text:
This statue of Po'pay was given to the National Statuary Hall Collection by New Mexico in 2005.
Given by New Mexico in 2005
Emancipation Hall
U.S. Capitol Visitor Center
Po'Pay was born around 1630 in the San Juan Pueblo, in what is now the state of New Mexico; his given name, Popyn, means "ripe squash" in the Tewa language. As an adult he became a religious leader and was responsible for healing as well as for his people's spiritual life. He also knew of his people's suffering under Spanish settlers, who forced them to provide labor and food to support the Spanish community. The Spaniards also pressured them to give up their religion and way of life and to adopt Christianity—those found practicing their religion were tortured and sometimes executed.
In 1675, Po'pay and 46 other Pueblo leaders were convicted of sorcery; he was among those flogged, while others were executed. In 1680 Po'pay organized the Pueblo Revolt against the Spanish. According to legend, to coordinate the timing of the uprising, he and his followers sent runners to each pueblo with knotted deerskin strips. One knot was to be untied each day, and the revolt would begin on the day the last one was untied. However, the Spaniards arrested two of the runners, and the pueblos were quickly notified to accelerate the revolt. The attacks began on August 10, two days before the last knot would have been untied. The Spaniards took refuge at Santa Fe; the besieging Indians cut off their water supply but soon permitted them to leave the area. The Pueblo Revolt helped to ensure the survival of the Pueblo culture and shaped the history of the American Southwest.
In 1997, the New Mexico Legislature selected Po'pay as the subject of the state's second statue for the National Statuary Hall Collection and created the New Mexico Statuary Hall Commission, whose members were appointed by Governor Gary Johnson. Four sculptors were selected to create maquettes, and Cliff Fragua was awarded the commission in December 1999. It will be the seventh statue of a Native American in the collection; the others are King Kamehameha I, Will Rogers (who had Cherokee ancestors), Sakakawea,Sequoyah, Washakie and Sarah Winnemucca.
The seven-foot-high statue was carved from pink Tennessee marble (making it the only colored marble statue in the collection) and stands on a three-foot-high pedestal comprised of a steel frame clad in black granite. Its acceptance marked the first time at which every state in the Union has been represented by two statues in the collection. In addition, Po'pay is historically the first person represented in the collection to be born on what would become American soil.
No image or written description of Po'pay is known to exist. Sculptor Cliff Fragua describes the statue thus:
In my rendition, he holds in his hands items that will determine the future existence of the Pueblo people. The knotted cord in his left hand was used to determine when the Revolt would begin.As to how many knots were used is debatable, but I feel that it must have taken many days to plan and notify most of the Pueblos. The bear fetish in his right hand symbolizes the center of the Pueblo world, the Pueblo religion. The pot behind him symbolizes the Pueblo culture, and the deerskin he wears is a humble symbol of his status as a provider. The necklace that he wears is a constant reminder of where life began, and his clothing consists of a loin cloth and moccasins in Pueblo fashion. His hair is cut in Pueblo tradition and bound in a chongo. On his back are the scars that remain from the whipping he received for his participation and faith in the Pueblo ceremonies and religion.
Download this statue's information as a PDF.Cliff Fragua, an Indian from Jemez Pueblo, studied sculpture in Italy, California, and New Mexico; he created his first stone sculpture in 1974.
Last Updated: April 29, 2016

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Stormwater Challenge Workshops Start Saturday
Mar 12, 2014 at 10:09 AM 0 Comments
Do you want to save money on your landscaping? Or learn how to reduce runoff, improve stream health, and reduce flooding in the challenging hills and soils of SW Portland?
This FREE workshop series will help!
Starting this Saturday, March 15, join landscape and watershed professionals for some hands-on experience assessing, designing and installing different kinds of natural stormwater management projects that are appropriate for the unique conditions in SW Portland.
For more information, a registration link and flyer, visit http://swni.org/stormwater
Questions? Contact firstname.lastname@example.com or 503-823-2862
Here's a brief overview of the series:
Introductory Workshop:
Plan & Design Best Practices for Challenging Sites Saturday, March 15th, 9 am – 3 pm Limit: 30 people
In this workshop you'll learn how to identify and locate a variety of landscape approaches that are safe, simple, cost-effective, and environmentally effective regardless of the site's natural conditions. We'll visit three homes, perform a site assessment to look for opportunities, and then return to our desks to collaborate on site designs for each of them.
