? In fact, laureates are mostly down-to-earth and unpretentious. In the United States, 44% of marriages end in divorce. Among Nobel laureates in the 20th century, the rate was 11%. Much time and energy are saved by a stable family life. Naturally there are exceptions. Erwin Schrödinger (physics, 1933) lived for some years in a middle-class Dublin suburb with his wife and his mistress, while simultaneously carrying on affairs with his students and fathering children with two other Irish women.
There remains one quality that is essential. It is what Leon Lederman (physics, 1988) called «compulsive dedication.» What distinguishes Nobel laureates is passion for their work, work that engages their hearts as well as their heads.
Let the example of Marie Curie (physics, 1903; chemistry, 1911) and her husband Pierre (physics, 1903) stand for the experience of many others. The Curies became convinced that radium could be isolated from the mineral pitchblende. The Sorbonne assigned them a shed with a leaking roof and a dirt floor, where the Curies worked for years, freezing in winter and sweltering in summer.
«And yet,» Marie Curie wrote in her biography of her husband, «it was in this miserable old shed that the best and happiest years of our life were spent, entirely consecrated to work. I sometimes passed the whole day stirring a mass in ebullition, with an iron rod nearly as big as myself. In the evening I was broken with fatigue…. We worked in the unique preoccupation of a dream.»
This experience — being utterly immersed in and dedicated to a task of great significance — is common to all Nobel laureates, and it is cherished by them as much as the prize itself.
David Pratt compiled The Impossible Takes Longer: The 1,000 Wisest Things Ever Said by Nobel Prize Laureates.


text:
I understand you can never have enough lumens... But how much is enough for certain tasks? Lets leave out S&R and tactical use.
Lets not focus in throw vs. spill too much in each scenario, although of course you can give a preference.
Max Lumens the light should have:
Walking the dog in suburbia?
Camping site?
General in-house use?
2 day blackout?
Car breaks down? Flat tire at night?
Walking in the woods?


text:
Buyback program
In January 2006, the National Treasury implemented the Buyback Program, that consists of buybacks of sovereign debt bonds. This program is an important instrument of external liability management that allows the Treasury to improve its external curve and strength the benchmark points.
Initially, the objective of the program was to reduce the concentration of shorter term maturities, while increasing the Federal Public Debt (FPD) average term and, consequently, reducing refinancing risk. From 2007 on, the Program began to seek interest rate curve improvement through reductions in the bonds outstanding that does not correspond to the current funding cost of the Republic. As a result, the profile of the curve is improved, with its liquidity concentrated on the benchmarks. The consequence is a greater predictability of FPD service payments, what decreases the refinancing risk.
Buyback Program Results
The results of the Buyback program are released bimonthly at the Monthly Debt Report.


text:
DENVER (AP) – Emails between an independent consultant and the Obama administration suggest the consultant felt pressure to help arrange a loan guarantee for a Colorado solar panel manufacturer that later went bankrupt.
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce asked the administration this month to explain what the U.S. Department of Energy knew about problems with a $400 million federal loan guarantee awarded to Abound Solar.
The Loveland-based company filed for bankruptcy protection this summer and laid off about 125 workers after spending approximately $70 million of its loan guarantees.
An Abound spokesman didn't return phone calls seeking comment.
Abound has been compared to Solyndra, a California solar panel maker that went bankrupt last year after spending a $535 million federal loan guarantee.
Department of Energy spokesman Damien LaVera said the agency provided documents about Abound Solar to Congress and insisted politics were not a factor in granting the loan guarantees.
Republican Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner, a member of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, said Tuesday the administration knew in advance there were problems with the company's finances.
Emails between the department and an independent consultant, Jim McCrea, suggest McCrea felt pressure to help arrange the loan guarantee.
In a 2010 email sent about two months before the loan was announced, McCrea said technical analysts "have major issues with the transaction," including company plans for a second plant and the high price of mineral supplies needed by the firm.
Despite the warnings, the Energy Department told an agency contractor that the "WH (White House) wants to move Abound forward."
The documents first appeared on CompleteColorado.com, a website operated by the Colorado-based, free-market-oriented Independence Institute. The Denver Post reported on the documents Tuesday.
The Department of Energy said the documents were just a few of more than 1 million pages of records provided to Congress.
"While some in Congress continue to cherry-pick individual emails in a misguided effort to misrepresent the facts, nothing in any of the … documents the department has voluntarily provided to Congress demonstrates anything except what we have consistently said from day one: Decisions on loan applications were made on the merits after careful review by career officials and technical experts in the loan program," LaVera said in a statement.
The Weld County district attorney's office said last week it is investigating Abound Solar for possible securities fraud, consumer fraud and financial misrepresentation, but that no charges have been filed. That investigation, which is separate from the congressional review, involves allegations that Abound knew it was selling defective products.
– By Steven K. Paulson, AP Writer
(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


