text:
May 12, 2009
"And then came the financial crash last September and the ensuing depression."
Richard Posner on the dismal state of the conservative movement.
83 comments:
- MadisonMan said...
The line in that article that struck me was that Conservative Intellectuals have no party -- Republicans are all about Sarah Palin and Joe The Plumber, which statement seems ironic since those two to me seem outside the power structure of the Republican Party.
- Hoosier Daddy said...
And this too shall pass. As with all movements, things change. Right now the conservative mantra of individual responsibility and self-reliance isn't going to fly with the masses when you have a government that is going to give you everything you want and more. But sooner or later we will have to pay the piper and all those glassy eyed Obamatrons will perhaps rethink such state generosity when it's reflected in the deductions column of their paychecks.
- somefeller said...
Every victorious political movement sooner or later runs out of steam, and I suspect the current Democratic ascendance is no exception. It's only a question of when, rather than if.
However, it's also true that such victorious movements can alter society permanently, so even the pendulum swing in the other direction doesn't change certain fundamental changes wrought by the prior winners, and the reason the pendulum swings back is in part because big parts of the winning coalition got what they wanted and either left the field or found it safe to go to the other side because of other issues. It's this factor that conservatives, particularly social conservatives, need to worry about. There will be a Republican President again (probably in 2016 or 2020 - sorry, I doubt Obama loses in 2012), but the country he or she leads will be a very different one than the one that existed in 2008, and there will be no going back to the status quo ante on a lot of things. Heh.
- Jen said...
Conservative intellectuals DON'T have a party. A friend of mine classifies himself as a "financial Republican." But when you vote Republican, you are also voting for the party that believes (to quote Tina Fea) that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church. Can a Republican politician stand up and say the things that should be said about the economy AND acknowledge that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old please?
- Sofa King said...
Can a Republican politician stand up and say the things that should be said about the economy AND acknowledge that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old please?
Of course. They won't win any elections, though.
- garage mahal said...
If you fart in an empty tent and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
- Hoosier Daddy said...
There will be a Republican President again (probably in 2016 or 2020 - sorry, I doubt Obama loses in 2012), but the country he or she leads will be a very different one than the one that existed in 2008, and there will be no going back to the status quo ante on a lot of things. Heh..
Oh I don't know about that. The thought that welfare reform would ever be a reality was pretty far fetched until the GOP shoved it through in the 90's. Like I said, it's grand when you're on the receiving end of government largess but the day will come when you have to start paying for the state funded pinata party and I suspect a whole lot won't like what that net figure looks like. That's when the winds shift.
Unless of course we go bankrupt first when China doesn't show up at the auction house.
- Sofa King said...
No it doesn't. But it still stinks.
- Hoosier Daddy said...
But when you vote Republican, you are also voting for the party that believes (to quote Tina Fea) that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church. .
Well if you're accepting Tina Fea as some political authority I suppose you're as stupid as she is. I guess the equivalent is saying that voting Democrat is for a party that cherishes saving polar bears and spotted owls and is all for killing human babies in the name of choice.
- Jen said...
Oh, it was FUNNY. Get over it. I'm not quoting Tina Fea as an authority.
Do you honestly think that if a Republican politician stood up and said, "Listen. We've got some work to do here economically. And btw, lets acknowledge all the work that geologists, geophysicists, and astronomers have been doing in lieu of religious mythology."
He/She would get a single vote? Nope. He wouldn't be towing the party line.
- Salamandyr said...
Do you honestly think that if a Republican politician stood up and said, "Listen. We've got some work to do here economically. And btw, lets acknowledge all the work that geologists, geophysicists, and astronomers have been doing in lieu of religious mythology."
Bull and Shit. Aside from Huckabee, there was not a single Republican in the last election (or the one before that for that matter) that espoused creationism. The most you got, the very most, was a sort of pale, insipid endorsement of intelligent design in the name of "free inquiry". The netroots tried to pain Palin as some kind of Usherite, but there wasn't actually anything in her record to indicate she was.
And for the record, every Democratic candidate in memory has espoused a deep belief in God as the creator as well. So they believe as much in intelligent design as Bush, Huckabee, and Palin. Or they're liars.
And besides, why do I want politicians lecturing me about things they have no training in, like most branches of science? Most people, and I imagine you included, believe in evolution the way creationists believe in the 7 day creation; as received wisdom from those you consider "authority".
- chickelit said...
If you fart in an empty tent and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
You might have gotten tagged for originality if you'd had gone olfactory instead.
- Salamandyr said...
I'm very sorry I didn't use the word "wan" in place of pale in the last post. Wan is a good word that doesn't get used enough, and do you notice pretty much no one uses it in speech?
- anti-de Sitter space said...
"Republicans are all about Sarah Palin and Joe The Plumber"
Hello! How could the newest start be excluded. Don't forget Carrie Prejean.
And to think that some foolish people claim that the GOP is dominated by folks whose time has passed (Newt, Dick, John). Carrie is the future.
- hdhouse said...
Sofa King said...
Can a Republican politician stand up and say ..Of course. They won't win any elections, though."
They are winning very few of them now so what's the difference if the acknowledge science, real world economics, or basic truth...all currently foreign languages.
- Hoosier Daddy said...
Do you honestly think that if a Republican politician stood up and said, "Listen. We've got some work to do here economically. And btw, lets acknowledge all the work that geologists, geophysicists, and astronomers have been doing in lieu of religious mythology."
He/She would get a single vote? Nope. He wouldn't be towing the party line..
Jen that is nonsense and you know it or are simply so deluded into thinking that all conservatives or Republicans are knuckledragging morons because they believe in God.
Obama says he believes in God so what does that make him? Or is there a different belief set for Democrats who believe in God versus Republicans?
Whether or not conservative intellectuals have a party is entirely up to them. How fastidious do they want to be when it comes to rubbing shoulders with the proles?
Tina Fey es bastante tonta, quizás, pero no es fea.
- Jen said...
When there is testability, there is no need for "belief."
- Sofa King said...
I'm very sorry I didn't use the word "wan" in place of pale in the last post. Wan is a good word that doesn't get used enough, and do you notice pretty much no one uses it in speech?
Rubbish! I use it all the time, e.g.: "Your internet isn't working because the WAN link is down."
- Der Hahn said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Der Hahn said...
the ensuing depression.
Thanks for putting that in the post heading. I found a more enjoyable to way to waste time.
- TitusHasMoved said...
We are still winning in the south in states like Alabama and Mississipi.
Yes, they are least educated, fattest and poorests states but they are where the real Americans live.
And he have some great new leaders. Newt, Mccain, and a bunch of amazing southern governors.
Intellect is for pussies.
I say Jeff Sessions from Alabama or Hailey Barbour from Mississippi in 2012. Miss California VP.
- TitusHasMoved said...
Brownback, Tancredo and I think Ron Paul raised their hand about no evoluation either.
So does the third in charge of the House, the amazing Mike Pence.
Science is for pussies. Evolution is crap science made up by liberal scientists.
Creationism now Creationism forever!
OK I just found my balance and am present.
- Hoosier Daddy said...
Well I'll go further and say the conservative movement is dismal because those elected to represent that movement largely betrayed it by spending like Democrats. Kind of hard to get the movement behind you when you're essentially indistinguishable from the other side.
Now if thats not bad enough we now have a President and Congress who are going to run a $1.5 trillion defict plus cut taxes plus spend more. Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick does anyone at all even give pause to this? On the contrary, 67% polled thinks this is just wunderbar. Somehow spending ourselves into oblivian got us into the mess we're in so we're going to cure it by tripling the amount we spent.
You just have to wonder what is in the drinking water.
- Richard Dolan said...
Posner thinks of himself, first and foremost, as a pragmatist. OK. Let's run with that.
The 2008 meltdown began in the banking industry -- all those crappy mortgages and other consumer loans that were written, securitized, repackaged, rated and sold by the trillions. Banking, as it happens, is the most highly regulated sector of the financial markets. So where were the regulators (where were the adults)? Hint: they weren't part of the solution. Bank inspectors and regulators have enormous power, both formal and informal, over banking operations. That fact makes bankers (those originating mortgages and other consumer loans, not the IB-types) exquisitely sensitive to the demands of their overseers. That, in large measure, is how things got so wildly off track -- pressure coming from gov't to expand lending and loosen underwriting standards so that potential borrowers previously unable to get loans now could. The Boston Fed issued an influential report in '93 that got a lot of attenion, and was later followed by the Community Redevelopment Act, Congressional pressure about 'red lining,' etc., etc. And Fannie and Freddie gave it all a bit of cover.
Along the way, the Fed decided that the years 2002-2006 were a fine time to keep interest rates artificially low and the money supply pumped up.
The bankers responded with enthusiasm, to say the least. In 2004-2006, when the enormous fees generated by the making, rating, securitizing and selling of gobs of mortgages and consumer loans had everyone in a feeding frenzy. why not? It was a wonderful party, until the bubble burst. The rest was mostly the miracle of leverage working in reverse, as falling asset values and suddenly unmarketable securitized mortgages wiped out equity on pretty much every financial institution's balance sheet.
There is plenty of blame to go around in all of that. But if the object is to figure out whether "core beliefs" of the conservative vs. liberal sort are more likely to be shaken when the full story is told, I'm not so sure that Posner will be proven right. The gov't created lots of incentives that pumped up the housing bubble in many ways over many years (it was bipartisan madness, which doesn't make it any less crazy). The bank regulators (the Fed, the OCC, state regulators of state-chartered banks) were urging it all on, and for all intents and purposes were part of the herd they were supposedly overseeing. The markets responded.