Workshops 2, 3, & 4:
Build the Best Practices Saturdays: April 5th, April 19th, & May 3rd, 9 am – 1 pm Limit: 10 people
Participants will receive additional training as we install stormwater projects at three residential demonstration sites with varying degrees of challenging conditions. We'll work together to implement the final design resulting from a combination of the planning and design work in the Introductory Workshop, with some additional consultation with each of the homeowners. Because we will focus on different techniques and conditions at each site, participants are encouraged (but not required) to attend all three!
0 Comments
Please review our Code of Conduct rules before posting a comment to this site.
Report Abuse (Please include the specific topic and comment for the fastest response/resolution.)
Add a Comment (Sign-in required)


text:
There are reports that Congress is at last about to reach a deal on a transportation bill, exactly 1,001 days after the expiration of the last transportation reauthorization bill that Congress passed. What's still unclear is what kind of deal this will be.
The right deal would create 1 million jobs desperately needed by the construction and other blue-collar workers disproportionately hit by our long-running jobs crisis. But if House Republicans continue to play their role as economic and political saboteur, the country could instead be hit with the layoffs of 2 million workers.
That's why this morning you should send a message to your member of Congress and tell them to get behind the Senate transportation jobs bill.
That bill, which gets a thumbs up from TheMiddleClass.org, would provide funding for transportation projects for the next two years, giving states the certainty they need to take on the road and mass transit projects that will not only put people to work but enable a growing economy to move people and goods more efficiently.
It also maintains or improves policies that have worked for communities for decades but are under siege by congressional conservatives, such as procedures that allow transportation projects to be properly vetted for their environmental impact before construction begins or allowances for states to use federal funding for pedestrian or bicycle safety.
Congress only has until Sunday to act. On July 1, the latest in a series of stopgap authorizations to keep transportation projects going would expire. Authority to collect the federal gasoline tax revenues used to pay for surface transportation projects would end. States unable or unwilling to use their own funds to fill in the gap would have to abandon construction and maintenance projects, forcing an estimated 2 million layoffs.
In a usually sharply divided Senate, the Senate transportation bill passed with remarkable bipartisan support in March. The holdup has been House Republicans, who have held this legislation, and the 1 million new jobs it would create, hostage to demands from Big Oil, Big Coal and Tea Party extremists.
Specifically, the House has sought to impose fast-track approval of the Keystone XL pipeline as a condition for passage. The State Department estimates that Keystone would at most create 6,000 jobs during construction, and the pipeline would mainly be a conduit for Canadian oil to be exported overseas. House Republicans also have moved to block federal regulation of the disposal of highly toxic coal waste from power plants, in order to protect the profit margins of utility companies. And they have pushed rules that would make it more difficult for concerned citizens to block or change a road project that would do environmental harm to their community.
Holding up to 3 million good jobs hostage so that big corporations can evade environmental costs and export oil overseas more quickly. Where have we seen that story before?
Tuesday marked the unhappy convergence of two landmarks. It was the 56th anniversary of the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, which started the creation of today's federal interstate highway network. While not all of its effects were good, there's no dispute that this federal investment dramatically energized the American economy.
Tuesday was also the 1,000th day since a surface transportation authorization bill that had been signed by President Bush in 2005 expired. Transportation spending has since hobbled along on a series of short-term extensions, with a longer-term bill hobbled by conservative obstruction, which intensified in 2010 when Republicans took control of the House.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, managed to overcome that obstruction in the Senate, going mano à mano with one of the Senate's most conservative and anti-environmental members, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. The Senate bill, at $109 billion over two years, is a drop in the bucket compared to our road, rail and public transportation needs, which have been underfunded for decades. But we can't afford to throw away one million new jobs, let alone put two million more people out of work.
And it is unconscionable for House Republicans to continue the extortion game that it is playing on behalf of its corporate benefactors, including polluters who do not want to be held accountable for the environmental damage and health hazards they create.
It's time to tell House Republicans to stop sabotaging the economy for working people. It's time to let them know they will pay a political price if their political gamesmanship recklessly kills bipartisan legislation that would create jobs and improve our transportation network.
The next few hours could determine whether we end up with a jobs disaster. We have no time to lose. We need the House to feel the heat so it will finally move. Send this message now and be heard: 1 million new jobs, not 2 million layoffs.


text:
This continues from "The Cost of MeatâToo High To Pay." The Market Demand Argument describes the power consumers have to change policies. Included is a list of common food labels and what they really mean, as well as an example of market pressure in action when PETA took on McDonald's.
Our economy (as well as the politics and legislation affecting it) is run on the Profit Margin Principle: Profit margins should be increased in any way possible. Because of this, major corporations are able to lobby for legislation that will yield them higher profits. However much control they have in our government though, they still need to convince consumers to buy their products, or rather, prevent them from stop buying. What the market demands, they must supply. They may be able to hide information that would otherwise cause consumers to decide not to buy their product, but only for a limited amount of time. In the end, our demands can cause bigger change than any appeal to our government.
