text:
Flowering Trees of Cairns (1994)

Flowering Trees of Cairns (1994)
Watercolor: 40” x 60”
By Darryl Trott
1941 - 2004
For the Love of Art
A Muse who leaves us a legacy of spiritual beauty and bloom’in abundance!

Do you ever buy a card that speaks to your heart so much that you just can’t part with it? Such is the case with the above card produced by Leanin’ Tree. After ten years, the edges are a bit dog-eared but I remain mesmerized by Darryl Trott’s art; particularly now that I have discovered Key West! This piece could have been painted in a dozen locations throughout the Keys yet it was inspired and created in Australia. On the back of this Leanin’ Tree card is a testimonial written about Darryl many years before his untimely death on 9th June 2004 following a heart attack,

“One blustery day in Australia, Darryl Trott, with a roll of paintings under his arm, felt the wind holding back his bicycle as he rode to his job as an advertising designer. In his frustration, Trott realized he also felt stymied in his career and so, he resolved to leave his job and concentrate on painting. Largely self-taught, Trott is still perfecting his style of depicting the exotic and everyday blooms he paints.

Luscious tropical orchids sparkle with dew and perky, spring crocus thrust up from the barren ground. Each painting explodes with a mass of blooms. Darryl Troll believes that flowers should be painted in their natural habitat, as their subtle shades of color alter when they are cut. The artist maintains a home in the United States but spends much of his time painting in his retreat near the rain forest in Australia. Trott explores the infinite variety of flowers found throughout both countries, in cultured gardens as well as open fields.”

Limited Edition prints of Darryl’s work are still available.
If you google his name, several sites offer his work.
Our favorite is: www.ozimagesgallery.com/g-darryl-trott.html

Pattie Mosca said...

This is so peacefully beautiful..I can see why you could not part with it!!!!!!!!!!

Cheryl Finley: said...

This is gloriously enchanting...I feel like I could walk right into this and become a part of its transluscent and luminous beauty. I will come back to visit this vision often Royce.
Thank you for the portal!

tj said...

I saw his work in a gallery in Australia...absolutely and utterly beautiful! You feel as though you can walk into one of his paintings.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
The refurbished factory building dating back to the 19th century offers a unique ambiance with its blend of historic and modern architecture. The highly individual halls and rooms can be adjusted to perfectly meet your event’s requirements.

Rental fees

Basic rent in EUR
Great hall
EUR 525
EUR 875
Medium hall
EUR 365
EUR 610
Small hall
EUR 365
EUR 610
Seminar-room 1
EUR 150
EUR 240
Seminar-room 2
EUR 150
EUR 240
Find details on the facilities here.

[2jgallery 4295]

Duration of use (including set-up):
Half-day | up to 6 hours per day
Full-day | more than 6 hours per day

Set-up the day before: 30% of the rental fee

No surcharges for weekends and holidays.

Hall rent includes:
Seating arrangement of your choice, standard stage of up to 20 sq. m., lectern, sound equipment for presentations and music, projection screen, standard lighting, heating/AC, cleaning service (except for when intensive cleaning is required)
All prices stated are exclusive of 20% VAT and applicable from 1 January to 31 December 2017.

Technical equipment

All halls come with complete sound equipment (permanently mounted loudspeakers, amplifier and sound mixing unit).
Table microphone: EUR 15
Wireless microphone: EUR 30
CD player: EUR 8
LCD video and data projector: EUR 115
(1024 x 768 pixels, 3000 ANSI lumens; 1920 x 1200 pixels, 5000 ANSI lumens)
Laptop: EUR 35
DVD player: EUR 10
TV and cable ports are available.
Image and sound can be transmitted between all halls.
Seminar equipment
Pinboard: EUR 8
Flip chart: EUR 8
Internet access
WIFI is available in all halls.
Additional technical equipment will be organised upon request.
Mobile stage elements
10 units à 2 sq. m.
Staff costs
In-house technician EUR 41/hour
Late-night fee from 8 pm: EUR 50/hour
B/W copies: EUR 0.15 per copy
Colour copies: EUR 0.35 per copy

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-228-65-216.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-09
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Promote your band for free!

DJ E.u.G.

DJ E.u.G.
  Send feedback: Click here

Check also other artists that play

Members of the band

  DJ E.uG. - Guitar, Porgramming, Synthesizer, Mixing, Producing

General info

   Dj E.u.G. is a one man band. He uses acoustic guitars and computer programed loops and beats. He tries to create a sonic sound, with a melodic, edgy and electronic sound.

Download free music

Blue Pheonix 1.11 MB Download
Code 24 1.82 MB Download
Electric Diffusion 1.72 MB Download
Rebirth 1.89 MB Download
Red Pheonix 1.50 MB Download

Latest tracks

Last week's top 5 tracks


text:
Since 1970 MusicSchool has provided In-home music lessons to children and adults.

Learn in the comfort of YOUR own home, seven days a week.

In-Home Music Lessons

Email for Lessons:

Telephone for Lessons:

Text Line:

©Copyright 2016 The Larry Little Company All Rights Reserved

Our suggested lesson times for music lessons are a minimum of 1 hour, once a week(depending on the age of the student); Multiple instruments may require separate instructors and therefore separate lesson times will be needed. In some cases, we may be able to provide one instructor for more than one instrument (i.e. piano/voice, piano/guitar, etc.).

Our teaching schedule does not follow the school calendar. Music Lessons are available year round. You can start lessons at any time during the year. All lessons are sold in pre-paid blocks of (4). Since teachers are driving to your location we enforce a strict 24-hour cancelation policy. Summer lessons are available and encouraged and can be a fun time to try a new instrument!

Over the years more and more adults are learning and relearning how to play a musical instrument. The teachers in the system work well with children and adults of all ages.


text:
Monday, May 2, 2016

8 Fun Violin Practice Games for Kids

Violin is not an easy instrument to learn, especially
Violin lessons for children
for a young child. This is partly because your child won’t be actually playing music right away and  would need to practice the pre-violin skills first, such as holding the bow correctly and producing the right sound playing a single note. All the pre-violin skills might feel boring for your preschooler who wants to play his or her first song.

How can you encourage your child to practice repetition and keep it fun?

1. Keep the practicing sessions short, or up to 5 minutes long.
2.  Try the following 8 ideas to make the practice time fun and motivating:
Silly Cards. Make silly cards showing different physical activities, such as sticking out tongue, standing on one foot, closing eyes, opening mouth wide, closing one eye, wiggling bottom, doing fishy month, playing pizzicato, making rabbit face, singing the piece, etc.
Have your child draw a new silly card for each repetition. For example, if your child plays the Twinkle song and draws “sticking out the tongue,” he or she should play twinkle with tongue out the whole time.
For a silly bonus repetition ask your child to try to do all of the things at the same time.
Matryoshka. This Russian doll comes in handy
Violin practice game for kids
 in teaching to practice repetition. Every time the child plays a repetition, open one doll. When he or she gets to the second last doll, have a treat in it, instead of the tiny doll.

Violin Tour. Take your youngster “on tour”, playing an exercise one time in each room of the house, on the balcony, outdoors, etc.
Drinking cups. Place small cups turned upside down on the table and hide a treat in one of them. Let your student lift one of the cups for each successful repetition.
Toy audience. Let your child play one of the Twinkle rhythms for each of his or her favorite stuffed animals. Each of the animals would “thank” your child after the performance and “ask” to play the Twinkle-Variation again and again.
Abacus. Flick a bead for each repetition until the child plays it 10 times. It’s so simple and the kids love it.
Simon Says. In this popular game, you can take turns with your child to be “Simon”. For example, when you play A on the violin, your child should sit down, stand up when you play E, jump up when you play F#, etc. Then, your child plays a note and you do the correct movements.
Prevent the Fall. Place a small stuffed animal on the violin hold, just to the left of the G string. Ask your child to play the homework exercise 5 times avoiding dropping the animal.

Olesya MacNeil has been teaching children since 1991 and striving to make every music lesson educational and fun!

Searching for a highly professional, creative and fun Los Angeles Violin Teacher?

Call today at (310) 220-0405 to schedule your initial lesson, or learn more about our Los Angeles Violin Lessons.

No comments:

Post a Comment


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
Saturday, 4 February 2017

Looking for sandy ground

"Free access to museums for under 30s", one reads in portuguese newspapers. The measure was approved in parliament yesterday.

"Can anyone explain to me the logic of under 30s?", asks a Brazilian colleague.

"Is it to stimulate young families, like couples with small children?", replies another colleague. "Is it because it was found that unemployment is higher among the under 30s?"

Is it worth looking for the logic? Was there a logic? Was the measure based on any management report? Was it based on some audience survey? Were the professionals of the sector consulted? Are there concrete objectives that can be evaluated in one or two years’ time?
According to the news, "members of parliament decided to recommend to the government to adopt the necessary measures to promote access for all citizens to national museums and monuments, especially for people up to 35 years of age, giving free access on weekends, holidays and Wednesdays, and extending the use of new information technologies." This is in line with the government's programme, which we already had the opportunity to analyse here, especially with regards to the concepts of "access" and "democratization".

So, we are once again discussing free admission to museums. As if this was the central issue. As if the museum sector did not have serious endogenous problems, related to management, which free admission cannot solve. As if the museum sector did not have other problems, permanent and fundamental, in its relationship with society, which free admission cannot solve. We can continue to try to guess the fundamentals and criteria behind this measure. But we do not need to guess the reasons why most Portuguese do not visit museums; and they will not start visiting just because entrance will be free.

