text:
AIG: Uncle Sam's do-over
Fed restructures loan and creates 2 programs to rescue insurance giant from bad bets. Treasury buys $40 billion in shares. AIG quarterly loss: $25 billion.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Troubled insurer American International Group got a reworked $152.5 billion deal from the federal government Monday, as the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department made significant changes to the terms of the company's original bailout.
The Fed announced that it will reduce AIG's original $85 billion bridge loan to $60 billion, cut the interest rate by 5.5 percentage points and extend the borrowing period to five years from two years.
In addition, the Treasury will use its special authority under last month's $700 billion bailout law - the so-called Troubled Asset Relief Program - to purchase $40 billion in preferred stock.
The new bailout was worked out between government officials and AIG executives over the weekend. AIG was having difficulty paying back its original bridge loan, which it intended to use to sell off many of its subsidiaries to restore the company to a stable condition.
"This is definitely what AIG needed in the sense that it got rid of the first deal," said Donald Light, senior analyst with Celent. "This one is more tailored to the actual issues affecting the company and has a much better chance of getting AIG the help it needs."
Shares of AIG jumped on the news, finishing the day 8% higher at $2.28 a share. But shares fallen about 90% since the company received its first bailout in mid-September.
The credit crisis has proven to be a difficult environment to spin off assets. Furthermore, the company's investors continued to demand that the insurer post collateral to back its credit default swap agreements - essentially insurance contracts that AIG had sold to customers worldwide - forcing AIG to borrow more and more from the government. As the company drew down billions, the high interest rate on the original loan became too punitive.
"The Treasury determined AIG was a systemically significant institution," a Treasury official said. "Bringing more equity to the company puts AIG in a better position to dispose of its assets, and it was done to protect the taxpayer."
The Fed is also creating two new entities designed to stanch the bleeding in two of the company's divisions that are threatening to topple the insurer.
First, to shore up the insurer's shaky securities lending business, the Federal Reserve of New York will inject $22.5 billion and AIG $1 billion into an entity that will purchase $23.5 billion of residential mortgage-backed securities. This will take the place of a $37.8 billion lending facility made available to AIG last month.
In this division, AIG lent securities to others for a fee and invested the money elsewhere -- much of it in mortgage-backed securities -- hoping for a gain. But it ran into trouble after the mortgage-backed securities declined in value, leaving AIG unable to unwind the loans as the deals expire. AIG said this is the major reason for its recent liquidity issues.
The second entity announced Monday seeks to address the source of the original problems that nearly brought AIG down in mid-September.
Funded with $30 billion from the New York Fed and $5 billion from AIG, it will purchase up to $70 billion of multi-sector collateralized debt obligations, or CDOs, on which AIG's financial products division wrote credit default swaps. As the value of these CDOs plummeted, AIG was forced to post more collateral to back up the swaps. Some 95% of the division's writedowns originate from these multi-sector CDOs.
Once this entity is funded, the credit default swaps on these CDOs will be terminated. This is aimed at stopping the collateral calls that have been overwhelming the insurer.
Analysts speaking on a conference call pressed the company on whether it could convince CDO holders to sell them at 50 cents on the dollar. Executives said the Federal Reserve will drive negotiations and expects them to succeed.
"We cannot continue to hemorrhage cash in posting collateral for credit default swaps," said AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy. "We need to stop that, and we need to stop that now."
Andrew Barile, an insurance consultant at Andrew Barile Consulting Corp., said the bailout will help ease AIG's need to continue to post more collateral. But he said the company will continue to have trouble selling off its subsidiaries. In the current environment, other smaller companies may rather pluck talent away from AIG than assume its unwanted companies.
"People also underestimate the time it takes to sell off assets of an insurance company, which takes months and months," said Barile.
Also on Monday, AIG reported its biggest quarterly loss ever: $24.5 billion, or $9.05 per share, in the third quarter. Excluding one-time charges, AIG lost $9.2 billion, or $3.42 per share, in the three months ended Sept. 8. That compares to a gain of $1.35 per share during the same period a year earlier.
Liddy attributed the poor results to "extreme dislocations and volatility in the capital markets" during the quarter. Insurance on properties destroyed by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike contributed to $1.4 billion of losses for the company.
The giant insurer, which has more than 100,000 employees worldwide, reported revenue of $11.7 billion, down 0.8% from $11.8 billion in the third quarter of 2007.
But in an encouraging sign, ratings agency Fitch said it removed the company from its so-called credit watch list immediately following AIG's announcement, saying the move is important in promoting global financial stability.
The new bailout marks a stunning turn in the Bush administration's efforts to address the escalating financial crisis. It is likely to stoke calls from those advocating federal rescue plans for other troubled companies such as automaker General Motors (GM, Fortune 500), which said Friday it was running dangerously low on cash.
"Clearly there are other industries interested in accessing TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds, and the Treasury will continue to work on a strategy that will most effectively deploy the remaining funds," a Treasury official said Monday.
Many taxpayers have expressed anger at the government's bailout, saying it rewards risky and unscrupulous behavior of corporations. But Liddy said taxpayers have much to benefit from an equity stake in AIG.
"It is not exactly a bailout, because the American taxpayer will and has been offered considerable returns due to their equity stake in AIG," Liddy said. "This plan is a win-win: When things get better, the government will do well, and AIG will do well."
The Treasury said its $40 billion capital injection into AIG is not part of the $250 billion that was set aside for equity purchase of banks. Rather, the funds came from an additional $100 billion that President Bush requested. The transaction's "one-off" status allowed the government to impose more stringent criteria on executive compensation than on banks receiving Treasury assistance.
As part of the new deal announced Monday, Treasury will limit "golden parachutes" and freeze the size of the annual bonus pool for the top 70 company execs. Most banks participating in the Treasury program face compensation curbs on only their top five executives.
AIG has come under fire from lawmakers and state officials for seeking to make big payouts to former executives and planning pricey corporate events after receiving the federal loans.
In mid-September, AIG (AIG, Fortune 500) teetered on collapse, pressured by the effects of the credit crisis. Worried that the company's failure would domino through the rest of the financial system, the government provided an $85 billion bridge loan. Later, the Fed gave the insurer $37.8 billion line of credit, and made available $20.9 billion in a debt purchasing facility.
Under the new plan, AIG has borrowed the full $40 billion from the Treasury to pay off the $37.8 billion from the Fed. It has drawn down $15.3 billion of the $20.9 billion it can borrow from the Fed's Commercial Paper Funding Facility, and it has already borrowed $21 billion of its reduced $60 billion bridge loan.
The rate on the bridge loan was reduced to 3 percentage points over 3-month Libor from 8.5 points over Libor - currently 5.24%, compared to 10.74%. On the unused portion, AIG now has to pay 0.75% interest, down from 8.5% in the original deal.
"The original bailout was just too onerous for the timing and the cycle," said Barile.
Liddy, who was installed as CEO after the government's September rescue, attempted Monday to quell fears that the company was rapidly losing business. He said that AIG remains "well-capitalized and disciplined in insurance writing," and it continues to hold on to the vast majority of its clients - losing just 10% of its insurance business.
But Barile said given the vast size of AIG, that 10% is a huge amount of lost business, and customers will likely continue to leave AIG when their policies expire.
"With Fortune 500 companies set to renew their insurance policies on Jan. 1, it will be a real test to see small the company can get," he said.
CNNMoney.com senior writer Tami Luhby contributed to this article.


text:
Mrs. M. Beckwith,
Garrison NY
Dear Madam-
Replying to your letter of the 23rd ult., we quote you on six No. 730 chairs, a price of $7.50 each, freight prepaid to your address, and trust we may have your order.
Yours truly,
Kalamazoo Sled Co.
Found in "New Testament Theology: Volume One" by Dr. Willibald Beyschlag. Published by T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1899.
-Click to enlarge photos-

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By Jeff McDonald
T.J. Ford thoroughly enjoyed being a D-Leaguer for a day.
Of course, the seven-year NBA veteran didn't have to endure a long, cramped bus ride, sleep in a less-than-five-star hotel or endure any of the other spartan accoutrements that accompany life in pro basketball's minor leagues.
"It was just a practice," Ford, the Spurs' backup point guard, said of his one-day rehab stint with the Austin Toros. "I haven't played a lot. I'm coming back from an injury. I think I had enough days off."
Ford missed 22 games after suffering a torn left hamstring Jan. 10 in Milwaukee. He has totaled less than 30 minutes in three games since his return.
Under an NBA rule new for this season, teams are permitted to send veterans to the Development League, with the player's consent. In years past, players with more than two seasons of NBA service time were ineligible for the D-League.
The Spurs assigned Ford to the Toros on Monday, in order to get him extra practice time on a day coach Gregg Popovich gave his team the day off.
Ford didn't even have to leave San Antonio to join the Toros. They held their practice at the Spurs practice facility.
"It felt good to just come in a play, get up and a down and condition my legs, because it's still a work in progress," Ford said.
As expected, the Spurs recalled Ford on Tuesday, allowing him to practice with the team. He will be available with the Spurs tonight when the Spurs face New York.
Full strength at last: For the first time since Jan. 2, the Spurs will list no players on the injury report for tonight's game against the Knicks. The entire roster – sans rookie point guard Cory Joseph, who is playing in the D-League – participated in Monday's practice.
That includes power forward Tim Duncan, who has recovered from the stomach bug that limited him in Sunday's loss to Denver.
Starting center DeJuan Blair played just four minutes against the Nuggets after suffering a knee contusion less than a minute into the game, but his sparing use was due to performance issues, not injury.