If the demand for meat goes down, factory farms would not be under so much pressure to produce higher and higher quantities to meet demand. Without this pressure, the need for such deplorable conditions would not be there. It would become less and less profitable to do so. In fact, it may become less profitable to run huge factory farms, and small family farms would have room in the market to crop up again.
In supermarkets everywhere are products labeled "organic," "free-range," and "natural" because consumer awareness of the gross treatment of animals and practices in slaughterhouses, as well as health implications from consuming antibiotics and hormones is growing. However, there is still much intentional marketing slogans being passed off as correct food labeling.
The Humane Society of the United States provides the actual meaning of some of the most common labels. Only labels that read Certified Organic, Certified Humane, and Free-Farmed have programs with guidelines or standards. The rest are just unregulated claims.
Certified Organic: The animals must be allowed outdoor access, with ruminantsâcows, sheep, and goatsâgiven access to pasture. (Consumers should be aware that there have been concerns about lax enforcement, with some large-scale producers not providing meaningful access to the outdoors.) Animals must be provided with bedding materials. Use of hormones and antibiotics is prohibited. These are requirements under the National Organic Program regulations, and compliance is verified through third-party auditing. Currently, there are no federal or state programs to certify aquatic animals, including fish, as organic. Debeaking and forced molting are permitted.
Certified Humane: The animals must be kept in conditions which allow for exercise and freedom of movement. As such, crates, cages, and tethers are prohibited. Outdoor access is not required. Stocking densities are specified to ensure animals are not overcrowded, and animals must be provided with bedding materials. Hormone and non-therapeutic antibiotic use is prohibited. Compliance is verified through third-party auditing. Certified Humane is a program of Humane Farm Animal Care.
Free-Farmed: The animals must be kept in conditions which allow for exercise and freedom of movement. As such, crates, cages, and tethers are not prohibited. Outdoor access is not required. Stocking densities are specified to ensure animals are not overcrowded, and animals must be provided with bedding materials. Hormone and non-therapeutic antibiotic use is prohibited. Compliance is verified through third-party auditing. Free-Farmed is a program of American Humane.
Free-Range Poultry: The birds should have outdoor access. However, no information on stocking density, the frequency or duration of how much outdoor access must be provided, nor the quality of the land accessible to the animals is given. Indeed, the only national guidelines for the term "free range" are basic U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) requirements that poultry raised for meatâbut not for eggsâhave some access to the outdoors. Debeaking and forced molting is permitted.
Pasture-Raised and Grass-Fed: The animals have access to the outdoors and are able to engage in natural behaviors, such as grazing. However, no information on stocking density, the frequency or duration of how much outdoor access must be provided, nor the quality of the land accessible to the animals is given. Producers must submit affidavits to the USDA that support their animal production claims in order to receive approval for these labels.
Hormone-Free, rBGH-Free, rBST-Free, and No Hormones Added: These labels on dairy products mean the cows were not injected with rBGH or rBST, genetically engineered hormones that increase milk production. Hormones are commonly used to speed growth in beef production, and their use by both the beef and dairy industries are associated with animal welfare problems. Chicken and pig producers are not legally allowed to use hormones. These claims do not have significant relevance to the animals' living conditions. There may be some verification of this claim.
Cage-Free: As birds raised for meat, unlike those raised for eggs, are rarely caged prior to transport, this label on poultry products has virtually no relevance to animal welfare. However, the label is helpful when found on egg cartons, as most egg-laying hens are kept in severely restrictive cages prohibiting most natural behaviors, including spreading their wings. Debeaking and forced molting is permitted.
Free-Roaming: Also known as "free-range," the USDA has defined this claim for some poultry products, but there are no standards in "free-roaming" egg production. This essentially means the hens are cage-free. There is no third-party auditing.
Vegetarian-Fed: These animals are given a more natural feed than that received by most factory-farmed animals, but this claim does not have significant relevance to the animalsâ living conditions.
Natural: This claim has no relevance to animal welfare.
Grain-Fed: This claim has little relevance to animal welfare, but feeding ruminantsâcows, sheep, and goatsâhigh levels of grain can cause liver abscesses and problems with lameness. As such, beef products labeled "grain-fed" most likely come from animals who suffered lower welfare than beef products labeled "grass-fed."
Fertile: These eggs were laid by hens who lived with roosters, meaning they most likely were not caged.
Omega-3 Enriched: This label claim has no relevance to animal welfare.
The following information is taken from John Robbins' The Food Revolution.
