text:
We will be testing in room 421. Make sure you are on time and prepared. Bring a calculator you are familiar with and a couple of pencils.
As you review this weekend, use this list of important information:
Geometry Things to Remember-20et76z
Also, her is a checklist of items to review:
Preparing for the EOC-checklist-2cfp160
And, one last review:


text:
Mangaluru, Apr 16, 2019: With just another day to go for the crucial Lok Sabha elections in Dakshina Kannada constituency, the administration will be enforcing prohibitory orders under Section 144 from April 16(today) at 6 pm till 6 pm on April 19.
Speaking to reporters here on April 16, Tuesday, Deputy Commissioner Sasikanth Senthil said liquor sale has also been banned in the district from April 16 till April 18 midnight.
Strict vigil will be maintained during election through live streaming of the process. Sensitive booths will have 300 micro observers and six central paramilitary forces.
Open campaigning draws to a close at 6 pm today, the DC said adding still door-to-door campaigning could be done in a small group.
He informed that there are a total of 1,861 polling booths in the constituency which has 8,79,050 female voters and 8,45,308 male voters. So far the authorities have seized Rs 31,00,495 unaccounted cash, 15 vehicles and 84,285,10 litres of alcohol.
On election day no one will be allowed to make arrangement for transportation of voters, the DC said adding mobile phones will not be permitted inside polling booths.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Like a few billion other people, last week I had never heard of Pokémon Go. Now you can't swing a cat without hitting a tourist gazing into their smartphone camera, hoping to level up at Big Ben.
It's doing pretty well for Nintendo, as you can see below, and to all of our clients in the travel and hospitality sectors, I can only say this: we are now fully inspired to think of something even cooler for you.
A two-day rally for Nintendo has lifted the company's market value by 718 billion yen, or $7.1 billion. The surge began Friday after the debut of a new mobile game app, Pokemon Go, and accelerated Monday with the shares rising by the daily limit of 25 percent in Tokyo.


text:
Crescent ♍ Virgo
Moon phase on 21 October 2030 Monday is Waning Crescent, 23 days old Moon is in Leo.Share this page: twitter facebook linkedin
Waning Crescent is the lunar phase on . Seen from Earth, illuminated fraction of the Moon surface is 32% and getting smaller. The 23 days old Moon is in ♌ Leo.
Tuesday Tue
Wednesday Wed
Thursday Thu
Friday Fri
Saturday Sat
Sunday Sun
Monday Mon
Previous main lunar phase is the Last Quarter before 1 day on 19 October 2030 at 14:50.
Moon rises after midnight to early morning and sets in the afternoon. It is visible in the early morning low to the east.
Moon is passing about ∠20° of ♌ Leo tropical zodiac sector.
Lunar disc appears visually 5.5% narrower than solar disc. Moon and Sun apparent angular diameters are ∠1825" and ∠1928".
Next Full Moon is the Beaver Moon of November 2030 after 19 days on 10 November 2030 at 03:30.
There is low ocean tide on this date. Sun and Moon gravitational forces are not aligned, but meet at big angle, so their combined tidal force is weak.
The Moon is 23 days old. Earth's natural satellite is moving from the second to the final part of current synodic month. This is lunation 380 of Meeus index or 1333 from Brown series.
Length of current 380 lunation is 29 days, 10 hours and 22 minutes. This is the year's shortest synodic month of 2030. It is 8 minutes shorter than next lunation 381 length.
Length of current synodic month is 2 hours and 22 minutes shorter than the mean length of synodic month, but it is still 3 hours and 47 minutes longer, compared to 21st century shortest.
This lunation true anomaly is ∠310.2°. At the beginning of next synodic month true anomaly will be ∠332.4°. The length of upcoming synodic months will keep decreasing since the true anomaly gets closer to the value of New Moon at point of perigee (∠0° or ∠360°).
4 days after point of apogee on 16 October 2030 at 13:21 in ♊ Gemini. The lunar orbit is getting closer, while the Moon is moving inward the Earth. It will keep this direction for the next 7 days, until it get to the point of next perigee on 28 October 2030 at 12:07 in ♏ Scorpio.
Moon is 392 854 km (244 108 mi) away from Earth on this date. Moon moves closer next 7 days until perigee, when Earth-Moon distance will reach 361 122 km (224 391 mi).
5 days after its descending node on 15 October 2030 at 13:20 in ♊ Gemini, the Moon is following the southern part of its orbit for the next 7 days, until it will cross the ecliptic from South to North in ascending node on 29 October 2030 at 03:24 in ♐ Sagittarius.
19 days after beginning of current draconic month in ♐ Sagittarius, the Moon is moving from the second to the final part of it.
5 days after previous North standstill on 16 October 2030 at 09:43 in ♊ Gemini, when Moon has reached northern declination of ∠21.995°. Next 8 days the lunar orbit moves southward to face South declination of ∠-21.941° in the next southern standstill on 29 October 2030 at 20:28 in ♐ Sagittarius.
After 5 days on 26 October 2030 at 20:17 in ♎ Libra, the Moon will be in New Moon geocentric conjunction with the Sun and this alignment forms next Sun-Moon-Earth syzygy.


text:
This shop has been compensated by Collective Bias, Inc. and its advertiser. All opinions are mine alone. #DailyVegolutions #CollectiveBias
This Hearty Chipotle Black Bean Soup is full of flavor & is a delicious vegetarian dish everyone will enjoy!
Oh soup, how I love you!
Friday nights are our special soup nights. My husband & I both rrew up enjoying the warmth of soup on Friday nights & after we married we continued the tradition in our home. Although, I should admit that we don't stop creating new soups once the earth begins to thaw. We often make & eat them all year round!eat
And as this is the first recipe of the new year, I thought I should share something with you that will help you with your goals, is filling, & that your whole family will enjoy! This Hearty Chipotle Black Bean Soup is a quick, easy, flavorful, & delicious recipe that everyone will feel good about eating & be begging for more.
I made sure that this is a quick recipe because I know that even though the holidays are over, there are still never enough hours in the day. And even with a busy schedule, we can still work towards a healthier lifestyle this new year.
So I headed over to Walmart (before the "big" snow storm) & picked up some fresh ingredients to eagerly enjoy throughout our long weekend. We always keep MorningStar Farms® products in our home, as they are a great way to incorporate vegetables into your lifestyle & new years resolutions (or Vegolutions), & this time I also picked up Great Value™ Frozen Whole Kernel Golden Corn, MorningStar Farms® Chipotle Black Bean Crumbles™ & MorningStar Farms® Grillers® Crumbles™.
And while I shared a recipe for Hearty Chipotle Black Bean Soup with you today using their Chipotle Black Bean Crumbles™, I plan on making this again using their Grillers® Crumbles™ when we have little ones over who prefer something a little less spicy.
You could even try this recipe with using MorningStar Farms® Meal Starters® Chik'n Strips! There are so many delicious options!!
And I have something fun & exciting to tell you! I also have an Ibotta offer for you! If you buy any 3 MorningStar Farms® products at Walmart, you'll earn $3! (beginning 1/09/2017 through January) Simply click here!
Although Roger & I both grew up vegetarians, my father did not, & he just so happened to stop by while I was taking pictures of this Hearty Chipotle Black Bean Soup. And guess what? He loved this soup too! MorningStar Farms® products are not just for vegetarians, but everyone! From families, busy working people, to general health-conscious people, MorningStar Farms® products are a yummy "as-is" solution for any meal!
And since it is so quick & easy to make, I have a feeling we will be enjoying this Hearty Chipotle Black Bean Soup a lot more in the coming winter (& summer) months!
If you try this soup, I'd love to hear which MorningStar Farms® products you incorporate into your Black Bean Soup!
Hearty Chipotle Black Bean Soup
This Hearty Chipotle Black Bean Soup is full of flavor & a delicious vegetarian dish everyone will enjoy!
- Prep Time: 10
- Cook Time: 20
- Total Time: 30
- 3 cans black beans (15 oz. each) rinsed & drained
- 1 bag Chipotle Black Bean Crumbles™ (16.2 oz)
- 2 tablespoons olive oil
- 1/2 cup diced white onion
- 1 pinch of salt
- 1 pinch of sugar
- 1 & 1/2 teaspoon ground cumin
- 1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper
- 3 large garlic cloves
- 1 lime
- 1 can diced tomatoes (14.5 oz) *1
- 2 cups Great Value™ Frozen Whole Kernel Golden Corn, thawed
- 6 cups vegetable broth
- Shredded Cheese
- Sour Cream
- Diced avocado
- Chopped cilantro
- First, purée 2 cans of the black beans and set to the side.*2
- In a large pot, heat oil at medium high heat and sauté the onions for 3-4 minutes with a pinch of salt & sugar, 1 & 1/2 teaspoon ground cumin, &1/2 teaspoon cayenne pepper. Then add the garlic and sauté for an additional minute.
- Then add 1 tablespoon lime juice, 1 can diced tomatoes, 2 cups thawed corn, all of the black beans, 1 bag Chipotle Black Bean Crumbles™, & 6 cups of vegetable broth.
- Bring to a simmer and cook for 10-15 minutes, adding salt & cayenne pepper to taste. *3
- Serve warm & topped with shredded cheese, sour cream, diced avocado, cilantro, & a splash of lime.
- *1. You can use fire roasted or jalepeno diced tomatoes to give it an extra spicy kick.
- *2. If the beans are too thick, add lemon juice to help purée the beans.
- *3. If the soup is too thick simply add more vegetable broth, if it is too thin, simply pure some of the soup with a hand blender or food processor.
- Serving Size: 6
What is your favorite MorningStar Farms® products?
I'd love to hear from you!
Feel free to comment below, email me, or tweet me on Twitter.
Want to connect on a more personal level!?
You can find me & Domestically Blissful on
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Bloglovin, & Pinterest!
With love, G