Who invests time and money - yes, there is always an investment of money, even when entrance is free - in something that, a priori, does not seem to be relevant, does not communicate in an inviting way (on the contrary, it uses all means to say "This is not for you, this was not made thinking of you"), does not take into account the interests and needs of those it intends to attract and has an obligation to serve? And, giving it a second thought, I would say more ... Who invests time and money to see depressing things? To be in a space that smells mold, where exhibitions have not been touched for decades?

The people responsible in Portugal certainly know that studies, in the countries where they exist, show that free admission allows those who already enjoy visiting museums to visit more often (which is excellent). But it does not diversify the visitors’ profile. It is not enough for "democratization". For this to happen, it takes more work, it takes another type of work, it is a work that demands more from all those involved.

Are we going to work on this? Are we going to create the conditions to do it well? Are we going to assume our responsibilities for the barriers created along the years? Regarding free admission, everything has already been said. It will continue to make good headlines, that's true, but that will be all.

More readings

Boletim ICOM Portugal, Gestão de Museus e Políticas Museológicas, Série III, nº8, Jan 2017 (textos de Manuel Bairrão Oleiro, Maria de Jesus Monge e Ana Carvalho)

More on this blog:

No comments:


text:
Sunday, January 09, 2005

I Am Shameless

But I'm OK with that.

WNUR 89.3 FM: Feedback
Political talk radio with your hosts Henry Bowles, Prajwal Ciryam, Mike Koolidge and Anthony Walters
Sundays, 8-9 PM Central time, beginning tonight

Listen, please.

Saturday, January 08, 2005

Reflecting on Giving and Disaster and Writing and Writing on Giving and Writing on Disaster; Also, Actually Writing

Should I have said more earlier on about the tsunami? I don't think so. Little could I have added to this discourse that the brutal sadness of pictures and stories and first-hand accounts did not provide. Perhaps I could have criticized our President for his weak initial response to this horrific tragedy. Again, my perspective would not have added much to the discussion. So I listened, instead.

Personally, I cannot comprehend the pain, so even in listening I did not understand. I do not think I can understand. So, instead of trying to understand experience that I have not had (very fortunately), I will say something that I do not particularly need to say:

Give. I don't simply mean now or in the next few weeks or while the cable news outlets keep pumping you full of images of suffering. I mean keep giving. We tend to have short attention spans; within a few weeks, most of us will hardly remember what has so oppressed our minds the past several days. Even before the rubble is cleared and the people are bandaged, or buried as it were, we will have moved on. But the clearing and bandaging and burying do not begin to describe the deep ramifications of this event.

It will require generations to recover. In coming months, those humbled by this force will be reabsorbed into the clamorous poverty already present in all the affected countries. There, in that sesspool of desperation, the subtle shadows of this Christmas surprise will run deep, through families, villages, societies.

They need our help and we need to continue to give it. Children without parents, parents without children, villages without people, people without villages, loss does not disappear. Grief does not disappear. It may fade, subsiding slowly and incompletely temporarily, but it is always there. Will we be there?

Are we there now? Yes, yes, $350,000,000 is a lot of money. But symbolically, America has lost something (maybe for the better?). We are no longer the unquestioned benefactor of this good earth. We are not the deus ex machina we used to be, there to scoop up the remains of natural or manmade disaster, rebuilding the thatched huts of society from Asia to Africa. The Japanese (or creditors) and the Australians have blazed past us in charity, even after our government was shamed into giving more. Of course, that private citizens and corporations could compete with the aid package of the world's last remaining superpower is only heartening to the neoconservative ideology that has permeated the very seat of Western democracy.

The charity of our people is sheer beauty. But our government has lost that shimmer. There was a time when leadership meant vision, a vision of progress and glory for all the world's citizens. There was a time when strength was measured not just in territories conquered and warcries howled from the summit of some great sand dune in the midst of inflicted nothingness, but also in the size of our olive tree, with branches enough for all human beings of this earth. The greatest commander of war is the arbiter of peace, and from that arbiter's first step may the rest of us take our own steps, small but firm, and together march humanity forward with hearts instead of clubs.

Then again, if our less than spectacular showing would suggest that we have humbled ourselves, admitted our place as just one more in the parade of nations, then this might mean we would choose to check our domineering tendencies. I doubt this--The great might of this country, once the firmament and symbol of righteous (though not self-righteous) grandeur, is now poured into the despair of spent shells and armorless Humvees. Worse, it is also the blind jingoism that sends those Humvees to battle and that aims those shells at the hapless masses that run together in shades of brown. No, none of the bad of our stature will go, but the good that came of America's unparalleled strength--This seems to have begun its flight into the abyss.

I am done.

Tuesday, December 28, 2004

Just Keep Going!

Every time I question the utility of Christianity entirely, or at least of the Protestant Reformation, someone gives me pause.Now, I'll never agree that the government should dole out money to religious groups. I'll never agree that politicians should stamp their feet and thump their Bibles to grab a few more votes. I'll never agree that the Establishment Clause is not precisely what it is: A protection of all beliefs against the tyrrany of one constructed by the spiritual, but avowedly non-dogmatic, framers.

However, my belief in the good works that Christianity can effect in this nation is renewed. Indeed, I can even imagine the proper place for religion within the political arena. No, we should not be using religion to legislate. We should not quote Psalms as evidence of right and wrong.

Religion, though, does offer a motivation and an explanation of deep, universal moral principles. We did not need Christ to learn we should love our neighbors, but he was a charismatic and effective advocate of the principle. That is, Christianity can frame secular ethics in a manner that can be appreciated by the religious masses.

Advocacy, then, that relies on religion to explain and demand the maintenance of certain basic, uncontestable values of humanity can be effective and healthy for the American political arena.

What has renewed my confidence in the religious? What has given me pause? A couple of weeks ago I saw John Hill, Program Director for Economic and Environmental Justice for the United Methodist Church, on television. He was discussing the Church's latest campaign against the Bush tax cuts as immoral in their bias against the poor.

I was confused.

Could it be that a religious organization was not obsessed with shoving beliefs down people's throats? Could it be that these people genuinely wanted to help the less fortunate, and not at the end of a Bible at that?

I was shocked.

But as I read more about the United Methodist Church General Board of Church & Society, I realized that yes, a religious organization finally sat down and THOUGHT! The purpose of religion should not be to propagate itself as a social institution, but to do good and offer guidance to those who want and need it. Here is an organization that pursues environmental regulations, socioeconomic justice, equality for all--including the LGBT community, and the sort of liberalism that seeks no less than a more humane world and a more humane humanity. I don't agree with the Church's statements that religion should permeate every aspect of life, but I see that their political campaigns do not reek of the same sort of ideological chauvinism that the evangelicals I mentioned in the preceding post employ.

The UMC's driving force might be religious, but it is using that energy to promote beliefs and goals of tolerance and acceptance and the enhancement of life--Things that all of us, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Tao, Shinto, atheist, agnostic, etc., etc., etc., can agree upon. They do not find the fodder for their political existence in the tiny details of the Bible or the exclusivities of Christianity, but in that which binds us all and, by extension, is most important of all.

This marriage of religion and politics, but not religion and state, is exciting to me, and relatively new. This is the way it should be done. This is what religion and piety and a faith in a higher, benevolent Power should be about.

Why is it not clear to everyone?

Just Stop!

Please. I am not Christian, but for years, I used to think nothing of receiving the greeting "Merry Christmas" or even of giving it. Christmas, to me was once a holiday about family, charity, community, Saint Nick, and some nifty presents. "Happy Holidays" was a fine alternative, but "Merry Christmas" served me all right.

Now, though, the evangelists have sent out their militia of vicious, angry, malicious marauders to crucify every business, every school, every person who chooses not to say "Merry Christmas." The heathenous masses of the United States have conspired to kill Christmas. Sensitivity for other religions and other beliefs is not only unnecessary, but it is sinful. Secularism is the calling of the damned; tolerance is the whisper of Satan himself. Thus, "Merry Christmas" is no longer a cheery greeting, it is the rallying cry of a bitter minority not of the oppressed, but of the empowered. The evangelists--I utter the phrase and spit to remove the taste from my mouth--the evangelists have claimed their recent advances not as ephemeral shifts of wind, but as mighty gales to propel their ship of unfaltering, unforgiving conviction to Providence.

Yet, it is not just this. They are clearly uneasy with their newfound power. They proclaim a victory, but cannot help but expressing their continued persecution. What we have here, folks, is a group so inundated with delusions of victimization that it cannot come to grips with the oppression that it continues to propagate. Decade after decade, oblivion has justified the injustices of the evangelicals. This "Merry Christmas" business is small potato.

But it's soured me. Every time someone on television or in a store or on the street says "Merry Christmas," I feel disgusted. I associate the phrase and everyone who utters it with the sort of divisive, self-righteous, self-pitying individuals who have made this holiday so ugly. And I don't like that. I don't like treating this simple salutation with such disdain, but it's been transmogrified into something more than just a salutation. It is a religious and political statement from a band with the strength of immense influence and the motivation of immense fear.

So I can't even say Merry Christmas. Not only that, we've all latched on this mighty issue of the day and age and have forgotten the real battles that might have been fought. Churches spent money picketing Federated Department Stores--We must live in a world without hunger, pain, poverty, and suffering. Surely, religious organizations might toss their coins at better causes than disgruntled mania. Oh, but I forgot--The inferiority complex of the evangelicals leaves them feeling more sorry for themselves than for the destitute. Their political capital, on the other hand, affords them both the confidence and agency to strike down those from whom they feel the threat.

Because I really am less powerful than them, I am left no other option but to beseech them: Please, next Christmas, can we love each other first?

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

A Short Stop On a Long Ride

I have been remiss in writing. From China to Pakistan to Capitol Hill, a variety of matters of profound political and social interest have marched onto the global (or, at least, national) stage in the last few weeks. I, however, have said nothing about them.

