text:
37 comments:
- Anonymous said...
And to think, we're supposed to trust what these ancient people wrote in a book? Not on my life.
- March 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM
- Steven Bently said...
We must keep God appeased with human and goat sacrifice and burning flesh for atonement of sins and wickedness, lest we be damned by the wrath of God!
- March 2, 2008 at 4:29 PM
- Badger3k said...
gtekylI think it was Tim Callahan (or Friedman, perhaps) who said that there were remnants of two Abraham/Isaac stories, and that you can find no mention of Isaac after the supposed sacrifice, an indication that in the original story, Abraham does sacrifice Isaac and the redaction covered that up. I haven't had time to research this and see if I could see this, or if there is nothing to see. However, even without such evidence, this is similar to the story in the Illiad (Agamemnon, IIRC) - marking a change from human animal sacrifice.
IIRC, there has been more research into the sacrifices in canaan/israel/judah and I think it was implied that human sacrifice continued down into the Babylonian period (again, I am going by memory, and may be completely wrong on this). - March 2, 2008 at 6:17 PM
- Badger3k said...
Edit - the first word of the last post should just be "I" - typed the word verification while trying to get google/blogger to take my password. Sorry.
- March 2, 2008 at 6:18 PM
- Tim said...
The first link you offered is ... well ... pretty strange. Joshua practiced foundation sacrifice!? How that one is wrested out of a curse in Joshua 6:26 is a really difficult question.
Or take the reference to Manasseh. The author of the webpage says: "We can safely assume that the practice was widespread among the people of Judah during his reign." He quotes 2 Chron 33:6:
And he burned his son as an offering, and practiced soothsaying and augury, and dealt with mediums and with wizards. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger.
Hardly a ringing endorsement of child sacrifice by Jehovah; yet the author of the page wants us to believe that the Jewish people had no problem with it except when it was done in the name of other gods.
The entire web page is full of this sort of distortion and misdirection. It is impossible to take it seriously as a piece of research. - March 2, 2008 at 8:53 PM
- Anonymous said...
Tim, as I said I'm just starting my search. I learn from you and I want to be kept honest, so thanks for your comment.
The whole passage from 2 Chron 33 says this:
4 Also he built altars in the house of the LORD, whereof the LORD had said, In Jerusalem shall my name be for ever. 5 And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD. 6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger. 7 And he set a carved image, the idol which he had made, in the house of God, of which God had said to David and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen before all the tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: 8 Neither will I any more remove the foot of Israel from out of the land which I have appointed for your fathers; so that they will take heed to do all that I have commanded them, according to the whole law and the statutes and the ordinances by the hand of Moses. 9 So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel. 10 And the LORD spake to Manasseh, and to his people: but they would not hearken.
Maybe in the context of that day you could show me where child sacrifice to God was condemned by God.
Exodus 22:29 actually commands it: "You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. 30 You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.
The concept of "redemption" is an interesting one that goes hand in hand with child sacrifice, because animals were substituted for the firstborn, but that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child itself.
Furthermore, circumcision itself was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice.
After calling Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, God inexplicably seeks to kill him. In this enigmatic ancient passage, Zipporah circumcises someone (Moses, or his son, the text isn't clear) and then smears the blood of the foreskin on someone (either Moses, his son, or on God himself, the text isn't clear) to halt the divine attack. Apparently God flies off his rockers if a piece of penis isn't removed. Understood within the context of that day, circumcision was considered as a kind of child sacrifice in substitute, which appeased the gods by offering up blood without actually killing the first-born son.
Exodus 4 24 At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to kill him. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it, and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" 26 So he let him alone. Then it was that she said, "You are a bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision.
Anyway, I'd appreciate your findings on these things. It's very troubling to me to find a perfectly good God not unequivocally condemning this sort of thing, don't you think? - March 2, 2008 at 9:23 PM
- Michael Ejercito said...
From that first link, I deduced that the problem of child sacrifice is a problem of people disobeying the LORD their God.
- March 2, 2008 at 10:07 PM
- Evan said...
Sacrifice is the central belief of Christianity Michael.
Christians believe that the sins of the earth must be expunged by a sacrifice, and that sacrifice happened circa 30 CE by the death of one Jesus of Nazareth, whose blameless existence blotted out the sins of billions of other people through a cosmic calculus that includes the fact that the GOD of the universe caused his egg to begin dividing inside his mother without a sperm hitting it (or countering that thought is the belief that God's essence entered a sperm -- the Gospel writers are silent on this issue).
So try as you might to criticize child sacrifice -- God sacrifices his child as the central redemptive act of Christianity.
Now if God himself thinks that's immoral, he could be a lot plainer about it. - March 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM
- Harry H. McCall said...
What continues to be very interesting in the Bible is that Yahweh / God of the Old Testament is blood thirsty. He must have as much blood sacrifice as he can get (both of animals and at times humans). Descriptions of the massive slaughters at Passover where the streets ran red with blood and the snitch of disemboweled organs where intestines spilled fecal matter would bring to mind the pagan back ground of Yahweh who was equal to, or worst than Israel's Semitic neighbors.
The New Testament editors turns this vengeful God into a "God who so loved the world that He gave in only begotten Son…" John 3:16. But never once did it occur to the Hellenistic author of John, and 1 John that God had a past built on hate and the need for blood.
All believers must remember that this same God of supreme love in the New Testament still seeks to fulfill His lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the Lake of Fire for His pleasure!.
Moreover, if Yahweh was NOT into human blood sacrifice, than the human sacrifice of Jesus would not have been accepted. I have noted in several papers I read on the New Testament the impact of Ugaritic / Canaanite influences on the Synoptic Gospel writers particularly the motivation behind the acceptance of the human sacrifice of Jesus. - March 2, 2008 at 10:21 PM
- Steven Carr said...
According to the story, Abraham never said to himself that it can't have been God talking to him because God would never demand a child sacrifice.
- March 3, 2008 at 1:21 AM
- jedipunk said...
Here is a verse where God accepts (does not prevent) a human sacrifice.
From Judges 11:
(30) And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, (31) whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."
(32) Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the LORD gave them into his hands.(33)He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon.
(34)When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of tambourines! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter.(35)When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, "Oh! My daughter! You have made me miserable and wretched, because I have made a vow to the LORD that I cannot break."
(36)"My father," she replied, "you have given your word to the LORD. Do to me just as you promised, now that the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. (37)But grant me this one request," she said. "Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry."
(38)"You may go," he said. And he let her go for two months. She and the girls went into the hills and wept because she would never marry.(39)After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.
From this comes the Israelite custom40that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. - March 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM
- Tim said...
You ask where, in 2 Chron 33:4-10, human sacrifice is condemned. That would be in the blanket condemnation of all that Manasseh is described as having done, e.g. in verse 6:
[H]e wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger
and in verse 9:
So Manasseh made Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to err, and to do worse than the heathen, whom the LORD had destroyed before the children of Israel
and in verse 10:
And the LORD spake to Manasseh, and to his people: but they would not hearken
If your response is that this is condemnation of child sacrifice but not of child sacrifice to God, then two questions arise:
1. Why are we discussing this passage at all? The only thing one can get from this is a condemnation of child sacrifice as actually practiced by Manasseh, who is described as doing (and by his example promoting) worse things than the heathen nations whom God had destroyed for their wickedness (Deuteronomy 9:4,5; Leviticus 18:21,27).
2. If child sacrifice was anathema, as it clearly was, why would one expect an explicit prohibition of such sacrifice to God? That would be understood; indeed, it would be irreverent even to bring it up, unless it were clearly independently suggested and required refutation. But whether there is any competent evidence that it was ever envisaged as a part of Judaism is what is in question here.
You say:
Exodus 22:29 actually commands it
-- by "it" here meaning, apparently, child sacrifice. But Exodus 22:29 says nothing about child sacrifice, and the attempt to read it into the passage is more than strained. For an explicit account of what it meant to "give" a child to the Lord, see 1 Sam 1:11ff.
The circumcision discussion looks to me like a red herring. I have no idea whether it was a "substitutionary child sacrifice." But assuming that it was a cultural substitute for child sacrifice -- which was unquestionably widespread in the ancient Near East -- circumcision certainly seems to me to be a moral improvement on actually sacrificing a child. Doesn't that seem right to you? - March 3, 2008 at 10:28 AM
- Tim said...
It occurs to me that we actually do have, in one passage, something pretty close to a condemnation of human sacrifice to God in Deuteronomy 12:30-31:
29 "When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land,
30 beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?'
31 "You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods."
So it looks like that specific form of transferrence of abominable practices into Judaism was anticipated and nipped in the bud right in the Pentateuch. - March 3, 2008 at 10:37 AM
- Evan said...
Tim, if I grant that all you say is true, why did God need to sacrifice his own son to expiate the sins of mankind?
- March 3, 2008 at 11:06 AM
- Tim said...
That would take us off into a theological discussion that is not germane to this post. You know where you can find the relevant literature if you are interested.
My point in this thread is that the attempt to argue that Judaism endorsed child sacrifice involves the sort of extravagant misreading and bad scholarship that give atheism a bad name. - March 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM
- Anonymous said...
Tim, thanks for your thoughtful response.
Exodus 22:9 is dealt with in Claus Westermann's commentary on Genesis, and he says that is was indeed a command for parents to sacrifice their firstborn, although he also says it was quickly abrogated by offering people a chance to substitute something else in his place, seen in some other passages, but not in this one. That's what troubles me. The whole concept of redemption of the firstborn implies that child sacrifice is in fact commanded by God, otherwise why the need for redemption? And who says a parent needs to redeem their firstborn, anyway? Wouldn't a sacrifice of a firstborn child be more pleasing to God than a mere substitute? People in the Old Testament, plenty of them, thought so. That's why they chose to do it.
And there are more ways than one to dedicate a child to God. I Samuel 1 is about the Nazarite Vow. But what about devoting sons to God by killing them, as in Leviticus 27? Look specifically at these verses, in the Pentateuch:
28 "But no devoted thing that a man devotes to the LORD, of anything that he has, whether of man or beast, or of his inherited field, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy to the LORD. 29 No one devoted, who is to be utterly destroyed from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall be put to death.
Circumcision itself was another way to have a substitute sacrifice, in my opinion, even if you don't share this view. But when you say it "seems to be a moral improvement on actually sacrificing a child," I must demur. To answer your question, yes, it would be an improvement. But if the fundamental reason behind it was that God demanded the sacrifice of the firstborn, then that's a repulsive immoral reason to do anything, including circumcision. Doesn't that seem right to you?
As far as Deuteronomy 12:30-31 goes, the sin being condemned is apostasy, and the example given is that of sacrificing to the Canaanite gods. God is saying don't believe in their gods nor sacrifice to them. Perhaps a good commentary might back this reading of mine up.
But even if not, we'd have an additional debate about exactly when Deuteronomy was composed and finally edited. We'd also have inconsistency issues in the Pentateuch as well as the whole Old Testament itself on this issue.
Historically it's the case that after the Babylonian captivity the Jews didn't practice child sacrifice, I think. Maybe their morality just became heightened just as their concept of God evolved. That's a good thing, and it would be no surprise to see this reflected in the Bible.
We even read when a child sacrifice by the King of Moab to Moloch actually was the cause of the defeat of Israel's armies. In II Kings. 3:26-27 we read:
26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle was going against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through, opposite the king of Edom; but they could not. 27 Then he took his eldest son who was to reign in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.
Now why would God's word admit that child sacrifice worked so well for Moab? And wouldn't God's people conclude that it would work for them as well, if they sacrificed their children to him instead, especially if there is no clear condemnation of it, just like there is no clear condemnation of slavery? - March 3, 2008 at 12:31 PM
- Evan said...
That would take us off into a theological discussion that is not germane to this post. You know where you can find the relevant literature if you are interested.
It's VERY germane.
You are saying that God is against child sacrifice.
I am saying that God sacrificed his son.
If God thinks child sacrifice is barbaric and evil -- isn't it wrong for he himself to do it? - March 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
- Anonymous said...
Tim, here are some additional thoughts from a Jewish site:
About Abraham being told to sacrifice Isaac:
In this story there seems to be nothing in the text that argues against child sacrifice, that questions how God could make such a request, or that shows that the biblical writers disapproved of it. In fact, it could be argued that the text represents Abraham as quite enthusiastic about sacrificing his son.
In the book of Numbers, however, instead of animal substitutes for the human firstborn, God asks for the Levites to be His (Numbers 3:11-13; 8:14-19; 18:15).
In Ezekiel 20: 25-26 seems to acknowledge that God ordained human sacrifice, unaccompanied by any reference to the option of substitution, a fact that He comes to regret: "And I also gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live. I defiled them with their very gifts when they set aside every first issue of the womb, in order to destroy them so that they might know that I am the Lord." Thus, here destruction of human life is associated with God's desire for recognition.
In Micah 6:6-8 similarly raises the possibility of child sacrifice: "With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow down before God on high. Should I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Does the Lord want a thousand rams, with myriads of rivers of fat? Should I give by oldest son as a sin offering, the fruit of my belly as a sin offering for my soul?"
The questions thus become not whether in the Bible child sacrifice was not acceptable, but under what circumstances?
Additional questions are these:
...was it acceptable, as long as it was not to other gods? Was child sacrifice part of a popular religion but shunned by the official religion? Were the laws of the Bible against this as in other matters actually followed?
However we struggle to answer these questions today, it could not have been made crystal clear to the Israelites in their day, otherwise there would be crystal clear injunctions against the practice, and the practice itself would not have been so widespread. Perhaps too they just did not fear the prophets and their God. If this is the case then God didn't reveal himself to the people with enough evidence that they should fear him over the other deities. - March 3, 2008 at 2:55 PM
- Emanuel Goldstein said...
Whats the beef?
A million and a half mothers sacrifice their unborn babies to the standard of "a better life" every year.
You don't cry about that.
John, you know why?
Because you are one of the most abysmal hypocrites I have ever read.
You are so full of it we can smell it over here in St. Louis. - March 3, 2008 at 4:48 PM
- Anonymous said...
Maybe their morality just became heightened just as their concept of God evolved. That's a good thing, and it would be no surprise to see this reflected in the Bible.
Amen! This is what I see happening in the Bible from beginning to end. It take a long time to undo false perceptions based upon fear which is fed to each generation by their parents.
This is what is different about Jesus, in my opinion. Leaving aside any textual disputes, Jesus wiped this need for sacrifice away once and for all. Man no longer needs to appease an angry God. This is where I would go back in history and see that as the influence of Christianity spread (in all it's forms) people have increasingly stepped away from any desire or need to appease a deity.
I think this is part of "Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven". Man is free to be human. - March 3, 2008 at 4:48 PM
- Tim said...
Westermann's reading seems perverse to me. It certainly isn't given any time in the various commentaries I've read, so it seems I am not alone.
The Jewish site you've found does not seem to be a scholarly site -- the author is just recycling some pretty strange works. If I found the analysis at all plausible I would say more about this.
I will just mention that the verb nathan ("give") in Exodus 22:29 will not bear the weight being placed on it; the same root is used in other places for mere transferral of property. (See Gen 24:36; Gen 25:5; Job 42:15.)
As for 2 Kings 3:26-27, it appears that the Israelites took fright and ran -- not all that surprising when one recalls that at the time of Jephthah many of them shared some of the superstitions of surrounding nations (Judges 11:24). This is the interpretation of a number of commentators, including Dentan, Gray, Rawlinson, and Brown. - March 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM
- Tim said...
Nobody thinks that God the Father burned his infant son as a child sacrifice. Since you haven't taken the hint, try going here, or here, or here, or here. If you don't like it, fine -- but give up trying to turn it into evidence that Judaism condones child sacrifice. - March 3, 2008 at 5:11 PM
- Evan said...
Try as you might, you just can't get rid of the problem.
Child sacrifice was done based on the concept that sin required expiation.
It is indisputable that the majority of Christians believe in a doctrine of original sin.
It is indisputable that the majority of Christians have a soteriology that is based on the sacrifice by God of his Son for the sins of mankind -- which is EXPLICITLY based on OT Palestinian sacrifice.
If you have such hatred for the concept, I can fully agree, because it is indeed primitive barbarism.
But what you can't say is that sacrifice has no role in Christianity.
God sacrificed his Son for the sins of mankind.
Tell me how that's irrelevant to this? - March 3, 2008 at 5:30 PM
- Anonymous said...
Tim, From Brown, Driver and Briggs dealing with the word nathan ("give") that we see in Exodus 29:29:
k. give offerings, לְי׳ Nu 18:12 (P), תְּרוּמַת י׳ Ex 30:15 (P), cf. give spoil to (לְ) י׳ Dt 20:14 (י׳ subj.); לָ֑ךְ מִיָּֽדְךָ נָתַנּוּ 1 Ch 29:14; offering to (לְ) idols Ez 6:13; especially to Moloch Lv 20:2, 4, to pass through fire to (ל) M 18:21, etc.
Besides, linguists know that the basic unit of meaning is the sentence. That a particular word is used doesn't tell us its definition until we consider the sentence we find it in, which is part of a larger context. - March 3, 2008 at 5:51 PM
- Anonymous said...
Tim, and as far as the word "wrath" goes in II Kings 3:27 it usually refers to divine wrath, or wrath of the gods (keep in mind that kings and judges were considered "gods"). Check these passages out (from Brown,Driver, & Briggs):
†i. קֶ֫צֶף S7110 TWOT2058a, 2059b GK7912, 7913 n.m. 2 K 3:27 wrath;—abs. ק׳ Nu 1:53 +; קָ֑צֶף Jos 22:20 +; cstr. קֶצֶף Je 50:13 +; sf. קִצְפִּי Is 60:10; קֶצְפְּךָ ψ 38:2, קִצְפֶּ֑ךָ 102:11, קִצְפֹּו Je 10:10;—1. of God: abs. Nu 17:11 (P), Dt 29:27 Is 60:10 Je 10:10; 21:5; 32:37; 50:13 ψ 38:2; 102:11 Zc 7:12; c. עַל against Nu 1:53; 18:5 Jos 9:20; 22:20 (P), 2 K 3:27 1 Ch 27:24 2 Ch 19:2, 10; 24:18; 29:8; 32:25, 26 Is 34:2 Zc 1:2, 15; בְּשֶׁצֶף ק׳ Is 54:8. 2. of man (late), Est 1:18 Ec 5:16.—Ho 10:7 v. ii. קֶצֶף.
The only question left unresolved is whose "wrath" sent the Israelites away as the direct result of Moab's child sacrifice? Molech, or Yahweh? But it doesn't matter to me, for it shows that the author believed child sacrifice works. - March 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM
- Anonymous said...
for it shows that the author believed child sacrifice works.
How do you come to this conclusion?
I don't think we have to assume it means the author believed child sacrifice worked so much as the author recorded what people commonly did to appease the gods in their own understanding.
I agree with Tim and think the articles and the points being made for this view of the Israelites practicing child sacrifice at God's command is trying to study the forest by looking at a couple of trees.
This is what I am curious about...
Let's say the Hebrews did practice human sacrifice. Given the number of times God warned them about their idol worship it is conceivable that some evidence could be found that they did when not following the Law.
I am using the NASV which has this in Ezekiel 20:25-26
"And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord."
Here is a commentary by a Professor Hyam Maccoby that deals with this extensively. I think you'll find it's very thorough and is written for Jews from a Jew, and
it's an honest look at the passage.
Here is good old Matthew Henry's commentary on Micah 6:6-8. I was surprised to see that singled out of the text as the next part is:
"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." - March 3, 2008 at 9:07 PM
- Anonymous said...
Jennifer, all that Micah said is that he considered child sacrifice along with the other sacrifices God ordained to please him. The fact that God tells Micah he only wants justice and mercy does not undercut that Micah believed child sacrifice was acceptable to God, for it's listed among other types of sacrifices that ARE pleasing to God, nor doesit undercut that God had previously demanded these sacrifices. And God certainly did not condemn Micah for suggesting such a thing as child sacrifice, which is what any perfectly good God would do. I would do say so to Micah, and I'm not a perfectly good God!
It just appears to me that you and Tim are taking a caviler approach to the extremely nasty God you claim to worship, when he's supposed to be perfected love itself.
How do you reconcile that view you have of him with this passage, where by the way, it only seems to only condemn child sacrifice to "other" gods:
Jeremiah 19
3 You shall say, 'Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle. 4 Because the people have forsaken me, and have profaned this place by burning incense in it to other gods whom neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have known; and because they have filled this place with the blood of innocents, 5 and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or decree, nor did it come into my mind; 6 therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when this place shall no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter. 7 And in this place I will make void the plans of Judah and Jerusalem, and will cause their people to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hand of those who seek their life. I will give their dead bodies for food to the birds of the air and to the beasts of the earth. 8 And I will make this city a horror, a thing to be hissed at; every one who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss because of all its disasters. 9 And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and every one shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.'
How do you reconcile the God of reason, the God of love, with the ways he plans to deal with people who worship other Gods? This is some nasty stuff here. And how do you reconcile the number of lives lost as a result of God's actions with the number of children sacrificed? Let's see, a few children are being killed, so I'll slaughter them all. As a result of God's actions many more children will die and/or be fatherless. It does not make any sense at all. There are better ways to handle such things out of love, too. Merely send a prophet who can do great miracles in their midst and let him tell them this is plainly forbidden. Better yet why not just make one of the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not sacrifice, or kill any man, woman or child to me," and say it as often as he needed to without the conflicting messages and lack of condemnation for such practices as he requested of Abraham and as Jepthah did.
The God we're talking about is based upon the reflections and musings of an ancient superstitious barbaric people, plain and simple.
This is the best and simplest explanation for what we find in the Bible. - March 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM
- Tim said...
The question is whether nathan carries the connotation of death or of transferral of ownership in the passage in question. It is widely agreed that this cannot be settled by the linguistic data alone, though some authors have tried to place great weight on nathan. This was the point I was trying to make.
As for qetseph, again we have a word that can be translated "wrath" or "indignation." The entire construction in 2 Kings 3:27 is very difficult to unravel. One could, with Keil and Farrar, read the passage as indicating that God's wrath was stirred against Israel, resting on the fact that this is the most common meaning of qetseph. However, this interpretation creates more problems than it solves in the wider context. These problems are resolved if we take the word to refer to a subjective, human reaction -- and indeed, we find that qetseph is sometimes used for human emotion, as in Gen 40:2, Gen 41:10, Esther 1:18, Esther 2:21, etc.
So I don't think the passage "shows that the author thinks child sacrifice works," though on my reading it suggests that at least some of the Israelites believed that child sacrifice works. Again, Judges 11:24 helps to put this in context.
For Deuteronomy 12:30-31, though the passage is undoubtedly speaking against apostasy, one of the forms the prohibition takes is to forbid the use of the forms of worship used by these pagans in the worship of God. At least that is strongly suggested by this phrase:
You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God
This is the interpretation taken in, e.g., The Shorter Catechism of the Church of Scotland (1860), p. 298. It was also the interpretation given by Owen, Leland, Whiston, etc. For a Jewish endorsement of this interpretation, see Letters of Certain Jews to Monsieur Voltaire, 3rd ed. (1848), p. 360. - March 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM
- Anonymous said...
Tim, You said...The entire construction in 2 Kings 3:27 is very difficult to unravel.
Maybe it's because you're trying to explain the plain meaning of the text away?
In any case, I'll have to do more study on these issues.
Thanks to you and Jennifer for the challenges. The widest context to use in interpreting a text is the worldview context along with which hypothesis we think best explains the whole Bible.
That's why we won't see eye to eye on this. I cannot convince you by continuing to ask you to look at this tree or that tree, for each single tree can be accounted for by the whole, but that's all I can do. I cannot make you see the whole forest the way I do. But that's what is needed.
Cheers. - March 3, 2008 at 10:34 PM
- Anonymous said...
anyone know what the Jewish community says about these passages? Its their heritage, I presume they would be experts.
- March 3, 2008 at 11:02 PM
- Anonymous said...
This is my only problem with your view of the forest.
At some point, something changed people's minds about the need to make an atoning sacrifice to a god. At some point in history, someone came up with the idea of a God of love even though everyone in the world that we know of believed in some sort of angry god.
At some point grace entered the human psyche. Even if it had been an idea mentioned somewhere by someone obscure, the concept of grace has changed the trees in the forest over time until we now don't even see a need for a god because our psyche has been released from the power of the need for redemption.
The only logical conclusion I can make is that it was Jesus who made that difference and that Jesus came out of Jewish culture. It has been said that the Jews gave the world a conscience and I'd have to agree to some extent through the reading I've done. Not saying there isn't more to learn, but what I've read is pretty convincing. - March 3, 2008 at 11:08 PM
- Anonymous said...
Did you read the link I gave? The author gave several rabbi commentary which covered around a thousand years.
I agree it would be a benefit to have some Jewish teaching here. - March 3, 2008 at 11:11 PM
- Tim said...
You ask:
anyone know what the Jewish community says about these passages? Its their heritage, I presume they would be experts.
I already gave a link to this discussion. Jennifer has given another. - March 4, 2008 at 12:02 AM
- Tim said...
I wrote:
The entire construction in 2 Kings 3:27 is very difficult to unravel.
To which you responded:
Maybe it's because you're trying to explain the plain meaning of the text away?
Not at all: I'm simply passing on what various commentators have said about the difficulties in construing the language. Poke around a bit in the literature and you'll see what I mean. - March 4, 2008 at 12:04 AM
- Anonymous said...
Tim, Check this out.
- March 4, 2008 at 12:34 PM
- Tim said...
Yes, this topic has become quite a cottage industry over the past decade or so, with a few other books and a spate of articles on the subject. - March 4, 2008 at 8:26 PM
- Anonymous said...
Tim if you accept the Documentary Hypothesis I don't see why there is a problem. It just took scholars a while before they were willing to admit it, that's all.
- March 5, 2008 at 1:46 AM


