text:
Kohli Hails Pujara “Priceless” In Historic Adelaide Win

Indian skipper Virat Kohli described Cheteshwar Pujara’s innings as “priceless” after the visitors won the first Test at Adelaide. Pujara pulled India out of the mess of 86 for 5 to 250 in the first innings by scoring 123.

In the second innings he scored 71 and stitched an important partnership with Ajinkya Rahane in the middle order. As a result it helped India to set a target of 323. It was the first time that Pujara scored a century and a fifty in the same Test.

Kohli and his men had to wait a bit longer to take all the Aussie wickets in the fifth morning. Eventually they managed to get them out for 291. This win meant that it is the first time that India won the first Test in the Australian tour.

“We were down and out at lunch on day one. His belief, grit and determination kept us in the game, he brought us back beautifully,” Kohli said after the match. “The game was poised equally on day two. We knew runs on the board, their position playing at home, they’ll obviously be a bit tentative and we cashed in on that. Any lead would have been gold and we built on that (with) a couple of partnerships in the second innings, particularly Pujara and Rahane. When they bat together like that they are our most solid pair. They gave us that safety for the bowlers to go out and get ten wickets. It took grit and determination from both of them to put us past Australia where it was hard for them to chase that total down.”

Tim Paine also praises Pujara

Tim Paine, the Aussie skipper, also acknowledged that Pujara proved the difference between both the teams.

“Pujara was probably the difference between the two sides,” he said. “It’s what you want from your top 5-6 batters, hundreds and a (playing) lot of balls into our bowlers as well. He made us work very hard to get him out and we can take a lot from that for our batting group.”

Kohli also said that Pujara-Rahane partnership should be an example for all the batsmen. All of them should step up and help the bowlers who are already “at their peak”. Indian bowling included Jasprit Bumrah, Ishant Sharma and Mohammed Shami as the lead pace bowlers and R Ashwin as the sole spinner.

“Super proud (of India’s bowling attack). To have four bowlers take 20 wickets to win the Test is an outstanding feat, something we haven’t done in the past in Australia. That’s why we are very proud of our bowlers. They are at their peak, all of them together and it’s something that we as batsman look at as an opportunity to put in good performances. We will be, in every Test match, gunning for a result. It’s up to our batsmen to step up in this particular series and Pujara and Rahane particularly showed that.”

More Articles Related To Australia-India Test Series:

Pujara praises the Indian bowlers

Pujara said that the preparations before the tour proved to be successful. He also praised the bowlers for giving the psychological advantage of 15-run lead in the first innings.

“Playing here before has helped me a lot. The most important thing for me was the preparation, when I was back home. I knew what to expect from Australian pitches and playing some of their bowlers in the past has also helped me.

“It was special, the way we came back in the game, we were four wickets and 40 runs and from there to make a comeback and get to 250 was the most important. Ultimately, winning the Test match, credit goes to all our bowlers for getting them out and getting the 15-run lead was a psychological advantage which made us believe we can bat well in the second innings and the partnerships in the second innings were very crucial. I think it’s our self belief which made it possible.”

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Customer experience is key. While this can be said of any business, it’s especially true within the travel and hospitality industry. Travelers turn to social media throughout every step of the their journey, from start to finish. For hospitality brands—hotels especially—your work starts even before a trip is booked.

This industry relies heavily on word-of-mouth marketing, most of which takes place online nowadays. But by not being involved in those conversations, you’re taking a big risk. A 2013 Nielsen survey found that of those who used social media to research travel plans, only 48% stuck with their original plans—33% switched hotels.

A focused approach to social media can result in a stronger brand, greater exposure and better relationships with first-time and repeat guests. Here is how some of the hospitality industry’s leaders are using social media to go above and beyond to create exceptional experiences.

Know the Social Networks Your Guests Use Most Frequently

“We’re focused on building long-term relationships with our guests, and that means we want to be where our guests are.”
—James Geiger, Hyatt Hotels Corporation

You know where your guests are staying tonight, but do you know where they go to ask questions or talk about you? To better serve your guests online you must first know which social networks they’re spending time on.

“Some hotels find their guests love the creativity and photography found on Instagram, while others find that their guests are more interested in the real-time service assistance found on Twitter,” said James Geiger, Social Strategy and Activation Specialist at Hyatt Hotels Corporation.

Knowing where your guests communicate online will help you provide a better customer service experience while enabling you to reach the right people at exactly the right time. To be successful, you’ll need a better understanding of the demographics of each of the major platforms as well as those of your target audience.

“We’re focused on building long-term relationships with our guests, and that means we want to be where our guests are,” Geiger said.

Be an Invaluable Resource Beyond Just Accommodations

Approximately 1 in 5 travelers turn to social media for inspiration within different categories of travel planning, including:

  • Destinations: 27%
  • Hotels: 23%
  • Vacation activities: 22%
  • Attractions: 21%
  • Restaurants: 17%

“Many guests connect with us on Twitter and Facebook in advance of their stay regarding a special upcoming weekend, requesting ideas for activities to partake in, dining recommendations and other key experiential elements of that sort,” said Courtney Morrow, Social Media Marketing Manager at the Hilton Anatole Hotel in Dallas.

In fact, according to a USA Today survey, the No. 1 reason guests contact hotels on social media is for local information. By providing travelers with useful tips about the area, you’re demonstrating that your interest in them doesn’t disappear the minute a guest steps foot outside the lobby doors.

Before social media, hotel concierges couldn’t accompany guests outside of the hotel. But thanks to instant access to sites such as Instagram, Twitter and Foursquare, travelers are never without inspiration.

“Social media has enabled our hotel to act as a ‘digital concierge’ of sorts for our guests that allows us to create an additional personalized communication touch point,” Morrow said.

Trump International Hotel & Tower in Toronto elevated a visitor’s experience in this way. When Ana Silva O’Reilly was looking for information about dropping off a rental car, Trump’s concierge team was ready to jump in and assist.

Meanwhile, The Ritz-Carlton has created an entire campaign around the digital concierge. In June, the hotel brand published its 1,000th tip as part of its World Concierge campaign on Foursquare, which combines insights and tips from 89 of its concierges from around the world.

Ritz-Carlton World Concierge

Many of these tips come from seasoned concierges, such as Atlanta’s Jessica Gorman, who has been providing hotel guests with travel advice for nearly 11 years at The Ritz-Carlton, Buckhead. Gorman, who spends little time at home, prides herself on anticipating guests’ needs.

