text:
The Final Hiding Place

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

Chapter 27 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: The Final Hiding Place← Chapter 26 | Chapter 28 →

Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

With no way to steer the Dragon, Harry, Hermione, and Ron can merely hang on, hoping for an opportunity to land safely. Fortunately, the beast seems unaware they are aboard. They tightly clutch the Dragon's scales, but if it banks or rolls over, they will fall off. The Dragon continues flying north, seemingly knowing where it is headed, despite being half-blind. Harry wonders if Voldemort has been informed yet that the Lestrange vault was breached. When he is, Voldemort will know Harry is hunting his Horcruxes and may have located others.

After some hours, the Dragon descends and glides over a small lake for a drink. The Trio jumps into the water, making it safely ashore through the reeds. Harry immediately casts protective charms, and they change into dry clothes and tend their burn wounds with Dittany. Although they have successfully retrieved Hufflepuff's Cup, Gryffindor's Sword is lost, rendering them powerless to destroy the remaining Horcruxes. As Ron grumbles over Griphook double-crossing them, pain suddenly streaks across Harry's forehead. He sees a Goblin cowering on his knees before Voldemort while wizards in a semi-circle look on. Voldemort screams in rage when the Goblin reports the Potter boy and his two accomplices took the Cup. Slashing the air with the Elder Wand, the Dark Lord slays the Goblin. Bellatrix, Lucius Malfoy, and the other wizards dart from the room in terror— anyone left behind is fatally felled. Voldemort wonders if Harry knows what the other Horcruxes are, and if he, Voldemort, can feel when they are being destroyed. Voldemort knows the Diary Horcrux was lost, but believes he was unable to detect it because he still lacked a body then. He suspects Dumbledore was involved; Dumbledore never trusted him. Voldemort is confident, however, that the Ring Horcrux remains intact—no one ever connected him to the Gaunts, after all. And the sea cave is too well protected for anyone to penetrate its security, therefore the Locket inside it must still be safe. He will go to Hogwarts to check on the one there; but Nagini must stay with him, must stay safe. But Dumbledore might have known his middle name and made that connection, he will check that one first. Then to the cave; that one is surely safe, still it must be checked. And finally, the one at Hogwarts, though it is also certainly safe, nobody else knows about that place.

Harry opens his eyes to Ron and Hermione peering down at him. Harry says Voldemort knows they are hunting his Horcruxes and that the last one is hidden somewhere at Hogwarts. Harry, though unaware what it is, knows Voldemort is heading there to check on it, but believes it is the safest one because Snape is there. Harry decides they will go to Hogsmeade, then slip into Hogwarts. Covering themselves with the Invisibility Cloak, they Apparate to the small village.

As the plot heads towards its conclusion, the Trio races to Hogwarts to find the last Horcrux, though they have no idea what it is and, having lost Gryffindor's Sword, are unable to destroy it and the others. As a reminder, Dumbledore told Harry that he believed there were six Horcruxes: the Diary, the Ring, and the Locket, all now destroyed; the Cup, probably Nagini, and one other. Harry now has evidence that the unknown one is hidden somewhere in Hogwarts, in a place that Voldemort believes no one else knows exists.

Meanwhile, Voldemort's supreme over-confidence in himself has begun to crumble after Harry and company successfully steal Hufflepuff's Cup from Gringotts Bank. Despite his elaborate planning and extensive security measures, clearly his Horcruxes are vulnerable to being identified or destroyed, though Voldemort believes only the Diary has been eliminated. Although Dumbledore was the only one he ever feared, Voldemort's belief that he is the superior wizard has deluded him into a false sense of invincibility, now that Dumbledore is dead. However, underlying fears and insecurities now appear to be eroding what little sanity Voldemort still retains, causing him to frequently fly into uncontrollable rages and randomly lash out, often fatally, at any follower unfortunate enough to be within striking distance. Voldemort may now realize that he underestimated Dumbledore's ability to uncover and foil his plans, as well as Harry's resourcefulness in identifying and locating the remaining Horcruxes.

To cope, Voldemort lulls himself into believing that he can "feel" when his Horcruxes are destroyed and takes comfort with the false notion that he was unable to detect the Riddle Diary Horcrux being destroyed only because he still lacked a body then. However, he remains ignorant that the Horcruxes within Gaunt's Ring and Slytherin's Locket no longer exist, or that Harry now knows what, or at least where, the remaining Horcruxes are. However, when Voldemort finally does realize this, it will place him on a deadly and irreversible collision course with Harry.

On an unrelated note, while the Trio are riding the Dragon, they are in danger of falling off and must wait until the beast descends before dismounting. Readers may wonder if they could simply have Disapparated to safety while astride it. While there may have been some magical obstacle, this either never occurred to them or, Apparition, requiring that the practitioner turn in place, may be too difficult in such a situation. That necessary "deliberation" step would be impossible while the Trio are holding on for dear life. However, it does appear in an earlier chapter that Mundungus Fletcher is able to Disapparate while similarly beset, though his criminal life has no doubt enabled him to make speedy escapes from difficult corners something he had to learn, and is therefore a skill the Trio lacks.

Study questions are meant to be left for each student to answer; please don't answer them here.

  1. Why did Griphook take Gryffindor's Sword?
  2. Why is Voldemort convinced he will "feel" if his other Horcruxes are destroyed? What proves or disproves this belief?
  3. What precautions did Voldemort take to protect his Horcruxes? Did they fail? If so, why? What else could he have done?
  4. Why does Voldemort believe that the Horcrux hidden at Hogwarts is the safest? Is he correct?
  5. Why does Voldemort believe that no one can ever connect him to the Gaunt family? How was this tie uncovered?

Further Study[edit]

  1. What is the place in Hogwarts that no one knows about? Why is Voldemort convinced that no one else knows about it? Who does know?
  2. Is Ron correct that Griphook "double crossed" the Trio by taking Gryffindor's Sword? Explain.
  3. Even if the Trio can find the last Horcrux, how can they destroy it and the other Horcruxes now that they no longer have Gryffindor's Sword?
  4. Why and how did Voldemort underestimate Dumbledore's abilities to uncover his plan? Does he now underestimate Harry? If so, how?
  5. Is it safe for the Trio to go to Hogsmeade and Hogwarts without first devising a plan? Are Death Eaters expecting the Trio?
  6. How well did the Trio's previous break-ins at the Ministry of Magic and Gringotts Bank work, and what did they learn from each incident that they can apply to sneaking into Hogwarts?

Greater Picture[edit]

Intermediate warning: Details follow which you may not wish to read at your current level.