text:
"Looking for colorectal cancer medical professionals in your area? Our partner, Amino, makes it quick and easy to find a colorectal cancer doctor, estimate your costs and book an appointment—all in one place! Amino analyzes data on nearly every doctor in America to match their experience with your needs:
Don't see a particular medical professional, let Amino know and they will add them to their database!


text:
My husband brought me back bourbon black vanilla from his travels through the Indian Ocean. I like it's scent and texture – it's gorgeous and infuses this tea with the perfect notes of vanilla.
Reader Interactions
That´s really nice, I´m sure I´d like that! 🙂
This tea looks beautiful emily!
I love these images…..I adore tea.
I want to sip that right now! Looks delicious!
Oh Wow… this looks to be everything comforting, soothing and nurturing. I am definitely giving this a go! Thank you always for your lovely ideas! xo
I love seeing a tea recipe. I have sooo much teat — I live in Istanbul, Turkey after all! But, I've never thought of making my own. I'm going to try this soon!
Hy doll! lovely post! what do u say about following each other?:X
This is a wonderful tea and I cannot wait to make it myself. I love ginger in anything and who doesn't love apple and cinnamon. Thank you for sharing this!
Look nice. Emily love your pictures, always amazing!
This looks really soothing and delicious 😀
Beautiful photography!
And I have finally subscribed since it is working again 🙂
Choc Chip Uru
Hi Emily, thanks for stopping by my place. I like it here, and plan to be back often!
I love ginger tea, and make it often. My daughter always asks me to make ginger lemonade. I like how easy you can peel ginger with a spoon. The tea is good when you have a cold too…it just makes you feel better. I can imagine how good your tea is with the vanilla and apple! I gotta try it! Mmmm…
Your photos are positively gorgeous! The flavors of this are beautiful too. Delicious!
So happy to have stumbled on your blog this morning. This tea look delicious! I love the warmth in your pictures too! I wish I had a glass of this tea along with my breakfast. I hope you have a wonderful Sunday. Enjoy your week!
Emily me encantan tus fotogarfías y recetas que es lo más importante ,es una perfecta combinación,abrazos hugs,hugs.
Yummy! This is going on my must make list! 🙂
Thank you for linking up on Successful Saturdays!
Yum! I definitely need to give this a try! xo
Delicious drink!! Thank you for sharing on Fit and Fabulous Fridays!! 🙂
I made this tea!! It's incredible!!
Coming by from Daily Buzz.
Pinning this and can't wait to try it! I love the little hand that is trying to sneek into the pic. 🙂
I would love to serve this at a party!
I make mine by very thinly slice peeled ginger root, put in my tea pot and pour on boiling water, it's faster that way.
Oh Emily, 6 years later and your lovely tea is just as relevant as it was way back! I am definitely trying this recipe for hubby's #mancold 😉 Fantastic for making my home smell wonderful too!! 🙂