“I always want to be ahead of the guest and know exactly what is new and interesting and what will be best suited for them,” she said.

Similarly, @HyattConcierge on Twitter does everything from offering a friendly welcome to guests who check in on social media to sharing restaurant recommendations to answering guests’ questions. Hyatt keeps the account running 24/7 with help from its teams around the globe.

Sometimes it’s the other way around. The concierges at the Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel in Chicago refer to weekly postings on the hotel’s social profiles as a reference to what’s new and fun to do in the area when talking with guests.

By highlighting the expertise of your staff, you’re reassuring guests that you have their best interests in mind. This makes you an invaluable resource for travelers, who will hopefully look back on their trip and associate your hotel with an incredible experience.

Delight Guests Every Step of the Way

Guests don’t wait until they walk into your hotel to start using social media. Travelers turn to social media before their trip is finalized to well after they’ve returned. Although a variety of social platforms are used, here’s a breakdown of what that usage looks like on Twitter:

  • About 33% access Twitter before or after a trip.
  • 39% use Twitter mid-journey.
  • Almost 20% use Twitter to share feedback throughout their travel experience.

Build Excitement Before Guests Arrive

Usage spans the entire travel process, so it’s important to develop and maintain strong relationships with your guests. This is something you should start doing before your guests even arrive. For example, your social media pages can act as a point of reference for travelers.

Arizona Grand Pinterest

Pinterest, Instagram and Facebook are a good bet for this effort. If you have a profile on any of these platforms, be sure to include important information, including in-room amenities, overall hotel accommodations and events around town. If you can answer guests’ questions before they arrive, you’ve helped them start their trip off on a good note.

“All of our social media links are included on reservation confirmation and pre-arrival emails,” said Emily Dille, Marketing Manager at Arizona Grand Resort & Spa. “And if a guest posts about an upcoming trip, we take the opportunity to comment and let them know we look forward to their visit.”

Stay Attentive During Their Stay

Take time to get to know your guests and their preferences. Do they request an additional towel? Are their pillows arranged a unique way? Do you notice a particular snack missing from the minibar? Make note of what they ask for and what they’re using in the room.

“Sometimes we know so much about our guests’ preferences by the time they check out that we enter it into their profile to ensure that the next time they visit us, we can surprise and delight them,” said Kelly Kroyer, Social Media and Marketing Manager at the Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel. “The little gestures go a long way.”

You’ll also want to pay attention to social media for details that might explain why your guests are staying with you or opportunities to make someone’s stay special.

“We’re in the business of caring for people so they can be their best, and listening and responding through social is a natural extension of that purpose,” Geiger said. “We are constantly looking to surprise and delight guests with something specific to their preferences and reason for traveling.”

Hyatt did just that after a guest posted a picture of a sonogram and expressed sadness that he couldn’t be there at the doctor’s office to witness the momentous occasion in person. The hotel saw the man’s social media post and quickly put together a “man-package” of various beers, bacon and other snacks with a handwritten note to congratulate the father-to-be.

When a couple Tweeted about celebrating their wedding anniversary at The Hilton Anatole—where they stayed over their wedding weekend—Morrow and her team recreated the amenity experience from 20 years prior, which included a bottle of Champagne and a piece of wedding cake.

Extend the Experience Even After Their Stay

Guest relations don’t end the minute someone checks out. After their stay, guests will be telling everyone they know about their trip as well as their experience in your hotel. How you treat guests following their stay can influence where they—and others—stay in the future.

Fernanda Williams, Social Media Administrator at staySky Hotels & Resorts, went above and beyond to help an international guest who had misplaced an item during one visit. Worried about long-distance calling charges, the guest reached out to the hotel through Facebook. Williams contacted the hotel, found the lost item and mailed it back to the guest promptly.

Even something as simple as a Retweet or a thank you can turn a great stay into an exceptional experience.

“Once a guest has left, we will often Regram a great photo, or in the case of group or business meetings, we will thank them for choosing our hotel to host their program,” Dille said.

This could also lead to more social engagement from your guests. According to Iconosquare, 76% of Instagrammers said receiving likes encourages them to post more, while 65% said they’d feel flattered if a brand liked one of their posts.

A simple greeting, such as this one from Trump Toronto, will help ensure your repeat guests receive exceptional service every time: “We keep track of our conversations and ensure that if they return to the property we Tweet or comment back by saying, ‘Welcome back’ or ‘Glad to have you back again @TrumpToronto’,” said Jeanne Marie Castor, Marketing Coordinator at Trump International Hotel & Tower.

Continuously Listen & Be Ready to Act

“In my experience, showing that we truly care and are concerned about the guest experience goes a long way.”
—Courtney Morrow, Hilton Anatole Hotel

It’s only natural for guests to share their experiences, both good and bad, on social media—but many of them don’t wait until they’ve returned home to do so. In fact, 72% of travelers post to social networks while still on vacation, so it’s very important to keep a close eye on social mentions.

Imagine a hotel that has a screen displayed in the lobby so guests can see what others are saying about their experience on social media. Now imagine that a guest is unhappy with the wait at the hotel’s restaurant and Tweets about it. Not only does that guest’s followers see that he’s dissatisfied, but all of the other guests staying at that hotel do too.

If his complaint goes ignored, everyone following that Tweet will assume that the hotel isn’t interested in customer service. But if the hotel responds quickly, they’ll rest assured knowing that, if they were in the same situation, they’d be heard and get a response.

There’s a huge opportunity for the travel and hospitality industry to improve in this area, according to data from the The 2015 Sprout Social Index. Currently, the average response time for this industry is 11.5 hours. That means if a guest complains about room accommodations on social, nearly half a day passes before a reply is issued. What’s worse, only 11.3% of messages requiring a prompt response even get one at all. Smart hotel companies recognize that actually engaging with customers via social could yield a competitive advantage.

“We are watching out for both negative and positive engagement on social media,” said Colin Diaz, Director of Public Relations at BLVD Hotels. “When the negative occurs, it is equally important to address it publicly and handle it offline.”

By responding openly, anyone following the Tweet knows that the hotel is listening and really cares about providing good service. Taking the issue offline or in private after that initial response is key because it gives the guest your full attention and shows you’re serious about getting the issue resolved.

Faced with a similar situation, Dille’s team at the Arizona Grand Resort & Spa took action immediately and connected an unhappy guest with an on-duty manager.

“Putting the guest in touch with someone whom they could speak to directly made all the difference and turned a frustrated guest into a happy one,” Dille said.

