text:
Carlijn Nouwen Partner, Dalberg
Carlijn Nouwen
Partner, Dalberg
Carlijn is a Partner in Dalberg's Johannesburg office. Her main topical areas of focus are financial services/ financial inclusion and healthcare. Across sectors, Carlijn is the global lead of Dalberg Advisors' Inclusive Business Growth Expertise area and does a lot of work on innovative finance and investment. She often works for private sector clients on market selection and market entry strategy to turn inclusive business into a lasting competitive advantage Carlijn has extensive experience in stakeholder engagement and alignment, including executive coaching and developing and running middle management training and coaching programs to enhance change readiness and build required new skills.
Prior to joining Dalberg, Carlijn spent seven years at McKinsey & Company. She has also worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, focusing on Official Development Assistance as part of the Dutch diplomatic corps. She previously worked for a grassroots development NGO in Delhi.
Carlijn holds a Masters degree in Industrial Engineering and Management Science (cum laude) from the Eindhoven Technical University, a first-year diploma in International Relations and Political Sciences from the University of Amsterdam, and she has followed diplomat's training with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Facts and figures about Stone+tec
Exhibition Centre Nuremberg
Wednesday, 12 to Saturday, 15 May 2021 Save the date to my calender
every two years
Opening times
09:00 - 18:00 (Wednesday to Friday)
09:00 - 17:00 (Saturday)
Be there and use the online stand application.
Product spectrum
Natural stone, additional materials, technology, gravestones and accessories
Discover the whole range of options.
Performance figures 2018
- 333 exhibitors (incl. 56 % international)
- 11.819 visitors (incl. 20 % international)
Structure of visitors from industry and craft trades*
- 46% Natural stone - Processing of natural stone
- 31% Manufacturing of gravestones
- 17% Cemetery
- 15% Natural stone - Distribution of natural stone
- 14% Construction - Interior fitting
- 13% Construction - Exterior fitting
- 10% Retailing of gravestones
- 8% Restoration, historic preservation
- 8% Natural stone - Quarry
- 5% Gardening and landscaping
- 5% Art, design
- 4% Wholesale
- 2% Architecture, planning office
- 1% Cemetery office
- 1% Building authority
More successful figures for decision-makers are available in the exhibition profile.
Entrances & hall allocation
- via the entrance Mitte and entrance West to halls 9, 10, 11 and 12
The site plan and the plans of the individual halls are available online.
Travel by public transport
You can reach the Exhibition Centre Nuremberg quickly and easily by public transport. The "Messe" stop on the U1 underground line is directly opposite the Mitte entrance of the Exhibition Centre.
From the Central Station, please take the U1 towards Langwasser-Süd. From the airport, take the U2 towards Röthenbach and change to the U1 towards Langwasser-Süd at the Central Station.
Journey times and fares
- Journey time from the airport: 25 minutes
- Journey time from the Central Station: 8 minutes
- Fare zone A (EUR 3.20 per journey, Online ticket: EUR 2.75 per journey)
Coronavirus: Information for passengers concerning busses and trains
Travel by car
If you travel by car, a dynamic traffic guidance system will support you in Nuremberg. It will show you the best way to get to the Exhibition Centre Nuremberg – according to the current traffic situation. Simply follow the signs and be guided to a vacant parking space at the Exhibition Centre Nuremberg.
Find more details in the route map .
Destination address for your navigation system
If you would prefer to be guided by your navigation system, enter "Messe" as the special destination or enter the address "Karl-Schönleben-Strasse, 90471 Nürnberg".
Parking at the exhibition site
NürnbergMesse offers more than 14,000 parking spaces near the Mitte and Ost entrances – as well as additional spaces in the multi-storey car park and nearby. Parking tickets are available on site.
There are parking spaces for disabled people near each entrance.
Parking space for disabled people
Parking spaces for disabled people are located near the entrances.
You can conveniently order parking tickets for exhibitors online in advance in the ExhibitorShop.
Taxi number
Please note that due to the current situation it is necessary to wear a mask when driving a taxi and it is not possible to ride in the front passenger seat.
Our Stone+tec team
Our exhibition team is your personal contact for all questions relating to Stone+tec.
Your direct contact to Stone+tec
What exhibitors should know now:Hygiene concept Application 2021 Reasons for exhibting


text:
Hi everyone!
Welcome to my small corner of the internet. Since I've been connecting with some new people on here I thought this would be a good opportunity to write a little summary to introduce myself, my blog, and why I'm here.
I started this personal blog almost a year ago in the midst of one of the darkest periods of my life when my mental and physical health were at their all-time worst. This time last year I was in the depths of my worst depressive episode ever, my anxiety was at a peak, and I was completely debilitated by an eating disorder. I'm going to spare the potentially-triggering details, but if anyone has any questions I encourage you to reach out and I'll do my best to respond as constructively as possible.
By some miracle (read: time, effort, medication changes, and lots of support) I have gradually been able to start to pull myself out of the vicious cycle of illness and destruction by (reluctantly) turning inwards and beginning to validate my own experience. However, two sentences can hardly do this process justice, which is why this blog came about – essentially as a collection of my thoughts, feelings, struggles, and successes throughout this journey. I am beyond grateful to have found this creative outlet through which I can make sense of my own experiences and not only connect with myself, but with others as well.
It's crazy to believe how much things have changed over the past year. I'd like to think, that at the very least, I'm gradually gaining a clearer view of myself and hopefully even life in general. From my personal experiences, reflection, and my undergraduate studies in psychology and biology, I have definitely come to have a better understanding of my own history with mental health issues.
My current perspective attempts to integrate how my detrimental core beliefs (i.e. that I am inherently not worthy) were shaped by my childhood experiences and combined with my temperament and biological predisposition to result in maladaptive coping mechanisms that serve (counter-productively) only to reinforce the underlying negative beliefs themselves.
Identifying my core beliefs has allowed me to develop a better understanding of the role specific behaviours play in my life, and in examining their function I am able to reflect on how else to fill these roles more constructively.
For example, my eating disorder is a consequence of many things: A child with low-self esteem, a biological pre-disposition to anxiety and depression, combined with difficult situations in my developmental years. It has served a myriad of purposes that have evolved over time, holding on now as an identity, a response to fear of never being good enough, and a way to simultaneously avoid and attempt to meet, my own perfectionistic standards set out to prevent me from ever feeling truly unworthy.
My eating disorder (and self-destructive habits) serve as a protective barrier between myself and my harmful core beliefs. They're an ineffective shield against failure. When confronted with unrealistic, unforgiving expectations laid-down to prove I'm worthy, I have given myself little choice but to surrender to the vicious cycle. If I can't achieve what is expected of me, or what I expect of myself, it's not because I am a failure but rather because I'm sick. Self-sabotage is my excuse for giving up or saying no when I don't feel I am otherwise worth setting these boundaries. It helps deal with my tendency to make tasks impossible from the get-go because of my unhealthy standards. In some twisted way I thought (unconsciously…) that they would defend me. No one can hurt me more than I hurt myself. No one can expect more from me than I expect from myself. I can't disappoint anyone more than I disappoint myself. Unfortunately, instead of protecting me from my lack of self-worth, they inadvertently sustain the negative deep-seated beliefs themselves.
Perfectionism isn't achievement-based – It's shame based. It isn't just a desire to do well, it's a mask for vulnerability. It doesn't set you up to feel perfect or to achieve high standards, it sets you up to feel like a failure. Eating disorders aren't a desire to be thin, they're a disease that no one chooses to have.
Having started to consider how my habits took route and continue to manifest, I am working with a lovely private counsellor (among other things) to "break the cycle" of self-sustaining negative beliefs. I'm by no means out of the woods yet, but I have (for the first time in my life) made a commitment to myself to try something different. I am going to treatment three times a week and while most days I still don't entirely feel "worth it", I try instead to operate under the hope that it might be possible that I am. I'm not even close to saying that I have gone from self-hate to self-love, but in the tiniest of ways I have been able to change my immediate, compulsive responses to some situations, and that has given me enough hope to hold on to.
For the first time in 13 years I've taken time off from competitive sport, which began to have a twisted and triggering role in my life, and I'm slowing down the pursuit of my degree by taking fewer courses at a time. As someone who has always obligated to keep busy, and in a society that condones running ourselves into the ground in the name of meritocracy, this in itself has been really challenging for me. However, at the same time I feel like I'm not doing enough, many days it still feels like too much. Now, having made the decision to try, I find myself devoting all my extra time to "getting better" and it seems like I walk out of therapy with binders full of "homework".
The work of introspection may never be done and I think recovery is a life-long process. Choosing to show up for myself and to practice self-compassion will be choices I have to make daily, and or the time being ones I have to make from moment to moment, but I'm hopeful that these choices will get easier with time.
Right now I'm trying to ask different questions from the old ones that have kept me stuck for almost two decades. Instead of "how do I avoid failure" I'm asking "What could I do if I didn't allow failure to define me?". As opposed to "Why am I unworthy" – "How would I behave if I was?".
I thought living with an eating disorder (or mental illness) would be the hardest thing I would ever have to do but I was wrong – recovering from them is way harder. It asks me to feel everything I've spent most of my life trying to avoid. It asks me to question most of what I've spent my whole life believing to be true. It asks me to have the hindsight to forgive my past-self for how I responded to pain when I didn't know any better. and to have patience with myself now even when I do. It requires I be vulnerable to the discomfort and uncertainty of life that I always frighted me more than any monsters under my bed. It asks me to show up up fully in this life despite not knowing what tomorrow looks like – and for once, I'm actually beginning to do so.