Discount double think: When Knicks forward Steve Novak knocks down a few 3-pointers in a row, he'll often punctuate his scoring with a "title belt" celebration maneuver lifted from Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
The move has become known as the "discount double check," after Rodgers' series of commercials for State Farm.
In San Antonio, where Novak finished last season and was briefly in training camp with the Spurs in December, his former teammates don't have to wonder how such showmanship might have gone over with Popovich.
"Not very well," Matt Bonner said with a laugh. "I'd expect to hear a (substitution) horn at the next dead ball, for sure."
Bonner, who ranks just behind Novak as the NBA's fourth-most accurate 3-point shooter, says he has no plans to develop his own signature celebration move.
"I thought about doing like a tai chi move, but that didn't pan out," Bonner said. "My first thought after I make a shot is to get back on defense."
Twitter: @JMcDonald_SAEN


text:
LOS ANGELES — Soon you'll be able to wake up to a McDonald's coffee without going to McDonald's.
The fast food chain said Tuesday it's collaborating with Kraft to start selling its McCafé brand in grocery stores early next year.
The take-home coffee will come in a variety of flavors including those that are already available in McDonald's restaurants like "premium roast," French vanilla and hazelnut.
Single-serve pods in some of the flavors will also be available for use with Keurig's brewing system.
McDonald's CEO Don Thompson has said his restaurants sell more coffee than anyone else in the country.
In a bid to draw more customers, McDonald's gave the stuff away for free in spring, around the same time when competitor Taco Bell rolled out its highly-anticipated first-ever breakfast menu.
McDonald's venture with Kraft could also be seen as a swipe at its biggest competitor for coffee sales: Starbucks.
Kraft used to distribute Starbucks coffee in grocery stores, but stopped in 2010 when the coffee chain dropped out of the partnership. The breakdown led to a protracted fight that Stabucks settled less than a year ago for $2.7 billion.


text:
Diadem of olive leaves designed (?) and manufacured by Castellani and Sons, Rome. Gold.1 1/4 x 5 7/8 x 4 13/16 inches. Private collection.
I would like to thank Susan Weber Soros, Director of the Bard Graduate Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, Design, and Culture, which holds copyright on this image, and the owners of the original object, for sharing this image with the Victorian Web.
Soros, Susan Weber, and Stefanie Walker. The Castellani and Italian Archeological Jewelry. New Haven: Yale UP, 2004. Cat no. 153.
Last modified 11 February 2005


text:
A Writer's Beef
Ernest Hemingway's preferred hamburger recipe was a master work in its own right
If my ideal hamburger were a novel, its author would be Ernest Hemingway: I prefer my burgers powerful and spare, brutal yet refined. But when I learned that Papa himself was partial to a maximalist patty—one containing minced carrot and tomato, cheddar cheese, grated apple, capers, India relish, and a brace of spices all mixed directly into the beef—I had to try it out for myself.
Hemingway's hamburger recipe resurfaced only recently, one of 2,500 pieces of ephemera digitized in 2013 by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston. The typewritten page is a testament to the meticulousness with which Hemingway approached food. Titled "Papa's Favorite Wild West Hamburger" and covered in handwritten marginalia, it's a literary work in its own right. "Let the meat sit, quietly marinating," he writes. "Now make four fat, juicy patties with your hands."
While the document is fascinating, the burger itself is spectacular. Juicy and vibrant, the complex patty stands in stark contrast with Hemingway's unembellished prose. But like the man's writing, it's masterful.
Keep Reading
Continue to Next Story


text:
I have lived through three monumental historical events. I remember only two of them.
I do not remember the dropping of the two atomic bombs in August of 1945. As symbols of scientific world transformation, this constituted the most momentous event of the 20th century. This breakthrough, so far, has not led to nuclear war, even though on several occasions, it looked as though nuclear war was a distinct possibility. Nevertheless, the arrival of the nuclear age heralded a transformation of the modern world. We have not yet seen the end of that transformation.
Martin van Creveld, the great military historian in the State of Israel, has argued that the nuclear age ruined the plans of empire for large nations. They could no longer risk a war with each other. Yet spending on empire increased. Today, large states face resistance from non-State groups. The Soviet Union went down when the Afghans beat them by using Stinger missiles. The USSR was an empire, and an empire that loses to insurgents has lost its reason for existence.
We are about to experience a similar defeat in the same country.
There have been two other major events since 1945. I suppose most people would agree on at least one of them: the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 31, in 1991. While the collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 was the symbolic evidence of the collapse of the Soviet empire, that did not become clear until August of 1991. Historically, there has been nothing to match that disintegration. No empire that large ever collapsed that fast without bloodshed. I was here to see it.
There are old-line anti-Communists who still insist that it was all fake, that it is all a deception, that the Communists are still running the show in Russia. They do not understand the difference between fascism and Communism. The Russian system is fascist to the core: State-run capitalism.
We are now seeing what hard-core liberals always predicted would happen: the economic convergence of the two systems, USA and USSR. The system of economic convergence is fascism. That was what the liberals always wanted, but called it something else: "economic democracy" or "the government-business alliance."
The second event that I regard as almost comparable in importance to the collapse of the Soviet Union was the collapse of the American banking system that took place in September and October of 2008.
No one saw that collapse coming in August. The senior rulers of the United States — I do not mean politicians — have watched in horror as institutions that had survived since the mid-19th century went down: investment banks. These were banks that did not take deposits from the general public. They pooled large quantities of capital from private, wealthy investors. Within a matter of weeks, that business model collapsed. The investment banks scrambled to restructure their legal operations so as to be defined as commercial banks and therefore become eligible for the Federal bailout money. Meanwhile, huge commercial banks almost went bankrupt. They did not go bankrupt only because of government intervention and because larger banks absorbed them. Wachovia went down. Washington Mutual went down. The share prices of the two largest banks in the United States, the Bank of America and Citigroup, are still close to penny share status.
Anyone who does not understand the magnitude of what is taking place is an economic ignoramus. I have plenty of these ignorami contacting me, telling me it was all planned by the insiders. The conspiracy has won again! In their worldview, the conspiracy always wins. That is because they believe that the conspiracy has the attributes of God. It is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
Here is their intellectual problem. They do not believe in the free market. They cannot conceive of a social institution based on voluntarism that can break the backs of government planners and central bankers. They will believe anything but this. They think of themselves as defenders of the free market. But they do not grasp the power of the free market to enforce consumers' decisions.
The conspiracy of well-placed insiders is now tottering. The whole structure of the national American political system has rested on the solvency of the largest American banks. These banks have all been called into question. They are now gutted.
The thought that commercial bank insiders actively demolished trillions of dollars of their own equity as part of a conspiratorial plan is so imbecilic, so outrageous, so ludicrous, that I am convinced that these conspiracy worshippers have lost whatever remained of their minds. They have been gutted intellectually, just as the banks have been gutted financially.
Some of them probably think that Communists still run Russia. Ex-Communists do: bureaucrats, mobsters, and KGB agents. But Communism is dead. How do I know? Look at a map of Russia. Look for the old names: Stalingrad and Leningrad. Gone. Maps tell a great deal about a civilization. Russian maps tell us that Communism is dead.
The American conspirators have lost the one thing that they thought they had: control over the nation and the nation's finances by means of the fractional reserve banking system. That system is coming unglued, just as Ludwig von Mises said it would, just as Murray Rothbard said it would, and just as those other Austrian economists who understand the enormous weakness of the fractional reserve system had said would eventually take place.
I wonder sometimes if there is anything coherent remaining in what is generally called the conservative movement. Do any of these people have a clue as to what has been taking place? We are seeing the disintegration of the fractional reserve banking system all over the world. It is being held together by bailouts, which are the government equivalent of bailing wire and chewing gum.
The only thing holding the whole structure together is an enormous residual faith in the State and a naïve faith that deficits don't matter. That phrase is associated with supply-side conservatives and the vast majority of those people who call themselves Chicago School economists. Supply-siders said it, and Chicago School economists cautiously chimed in, "Someday, maybe deficits will matter, but not soon. At the margin — this year, next year, and until I am dead — deficits don't matter." It has been the Austrian School economists who have warned, decade after decade, that the increase in the Federal debt would eventually threaten the solvency of the government and the stability of the dollar. Now that this is visibly coming true, we still do not hear from professional economists cries of warning regarding trillion-dollar annual Federal deficits. They say nothing, except when they say it is a good idea, because it is necessary, because we have got to save the banks, because we have got to regulate the economy, and, most of all, because the unhampered free market system really does not work. This is what we are getting from people who have generally been known as free market economists. They are lining up as cheerleaders as the banks go to the Federal trough. The Federal deficit soars into astronomical regions, and the monetary base soars just as fast, yet the academic economists are silent. This is not the silence of the lambs; this is a silence of unindicted co-conspirators, most of whom teach in tax-supported universities and spend their careers writing unreadable articles in unread academic journals in order to get tenure, so that the taxpayers can never fire them. These people are apologists for the State. Most of them have been on a public payroll all of their lives. These are the people who, in the name of conservative free-market principles, are supposed to stand in the gap to warn us that the ship of state is going over the falls.
Don't hold your breath.
What can be done about it? Politically, nothing. The American political system has been soft-core fascist for almost a century. Liberals love to call conservatives fascists. The problem is, the liberals are right. Of course, well-informed conservatives like to call liberals fascists, and they are correct, too. Everyone who believes in the efficiency of the so-called government-business alliance is a fascist.