How is that an indictment of the "core beliefs of conservative economists concerning the business cycle and the macroeconomy generally"? How is it an endorsement for more regulation and gov't intervention as the solution? How is it that the most highly regulated sector of the financial markets (the banks - Citi, B of A, etc.) have needed zillions in bailouts, but the least regulated (hedge funds) have neither required nor received any? Beats me, but Posner is a smart guy.
- Unknown said...
Let's not forget that none of the Republicans believe in global warming.
Never mind the debate over whether global warming is man-made or not. They deny that the earth has even gotten warmer. They think it's all just a myth made up by liberal journalists. And their scientific evidence is that it snowed in January.
But then of course there are facts . . .
- Hoosier Daddy said...
Never mind the debate over whether global warming is man-made or not. .
Actually that is the debate DTL. You're making generalities...oh wait...sorry forgot who I was talking to.
The planet has gotten warmer and colder. No one denies that, well no sane person does. Indiana used to be covered by a glacier around 700,000 years ago so evidently it got a heckuva lot warmer at some point in time long before the combustion engine came along.
- Chip Ahoy said...
I never fail to be surprised when I see balding old men wearing suits and ties construct edifices of argument on false premises.
Sir, check your premises.
Let's see in your 20's in the 60's, hum dee hum dee hum, plus 50, hum dee hum, in your 70's now. tisk tisk
the belief (which turned out to be mistaken) that the Soviet Union was winning the Cold War.Oh how easily that's dismissed in retrospect. I notice the writer didn't mention Sputnik. As if at that point there was no technological gap and as if they posed no threat at all. In large part, it was our country's response to USSR that made us what we are.
and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundingsThis is simply not so. In fact, I would say the exact reverse is true. The policies of the conservatism that I hear and know about, and it's not new, are powered by the pocketbook, but I would not have phrased it that way, and it's not limited to Republicans either. Again, this rigid dualistic thinking, conservatives = Republicans, liberals = Democrats is too general and flawed. The writer's thought passages have become too rigid and too narrow.
That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprisingWrong again. The policies are not weak in conception and they have not failed in execution. That's complete nonsense.
The writer says the blows are fourfold
1) failure military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives
2) inanity of substituting will for intellect
3) denial of global warming
4) religious criteria in selecting public officials
5) neglect of management and expertise in government
6) preoccupation with abortion
7) fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits -- Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, asset-price inflation.
Ok, this is pissing me off. Why am I even paying attention to a hair-brained, if he would have hair, writer on politics and economics who can not even count to four? This is so full of wrong and faulted premise it would take longer to deconstruct than its worth. Failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives. ORLY? Spoken like a true intellectual! Substituting will for intellect? All I can say is the writer must have pulled this one out Jason's ass. Denial of global warming. Ha ha ha ha ha, that, sip, again, sip. Conservatives do not deny global warming. They do, however, question anthropogenic global warming. They question theories that obviously exaggerate man's influence and vastly underestimate the effects of , oh, what would it be, something really big and hot, um, something that influences pretty much everything in the entire solar system, it would have to be gargantuan, something much larger than man himself, something like ... the sun! Conservatives, believe it or not, actually remember reading in third-grade science that surprisingly there used to be dinosaurs and proto-palms on Antarctica. And they recall from those same early science classes that trees and plants do thrive on carbon dioxide, require it in fact, and so do not consider carbon, or carbon dioxide a poison whose exudation must be taxed. But you keep saying this discussion is closed when it is not closed, and that those who do not believe in global warming are atavisms of an earlier flat-earth epoch, while simultaneously maintaining conservatives keep electing public officials on the basis of religion! Keep up the gratuitous attack on voters of traditional faith and you'll end up being thought of as the party entirely bereft of faith save for the New Age varieties, which is hardly the case. Conservatives are not preoccupied with abortion, they're consumed by government-sponsored government financed industry of abortion. It's the inhumanely incomprehensibly huge number of abortions that disturbs conservatives, from how I read the situation, not abortions per se. Fiscal incontinence is not an indication of conservative decline, but rather the exact opposite, it was precisely that which caused so many conservatives to stay home at mid term elections and it's precisely that which will drive the more rational among democrats to vote outside their party to check.
I'm frankly tired of having these discussions, especially with seniors. Let me just say some peoples' minds are ossified. When the man brings up Keynesian economics in defense of his position, my impulse is to reach for the hurl bucket. He's managed to explain his review of present political landscape without once mentioning government interference in free markets. How convenient, or I should say essential to leave that out. When the writer fails to account for the effects of Community Reinvestment Acts, which by law forced bankers to come way out of character and do over decades un-bankerly things, then for financiers to create new mechanisms to shift the burden of that government meddling by disguising them so well they actually appear to be attractive investments, and to do all this on a scale so vast it affects the entire global financial system, then I'd say we're reading the writings of a delusional analyst.
One last controversial thing and I write this as a fiercely unaligned voter that despises both these chief political parties that cause writers to construct such palp: Congress authorized the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Democrat leaders are on record propounding something be done about Hussein as chief menace who must be taken out. The Congress, the UN, the leaders of the Western World all agreed, ALL of them agreed the man either had or was very close to obtaining WMD. The UN passed some thirteen decrees of condemnation and itself authorized the use of force. One single maniac in the form of a president acted while all the rest stepped back feigning horror. Much like the scene where Harry Potter appears to step forward to volunteer to ride the griffith, by the rest of the students actually stepping back en mass. That's exactly what the democrats in our congress did. But worse, after already spoken and voted for using force, these same legislators then demanded and got pork in abundance to support it. I'm saying, I saw, and conservative voters saw, ridiculously pork-laden legislation being passed that should have, would have, been otherwise been vetoed, were it not for the perceived need by the president to continually bribe through the vehicle of earmarked legislation for continued support of a war that was already voted for. Whatever your point of view on the war is, that is what I saw, and that is what a lot of conservative voters beholden to the Republican party saw and that is what caused a tidal shift in voting pattern. So this old man, who is clearly an aligned liberal, and that's fine, and ossified, which is less fine, who presumes to write on the arc of conservatism in general and its prospects, who can not seem count to four but manages nonetheless to include all the liberal memes without bothering with the real contemporary events, can not to be taken seriously, and I don't.
- Bruce Hayden said...
Ok, then lets look at the two parties here. Clinton, of course, signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. His people ran Fannie and Freddie up to the end. And when those agencies started looking sketchy, the Republicans pushed regulation, and the Democrats pushed back enough to prevent it, until too late.
And why? The rampant corruption. Yes, there are/were corrupt Republicans. But their level of financial and political corruption pales in relation to the Democrats. So, now we have a President who took dirty financial money, and a VP whose major constituents were many of the financial institutions that have gone down, or are going down the drain.
- mccullough said...
Posner's a good writer but a dull speaker.
I'm sure Obama will fix all of this stuff. Obama is smart. He went to Harvard law school, just like Posner.
Of course, Bill Clinton went to Yale law school. Yale is a better law school than Harvard.
So Obama and Posner should ask themselves: What would Bill do?
- Bruce Hayden said...
The problem with dissing Friedman is that he was right. Right now, the Democrats have endorsed Keynes with a vengeance not seen since FDR. And Friedman would have predicted the result - almost no stimulus value, with deficits as far as the eye can see. And, no, it isn't going to be $1.5 trillion this year, but somewhere between $1.8 and $2 trillion, some four times Bush's last deficit. All without notable stimulus value.
So, what else do we have? The biggest banks are now subsidiaries of the federal government. As a result, they appear to be moving away from being able to make money without federal subsidies. This was noticeable, when they signed on to taking $.30 on the dollar as secured creditors in Chrysler, allowing the unsecured UAW pension plan to get more than $.50 on the dollar (and the UAW as the biggest stockholder in the company). Not that Chrysler will be any better able to compete after this is all over.
Over the long and intermediate run, monetary economics, as taught by Friedman does work, and fiscal stimulus, as taught by Keynes, and practiced by Obama and the Democrats, does not. Rather, we are facing record deficits as far as we can see, higher interest rates, and inflation, for the first time in almost 30 years.
- Donn said...
But then of course there are facts . . .
The myth of scientific consensus is also perpetuated in the web's Wikipedia where climate articles are vetted by William Connolley, who regularly runs for office in England as a Green Party candidate. No deviation from the politically correct line is permitted. (Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
- Unknown said...
Jen said...
Oh, it was FUNNY. Get over it. I'm not quoting Tina Fea as an authority.
Do you honestly think that if a Republican politician stood up and said, "Listen. We've got some work to do here economically. And btw, lets acknowledge all the work that geologists, geophysicists, and astronomers have been doing in lieu of religious mythology."
He/She would get a single vote? Nope. He wouldn't be towing the party line.
Which is really interesting taking into account that almost every black person in this country spouses similar views, yet they vote Democrat.
- madawaskan said...
Has anybody bothered to tell them they've got-
John Maynard Keynes spelled wrong?
"But I believe that we are approaching, or have reached, the point where there is not much advantage in applying further general stimulus at the centre." — John Maynard Keynes, January 12, 1937
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot." — Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Treasury Secretary, May 1939
- madawaskan said...
What cyclical recovery might have taken place-Obama has cemented something of a Brave New Frontier into place.
Whatever Obama is cooking up-I hope the tasters don't die because I don't think too many of us have seen this particular brew-and it smells like a lot of other things that have been tried before-rather unsuccessfully for the most.
If you're at the top of the party-not too bad-in fact vintage!
It could take fifty years or more to get them out.
- madawaskan said...