text:
"SEO is neither a deliverable nor a goal, so we shouldn't sell it as if it were. Complexity and secrecy keep the ranking algorithm details unknowable so we are all, more or less, flying by the seats of our pants. No two websites are identical so there is no «one size fits all» SEO solution". MikeTek SEM Strategist @ SEOMOZ
Why a Project about the Flower Business Industry?
During the time of the project I was working at an online flower website which focused – amongst other – also on the German market. The turnover in the flower business in the United States in 2010 was 35,2 billion Dollars and Germany is the major consumer market in 2011 with 22% market share. So you see, it is a powerful business.
With my project I wanted to focus on Search Engine Optimization, since about 30% of the income – of the online flower website I was working for – was from organic traffic. The objective was to identify the top 30 organic keywords in the German Online Flower Business. Because of that, those were the questions of the investigation:
1. Who are the top 3 players in the German online flower industry regarding SEO?
2. Which are the top 30 organic keywords with the highest Estimated Traffic Value (ETV) in the online flower industry in Germany?
After 6 months of investigation, analysis and writing – the main conclusions are the following:
• Study Object: This project defines the top 30 organic keywords in search engine optimization of the German online flower industry through analyzing 4 German flower websites.
• Theoretic Framework: It shows up a general explanation of SEO & the importance and value of keywords for the business, especially the fact of identifying relevant keywords for your business.
• Methodology:
a) Explains the Process of choosing the top German flower Websites with "SeoMoz Open Site Explorer" and calculating the Domain Authority of each of those Websites.
b) Clarifies the Keyword Extraction Process from the top German Flower Websites through the "Advanced Webranking Tool".
c) Explains how the outcome of the keywords was ranked from 1 – 30 through a variable that is called "Estimated Traffic Value" (ETV). This variable shows you the value of the keywords by indicating how much you would need to pay for them if advertising them with Google.
• Conclusion:
Human Decision: in SEO there is always human decision involved, meaning: there are several tools out there you can use for the above process. Keywords: you need to clean the keywords for relevancy and chose those keywords which are relevant for your business, meaning if somebody looks for a keyword that he/she also finds relevant content for this keyword on your website.
Use of Keywords: it is recommended to include the outcome of the keywords in your decision of SEO for your business in the following areas: onsite in metas: title, headers, meta description, alt attributions and as content on the website. Links: as anchor texts in internal and external links
And, last but not least, never forget: Google's algorithm changes constantly & and you need to anticipate changes as a good SEO. 🙂


text:
A successful newscast not only retains the lead-in audience, it continues building audience all the way to the end. That is winning. Make no mistake, if you can do this you will keep your job even if you are the 4th place station. Once viewers tune in and stay, a producer and anchor's job is more secure. If viewers feel the need to "check in" halfway through, you have even more job stability.
Successful veteran producers know that this is done by "spreading the wealth." Hence, the 15 minute lead concept. The name of this concept is a little misleading though. For less experienced journalists lead means first. That usually becomes, the first story in the news block. Too many times I have seen this lead to a strange design of newscast blocks, that tried to manipulate meters, but actually set producers up for failure.
So let's redefine the term "lead" for this concept. When you think lead, think "must see", "can't miss" and "gotcha!" This is an important distinction for many reasons. First, it helps you "build up" sections of your newscast for the "big moment." Remember, great newscasts come across as conversations. There are natural lulls and high points in conversation. One producer I know explains it like this: "Watching my shows is like hopping on a roller coaster. You will get moments to catch your breath, but you will also get plenty of stomach churning action."
Let's build on that idea. When you get on a roller coaster half the fun is the ride up that first hill, knowing that a big thrill is just over the crest. When you think of it that way those "pacer" stories have a lot more meaning don't they? You have to keep building up to the big moment. Teases are a lot more important also.
Too often when consultants and news managers preach about the "quarter leads" they only want to know what those chunks are. They miss a big part of the concept. Some of these chunks can happen at the end of a block. They cannot all be the same type of big moment. You want a thrill ride to be a stomach tickling, heart pounding, close your eyes and take your breath away experience! Each one has a different feel. Same idea when applying the concept to producing. You can't just take 4 big stories of the day and throw them in at those meter points. You must remember you are having a conversation. Distinct types of topics make a difference. Viewers expect different types of stories at different points in their interaction with the anchors.
Case in point, where these "quarter hour leads" play in rundowns and definitions:
• Top of newscast: The first lead is biggest impact story of the day.
• 15 minutes in: Depends largely on your station's news philosophy. This might actually fall closer to 20 depending on day part and if you have a weak spot in viewer retention.
• 30 minutes in: Depends on your day part but the story needs to have "today" relevance.
• 45 minutes in: Again depends on your station's news philosophy and it's pledge to viewers. Depending on day part, that "big moment" may actually happen closer to 50.
You cannot take throwaway vo's and slap them in, leading up to that final "15 minute lead." The viewer cannot sense he/she is on that hill, click-clacking up to the top of a final hill and a final thrill. This is the area I see mis-designed most often in rundowns that follow the 15 minute lead model. The viewer stuck with you for a long time. You need to reward that loyalty. Therefore, each story has to count. This conversation needs to end on a high note. By this I do not mean a water skiing squirrel! I mean something really worth hanging around to see. Something that will make a difference in that viewer's day. Perhaps it's a great consumer story, way to save time or maybe a smart phone app that's going to make their life a little easier. You can also "go human." Introduce them to someone in your community that will make them proud they live there.
Because of the extra importance of that last quarter hour, how you tease throughout the newscast has to be looked at closely. Too often producers executing a 15 minute lead concept, focus on the next 15 only in their tease structure. You are designing a rundown with a ton of compelling content. So your teases need to scream: "Hang on, we have a ton of great stuff to talk about!" Do not be afraid to tease more than two things. But, your teases need to rock, every line, every time. You are building up a great conversation, full of high notes. Teases cannot be the lulls in conversation. (The "lulls" are occasionally more information-type, perspective moments, where viewers can gain more insight, without emotion tied to it.) A truly well executed 15 minute lead concept, focuses heavily on tease structure. In fact that structure is as important as the design of each lead itself.
Which brings us to one final point. These leads are not just long packages you tease a few times. Showcasing counts! These are areas where you need to think "3 screens." These are areas where you add extra information so viewers can walk away with valuable nuggets of knowledge. And I'm not just talking about inside the package. You build up the lead, let viewers experience the thrill ride, then reward them for watching. This has to happen 4 times, effectively, to win the 15 minute lead concept. In a sense you are creating sidebar topics, each quarter hour as part of a great hour long conversation viewers won't soon forget. If that doesn't smack of "Gotcha!" and also lead to ratings gains, nothing will.


text:
The Cincinnati Bengals finished 2-14 last season. As bettors will tell you, that doesn't matter for this season.
Most of the teams and players getting the heaviest action for NFL season-long future bets at BetMGM should be easy to guess. The Las Vegas Raiders have an inordinate amount of bets on them, and that makes sense because Nevada is still the sports gambling capital and the locals are excited to have an NFL team. The Dallas Cowboys are heavily bet in any offseason, and that's especially true after a buzzy offseason. Bettors are still happy to take the Kansas City Chiefs, the defending Super Bowl champs.
The Bengals are an unlikely inclusion on that list though. There's a lot more faith in rookie quarterback Joe Burrow than you might have imagined.
Who are bettors placing their NFL wagers on?
There haven't been many Super Bowl bets on the Bengals. So people haven't totally lost their minds.
But the Bengals are getting by far the most bets to win the AFC North. According to BetMGM, 71.5 percent of the total amount of money to come in on AFC North futures is on the Bengals. There are some big wagers involved there, since they're getting just 31.5 percent of the bets. They are currently 25-to-1 to win the division. They're also getting a lot of play to win the AFC championship at 50-to-1, with 6 percent of bets and 9.2 percent of the money on all AFC bets coming in on the Bengals. Only the Chiefs, Raiders, Chargers and Titans are getting a higher percentage of AFC championship money. Again, the Bengals were the worst team in football last season.
The Raiders have by far the most wagers at BetMGM to win the AFC at 40-to-1. They're at 15.1 percent and the Chiefs are second at 10.9 percent. When the Vegas Golden Knights entered the NHL, many locals bet them to win it all, then almost got a miracle when the expansion team went to the Stanley Cup Final in 2018. If the Raiders are better than expected, BetMGM will be sweating out the local team again.
The Cowboys are the other team dominating the futures market. An astonishing 98 percent of the money wagered on which team will win the NFC East title has come in on the Cowboys, who have -110 odds. The Giants are second on that list at 0.96 percent. One big bet on the Cowboys skews that number. But the Cowboys also lead in most bets (14.3 percent) and money (18.8 percent) on any team to win the NFC title.
The Chiefs are the only team to get more than 10 percent of the money wagered on which team will win the Super Bowl, at 18 percent. The Chiefs have the second-lowest Super Bowl odds at +600. The Ravens are the current favorite at +400.
Kyler Murray getting most MVP action
NFL MVP has become a fun futures market for NFL betting. Betting on MVP only became legal in the past few years in Nevada.
Here are the top players for MVP at BetMGM, in terms of percent of bets with current odds in parentheses:
Kyler Murray (+2500), 9.3 percent
Patrick Mahomes (+400), 6.7 percent
Tom Brady (+1600), 6.5 percent
Dak Prescott (+1400), 6 percent
Drew Lock (+6500), 5.3 percent
Those Lock bets could get interesting at those odds if the Broncos make a playoff push. It's interesting to note that Lamar Jackson, last season's MVP, is getting just 3.2 percent of bets at +700 odds. You live in a world in which more people bet on Drew Lock than Lamar Jackson to win MVP.
It's easy to follow the logic on Murray. Mahomes and Jackson won MVPs in their second seasons, and Murray is set up for success in his second season. With DeAndre Hopkins to throw to in an up-tempo offense, Murray could put up some huge numbers. He certainly has the talent. And the odds are enticing.
The NFL season kicks off on Thursday. Let the sweats for future bets begin.
More from Yahoo Sports:


text:
This won't be a long article. Just to the point and hopefully with a nice angle to it.
I get asked at almost every conference I go to: "Will estate agents be out of a job?" or "Will PropTech make us all redundant?".
I can almost see it coming now...A tentative hand goes up in the audience or question gets asked through an online app-based Q&A system, mid-way through the session and is immediately liked by an entire audience.
The question is often asked by a very particular audience as well. I won't drag that out, I am sure you can imagine their demographic.
I have been doing a lot of travelling recently (and more to come in the next few weeks), and hence there is time to read books and watch the occasional film. I wanted to rewatch one of my favourites; Moneyball, based on a book of the same name written by Michael Lewis.
It is a famous baseball story of the Oakland Athletics, a major league baseball team, who in 2002, went on an amazing winning run, matching the all-time record of 20 straight wins. It is almost a classic underdog story; their annual salaries were the 3rd lowest in Major League Baseball (under $40m compared to the Yankees who were nearly $120m).
You get the picture. Underdog story and they very nearly made it.
It isn't the ending that interests me much, it was some of the dialogue around the strategy the A's (as they were affectionately known). Historically, and to quote Wikipedia here for a minute, "the collective wisdom of baseball insiders (including players, managers, coaches, scouts, and the front office) over the past century is subjective and often flawed."
"Statistics such as stolen bases, runs batted in, and batting average, typically used to gauge players, are relics of a 19th-century view of the game and the statistics available at that time."
Their General Manager, a gentleman by the name of Billy Beane, was central to the story; a flawed player himself. In fact, he was one of those let down by the system. Much lauded by the scouts, he just didn't convert when under pressure.
The A's, under his stewardship, weren't doing so well. They needed a different strategy. He looked to a new theory; Sabermetrics. This wasn't a new theory but was laughed at. Sabermetrics was the brainchild of Bill James and is the empirical analysis of baseball, especially baseball statistics that measure in-game activity. It was used to pick which players to choose when selecting a team.
They weren't the stand out choices that the traditional scouts would make but they were based on fact and statistical analysis. Something that sat uneasy to most.
This interchange comes from the film between two of the core characters:
Peter Brand: There is an epidemic failure within the game to understand what is really happening. And this leads people who run Major League Baseball teams to misjudge their players and mismanage their teams. I apologise.
Billy Beane: Go on.
Peter Brand: Okay. People who run ball clubs, they think in terms of buying players. Your goal shouldn't be to buy players, your goal should be to buy wins. And in order to buy wins, you need to buy runs. You're trying to replace Johnny Damon. The Boston Red Sox see Johnny Damon and they see a star who's worth seven and half million dollars a year. When I see Johnny Damon, what I see is... is... an imperfect understanding of where runs come from. The guy's got a great glove. He's a decent leadoff hitter. He can steal bases. But is he worth the seven and half million dollars a year that the Boston Red Sox are paying him? No. No. Baseball thinking is medieval. They are asking all the wrong questions.
They are asking all the wrong questions. Could this be what we are doing perhaps?
Then there comes the other key point of the film I enjoy. The interchange with the scout. The guy who had been doing it for years. The one who had the feel for the sport.
Grady Fuson: Billy, can we talk?
Billy Beane: Yeah. You're unhappy Grady. Why?
Grady Fuson: Wow. May I speak candidly?
Billy Beane: Sure. Go right ahead.
Grady Fuson: Major League Baseball and its fans...they're gonna be more than happy to throw you and Google boy under the bus if you keep doing what you're doing. You don't put a team together with a computer.
Billy Beane: No?
Grady Fuson: No. Baseball isn't just numbers. It's not science. If it was anybody could do what we do, but they can't cause they don't know what we know. They don't have our experience and they don't have our intuition.
Billy Beane: [dismissively] Ok.
Grady Fuson: Billy, you got a kid in there that's got a degree in Economics from Yale. You got a scout here with 29 years of baseball experience. You're listening to the wrong one. Now there are intangibles that only baseball people understand. You're discarding what scouts have done for 150 years, even yourself?
Billy Beane: Adapt or die.
Many of you will draw your own conclusions from this article and I hope you can see some parallels with our own market here.
This isn't about data analysis as I hope you are already doing this. This is about a new way of doing things.
This could be about any new initiative coming into a business. This is about PropTech. This is about artificial intelligence. This is about different computer systems. Anything new that starts to show proven results.
Time is then limited to those that do not adapt and stick with the blinkers.
Adapt or die.
Harsh but true in the long run. Business moves on. People change. We have to change with them.
It's just not cricket is it...
PS. how did it all end? Billy Beane, who got it all going with the A's turned down a $12.5m contract to be the GM at the Boston Red Sox to continue his work at the A's. Two years later, in 2004, the Boston Red Sox, using principles gleaned from his strategy, won the World Series for the first time since 1918.
PPS. The A's strategy was a failure until the senior management of the team started to implement the changes suggested. The GM only picked the players, the manager selected the team on the day.
*James Dearsley is a leading PropTech influencer and commentator, and is co-founder of PropTech platform Unissu. You can follow James on Twitter here.


text:
West 3rd
Calculating distance...8379 W 3rd St.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
(310) 734-5990
Find us on West 3rd Street, next to Benefit and across from Joan's on Third. At Drybar, our philosophy is simple. Focus on one thing and be the best at it. For us, that's blowouts.
Mon-Sat: 7AM - 8PM Sun: 8AM - 7PM


text:
Toyota Hilux has been in the markets for a long time. The model first made its debut in 1968 and has been able to establish a loyal customer base over the years. The vehicle has sold over 16 million units over the world to date.
Many people love the pickup due to its stylish internal and external features. The automaker is set to launch a new 2017 Toyota Hilux meant to even reach new customers in addition to maintaining the current ones. The automaker is yet to release official details about the truck; however, through our sources we have managed to come up with the following information about its specs;
2017 Toyota Hilux Exterior
For the 2017 model, the automaker has tweaked the exterior profile to make it even more aggressive but still very attractive. The body will be made from lightweight materials meaning it will have a light curb weight.
The front fascia still retains the brand's signature 3-slot grille but has been slightly altered to make it more aggressive. The grille is flanked by a sleek looking pair headlights also wisely placed to enhance its aggressiveness. The front bumper is larger to help the vehicle in off-road terrain. The bumper is integrated with more air inlets to cool its engine.
At the back, the vehicle features stylish looking taillights which are mounted vertically to improve their performance. The rear bumper is large and leaves small portions of the redesigned exhaust tips below it visible. The vehicle will ride on 16, 17 or 18-inch aluminum wheels depending on the trim level. The wheels will be wrapped in performance tires.
2017 Toyota Hilux Interior
On the inside, the 2017 Toyota Hilux will have a spacious cabin that can comfortably accommodate five passengers in its 2-row seating arrangement. Base models will feature quality cloth upholstery while higher trims will feature leather upholstery.
The vehicle has an interactive dashboard which features a large screen at the middle along with other wisely organized attributes. Its gear knob and steering wheel are wrapped in fine leather which gives the driver a better grip. The cabin will be equipped with a host of technological features such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth connectivity, USB and Smartphone integration.
Occupants will love its spacious and comfortable seats which are automatically heated and also come with headrests. The cabin is also fitted with a 3-zone climate control system that keeps interior temperatures ideal. For safety, the pickup truck will feature stability and traction control, automated seat belts and enhanced seat belts and other driving aids offered on optional basis. We will update more information about the interior and other specs once it suffices.
Engine Specs
In the automobile market, it is always wise to give buyers a chance to choose between different drive-trains. For 2017, Toyota has decided to offer the Hilux with a range of engines.
As of now, actual details are not out but four engines are probable. The first probable engine is a 2.0-litre Petrol 137 hp engine, the second is 2.7 L VVT-i, 4-cylinder engine which is capable of producing 122 KW and 245 Nm of torque.
The third engine being rumored is a 2.4-litre Turbo Diesel (Cummins) unit capable of 110 KW and 343 Nm of torque. For more power, the vehicle will also feature a 4.0 L VVT-i, V-6 engine that comes good with 175 KW. This engine replaces the previous 3.5 L mill. The three engines will be paired to a 6-speed computerized transmission that sends power to all wheels.
Price and release date
Toyota is still tight-lipped when it comes to the 2017 Toyota Hilux price or release date. However, according to rumors, the base model will start at around $ 25,000 with fully equipped and improved models fetching as high as $ 40,000 MSRP.
The truck is expected to hit showroom in the last quarter of 2016 or first quarter of 2017.
19 2


text:
L'Oreal Professional Mythic Oil
Product Description
Enriched with a special blend of avocado and grape seed oil this lightweight oil cares and pampers all hair types. Nourishing even the finest hair the formula leaves hair looking shiny feeling nourished and supple. Before blowdrying diligently apply Mythic Oil to various sections of the hair allowing the formula to pamper your tired locks.
I was first introduced to this product by my hairdresser a couple of months ago. (Please note this is only available Online or via a L'Oreal salon) - I do suffer with oily hair and have to wash my hair at least every other day. I was scared, when I seen my hairdresser putting oil in my "oily" hair. However, this product can only be described as beautiful.
- Beautiful packaging
- Beautiful smell
- Beautiful results
It's such a luxurious product and it's so light weight, meaning that it really does not make your hair go oily (as probably imagined by many) - I personally take 1-2 pumps of this and run it through my damp hair. The product also reduces blow drying time, which is a great bonus. The smell of the product is also amazing and it's easy to say that I love this product. It really does make my hair shine like a sixpence and I'm very happy with the results after a week of using it.