text:
It would be hard to miss this very newsworthy and obvious acronym published everywhere during the past several months, but unless you're immersed in its impact on the European cosmetic industry, REACH may appear as yet another complex program with many unanswered questions. In fact, even the experts will agree that this enormous chemical initiative, while highly structured, still leaves many technical and economic uncertainties./
Safety and Usage Legislation
REACH is a comprehensive program for the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals, negotiated by the European Parliament and signed into law by the European Council of Ministers on December 18, 2006. The 800-page document, including annexes and supplemental guidances on implementation (ec.europa.eu/enterprise/reach/index_en.htm), will replace approximately 40 pieces of existing chemical legislation with a system intended to control and manage both new and existing chemicals throughout the supply chain. While finished cosmetic product safety and ingredient usage are already regulated and controlled via the 7th Amendment to the Cosmetic Directive (76/768/EEC), the REACH initiative addresses both the safety and long-term environmental impact of the ingredients used in cosmetics, as well as packaging.
REACH is based upon one principle: safety. It requires manufacturers, importers and downstream users to assure that chemical substances are inherently safe for consumer product use, occupational exposure and long-term environmental impact. It also admonishes the "no data, no market" rule and further imposes the "precautionary principal," where additional data and definitive action are required when uncertainty is identified.
There are requirements to register all substances used in a product, evaluate the safety dossiers and the chemical substances, authorize the specific uses of very high concern substances and restrict usage of certain chemicals with documented safety concerns.
REACH goes into effect on June 1, 2007, with enforcement responsibility assigned to a new European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to be established in Helsinki, Finland. There are extensive details yet to be addressed by the ECHA, so the forms, fees and basic refinements to many of the stated requirements of REACH must still be developed and published in the months ahead. Over the next 11 years, approximately 30,000 currently used chemical substances must be registered according to the established timetable.
REACH regulations have already had a broad effect on the industry because reporting requirements apply to all manufacturers in the EU, European importers and downstream users. The suppliers of chemical substances and those who use them to manufacture or blend products are subject to stringent reporting obligations when the annual average quantity of a single substance (based on a three year average) exceeds one metric ton for that manufacturer or importer. Other categories are scheduled for earlier registration, based upon higher tonnage and where greater safety concerns are warranted.
The Benefits of Pre-registering
For most reporting companies, there is a benefit to using the pre-registration process because it will delay the date for registration and submission of a full Chemical Safety Report (CSR) beyond December 2008, or any other date imposed based upon tonnage.
Furthermore, it will allow participation in a consortium called Substance Information Exchange Forums (SIEFS), which will be created to collect and coordinate data and share the cost of required safety substantiation to satisfy concerns raised by the ECHA and required by the safety classification assigned to a given substance. The window for pre-registration is open June 1–December 1, 2008.
Pre-registration information must include the substance identity—including chemical name, CAS number, EINECS number, the anticipated deadline for actual registration, and the European registrant's name, address and contact information. The pre-registration submission option has been strongly endorsed by industry experts close to the REACH activity, particularly because pre-registration past the six-month window is prohibited.
Once the pre-registration process has been completed, the ECHA will publish a list of the pre-registered substances, which can be used for the formation of SIEFS and the subsequent participation of companies' representatives or chemical suppliers. For downstream users, it will be imperative to assure suppliers participation based upon chemical usage and quantity purchased. At present, it appears that the reporting company, individual or representative must be located in Europe. Alternatively, if your supplier is unable to participate in the REACH pre-registration for your ingredient, you will be obliged to negotiate or seek a new source if you intend to ship products or materials into the EU.
Registration is a more formal and demanding process, and it, too, will follow a schedule and structure based on REACH Implementation Project guidelines—also known as RIPs. Submissions will be accepted from European companies or European representatives and must include a technical dossier with the full identity of the substance, its manufacture and intended use, as well as other specific information required by the annexes.
Additionally, the required CSR must include formal hazard assessments, exposure assessments and risk characterizations for both human health and environmental impact. Details will be provided in the REACH implementation guidelines. CSR preparation must be coordinated via the assigned SIEF, with funding arranged and assessed proportionally from participating companies or parties. These contributions are compulsory in order to do business in the EU.
Based upon the average annual tonnage for each individual substance used, there are scheduled dates for the required registration and submission of technical dossiers and chemical safety reports. If the substance has been pre-registered, the closing date is November 30, 2010, for Category I or II CMRs (carcinogens, mutagens or reproductive toxicants). These materials are banned from cosmetic use but could, perhaps, be required as a starting ingredient for a given raw material generation process or synthesis. Other substances used at more than 1,000 tons per year also fall under this deadline. May 31, 2013, is the deadline for substances used at an average of 100–999 tons per year, and May 31, 2018, for substances used at one to 99 tons per year.
A Brief Word about Authorization
The intent of REACH is to identify substances that pose a high safety risk for humans or potentially detrimental environmental impact—certainly a continuing objective for the cosmetic industry as well. Substitution plans would be required for chemicals that fall into certain classes such as:
- CMRs, Category I or II
- Persistent and Bioaccumulative and Toxic (PBT)
- Very Persistent and Very Bioaccumulative and Toxic (vPvBT)
- Substances of equivalent concern
Refinement and interpretation of these potential classifications will be made by the European Chemical Agency at a future date.
The best way to prepare your company is with a comprehensive chemical inventory of substances used for products or materials being exported to Europe that addresses the specific identity, CAS and EINECS numbers, and quantity information for each. Next, contact suppliers and identify their plans for pre-registration, so they can coordinate with others in their supply base and determine their ability and willingness to comply with REACH requirements. If they are unable to provide a commitment, you may be obliged to seek other alternatives to support future European business.
REACH is complex, and there are numerous questions yet to be answered. The review and interpretation of existing legislation, as well as input from various contributors to the REACH negotiations over the last six years, is helpful—but not always definitive. Information about the forms for pre-registration and registration, and potential cost assessments will follow once the ECHA has been staffed and trained. Additional details and clarifications are also expected after a European Commission workshop to be held in Bonn, Germany, this month.
There are many conditions and considerations that will affect your compliance with REACH, and while it would be impossible to address all of them here, I can say, having attended and participated in several seminars during the past six months, that the complexity of the program and the unanswered issues still cause experts to walk cautiously through the process. However, the overall goals and objectives of REACH are commendable, and the benefits can only be realized by active and attentive participation with appropriate planning.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Brenham SEO Company
Brenham SEO Company
Search Engine Optimization In Brenham Texas
Is the process of affecting the visibility of a website or a web page in a search engine's unpaid results—often referred to as "natural," "organic," or "earned" results. In general, the earlier (or higher ranked on the search results page), and more frequently a site appears in the search results list, the more visitors it will receive from the search engine's users. SEO may target different kinds of search, including image search, local search, video search, academic search, news search and industry-specific vertical search engines.
Ready To Get Started?
Would you like to start a project with us?
Click to Call on Mobile and one of our talented staff will consult you on your online business needs.