An angry Tweet can spiral out of control very quickly, so even if you don’t have a solution in place right away, acknowledge the issue and let guests know you’re willing to resolve it. They’ll understand if you’re personally unable to fix the issue, but will appreciate you putting them in contact with someone who can.

“In my experience, showing that we truly care and are concerned about the guest experience goes a long way,” said Morrow, who answers every guest review, complaint, accolade and comment that’s posted to the Hilton Anatole’s social channels.

But don’t let your desire to solve problems deter you from other engagement opportunities either. Monitoring for customer complaints shouldn’t be the sole purpose of your social listening strategy.

“To us, every conversation about our brand is important,” Geiger said. “Our approach to social care isn’t just about service recovery; it’s about making a human connection with guests and building guest relationships at any point in the travel journey.”

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-31
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July/August 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-15.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


text:
01:01 GMT02 August 2021
Listen Live
    Middle East
    Get short URL

    Earlier, the US representative to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons accused Tehran of failing to declare its chemical weapons capabilities, and charged the country with pursuing the development of such weapons "for offensive purposes."

    Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi has dismissed Washington's claims about a secret Iranian chemical weapons program, promising that Tehran would thoroughly debunk the allegations in the coming days.

    "Once again America has leveled groundless accusations against Iran…which we strongly reject," Ghasemi said in a statement published on the Foreign Ministry's website on Friday.

    "Based on [OPCW] Conference procedure, the Iranian mission to the OPCW will give an appropriate response to these baseless accusations at the end of the general debates," he promised, without specifying the precise date. The current OPCW session will wrap up next Friday.

    Turning the US allegations around on them, Ghasemi pointed to the US' own acknowledged chemical weapons program, and to suspicions that Israel, which signed but never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, may also have access to such weapons.

    "The crystal clear point here is that the US is the only OPCW member state with chemical weapon arsenals, which has so far failed to fulfill its commitment to destroy them," the spokesman said. "At the same time, the US sides with the Zionist regime's chemical weapons program and levels such wrong and false accusations against Iran," he added.

    According to Ghasemi, the ultimate goal of the US claims against Iran was to distract the international community from the violation of its own commitments and its continued support for alleged Israeli chemical arsenals and terrorist groups.

    On Thursday, US permanent representative to the OPCW Kenneth Ward accused Iran of failing to declare its chemical weapons capabilities, including existing stocks, research, countermeasures and production capabilities.

    Iran has acknowledged that it had a chemical weapons program in the 1980s. However, it did not use these weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988, when Iraqi chemical attacks led to the deaths of up to 100,000 Iranian soldiers and civilians. Iran was one of the first countries to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, signing it in 1993 and ratifying in 1997. Tehran declared that it had completely destroyed its chemical weapons arsenal by the time it ratified the treaty.

    Earlier this week, Iran's Syrian allies voiced "concerns" over Washington's sluggishness in eliminating its chemical weapons, which is estimated to amount to some 3,000 tonnes of various agents. The George H.W. Bush administration committed to eliminating the US stockpiles at the end of the Cold War, with the elimination originally slated to wrap up by 2012. Since then, the deadline has been pushed back repeatedly to at least 2023. Russia, the successor to the US's Cold War Soviet rivals, destroyed the last of its once-vast stocks of chemical weapons in 2017 under OPCW supervision.

    Relations between Washington and Tehran have been hostile for decades, with the United States designating Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. Relations deteriorated even further after the US withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, in May and reimposed sanctions on Tehran. The sanctions are aimed at exercising maximum pressure on Iran and force it to negotiate a new nuclear deal. As part of its campaign, the United States wants all countries to eventually reduce their Iranian oil imports to zero to damage the country's economy.

    Israeli Farsi-Language School Preps Teens for Work as Anti-Iran Spies – Reports
    Moscow Can't Confirm it Suggested Lifting Iran Sanctions for Pullout From Syria
    Iran Banks on Thriving Gold Mines Amid US Sanctions
    US, Iran, Bahram Qassemi, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), chemical weapons, nuclear deal
    Community standardsDiscussion


text:
Twitter changes hacked material policy after blocking Post's Biden story

Chris Ratcliffe | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Twitter has changed its policy on hacked materials. It comes on the heels of it controversial decision to block links to a New York Post story about Joe Biden’s son.

The unverified story alleged that Hunter Biden — the son of Joe Biden who was vice president at that time — attempted to introduce his father to a top executive at a Ukrainian company Hunter Biden worked for.

Twitter said the article was in violation of its hacked material policy. The company clarified that it was banning links to the article because it contained images of hacked material with personal and private information.

The decision drew backlash from conservatives and President Donald Trump.

After receiving “significant feedback,” Twitter decided to make changes to its hacked material policy, according to the company’s legal, policy and trust and safety lead Vijaya Gadde.

There are two amendments. The first is that Twitter will no longer remove hacked content unless it is directly shared by hackers or those acting in concert with them. The second is that Twitter will label tweets to provide context instead of blocking links from being shared on the social media platform.

Gadde said that other Twitter terms will still apply — such as rules prohibiting users from posting private information without consent.

That means links to the New York Post story will still be blocked, Twitter’s Vice President of Global Communications Brandon Borrman told CNBC in a tweet. That’s because the article contains images that contain email addresses and phone numbers.

Twitter’s hacked materials policy will be updated in the coming days, according to Gadde.

Source link

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


text:
Chinese New Year

What an amazing Chinese New Year celebration. The food was delicious and the children were superbly behaved. Joel played guitar, a piece he had only learnt the day before – and considering he has only been learning since September I think we have a star in the making. Well done to all the catering staff and everyone who made the day go so well. Thank you so much for the invitation!!

IMG_2383 IMG_2385 IMG_2387 (1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


text:
Meet Taystee

Taystee Voodoo Chili

I realized after posting a picture on Instagram yesterday that I never posted here about our newest family member!

This is Taystee. She is a very fluffy, super tiny, 1-year-old kitty we adopted mere weeks before our wedding. It was a stupid, spontaneous decision and I’m so happy we made it.

My mom and I came across her at a cat adoption while running errands for the wedding. I picked her up, she mewed and rubbed herself all over my hands and arms and that was that. I called Jonathan and told him I was in love and he would just have to trust me.

He did, albeit begrudgingly!

We finalized her name after several other names (including Virginia, the name she had when we adopted her) just didn’t fit. She is sweet, smart, and fiesty, so we eventually decided this badass chick would be the perfect namesake — and we were right!

