text:
Supreme Court hears United States v. Alvarez
I've been pretty clear from the start that I felt this was an uphill battle for us in the Supreme Court. *I* think that the SVA is within the scope of appropriate congressional action, and does not run afoul of the First Amendment, but have always been worried that the Supremes wouldn't see it that way. After hearing the arguments yesterday, I remain fearful of our prospects, but less so. Say the trek will be less Everest, and more like Mt. Washington.
It is dangerous to read too much into the questions posed by the Justices in oral arguments. It's like reading tea leaves…you might get it right, but chances are it was accidental. That said, I am about to do just that anyway, in the hopes that perhaps some of you keen legal minds out there might read these passages differently, or may have noted other things I missed.
I will say this at the outset, although I thought it went very well, the guy I consider to be the sharpest JAG I ever knew sent me an email this morning that read:
Predictions based on the justices' questions are not an easy matter, but I don't think SVA is going to prevail. Kennedy seems to think that it is too broad.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post had an article today that said:
It seemed from the general tenor of the arguments that the justices were looking for ways to agree with [Solicitor General] Verrilli that the exception to the First Amendment's speech protections was narrow.
He seemed to have one sure supporter in Justice Antonin Scalia, whose comments were uniformly protective of the government's interests.
"When Congress passed this legislation, I assume it did so because it thought that the value of the awards that these courageous members of the armed forces were receiving was being demeaned and diminished" by those who falsely claimed them, Scalia said.
And Verrilli had one clear skeptic in Sotomayor. "I thought the core of the First Amendment was to protect even against offensive speech," she said. "You can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming that they got one
Just picking up Scalia is a good thing from my point of view, since we need 5, and I had labelled him as a likely opponent. As is his custom, Thomas remained silent, but I suspect he is with us. In order to get to 5, we need Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and then two out of Kennedy, Breyer and Chief Justice Roberts. Like I said, beforehand I gameplayed us needing all 3, now we just need 2/3.
Anyway, here are some passages I found interesting. (Click here to read full transcript.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: I believe that there is no First Amendment value in -- in falsehood.
This was a good sign right off the bat. Like I said above, I was concerned about Scalia.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: What is -- what is the First Amendment value in a lie, pure lie?
After a convoluted answer that cited "personal autonomy" which Roberts rejected, the lawyer went on to Mark Twain, which Roberts pointed out was only a story, a book. And then Alito weighed in...
JUSTICE ALITO: Do you really think that there is -- that the First Amendment -- that there is First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself, because that person would like to create a particular persona? Gee, I won the Medal of Honor. I was a Rhodes scholar, I won the Nobel Prize. There's a personal - the First Amendment protects that?
MR. LIBBY: Yes, Your Honor, so long as it doesn't cause imminent harm to another person or imminent harm to a government function.
The "imminent harm" thing was used repeatedly, although Libby (Alvarez's counsel) eventually backed away from imminent after he was challenged on it. He really couldn't explain what he meant by imminent.
Anyway, the important issues in this case from my reading of the lower courts rulings (9th and 10 circuit opinions) were whether someone was "harmed" and whether allowing the law to stand would create a "chilling effect" on other protected speech. Assuming that they find harm and no chilling effect, the court would also look at whether there was a less restrictive way to accomplish the goal. The remainder of these clips deal with those issues.
On harm, Solicitor General Verrilli (who is now one of my favorite people, he was amazing) laid it out thusly:
GENERAL VERRILLI: And this -- this is a case in which one of the harm that justifies this statute is the misappropriation of the government-conferred honor and esteem, and that is a real harm and a significant harm, and there is also the particularized harm of the erosion of the -- of the value of the military honors confirmed -- conferred - by our government; and those are particularized harms that are real; and the kind of speech that this statute regulates are a genuine threat to those harms in a way that, looking backwards, looking and anchoring this argument in the tradition of this Court's precedents, this is a type of calculated factual falsehood.
I mentioned in an earlier post how much I liked the VFW Amicus, and their bring up the Olympic case. Others disagreed with me that this was a good argument to make, but Justice Kennedy, often the deciding vote in these cases seems to have agreed with me. (Golf clap for VFW on this one, I commend you guys.)
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, it seems to me your best analogy is the trademark analogy, Olympic case, et cetera. You put that in a rather minor -- not as an afterthought, but it's a secondary argument in your brief. It seems to me it's the strongest one. The whole breathing space thing almost has it backwards. It presumes that the government is going to have a ministry of truth and then allow breathing space around it, and I just don't think that's our tradition. On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that this does diminish the medal in many respects.
As noted above, Sotomayor was clearly hostile to the act, and made it clear she doesn't feel that the harm is sufficiently laid out.
SOTOMAYOR: What I'm trying to get to is, what harm are we protecting here? I thought that the core of the First Amendment was to protect even against offensive speech. We have a legion of cases that said your emotional reaction to offensive speech is not enough. If that is the core of our First Amendment, what I hear, and that's what I think the court below said, is you can't really believe that a war veteran thinks less of the medal that he or she receives because someone's claiming fraudulently that they got one. They don't think less of the medal. We're reacting to the fact that we're offended by the thought that someone's claiming an honor they didn't receive. So outside of the emotional reaction, 3 where's the harm? And I'm not minimizing it. I too take offense when people make these kinds of claims, but I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true.
Justice Scalia countered that by asking if Congress felt there was harm.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Do we give some deference to Congress as to whether there is a harm to governmental purposes or do we make it up ourselves? When Congress passed this legislation, I assume it did so because it thought that the value of the awards that these courageous members of the armed forces were receiving was being demeaned and diminished. By charlatans. That's what Congress thought. Is that utterly unreasonable, that we can't accept it?
And Justice Kennedy just flat out stated his belief regarding the harm to the reputation of the medals.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, it's a matter - it's a matter of common sense that [the actions of phonies) seems to me that it demeans the medal.
Likewise justice Alito leaped into the fray on harm.
JUSTICE ALITO: You acknowledge that the First Amendment allows the prohibition or the regulation of false speech if it causes at least certain kinds of harms. And the problem I have with your argument is determining which harms you think count and which harms don't count. Would you go as far as was suggested earlier to say that only pecuniary harm counts?
...It seems to me what you're arguing is that we should determine that there are certain harms that are sufficient to allow the prohibition of a false statement and there are certain harms that are not sufficient, irrespective of what judgment Congress made about the significance of those harms. Is that -- is that accurate?
MR. LIBBY: That's certainly part of it. I mean, we believe that there needs to be imminent harm, that it needs to be targeted harm to an individual or to -- to government function, that it can't be the type of diffuse harm that the government goes to place here.
And finally, Justice Breyer also weighed in. (This one I found the most exciting, since he hadn't been on my list of being in play on this one.)
JUSTICE BREYER: My theory is that it does hurt the Medal, the purpose, the objective, the honor, for people falsely to go around saying that they have this medal when they don't. Okay? So I might be wrong about that. I just ask you to assume that for purposes of argument, because what I'm trying to get to is I want as big a list as I can to think about of what the less restrictive alternatives are, or might be.
The answer he was looking for never fully materialized. Mr. Libby didn't really put forth a compelling "less restrictive alternative". He tried to argue that more speech was the answer, but got somewhat ridiculed by the suggestion that perhaps the DoD could start up a "Medal of Dishonor" and start awarding that to these clowns.
As I said before, the chilling effect part was intricate and important to this case. Right up until Libby seemed to take it off the table, in what has to have been the most startling admission against interest I have ever seen in a Supreme Court case… Clearly it caught Justice Kagan by surprise as well.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Mr. Libby, let's suppose that I agree with Gertz that there is no constitutional value in a false statement of fact, and the reason why we protect some false statements of fact is to protect truthful speech. So if, if that's so, is -- how is it that this statute will chill any truthful speech? What truthful speech will this statute chill?
MR. LIBBY: Your Honor, it's not that it may necessarily chill any truthful speech. I mean, it's - we certainly concede that one typically knows whether or not one has won a medal or not. We certainly -- we concede that point.
JUSTICE KAGAN: So, boy, I mean, that's a big concession, Mr. Libby.
Further, the big fear on a "slippery slope" seemed uncompelling to Justice Roberts. There was a fear specifically mentioned that there could be certain truth squads set up to make sure political candidates statements were accurate. However Roberts points out obliquely that the court rules on the case before it, and that fear is not entire germane to this case.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I suppose it might have something to do with, whether called collateral or not, I mean, I would think the concern in the midst of a political campaign is you have the U.S. attorney or the deputy district attorney bringing a -- filing a prosecution of someone 2 weeks before the election saying, you lied about this or that and maybe there would have to be a deposition or maybe there would have to be a trial. Nothing like that is involved here.
One last argument I found interesting had to do with Congress' authority under the constitution to regulate the rules for Armies and Navies etc. and resulted in a sort of interesting 3-way colloquoy...
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Did the military -- did the military act for this? You're claiming there's a special interest in seeing that a military honor is not debased.
GENERAL VERRILLI: It did not, Justice Ginsburg, but under Article I, section 8, Congress has substantial authority to regulate our armed forces, get substantial deference. It's not unlike the statute that the Court evaluated in the FAIR case in that regard, which was not a statute that the military -- that the military asked for, but Congress nevertheless was given substantial deference.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Did the Commander in Chief sign that, that legislation?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, he did, Your Honor.
Anyway, there is a ton more in there if any intrepid readers wish to point out what they see, I would love to hear it. Let me know what you guys think.
* To comment without a Facebook account, please scroll to the bottom.