I do apologize.

Nevertheless, I will continue not to comment on them for at least another two weeks. You see, I am entering a period of sadness and strife known as final exams--This mental persecution leaves little space for basic bodily functions, let alone the production of semi-coherent musings comprising "a motley assemblage of politics, philosophy, and sheer confusion." Well, I suppose I could probably provide the confusion...I'm pretty confused right now, that's for sure.

Anyway, once I return, I will try to catch up where I left off. That is, I'd like to fill the backlog of commentary, even things that might have been somewhat time-dependent. Perhaps a few weeks will allow a useful perspective on some of the more rapidly developing stories (Asif Zardari in Pakistan, for one, and the variety of Congressional moves, for another) and allow a better synthesis of related events than less procrastination would have allowed.

Now that I have both announced and justified my delays, I shall continue to live them. Thanks, as always, for reading.

Monday, November 22, 2004

American vs. Canadian Homicide Rates

I don't quite know what to make of this: A Statistical Comparison of Homicide Rates in the Prairie Provinces and Four American Border States, 1978-1992.

It is a very interesting study comparing homicide rates in the Canadian prairie provinces and the four American states that border Canada. It seems to undercut gun control advocates' argument that stricter gun laws in Canada make the country safer. I cannot comment on the accuracy of the paper's conclusions because I am not well enough versed with the issue yet. Perhaps, the paper is correct and Canada is not a good example for gun control advocates to cite. The paper mentions a few other countries with very low homicide rates (some with strict gun control laws and others without) that may or may not serve as better models.

The issue is worth a little more study. However, for now, I leave you with these questions (for which I do not know the answer). Are the Canadian prairie provinces' gun control laws significantly stricter in practice than those of the American border states? Does a higher-than-expected homicide rate have something to do with Canadians disobeying gun control laws (see and ExploreNorth: Gun Control in Canada)? Is it possible that the homicide rates are comparable because enforcement is comparable?

I really don't know. Maybe you do. Leave a comment if you can enlighten me.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Bill and George in Episode 43: "A Tight Spot"

Editorial Note: Thanks to user zimv20 in the Political Discussions & War Discussion Forum for this image.

The first one to Iraq wins!

Bill and George in Episode 43: "A Tight Spot" is an image obtained from the Political Discussions & War Discussion Forum and renamed for use at Musings on America.
Originally uploaded by musingsonamerica.

This has been an Acme PhotoPost!

Did Alan Keyes Win or Lose?!

Now I'm not even sure...

Alan Keyes Conundrum is an image capture from Alan Keyes for Senate.
Originally uploaded by musingsonamerica.

This has been an Acme PhotoPost!

John Pushes Back...And So Do I

John, first off, thanks for your reply. Second off, you still don't get the point.

In a perfect world, every voter would carefully consider each relevant issue and judiciously assign a particular worth to that issue. Then, the voter would research the candidates' positions and compare those against his/her own fact-based, well-founded opinions. Rating the candidates (quantitatively or qualitatively) on each of these issues and adjusting for the weights already assigned to each, the voter would now add whatever X factor in personality or character that he/she sees fit. Now, with a well-thought, cogent analysis, the voter feels he/she is ready for the booth.

Guess what? It ain't gonna happen. Two voting pathologies demonstrate why you cannot place all of the blame on voters.

Many voters do not have the time to vote responsibly, John. People are worried about replacing that job that Bush lost them. They are concerned about their kid's flu or their wife's cancer. Myriad personal issues take priority over any election, even one that many of us perceive as historic and critical. Can you blame them? Even if you can, their crime is being misinformed. Complicit in that crime is a slew of partisan media talking heads and masterful campaign spin doctors who are all too happy to prey on the voters' lack of time. These people, seeking to manipulate voters, are at fault, because they have a responsibility to the process that they are abusing to achieve their own ends.

Your problem, John, is that you go beyond vilifying this set of voters for its lack of knowledge...You proceed to blame it for Iraq and deficits and stem cell research, etc., etc., etc. Those aren't the crimes they committed.

Many voters are one-issue voters. In my ideal scheme above, these voters essentially place an infinite value on one issue, making it unnecessary to be informed about the others. Is this wise? Absolutely not. However, it is a candidate's job to convince the people that his/her agenda is not only right, but important. The burden lies on campaigns to communicate the value of various issues. If they cannot, then the one-issue voters will continue to vote simplistically.

Again, you are too eager to blame these voters for things they neither committed nor endorsed. I agree that it is irresponsible of these people to make decisions so singularly. However, in their minds, they are proceeding correctly. This is moot, though. As with the time-tight voters, one-issue voters' presumed mistake has nothing to do with Iraq or deficits or stem cell research or No Child Left Behind. These individuals assented along one line to one issue and that's it. They did not place their rubberstamps on the rest of these positions.

This is why what you and others are doing, John, is particularly dangerous. There are millions upon millions of Bush voters who probably disagree with him on several issues that many of us consider important. By categorically shoving them into this anti-progress, pro-war, back-to-the-1870s evangelical nut job box, you force them either to completely agree with Bush's opinions or to judge their decision as unethical and mistaken. Since, as I said, people do not want to be mistaken, when pushed into a corner, they will become more extreme.

By housing the diffident and the wayward with the rabid and the radical, you make more Pat Robertsons, not more Arlen Specters. I say that this only hurts us. We need to find ways to break into the shells of those who do not have time to come out and listen. We need to show those pigeonholed into one debate that there are other, vital debates going on. We need to translate our message into terms that can win back the millions of winnable voters whom we lost in this cycle.

You suggest that I'm denying the voters' inherent agency. No. I want us to reach out to voters because they do have agency. What gives me hope is that many of them executed that agency to agree to the war, to the tax cuts, or to any number of other issues, in specific. Voters do not vote wholesale for their candidate's positions. If they did, Karl Rove would be correct and George Bush would have a mandate on the debate.

They don't, he doesn't, and you're wrong.

George Bush--Definitely Ad Nauseum

Editorial Note: Thanks to user Thomas Veil at's Political Discussions & War Discussion Forum for pointing this out.

There have been a number of bad Presidents in American history, but I'm racking my brains to think of one so widely hated by the world. Partly, it's just more apparent because of the internet. Additionally, people around the world are more interested and concerned with global events than they once were (a simple by-product of more advanced communication). However, it is just dishonest not to attribute this to the magic of George Walker Bush.

What is it of which I speak? George Bush has been voted the best movie villain for his appearance in Farenheit 9/11 by readers of the British magazine, Total Film. A dose of satire is good for any administration, but feelings about Bush around the Earth have escalated from mild-manner fun-poking to true frustration and despair. And it is not fair to argue that F9/11 was skewed and that is the origin of all of these people's impressions. People see Bush everywhere--In the New York Times, the BBC, The Guardian, the Hindu, the Japan Times, Al-Ahram--everywhere. And this is what they think of the President of the United States, the leader of this nation, and, for now at least, the leader of the free world.

It's not the whole world's fault either. Total Film: Thanks for this Total Shame. We probably deserve it.

Saturday, November 20, 2004

John Kerry: Redux or Ad Nauseum?

John Kerry is running for President...Oh, I'm sorry, I mean he ran for President, right?

No. John Kerry is running for President, in either this cycle or the next. A recent e-mail to supporters reveals that this man, for better or worse, is not done. The conservatives maligned him, lied about him, and apparently beat him, but John Kerry has not left his post. The fight continues and the latest installment of this whirlwind serial is perhaps the most interesting.

John Kerry 2004

On November 3rd, John Kerry expressed his certainty that the election was, indeed, over. To conservatives, this was a relief: Finally, Democrats have come to grips with reality! To liberals, it was a disappointment or even an outrage: Something is rotten in Ohio and Florida, but everyone is ignoring the stench. Either way, most Americans thought that the election was over. Perhaps it was a resounding victory or a crippling defeat, but whatever it was, it was done.

That was terribly naïve of us. As an increasing number of reports about possible voter fraud have appeared, the doubt cast on electronic voting machines in this election has only grown. Months ago, Howard Dean showed us just one easy way to hijack an election. Without a doubt, sharp conservative (or liberal) operatives could devise others. However, for a time, the post-election reports seemed only a murmur in the far reaches of Air America and Those tiny pockets of liberal radio bemoaned another election stolen...But the news of possible fraud in Florida and Ohio never broke in the mainstream media in any significant way. This story, it appeared, would simply fade away.

While it is still true that this compelling morsel of information has hardly enticed most of the media, it appears that it has drawn Democrats, from bottom to top. It is still a risky wager, but I do not think this story is going away and I think that John Kerry has made that clear in his e-mail.

Let's take it in small bites.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, once all the votes are counted -- and they will be counted -- we will continue to challenge this administration. (Kerry, "The next step" par. 4)

A few weeks ago, John Kerry was certain of the eventual outcome of this election. Not so much anymore. The wording of this sentence suggests that the final tally is still in question: Hey, the electoral vote is still a few weeks away. Anything could happen.

It is quite evident that personally, Kerry doubts the legitimacy of the election.