text:
#include <X11/extensions/XInput2.h>
void XIChangeProperty( Display* dpy, int deviceid, Atom property, Atom type, int format, int mode, unsigned char *data, int num_items)
void XIDeleteProperty( Display *dpy, int deviceid, Atom property)
Status XIGetProperty( Display *dpy, int deviceid, Atom property, long offset, long length, Bool delete_property, Atom type, Atom *type_return, int *format_return, unsigned long *num_items_return, unsigned long *bytes_after_return, unsigned char **data)
bytes_after_return Returns the number of bytes remaining to be read in the prop- erty if a partial read was performed.
data Specifies the property data.
display Specifies the connection to the X server.
delete_property Specifies a Boolean value that determines whether the property is to be deleted.
deviceid The device to list the properties for.
format Specifies whether the data should be viewed as a list of 8-bit, 16-bit, or 32-bit quantities. Possible values are 8, 16, and 32. This information allows the X server to correctly perform byte-swap operations as necessary. If the format is 16-bit or 32-bit, you must explicitly cast your data pointer to an (unsigned char *) in the call to XIChangeProperty.
format_return Returns the actual format of the property.
length Specifies the length in 32-bit multiples of the data to be retrieved.
offset Specifies the offset in the specified property (in 32-bit quantities) where the data is to be retrieved.
mode One of XIPropModeAppend, XIPropModePrepend or XIPropModeReplace.
num_items Number of items in data in the format specified.
nitems_return Returns the actual number of 8-bit, 16-bit, or 32-bit items stored in data.
property Specifies the property name.
type Specifies the type of the property. The X server does not interpret the type but simply passes it back to an application that later calls XIGetProperty.
type_return Returns the atom identifier that defines the actual type of the property.
The XIGetProperty function returns the actual type of the property; the actual format of the property; the number of 8-bit, 16-bit, or 32-bit items transferred; the number of bytes remaining to be read in the property; and a pointer to the data actually returned. XIGetProperty sets the return arguments as follows:
N = length of the stored property in bytes I = 4 * offset T = N - I L = MINIMUM(T, 4 * length) A = N - (I + L)
The returned value starts at byte index I in the property (indexing from zero), and its length in bytes is L. If the value for long_offset causes L to be negative, a BadValue error results. The value of bytes_after_return is A, giving the number of trailing unread bytes in the stored property.
If the returned format is 8, the returned data is represented as a char array. If the returned format is 16, the returned data is represented as a uint16_t array and should be cast to that type to obtain the ele- ments. If the returned format is 32, the returned data is represented as a uint32_t array and should be cast to that type to obtain the elements.
XIGetProperty always allocates one extra byte in prop_return (even if the property is zero length) and sets it to zero so that simple properties consisting of characters do not have to be copied into yet another string before use.
If delete is True and bytes_after_return is zero, XIGetProperty deletes the property from the window and generates an XIPropertyNotify event on the window.
The function returns Success if it executes successfully. To free the resulting data, use XFree.
XIGetProperty can generate BadAtom, BadValue, and BadWindow errors.
The XIChangeProperty function alters the property for the specified device and causes the X server to generate a XIPropertyNotify event for that device. XIChangeProperty performs the following:
If the specified format is 8, the property data must be a char array. If the specified format is 16, the property data must be a uint16_t array. If the specified format is 32, the property data must be a uint32_t array.
The lifetime of a property is not tied to the storing client. Properties remain until explicitly deleted, until the device is removed, or until the server resets. The maximum size of a property is server dependent and can vary dynamically depending on the amount of memory the server has available. (If there is insufficient space, a BadAlloc error results.)
XIChangeProperty can generate BadAlloc, BadAtom, BadMatch, BadValue, and BadDevice errors.
The XIDeleteProperty function deletes the specified property only if the property was defined on the specified device and causes the X server to generate a XIPropertyNotify event for the device unless the property does not exist.
XIDeleteProperty can generate BadAtom and BadDevice errors.
BadAlloc The server failed to allocate the requested resource or server memory.
BadAtom A value for an Atom argument does not name a defined Atom.
BadValue Some numeric value falls outside the range of values accepted by the request. Unless a specific range is specified for an argument, the full range defined by the argument's type is accepted. Any argument defined as a set of alternatives can generate this error.
BadDevice An invalid device was specified. The device does not exist.
BadAtom An invalid property was specified. The property does not exist.
The protocol headers for XI 2.0 did not provide XIAnyPropertyType, XIPropModeReplace, XIPropModePrepend or XIPropModeAppend. Use AnyPropertyType, PropModeReplace, PropModePrepend and PropModeAppend instead, respectively.