MCB11 (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 3:38pm
Supreme Court hears United States v. Alvarez
For those that pretend Valor with big talk have made an in-justice to themselve and devalued the Honorable combat field. They make up stories or repeat stories of men who have been on the field of horror and had rejected serving this Great Nation for Freedom. Being in the military is no joke but a very serious personal commitment and those that skirt their opportunity to serve but want the honor of those that made the sacrifices should be brought forward for disgrace in the public. Common sense is the order of the day and rebukes those that dare cross the line of lies and fraternization to make them a center of attention on merit not deserved.
Rich Keever (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 3:48pm
Impersonating Medal Recipient
I think it is a travesty that some one can claim that they earned a military medal when they did not. It should be a criminal offense to claim such an act. Like Mr. Wilson said about impersonating a police officer or government official, that would not be tolerated. So why should impersonating a medal recipient be any different. They put you in jail for impersonating a police officer or government official. It is degrading the value of the medal awarded to thous that deserve it.
Bill Earls (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 3:50pm
Stolen Valor arguments
I'm as offended as any other veteran when someone claims an honor not rightfully earned - whether it's the medal of Honor or simply saying they served in the military when they didn't. But I don't think the honor or a medal is demeaned by liars - if I tell someone I played high school baseball when I didn't, that doesn't take away from the achievement of Hank Aaron or even my high school friends who played. What bothers me most about this case is that, if approved, it puts the government in the position of deciding what is truthful speech - in which case most politicians would be breaking the law. It might be used against anyone who pads a resume, says they did anything they didn't actually do - "I roofed a house," "I caught a 20-pound bass" - or even be used against actors and actresses who play military people - George C. Scott, John Wayne, Tom Hanks, none of whom, I think, served in the military, but who pretended to be heroes on-screen.
Matt W (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 3:50pm
Stolen Valor
I've retired from the military. My comment is this; if the US Supreme Court doesn't uphold the SVA then I sincerely hope that they would uphold our right to call the perpetrators exactly what they are when found out...liars! I would also hope we would be able to shout that from the highest mountain to the entire country without fear of prosecution just as the perpetrator could not be prosecuted for "stealing honor". At least we'd be telling the truth!
Phil B (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 5:16pm
Callling out Perpetrators ...
Amen to that!
antonio sandoval (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 3:54pm
medal awards
Antonio Sandoval, RMC, USN, 1958-1968. It should be a matter of state law, it is fraud. Anyone claiming medal status who is using it to further political ambition, other recognition or reward, is attempting fraud and should be prosecuted at the state level. Personally, I don't recognize the value of being awarded a medal beyond the recognition of your peers for heroism, a great honor. However, the medal does nothing to further the financial condition or the rank of the recipient and in my service years, even at the rank of E-7, I was beyond welfare level. My thoughts are that even though the recipients have no expectation of receiving anything but recognition, it should be more; there should be attached a permanent pay increase commensurate with the value of the medal and it should figure into elevation of rank. Given the conditions which I served, incompetent officers, overbearing and demanding and incompentent commanders and the no win rules of engagement, superiors who were ignorant or indifferent to the eligibility of medals, I would have declined any medal awarded.
Thomas Bove (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:01pm
Stollen Valor
I have stated this many times in the past. If a person claims to have been awarded a medal but didn't and does nothing to gain any value from it then it is a benign action. Granted as some people have said, it may take away from someone who was actually awarded a medal for whatever reason. But not really.... I was engaged in battle in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive and I saw many guys who deserved a medal but didn't get one while others did. It was apparent that medals being awarded was sometimes in the eye of the beholder... I would never want a buddy of mine in Vietnam, who didn't get a medal, be accused of a crime for claiming he did get one. During Tet I was in Ankhe when our perimeter was breached and the Viet Cong caused much damage to our vehicles and planes before we stopped them all, I was one of the first men to the scene and along with a few others received various medals ranging from Bronze stars to purple hearts. The other men who were mechanics, chefs and such ran to the scene and forified the air strip without hesitation. Crash and rescue had a fire fight with the cong.... No one retreated. They all deserved medals but didn't get them. The CO put in for medals of those he saw in action but there were others. If any of those others later claimed to have recieved a medal I would back them up and for that matter they could have mine. But as I said, just don't try to get monetary gain from the story. And finally of course if they weren't even in a war zone then I say that is a crime against all the men who were. Lets keep this real.
BILL ROSS (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:03pm
I agree with Gene Wilson what
I agree with Gene Wilson what's the difference between Military Medals and a Badge? Impersonating a Police Officer is a federal crime why shouldn't impersonating Military Valor. I guess I could change my name to George Bush and say I was President since he was the Commander And Chief of the Military.
Charlotte (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:04pm
Stolen Valor
My first amendment rights: These are not men of honor. They are cowards, idiots, frauds, not true Americans. They in my opinon have spit on true Americans. But, that is just one woman's opinon
Semper Fi
Russ Cruse Sr. ... (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:05pm
Stolen Valor
I don't think it has anything to do with free speech. I think it's an issue of plain falsehood. There are laws against impersonating a police officer or a doctor, why not a decorated hero? When liars use falsehoods to further their gains, no matter what it is, they should be prepared to suffer the consequenses.
Steven W. Oxman (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:10pm
I am learning...
This whole thread is teaching me something new about my government and how it works. Thank you for this education. And as a Vet, I would never consider wearing a medal or ribbon or badge that I did not properly earn. I proudly wear what I have earned, and no more.
Ken Howard (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:11pm
Stolen Valor
Excellent article; SOTOMAYOR argument doesn't hold any legal logic.... Even with the Act there is still free speach to be critical of any medal(s) or be critical of/or belittle anyone who has earned the medal(s)...The only limitation to Free speach is fraudulent representation of having earned a military medal!
robert young (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 9:17pm
Ken Howard whose father was Navy Chief at Pearl Harbor>
Ken Howard from Halsey Terrace?
Sotomayer argument
Sotomayer's argument is OK as far as free speech is concerned. However, my point (above) states that it is not so much free speech as it is fraud - a lie to further self enrichment. If the argument centered on that issue. I believe the case could be strengthened considerably.
Sotomayer argument
Sotomayer's argument is OK as far as free speech is concerned. However, my point (above) states that it is not so much free speech as it is fraud - a lie to further self enrichment. If the argument centered on that issue. I believe the case could be strengthened considerably.
Garry Owen (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:18pm
Stolen Valor
Those of us who served should be considered a protected class against those who pretend to be what they are not. If we are not careful the First Amendment will no longer have any meaning. It is time for Congress to step forward and call for several Constitutional Amendments to be sent to the States for ratification. One is to protect the American Flag, the second, if needed, is to protect men and women who have honorable served, and the third is to reinforce the Second Amendment rights oh honest American Cityizens
Garry Owen (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 4:19pm
Stolen Valor
Those of us who served should be considered a protected class against those who pretend to be what they are not. If we are not careful the First Amendment will no longer have any meaning. It is time for Congress to step forward and call for several Constitutional Amendments to be sent to the States for ratification. One is to protect the American Flag, the second, if needed, is to protect men and women who have honorable served, and the third is to reinforce the Second Amendment rights oh honest American Citizens
Bruce Lunder (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 5:08pm
What about the harm this does to actual Medal Honories? If these "wanna bes" are blantantly allowed to make medals claims then we are headed to the point where we doubt all actual honorees and challenge them to provide proofs of their claims. Is this how we are to treat and support our Military for their extraordinary actions? It appears to me that the Supreme Court is more concerned that we protect the right for "politicians" to lie to us in order to get elected as well as stay in office! We can easily see where that "right" has gotten us in political circles both Federal and Municipal. Our news papers and broadcasts are filled each day with these lies and financial crimes committed against the very society that elected this class of liars. Let's have a country and society that is know for Truth and Justice not lies and tretchery!!
David Howe (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 6:03pm
Supreme Court hears United States v. Alvarez
Of course, anyone that would falsely claim to have earned (implies something of value) a medal is doing so for personal gain. Perhaps it is monetary and perhaps not. It could also be for political gain, or even self agrandizement or for other gain. Whatever the SCOTUS decides, the people who do these things remain very small people indeed.
Dave inPA (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 6:13pm
This is so typical of what's
This is so typical of what's wrong with this country that someone can outright lie about service and/or valor in service and they are protected and permitted to say it as a matter of free speech. Why can't I go into a theater and start yelling "Fire!"? Is that not also free speech in terms of my right to yell it out? Good God, this country is so caught up in every manner of political correctness it's ludicrous. I realize the Supreme Court is supposedly deciding this matter on constitutional grounds, but again, there are so many things you can't do that could easily fall into the same "free speech regardless of how offensive" category. Yet, you can't do them, but lying about service ostensibly is perfectly permissible because nobody is directly injured by it. What about "it's just not right" and the fact our founding fathers would be horrified by such behavior being condoned under their 1770's mores. In those times people never would have done something this outrageous, which is why the first amendment was unduly broad. Evaluating and justifying 21st century lascivious behavior using 18th century logic just seems wrong-headed no matter the sanctity of the constitution.
Any anyway, who says nobody is injured in these situations? If I vote for a person who had made false claims and that person winds up taking action that directly affects me in a negative manner am I not hurt by that? Chances are I never would have voted for the person had I known them to be an outright liar.
Michael Whitney (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 6:57pm
So, If someone represents he
So, If someone represents he is Law Enforcement, Firefighter, Senator, Crongressmen, Governor, School Administrator----ITS OK????
Gary L. Gross (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 8:04pm
1st Amendment
I'm am sick and tired of hearing that everyone has the 1st Amendment rights to do anything including tramping all over my rights. Lying is just plain lying and should not be upheald in any court . Stealing any HONOR is wrong and the Justices of the United States of America, a country founded on truth, justice and liberty under GOD, had better get it or get off the bench.