The fascist State was always an attempt to control private industry by means of inflation, taxation, and regulation. Fascism was always a system of keeping the big boys alive and happy at the expense of the taxpayers. Of course, the faces changed. The system was always one gigantic system of cartels, regulation, and fiat money. It was, in short, everything that the critics of modern capitalism say is wrong with capitalism. This is why John Maynard Keynes wrote this in his Foreword to the German edition of his General Theory (1936).
The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory.
The modern economic system is one gigantic interlocking system of promised bailouts, beginning with Social Security. In commerce, it is a system designed to keep large producers protected from consumers. It has never been anything else ever since the national political triumph of the Progressive movement in the fateful year of 1912. In that year, the three candidates for President were statists to the core, all followers of the Progressivist doctrines, all advocates of central banking, and all happy to see the Federal government expand control over business throughout the country, and throughout the world.
This is not the story we get in the history textbooks, because the textbook writers love what was done in 1912 and subsequently. The public school system has taught that this was the salvation of capitalism ever since.
We are now seeing the unraveling of the entire system, all over the world. Whatever happens from this point on, economic production will be hampered by ever-increasing regulation. The government is now intervening to save the banks, which means that the banks are beholden to the government.
President Obama has said that senior bank officials are not going to be able to receive more than $500,000 a year. They are not going to get money from stock options until the government gets its money back. I think this is great. My only regret is that he didn't say it was $250,000 year. Or maybe $100,000 year. Or maybe about $50,000 a year. Let them live in New York City on that! The whole crew should resign and go into some decent line of work.
Fractional reserve banking has been a con job from the beginning. Rothbard and Mises pointed this out, and they were hated for it. The economists trust bureaucracy. They trust people with Ph.D.'s, just like themselves. But, except at the Federal Reserve, the agencies are run by lawyers and by appointees who hope to get a fat lobbying salary when they leave the government. Why should we think that a bunch of Harvard- and Yale-educated lawyers, who were recruited by New York City banks that were always protected by the Federal Reserve System, would have any idea of how to run an economy? We now know how well they could run the economy. They stripped off million-dollar bonuses for running the system over the falls.
Is not going to get much better. The banks are gutted. The best and the brightest graduates will not be going to go into banking for as long as there is a $500,000 cap on salaries, if Obama gets his way.
As far as I am concerned, the pay cap should be forever. And when the bank-created inflation comes, the government should not change this salary cap to let them benefit by getting a cost-of-living escalator clause. Their predecessors knew how to get rich under a manipulated currency. A far as I'm concerned, their replacements should get poorer the same way.
For over a century, the best and the brightest of the students graduating from the senior universities of the country have been recruited into big government and fractional reserve banking. In other words, they relied on coercion to get rich personally and to direct the growth of American capitalism. They got rich, and capitalism grew, but it grew in terms of malinvestments. It grew because the fiat money was used to lower interest rates, and these lower interest rates led to malinvested capital. Mises showed how this system operated as early as 1912.
Ever since September of 2008, we have seen the fruits of the fiat money roots that Mises warned against almost a century ago. But modern free-market economists are as hostile to Mises's theory of the business cycle as they were hostile to Mises's theory of the economic irrationalism of socialism . . . until the Soviet Union fell. Then, they got religion, but they still never mention Mises. It was as if he had never lived.
Mises? Who is Mises? Yes, the Soviet Union went bankrupt. We didn't think it would in 1986. Except for that lucky guesser Judy Shelton, nobody predicted that it would. We told people that the Soviet Union had remarkable economic growth. Yes, it turned out that the Soviet Union was nothing but Bangladesh with missiles, just as journalist Richard Grenier said in the 1980's. We did not see this at the time. Still, we will take credit for its collapse anyway: the new capitalism defeated it. We will continue to praise the regulated fascist economy that the United States has been over the last hundred years, and call for more of the same. We love economic efficiency, because efficiency lets the State get larger. When people get richer, they can pay more taxes.
This is why academic economists are demanding even more Federal spending to bail out the banks and the other institutions associated with high finance. Almost to a man, they are saying that the bailouts are necessary. Why? Because they have been great proponents of the mixed economy ever since John Maynard Keynes wrote The General Theory in 1936. More than this: ever since the real mentor of American fascist banking, Irving Fisher, back in 1911.
Fisher almost went bankrupt in the Great Depression, yet he is still revered as the greatest economist in American history. He was a fiat money man from day one. He believed that the government and the central bank could control the economy by means of monetary policy. He was the great apologist of the corrupt monetary system which we now suffer from. An academic, he was the high priest. Milton Friedman was little more than an acolyte to Irving Fisher on the money question.
There is real recovery and nominal recovery — recovery in terms of rising prices. Rising wages and rising prices give the illusion of prosperity.
Always in the past, there has been a recovery after a recession. Always in the past, the bailouts have worked to cover up the underlying malinvested capital. Always in the past, the Federal Reserve has inflated, and the economy revived.
This economy will revive, but it will revive on a new basis. It is no longer possible for someone who understands Austrian School economics to look at this economy as anything remotely resembling a free-market economy. At the very core of the free-market economy, as Mises said in 1912, is the monetary system. That system is now completely and openly run by a cartel that is now trapped by the Federal government. The Federal Reserve System is soon going to have to bail out the Federal government. The Federal government is bailing out the commercial banks, and if the Federal government cannot bail out the banks, the Federal Reserve has got to do it directly. In either case, the banks are busted. The capital is gone: wasted. The money is still in people's bank accounts, but the fiat-money-funded projects have turned out to be losers. The skyscrapers are empty. The recovery is going to be a nominal recovery, based on the digits known as dollars. These digits are going to be produced in such massive quantities that prices will shoot up as never before in peacetime America. It is going to be the destruction of the dollar.
Austrian School economists have been predicting this for years, but now we have the Federal Reserve on our side. We can look at the adjusted monetary base, and we can see what is going to happen. Unless the Federal Reserve System raises the reserve requirement, thereby undermining the profitability of the entire banking system, and thereby busting hundreds of banks, including some big ones, the adjusted monetary base is going to be translated into real money. That real money is going to get spent. When it gets spent, it is going to raise prices.
We are seeing the culmination of a century of bad economic policies. Academic economists never sounded the alarm after 1936. They did not sound the alarm because they are the paid agents of the State, certified by earlier generations of paid agents of the State. The State has paid for the services of these men and women, and they perform accordingly. They understand the fundamental rule: "When you take the king's shilling, you do the king's bidding."
The next college-level economics textbook that exposes the Federal Reserve System as the commercial bank cartel's enforcement arm will be the first one.
There is no academic hue and cry against the massive deficits of the Federal government and the massive bailouts by the Federal government. Economists are silent because they have been cheerleaders for the Federal Reserve System from day one. For these people, the Federal Reserve can do no wrong today, because it did wrong from 1929 to 1933, and Milton Friedman exposed this for all to see. What was a great evil of the Federal Reserve during that period, according to Friedman? It did not inflate to offset the contraction of money due to collapsing banks.
Friedman hated free market banking. He disparaged the gold standard. He believed in government control over money. At the core of the free market is money. At the core of Friedman's economics was the State. He just wanted to make the State more efficient.
The academic economists never mention the fact it was the expansionary policies of the Federal Reserve during the 1920's that led to the collapse of the banking system in the early 1930's. The FED had been set up so as to prevent any such collapse, and yet that collapse was the worst collapse in American history. Then what is the right approach? What do the economists say should be done? Give more power to the Federal Reserve System. That is exactly what has been done over the last five months, and the academic economists cheer.
The academic economists say that things will recover. They tell us that it will again be business as usual. They tell us that once we get through this crisis, the American economy will boom once again. They believe in the fascist economy. They believe that government regulation is better than the free market. They believe the government-run, bankruptcy-protected banks, which we now openly have, are better than private, profit-seeking institutions that are not protected by a government-created cartel called the Federal Reserve System. They believe in fascism, and they are going to tell you that everything is fine as the fascist State extends power over every aspect of our lives.
Do I see this as the end of freedom? No, I see it is the end of the fascist State. The monstrosity came close to going belly-up last October. It is on its last, tottering legs. It has lost respect of the public.
The politicians are even convinced the banks were run by a bunch of corrupt, self-serving men, which was in fact the case. What government-protected industry isn't? But that was not why the bankers lost money. They were lured by Alan Greenspan's policies of easy money and low interest rates into believing that the boom was real, and that they could leverage themselves 30 to one or 40 to one and get paid for their wisdom. They were high-paid suckers. The Austrian School economists warned all through the period that this was going to happen. We were all dismissed as cranks.
As the Internet grows in its influence, alternative views can get to a minority of educated people. The success of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in getting Austrian School economics in front of hundreds of thousands of young people, all over the world, who would never have heard about Mises or Rothbard had it not been for the World Wide Web, indicates that the foundations of the modern fascist economy are being undermined where it counts, which is in the minds of bright people who are no longer buying into the system.
In the long run, Keynes was right: the economic policies of politicians today are based on the writings of some obscure economist in the past. Those two economists were Irving Fisher and John Maynard Keynes. Their world is now toppling. Through their disciples, they are like a pair of drunks staggering along, holding up each other. Keynes wanted deficit spending. Fisher wanted a banking system that would cover these deficits.
The money from the central banking system funds the Treasury, and the Treasury in turn bails out the big commercial banks — no longer nearly so big. Everything is based on a daisy chain of digits. Meanwhile, unemployment is rising, production is falling, fear is spreading, loss of faith is spreading, and tens of thousands of formerly highly paid specialists in finance are looking for jobs. This is not a matter of a conspiracy; this is a matter of the free market finally voting no against the conspirators.