It's unacceptable in the United States that people still don't have full confidence in the integrity of the voting process. (Kerry, "The next step" par. 5)

Where he says "people," one can easily insert "I." He projects his lack of faith in the "voting process" onto the American people, or at least, his supporters. (Kerry, "The next step" par. 5) For the most part, it is probably a reasonable characterization. However, this does not diminish the fact that John Kerry is skeptical, too. This is important because if Kerry wants to hit hard on this issue, he sure is waiting a long time to do it. Perhaps he is suspicious and will wait to see what the final vote count reveals or perhaps this is the reason he has 15 to 17 million dollars left in his campaign coffers. (Fournier, par. 7)

It would be excellent if Kerry commits himself to fighting voter fraud, in specific and in general. As he says, it is unacceptable that many Americans cannot trust their own electoral system. Kerry, in his letter states:

I will fight for a national standard for federal elections that has both transparency and accountability in our voting system. ("The next step" par. 5)

Transparency is a critical issue and it is encouraging that in addition to seeking truth in this election, John Kerry promises to fight for truth in all elections.

But maybe, just maybe, John Kerry has a direct interest in free and fair Presidential elections in years to come.

John Kerry 2008

Kerry may also have a longer-term interest in his remaining campaign funds. His still-robust campaign war chest have made Democrats wary of designs that Kerry might have for the future. (Fournier, par. 7) Fournier writes that Kerry "could use [the estimated 15 to 17 million dollars remaining] as seed money for another presidential bid." (par. 7) Kerry's letter to supporters not only hints at this cycle's struggle, but smacks of electoral dreams in years to come. The letter emphasizes that he will play an active role in not only Democratic Party politics, but in Democratic Party policy, far into the forseeable future.

He states:

And we must fight not only against George Bush's extreme policies -- we must also uphold our own values. (Kerry, "The next step" par. 7)

A senator planning on taking a supporting role would likely be a little bit more conciliatory. However, John Kerry is keeping his gloves off, suggesting that he wants to hold onto his position as the Democratic Party's poster child. Moreover, he repeats (as he did many times in the campaign) the idea of remembering "our own values." (Kerry, "The next step" par. 7) He is providing a direction and vision.

This is not that convincing though. It could be no more than post-election fluff were it not for the remainder of the letter. Consider the following.

This is why on the first day Congress is in session next year, I will introduce a bill to provide every child in America with health insurance. And, with your help, that legislation will be accompanied by the support of hundreds of thousands of Americans. (Kerry "The next step" par. 7)

One of the most serious criticisms lodged against Kerry during his (first) Presidential run was that he did nothing of significance during a decades-long tenure in the Senate. For example, Ciro Scotti wrote in Business Week that "Kerry's thin record of policymaking during almost 20 years in the Senate isn't cool." (Scotti par. 20) This softball criticism of Kerry's record pales before the Republican National Committee's take on it. G. Gordon Liddy has posted on his website a copy of a piece written by the RNC called "Do Nothing Senator", with the subheading Kerry Offered Small Bills, But Little Change. (Republican National Committee) The article claims that Kerry's work on eventually successful legislation is not substantial and cites a list of columns that apparently agree. (Republican National Committee) For instance, citing David Nather's "Kerry's Complex Record and His Pursuit of the Presidency," the RNC argues that "Kerry has done little work on major issues," including education and health care. (Republican National Committee, par. 7)

This makes Kerry's promise to deliver sweeping health insurance legislation extremely significant. John Kerry is translating a key campaign promise into real action, all the while combating Republican rhetoric that he has squandered his years and influence in the Senate. It may be true that Kerry's activity on this issue stems from a sincere desire to correct health care inequalities in this country. However, this is not the move of a person planning on a quiet transition to retirement and anonymity.

Furthermore, Kerry is not pursuing this issue in the way that a less-ambitious individual might.

Normally, a member of the Senate will first approach other senators and ask them to co-sponsor a bill before it is introduced -- instead, I am turning to you. Imagine the power of a bill co-sponsored by hundreds of thousands of Americans being presented on the floor of the United States Senate. You can make it happen. Sign our "Every Child Protected" pledge today and forward it to your family, friends, and neighbors: (Kerry, "The next step" par. 10)

On one hand, it could be argued that Kerry is using his bully pulpit to gain popular support for legislation that would otherwise have a difficult time in a conservative Congress. Nevertheless, such an approach has a secondary effect: It rallies the citizenry behind not only a cause, but a man. Kerry seeks not simply to be a prominent politician, but a populist one, as well. He is demonstrating his dedication to the people by entreating them for support on a vital matter. Kerry recognizes our importance as members of this society and, in turn, we may repay his consideration.

This is the beginning of a second term effort to hold the Bush administration accountable and to stand up and fight for our principles and our values. They want you to disappear; they are counting on that. I'm confident you will prove them wrong, and you will rewrite history again. (Kerry, "The next step" par. 12)

Here, Kerry continues to project a populist persona. But notably, he is also trying to evoke the emotions of his readers by reminding them that the wayward Bush administration reviles them and their opinions. John Kerry, this letter suggets, will be the man to lead us in the quest against conservative elitism and greed.

Here is what I want you to know. I understand the strength, commitment, and passion that are at the core of what we built together -- and I am determined to make our collective energy and organization a force to be reckoned with in the weeks and months ahead.

Let's roll up our sleeves and get back to work for our country.
(Kerry, "The next step" par. 13-14)

This is the kicker. John Kerry takes responsibility for and authority over the party. In this passage, he sets out his command for the future of the Democrats. John Kerry is trying to reinforce (or, some would say, protect) his position as the most visible and important Democrat. Besides, who says "roll up our sleeves" aside from future Presidential candidates?

It's a few years and many, many political news stories away from the next Presidential campaign. It is never too early to plan, though. After losing the Presidency in 1960, Richard Nixon quickly began work to mount a more successful future bid. Could it be that John Kerry, too, sees an opportunity for future success?

Many predict (especially liberals) that the country will be in an unprecedented condition of economic, social, military, and diplomatic ruin come four years. If President Bush really does move further into the abyss of neoconservatism, as his recent cabinet shuffle seems to suggest he will, then it might not be possible for any Republican to run on his coattails in four years. If 2008 becomes the Year of the Backlash (as 2004 was supposed to be), then perhaps John Kerry will be the only person in the country able to say that he's better off now than he was four years ago.

By taking the initiative to be deeply involved in the party's process and goals, John Kerry really could launch a comeback. But do we want him to?

No matter what the true result of this year's Presidential election was, it taught Democrats an important lesson. The party is depends too much on too many questionable swing states and is quite unsuccessful with exurban, suburban, and rural voters. The Democratic Party has to retool its communication and it might be best to shed its baggage by, well, shedding its baggage.

Indeed, it might be slightly selfish for John Kerry to monopolize the center stage when other, more viable 2008ers need to gain visibility. Some Democrats are frustrated that Kerry retained some of his money without boosting his campaign or one of any number of Congressional campaigns around the country. (Fournier) Over-involvement by John Kerry could ultimately hurt the party. I think this remains to be seen, but The New Republic, with its liberal but anti-Kerry bent, has already made its decision. Its editors quip, "Kerry certainly does deserve to retain a role within the party. That role ought to be the same as it was before he ran for president: second-most influential senator from Massachusetts." (The New Republic, par. 8) The extent to which The New Republic's opinion matters may be more questionable than Kerry's proper role in the party, though, considering its endorsement of Joe Lieberman. (Peretz, par. 1) The editors are right, though, when they say that Kerry "is not an effective communicator." (The New Republic, par. 3) That the Republicans could so easily distort his message with their flip-flop campaign shows that Kerry is not a Kennedy, Reagan, or Clinton.

John Kerry, in this election, represented everything that was wrong about the Democrats: The substance is on target, but the message really, really is not. Can Democrats afford to give this man a second chance? He did demonstrate uncanny grace and pithy profundity in his concession speech, but whether he can sustain that sort of charisma is questionable...And whether all that is even enough for the dramatic change that the Democrats must embrace is also uncertain.

Nevertheless, one cannot help but applaud Kerry's endeavors. Despite an enormous setback, he is more dedicated than ever before to causes of virtue and dignity. Anyone can admire his commitment to improving America. In fact, from all of the promises of this campaign, there is only one that I trust will ring true: "I assure you--you watch--I still have yours." (Kerry, "Address" par. 6) And that is almost enough for me to make sure I have his, against all odds. For what it's worth, I'll sign Protect Every Child. I think you should, too.

Works Cited

1. Editors. "Back to Reality." The New Republic. 10 November 2004. (
2. Fournier, Ron. "Democrats Question Kerry's Campaign Funds." Yahoo! News/Associated Press. 17 November 2004. (
3. Kerry, John. "Address to Supporters at Fanueil Hall." John Kerry for President. 3 November 2004. (
4. Kerry, John. "The next step." E-mail to Supporters. 19 November 2004.
5. Scotti, Ciro. "Who's the Cool Guy This Year?" BusinessWeek. 29 October 2004. (
6. Peretz, Martin. "Bad Messenger." The New Republic. 11 November 2004. (
7. Republican National Committee, The. "Do-Nothing Senator." G. Gordon Liddy's Official Website. (


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Tag Archives: ford mustang 2016 interior Clayton DE

Buy Classic Ford Mustangs in Clayton DE 19938|

Production of the Mustang began in Dearborn, Michigan on March 9, 1964 and the automobile was presented to the general public on April 17, 1964 at the New york city World’s Fair. It is Ford’s 3rd oldest nameplate presently in production. Original sales forecasts forecasted less than 100,000 units for the first year. This mark was exceeded in three months from rollout. Another 318,000 would be offered during the design year (a record), and in its first eighteen months, more than one million Mustangs were constructed.

When the 1969 ford mach mustang was furnished with the 428 Cobra Jet engine the vehicle became an absolute powerhouse. Just starting the engine of one of these mustangs marketed its power and capacity. There were engines readily available with less power readily available for the 1969 ford mach mustang but couple of individuals choose this calmer variation of the new mustang. Those who believed to ask desired the most effective engine their money could by and most automobile sellers just evaluated and advertised the much appreciated Cobra Jet engine.