George V (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 8:52pm
Supreme Court hears United States v. Alvarez
As a Vet, I do take great offense when some jack-ass falsely claims that he or she earned a military award. But the understandable reality is that I cannot sue that person based solely on my sense of disguss and outrage caused by that act alone – freedom of speech. What matters here is the motivation behind the claim. I do consider such false claims as disrespectful to those who earned and respect the award, but I don't believe false claimants make such statements solely for offending. They do it in order to obtain some kind of unfair advantage over their peers for personal or financial gain. That is beyond offensive, people are harmed.
We have been fighting several wars for over a decade. Countless awards have been given to so many veterans during that time that is easy for almost any phony to try to blend in the crowd. What really needs to happen is that a more reliable way must be available for agencies and institutions to verify a veteran's status who's trying to obtain preferential consideration for a service or employment based on their military record. The law already provides actions against imposters who willfully commit fraud, but I think "special" penalties should be imposed on individuals using non-earned military honors to advance their position - is about the principle.
I'm no law expert and I could be wrong. But I once heard that the ideas of "honor", "respect" and "reputation" aren't specifically protected by the Constitution. It is my understanding also that the Court's duty is to interpret the law, not to enforce it. Now, if we are expecting the Court to render a decision that would consequently allow the law to enforce respect to the military and potentially infringe on the first amendment so to protect the reputation of military awards then good luck; I don't see it happening.
I have no problem in calling-out someone if I feel he/she may be making inconsistent claims behind a military award, and expose the lie if fact. I believe the 1st Amendment gives me that right. My bottom line is that every good American has the responsibility to show a degree of respect for decorated veterans and the spirit of the decoration itself, but with a good sense to detect phonies and not be fooled by them. My rule of thumb, a true decorated veteran is humble and modest about his/her accomplishments, qualities I think aren't common in phonies and show-offs who sound like novel writers.
mmcgregor (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 9:02pm
Stolden Valor:
The US Constitution protects freedom of speech, but it does NOT give anyone the right to fabricate lies!!! Stolden Valor is based mupon lies!!! PERIOD and is NOT protected "Freedom Of Speech" nor should it be!!! The First Amendment was written for the purpose of me being able to critize my government without fear of reprisal - whether spoken or written! Now we have come to the point where the high court has to decide whether lying is protected as well. What has this country come too??? If this is the case; then I declare myself the next President of the United States of America, and challange anyone to to tell me I'm wrong!!!
Sadrac Noel Sep... (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 9:10pm
One often over looked point about stolen valor is that beyond the accolades that are unmerited, some of these people will go as far as accepting donations and gifts that rightfully should go to real war heroes. This is not just an issue about stealing fame, but one that involves fraud, these impostors collect speaker fee's and often will travel at the expense of an organization or private individual whom are placing their trust that the individual claiming to be a war hero is truly who they claim to be. So in addition to making audacious claims about supposed acts of heroism many of these individuals end up defrauding charitable organizations and people who may have given them monetary gifts. Last time I checked defrauding a charitable organization is illegal in most states yet, little is mentioned about this fact. This is not just another case of violating someones first amendment rights, because when these people make these claims they are also committing a form of Identity theft, which in most states is also a crime.
KaseyPolsen (not verified)
March 5, 2012 - 1:05am
Cases of indentity theft
Identity theft was on top of the Federal Trade Commission's yearly list of the top ten consumer grievances of the year. It has topped the list each of the last 12 years, and 2011 was not different. Source for this article: The top ten consumer complaints of 2011. These people should be apprehended for the unlawful thing that they are doing.
2ed Generation ... (not verified)
March 7, 2012 - 3:42am
Identity Theft
What you stated is true! (FTC report) Responsible Citizens have to be on guard! (the price of freedom
is eternal vigilance) There must a echo in here because I have heard this tune for the last 14 years! I
wonder how many people had their lives disturbed, interupted, credit rating destroyed (if you have one), houses lost, ect....Maybe its time to focus on what's positive (solutions) rather than feeding the
negativity (problems)! Anyone can get a copy of the report at WWW.FTC.gov
BillK (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 9:24pm
Judges & Liars
The way I have seen judges give great credence to liars & cheaters, I believe the Supremes will side with the liars & cheaters. Remember Obama does not like military people. So his two Supremes will vote for the liars & cheaters. Then, they only need three more and Ginsberg hates the Constitution and will find something in Sharia law to justify voting for the liars & cheaters. Guess who they will be.
William Morgan (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 10:12pm
I'm a retired enlisted
I'm a retired enlisted service member. It is against the law (Federal) for anyone to publically wear a military garment that displays the Branch of Service and, or the Unit insignia because it degraded the military organization and the unit. Yet, is it not against the law for a person who has never serviced in the military to parade around in a complete military uniform with insignia and wards? The reason this has become an issue with the Supreme Court is because Service Organizations like the Veterans of Foreign Wars and The American Legion and the Active Military has said "enough is enough". "We" the members who make up these organizations are calling for this to be law. Many imposters over the years have made it to Prime Time News because of a serious crimes committed while portraying themselves as a military member. Mainly the crimes were committed for personal gain. This presents a negative image of the Military to the public. Many people relate to uniform and what it represents. When they see a person in uniform in the news, they don't see an imposter, they see a person in uniform and that's what they relate to. I agree with everyone that has said that it is against the law to impersonate a Law Enforcement Officer, or any Federal Law Enforcement Agent. It should be against the Law to impersonate a person of Federal Military Service. Our military is returning home after serving their country during a time of war. By implementing this as law, we are preserving their valor and honoring those who have served at anytime in the military.
Master Chief (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 10:24pm
Stolen Valor
I am an HONORABLY Discharged American Combat Veteran. I am 100% Service Connected - Totally & Permanently Disabled. I volunteer as a Veterans Benefits Officer, not just in the area of benefits and/or claims; I run a program funded solely by myself and through donations. This is a program I started where I and my wife collect donated PC's - laptop & desktop - and then I rebuild, clean, replace parts and generally make ready for these to be distributed to returning Warriors, disabled or not. Those with disabilities do come first however.
All that formality out of the way. I believe that entirely TOO much time has already been expended on this idiotic and blatant erosion of free speech. You read that right. Look, when we raised our arms and took the oath, do you recall an expiration date? NO! That oath whether you realize it or not, is and was for LIFE. The SVA is a complete sneak flank-attack on our freedoms. It has already been accomplished with the passage of the Patriot Act (more of you should be outraged that this act that allows warrant less searches, wiretaps, drive-by sneak and peeks and more - carries the very word PATRIOT) Have you read it? As well as with the creation of Homeland Security. Nonetheless, we imbecilic sheeple swallowed the bait and it became law and was just recently re-upped without so much as a complaint from the majority of the Veteran community.
COME ON! This is merely one more way to erode what little we have left by means of freedom. I could care less about the fruit salad wearin' war heroics declarin' wannabe. He impresses only himself and those blind and unwilling to ask a simple question or two. These actions in some cases are very sad in that they come from actual Veterans. Veterans with lengthy HONORABLE service history that have somehow became convinced that - that alone is not 'good enough'. I say the moment any person has raised his or her hand and swore the oath, believed it, felt it and then conducted themselves accordingly - whether or not that person was ever deployed downrange - deserves recognition from all who have not the same and from those of us that have.
As I stated above, I distribute computers free of charge to ALL returning Warriors. I DO NOT even ask if one has lived the s**t. I don't care. I do care that someone has at a time in their life, decided to wear the Nation's cloth of battle by taking an oath wherein that person's life is promised if needed, in order that all and everything protected by our oath remains so protected. These sworn promises to protect do NOT come into effect ONLY in times of war. No, the protection is accomplished each and every time the Uniform is put on.
Anyone that has seen war, was decorated for his or her actions as a result of actions (sometimes in-actions) thereof - IS NOT wearin' fruit and bragging in ANY arena. Be it in a private drunk dive to impress the local medal bunnies or in more public and open venues. IT JUST DOES NOT HAPPEN!
Indeed, most Veterans that have fought and have been decorated for actions resulting, are hesitant to even accept the honor, most feel they were just doing what they've trained for and what was expected of them. Also, most medal recipients (especially those receiving honors for personal actions while downrange resulting in any award where Valor attaches) feel guilty that they alone are being rewarded and NOT all else involved.
Remember Vietnam? How many medals were handed out to those who NEVER saw a second of combat? To those that never so much as fired a weapon? Answer = THE MAJORITY OF THOSE MEDALS PRESENTED!
You want to spot a wannabe, just look and listen, they themselves expose their indecency. I don't believe ANY taxpayer money should be used in exposing and or imprisoning these sad pathetic idiots. Hell, life in their own skin is jail enough! (There being one and only one exception, those Veterans reading this know what I am writing about.) Not one cent should be wasted to even bring charges, if that money comes from the taxpayer pocket. Now, if newspapers want to donate space in order to list the wannabe, then so be it. For any of us, especially we Veterans, to support and condone this not so hidden erasure of free speech, is not in keeping with our EVER LIVING OATH to protect and defend the Constitution. The oath we took is not a one taken with, nor are there any exceptions for politically motivated attacks. Our oath is uniform, overt and precise. Now, get to work! You all been skatin' round here for to long!
Noel (not verified)
February 23, 2012 - 11:36pm
I understand your and to some
I understand your and to some degree empathize with your perspective, but what happens when the phony's use their "fake" acts of heroism to defraud charitable organization and private citizens who give believing that the individual they are aiding is being genuine. That said, these men are not just bringing discredit to themselves, but to he community of veterans that may actually be in need. For one lie many people pay the price.