There are conservatives who think that all is lost because of the conspiracy. These are people who never did anything anyway. They do not see that we are at the end of an era. We are seeing the culmination of a 500-year era. Jacques Barzun titled his great history of this era, From Dawn to Decadence. We are seeing what Martin Van Creveld called the fall of the state, meaning the nation-state.
These scholars agree: we are seeing the bankruptcy of every Western government that has made too many big promises to too many voters regarding free healthcare and guaranteed retirement. All of it will collapse. The tatters of the promises will point to the tatters of those who made the promises — politicians — and the tatters of the system that supposedly was going to guarantee delivery of the promises.
The academics still believe in the healing power of the State. The voters still believe this, too. But voters are catching on more rapidly than the academics that the State is running out of wiggle room. Millions of voters have figured out that they are going to get stiffed. They don't know what to do about it, but at least they understand that they really are going to get stiffed.
The academics say "no." They keep telling all of us that everything is okay, that a few more trillion-dollar deficits will solve the problem. The doubling of the monetary base in 2009 will have no more disruptive effects than the doubling of the monetary base did in the second half of 2008. They tell us all this, but the public is either oblivious, or else is growing suspicious. We will have another round or two of centralized government, and probably more than one or two rounds of increased monetary expansion. But what we will not have is a restoration of anything resembling the financial world that existed prior to September 2008. That world is gone. The insiders will not get it back. They may get an imitation of it, based on fiat money that does not buy very much, but they will not see the world of 2007 restored. The power base of the modern fascist State is unraveling rapidly.
This is why it is important for you to preserve your assets by not believing the official assurances. Put your money where the experts tell you that you should not put your money. You should take your money out of those segments of the economy into which the experts say you should put your money, and will soon boom. They have ignored the fact that the stock market has been a losing case since March of 2000. They would not admit it then; they will not admit it now. Anybody who bought and held a portfolio of indexed American stocks in March of 2000 has lost well over half of his money. Investors will learn, even though academic economists will not.
What I am saying is this: this time it's different. This time, the fractional reserve banking system has shot its wad. It is begging for ever-larger handouts from the Treasury Department, which needs central bank fiat money to bail out the economy. The public is accepting this grudgingly, and the academic economists are cheering, but the reality is this: this time it's different. You had better adjust your portfolio, your career plans, and your retirement plans accordingly.
February 7, 2009
Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.
Copyright © 2009 LewRockwell.com


text:
This new product called the Phonekerchief is meant to be wrapped around your phone during a romantic dinner to show your respect for your dining partner. $15 at Uncommon Goods starting Nov. 25:
We may be sitting at the same table, but we are not together: a common condition of our over-wired world. It is time to question what truly nurtures the human spirit. The Phonekerchief is a polite way of encouraging others to turn off their phones and helps jump start new etiquette for our digital world. The Phonekerchief is made of a smart material that blocks phone signals and can be worn in any pocket as a symbol of this movement.
OK, I'll agree wrapping your phone in a cloth more concretely symbolizes your dedication to in-person conversation than, say, putting your phone on silent or airplane modes. The down side is that when your phone isn't receiving signal (on the subway, in an elevator, or in a Phonekerchief), it boosts its output to try to reach a repeater, which drains your battery faster. LessEMF carries fabrics that shield EMF in the cell phone (800-2500 Mhz band) range in case you want to make your own Faraday hanky.
Join Make: Community Today


text:
Australia: Austal Holds Keel Laying for First Vessel of Cape Class Patrol Boat Program
Demonstrating the rapid progress of the Cape Class Patrol Boat Program, Austal today hosted a keel-laying ceremony for the first of eight high performance patrol boats it is building for the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.
Keel-laying traditionally marks the first significant milestone in a ship's construction. Historically this was the "laying down" of the main timber making up the backbone of a vessel. Austal's advanced shipbuilding techniques means fabrication of ship modules begins well before they are actually joined. So today Austal celebrates keel-laying when modules are brought together for final assembly.
Although Austal's design and manufacturing approach is thoroughly modern, the ceremony retained long held shipbuilding traditions. This included placing specially minted coins under a keel block as a symbol of good fortune and to bless the ship. These coins will be removed just prior to the patrol boat's launch which is scheduled for later this year.
Coins were placed by Australia's Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon. Jason Clare MP; Customs and Border Protection Chief Executive Officer Mr Michael Carmody; and Austal Chief Executive Officer, Mr Andrew Bellamy. Austal also invited Mr Clare to authenticate the keel by marking his initials on part of the boat's aluminium structure. He was assisted by Richard Taylor, Austal's Apprentice of the Year for 2011, who has now completed his apprenticeship and is working as a fabricator on the Cape Class program.
Speaking at the ceremony, Mr Bellamy said the Cape Class Patrol Boat Program was demonstrating Austal's broad capability and world leadership in the defence field.
"Like our US Navy projects, this program shows that Austal can do more than design and manufacture world-class ships. We are also taking the prime contracting role and using in-house expertise to develop and integrate sophisticated electronic systems for command, control and communication. We are also building on our existing capabilities to establish and operate a comprehensive and effective in-service support system for the fleet," Mr Bellamy said. "This total solution capability represents the future of our Australian business, as we continue to expand and enhance the strategic industry capability necessary to meet the current and future defence needs of Australia and other nations."
Mr Bellamy said the fact that Austal had been awarded the contract after a rigorous, open international tender process by a highly experienced and meticulous customer reflected the company's ability to successfully compete in the global market.
"This is the Australian Government getting the best possible value regardless of supplier nationality, and that's the basis upon which we secured this work. The fact that we are on track to deliver that capability, as promised, is a credit to all involved. It reflects the skills and hard work of our staff, many of whom bring invaluable experience from previous government contracts carried out both here in Australia and at our US shipyard," he said.
Construction of the first Cape Class Patrol Boat will continue in accordance with schedule, with launch due in December this year prior to sea trials and delivery to Customs and Border Protection in March 2013. Austal's eight year support contract for the fleet encompasses a full range of intermediate and depot level maintenance activities.
The Cape Class Patrol Boats will play a significant role in protecting Australia's borders from multiple maritime threats, and have been designed to have greater range, endurance and flexibility, as well as enhanced capability to operate in more severe sea conditions than the current Customs and Border Protection fleet. The aluminium monohulls can operate at 25 knots and have a range in excess of 4000 nautical miles. Each can undertake simultaneous operations with two embarked 7.3 metre rigid hulled response vessels.
Source: Austal, June 8, 2012


text:
Friday, January 09, 2009
Answer Key
I am a habitual replier to emails, and I tend to respond rapidly (within 24 hours), especially if the reply takes me a minute or less. This system relies on the assumption that not all 100-200 students in a large class will write to me every day with a non-urgent request. The helpfulness and length of my reply scales somewhat with the nature of the request and how it is written, but I do always reply.
I do not reply because it is a required part of my job (see comments from yesterday's post). Being paid to teach does not obligate you to be at the beck and call of your students no matter how unreasonable and frequent their requests, nor must you provide them with rapid responses to non-urgent questions just because they ask/demand it.
Even so, I reply to email from students. I am not exactly sure why I reply to all email, but I do, even if my reply is not as helpful as the student would wish.
I should say that I do not feel the same way about phone calls from students. I dislike getting voice-mail from students with demands that I call them back right away. I do not return such calls unless there is an indication of an emergency situation. Fortunately for me, phone calls from students are not nearly as common as they used to be.
When I was an assistant professor at University #1, back in the days before email was the primary means of outside-class communication between faculty and students, the printed university directory would print my home phone number even though I requested that it be unlisted. What was the point of having an unlisted number in the regular phone directory if the university was going to print it in the U-Directory? Anyway, there were always a few students who would call me at home in the evening or on a weekend to ask me questions about the homework or test. I hated that. Unless the situation was truly dire, I would ask them to send me an email or to call me in my office at another time. (Most people didn't have email at home in those days, so it was easier for students to call than to email when they weren't on campus.) These home-calls never happen anymore, and for that I am very grateful.
But I digress. Regarding email: If a student sends an email to a professor with a question such as What is the textbook? (information easily available online) or What is the reading for next week? (information easily available online) or even the legendary but common Did I miss anything important in class last week?, does a helpful and prompt reply from the professor (a) enable the student's annoying dependence and helplessness, characteristics that do not tend to lead to success in academics or life; or (b) teach the student to be more independent, providing the assistance and inspiration the student needs to navigate the complexities of academic systems?
Yes, students should know how to find basic course information on their own, they should show some initiative, use their brains etc. etc., but I have found that the best way for me to stay sane and happy in my teaching life is to have high but flexible expectations and to show patience and kindness (even if that's not how I sincerely feel).
It is clearly time for another poll:
32 comments:
I voted for the last one, but it doesn't capture what I actually do. I only respond to e-mails that are seeking to make an appointment to come see me in my office. All others I ignore.
And the "emergency" concept is an interesting one. I am having trouble thinking of anything at all that--in relation to my role as a faculty member teaching a course at a university--could possibly be considered an "emergency".
These are the two definitions of "emergency" from M-W on-line dictionary:
1 : an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action 2 : an urgent need for assistance or relief {the governor declared a state of emergency after the flood}
Both of them include the requirement of temporal immediacy or urgency. I cannot think of any possible scenario involving an e-mail from a student in my class that could possibly require immediate or urgent action on *my* part that would include responding to the e-mail. "Oh, Professor! The dog ate my notes for the exam and blah, blah, blah..." Not an emergency. "Oh, Professor! My grandma died and I have to go to the funeral and I will miss the test. What do I do?" That's tragic, but it is not an emergency, in the sense of requiring urgent or immediate action.