text:
We are going to configure IIS 8 as a frond-end for Apache Tomcat. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Windows
SQL Server 2014 Reporting Services Fail to Bind to SSL
Configuring SSRS 2014 over SSL. Continue reading
Recovering Windows Server Licences from Key Management Server (KMS) on Amazon EC2
A couple of ways of recovering Windows licences from KMS on Amazon. Continue reading
Enable Remote Commands in Windows PowerShell (Windows Remote Management)
Using WS-Management (WinRM 2.0), Windows PowerShell 2.0 allows scripts and cmdlets to be invoked on a remote machine. Continue reading
OpenVPN Server and Client Setup on Windows
Setting up an OpenVPN server on a Windows Server 2008 hosted on AWS. Also tested on Windows Server 2012 R2. Continue reading


text:
Health CBD LTD Home Page
Nothing to hide here we have 3rd party laboratory testing reports
We first test for Potency to ascertain the exact amount of Cannabinoids in the product. CBD is not the only Cannabinoid in cannabis, there are over 600 known Cannabinoids in the cannabis plant and a lab test is essential to confirm the level of Cannabinoids to determine the potency and confirm the lawfulness of the products We test for CBD, CBDA CBC, THC, THCA CBG and CBN. We primarily want a high potency CBD product but it's also essential to have small amounts of the other Cannabinoids as it is the synergistic quality also known as the entourage effect of these compounds that makes it truly effective. Testing for bacteria or mould on the plant material is also done to ensure there are no harmful pathogens which could be consumed and cause unwanted side effects.
Health CBD News
Our Blog


text:
Why Ragdale?
A passionate team, 40 years experience, award winning, extensive facilities....and there's more!
When arranging a visit to Ragdale Hall, we recommend you have a look at the choice of Spa Breaks, Spa Days and Special Offers. Also check out Whats On as there may be something happening at the Hall e.g. a special event week which focuses on a particular well-being subject of interest to you.
For spa breaks please consider the following:
*As we only have a limited number of single bedrooms, and they are one of our most popular room types, we would recommend booking at least 6 months in advance to avoid disappointment. However, we may, at times, be able to offer very limited single occupancy at short notice.
Spa breaks are available to BOOK ONLINE
For spa days please consider the following:
Once you have an idea of your preferred options please contact us to confirm availability and prices. You can do this in a number of ways, selecting whichever is the most convenient for you:
Telephone 01664 433000 (9.00am to 8.00pm weekdays and 9.30am to 5.30pm weekends).
Please leave an answerphone message during out of office hours and we will call you when the office re-opens.
Complete the availability check online and we will aim to respond by email within 24 hours or by telephone.
Email email@example.com