2ed Generation ... (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 9:38am
My thoughts exactly! "for one
My thoughts exactly! "for one lie many people pay the price" sometimes in blood! Lincoln stated at Gettysburg "It is for us living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here have thus far so nobly advanced."
Master Chief (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 1:21pm
I agree and support that punishment is warranted for ANY person that willfully defrauds another, regardless of the method used. FRAUD IS FRAUD.
I am speaking about the skates that are merely bragging about and or, even wearing unearned medals for the purpose of "stealing admiration". How many slackers fill the VFW and Legion posts getting liquored up and living the glory daze <(intended) of war? Far too many.
When ANYONE, be they Veteran or Civilian, crosses over the line from braggart wannabe to thief via fraud - FINES AND OR JAIL is most definitely the proper and just rewards.
Keep in mind however; that when we allow the tiniest fractional amount of any freedom that we served, with risk of our very lives to protect, to become taken from us as a result of cowardice WORDS of slackers - who has really won? Who has ultimately paid the full measure of those WORDS of false machismo?
How are we Veterans protected by such action? How are we Veterans protecting those we SWORE AN OATH to protect, providing said protection when we not only allow FREEDOM to become damaged to ANY degree, but we screamed high for it to be taken?
If any freedom is chipped at, fractured and taken from us, we all lose. When such loss of freedom becomes so taken by WORDS of COWARDS and that action of taking is held out to be a PROTECTION afforded all while in the course of protecting the HONOR of TRUE HEROS & VETERANS - I say, more damage is heaped upon the backs of we that have already carried our load.
Personally, it bothers me more to think that I should lose ANY amount of freedom and in the process of that loss, fail to uphold my STILL LIVING OATH & OBLIGATION to all Americans - due to the blatant guise of POLITICIANS PROTECTING ME from such putrid filth and the lies they live. It is demeaning and belittling. It is an assumption that I think so little of my 27 years of service that it can be damaged by the likes of these that have not and will never sweat point. It sickens me. I need no such protection if the result means Americans will indeed lose the slightest amount of FREEDOM! No sir, thank you, but NO!
I'd much rather lose my freedom downrange at the hand of one hostile to our country and the freedoms it provides. To give up our rights, freedoms and protection for what? So the politicos can PROTECT US from the ignorant ramblings of such idiotic and unimportant individuals? PLEASE!
I find it more damaging that politicians would wrap their HIDDEN AGENDA in the Colors of the United States, claiming they are PROTECTING VETERANS - DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS!
I had to drive to Oklahoma City with a Veteran to explain that his legs were NOT BLOWN OFF ON PURPOSE in order to get a damn service connected rating! You want to discuss real injustice and damage done to Veterans? You need only look towards the Department of Veterans Affairs.
STOP WASTING MONEY ON THIS! Put the funds in the VA, and no, DO NOT ALLOW OR MAKE THE WANNABE go serve at the VA Hospital or Clinic. Let them bury themselves, it will always catch up to them. Be it public exposure or at the end of the cruise when that puke is setting alone in a darkened little room with no more "friends" to impress, no more that will listen to the BS. A faded memory of NOTHING!
If they ARE actually causing harm other than "hurting my feelings and my Honor", then let them do the time so justified by their action(s). This is merely another method of enslaving the masses and this time doing so by purporting to be protecting those whom did actually serve with Honor. Do you not see this?
Trust me, many, very many Veterans and Civilians do understand what is at stake here. Of course, obtaining (even if not wearing or displaying) an unearned MEDAL OF HONOR is a crime in and of itself. No, you can not legally buy it on the Internet or anywhere else in America. Those found to be in possession without proper authority (ie: earning it, inheriting it from a relative that earned it etc..) should be adjudicated in accordance with the law and with a degree equal to the matter of that persons use thereof.
Seriously, my HONOR has never been damaged by any damn wannabe! I care not. As long as there is man, there will be war. As long as there is war, there will appear the wannabe.
Now get to back to work you skates! Too much grabassin'! TURN-TO! ALL HANDS, NOW TURN-TO! COMMENCE SHIP'S WORK!!
Jes' kiddin' ya, go ahead and knock off. Be safe everyone and be very careful of motive, it more times than not, is far worse than the overt offensive action displayed.
Stolen Valor Act
The problem here is that most of those of concern use their stories and purchased medals (many of which the unauthorized purchase of has already been illegal for decades) tor personal gain that discredits the military they claim to have done well in.
Many of these people, like many of John Kerry's buddies in his VVAW "Winter Soldier" who told stories of atrocities, have NEVER been in the services and of those who actually did serve many were booted from boot camp or shortly after getting to their first TOE unit as unfit for service. You, yourself, made this statement - "As I stated above, I distribute computers free of charge to ALL returning Warriors. I DO NOT even ask if one has lived the s**t. I don't care. I do care that someone has at a time in their life, decided to wear the Nation's cloth of battle by taking an oath wherein that person's life is promised if needed, in order that all and everything protected by our oath remains so protected. These sworn promises to protect do NOT come into effect ONLY in times of war. No, the protection is accomplished each and every time the Uniform is put on." I immediately note that you do care that your computers only go to those who actually served as opposed to those who didn't but claim to have done so.
There is another Stolen Valor Act working its way through Congress that changes the wording of the original act to stress that it is aimed at those who do what they are doing for gain of some value as opposed to those who tell stories in a bar just to make themselves "look good". Sort of keeps their stories on a level with those claiming sexual prowess that isn't apparent.
Alvarez made his claims for personal gain and his conviction should be upheld. This isn't really about "speech" it is about FRAUD!
chuck bosko (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 9:52am
Comment upon the SVA controversy
"Allons" to edodaniel. One Blackhorse trooper to another and to all veterans, their familes and America. Perhaps the most basic question we need to ask- why would Alvarez claim to be a CMH recipient? As I perceive this- because he acknowledges the incredible value that most Americans have for this honor and the prestige that preceeds those who have been so bestowed . This is exactly why it is an act of congress for each military service individual nominated and presented by the President of the United States. Truth be told- more CMH's have been awarded posthumous than to living receipients for sacrifcing their lives above and beyond what is expected in combat. Does Alvarez really envision himself as an equal in this consideration? We need to contemplate an underlying concern here- when an individual - like an Alvarez, lies and utilizes false claims to acquire an elected office, what will he do, how will he conduct himself for the taxpayers if elected? That is the real problem and in my opinion- there is no constitutional issue for individuals like him. By the way- readers may realize that I have not included a "Mr." when I wrote Alvarez. My family values, my education, my experinces have taught me that a "Mr." connotes respect. Alvarez has no respect, for values, for America, for himself.
JP (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 1:24am
Theft of Medal identity
Not being a lawyer it is dishonorable. Lawyers deal with law as to how they read the statutes, which is why this is before the U.S. Supreme Court. Why it is before the Supreme Court is beyond me? If you misrepresent yourself it should be embarrassing enough for the offender. I served in Vietnam and it is noted in my military record. When someone claims to have one the Medal of Honor he/she should simply be asked to present it. How many have won this and/or the Silver Star, Bronze Star etal. As to the MOH I do not think you can order it on line. Yes, they should be held in contempt but unfortunately they cannot be prosecuted for fleecing admiration. The offender/s should seek psych help for how they feel about themselves. If they made money from the misrepresentation there should be a required reparation. If hate is a crime thru speech, then this form of speech is worthy of a similar consideration.
James (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 10:06am
G Vasquez (not verified)
March 6, 2012 - 11:13pm
Hello James
Hello James
I agree with many that lying shouldn't receive constitutional protectionI and for that I trully believe in the intent and spirit of the SVA; I would make part of the law of the land If it was up to me. My intent was to point out the sad and pathetic reality that there are technicalities that pinheads are taking advantage of so they can missuse/abuse the 1st ammendment.
about the liars.
It should be a felony criminal offense to lie about a medal or award you did not earn. Without protection these items are just plain worthless. Saying you won a Medel in the service when you did not needs real punishment and not just a silly slap on the wrist.
Paul Rodriguez (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 1:11pm
First. let me point out that Delores V Charles, about 50 comments up, hit the heart of the matter. For the Supreme Court to facilitate lying and cheating as part of the law of the land, negates all the rest of our laws. Mr. Libby says "no harm, no foul", but then plays umpire and states that there was no harm when indeed there was. The harm was to the existence of truth. Personally, if the Supremes come down in favor of lying, I guess we can all add "Former Supreme Court Justice" to our resumes, and see how THEY like it........ Even a guy who comes out with only an NDSM and a good conduct, most probably because they never got around to sending him into harm's way, has something those who did not serve didn't earn, and he deserves respect for that.
William Johnson (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 2:30pm
claiming to be a hero in battle.
Mr. Alvarez lied to obtain and further his status of employment. He has demeaned the
military men and women who have served in war zones. They are the heros to me and
the country... Lying has no Honor! You think he will not lie again when employed?
I served during VietNam but I was not in COUNTRY! Therefore I am not eligible to
belong to the VVA . They asked me but I declined ; why? It would degrade those who served
and put their lives on the line, whether they are recipients of Valor or Not.
Michael Holdcra... (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 4:59pm
Value in a bold face lie??
What value could come from a lie like I won the Medal of Honor? The value is buying votes from a fraud. Mr. Alvarez wouldn't have lied if he didn't believe there was some positive value to being awarded the medal. That's the value he stole from every medal winner. That is substantial value and that value is lowered by false claims. If the Supreme Court finds for Alvarez then anyone who claims the award must be doubted. Justice should always seek the truth. A lie subverts the truth, that fact alone should be enough to condemn Alvarez. Outright lies in any form should not be protected by the law!