Ford Mustangs For Sale

All of these were VIN-identified as 1965 models, but a number of changes were made at the standard opening of the new design year (beginning August 1964), including the addition of back-up lights on some models, the introduction of generators to change generators, and an upgrade of the V8 engine from 260 cu in to 289 cu in. When it comes to at least some six-cylinder Mustangs fitted with the 101 hp 170 cu in Falcon engine, the rush into production included some unusual quirks, such as a horn ring bearing the ‘Ford Falcon’ logo design below a trim ring emblazoned with ‘Ford Mustang.’ These qualities made sufficient difference to require classification of the 121,538 earlier ones as “1964 1/2” model-year Mustangs, a distinction that has actually sustained with perfectionists. Mustangs For Sale in Clayton DE are easy to find now with online shopping.

The 1973 OPEC oil embargo brought with it more rigid pollution laws and the desire for fuel-efficiency. This was also the very first time in automobile history that the Big 3 were needing to compete with imports. The new Mustang II was smaller than the first version but, due to the added equipment needed to satisfy new US emission and security policies, was much heavier than the first model. Efficiency was lowered and in the first year only 385,993 cars were offered.

Second generation Mustangs for sale in Clayton DE were available in between 1974 and 1978 and offered in a coupe and hatchback version. 1979 the Mustang was upgraded a 3rd time. This time it was based upon the bigger Fox platform and the interior was truly large enough for 4 individuals. The trunk was larger therefore was the engine bay. The body designs available included a coupe, hatchback and in 1983 a convertible. In 1979 the 3rd generation Mustang worked as an Indianapolis 500 rate car and Ford constructed 10,478 celebratory reproductions. The 3rd generation Mustangs were produced from 1979 to 1982.


text:
Saturday, December 18, 2010

Hearken to the Morrow

Would you let me sing a song?
the sky so big, so broad, so long,
that words even in practiced mouths
are not enough to call it out.
Such vast expanse of purest snow
and rain and wind and stars that glow
these masterworks of golden suns
but light, at daylight's ending runs

in shadows flowing, longer still,
they seem to run like silhouettes
from the figures which they represent
as if to escape their cold regrets.
Your head's dark shadow carries on,
Your feet stay planted, frozen still.
But as the dark makes way for dawn,
The shadow remembers, and forgets.

Your shadow runs and runs from pain.
the whole world all appears the same.
But sleep is rest and now escape
from all the shadow's empty shame.

Now as you wake to singing morn,
The light is coming, light is come.
And though you may not feel reborn,
One day older is yet that young.
And as you step from shadow's bed,
you find your shadow crawling home,
though humbled, broken, parts lay dead,
a greater truth, it is now shown.

Disunity cannot endure,
Unhappy now, but not unsure.
Truth is ground most ready
for the growth of happy cure.

I cry with you, as others do,
I cry for trust misunderstood.
I cry for the pain of sorrow's truth
Of things unwanted, though you should.

Empty sorrow, forced before its time,
made all worse that there has been no crime.
The night is dark, but where is sun,
shadows, yes, and joy will come.

No comments:

Post a Comment


text:
Crossbreeding Sensibilities

Attractor: Franco Torriani

What are the hopes and fears of becoming a hybrid in a de-modern scenario? How to understand neo-biological civilization and its anxieties? Can artists and creative practitioners substantially contribute, by cross researches and productions, to the treatment of major diseases and chronic pains? When it comes to uncertainty, a complex set of our thoughts and attitudes of doubt is based on an archaic and suspicion-led skepticism linked to “dubitare”, the vibration. Where is our hybrid frontier, if we have one? “Hybrids exist, they are among and with us…”(Bernard Andrieu). Therefore, let us critically reflect on neuromutation, our “immersion into the tissue of the world” (Polona Tratnik) where we all act as “mutalogues” (Louis Bec), interconnected with other biomasses, cultures, and artifacts, being immersed in a world of a dreadful crisis, looking for invariants in the middle of omnipresent mutation(s).

Biography: Franco Torriani (Turin 1942). Graduated in Economics at University of Turin, he studied the relations between economy and social environment. Independent consultant in external relations and communication strategy, he worked on setting up several cultural events and contributed to many publications. From the early 1970s, he has been studying the interactions between science, technology, old and new creative media. In recent years he has specially focused on the relationship between the forms and means of expression and Life Sciences. He is member of the Board of Pépinières européennes pour jeunes artistes (Saint-Cloud, France – Chairman from 1998 to 2007); member, from the late 1980s, of Ars Technica (Turin, Paris), founding member of ArsLab (Turin) and editorial consultant for

Liminal Lives: Life in the Age of Permanent Bio-transgression

Attractors: Maciej Ozog & Ryszard W. Kluszczynski

Development of life sciences and biotechnology entails the need for rethinking and redefining of several categories that till recently have seemed easily comprehensible, stable and obvious. In our proposal we want to focus on re-configurations of the category of life itself. Term liminal lives, taken from the book of Susan Merrill Squier, emphasizes openness, fluidity and instability of this category, and also its ambiguity. Liminal lives are boundary beings whose ontological status is not clear and is subject to continuous transgressions; they exceed and challenge dichotomies: organic – artificial, autonomous – dependent, human – non-human, living – inanimate, coherent – hybrid. Their existence, though often unnoticed outside the context of the laboratory, has a real impact on how we understand ourselves, and the world around us. Art has a particular significance and plays an important role in the public debate on the challenges arising from the existence of liminal forms of life. On the one hand, art can be regarded as cultural translation of procedures and scientific discourse, on the other provides critical analysis of cultural, social and political consequences of techno-scientific achievements. In our proposal, we would like to present and analyze various examples of the latter attitude within bioart.

Methodology: Goal of the project is to select a research group consisting of theorists and artists whose research and artistic practices allow for a multidimensional analysis of the very phenomenon of liminal lives as well as the socio-cultural context and consequences of the development of this branch of modern biology. This group would be selected in the “call for papers”. Work of the group would consist in the preparation of individual papers, but also we would like to initiate a platform for creative discussion and presentation of opinions and actions, pointing especially to the transgressive dimension of the liminal lives issue.

Ryszard W. Kluszczynski, PhD, new media art scholar, writer and curator. Professor of media and cultural studies, Lodz University, Poland, Head of Department of Media and Audiovisual Culture. He publishes widely about media and multimedia arts, cyberculture, and on the contemporary art theory. In the years 1990-2001 Kluszczynski was a Chief Curator of film, video and multimedia arts at the Centre for Contemporary Art – Ujazdowski Castle in Warsaw. Curator of International Biennale of Contemporary Art ‘Mediations’ in Poznan 2010. Artistic Director of Art & Science Meeting Project, CCA Gdansk 2011-2016.

Maciej Ozog, PhD, media theorist, researcher and musician. He works at the Electronic Media Department, Lodz University. His research focuses on history and theory of media arts, panoptic / postoptic surveillance culture, information society and posthumanism. He has published many articles on aesthetics of interactive art, history and theory of avant-garde film and video art, and experimental music. His book “Surveillance as Theme and Method of New Media Art” will be published in 2012.

(Semi-Living Steak by The Tissue Culture and Art Project)


text:
Updates from the mvyradio Bloggers

New on mvyradio: Ryan Adams

Well, this video is bizarre.  But the new Ryan Adams song sounds great, and his new album is getting great reviews.  Check out "Gimme Something Good."

And to see what else is brand new on the station, visit the playlist page.  Look to the right for what's been added this week, and scroll to the bottom for songs in current rotation.

Buy it on Amazon and support Friends of mvyradio.

Hear the song on Youtube.

mvyradio bloggers © 2009 - 2010
templates by ooruc.com


text:
Thursday, June 25, 2015

Obamacare Lives

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion in the 6-to-3 decision. The court’s three most conservative members — Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented.  From the New York Times.

  1. Undoubtedly, freedom will die because of this. An interesting side to this is that while conservatives will continue to bitch about Obama care, the bottom line is that the supremes have just taken this issue off the table for the next election. Republicans can continue to complain, but can now move away from pretending they will repeal it.

    Now that it's been upheld, hopefully they can fix it.

    1. Why fix something that is so successful?

    2. Zing! Be kind to your waiters and try the whipped tofu parfait. They need to fix it because we need to rethink the way care is delivered and manage costs better. Cutting provider salaries, which is going to happen, is not going to substantially lower the cost of medicine. The office I am doing my clinicals in has gotten very busy precisely because of Obama care.

      My preceptor, by nature of his personality, is VERY concerned about curtailing unnecessary costs. It's a shame that within my program, we did not have a class about this. instead of teaching us to practice with a Medical Home Model line of thinking, we instead wrote a bunch of bullshit papers comparing our system to systems around the world. Very time wasting.

    3. Why fix it? .... Cause it was designed to be fixed and was only a whistle-stop on the way to single payer.

      Now, having lived in the UK for almost ten years and having utilized a particular GP when I came here previously since 2000, I can say that having medical care free at the point of use is rather nice. I find myself in relatively good health so don’t need care that much. What I find quite disconcerting is that every single day on the news there is a story about a particular failing NHS trust, inadequate ambulance service, doctor shortages, nurse shortages, drugs not being available because of expense, extremely poor care for the elderly and always… always the complaint that the system doesn’t have enough money. What I see is a system of mediocre treatment that it crumbling under its own weight and it hasn’t even seen the costs of obesity and diabetes that are on the horizon… Of course you can buy private insurance, but if you are already paying the heavy taxes to afford the NHS, you will need to be relatively well off to get good medical care…. Kind of like public education vs private.
      All of the cost reductions, paperwork has been thrown back on GP’s. My GP retired early because of the way doctors were burdened with the cost functions of providing service… he said he could not be a good doctor and a bean counter as well and with the patience knowing full well that it would be him that would either authorize or deny service out of his budget, how could he possibly have a patients confidence.