text:
American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, Republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values,[1] moral absolutism,[2] free markets and free trade,[3][4] anti-communism,[4][5] individualism,[4] advocacy of American exceptionalism[6], and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism.[7]
Liberty for people who conform to Anglo-American values[8], economic freedom, social conservatism, and promotion of Judaeo-Christian[1] ideals are core beliefs, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, limiting the size and scope of government in the economy, and opposition to high taxes and government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur. American conservatives consider individual liberty, within the bounds of conformity to American values, as the fundamental trait of democracy, which contrasts with modern American liberals, who generally place a greater value on equality and social justice.[9][10]
American conservatism originates from republicanism, which rejected aristocratic and monarchical government based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence of 1776, which stated that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". In 1789, the Constitution of United States established a Federal Republic under the rule of law. All major American political parties are based on these two documents. Conservative activists to this day occasionally dress in costumes from the Revolutionary era and celebrate revolutionary episodes such as the Boston Tea Party. Conservative philosophy also has continuity to the classical liberal tradition of the 18th and 19th centuries, which advocated for laissez-faire economics, also called economic freedom and deregulation.[11][12]
Historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role in American politics and culture since 1776. However, they have stressed that an organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s.[13][14][15] The recent movement is based in the Republican Party, though some Democrats were also important figures early in the movement's history.[16][17]
According to Peter Viereck, American conservatism is distinctive because it was not tied to a monarchy, landed aristocracy, established church, or military elite.[18] Instead American conservatives were firmly rooted in American republicanism, which European conservatives opposed. They are committed, says Seymour Martin Lipset, to the belief in America's "superiority against the cold reactionary monarchical and more rigidly status-bound system of European society."[19]
The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians favor small government, laissez-faire economy, low income and corporate taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support mandatory school prayer and oppose abortion and same sex marriage.[20][21][22][23][24] The 21st century has seen an increase in conservative support for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world.[25] Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism.[26] Nationwide most factions, except some libertarians, support a unilateral foreign policy, and a strong military. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of "godless communism."[27]
William F. Buckley Jr., in the first issue of his magazine National Review in 1955, explained the standards of his magazine and helped make explicit the beliefs of American conservatives:[28]
Among our convictions: It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens' lives, liberty and property. All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
Traditional (Burkean) conservatives tend to be anti-ideological, and some would even say anti-philosophical,[29] promoting rather, as Russell Kirk explained, a steady flow of "prescription and prejudice". Kirk's use of the word "prejudice" here is not intended to carry its contemporary pejorative connotation: a conservative himself, he believed that the inherited wisdom of the ages may be a better guide than apparently rational individual judgment.
There are two overlapping subgroups of social conservatives—the traditional and the religious. Traditional conservatives strongly support traditional codes of conduct, especially those they feel are threatened by social change and modernization. For example, traditional conservatives may oppose the use of female soldiers in combat. Religious conservatives focus on conducting society as prescribed by a religious authority or code. In the United States this translates into taking hard-line stances on moral issues, such as opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Religious conservatives often assert that "America is a Christian nation" and call for laws that enforce Christian morality.
Fiscal conservatives support limited government, low tax, low spending, and a balanced budget. They argue that low taxes produce more jobs and wealth for everyone, and also that, as President Grover Cleveland said, "unnecessary taxation is unjust taxation".[30] A recent movement against the inheritance tax labels such a tax as a death tax. Fiscal conservatives often argue that competition in the free market is more effective than the regulation of industry. Some make exceptions in the case of trusts or monopolies. Others, such as some libertarians and followers of Ludwig von Mises, believe all government intervention in the economy is wasteful, corrupt, and immoral. More moderate fiscal conservatives argue that "free market economics" is the most efficient way to promote economic growth: they support it not based on some moral principle, but pragmatically, because they hold that it just "works."
Many modern American fiscal conservatives accept some social spending programs not specifically delineated in the Constitution. However, some American fiscal conservatives view wider social liberalism as an impetus for increased spending on these programs. As such, fiscal conservatism today exists somewhere between classical liberalism and contemporary consequentialist political philosophies, and is often influenced by coinciding levels of social conservatism. [31] [32]
Through much of the 20th century, a primary force uniting the varied strands of conservatism, and uniting conservatives with liberals and socialists, was opposition to communism, which was seen not only as an enemy of the traditional order, but also the enemy of Western freedom and democracy. Thus it was the British Labour government—which embraced socialism—that pushed the Truman administration in 1945–47 to take a strong stand against Soviet Communism.[33]
Social conservatism in the United States is the defense of traditional social norms and Judeo-Christian values.[34][35][36]
Social conservatives tend to strongly identify with American nationalism and patriotism. They often denounce anti-war protesters and support the police and the military. They hold that military institutions embody core values such as honor, duty, courage, loyalty, and a willingness on the part of the individual to make sacrifices for the good of the country.
Social conservatives are strongest in the South and in recent years played a major role in the political coalitions of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.[37]
Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of progressive taxation and expenditure. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. A political strategy employed by conservatives to achieve a smaller government is known as starve the beast. Activist Grover Norquist is a well-known proponent of the strategy and has famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."[38][39] The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.
This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy or implement laissez-faire policies. This economic liberalism borrows from two schools of thought: the classical liberals' pragmatism and the libertarian's notion of "rights." The classical liberal maintains that free markets work best, while the libertarian contends that free markets are the only ethical markets.
Historian Kathleen G. Donohue argues that classical liberalism in the 19th century U.S. had distinctive characteristics as opposed to Britain:
The economic philosophy of conservatives in the United States tends to be more liberal allowing for more economic freedom. Economic liberalism can go well beyond fiscal conservatism's concern for fiscal prudence, to a belief or principle that it is not prudent for governments to intervene in markets. It is also, sometimes, extended to a broader "small government" philosophy. Economic liberalism is associated with free market, or laissez-faire economics.
Economic liberalism, insofar as it is ideological, owes its creation to the "classical liberal" tradition, in the vein of Adam Smith, Friedrich A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ludwig von Mises.
Classical liberals and libertarians support free markets on moral, ideological grounds: principles of individual liberty morally dictate support for free markets. Supporters of the moral grounds for free markets include Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. The liberal tradition is suspicious of government authority, and prefers individual choice, and hence tends to see free market capitalism as the preferable means of achieving economic ends.
Modern conservatives, on the other hand, derive support for free markets from practical grounds. Free markets, they argue, are the most productive markets. Thus the modern conservative supports free markets not out of necessity, but out of expedience. The support is not moral or ideological, but driven on the Burkean notion of prescription: what works best is what is right.
Another reason why conservatives support a smaller role for the government in the economy is the belief in the importance of the civil society. As noted by Alexis de Tocqueville, there is a belief that a bigger role of the government in the economy will make people feel less responsible for the society. These responsibilities would then need to be taken over by the government, requiring higher taxes. In his book Democracy in America, Tocqueville described this as "soft oppression."
While classical liberals and modern conservatives reached free markets through different means historically, in recent years the lines have blurred. Rarely will a conservative politician claim that free markets are "simply more productive" or "simply the right thing to do" but a combination of both. This blurring is very much a product of the merging of the classical liberal and modern conservative positions under the "umbrella" of the conservative movement.
The archetypal free-market conservative administrations of the late 20th century—the Margaret Thatcher government in Britain and the Ronald Reagan administration in the U.S.—both held the unfettered operation of the market to be the cornerstone of contemporary modern conservatism.[41] To that end, Thatcher privatized industries and public housing and Reagan cut the maximum capital gains tax from 28% to 20%, though in his second term he agreed to raise it back up to 28%. Reagan also cut individual income tax rates, lowering the maximum rate from 70% to 28%. He wanted to increase defense spending and achieved that; liberal Democrats blocked his efforts to cut domestic spending.[42] Reagan did not control the rapid increase in federal government spending, or reduce the deficit, but his record looks better when expressed as a percent of the gross domestic product. Federal revenues as a percent of the GDP fell from 19.6% in 1981 when Reagan took office to 18.3% in 1989 when he left. Federal spending fell slightly from 22.2% of the GDP to 21.2%. This contrasts with statistics from 2004, when government spending was rising more rapidly than it had in decades.[43]
In the United States today, the word "conservative" is often used very differently from the way it is used in Europe and Asia. The Americans after 1776 rejected the core ideals of European conservatism, which were based on the landed aristocracy, the established church, and the powerful, prestigious army.
Conservatism in the United States is not a single school of thought.[44] Barry Goldwater in the 1960s spoke for a "free enterprise" conservatism. Jerry Falwell in the 1980s preached traditional moral and religious social values. It was Reagan's challenge to form these groups into an electable coalition.[45] In the 21st century U.S., some of the groups calling themselves "conservative" include:
In the United States there has never been a national political party called the Conservative Party.[56] All major American political parties support republicanism and the basic classical liberal ideals on which the country was founded in 1776, emphasizing liberty, the rule of law, the consent of the governed, and that all men were created equal.[57] Political divisions inside the United States often seemed minor or trivial to Europeans, where the divide between the Left and the Right led to violent polarization, starting with the French Revolution.[58]
Historian Patrick Allitt expresses the difference between liberal and conservative in terms not of policy but of attitude:
No American party has advocated European ideals of "conservatism" such as a monarchy, an established church, or a hereditary aristocracy. American conservatism is best characterized as a reaction against utopian ideas of progress.[60] Russell Kirk saw the American Revolution itself as "a conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation".[61]
President Ronald Reagan set the conservative standard in the 1980s; in the 2010s the Republican leaders typically claim fealty to it. For example, most of the Republican candidates in 2012 "claimed to be standard bearers of Reagan's ideological legacy."[62] Reagan solidified conservative Republican strength with tax cuts, a greatly increased military budget, continued deregulation, a policy of rollback of Communism (rather than just containing it), and appeals to family values and conservative morality. The 1980s and beyond became known as the "Reagan Era."[63] Typically, conservative politicians and spokesmen in the 21st century proclaim their devotion to Reagan's ideals and policies on most social, economic and foreign policy issues.
Other modern conservative beliefs include skepticism of the theory of man-made global warming and opposition to government action to combat it, which conservatives contend would do severe economic damage, and ultimately more harm than good even if one accepts the premise that human activity is contributing to climate change.[64][65] They support a strong policy of law and order to control crime, including long jail terms for repeat offenders. Most conservatives support the death penalty for particularly egregious crimes. The "law and order" issue was a major factor weakening liberalism in the 1960s.[66] From 2001 to 2008, Republican President George W. Bush stressed cutting taxes and minimizing regulation of industry and banking, while increasing regulation of education.[67] Conservatives generally advocate the use of American military power to fight terrorists and promote democracy in the Middle East.
According to a 2014 poll, 38% of American voters identify as "conservative" or "very conservative," 34% as "moderate," 24% as "liberal" or "very liberal".[68] These percentages were fairly constant from 1990 to 2009,[69] when conservatism spiked in popularity briefly[70] before reverting to the original trend while liberal views on social issues reached a new high. Although the study does show some distinction between the concentration of moderates and conservatives or liberals between the Republican and Democratic parties. Among Democrats, 44% are self-identified liberals, 19% as conservatives, and 36% as moderates. For Republicans 70% self-identified as conservative, 24% as moderate, and 5% as liberal.
Conservatism appears to be growing stronger at the state level. The trend is most pronounced among the "least well-off, least educated, most blue collar, most economically hard-hit states."[71][72]
Conservatives generally believe that government action is not the solution to such problems as poverty and inequality. Many believe that government programs that seek to provide services and opportunities for the poor actually encourage dependence and reduce self-reliance. Most conservatives oppose affirmative action policies, that is, policies in employment, education, and other areas that give special advantages to people who belong to groups that have been historically discriminated against. Conservatives believe that the government should not give special benefits to people on the basis of group identity and oppose it as "reverse discrimination".
Conservatives typically hold that the government should play a smaller role in regulating business and managing the economy. They typically oppose high tax rates and programs to redistribute income to assist the poor. Such efforts, they argue, do not properly reward people who have earned their money through hard work. However, conservatives usually place a strong emphasis on the role of private voluntary charitable organizations (especially faith-based charities) in helping the poor.
As conservatives value order and security, they favor a small but strong government role in law enforcement and national defense.
On social issues, many religious conservatives oppose changes in traditional moral standards regarding sexuality and gender roles. They oppose abortion, same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals.[73] The libertarian faction tends to ignore these issues, instead focusing on fiscal and monetary policy. Business-oriented conservatives oppose the social conservatives if state laws limiting gay rights threaten to hurt business. The National Review reported in 2016 that, "as evangelical forces have become less unified...the influence of Right-leaning business groups such as the Chamber of Commerce has only grown."[74][75] In the culture war of recent decades, multiculturalism has been a flashpoint, especially regarding the humanities curriculum. Historian Peter N. Stearns finds a polarization since the 1960s between conservatives, who believe that the humanities express eternal truths that should be taught, and those who think that the humanities curriculum should be tailored to demonstrate diversity.[76] Generally conservatism opposes the "identity politics" associated with multiculturalism, and supports individualism.[77] In campus battles, progressives demand "Cultural diversity" while conservatives denounce efforts to impose "political correctness" and stifle free speech.[78]
Conservatives typically favor a "melting pot" model of assimilation into common English-speaking American culture, as opposed to a "salad bowl" approach that lends legitimacy to many different cultures.[79][80] In the 21st century, conservatives have warned on the dangers of tolerating radical Islamic elements, of the sort that they say are engaging in large-scale terrorism in Europe.[81]
In the United States, the Republican Party has been the party of conservatism since the 1890s, although there was a strong Eastern liberal wing. Since 1964 the conservatives largely took control. Meanwhile, the conservative wing of the Democratic Party, based in the South and strongly opposed to Civil Rights, grew weaker. The most dramatic realignment took place within the White South, which moved from 3–1 Democratic to 3–1 Republican between 1960 and 2000.
In addition, some American libertarians, in the Libertarian Party and even some in the Republican Party, see themselves as conservative, even though they advocate significant economic and social changes—for instance, further dismantling the welfare system or liberalizing drug policy. They see these as conservative policies because they conform to the spirit of individual liberty that they consider to be a traditional American value. However, many libertarian think-tanks such as the Cato Institute, and libertarian intellectuals such as David Boaz describe libertarianism as being "socially liberal and fiscally conservative."[82][83] Former Texas Congressman Ron Paul is one of the most well-noted Republicans with a libertarian-leaning philosophy. Espousing a return to a stricter interpretation of the Constitution, an audit of the Federal Reserve System and an end to American Interventionism in other parts of the world, Paul gained a loyal following among libertarians, displaced conservatives in the Republican Party and also made inroads with some Democrats during two failed attempts to gain the Republican Presidential Nomination in 2008 and 2012. Paul, an obstetrician by training, also ran as the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential nominee.
On the other hand, some conservatives tend to oppose free-market trade policies and support protectionism instead. They want government intervention to support the economy and protect American jobs. They oppose free trade on the ground that it benefits other countries (especially China) at the expense of American workers. However, in spite of their support for protectionism, they tend to support other free-market principles like low taxes, small government and balanced budgets.
The South, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountain states, and Alaska are generally conservative strongholds. The Northeast, Great Lakes Region, and West Coast are the main liberal strongholds. Conservatives are strongest in rural America and, to a lesser extent, in the exurbs or suburbs. Voters in the urban cores of large metropolitan areas tend to be more liberal and Democratic. Thus, within each state, there is a division between urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areas.[85] In recent decades, the electoral geography has helped give Republicans control of the House of Representatives, and Democrats a decided edge in the Electoral College which elects the president.[86]
Russell Kirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Gerald J. Russello described as follows:
Kirk said that Christianity and Western Civilization are "unimaginable apart from one another"[88] and that "all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief."[89]
In later works, Kirk expanded this list into his "Ten Principles of Conservatism"[90] which are as follows:
One stream of conservatism exemplified by William Howard Taft extols independent judges as experts in fairness and the final arbiters of the Constitution. In 1910 Theodore Roosevelt broke with most of his lawyer friends and called for popular votes that could overturn unwelcome decisions by state courts. Taft denounced his old friend and rallied conservatives to defeat him for the 1912 GOP nomination. Taft and the conservative Republicans controlled the Supreme Court until the late 1930s.[91][92]
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, a liberal Democrat, did not attack the Supreme Court directly in 1937, but ignited a firestorm of protest by a proposal to add seven new justices. Conservative Democrats immediately broke with FDR, defeated his proposal, and built up the Conservative Coalition. While the liberals did take over the Court through replacements, they lost control of Congress. That is, the Court no longer overthrew liberal laws passed by Congress, but there were very few such laws that passed in 1937–60.[93]
A recent variant of conservatism condemns "judicial activism"; that is, judges using their decisions to control policy, along the lines of the Warren Court in the 1960s. It came under conservative attack for decisions regarding redistricting, desegregation, and the rights of those accused of crimes. This position goes back to Jefferson's vehement attacks on federal judges and to Abraham Lincoln's attacks on the Dred Scott decision of 1857.[94][95]
A more recent variant that emerged in the 1980s is "originalism", the assertion that the United States Constitution should be interpreted to the maximum extent possible in the light of what it meant when it was adopted. Originalism should not be confused with a similar conservative ideology, strict constructionism, which deals with the interpretation of the Constitution as written, but not necessarily within the context of the time when it was adopted. In modern times, the term originalism has been used by Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, former federal judge Robert Bork and some other conservative jurists to explain their beliefs.[96]
In the past, conservatives have supported conservation efforts, from the protection of the Yosemite Valley, to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency.[97] However, more recently, neoconservatives have opposed environmentalism; with environmentalists often ridiculed as "tree huggers". Republican Party leaders such as Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann advocate the abolition of the EPA, calling it "the job-killing organization of America." [98]
Conservative think tanks since the 1990s have opposed the concept of man-made global warming; they challenged scientific evidence, publicised what they perceived as beneficial aspects of global warming, and stated their strong beliefs that proposed remedies would do more harm than good.[99] The concept of anthropogenic global warming continues to be an ongoing debate amongst Conservatives in the United States,[100] but the majority reject the scientific consensus that climate change is caused by humans; 73% of Republicans believed humans were uninvolved in causing global warming, according to a 2015 poll by Pew Research.[101]
In recent times, American conservatives have generally supported deregulation of pollution and reduced restrictions on carbon emissions.[102] Similarly, they have advocated increased oil drilling with less regulatory interference, such as in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[103] In the 2008 election, the phrase, "Drill baby drill" was used to express the Republican position on the subject.[104]
The term "socialist" has been used as a "rhetorical weapon" against the Left by conservatives.[105][106] David Hinshaw writes that William Allen White, editor of a small-town newspaper in Kansas from 1895, used "socialistic" as "his big gun to blast radical opposition."[107] White set "Americanism" as the alternative, warning, "The election will sustain Americanism or it will plant Socialism." White became famous when Mark Hanna, campaign manager for Republican candidate William McKinley distributed upwards of a million or more copies of one White editorial to rally opposition to William Jennings Bryan, the nominee of both the Democratic and Populist parties.[108][109]
By the 1950s, the conservative press had discovered that the word 'socialism' "proved to be a successful derogatory epithet rather than a descriptive label for a meaningful political alternative."[110] At the 1952 Republican national convention, former President Herbert Hoover repeated his warnings about two decades of New Deal policies, denouncing, says Gary Best, "The usurpation of power by the federal government, the loss of freedom in America, the poisoning of the American economy with fascism, socialism, and Keynesianism, the enormous growth of the federal bureaucracy."[111] Barry Goldwater in 1960 called for Republican unity against John F. Kennedy and the "blueprint for socialism presented by the Democrats."[112] Goldwater in 1964 attacked central planners like fellow Republican Nelson Rockefeller, implying he was a socialist in a millionaire's garb: "The Democratic party believes in what I call socialism: and if that upsets anybody's stomach, let me remind you that central planning of our economy is socialism."[113] Ronald Reagan often quoted Norman Thomas, the perennial Socialist nominee for president in the New Deal era, as saying, "The American people would never knowingly vote for Socialism, but that under the name of liberalism, they would adopt every fragment of the socialist program."[114] In 2010 Newt Gingrich defined "socialism in the broad sense" as "a government-dominated, bureaucratically-controlled, politician-dictated way of life."[115] Gingrich believes Barack Obama is committed to this form of socialism.[115]
Conservatives gained a major new communications medium with the resurgence of talk radio in the late 1980s. This enabled them to spread their message much more effectively to the general public, which had previously been confined to the major Big Three television networks.
Rush Limbaugh proved there was a huge nationwide audience for specific and heated discussions of current events from a conservative viewpoint. Other major hosts who describe themselves as conservative include: Michael Peroutka, Jim Quinn, Dennis Miller, Ben Ferguson, William Bennett, Andrew Wilkow, Lars Larson, Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Mike Church, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Kim Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Michael Reagan, Jason Lewis, Ken Hamblin, and Herman Cain.[116] The Salem Radio Network syndicates a group of religiously oriented Republican activists, including Roman Catholic Hugh Hewitt, and Jewish conservatives Dennis Prager and Michael Medved. One popular Jewish conservative, Laura Schlessinger, offers parental and personal advice, but is outspoken on social and political issues. In 2011, the largest weekly audiences for talk radio were 15 million for Limbaugh and 14 million for Hannity, with about nine million each for Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Mark Levin. The audiences overlap, depending on how many each listener dials into every week.[117]
Fox News features conservative hosts.[118] One such host is Sean Hannity, who also has a talk radio program.[119] One former host is Matt Drudge;[120] prior, and after his time on Fox News, Drudge has operated Drudge Report a news aggregation website and is a self-professed conservative.[121] It is more conservative than other news sources in the United States, such as National Public Radio and CNN.[122] Canadian-American political commentator David Frum has been a critic of this development, and has argued that the influence of conservative talk radio and Fox News has harmed American conservatism, turning it from "a political philosophy into a market segment" for extremism and conflict making "for bad politics but great TV."[123]
Liberal and leftist viewpoints have dominated higher education faculties since the 1970s, according to many studies,[124][125][126] whereas conservatives are better represented in policy-oriented think tanks. Data from a survey conducted in 2004 indicated that 72% of full-time faculty identify as liberal,[127] while 9–18% self-identify as conservative. Conservative self-identification is higher in two-year colleges than other categories of higher education but has been declining overall.[128] Those in natural sciences, engineering, and business were less liberal than those in the social sciences and humanities. A 2005 study found that liberal views had increased compared to the older studies. 15% in the survey described themselves as center-right. While the humanities and the social sciences are still the most left leaning, 67% of those in other fields combined described themselves as center-left on the spectrum. In business and engineering, liberals outnumber conservatives by a 2:1 ratio. The study also found that women, practicing Christians, and Republicans taught at lower ranked schools than would be expected from objectively measured professional accomplishments.[129][130] A study by psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammars, of the Netherlands' Tilburg University, published in September 2012 in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, found that, in social and personality psychology,[131] about a third of those surveyed say that they would to a small extent favor a liberal point of view over a conservative point of view.[132] A 2007 poll found that 58% of Americans thought that college professors' political bias was a "serious problem". This varied depending on the political views of those asked. 91% of "very conservative" adults agreed compared with only 3% of liberals.[133] That same year a documentary, Indoctrinate U, was released which focuses on the perceived bias within academia.[134][135][136]
On the other hand, liberal critic Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times that this phenomenon is more due to personal choice than some kind of discrimination or conspiracy, noting that, for example, vocations such as military officers are much more likely to be filled by conservatives, rather than liberals.[137] Additionally, two studies published in the journal of the American Political Science Association have suggested that the political orientations of college students' professors have little influence or "indoctrination" in terms of students' political belief.[138]
Postmodernism is an approach common in the humanities on campus that greatly troubles conservative intellectuals.[139][140] The issue is relativism versus absolute truths. Ellen Grigsby says, "Postmodern perspectives contend that any ideology putting forward absolute statements as timeless truths should be viewed with profound skepticism."[141] Kellner says, "Postmodern discourse frequently argues that all discourses and values are socially constructed and laden with interests and biases. Against postmodern and liberal relativism, cultural conservatives have argued for values of universal truth and absolute standards of right and wrong."[142]
Neoconservative historian Gertrude Himmelfarb has energetically rejected postmodern academic approaches:
Here is a representative summary of postmodern literary studies of the sort that antagonize conservatives, written by Jay Stevenson:
Conservative intellectuals have championed a "high conservative modernism" that insists that universal truths exist, and have opposed approaches that deny the existence of universal truths.[145] Many argued that natural law was the repository of timeless truths.[146] Allan Bloom, in his highly influential The Closing of the American Mind (1987) argues that moral degradation results from ignorance of the great classics that shaped Western culture. His book was widely cited by conservative intellectuals for its argument that the classics contained universal truths and timeless values which were being ignored by cultural relativists.[147][148]
Historians in recent years have agreed that they need to rethink the role of conservatism in recent American history.[149] An important new approach rejects the older consensus that liberalism was the dominant ethos. Labor historians Jefferson Cowie and Nick Salvatore argue the New Deal was a short-term response to depression and did not mark a permanent commitment to a welfare state, claiming that America has always been too individualistic and too hostile to labor unions to ever embrace liberalism for any extended period of time. This new interpretation argues that conservatism has largely dominated American politics since the 1920s, with the brief exceptions of the New Deal era (1933–38) and the Great Society (1964–66).[150] Historian Julian Zelizer, however, argues that "The coherence of conservatism has been exaggerated. The movement was as fragile as the New Deal coalition that it replaced....Policy change has thus proved to be much more difficult than conservatives hoped for."[151] Zelizer does find four areas where conservatives did make major changes: retrenchment of domestic programs, lowering taxes, deregulation, and opposition to labor unions. He concludes, "The fact is that liberalism survived the rise of conservatism."[152]
American conservatives typically promote American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States is inherently different from other nations and has a duty to take the lead in spreading democracy and free markets to the world. Reagan especially articulated this role (and many liberals also agree with it).[153][154] They see American values emerging from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called "the first new nation"[155] and developing a uniquely American ideology, "Americanism", based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, laissez-faire capitalism and Judeo-Christian values.[34][156]
Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and other American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[157][158] To them, the U.S. is like the biblical "City upon a Hill"—a phrase evoked by Puritan settlers in Massachusetts as early as 1630—and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[159]
Scholars have argued that British and European conservatism has little or no relevance to American traditions. According to political scientist Louis Hartz, because the United States skipped the feudal stage of history, the American community was united by liberal principles, and the conflict between the "Whig" and "Democratic" parties were conflicts within a liberal framework.[160] In this view, what is called "conservatism" in America is not European conservatism (with its royalty, landowning aristocracy, elite officer corps, and established churches) but rather 19th century classical liberalism with an emphasis on economic freedom and entrepreneurship.[161] This is in contrast to the view that Burkean conservatism has a set of universal principles which can be applied to all societies.[162] Russell Kirk in The Conservative Mind argued that the American Revolution was "a conservative reaction, in the English political tradition, against royal innovation".[61] Liberal historian Richard Hofstader criticized modern American conservatives as "pseudo-conservatives", because their negative reaction to the policies of Harry Truman showed "dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions" and because they had "little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism".[163]
Clinton Rossiter, a leading expert on American political history, published his history of Conservatism in America (1956) and also a summary article on "The Giants Of American Conservatism" in American Heritage.[164] His goal was to identify the "great men who did conservative deeds, thought conservative thoughts, practiced conservative virtues, and stood for conservative principles." To Rossiter, conservatism was defined by the rule of the upper class. He wrote, "The Right of these freewheeling decades was a genuine Right: it was led by the rich and well-placed; it was skeptical of popular government; it was opposed to all parties, unions, leagues, or other movements that sought to invade its positions of power and profit; it was politically, socially, and culturally anti-radical." His "giants of American conservatism" were: John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Elihu Root, and Theodore Roosevelt. He added that Washington and Lincoln transcend the usual categories, but that conservatives "may argue with some conviction that Washington and Lincoln can also be added to his list."
Rossiter went to note the importance of other conservative leaders over the past two centuries. Among the fathers of the Constitution, which he calls "a triumph of conservative statesmanship", Rossiter said conservatives may "take special pride" in James Madison, James Wilson, Roger Sherman, John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris and the Pinckneys of South Carolina. For the early 19th century, Rossiter said the libertarians and constitutionalists who deserve the conservative spotlight for their fight against Jacksonian democracy include Joseph Story and Josiah Quincy in Massachusetts; Chancellor James Kent in New York; James Madison, James Monroe, and John Randolph of Roanoke in Virginia.
In the decades around 1900, Rossiter finds that Grover Cleveland, Elihu Root, William Howard Taft, and Theodore Roosevelt "were most successful in shaping the old truths of conservatism to the new facts of industrialism and democracy."
Writing in 1955 he suggests that Robert A. Taft, Charles Evans Hughes, and Dwight D. Eisenhower may someday be added to the list.
Conservatives have not liked what they see as the 'mushy' and 'confused' morals and the political, sexual and social mores of the American Nation of the last 50 years. They want clarity. They want guidelines based on Judeo-Christian values. They trust God. Most Conservatives believe any sexual activity outside of the marriage contract is wrong. They believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, and they oppose assisted suicide.
To traditional conservatives, there most definitely are moral absolutes and they can most definitely and definitively identify those moral absolutes.
Conservatism generally is associated with pro-business, anti-labor, and strong-national-defense stances, all of which lead to support for free trade principles.
The American conservative system of rugged individualism, free markets, economic competition and deep respect for tradition...
Conservatives had a fear of Communism shared by most Americans. During this time a popular anti-Communist culture emerged in America, evident in movies, television programs, community activities, and grassroots organizations. This popular anti-Communist culture generated patriotic rallies, parades, city resolutions, and an array of anti—Communist groups concerned about Communist influence in the schools, textbooks, churches, labor unions, industry, and universities.
For most conservatives, if there is a common culprit in explaining society's descent into moral chaos, then it is relativism – the notion that there are no absolute values or standards, merely different interpretations and perspectives.
Social conservatives focus on moral or values issues, such as abortion, marriage, school prayer, and judicial appointments.
Against accusations of being pre-modern or even anti-modern in outlook, paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programmes, the decentralization of the federal polity, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism and isolationism in the conduct of American foreign policy, and a generally revanchist outlook upon a social order in need of recovering old lines of distinction and in particular the assignment of roles in accordance with traditional categories of gender, ethnicity, and race.
Modern American conservatism is not, and has never been, monolithic. It is a coalition with many points of origin and diverse tendencies that are not always easy to reconcile.
Conservatives often use the word "socialist" like an epithet, but they don't realize that neither their audience nor even their political opponents really know what the word even means.
|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Conservatism in the United States.