Gordon Mulch (not verified)
February 24, 2012 - 11:54pm
Mr Vasquez;
The damage Mr Vasques did was to try to garner votes through a lie. I believe he was perpetrating a fraud to the very people he was planning to represent.
Michael Tidemann (not verified)
February 25, 2012 - 9:03am
What about those who were forgotten?
I know a guy, Ed Boucher, who had his Broze Star upgraded to a Silver Star. He received the Bronze but not the Silver. He helped carry nine Marines down the side of a mountain in Korea while the Chinese were shooting at him. Should be be prosecuted for trying to get the medal he deseves?
Harry (not verified)
February 25, 2012 - 4:51pm
Stolen Valor
If the Supreme Court finds that lying about recieiving a high medal for service is OK then they are endorsing lying. Then any purgery done in open court is ok since it is only lying. Endorsement of this case means to me that lying about another has become an acceptable atribute and no one is hurt by it. Well not in my book. Lying has hurt others and it has hurt the USofA when politicians lie about each other. How that is done is that since we the voter do not and cannot know the truth of what is said of others during campaigns we tend to accept what we want to believe is true because it sounds quite possible and even probable and usuallly vote on that basis. That hurts the whole country deserving candidates are deprived of office. That harms the whole country. We have experienced that in every election since way before my time and there are far to many suffering because of that fact. We do need a responsible congress and will not get that because it is permissible to lie during campaigning.
CLARA (not verified)
February 26, 2012 - 2:10pm
Supreme Court and Valor Case
I do not believe that the Supreme Court should have heard this case, because I do not believe this to be a constitutional issue. To elevate this matter to the level of a Federal law means that it has to be enforceable--that is impossible unless the person admits to it, and who willingly admits to lying?
rich (not verified)
February 26, 2012 - 3:59pm
Supreme Court US vs Alvarez
Supreme Court US vs Alvarez
Endorsement of the U.S. vs Alvarez case would mean that lying about persons or events is an acceptable attribute and no one is hurt by it. For the Supreme Court to facilitate lying and deception as protected by the First Amendment, then that ruling negates all the rest of our laws based on truth. Mr. Libby says "no harm, no foul", but in reality the Alvarez lies were deliberate to create a deception of fraud which inflected harm to those involved. The harm and foul of deliberate lies are directly related to the loss of truth and the validation of fraud to gain self-reward. There was indeed "harm and foul" Mr. Libby, you lose.
If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of the Alvarez lies, then the Supreme Court would be protecting lying as an acceptable standard throughout our great country. In other words; any perjury (lies) stated in open court is acceptable and not punishable, since it is protected by the First Amendment; false statements (lies) to the police and other agencies are acceptable and not punishable, since it is protected by the First Amendment.
How can a country survive when the law of the land is based on lies? Not well by my standards, lying has hurt others and it has hurt this great country when politicians lie about each other and distort facts to gain votes. Political lies are brushed off as "just media hype", and "I did not endorse that ad," but the lie is there just the same. Those lies are easily done since we the voter may not know the truth of what is said of their opponents during campaigns, we tend to accept what we want to believe is true because it sounds quite possible and even probable and usually vote on that basis. That lie hurts the elected position and the deserving candidates that are deprived of those offices, and it harms the country. This country has experienced lying in almost every election and there are far too many suffering because of those lies. We the people do need a responsible congress and will not get that because it is permissible for "others" to issue false ads during campaigning without fear of prosecution, so do we want to make lying, deception, and fraud, the acceptable standard across our great country? The Supreme Court should easily recognize their error in recent changes to election law that has allowed the "Supper Pac" ads of today. Talk about good intentions gone wrong. Be careful, the U.S. vs Alvarez case may become the downfall of justice as we know it today, if lying is protected by the First Amendment. This is not a narrow issue about military service or the stolen valor act; this is about legalizing deception and fraud under the First Amendment.
<a href="http:/... (not verified)
March 24, 2015 - 11:03am
I have no problem in calling
I have no problem in calling-out someone if I feel he/she may be making inconsistent claims behind a military award, and expose the lie if fact. I believe the 1st Amendment gives me that right. My bottom line is that every good American has the responsibility to show a degree of respect for decorated veterans and the spirit of the decoration itself, but with a good sense to detect phonies and not be fooled by them. My rule of thumb, a true decorated veteran is humble and modest about his/her accomplishments, qualities I think aren't common in phonies and show-offs who sound like novel writers.


text:
Purchase this article with an account.
Use of Internet Protocol Addresses and Cookies
ARVO collects the Internet Protocol (IP) address of all computers that access our website to measure website traffic. This information is not used to determine the identity of a particular Web user except in the case of illicit activity.
Cookies, or small pieces of data stored on a user's computer by ARVO.org, are used for simplifying user login and aiding in navigation of the ARVO.org website. No personal information is stored in cookies from ARVO.org
ARVO collects various contact and demographic information from members and perspective members in order to fulfill the requirements of ARVO membership and to provide useful and relevant member services.
From time to time, ARVO may rent member lists to select third-parties. The Association's policy requires the intended purpose be for the promotion of scientific or medical products or services or to support the development of the profession and that it does not adversely affect the individual interest of members. All requests for mailing lists are thoroughly reviewed.
Users of the ARVO website have the opportunity to opt-out of receiving communications from ARVO unless such communications are part of an established business relationship. Users may contact ARVO at email@example.com or by phone at +22.214.171.12400. Please be prepared to provide your full name and current contact information as well as your member ID number, if applicable.
ARVO may provide contact information, including email addresses, of ARVO event registrants for the sole purpose of holding the event. Event registration information provided to third-parties may only be used by such parties in the fulfillment of contractual obligations with ARVO regarding the specific event.
ARVO.org contains links to other external websites that are outside ARVO's purview. ARVO is not responsible for the privacy practices or content of external web sites.
Various products and services are available for purchase on ARVO.org. ARVO is committed to providing a secure e-commerce system to protect our users from theft of financial information. ARVO uses Verisign's Secure Socket Layer (SSL) certificate to encrypt contact and financial information during any purchase on ARVO.org. ARVO does not store complete credit card numbers and will use other purchasing information only to fulfill an order.
ARVO reserves the right, but not the obligation, to monitor the content or materials that are posted by third parties onto this site or materials that are e-mailed by third parties to any other persons that may be archived or in any other way maintained within this site. ARVO reserves the right, but not the obligation, to maintain editorial control over any and all third party content posted to this site.
You hereby grant to ARVO the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display any message posted in the message boards (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.
No material protected by copyright, trademark or other proprietary right shall be uploaded, posted or otherwise made available on this site without the express permission of the owner of the copyright, trademark or other proprietary right. You shall be solely liable for any damages resulting from any infringement of copyrights, proprietary rights, or any other harm resulting from any uploading, posting or submission.
ARVO reserves the right to modify or change the ARVO.org Privacy Statement. Changes to the Privacy Statement will be posted under the Disclaimer and Privacy link on the ARVO.org website at www.arvo.org.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Double row silver beaded necklace. This can be worn from 16" up to 17"
Stock items will be delivered within 1-3 working days once payment has cleared. Where size adjustments need to be made delivery is usually 7-10 working days. However if the product needs to be ordered/made to your specification, delivery is around 4-6 weeks.
If you need an item for a specific date please contact us prior to your purchase so we can advise you on delivery. If you need an item quicker, please ask and we'll do our best to meet your requirements.
For a fast delivery and for insurance purposes, we send all deliveries to mainland UK addresses via Royal Mail Special Delivery. We offer free shipping on UK parcels and a signature will be required upon receipt.
Please contact us for International shipping rates as these may vary
You have 14 days to notify us if you wish to return unwanted goods (goods must be in the same condition as they were received) and another 14 days for us to receive the goods. This means you have a total of 28 days to return an unwanted item. You are responsible for the return postage costs which must include suitable insurance cover for the item as well as being tracked delivery (e.g Royal mail Special Delivery)
If you ordered a ring in the wrong size please contact us as soon as possible to arrange re-sizing the ring with us free of charge, excluding your return shipping charge (small charges may apply for alterations on pre-owned items) Please make sure the ring is unworn as we are unable to size certain designs and will therefore need to exchange the ring.
If you have purchased an item by interest free credit and you wish to return the item please contact us before returning to discuss your options.
If you wish to return goods which are faulty (manufacturers fault) this must be within 6 months of the date the goods were purchased.
Please be aware our insurance only covers items we ship out and it does not cover items sent from the consumer therefore you are responsible for the cost of returning the item including any necessary insurance cover in case the parcel is lost in transit.
We accept card payments only, however if you wish to collect the item in person we also accept card and cash in store.
We accept the following Visa, Visa Electron, MasterCard and Maestro
We also offer Deko interest free finance on products with an individual price of over £1,000. Please see our finance page for more information


text:
Santa Fe, NM (PRWEB) November 29, 2012
Dr. Khristaan D. Villela, Santa Fe–based art historian, professor at Santa Fe University of Art and Design (SFUAD), and Mesoamerican scholar, is demystifying the popular Maya doomsday prophecy that the world will end on Dec. 21, 2012. Villela will be in New York City Dec. 19 and 20 to speak about the date's significance in art history, and will also host a January lecture on the SFUAD campus.
Thousands of years ago, the ancient Maya of Mexico and Central America developed several different calendars, which were used for agricultural, ritual and dynastic purposes. More than 20,000 ancient Maya texts survive today, written in a hieroglyphic script. One of the calendars, called "the Long Count" by modern researchers, is a continuous tally of days, grouped into months, years, groups of four hundred years and millennia. Many have interpreted the calendars to imply that the ancient Maya civilization predicted planetary doom on Dec. 21.