    4. "how could he possibly have a patients confidence."

      maybe he could have their confidence if he kept them healthy?

    5. Spoken like a man with unlimited funds. In our world of “Dr. I saw this on the internet… I want some”, it is already difficult to manage the expectations of patients but when you place budget constraints directly on the doctor then patients will naturally wonder the motive for the denial of a test or a treatment particularly if the doctor actually has to prioritize treatments and make diagnostic choices that involve ‘wait and see’ because the funds need to be reserved for more acute situations. Besides... directly to your statement, sometimes no matter what resources you throw at someone’s health problem they just might get untreatably ill or even die.

      Think airplane crash when you only have a couple of ambulances… only with money constraints… The wells in none of these European utopias are unlimited and they are finding that out quite clearly in recent years. Frankly, the NHS is already spending a full 10% of its budget on diabetes related illness…. Wait until they start treating all of the fat, sedentary cradle to grave kids… End of life care may be provided sooner that one might expect…

    6. Tell me the constitutionally and philosophically acceptable solution TS. Sometimes the patients my preceptor sees do get pissed when he won't give them a test they want or when he won't bill medicare for something he thinks the patient should pay for. I get that these cradle to grave kids, (a phrase conservatives are intoxicated by for its fabulousness) are going to bankrupt the world and will eventually die and make heaven miserable too because they have been told that God loves them unconditionally, just like their parents and their Robin Hood governments.

      How do you instill the personal responsibility that conservatives believe will save everything? I don't say this next to be dramatic, but unless you are willing to simply let people die who can't afford health insurance, you aren't going to get personal responsibility. It's interesting you mention that example of the internet because to me, that represents the dominant influence of treating healthcare like just another commodity to consume. whether a government coddles people or not, I tend to believe that anyone who spends any time in our modern world versus some despot country will by default begin to think they deserve some minimum standard of living. How do you cope with this? Raise children in a shed with no modern gadgets at all? Tell them to their face everyday they deserve nothing?

      Again, I get it. EVERY government program will grow like an obese spoiled child until it consumes every last speck of wealth ever created. With that in mind, what is the solution?

    7. The left like paint anyone who does not agree with their version of a solution as not only wrong but labelled as a hater, heartless, racist… you know the list. Actually people from a broad spectrum of society want to see the healthcare problem solved as only a truly heartless person has no compassion for people who are ill, homeless or poor because of circumstances beyond their control or ability. The ‘solution’ is actually addressing the facts as they are and the historical missteps that created them. The left appear to be similarly disposed to the mental efforts required to address the causes as they are the potential consequences. OPM is the solution to everything.

      I have continually made two points about the solution to the healthcare problems.

      The first looking backwards at history and the governmental policies that shaped the problem we have today; The second, looking forward to the consequences of the kinds of solutions that have been implemented in other programs and where human nature (and bleeding hearts) will inevitably take us.

      The first of course is how we got insurance as part of our medical delivery system in the first place? Who opened that can of worms and why? From there is a stack of government regulation and manipulations that have distorted every aspect of medicine today… can you name any and how removing or rewriting them might help the situation?

      The second is what happens when you place ‘healthcare’ as a right and stand it next to things like the right to breathe. The left, obsessed with the belief the OMP can fix any ailment an affluent society might have, never takes into account human nature and the effects of their actions on it. We don’t want to talk about the fact that healthcare as a right is open ended, ultimately undeliverable, damaging to the development of medical understanding and harmful to the concept of a free people.

      I would have had some respect for the process IF those who hold healthcare as a right would have put limits… any limits … on what is considered healthcare.

      What is too expensive? At what point do we say that the cost is too great to save a particular individuals life… or quality of life be they 10 or 80. Those decisions will be made and it will be done by committee regardless the name you attach to it. By refusing to acknowledge the term ‘death panel’ you refuse to acknowledge the very real limitations to healthcare as a ‘right’).

      What demands a certain amount of personal responsibility and their fore personal financial hardship? Should we save the life of a motorcyclist that refuses to wear a helmet, yes… should he/she have to pay a handy price up to and including bankruptcy for the indiscretion?

      Where does our quest to reverse nature’s shortcomings in an otherwise healthy individual end? Expensive fertility treatments, egg and sperm storage, ever more elaborate treatments while, at the same time we are also paying to kill ‘unwanted’ children… how about a natural disfigurement or a big nose that ‘harms’ a person’s quality of life…. Or their physiological wellbeing? And of course our ‘responsibility’ to insure that a woman can be as sexually active as she chooses without inhibiting her other life choices courtesy of others who people who pay for it.

      This slippery slope also leads us down the path of ever tighter social control… what you can do, what you cannot, what you will eat and what you won’t, what is deemed harmful to mental health and what isn’t… because each and every one of these life choices become the cost and responsibility of someone else... and that is a shift of responsibility that is extremely harmful to a productive society.

    8. Can't say much now as I am about the head out the door for clinical. However, this may surprise you TS, but I do not believe healthcare is a right. Second, I do believe there needs to be limits on how much health care a person can consume as part of insurance. As an ICU nurse and now hospice nurse, I can give as many examples as you want to hear about how much waste I have seen. The death panel term is bullshit and is meant to scare people. I think there should be a baseline plan for everyone, and if people want something above that, then let the private insurance market deal with that.

      I don't believe, as you might assume, in full government control of healthcare. That said, private insurance is nothing more than cherry picking of relatively healthier people while leaving me as a tax payer on the hook for the uninsured and the comparatively sicker patients. Insurance is a risk pool, and I feel we would be far better served by a basic plan that allows for people to personally pay for as much private insurance as they want.

      As for you being heartless, read what you want into my comments. I don't believe conservatives are heartless. That said, their persistence to perpetually look backwards and say Y problem today is because of X government intervetion and therefore we need to pound that Fn nail over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and so on. Regardless of what bad decisions have been made in the past, the problem exists TODAY. the problems that exist in today's world are the ones I want to solve.

  2. I agree. This was a tremendous favor to the republicans, as they can't be held responsible for the millions who would have lost their health insurance.

    1. Those people don't vote Republican Mick.

    2. Are you saying that only people who vote Democrat got insurance? Are you really making that ridiculous claim? Are you really that clueless? Republicans have feared, correctly so, that many of their constituents would get insurance and demand it be kept.

  3. I am saying Max that most people without insurance were lower income. Most lower income people vote Democrat when the do vote.

    1. I cut my political teeth during the Nixon administration when the currency was debased. The debasing of the meaning of words by SCOTUS and our political apparatus is a logical extension.

      Good luck Max at working within what will increasingly become an Orwell ian healthcare situation. HRC will be the perfect custodian of this national nightmare.

      1773-2009 Underground Freedom Fighter

    2. She's great at parsing and lieing. You might give her a second look.

  4. TS, I read that health insurance was invented by Baylor University during the depression. Their fine hospital was a collection of mostly empty beds because people couldn't afford medical care. They offered a plan whereby people could pay them a monthly fee, I believe it was 50 cents, and they would be guaranteed paid medical care. This proved very popular and eventually morphed into the Blue Cross system.

    1. You will have also noted that the developers of these early plans were the hospitals themselves, generally to support their own staff and educational institutions the were attached to and operated strictly as non-profit mechanisms to allow their patents to pay their medical bills. That is the fees collected were no more than the cost of service. Almost all plans at the time were major medical and were given non-profit status. Blue Cross itself didn’t become an actual company until 1960.

      While insurance has existed since the 1850s as ‘accidental’ coverage the injection of insurance into the workplace was as a direct result of government wage controls in the 1940’s and a bit of activist support for unions by adding insurance as a form of wage in the 1950’s. Were it not for the wage controls business would still be negotiating strictly in wages and without the widespread use of insurance as a union wage tactic we wouldn’t have insurance being used to pay doctors for a runny nose….

    2. " Were it not for the wage controls business would still be negotiating strictly in wages and without the widespread use of insurance as a union wage tactic we wouldn’t have insurance being used to pay doctors for a runny nose…."

      And if Eve ignored the snake, we would all still be living in the Garden of Eden.

    3. Insurance morphed from pre-pay plans into it's current big business status when the companies began the use of statistics, through professional actuaries. As long as the statistics are valid, the company is guaranteed of a profit. The magic of mathematics.

    4. Mick... that still says nothing as to why it became the absolute middleman in the delivery of healthcare... The answer for that lies at the feet of government interference where it had no business. The war effort would have continued full steam ahead because of a pride filled nation and wages would have taken care of themselves. Those statistical outcomes were in play with accidental death insurance long before… it wasn’t a new invention just the acknowledgement of the existence of a lot of information provided by mountains of private medical research and the results attributed to them.

      Mike... so… who is the snake … and why do we keep biting the apple and expect a different result.

    5. My comment was really just a snark that this perpetual need to look backward in order to cherry pick information to create a context is a bit silly. I'm not being a wise as here TS, but i really respect your knowledge of history and even your scholarship of the constitution. Yet, I read your posts and come to the same frustrating conclusions that I did when I read Rand, Hayek and some others in the conservative world. I just don't believe it's thats simple, and the context that is drawn nearly always leaves out what conservatives don't want to discuss, which is the confounding aspect of human nature. Put another way, you make masterful arguments to make your points, and as long as we stay rigidly on point and don't ask questions, the premises you reach are well supported.