Harry has identified nearly all the Horcruxes, but he is still unaware that he carries a soul fragment, that will act similarly to a Horcrux, within himself. Voldemort also fails to realize this, as it was accidentally created during his attempt to kill baby Harry with the Killing curse that rebounded and struck Voldemort instead. The murder attempt sheared off yet another fragment from Voldemort's soul, and because Voldemort's own soul had been ripped from his body, the soul shard instead attached to Harry. Voldemort's snake, Nagini, is also a Horcrux, as Dumbledore suspected; this is never explicitly stated, but it is certainly implied by Voldemort's decision to keep the snake close at hand and protected (as we will shortly see) where Voldemort can defend her.

The place at Hogwarts that Voldemort believes only he has discovered is the Room of Requirement, which, of course, is known to Harry and the many Dumbledore's Army members. This is yet another example of Voldemort's supreme over-confidence; having found the Room of Requirement, likely by accident, and possibly while pacing the halls looking for a place to hide some Dark experiment, Voldemort assumes he is the only wizard smart enough to have discovered it. He seems to retain this view despite the overwhelming evidence of a millennium's accumulated junk in the room when he first entered it, though perhaps he assumed the room had lain forgotten for centuries, or else that the accumulated detritus had somehow migrated there by an automatic process of the castle. Also, after being instructed by Voldemort on how to locate and enter this room, it would certainly seem that Draco should have realized that it was the Room of Requirement, and that he would have mentioned something to Voldemort about Dumbledore's Army once meeting there, and that Dolores Umbridge's Inquisitorial Squad, of which Draco was a member, had raided it. Draco may have realized this, but, fearing for his and his family's lives, obediently listened to Voldemort's instructions in silence, or he may have been unaware that Voldemort believed he was the only person who knew the room existed.Draco may also have subconsciously been hoping that his secret activities in the room would be discovered, thus preventing Draco from having to carry out Voldemort's plan to murder Dumbledore.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Ademption by satisfaction.

Ademption, or ademption by extinction, is a common law doctrine used in the law of wills to determine what happens when property bequeathed under a will is no longer in the testator's estate at the time of the testator's death.[1] For a devise (bequest) of a specific item of property (a specific gift), such property is considered adeemed, and the gift fails. For example, if a will bequeathed the testator's car to a specific beneficiary, but the testator owned no car at the time of his or her death, the gift would be adeemed and the aforementioned beneficiary would receive no gift at all.

General bequests or general gifts - gifts of cash amounts - are never adeemed. If the cash in the testator's estate is not sufficient to satisfy the gift, then other assets in the residuary estate will need to be sold to raise the necessary cash.

Some property lies in a "gray" area, in which the testator's specific intent must be determined. For example, where the testator bequeathes "500 shares of stock" in a company, this may be read as a general bequest (that the estate should purchase and convey the particular stocks to the beneficiary), or it may be read as a specific bequest, particularly if the testator used a possessive ("my 500 shares"). Such a gift is deemed to be a demonstrative gift. Such demonstrative gifts are deemed to be a hybrid of both specific and general gifts. If one were to bequeath "500 shares of stock," most states would deem that to be a demonstrative gift. The resultant gift to the heir receiving "500 shares," would be the date of death value of 500 shares of that particular stock.

Ademption may be waived if the property leaves the estate after the testator has been declared incompetent. Furthermore, in some cases the beneficiary will be entitled to the proceeds from the sale of property, or to the insurance payout for property that is lost or destroyed.

To avoid confusion as to what may or may not be adeemed, sometimes the phrase "if owned by me at my death" is placed into the articles of a will in which property is being bequeathed.

As for the sale of land under an executory contract, traditional case law agrees that ademption occurs upon the death of the testator and that the proceeds of sale, when the closing occurs, should not pass to the specific devisee of the property. However, the more modern view and the Uniform Probate Code, which has been adopted by some states, disagrees. These jurisdictions find that when property subject to specific devise is placed under contract of sale before the decedent's death, the proceeds of the sale will pass to the specific devisee.

Statutory variations[edit]

Many jurisdictions have ameliorated the effects of the common law doctrine by statute.

In Wisconsin, state law (854.08) attempts to abolish the common law doctrine of ademption by extinction, by, for example, awarding beneficiaries the balance of the purchase price of the item sold (subject to some limitations).

In Virginia, ademption occurs with respect to most forms of property, but if the property at issue is stock certificates, then the buyout of the issuer of the stock by another company, and the swapping of the stocks for a new issue by that company, will not adeem the gift of stock. Similarly, if the shares of stock that existed at the time the gift was made have split (for example, where the holder of 500 shares receives a reissue of 1,000 shares each having half the value of the original), then the beneficiary of that gift will be entitled to the number of shares that exist after the split.

  1. ^ Andersen, Roger; Bloom, Ira Mark (2012). Fundamentals of Trusts and Estates (4th ed.). LexisNexis. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-7698-4728-3.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-10-108.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-09
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Coherentism is the name given to a few philosophical theories in modern epistemology, the study of knowledge. There are two distinct types of coherentism. One is the coherence theory of truth; the other, the coherence theory of justification. Coherent truth is divided between an anthropological approach, which applies only to localized networks ('true within a given sample of a population, given our understanding of the population'), and an approach that is judged on the basis of universals, such as categorical sets. The anthropological approach belongs more properly to Correspondence theory, while the universal theories are a small development within Analytic philosophy. The coherentist theory of justification, which may be interpreted as relating to either theory of coherent truth, characterizes epistemic justification as a property of a belief only if that belief is a member of a coherent set. What distinguishes coherentism from other theories of justification is that the set is the primary bearer of justification.[1] As an epistemological theory, coherentism opposes dogmatic foundationalism and also infinitism through its insistence on definitions. It also attempts to offer a solution to the regress argument that plagues correspondence theory. In an epistemological sense, it is a theory about how belief can be proof-theoretically justified.[citation needed] Coherentism is a view about the structure and system of knowledge, or else justified belief. The coherentist's thesis is normally formulated in terms of a denial of its contrary, such as dogmatic foundationalism, which lacks a proof-theoretical framework, or correspondence theory, which lacks universalism. Counterfactualism, through a vocabulary developed by David K. Lewis and his Many worlds theory[2] although popular with philosophers, has had the effect of creating wide disbelief of universals amongst academics. Many difficulties lie in between hypothetical coherence and its effective actualization. Coherentism claims, at a minimum, that not all knowledge AND justified belief rest ultimately on a foundation of noninferential knowledge OR justified belief. To defend this view, they may argue that conjunctions (AND) are more specific, and thus in some way more defensible, than disjunctions (OR).