Interesting I was typing my comment up at the same time as Paul Snively.
- Beth said...
Which is really interesting taking into account that almost every black person in this country spouses similar views, yet they vote Democrat.Yes, for the most part (though there are lots of exceptions in the South, particulary in the state houses), religious Democrats don't want to make their spiritual beliefs public policy. It's not the Republicans believe in God and Democrats don't.
- madawaskan said...
Barney Frank only exists in your mind...
Democrats having the majority of the House and Senate in 2006-that never. happened.
Where are you getting your "facts" dear boy?
- Salamandyr said...
When there is testability, there is no need for "belief."Have you tested it? If you haven't, then you're taking it on faith that your received wisdom is more trustworthy than somebody else's received wisdom.
Actually, evolutionary theory relies more on observational science than experimental science. Which is fine, it's still science. And you don't actually have to do all the observation or experimentation yourself. But you need a lot more than a high school or undergraduate liberal arts major familiarity with evolution before you can honestly say that your belief in evolution is based on anything less resembling faith than a Christian or Muslim's belief in Creation.
Again, Democrat and Republican belief in God and creation is pretty much the same, unless one of them is lying. Your unfair generalization was insulting and gauche.
- Unknown said...
Beth, I beg to differ based on what I see here, and I don't live in the South.
- Beth said...
EKC, I don't what you are differing about, sorry. Perhaps you could be more specific. My point was that while Southern Dems are more willing to sign on to social conservatism, overall, religious Democrats don't pursue the religious agendas that the GOP has absorbed.
- madawaskan said...
So Posner in 2004 never wanted to see our "military posture strengthened" and he is referring to this in sort of an offhanded way as a "cost".
You know historically this has happened over, and over again.
[Wars of attrition engaged in by DEMOCRATS-let's get that straight.]
Liberals want to spend on bread and butter, they have set up dependent poor classes and then when a war does come to be -they send the poor boys in like lambs to the slaughter-bodies always being "cheaper" until our economy can be switched over to give them the damn equipment that they need. Or they tie one hand behind the military's back for a multitude of reasons best known by their small rare enclave.
It's never the rich Liberal elites that go in -or their sons and daughters.
Posner is he an Elitist?
- Unknown said...
Beth, at a local and state level, when it comes to banning things, or just legislating based on "religious values", both parties are equal, and not only in the South.
But, let us not discuss that to death. I see what I see, you see what you see. Places are different.
The problem is, has the social conservatism been the determining factor in the decay of the Republican Party? Or has it been its embrace of big government and crazy spending?
- madawaskan said...
Oh Posner does go on-
The inanity of replacing will for intellect-
I suspect he wants to replace our will with his intellect...
That's probably Democrat neo Liberal 101.
And how dare you question their superior intellect!
- Hoosier Daddy said...
My point was that while Southern Dems are more willing to sign on to social conservatism, overall, religious Democrats don't pursue the religious agendas that the GOP has absorbed..
I would agree with that. I have long lamented that the GOP is overly concerned with putting religion in the mix of everything. Unlike my alcohol consumption, I think religion should be consumed in moderation.
- madawaskan said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- madawaskan said...
One factor of The Conservative movement collapse- idiot fringe mobs got too big a horn and screamed to the largest growing voter group that their mamas were criminals.
Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber-those were decisions made by John McCain if Posner wants to set up the premise that it was the whole of the Republican Party-then he can do it-but it's not exactly true.
More importantly it serves the Liberals purpose to crush dissent, to turn the hatred of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin onto Republicans as a whole.
- Jen said...
Put down your copy of "Of Pandas and People".
The idea of testability is the foundation of scientific theory. The word theory is grossly misused and misconstrued for convenience. Can you try to falsify it? Is it testable? Then you have a theory.
Belief is not the same as attempting to understand the world around you through the formation and testing of a scientific theory.
I do not "believe" in evolution. Evolution is the current working theory that we have. As new knowledge becomes available, it changes.
Now, DNA? What's THAT all about? I don't believe a word of it.
- Arturius said...
Belief is not the same as attempting to understand the world around you through the formation and testing of a scientific theory. Anecdotal story: I have a good friend who is a devout Christian which I don't hold against him ;-) and in the past we have had some very spririted discussion on faith and God. One night while having a few drinks on his deck we saw a small blip of light moving across the sky, far too high to be plane but later determined it was a satellite. I made the offhand comment it was a UFO and he asked me if I believed in them. I said I believed there was life on other planets, not necessarily space faring beings, but I won't discount the possibility. What I found humorous was his complete look of incredulity that I would subscribe to such a 'fantastic notion'. When I pointed out that the Milky Way is just one of hundreds if not thousands of galaxies in the universe and in our own galaxy contains conservatively some 200 billion solar systems, it stands to reason, on statistical probability alone, that we are not the only life bearing planet in the entire galaxy. Now keep in mind I said life bearing, not little green men from Mars yet he dismissed the concept out of hand. Yet this is the same man who can look at me with a straight face and claim a supreme being created the heavens and earth in 6 days and took a nap on the 7th.
And yes he votes.
- Unknown said...
Narrow interpretations of religioin, Christianity and others, exist in many people, Arturius. You offered two contrary, yet equally narrow examples.
- Salamandyr said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Salamandyr said...
Again, you haven't shown that you understand evolution yet. Pointing out that evolution is science is beside the point, since I wasn't declaring it wasn't. I was declaring, averring, and stating for the benefit of the jury, that for most people, belief in "evolution" is not scientific, but merely the received wisdom passed down by high school teachers instead of preachers. It's no more based on testability or fact than the notion that the world is elephants all the way down. Very few people really understand evolution, and for the great majority of us, that's irrelevant. Yet no end of people seem to derive immense satisfaction in their belief in something they don't actually understand.
And you would be more correct to say the basis of science is falsifiability. It seems like a minor difference, but it matters. It's not what they told you in high school chemistry, but all kinds of science is based on observation, without a lab coat or beaker in sight. Astronomers don't do "experiments" they watch the skies and come to conclusions about what they see. Astronomy is not "testable", but it is falsifiable.
And I have no idea what book you are referring to.
- Jen said...
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
Thank you for the story. You made my afternoon. I've heard Frank Drake speak twice now and it's been a lovely experience each time.
That would have been a conversation I would have enjoyed immensely.
- Jen said...
Sal said, "and you would be more correct to say the basis of science is falsifiability. It seems like a minor difference, but it matters."
I said both actually.
"Can you try to falsify it? Is it testable? Then you have a theory."
- bearbee said...
To try to understand the magnitude of one trillion dollars, someone estimated that it would be like spending $1,000,000 per day since the day Jesus was born and still not having it all spent.
When we become like Zimbabwe we will hear our Rip Van Winkle Congress saying..."What?....what? How did this happen?!!"
As for the Chinese, they are buying gold.
- TitusHasMoved said...
After much thought and consideration I have decided that there are no issues with our conservative movement.
Everything is fine.
We are proceeding in a fine direction.
- Paddy O said...
"Can you try to falsify it? Is it testable? Then you have a theory."
I don't see the difference. Of course belief is subject to attempts to falsify it. Of course, religious belief is testable.
No one believes without a reason. Everyone has a reason, a cause, a way in which their theory about the world's beginning and future affects their life. One they live out, and one in which will be verifiable. That it's not an easy verification, that there's future work to be done, that history itself is the lab shouldn't matter.
After all, how many scientific theories have developed long before the means to test them in the laboratory is possible? Whole sections of physics and astronomy. Theory is developed as a way of making sense of the world, that then can, if technology allows, be either verified or better developed.
The reality of this world is, after all, a rather complex subject, not like testing how force is affected by both velocity and mass.
Religions are theories about this world, that tend towards comprehensive perspectives on beginnings and the future, which can and will be verified one way or the other. In the meantime, religions rise and fall on their abilities to address comprehensive realities of our present life, as engaged in by billions of people.
- buster said...
Jen said:
"When there is testability, there is no need for 'belief.'"
In light of earlier comments in the thread, I think your point is that statements about reality are meaningless (or "mythological")unless they are empirically testable or true by definition.
How do you know that. Is your claim empirically testable? Is it true by definition? Or is it an object of belief? If the latter, why is it a better belief than the ones you are attacking?
- Jen said...
It all depends on how many people they can crucify and burn in the name of their religion in the process.
And you have the construct of a common theory confused with a scientific theory. Again. They are apples and. . . .rocks. Worlds apart. The same word is used to describe them, but they mean very different things. There is no testability for religion. It is open to any charlatan who chooses to come along and make a claim.
Please refer to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
- Jen said...
The next time you take an antibiotic because you have pneumonia, thank Fleming and the scientists who came after him not the Vatican or whomever.
- Jen said...
My POINT is never to rely on belief.
- X said...
Aturius thinks there are hundreds if not thousands of galaxies in the universe.
And yes he votes.
- Jeremy said...
bearbee said..."To try to understand the magnitude of one trillion dollars, someone estimated that it would be like spending $1,000,000 per day since the day Jesus was born and still not having it all spent. When we become like Zimbabwe we will hear our Rip Van Winkle Congress saying..."What?....what? How did this happen?!!"
Yes, a trillion is a lot.
Were you also sure we were going to become another Zimbabwe as we frittered away a trillion in Iraq?
Do you think we're somehow getting it all back some day?
Over the course of the "war" we've had American contractors literally stealing billions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing, we've given the Iraqi's and Pakistanis billions, yet suddenly, with the new administration's stimulus plan...conservatives are beside themselves over this massive waste of money.
And that's before we even know if the plan will work.
