text: Metoprolol is prescribed for High Blood Pressure, Tachycardia, Palpitations, PVC's, Arrythmia, Chest Pain and Heart Attack and is mostly mentioned together with these indications. Always consult your doctor before taking these medications together. In addition, our data suggest that it is taken for A Fib and Anxiety, although it is not approved for these conditions*. Do not stop taking the medications without a physician's advice. Metoprolol and High Blood Pressure Sotalol and A Fib Metoprolol and Toprol Sotalol and Amiodarone Metoprolol and A Fib Sotalol and Betapace Metoprolol and Anxiety Sotalol and Arrythmia Metoprolol and Tiredness Sotalol and Tiredness is both a beta blocker and an anti-arrhythmic drug and it is not metabolized; it is just filtered out by the kidneys which makes it different from the others. Unfortunately, the Multaq didn't work at all and it is very expensive so I switched to Rhythmol and Metoprolol and High Blood Pressure Sotalol and A Fib Metoprolol and Toprol Sotalol and Amiodarone Metoprolol and A Fib Sotalol and Betapace Metoprolol and Anxiety Sotalol and Arrythmia Metoprolol and Tiredness Sotalol and Tiredness Treato does not review third-party posts for accuracy of any kind, including for medical diagnosis or treatments, or events in general. Treato does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Usage of the website does not substitute professional medical advice. The side effects featured here are based on those most frequently appearing in user posts on the Internet. The manufacturer's product labeling should always be consulted for a list of side effects most frequently appearing in patients during clinical studies. viagra pill I've done a brief search of the forum but not quite finding answers so putting it out there myself. I was previously on sotalol - never had any issues. Taking 80mg twice a day..had a baby and switched to metoprolol so I could breastfeed. This stopped when I went back on the sotalol..another baby..on the metoprolol. Buzzing and ringing started again..had a very scary bout of vtach and got zapped by my ICD. Horrible confusion - some days I feel like I can't keep a thought in my head. Drs can't seem to figure out what has changed this time. Just wondering if anyone else has had a similar experience on Sotalol. Was immediately switched back to sotalol and I've been feeling horrible ever since. Are their alternatives (I don't really want to try amiodarone)...other betablocker/antiarrhythmia med combos ppl have tried that will provide similar coverage but may be easier to tweak dosing? Can i buy clomid over the counter in uk Sertraline 150 mg side effects Metformin diarrhea Sotalol and metoprolol comparison of their anti-hypertensive effect. Andersson O, Berglund G, Descamps R, Thomis J. 28 patients, aged 35-62 years, with uncomplicated hypertension, entered a double-blind, crossover study, in which the effects of single daily doses of sotalol and metoprolol were compared. doxycycline 200 mg price Sotalol vs metoprolol for ventricular rate control in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation who have undergone digitalization a single-blinded crossover study. The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate, on an intention-to-treat basis, the efficacy of d,l-sotalol and metoprolol with regards to the recurrence of. This medication is a beta-blocker used to treat chest pain (angina), heart failure, and high blood pressure. Lowering high blood pressure helps prevent strokes, heart attacks, and kidney problems. This drug works by blocking the action of certain natural chemicals in your body (such as epinephrine) that affect the heart and blood vessels. This lowers heart rate, blood pressure, and strain on the heart. OTHER USES: This section contains uses of this drug that are not listed in the approved US professional labeling for the drug but that may be prescribed by your health care professional. Use this drug for a condition that is listed in this section only if it has been so prescribed by your health care professional. This medication may also be used for irregular heartbeats, migraine headache prevention, and after an acute heart attack to improve survival. Now after taking it for a month I developed major constipation and chest congestion. Can I take an antihistamine Doctor's Assistant: Have you seen a doctor about this yet? Sotalol, metoprolol, loratadine, montelukast, metformin, clopedigrel, spironolactone, lisinopril. They may not be spelled correctly because I'm not home and I don't have the meds with me. I took choloracidin HBP for about a week and I still have a bad runny nose and I need to rake something for it. Doctor's Assistant: What medications do you take daily? You are already taking an antihistamine that is loratidine, you should try medicine containing pseudoephidrne like mucinex for the relief of symptoms. I sincerely ***** ***** I have helped you and that I have earned my 5-star rating today! Please remember to rate my service by selecting the 5-stars at the top of the screen (rating me now does not close your question). We can continue here until you are satisfied, simply use the reply box and let me know. Sotalol with metoprolol Sotalol and Metoprolol and side effects - Hypertrophic., Sotalol vs metoprolol for ventricular rate control in patients. - CiteSeerX Clomid in males Tretinoin gel 0.025 buy Is it legal to buy viagra online uk Levitra cost australia Can i buy clomid at boots Days ago. The goal of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of d,l-sotalol versus metoprolol for prevention of ventricular tachyarrhythmias VT/VF in. Comparison of Metoprolol and Sotalol in Prevention of Ventricular. Comparison of metoprolol and sotalol in preventing ventricular. Therapeutic use and major side effects of sotalol - UpToDate Possible Side Effects Dizziness, Tiredness, Depression, Nausea, Dry Mouth, Stomach Pain, Vomiting, Bloating, Heartburn, Constipation, Rashes, Cold Hands And Feet. buy zithromax 1gbuy zoloft south africa My GP has changed my betablocke to metoprolol after several night time attacks. He had told me to take extra Sotalol during an attack, but when I asked the pharmacist if I shouid do the same with these, she said No! Aug 15, 2009. metoprolol and sotalol versus placebo, were carefully selected and. demonstrates sotalol and metoprolol reducing hospital length of stay to at.


text:
Lowongan Kerja Nopember Oktober 2009, Job Keuangan/Akuntansi
We are new established Independent Power Producer (IPP) company currently seeking Revenue, Budgeting and Reporting Specialist.
Reporting to Finance Manager, the candidate will prepare and review the accuracy and integrity of financial model/analysis, update the model in monthly basis, heavily involve in loan administration/lenders relation, liaise with Management and Project Team for data input, report, etc.
Revenue, Budgeting and Reporting Specialist
* Result oriented, self motivated, independent, able to multi task and work and capable of working with limited supervision
* Fluent in English, both oral and written, especially in presentation situation & computer literate, especially in Windows, Microsoft Office.
* Male / Female, Bachelor's Degree or Master's Degree / Post Graduate Degree in any major, preferably majoring in Finance or Accounting from reputable University.
* Min. 5 years experience in International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and financial modeling application in bank or project finance.
* Working knowledge of financial analysis, risk analysis and discounted cash flow modeling is a must, as well as knowledge in basic accounting.
* Computer literate, especially in Windows, Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint).
* Strong analytical and strategic thinking, have good leadership, team building, customer orientation, communication skills, and interpersonal skills. Experience in dealing with complex loan agreement / administration is an advantage.
* High integrity and ability to work under pressure and tight deadlines.
Competitive salary package and other benefits will be offered to the successful candidate. Interested candidates, please submit your full CV in English, expected salary, contact number and recent photo to:
"Only short listed candidate will be proceed"

subset: commoncrawl


text:
21 shades of beautiful chocolate brown covering the colour range from warm mahogany to coolly sophisticated brunette blonde.
Available in a 60 ml tube.
33 shades that add lustre and shine to hair while giving a perfect natural look with up to 100% white hair coverage.
A wide spectrum of colours, each in a 60 ml tube, from beautiful light blondes to black.
Natural looking hair with that bit of extra elegance.
36 shades in 60 ml tubes, featuring the champagne tone blondes which combine gold with blue.
9 shades giving up to 5 levels of safe lightening whether for highlights or the whole head.
Each shade is available in a 60 ml tube.
10 shades of pure intense colour for creating dramatic looks or for correcting other tones.
Each shade is available in a 60 ml tube.
For those who love being noticed, the Vibrant Reds have 25 shades of striking glamour from burnished copper to intense violet.
Each shade comes in a 60 ml tube.
Revitalise your tools with our professional services
Copyright © 2005-2020 CoolBlades.


text:
Mov.ie Domain: Ratatouille.mov.ie
You are about to be redirected to the home page for the movie "Ratatouille (2007)". The URL we have is http://www.ratatouille.com/.
If you do not get redirected will you please Click Here to register the problem with Mov.ie.
We will endeavour to contact the maintainers of the Movie's home page to resolve the problem.
Thankyou for your help.
Email: email@example.com Home: www.mov.ie
Home Page


text:
- yes
- yes
- Creative Commons Zero License for Public Domain under these Photos tells that Authorization is not required. However, if you want to express your gratitude to
the authors of the photos, leave the authorship.
* The author of the photo is given a description of each photo.
- no
- yes