text:
2013 Eleanore Pettersen Lecture: Architect Sarah Wigglesworth
Thursday, February 28, 2013, 7 - 8:30pm
Add to Calendar
The Cooper Union is pleased to have Sarah Wigglesworth as part of the Eleanore Pettersen Lecture series speaking about her current work.
Since founding her London-based practice in 1994, Sarah Wigglesworth has developed a reputation for bringing great design to ecological buildings with innovative materials. At the heart of her firm's interest in sustainability is a professed desire to help things run more efficiently, improve people's well being, and make life more enjoyable.
Working primarily for public organizations and their communities, Sarah Wigglesworth Architects hopes to research and explore issues surrounding sustainable futures in its many aspects. Since 2006, the work of the office has grown in scope and has begun to encompass neighborhoods and master plans, such as the plans for Houghton Regis, Bedfordshire and New Cross, Lewisham. Wigglesworth explains that the scale is of interest "because of the greater opportunities it offers to help build truly sustainable communities (socially, financially and environmentally)."
Published and award winning projects include 9/10 Stock Orchard Street, the Sandal Magna Community Primary School, and the Siobhan Davies Dance Studios, among others (see images of all of these projects in the slideshow above). Together with her partner, Jeremy Till, Wigglesworth was the first architect to be awarded the Fulbright Arts Fellowship. In 2004, she was awarded the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. Wigglesworth currently teaches at Sheffield University.
The Eleanore Pettersen Lecture, established through a generous gift to The Irwin S. Chanin School of Architecture, is dedicated to the voices of women in architecture as a lasting tribute to Ms. Pettersen's significant impact in the world of architecture and her love of The Cooper Union. Pettersen, who had worked as an apprentice to Frank Lloyd Wright and would later design the post-White House home of Richard M. Nixon, was one of the first women to be licensed as an architects in New Jersey, and developed a successful practice there that spanned over fifty years.
This lecture is co-sponsored by The Cooper Union Institute for Sustainable Design and the Architectural League of New York.
This lecture is presented in the context of the exhibition Lessons from Modernism and the examination of concepts and practices of sustainability in contemporary architecture. The exhibition, lecture and associated events have received generous support from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation.
FREE for current students/faculty/staff of The Cooper Union and League members; $15 for non-members. For more information on ticketing please go here.
Located in The Great Hall, in the Foundation Building, 7 East 7th Street, between Third and Fourth Avenues


text:
Georgian Patriarch Ilia meets delegation of the Serbian Orthodox Church
Heads of two Sister Churches meet in Tbilisi
His Holiness Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia has organized today an audience for all delegations of the Local Orthodox Churches that have arrived and which are going to participate in the ceremonies planned for January 13th.
Serbian Patriarch Irinej and Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral and other high guests visited the Simon Janashia Museum, as well as the National Art museum in which they had a unique opportunity to learn about rich artistic heritage of this sister country and Sister Church. Since iconoclastic heresy has never been in this region, there are many ancient icons of the utmost importance preserved.
Also today a visit to President of Georgia, Mr. Mikheil Saakashvili is planned, as well as a formal dinner for the delegates, after the audience.
Photo: deacon Aleksandar Sekulic


text:
UPDATED: Handguns, knife, brass knuckles found on students
A loaded handgun and a knife were among the weapons found on Des Moines high school students in late November and December, according to a police report made public on Jan 3.
The report said a loaded handgun was found in the backpack of a Hoover High School student on November 30. A faculty member reported the 16-year-old boy had been talking about "shooting up the school" the day before he was caught with the gun.
Later in the month an officer found a 9mm pistol in a student's backpack while working at a basketball game at North High School.
On Dec. 18, a search of a 17-year-old Hoover High School student turned up an auto knife attached to a set of make-shift brass knuckles, the report said.
In all three cases, the students were arrested and not only face criminal charges but expulsion from school.
They are not the only reports.
Des Moines public schools spokesman Phil Roeder said this fall a knife and a Taser were found at Lincoln High School and a knife was found at East High School this fall.
Roeder said over the past five years there have been between 2 and 9 weapons confiscated in Des Moines schools. He said this year's total is about average.
Both Roeder and Des Moines police Sgt. Jason Halifax said some of the incidents can be attributed to gangs, which Halifax said would probably always be around.
Roeder said all Des Moines high schools have a school resource officer, the ten middle schools share two officers and there are no officers in the city's elementary schools. Roeder said in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, discussions are underway about the feasibility of placing a police officer in every Des Moines public school.