text:
Free shipping orders over $99 Details
$15 off orders over $100
$40 off orders over $200
After placing an order on 3balls.com, you will receive an email confirmation. This confirmation includes:
Please print and/or save this confirmation. It can be used for future reference to check the status of your order.
If you do not receive an order confirmation within an hour then check your spam or junk folders.
Email one of our Customer Service Representatives for personalized support.
*3balls dollar ($) and (%) off promotions: Promotions are only valid on 3balls.com. Only one coupon code is valid per customer per order. Due to manufacturer restrictions, all new (not including closeouts) items (including logo overruns) from Adams, Adidas, Ben Hogan, Callaway, Cleveland, Club Glove, Cobra, FootJoy, Mizuno, Never Compromise, Nike, Odyssey, PING, Sun Mountain, Taylormade, Titleist and some others are EXCLUDED. All Bushnell, Golf Buddy, Leupold, and Sky Golf products are EXCLUDED. Promotions cannot be combined with other offers. All promotions and offers including free shipping exclude all new PING product.
© 2005-2020, 3balls, LLC or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Accepted Payment Methods


text:
Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists 1
The people who were to lead the Russian revolution in 1917 called themselves Social-Democrats.
Here's an extract from an essay by the Leader of the leaders, V. I. Lenin, written in 1897 when he was in exile. It is titled The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democrats:
The object of the practical activities of the Social-Democrats is, as is well known, to lead the class struggle of the proletariat and to organize that struggle in both its manifestations: socialist (the fight against the capitalist class aimed at destroying the class system and organizing socialist society), and democratic (the fight against absolutism aimed at winning political liberty in Russia and democratizing the political and social system of Russia). We said as is well known. And indeed, from the very moment they appeared as a separate social-revolutionary trend, the Russian Social-Democrats have always quite definitely indicated this object of their activities, have always emphasized the dual manifestation and content of the class struggle of the proletariat and have always insisted on the inseparable connection between their socialist and democratic tasks — a connection clearly expressed in the name they have adopted.
As is well known, when the Revolution had been accomplished in 1917, and Lenin was supreme dictator, there was no political liberty for the Russian people. No liberty at all.
Stella Morabito wrote (March 2016) at The Federalist (in an essay chiefly recalling the execution by Joseph Stalin of his faithful friend and follower, Nikolai Bukharin):
[Socialism is] a system in which suspicion and the smell of treason tend to hang in the air. … This is the case whether you call it by any other name, whether communism, utopianism, or collectivism. Oh, go ahead and slap some lipstick on that pig and call it "democratic" socialism or "progressivism" or "communitarianism".
Lenin and his gang all started out calling themselves socialists. Social democrats, to be exact. So the fact remains: the path of socialism is ultimately paved with coercion, censorship, and, yes, terror.* Does stating this make me an alarmist? No. It makes me a realist.
Socialism demands that we place blind trust in whomever takes the reins of power to distribute society's goods and services. …
Socialism also has a way of producing bloated bureaucracies that in turn produce ever greater scarcity. Along the way, this produces ever more corruption and cronyism. Censorship puts down deep roots because dissent cannot be tolerated or the system would collapse. Those are all prime ingredients for a closed society and surveillance state. …
And for gulags, torture, mock trials and executions.
We are … witnessing a new trendiness for all things socialist and communist among college youth. They sport T-shirts featuring the image of nauseatingly murderous tyrants like Che Guevara.
Thanks to the popularity of the avuncular Bernie Sanders, coupled with an astonishing ignorance of history, millennials have fast become trusty mouthpieces for socialism. This is ironic, because socialism has a way of redistributing power away from the "99 percent" and puts it into the hands of the few central planners—a teensy fraction of 1 percent — at the top.
And Bernie Sanders is forever sniping at "the 1%" – "millionaires and billionaires", "the rich", ie. Lenin's "capitalist class" – when he himself is a millionaire.
Then what? … There's an indisputable correlation between big government and terror that keeps turning up throughout history. …
We need to remember that, when soft socialism with its siren song of "equality" is left to its own devices, it takes ever more rigid forms. The political hubris of "progressives" who know better than you and me — and with such utter certainty — always leads to central control, corruption, cronyism, censorship, and abject conformity.
The more than 100 million victims of communism shows just how slippery a slope socialism is. Any person of goodwill who is familiar with the history and realities of socialism would do everything possible to avoid going down that minefield of a road.
How is it possible that young Americans can emerge from long established universities with degrees in history, political science, economics, international relations, and not know what happened to the millions of victims of socialism?
Or if they do know, and maintain that their socialist revolution would be different, bringing equal happiness for all, what possible reason can they produce for saying so? They don't, of course. They cannot.
Because socialist economics do not, cannot work.
Because no one will study for years to become a doctor when he/she/ze is going to be paid the same as a janitor who doesn't have to study at all.
Because when everyone's been given equal pay with nice freshly printed banknotes, their money goes chasing too few goods, or none at all.
Because no one is going to make and sell goods if he cannot make a good living out of doing so.
Because state ownership of the means of production means Venezuela under Maduro. Because the state cannot know what goods to produce, how many, at what price. Because only the market sends the messages, the signals, that provide that information. As Hayek teaches the student of economics. If he/she/ze is allowed to read his works in the universities. But they are not.
They are allowed to read Marx.
We doubt that many of the democratic socialists emerging from the academies actually ever bothered to read Marx for themselves. Their professors told them what he said was right and good. Told them that democratic socialism was the happy future of mankind.
That is the faith, and they keep it.
*Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky all explicitly advocated the use of terrorism. See The Soviet Union and Terrorism by Roberta Goren, ed. Jillian Becker, Introduction by Robert Conquest, George Allen & Unwin, London 1984.
In defense of classical liberalism 7
A Harvard University reader of this website, who goes by the pseudonym of Adam Smythe, sent us by email this well-informed reply to the Yoram Hazony article we posted yesterday. He explores the issues with admirable intellectual rigor:
The article is interesting, though rather confused – mainly because the categories that he is trying to describe are themselves confused. In turn, I found much of his article confusing, and my response will, doubtless, further confuse the issues in question. So confused at first was I by his article that I did not know whether I wholeheartedly agreed or abjectly opposed it.
First things first: von Mises strongly believed (too much, I would say) in the right of self-determination. The comment he made about world government mentioned in the article was predicated upon all countries first adopting his brand of liberalism. He argued that the size of a state was an irrelevancy, and that if all states happily adopted liberalism, then a world government in line with the liberal program would be favorable.
That von Mises opposed hugely bureaucratic institutions, of the kind lauded by "globalists", is even more clear. It is true that German and Austrian 19th century liberalism did generally argue for the widespread adoption of governmental bureaucracies full of well-educated administrators; one might conclude from this that Mises, an outspoken "liberal" himself, would be in favor of a world bureaucratic government. Nothing could be further from the truth — he wrote extensively against bureaucracies in, among other things, his scathing book Bureaucracy, and was the originator of the entire intellectual opposition to the idea of "educated" planning with his essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. In this respect he was opposed to his "liberal" colleagues.
The "liberal" infatuation with bureaucracies further confounds the author's thesis that liberalism is fundamentally rationalist. Most liberals liked these bureaucracies because they could be empirically minded, and pragmatic, whereas laws originating from legislative bodies could not. Von Mises, however, generally opposed this position.
To argue that von Mises was in favor of big government, on the basis of the single comment mentioned by the author, and to further conclude that this is the backbone for the case for widespread "liberalizing" military intervention in contemporary American politics, is absurd. In particular, a man in favor of international government in general or forcible interventions by liberal states into the affairs of non-liberal ones, would not write as von Mises did in Man, State and Economy:
Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them.
In fact, I would say von Mises went too far in opposition to world government — he believed strongly (I believe too strongly) in the right of self-determination. Also from Man, State, and Economy):
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.
As for Hayek: it is true that Hayek broadly favored multinational trade federations, and a European trade federation in particular. He enunciated the conditions for such trade federations in an early essay from the 30's. Most of Hayek's followers despised and despise the EU itself, however. (I cannot find Hayek's point of view on the EU.) But Hayek outspokenly did not identify himself as a conservative. The AEI has an interesting piece on this: http://www.aei.org/publication/europes-hubris-and-nemesis/
In both cases, any discussion of world government was predicated upon the government being, in the first place, little more than a nightwatchman state. So it is wrong to read into them the kind of technocratic "globalist" view so reviled by Trumpist or Bannonist conservatives.
The author is right insofar as he claims that von Mises and Hayek believed that liberalism and human liberty were universally good, and that all states ought to adopt liberal policies. He is wrong to suggest that these ideas lead to the conclusion that liberal states ought to forcibly liberalize illiberal ones. (Ayn Rand, however, did say that liberal states had the right — though not the obligation — to liberate illiberal states. But, she wrote, there were, in fact, no presently existing states – America included – that were "liberal" enough to have earned this right .)
The position that liberal states like America ought to forcibly liberalize illiberal states is quintessentially "neoconservative" — a philosophy which certianly borrowed some things from the liberal tradition, but, in this respect, not only parts company from its classical liberal forebears, but lies in opposition to them. In today's world, for instance, most right-wing individuals who identify as "classical liberal" as opposed to "conservative" – Rand and Ron Paul, for example – do so in order to make it clear that they favor an isolationist foreign policy, in opposition to conservatives on this very issue.
If we are to conclude, as the author does, that America's intervention into Iraq and Afghanistan are failures (even if we simultaneously acknowledge that postwar liberalizing of Japan, Germany, Eastern Europe, and Korea are successes), and we therefore conclude that the internationalist position on American hegemony is wrong, then we simply ought to conclude that internationalism has not worked, not that liberal ideals are wrong in general.
You see, Mr. Hazony goes further: not only is American military intervention as a general practice wrong, he says, but the very idea that the "virtues" of classical liberalism — private property, free markets, and individualism — are universal, is wrong, too. This is chucking the baby out with the bathwater. The reason Iraq and Afghanistan failed is because they failed in the end to liberalize Iraq and Afghanistan, not because liberalization as an end is bad.
The fact that some societies do not easily adopt liberal policies does not mean that liberal policies are not the right ones always to strive for. For what are the alternatives? Dictatorship, oppression, and serfdom. The problem with an interventionist foreign policy might be that, in an effort to liberalize certain nations under the rule of a dictator, say, we create a power vacuum that is filled by something even worse (think about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt after the toppling of Mubarak). For instance, I am the first to acknowledge that Pinochet was a superior leader of Chile to Allende, despite the fact that the latter was "liberally" elected. This is because I measure a government, always, on the scale of how liberal it is. And despite the despotic nature of Pinochet, society was governed far more liberally under him than under his deposed predecessor.
I do not at all take the (almost) relativist stance, which is advanced in the article, that we shouldn't hold classical liberal ideals as universal. We absolutely should, even if we are pragmatic about when to urge (or force) other societies to adopt them. Our consideration should be the effectiveness of such policies, not whether the ends of liberalism are the right ones for that particular society. The answer to that question, I think, is always, "Yes. They are."
Now, in general, as far as I can tell, the author is somewhat bizarrely categorizing present-day ideological associations as follows (I've tried to offer a respective juxtaposition of each of the views):
Conservatism — Empiricism — Religion — Nationalism — International Pragmatism
(Classical) Liberalism — Rationalism — Secularism — Globalism — Interventionism.
Not just one, but every single one of these categories is disputable.
The least debatable is the association between classical liberalism and secularism versus conservatism and religion, which I think has been true historically. But there are plenty of religious classical liberals, and plenty (led by Jillian Becker) of atheist conservatives!
However, assuming that classical liberalism is less empirical and more rationalist as a rule is wrong. True: Ayn Rand, von Mises, and, to a lesser extent, Hayek, were fairly "philosophical", "a priori", or "rationalist" in their reasoning. Milton Friedman, however, was not; he and the "Chicago School" considered themselves to be (and indeed were) very empirical. Meanwhile, many "pragmatic" liberals — Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, for instance, founded the liberal tradition (continued by Hayek) about societal evolution in metaphor with Darwin's theory of species evolution. This is clearly not a viewpoint that considers values to be unchanging without reference to observed facts. I am also fairly sure that there is significant overlap between American "pragmatists" and American classical liberals of the nineteenth century. "Pragmatists" eschewed general principles on principle. Today, this is something far more associated with the political left than the political right — many on the right think of the left as deeply unprincipled, whereas they are guardians of the classical virtues; the left thinks of the right as doctrinaire, whereas it thinks of itself as pragmatic.
Indeed, the left thinks (and to a certain extent they are right in this) that the universal "values" upheld by many on the right, stem from the right's greater religiosity. But then for Hazony to suggest that religion is something founded more on empirical than a priori "rationalist" principles is bizarre. Indeed, religion should be eschewed on both rationalist and empirical grounds — God is an intrinsically incoherent concept, for which there has never been any shred of real-world evidence. And whereas I have seen many a fallacious rationalist justification for God, I have never seen an "empirical" one from any of the "serious" religious propagandists.
To suggest that liberalism, in its "rationalist" adherence to principle, neglects noneconomic forces, is curiously myopic. Hayek considers these institutions at great length – including family, religion, and moral precepts – particularly in his later writings (see The Fatal Conceit, for example). And finally to suggest that somehow liberalism is associated with globalism and military interventionism, whereas conservatism is (or should be?) associated with nationalism and international pragmatism is, as I've described above, rather odd.
"Classical liberalism" and contemporary conservatism 0
We find this essay by Yoram Hazony peculiarly interesting, so we are posting it in full.
It was published in the Wall Street Journal two days ago on October 13, 2017.