Rather hypocritical.
- Donn said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Jeremy said...
NightBastard - He was only off by a little...
In 1999 the Hubble Space Telescope estimated that there were 125 billion galaxies in the universe, and recently with the new camera HST has observed 3,000 visible galaxies, which is twice as much as they observed before with the old camera.
- Jeremy said...
Donn - "Jen, you rely on "belief" for about 99.99% of what you think is true."
You base this on what?
- Donn said...
My POINT is never to rely on belief.
Jen, you rely on "belief" for about 99.99% of what you think is true.
It all depends on how many people they can crucify and burn in the name of their religion in the process.
Yeah, like the far more that have been burned and crucified for non-religion.
- Jen said...
Reduce the argument to absurdity.
What drivel.
- Jen said...
Thanks Jeremy.
- Donn said...
Reduce the argument to absurdity.
What drivel.
Exactly what you have been doing ALL day!
- Jeremy said...
Salamandyr said..."Jen,
Again, you haven't shown that you understand evolution yet. Pointing out that evolution is science is beside the point, since I wasn't declaring it wasn't. I was declaring, averring, and stating for the benefit of the jury, that for most people, belief in "evolution" is not scientific, but merely the received wisdom passed down by high school teachers instead of preachers."
Say what?
You think; "that for most people, belief in "evolution" is not scientific?"
What the hell do you base that on?
And when you say "most people," are you throwing scientists and archeologists into the mix?
What would make you think something like that?
- Jen said...
Science, testability, falsifiability, thought. . .make some people squeamish.
It's OH KAY.
- Jen said...
I'm just going to go ahead and post the Baloney Detection Kit right here.
Warning signs that suggest deception. Based on the book by Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World. The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:
Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.
Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
Quantify, wherever possible.
If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are:
Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric
Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
Argument from "authority".
Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).
Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.
Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.
Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"
- Bruce Hayden said...
"Over the course of the "war" we've had American contractors literally stealing billions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing, we've given the Iraqi's and Pakistanis billions, yet suddenly, with the new administration's stimulus plan...conservatives are beside themselves over this massive waste of money."
First, this is unproven, but rather, a mantra of the left. But, if it is really true, then by all means, let's have hearings and investigations. That we haven't, with the Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress for over two years now indicates a lack of substance.
Second, we haven't seen anything yet. Right now, there is almost no accountability for all the "stimulus" money being spent, and the TARP money is little better. We are talking trillions, or at least hundreds of billions, not single digit billions as you are claiming here.
- Bruce Hayden said...
To play devil's advocate here.
What actually has actually been proven with evolution? That it does happen? Or that we are a result of it?
I would suggest that the former has been shown, but not the later, and, indeed, it is unshowable and unprovable.
Which gets to the question of Intelligent Design, which posits a guiding hand behind, at least some, evolution. I would suggest that it is both unprovable, but also undisprovable.
The problem is that we can see where one genetic mutation results in a single evolutionary change. For example, scientists can show the genetic mutation that caused tri-color vision in (mostly) old world monkeys (including primates). They even can give us a pretty good estimate of when it happened. The mutation was a duplication of one of the two genes that other mammals have for their two color vision. And, a plausible theory has been devised for how evolutionary forces drove its acceptance (being able to recognize red leaves would help these monkeys detect the best food).
But there are plenty of places in our genetic evolution where there are major jumps that we have no record for. Maybe a dozen genes are changed without intervening specimens. And that is where the problem is. We frankly cannot prove either way whether these jumps were made through Divine Intervention, or through the same sort of evolutionary process that gave us three color vision. The math right now would seem to support Intelligent Design over straight forward genetic evolution, but, we really don't know, and probably can never know for sure, either way.
- buster said...
Jen said:
The next time you take an antibiotic because you have pneumonia, thank Fleming and the scientists who came after him not the Vatican or whomever."
Nice try, Jen, but it's bullshit. The Vatican isn't in the business of doing scientific research. You might just as well say we ought to thank Fleming not Shakespeare for antibiotics.
So far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing (whether you know it or not) that scientific inquiry is not limited to empirical questions, but instead applies to all human experience. (IOW, no statement is meaningful (true, non-"mythological," etc.) unless it is empirically testable or analytically true.) Otherwise there is no reason to say that scientific inquiry displaces religious belief or any non-scientific body of thought.
Scientific inquiry is actually limited to a subset of human experience, and it irrelevant as a matter of logic to all the rest. It turns out that "all the rest" includes most of what most people, including scientists, take most seriously: morality, aethestics, politics, "the meaning of life," etc. Statements about all of the rest are not testable in the sense you are using the word. Religion is part of all of the rest.
Some religious believers commit the opposite fallacy, and argue that religious belief extends to empirical matters. E.g., the earth is 5,000 years old because the Bible supposedly says so. It's easy to poke fun at these folks, but it doesn't throw much light on anything interesting.
- Donn said...
- This comment has been removed by the author.
- Donn said...
Science,testability,falsifiability, thought. . .make some people squeamish.
Yeah, right. Mind telling me how the above forms your views on politics?
- AlphaLiberal said...
This is remarkable for the man it's coming from. A product of the Chicago school with a reputation for being a free marketeer.
It turns out that markets aren't perfect. And Judge Posner noticed.
The thing is, we're just repeating history here. This naive "business people and markets do no wrong" ideology creates corruption, bubbles, and economic houses of cards. Knock out one card and it all comes tumbling down.
""These unanticipated and shocking events have exposed significant analytical weaknesses in core beliefs of conservative economists concerning the business cycle and the macroeconomy generally."Well said. And, folks? The point of the thread. The conservative movement is bankrupt -- and has bankrupted the country.
- Palladian said...
"It turns out that markets aren't perfect. And Judge Posner noticed."
Oh shut up.
"The conservative movement is bankrupt -- and has bankrupted the country."
Interesting! So what's the budget deficit for this year? $1.75 TRILLION! Haha! That may be hope but it sure ain't change! That be real money! Hope your kid's kids will be ready to start working to pay that off, you little socialist bitch! :)
- Arturius said...
Aturius thinks there are hundreds if not thousands of galaxies in the universe..
So does NASA.
And yes he votes..
Actually I haven't voted since 1992
- AlphaLiberal said...
Palladian ignorantly demands silence from uncomfortable realities:
"It turns out that markets aren't perfect. And Judge Posner noticed."
Oh shut up.Wow. What a scintillating intellect you have.
This is a key issue of our day. We're told to trust the markets and don't trust government.
But markets fail in many ways. And that hurts America and must be addressed with rules and regulations to limit the damage.
And all you can do is sputter "shut up."
Strip away the bile from Palladian's comments and there is very litte remaining.


text:
Set up your mobile phone for internet
Turn mobile data on or off
Restart mobile phone
Turn data roaming on or off
Clear browser data
An SMS is a text message which can be sent to other mobile phones. Your mobile phone can send and receive SMS as soon as you've inserted your SIM. If this isn't the case, you can set up your mobile phone for SMS manually.
Find "Message Center"
Tap Settings.
Tap Messages.
Tap Advanced.
Tap Message Center.
Saving the message centre number
Tap the required SIM.
If you're on a pay monthly rate plan, key in +6596197777 and tap the Return key.
If you're on a pay as you go rate plan, key in +6596400001 and tap the Return key.
Return to the home screen
Tap the Home key to return to the home screen.
Tap anywhere to dismiss
Share this article via email! Just fill in these details and the characters in the box.
Fields marked with * are mandatory.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In his State of the Union address President Obama spoke of an America "built to last." I am glad that the focus of policy is turning to the long run. One essential component of such a built-to-last idea must deal with education. In an increasingly global and complex economy, citizens need to have the skills to successfully participate in labor markets, not to earn low and stagnating wages but wages that allow them to be part of a solid middle class, to send their children to college, and to save for retirement.
The President did talk of education and the important role of education. But it is going to take more than education reform that allows schools to be creative in their curriculum and to reward good teachers. America needs to invest in education if it wants an economy built to last. While it is good to invite state and local governments to devote more of their budgets to higher education rather than slushing education expenses, it is important to recognize that the federal government has an important role to play to foster education. More funds to research and technology can contribute not only to support higher education but also to fuel innovation and ideas that form the basis of growth (and the growth of well-paying jobs). Good education and solid training are also at the base of innovative entrepreneurship. Access to finance has been mentioned, by the President, too, as one of the major impediments to entrepreneurship, but in my view (and according to my research), education is far more important, in particular if the entrepreneurs we aim to cultivate are innovators rather than self-employed individuals who are trying to make a living. It is also important to recognize that a good education is not built on good colleges or community colleges alone but on a strong educational system, from kindergarten to college and beyond.
President Obama mentioned that college education cannot be a luxury. But with the cost of college rising faster than inflation and faster than the growth in wages, in particular in the lower part of the wage distribution, we are headed in that direction as the purchasing power of workers is not keeping up with the cost of a college education. If we are planning for the future, it is important to find ways to make college affordable and within reach of the many families that aspire to send their children to college. As I have mentioned in many of my previous posts, a college education is often the most important investment that a person can make.
I want to end this post with a statement that President Obama made during his address and that can be summarized as follows: teachers matter. This does not require much comment as it speaks for itself. All of us can name a teacher who has been influential in our life and who has made a difference. For me, it was my high school literature teacher. Her name is Ada Pucci. Even after more than 30 years, I think often of her and of the encouragement she gave me; we have talked on the phone over the years and when I am in Italy, and I go and visit her. Teachers matter, and they matter to what students can do in the long run. They too should be part of the policy for an America built to last.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
An America built to last needs to invest in education
Posted by Annamaria Lusardi at 11:42 AM
3 comments:
- Ultimate Outsourcing Destination said...