Her full name is Taystee Voodoo Chili and we love her to pieces. She is so small (and full grown!), we refer to her as a “perma-kitten.” :) See more pictures here, if you’d like.

One thought on “Meet Taystee

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


text:
Teens – we need to talk about domestic violence

“If I can say one thing to a teenage girl it would be this: in your first relationship, your heart might get broken, but staying in a bad relationship will damage your soul, deep down inside you, and it takes a lot longer to recover from that, than a broken heart,” domestic violence advocate and survivor Sheree Neto said.

Sheree is no stranger to the world of Family and Domestic Violence (FDV), and after growing up in a home fuelled with violence, pain and anger, the young girl feared for not only her life, but her future as she learnt how to protect her mother and her siblings.

She said she had to grow up very quickly and before she knew it, she had lost her childhood.

“As a child, I witnessed my own mother get abused by her partner for many years, to the point where I felt as though I could become a murderer during those frightful moments, at the age of nine”

Sheree Neto

“I held a knife to a grown man and tried to hurt him for hurting my Mum.”

In the years following these harrowing experiences, Sheree said she unknowingly fell into her own abusive relationship at the emotionally vulnerable age of 16, which would eventually result in 16 years in an ongoing cycle of abuse, with the father of her two children.

After escaping, Sheree refused to be silent and decided to become ‘the voice in the darkness’, to advocate for anyone affected by FDV, and that’s exactly what she did as she began on her ‘teen talk’ project, helping young girls talk about domestic violence, and provided them with that opportunity to be heard.

Sheree said that love shouldn’t hurt – not really.

“It shouldn’t hurt you so much that you have to hide your face or hide your arms or wear a jumper in the middle of summer to cover your bruises,” she said.

Sheree said she wanted to empower young women to learn how to value themselves, be a good friend and to know their worth.

Starting the ‘teen talk’ group through her Facebook page (a safe space for teen girls to talk about relationships), this idea launched into her ‘teen table talk’ workshops, expanding on an open environment for teen girls to share their problems, and support one another through their struggles.

Sheree said she didn’t want another young girl to go through what she had, and that was the big driving force behind the ‘teen talk’ initiative.

Pictured: Sheree with the girls outside Revive Health & Happiness, following her ‘Teen Table Talk’ workshop.

“I don’t want people to feel ashamed and broken – I was 16 and I’m still in recovery four years out of the relationship,” she said.

“It’s really important that girls understand that if they have been attacked or sexually assaulted, they’re not actually alone. They are not the first person to go through this and if I can help them, I want to be able to.”

Zonta House Women’s Refuge CEO Kelda Oppermann said it was important for young women to believe in themselves and trust their instincts.

“I would encourage all young women to talk – whether it be a trusted adult or good friends. Having good friends and trusted adults who love you and want the best for you is essential for a young woman’s emotional development,” she said.

Kelda said the statistics were worrying when it came to young people recognising FDV.

“A number of our young people are already exposed to domestic violence and they may or may not understand it is happening. Knowledge is power. By educating women on healthy relationships, consent and what supports are available, we are also creating opportunities for more conversations and for people to support each other,” she said.

“Through initiatives like ‘teen talk’, it is vital to provide opportunities for young women away from usual peer groups and circles to engage in activities focused on being themselves, and learning life skills.”

“Our young women are so bright and have endless potential, we need to support them to find their purpose and empower them to understand that anything is possible.”

Kelda Oppermann

Women’s Council for Family and Domestic Violence Services Policy Officer Kedy Kristal said that feeling empowered was important for women of any age.

“For a young woman today to feel empowered, for the most part she needs to be prepared to and supported to believe in her own value, her own ideas, her right to not conform, her right to challenge stereotypical expectations of appearance, employment, sexuality, education choices, reproductive choices, relationship options, her right to make mistakes, to take risks, and her right to expect to be treated by everyone as a valuable member of the human race,” she said.

Kedy said there was an immediate need for respectful relationship education in schools.

“The education needs to be for both girls and boys; it’s everyone’s responsibility to behave respectful in a relationship,” she said.

“We can only stop the cycle of FDV when men and young boys are educated/socialised to understand and change their thinking and behaviour that supports their world view that violence and abuse is an appropriate response.”

Pictured: Sheree Neto enjoys some peace by the water

Sheree reflects on her own experiences where she had not known her true value, and lost herself in the process.

“Know your worth, what you deserve and don’t be scared to reach out if you or someone else you know is going through a tough time. Value yourself above all other things.”

Sheree Neto

Sheree hopes to bring her ‘teen talk’ program to high schools and she wishes to develop a one on one mentoring program in the near future. She also speaks at a number of different events, advocating for an end to FDV.

To get in touch with Sheree or to book her for an event, find out more here.

Thank you! Your subscription has been confirmed. You'll hear from us soon.


text:
Self-Mastery, Story, & Tribe

For years, I addressed pieces of the puzzle  to help clients stand out and belong–with varying degrees of success. One client might get just the Story piece, by working on his LinkedIn profile, while another client only wanted the Self-Mastery tools to manage her daily life better and another client was hungry to learn how to blog, as a way to attract his Tribe.

But if I was to help others “let their flag fly high”, they needed to work not just in one area, but all three. What good is a beautiful flag (Story) if you don’t have the confidence (Self-Mastery) to hold it up high?  And what good is a flag held up high, if you aren’t standing where kindred spirits can see and gather round it (Tribe)? What good is any of this, if you never find your place of belonging?

I now provide a holistic solution, informed by both successes and failures with past clients and validated by the path I’ve taken to stand out and belong.  Clients receive coaching and consulting in all of the following areas, in sequential order:

Success is an inside job. Your inner world shapes what you experience in the outer world.

Know thyself. This includes identifying your gifts, managing what gets in your way, and focusing your energy on what matters. When you know what saps your energy and what fills you up, it's easier to consciously be "in the flow". When you've eliminated beliefs that no longer serve you, it's easier to step into your full power. When you can clearly hear your inner voice--and trust it-- your confidence grows exponentially.

What I often find is that each person has more than enough talent, experience, and skills to fulfill their desires in life. What keeps them locked into the status quo? Entrenched, self-sabotaging patterns of thought, feeling, and behavior. Human beings are amazingly good at shooting themselves in the foot--and then claiming that it was someone else who pulled the trigger!