The only scenario that I can think of involving receipt of a student e-mail that could possibly be considered an emergency would be if I received an e-mail from a student that reasonably suggested that the student (or some other person) was about to do something dangerous or harmful to herself or others, (or, I suppose, reasonably suggested that such things had occurred in the past, although that wouldn't be an "emergency" even if of great genuine concern) in which case I would immediately contact the relevant appropriately trained personnel at the university and convey that information to them, so they could take appropriate action. - 1/09/2009 05:50:00 AM
Did I miss anything important in class last week?
A professor back in my college days would answer with the straightest face "actually not, we noticed you weren't here so we just told jokes the whole lecture."
As a student it would take a few seconds before the answer sunk in and one realized how inane and offensive the question really is.
Some [do not] reply if the email is impolite
I reply to those with a one liner: You might want to rephrase that.
Usually the student clues in and sends a second, properly composed email to which I give a full reply. - 1/09/2009 07:56:00 AM
I'm an untenured professor in a department where teaching is the #1 (but not only) part of the tenure evaluation. I can't afford any upset students or a reputation for not being friendly. I answer every email as politely as possible.
I may not do that in 5 years, but I do it now. - 1/09/2009 09:46:00 AM
- Not Just Academic said...
I take a hybrid approach that none of the given options quite fits. I respond to all emails but make sure I don't do so immediately unless it's a rare emergency. Instead, I'll respond hours later, or preferably the next day, so the recipient doesn't think I've nothing better to do than reply to student emails.
I try to keep the content to one line if I can, but particularly unreasonable emails sometimes get "Please express yourself clearly and politely as all emails are stored on the university system as a record of your written communication". While true (the emails are stored by me on university servers), it rather sneakily suggests that impolite emails might come back to haunt the sender. If those students ever email me again, it's never about anything trivial and tends to be nicely written. - 1/09/2009 09:53:00 AM
I do reply to emails except when it's prospective graduate student spam.
But why do students think it's OK to call professors!? Then I get notifications of voicemails, which are generally unuseful. - 1/09/2009 11:03:00 AM
If you have not already discussed this, I would be interested in your take on "make-ups".
I find them more of a nuisance than emails, particularly in my 100 student class with weekly quizzes.
There has to be some happy medium between hardass and (resentful) pushover, but I can't seem to find it. - 1/09/2009 11:21:00 AM
Comrade PhysioProf,
As a recent grad student/not too far out of undergrad, my opinion is that an email along the lines of "my grandma died and I will have to miss tomorrow's exam" would certainly constitute an 'emergency' in the eyes of this student and I would hope it would be met with a timely response. - 1/09/2009 11:49:00 AM
I answered the second one, but I should clarify - I answer all emails from my students (my grad students, my undergrads who are working for me, in my lab). In fact - they have my cell phone number. the last thing I want is for there to be a leak or an explosion that I don't find out about because I'm traveling.
The second (answer all emails eventually) applies to other students at the school, whether they are in a class I'm teaching or not.
Students at other schools get less nice treatment - perhaps I never respond, maybe I do. I get multiple emails a day with questions I have answered on my website directly (do you have positions open in your group, etc). - 1/09/2009 12:44:00 PM
What really raises my hackles is when I receive e-mails from students that start 'Dear Mrs.' or 'Dear Ms.'. I suspect this is a remnant from high school. I usually respond that the correct way to address me is 'Prof.' or 'Dr.' and that it is always better to promote your lecturer to Dr. or Prof. status than to assume they do not have a PhD. When feeling a little bit quirky, I have also been known to suggest other appropriate alternatives like 'Your Highness'.
While on the topic of e-mail, I am finding that students don't check their e-mail with enough regularity to deal with more urgent matters. How do you all get students to simply check their e-mail every day (or multiple times a day)? Must I resort to texting them? Even if they do check their e-mail, I often don't know because I don't get even a simple reponse like 'I'm on it!' - 1/09/2009 12:51:00 PM
- Rosie Redfield said...
My BIG freshman course has an online discussion board, and I ask students to post all non-private questions there. I answer these questions the same day, if another student hasn't already provided the answer. And I encourage students to search the discussion board before posting questions like 'where is the midterm?', because these have usually already been asked and answered.
If a student emails me a non-private question I send them a form email telling them that I'll post and answer their question on the discussion board. - 1/09/2009 01:21:00 PM
- daisy mae said...
as a grad student at a relatively large school, i can say that the first day of each class is devoted to logistics, and ALWAYS seems to include that professor's personal preference for contact.
most of the time it's via email, or office hours. it's also laid out very clearly in the syllabus (and course website) when and where everything is.
i've always thought it absolutely asinine that my profs go over how important attendance is in classes - they all stress that every day is important - because we're in grad school, and you would think that at this point attendance would be ingrained. but based on what i've seen, and these comments, i can't imagine dealing with chronic emails all the time. - 1/09/2009 02:01:00 PM
If emails are class related, I sometimes reply to them in class or to the class-list with a "Some of you have asked about X" rather than directly to the student.
I also have a broadly advertised policy of not answering exam related questions in the 48 hours preceding exams. I have had complaints about that but mostly it ensures that a few more students start studying a little earlier than normal.
Who calls their professor at home? And then demands to call back right away? Are you kidding me??!?!
I wonder if these students even think about how retarded they come across.
Reminds me of emails a buddy of mine forwards to me from his students (yes, sometimes starting with "Yo") to fact-check their medical reasons for missing exams, class, etc.
Some of this stuff... Sheesh. - 1/09/2009 08:38:00 PM
I teach a large intro science lecture course (approx. 300). This past semester I instigated the smartest teaching thing I've ever done: a course-specific email address. Students had to write that email address about the class, even if it was to set up an apt with me or a teaching assistant. If they wrote to me, I sat on it for 2 days and then forwarded it to the course email address. The teaching assistants answered all the easy/silly questions and only forwarded emails that really needed my attention to me. I got 10 all semester...
I immediately answer all emails from undergraduate students (not from prospective graduate students from abroad), no matter what they ask (not that I don't sometimes mumble bad words to myslef while replying).
For example, I am offering a paid NSF sponsored summer research opportunity for undergraduates that would enable them to go to a desirable European country and learn about a certain field. Today, an announcement was emailed to all the undergraduates, describing the application requirements and all the details related to the place, financial support, type of research. A few minutes ago, I just replied to an email from a student who's interested and asked me how do they apply, although the announcement clearly states: "To apply, submit X and Y via email to Prof. Z at firstname.lastname@example.com"
I just repeated the information and even added "should you have any more questions, don't hesitate to ask" (rolleyes). Yes, that's what I do. - 1/09/2009 09:26:00 PM
- Eve said...
I use gmail, which is fantastic except that if you ever message a student, and that student also has gmail, you are added to their contact list and they are added to yours. So I've been getting IMs from students. It's so odd! It feels like an invasion of privacy.
What really raises my hackles is when I receive e-mails from students that start 'Dear Mrs.' or 'Dear Ms.'. I suspect this is a remnant from high school. I usually respond that the correct way to address me is 'Prof.' or 'Dr.' and that it is always better to promote your lecturer to Dr. or Prof. status than to assume they do not have a PhD.
Why do you give a flying fuck what form of address your students use for you, and even waste your own time and effort "correcting" them? - 1/10/2009 08:23:00 AM
I answer right away to clear my inbox, but I have colleagues who sit on important emails ("I need your signature on X so that my grant continues coming and I asked last month in plenty of time and didn't get an answer from you" is common).
Rosie Redfield is right on with the learning management systems. Set up a forum, and train people to use them. If they ask a course related questions, redirect it there. Often enough, someone else will answer for you, and then the answer is recorded for all.
Teaching first-year students I have to train them in mode of address and use of school email accounts and how to write to the teacher, but it is time well spent.
I don't have voice mail enabled at the office, or I would spend forever calling people back :) - 1/10/2009 08:33:00 AM
my method is to only check student emails twice a day; I do not check on weekends. So, there's about a 24 hour turnover on my emails. There is NOTHING that a student can require of me that needs more than that. Even if they are having some horrible family emergency, in reality, they won't be dealing with my class until it's over anyhow; they'll have my response quikly enough, and it will just be a sorry to hear that, provide a dean's note and see me when you're back. That's all that is necessary.
Zoelouise: We follow university policy in the class I TA; no makeups without a note from a doctor or dean. I do the same if the student shows up late to class and misses a quiz (amazing how making that annoucement makes them show up on time). Period. Makes life a lot easier when there's no judgement call; they either have it or don't. If you want to be kind, you can have one drop quiz. - 1/10/2009 09:40:00 AM
I READ every email. I don't reply to emails (unless like CPP says - if it's a real honest to gawd emergency like a suicidal student or a request to meet with me). I have had a few very troubled students and I did pass their emails on immediately to people in positions to help immediately.
The problem with answering everysinglefreakinmessage is that the students think you are their bitch and they treat you as one if you buy into it (ie., reply). They email, you reply. They stick food in the bowl, you eat. They call for you, you say 'is this high enough to jump?' type stuff.
If I have to be the one to teach the students that asking the questions "what's on the test?" "do we need to know Chapter 18?" "did I miss a handout on Monday, can you send it?" is THEIR JOB as a student to figure out, then so be it. I'm not big on holding their hands and I think faculty do too much hand holding hand shit just to get good TEACHING evals. Meanwhile we are all nazel gazing wondering where 'all the good students' went. Why are the students 'so immature, like as in high school.'