I agree to the fact that education is vital to make America last. Thanks.
- February 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM
- Financial Education said...
Certainly agree to the fact Education is vital for a sustainable US and the world. I would also like add that, financial and investment education is nothing less important than any others. The sooner govt puts some emphasis on it, the better for the US sustainability...
- February 2, 2012 at 2:50 AM
- Jon Smith said...
Education is important, but politicians need to do more than just pay lipservice to the idea. Without measurable improvements in access to education, rhetoric is just salt in the wounds of lower income families.
- February 27, 2012 at 6:07 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text: You can easily register domain names for your clients via our normal webinterface. To assist you better with selling domain names, we do however have a couple of extra special features you can use and which are under constant development to serve you better. Below you'll find an overview of the tools and services we already offer to our resellers. You can contact us via firstname.lastname@example.com of you want more information about one of those services or if you wish to use one of those tools.


text:
"Movie 43" features 12 outrageous sketches, each one helmed by a different director and all populated by different star-studded casts. And you thought "Cloud Atlas" was confusing!
Partially directed in an overseer capacity by Peter Farrelly (one half of the Farrelly brothers who gave us the comedies "There's Something About Mary" and "Hall Pass") the film - which Farrelly said in interviews includes a wraparound story that ties it all together - took three and a half years to complete due to the sheer number of actors who appear throughout.
The huge ensemble cast contains Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Richard Gere, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Uma Thurman, Liev Schreiber, Dennis Quaid and Jason Sudeikis to name only a few. It's effectively a collection of cameo performances that would make even Robert Altman jealous.
U.S. & World
As a director, Altman was famous for crafting large ensemble pieces ("Gosford Park," "The Player," "Pret-a-Porter") peppered with famous thespians whose screen time was often minimal but whose roles helped propel the narrative.
Whether the sheer abundance of cameo performances in "Movie 43" will have audiences flocking to cineplexes is anybody's guess right now. But what it has done is remind us that some of the most memorable cameo appearances in films were often the most unexpected.
Here are five cameo moments that had movie-goers in turn scratching their heads and cheering for more:
Orson Welles in "The Muppet Movie"
In Kermit, Fozie and Miss Piggy's first feature film Welle's played cigar-chomping Lew Lord, the gravel-voiced head of World Wide Studios. The year was 1979 and while the film also features cameos from Richard Pryor, Steve Martin, Madeline Kahn, Bob Hope, Milton Berle and Carol Kane, Welles was still one of the most recognized names in Hollywood. At the end of the film he hands the felt-skinned crew their first "standard rich-and-famous contract" and sends them on their way to stardom.
Lance Armstrong in "Dodgeball"
Prior to his fall from grace due to his admission of doping, Armstrong (then riding high off of his Tour de France wins and Livestrong charity work) turns up randomly as himself in a Las Vegas casino where he shows our hero (Vince Vaughn) that quitting is never the answer. The scene takes on an even more tragic/comic note thanks to the current revelations surrounding the athlete. Famous line: "Once I was thinkin' about quitting, when I was diagnosed with brain, lung and testicular cancer – all at the same time. But with the love and support of my friends and family I got back on the bike and won the Tour de France five times in a row. But I'm sure you have a good reason to quit. So what are you dying from?"
Gene Hackman in "Young Frankenstein"
Mel Brooks' 1974 merciless send-up of Frankenstein and the classic horror genre starred Gene Wilder, Teri Garr, Marty Feldman, Peter Boyle, Madeline Kahn and Cloris Leachman. A critical and box office smash, it was named to Bravo TV's list of 100 Funniest Movies. While filled with memorable scenes, the vignette featuring an almost unrecognizable Hackman as the blind priest visited by the monster (Boyle) remains a cult favorite.
Johnny Depp in "21 Jump Street"
Depp famously starred in the late 1980s television series about a couple of cops who go undercover at a Los Angeles high school. Rebooted in 2012 as a big screen romp featuring Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill, Depp came along for the ride - this time as a biker bad guy (covered in prosthetic facial pieces, no less) who is also leading a double life as an undecover cop. According to reports, Depp's condition to appear in the film was that his character would get "closure."
Drew Barrymore in "Scream"
It was a perfect horror movie gimmick: kill off your most famous actress early in the piece at the hands - and usually knife - of the killer, giving audiences the impression that from here on anything can happen. Hitchcock did it with Janet Leigh in "Psycho" and Wes Craven did it with Barrymore in 1996s "Scream." At that time the casting of such a famous actress in a horror movie was rare and paved the way for other well-known names to appear in the following sequels.
Honorable mentions!
Yes, we know there are multiple examples of great cameos. Alongside the above, search out Tom Cruise in "Tropic Thunder," Bill Murray in "Zombieland," Billy Crystal in "This is Spinal Tap," Stan Lee in any Marvel Comics film franchise, Neil Patrick Harris in "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle," Tim Robbins in "Anchorman," Alfred Hitchcock in every Hitchcock film, Christopher Walken in "Pulp Fiction" and the hardest to spot: a surgical mask-wearing Cate Blanchett in "Hot Fuzz."


text:
Answer: DEMONRATIONS
DEMONRATIONS is a crossword puzzle answer that we have spotted 1 time.
Referring Clues:
Last Seen In:
- New York Times - March 21, 1999
Seen a clue for the answer demonrations that we don't have? Then please submit it to us so we can make the clue database even better!


text:
Yugoslav Wars
Yugoslavia (yōō´gōslä´vēə), Serbo-Croatian Jugoslavija, former country of SE Europe, in the Balkan Peninsula. Belgrade was the capital and by far the largest city. Yugoslavs (i.e., South Slavs) consisted of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, Montenegrins, and Bosniaks (also known Bosnian Muslims). Closely related linguistically, these peoples are separated by historical and cultural factors that ultimately led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The country also included Albanian (mainly in Serbia's former Kosovo prov.) and Hungarian minorities (mainly in Serbia's Vojvodina prov.).
Yugoslavia came into existence as a result of World War I. In 1914 only Serbia (which included the present Republic of Macedonia) and Montenegro were independent states; Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. (The earlier histories of Yugoslavia's six component republics are treated in more detail in their respective articles.)
A Sketch of Yugoslav History before World War I
Slavs settled (6th–7th cent.) in the Balkans and were Christianized in the 9th cent. Slovenia was under Frankish (8th cent.), Bavarian (9th cent.), and Austrian (14th cent.) rule until 1918. A Croatian kingdom existed from the 10th to 11th cent., when it was conquered by Hungary, and Croatia was subsequently under Hungarian rule until the end of World War I. Bosnia was independent from the 12th to 15th cent., when it fell under Turkish rule. In the late 19th cent. it passed to Austria-Hungary, and its formal annexation (1908) was one of the irritants that led to World War I.
Macedonia was contested between the Byzantines, Bulgarians, and others until conquered by Serbia in 14th cent., and like Serbia it fell to the Turks (late 14th cent.). Serbia gained control over the region during the Balkan Wars. A Serbian kingdom emerged (13th cent.) and under Stephen Dušan (r. 1331–55) became the most powerful Balkan state. Defeat (1389) at Kosovo Field brought Serbia under Turkish domination from the 14th to 19th cent., with Serbia securely in Turkish hands by 1459.
At the time of the defeat at Kosovo Field what is now Montenegro was the virtually independent principality of Zeta in the Serbian empire. The mountainous principality continued to resist the Turks, but by 1499 most of it had been conquered; Venice held the port of Kotor, and the Montenegrin princes ruled their remnant stronghold from Cetinje. Montenegro's independence was recognized by the Ottoman Empire in 1799, and in 1829 the Turks granted the Serbs autonomy under a hereditary prince. Montenegro and Serbia were recognized as independent by the European powers at the Congress of Berlin (1878). Serbia was proclaimed a kingdom in 1882, and it emerged from the Balkan Wars (1912–13) as a major Balkan power.
A movement for unification of the South Slavs (see also Pan-Slavism) was led by Serbia and was a major cause of World War I. When a Serbian nationalist assassinated (1914) Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Bosnia, Austria declared war on Serbia, thus precipitating World War I. Serbia and Montenegro were overrun by the Central Powers, but Serbian troops were evacuated to Allied-held Corfu, Greece, where representatives of the South Slavic peoples proclaimed (July, 1917) their proposed union under Serbian king Peter I. Montenegro's last monarch, Nicholas I, was deposed in 1918, and Montenegro was united with Serbia. In Dec., 1918, the "Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" was formally proclaimed.
Founding to World War II
The Paris Peace Conference (see Neuilly, Treaty of; Saint-Germain, Treaty of; Trianon, Treaty of) recognized the new state and enlarged its territory at the expense of Austria and Hungary with Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and other territories. King Alexander, who had been regent from 1918 for his invalid father, ascended the throne on Peter I's death (1921). In order to protect itself against Hungarian and Bulgarian demands for treaty revisions, Yugoslavia entered (1920, 1921) into alliances with Czechoslovakia and Romania, the three states forming the Little Entente in close cooperation with France. With its western neighbor, Italy, relations were strained from the first over the Fiume question (see Rijeka). Although this was settled in 1924 with Fiume given to Italy, Italian nationalists continued to entertain hopes of appropriating part or all of Dalmatia, which had been secretly promised to Italy in 1915 by the Allies in exchange for joining them in World War I. Yugoslav nationalists, on the other hand, claimed parts of Venezia Giulia on ethnic grounds, and relations remained tense.