It is with this truth in mind that I focus the Self-Mastery work on first helping clients break these old patterns--what I call their "Victim" and "Overcoming" stories that they tell themselves. When the Victim and Overcoming stories are exposed, and dismantled, that's when the client can start living from a much more productive place, the place of their Great Story.

Self-Mastery is THE foundation for the rest of the journey, because standing out--truly being visible--can be a scary thing. It means letting go of an identity that hasn’t truly been you, but at least is known. It also means conquering the fear of being seen as weird or quirky and finally, being comfortable in your own skin.

From your best self springs your authentic story--the one that feels true and points you in the direction of your greatest contribution to the world.

Working on your story serves two purposes. First, it helps make meaning of your life--especially if your life has been full of twists and turns. Maybe you felt like you left a job too soon. Maybe you intended to find a job in banking but instead you ended up in advertising. Maybe that trip to Honduras opened your eyes to what youreally could be doing and now, you're back in school, decades after graduating. When you know your story, you'll also know your work in the world. More importantly, you'll have the confidence to pursue it.

Which leads to the second purpose for story--communicating to others your distinct value and the impact you want to have in the world, in a memorable and believable way. We'll use concepts from screenwriting to help flesh out your story, including theme, backstory, and conflict. People not only remember stories. They aretouched by them. Isn't that the whole point?

Here's the really fun part. Connecting to others is easier once they know your story. But it doesn't stop there. How do you attract a following? By being a leader--one who is in service to others.

During the Tribe phase, you'll become a better networker, both in-person and online, and learn to consistently provide value to your network. It's not about taking. It's about giving--generously.

You'll also identify and develop your thought leadership. What is your wisdom that you want to share with others? If you life is a message to the world, what is that message?

Over time, you will have built your brand community--consisting of people who know, like, and trust you, and are willing to tell others about the value you provide. At this point, fitting in is a moot point. You automatically belong because you have a tribe. It doesn't get much better than that.


text:
St. Ann Today

About St. Ann
St. Ann is a suburban community of nearly 14,000 residents located in northwest St. Louis County Missouri. The city offers a wide variety of municipal services with low residential tax burden. The city has one of most expansive parks systems in the area. Additionally, the city is served by two outstanding public school districts, Pattonville and Ritenour.

St. Ann is located in the 63074 zip code; please access a regional map for location details.

As a mature community, the city has and will continue to focus heavily on redevelopment efforts. The city released a Request for Redevelopment Proposals (RFP) for a 229-acre site directly adjacent to Lambert St. Louis International Airport. Additionally, in November of 2005, city residents approved a 1/2 cent Economic Development Sales Tax to further economic development projects within the city. The Board of Aldermen has adopted a plan for putting these funds to use.


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

text:
Posts Tagged ‘rights’

Obama Exempts Some Union Employees From Having 4th Amendment Rights Violated; Other Citizens Can Kiss Off

November 24, 2010

The hypocrisy of the liberals is, as always, beyond belief.

Remember how they bitched about every Bush national security program, no matter how obviously necessary each program clearly was? The Patriot Act was a despicable and un-American violation of our freedoms.  Domestic Eavesdropping of telephone calls to or from people on terrorist watch lists was a despicable and un-American violation of our freedoms.  Even though there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever than a single American citizen had his or her rights deprived.  Now they rabidly defend treating every single American who flies like a terrorist, in obvious violation of their 4th Amendment rights.

We have this frank admission from the TSA:

“No one likes their Fourth Amendment violated going through a security line. But the truth of the matter is we are going to have to do it.”

Well, for the record, no we don’t.  We could be like the Israelis – who have the safest record in the world – and profile.

But look at this: the TSA has now exempted the pilots and the flight attendants (union employees, both) from a clearly despicable and un-American violation of their rights and freedoms. The Obama administration is going to exempt union workers from having their 4th Amendment rights violated, but will go ahead and keep violating every other citizen’s 4th Amendment rights.

Why the exemption? Because:

TSA spokesman Nicholas Kimball said, “Flight attendants, like pilots, are a known and trusted group.”

Now, that’s common sense, on one hand. But it’s also clearly “profiling.”

For example, aren’t elderly nuns ALSO a “known and trusted group”??? What evidence can the government provide that elderly nuns should be less trusted than pilots and flight attendants?

I can show you a documented instance in which an airline pilot deliberately crashed a passenger jet aircraft.  I can show you documented bizarre and disruptive behavior from a flight attendant.  Heck, I can show you documented bizarre behavior from both an airline pilot AND a flight attendant at the same time.

Now show me the elderly nun who has crashed a passenger jet aircraft.

Now that we’ve established the “known and trusted” character of elderly nuns in relation to the considerably less “known and trusted” status of pilots and flight attendants, can’t we also easily come up with a long, long, long list of people who are in a “known and trusted group”???

As an example, not only have I never committed a terrorist act, but no one LIKE ME ever has, either. Unlike, say, airline pilots.  Which is to say I’M part of a “known and trusted group,” too.   Dammit.

But, no. Because liberals are jackasses and fools, I have to be treated just like the groups that clearly are NOT to be trusted. Because for liberals, to treat the group that is responsible for 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of all terrorist attacks differently than my group that has never attacked anybody is somehow wrong.

What can I say, but, “I know why the caged bird sings…”

Obama Demagoguery Outraging The Citizen Class

May 23, 2010

A good article on Townhall underscores the building anger that is going to overtake Obama and the Democrat regime in November.

Sunday, May 23, 2010
by Austin Hill: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama Has Enraged the “Citizen Class”

The “citizen class” is horrified.

We’re speaking here of those Americans who, while they may disagree on a variety of social and public policy issues, nonetheless agree on a few, crucial matters.

Those of us among the citizen class generally agree that the United States is a good country. While far from perfect, we see our nation as being a place of tremendous opportunity, and a force for goodness around the world.

We also agree that being a U.S. citizen is a significant and distinct thing. While we respect the notion that all human beings are worthy of their “basic human rights,” we see the rights imparted to citizens of the United States as being something different, something “over and above” the category of “basic human rights.”

This is not to say that we are superior people, because we are U.S. citizens. This is, however, the greatest blessing of being a U.S. citizen. It is why so many of us in the citizen class think of our status as a “naturally born citizen” as being a God-given gift, and we celebrate those who legally earn American citizenship as well.

But along with the distinctiveness of being an American citizen, those of us among the citizen class also regard our nation’s sovereignty as something that must be safeguarded as well. Political philosophies, governmental structures, and economic systems are not morally neutral – some work far better than others. And the structures and institutions and governing philosophies of the United States have produced a far higher level of human flourishing and freedom than any others. For this reason, if for no other, our nation must always be regarded as separate and distinct.