On the first day of class, I clearly state my positions on what I listed above. And I definitely see a transition from being attention-deprived needy kids to slightly-more-independent and responsible students. My teaching evals are fantastic - they learn shit they never thought existed before and they also learn how to behave as a student! win win. - 1/10/2009 09:40:00 AM
If a student's family member died, that is a valid excuse for missing an exam. It's not an emergency on the professor's part, but you might as well set a student's mind at ease by telling them they can miss the exam and tell them the date and time of the remake. It only takes one minute of your time, don't be a jerk.
And yes, I know that 50% of the time nobody has really died, or they did so a month or two before. - 1/10/2009 11:11:00 AM
As a student, I would really like for my profs to respond to my emails. However, courtesy is a two way street. I am always very polite and respectful when corresponding with a professor, taking the time to thank them for considering my request/proposal/question/whatever. And, my gratitude is sincere: someone went out of their way to help me. Is it because they are a professor that they should not get merit for their actions?
That being said, I typically send one or two emails to a prof per semester. Some people overdo it and treat the professor as their personal assistant and that is unacceptable. However, professors should not lump everyone in the same category and ignore legitimate, polite, and thought out emails. - 1/10/2009 12:00:00 PM
- butterflydoc said...
My response time depends on the nature of the email.
Reasonable, easy-to-answer questions, or those that feel urgent to a student? I usually respond right away.
Those that are poorly written or poerly thought-out (will your course be hard for me? is a good one) tend to sit in my inbox for a while.
Then there are those that I don't answer. Case in point: I got an email recently from a student asking whether a course on another campus would count for one that I teach. Since those questions do not formally come to me from students (except in the future tense), I passed it along to the proper channels. Indeed, the student was trying to get a different answer from me than my chair had already given.
I am at a school where teaching is given priority, but it's still not 100% of my workload. - 1/10/2009 04:06:00 PM
- Unbalanced Reaction said...
Like GeoProf, I was completely taken by surprise that my students-- who are so tapped into Facebook, gmail, etc etc-- don't regularly check their EDU account. I've gotten around caring if they do or not by putting a statement in the syllabus that they are expected to check their EDU email at least once a day. That way, it REALLY doesn't matter if they check it or not; the responsibility was laid out at the beginning of the semester.
(Yes, I teach freshmen.) - 1/10/2009 06:58:00 PM
"I do reply to emails except when it's prospective graduate student spam."
When are emails from prospective graduate students spam? The profs in my field practically require that you email them before applying in order to be considered for acceptance into the lab... At any rate, I would think profs would appreciate emails from grad students who are interested in working in their lab. - 1/11/2009 11:15:00 AM
- Female Science Professor said...
I assumed that the spam comment referred to prospect grad emails that are clearly form letters.
- Arlenna said...
Yeah, I hit the delete button without a reply anytime the email starts with the phrase "Dear Respect Professor Sir" and discusses all the experience and interest the person has in toxicology research.
1. I'm a ma'am, thanks.
2. Toxicology is nowhere NEAR what I do, and what I do is clearly described and illustrated in numerous places on our university website associated with my name.
We've had the prospective grad student spam discussion before (on Drugmonkey, right?), and most people agree that an actually personalized, informed and clearly interested email is awesome, but the form letter spams are NOT. - 1/11/2009 02:38:00 PM
As a graduate student, I find it frustrating when professors ignore important e-mails. When your advisors won't respond to requests for meetings, it's difficult to make progress. And, some students aren't comfortable persisting when they don't receive a response on the first or second try.
Why do you give a flying fuck what form of address your students use for you, and even waste your own time and effort "correcting" them?
Because I imagine this occurs with more frequency to women course instructors than men. I taught a class last year with a male colleague and some of my students routinely called me "Ms. Isis" and him "Dr. Other Dude" in spite of the fact that I have a doctorate level degree and he has a masters. - 1/12/2009 12:12:00 AM
- Peggy K said...
Anonymous: if your professor doesn't respond to your email you can always call them (at their office number), talk to them after lecture, or turn up at their scheduled office hours.
One of the things I dislike about email is that some people assume that it's going to be immediately read and responded to, which isn't always possible. - 1/12/2009 03:55:00 AM
[P.S. Hope this isn't a repost; dodgy PC, so am not sure my original comment was sent]
Why do you give a flying fuck what form of address your students use for you, and even waste your own time and effort "correcting" them?
Because it's more accurate and more polite for people to use other people's titles on first acquaintance in a professional setting.
And I agree with Dr. Isis' point as well... - 1/12/2009 09:32:00 AM
I respond to my students' emails relatively quickly because otherwise I will forget to do so (I'm teaching full time this semester and also doing my MA and TAing - got plenty on my plate) and because I have told them that if they leave a message on the voicemail that the college that I teach at insists I have even though I DON'T WANT IT I will NOT respond but if they email (i.e. do it my way) I will get back to them far more quickly.
While I do respond, however, it is generally not the sort of response they are looking for - I direct them to the online course site or suggest that they trouble themselves to come to class regularly so that they will have the opportunity to hear these sorts of things first hand. I also always provide at least 20 minutes of my time at the end of each class period in which they are welcome to seek individual help or ask questions.
Given that I teach the same course X 3 sections, and the syllabus and online site both make clear that if they are not able to attend their own, they are welcome to join either of the others, I tend not to go too far out of my way in response to student demands any more.
When I first started teaching, I was far more available for
'office hours' etc... but what invariably happened is that people would just not bother coming to class and then expect that I would meet with them at their convenience and teach them everything they needed to know to pass the final exam at a time convenient for them.
As IF!
I am much less accomodating now that I have gone back to school myself. - 1/12/2009 10:36:00 PM


text:
Manitoba Marsh Magic
A waterfowler's pilgrimage to the Canadian Duck Factory and the birthplace of DU's conservation work
A waterfowler's pilgrimage to the Canadian Duck Factory and the birthplace of DU's conservation work
From the Ducks Unlimited magazine Archives
By Wade Bourne
The gusts were whipping the bulrushes back and forth over my head, their shadows like dancing tiger stripes across my parka. The blow was from the northwest and colda migration wind. Based on what Dr. Scott Stephens and I were seeing, or not seeing, many ducks in this area had hitched a ride on it and headed south.
Scott and I had waded into this wetland before dawn, tossed out a bagful of decoys, then hunkered down on marsh seats a few yards back in the reeds. His seven-year-old Lab, Brie, watched anxiously from her dog stand. Yesterday afternoon Bob Grant had seen streams of mallards using this marsh. This morning, though, only an occasional duck was flying by.
It was mid-October, and we were in the famed Minnedosa pothole region of southwest Manitoba. Bob is manager of operations here for Ducks Unlimited Canada. He calls this area the "best of the best" in prairie nesting habitat. And this year especially, water and adjacent upland cover had been plentiful. The ducks had responded by bringing off one of the strongest hatches in recent memory.
But even in the best spots, duck hunting can be dicey. The birds can change locations overnight. They can get temperamental about working to decoys, or changing weather can bring unexpected surprises, like the sudden departure of the ducks that had been using this marsh. Even in this storied country the stars have to align properly for hunters to experience those dreams hunts all waterfowlers seek.
I was beginning to chill. The water was close to the top of my waders. It seemed like the wind was getting stronger and the sky emptier. My confidence was declining along with my comfort, and then I saw them50 or more mallards pitching into a patch of flooded willows a few hundred yards to the west. Maybe there was hope after all.
Several months earlier I had made plans to travel to this area to get a head start on the new season. I also wanted to check out freelance hunting opportunities on the many local Ducks Unlimited projects. DU Canada owns dozens of tracts in the Minnedosa area that are open to the public. What's more, hunting pressure on these projects is very light. Most shooting in southwest Manitoba is done on dry grainfields, where mixed bags of geese and ducks are taken from ground blinds. This leaves the potholes largely undisturbedan ideal situation for waterfowlers who enjoy gunning over water.
I phoned Scott, a longtime friend and DU Canada's director of operations on the prairies. Scott loves his work, and he also loves to pursue the fruits of his labor. He was quick to volunteer his services. "I'll pick you up at the Winnipeg airport, and then we'll head west," he said.
"Just bring your waders, shotgun, hunting clothes, and personal gear. I'll have everything else."
In Winnipeg, I met Scott at the curb outside the terminal. His truck was loaded with decoys and other essentials. Brie was nestled on a blanket on the back seat. We were two hours' drive from pothole country, and we were eager to get there, find some ducks, and set up for an afternoon shoot.
On the way, though, we had an important side trip to take. I wanted to visit Big Grass Marsh, DU's first-ever wetland restoration project in Canada.
Ducks Unlimited was founded in 1937 by a small group of hunter-conservationists who were concerned about trends in wetland loss and a resulting decline in waterfowl numbers. These men understood that many of North America's ducks and geese are hatched on Canadian wetlands, so they set about raising funds to preserve these crucial habitats for the future of waterfowl and the sporting traditions cherished by waterfowlers.
Big Grass Marsh near Gladstone, Manitoba (west of Lake Manitoba), was their first undertaking. Originally spanning 100,000 acres, this marsh was drained and cleared for agriculture in the early 1900s. However, instead of the fertile fields local farmers had envisioned, Big Grass Marsh soon deteriorated into a desolate tract of silt and dust. In 1938 DU Canada restored more than 12,000 acres of the marsh, which remains an important waterfowl production and staging area.