      A premise that many conservatives float, whether stated directly or not, is that all slacking, cheating and desire to seek comfort without working hard has a governmental cause as it's fountainhead. Here, the premise is that because of government interference, unions were allowed to create widespread of insurance, and subsequently, people now use insurance for a runny nose. No mention there of individual responsibility. My wife an I don't run to the doctor every time we get a cold, and millions of other people don't either. And as you know, I am a communist. The bottom line for me is that no matter what station in life a person resides, they will seek to have as much comfort and happiness as possible for as little effort expended. Pretty much like how the free market works, only exchange profit for comfort.

      People are bombarded every day with messages on TV to try this or that drug and subconsciously, they are bombarded with a message that if they feel bad from time to time, they deserve to feel better and there is a pill or treatment for that. IMO, the principle of making a buck is just as causative here as any historical+governmental influence = every thing bad arguments you can come up with. I don't deny your arguments have merit, because I think they do. but, they are far from airtight and are selectively void of the introduction of any thinking that is "gray" in nature.

      I believe insurance companies are like any other business. They grew, developed a market plan, and used their growing size to protect their interests. We can, of course, cleverly say, "Well, none of this would exist today if the government didn't intervene in 1850". It's moot to me and it's sort of like some arguments people used to make on Market Watch wherein it was suggested that the credit reinvestment act of 1970 caused the housing fiasco in 2008 because the CRA forced banks to actually invest in the communities they made money on. Real life is sloppy and no amount of rules is going to change that, which is message lost of farther left and farther right types.

    6. You give my imagination way to much credit Mike. While it may seem like cherry picking to you the foul ability of government provides rich pickings for anyone who wants to connect the dots. My wife once looked over my shoulder while I was reading something on here that appeared to be quite removed from the topic of ‘American Politics’ and was puzzled as to why it was even being discussed. I told her why and just what the link was. The fact is, relatively few of our actions are devoid of government oversight or outright control.

      The government is full of contradiction and conflict of interest. How can a government that supposedly speaks of equal justice under the law be allowed to operate when it (and its career politician apparatus) clearly has a vested interest in so many outcomes… is the government ‘of the people’ supposed to have any ‘vested interests’ other than the security of the population?

      I look to the constitution because it IS (or at least is supposed to be) the basic law from which all other law is created. Without a firm set of rules it is difficult to understand the game. It comes with a set of instructions as to how to change it, yet because interested parties can’t quite muster the numbers required, the LAW is ignored for something that will undoubtedly cause conflict in the future.
      I look to the past because it is the only place we can learn from. I don’t live in the past and know, as the stock advisory disclaimer states: Past performance in no indication of future profits. Of course the problems of today are not identical, but to disregard the failures of the past and the reasons for them is to invite the same mistakes again. Have you ever sat down and studied many of the really hideous Supreme Court decisions and the laws that they supported? That alone should scare you back into the arms of the constitution.

      With respect to what we are talking about, I don’t know how many times wage and price controls have been implemented by government only to created serious long term consequences… sense when did government have a right to dictate GDP?… we didn’t institute the government to be the chairman of the board… and if we did, I think it is high time we tell them…. YOU’RE FIRED!

      What I keep saying over and over again with example after example is that our deviation from the constitution and our willingness to turn over our personal responsibility and by default, liberty to the government; particularly the federal government has done us little favor, when, in all likelihood, had the problem been left either with society at large or with REAL free market interaction, things would have turned as they should.

      I realize as did Ron Paul that while most government agencies are at best less than useful and at worst harmful to a productive society, you cannot just eliminated them over night…. But you can damn well curtail their operations so that they do less harm. The hard part isn’t taking the power away from government the truly hard bit is getting people to step up and accept responsibility for their own life and future.

      As far as conservatives thinking that is that all slacking, cheating and desire to seek comfort without working hard has a governmental cause as it's fountainhead, if you think about it, liberals do too… they are just too tied to the idea of government solution to connect the dots… which is why I say that Occupy Wall Street, though rather mixed in their message, was on point…. They were just pointing in the wrong direction. And yes, there are areas of grey… there will always be some sort of problem that needs addressing but it is impossible when you have the great… well-funded enabler sitting right in the middle of everything.

    7. "The government is full of contradiction and conflict of interest."

      This, to me, sums up the entirety of life. This is not a refutation of your post TS, but it's not love of central planning and desire to have someone take responsibility for my life that drives my thinking. I can connect the dots as well as you, and for a long time I did, and that works great, like I said, as long as we limit the variables. People at times will do the stupidest shit, only to turn right around and do something that floors you for it's genius. My frustration with the constitution will always be that, in the words of Scalia, it is a dead document.

    8. Don't go their Mike.... context is everything and you either just validated everything I have said or you are twisting the meaning of his words much like central government types have done to the constitution for decades.

    9. Admittedly, I have validated your point, or at the least, I can't refute it in a context you agree with. I'm genuinely not a big government type, and I'm not in favor of trying to fix everything with a social program. On some level, I think that my frustrations are really not that different from what conservatives are frustrated about. What is different though, is indeed context. I can't refute much of what you say because I don't share your context of viewing the entire world through constitutionally colored glasses. Conservatives acknowledge there is gray in the world, but I tend to think most of them believe there would be a lot less of it if people simply followed the rules. Liberals like myself acknowledge that personal responsibility IS a big issue, but also maintain a context that while rules are great, a vast majority of people typically get ahead because they judiciously break them.

      I've made the point before that in the situation of the housing blowup, the market didn't need to create ninja loans, and the big banks didn't have to package all these bullshit loans into securities that they duped rating agencies into slapping a AAA rating on. By the same token, the not so bright people who took these loans also didn't need to convince themselves they could buy a 500k house though they only made 50k a year. I believe regulation can and DID prevent this from happening in the past. To me, this one scenario presents the context that I view the world in, which is that no matter what the rules are, people will find a way to skirt them to get themselves ahead without giving a damn about how it will affect others. Which brings my to the dead document point.

      Nothing stays the same forever. the thinking of the day that created the constitution was brilliant, though clearly not inclusive of people who weren't white men. Social thinking moved on that and eventually, the document was amended to correct some glaring mistakes. There is a process for doing this the right way that thankfully is very difficult to accomplish. Still, my personal opinion is that I have frequently seen times where I felt a majority opinion existed that could not be expressed in legislation because of a gridlocked, gerrymandered government. Further, I don't believe we should continually amend the constitution. I believe we could accomplish our needs without doing so. Therein, however, lies the rub. I don't think I'm twisting Scalia's words. In his mind, which is very religious and conservative, every answer we could possibly need was decided a long time ago and therefore, we should just concede that and stop trying to skirt the constitution in order to address whatever we feel is a social problem. Recapping, I see your point, and you are correct. You will always have a winning argument against my posts because I believe that at the end of the day, your view is concrete, the constitution allows something, or it doesn't. If it doesn't allow for something, it's really not worth discussing because discussing it will only allow for emotion to get involved which leads to creating bad laws that aren't constitutional.

    10. You are right Mike, things do change. The meaning of ‘Men’ , as in ‘all men are created equal’ has changed in the context of who is covered under the umbrella of the constitution. As society changed and the definition of men broadened so did the meaning of men. Of course an amendment was needed to strike the effects of the 3/5th compromise but amendments like the ERA pushed by NOW is redundant and unnecessary. What is needed and what has been very lacking by government is actually treating ‘all men’ equal.

      If we wanted, for instance, to change the depth and breadth of ‘freedom of the press’ which is quite broad and definitive in its nature… is a specific amendment restating that provision’s boundaries. If you don’t have enough votes to change the constitution then you don’t have the right to create laws to circumvent it.

      The deal is… you ether believe in the rule of law… or you believe in the rule of man. There is no fuzzy line between the two and the more legislatures and lawyers blur that line, the more you always move in the direction of the rule of man. I don’t recall a nation in history run by the rule of man that ever worked out in favour of the common man. That goes for the populous knee jerks of direct democracies as well…

      We of course will agree to disagree and the world will carry on… I just wouldn’t wish to be one of my grandchildren… I think that reincarnation into our near (200 years) would be 1) hell on earth and 2) a death sentence for anyone not of the aristocracy and their chosen friends.

      P.S. Emotion is exactly what the agreement to rule of law was meant to keep in check


text:
Monday, February 19, 2018
Text Size

Site Search powered by Ajax

HR McMaster visits Afghanistan after MOAB attack

McMaster discusses joint efforts to combat "terrorist groups", just days after US use of GBU-43 bomb in country's east.

McMaster's Kabul visit
  • Visit follows Pentagon's use of 'mother of all bombs' in Nangarhar
  • US national security adviserl discusses security with Afghan president
  • Ex-Afghan president Hamid Karzai criticises US use of GBU-43 bomb

US President Donald Trump's national security adviser has met Afghan officials in Kabul, just days after the US dropped the "mother of all bombs" on suspected ISIL fighters in the country's east.

General HR McMaster, the first high-level US official to visit the country since Trump took office, held meetings on Sunday with President Ashraf Ghani; Hanif Atmar, national security adviser; and other high-level Afghan officials to discuss "joint efforts to counter terrorist groups", according to a statement released by the US embassy.

For its part, the Afghan presidential palace said via Twitter that the two sides discussed "bilateral ties, security, counter-terrorism and development".

Speaking to ABC News from Afghanistan, McMaster said the Trump administration is weighing diplomatic, military and economic responses to the Taliban and ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group, in Afghanistan.

"Our enemy sensed that and they have redoubled their efforts and it's time for us, alongside our Afghan partners, to respond," said McMaster.

The visit comes just days after the US dropped the GBU-43 Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb, one of the largest conventional weapons ever used in combat nicknamed the "mother of all bombs", during an operation against ISIL, also known as ISIS, in the Achin district of Nangarhar province.