After responding to foundationalism, coherentists normally characterize their view positively by replacing the foundationalism metaphor of a building as a model for the structure of knowledge with different metaphors, such as the metaphor which models our knowledge on a ship at sea whose seaworthiness must be ensured by repairs to any part in need of it. This metaphor fulfills the purpose of explaining the problem of incoherence, which was first raised in mathematics, and which poses a risk to Moral objectivism. Coherentists typically hold that justification is solely a function of some relationship between beliefs, none of which are privileged beliefs in the way maintained by dogmatic foundationalists. In this way universal truths are in closer reach. Different varieties of coherentism are individuated by the specific relationship between a system of knowledge and justified belief, which can be interpreted in terms of Predicate logic, or ideally, Proof theory.

As a theory of truth, coherentism restricts true sentences to those that cohere with some specified set of sentences. Someone's belief is true if and only if it is coherent with all or most of his or her other (true) beliefs. The terminology of coherence is then said to correlate with truth via some concept of what qualifies all truth, such as absoluteness or universalism. These further terms become the qualifiers of what is meant by a truth statement, and the truth-statements then decide what is meant by a true belief. Usually, coherence is taken to imply something stronger than mere consistency. Statements that are comprehensive and meet the requirements of Occam's razor are usually to be preferred.[citation needed]

As an illustration of the principle, if people lived in a virtual reality universe, they could see birds in the trees that aren't really there. Not only are the birds not really there, but the trees aren't really there either. The people may or may not know that the bird and the tree are there, but in either case there is a coherence between the virtual world and the real one, expressed in terms of true beliefs within available experience. Coherence is a way of explicating truth values while circumventing beliefs that might be false in any way. More traditional critics from the Correspondence theory of truth have said that it cannot have contents and proofs at the same time, unless the contents are infinite, or unless the contents somehow exist in the form of proof. Such a form of 'existing proof' might seem ridiculous, but coherentists tend to think it is non-problematic. It therefore falls into a group of theories that are sometimes deemed excessively generalistic, what Gabor Forrai calls 'blob realism'.[3] This falls in line with the traditional debate between Empiricism and Rationalism.[citation needed]

Perhaps the best-known objection to a coherence theory of truth is Bertrand Russell's argument concerning contradiction. Russell maintained that a belief and its negation will each separately cohere with one complete set of all beliefs, thus making it internally inconsistent. For example, if someone holds a belief that is false, how might we determine that the belief refers to something real although it is false, or that the right belief is true, although it is not believed? Coherence must thus rely on a theory that is either non-contradictory or accepts some limited degree of incoherence, such as Relativism or Paradox. Additional necessary criteria for coherence may include universalism or absoluteness, suggesting that the theory remains anthropological or incoherent when it does not use the concept of infinity. A coherentist might argue that this scenario applies regardless of the theories being considered, and so, that coherentism must be the preferred truth-theoretical framework in avoiding relativism.

Coherentism was primarily outlined by Harold Henry Joachim in his book The Nature of Truth (1906). More recently, several contemporary epistemologists have significantly contributed to and defended the theory; primarily Laurence BonJour and Keith Lehrer.

The regress argument[edit]

Both coherence and foundationalist theories of justification attempt to answer the regress argument, a fundamental problem in epistemology that goes as follows. Given some statement P, it appears reasonable to ask for a justification for P. If that justification takes the form of another statement, P', one can again reasonably ask for a justification for P', and so forth. There are three possible outcomes to this questioning process:

  1. the series is infinitely long, with every statement justified by some other statement.
  2. the series forms a loop, so that each statement is ultimately involved in its own justification.
  3. the series terminates with certain statements having to be self-justifying.

An infinite series appears to offer little help, unless a way is found to model infinite sets. This might entail additional assumptions. Otherwise, it is impossible to check that each justification is satisfactory without making broad generalizations.

Coherentism is sometimes characterized as accepting that the series forms a loop, but although this would produce a form of coherentism, this is not what is generally meant by the term. Those who do accept the loop theory sometimes argue that the body of assumptions used to prove the theory is not what is at question in considering a loop of premises. This would serve the typical purpose of circumventing the reliance on a regression, but might be considered a form of logical foundationalism. But otherwise, it must be assumed that a loop begs the question, meaning that it does not provide sufficient logic to constitute proof.

Foundationalism's response[edit]

One might conclude that there must be some statements that, for some reason, do not need justification. This view is called foundationalism. For instance, rationalists such as Descartes and Spinoza developed axiomatic systems that relied on statements that were taken to be self-evident: "I think therefore I am" is the most famous example. Similarly, empiricists take observations as providing the foundation for the series.

Foundationalism relies on the claim that it is not necessary to ask for justification of certain propositions, or that they are self-justifying. Coherentists argue that this position is overly dogmatic. In other words, it does not provide real criteria for determining what is true and what is not. The Coherentist analytic project then involves a process of justifying what is meant by adequate criteria for non-dogmatic truth. As an offshoot of this, the theory insists that it is always reasonable to ask for a justification for any statement. For example, if someone makes an observational statement, such as "it is raining", the coherentist contends that it is reasonable to ask for example whether this mere statement refers to anything real. What is real about the statement, it turns out, is the extended pattern of relations that we call justifications. But, unlike the relativist, the coherentist argues that these associations may be objectively real. Coherentism contends that dogmatic foundationalism does not provide the whole set of pure relations which might result in actually understanding the objective context of phenomena, because dogmatic assumptions are not proof-theoretic, and therefore remain incoherent or relativistic. Coherentists therefore argue that the only way to reach proof-theoretical truth that is not relativistic is through coherency.

Coherentism's response[edit]

Coherentism denies the soundness of the regression argument. The regression argument makes the assumption that the justification for a proposition takes the form of another proposition: P" justifies P', which in turn justifies P. For coherentism, justification is a holistic process. Inferential justification for the belief that P is nonlinear. This means that P" and P' are not epistemically prior to P. Rather, the beliefs that P", P', and P work together to achieve epistemic justification. Catherine Elgin has expressed the same point differently, arguing that beliefs must be "mutually consistent, cotenable, and supportive. That is, the components must be reasonable in light of one another. Since both cotenability and supportiveness are matters of degree, coherence is too."[4] Usually the system of belief is taken to be the complete set of beliefs of the individual or group, that is, their theory of the world.

It is necessary for coherentism to explain in some detail what it means for a system to be coherent. At the least, coherence must include logical consistency. It also usually requires some degree of integration of the various components of the system. A system that contains more than one unrelated explanation of the same phenomenon is not as coherent as one that uses only one explanation, all other things being equal. Conversely, a theory that explains divergent phenomena using unrelated explanations is not as coherent as one that uses only one explanation for those divergent phenomena. These requirements are variations on Occams razor. The same points can be made more formally using Bayesian statistics. Finally, the greater the number of phenomena explained by the system, the greater its coherence.