Bob Grant met Scott and me in Gladstone and took us on a driving tour of Big Grass Marsh. As we stood on the bridge over the channel that supplies water to the marsh, I had a sense of reverence for the efforts of DU's founders and the millions of sportsmen and -women who over the past 75 years have worked selflessly to conserve this continent's wetlands and wildlife. Big Grass Marsh was the first step in a very long journey.
From Gladstone, Scott and I followed Bob farther west to the town of Neepawa, on the eastern edge of the Minnedosa pothole country. Here we checked into a motel and quickly changed into hunting clothes. Bob also briefed me about the region's waterfowling opportunities.
"The best hunting in southwest Manitoba lies within a 50-mile radius of Shoal Lake," Bob said. "This area is dotted with thousands of potholes that were formed when the glaciers from the last Ice Age retreated from this area. They left behind enormous blocks of ice that melted slowly, leaving depressions that gradually filled with water from rain and snowmelt. Today these small wetlands constitute some of the very best waterfowl nesting and brood-rearing habitat in North America. Ducks Unlimited Canada owns some 100 conservation projects in this area and has easements on another 150."
Bob explained that in late summer, local ducks collect in large flocks and begin feeding in nearby fields of wheat, barley, and peas. "They will roost on potholes and fly out to the fields at dawn," Bob said. "Then they will return to water around midmorning. Hunters who locate these loafing areas can toss out a few decoys, hide in adjacent cover, and enjoy some great shooting when the ducks come back."
Effective scouting is the key to success. "There are many potholes, but they don't all hold birds," Bob said. "You've got to find the right ones. The best way to do this is to drive the back roads and watch the ducks' flight patterns. When you find a marsh they're using in the afternoon, you return there and set up to hunt the next day."
Bob had already located a spot for the following morning's shoot, but Scott and I were eager to get out this afternoon. We quickly piled our shotguns and gear into Scott's pickup and headed into the countryside. Scott and Bob had already enjoyed several good hunts during the season, which was now some six weeks in progress. And I had broken the icefigurativelya few weeks earlier, shooting teal in Louisiana. Still, our adrenaline was pumping as we started driving and looking for ducks. Those hunts were then. This one was today.
Fifty miles later we had a reality check. We'd glassed several marshes and found a few ducks on most of them, but no concentration on any. Bob looked perplexed. "We had a ton of ducks on these marshes just a couple of days ago," he said, "but it seems that a lot of them have moved out.
Sometimes we get a lull between when the local birds leave and the northern migrants arrive. Looks like that may be the case now."
Just my luck. We were in one of the best duck spots in North America with the man who knows it probably better than anybody, and we'd hit a lull. Talk about bad timing!
Still, Minnedosa at its slowest is better than most duck hunting areas at their peak. We decided to keep looking for the best possible spot. Then we'd set up and see what the winds blew our way.
Finally, after an hour and a half of driving, we topped a rise and bore down on a large marsh that held around a hundred mallards and an equal number of bluebills. "We're running out of daylight," Scott said. "I think we should give this spot a try."
Bob and I agreed, and soon we were wadered up and packing decoys from Scott's pickup. The wind was howling from the northwest, and the mallards were crowding the pond's western bank to get out of the blow. There was a border of thick bulrushesperfect for cover. The low sun would be at our backs. The setup looked ideal. As we walked in, we flushed several dozen mallards. Soon we were perched on marsh seats a few yards deep in the cover, watching our decoys scuttle in the chop.
In the next hour, action wasn't fast but it was steady. Ducks began trickling back into the marsh, and we traded shots, taking a mixed bag of 14 mallards, gadwalls, and bluebills. We also downed two Canada geese that came head-on to our calling.
I had a good feeling as we picked up the decoys in the fading light. We'd had a nice start to our hunt, and I was on the Canadian prairiethe heart of the Duck Factorywith two amiable, highly capable hunting partners. There was only one more thing I could ask for. "Bob, you know a good local restaurant?"
"I do, indeed," he answered, and we headed back to town for a hot meal.
The next morning Bob was confident that a large concentration of birds would still be using a 50-acre pond on a DU project he'd scouted west of the town of Minnedosa. We arrived on site before sunup, hiked to the upwind side, and tossed out our mallard decoys. Scott also stretched a long line of canvasback decoys toward the center of the pond. Bob had seen several cans and redheads here, and with luck the decoy line would funnel some in close to our hiding spot in the bulrushes.
But nature tossed us a curveball. As the sun rose, a thick fog developed. Soon we couldn't see 10 yards. The ducks were therewe could hear their wing beats as they flew by. Occasionally a duck pitched out of the murk, and we came up firing. By 11 a.m. we'd downed nine birds, a mix of puddlers and divers.
After lunch at a historic hotel in the farming town of Rapid City, we continued searching for birds. We drove scores of miles and checked several marshes, but we never found the concentration we were looking for. More and more it seemed that Bob's pronouncement of a lull was accurate. We finally decided to set up on a beaver pond where we had flushed a few dozen mallards. Bob continued scouting while Scott and I hunted. Our bag for the afternoon was seven.
Bob was optimistic when he picked us up at dark. "I found a wad of mallards resting on one of our marshes and feeding in a grainfield nearby," he informed us. "I think we'll have some action tomorrow." That was good news to sleep on.
The next morning the wind was blowing harder than ever, and the temperature was close to freezing. The sky was clear as we set our decoys. There was only one element missing. The mallards Bob had seen the previous afternoon weren't here. Only an occasional bird flew across the marsh. In the first hour of hunting we bagged one lonesome greenhead and a Canada goose that came to our calling.
Right after the goose fell was when we saw the mallards swoop into a nearby timber hole. Bob said there was another smaller pothole there that was more protected from the blow. As we talked about moving, another flight pitched in to join the first group. That's all the convincing we needed to pick up and head in their direction.
Thirty minutes later we were huddled beneath thick bushes bordering the small pond. Our decoys were set where ducks had flushed upon our arrival. Now maybe our luck would change.
A few minutes later a small flight of mallards dropped into our spread without circling, and we downed three.
And that was it. Only one other bunch appeared over the next two hours, and those birds settled across the trees in another nook of the pothole.
The slip. That's what the ducks had given us. Oh, we'd bagged several, and I'd gotten a firsthand look at this storied part of prairie Canadaso important to waterfowl and so tantalizingly available to hunters. But many of Manitoba's ducks had headed south just as I was coming north. I'd come to the right place but at the wrong time. That's just how duck hunting is sometimes.
I took solace in the knowledge that this afternoon I would be flying back home and leap-frogging ahead of the migration. I'd be waiting on the ducks' wintering grounds when they got there, and this time they would hopefully play by my rules. Soon it would be Minnedosa mallards in Missouri rice fields and Kentucky flooded timber, and this time I would have home field advantage.
As I boarded my plane in Winnipeg I was optimistic both for the days ahead and the seasons to come. The Minnedosa area, and especially the DU projects there, were in prime conditionlush with water and upland cover, and they had yielded an abundance of waterfowl this year. And thanks to the hard work and generosity of DU members everywhere, the habitat conserved on DU projects will be there in perpetuity. From Big Grass Marsh to Minnedosa and beyond, the vision of DU's founders has come to fruition. There's still much work to do, but there's also much that's been completed. I just wish those farsighted gentlemen could come back and see what they started.
The website also provides links to a wealth of other important information for waterfowlers, including the latest provincial hunting regulations, required licenses and permits, and professional outfitter associations (for those who wish to hunt with a guide). Moreover, this site provides timely updates about DUC's conservation programs and Canadian waterfowl habitat conditions as well as trivia, recipes, tips, and more.


text:
The NFL surprised many by revealing last Friday that the New Orleans Saints ran a "bounty" program from 2009 to 2011 that involved former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and as many as 27 players.
But NFL Network research found that at least four other teams in league history have been investigated for suspected ties to "bounty" systems. Take a look at each team and the fallout from the investigations.
1985 Chicago Bears
Commissioner Pete Rozelle fined Bears linebacker Wilber Marshall $2,000 after Marshall leveled Detroit Lions quarterback Joe Ferguson in Chicago's last regular-season game. In Rozelle's letter to Marshall he referred to comments by Bears cornerback Mike Richardson that noted a Bears reward system for knocking out quarterbacks.
Richardson and Bears coach Mike Ditka denied all allegations. Ditka said he encouraged Marshall to appeal the fine.
1989 Philadelphia Eagles
In a Thanksgiving Day game, Dallas Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson alleged that Eagles coach Buddy Ryan placed bounties of $500 on Troy Aikman and $200 on kicker Luis Zendejas if either were knocked out of the game. Zendejas gave NFL Security the names of "four or five" Eagles (his own team earlier that season) who told him about the bounty before the game. Zendejas said he was told there were bounties on him, Aikman and punter Mike Saxon.
The NFL investigated, including interviewing Zendejas, but announced 15 days after the game that it found no proof, direct or indirect, of bounties. Eleven days after the NFL announcement the two teams played again. While preparing for the game, some Eagles players and coaches wore T-shirts that read "Buddy's Bounty Hunters."
Referring to the bounty controversy before the second game, Buddy Ryan said, "They (the Cowboys) had a bad Thanksgiving Day game and what's-his-name (Johnson) didn't take the heat for a bad game. Then he came up with the Bounty Bowl."
Johnson, informed of the reference to him as "what's-his-name," said Ryan "might be getting senile."
About the senile reference, Ryan snapped, "I only remember important things."
2007 Green Bay Packers
ESPN reported that Packers defenders were paid $500 each by members of the team if they could hold Adrian Peterson to less than 100 yards rushing, and that defenders later were offered $500 each if they could hold the Carolina Panthers to under 60 yards rushing as a team.