We have long assumed that contemporary Western conservatism is "liberal" in the sense that John Locke and Adam Smith used the term. This essay enlightens us about that. We discover that we are not "classical liberals" after all.
And we are surprised to learn from Yoram Hazony that Friedrich Hayek, whom we much admire and often quote, was at one time an advocate for world government. (We have called world government "the ultimate nightmare" in an essay listed under Pages in our margin). The same goes for Ludwig von Mises. And we are less surprised but still concerned to learn that Charles Krauthammer is too.
We offer no criticism, make no comment, except to say that, like Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand, we still "place religion outside the scope of what is essential to know about politics and government".
Is 'Classical Liberalism' Conservative?
American conservatism is having something of an identity crisis. Most conservatives supported Donald Trump last November. But many prominent conservative intellectuals—journalists, academics and think-tank personalities—have entrenched themselves in bitter opposition. Some have left the Republican Party, while others are waging guerrilla warfare against a Republican administration. Longtime friendships have been ended and resignations tendered. Talk of establishing a new political party alternates with declarations that Mr. Trump will be denied the GOP nomination in 2020.
Those in the "Never Trump" camp say the cause of the split is the president—that he's mentally unstable, morally unspeakable, a leftist populist, a rightist authoritarian, a danger to the republic. One prominent Republican told me he is praying for Mr. Trump to have a brain aneurysm so the nightmare can end.
But the conservative unity that Never Trumpers seek won't be coming back, even if the president leaves office prematurely. An apparently unbridgeable ideological chasm is opening between two camps that were once closely allied. Mr. Trump's rise is the effect, not the cause, of this rift.
There are two principal causes: first, the increasingly rigid ideology conservative intellectuals have promoted since the end of the Cold War; second, a series of events — from the failed attempt to bring democracy to Iraq to the implosion of Wall Street — that have made the prevailing conservative ideology seem naive and reckless to the broader conservative public.
A good place to start thinking about this is a 1989 essay in the National Interest by Charles Krauthammer. The Cold War was coming to an end, and Mr. Krauthammer proposed it should be supplanted by what he called "Universal Dominion" (the title of the essay): America was going to create a Western "super-sovereign" that would establish peace and prosperity throughout the world. The cost would be "the conscious depreciation not only of American sovereignty, but of the notion of sovereignty in general."
William Kristol and Robert Kagan presented a similar view in their 1996 essay "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy" in Foreign Affairs, which proposed an American "benevolent global hegemony" that would have "preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain".
Then, as now, conservative commentators insisted that the world should want such an arrangement because the U.S. knows best: The American way of politics, based on individual liberties and free markets, is the right way for human beings to live everywhere. Japan and Germany, after all, were once-hostile authoritarian nations that had flourished after being conquered and acquiescing in American political principles. With the collapse of communism, dozens of countries — from Eastern Europe to East Asia to Latin America — seemed to need, and in differing degrees to be open to, American tutelage of this kind. As the bearer of universal political truth, the U.S. was said to have an obligation to ensure that every nation was coaxed, maybe even coerced, into adopting its principles.
Any foreign policy aimed at establishing American universal dominion faces considerable practical challenges, not least because many nations don't want to live under U.S. authority. But the conservative intellectuals who have set out to promote this Hegelian world revolution must also contend with a problem of different kind: Their aim cannot be squared with the political tradition for which they are ostensibly the spokesmen.
For centuries, Anglo-American conservatism has favored individual liberty and economic freedom. But as the Oxford historian of conservatism Anthony Quinton emphasized, this tradition is empiricist and regards successful political arrangements as developing through an unceasing process of trial and error. As such, it is deeply skeptical of claims about universal political truths. The most important conservative figures — including John Fortescue, John Selden, Montesquieu, Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton — believed that different political arrangements would be fitting for different nations, each in keeping with the specific conditions it faces and traditions it inherits. What works in one country can't easily be transplanted.
On that view, the U.S. Constitution worked so well because it preserved principles the American colonists had brought with them from England. The framework — the balance between the executive and legislative branches, the bicameral legislature, the jury trial and due process, the bill of rights — was already familiar from the English constitution. Attempts to transplant Anglo-American political institutions in places such as Mexico, Nigeria, Russia and Iraq have collapsed time and again, because the political traditions needed to maintain them did not exist. Even in France, Germany and Italy, representative government failed repeatedly into the mid-20th century (recall the collapse of France's Fourth Republic in 1958), and has now been shunted aside by a European Union whose notorious "democracy deficit" reflects a continuing inability to adopt Anglo-American constitutional norms.
The "universal dominion" agenda is flatly contradicted by centuries of Anglo-American conservative political thought. This may be one reason that some post-Cold War conservative intellectuals have shifted to calling themselves "classical liberals". Last year Paul Ryan insisted: "I really call myself a classical liberal more than a conservative." Mr. Kristol tweeted in August: "Conservatives could 'rebrand' as liberals. Seriously. We're for liberal democracy, liberal world order, liberal economy, liberal education."
What is "classical liberalism," and how does it differ from conservatism? As Quinton pointed out, the liberal tradition descends from Hobbes and Locke, who were not empiricists but rationalists: Their aim was to deduce universally valid political principles from self-evident axioms, as in mathematics.
In his "Second Treatise on Government" (1689), Locke asserts that universal reason teaches the same political truths to all human beings; that all individuals are by nature "perfectly free" and "perfectly equal"; and that obligation to political institutions arises only from the consent of the individual. From these assumptions, Locke deduces a political doctrine that he supposes must hold good in all times and places.
The term "classical liberal" came into use in 20th-century America to distinguish the supporters of old-school laissez-faire from the welfare-state liberalism of figures such as Franklin D. Roosevelt. Modern classical liberals, inheriting the rationalism of Hobbes and Locke, believe they can speak authoritatively to the political needs of every human society, everywhere. In his seminal work, "Liberalism" (1927), the great classical-liberal economist Ludwig von Mises thus advocates a "world super-state really deserving of the name", which will arise if we "succeed in creating throughout the world . . . nothing less than unqualified, unconditional acceptance of liberalism. Liberal thinking must permeate all nations, liberal principles must pervade all political institutions".
Friedrich Hayek, the leading classical-liberal theorist of the 20th century, likewise argued, in a 1939 essay, for replacing independent nations with a world-wide federation: "The abrogation of national sovereignties and the creation of an effective international order of law is a necessary complement and the logical consummation of the liberal program."
Classical liberalism thus offers ground for imposing a single doctrine on all nations for their own good. It provides an ideological basis for an American universal dominion.
By contrast, Anglo-American conservatism historically has had little interest in putatively self-evident political axioms. Conservatives want to learn from experience what actually holds societies together, benefits them and destroys them. That empiricism has persuaded most Anglo-American conservative thinkers of the importance of traditional Protestant institutions such as the independent national state, biblical religion and the family.
As an English Protestant, Locke could have endorsed these institutions as well. But his rationalist theory provides little basis for understanding their role in political life. Even today liberals are plagued by this failing: The rigidly Lockean assumptions of classical-liberal writers such as Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand place the nation, the family and religion outside the scope of what is essential to know about politics and government. Students who grow up reading these brilliant writers develop an excellent grasp of how an economy works. But they are often marvelously ignorant about much else, having no clue why a flourishing state requires a cohesive nation, or how such bonds are established through family and religious ties.
The differences between the classical-liberal and conservative traditions have immense consequences for policy. Establishing democracy in Egypt or Iraq looks doable to classical liberals because they assume that human reason is everywhere the same, and that a commitment to individual liberties and free markets will arise rapidly once the benefits have been demonstrated and the impediments removed. Conservatives, on the other hand, see foreign civilizations as powerfully motivated — for bad reasons as well as good ones — to fight the dissolution of their way of life and the imposition of American values.
Integrating millions of immigrants from the Middle East also looks easy to classical liberals, because they believe virtually everyone will quickly see the advantages of American (or European) ways and accept them upon arrival. Conservatives recognize that large-scale assimilation can happen only when both sides are highly motivated to see it through. When that motivation is weak or absent, conservatives see an unassimilated migration, resulting in chronic mutual hatred and violence, as a perfectly plausible outcome.
Since classical liberals assume reason is everywhere the same, they see no great danger in "depreciating" national independence and outsourcing power to foreign bodies. American and British conservatives see such schemes as destroying the unique political foundation upon which their traditional freedoms are built.
Liberalism and conservatism had been opposed political positions since the day liberal theorizing first appeared in England in the 17th century. During the 20th-century battles against totalitarianism, necessity brought their adherents into close alliance. Classical liberals and conservatives fought together, along with communists, against Nazism. After 1945 they remained allies against communism. Over many decades of joint struggle, their differences were relegated to a back burner, creating a "fusionist" movement (as William F. Buckley's National Review called it) in which one and all saw themselves as "conservatives".
But since the fall of the Berlin Wall, circumstances have changed. Margaret Thatcher's ouster from power in 1990 marked the end of serious resistance in Britain to the coming European "super-sovereign". Within a few years the classical liberals' agenda of universal dominion was the only game in town — ascendant not only among American Republicans and British Tories but even among center-left politicians such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
Only it didn't work. China, Russia and large portions of the Muslim world resisted a "new world order" whose express purpose was to bring liberalism to their countries. The attempt to impose a classical-liberal regime in Iraq by force, followed by strong-arm tactics aimed at bringing democracy to Egypt and Libya, led to the meltdown of political order in these states as well as in Syria and Yemen. Meanwhile, the world banking crisis made a mockery of classical liberals' claim to know how to govern a world-wide market and bring prosperity to all. The shockingly rapid disintegration of the American family once again raised the question of whether classical liberalism has the resources to answer any political question outside the economic sphere.
Brexit and Mr. Trump's rise are the direct result of a quarter-century of classical-liberal hegemony over the parties of the right. Neither Mr. Trump nor the Brexiteers were necessarily seeking a conservative revival. But in placing a renewed nationalism at the center of their politics, they shattered classical liberalism's grip, paving the way for a return to empiricist conservatism. Once you start trying to understand politics by learning from experience rather than by deducing your views from 17th-century rationalist dogma, you never know what you may end up discovering.
Mr. Hazony is president of the Jerusalem-based Herzl Institute. His book "The Virtue of Nationalism" will be published next year by Basic.
(Hat-tip to our reader and commenter, Cogito)
The origin and decay of American liberty 4
The United States of America was – uniquely among nations – established on the idea of liberty.
Liberty is not, however, as The Declaration of Independence declares it to be, an "unalienable Right" endowed to Men by "their Creator".
Nor is it "natural".
It is a man-made artifact.
We quote from The Constitution of Liberty by F. A. Hayek, Chapter Four, Freedom, Reason, and Tradition:
Though freedom is not a state of nature but an artifact of civilization, it did not arise from design. …
The development of a theory of liberty took place mainly in the eighteenth century. It began in two countries, England and France. The first of these knew liberty, the second did not. As a result, we have had to the present day two different traditions in the theory of liberty … the first based on an interpretation of traditions and institutions which had spontaneously grown up … the second aiming at the construction of a utopia, which has often been tried but never successfully. …
What we have called the "British tradition" was made explicit mainly by a group of Scottish moral philosophers led by David Hume, Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson … drawing largely on a tradition rooted in the jurisprudence of the common law. Opposed to them was the tradition of the French Enlightenment … the Encyclopedists and Rousseau … are their best known representatives. …
There is hardly a greater contrast imaginable between their respective conceptions of the evolution and functioning of a social order and the role played in it by liberty. …
The British philosophers laid the foundations of a profound and essentially valid theory, while the French school was simply and completely wrong. …
Those British philosophers have given us an interpretation of the growth of civilization that is still the indispensable foundation of the argument for liberty. They find the origin of institutions, not in contrivance or design, but in the survival of the successful. …
This demonstration … represented in some ways an even grater challenge to all design theories than even the later theory of biological evolution. For the first time it was shown that an evident order which was not the product of a designing human intelligence need not therefore be ascribed to the design of a higher, supernatural intelligence, but that there was a third possibility – the emergence of order as the result of adaptive evolution.
While liberty needs to be guarded by the rule of law, it will dwindle and perish under regulation.
The more a nation is regulated and organized, the less liberty the people have. A society highly organized and regulated by government is an unfree society.
The United States is becoming ever less free. Its successive governments have become increasingly regulatory, or to put it another way, increasingly Leftist. The trend was interrupted and to some extent reversed by the presidency of Ronald Reagan. When he left office, the decay of liberty resumed. In the last eight years, President Obama – a firm believer in regulatory government – has all too often imposed his personal will by dictatorial executive order. In doing so, he acted as an enemy of the country he presided over.
The great Sovietologist, Robert Conquest, noted that there are "Three Laws of Politics".
John Derbyshire recently recalled them, writing at National Review:
1. Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.
2. Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.
3. The behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.
And he adds:
Of the Second Law, Conquest gave the Church of England and Amnesty International as examples. Of the Third, he noted that a bureaucracy sometimes actually IS controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies – e.g. the postwar British secret service.
As the most historically important example of the Second Law, we can now add the United States of America.
Excellent as the US Constitution is, it has not kept governments from the fatal tendency.