Internal problems were still more acute. Late in 1920 the Serbian Pašić became premier and obtained enactment of the centralized constitution of 1921. The Croats, led by Radić, demanded autonomy. In 1928 Radić was shot and killed in parliament. After the Croats had set up (1928) a separate parliament at Zagreb, King Alexander in 1929 proclaimed a dictatorship, dissolved the parliament, and changed the name of the kingdom to Yugoslavia (sometimes spelled Jugoslavia). The royal dictatorship officially ended in 1931, but the new parliamentary constitution provided for an electoral procedure that insured victory for the government party. Troubles with Croatian and Macedonian nationalists culminated (1934) in Alexander's assassination at Marseilles, France. His son, Peter II, succeeded under the regency of Alexander's cousin, Prince Paul. The Croatian problem had been eagerly exploited by Hungary and Italy, which encouraged particularist movements against the Serbian centralists.
Prince Paul's gradual rapprochement with the Axis powers thus had the paradoxical effect of leading to the restoration (1939) of a more democratic government and the establishment of Croatian autonomy. In Mar., 1941, Yugoslavia adhered to the Axis Tripartite Pact. Two days later a bloodless military coup ousted the regent. The new government proclaimed a policy of neutrality, but in Apr., 1941, German troops, assisted by Bulgarian, Hungarian, and Italian forces, invaded Yugoslavia. Striking swiftly, the Germans joined with the Italians in Albania; a week later organized resistance was over. A Croatian puppet state was proclaimed under the leadership of Ante Pavelić, chief of the Ustachi (a fascist Croatian separatist organization; see Croatia). Dalmatia, Montenegro, and Slovenia were divided among Italy, Hungary, and Germany; Serbian Macedonia was awarded to Bulgaria. Serbia was set up as a puppet state under German control. Atrocities were committed by the Axis occupation forces and by the Ustachi.
While Peter II established a government in exile in London, many Yugoslav troops continued to resist in their mountain strongholds. There were two main resistance groups: the chetniks under Mihajlović and an army under the Communist Tito. In 1943 civil war broke out between the two factions, of which the second was more uncompromising in its opposition to the Axis. Tito was supported by the USSR, and he won the support of Great Britain as well. King Peter was forced to transfer the military command from Mihajlović to Tito. By late Oct., 1944, the Germans had been driven from Yugoslavia. The Soviet army entered Belgrade. Tito's council of national liberation was merged (Nov., 1944) with the royal government. In Mar., 1945, Tito became premier. Lacking real power, the non-Communist members of the government resigned and were arrested. In Nov., 1945, national elections—from which the opposition abstained—resulted in victory for the government. The constituent assembly proclaimed a federal people's republic.
Tito and Communist Rule
The constitution of 1946 gave wide autonomy to the six newly created republics, but actual power remained in the hands of Tito and the Communist party. The Allied peace treaty (1947) with Italy awarded Yugoslavia the eastern part of Venezia Giulia and set up Trieste as a free territory; conflict with Italy over Trieste ended in a partition agreement (1954). Within Yugoslavia a vigorous program of socialization was inaugurated. Opposition was crushed or intimidated, and Mihajlović was executed. Close ties were maintained with the USSR and the Cominform until 1948, when a breach between the Yugoslav and Soviet Communist parties occurred and Yugoslavia was expelled from the Cominform.
The Tito government began to pursue an independent course in foreign relations. Economic and military assistance was received from the West. In 1954, Yugoslavia concluded a military defense pact (independent of NATO) with Greece and Turkey. More cordial relations with the USSR were resumed in 1955, but new rifts occurred because of Soviet intervention in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968). Domestically Yugoslavia's "national communism" or "Titoism" included the abandonment of agricultural collectivization (1953) and the centralization of administrative and economic controls. Important economic power was given to workers' councils, and the republics were subdivided into communes. In 1966, Aleksander Ranković, the vice president and Tito's long-time associate, was purged for having maintained a network of secret agents and for opposing reform. Friction with the Roman Catholic Church ended with an accord with the Vatican in 1966.
Yugoslavs under Tito possessed greater freedom than the inhabitants of any other Eastern European country. Intellectual freedom was still restricted, however, as the jailings and harassment of Milovan Djilas and Mihaljo Mihaljov showed. In the early 1970s, agitation among the nationalities revived, particularly among the Croats, and controls over intellectual life were stiffened. The autonomy of the six republics and two autonomous provinces of Serbia slowly increased through the 1970s as the economy began to stagnate. With the death of Tito in 1980, an unwieldy collective leadership was established. The economic problems and ethnic divisions continued to deepen in the 1980s, and the foreign debt grew significantly.
The Disintegration of Yugoslavia
In 1987, Slobodan Milošević, a Serbian nationalist, became the Serbian Communist party leader. To the alarm of the other republics Milošević and his supporters revived the vision of a "Greater Serbia," which would consist of Serbia proper, Vojvodina, Kosovo, the Serb-populated parts of Croatia, large sections of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and possibly Macedonia. In early 1989, Serbia rescinded Kosovo's autonomy and sent in troops to suppress the protests of Kosovo's largely Albanian population. Slovenia and Croatia elected non-Communist governments in early 1990 and, threatening secession, demanded greater autonomy. Serbia and Montenegro were the only republics to retain Communist leadership; Milošević was elected president of Serbia in 1989.
After attempts by Serbia to impose its authority on the rest of the country, Slovenia and Croatia declared their independence on June 25, 1991. Fighting immediately broke out as the federal army (controlled largely by Serbs) moved into Slovenia. A fragile peace was negotiated by a European Community (EC) delegation, but fighting soon resumed. By the end of July, 1991, however, all federal forces had left Slovenia, although fighting continued throughout the summer between Croatian forces and the federally backed Serbs from Serb areas of Croatia. In Sept., 1991, Macedonia declared its independence, and the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina voted for independence that October.
In Jan., 1992, with Serbs holding 30% of Croatia, a cease-fire was negotiated in that republic, and the United Nations sent in a peacekeeping force. In that same month the EC recognized Croatia and Slovenia as independent states, and in April the EC and the United States recognized Bosnia and Herzegovina's sovereignty. The Serbs, with about 30% of the population, seized 65% of the latter republic's territory and proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Croats, with about 20% of the population, seized about half the remainder of the land and proclaimed the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. The poorly armed Muslims, who comprised more than 40% of the population, held the rest of the republic's territory, including the capital. In a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" carried out mostly by the Serbs, thousands of Muslims were killed, and many more fled Bosnia or were placed in Serb detention camps.
In May, 1992, the United Nations imposed economic sanctions on Serbia and Montenegro and called for an immediate cease-fire in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Macedonia was widely recognized the following year (though Greece withheld recognition and imposed an embargo until after an agreement was reached with Macedonia in 1995). Although Serbia and Montenegro declared a new Yugoslavian federation, the EC announced in June, 1992, that the new government could not claim the international rights and duties of the former Yugoslavia, because those rights and obligations had devolved onto the different republics. This opinion was affirmed by the United Nations in Sept., 1992.
The United Nations also imposed a naval blockade on Yugoslavia, which along with the sanctions resulted in severe economic hardship, including hyperinflation for a time. After Serbia reduced its support for the Bosnian Serbs, the United Nations eased sanctions against Yugoslavia. In late 1995 Yugoslavia (in the person of President Milošević of Serbia) participated in the talks in Dayton, Ohio, that led to a peace accord among Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia (Yugoslavia). Milošević became president of all Yugoslavia in 1997.
Tensions increased in Kosovo in 1997 and 1998, as a period of nonviolent civil disobedience against Serbian rule gave way to the rise of a guerrilla army. In Mar., 1999, following mounting repression of ethnic Albanians and the breakdown of negotiations between separatists and the Serbs, NATO began bombing military targets throughout Yugoslavia, and thousands of ethnic Albanians were forcibly deported from Kosovo by Yugoslav troops. In June, Milošević agreed to withdraw from Kosovo, and NATO peacekeepers entered the region. Demonstrations in the latter half of 1999 against Milošević failed to force his resignation. Meanwhile, Montenegro sought increased autonomy within the federation and began making moves toward that goal.
In July, 2000, the national constitution was amended to permit the president to hold office for two terms and to institute direct presidential elections; the changes were designed to permit Milošević to remain in power beyond a single term and reduce Montenegrin influence in the federal government. When elections were held in September, however, Milošević was defeated by Vojislav Koštunica, who was supported by a coalition of 18 opposition parties (Democratic Opposition of Serbia; DOS). The election commission initially refused to certify Koštunica as the outright victor, but Milošević conceded after a general strike was called, demonstrators took over the federal parliament building, and Russia recognized Koštunica.
A coalition consisting of the DOS and Montenegrin Socialists formed a national government, and in early Serbian elections (Dec., 2000) the DOS won control of the Serbian parliament. Koštunica replaced several top military officers—a move designed in part to placate Montenegro—but he initially refused to hand Milošević over to the international war crimes court in the Hague. In early 2001 Milošević and some of his associates in the former government were arrested on various charges. The former president was turned over to the war crimes tribunal by the Serbian government in June, prompting the Montenegrin Socialists to resign from the federal coalition. Relations between Koštunica and Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjić became strained, with the former concerned more about preserving the federation with Montenegro and the latter about winning Western foreign aid and reforming the economy.