text:
Effective 7/2020
Information regarding CarCabbage.com's privacy practices:
This document describes the CarCabbage.com policy regarding information received about you during visits to our Web site. The amount and type of information received depends on how you use our site.
You can visit CarCabbage.com to read about our services or learn about our process without telling us who you are and without revealing any personal information. The only information we collect and store during normal Web site usage is the name of your Internet service provider, the Web site that referred you to us, the pages you request, and the date and time of those requests. We use this information to generate statistics and measure site activity to improve the usefulness of customer visits. During normal Web site usage, we do not collect or store personally identifiable information such as name, mailing address, e-mail address, phone number or Social Security Number.
There are instances where CarCabbage.com requests personally identifiable information to provide the Web site visitor a service or correspondence (promotions and mailed brochures). This information, such as name, mailing address, e-mail address, type of request and possibly additional information, is collected and stored in a manner appropriate to the nature of the data and is used to fulfill your request. The information you provide is used by CarCabbage.com to improve the services we provide you. It is never provided to any other company for that company's independent use.
To use CarCabbage.com Internet services, such as our valuation tool, scheduling an appointment, etc., we require a certain amount of personally identifying information (examples are: name, address, zip code, etc.) that we can use to meet with your request. We use this information to identify and access data in the existing relationship we have with you to provide you with the requested services. Again, this information will not be provided to any third party. We request electronic mail addresses (e-mail) as an alternate means of contacting you.
Internet users may decide to send CarCabbage.com personally identifying information, for example, in a message containing comments about the CarCabbage.com Web site. CarCabbage.com will only use this information to identify the user. We will not use this information other than to resolve the matter identified in the e-mail.
By using this site, you are agreeing to the terms of our Privacy Policy. We reserve the right to change our Privacy Policy. A revised Privacy Policy will only apply to data collected subsequent to its effective date. Any revisions will be posted at least 10 days prior to its effective date. Your continued use of this site following the posting of changes to these terms will mean that you accept these changes.
If you are under the age of 18, please do not submit or post any personal information.