Problems for coherentism[edit]

A problem coherentism has to face is the plurality objection. There is nothing within the definition of coherence which makes it impossible for two entirely different sets of beliefs to be internally coherent. Thus there might be several such sets. But if one supposes—in line with the principle of non-contradiction—that there can only be one complete set of truths, coherentism must therefore resolve internally that these systems are not contradictory, by establishing what is meant by truth. At this point, Coherence could be faulted for adopting its own variation of dogmatic foundationalism by arbitrarily selecting truth values. Coherentists must argue that their truth-values are not arbitrary for provable reasons.

A second objection also emerges, the finite problem: that arbitrary, ad hoc relativism could reduce statements of relatively insignificant value to non-entities during the process of establishing universalism or absoluteness. This might result in a totally flat truth-theoretic framework, or even arbitrary truth values. Coherentists generally solve this by adopting a metaphysical condition of universalism, sometimes leading to Materialism, or by arguing that Relativism is trivial.

However, Metaphysics poses another problem, the problem of the stowaway argument that might carry epistemological implications. However, a coherentist might say that if the truth conditions of the logic hold, then there will be no problem regardless of any additional conditions that happen to be true. Thus, the stress is on making the theory valid within the set, and also verifiable.

A number of philosophers have raised concerns over the link between intuitive notions of coherence that form the foundation of epistemic forms of coherentism and some formal results in Bayesian probability. This is an issue raised by Luc Bovens and Stephen Hartmann in the form of 'impossibility' results,[5] and by Erik J. Olsson.[6] Attempts have been made to construct a theoretical account of the coherentist intuition.[7]

See also[edit]

Epistemological theories[edit]

Theories of truth[edit]

  1. ^ Klein, P. D. (2007). Human Knowledge and the Infinite Progress of Reasoning. Philosophical Studies , 134 (1), 1-17.
  2. ^ Lewis, David K. Counterfactuals. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.
  3. ^ Forrai, G. Reference, Truth, and Conceptual Schemes. Synthese Library.
  4. ^ Elgin, Catherine Z. (2005.) "Non-foundationalist Epistemology: Holism, Coherence, and Tenability." In Matthias Steup and Ernest Sosa. (Eds.) Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 156 – 167.
  5. ^ Luc Bovens (2003), Bayesian epistemology, Oxford: Clarendon, ISBN 0-19-926975-0, OCLC 53393352, 0199269750
  6. ^ Erik J. Olsson (2005), Against coherence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-927999-3, 0199279993
  7. ^ "Why Does Coherence Appear Truth-Conducive?". Synthese. 157 (3): 361–372. 2007. doi:10.1007/s11229-006-9062-8. JSTOR 27653566.

External links[edit]


text:
Coronal plane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Coronal plane
Human anatomy planes.jpg
The main anatomical planes of the human body, including median (red), parasagittal (yellow), frontal or coronal plane (blue) and transverse or axial plane (green)
Latin plana coronalia
TA A01.2.00.001
FMA 12246
Anatomical terminology

A coronal plane (also known as the frontal plane) is any vertical plane that divides the body into ventral and dorsal (belly and back) sections.

It is one of the three main planes of the body used to describe the location of body parts in relation to each other.

The coronal plane is an example of a longitudinal plane, because it is perpendicular to the transverse plane. For a human, the mid-coronal plane would transect a standing body into two halves (front and back, or anterior and posterior) in an imaginary line that cuts through both shoulders.

Abduction and adduction are terms for movements of limbs relative to the coronal plane.

The sternal plane (planum sternale) is a coronal plane which transects the front of the sternum.[1]

The term is derived from Latin corona (“garland, crown”), from Ancient Greek κορώνη (korōnē, “garland, wreath”).

Additional images[edit]

See also[edit]

This article uses anatomical terminology; for an overview, see Anatomical terminology.

External links[edit]


text:
Darrent Williams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Darrent Williams
refer to caption
Williams in 2006
No. 27
Position: Cornerback
Personal information
Date of birth: (1982-09-27)September 27, 1982
Place of birth: Fort Worth, Texas
Date of death: January 1, 2007(2007-01-01) (aged 24)
Place of death: Denver, Colorado
Career information
High school: Fort Worth (TX) O. D. Wyatt
College: Oklahoma State
NFL Draft: 2005 / Round: 2 / Pick: 56
Career history
Career NFL statistics
Tackles: 139
Interceptions: 6
Touchdowns: 2
Player stats at NFL.com

Darrent Demarcus Williams (September 27, 1982 – January 1, 2007) was an American football player for the Denver Broncos of the National Football League. After attending high school in Fort Worth, Texas, Williams played football at Oklahoma State University. He was a second-round draft pick by the Broncos in 2005. Williams was killed in a drive-by shooting the day after he finished his second season with the Broncos.

High school[edit]

Born and raised in Fort Worth, Williams attended O. D. Wyatt High School, where he played cornerback and was also a punt returner. As a senior, he was named 7-4A Defensive Most Valuable Player after posting five interceptions that featured several long returns, including a best of 54 yards. As a punt returner, Williams averaged 30 yards per return with four touchdowns.

Williams received little recruiting attention during high school, receiving offers only from Texas Christian University, Louisiana Tech University and Oklahoma State University. Reportedly, he was the last player signed of the 2001 class, and was only signed after an OSU coach's wife urged her husband to evaluate his talent further, as she was his school counselor.[citation needed]

Williams played college football for Oklahoma State University. He played ten games his first year, becoming a starter during the second half of the season. In Williams' freshman year, he returned two interceptions for touchdowns against Baylor. During the postgame press-conference, it was revealed that he had actually predicted he would do this in a statement to then head coach, Les Miles. As a sophomore, Williams started all of the team's thirteen games, recording 53 tackles and three interceptions, while breaking up 13 passes.

During his junior year, Williams continued to start for the Cowboys. He posted 66 tackles and six interceptions (third in the Big 12 Conference). He also broke up 17 passes. His junior-year performance earned him first-team All-Big 12 Conference honors.

Williams' played in only seven games in his last year at Oklahoma State. He missed the last three games because of injury and was limited before that because of an arm injury. Still, Williams totaled 21 tackles (18 solo), three pass breakups, two forced fumbles and one fumble recovery, which he returned 53 yards. Williams finished his collegiate career tied for first place all-time in Division I college football in career interception returns for touchdowns. He had 11 career interceptions and scored 9 touchdowns on returns (5 interception returns, 3 punt returns and 1 blocked extra point return).

Professional career[edit]

2005 NFL Combine[edit]

Pre-draft measurables
Ht Wt 40-yd dash 10-yd split 20-yd split 20-ss 3-cone Vert Broad BP
5 ft 9 in 176 lb 4.30 s 1.50 s 2.56 s 3.96 s 6.97 s 39 in 10 ft 4 in 16 reps
All values from NFL Combine

Williams was selected by the Denver Broncos in the second round (56th overall) in the 2005 NFL Draft. He recorded his first career interception on November 13, 2005 versus the Oakland Raiders. The Raiders were driving to score, when quarterback Kerry Collins attempted a pass to wide receiver Jerry Porter. Williams jumped the route, intercepted the ball and took it 82 yards for the touchdown. The Broncos won the game, 31-17.