Serbia and Montenegro (2003–6)
By 2002 Montenegro's drive for greater autonomy had developed into a push for independence, and a referendum on the issue was planned. In Mar., 2002, however, Serbian and Montenegrin representatives, under pressure from the European Union and other nations opposed to immediate Montenegrin independence (fearing that it could lead to further disintegration and fighting), agreed on a restructured federal union, and a constitutional charter for a "state community" was adopted by the Serbian, Montenegrin, and federal parliaments by Feb., 2003. Following the federal parliament's approval of the charter, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was reconstituted as Serbia and Montenegro.
Most governmental power shifted to the two republics, as the union became a weak federal republic. Although the two republics shared a common foreign and defense policy, they had separate currencies and customs regulations, and after three years either republic could vote to leave the union. Svetozar Marović, of Montenegro, was elected president of the union in March, and was its only president.
Despite the increased autonomy accorded Montenegro, Montenegrin leaders generally avoided any moves that would be supportive of the union and continued to call for Montenegro's independence. In May, 2006, after three years had passed, Montenegrin voters approved independence in a referendum, and Montenegro declared its independence on June 3. The government of Serbia and Montenegro then dissolved itself and, on June 5, Serbia declared itself a sovereign state and the political heir to the union. Serbia's proclamation brought to an end the prolonged dissolution of Yugoslavia into the constituent republics that had been established by Tito following World War II.
For a personal account of Yugoslavia see R. West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon (1941, repr. 1968). See also J. B. Hoptner, Yugoslavia in Crisis, 1934–1941 (1962); S. Clissold, ed., A Short History of Yugoslavia (1968); J. Alexander, Yugoslavia before the Roman Conquest (1972); W. R. Roberts, Tito, Mihailović and the Allies, 1941–1945 (1973); W. Zimmerman, Open Borders, Non-Alignment and the Political Evolution of Yugoslavia (1987); H. Lydall, Yugoslavia in Crisis (1989); M. Glenny, The Fall of Yugoslavia (3d rev. ed. 1996); D. Owen, Balkan Odyssey (1996); L. Silber and A. Little, Yugoslavia: Death of a Nation (1996).


text:
(Boston)--Boston Medical Center pediatricians Laura Johnson, MD, MPH, Jenny Radesky, MD, and Barry Zuckerman, MD, the Joel and Barbara Alpert Professor of Pediatrics at Boston University School of Medicine, have published a paper in the current issue of the journal Pediatrics that addresses how understanding the origins and goals of parenting behaviors can help pediatricians strengthen relationships with families, demonstrate cultural sensitivity, and more effectively offer guidance on the challenges of childrearing.
According to the paper, parenting goals and behavior are strongly influenced by cultural norms and expectations of adult behaviors that are valued by a particular society. They contrast "Western" cultures emphasizing individual autonomy achievement, independence, self-reliance, and self-assertiveness with many Asian, African, and Latino cultures that value interdependence: collective achievement, harmonious collaboration, and sharing. "Many parenting priorities, such as feeding practices, sleeping arrangements, and school and social success, fall somewhere along the spectrum from autonomy to interdependence and are likely affected by the parents' cultural beliefs related to their own upbringing," said Zuckerman. "This can result in some parenting behaviors conflicting with the beliefs of the pediatrician, as well as with policy statements from experts and professional societies based on culturally-bound empirical data, we aim to review a few examples of parenting differences that pediatricians might encounter," he added.
The authors explain that every family is both a unique microcosm and a product of a larger cultural context. The three examples they highlight may be viewed through a cultural lens that promotes autonomy or interdependence. Importantly, these values are not dichotomous but rather exist along a spectrum co-existing sometimes changing over time.
In conclusion the authors state that by eliciting and understanding how cultural norms shape parenting behavior, including the role of extended family, and how they relate to a child's growing autonomy and/or interdependence, pediatricians can help parents gain better insight into what they want for their child and how they address parenting challenges. This approach may encourage parents to more openly discuss their struggles with their child's pediatrician and more readily consider their guidance and advice.


text:
OK, asides from the fact that "We're right, they're wrong." what's the real differences between islam and christianity? Really, asides from some minor things, both seem to preach the exact same message of misogyny, oppression, tyranny, intolerance, fear, hate, war, conquest and ignorance.
What's the real, structural differences-IF ANY!- between islam and christianity?
Views: 973
Each is an opposite side to the same counterfeit coin; why counterfeit? Should anyone try to cash it, they will find that not only is there not a bank under that name, there never has been.
I've always maintained that in today's world if one removes the explosive vest, shoes, or underwear there's not a nickel's difference between the two. Suppose the Islamic fundamentalist martyrdom-seeker is gay, does he also receive 72 virgins? Perhaps in that case it would be 72 Virginians :-)
Hitchens argues that the Koran has verses plagiarized from the bible, cant recall if he mentioned new or old testament. Both religions view pre-marital sexual relations and children as anathema. Ive known both muslims and christians who, in private express contempt for the other.....lol My father in law who is from Lebanon is correct in saying religion divides humans....
Christians and Muslims,
Christians; Pray Jesus go to heaven
Muslims; Pray Jesus go to hell.
and the invisible God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is clapping while they debate.
muslims believe in jesus also but as prophet , a man with a message
and they say he will go to heaven too
The difference is the subject of emphasis. Jesus emphasizes love. His supreme commandment is, "Love God with all that is in you, and love your neighbor as yourself."
Mohammad emphasizes the spread of Islam: by subterfuge (Arabic Taqiyya) if you have to, and by the sword. if you can, which is fastest. After a place is placed under Sharia law, the holy Qur'an gives non-Muslims three choices: (1) convert to Islam and follow all its precepts; (2) retain your religion but pay the non-Muslim tax of half your land's produce or half your income; and (3) If you do not chose either 1 or 2, death possibly by decapitation. There is no similar provision in the Christian Bible.
Muslims claim that Sharia is the law that came from God, thus, the highest law. Any man-made law that violates, or is not in line with, the Sharia has no bearing and should be violated whenever a Muslim can.
Christianity makes no such claim.
only one absolute god
Jesus is a prophet not god
A prophet for airheads only in either case.


text:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Have you ever tasted a great one Norma or been anywhere that they serve them?John
I know cracker crusts don't create a lot of excitement...
1/16" is pretty thin. I usually drive mine to about 3/8" but there is a "gummy layer" there. It's interesting about the thickness because I have seen this influence the "puffiness" of the dough. I have a hard stop on the sidewarm of my sheeter adjustment arm so I am always making the same final thickness. At 1/16" it's almost like you're making a crispy flatbread or naan bread. I'm sure this puffs up very easily. Your pizza looks great. I wish I were local so I could try one!
According to the "Pizza Cognition Theory""http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2009/12/sam-siftons-pizza-cognition-theory.html" cracker crust should be my perfect pizza. That's because the first real pizza I ever ate was at Shakey's in Palm Springs, California when I was a tyke. We used to go there my after older brother's Little League baseball games. I do remember the thin, crispy crust rather fondly. When I went to college, we used to use up all our spending money at the Round Table pizza place near school. Again, fond memories and great flavors. But despite all that, I've only tried to make it once or twice, whereas I make NY style all the time. I think maybe it's time for me to get going on the cracker crust style and learn more about it. Your method sounds so easy, I think I can give it a go. Thanks, Fazz, for the inspiration. If I make anything worthwhile I will post some pics. Regards, Tin Roof
What flour are you using?
John,Thanks so much for posting your methods and formulation. I havent been able to make a successful cracker style dough to this date. I will be watching this thread and hoping I can finally make a decent cracker style pizza. If I use your formulation what temperature would I bake in my deck oven?Norma
Hi John, Thanks for the excellent tutorial. I really love cracker style pizza but haven't made a lot of it so far. But I am going to give this a go this weekend. Regards, TinRoof
NormaWe'll be cooking these tomorrow night and I'll be sure and give the details....I will probably start first one out at 550 and adjust from there. Sure hope this plan comes together.John


text:
Monteverde fountain pens are adored for their variety, ingenuity, and affordability by offering quality craftsmanship usually reserved for far more expensive pens. This fun little pen deserves your respect. If you share our love for fountain pen writing, it belongs in your collection.
The Monteverde Monza, a colorful and transparent demonstrator collection, features a modern, eye-catching design. It's adorned with chrome accents inside and out; this lightweight fountain pen is sure to please. The polished resin body clearly 'demonstrates' the pen's inner workings. Comfortable in hand, this pen is perfect priced for beginner fountain pen enthusiasts as well as experienced fountain pen writing addicts. For those in the know, this pen will be a smile to your face.
The Monteverde Monza collection is available in four beautiful colors: Island Blue, Gray Sky, Crystal Clear and Honey Amber. The fountain pen's flexible stainless steel nib is available in fine or medium point and utilizes either a cartridge or converter. Each fountain pen is packaged with two standard international ink cartridges as well as a piston ink converter. The box, as shown, can be used as a casual pen case. Hands down, the most fun you can have for twenty bucks. We guarantee it.


text:
Monday, I met with a group of Americorps service members who were helping out Community Harvest, a Milton-based food program.
They served a meal and helped organize the group's food pantry, with the goal of bringing it up to Central PA Food Bank standards so the group can become a "member organization" and purchase more and better food for less.
Here's some photos from my trip there:


text:
Formed: 1998
From: Borås, Sweden
Last Known Status: Disbanded
Latest Zonata News
Below is our complete Zonata news coverage, including columns and articles pertaining to the band. Some articles listed may be indirectly related, such as side projects of the band members, etc.
Ex-Rising Faith And Zonata Members Form Ablaze
Ex-Rising Faith guitarist Fredrik Jordanius has joined forces with former Zonata drummer Mike Cameron Force and formed a new band named Ablaze. The band has just completed the recordings of a promo CD entitled "A" that has been sent out to record labels, booking agencies and other people related to the music business, the response so far has according to the band been great. For more info on the band, please check out their website at http://www.ablazeonline.com.