The Democratic Party has become a wholly left-wing organization. If the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, is elected to the presidency in 2016, the people will lose such liberty as remains to them.
The injustice of "social justice" 5
The Left is intensely immoral, as unabashedly unscrupulous as a wild beast. It will shamelessly blacken the name of anybody it perceives as a danger to it with baseless lies. Example: Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, publicly announced that the Republican candidate for the presidency in 2008, Mitt Romney, had not paid his taxes.
The Left will sacrifice any number of people, destroy their hopes, their health, their lives, if in their calculation doing so might give them an advantage. Example: Far-left President Obama is drawing tens of thousands of children over the Mexican border – to become, he hopes, future voters for his Party – by announcing that children who are in the US as illegal aliens will not be deported. All the children suffer. Many are ill. Some die.
The Left will deprive a law-abiding citizen, with armed force, of everything he has striven for in the name of some new oppressive regulation it has suddenly launched with a dim ideological end in view such as "environmental protection". Example: A man who made a pond is being fined $75,000 a day by the EPA for doing just that, on the absurd grounds that the little stretch of water on his property is contaminating a river miles away.
These are just three examples, picked at random from the top of our composite editorial head, of present-day Leftist immorality in America. (How to choose from among the misdemeanors of the Clintons? An embarrasment of riches!) ) The theme of the Left's iniquity is so vast that volumes could be written about it, and have been. In other countries, Leftist powers have committed mass-murder on an unimaginable scale by poison-gas, firing-squad, torture, overwork, and deliberate starvation.
And what compounds the evil and swells the monstrousness of it all is that they do it in the name of compassion. Their aim, they claim, is to better the lot of the the underdog. They will make the poor richer by taking riches from the rich and giving them to the poor until all are materially and socially equal. They do not want the only form of equality that is just – equality before the law. It offends them, they say (even the richest among them, and most of them are rich) to see inequality between the richest and the poorest.
With them, equality is not a moral principle but an aesthetic one.
They call the ideal of it "social justice".
Paul Mirengoff writes at PowerLine, in part commenting on an article by Peter Wehner defending "social justice" (though Wehner is not a Leftist):
Justice has always been understood in our tradition as justice for the individual, qua individual. When a person goes to court, either in a criminal or a civil case, our system strives to provide him with a result that is fair given what he has done or failed to do. This is what we understand justice to be. Thus, when we say that justice should be blind, we mean that it should be rendered without regard to a person's social status and without regard to the demands of this or that social agenda.
If justice is an individual-centric concept, then there is no room for the concept of social justice. The pursuit of social justice may lead to action that is consistent with justice, for example a non-discrimination statute. But the concept of "social justice" isn't required to justify such a law; nor is it invoked to do so, since arguments for simple justice are always more persuasive (for example, the sponsors of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 took pains to assure the nation, probably disingenuously in some cases, that the law would preclude racial preferences).
The pursuit of social justice may also lead to action that is inconsistent with justice, such as granting racial preferences or expropriating someone's property for "the greater good". Such action is not justice, but rather justice's antithesis. Thus, we should object when it is marketed as "social justice".
In sum, the concept of social justice has no value. In the first scenario, it is superfluous; in the second, it is false advertising.
[Peter] Wehner argues that "any society that fails to dispense some measure of sympathy and solicitude to others, particularly those living in the shadows and who are most vulnerable to injustice, cannot really be a good society". I agree. But vulnerability to injustice can be countered by the rigorous pursuit of simple justice. And sympathy and solicitude can be dispensed under these labels, rather than as a form of justice.
Wehner recognizes this when he concludes: "Whether this effort travels under the banner of social justice or some other name, to do justice and to love mercy is what is required of us, as individuals and as a society". But the banner under which the charitable project travels matters.
When it travels under the banner of social justice, it gains extra moral authority that it does not deserve. The genuine tension between our desire to do justice (as commonly understood) and to be merciful is elided because justice is subsumed under mercy.
The result will be confusion and mischief, such as the aforementioned racial preferences and expropriation of property for "the greater good". If rationalized as "social justice", such components of the redistributionist project become entitlements, not favors to be granted, if at all, in small doses and under limited circumstances.
As [Friedrich] Hayek, who (as Wehner notes) deplored the concept of social justice, understood, therein lies the road to serfdom.
Besides, we cannot believe that devotees of the Left (once grown out of the ignorant idealism of adolescence) give a fig for "sympathy", "solicitude", or "mercy". If they did they would take pains to find out what economic system really does better the lot of the poor (namely, the free market); and they wouldn't repeat as they do that "the end justifies the means" – their excuse for sacrificing any number of their fellow human beings.
In fact many of them have dropped even the pretense of sympathizing with human beings. The victims of their "compassion" were first the proletarians. Then, as the proletarians in the Western world became too prosperous (because they had a degree of freedom) to qualify as pretexts for vast destruction, they focused on the lumpenproletariat. That class also became too well-off to care about. So then they moaned about the lot of "women" – by which they meant feminists – and people of unconventional sexual preferences. Many of them moved on to animals. But their ever-restless avant-garde did not stop there. They are now working to sacrifice more people than ever before on the grounds that it will be good for the wilderness, for rocks and stones, and even the vast, spinning, molten-cored planet – the ultimate victim of "social injustice". (See our post, Fresh wild raw uninhabited world, January 2, 2012.)
It would be enormously laughable as a theory, if it wasn't colossally tragic as historical and contemporary reality.
Arguments for liberty 3
This video of Friedrich Hayek talking to students gets to be most interesting – we think – round about the 16 minute mark, when he explains why the monopoly power of government to issue money should be taken away from it. He goes on to argue against the idea of "social justice". Justice applies to individuals, not "a state of affairs". Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the case he makes against the idea that individuals who "do good" directly to other individuals are the great benefactors of society. On the contrary, the "selfish" people who produce goods for profit do far more good to far more people, indirectly. Towards the end he makes the point that the more complex a society is, the less able government is to understand its needs and plan for them.
The libertarian ideal 2
This is from a fine article by Jonah Goldberg at Townhall:
Definitions vary, but broadly speaking, libertarianism is the idea that people should be as free as possible from state coercion so long as they don't harm anyone.
Or as we put it in our Articles of Reason: My liberty should be limited by nothing except everyone else's liberty.
The job of the state is limited to fighting crime, providing for the common defense, and protecting the rights and contracts of citizens. The individual is sovereign, he is the captain of himself.
It's true, no ideal libertarian state has ever existed outside a table for one. And no such state will ever exist. But here's an important caveat: No ideal state of any other kind will be created either. …
Ideals are … goals, aspirations, abstract straight rules we use as measuring sticks against the crooked timber of humanity.
In the old Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia and today's North Korea, they tried to move toward the ideal communist system. Combined, they killed about 100 million of their own people. That's a hefty moral distinction right there: When freedom-lovers move society toward their ideal, mistakes may be made, but people tend to flourish. When the hard left is given free reign, millions are murdered and enslaved. Which ideal would you like to move toward? …
How statism/collectivism ever came to be an ideal is puzzling enough, but that there are millions who still want it after those calamitous experiments Jonah Goldberg names, remains to us a mystery beyond all comprehension.
It's a little bizarre how the left has always conflated statism with modernity and progress. The idea that rulers – be they chieftains, kings, priests, politburos or wonkish bureaucrats – are enlightened or smart enough to tell others how to live is older than the written word. And the idea that someone stronger, with better weapons, has the right to take what is yours predates man's discovery of fire by millennia. And yet, we're always told that the latest rationalization for increased state power is the "wave of the future."
That phrase, "the wave of the future," became famous thanks to a 1940 essay by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She argued that the time of liberal democratic capitalism was drawing to a close and the smart money was on statism of one flavor or another – fascism, communism, socialism, etc. What was lost on her, and millions of others, was that this wasn't progress toward the new, but regression to the past. These "waves of the future" were simply gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.
The only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years is this libertarian idea, broadly understood. The revolution wrought by John Locke, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers is the only real revolution going. And it's still unfolding. …
We would add that this revolution has been advanced in thought further by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, and (more popularly) Ayn Rand, to name just some of the later philosophers of individual freedom.
What made the American experiment new were its libertarian innovations, broadly speaking. Moreover, those innovations made us prosper. …
I'm actually not a full-blown libertarian myself, but it's an ideal I'd like America to move closer to, not further away from as we've been doing of late – bizarrely in the name of "progress" of all things.
Same goes for us.
"Social justice" has no meaning 0
"Justice is essentially an attribute of individual human action. A state of affairs cannot be either just or unjust."
Friedrich Hayek's own words. Here is the great economist of the Austrian School saying them in contradiction to John Rawls in an interview with James Buchanan.
The politics of envy 19
We see the "Occupy Wall Street" protest as a manifestation of economic ignorance and the politics of envy.
We find confirmation of our view at PowerLine, where Steven Hayward quotes from the great free-market economist Friedrich Hayek:
As we continue to fixate on the inchoate ["incoherent" would be more apt – JB] but plainly radical demands/desires of the lefty-losers Wall Street Occupiers, this passage from Hayek's famous chapter in The Constitution of Liberty on "Equality Value, and Merit" hits the spot dead on:
"When we inquire into the justification for these demands [to equalize all outcomes], we find that they rest on the discontent that the success of some people often produces in those that are less successful, or, to put it bluntly, on envy. The modern tendency to gratify this passion and to disguise it in the respectable garment of social justice is developing into a serious threat to freedom. Recently an attempt was made to base these demands on the argument that it ought to be the aim of politics to remove all sources of discontent. This would, of course, necessarily mean that it is the responsibility of government to see that nobody is healthier or possesses a happier temperament, a better-suited spouse or more prospering children, than anybody else. If really all unfulfilled desires have a claim on the community, individual responsibility is at an end. However human, envy is certainly not one of the sources of discontent that a free society can eliminate. It is probably one of the essential conditions for the preservation of such a society that we do not countenance envy, not sanction its demands by camouflaging it as social justice, but treat it, in the words of John Stuart Mill, as "that most anti-social and odious of all passions."
It's almost as if Hayek wrote this with Occupy Wall Street in mind.
How the world really works 1
The free market is the engine of our civilization. It works. Works best if it is not interfered with by government. Works as a spontaneous system of co-operation and division of labor.
On which subject, here is part of a splendid short essay by Jonah Goldberg. He writes:
No one in the world knows how to make the newspaper you are holding (and, if you're reading this on your phone, computer, iPad or Kindle, no one knows how to make those things either).
Even the best editor in the world has no clue how to make a printing press or the ink, or how to operate a communications satellite.
This is hardly a new insight. In 1958, Leonard Read wrote one of the most famous essays in the history of libertarianism, "I, Pencil." It begins, "I am a lead pencil — the ordinary wooden pencil familiar to all boys and girls and adults who can read and write." It is one of the most simple objects in human civilization. And yet, "not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me."
The pencil tells the story of its own creation. The wood comes from Oregon, or perhaps California. The lead, which is really graphite, is mined in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). The eraser, which is not rubber but something called "factice" is "made by reacting rape-seed oil from the Dutch East Indies with sulfur chloride."
To make a long story short, the simple act of collecting and combining the ingredients of a pencil involves the cooperation of thousands of experts in dozens of fields, from engineering and mining to chemistry and commodity trading. I suppose it's possible for someone to master all of the knowledge and expertise to make a pencil all by themselves, but why would they?
The lessons one can draw from this fact are humbling. For starters, any healthy civilization, never mind any healthy economy, involves unfathomably vast amounts of harmonious cooperation. …
These days there's a lot of buzz about something called "cloud computing." In brief, this is a new way of organizing computer technology so that most of the data storage and number crunching doesn't actually take place in your own computer. Rather, everyone plugs into the computational equivalent of the electrical grid.
Do a Nexis search and you'll find hundreds of articles insisting that this is a "revolutionary" advance in information organization. And in one sense, that's obviously true. But in another this is simply an acceleration of how civilization has always worked. The information stored in an encyclopedia or textbook is a form of cloud computing. So is the expertise stored in your weatherman's head. So are the intangible but no less real lessons accumulated over generations of trial and error and contained in everything from the alphabet to the U.S. Constitution …
More relevant, the modern market economy is the greatest communal enterprise ever undertaken in the history of humanity. Friedrich Hayek did the heavy lifting on this point over half a century ago in his essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society." The efficient pricing of markets allows millions of independent actors to decide for themselves how to allocate resources. According to Hayek, no central planner or bureaucrat could ever have enough knowledge to consistently and successfully guide all of those economic actions in a more efficient manner. …
According to progressives, the financial crisis discredited "market fundamentalism" and created a burning need for a more cooperative society where "we're all in it together." It's an ancient argument, with many noble intentions behind it. But it rests on a misunderstanding of one simple, astounding, irrefutable fact. The market economy is cooperative, and more successfully so than any alternative system ever conceived of, never mind put into practice. Admittedly it doesn't feel that way, which is why everyone wants to find a better replacement for it. But they never will, for the same reason no one can make a pencil.
Find Leonard Read's classic essay I, Pencil here, either to refresh your memory and enjoy it anew, or to learn its lesson for the first time. It is essential to the proper education of every generation.