Our nation is good, U.S. citizenship is distinct, and national sovereignty is non-negotiable. In a nutshell, this is the mindset, the worldview, of the citizen class. It has nothing to do with one’s ethnicity, or socioeconomic background, or sexual orientation, or gender. It has everything to do with one’s most deeply held beliefs.

Not every U.S. citizen possesses the “citizen class” view (clearly some Americans don’t understand the blessing of their status), yet a majority of us still do. And no matter how much we may disagree on other matters, those of us in the citizen class won’t budge on these three items.

And this why President Obama has enraged the citizen class. He has planted the seeds of doubt regarding our nation’s goodness, and has implied that U.S. citizenship, and national sovereignty, are irrelevant.

While an overwhelming majority of the citizen class supports Arizona’s effort to uphold the significance of citizenship and sovereignty, President Barack Hussein Obama has sided with the United Nations, Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez, China, and the President of Mexico in opposing the state of Arizona. One would hope that the President of the United States – any President of the United States – would seek to protect all fifty of the states that he governs from international criticism, even if he didn’t happen to like the behavior of one of his states. But our current President stands united with some of the most thuggish regimes in the world, in opposing his fellow Americans of Arizona.

Worse yet, our President not only allowed, but enabled Mexican President Felipe Calderon to publicly humiliate our fellow Americans of Arizona, while standing on the sacred grounds of the White House. And President Obama’s party – the ruling party in Congress – couldn’t rise to their feet quickly enough and offer thunderous applause, when Mr. Calderon publicly humiliated Arizona during an address to both the Senate and House last week.

It’s nothing short of disgraceful to see the President of the United States undermine us, while the entire world is watching. His behavior has, in no small part, called in to question just how “united” the United States of America is right now.

Yet in the midst of the disgrace, there are hopeful signs. The citizen class has whole-heartedly rejected the agenda (such that it is) of Barack Obama. It began last November with statewide elections in New Jersey and Virginia, where gubernatorial candidates endorsed by Barack Obama both lost. It moved on to Massachusetts where Obama’s choice for U.S. Senate lost to Republican Scott Brown.

And now, evidence of the rejection of Obama’s agenda has radiated from Utah, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky. And we haven’t even seen yet how the President’s trashing of Arizona will impact elections yet to occur.

The louder President Obama and his party cheer, the greater the rage of the citizen class. And the citizen class won’t be ignored much longer.

Democrats are claiming that the victory of Democrat Mark Critz over his Republican challenger in a heavily Democrat district, proves that the Democrats are as popular as ever.  Let’s forget the fact that Pennsylvania’s 12 district has been gerrymandered to give Democrats a 2-1 registration advantage over Republicans.  Let’s forget the fact that the special election occurred on the same day as the Democrat primary – whereas Republicans had already voted, and essentially had to vote twice.

Republicans could point out that they just won the election in Barack Obama’s hometown in Hawaii – another state that is heavily Democrat as proof of the fact they they are going to destroy Democrats in November.  But the Republicans only won that because two Democrats were in the race, splitting the Democrat vote.  Sometimes those little details matter.

The fact is that the Democrat victory in Pennsylvania and the Republican victory in Hawaii are for the most part anomalous. Both races will be fought all over again in six months – and the results of both may very likely change.

But the fact is also that the American people have largely turned against Barack Obama.  As of today, he has an approval rating of minus seventeen (- 17), with only 45% of Americans approving of his performance versus 54% who disapprove.  And the fact that a pissed off and frightened people are going to vote in huge majorities against Barack Obama in states and districts across the country in November.

What is particularly interesting is that Mark Critz – and many Democrats – are actively running against Barack Obama and the Obama agenda.  Crizt ran against ObamaCare, and against Obama’s cap-and-trade plan, among other things.  Democrats are literally saying that the American people should elect Democrats in order to oppose the Democrat agenda.  Does that really sound like a narrative that’s going to work in November?

Add to that the fact that unemployment and a host of other measurements of the U.S. economy are bad, with not a whole lot of evidence that they are going to improve.

The Democrats demagogued and demonized Republicans about the Republican record as they assured the American people that they would make everything better.  And now the same anger and outrage that Democrats rode last year will fittingly come back to wash them away over their failures.

I see a reckoning coming.

Update May 24: Oops.  Did I say 45% of Americans approved of Obama, versus 54% who disapproved?  That was yesterday.  Today only 44% of Americans approve of Obama, against 55% who disapprove.  And the President Approval Rating is at a negative eighteen.

Update May 25: Oops again.  Did I say 44% of Americans approve of Obama?  That’s no longer correct.  I’m sorry, but Obama is tanking so fast that it’s just hard to keep up with it.  Today, only 42% of Americans approve of this turd which is stinking up the White House.

From Rasmussen, May 25:

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

And oh my, a whopping 20% more voters utterly despise Obama now than like him.

And that overwhelming majority of voters is going to want to come out and hurt somebody in November.

On Totalitarian Sentimentality: What It Is, And Why We Should Fight It

December 23, 2009

Mark Steyn, who frequently serves as a fill-in for Rush Limbaugh and recently has been filling-in for Sean Hannity on his television program, is a genuine treasure.  He manages to combine a riotous sense of humor with conservative wisdom and his own je ne sais quoi.

Today, on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, Steyn told a story about a funeral he recently attended in Europe at a church that had been built in the 11th century.

His party was in the vehicle immediately behind the hearse, so he couldn’t help but see a cart that looked to him like a shopping cart being wheeled up to the hearse.

He asked the pallbearers who were in the process of unloading the casket what the shopping cart was for.  And one of them answered and said, “It’s to bear the casket, mate.”

Steyn said, “I thought you were supposed to carry the casket in.”  He pointed to the handles and said, “Here are the handles.  You’re pallbearers.  You’re supposed to bear the pall.”

The pallbearer said, “Health Services regulations, mate.  We’re not allowed to carry the casket due to safety regulations.”

Steyn said, “Safety regulations?”

The pallbearer said, “The path is uneven.”

Mark Steyn then said, “This is a one thousand year-old church.  That same path has been uneven for a thousand years.  And now somebody decides its unsafe to carry a casket?”

The pallbearer repeated, “Safety regulations, mate.”  As though that was all the answer that was needed.

Mark Steyn and his brother decided that this wouldn’t do.  “We’ll carry the casket in ourselves.”