text:
My friend Melissa Ellis recently wrote a blog post about her experiences navigating the sex issue as she was growing up (The Virgin… Missy?). It's a pretty funny read so go check it out. Consider this a non-religious, sex positive response.
I was raised to "wait until after marriage"–mainly because it was a sin not to. My own fault for not digging deeper into that at a younger age. But as I covered in a previous blog post, A Father's Protection, I have finally realized that it's so much more than that. He has asked us to remain pure to protect our hearts, not because He's a tyrant and just wants to set up a bunch of needless rules. I am so glad I've moved passed that original theory! How imprisoning to feel that way!
If a couple waits until marriage before they have sex, I feel that they're gambling on the happiness and satisfaction of their relationship. Sex isn't everything but it's a pretty big part of a healthy, happy relationship. If you're not going on a test drive, how do you know it's going to work for you? What if you and your new partner are not compatible sexually? What if your partner is into BDSM or swinging or cuckolding but you only like missionary, vanilla sex? What if you love oral sex but your partner can't/won't go there?
When you're under the spell of new love, it's easy to think that anything is possible and that nothing could get in the way of that new love. As that new/crazy/awesome love turns into the long term, lasting love, it's going to become harder to overlook and work around those differences. When people are unsatisfied, the temptation to step outside the relationship to get that satisfaction is greater.
We don't buy cars without taking them for a test drive and we only keep them for a few years. Please don't make a life long commitment without going on the equivalent of a test drive. In fact, don't just have sex, live together and have a long engagement!
I wish it were just that simple. And maybe it could be if I could figure out some crazy way to close off my fleshy desires.
Few things can induce guilt and shame like religion can. As I said in the comments of her original post, sex is part of the human condition. It makes me a little sad that people feel ashamed of desires that are part of what makes humans human. Be safe, protect yourself, use multiple forms of birth control but have sex and don't feel guilty about! Protecting yourself also means protecting your emotional self so FFS, try not to fall in love every time you have sex.
Yes, there are risks with sex but there's risk in lots of things we do. Driving, cycling, bungee jumping, sky diving, hiking, camping, hunting etc. Yet, nobody is suggesting that we abstain from driving because you might get into an accident and DIE. We protect ourselves and mitigate the risk but we still take the risk every time we get behind the wheel and driving doesn't feel nearly as good. Oops, fleshly desires!
We were having a brief back and forth in the comments of her post.
I also believe that if I hold to His word to remain pure till my next marriage, then my next marriage will be abundantly blessed to withstand many of life's obstacles. This does not mean that I expect God to "just take care of it". This means that with my faith in Him, I have become stronger and wise enough to battle through them. I believe He will send me someone who is not only compatible with me on a spiritual and personal level, but also a sexual level.
But then she said:
I am aware that some non-believers have wonderful marriages as well. Maybe even non-believers who had premarital sex. What do I say to that? Luck. Divine intervention. How about "way to go!"…And yes, even Christian couples have divorces too. Does this mean that God didn't show them favor? No. I think it means he has something better in store for them in the future.
I hope everybody can see the problem with the logic. On one hand, if she remains pure until her next marriage, then she will be abundantly blessed. On the other hand, if a Christian couple gets divorced, it just means God has a different plan for them. If a secular couple have long fruitful and fulfilling marriage then it's luck or divine intervention!
So to summarize, if you live good and pure, God sends you good stuff. If you're not sent good stuff then it's luck or God has other plans for you. This cognitive disconnect is very interesting to me… I just don't understand how perfectly intelligent and smart people think this makes sense. God gets all the credit but none of the blame. Non sequitur.
She tried to explain it to me but it just went further and further into religion and the "logic" became fuzzier and fuzzier to my secular brain. Hey, that's fine… variety is the spice of life so we agree to disagree and we're still good friends.
In conclusion, sex isn't this bad terrible thing, just manage the risk. Women shouldn't allow men to make them feel bad for their sexual desires and religion should be avoided; keys to happiness. 😉