text:
With still a couple months to go until kickoff of the NFL season, we continue our weekly previews of matchups we can't wait to see in 2014.… MORE ►
Posted: July 18th, 2014
We Can't Wait: Buccaneers vs. Bears
Posted: September 8th, 2012
Week 1 Fantasy Tips from the Playbook War Room: NFC Matchups
NFC Matchups:
- Start: Reggie Wayne: Wayne has been the chess piece for the Colts offense this preseason and we think he is going to continue to be a focal point in the
Posted: March 20th, 2012
Cosell Talks: The Running Back Conundrum
It has now been accepted as gospel in the new NFL that running back is no longer a position of great value. The argument is usually presented like this: it's a passing league, driven by … MORE ►
Posted: March 14th, 2012
Hands to the Face: In Tampa…
Posted: December 10th, 2011
Week 14 Playbook War Room Fantasy Tips
For most of you, Week 14 is the last week before the playoffs start. Sure there are teams out there that have already clinched a spot, but we know there are teams out there that … MORE ►
Posted: December 3rd, 2011
Week 13 Playbook War Room Fantasy Tips
For this week's blog we decided to look into some players who could disappoint you this week. The players we paid attention to had great weeks last week and most likely put their fantasy owners … MORE ►
Posted: November 24th, 2011
Week 11 Fantasy Hits and Misses
Happy Thanksgiving, fantasy owners! Let's take a look at the tips we are thankful for, from the Playbook War Room last Sunday.
Vincent Jackson, Chargers: Jackson had been on somewhat of a cold streak … MORE ►
Posted: November 19th, 2011
Week 11 Playbook Fantasy Tips Part 2
Here is Part 2 of our Fantasy Tips for week 11…
Cold: Jason Witten, TE Dallas
Will it keep up: Yes
- Washington's LBs are athletic enough in coverage to keep Witten from creating any
Posted: October 21st, 2011
Week 7 Fantasy Tips from the Playbook War Room: Part 1
When Week 7 kicks off this Sunday, a lot of new faces will be under center for NFL teams. Washington, Denver, Oakland, Minnesota and potentially St. Louis (depending on Sam Bradford's ankle) will all have … MORE ►
Tags: anquan boldin brandon marshall carson palmer chris johnson daniel thomas darren mcfadden dexter mccluster doug baldwin dwayne bowe joe flaco malcolm floyd mark sanchez maurice jones-drew montario hardesty owen daniels peyton hillis ravens defense ryan mathews tim tebow vincent jackson Willis mcgahee
Posted: September 23rd, 2011
Week 3 Fantasy Tips from the Playbook War Room – Part 1
Last week, more clarity emerged throughout the NFL. A lot of teams and players that impressed in season openers were able to continue their success into Week 2.
Week 3 poses a lot of intriguing … MORE ►
Tags: a.j. Green aaron hernandez antonio gates blaine gabbert brandon marshall cedric benson Chad ochocinco chris johnson darren mcfadden Evan Moore fred jackson Jerome Simpson Kenny britt kerry collins knowshon moreno maurice jones-drew peyton hillis rashard mendenhall rob gronkowski santonio holmes steve smith Vernon Davis vincent jackson Willis mcgahee