"The Ancient Maya Long Count Calendar actually had no beginning and no end," said Dr. Villela. "The Maya inscriptions record dates millions of years both in the past and in the future, and yes, there is an important calendar milestone approaching at the end of this year in our calendar."
Since the 1980s, dozens of writers have advanced proposals for what may happen at the end of 2012, and the predictions have reached a crescendo this year. Some say that our solar system will cross the galactic equator, with dire—even cataclysmic—consequences. Others believe that a "galactic shaman" will appear and offer us clues to healing the planet. Others propose that the magnetic poles will shift.
Although there are still millions of people living in Mexico and Central America who are ethnically Maya, the ancient Maya who built cities like Tikal and Chichén Itzá and wrote in hieroglyphs lived from about 300 B.C. until the Spanish conquest in the 1500s. According to pre-Columbian scholars, every event the Mayas recorded during these years happened within a count of days that began on Aug. 11, 3114 B.C. On Dec. 21, 2012, in our calendar, the Maya calendar—if there were still ancient Mayas to keep it—would complete 13 cycles of 400 years since 3114 B.C.
The Maya referred to this date in just two of the tens of thousands of surviving texts. According to Villela and other scholars, far from predicting the end of time, a universal apocalypse or a galactic alignment, the texts connect events in the lives of living actors in the 700s to the period ending in 2012 — when the 13th cycle since 3114 B.C. would finish. The texts were an attempt to boost the status of Maya rulers by linking them to a major calendar ending, as contemporary society might do by linking dates to a milestone such as Jan. 1, 2000.
"The ancient Maya time periods are so long that they approach a conception of eternity," said Villela. "The largest time period now known began 28 octillion years ago, far beyond the Big Bang, which was just 14 billion years ago. Nonetheless, if there were still ancient Mayas in existence, they would have imbued the period ending at the end of this year with sacred significance."
About Dr. Khristaan Villela:
Khristaan Villela is an art historian and independent curator of the Pre-Columbian art of Mesoamerica. He is a professor of art history and scholar in residence at Santa Fe University of Art and Design and a research professor in the department of Art and Art History at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. He earned a BA in Latin American Studies from Yale University and a PhD in the History of Art at the University of Texas at Austin.
Villela's publications include many articles on aspects of Pre-Columbian art and culture and on Maya hieroglyphic writing. His books include Ancient Civilizations of the Americas: Man, Nature, and Spirit in Pre-Columbian Art (Miho Museum, 2011); The Aztec Calendar Stone (with Mary Ellen Miller, Getty Publications, 2010); and Contemporary Mexican Design and Architecture (with Ellen Bradbury and Logan Wagner, 2002). He has a monthly column in the Santa Fe New Mexican and has also written for New Mexico Magazine and Adobe Airstream.
He served as consulting curator of Pre-Columbian art at the Miho Museum in Shigaraki, Japan, for the exhibition Ancient Civilizations of the Americas: Man, Nature, and Spirit in Pre-Columbian Art (2011). He was also consulting curator at the Getty Research Institute for the exhibition Obsidian Mirror-Travels: Refracting Ancient Mexican Art and Archaeology (2010–2011), which presented key images of ancient Mexican archaeological sites and objects made from the sixteenth century to the present day. Villela is currently consulting curator for Miguel Covarrubias: Modernism from Mexico to New York and Beyond, to be presented in summer 2014 at The Georgia O'Keeffe Museum in Santa Fe, N.M. He has also served as consulting curator of Pre-Columbian art at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. Until 2009, he was the Eugene V. Thaw professor of art history and founding director of the Thaw Art History Center at the College of Santa Fe, New Mexico (now Santa Fe University of Art and Design).
About SFUAD's Art Department:
The Art Department at Santa Fe University of Art and Design offers coursework in both materials-based studio art (painting, drawing, sculpture and ceramics) and contemporary practice, such as installation, projected image, performance and video. Coursework in art history enriches and contextualizes this study. Faculty members are acclaimed artists with active careers, as well as mentors who support each student in finding his or her artistic voice. Students may earn a BA or BFA degree and can individualize and expand their program with electives from within the department or from other disciplines. They have the opportunity to exhibit in several campus galleries and to pursue internships within Santa Fe's internationally renowned arts community as they prepare for successful careers as working artists and in arts-related fields. The Art Department is housed in the Visual Arts Center, a striking complex of buildings designed by award-winning architect Ricardo Legorreta.
About Santa Fe University of Art and Design:
Santa Fe University of Art and Design is an accredited institution located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, one of the world's leading centers for art and design. The university offers degrees in arts management, contemporary music, creative writing, digital arts, graphic design, moving image arts (filmmaking and video production), performing arts, photography and studio art. Faculty members are practicing artists who teach students in small groups, following a unique interdisciplinary curriculum that combines hands-on experience with core theory and prepares graduates to become well-rounded, creative, problem-solving professionals. As a Laureate International Universities Center of Excellence in Art, Architecture and Design, the university boasts an international student body and opportunities to study abroad, encouraging students to develop a global perspective on the arts. Santa Fe University of Art and Design is accredited by The Higher Learning Commission and a member of the North Central Association, http://www.ncahlc.org.
# # #


text:
My Highlights from ArtRio 2014
Marta Ramos
Ricardo Alcaide's photographic practice is driven by a fascination for the architecture, inhabitants, and social issues of urban centers. Some of his most famous bodies of work are almost anthropological: his series "The Sitters" (2002-5) is comprised of studio portraits of London's homeless, and "Passers-by" (2005-9) features photographs of pedestrians in Sao Paulo that he asked to don animal masks. Alcaide also produces digitally manipulated photographs, installations, and paintings, which take on similar themes in an architectural context. Building on previous works in "Outdoors" (2006-7) and "Houses" (2007), his most recent series, titled "A Place to Hide" (2010), is a meditation on impermanent or mobile homes.
Venezuelan, b. 1967, Caracas, Venezuela, based in Sao Paulo, Brazil
My Highlights from ArtRio 2014
Marta Ramos
ArtRio Highlights
Jacopo Crivelli Visconti
My Highlights from ArtRio 2014
Claudia Paetzold


text:
"As A Man Thinketh" contains some truly useful insights. It is beneficial to read it slowly because it is short, but packed with relevant ideas.
Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to Review Law of Attraction Books.
Looking For Something?
Use the search box below to find what you need.
Get Your 100% FREE Attract Abundance Package
Meditation & Hypnosis Audios Included
Don't worry, your information is 100% secure. We respect your privacy.
You may have been in the personal development path for several years now, but it's unlikely you have experienced THIS abundance clearing event yet..
It's hosted by the legendary intuitive coach and en…
Is this your "personal development lotto ticket", as someone said about this movie?
It must be one of the most important movies since The Secret.
The movie features 24 personal development masters…
Growing up with a extremely messy divorced family, I had to support myself with large sums of money that were impossible for a girl at my young age to
Health is an essential part of the Law of Attraction, right?
That's why you simply must know about this, regardless of who you are or what you do. If you lead a busy life, if you exercise, if you're o…
If you're looking for a REAL, DOABLE & FUN opportunity to finally make that breakthrough in your finances.. and everything else that will follow.
Then let this super-successful man share his SIMPLE…


text:
|You are here: Scotland Directory > Add your site
How to add your site to Scotland Directory
Note: Scotland Directory is a directory of Scotland listings only. Surprisingly enough, each week we receive Web site submissions from companies not even based in the UK! If your company/ organisation / Web site is not resident in or just outside Scotland please do not submit it to our directory! Every site is checked by a human so please do not waste both your time and ours by adding non-Scotland sites. Irrelevant sites will not be accepted.
To add your site, you must find the most relevant category to place your site in. Start on the main directory index and navigate down to the most appropriate category. Note that sites cannot be submitted to top level categories. You must choose a subcategory.
At the bottom of the category page you will see a button inviting you to add a site to that category. Click the button and follow the on-screen instructions.
|All material (C) 2004, 2018 Scotland Directory. All rights reserved. The Scotland Directory Web Site is managed by CSE.


text:
Duane BennettFree Agent
Running Back
Ht: 5.8 | Wt: 213
News | Stats | Stat vs. Team | Targets | Injury | Depth Chart | Roster
|Rush Yds
|Rush Avg
|Rush TD
|Rush 2pt
|Rec Yds
|Rec Avg
|Rec TD
|Rec 2pt
|Tot Yds
|Fum Lost
|Packers | Duane Bennett receives injury settlement
Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:08:03 -0700
The Green Bay Packers have released RB Duane Bennett (undisclosed) from the Injured Reserve list after the two sides reached an injury settlement.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: Scout.com - Aaron Wilson
|Packers | Place six on Injured Reserve
Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:00:21 -0700
The Green Bay Packers placed RB Duane Bennett, LB Desmond Bishop, TE DeMarco Cosby, G Ray Dominguez, DE Johnny Jones and WR Shaky Smithson on Injured Reserve Monday, Aug. 27.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: KFFL.com
|Packers | Fast fact: Lack of 100-yard individual rushing performances
Sun, 29 Jul 2012 18:04:36 -0700
The Green Bay Packers have just one 100-yard individual rushing performance in the past 32 regular season games. They are 25-7 during that time. The Packers are very young at running back this season, with RBs James Starks, Alex Green, Brandon Saine and undrafted rookies Marc Tyler and Duane Bennett on roster.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette - Weston Hodkiewicz
|Packers | Duane Bennett, Marc Tyler did not improve stock
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:45:07 -0700
Green Bay Packers RBs Duane Bennett and Marc Tyler did not make much of an impression during offseason practices. They appear to be well behind RBs James Starks, Alex Green (knee) and Brandon Saine on the depth chart.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette - Pete Dougherty
|Packers | Add 15 UDFAs
Wed, 02 May 2012 20:11:44 -0700
The Green Bay Packers agreed to terms with undrafted rookie free-agents DL Drew Vanderlin, OL Tommie Draheim, TE Eric Lair, OT Don Barclay, LB Dezmon Moses, WR Darius Reynolds, S Sean Richardson, OG Jaymes Brooks, LB Jaymar Latchison, WR Dale Moss, RB Duane Bennett, TE Cameron Ford, RB Nicholas Cooper, WR Marcus Rivers and OL Tyler Butzler.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: NFL.com
|Vikings | Duane Bennett impresses in workouts
Tue, 06 Mar 2012 22:49:20 -0800
Minnesota RB Duane Bennett worked out Monday, March 5, for the Minnesota Vikings with a couple dozen players from smaller schools in the region. He posted 28 reps of 225 pounds in the bench press, which would have matched the best among running backs at the NFL Scouting Combine.