Williams established himself as the Broncos' starting cornerback, recording 58 tackles and two interceptions. He also led the Broncos in punt and kick returns. His nine starts at cornerback in 2005 were the most for a Broncos rookie at that position since Louis Wright started 11 games in 1975. An injury kept Williams out of the Broncos' lineup for the last three games of the season. Williams was recognized as a first-team All-Rookie selection by Pro Football Weekly and the Pro Football Writers Association.[1]

Williams played in 15 games during the 2006 season, recording 86 tackles (77 solo) and four interceptions (returning one for a touchdown), as well as serving as the team's primary punt returner. His last game was a season-ending home loss to the San Francisco 49ers. In that game, played mere hours before his death, Williams had three tackles and returned two punts for 50 yards before leaving the game with a shoulder injury late in the second half.[2]

For his career, Williams had 1 sack, 2 forced fumbles, 6 interceptions, and 2 touchdowns.[1]

On January 1, 2007, Williams was killed during a drive-by shooting at approximately 2:10 A.M. Williams and two other passengers were shot when another vehicle pulled beside his rented Hummer H2 limousine in downtown Denver, Colorado. The shooting occurred near 11th Ave. and Speer Blvd. It happened less than 12 hours after the Broncos played their final game of the 2006 season against the San Francisco 49ers in Denver.[3]

Williams had been attending a New Year's Eve party and birthday party held for and by Denver Nuggets player Kenyon Martin at the nightclub Safari. The Denver Police Department reported that the shooting was preceded by some type of altercation or argument at the nightclub between Crips gang members and other patrons, one of whom was Broncos teammate Brandon Marshall.[4] A police spokesman said, "There was some confrontation between a group of people in the vehicle and a group at the nightclub."[2][5] Williams was not involved in the altercation.[6] Marshall was "one of the instigators of the fight" according to a report by ESPN.[7]

According to the county coroner's office, Williams sustained a single gunshot wound to the head, killing him almost instantly.[8][9] After Williams was shot, he fell in the lap of Broncos teammate Javon Walker. He was pronounced dead around 2:30 a.m. The two other passengers injured in the shooting were both released from the hospital the day after the shooting.[10]

Denver police impounded a vehicle in connection with the shooting. The suspected vehicle was registered to Brian Hicks, a 28-year-old Crips gang member, who was already incarcerated awaiting trial for attempted murder and drug charges. Other associates of Hicks were questioned as potential material witnesses to the Williams shooting. Rumors persist that it was a gang-related event because many club goers have attested to seeing Williams along with members of his group showing Bloods Gang signs and verbally repping Bloods; however, there has not been any concrete evidence to suggest that. Williams' family and teammates also say that the scenario was untrue.

Williams was survived by his seven-year-old son, four-year-old daughter and 24-year-old girlfriend, all of whom live in Fort Worth, Texas. A memorial fund was set up in their name. Denver Nuggets stars Carmelo Anthony and Kenyon Martin, who were with Williams at the nightclub the evening of the shooting, planned to honor their friend by possibly setting up a college fund for Williams' children.[11] A fan-constructed memorial was formed on the southern wall of the fountain in front of Invesco Field at Mile High. Javon Walker decided to wear his hair in a "fro-hawk," in honor of Williams, who wore his hair in a similar way as a trademark.

On May 29, 2008, the Darrent Williams Memorial Teen Center was opened at the Denver Broncos Branch of Boys & Girls Clubs of Metro Denver.[12]

On May 30, 2008, the Rocky Mountain News published a story claiming that it had obtained a signed confession letter by Crips gang member Willie D. Clark, in which he admitted to firing the shot that killed Williams.[13] On October 8, 2008, Clark was indicted by a grand jury for the murder of Williams. Clark was found guilty of murder on March 11, 2010. On April 30, a judge sentenced him to life in prison.

See also[edit]

External links[edit]


text:
Kensington, Philadelphia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Neighborhood of Philadelphia
Playground in the neighborhood of Kensington, Philadelphia. Note the factories in the background, one of which has been recently converted into the Coral Street Arts House, low-income housing for artists.
Playground in the neighborhood of Kensington, Philadelphia. Note the factories in the background, one of which has been recently converted into the Coral Street Arts House, low-income housing for artists.
Country  United States
State Pennsylvania
County Philadelphia County
City Philadelphia
Area code(s) Area code 215

Kensington is a neighborhood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It is between the Lower Northeast section of Philadelphia and North Philadelphia. Not to be confused with the former Kensington District, now commonly referred to as Fishtown. As with all neighborhoods in Philadelphia, the lack of any official designation means the boundaries of the area vary between sources and over time.

Traditionally, Kensington is known for its large working class Irish Catholic community. Kensington was the location of the Philadelphia Nativist Riots in the 19th century.[1] Kensington is also the birthplace of the K&A Gang, (currently known as the Northeast Philly Irish Mob), an Irish American organized crime network. Kensington was also home to a large, and largely invisible, English American community. For example the five Episcopal parishes in the neighborhood (Emmanuel, Free Church of St. John, Good Shepherd, St. Ambrose, St. Luke's, and St. Nathanael's) were founded by 19th century immigrants from England.

Along with Irish Americans, Kensington is also home to a large population of Hispanic Americans (mainly Puerto Ricans), African Americans, Polish Americans, and Italian Americans.

Generally accepted boundaries are the triangular area bounded by Erie Avenue to the north, Front Street (and sometimes Fifth Street) to the West and Trenton Avenue to the East. While others say it's bounded by Kensington Avenue to north, Aramingo Avenue to the south, Lehigh Avenue to the west, and Castor Avenue to east. Within these boundaries, sub-neighborhoods include East Kensington, Harrowgate, Lower Kensington, West Kensington, Fishtown, and Olde Richmond. Due to colloquial changes in the boundaries of the area since the Act of Consolidation, 1854, no clear definition is possible. The Greater Kensington area of the city roughly coincides with the former Kensington District, Richmond District, Aramingo Borough and Northern Liberties Township. Since incorporation into the City of Philadelphia (see Act of Consolidation, 1854), these areas have evolved over time to include portions of the modern "Kensington". The area is just a couple of miles northeast of Center City and just to the West of the Port Richmond neighborhood. Bordering neighborhoods include West Kensington to the west, Olde Kensington and Fishtown to the south, Olde Richmond and Port Richmond to the east, and Harrowgate to the north.