Example of intentional mislabeling:
PETA vs. McDonald's
In 1999, McDonald's was nominated for the prestigious Business Ethics Award, given by the judges at Business Ethics magazine. But the magazine decided not to grant the ward to McDonald's. An open letter from the judges to McDonald's, published in the November/December 1999 issue of Business Ethics, explained why:
"USDA recommendations say [chickens] should have at least 2 square feet of space, yet McDonald's suppliers allow only .55 square feetânot enough space for a chicken to spread one wing. In addition, birds are bred to grow so large, their legs can't bear the weight, and they suffer painful leg deformities. Surely it's not asking too much to change policies, so that these animals are granted a modicum of comfort. The problems cited here go beyond McDonald's. But McDonald's is the nation's largest purchaser of beef, and the second largest purchaser of poultry. It has clout. And as CEO Jack Greenburg himself said, McDonald's wants 'to take industry leadership in animal welfare.' If McDonald's required changes, suppliers would comply."
McDonald's and the others in the meat, dairy, and egg industries repeatedly say that they do what they do in order to bring down the price of food. Making the kinds of changes that animal protection advocates would like, they say, would simply be too costly. But Justice Bell (who presided over McDonald's "McLibel" trial in Great Britain) concluded that many cruel farming practices could be easily altered at minimal cost.
In 1997 PETA contacted McDonald's and asked whether the corporation would be willing to take several specific steps to reduce unnecessary animal suffering. If the corporation would show a genuine willingness to address the cruel animal practices, PETA stood ready and eager to help.
PETA offered to publicly acknowledge McDonald's leadership in reducing animal suffering and cruelty, if the company would follow through on its stated commitment to animal welfare.
For two years, PETA engaged in a series of frustrating discussions and negotiations with McDonald's. While these discussions were taking place, the industry continued its campaign to convince the public that industry practice, even those that might to the "inexperienced" observer seem cruel, were actually done for the animals' own good, and that anyone who said otherwise simply did not understand animal welfare.
Temple Grandin is McDonald's livestock handling consultantâ¦she designed the systems in place in the meat plants in which nearly half the cattle in North America are handled. When asked for her input in the discussions underway between McDonald's and PETA, Dr. Grandin indicated that the corporation could with virtually no effort require suppliers to hire two stunners, thus markedly decreasing the number of animals who are skinned and dismembered while still consciousâbut the company chose not to do so.
Dr. Grandin also noted that the current way chickens are caught for slaughter causes a high incidence of broken wings and legs, and pointed out that in Britain there are incentive plans in place that are effective in reducing the injury and trauma to chickens. But despite telling the Associated Press that "if Dr. Grandin sees a problem, we correct it," McDonald's again did nothing to improve the situation.
Another McDonald's consultant told the corporation that it would be possible for McDonalds' to obtain a reliable supply of cows and pigs that had been more humanely raisedâif McDonald's would commit to purchasing them. But the company's response was only to state, as it had done so often, that it's already the leader in animal welfare issues.
It was only after the breakdown of two years of frustrating negotiations that PETA in the fall of 1999 launched its international "McCruelty to go" campaign. Graphic billboards and newspaper advertisementsâreading "Do you want fries with that? McCruelty to go," above a picture of a slaughtered cow's headâwere created to inform consumers about McDonald's failure to implement basic reforms. Despite continual pronouncements from McDonald's about their commitment to animal welfare, PETA noted, the corporation was still serving the flesh and eggs of animals whose lives were characterized by abject misery, and the hamburger chain still had no mechanism in place to penalize slaughterhouses that consistently skin and dismember conscious animals.
Eleven months later, after PETA had conducted more than 400 demonstrations in 23 countries, McDonald's finally budged. In late August 2000, the giant company announced an effort to make improvements in the lives of chickens raised for its restaurants. McDonald's Corporation sent letters to the suppliers providing the company with 1.5 billion eggs yearly, outlining new regulations for raising hens.
The new guidelines called for chickens to have more space than they did previously (from an average of seven to eight hens per 19-inch-by-20-inch cage to a maximum of five), and for the elimination of "forced molting." At the same time, McDonald's called for chickens to be caught by more humane methods prior to slaughter, and started auditing slaughterhouses. And for the first time in its history, McDonald's threatened to cut off suppliers who were not in compliance with humane slaughter guidelines.
These were significant steps, and they were important. But Ronald McDonald was still some distance from deserving a halo over his bight orange wig. None of the proposed changes, even if fully implemented, would bring the company up to the basic standards that were already in place in Europe.
Disclaimer: The links and mentions on this site may be affiliate links. But they do not affect the actual opinions and recommendations of the authors.
Wise Bread is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.