|Comment (0)
|| Share:
|| Source: 1500ESPN.com - Tom Pelissero
Also see
09/07 - Fantasy football players in the news
09/06 - Fantasy football players in the news
03/07 - Fantasy football players in the news


text:
17-12-2012 - Hits:5198 @ LAATSTE NIEUWS
November 2012: SailSelect started cooperation with BSails as production partner for all our high tech race membrane sails.Read more
20-08-2012 - Hits:5015 @ LAATSTE NIEUWS
November 2012: The owner of SailSelect joined technical panel of magazine 'Zeilen' The technical panel of magazine Zeilen will answer all questions issued by ...Read more
20-08-2012 - Hits:5017 @ LAATSTE NIEUWS
April 2013: Team SailSelect overall winner of the winter races of Flevomare. After a nice serie of 5 races, Team SailSelect finished the last race at 1st posi...Read more
20-08-2012 - Hits:5315 @ LAATSTE NIEUWS
Januari 2013: SailSelect introduced a new line of sails called high performance cruising laminates made of Contender sailcloth. More information of this ...Read more
20-08-2012 - Hits:5304 @ LAATSTE NIEUWS
September 2012: SailSelect head office installed solar panels to contribute to the environment. Now we live from the wind and the sun which feels very good.Read more


text:
Enrollment in UNI's Department of Technology is expected to increase significantly in the fall and it's easy to see why. The department offers six undergraduate degrees, two graduate programs and a 90 percent job placement rate.
"There's a big demand for our graduates," said department head James Maxwell. "I get calls from businesses all the time, people saying, 'We've got an opening.'"
The high demand and increased interest in this field makes sense. According to Maxwell, "What drives America is manufacturing and technology."
Students from the department have been recruited by local and national companies such as the Des Moines Register, John Deere and General Motors, holding positions that include press room supervisor, mechanical engineer and production supervisor.
Formerly known as the Department of Industrial Technology, Maxwell explained the reasoning behind removing "industrial" from the department's name. "We go a step beyond that," he said. "With our tech management, and our master's degree and our construction management program, we're doing more management. It's much broader than industrial."
The department offers undergraduate degrees in construction management, electrical engineering technology, manufacturing technology, graphic technologies, technology education and technology management. All of the programs are accredited, but the electrical engineering technology degree is notable for being the only program in the state of Iowa that is accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).
The graduate programs are equally impressive. The Master of Science in Technology degree has transitioned to an online platform to better meet the needs of students. The Doctor of Technology, in addition to being one of the country's oldest doctorate degrees in it's field, is the only Doctor of Technology degree offered in the state.
Classes offer students the critical thinking skills, writing skills, communication skills and leadership skills necessary for success in any area. However, the department especially prides itself on the hands-on experience it provides students.
The graphic technologies program, for example, "is unbelievable," according to Maxwell. "When our students come out they can do print, they can do video, they can do photography, they can do web design, they can do multimedia, they can do silkscreening. They're not just locked into one area."
Hands-on experience isn't limited to just the graphic technologies program. The department's facilities include a mini-foundry, which is the only mini-foundry in Iowa and serves students working in metal casting.
Students have competed in the robot-building competition at the annual Association of Technology, Management and Applied Engineering (ATMAE) Conference, earning first place in the nation in 2011, as well as the Solar Splash World Championship of Intercollegiate Solar Boat Racing, in which students build and race a solar-powered boat. According to Maxwell, these experiences provide students with the qualities they need to succeed.
"They're doing a lot of hands-on stuff," said Maxwell. "They're creative, they can solve a lot of problems. That's why industry wants our students."


text:
It's hard to keep up with all the articles on innovation these days. There are so many outlets now where people are volunteering their experience and advice. A lot of the advice is quiet good. But, every now and then an article appears that assaults the senses like fingernails against a blackboard. Such is the case with "Why Companies Need Less Innovation," by Pat Lencioni which appeared in Bloomberg Businessweek. I feel sorry for any company that takes this advice seriously.
In this article, the author begins with a very reasonable observation. Many companies do a great job of talking up innovation, and then disenfranchise workers by not doing what is needed to establish a productive and sustainable innovation culture. This is a horrible mistake that many executives make. Simply proclaiming that your company is building an innovation culture doesn't make it so.
Unfortunately, the article takes a very wrong turn. Lencioni suggests that if workers are innovating, the result will be chaos. What tripe! Does Lencioni really misunderstand innovation so much as to equate innovation with workers gone wild abandoning their mission and acting on impulse? One hopes not, yet this is the message that comes through. Lencioni goes on to suggest that innovation should be the sole domain of the leadership team.
It is well understood that the ivory tower approach to innovation is a failed model. The leadership team doesn't have the full perspective to be the sole contributors to the process. Yes, the leadership does have the best understanding of the company's business needs and objectives. And their position gives them a perspective that the rank and file employees can't share. But there are too many proof points that teach us that executives acting in such an insular manor are detached from the practical realities that the workers see every day. There are equally many examples of companies benefiting greatly from worker led innovation.
The leadership needs to play an active role in the innovation process, and as Lencioni rightly points out, they need to set the innovation agenda and ensure alignment and execution. However, it is a grave mistake to exclude the workforce from the innovation process.
Worried that innovating workers will cause disruption? Don't be. Innovating doesn't mean doing whatever strikes your fancy. For rank and file workers, it means thinking about your job as you do it. Asking yourself questions about what's working and what's not working. If something's not working, what could be done to correct it? If something is working, could it be better? These thoughts and analysis must then be given a path through the company's innovation process so that positive change can be initiated.
Will every worker contribute a ton of ideas? No. But, building a constructive process to tap into the collective wisdom of the organization will yield strong benefits and fuel innovation. It will not erode execution. Quite the contrary, it will lead to higher levels of execution. As a senior manager, I will choose thinking workers over mindless robots every time.
Bottom line… Execution, passion, and focus are not in conflict with innovation. Successful innovation requires brilliant innovation; winning business execution requires continuous innovation.


text:
The Padres have signed free-agent RHP Jon Garland, according to Corey Brock of MLB.com.
This morning, in a report for FoxSports.com, Ken Rosenthal said the Mets had not been aggressively pursuing Garland.
… most every person i talked with said garland would eventually sign with a team on the West Coast, and, given the direction of the Padres, i'd say this proves it… i'm guessing the Mets knew he wasn't going to sign with them, and so, that was that…
The 30 year old Garland went a combined 11-13 with a 4.01 ERA for the D-Backs and Dodgers last season, allowing 225 hits and 24 home runs in 204 innings pitched.
He's has made at least 32 starts each of the last nine seasons, during which he averaged a Quality Start more than 50 percent of the time.
In case you're wondering, and I'm willing to bet you are, the following pitchers are still free agents: Erik Bedard, Mike Hampton, Braden Looper, Noah Lowry, Pedro Martinez, Brandon Backe, Mark Mulder, Odalis Perez, John Smoltz, Chien-Ming Wang and Jarrod Washburn, among others.
This morning, on MLB Home Plate, Jim Duquette said he would be surprised to see Bedard pitching in the big leagues before the All-Star Break, as he recovers from shoulder surgery.
…thank you to Adam M for the duquette-bedard information…
…in talking with people around baseball, there seems to be a lot of concern about bedard, because he's working back from shoulder surgery… i sense teams are far more willing to gamble on a repaired elbow than a repaired shoulder…
That said, Bedard was 5–3 with a 2.82 ERA in 15 starts last season, during which he struck out 90 batters in 83 innings, while opponents hit .212 against him.


text:
Pakistan violence drives armored vehicle demand
KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) — Fifteen-foot walls and nearly a dozen armed guards protect Nadeem Khan's palatial home in the most upscale neighborhood of Pakistan's largest city. When it comes to getting around town, though, Khan prefers to travel as low-profile as possible.
Surging violence by criminal gangs and Islamic militants in Karachi has sparked a demand for more armored vehicles to protect wealthy businessmen, politicians and their families.
"I feel safer for myself and my family to travel in an armored car, and it's better than travel with a contingent of security guards in a separate vehicle for people who don't want unnecessary attention," said Khan, vice president of one of Pakistan's largest pharmaceutical companies.
Karachi, a city of 18 million people, has a long history of violence, much of it associated with gangs linked to the city's main political parties. Recent years have been especially bloody. There were 2,174 people killed in Karachi last year, according to the Citizens' Police Liaison Committee, the deadliest year since the organization began collecting figures in 1994.