text:
Gutter Specialists Grand Rapids
Gutter installation and repairs Grand Rapids
With close to two decades of experience, Gutter Specialists Grand Rapids
wants you to know that we are here to make life just a little bit easier. Many homeowners are afraid to climb a ladder to install, repair or clean gutters. Our team will do the work for you but you have to give us a call. We offer incredible prices for high-quality gutter materials and top-of-the-line installation opportunities. We are here to help you and your family. We also offer a strong and dutiful warranty on all of our projects. Call us for more information about our services. We make it easy.
Grand Rapids is a city and county seat of Kent County in the U.S. state of Michigan. At the 2020 census, the city had a population of 198,917, which ranks it as the second most-populated city in the state after Detroit. Grand Rapids is the central city of the Grand Rapids metropolitan area, which has a population of 1,087,592 and a combined statistical area population of 1,383,918.Situated along the Grand River approximately 25 miles (40 km) east of Lake Michigan, it is the economic and cultural hub of West Michigan, as well as one of the fastest-growing cities in the Midwest. A historic furniture manufacturing center, Grand Rapids is home to five of the world's leading office furniture companies and is nicknamed "Furniture City." Other nicknames include "River City" and more recently, "Beer City" (the latter given by USA Today and adopted by the city as a brand). The city and surrounding communities are economically diverse, based in the health care, information technology, automotive, aviation, and consumer goods manufacturing industries, among others.
Alger Heights, Amplify GR, Auburn Hills, Baxter, Baxter Neighborhood Association, Belknap Lookout, Beverly, Black Hills, Burlingame Heights, Byron Center Park


text: Pesticide Action Network Updates Service (PANUPS) Methyl Bromide in Montreal In an extraordinary session in late-March, signatory nations to the Montreal Protocol, an important international environmental health treaty, rebuffed US demands for increased "critical use exemptions" of the ozone depleting pesticide methyl bromide (MB). During a three day meeting in Montreal, the combined forces of several European, Latin American and other nations that have sharply reduced their use of MB, together with public interest organizations including Pesticide Action Network, California Certified Organic Farmers, Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace, managed to preserve the spirit if not the letter of the Protocol, and prevented serious undermining of what is widely considered to be the most successful international environmental agreement in existence. The treaty, signed in 1987, guides global progress in phasing out ozone depleting chemicals. Six months ago, in September 2003, the World Meteorological Organization announced the hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic is again expanding rapidly and has now reached record levels. The United Nations Environmental Program has estimated that every 1% drop in the ozone layer causes the Earth's surface to be exposed to a 1-2% increase in harmful UVB radiation. The human health consequences of this increase in UVB radiation are increases in the incidence of skin cancers, cataracts, and suppression of the human immune system, reducing the ability to fight infections. Methyl bromide was targeted under the Montreal agreement because of its potency in destroying ozone, which protects the earth's surface from ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation. MB is widely used as a soil fumigant in the production of strawberries, tomatoes, tobacco and other crops, and for grain storage. Highly hazardous to human health, MB is a carcinogen, a reproductive toxin and toxic to the central nervous system. Farmers and workers following fumigation tractors or spreading tarps can be exposed to dangerously high levels of the pesticide, which can easily drift off site. In 1998 the Environmental Working Group estimated that 70,000 elementary school children in California's strawberry growing region attended schools at risk of MB exposure, at one school in Watsonville, methyl bromide concentration levels were more than 10 times the state's safety standard following a fumigation at an adjacent strawberry field. MB has been found in air samples days after fumigation. The "First Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties" for the Montreal Protocol was convened March 23-26, 2004 because 16 nations had requested exemptions for production and import of MB, overwhelming the successful reductions achieved in previous years, which had lowered use to 30% of 1991 levels. Worldwide, requests for "critical use exemptions" for 2005 totaled 14,000 tons, almost 70% (or 9,500 tons) was requested by the U.S., an amount that would raise, not lower, methyl bromide use in the US. The U.S. wanted to produce and use MB at 35% of 1991 levels for three years, ignoring the 2005 deadline for total phase out as scheduled under the treaty. Instead, after much pressure, and testimony by non-government organizations, the U.S. was allowed use levels at 35% of 1991 levels, for one year only, with new production limited to 30%, and the balance coming from existing stockpiles. Member governments also agreed to provide information on "available stocks" of the chemical, something which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has not done within the U.S., although a cursory 2003 survey has turned up 22 million pounds (11 tons). The issue of stockpiles of MB was an important concern raised in Montreal. The Environmental Investigation Agency, a non profit organization which monitors illegal trade and stockpiling of ozone depleting chemicals, has tracked the emergence of an illegal trade in CFCs (also being phased out under the Montreal Protocol), and is now seeing the same signs of illicit stockpiling and unreported trade for methyl bromide. The U.S. government had argued that MB is vital for strawberry and tomato growers, and that no economically viable alternative exists. Vanessa Bogenholm, an organic strawberry grower and Chair of the Board of California Certified Organic Farmers testified in Montreal that growers "…have all known that this phase out was coming for many years and should have been doing major field size research trials not just small (100-200 ft) experimental trials." She also stated that, "financial concerns of individual farmers cannot be considered more important than environmental concerns or the health of human beings." Since 1999, industrialized countries have cut methyl bromide use by 70% under the treaty. Growers and mill operators in another 80 countries have been phasing in alternatives and use very little of the fumigant, including the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany and Japan, but also developing countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica and Argentina. Sources: Fact Sheet, Methyl Bromide Use in California, on-chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, Methyl Bromide Briefing Kit, PANNA, http://www.panna.org; U.S. Trims Request for Exemptions From Pact on Saving Ozone Layer, New York Times, March 27, 2004; Testimony before the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, Vanessa Bogenholm and Environmental Investigation Agency, March 26, 2003; World Meteorological Association, Size of Ozone Hole Oct 2003, http://www.wmo.ch/indexflash.html. Contact: PANNA PANUPS is a weekly email news service providing resource guides and reporting on pesticide issues that don't always get coverage by the mainstream media. It's produced by Pesticide Action Network North America, a non-profit and non-governmental organization working to advance sustainable alternatives to pesticides worldwide. You can join our efforts! We gladly accept donations for our work and all contributions are tax deductible in the United States. Visit http://www.panna.org/donate. |