text:
okay, now it's time for you to get something free from me!
I am offering up a $30 gift certificate over at Roxy Shops. All you have to do is go to my shop and then tell Roxy which items you would buy with your $$. So head over and enter, you have until the 31st.
Thanks Roxy!


text:
My Trackers
my Nutrition
my Fitness
my Weight
Other Goals
my SparkPoints
Community Home
Community Feed
Message Boards
Challenge Central
Member Blogs
What's New
Health & Wellness
Weight Loss
Fitness Videos
Healthy Family
Pregnancy & Postpartum
Instant Inspiration
Food Database
Lifestyle Centers
The SparkPeople Blog
Calendar Challenges
Fitness & Apparel
Access hundreds of thousands of recipes that are healthy and easy to make. Get full nutrition info for every recipe and track with one click!
Today's Featured Recipe:
Tasty Trail Mix
Visit SparkRecipes.com
Secrets of Success
Berating yourself is damaging.
Sunday, March 09, 2014
I saw the following image recently on a Facebook post of someone who wants to lose weight:
I too was dissatisfied with my health and fitness, in the beginning. And there was some self loathing going on. But I have a different perspective now, and feel compelled to say something about these sorts of messages.
"Beating" and "taking down" my former self wasn't productive, because eventually I'd get tired of being yelled at and criticized, and that would lead to giving up and regaining whatever weight I'd managed to lose. That former self was still part of me, so this attitude just continued the cycle of self-abuse and poor self-esteem that contributed to my weight in the first place.
I've made more personal progress by being kind and understanding of my former self than castigating her. She had her reasons for the choices she made.
And then one day that brave woman chose to make fitness a priority in spite of her flaws. I owe her everything, because if she hadn't done that I wouldn't have my current life and health.
Share This Post With Others
Report Inappropriate Blog
Member Comments About This Blog Post
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
The self-flagellation takes on many forms, including but not limited to negative SP name/IDs selected, vociferous pronouncements of never quitting, OR NOT being a bunch of NEGATIVE things etc. That, plus salvos of religious references precludes many who might be inclined to try to help. It's impossible to find a hand-hold (mind/psyche-point-of-entry, actually) without creating a "scene" -- and thus making a bad situation, worse.
One thing that would help is if SP allowed users to change their ID, but have all old references forward to the new ID. Also, some pre-counseling (a paragraph, or two) on name/ID selection, and SparkPage text would be useful, IMHO.
2415 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
I totally agree with this assessment.
I have seen plenty of blogs here on SP From people saying essentially the same thing. It pains me to think that people are building their efforts for improvement on pitting themselves down, and being at war with a part of themself.
And it saddens, but doesn't surprise me, to see the ones who think like this constantly pitted against themselves in a battle that naturally they can never win. Again and again they pick themselves up and batter themselves against an aspect of themselves that has to be addressed, not overcome by force.
It is only when we incorporate all aspects of ourselves that we can truly support the huge efforts we have to make in order to carry out the fundamental changes we need to make to put our eating issues permanently behind us.
IMHO, anyway
2426 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
I struggled with the inner negative voice that compelled me to compulsively overeat. I learned how to stop that voice from DrAmyJohnson.com fighting the urge. I learned how to stop fighting with my inner negative voice. I admit it. I spent years trying to combat that negative voice with prayer, by being angry with myself, down on myself, trying to educate myself with self help books and articles. I hated loathed and despised that part of myself. Recently, I learned that those negative voices have a positive intent behind their messages. That negative inner voice wanted to help me? You gotta be kidding! I finally sat down and looked at that part of myself without anger. What are you trying to tell me? Silence. Did you know you are a poor communicator? She doesn't talk when I am angry. It took me a while but when I became really comfortable with my inner self and not angry, hostile or superior, I realized it started when I was a child and I was afraid. I thought if I was BIG I would be safe. So I got big. The message, "Eat it! You know you want it. It'll make you feel good." was meant to make me eat because there was a part of me that was still afraid of being small. Now all I have to do is say to myself, "it's okay. I've got this. I know you want it but trust me, we'll be okay." then make the decision to eat it or not. The voice isn't nearly so compelling now. It just stops. No drama. Just calm, Listening to IOWL has released me from the daily struggle and made me feel powerful and joyful. I can hardly wait until my body weight catches up to my head on this journey.
2426 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
Wise words!
2426 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
2427 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
I agree with everything you said! I used to try the "tough" approach with myself, because I didn't know better. But I came to realize that it was incredibly abusive, and I started treating myself with kindness. It has helped me far more than anything else I've done.
2427 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
My old behavior served a purpose. I might not like that results, but there was an emotional pay off to my actions. I have accepted that and trained myself to get that emotional pay off from exercise rather than from food.
2427 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
Agreed -- well put -- thankyou!
2427 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
2428 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
My SparkPage
Absolutely agreed!
To take a line from that post, rather than "she is the old me," rather than dis-owning that part of ourselves, take it in, understand there were reasons for behaving the way we did, even if it did harm ourselves in some way...there was a pay-off. Understanding, addressing, incorporating and evolvlng ourselves is the healthiest path of all!
2428 days ago
Report Inappropriate Comment
Here, here!!!! Beautifully said!
2428 days ago
Add Your Comment to the Blog Post
Log in to post a comment
Disclaimer: Weight loss results will vary from person to person. No individual result should be seen as a typical result of following the SparkPeople program.
Get An Email Alert Each Time
4A-HEALTHY-BMI Posts
See Today's Featured Member Blog Posts
More Blogs by 4A-HEALTHY-BMI
Brief Update
- 11/17/2018
Update: Finally living in the new house, regrouping
- 7/28/2018
Back after a Lot of Stuff happened
- 8/5/2017
Back on the bike
- 1/19/2015
View All ›
close ×