The U.S. Postal Service designates Kensington as ZIP codes 19125 (Kensington Station) The U.S. Postal service considers 19134 (Richmond Station) as the area known as Port Richmond. Adjacent neighborhoods are Northern Liberties zip code 19123, Fishtown and Olde Richmond zip code 19125 (sub neighborhoods of Kensington), Port Richmond zip code 19134, Juniata, and Frankford.

Kensington was founded by Anthony Palmer around 1732. Palmer purchased what was called the Fairman Estate, located along the Delaware River in the Northern Liberties (area just North of the City of Philadelphia) The entire estate consisted of 191.5 acres of land, much smaller than the Kensington we know of today. Palmer was an English merchant, who came to Philadelphia very early in the 18th century, from Barbados. The town of Kensington was named for the area in London known as Kensington Gardens. Palmer laid out his town and sold parcels to the many people who worked along the Delaware River, in the fishing industry and many ship building yards. The original area of Kensington is now more commonly called "Fishtown" mainly because of the Shad Fishing that was the dominant business in Kensington in the 18th and 19th centuries. Anthony Palmer was very active in local government and was part of the Philadelphia council. As head of council, Palmer became the acting Provincial Governor of Pennsylvania in 1747 and 1748. Palmer died in 1749 and is buried in Christ Church Burial Grounds in Old City section of Philadelphia.

Kensington has traditionally been known as the working class center of Philadelphia.[2] Initially, employment focused around the nearby waterfront, and the activities of fishermen and ship- and boat-builders. In the early 19th century, Kensington transitioned to iron and steel manufacture,[3] and became home to a variety of factories, potteries, and machine works.[2] In the later 19th century, Kensington became one of the leading centers of the textile industry, particularly in carpet manufacture. McNeil Laboratories began with the purchase of a pharmacy in the area in 1879 by the company's namesake. In 1903 Mother Jones organized a "Children's Crusade" of children from the local mills and mines to protest against child labor. They marched from Kensington to Oyster Bay, New York, carrying banners demanding "We want to go to School and not the mines!"[4][5][6]

Deindustrialization eventually took its hold on the neighborhood in the 1950s, leading to a significant population loss, high unemployment, economic decline, and the abandoning of homes in the neighborhood. However, some sections of the neighborhood have been revitalized in recent years, especially those near Frankford Avenue, Kensington's neighbor north of Lehigh Avenue, and Fishtown, an area of Kensington where many Shad fisheries were located, another traditionally working-class neighborhood which has seen rents increase. While most of the large manufacturers have left, the area has many small shops and large renovated factories and warehouses for newer artisans to set up shop.[7][8][9]

National Register of Historic Places[edit]

The 26th District Police and Patrol Station, Beatty's Mills Factory Building, H.W. Butterworth and Sons Company Building, Kensington High School for Girls, and Philip H. Sheridan School are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.[10]

As of the 2010 Census, Kensington was 38.9% Hispanic of any race, 37.4% non Hispanic white, 14.8% non Hispanic black, 6.2% Asian, and 2.7% all other.[11]

Government and infrastructure[edit]

The United States Post Office operates the Kensington Post Office at 1602 Frankford Ave.[12]

The intersection of Kensington and Allegheny Avenues (commonly referred to by Philadelphians as "K & A") is a major transportation and retail hub in the Richmond neighborhood, as it is served by the Frankford Elevated portion of the Market-Frankford Line which, running on top of Kensington Avenue, dominates the intersection. SEPTA bus routes 3 (on Kensington Avenue, running underneath the "El") and 60 on Allegheny Avenue, with route 5 nearby on Frankford Avenue, also serve the K & A area.

Primary and secondary schools[edit]

The School District of Philadelphia operates public schools. Public schools in Kensington include Kensington High School Complex, Jules E. Mastbaum Vocational Technical High School, Russell Conwell Middle Magnet School and John H. Webster Elementary School. Private schools include Ascension of Our Lord Parish School.[13]

Public libraries[edit]

McPherson Square Branch

The Free Library of Philadelphia operates the McPherson Square Branch at 601 East Indiana Avenue,[14] and the Kensington Branch at 104 W Dauphin Street.

Kensington was the birthplace of the K&A Gang, an Irish American organized crime association known for their distribution of methamphetamine in the 1980s.

The intersection of Kensington Avenue and Somerset Street was listed number one in a 2007 list of the city's top ten recreational drug corners according to an article by Philadelphia Weekly reporter Steve Volk.[15]

In 2010, three victims were found strangled. The killer is referred to by the media as "The Kensington Strangler." A "person of interest", Antonio Rodriguez, in the case was arrested in January 2011.[16] Antonio Rodriguez confessed to the murders and was sentenced to life in prison in 2012.[17]

People from Kensington, Philadelphia[edit]

See also[edit]

  1. ^ Mandell, Melissa. "The Kensington Riots of 1844". Phila Place. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  2. ^ a b "Kensington". Workshop of the World—Philadelphia. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  3. ^ "A Brief History of Philadelphia". US History. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  4. ^ "Mother Jones leading a protest, circa 1903". Explore PA History. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  5. ^ "Today in labor history: Mother Jones leads march of miners' children". People's World. September 21, 2012. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  6. ^ Jones, Mother (1925). "Chapter Ten: The March of the Mill Children". In Parton, Mary Field. The Autobiography of Mother Jones. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  7. ^ O’Connell, Caitlin (April 30, 2015). "Kensington: A Lot Of Heart Has Gone Into Revitalizing A Community". Philadelphia Neighborhoods. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  8. ^ Miller, Alisa; Pina, Marissa Nicole (January 7, 2015). "Kensington: Rise and Fall of the Housing Market". Philadelphia Neighborhoods. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  9. ^ Pina, Marissa Nicole; Miller, Alisa (January 7, 2015). "Kensington: Artists Make New Homes Amongst Longtime Residents". Philadelphia Neighborhoods. Retrieved 30 November 2015.
  10. ^ National Park Service (2010-07-09). "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service.
  11. ^ "American FactFinder". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
  12. ^ "Post Office Location - KENSINGTON." United States Post Office. Retrieved on January 16, 2009.
  13. ^
  14. ^ "McPherson Square Branch." Free Library of Philadelphia. Retrieved on November 7, 2008.
  15. ^ Volk, Steve. "Top 10 Drug Corners." Philadelphia Weekly. May 2, 2007. Retrieved on January 20, 2009.
  16. ^ 6 ABC news, 17 January 2011. "Police arrest 'Kensington Strangler' person of interest". Accessed 17 January 2011.
  17. ^ Kerry McDermott (August 17, 2013). "Philadelphia man dubbed the 'Kensington strangler' gets three life sentences for killing three women after paying them for sex". Daily Mail. Retrieved 17 March 2014.