text:
Abilify is prescribed for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder treatment.
Active Ingredient: aripiprazole
Availability: In Stock (113 packages)
Abilify, 20mg
Abilify is prescribed for the treatment of such conditions as major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, manic and mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder in adults and children and adolescents and also of irritability associated with autistic disorder in children. It works showing partial agonist at the D2 receptor, it is also a partial agonist at the 5-HT1A receptor, and also displays an antagonist profile at the 5-HT2A receptor.
It is recommended to take the medicine as it was prescribed by your doctor. Take it with or without food. The recommended initial dose is 10-15 mg.
Abilify shouldn't be used by middle aged people with psychosis and children. Do not take alcoholic beverages. Inform your doctor if you are pregnant or breastfeeding. Patients with diabetes mellitus should monitor blood sugar levels regularly.
Breastfeeding women and patients with hypersensitivity to the medicine can't use it.
Possible side effect
Side effects can be the following: nausea, vomiting, constipation, headache, dizziness, nervousness, sleeplessness, restlessness, tremors, cough, headache, lightheadedness, rash, runny nose, weakness, and weight gain, risk of stroke and ministroke; neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) which symptoms include fever, rigid muscles, confusion; tardive dyskinesia (TD) which symptoms include uncontrolled and abnormal movements of body parts.
Drug interaction
Abilify can interact with the following medicines: blood pressure drugs, carbamazepine, fluoxetine, ketoconazole, paroxetine, rifampin, Phenobarbital, fluconazole, verapamil, itaconazole, cimetedine, diltiazem, indinavir, quinidine and others. Inform your doctor about all prescribed and over-the-counter medications.
Missed dose
Abilify is taken once daily, so take the missed dose as soon as you remember. If the next dose is within 12 hours, do not take the missed dose and resume your normal dosing schedule. Never double the dose of this medication.
If you think you have overdosed the medicine seek emergency medical help at once. The overdose symptoms are vomiting, somnolence, tremor, hypertension, hypokalemia, tachycardia, convulsion, etc.
Store the medicine at room temperature in a tight dry container out of reach of children and pets. Do not use after expiration term.
The information presented at the site has a general character. Note please this information cannot be used for self-treatment and self diagnosis. You should consult with your doctor or health care adviser regarding any specific instructions of your condition. The information is reliable, but we concede it could contain mistakes. We are not responsible for any direct, indirect, special or other damage caused by use of this information on the site and also for consequences of self-treatment.
Packaging info
This is how your parcel will look like, the images are photographs of real shipments.
It has the size of a normal protected envelope and it does not disclose its contents.


text:
Interpres, 1932
University of Rochester yearbook, 1932 Interpres universitatis, 1932
University of Rochester. Junior Class (Creator)
The Interpres was the student yearbook of the University of Rochester. It began publication in 1858 and the last volume was issued in 2015. From 1910 to 1941, a separate yearbook for the College of Women was also published, and was called the Croceus.
Interpres (University of Rochester)
Croceus (University of Rochester)
textstill image
University of Rochester
Rochester, N.Y.
Rare Books, Special Collections, and Preservation, River Campus Libraries, University of Rochester
Interpres, 1932, Interpres (University of Rochester), LD4747.I62, Rare Books, Special Collections, and Preservation, River Campus Libraries, University of Rochester
This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
Reproductions are made upon request but can be subject to restrictions. Permission to publish materials from the collection must currently be requested. Please note that some materials may be copyrighted or restricted. It is the researcher's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other case restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the collections. For more information contact email@example.com


text:
Greetings Distillers! Your hosts Mac & Ryan have returned from holiday festivities and eastern climes to bring you another episode of Disney Distilled!
This week, we are going easy and featuring the Longboard Lager from Kona Brewing Company- as served in Trader Sams' Enchanted Tiki Bar!
1 bottle of Longboard Lager
Grab a bottle opener and open 'er up!
In this episode, there are some quick news stories, and then on to our main topic- our 2018 Walt Disney World trip report! Including all the new experiences at Pandora in Animal Kingdom, the good, the bad, and the ugly of night-time spectaculars and wishes granted at non-Disney parks?
Want to share a Disney-related drink recipe with us? Have some comments about this episode? Have a kind word to spread? Then leave a comment below!
Listen now:
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS


text:
This article is more than 1 year old
Skype IDs hijackable by ANY FOOL who knows your email address
Doesn't need access to it, just to know it. Sheesh!
A vulnerability in Skype allows anyone to hijack its users' accounts just by knowing or guessing a punter's registered email address.
The embarrassing security hole, which is trivial to abuse, was first discussed on a Russian underground forum three months ago. Last night a Russian blog publicised the bug, and details of the flaw circulated the internet. The hijack is triggered by signing up for a new Skype account using the email address of another registered user. No access to the victim's inbox is required; one just simply needs to know the address.
Creating an account this way generates a warning that the email address is already associated with another user, but crucially the voice-chat website does not prevent the opening of the new account. From there it's possible to log into the service and request a new password for the victim's account: a security token is sent to the attacker's Skype app allowing the login credential to be reset.
Armed with this token, it is also possible to download private chat logs for the compromised account while the genuine owner is locked out.
In a holding statement, the Microsoft-owned VoIP biz confirmed it has disabled the password reset mechanism as a temporary measure:
We have had reports of a new security vulnerability issue. As a precautionary step we have temporarily disabled password reset as we continue to investigate the issue further. We apologize for the inconvenience but user experience and safety is our first priority.
This is a good move because, as Rik Ferguson of Trend Micro warns, the bug makes account hijacking "child's play".
"In essence the procedure is so simple it could be carried out by even the most inexperienced of computer users," Ferguson explains. "All that was necessary was to create a new Skype ID, and associate it with the email address of your victim.
"Once this procedure is complete, a flaw in the password reset procedure allowed the attacker to assume control over the victim account by using the online password reset form. This would lock the victim out of their Skype account and allow the hacker to receive and respond to all messages destined for that victim until further notice. I tested the vulnerability and the entire process took only a matter of minutes."
Before Skype temporarily disabled password resets, the only way to mitigate against the vulnerability was to register a secret email address with one's Skype account. Costin Raiu, senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab, reports that the Skype account of Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny was hacked using the exploit. ®


text:
Variant types and GADTs
OCaml supports anonymous variant types, of the form type a = [`Foo of int | `Bar of bool], with the appropriate subtyping relations. Subtyping is, in general, kind of tricky, so I have been using these variant types fairly conservatively. (Even if a feature gives you too much rope, it can be manageable and useful if you use discipline.) Indeed, they are remarkably handy for one particular use-case for which I would have normally deployed GADTs. This is the "Combining multiple sum types into a single sum type" use-case.
Consider the following program in Haskell:
data A = Foo Int | Bar Bool data B = Baz Char | Qux
If one would like to define the moral equivalent of A plus B, the most naive way to do this is:
data AorB = A A | B B
But this kind of sucks: I would have preferred some kind of flat namespace by which I could refer to A and B (also, this encoding is not equivalent to data AorB = Foo Int | Bar Bool | Baz Char | Qux in the presence of laziness.) If you use normal sum types in OCaml, you're similarly out of luck. However, you can handily manage this if you use variant types:
type a = [`Foo of int | `Bar of bool] type b = [`Baz of char | `Quz] type a_or_b = [a | b]
Sweet! Note that we're not using the full generality of variant types: I will only ever refer to these variant constructors in the context of a, b or a_or_b: anonymous variant types are right out. This prevents coercion messes.
I can actually pull this off in Haskell with GADTs, although it's certainly not obvious for a beginning programmer:
data A data B data AorB t where Foo :: Int -> AorB A Bar :: Bool -> AorB A Baz :: Char -> AorB B Quz :: AorB B
To pattern match against all constructors, I specify the type AorB t; to only do A I use AorB A, and to only do B I use AorB B. Don't ask me how to specify arbitrary subsets of more than two combined sum types. (Solutions in the comment section welcome, though they will be graded on clarity.)
The Haskell approach does have one advantage, which is that the sum type is still closed. Since OCaml can make no such guarantee, things like bin-prot need to use up a full honking four-bytes to specify what variant it is (they hash the name and use that as a unique identifier) rather than the two bits (but more likely, one byte) needed here. This also means for more efficient generated code.


text:
Foreigner''s "Dirty White Boy" master tracks reveal a state-of-the-art late-''70s recording process
The sound engineers at OEM Inc. have spent thousands of hours with the original masters of the most famous songs ever recorded. They use them to create products like Jammit, an iPhone app that allows you to remix and play along with those original tracks. There are many, many things to learn from those original tracks. Through a partnership with Gearhead Communications, OEM Inc. engineers are sharing their discoveries exclusively with Premier Guitar readers in what we like to call Secrets of the Masters |
I consider it a privilege just to be able to hear the raw multi tracks of some of rock 'n' roll's most famous recordings, so being a part of the OEM team that recreates these classic mixes for use in the Jammit iPhone app is beyond exhilarating. "Dirty White Boy" is one of three songs featured in the Jammit: Classic Rock Vol. 1 app for the iPhone (along with Deep Purple's "Smoke on the Water" and Alice Cooper's "I'm Eighteen") and I thought it would be worth relaying some of the thoughts I had while working with the multi-tracks of this historic recording.
This SMPTE-synced, 48-track session (using both master and slave 2" analog tapes) would have been state of the art in the spring of 1979. With Roy Thomas Baker (Queen, Journey) at the helm, who was legendary even then, "Dirty White Boy" not only kicked off Foreigner's classic 1979 record Head Games, but was the album's biggest hit, peaking at #12 on the Billboard singles chart. Geoff Workman engineered this song at Atlantic Records Studios in New York City. He went on to record with bands like Twisted Sister and Mötley Crüe—acts known for the kind of raw, biting mid-range presence that exists in this Foreigner song. For the time, this was certainly a departure from the typically round, fat tones of the disco era that was simultaneously gasping its last breaths.
Sonic Evaluation
The box of the original "Dirty White Boy" reel. Click here to see a larger image. |
Missing in Action
It's always interesting to hear outtakes or tracks that were muted and consequently not included into the final mix that we're all accustomed to hearing. This Foreigner song has several lead guitar moments that, for whatever reason, did not go the distance. Mick Jones had several Jimmy Page-like moments that were momentarily muted on the console during the final mix—this is clear because they shared a track with the solo and other lead lines that did make their way into music history. There were also ten bars, a revolution of an additional end chorus, that were edited out of the final arrangement. This would have occurred via tape edit on the final 2-track master.
Re-Creation Story
What a difference a few decades makes. Like many '70s-era mixes, "Dirty White Boy" basically sounds like the sum of its parts. The raw, unmixed tracks already resemble the sound of the final original mix. Would we love this song any more or less had Jones' Jimmy Page-like moments made the final cut? Would this song have sounded the same if the band and the production team had different technology back then? Though interesting to think about, those questions aren't critical to our mission.
My challenge was s to get as close to the overall tonality of the original without having the actual console and outboard gear that were used to create it in the first place. Short of having a time machine to go back and request that RTB and Workman print stems during the mix session, all of us OEM engineers go to extraordinary lengths to re-create these mixes with accuracy, reverence, and the love that these classic tracks deserve. Basically we take the digitized tracks of the original master multi-track tapes, painstakingly replicate the original mix, and then format this mix with the unique capability to rebalance the guitar track in relation to the rest of the instruments. It's one thing to appreciate a classic track like "Dirty White Boy;" it's another thing entirely when you can isolate the guitar track (and hear all of its nuances) or remove it entirely from the mix in order to play your own part with it.
To see/hear how you can play along to and make new mixes of "Dirty White Boy" and other songs from the original multi-track masters, check out www.jammit.com
Frank Gryner is a multi-platinum engineer whose credits include bands like A Perfect Circle, Matrix Soundtracks, Rob Zombie, and Tommy Lee. Frank's technical expertise in audio system design has been applied to location studios for the likes of Filter, Perry Farrell and John Paul Jones.
Read MoreShow less