This year is on track to be even worse. There were 1,894 people killed in the first eight months of 2013, said Ahmed Chinoy, head of the CPLC. The government launched a wide-ranging crackdown in Karachi about two weeks ago using paramilitary forces, but such operations have failed in the past to provide a lasting solution to the violence. Karachi and other cities in Pakistan have also been plagued by deadly attacks from the Taliban and their allies.
Mohammed Khalid Yousuf, head of a company that armors vehicles in Karachi, said rising violence and falling prices for armored vehicles have driven greater demand among the country's elites.
"Previously, only senior government officials and a few leaders of political parties were traveling in armored cars," said Yousuf, CEO of Streit Pakistan Pvt. Ltd, a Canada-based company. "But during the last few years, the law and order situation, especially in Karachi, is turning from bad to worse, and people who can afford it want their vehicles to get armored."
Business has been triple what the company expected, and it is now armoring about 15 vehicles per month, said Yousuf. The company has armored 70 vehicles since it opened shop in Pakistan in January, mostly for customers in Karachi and a few in Islamabad and Lahore, he said.
Khurram Hamirani, head of another company in Karachi, Pak Armoring Pvt. Ltd, also said business was booming. His company has armored 80 vehicles since it began business in early 2012 — mostly Toyota Hilux trucks and Land Cruisers, he said
"Demand is increasing every day, and there is always a waiting list of customers," said Hamirani.
Violence in Karachi has encouraged thousands of businesses to leave and led to millions of dollars in losses. But leaving isn't an option for everyone.
"Every businessman can't shift his family and business abroad or to other parts of the country, and I am one of those" said Khan, the pharmaceutical executive, who recently spent about $40,000 to armor his Land Cruiser. "An armored car not only prevents heinous crimes, but it is also a very effective shield against cell phone snatchers and street robbers."
The only armored vehicles available in Pakistan for years were imported at very high cost and required special government approval. The cost came down significantly several years ago when the government first authorized domestic companies to armor vehicles — although customers still need government approval to carry out the process.
Today, there are at least six companies in the business in Karachi and Islamabad, said Hamirani. It costs $25,000 to $40,000 to armor a vehicle in Pakistan, about half of what it costs to do so abroad and import it into the country, he said. That is still a fortune for most people in Pakistan, a country where many live on just a few dollars a day. Some people still pay more to import armored vehicles because they trust them more, said Hamirani.
Armoring a vehicle involves an elaborate process in which the entire car is dismantled, leaving only the metal skeleton and the engine. Steel plates are then attached to the vehicle using the same welding technology involved in ship construction. Bulletproof windows and special tires designed to resist deflation when punctured are also installed. Workers then re-install the seats, dashboard and other components.
"Unfortunately, failure of the state to provide security has compelled people to take steps for their security," said Hamirani, "and armored vehicles became a necessity rather than a luxury for the people who can afford it."


text:
Bardessono - LEED Platinum Certified
While they may be hidden to the eye, our environmental commitments are everywhere.
At Bardessono we have chosen to act on our environmental values. We believe that making progress on environmental issues comes, in part, from developing working models that provide examples to follow. Our model demonstrates two things: A hotel can provide a fully luxurious guest experience and be very green at the same time, and environmental initiatives can be implemented in a manner that is practical, economic, and aesthetic.
Gorgeous woods used throughout the hotel are milled from salvaged trees. Non-toxic, non-allergenic materials were used in construction. Organic linens and cleaning supplies and recycling and composting programs are standard. Products in the restaurant and spa are sourced primarily from local organic or sustainable producers. We are not perfect. Knowledge and budgets have limits to heed. But we hope our actions have provided worthy examples for others to try.
Even though much of what we have done remains hidden to the eye, our environmental commitments are reflected everywhere. The hotel has been designed to achieve the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design's (LEED) Platinum certification, the highest standard for environmental design, and to be as transparent as possible when it comes to the choices we've made and the values we stand by. Our design team created a list of environmental initiatives to address every aspect of Bardessono life, most of which we were able to implement.
One of the most pressing environmental needs is to reduce the demand for energy. The goal for the Bardessono project is to reduce the demand for external energy supplies – electricity, gas or oil by at least half of what a typical hotel consumes. Heating and cooling are the main sources of energy demand in a hotel. All the buildings are designed with overhangs to reduce the heat gain from the summer sun, yet allow the winter sun's rays to enter and warm the rooms. Each room has 200 square feet of glass to allow for natural lighting. The rooms have doors and windows opening onto private patios for natural ventilation. The glass used is all low-e which reduces the temperature transfer through the glass. When sensors detect that guests are not in their room, the automatically controlled thermostats allow the temperature to raise or lower a few degrees and reduce excess energy demand. When cooling is required, the first stage of intervention is for motor controlled exterior Venetian blinds to lower to reduce the heat gain from the sun. While common in Europe, the United States has yet to adopt this approach; internal shades and drapes do almost nothing to keep out the heat from the sun. (Guests, of course, can over-ride the automatic system to raise and lower the shades as they need). Another method for reducing heat gain in the buildings is the use of reflective materials on the roofs that minimize heat absorption.
When additional heating or cooling in guest rooms is necessary, water is used from 72 300-foot wells on the property. A ground source heat pump system was developed based on these wells. The temperature of the ground water is approximately 70 degrees in these wells. The water to air heat pumps only need to change the temperature of this 70 degree water a few degrees to provide air in the guest rooms at the desired temperature. In a typical air to air heat pump, the pump is trying to change the outside air temperature, which in the hotel's location can vary from 30 to 105 degrees Fahrenheit, to the desired in room temperature. This amount of temperature change takes considerable energy. The ground source system also pre-heats domestic water to 120 degrees. The electricity used in this system is only for running the circulation and heat pumps. Building this system required significant capital investment but will pay for itself in lower energy bills.
The large amount of glass used in each building reduces the daytime requirement for electrical lighting. LED, halogen or fluorescent bulbs are used in light fixtures throughout the property. These lights use much less energy, generate less heat and last much longer than incandescent bulbs. Incandescent bulbs are used only when the more energy efficient bulbs are not available or suitable to their function. The amount of exterior up-lighting is minimized to limit light pollution. The same system that senses occupancy and adjusts thermostats in the guest rooms also turns off the lights when the rooms are unoccupied.
Solar energy is becoming part of the solution to excessive and destructive reliance on petroleum. At the hotel, the use of solar energy is maximized by covering roofs with the most efficient solar panels available. This 200-kilowatt solar energy system provides approximately one-half the total electrical energy requirement of the property. The solar panels lie flat on the rooftops, invisible to surrounding properties. While the solar installation was a major investment, with the current and anticipated price of electricity and the subsidies available for solar installations, the payback period is less than six to eight years.
When Steve and Pat Bardessono built their home on the property in the early 1970's, they incorporated into it an existing stone building meant for wine storage (an underground wine cellar was not possible due to the high water table, so in the late 19th century their family built the aboveground stone "cellar"). The building was taken apart stone by stone and saved for reuse on the Bardessono exterior walls. The stone is a local limestone called Tufa. The large blocks of the Tufa stone have been sliced into tiles and used on both the exterior and interior of public spaces.
Salvaged Monterey Cypress has been milled into siding used on the exterior of several buildings. These are trees that otherwise would have been ground up or burned. Walnut trees that were pulled out by farmers at the end of their production life have been milled into the hotel's flooring, rather than being burned. Veneers of the Walnut grace the entry doors into the guest rooms and to several public rooms. Redwood recycled from wine casks has been used on the ceilings of some of the public spaces within the hotel, and on several public room doors. Salvaged California Bay trees have become cut slabs for the desks in the guest rooms. The large tables in the public areas and dining room tables have all come from salvaged trees. The concrete used on the property has significant recycled fly ash content and the steel has a high recycled content. Many of the materials are sourced from within 500 miles of the project site to reduce the environmental impacts of deliveries. Landscaped features and permanent signage structures are made from rammed earth, celebrating the soils of Napa Valley. Constructing rammed earth structures involves the use of local soil that is then compressed inside plywood forms with water and a small amount of cement. When the forms are removed, the beautiful soil is expressed as a building material. This is an ancient method of construction used around the world.
All glues, adhesives, finishes, paints, carpets and fabrics used at Bardessono are required to meet low volatile organic compounds (VOC) standards to vastly improve indoor air quality. Prior to putting furniture into the rooms, the rooms were ventilated with fans for several hours to remove residual construction odors. The fabrics used on interior furnishings are green certified. The use of plastic is minimized. Carpeting is certified "Green Label." Porcelain and concrete tiles are made of natural materials that can be recycled. The glass tiles have a high recycled glass content. The linens and terry used in the guest rooms are all made from organic fibers. Carpeting and draperies, which often harbor dust mites and odors, are not used in the guest rooms. The combination of low VOC compound materials, no carpeting and drapes, all organic linens, terry and cleaning supplies, greatly reduces any potential allergens in the rooms.
Indoors, bathroom fixtures with low water flow have been installed, along with dual flush toilets and waterless urinals. Outdoors, native and drought tolerant plants have been chosen for landscaping in order to minimize water demand. In turn, the drip irrigation system is also designed for maximum efficiency, minimizing water waste. All grey and black water is treated and recycled for irrigation use by the Town of Yountville.
Development is held back from the creek a minimum of 35 feet and the area in between is landscaped with native riparian plants. The goal is to create a healthy vegetative environment for native animals and fish, as well as minimize any silting of the creek through runoff.
The general contractor set up a system to recycle project waste materials while the project was under construction. Amazingly, they were able to recycle over 93 percent of construction waste generated during this time. All the subcontractors were similarly involved in recycling their waste.