text:
This is the sermon I preached on Reformation Sunday, 10/27/19 at St. Timothy Lutheran Church. The text is John 8:31-36.
As I was preparing for worship today, there was a song was going through my mind, one I don't even like. It's "Freedom" by Richie Havens. I guess it has stayed with me because of the repetition of the word "freedom." Some of the other lyrics are haunting as well: "Sometimes I feel like a motherless child" and "Sometimes I feel like I'm almost gone." But of course, what is remembered the most is the word "freedom" that echoes throughout.
As Americans, freedom is a concept we're very familiar with. We fought for freedom from the British to form our own nation. Throughout our history, we have fought on behalf of others for their freedom from oppression. We have parades on various patriotic holidays to help us celebrate our liberty from oppression.
We know a lot about freedom… or do we? Just what is the kind of freedom Jesus is talking about in today's gospel text?
This passage begins in a curious fashion referring to the Jews who had believed in Jesus. But what about the Jewish groups like the Pharisees who were always trying to trip up Jesus? There are several meanings for the word translated Jews. Here it refers to the Jewish people in Jerusalem who had been listening to Jesus' teaching in the temple and had believed his claim to be the Messiah. So this group already believed in Jesus, but the exchange between them has an odd twist.
Jesus said to them, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." There are two unusual things about this statement. First, if they were already believers in Jesus, wouldn't they already be disciples who knew the truth? Are there levels of discipleship? Is Jesus saying that there are those that follow from a distance and those that follow more closely? Are we among those who casually follow Jesus or are we seeking to continue in Jesus' word to truly be his disciples? I believe that here Jesus was challenging those Jews who believed and that he is challenging us today as well about how committed we are to discipleship.
And just what is truth? In our day, isn't truth considered relative? What's true for you may not be true for me and vice versa. Truth here refers to the revelation of God that Jesus brings or perhaps, to Jesus himself for what he actually is as the revelation of God according to one scholar.
Another curious thing is the way the Jews respond to Jesus' statement. Jesus speaks of spiritual freedom and they understand it as political freedom. Have you ever had disconnects in conversations where you're just not on the same page? This happened to us regularly when we would order pizza from various places in Gettysburg. If the delivery person didn't know anything about the seminary, we would eventually get a call. "Hello, I'm here at Gettysburg College, where are you?" Well, we don't live at Gettysburg College but at the seminary. "Did you say you're at the cemetery?" No, not the cemetery, the seminary! We had finally found one pizza place that could always find us, so it's the only one we ordered from.
These Jewish believers were not on the same page as Jesus. If Jesus is saying that the truth makes them free, then they would have to be in some kind of bondage, otherwise, there would be no need for freedom. They took offense at this and responded that they'd never been slaves of anyone. Oh really?? What about the story of Moses who set the Jewish people free from Egypt? And what about the time the people were taken into captivity in Babylon? And if that's not enough, what about the fact that at the time of Jesus they were under Roman occupation? Never been slaves to anyone????
What is it about this freedom Jesus offers that is so different? One writer suggests:
Only in this passage does "freedom" language appear in John. Jesus' mention of freedom offends his hearers, who insist they have always enjoyed freedom (even though, ironically, Jesus and his Jewish contemporaries live under Roman rule). But Jesus contends that without him they live as slaves. First, they are enslaved to sin, living as oppressed people. Second, this slavery relegates them to inferior status; because of it they cannot claim a permanent place or identity in God's family. Jesus then shifts his household metaphor to suggest that, as "Son," only he can ensure true freedom and secure membership in God's family. (Matt Skinner, workingpreacher.org)
The sin to which they are enslaved is unbelief, not moral error. Sometimes we think because we don't do awful things, we aren't so bad. But we all struggle with unbelief from time to time.
How does Jesus' claim apply to us? What should our response be? One commentator writes:
To take seriously Jesus' claims about setting us free is to take seriously the proposition that we are all enslaved to powers beyond our ability to master. Reformation Day offers a suitable occasion for considering the ways in which we often find ourselves enslaved to particular religious identities, heritages, and practices, all the while pretending that dwelling in those things is the same as dwelling in Jesus and his word.
Continuing in God's word, being a disciple, knowing the truth and being set free is not about our heritages and practices. Truth in John's gospel is the revelation of God in Christ. Discipleship is knowing the Truth. In fact it's more than just knowing the truth; it's the basis for living.
(Matt Skinner, workingpreacher.org)
So, we can look at what Jesus is saying as a type of equation: If you continue in my Word, then you are truly my disciples, you will know the truth, the truth will set you free. We are freed from slavery to sin, but we are also freed for something. Through remaining in or welcoming Jesus' word, we know the reality about God and this reality is what frees us. We do not have to fear divine punishment. If we sin, and we will, the word assures us of forgiveness, not punishment for those who believe. This frees us to serve not only God but our neighbor.
Because of reformers long ago like Martin Luther, we have the freedom to read the Bible in our own language, the freedom to partake of both the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, the freedom to serve God as a pastor and be married and the list goes on. But mostly, as we gather together today as a community of faith, we celebrate the freedom in Christ that has brought us here to this place and made us brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.