text:
Categories: Legal Services, Solicitors, Lawyers and Legal Advisors
Address: Old Court House, Raglan Street, Harrogate, HG1 1LT
Landline: 01423 5...
Website: www.stowefamilylaw.co.uk/family-lawyers-in-harrogate
Website: Visit Website
Website: www.stowefamilylaw.co.uk/offices/harrogate/?y_source=1_MTE5NjU4MzQtNTkyLWxvY2F0aW9uLndlYnNpdGU%3D
Website: Visit Website
Message now
Report a problem with this listing
The health and safety of our clients and colleagues during this COVID-19 pandemic is our highest priority. We remain open for business and telephone and video conference appointments are available. The majority of our staff are now working from home so please can any correspondence be sent by email to avoid a delay in responding.
Stowe Family Law is the UK's largest specialist family law firm, with an excellent national and international reputation. Stowe Family Law has the best team of family lawyers in the country, with offices nationwide. We listen to our clients individual needs, to ensure they have the right divorce solicitor with the expertise and experience to identify the best approach for them. We focus on providing an outstanding service within an agreed cost and clients will be able to monitor the progress of their case at all times. We support and guide our clients through their case, so that they can be confident of achieving the result they want the most effective way possible with the minimum of stress.
Stowe Family Law LLP
Verified ID: 437917415157760
Verified 16/09/2020 @ 23:26:38
Last updated 18/09/2020 @ 13:57:28
Learn more about Verification in the Central Index
Monday to Friday
09:00 to 17:00
Saturday to Sunday
We accept:


text:
Best of
the Twin Cities
Tarell Alvin McCraney's epic tale of lost opportunity and hope in Louisiana introduced a singular, modern voice to the Twin Cities theater scene and solidified Christiana Clark's position as a local theater heavyweight. Her performance as Oya was the standout of the year, bringing the character's painful descent into sharp, brilliant focus. In the play, the first of a trilogy, Clark played a high school track star who chooses to stay in the Louisiana projects to be with her mother, but when her mother dies, Oya is left adrift, unable to run out of the situation that surrounds her. Oya built shell after shell around her, forcing Clark to adjust with her character. While Clark was brilliant in the lead, the work of the rest of the cast, under the expert hand of director Marion McClinton, was also top-notch. Pillsbury House will present the second part of the series this fall. We can't wait.


text:
Riley: "We're Back To Wade County"
Photo Credit: Nathaniel S. Butler
On Thursday before the trade deadline, the HEAT acquired Dwyane Wade from the Cavaliers for a protected 2024 second-round draft pick and also picked up Luke Babbitt from the Hawks for Okaro White.
Miami HEAT President, Pat Riley, spoke about the moves on a conference call.
On The Trade Deadline As A Whole
"We have passed another trade deadline, so it's 47 years for me, and I think this is one of the very best for me personally and also as the president of the organization. [I'm] just so happy that we were able to be able to complete a trade that I truly think is going to help us tremendously and from a competitive standpoint now to win."
On Acquiring Dwyane Wade
"It was a sad day when Dwyane left, and it's a beautiful day now that he's back."
"It's about competing for a favorable playoff spot or even just to get into the playoffs. That's what this is about. And I couldn't think of a better player to bring in here without having to give up a lot of assets or young assets...to be able to get Dwyane back to help us in that role, I think it was a very good deal for us."
On Acquiring Luke Babbitt
"We liked Luke. We wanted to sign Luke again last summer, but really ran out of roster spots. Spo loves Luke. He loves the fact that he spaces the floor [and that] he's a no-nonsense player. And when you take a look at his numbers from three-point range this year, even though it's a smaller sample size, from all areas of the court, he's way above average."
On Where He Sees Wade Fitting In
"He can get to the rim, he can make plays and he can make shots. And he has an uncanny ability to do that when the pressure is put on him…he still has a lot left in the tank…with Dion out and Dwyane back, he's a perfect fit for our team."
"There's something about Dwyane at the end of games that is unique and special. I don't think you lose that."
On His View Of The Team
"We have a team that is pure [and] that wants to win big-time…I do think moving forward, we have a tough schedule…but there's six or seven teams just like us all frothing at the mouth and we want in. I think the teams like us that are fighting to get into the playoffs, any of us who get in there are going to be formidable, and I think the teams at the top know that."


text:
Our clinicians currently are treating 41 children but we have another 62 on our waiting list!
Any additional financial support you can provide will be greatly appreciated and help us to improve and grow the Clinic.
Did you know? (June, 2008)posted May 2, 2015, 7:38 PM by San Jose Scottish Rite [ updated May 3, 2015, 6:18 PM ]


text:
So this is the tippy top of our incredibly beautiful city hall. It's lit up red, white, and blue tonight in remembrance of 9/11. I had been to the waterfront this evening taking photos and was on my way home when this stopped me in my tracks. Like many Americans (and probably non-Americans alike) I've been thinking a lot about 9/11 today…and how it changed things. It was our loss of innocence in many ways. Everyone has their stories about where they were when they first heard about it. But my most personal story came the day after, when details of the people who perished began to be announced. One of the planes carried children. Half a classroom is what I remember them saying. I can't remember if they were on their way to Washington or New York (with parents, teachers, and chaperones) but at the time they were the same age as my son, who is now in his twenties. I was at home and when I heard this news I remember literally crumbling to the ground. I also remember yelling–cursing–at God. How could you let this happen?! I yelled. What kind of God are you? And then as days and weeks passed I heard of the heroic actions that not only professionals did but also everyday citizens. Some of them lost their own lives trying to save others. As this was the conversation of nearly everyone for so long, I also remember hearing a conversation in the steam room at the local JCC where I steam and swim. Two older gentlemen were talking about this terrible event and one finally blurted out–almost wailed–"Where is God, where is He during this?" After a really long pause–an uncomfortably long pause–the other person said, almost whispered, "God is in the response. God is in the response to all of this. We can either choose hatred or we can choose love. And I want to choose love," this man continued. "I want to help any way I can, even if it is simply sitting in a steam room and discussing this." I personally was not at this horrific event, nor did I lose someone close to me in it. But I mourn them. They were part of us and we part of them. We can either choose hatred or we can choose love. And today I choose love. Our country–if not the world–is broken. And we need to fix it. If we want to survive as a species, it's the only way. Seriously. We don't need to "like" everyone, but we do need to love them as fellow citizens on this rock we call earth. It really is the only way. Love.
Nine. Eleven. Red. White. Blue.
September 12, 2016
Uncategorized Earth, inspiration, love, urban simplicity, Leave a comment


text:
It's time to drop the gloves and fight! Support the Fight against cancer that is. This anthology of 8 novellas is hot enough to melt the ice these players skate on. Featuring spell-binding novels from popular New York Times & USA Today, Amazon,MoreIt's time to drop the gloves and fight! Support the Fight against cancer that is. This anthology of 8 novellas is hot enough to melt the ice these players skate on. Featuring spell-binding novels from popular New York Times & USA Today, Amazon, and Barnes and Noble bestselling authors, including Toni Aleo, Cassandra Carr with Cindy Carr, Jami Davenport, Catherine Gayle, Jaymee Jacobs, V.L.
Locey, Bianca Sommerland, & Nikki Worrell.Bianca Sommerland BLIND PASS (The Dartmouth Cobras 0.5): Nothing could stop Tim Rowe, the assistant coach of the Dartmouth Cobras, from falling in love with Madeline, but love alone can't satisfy every need.
Sometimes, to reach the goal, you have to take the chance with a . . . Blind Pass.Jami Davenport Crashing the Boards (Seattle Sockeyes 1.5): Professional party crasher, Izzy Maxwell, needs the cooperation of reluctant party guest Cooper Black, the team captain of Seattle's new hockey team, but Cooper can't get past his anger over the team's relocation to Seattle.
Can Izzy melt Cooper's frozen heart or will this party crash along with her fledgling business?Cassandra Carr and Cindy Carr Hooking Hannah: When Hannah attends the NHL All-Star game, she doesnt expect a hockey player of all people to turn her world upside down. Her sister is married to a player and Hannah never wanted that life. But Scott could change everything.
For Scotts part, he has to know the woman who stirred his blood with just a look, and once he does, he realizes he wants Hannah to be his forever. Now to convince her...Catherine Gayle Taking A Shot (Portland Storm 2.5): Katie Weber has had a crush on Jamie Babcock for almost two years, since he joined her father's NHL team, the Portland Storm as an eighteen-year-old rookie.
When cancer takes her health, her hair, and even her friends, she can't bear to go to senior prom…until Jamie intervenes.Toni Aleo Tangled in the Laces (The Assassins series: Prequel to Laces and Lace):In Tangled in the Laces, Karson King is on the fast track to the NHL. Lacey Martin is coming back from a hard fight against cancer and is terrified of him but the attraction is too much to ignore.
Soon their love is so intense, neither of them see the rest of their lives without the other. Will Karson prove that he will protect her heart at all costs, or will he leave Laceyto pick up the pieces of her life once again?V.L. Locey HEIR APPARENT: Superstar Cam Evans is fighting to climb out of a slump that`s growing worse with each day of living in denial.
Fresh from the minors, Jacobi Neal is hungry for this chance to play back-up for the legendary goalie. Can two men battle each other, their inner demons, and the sizzling attraction building between them?Jaymee Jacobs A VALUABLE TRADE: Bryans life gets turned upside when he gets traded to the Dallas Comets, and things get even messier when he meets Georgiana, the Director of Team Services. Hes got a lot of work to do to prove his worth to his new team, but Georgianas sure hell prove to be a valuable trade.Nikki Worrell Captain My Captain (Prequel to the NHL Scorpions Series): Keith Lambert is the captain of the Philadelphia Flyers—until he's not.
To everyone's shock, he's traded to the San Diego Scorpions. As if that's not bad enough, Phoebe, his girlfriend of two years, decides she doesn't love him enough to follow.All alone in a new town, Keith is drawn to Kelly, his take out delivery girl. When she shows up at ice girl tryouts, he's lost. She's all he can see. Can he convince her to forget her past and take a chance on him or is he destined to be alone in a new town a little bit longer?
©2011-2015 | DMCA | Contact us


text:
In light of the COVID-19 situation, offers via Citi World Privileges may be temporarily disrupted due to travel restrictions and Government quarantine measures being implemented across the globe. Your health and safety is our priority and these will be available and accessible when it is safe to do so.
Save up to IDR60.000,- for GrabFood
Save up to 40%
Save up to 20% + Free room upgrade
Get Blibli voucher up to IDR1,000,000
Xiaomi Electric Bicycle Z16/Z20
Huawei Freelace Pro
Huawei x Gentle Monster Eyewear
Huawei Watch GT2 Pro
Huawei Freebuds Studio
Visa Infinite Complimentary Night Hotel Benef...
Enjoy upgrades and VIP privileges at particip...
Save $10 on Online Orders of $50 or More
Save 10% on Select Regularly Priced Jewelry
Golf & Save with 50% Off a Round of Golf + 10...
Citibank, N.A., Indonesia is a bank that is registered and supervised by the Indonesia Financial Services Authority (OJK).
The information provided in this website is not, and should not be construed as, an offer, invitation or solicitation to buy or sell any Citibank, N.A., Indonesia products and services to individuals resident in the European Union, European Economic Area, Switzerland, Guernsey, and Jersey.