text:
[CLOSING] BurstFolio (ALL BUY BACKS POSTED)
qibucks last edited by
Congrats on getting your asset made..I am the Burst bag lady but my burst is stuck on maintenance mode in Polo so will come back tomorrow to buy on c-cex some Burst and will support you also in your new venture.. ..
@qibucks That means a lot to me and I hope you look forward to making some easy profit
11 BURSTize and 3 Energizer purchased
Focus Banned last edited by
@kmaxkmax have you done the Id verification process with haitch yet?
@Focus No. I understand the skepticism this will bring but I know the person that I am and that I'm here to stay and grow in the community. You will see as time goes on that I will make every payment and be a great asset to own. I would rather earn the people's trust this way then get verified immediately. I find the whole verifying process makes me know that you're verified and we all trust @haitch for that but doesn't create the type of bond I'm trying to create with the investors while I'm unverified.
@kmaxkmax Your call of course, but be aware that some people are choosing not to invest in assets where the owner hasn't been verified.
@haitch Yeah that's true but you'll see with time that I am legit. BTW i was wondering... I know some people under the age of 18 who are very interested in burst and the asset concept? Any minimum age?
Focus Banned last edited by
@haitch said in [ANN][LAUNCH] BurstFolio Asset Release !!!:
@kmaxkmax Your call of course, but be aware that some people are choosing not to invest in assets where the owner hasn't been verified.
I for one, will not invest without that ID verification...Sorry but those are our community guidelines, your call not to do it you are losing on a lot of potential sales of the asset. Also reluctance to do so may raise a red flag for some people...Food for thought
@Focus I may verify in the future but for now this is how I'm doing things. I would like you to know I appreciate the advice and hope we become friends.
@kmaxkmax Nope, no minimum age, I'm not not making any judgement calls on age - I just want a copy of the verifiable ID.
@haitch Ok cool. BTW do you know a way to check which asset has sent you burst when you own many assets and receive a payout?
@kmaxkmax In your transaction list, click on the payer - will give to details on the account, including usually the name which will identify the asset.
kmaxkmax last edited by kmaxkmax
Just gaveaway 100 assets... 10 assets to 10 lucky winners
6 more OGburst purchased
vExact last edited by
I don think many people will invest in this asset until the verification process is made. Many were scammed before, so it is understandably cautious not to do it.
@vExact I understand that but you will see in 6 months when I'm still paying dividends to everyone on a regular basis that it is legit. As time goes by, more will believe in it.
@kmaxkmax https://forums.burst-team.us/topic/3356/change-to-the-requirement-to-post-new-threads-in-the-asset-exchange-category
@haitch ok ill remove the other thread
@haitch oh you already did
@kmaxkmax As my post says, any new assets promoted here need to be ID Verified, this is one of them. You need to get verified or this thread goes away.


text:
Ingredients of a great relationship (and a great life)
Once in a while – being somewhat of a "foodie" – I take pictures while I'm cooking. Usually it's on impulse, along the lines of, "Hey, this looks pretty good I should post it on facebook…." And that was certainly the case yesterday evening when Rebekah and I enjoyed one of our stay at home date nights.
What struck me was the transformation between preparation and presentation.
TRANSFORMATION: Here's the prep photo, taken in the kitchen. As you can tell, there's not a lot of complexity here. In fact, by the time I had finished all I had used to prepare the meal was steak, asparagus, potatoes, bread, four ounces of onion, one clove of garlic, olive oil, butter, salt, pepper, a wedge of lemon and a tablespoon of balsamic vinegar.
Good quality ingredients, prepared properly.
It may have been just the two of us, but a great meal in the best of company calls for fine china on the dining room table. Candlelight too. The key idea here is that we don't take each other for granted.
ADVENTURE: That's why we still date; that's why we still have great adventures together. This is a relationship that's worth the effort, worth the preparation, worth the deliberation of bringing our best to the table and then working to make it better.
If we're not careful, we can slip into "making do," especially when life and work is overwhelming and we're just so tired. That's when we lose ground. Even the best relationships lose ground once in a while.
REALITY: There's a principle at play here: we either move forward or we slip backwards. There is no coasting; it's a fact of life.
Not that we shouldn't expect to experience a little ebb and flow. That's part of the natural rhythm of things. But when we chart the overall growth pattern – both of our marriage and our individual lives – it's important to be moving in the right direction. Growth that counts doesn't happen by chance, and it certainly won't happen by neglect. It requires preparation, deliberation, commitment.
DATE: So we date. We prepare. We bring our very best to the table. We are faithful not just to the other person but to the principle of commitment.
This last photo? It was taken earlier this year, at the entrance to the lost city of Petra in Jordan. This entire life is an adventure – or at least it should be…
The Life That Truly is Life The Life-Charged Life The Story Travel food foodie gourmet ingredients Life marriage photography relationships travel
derekmaul View All →
Derek has published seven books in the past decade (you can find them at https://www.amazon.com/Derek-Maul/e/B001JS9WC4), and there's always something new in the works.
Before becoming a full-time writer, Derek taught public school in Florida for eighteen years, including cutting-edge work with autistic children. He holds bachelor's degrees in psychology and education from Stetson University and the University of West Florida.
Derek is active in teaching at his church: adult Sunday school, and a men's Bible study/spiritual formation group. He enjoys the outdoors, traveling, photography, reading, cooking, playing guitar, and golf.


text:
Nicholas A Rossi DO
Specializing in Cardiology
Member, St. Joseph Medical Group
Dr. Nicholas Rossi is board certified in Internal Medicine, Cardiology, Echocardiography, and Vascular Imaging.
Dr. Rossi was born and raised in Westchester County, NY. He completed his undergraduate degree at the University of Rochester with a double major; he holds a Bachelor of Arts in Brain and Cognitive Science and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. He attended medical school at the Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine and completed his internship and residency in Internal Medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York. Dr. Rossi completed his fellowship in Cardiology at Deborah Heart and Lung Center, New Jersey.
Disease of the cardiovascular system encompasses a wide range of pathology throughout the human body. The field of cardiology today has the availability of multiple different forms of cutting edge technology to aid in the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease. It is my goal as a cardiologist to utilize these various technological advances as tools to assist in the medical decision-making process with my patients. Despite the technology that is available, however, I believe that nothing can replace the personal interaction between a patient and their physician that establishes a relationship from which the best and most informed medical decisions can be made. ~Nicholas Rossi, DO
Dr. Rossi enjoys spending time with his 2 kids, traveling, skiing, playing guitar, and American history.
Penn State Health Medical Group - Berks Cardiology
2605 Keiser Boulevard
Wyomissing, PA 19610
Patty Kelly, Physician Referral Specialist Need to find a physician, program, or medical practice close to home? Call Patty Kelly, Physician Referral Specialist, & let her help you find the perfect fit. 610-378-2001 | toll free 844-363-0882 | email@example.com


text:
Bicycle Playing Cards are by far the most recognizable brand in the world, and the brand most associated with a good, professionally made deck of coated paper playing cards. Made in the United States by the legendary U.S. Playing Card Co., these decks are standard fare for poker night and an old friend to the traditional poker player. Each deck comes in a full tuck box, sealed and "cigarette wrapped" at the factory.
The Bicycle "Rider Back" design is intricate and beautiful, and it's instantly associated with this brand the world over. Its ornate design and flawless border were the standard in playing cards for so long that the deck stood virtually alone in the American market for decades. Today, the traditional quality remains and the deck is still one of the most widely used in the world.
Bicycle Playing Cards come in poker size, wit standard (808) or Jumbo (88) pips.
Bicycle Playing Cards come in poker size, wit standard (808) or Jumbo (88) pips.
Buy Bicycle Poker-size cards in standard or jumbo
Decks ship in pairs, red and blue. Add two decks to your cart by clicking "Add to Cart." If you need more pairs of decks, simply adjust the number in your cart to 2 pairs, 3 pairs, 4 pairs, etc. Have a special request? Click:


text:
Fabio Leimer has been crowned the 2013 GP2 champion following the feature race in Abu Dhabi, as Alexander Rossi took a lights to flag victory for Caterham.
For championship rival Sam Bird, the race started in the worst possible way – the Russian Time driver stalled on the grid – and saw Racing Engineering's Leimer and Carlin's Jolyon Palmer blast past before he could get underway.
Marcus Ericsson was fighting Leimer lap after lap trying to find a way on to the podium and, with the eyes on the prize, Leimer eventually relented less he get tangled with the Swede and lose everything.
"The 2013 championship was a really nice one, because early we had Coletti leading a lot with Nasr, and then they had some problems for a few races so me and Bird were improving and could make more and more points, and then at the end it was really close together," said Leimer.
"For GP2 it was really nice, and everyone was talking about me and him because we were so close, and at the last race you just never know what will happen: yesterday he was in front of me and it gave me even more pressure, and in the end we did it."
As the Checkered Flag fell it was Rossi who crossed the line first for EQ8 Caterham with Palmer second and Ericsson third. Leimer was fourth ahead of Dani Clos – who was involved in a deep fight with sixth placed James Calado – with Felipe Nasr and Johnny Cecotto rounding out the top eight.
The points table shows Leimer on 191 points with Bird 18 points behind, only 15 points are available for tomorrows sprint race so Bird's best finish would be three points behind Leimer.
The GP2 champion was gracious in victory and had this to say about his triumph: "I still can't believe it, it's just amazing, because GP2 is the strongest category apart from Formula 1, and there are not many people who can say they've won this championship! I'm really, really happy, and I'm focussed on tomorrow because there is still another race and I want to finish on the podium."
Everyone at www.TheCheckeredFlag.co.uk would like to congratulate Fabio Leimer on his GP2 crown and wish him the best of luck for 2014, wherever he may be.


text:
Want to talk in real time with other Warhammer Players? Give our chatroom a try!
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!If I wanted to.
CannonofDoom spews his shit at me all the time and I haven't banned him.
Imperial currency1 gold crown = 20 silver shillings = 240 brass pennies1 shilling = 12 penniesNotation: 1GC = 20/- = 240dSo12GC 17/9 = 12 crowns, 17 shillings and 9 pence6/- = 6 shillings only6/4 = 6 shillings and 4 pence5d = 5 pence only
I would like to use my luck as there is no need for violence....."Good man let me invite you to another beer and apologize sincerely for th mishap!"Klaus still holds on to the stein ready to turn the face of the bald man into a bloody ruin.
Page created in 0.063 seconds with 31 queries.


text:
Regular price
Free GlobalOver 39.99
5% of profithelp puppies
Free ReturnsAlways
Keep your puppy busy playing instead of causing mischief. This treat dispensing toy features an adjustable opening that lets you stuff a variety of treats inside. The opening can be twisted wider for easier access to treats or twisted tighter for longer playtime.
Fill the toy with your puppy's meal or favorite treats and watch the fun begin! He'll roll, twist and shake the toy for hours to get to the delicious reward inside.