Debate: Bounty punishment
What is suitable punishment for Gregg Williams? Should the Rams step in and relieve him of his duties? Our analysts debate. **More ...**
After the NFL investigated, the league said that the Packers would not be punished and released the following statement: "The club has handled the matter with the players and the incentive pool has been discontinued."
2008 Baltimore Ravens
Terrell Suggs said on an Atlanta sports talk show that the Ravens had a "bounty" on Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Hines Ward and running back Rashard Mendenhall. Mendenhall left the game against the Ravens with a season-ending shoulder injury from a Ray Lewis tackle.
After those comments made waves, former Ravens coach Brian Billick confirmed that there had been bounties during his nine seasons leading the team.
"Every team does it," Billick said on "The Dan Patrick Show." "Now, to go out and talk publicly about it is about as foolish a thing as I've ever heard."
Suggs later said he misspoke when he used the word bounty with respect to Ward and Mendenhall. No punishment was handed down, but the league said the second meeting of these teams would be watched very closely.


text:
London Independent
The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. We all know who said that – but it still works. Bashar al-Assad has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own Syrian people. If he does, the West will respond. We heard all this stuff last year – and Assad's regime repeatedly said that if – if – it had chemical weapons, it would never use them against Syrians.
But now Washington is playing the same gas-chanty all over again. Bashar has chemical weapons. He may use them against his own people. And if he does…
Well if he does, Obama and Madame Clinton and Nato will be very, very angry. But over the past week, all the usual pseudo-experts who couldn't find Syria on a map have been warning us again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria might possess – and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy specialists who didn't warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003: "unnamed military intelligence sources". Henceforth to be acronymed as UMIS.
Coup de théâtre
And now, the coup de théâtre. Someone from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation called me up this week to talk about the use of chemical weapons by Hafez al-Assad in Hama during the Sunni Muslim uprising in the city in 1982. Their sources were the same old UMIS. But I happened to have got into Hama in February 1982 – which is why the Canadian was calling me – and while Hafez's Syrian army was very definitely slaughtering its own people (who were, by the way, slaughtering regime officials and their families), no one ever used chemical weapons.
Video: What's REALLY Going On In Syria?
If you want to learn what's really going on in Syria, watch this brief interview with U.S. Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, and the guy who wrote Powell's famous speech on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction:


text:
Dougall (George2,
was born 5 December 1855 in Montreal and baptized 13 January 1856 at
Erskine Presbyterian Church, son of George and Agnes (Moffat)
He died 27 December 1939 at Pembina, Manitoba.[2]
He is buried at St Lukes Church cemetery, Pembina.[3]
On 9 March 1882 in Montreal, Peter married
Helen Anderson,
daughter of the late George Anderson and his widow Agnes;[4]
Helen predeceased Peter on 16 October 1935.[5]
See Note 7. |
Peter was
said to be a naval engineer with the Merchant Marine for some
years[6] and then migrated to Manitoba in 1880 to
farm. His location on both east quarters of Section 22, township 2,
range 9 west was nearby that of his older brother James Joseph.[7]
Peter returned to Montreal to marry, as did his brother, between
filing his land claim and receiving the 1886 patent for it. In 1881,
Peter was enumerated with brother James, both single farming men.[8]
Ten years later, he is with his wife and son, next to the Lea
relatives of my correspondent Felix Kuehn.[9]
Pembina Manitou Archive |
father George likely also assisted his youngest son in building a new
frame home of Peter's own design. The tall narrow section featured
interior window seats for a fine view over the valley and his
property known as Kirkland Farm. Although not clearly discernible, I
would say the Dougalls posed for the photograph, with Helen in the
garden she was planning and Lorne on the porch, assuming the man in
front is Peter. Helen was probably well-educated; she was one of the
founders of the Pembina Crossing Literary Society. She brought
expensive wedding gifts with her from Montreal, possibly also
inheriting resources from her father. Their home was furnished with
many framed oil paintings, fine china, and a grand piano. Yet the
couple led unpretentious, hardworking lives, generally acknowledged
as exemplary and hospitable Christians―"incorruptibly
faithful in their attendance at church."[10]
Peel's Prairie Provinces (University of Alberta) |
The year
1902, about the time Peter was completing his new house, saw a solid
step toward a momentous religious transition in Canada. Some would
call it disruption. Formal talks were begun to unite three different
faiths: Presbyterians, Methodists, and Congregationalists (it was not
until 1925 that the United Church of Canada was officially formed).
Many Presbyterians were against the idea of merging with Methodists,
including our western Dougalls. Their early church building was
shared with a Methodist congregation on alternate Sundays. Then a
large new Presbyterian church was built at Manitou just after the
turn of the twentieth century; Peter Dougall became an elder.
The incumbent
of the new church spoke in favour of union, quickly falling out
of favour with some parishioners who resisted. Dr. Matthew Young,
friend of the Dougalls and great-grandfather of Felix Kuehn, was one
who made his objections plain. Eventually each church congregation in
the nation voted whether to join the United Church merger or not.
When his church voted to join, Peter Dougall switched his worship to
St Luke's Anglican Church at Pembina Crossing. He went so far as to
stipulate he would not be buried at the Manitou church, therefore he
and his family lie in St. Luke's churchyard.[11]
This is indicative of how strong the feelings ran; although solid
numbers of Presbyterians overall embraced the merger, it was
difficult for many members to accept the change, especially if they
felt bereft of the local church they loved. Nonetheless, the
Presbyterian Church in Canada still remains a stalwart, separate
Only child
of Peter3 Dougall and Helen Anderson:
i. GEORGE
DOUGALL was born at Manitou, Manitoba on 30 June 1883.[12]
He died, unmarried, before 1971 in LaRivière, Manitoba.[13]
Lorne maintained the family farm throughout his lifetime
except for draft service in the Canadian army from July 1918 until
his discharge in November 1919.[14] His parents
commissioned an oil portrait of teenaged Lorne in Highland dress, by
a Montreal artist.[15] He befriended local
natives, having a great interest in Indian lore, collecting artifacts
unearthed while ploughing. Much of his collection later went to
friends and neighbours; his cousin Agnes believed the Manitoba Museum
acquired some pieces--this last has not yet been verified or not. .
My thanks to Felix Kuehn who
considerably enlightened me on a corner of Manitoba history!
[1] "Quebec, Vital
and Church Records (Drouin Collection), 1621-1967," digital
image, Ancestry.ca (www.ancestry.ca : accessed 20 August 2013); Peter
Dougall baptism, Erskine Presbyterian Church (Montreal, Quebec),
1856, folio 2.
[2] Peter
Dougall, Manitoba death registration no. 39-06-048423 (1939),
Manitoba Department of Health, Pembina division. Further information
in undated newspaper clipping kept by Agnes B. Dougall.
[3] Felix Kuehn to Brenda
Merriman, email, 2 February 2013.
[4] "Quebec, Vital
and Church Records (Drouin Collection), 1627-1967," digital
image, Ancestry.ca (www.ancestry.ca : accessed 8 August 2013);
Dougall-Anderson marriage, Erskine Presbyterian Church (Montreal,
Quebec), 1882, folio 7.
[5] "Deaths,"
database, Manitoba Vital Statistics Agency
(vitalstats.gov.mb.ca : accessed 20 August 2013), Helen Anderson
Dougall, death registration no. 040416 (1935).
[6] Family story.
[7] "Western Land
Grants (1870-1930)," database, Library
and Archives Canada
(www.collectionscanada.gc.ca : accessed 15 August 2013), citing
microfilm C-5958; Peter Dougall, SE part section 22, township 2,
range 9W, 12 January 1886. A separate patent was issued for the NE
[8] 1881 Census of Canada,
Manitoba, district 186, Marquette, subdistrict 3, Mountain, p. 6,
Peter Dougall; digital image, Ancestry.ca (www.ancestry.ca :
accessed 19 August 2013), from Library and Archives Canada (LAC)
microfilm C-13283.
[9] 1891 Census of Canada,
Manitoba, Selkirk District, subdistrict Louise, division 2, p. 16.
Peter Dougall; digital image, Ancestry.ca (www.ancestry.ca :
accessed 19 August 2013), from LAC microfilm T-6295.
[10] Felix Kuehn, Departed
Leaving Footprints in the Sands of Time, Chaper XI, "Our
Noble Neighbours," p. 9.
[11] Kuehn, op. cit., p. 9
note 27.
[12] George
Lorne Dougall, Manitoba birth registration no. 003913 (1883);
database, Consumer & Corporate Affairs, Vital Statistics
(http://web2.gov.mb.ca/cca/vital accessed : 10 April 2007). Note the
more recent change of the database title as per Note 5.
[13] Family
information. Manitoba death registrations are available only when
seventy years have passed.
"Particulars of Recruit," service no. 528576 JO, 30 June 1916,
digital image, Canadian Genealogy Centre
: accessed January 2007).
[15] Kuehn,
op. cit., p 11. The portrait devolved into the possession of Felix's
family but was destroyed in a house fire in 1976.
2013 Brenda Dougall Merriman


text:
Here is a preview video from Complexions Contemporary Ballet with Desmond Richardson, who will be performing in Laguna Beach April 14-17 as part of the upcoming Laguna Dance Festival.
Four different programs are scheduled April 14-17 at the Laguna Playhouse, with an artist reception on 4/16 and pre-show talks 4/14 & 4/17.
For tickets: 949.715.5578 or www.lagunadancefestival.org
The Laguna Playhouse 949.497.ARTS, 606 Laguna Canyon Road