text:
The Last Days of American Crime
ebook ∣ Issues 1-3 · The Last Days of American Crime
By Rick Remender
Sign up to save your library
With an OverDrive account, you can save your favorite libraries for at-a-glance information about availability. Find out more about OverDrive accounts.
Find this title in Libby, the library reading app by OverDrive.
Search for a digital library with this title
Title found at these libraries:
Loading... |
From Rick Remender, the critically acclaimed writer of Punisher and Fear Agent. In the not-too-distant future, as a final response to terrorism and crime, the U.S. government plans in secret to broadcast a signal making it impossible for anyone to knowingly commit unlawful acts. To keep this from the public, the government creates a distraction, installing a new currency system using digital charge cards. Enter Graham Bricke, a career criminal never quite able to hit the big score. In a grand scheme, Graham intends to steal one of the charging stations, skip the country and live off unlimited funds for the rest of his life. But the media has leaked news of the anti-crime signal one week before it was to go live... and now Graham and his team have just a few days to turn the heist of the century into the last crime in American history.


text:
[ by Charles Cameron — the Pope announces his retirement — from a life of power to a life of prayer ]
The Code of Canon Law states in Canon 332, No. 2:
If it should happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that he makes the resignation freely and that it be duly manifested, but not that it be accepted by anyone.
In accordance with this canon, Pope Benedict XVI made the declaration seen in the video above, in which he said that he would resign from his pontificate at the end of this month. The Vatican's English text of his Declaratio reads:
Dear Brothers,
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today's world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
From the Vatican, 10 February 2013
Pope Benedict's tweet as @pontifex yesterday offers an instructive and succinct insight into the Holy Father's personal considerations:
I have written on Pope Benedict's ecumenism, all too briefly about his sacramental theology and liturgical writings, of his interfaith work with Muslims, of his remarks contrasting power and the kingdom, and exalting humility and joy as the prime Christian virtues — and most recently and lightheartely, of his opening a twitter account.
The Anglican blogger who styles himself Archbishop Cranmer (despite the fact that his namesake was burned at the stake in 1556 for declaring the pope of his own day the antichrist) gets it right IMO when he writes:
Pope Benedict XVI has been the most searing intellect to occupy the Chair of St Peter for at least a couple of centuries, and the vacuum he leaves will be immense. It was an enormous blessing to the Church that his pontificate coincided with the archepiscopacy of Rowan Williams: together they were theological giants in a sea of prelate pygmies.
Likewise, I am with Damian Thompson, who blogs at the Telegraph, in saying:
He has renewed the worship of the Church, reconnecting it to the majesty and deep piety of the past. He has forged new links with non-Catholics, for example by bringing ex-Anglicans into the fold through the Ordinariate. He has promulgated teaching documents further integrating the love and teaching of Christ with the structures of the Church – structures that, it would appear, he feels now unable to continue ruling.
and concluding:
He will be intensely missed by those of us for whom he was, in his quiet way, the most inspiring Pope of our lifetimes.
Pope Benedict's great gift to the Church has been his emphasis on beauty in liturgy, his great gift to the world his Encyclical on social justice, Caritas in Veritate: now, perhaps, he is giving himself the greatest gift, that of retirement into "a life dedicated to prayer".


text:
Snow-Storm in August
By Jefferson Morley
By Jefferson Morley
By Jefferson Morley
By Jefferson Morley
Category: 19th Century U.S. History | Domestic Politics
Category: 19th Century U.S. History | Domestic Politics
Paperback $17.00
Apr 09, 2013 | ISBN 9780307477484
Roll, Jordan, Roll
The War Before the War
American Sphinx
Unfamiliar Fishes
The Problem of Democracy
Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl
James Madison
His Excellency
Praise for Jefferson Morley's Snow-Storm in August:
"History so fresh it feels alive. . . . After reading Jefferson Morley's vibrant account, one can never hear 'The Star-Spangled Banner' the same way again."
—David Maraniss, author of Barack Obama: The Story
"Fascinating. . . . An exploration of America's capital city at a time when the fault line over slavery had become impossible to ignore. . . . [Morley's] plunge beneath the surface of history exposes realities more true to daily experience than executive proclamations or speeches in Congress. . . . Snow-Storm in August deepens our appreciation of how slavery made a mockery of the founding and made the Civil War as close to inevitable as any event in our history."
—The Washington Post
"A vibrant and illuminating picture of the antebellum capital at a time when national stability depended on placating the owners of slaves. . . . [Morley] reveals a tangle of back stories that eventually lead deep into a tension-filled landscape of class resentments, provocative abolitionism and proslavery passions. It is a world peopled with vivid characters both black and white, among them, most intriguingly, the city's district attorney, Francis Scott Key, the author of 'The Star-Spangled Banner.'"
—The Wall Street Journal
"Morley's gripping, fast-paced narrative captures all the drama that encompasses a rich cast of characters that includes Andrew Jackson, Francis Scott Key, Roger Taney, Sam Houston, and a host of others who inhabited the young nation's capital. . . . Morley has given readers a noteworthy, insightful look into an often overlooked chapter in American history."
"An elegant, readable narrative . . . touches on themes still relevant today . . . racial tensions, simmering resentment over economic disparity, influence peddling among the powerful and the red-blue divide between conservatives and progressives."
—The Minneapolis Star Tribune
"Jefferson Morley has vividly and factually recreated a largely lost but pivotal time in Jacksonian Washington, an emerging, still somewhat primitive capital city where racial tensions among its complex mix of white, free black, and enslaved residents inevitably lead to violence and push the debate over abolition into the houses of Congress and the President. The historical characters, famous and forgotten, come to life in affecting and surprising ways without fictional artifice, a tribute to Morley's meticulous research and empathetic narrative style."
—Leonard Downie Jr., former executive editor of The Washington Post
"Absorbing. . . . This book reminds us how deeply entrenched proslavery forces were in the nation's capital and what a struggle it was for African Americans to receive justice and for abolitionists to be heard. . . . An enlightening account of racial tension in pre-Civil War America."
"Morley vividly recreates the episodes connected to the riot, and dramatically depicts the personalities involved, giving important insight into race relations before the Civil War."
—The Columbus Dispatch
"Salon Washington correspondent Jefferson Morley boldly and elegantly recreates a moment in time when free black businessmen mingled with their white counterparts while proponents of slavery and abolitionists struggled to co-exist in the nation's bustling capital. . . . A crackling good tale of the deep impact of race and politics on a young nation struggling to create its identity."
—Publishers Weekly, starred review
"A sprightly social history. . . . Morley ably weaves the many strands together. . . . A suspenseful tale, culminating in the court of law where Key upheld the country's oppression of African-Americans and thereby helped shape the rancorous debate over slavery. . . . Elegant and nimble history of a series of events likely unknown to many readers."
—Kirkus Reviews
21 Books You've Been Meaning to Read
Just for joining you'll get personalized recommendations on your dashboard daily and features only for members.
Find Out More Join Now Sign In