text:
Q) For those who aren't aware, what is Hackathon?
A) Hackathon is a marathon software and hardware product creation event. Essentially, a group of students work on an idea for 24-36 hours and then showcase their product. After which a group of judges award the best products with mentorship, internship opportunities or money to help the product grow. During the 36 hours of coding, there are various other events, such as laser tag or ice skating, that go on to keep the participants awake. A lot of students see this is an opportunity to have fun as well as learn something new over a weekend and thus go to these hackathons. Our product was built at HackPrinceton and won the "Best Moonshot" award by Google.
Q) The whole process of identifying and solving the problem?
A) We were all taken aback after reading various articles about how fake news on Facebook had an effect on the election results. Facebook's official statement was that this problem was a difficult one to solve, so we thought that if we could solve even a small part of this problem, it would be a nice proof of concept that the fake news can be effectively tackled on a large scale. Since the fake news issue is a complex problem, we tried solving it by isolating it. Our extension does not need to worry about the complexity of a social network, instead, every post on Facebook is treated as a new piece of information, with no relation to previous posts. This helped us keep the complexity of our product much lower, enabling us to build it within a weekend. The extension performs two checks. We first verify the source of information, through which we eliminate spam links, malware and other malicious content. This check helps us give a "confidence score". Our second check verifies the content within a post. So instead of checking how reliable the source is, we check how reliable the content is. Our extension reads the content, determines topics and keywords and then determines how much truth there is to it. This yields our second "confidence score". Finally, we combine the two confidence scores and check if it passes a threshold. If it does, we mark it as "verified" or else it is "unverified".
Q) How has the response been so far?
A) The response to our extension has been exciting and overwhelming at the same time. We were trying to create a proof of concept, however, due to the response and impact our concept made, we are now developing this into a complete product. Within two days of publicly releasing our extension, we had so many users that our servers crashed and had to move to a much higher capacity server. Various tech giants such as Facebook and Google are now trying to fight back fake news instead of disregarding it, which we think is the greatest impact we could have had.


text:
Stadium 11
Stadium 11 features world-class musicians with extensive experience in both studio and live performance. Lead singer, Cliff Stanton brings a vocal range and power seldom heard off the big stage. Keyboardist James Paat uses multiple synthesizers to reproduce famous keyboards with an unmatched energy and devotion to authenticity.
Lead guitarist Bob Mains, A master of guitar tone, shreds out the riffs that made rock famous. Rounding out the band, is the driving rhythm section featuring amazing musician Alan Beavers on bass guitar. This lineup brings together the PERFECT STORM for an energetic and truly entertaining Classic Rock And Roll experience!
Food from The Late Night Taco and nightly drink specials served up from the best bar staff in Columbus.


text:
Lifting Toe Jack Details Display - Chinaprice: 110.00 Dollar US$
The use of hydraulic jack is wide.Toe jack can be used in almost every production field.
In the workshop, hydraulic jack can lift a large machine when repairing it.
The hydraulic jack is used in some projects.
In some jobs, large machines need to be moved, lifted with hydraulic jacks, and prepared for mechanical moving equipment.
In general, mechanical moving equipment is used in conjunction with lifting toe jack.
The lifting jack has many different specifications.When selecting the hydraulic jack, choose the appropriate lifting up jack according to the weight to be lifted.
The maximum specification of hydraulic jack is MHC-100, the lifting load on the toe of this claw jack is 50t to 100t.
More information please kindly feel free contact us. professionally service hope will get your satisfaction. Regarding lifting toe jack price and more information, please kindly feel free contact us. professionally service hope will get your satisfaction.
Shan Dong Finer Lifting Tools co., LTD
Company Contact:
- Posted By: Shan Dong Machinery Skates co.,LTD
- Phone: 8618954718083
- Address: XiaZhuang street ChengYang Area, QingDao , Shandong , China
- Email:
- Website: http://www.cargotrolley.com/
Published date: August 1, 2018 -
- Business Description: Shan Dong Finer Lifting Tools co., LTD here!
We are the manufacturer of follow lifting tools: spring balancer, roller skids, hydraulic toe jack, fluid caster, permanent magnetic lifter and so on material handling tools.
Our products, especially spring balancer, roller skids, toe jack, fluid caster, permanent magnetic lifter have long life and better quality. Our company was established on the year of 1998. Firstly, just can produce spring balancer, as there are more and more customers wanted other lifting tools. like roller skids, permanent magnetic lifter, So, the products range was larger and larger.
We will keep our professional service to you in the following days. With our rich experience we have been showing products for our buyers around the gloable and enjoy a high reputation in worldwide markets.
Related listings
Toe Jack Lifting Load IntroductionMachinery - Shan Dong Machinery Skates co.,LTD - China - August 1, 2018 - 100.00 Dollar US$
The lifting jack smallest model is MHC-5, this claw jack lifting load on the toe is 2.5t to 5t, min toe height is 16mm, and the hydraulic toe jack lifting heighe is 115mm, the net weighe is 15kg. The second model of the hydraulic jack is MHC-10.The h...
Hydraulic Toe Jack Is A Convenient ToolMachinery - Shan Dong Machinery Skates co.,LTD - China - August 1, 2018 - 110.00 Dollar US$
The lifting toe jack is made in China.The manufacturing of the hydraulic jack address is XiaZhuang street ChengYang Area QingDao City ShangDong Province China. There are six models of lifting up jackat present.The hydraulic jack model is mainly divid...
Spring Tools Balancer Used SaflyMachinery - Shan Dong Machinery Skates co.,LTD - China - August 1, 2018 - 110.00 Dollar US$
The wire is regularly wound around the retractor, the wire winding can be clearly seen on the back of the spring balancer. The wire of the light capacity spring balancer is wrapped in the machine and cannot be seen from the outside. The minimum strok...
Safe Trade Tips
- Ask for business references and check them
- Use a payment method that offers better protection for all such as Letters of credit and verified professional escrow services. Avoid payments in advance such as money transfers
- Verify their business via their local Chamber of Commerce
- Search the internet using their website address, their business name, their phone and fax numbers, and their email addresses to see if you can find any feedback about them.
- Get to know more about scams to avoid: Internet Crime Complaint Center - International Financial Scams
- This site is never involved in any transaction, and does not handle payments, shipping, guarantee transactions, provide escrow services, or offer "buyer protection" or "seller certification"


text:
Chris Ware Quotes
11 Chris Ware quotes:
"I think it has most to do with the way in which a story is told, whether it feels real either via the music of the telling or the 'honesty' of the story."
"Comics, at least in periodical form, exist almost entirely free of any pretense; the critical world of art hardly touches them, and they're 100% personal."
"During my Austin years, I was drawing a regular strip for the University Of Texas newspaper, going to school, delivering blood, and trying to change my approach and "style" as much as I could, since I knew that I'd calcify as I got older."
"I don't think there's any independent cartoonist whose stuff I don't like or respect in at least some way or another. We're all marginal laborers - we're practically medical oddities - so I don't see why we can't all be nice to each other."
"I guess I just don't like being physically in front of people I don't know very well, because I expect to be "seen through," or, even worse, instantly hated."
"I prefer to imagine that my wife, a few friends, and occasionally my mom are the only ones who read what I do, though I realize that this is somewhat unrealistic."
"Lately, I can't shake the feeling that I've been living a dream for the last 10 years or so; I can't account for most of my 20s, and I have to continually remind myself that certain people are dead now and many of my friends have children."
"Mostly, I was only interested in television as a kid, and the majority of reading material I collected was an adjunct to that central concern, comic books and magazines included."
"No one blames themselves if they don't understand a cartoon, as they might with a painting or "real" art; they simply think it's a bad cartoon."
"Sometimes I get worried I'm getting too caught up in the nauseatingly oily smoothness of my own line, when all I'm trying to do is make it as clear as possible."
"The thing I don't understand is why so often one hears discussion of the fruits of human labor as if it's all the creation of some alien race."