While military officials say the strike was based solely on tactical needs, it has led to speculation that Trump's defence advisers are planning to escalate the war against armed anti-government groups in Afghanistan.

In a sharp warning to the US administration, Hamid Karzai, the former Afghan president, has called the bombing an "inhuman act, a brutal act against an innocent country".

"A bomb of that magnitude has consequences for the environment, for our lives, for our plants, for our water, for our soil - this is poison," he said.

The GBU-43 is estimated to have killed nearly 100 fighters and no civilians, according to Afghan officials, although this has not been independently verified.

General John Nicholson, the US forces commander in Afghanistan, has requested thousands of additional troops to "break the stalemate," between the Afghan forces and the Taliban, on top of the estimated 8,000 US troops already stationed in country.

Trump, who took office on January 20, had asked US officials, including some in the treasury and commerce departments, to work together to integrate the various political, diplomatic, military and economic responses available, McMaster said.

"We'll give [President Trump] those options. And we'll be prepared to execute whatever decision he makes," he said.

McMaster praised anti-corruption efforts and assured Ghani that the US would continue to support and cooperate with Afghanistan on a number of issues.

Ghani told McMaster that "terrorism is a serious issue for the security of the world and the region" and if serious steps are not taken it would affect "generations" of people, according to the palace.

Illicit drugs and corruption also top the list of threats to Afghanistan's security, Ghani told the visiting officials.

The Afghan government refers to both the Taliban and ISIL as "terrorists".

Afghan forces have struggled to contain Taliban fighters since most international troops were withdrawn in 2014, leaving them to fight largely alone.

At the peak in 2011, the US had more than 100,000 troops stationed in Afghanistan.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe via RSS or Email:

Kasur rapist-murderer sentenced to ...

Read More

KP Sharma Oli appointed Nepal's new...

Read More

Civilian victims of Afghan war exce...

Read More

Pakistan seizes charities linked to...

Read More

UN: Rohingya still not allowed to r...

Read More

Taliban infiltrator kills 16 Afghan...

Read More

Nearly 2,000 have been sent away since 2013 because the government says they lied on asylum application forms.

Read More

Thanks to all of our supporters for your generosity and your encouragement of an independent press!

Enter Amount:

Login reminder Forgot login?

Subscribe to MWC News Alert

Email Address

Subscribe in a reader Facebok page Twitter page

Week in Pictures

From snowfall to sunshine

Palestinians hold 'day of rage'


text:
 Speak out to end gender abuse - The Nation Online

Speak out to end gender abuse

The woman, we have christened Mercy Mkonda to conceal her identity for fear of a violent backlash from her husband, regrets marrying him.

Once, the 37-year-old lived happily with her husband, but she reckons there have been fewer smiles than sorrows lately.

“The only time we share jokes is when he seeks conjugal rights. Otherwise, every time he faults, insults and beats me up for no apparent reason. He usually threatens that I will lose my life if I report the beatings to anyone,” she says.

The mother-of-two, from Manje slum in Blantyre, married in 2007.

An activist speaks against continued violence against women at a march last week

She narrates: “The joyful life ended January. Everything in our marriage turned upside down when my husband lost his job as a shopkeeper in Limbe.

“When he was sacked, he started taking a lot of alcohol and behaving strangely. At times, he spent nights at drinking joints not far from home.”

Fast forward to August 7, a sunny Monday in the populous settlement. Around 8pm, the woman nearly lost her life at the hands of her husband who reportedly beat her with a metal rod.

“That day, he gave me K200 to buy vegetables.  When he returned from his drinking escapades around 6pm, he found nothing on the table and he dressed me down publicly. He later poured on me boiling water meant for preparing nsima and hit me heavily with the iron bar.  He chased me out of the house,” she recounts.

Pandemic problem

Mercy fears more terror could have followed had her children not cried for help.

Her neighbours have been asking her to report these acts of domestic violence to police, but she feels doing so will put her marriage and life in danger.

Violence against women constitutes a violation of human rights.

According to the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the phenomenon, often sanitised as a family affair, is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women.

In 2006, the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said gender-based violence (GBV) had become “a problem of pandemic proportions”.

According to the global body, one in every three women worldwide has been beaten, coerced into sex or abused in their life-time.

The perpetrator is usually an intimate partner or someone they know.

Last year, Malawi Police Service (MPS) disclosed that almost l0 745 cases of GBV and domestic violence had been reported in the country’s police posts in just six months—from January to June.

National police spokesperson James Kadadzera says the number of cases involving emotional violence was slightly over 7 200 and half of them happened in the Southern Region.

Government has ratified numerous international agreements to end GBV, including the African Union’s Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw).

The treaties oblige government to show commitment towards safeguarding women from violent acts.

Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare spokesperson Lucy Bandazi says government is collaborating with traditional leaders, faith-based organisations, the civil society and other stakeholders to prevent, reduce and eliminate GBV.

However, gender activists say efforts to combat gender crimes are usually slow and scanty.

The country waited until Dowa-based man, Herbert Mankhwala, chopped the hands of his wife Marietta Samuel, to dust off and pass the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act in 2006.

After the law was enacted, the country soon discovered that it had some operational challenges which prevented effective implementation. It is currently under review.

In 2013, Parliament passed the Gender Equality Act which further outlaws GBV in and outside homes.

Since 1991, the annual l6 Days of Activism offer everyone a time to reflect on the gains achieved, raise awareness and redouble efforts to eliminate abuse of women’s rights.

This year’s theme—Leave No One Behind: End Violence against Women and Children—calls for greater strides to create a safer world for all.

Violence-free world

NGO-Gender Coordination Network chairperson Emma Kaliya says although the country seems to be making progress, gender-related violence continues to occur at an increasing rate.

“Such incidences offer a clear indication that there is need for increased awareness and reporting   to sustain the campaign until we achieve a violence-free Malawian society,” she says.

Mercy’s scenario is just one known case, but many go unreported due to an entrenched culture of silence and women’s dependence on men. n

Share This Post


text:
Southwestern Ontario-Any new tracks in 2018?

no rules!

Moderators: bigwave, AirMail, pillow

Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:38 am
Location: Woodstock,Ontario

Southwestern Ontario-Any new tracks in 2018?

Postby pinned » Thu Feb 08, 2018 3:28 pm

I have been involved in southwestern Ontario moto since about mid 82. (You know Bigwave). We have seen a lot of great facilities come and go unfortunately. Big Bend Tillsonburg, Copetown,Bill,s Hills, Auburn Hills(still really bums me out) Mono Centre,Hully Gully, I,m sure I missed a few there. I,m excited there is new sanctioning blood with years of professional experience giving it a go in 2018. Right to the point here- we all need some of this to return to the schedule or similar facilities where you really enjoy a weekend of sweet sweet moto. Please tell me there is something new happening in this regard. I can,t be the only racer tired and unimpressed of the few repetitively used tracks in the neighbourhood. Spazz
Airtime Al vet,pro

Return to “motoRcross chat:”

Who is online

Registered users: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot]


text:
.NZ Unavailability Notice: May 21, 2016

The .NZ Registry has announced the following downtime:

Maintenance Details

Date: Saturday, 21st May 2016
Time: 07:00 PM - 09:00 PM (1900 hrs - 2100 hrs) GMT/UTC
Duration: 2 Hours

During the above maintenance window, you would not be able to Register, Renew, Transfer, Manage .NZ domain names with PeaceNic.

This outage shall have no impact on the resolution/working of your already registered domain names. Please feel free to get in touch with our Support Team at http://www.PeaceNic.info, in case of any queries/doubts.


text:
Use the link below to make contact with us at my5essentials.com. We do get a ton a emails so we can’t always reply right away.

With that said, we try to “personally” respond to all business-related emails within 24 hours.

Thanks in advance for your patience and have a rockin’ day!

Dr Matthew Herba

drmatt headshot 2.4

Contact us Here


text:
Monday, December 20, 2010

post 47

goddamn i love the vagabond adventures

"I asked if it is uncomfortable to sleep with their hair caked in clay. Once translated, they all groaned in agreement in just the same way a group of girls in a Glasgow tanning salon might have done if I'd asked about leg waxing."

No comments:


text:
Thursday, 5 February 2009

The pictures for this layout were taken the first time Vicki and I went out for the day, it was vicki's 26th Birthday (or her 2nd 25th Birthday as Vic calls it LOL). we met her friend Becky and her daughter Abigail. Such cute pictures.
I loved using this bittersweet paper and elements, yeah I know more BG but it is my fav. LOL
I am going to prepare myself for tomorrows scrap fest, the UKscrappers cyber crop, I am looking forward to seeing what classes they have instore for us.
Thanks for looking.
Have a scrappy day. Jay xx

Hannah - Mary P said...

This is a really lovely LO. I particularly like the backing paper and the way you've framed the pictures. Great work!

Tracey said...

Awww this is sooo cute Jay

Catherine said...

A fantastic layout. I love the way you have placed the pictues in the heart.

Sandie Grisé said...

The color and dimension are great! Lovely worK

Julia Dunnit said...

Beautiful. All that and BG too, just great.

Claireliz said...

love this LO


text:
(302) 918-7663

Free Shipping Over $34

  • Johnson and Johnson

    For some reason, Johnson and Johnson still exists.  Not only does it exist, but new mothers everywhere flock to purchase their products.

    Did you know that in the last three months, Johnson and Johnson has been ordered to pay out over $120 million dollars in two legal cases linking their products to cancer? Read more Here.

    Both of these cases were in relation to the talcum-based Johnson’s baby powder and ‘Shower to Shower’ products.

    Continue reading

1 Item(s)