External links[edit]

Coordinates: 39°58′53″N 75°07′21″W / 39.981495°N 75.12243°W / 39.981495; -75.12243


text:
Raphael Debono

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Di una Teorica di Analisi Logica (1884) of Raphael Debono
Raphael Debono
Born Malta
Occupation Philosophy

Raphael Debono (19th century) was a Maltese minor philosopher. In philosophy he mostly specialised in logic.[1] No portrait of him is known to exist.[2]

Almost nothing is known about the personal life of Debono. He was probably one of the thousands of Maltese emigrants in Cairo, Egypt, around the end of the 19th century.

Extant work[edit]

Just one composition of Debono survives as yet. It is a pamphlet in Italian published in Cairo in 1884 (Typo Lithographe Franco-Egyptienne J. Serrière) under the title Di una Teorica di Analisi Logica (An Investigation of Analytical Logic).[3] The work is an interesting disputation on technical points of some aspects of symbolic logic, also called mathematical logic. The tone used is friendly. If the disputation ever took place (it might be supposed), it was between two friends in the professional spirit of academic collaboration and amity. Perhaps this is an inherent message which Debono also wanted to get through to his readers. Nevertheless, Debono mentions a certain S. Frendo as his interlocutor, who might have been a language professor at the Italian public schools of Cairo.

After an introduction, the work is divided into three parts, amongst which the first is the most substantial and important. The first part bears the name Pro Veritate (For Truth). Debono refutes certain positions of analytic logic held by his colleague. Debono seems to imply that the positions were exposed in an earlier publication by Frendo.

The other two parts of the work successively refer to a letter which Debono had written (perhaps in some newspaper), and to Frendo’s publication. Few other details are provided to get at the bottom of the story. Nevertheless, the style and argumentation of the work is intriguing. It is clear that Debono is of an Aristotelian frame of mind.

  1. ^ Mark Montebello, Il-Ktieb tal-Filosofija f’Malta (A Source Book of Philosophy in Malta), PIN Publications, Malta, 2001, Vol. I, p. 110.
  2. ^ Not to be confused with another Raphael Debono, who was an 18th-century cleric, author of the tract Brevis Tractatus De Ordine (1723).
  3. ^ Montebello, Op. cit., pp. 304-305.

  • Mark Montebello, Il-Ktieb tal-Filosofija f’Malta (A Source Book of Philosophy in Malta), PIN Publications, Malta, 2001.

See also[edit]


text:
Peter Schiff

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search
Peter Schiff

Peter David Schiff (born March 23, 1963) is an American businessman, financial commentator and author noted for his predictions of the housing market crash in 2005, support for unregulated markets and reduction of the powers of federal government. He was a Republican candidate for one of the Connecticut Senate seats, against veteran politician Democrat Chris Dodd.

  • There are no checks and balances if the gov is wrong, if a private entrepreneur makes a mistake, he goes bankrupt, the losses are cut, if he bets wrong, he loses, if the gov bets wrong, they just get bigger, they just appropriate more money, it's a bottomless pit, because they either get it from the tax payers or run it off a printing press.
    • Authors@Google: Peter Schiff (2009)
  • When private industry makes a mistake, it gets corrected and goes away. As governments make mistakes, it gets bigger, bigger and bigger and they make more, more and more because as they run out of money, they just ask for more and so they get rewarded for making mistakes. In the meantime that is exactly what we are doing by subsidizing companies which are failing, we have a reverse Darwinism, we've got survival of the unfittest, the companies and people that have made terrible mistakes are being rewarded and other people are being punished and being taxed.
    • Authors@Google: Peter Schiff (2009)
  • The real bubble in China is in US Treasuries, in US dollars.
    • Wall Street Unspun, 3 March 2010
  • Nobody is entitled to someone else's money, that is the bottom line. People think they are entitled to it because hey think they paid into it, nobody paid into anything, it was a fraud. Every single dollar that the gov collected in social security taxes, has already been spent, there is nothing there, there is no money, so the only money the government gets to make current payment is the money it can take from people who are still working. Its a transfer from the working poor in many cases to the retired rich. We don't have the money, I feel bad for the fact people made promises we can't keep, I feel bad for the people that invested with Bernie Madoff and lost their money, but its the same principle, its the same Ponzi scheme. We have to put an end to it, we have to find real solution to these problems because if we keep on denying that they exist and keep on spending money, we're going to destroy the value of everyone's benefits.
    • RTC, Avon, CT, 10th May 2010
  • [Consumer credit] is like giving yourself a blood transfusion from your left arm to your right. Nothing is accomplished, except the possibility of spilling blood on the floor. But it's not even that benign.

Economic Views[edit]

  • What America has succeeded in creating is not an economy impervious to shocks, but merely one which enables their consequences to be postponed to a later date.
  • The Founding Fathers, those who wrote the Constitution and founded the American Republic, they understood the benefits of sound money and the evils of paper money. They’ve put America on a gold standard from the very birth of the republic and we should heed their wise - they were very learned men. I think they were much more educated and understanding about economics then the people who lead the U.S. today. So, to try to suggest that we will have less robust economy if we went back to gold standard - mostly, that’s propaganda from Central Bankers and politicians, who want to scare us from going back to something that works, because when you go back to free market, the politicians and bankers will lose their power, and they want to maintain their power by scaring people into thinking that if we just go back to freedom and market forces, that’s somehow is going to be bad and we have to surrender our freedoms to politicians and bankers because they know much better than the market. They can define the proper rate of interest and they can manage the money supplier, centrally planning the economy, and it’s going to be more effective than free market capitalism - and that is just not the case.

2010 Senate Campaign[edit]

  • Too many people in Connecticut are struggling right now, and the last thing we need is meddling politicians making things worse. Only by cutting deficit spending, reducing burdensome regulations, and letting people keep more of their hard-earned dollars will we get our economy back on track.[1]

In a Washington Post interview, Peter Schiff stated

  • I'm interrupting my career. It's not like I want my new career in politics. But I'm willing to interrupt it the same way that somebody interrupted their career and joined World War II and went off to fight the Nazis. I don't think that I'm that heroic, and I don't think I'm risking as much as a soldier. But it's the same principle.[2]

This quote elicited a number of response from the political blogosphere.1, 2, 3, 4

Remarks regarding Christopher Dodd[edit]

  • While it's refreshing to see Chris Dodd finally realize that we need to end the politicization of the Federal Reserve, his latest proposal merely repeats the mistakes that have created this crisis.[1]
  • Transferring regulatory authority from one unaccountable agency to another will not solve any problems.[1]
  • Existing regulators had all the powers they needed, and more, and they failed miserably to foresee and prevent this crisis. Chris Dodd is now asking us to put all our eggs in one basket and trust a "super regulatory agency." He should know better than to centralize power in the hands of Washington bureaucrats - it's precisely the arrangement that caused our current problems. I think most Connecticut voters know that we need fewer czars in Washington, not more. As long as Fannie and Freddie and Congress are meddling with the economy, changing the structure of the regulators is basically rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.[1]
  • Dodd's proposal takes regulatory authority away from one unaccountable institution and gives it to another even bigger one. This will not solve our problems.[1]