text:
The first time I saw a makeshift store take up gallery space at the end of an exhibit, I thought it was utterly bizarre. I have now come to expect it. This one contains a variety of gadgets and souvenirs. Things like the wind-up radio, batteryless flashlight (you shake it for power), and bags made from used juice containers (handmade by women in the Phillipines, and graphically striking enough that I almost bought one) were nice, simple items easily linked to a potential theme of ecologically sound gadgetry and reuse of materials. There was also a bemusing array of Frank Gehry paraphernalia, an Antiquarium to observe ants living in gel (dont ask), and a variety of cheap, plastic cameras presumably as a tie-in to the image economies.
I spent quite a bit of time examining the souvenirs. The posters are printed on an unknown coated paper and sported no recycling logos. The t-shirts are 100% cotton, American Apparel brand (but did you know you can get organic cotton t-shirts?, I certainly would have taken it that step further). There is also a Bruce Mau, sortof "signature" set of plates, bowls and cups with various statistical information graphically represented on them. They are all plastic, and I searched in vain for any information at all on what kind of plastic, or how they might have been manufactured. They sported no recycled or recycling logos, but they were made in China.
After coming to the very end of the exhibit it occurred to me that there was a major slice of life missing: art. It seems ironic that a man and a program from a field so closely related to the arts should so forget the influence that art has on our lives as humans. Surely technological design has influenced both the expression and the access we have to art? Surely art has informed the big picture design in the "spin on"/"spin off" relationship explored in the military economies? But as I tried to fit this into the model I realized at last that Massive Change is primarily about the design of technological devices, systems and processes, which, when you come right down to it, is a pretty narrow definition of design.
Setting aside my scepticism regarding the hubris of Man, and the unwise, wholesale acceptance of science, I have to ask one very basic question:
What is the purpose of this project and does the exhibit further that purpose?
The Director of the Vancouver Art Gallery, Kathleen Bartels, says, Massive Change invites us to consider the dramatic impact of design on the world around us and the monumental way that it is changing the way we live. The poster for the show says "It's not about the world of design, it's about the design of the world." That's a fairly indiscriminate statement. It doesn't allude to the betterment of humanity, or the planet. If that's the premise, then anything goes. But the Massive Change website says "We explore paradigm-shifting events, ideas and people …" OH! Why didn't you say so before? Suddenly everything shifts into place: biotechnology, Aerogel, Walmart, flourescent paint, ants living in gel, Super Soaker weapons of mass destruction. They all fit.
The subtitle, or tagline, of Massive Change is Now that we can do anything, what will we do? That sentence provides the egocentric (from a human species perspective) view of the world that has caused me some grief with the project. But the exhibit adequately showcases a range of technologies both existing and in development. With show and tell as a goal, and "the design of the world" as a subject, Massive Change has succeeded. I learned many things, and most of them were interesting on one level or another.
There was an emphasis on sustainability in most of the displays, leading me to believe that this was part of their agenda, but if so, it was unarticulated as any form of goal either in the wall text or the press material I received from the gallery, so Im uncertain whether persuasion was part of their intent.
In some ways, the whole thing reminded me of David Suzukis TV program The Nature of Things which has a long history of examining science and technology and its impact on humanity (with an increasingly political/ecological bent over the past 10 years.) Massive Change is more celebratory and more narrowly focussed on technology, but the goal to inform, inspire and provoke seems the same. I just think The Nature of Things does it better, and, over decades, through a highly accessible medium (TV), it has been widely influencial and at times controversial.
The word "manifesto" has been bandied about in relation to this project, and that is another way to look at it. The subtitles for each section say things like:
"We will bring energy to the world"
"We will build a global mind"
"We will eliminate the need for raw material and banish all waste"
"We will eradicate poverty"
(I remember some of those from the exhibit, but not others.)
These are sentiments that are hard to argue with as ideals. And if all students of design were raised with these goals in mind, who knows, the world might indeed change. But building utopian fantasies is easy, dealing with real world situations is hard and often requires harder questions than I believe were asked in this exhibit.
In some of the comments to Massive Post Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3, some people were suspicious of Bruce Mau's motives. I am not. I really think he means well; I really think he hopes for a better world; I have no objection to him using his status to further that goal. But I still think he deserves a slap for some of the shortfalls and disconnects that turned up in Massive Change.
The Institute without Boundaries aims to produce a new breed of designer, one who is, in the words of Buckminster Fuller, a synthesis of artist, inventor, mechanic, objective economist, and evolutionary strategist.
That Massive Change is a student project is perhaps the most under-stated aspect of the show, but I can't help but wonder if it holds the key to some of the inconsistencies. Was the variation in perceived intent, as well as the display materials, due to different student interpretations and executions of a theme? I don't know if each student commandeered a section, but in retrospect it sure seemed that way. In many ways it would be much easier to judge this as a graduate project.
As for the exhibit display itself, from the press kit I received, Bruce Grenville, Senior Curator at the VAG says, The exhibition reveals Bruce Maus visionary artistry; the physical experience will immerse visitors in a series of powerful, poetic encounters to reveal Massive Change at work in our world. From this standpoint I have to assert that Massive Change achieves none of the above. The irony is that in our traditional understanding of design, with those goals in mind, the exhibit is largely a disappointment. I have used this term exhibit throughout, and despite aggressive editing in an attempt to reduce the repetitive use of the word, the fact remains that an exhibit is all this is, in a very predictable series of displays. The only physical experience was the one I described while sitting 15 feet from a 50-foot long video display. The interactivity was minimal and gratuitous. It was not immersive, and the poetic moments were rare.
I took some time to observe other visitors in the gallery. They wandered, hands-behind-backs, looking briefly, reading the 12-inch-high* type, but not the rest, listening to parts of one or two of the video displays, then leaving them rambling to no one. They looked interested, but overwhelmed. They seemed unmoved or, at best, puzzled. People who were together seemed to be talking about other things, not the exhibit. I saw no-one laugh or argue. Im sorry that I was too shy to ask them what they thought.
Massive Change is certainly massive**, but is there change in the way Lester B. Pearson meant when he said,
When we view Massive Change we put on our rose coloured glasses and examine a narrow thread of optimism which is, in itself, tarnished in places. In order to achieve such lofty goals it may be that we each must individually focus on our own lives, our neighbourhoods, our spheres of influence, our specific skills. As designers you may laud Bruce Mau's interest in expanding the definition of design. Expansive behaviour can be good, but so also is focus. If it makes you feel good to think that as a designer you are part of something bigger, so be it; provided you actually are.
As for Bruce Mau, I think he's doing what he can, and you have to hand it to him for that. If I met him, I think I would like him, and then I think we might fight—we just view the world differently, is all.
*I did promise you a note on the type. I have to say that Impact, set at an approximately 12-inch cap height (I should have taken a pica ruler, but I didnt know Id need it, so all measurements are guesses, from memory), in black on white walls is absolutely stunning: it lives up to its name. It is somewhat less effective when used for single-paragraph text at approx 600pt. I have to say, however that it is a poor choice for large chunks of explanatory text, set at approx 400/420 on walls or 60/66 on display cards (my size guesses getting pretty wild, here). Its difficult to read and headache-inducing. I dont recommend it.
**There is also Massive Change, the book; Massive Change, the website; and, coming soon to a theatre near you, Massive Change, the feature moviehopefully at iMax.
Read Part 1 of Massive Post or Part 2 or Part 3