The pallbearers said, “You can’t.  You need to have a license from the state to be pallbearers.”

Steyn’s brother said, “What’s the point in becoming a licensed pallbearer if you’re not allowed to actually bear the pall?”

They argued about it for a little while, and finally decided that Steyn and his brother would assist the pallbearers in carrying the casket.

What’s the moral of this story?  Steyn said that this is just the way big government works in today’s modern Europeanized socialism.  It simply takes over everything with a gradual takeover of regulations.

And he pointed out that you have to fight against it in all the little things, because otherwise it will simply just keep regulating more and more little things and accumulating more and more power over every aspect of our lives.

Then he referenced an article entitled, “Totalitarian Sentimentality,” which I thought worthy of posting.

Totalitarian Sentimentality

By Roger Scruton from the December 2009-January 2010 issue

Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay. Conservatives therefore maintain severe and — to many people — unattractive attitudes. They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service. They believe in the family and think that the father is an essential part in it. They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency. They value the hard-won legal and constitutional inheritance of their country and believe that immigrants must also value it if they are to be allowed to settle here. Conservatives do not think that war is caused by military strength, but on the contrary by military weakness, of a kind that tempts adventurers and tyrants. And a properly ordered society must be prepared to fight wars — even wars in foreign parts — if it is to enjoy a lasting peace in its homeland. In short conservatives are a hard and unfriendly bunch who, in the world in which we live, must steel themselves to be reviled and despised by all people who make compassion into the cornerstone of the moral life.

Liberals are of course very different. They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment. They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included. And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better. Children should be allowed to play and express their love of life; the last thing they need is discipline. Learning comes — didn’t Dewey prove as much? — from self-expression; and as for sex education, which gives the heebie-jeebies to social conservatives, no better way has ever been found of liberating children from the grip of the family and teaching them to enjoy their bodily rights. Immigrants are just migrants, victims of economic necessity, and if they are forced to come here illegally that only increases their claim on our compassion. Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give — something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves. As for the legal and constitutional inheritance of the country, this is certainly to be respected — but it must “adapt” to new situations, so as to extend its protection to the new victim class. Wars are caused by military strength, by “boys with their toys,” who cannot resist the desire to flex their muscles, once they have acquired them. The way to peace is to get rid of the weapons, to reduce the army, and to educate children in the ways of soft power. In the world in which we live liberals are self-evidently lovable — emphasizing in all their words and gestures that, unlike the social conservatives, they are in every issue on the side of those who need protecting, and against the hierarchies that oppress them.

Those two portraits are familiar to everyone, and I have no doubt on which side the readers of this magazine will stand. What all conservatives know, however, is that it is they who are motivated by compassion, and that their cold-heartedness is only apparent. They are the ones who have taken up the cause of society, and who are prepared to pay the cost of upholding the principles on which we all — liberals included — depend. To be known as a social conservative is to lose all hope of an academic career; it is to be denied any chance of those prestigious prizes, from the MacArthur to the Nobel Peace Prize, which liberals confer only on each other. For an intellectual it is to throw away the prospect of a favorable review — or any review at all — in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books. Only someone with a conscience could possibly wish to expose himself to the inevitable vilification that attends such an “enemy of the people.” And this proves that the conservative conscience is governed not by self-interest but by a concern for the public good. Why else would anyone express it?

By contrast, as conservatives also know, the compassion displayed by the liberal is precisely that — compassion displayed, though not necessarily felt. The liberal knows in his heart that his “compassionating zeal,” as Rousseau described it, is a privilege for which he must thank the social order that sustains him. He knows that his emotion toward the victim class is (these days at least) more or less cost-free, that the few sacrifices he might have to make by way of proving his sincerity are nothing compared to the warm glow of approval by which he will be surrounded by declaring his sympathies. His compassion is a profoundly motivated state of mind, not the painful result of a conscience that will not be silenced, but the costless ticket to popular acclaim.

Why am I repeating those elementary truths, you ask? The answer is simple. The USA has descended from its special position as the principled guardian of Western civilization and joined the club of sentimentalists who have until now depended on American power. In the administration of President Obama we see the very same totalitarian sentimentality that has been at work in Europe, and which has replaced civil society with the state, the family with the adoption agency, work with welfare, and patriotic duty with universal “rights.” The lesson of postwar Europe is that it is easy to flaunt compassion, but harder to bear the cost of it. Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess. This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs. Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves. On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden. The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase in its power both to tax us and to control our lives.

As the state takes charge of our needs, and relieves people of the burdens that should rightly be theirs — the burdens that come from charity and neighborliness — serious feeling retreats. In place of it comes an aggressive sentimentality that seeks to dominate the public square. I call this sentimentality “totalitarian” since — like totalitarian government — it seeks out opposition and carefully extinguishes it, in all the places where opposition might form. Its goal is to “solve” our social problems, by imposing burdens on responsible citizens, and lifting burdens from the “victims,” who have a “right” to state support. The result is to replace old social problems, which might have been relieved by private charity, with the new and intransigent problems fostered by the state: for example, mass illegitimacy, the decline of the indigenous birthrate, and the emergence of the gang culture among the fatherless youth. We have seen this everywhere in Europe, whose situation is made worse by the pressure of mass immigration, subsidized by the state. The citizens whose taxes pay for the flood of incoming “victims” cannot protest, since the sentimentalists have succeeded in passing “hate speech” laws and in inventing crimes like “Islamophobia” which place their actions beyond discussion. This is just one example of a legislative tendency that can be observed in every area of social life: family, school, sexual relations, social initiatives, even the military — all are being deprived of their authority and brought under the control of the “soft power” that rules from above.

This is how we should understand the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. To his credit he has made clear that he does not deserve it — though I assume he deserves it every bit as much as Al Gore. The prize is an endorsement from the European elite, a sigh of collective relief that America has at last taken the decisive step toward the modern consensus, by exchanging real for fake emotion, hard power for soft power, and truth for lies. What matters in Europe is the great fiction that things will stay in place forever, that peace will be permanent and society stable, just so long as everybody is “nice.” Under President Bush (who was, of course, no exemplary president, and certainly not nice) America maintained its old image, of national self-confidence and belligerent assertion of the right to be successful. Bush was the voice of a property-owning democracy, in which hard work and family values still achieved a public endorsement. As a result he was hated by the European elites, and hated all the more because Europe needs America and knows that, without America, it will die. Obama is welcomed as a savior: the American president for whom the Europeans have been hoping — the one who will rescue them from the truth.