Quotes made by Connecticut Democratic Party spokeswoman Colleen Flanagan[edit]

  • If anyone was questioning whether or not Peter Schiff was truly a Republican, he's certainly made it clear today. After eight years of the Bush Administration's lax regulation and market-first mentality, the last thing we need is to further reduce regulation and allow Wall Street to run the show. Chris Dodd is leading the way to put a balance back into a system that for years has been too far out of whack and ensure that consumers are protected first and foremost.[1]
  • Schiff likes to say he 'predicted' the financial collapse, but with ludicrous theories like these, we're predicting that he'll never be a U.S. Senator.[1]

Quotes from Crash Proof (2006)[edit]

  • Paying attention to the CPI and the others is like leaving your house on a rainy day without carrying an umbrella because a government weather report told you it was sunny.
  • is the natural tendency of market economies to lower prices that makes them so successful.
  • Real economic growth emanates from increased productivity, which tends to hold prices down.
  • The process of dumbing people down so they’ll buy official figures showing inflation “under control” at levels of 1 to 2 percent or so (when it is actually more like 8 to 9 percent) is actually a fairly recent development.
  • Today, of course, our current inflation problem is firmly rooted in the irresponsible monetary policies of maestro Greenspan.
  • The Constitution denies the states the power to make anything other than gold or silver coins legal tender in payment of debts.
  • And the reason the federal government wasn’t given that power [to create paper money or issue bills of credit] was because the framers didn’t want it to have the power to create inflation. They had just experienced it firsthand with the Continental dollar, which ended up being worth around 10 cents and gave rise to the expression “not worth a Continental.”
  • Legitimate economic expansions, financed by actual savings, do not need busts. It is only the inflation-induced varieties that sow the seeds of their own destruction.
  • Inflation is the unhappy result of our monetary mismanagement and the ultimate cause of the coming economic collapse.
  • While we’ve been buying time, things have gone from bad to worse. We have debased our currency so much it is already beyond control. We just haven’t felt the full impact yet because we have had massive artificial support from abroad.
  • Stocks that are selected conservatively and pay high cash dividends [higher than bonds] are, in fact, my favorite investment alternative, especially where there is the prospect of currency profits....
  • Non-dividend-paying growth stocks can be attractive but should be viewed as speculation rather than investing.
  • If Enron had been forced to pay cash dividends, it could never have pulled that caper off!
  • It can be argued that the U.S. brokerage and investment banking industry has transformed the modern American stock market into nothing more than a mechanism for transferring wealth from shareholders to management.
  • Mutual funds are an overrated investment heavily promoted by Wall Street.
  • If you think mutual funds aren’t a flagrant enough example of conflict of interest, try hedge funds.
  • By historical standards and given the gloomy corporate profits outlook in an environment of high corporate debt and rising interest rates, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is considerably overvalued at late-2006 levels and should be avoided. I say that, even setting aside the imminent prospect of a collapsed dollar and the recession and hyperinflation that would accompany it.
  • Here’s why I would recommend against [selling the U.S. stock markets short]....Retail brokers normally require investors to hold any short-sale proceeds in U.S. dollars, usually earning no interest. The dollar, seen through my famously jaundiced eye, could lose more purchasing power than the security you sold short lost value....I’ve got a much better idea, which is to borrow dollars and spend them to acquire foreign income-producing assets, using the income to pay the interest.
  • In the perspective of previous bear markets, notably those of the 1930s and the 1970s, the prospects look even worse. Economic conditions now are as bad as or worse than what existed then.
  • Borrowing to build factories is not the economic equivalent of borrowing to buy television sets, and it’s amazing just how few modern economists can see the difference...Borrowing to produce is the way poor countries become rich. Borrowing to consume is the way rich countries become poor. A vivid example of the latter is the stream of container ships unloading at U.S. ports and going back empty because we have nothing to ship.
  • … it is precisely because it is not a democracy that China will likely be so successful...What is of vital importance for economic success is economic freedom, meaning the protection of private property, the rule of law, and minimal regulation and taxation, not the right to vote.
  • It is a common misconception that low wages are the main factor influencing prices. The reality is that low capital costs, and the absence of taxation and regulation, are far more important.
  • Think about all the rules and regulations American businesses have to deal with. How can we compete with nations that don’t impose those excessive burdens? Does anyone think that the United States could ever have become a great power with all the rules, regulations, and taxation that exist today?
  • In the long run, the euro as a fiat currency may very well fail like the U.S. dollar. (2006, before Greece)
  • One of the biggest attractions of the euro is that it is seen as the most likely candidate to replace the dollar as the reserve currency.

  1. a b c d e f g Altimari, Daniela (September 22, 2009 11:26 AM). Peter Schiff criticizes Chris Dodd's plan to overhaul financial regulators. Capitol Watch Blog. Courant. Retrieved on 2009-09-23.
  2. Ahran, Frank (Sunday, October 4, 2009). "Hard-Core Free-Marketeer A Conversation With Peter Schiff: Investor, Critic, Candidate". Outlook & Opinions. Retrieved on 2009-10-03.

External links[edit]

Wikipedia has an article about:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:


text:
Acton, Ralph (DNB00)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

ACTON, RALPH (14th cent.), an English theologian and philosopher, is assigned by Leland and his followers to the first half of the fourteenth century. Of the details of his life nothing definite is known, for the sketch given by Bale and Pits is so vague as to suggest that it is chiefly made up of inferences. According to these writers Ralph received his early education in country schools, whence in due time he proceeded to Oxford. After taking his master's degree in philosophy and theology at this university he was appointed head of a famous church (‘rector cujusdam insignis ecclesiæ’), and henceforward devoted himself in the retirement of his parish to the study of the Scriptures and the care of his flock.

His writings consist of ‘Homiliæ in quatuor Evangelia,’ ‘Commentarii in Epistolas Paulinas,’ ‘Illustrationes in Petrum Langobardum,’ and other works of a similar kind. Two manuscripts of this author are still preserved in the library of Lincoln College, Oxford—the one written in an early fifteenth-century hand; the other the gift of Robert Flemming, a near kinsman of Richard Flemming, the founder of this college (1427). We thus get a date later than which our author cannot have flourished; and Leland, Bale, and Pits conjecturally assign him to the reign of Edward II (1320). Other manuscripts of Acton's works are said by Tanner to be in the Bodleian library and that of Peterhouse, Cambridge.

[Leland's Comment. 357; Bale, 393; Pits, 412; Tanner's Bibl. Brit.; Coxe's Cat. MSS. (Lincoln, 52, 53).]

T. A. A.