text:
Republican principles
Governor Mark Sanford, giving advice to the Republican party, writes
If John Deere's tractor sales are declining, they don't say, "Tell you what, let's make cars and airplanes, too." Instead, they focus on producing better tractors.
Everybody's got advice for the Republicans. A lot of that advice is coming from people who didn't vote for John McCain but would like us to run more John McCains. I'm writing as an independent, one who often but not always votes Republican. Someone who found McCain a decent choice policy-wise, but would have preferred someone with both policies and principles, such as Fred Thompson. For all the talk about McCain's anger problem, his real problem appears to be that he's a nice guy. He refuses to criticize his colleagues when they're wrong—even when running against one of them. And he trusts his colleagues far too much when they state their legislative goals. For example, the described purpose of the pre-election rescue bill was a whole lot more palatable than the practice of it.
Over on Hot Air, Ed Morrissey listed these conservative first principles:
- fiscal responsibility
- smaller government
- national security
- free market economics
- federalism
- lower taxes
These are the principles that drive me, as an independent, to vote for Republicans. Every single one of them, with the possible exception of national security, either leads to more individual freedom or is more individual freedom.
Look ahead
Notice, however, what's not in that list: gay marriage and abortion. Opposition to gay marriage and legal punishment for abortions are losing issues. Allowing same sex marriage is inevitable, not just because it is the right thing to do (as I believe) but because it looks like the right thing to do. If Republicans choose to make being anti-gay a defining characteristic of being a Republican, they'll fall further behind with each generation. Yes, Proposition 8 won in "liberal" California despite California overwhelmingly voting for Barack Obama. But the converse is also true: despite supporting Proposition 8, California still voted Democratic. The issue has no coattails; soon it won't even be an issue.
Republicans who want to oppose gay marriage would be better served by trying to get the government out of the business of deciding who can and can't be married. That will be difficult as well, but it will at least align with Republican principles and won't sideline them as irrelevant or out of touch on other issues. Within twelve years anyone still campaigning as anti-gay marriage will be treated like someone campaigning against miscegenation today. And there's only room for one Robert Byrd.
Abortion is a tougher issue. Abortion is wrong. But it's also legally problematic: few voters want to punish women for choosing to have an abortion. Republicans who care about ending abortion should follow Governor Palin's lead: personally against abortion, legislatively neutral, and publicly working to make other alternatives a better choice. For all that abortion is wrong, abortion laws strike at the heart of individual freedom and privacy. The only way abortion can go away in a free country is if women no longer want to have them.
National security is important insofar as successful national security reduces calls for limiting freedom. Beyond that, we can no longer afford a national security that actively supports brutal dictators just because they're currently providing a precarious stability we think we need. The strong-man theory of stability is wrong for America, and it is a good thing that Bush moved the United States away from it. To the extent that immigration is tied to national security, we need to understand that we can't stop immigration, we can only force it underground, which is dangerous. As I've written before, I think that the Bush immigration policy was a good one.
Principles confuse the beltway
Ace at the Ace of Spades is suggesting that Republicans look for Six at Sixty: six issues that command 60% support. These should be issues that show people once again what conservative principles can do for them.
Politicians are confused by principles. Today's parties are not composed of principles but rather of a hodge-podge of often contradictory policies. If the Republican party could convince their members to support Ed's conservative list, it would throw the Democratic base into disarray, or force them to identify based on principles as well. The Democratic party is filled with "core constituencies" that hate each other, and agree on only one thing: Republicans are worse. Six at Sixty can change that.
Imagine if, for federalism, smaller government, and free-market economics, the Republicans united to say, "this is what federalism can do for you", and chose a policy supported by well over 60% of voters; an issue idolized by one of the Democrat's core constituencies and hated by another: states' rights to medical marijuana. Medical marijuana consistently receives 60% or greater support in polls. But there's one core Democratic constituency that consistently opposes it: California (and possibly other) prison guards.
That's just an example of the kind of principled thinking that Republicans are going to have to do. Democrats have been carefully cultivating core constituencies that they don't have to work for. Make them work. Make them have to explain to prison guards why they're not putting more easy-to-manage people in jail or go over to students and explain why they can't get this through even when they control the House, the Senate, and the White House—while the Republicans are pushing for it as an example of Republican principles. It's one thing to have a big tent, it's another thing entirely to have a circus tent of people who really hate each other. Principle can cut through the circus.
The elephant in the schoolhouse
One of the biggest problems that Republicans need to face, however, is the tendency for government programs to become money laundering systems lobbying for more government programs. Whether it's the prison guards or ACORN, it's pretty rare to see government funding used to support less government funding.
The elephant in the room for advocates of smaller government is the increasing government control over information and education. If you want to win on message, you need to get your message out. Until average people can send their children to schools whose teachers don't ridicule fifth-grade McCain supporters, candidates who support reducing the size of government will always face an uphill climb. Heaven forbid if the ailing newspapers ask for a bailout and we get an industry czar for the news industry. During this election we asked if the newspapers could be any more biased. If that happens, we'll find out.
Republicans need, also, to stick to their principles even when their opponent's policies follow them. Too often in the past eight years Democrats have spun around to support things they used to oppose, solely because President Bush also opposed them (the intelligence czar, for example, and federal ownership of state disaster efforts). Republicans need to figure out what their principles are and act on their principles, and not mindlessly act in opposition to whatever the Democrats and President Obama propose.
They might have a long time to figure their principles out. As President, Obama only has to do two things to win a second term. Continue the victory in Iraq, and stand back to let the economy improve. You might think that a politician who has said the things he's said will find it impossible to stand back and stop doing the things that brought this crisis on in the first place, but he also has a strong record of doing nothing. That's all he needs to do to let the crisis run its course and let the economy right itself. If he can do that, Republicans are looking at 2016, not 2012, for the presidency.
On the other hand, if he ends up pouring money into expanding the scope of government, nationalizing the auto industry, the banking industry, and every other ailing industry, success will depend on how well the Republicans come up with an alternative vision that resonates with their own principles—and an alternative to a nationalized news industry.
- May 18, 2016: The Texas Plan: Power to the People
Governor Abbott's Texas Plan marks him as arguably the most effective libertarian to be elected to high office. His nine proposed amendments in the Texas Plan echo solutions that libertarians have long proposed: let states experiment within their territories, reduce the power of unelected officials to make laws, and provide another bulwark against tyrannical laws.
In general, I'm all for it. In specific, well, if there actually is a convention of the states, it will be necessary to see the text of the amendment proposals that result from it.
Abbott's proposed amendments all stand alone, so I would assume (and hope) that they would be voted on in each state separately. That is, the more obvious ones (such as prohibiting Congress from making marijuana illegal even if it is grown in a state and never sold outside of it) would be voted on separately and could pass without passing the less obvious ones (such as requiring a seven-justice super-majority for overturning democratically enacted laws).
At least eight of the proposed amendments are clearly good ideas; the only one I have any issue with is the seven-justice supermajority. I have no particular opposition to it, but don't know that it's really as necessary as the others.
The most ridiculous argument against the Texas Plan is that because Abbott wants to add amendments to the Constitution, he opposes the Constitution. If that's the case, the other 27 amendments we've passed have already done the job.
In fact, the amendments banning slavery, the amendment repealing prohibition, the amendment clarifying the presidential succession, and the entire Bill of Rights have unquestionably made the Constitution better.
At least one of Abbott's amendments is a pure restatement of an existing amendment from the Bill of Rights that often gets ignored by the Washington establishment. Ignoring the ninth and tenth amendments is opposing the Constitution; if they supported the Constitution, they'd amend those amendments away using the designated process. Instead, they're treating the Constitution as something to be opposed instead of made better.
- December 23, 2015: The Sunset of the Vice President
Ever since the Vice President changed from being the President's most popular opponent to the President's partner—with the passing of the twelfth amendment in 1804—the Vice President's job has faded.
It occurred to me that, rather than having all laws automatically sunset after a period of time, they could become eligible for removal after that period of time, but that an elected official would be responsible for going through the laws and choosing which haven't done what they set out to do. It should be an official whose popularity then hinges on what they repeal, rather than what they enact.
The Vice President might make a good choice for that position, as the Vice President doesn't actually have much in the way of official responsibilities. Ties in the Senate are pretty rare and while the Vice President can preside over the Senate, there's not actually a lot of responsibility there. The Vice President's arguably most critical duty, the 25th amendment power to get the cabinet together and declare the President "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" is one that so far has never been invoked.
A Law1 becomes eligible for repeal by the Vice President seven years after it becomes a Law or after two thirds of the State Legislatures petition the Vice President for repeal of the Law. The Vice President must report these Laws to Congress and the States. Congress may, within sixty days, block repeal with a two-thirds vote in each House. Alternatively, two-thirds of State Legislatures can vote to block repeal within 120 days. If repeal is not blocked by Congress or by the several States, the Law is repealed 120 days after the Vice President reports its repeal.
This provision does not apply to Laws whose sole purpose is the repeal another Law.
Congress would of course be free to re-pass the law, but this would open the law up for debate again, and there would be a better chance of learning from the failure of the first go-round. It is a lot easier to acknowledge the need for change once the original is gone.
There aren't a lot of provisions in United States law for reducing the scope of the federal government. We need a few. And this would give the Vice President an answer to the perennial question, "what did you accomplish while you were veep?"
It would also make Vice Presidential debates a whole lot more interesting.
- August 12, 2015: A tested alternative for Iranian nuclear negotiations
President Obama claims that his administration's nuclear deal is the only alternative to war. This is a pretty standard debating tactic of the President's: its his way or some broken-down highway filled with spike-covered reavers, and there's nothing in between.
In this case, though, the alternatives are probably not that obvious inside the beltway, because they require thinking long-term and thinking about freedom. The obvious non-politico-friendly alternative is to simply wait until a better deal can be negotiated. We are giving Iran a lot in exchange for this deal. If we aren't getting much of anything in return—if, in fact, Iran is allowed to get as close to nuclear weapons as it wishes without actually touching them, and is allowed to lie about touching them—then why give up that leverage? It may well be useful later.
But there is a third way, besides war and waiting, that has worked in the past. And that is to tie closer relations and/or lessened sanctions to their creating a more open society.
If we require that Iran free their political prisoners, this will make Iran a safer place for the greater voices it has. If we require that Iran stop cracking down on dissidents—cracking down in the old-school way of killing and maiming them—then Iran will in fact be a safer place for the people willing to speak out.
If we require that Iran allow anyone to leave Iran who wants to, Iran's stranglehold on its dissidents is nearly completely removed.
If we do those simple things—if we believe in the power of freedom to transform—we may well end up with a repeat of the reasonably bloodless revolution that threw down the Soviet Union, as Iran responds to the now visible voices against its tyranny. But even if we aren't, Iran will be a better place, with more voices, some of whom will end up in government and be more open to negotiating real nuclear reforms. Without Senator Jackson and President Reagan, Gorbachev would not have been Gorbachev.
I meant to write this simply because of the insights I had gained reading Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy. In researching the post, and looking for Iranians blocked from emigrating, I came across Natan Sharansky's July 28 response to the nuclear agreement:
- August 5, 2015: We are not free unless we fight for the freedom of others
I am coming to the belief that the old cliché that no one is free unless everyone is free has a very special, and true, meaning for the United States.
There is an old theory in psychology that I'm aware of mainly because it was my faculty advisor's at Cornell. It is that for many of the ways we see ourselves, we observe ourselves from the outside, and make conclusions about ourselves as if we were an outside observer. If we see ourselves doing kind things, then we see ourselves as kind. If we do free work in favor of some political cause, we will assume that we must support that political cause.
Now, he wasn't saying that we act randomly and decide what we are based on our random acts; many things we do because we are the kind of person who does them. But many things we don't. We go along with friends or family or coworkers on things that don't matter to us, but, his theory goes, when we go along we start to believe that's who we are.
If we never really thought about a vacuum cleaner, and the vacuum cleaner salesman convinces us to let him into our home, perhaps we really were interested in a vacuum cleaner. Maybe we do need a new one.
That is, we are what we do, rather than we do what we are. I think something similar works on the national level, that we see ourselves, as a nation, based on what we do as a nation. This would mean that linking, Sharansky-style, freedom under tyrants to any deals we make with those tyrants, makes us freer too because we see ourselves as a free country, in opposition to the tyranny elsewhere.
If we link beneficial deals with the USSR to their freeing and not harassing dissidents, then we will value more closely our freedoms at home. And if we position ourselves to pragmatically ignore the tyranny in Iran or Cuba in favor of short-term gain, well, we will be more pragmatic at home as well, and our freedom here will suffer.
We are not free unless we understand the power of freedom to transform.
- July 29, 2015: Cuban Cigar Aficionado
Coinciding with me finishing Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy, in their May/June issue Cigar Aficionado welcomed normalizing relations with Cuba, and the opportunities for more fine cigars from Cuban tobacco fields. And in their July/August issue, they printed some letters from people who disagreed and would prefer that normalizing relations also require the Castro regime give something in return other than fine cigars.
Dear Marvin,
You are on the wrong side of the life and liberty with your April Cuba policy editorial. When negotiating you always get something back. The Obama policy is simply to give to a brutal dictatorship and get nothing for the oppressed Cuban people.
As a Cuban who lived through Fidel's revolution I witnessed the confiscation of all the fruits of hard work of generations of industrious Cubans. The fact is that the Cuban people have no freedom of speech, no freedom of assembly and no free press. While the elite of the communist party live a good life and have full access to food, entertainment, good housing, clothing, the best beaches, etc., those outside the party have to work as directed and have to settle for whatever is rationed to them. At the same time the Cuban lives in fear of being turned in to Castro's regime by the numerous party spies spread through all the neighborhoods.
Obama wants to open the flood of money into Cuba, without constraints, but that money will only go to the elite of the communist party and will not benefit the people. Any freedom-loving president would demand, at a minimum, freedom of press and right of free speech in return.
Alberto G. Solana
Editor's Response: We agree that the people of Cuba do not have access to the freedom so many others enjoy, including those of us who live in the United States. However, we believe that ending the embargo is one way to create needed change. The policies of the past 50 years have not worked. It is time to try something different.
- May 12, 2015: Government oxymoron: anti-corruption laws
In the latest Weekly Standard, Jay Cost asks, So, what about money in politics?, taking Republicans to task for twiddling their thumbs while Democrats rant about Citizens United. He concludes that while the Democrats have enacted self-serving reforms that ban things they don't use and exempt the corruption they rely on, conservatives shouldn't just make fun of their hypocrisy nor rail against their counter-productive, corruption-causing laws. To win the minds of the public, conservatives "must promote ideas to constrain influence-peddling in politics, and then pressure the ever recalcitrant GOP to enact those reforms into law."
Now, on the one hand, he's right. When one person is doing something that makes matters worse, and another person is arguing against doing something because it is just making matters worse, there is a strong tendency in the modern world to side with the person who is at least acting.
But from the standpoint of actually reducing corruption rather than increasing it, he's wrong—as described in an earlier article in the same issue, where Stephen Moore argues for simplifying the tax code because layer upon layer of laws "mostly benefit the wealthy and politically well-connected."
The only people who benefit from a complicated, barnacle-encrusted 70,000-page tax code are tax attorneys, accountants, lobbyists, IRS agents, and politicians who use the tax code as a way to buy and sell favors. The belly of the beast of corruption in American politics is the IRS tax code. — Stephen Moore (Remember the Flat Tax?)
We've long passed the point where adding laws can have a beneficial effect; the problem is that our laws are so complex that only the wealthy and well-connected can understand them, and because of this they get to manipulate them. Get rid of the complexity and "D.C. becomes the Sahara Desert."
This is hardly news. The philosopher Lao Zi described the process millennia ago when he wrote that:
- April 19, 2015: Comparing our Iran negotiations to our Soviet negotiations
Someone a lot smarter than me is noticing that we do not see ourselves as a beacon of freedom, as we did when we opposed the Soviet Union. Natan Sharansky asks, When did America forget that it's America? He is basically pointing out the same thing I did: that we are not defining civilization as better than barbarism.
As a former Soviet dissident, I cannot help but compare this approach to that of the United States during its decades-long negotiations with the Soviet Union, which at the time was a global superpower and a existential threat to the free world. The differences are striking and revealing.
Imagine what would have happened if instead, after completing a round of negotiations over disarmament, the Soviet Union had declared that its right to expand communism across the continent was not up for discussion. This would have spelled the end of the talks. Yet today, Iran feels no need to tone down its rhetoric calling for the death of America and wiping Israel off the map.
… for example, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan shortly after the SALT II agreement had been signed, the United States quickly abandoned the deal and accompanying discussions.
Today, by contrast, apparently no amount of belligerence on Iran's part can convince the free world that Tehran has disqualified itself from the negotiations or the benefits being offered therein. Over the past month alone, as nuclear discussions continued apace, we watched Iran's proxy terror group, Hezbollah, transform into a full-blown army on Israel's northern border, and we saw Tehran continue to impose its rule on other countries, adding Yemen to the list of those under its control.
Then there is the question of human rights. When American negotiations with the Soviets reached the issue of trade, and in particular the lifting of sanctions and the conferring of most-favored-nation status on the Soviet Union, the Senate, led by Democrat Henry Jackson, insisted on linking economic normalization to Moscow's allowing freedom of emigration…
Iran's dismal human rights record, by contrast, has gone entirely unmentioned in the recent negotiations. Sadly, America's reticence is familiar: In 2009, in response to the democratic uprisings that mobilized so many Iranian citizens, President Obama declared that engaging the theocratic regime would take priority over changing it.
- March 3, 2015: Stop the rot—with sunlight and sunset
Jay Cost talks a good description of the problem of soft corruption in Stop the Rot. The checks and balances meant to pit special special interests against each other and so produce good government are failing as more power converges on DC and the steady accumulation of complex laws encourages soft corruption: the shaping of tiny parts of complex laws to benefit campaign contributors or home-district interests. There appears no limit on the pork that can be funneled back home or the special treatment that can be hidden in wordy laws.