text:
Park Trails
There are walking and biking paths in other parks throughout the city.
North Main Park
Including a portion of sidewalk on N. Main Street and Ashley Avenue, North Main Park features an approximately .5 mile paved and mulched trail around the park's softball diamond, basketball court, playground and picnic area.
Gower Park
Gower Park features an approximately .75 mile paved walking loop around the park's baseball diamonds, tennis courts, basketball courts, playgrounds and wooded shelter area. Trail users must utilize the parking lot or adjacent grassed area to complete the loop.
McPherson Park
McPherson Park features an approximately .75 mile paved walking loop around the park's playgrounds, miniature golf course, tennis courts, shuffleboard, bandstand and shelter.
Holmes Park
Holmes Park features an asphalt trail and concrete sidewalk loop around the parks perimeter that is almost .5 mile long. The park is also home to a baseball diamond, shelter and disc golf course.
Cleveland Park Fitness Trail
Located within Cleveland Park, this 16-station fitness trail is linked by a paved hiking path.
Hiking & Mountain Biking Trails
Timmons Park
The Timmons Park Hiking and Mountain Bike Trails cover approximately 1.5 miles along the banks of a small creek. The trail winds through the 27-acre park and can accommodate the beginner rider, as well as, challenge the more advanced rider.
Troop 19 Trail
The Troop 19 Trail is approximately 1.25 miles and weaves through a wooded area
Cleveland Park Eagle Trail
The Eagle Trail in Cleveland Park covers approximately .5 mile in the woods above the park and connects the tennis court area to the south end of the park. There are access points along Lakehurst Drive, Woodland Way
View a map of hiking and mountain biking trails at Timmons and Cleveland parks.
Sliding Rock Creek Trail, in the Nicholtown community
The 1.3 mile soft surface trail is located in the Sliding Rock/Green Forest Park area adjacent to Sterling Elementary and the Swamp Rabbit Trail in the Nicholtown neighborhood. Initially conceived as a mountain biking experience, the trail is suited for biking, hiking, trail running or nature walks.
Fernwood Nature Trail at Cleveland Park
Fernwood Nature Trail is a short trail of less than .5 mile, winding through a mature hardwood portion of Cleveland Park. It was developed by the city of Greenville Parks & Recreation Department along with the William Bartram Group, S.C. Chapter of the Sierra Club. For several years, these two organizations have worked together to define, clear and maintain the trail, identify plants, and develop interpretive materials. Many years ago, the Fernwood Nature Trail was part of an old horse trail.
The trail is great for birdwatchers or the casual ambler, the trail's objective is to provide an enjoyable and educational experience. There are 24 numbered sites along the trail help users identify different plant and tree species. A quiet and observant walker may be able to see some of the park's wildlife, including many bird types, squirrels, chipmunks, frogs, lizards, turtles, snakes (almost certainly not poisonous), insects and spiders.
Please stay on the trail to lessen erosion of the surrounding land and prevent destruction of the fragile wildflowers and other special plants along the trail. Beware of poison ivy, although it is periodically cleared from the trail, the woods are an ideal poison ivy habitat.


text:
Press Release
Idaho Man Pleads Guilty To Terrorism And Weapons Offenses In Connection With November 2011 Shooting At The White House-Defendant Arrested Within Days Of Attack-
For Immediate Release
U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia
WASHINGTON - Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a 22-year-old man from Idaho Falls, Idaho, who traveled to the District of Columbia and fired at least eight rounds at the White House in November 2011, pled guilty today in federal court to terrorism and weapons offenses.
Ortega-Hernandez pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to one count of injury to a dwelling and placing lives in jeopardy within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as well as one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. Additionally, he admitted that the attack was a terrorist act, and therefore, a sentencing enhancement under the United States Sentencing Guidelines is applicable.
The guilty plea was announced by U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr., Valerie Parlave, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office, and Kathy A. Michalko, Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office of the U.S. Secret Service.
As a result of his plea, Ortega-Hernandez will face a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years of incarceration, and a total of 24 to 27 ½ years of imprisonment pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The plea agreement also provides that the United States will dismiss the 17 remaining counts charged in the indictment at the time of sentencing. The Honorable Rosemary M. Collyer scheduled sentencing for Jan. 10, 2014.
"Firing an assault rifle at the White House to make a political statement is terrorism, plain and simple," said U.S. Attorney Machen. "As we have seen this week, gunmen who come to the nation's capital bent on violence can inflict terrible damage. This act of cowardice put lives at risk. Today's plea demonstrates that those who come to the District of Columbia, planning to use violence to send a message, should expect to spend decades behind bars."
"Through the extensive efforts of the FBI's Violent Crimes Task Force and Evidence Response Team, the bullets that Mr. Ortega-Hernandez has admitted to shooting were recovered from the White House," said Assistant Director in Charge Parlave. "This expert team's examination of impact points allowed for the FBI to identify the trajectory of the shots, which furthered our investigation into Mr. Ortega-Hernandez and held him responsible for this crime of violence."
"The collaborative effort between the FBI, U.S. Attorney's Office and U.S. Secret Service helped ensure the successful outcome of this case," said Special Agent in Charge Michalko. "It is through effective partnerships such as these that we are able to accomplish our shared goal of ensuring the safety and security of the public."
According to the government's evidence, the events unfolded like this:
Beginning in 2010, Ortega-Hernandez made repeated statements to many friends and associates in Idaho about his contempt for the federal government, and he espoused numerous theories regarding how the federal government was seeking to control Americans through Global Positioning System chips, fluoride, and aspartame. He also criticized the federal government for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, claiming that the United States was "bullying" other countries to obtain oil. He made numerous statements vilifying the President of the United States, calling him "the devil" and "the anti-Christ," among other things. On numerous occasions, he told friends and associates that "he was on a mission from God to take out Obama."
On March 19, 2011, Ortega-Hernandez purchased a Romanian Cugir SA semi-automatic (AK-47-style) assault rifle from an individual in Idaho for $550. He also purchased more than 1,200 rounds of ammunition to use with the weapon. In August 2011, Ortega-Hernandez purchased a scope kit on the Internet and asked a friend to install it on the weapon for him. Over the course of six months, Ortega-Hernandez repeatedly practiced firing the weapon at a desolate crater located on land owned by the Bureau of Land Management outside of Idaho Falls, Idaho.
On Oct. 23, 2011, Ortega-Hernandez made two short videos at the home of one of his friends. In the videos, he praised Osama bin Laden for having the courage to stand up to the United States, and called for a revolution against the federal government. Ortega-Hernandez described himself as a "cold-hearted warrior of God" and declared, "it's time for Armageddon."
After making the two videos, Ortega-Hernandez departed Idaho Falls and drove more than 2,000 miles, armed with his Romanian Cugir SA semi-automatic assault rifle with the attached scope, and more than 180 rounds of ammunition.
On Nov. 11, 2011, at approximately 8:50 p.m., Ortega-Hernandez drove southbound on 15th Street NW and made a right turn onto Constitution Avenue NW. Shortly after passing the entrance to the Ellipse, he stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road. With the passenger-side window of his car lowered, he pointed his assault rifle out the passenger-side window of the car and aimed directly at the White House. He fired at least eight rounds at the White House.
Following the shooting, Ortega-Hernandez fled the scene, driving erratically and at a high rate of speed westbound on Constitution Avenue. Moments later, he lost control of the vehicle and crashed near the ramp from Constitution Avenue to the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge in front of the United States Institute of Peace. After efforts to restart the vehicle failed, Ortega-Hernandez fled from the vehicle on foot.
Following the crash, law enforcement launched a multi-jurisdictional search for Ortega-Hernandez. On Nov. 14, 2011, he was photographed riding inside an empty hopper car on a cargo train in the area of Shenandoah Junction, W. Va. The train was headed in a northwest direction away from Washington, D.C. The following day, he was identified standing outside a car wash in South Greensburg, Pa., and asking for a ride. A witness drove him to a store in Greensburg, Pa., where he purchased some items. He appeared on the store's surveillance video. On Nov. 16, 2011, Ortega-Hernandez returned to the hotel in Indiana, Pa., where he had previously stayed with friends. Upon his return, the hotel staff notified the Secret Service, and the Secret Service coordinated his arrest by the Pennsylvania State Police.
The FBI examined the area around the White House and located approximately eight bullet impact points on the south side of the building on or above the second story. Two bullets were recovered from the White House: one from a window frame on the Truman Balcony and one found on the ground east of the South entrance. The FBI determined that both of those bullets were fired from Ortega-Hernandez's assault rifle. The FBI also recovered a bullet jacket that was found in the window sill of the Truman Balcony, which was also fired from Ortega-Hernandez's assault rifle.
At the time of the shooting, two U.S. Secret Service officers were stationed on the northeast section of the roof of the White House. One of the bullets fired by Ortega-Hernandez struck the roof of the White House within approximately 20 feet of where the officers were stationed. The officers each reported hearing approximately six shots fired. In addition, another U.S. Secret Service Officer was stationed at the South Portico underneath the Truman balcony at the time of the shooting. Several of the bullets fired by Ortega-Hernandez struck the Truman balcony directly above where this officer was stationed. This officer heard approximately six to eight shots and the sound of what appeared to be debris falling from above. The officer took cover behind the stairwell, drew a firearm, and readied a shotgun.
In announcing the plea, U.S. Attorney Machen, Assistant Director in Charge Parlave and Special Agent in Charge Michalko expressed their appreciation to all those who diligently investigated this case from the FBI's Washington Field Office, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Park Police. They also acknowledged the assistance provided by the Pennsylvania State Police; the Arlington County, Va. Police Department; the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of Pennsylvania; the FBI Laboratory at Quantico, Va.; FBI field offices in Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City, including the Idaho Falls Resident Agency, and Secret Service field offices in Pittsburgh, Salt Lake City, and Boise, Idaho. Additionally they thanked those who worked on the case from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, including Paralegal Specialists Jenifer Rowe and Devron Elliott, Victim/Witness Coordinator Dawn Tolson-Hightower, and Litigation Technology Specialist Leif Hickling.
Finally, they commended the efforts of Special Assistant U.S. Attorney George P. Varghese and Assistant U.S. Attorney Alessio D. Evangelista of the National Security Section of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, who are prosecuting the case.
13-320Updated February 19, 2015