text:
01 Sep MAGENTO 2 | MAKING THE SWITCH
Magento 2 has been released for some time now. Even better, there is already a 2.1 version. Question remains: do we have to jump aboard?
If you don't have a Magento set up and you're starting your new e-commerce project, go for it! It's a great time to start. The 2.1 version contains the first improvements on Magento 2 and the first bugs and hiccups are taken care of. Magento momentarily has the largest market share, so you'd say that the ladies and gents at Magento know their stuff, and it makes sense to think that when a new version is released you should really consider taking a look at it.
So you've got a Magento 1 set up, and you're considering moving to Magento 2
Magento 1 is nearly 10 years old. They have released many updates, but its base dates back to 2007, while the tech has been improving and changing drastically over the last 10 years. The code, for example, could be considered as quite heavy, and if you do not have a proper optimised setup you could really experience performance issues. On the other side, developers are not as skilled and trained in Magento 2 as they are in Magento 1. We are training intensively to master Magento 2 as we did with Magento 1, but in general there will be less developers who can set up Magento 2 as easily as Magento 1. Extension developers are also working hard to create Magento 2 versions of their products, which is great, but this obviously involves time, development and some startup bugs.
If you have an older Magento version (older than 1.9), I'd definitely consider Magento 2 as a new setup. If you would upgrade your Magento 1 setup to the latest version and optimise it, it might not be such an investment stretch to rebuild your environment on Magento 2. Of course, this depends on the complexity of your store, but if you are experiencing slowness and usability issues, this might be your chance to take a big step in improving your web store.
All new, all fresh
You can't upgrade from Magento 1 to Magento 2. It has to be built from scratch, and that's a good thing. This leads to an optimised, user-friendly setup both for store owner and customer, and the speed optimisation results in higher sales and conversion. Magento 2 and its basic template is fully responsive and has full page cache built in. It has a testing framework and other techniques that will help your Magento developer, and which in turn will result in a decrease in that development time – and costs!
Choices, choices
So should you move on to Magento 2 or not? As I said, if you have an older environment and you want to step up your game, you should really consider starting all-fresh with Magento 2. If you're starting your first web store: that's a no-brainer. Go with Magento 2. And what if you have a latest, well-maintained, Magento 1 version? No reason not to stick with it for a while and see how Magento 2 develops in time. However, if you foresee an increase in customers and sales (great!), you could consider preparing for this new setup.
Currently, we are in the process of implementing some Magento 2 stores and communication with a lot of customers to see if they should make the switch or not. It's a lot of fun though; together we can define the store owner's goals and desires and decide what the best solution is.
If you'd like to talk to someone about what you could do, feel free to give us a ring or shoot us an e-mail: we'd love to help you decide!