text:
Snowden (2016)
If you enjoy Can't Stop the Movies, contributions help me eat and pay rent. Please consider becoming a monthly Patron or sending a one-time contribution via PayPal.
Edward Snowden - whistleblower who put American lives in jeopardy, or a man of bravery taking a rare and public stand for what he stands for? Oliver Stone directs Snowden, with the screenplay written by Oliver Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald, and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene Woodley.
Regardless of veracity to the events of Edward Snowden's life, there's one scene in Snowden where the tightly wound intellectual and future whistle-blower felt familiar to me. Sat down by a government official, Snowden (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is asked some of his favorite authors. He lists Joseph Campbell, Henry David Thoreau, and - of course - Ayn Rand. It's a little detail, but as we watch Snowden go from conservative to tentatively liberal to defiantly his own person that sacrifices his freedom for the good of the many. Rand might have had a thing or two to say about that, but I found it kind of romantic.
Romance isn't something I typically associate with Oliver Stone movies, give or take a Natural Born Killers. Snowden is unabashedly romantic, but the object of Snowden's affections isn't Snowden himself or his relationship to Lindsay Mills (Shailene Woodley). The romance comes from the idea that citizens of the United States are capable of recognizing the rot within their surroundings and give a damn enough to do something about it. Snowden had changed enough as a person to recognize the evil our surveillance state was allowing and taking one hell of a stance to bring it to light.
I don't think it's fair to continue this review without sharing a bit about myself and my view of Snowden because there's no divorcing how romantic I found Stone's film to be without addressing it. Listing Ayn Rand as a favorite author then watching Snowden's political transformation echoes much of my own intellectual development and view of Snowden himself. White boys of the middle class seem destined to run into Ayn Rand at some point and I got my phase over in my senior year of high school. I thought the plot of The Fountainhead was madness and the philosophy hypocritical but was enraptured by the passion. My views on Snowden evolved along the same lines, wondering how he could object to data collection, and then feeling the rot in my soul the more I realized what barely verified evil that data was being used for.
Maybe you'll find Stone's approach to Snowden reductive in the way it condenses complex intelligence issues into a fairly streamlined entertainment. I admire Stone's approach here. There isn't as much visual daring that characterized Stone's earliest features but his restraint allows us to focus on Snowden's face as he uncovers new layers of information. When he finds out things that shatter his worldview the result isn't one of rapid fire images but steady shot of Snowden's face as he struggles to comprehend his situation. Intense glances around the room from Gordon-Levitt, closeups of the potential outlets they could be spied on, then the blast of steam Snowden allows his face to be clouded by. It's still paranoia, which all Stone's films are characterized with in some fashion, just about the seemingly innocuous things in our lives instead of grand conspiracies.
Stone going full Natural Born Killers or even the fantasies of JFK in Snowden would have been too much. When just about every electronic device produced is capable of spying on us the full-throttle Stone paranoia experience might have legit killed me. I prefer the creeping dread approach Stone takes here, especially when it comes to Snowden and Lindsay's relationship. They have a sex scene that started in total alignment with convention - soft lighting, nice music - until Snowden sees a webcam pointed in their direction. The vision becomes harsh, angled low, cutting violently as Snowden imagines what the ephemeral eye of surveillance is seeing.
The scene is also important because of a smart screenplay decision from Stone and cowriter Kieran Fitzgerald. Snowden is not the only one affected by his growing dread, and a lot of attention is paid to Lindsay. Woodley is spectacular as Lindsay, who speaks the dialogue with a constant state of exasperation in both the good times and the bad. Her defiance of Snowden in the bad times grants us a uniquely personal view on how the pressures of deep state surveillance can damage a relationship. Snowden didn't have to be the one to blow the lid off the level of data being collected, but Lindsay also didn't have to be the one to stand by him the entire time. When she says she'll wait for him but, "It's the last time," the moment is painful because Lindsay's and Woodley were written with so much space to make Lindsay's needs clear.
Gordon-Levitt is a performer I have a hard time getting distance from. When I loaned out my copy of Brick to friends back in Illinois, I'd inevitably be hit with texts like, "Brendan [Levitt's character in Brick] reminds me a ton of you." Well, yeah, I was that kind of emotionally intense, perpetually weighed down, and focused to the point of masochism person. I feel the same sense of recognition with his portrayal of Snowden here. Questions come out of Gordon-Levitt's mouth with weight and purpose, his fidgety hands needing a toy or something to occupy himself, seeing the threats around him and tensing his body for impact but unable to explain that fear to those he loves the most. I get that, and Gordon-Levitt's work hit me in an unquestionably personal space once more.
Snowden isn't Stone's best movie - that honor goes to Talk Radio - but it shares an existential crisis of ethics that Stone infuses in his best work. Snowden's story, for once, allows an Oliver Stone movie to end on a sort of happy note. It doesn't matter how revered or reviled he is for his decision. That kind of sacrifice is rare and the beauty of Stone's film is how clearly he sees Snowden - the man who saw the evil, steeled himself for what was to come, and said, "No more."
Enjoy the piece? Please share this article on your platform of choice using the buttons below, or join the Twitch stream here!
Snowden (2016)
Directed by Oliver Stone.
Screenplay written by Oliver Stone and Kieran Fitzgerald.
Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene Woodley.
More from my site
Enjoy this article?
Trackbacks are disabled.


text:
|Sighting Report
|Occurred : 6/30/1955 00:00 (Entered as : 1950's 0:00)
Reported: 6/22/2008 9:31:47 AM 09:31
Posted: 7/5/2008
Location: Quartz Hill, CA
Shape: Disk
|childhood ufo
I will never forget this in my entire life.....
my brothers and I slept in the same room in Quartz Hill, near Lancaster, CA....Edwards AFB......in the mid 1950's.
My father as abusive as he was...put us to bed early. This, I will never forget......
I thought I fell asleep....I was only six at the time.....my bed faced the window.....suddenly a bright yellow ball came and beat against our window!
I asked my brother, (we called him ((nickname deleted))) He goes by ((name deleted)) now...."did you see that"? I was only six!!!!!!!!!!!!! He said "yes".
No one will ever believe me....that is why I have not come forward before now.
It was a bright yellow ball, attempting to look within our window! It was that close!
I hate to say this.....but the Air Force is way "off base".
((NUFORC Note: Witness indicates that the date of the event is approximate. PD))


text:
Office 365 is a key element of Satya Nadella's mobile-first, cloud-first enterprise strategy and by all accounts Microsoft has been highly successful in migrating corporate customers to the cloud version of its signature productivity suite. The company announced in April that Office 365 subscribers grew 35% in Q1 over Q4. Skyhigh tracks and secures the cloud usage of over 21 million users worldwide and we found that Office 365 now tops the enterprise cloud service list by user count. Across industries, 71% of large enterprises have at least 500 Office 365 users.
Employees at these companies are relying on Office 365 to store business-critical data. Analyzing files uploaded to Office 365, Skyhigh found 17.4% contained sensitive personally identifiable information (e.g. Social Security numbers, phone numbers, home addresses, etc.), protected health information (e.g. patient diagnoses, medical treatments, etc.), payment data (e.g. credit card numbers, debit card numbers, bank accounts, etc.), or confidential data (e.g. financial records, business plans, top secret documents, source code, trading algorithms, etc.).
While Office 365 is a very secure platform, some customers are looking for additional capabilities to understand what data is uploaded to OneDrive, SharePoint Online, and Yammer. They also want to enforce enterprise security and compliance policies across that data. With the average company using 171 cloud-based collaboration services, once companies select Office 365 as their corporate standard there's a need to coach and migrate users away from unsanctioned services. Phil DiCorpo, Director of Product Management at Skyhigh and Office 365 power user, created a 5-minute video on how to accomplish these objectives.
With Skyhigh for Office 365, organizations have visibility into all collaboration services in use, and can use just-in-time educational messages to coach users to Office 365, ensuring all employees are using the corporate standard. Within Office 365 applications, Skyhigh monitors user and admin activity and detects anomalous activity indicative of a compromised account or insider threat. Finally, Skyhigh helps organizations ensure compliance with external regulations and internal policies by extending their data loss prevention policies to data in Microsoft's productivity tools. To learn more about how Skyhigh for Office 365 helps organizations meet their security, compliance, and governance requirements, download the datasheet.
Popular Posts
CASB Magic Quadrant 2019 is here – McAfee a Leader for third consecutive year
CASB RFP Template: 200+ Common Questions Enterprises Are Asking
9 Cloud Computing Security Risks Every Company Faces
Office 365 Security Concerns: Download Definitive Guide to Office 365 eBook
51 AWS Security Best Practices