Interested labels can reach the band at: firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
During the 20th century, centralized forces made a long-lasting impact on the US food system. An economic and social structure of common markets supplying food produced by local farmers was slowly and steadily dismantled as food production, processing, and distribution consolidated into corporate agri-business.
These changes, on a national scale, created fundamental market barriers for small and midsize farms.
A return to roots
Today, Detroit's Eastern Market, first established in 1891, is a revitalized food hub, returning to the historical practice of actively offering processing and aggregation support to small and midsize farmers, facilitating relationships between local producers and institutional buyers, and strengthening Michigan's regional food system. Its evolution says much about the history of our food system and a transformation currently taking place across the country.
From the coasts to the middle of the country, people are seeking new ways to change and sustain the food system.
Nationwide, consumer demand for locally grown food is growing exponentially. The number of farmers' markets is skyrocketing, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs are on the rise, and restaurants, retailers, schools, and other institutions are seeking to source locally.
This is most likely a sign of the times. The hospitality industry has admittedly undergone some major shifts in recent years. Whether it's newfound restaurant accounting methods such as the services offered by this website or the increasing popularity of fast food, change is certainly afoot.
What else will it take to transform our food system into one that delivers healthy, sustainable, affordable food for all?
Food hubs
A key and often overlooked lever for capitalizing on this momentum is the infrastructure needed to help move food from where it is grown and processed to where it is consumed. Food hubs can help meet that need by offering key infrastructure support and facilitating market opportunities for smaller producers. USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan commented on those opportunities recently, saying,
Food hubs are not a flash in the pan. They are incredibly innovative business models specifically addressing some of our producers' most overwhelming challenges.
Across the country, food hubs are creating a direct connection between farmers and institutional customers, much like farmers' markets connect growers and consumers.
buy Isotretinoin online
Synthroid no prescription
They also provide a transformative opportunity for triple bottom line impact investing, by providing important growth opportunities for farmers, offering viable alternatives to large-scale consolidated markets and distribution, and revitalizing local economies. Food hubs achieve an environmental outcome by reducing food miles while their social outcomes are realized by delivering healthy, fresh, and often affordable food to the people who need it most.
What is a food hub?
The USDA's working definition of a food hub is "a centrally located facility with a business management structure facilitating the aggregation, storage, processing, distribution and/or marketing of locally/ regionally produced food products."
The USDA has identified over 100 existing food hubs and a preliminary sample survey reported that 75 percent are less than 10 years old, with large clusters appearing in the Midwest and Northeast. They offer organizational and production capacity across the supply chain to move local food into mainstream markets in an effective and cost efficient manner.
Food hubs facilitate market access for producers who sell to retail or wholesale market outlets that would otherwise be less accessible due to scale or location. They can provide wholesale and retail vending space and offer space for health and social service programs, community kitchens, and community meetings. Food hubs also play an important social equity role by increasing access to fresh, healthful, and local products in communities underserved by full-service food retail outlets. Over 40 percent of existing food hubs are specifically working in food deserts.
Average food hub sales are nearly $1 million annually; the median number of small and midsize suppliers served by an individual food hub is 40, and, on average, each food hub creates 13 jobs.
Non-profit driven models
USDA data shows that nearly a third of food hubs are non-profit driven. Successful non-profit food hubs include California's ALBA Organics, Vermont's Intervale Center, Massachusetts' Red Tomato, and Pennsylvania's Common Market Philadelphia (CMP), which is funded via Rudolf Steiner Social Finance's Program Related Investing (PRI) Fund.
CMP is a values-driven wholesale consolidator and local food distributor in Philadelphia. They support regional farmers while making healthy, local food accessible at a wholesale level to Philadelphia schools, hospitals and other large institutional clients. "Common Market is actively changing the distribution system for local food by creating a much needed link between local farmers and the urban marketplace," said Taryn Goodman, Senior Manager, Impact Investing at RSF.
Producer/entrepreneur driven models
Some food hubs are the result of savvy producers and business entrepreneurs, many of whom have years of experience working in the food system. Examples include Good Natured Family Farms in Kansas, Tuscarora Organic Growers in Pennsylvania, New North Florida Cooperative, and Blue Ridge Produce in Virginia.
Two entrepreneurs recently started the Blue Ridge Produce food hub, noting that only seven percent of Washington, DC's $16 million produce market was sourced locally. They raised private investment capital to create efficient and high-value markets, provide training and technical assistance (including food safety certification) to Virginia's smaller farmers, while increasing community access to healthful local food.
Retail driven model
Based largely on the food cooperative model, some retail stores have used their facilities and combined consumer support to launch successful food hubs, such as Wedge's Coop Partners in Minnesota and Weavers Way Coop in Pennsylvania.
La Montañita Coop is a community-owned, consumer cooperative in New Mexico. In addition to retail stores, La Montañita runs a regional Coop Trade Food Shed Project. It creates wholesale market opportunities, providing product pick-up and distribution, supply delivery service, and refrigerated storage for local farmers and producers. La Montañita also runs a Cooperative Distribution Center, a facility which provides 10,000 square feet of refrigerated, frozen and dry storage space, for local producers. Similarly, transportation for these distribution centers would have to use items such as this refrigerated shipping container from a company similar to Conexwest that provide containers that would follow the transportation guidelines and regulations in regards to food distribution.
Consumer driven models
The Oklahoma Food Coop began as a small buying club in 2003 with 20 local producers. On its opening day, it did $3,500 worth of sales. By last year, the Coop had $70,000 in monthly sales and 3,000 members purchasing from 200 Oklahoma-based producers. The organization manages storage space, a warehouse, owns several trucks, and has inspired other similar businesses in Nebraska, Iowa, and Massachusetts.
Hybrid market models
Detroit's Eastern Market and New York's Syracuse Regional Farmers' Market are two good examples of how hybrid markets can expand into food hubs. The Syracuse Regional Farmers' Market combines wholesale/retail space where growers and other merchants sell fresh products to businesses and individual customers. Detroit's Eastern Market continues to thrive as it offers a range of tenant services, including aggregation, distribution, processing, and new market opportunities.
Virtual food hubs
Virtual food hubs can lower the costs of access to local foods for both producers and consumers by automating the sales process. Internet-based food hubs offer the advantage that both producers and customers can carry out a transaction at any time. With the growth in Web based services, examples include Locally Grown, Local Dirt, Local Orbit, and Market Maker.
Last year, Portland Oregon's Ecotrust launched Food-Hub, a farm-to-table online matchmaking service, which has grown to more than 2,000 users. In addition to farmers, the service provides connections for livestock producers, fisherman, and vintners to sell wholesale. Food-Hub has received over $250,000 in USDA support and Deborah Kane, Ecotrust's Vice President for Food and Farms, has been recognized as a Champion of Change by the White House for successfully creating infrastructure support for local farmers to expand their market opportunities.
Investment opportunities
In order to build a successful food hub, start-up capital is often needed to renovate facilities for aggregation, storage, packing, light processing, and distribution.
In addition, working capital is necessary for business management systems to coordinate supply chain logistics. Financial support is also needed for enterprise development training and technical assistance to increase grower capacity to meet wholesale buyer requirements.
"As with any infrastructure-heavy project, a food hub will likely require several different forms of capital to launch successfully," said Elizabeth Ü, Founder and Executive Director of Finance for Food, and author of the forthcoming book, Finance for Food: A Sustainable Food Entrepreneur's Guide to Raising Mission-Aligned Capital.
Ü noted that a food hub might need to structure a variety of points of entry to appeal to potential investors, who may have different risk tolerances, time horizons, and investment amounts. She said,
A little creativity can go a long way; in addition to USDA grants and traditional loans, there are several innovative investment models that food entrepreneurs are using to raise capital, including revenue-sharing agreements, advance sales, and crowdfunding. The challenge is finding a good fit between investment terms and the values of both the food hub management and each investor.
The USDA sees food hubs as ripe investment opportunities and is currently funding nearly 30 percent of the food hubs it surveyed. Preliminary analysis shows that food hubs have great economic potential and are a sound investment. The USDA is preparing a more comprehensive resource guide for food hubs to be released later this year. The guide will feature a mix of government and non-government resources available for food hub development.
Social entrepreneurship
For now, according to those most closely following the development of food hubs, it's too early to speculate as to whether they are financially viable over the long run, but many see them as a social investment in a unique, alternative business model. Jim Slama, Founder and President of Family Farmed, a non-profit dedicated to expanding the production, marketing, and distribution of locally grown food commented that,
As a social enterprise, food hubs are critical and an integral part of our social investment. The movement's got the talent to take something old and make it new again.
Food hubs are an emerging business concept in current local food system investment strategies and they are gaining significant traction very quickly.
Cities like Los Angeles and Baltimore are investigating how to weave food hub development into their strategic food policy plans. And New York State recently passed legislation to enhance distribution of local foods to the state's institutional buyers using food hub models.
A recent meeting of the Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Funders that featured a dedicated panel on food hub development attracted a packed house. In each situation, both private and public funders are eagerly exploring how food hubs as business models can have broad economic and social impacts. As food hubs continue to grow and serve wholesale and institutional markets across the country, so will their ability to build stronger regional food systems.
For more information, review the work of the National Food Hub Collaboration.
–Naomi Starkman, Transition Voice
Cross-posted from Rudolf Steiner Social Finance.
buy buspar online
Clomid no Prescription