Costs's solution: add more laws on top of our existing laws, increase the size of the civil service bureaucracy in congress, and increase the the control Washington has over party leadership, further blurring the line between parties and the government. His advice seems designed in direct opposition to his advice that we "begin by recognizing that previous attempts to fix it have failed" and that "the rules of the game be adjusted so that selfish interests will combine to produce socially beneficial results".
Whereas once parties were themselves independent interests, their status as just another arm of the federal government will be further cemented; and his increase in the number of staff members provided to representatives is specifically designed, he says, to decreased the influence of private citizens (of course, he calls them special interests) in providing information to their representatives.
Go read the article—while I disagree with his conclusions, his summation of the problem is good. As Cost says, "reform conservatism must admit the connection between policies needing reform and the process that created them."
I'd argue for a zero-based budget: special interests are not pitted against one another today because we pretend that the font of public funds is some limitless magical well rather than dependent on taxes. A zero-based budget process would force interests to compete for tax money.1
I'd also argue for a simplification of existing laws, and some mechanism for keeping them simple. It's the massive size of our current laws, of cruft upon cruft, that make it easy for those who can afford lawyers and lobbyists to find loopholes and carve out hidden special treatment. For example:
- February 28, 2015: Republicans and America must provide an alternative
I've often complained that politicians sometimes grow in office to desire compromise solely for the sake of compromise and not to further some underlying policy or principle.
While there are certainly opportunities for compromise in the 2015–2016 congress, there are also things that Republicans should simply vote correctly on and pass to the President's desk despite the short term hit from a guaranteed veto. During the 2013 shutdown Republicans took a short-term hit for holding up government funds in a futile attempt to delay the ACA. But when the ACA turned out to be an expensive boondoggle a few months later in 2014, it was impossible for the press, having shouted Republican opposition to it only months previously, to claim that the ACA was a bipartisan fiasco.
The same is likely the case with releasing the terrorists at Guantanamo: the president will oppose any bill blocking their release. But if Republicans believe that Guantanamo is protecting the U.S. from terrorist attack by those prisoners, they should send him the doomed bill to maintain Guantanamo anyway. They should pass what is right and not allow the press to tie Democrats' failures to bipartisanship.
This requires, of course, that Republicans not only have principles but believe in them strongly enough to know that they are right even in the face of failure.
Even more critical is Iran. Republicans must provide a loud alternative to President Obama's appeasement. And it's important that their alternative be loud. It isn't enough to oppose bad policies quietly, as Bush and McCain did when trying to reform Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac before the 2008 housing meltdown. It is very difficult for a politician to say "I told you so" without being condescending; it is necessary that they not have to say "I told you so" because everyone knows—as everyone did after the shutdown over the ACA—what they said.
Providing an alternative is important in all areas of politics and world relations. America itself has been an alternative for the oppressed masses yearning to breathe free since its founding, and it should remain so.
- December 29, 2014: Essential revolution: lasting reform
But true reform strikes at the heart of corruption. There are some aspects of our government—sometimes, of what we assume government must be—that create corruption. The concentration of pro-government lobbyists and activists in one place creates a cesspool of corruption: and by this I mean capitol cities. Here in Texas, I live just north of Austin, the corrupt heart of the state. But with today's technology, do we really need a capitol city? Given today's technology, most, if not all, legislative activity can be handled from a legislator's home town. If it's possible to live without a capitol city, that will vastly reduce the ease of corruption.
The power to tax is the most deadly power of the state, and it promotes the most deadly corruptions, as businesses bribe and lobbying for some beneficial tax law or tax loophole. The federal government's power to tax makes it a one-stop shop for buying favorable tax laws for one's own use, and unfavorable tax laws for competitors. But does this have to be the case? Perhaps taxes could be levied only by the states, and the federal government given a simple percentage or flat rate from each state. The states could then experiment with different tax mechanisms, without the interference of the federal income tax and other federal taxes.
The best literature of freedom, from Animal Farm to Brave New World•, agree on one dangerous power of government: the power to take our children and each them what the government wants them to believe. Our government education system focuses on local communities, but over the past several decades the federal government has been taking over more and more. It's time to pass that power back to the states, and even back to parents themselves. If parents can choose where their children are educated without having to pay a double cost, the power of the state is vastly reduced. And, as a bonus, the power of diversity is vastly increased. Rather than a single monolithic education, we will have a rainbow of learning.
- December 22, 2014: Essential revolution: fight corruption
No amount of money can corrupt you into exercising a power you do not have. I cannot bribe you into repealing the law of gravity just for your friends. The only way we can have an incorruptible government is by taking away those powers that invite corruption.
But if Republicans are to reduce the size of government, they have to strike at the systems that keep government growing. They need to stop the federal government from bypassing the states; they need to reverse the concentration of pro-government industry in small areas, and they need to end the practice of government-run schools teaching children to love government.
The latter, especially, is easily converted to teaching devotion to a particular ruler, as we've seen sporadically in elementary schools over the last six years. But this can also be sold to liberals who are afraid of the religious right taking over government schools. If there are no government schools, the religious right have nothing to take over.
The best solutions follow from allowing states to work out competing solutions. Let states end prohibition; just get out of their way. Let states experiment with better school systems; just get out of their way. Let states devise better health insurance mechanisms; just get out of their way.
But besides fighting corruption at its source, it's important that there be consequences for corruption. That means holding the IRS responsible for their anti-democratic policies of the last four years. It means cutting their power so that they don't have the power to be corrupt.
It means holding the VA responsible for their deadly anti-veteran policies—and perhaps create a mechanism for veterans to bypass the VA. Take away the benefits of corruption and corruption will naturally be reduced—or the VA itself will become superfluous because no veteran will use them.
Some reforms are easy. Some are arguably easy. Voters across demographic lines support vote integrity; it is pretty much only politicians who oppose it. And all the federal government has to do is get itself out of the way of states, since states handle elections.
And there are very specific proposals with wide support that can show people what federalism can do for them:
- Allow states to opt out of any federal marijuana laws.
- Allow states to opt out of any federal health insurance laws.
- Allow citizens to opt in to any state's health insurance laws by purchasing insurance across state lines.
- If sales taxes must be collected on sales that cross state lines1, then enact sales taxes by seller location, so that states maintain the ability to regulate the businesses within their borders, and sales taxes remain low.
- December 15, 2014: Essential Revolution: The Return of the Republicans
For two years, Democrats held the House, Senate, and White House. All they did with it was raise health care prices, destroy a competitive insurance market, and send billions to crony projects via "stimulus" bills.
It's easy to forget, though, that Republicans held the House, Senate, and White House for a few years as well. They worked, among other things, to shore up social security and stave off a housing collapse. "Worked" is somewhat of an overstatement, however: at the first signs of opposition from Democrats, they bolted.
This time needs to be different.
Over the last several years, of course, Republicans have been in the minority, first in each of the House, Senate, and White House, and then by way of holding the House against the Senate and White House. The House blamed the lack of passing bills, justifiably, on Harry Reid, who blocked almost everything the House produced.
But now that Republicans hold the Senate, they can't blame Harry Reid for not sending legislation to the White House. They need to re-pass important legislation and get it to the President's desk. They need to pass two kinds of legislation: legislation that President Obama claims to support and legislation that outlines the Republican vision of the future.
For example, the President has claimed to want people to be able to keep their health insurance, and has issued an executive order stating this. However, his order excludes any insurance policies issued over the last four years. The House and Senate should pass a simple, one-page bill that codifies the President's executive order on this, but also includes more recent policies.
Then, they should pass a one-page bill that opens these policies to anyone previously covered by the policy under someone else's name, such as children coming of age.
Republicans will undoubtedly pass tax reform as well. Here, as well, they need to keep things simple. It is sickening how the media lies about conservative proposals; even during this election the media claimed that a Republican candidate wanted to "slash" spending on a project when the Republican didn't want to increase spending by as much as their opponent. An increase in spending is not slashing spending, no matter how much more the other side wants to increase spending. The same is true for tax reform. If Republicans were to pass something like Ryan's tax reform that cuts the rate at which the rich pay taxes while also removing all of the loopholes the rich currently use to not pay taxes at all, the media will still claim that Republicans are "cutting taxes for the rich" even though the rich will pay more in taxes.
There's no way around the fact that the media will lie, but keeping bills simple and keeping titles descriptive can make their lies more obvious. Republicans should pass one-page or even one-paragraph bills that say what they mean, not omnibus bills that the press can see what they want in—because what they want is to make Republicans look bad.
Simplicity is the best transparency.
- February 4, 2014: Conservative policies go to pot
From blog comments to the weekly standard, drug warriors are responding to the fake legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington With two arguments; often, as in John P. Walters's Weekly Standard article, from the same person:
- Prohibition is necessary to keep people from using pot.
- Prohibition is never enforced just for using pot.
They literally want to keep the laws in place as discretionary laws enforced at the whim of law enforcement. You might as well say, of our gun laws, well, yes, everyone who owns a gun breaks some of them but very few are prosecuted, so the laws are good.
This is, after all, the Obama administration's policy, too: we won't enforce these laws unless we feel like it.
It's this attitude that got us a president who uses the FEC to target only conservative groups and who exempts his cronies from the Obamacare exchanges. Prohibition is the conservative Obamacare: the law is less a consistent rule and more an aspirational idea.
Walters even argues that it is bad to remove the penalties against drug use because then dealers will no longer be able to negotiate lesser sentences. The point of the system seems to be making jobs for lawyers rather than creating an easily-understood system of laws. That is, when it comes to drug laws, conservative drug warriors are leftists. They believe in the power of the state to control the lives of the third of the country that has broken this law. They believe in the discretion of the state to choose which of those hundred million people should face criminal sanction and which should be exempted.
There are real problems with current drug legalization efforts, not the least of which is that it is hardly a test of legalization if the federal laws remain in place to be re-enforced at the whim of the executive.
Nor is it a test of legalization if the taxes that replace criminal penalties are so prohibitive that they don't even undercut the black market. Conservatives rightly make fun of countries like Canada and other regions that increase taxes on tobacco so much that people start buying them from criminals. A marijuana tax that can't even compete with the expensive black market is no different. It may not encourage lawlessness as much as a prohibition law that is enforced only arbitrarily, but it still encourages lawlessness.
- March 15, 2013: Conservative branding
Yesterday, Ace of the award-winning Ace of Spades HQ wrote On Branding and Self-Ghettoization:
We tend to brand ourselves—and worse yet, we've internalized this to the point where we think of ourselves this way—as "the conservative alternative."
We need start branding ourselves as, and thinking of ourselves as, the Universal Default.
This is how leftists do it and they're quite effective at it. On every cable TV show we see a debate between an "expert" and a "conservative." The "expert" is actually liberal but he insists on not being branded as such, so he becomes just "the expert."
Whenever I get involved in a discussion about marketing, I always think of David Ogilvy•'s Ogilvy on Advertising•. Ogilvy is especially relevant for this election cycle because he's a huge proponent of boring, workmanlike direct mail campaigns over flashy television campaigns. By most accounts, direct mail is a big part of how President Obama won re-election despite going into the election with high disapproval ratings. He just used email and texts rather than (or, more likely, in addition to) postal mail ads.
When I went to verify something Ogilvy talked about—the use of Latin to sell cooking stoves to people who would like to think they're in the group that can speak Latin, even if they're not—I also ran across a couple of things that really stood out for me.
What's your big idea?
Unless your advertising contains a big idea, it will pass like a ship in the night.
This is important: because the "big idea" of conservative ideals is important. And the big idea sells well. People tend to be very much in favor of not passing massive debt onto our children; they tend to be very much in favor of making their own decisions instead of having decisions made for them by government bureaucrats. They tend to be very much in favor of effective self-defense. It's the details that get twisted, and too often conservative candidates and conservative spokespeople are all-too-willing to get tangled up in the weeds when guided there by the liberal media.
- November 18, 2012: Copyright reform: Republican principles in action?
On November 16, the House Republican Study Committee released an amazingly astute copyright policy brief describing precisely and succinctly how much current copyright law is at odds with the free market and with modern technology, and proposed serious reforms to shield individuals from excessive litigation and to turn copyright back into what it was constitutionally meant to do: provide a limited incentive to make new things public so that the public can use them.
The policy brief ended with "Current copyright law does not merely distort some markets—rather it destroys entire markets."
Their reforms would have restored the requirement that copyrights be registered, reduced the free copyright monopoly period to twelve years and required a percentage of revenue to expand the monopoly beyond that; would have expanded the definition of fair use and made the lines easier to see; punished false takedown demands; and reduced the incentive to shakedown individuals for thousands of dollars in "go away" money.
Within twenty-four hours, the MPAA and RIAA apparently went ballistic and hit the phones hard successfully convincing House Republicans to remove the policy brief.
I'm reproducing the entire brief here because (a) it's brilliant, and (b) it's disappeared1. This is exactly the kind of principled reform the Republican party should be championing in order to convince voters that freedom works. Instead, they've fucked up yet again. Why should they care what the MPAA, the RIAA and, I suspect, the trial lawyers think about them? Those groups are already in the other camp and will never come out.
What threats could they possibly have received to convince them to back down? That Hollywood was going to go over to the Democrats if they didn't back down? That MSNBC was going to stop being fair to Republicans if they didn't back down? That trial lawyers would end their support of Republican candidates if they didn't back down? Republicans don't have Hollywood, they don't have the media, and they don't have the trial lawyers. Real copyright reform is a no-lose policy for Republicans.
This is the Republicans' problem in a nutshell: they're so worried about alienating people who already hate them that they aren't even willing to stand behind their own principles.
- January 20, 2009: Republicans can't count on media turning
Congratulations to President Obama. I hope he does good. There are some things I support that I can hope President Obama will also support; on the other hand, I also lived through the empty promises of President Clinton. Apropos of that, here's a smart quote from an Ace of Spades commenter in response to some Republicans writing that they expect the media adulation to fade or even turn:
Yeah, Clinton was only out of office for seven years before they turned on him.
Principles, folks. Don't count on the media becoming objective.
- What's next for the GOP?
- "While I believe there should always be a big GOP tent, there must also be a shared agreement on the essentials—including expanding liberty, encouraging entrepreneurship and limiting the reach of government in people's everyday lives."
- Growth through dismemberment doesn't work
- "We need to get back to those First Principles of fiscal responsibility (which we blew when we had the opportunity), smaller government (which we betrayed with the K Street Project and other lobbyist pandering), national security, free market economics, federalism, and lower taxes."
- Moving on to John McCain
- The more I learn about John McCain the more I want to vote for him.
- Was John McCain Really the Most Electable Candidate?
- "I was attempting to think of 'Six at Sixty,' six issues that command sixty percent public support. (This is a variation of Geraghty's 'Nine at Ninety,' an attempt to define nine issues that command 90% support in the GOP only.)"
- Favorable Medical Marijuana Polls
- Allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana to patients that need it consistently receives 60%—and far higher—approval ratings.
- The California Medical Marijuana Rebellion
- "The No on 215 campaign was co- chaired by Lungren and California Secretary of State Bill Jones. Also on board were Orange County Sheriff Brad Gates, the California Narcotics Officers Association, California Prison Guards Association and the California Sheriffs Association."
- "I didn't know the gun was loaded!"
- The unreasoning red-blue hatred fanned by the press today is pushing us towards a federal dictatorship.
- Video: Teacher instills a little bit of Hope and a whole lot of Change
- "I'd call it a mid-day palate cleanser, but somehow I don't feel cleansed."
- "No Room for RINOs"
- "The Denver Post's libertarian columnist David Harsanyi and others outlined Gov Palin's governing philosophy and found it far more palatable than, say, the governing policy of the 'Maverick' John McCain. (Recall, Palin vetoed a Republican effort to deny same sex couples certain privileges on the grounds that she thought the measure likely unconstitutional.)"
- A Way Out of the Wilderness
- "Avoid mindless opposition. We should support President Obama when he is right (Afghanistan), persuade him when his mind appears open (trade) and oppose him when he is wrong (taxes). It is the Republican Party's job to hold him accountable on the merits only."
- Nobody wants immigration reform
- "Immigration is not a problem to be solved." A confident and successful electorate could understand that issues are more important than who you hate. Unreasoning partisanship, however, is a problem that often seems as if it has no solution.
- Obama weighing idea of "auto czar," aide says
- "President-elect Barack Obama is considering naming a point person to lead efforts to help the distressed auto industry return to health, an Obama aide said on Thursday."
- Time To Look Ahead
- "We are going to have to use every tool we have—grassroots organizations, think tanks, magazines, talk radio, the Internet—while building new institutions to blunt the efforts of a left-wing establishment that appears willing to use uncertainty to impose an agenda that would never see the light of day in normal times."
More gay marriage
- A compromise proposal for Kentucky Quakers
- The left's hypothetical Quaker already exists across the country, denying carry licenses because he disagrees with a constitutional right to bear arms.
- Quakers refusing gun permits
- If a Quaker were to refuse to deport an illegal alien because of their religious beliefs, would the left denounce that government official like they're denouncing the Kentucky Clerk who is refusing gay marriage licenses?
- What is the state's role in marriage and the family?
- The family has been changing in the United States for decades, partially because of misguided government policies. Now, same-sex marriage changes the family fundamentally. State and federal legislators should take a serious look at the state's role in marriage and family.
- Being illiberal: Same sex gun sales
- If selling a gay couple a wedding cake means a "christian" baker participated in their marriage, does selling a gun to a murderer mean a "christian" gun store owner participated in murder?
- Government interference in the marriage contract
- There is no marriage contract. There is just a bunch of random rulings and regulations created ex post facto.
- Two more pages with the topic gay marriage, and other related pages


text:
It's 10 p.m. – do you know where your video content is?
Traditional video syndication has left the web a veritable minefield for brands trying to find an audience for their videos. It's an archaic practice in an age where a reputable video appearing on an inappropriate website (or next to questionable content) could spell a PR disaster for the unwitting video owner.
Historically, videos have been distributed via an MRSS feed to publishers, with absolutely no transparency or control for the video owners. Think of the MRSS feed as one of your teenage kids saying he or she is going out to a movie. It's a great idea in concept, and you'd like to believe them, you really would, but how will you know where they ended up without tracking them? And what unscrupulous persons have they inadvertently been exposed to?
We've been seeing a similar scenario like this for years in traditional video syndication. A big brand video publisher like IDG or Bloomberg distributes their MRSS feed to reputable publishers, only to find their video appearing on the types of websites they would never deal with and their audiences would never, ever visit.
Smaller content owners might have used "distribution networks" to syndicate their video. You would hand them your feed to ingest and all of the videos would be transported into another system. Once there, the videos were distributed into the ether; you had no idea where they were appearing or how they were being used – or by whom.
The unscrupulous publisher doesn't care about the reputation of the content owner. They're just looking to get their hands on whatever video they can, to draw people to their site, to sell more ads, and to grab whatever premium video dollars are available.
Once a screenshot of a big brand video appears on a website from the wrong side of the tracks, the controversy-hungry social media sphere loves nothing more, and the premium brand is left scrambling to explain just how and why it got there. Why would a skin care company advertise on a website that promotes dog fighting? What business does a financial services company have advertising on a site that preys on consumers with predatory payday loans?
The company is as unable to formulate a satisfactory response as they are to identify how the video wound up out of their control and in an objective place. Righteous bloggers and mainstream media grab hold of the story, and even if the brand can get the video removed, the damage is done.
Brands have always known of this risk, but found there was nothing they could do about it, outside of pulling the videos from everyone, despite the harm to your reputable publishers who are using the same videos. Many big brands have been handing out the same MRSS feeds for years, knowing they have absolutely no control over where their video ends up. It's an unacceptable risk.
Real-time, programmatic syndication gives brands insight into how publishers interact with videos outside their network, but more importantly, it solves for transparency and returns to the video owner the control that is required if syndication is to realize its potential online.
In a single SaaS interface, video content owners can now syndicate to thousands of publishers and actually see each and every place their videos appear. Part of that control is the ability to turn off the tap to a specific publisher if their site, for any reason, is not a place their advertiser wants to appear. It could be that the publisher site carries flat-out inappropriate content, but it also might be a simple case of misalignment with the advertiser's goals.
In any case, a programmatic video syndication exchange platform gives back the transparency and control the archaic traditional syndication networks took away from brand video publishers. Companies no longer have to get accept inherent risk and inevitable scandal as part of the syndication game. Now, select publishers can be deleted and blocked from accessing a company's video feed without cutting off legit publishers.
Reputable publishers also benefit from programmatic video syndication exchange by way of enhanced discovery, ease of use, and far greater choice in the video they choose to host on their sites. On both sides – for the publisher and the advertiser – formerly manual processes are automated, bringing to fruition the promise we have all known that video syndication represents, but could never quite realize with traditional methods.
In the media frenzy over George Clooney's wedding, for example, many of the video clips featured in mainstream and niche celebrity news contained the same raw footage. There simply weren't a lot of journalists in position to capture the moment. Using programmatic syndication exchange, publishers weren't limited only to those feeds from video owners with whom they already had relationships. They could choose the $5 per thousand views clip with commentary by superstar Nancy O'Dell if they wanted. However, they could also choose the $0.75 per thousand views clip, featuring the same George Clooney footage but narrated by a lesser-known host from a smaller entertainment publication.
And on the other side of that equation, in real-time, either Entertainment Tonight or the smaller e-news publisher would know exactly where their video was being displayed as soon as the feed was picked up.
Real-time programmatic video syndication exchange is a pipeline for content distribution at scale to the masses – one with complete transparency and safeguards to protect brands from fraudulent use and otherwise potentially harmful exposure.
Like all other facets of online marketing, video syndication can operate with more science and less guesswork. As the rise of programmatic video syndication exchanges removes ambiguity and unmitigated risk to brand video owners from the equation, we can finally put the archaic spray-and-pray traditional approach to online video syndication to bed, once and for all.


text:
SayleGroup is pleased to announce their Cannabis & Workplace Safety Online Course has been approved and endorsed by the Professional Security Knowledge Network (PSKN). Please review the PSKN's official press release below.
For Immediate Release
NEW PARTNERSHIP BRINGS AWARD WINNING CANNABIS AND WORKPLACE SAFETY COURSE TO CANADIAN EMPLOYERS Charlottetown, July 18, 2018: The Professional Security Knowledge Network (PSKN) is excited to announce its partnership with the SayleGroup Inc., in offering Canadian Employers and employees with and award-winning online course – Cannabis (Marijuana) Legislation: Impact on Workplace Safety - that will provide employers and OHS committees with important information and considerations for workplace policies in advance of cannabis legalisation on October 17, 2018.
According to Statistics Canada Cannabis Stats Hub, just over 12% of Canadians reported using Cannabis in a 12-month period. 42% of Canadians have reported using Cannabis in their lifetime. While many workplaces have "zero-tolerance" policies, legalization changes the Canadian landscape and will impact all employers. There will be new considerations for workplace Health and Safety policies.
This award winning course: Cannabis (Marijuana) Legislation: Impact on Workplace Safety, will give employers, managers and employees a comprehensive look at the top issues facing your workforce and allow you to prepare and educate your workforce before October 17, including:
This cost-effective, user-friendly online course sets a baseline about what we currently know about the issue, and maybe even more importantly, what is still being studied.
This course will allow organizations to:
The competencies outlined above are assessed through our Learning Management System and those who successfully complete the course will receive a certificate of achievement.
Through our partnership with SayleGroup, we are equipping employers and their workforce with the information necessary to prevent costly misunderstandings resulting in legal actions, or even worse, workplace incidents and injuries.
Safety Culture is about doing what's right to ensure everyone works safe and stays safe. Safety Culture is more than simply following the law, it is the way we behave when no one is watching.
Everyone wants to go to work, do their job well and get home safe.
Headquartered in Charlottetown, PE – The Professional Security Knowledge Network is a trusted source for high quality Canadian content and learning services. Working with security, investigation, and public safety experts, PSKN provides online training and learning services to develop the skills and knowledge most needed by frontline personnel. PSKN offers a catalogue of online courses including legislated private security and investigation training in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.
A Halifax-based business specializing in QHSE consulting, E-learning and technological safety solutions through organizational fusion of SayleGroup Inc. and subsidiary, SayleSafety Inc. Sayle Group strives to take subject matter expertise from seasoned veterans and convert it into a digital medium for the next generation.