How America itself will respond to this, however, remains doubtful. I suspect, from my neighbors in rural Virginia, that totalitarian sentimentality has no great appeal to them, and that they will be prepared to resist a government that seeks to destroy their savings and their social capital, for the sake of a compassion that it does not really feel.

This is no newly realized idea.  Alexis de Tocqueville understood this well more than a century ago when he wrote:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

Whether it is health care “reform” that will create a superstructure that liberals will continue to build more and more socialist big government control forever after; whether it is cap-and-trade, which will send energy prices through the roof and lead to government control over everything that produces or consumes energy, or has anything to do with energy in it’s development; whether it is federal government bailouts of every industry or institution deemed “too big to fail”; whether it is outright government ownership of private industry (such as the car companies); whether it is sweetheart deals offered to one politician, one state, or one industry or institution that correspondingly imposes burdens on others; whether it is the series of sweeping new regulations that strangle businesses and keep banks unable to make loans; we have to fight this agenda with everything we have.

‘What About The Baby’s Choice?’ A Pro-Life Woman Asks As She’s Being Assaulted By A Pro-Choice Thug

December 19, 2009

First of all, may God bless this courageous and beautiful woman as she stands up for the cause of innocent human life.

Pro-Life Activist Lila Rose Attacked by Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Escort

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 18
, 2009

San Jose, CA (LifeNews.com) — Lila Rose has made a name for herself exposing the abuses at Planned Parenthood centers, such as staffers misleading women about abortion or hiding cases of sexual abuse. Rose became a victim herself Thursday morning as a Planned Parenthood staff member attacked her.

Late Thursday morning at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility located at 1691 The Alameda in San Jose, California, Rose led a group of pro-life advocates.

Rose tells LifeNews.com she was visiting the abortion center with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to abortion alternatives.

According to a police report filed at the scene and numerous witnesses, a uniformed Planned Parenthood escort engaged in a short exchange with Rose and eventually struck her on the hand, knocking her literature to the ground.

“Sir, are you familiar with the abortion procedure?” Rose asked the Planned Parenthood escort while standing on the public sidewalk.

The escort approached Rose from the Planned Parenthood parking lot and said, “You idiot. You’ve caused so much trouble. You piece of crap.”

Rose told LifeNews.com today: “The man appeared to recognize me though I had never met him. He knew who I was and I think that is part of the reason for his surprising anger and the attack.”

Rose offered to show the escort a picture of a baby victimized by abortion, saying, “Can I show you a picture of what it really does to a baby?”

At this point, the escort struck Rose’s hand knocking her pro-life pamphlets and Bible to the ground and Rose stepped further back on the public sidewalk.

The Planned Parenthood official moved closer to Rose and, visibly shaking, says, “It’s a woman’s choice!”

“What about the baby’s choice?” Rose responds.

The Planned Parenthood escort replied, “It’s not a baby!” and then turned around and walked away.

Rose, the president of Live Action, tells LifeNews.com that the police were called and interviewed her and several witnesses on the scene.

She says she was not injured by the attack but will press for charges of assault and battery.

“I attempted to speak with the escort and faced unexpected, intense anger and violent physical contact,” Rose told LifeNews.com. “I was concerned at the time that he would attack somebody more violently, and more do so next time.”

“Live Action maintains a strong commitment to non-violent public discourse. We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort’s attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence,” Rose said.

However, Planned Parenthood has yet to comment on the incident.

Rose told LifeNews.com she’s not concerned about the attack in one sense because unborn children face worse.

“The attack against me cannot even begin to compare with the lethal attacks that take place twice a week at that same clinic against completely defenseless unborn children. I am thankful I live in a nation where my life is protected by law, and the lives of sidewalk counselors, and we will continue to fight for the day when our laws recognize our fellow unborn brothers and sisters as persons with the right to life,” she said.

Rose said she received good news this morning.

“A woman who thought she was pregnant and considering abortion, bound for Planned Parenthood , turned around, and one of the parents and their daughter at the clinic drove her and her friend to the criis pregnancy center,” she said.

‘She was crying and so happy because she said she wanted ‘a sign from God’ not to get an abortion. And the sidewalk counselors and students praying were her sign,” Rose concluded.

Related web sites:
Live Action – http://liveaction.org

Again, bless you, Lila Rose.  I thank God for you, and for what you are doing, and – now that I know who you are and what you are about – I will not forget to pray for your ministry and for your protection.

Let me ask one pertinent question.  If “It’s not a baby,” as Planned Parenthood says, then why is it that men are called “fathers” and held legally responsible to provide support for “the children they fathered”?

If it was not a child immediately following his part in procreation, then upon what legal or moral basis can a man be held responsible as a “father”?  After all, he didn’t father a “baby”; he merely fertilized a single-celled lump of goo.  It didn’t “become” a baby until considerably after the fact – according to the abortionist reasoning – either after the baby was born, or after the mother decided to “choose” that it was a baby and therefore somehow wasn’t a lump of goo.

If a baby doesn’t actually become a baby until he or she is born, then on what possible basis do you hold the “father” responsible for something that happens 9 months after he had anything to do with anything?  The only thing he cause was a non-human lump of goo, not a baby, right?

If your going to hold him responsible for the fact that a baby is born 9 months later as a result of something he had done 9 months previous, how can you not apply the same logic to the mother, and recognize that in 9 months time she will have a baby, so that she become responsible for that outcome of a baby in the same way a father is held responsible?

If a baby doesn’t become a baby until the “mother” decides that little boy or girl in her womb is a baby, then that’s her “choice” alone – and nobody but the woman who made that choice should be held accountable for it.  Period.  If she has all the “rights,” she should bear all the responsibilities for her “choice.”

The simple fact of the matter is that justice is dead.  A baby is expected to forfeit his or her very life for the mere convenience and “choice” of a mother.  And a father is expected to sit passively by while his own child is killed by being violently ripped apart after being dissolved – writhing in agony – by acid.  Ah, unless the mother subjectively “chooses” that her baby really is a baby; in which case the father is compelled to provide support for that baby whether he wants to “choose” to do so or not.

You can understand why modern fathers are decried for being passive and uninvolved today.  It is the legacy of abortion, which tells fathers that neither they nor their children have any real value.  Given the twisted moral logic of abortion – which has permeated our culture – why should they care?  The baby that he fathered is intrinsically without value apart from the completely subjective “choice” of the woman he once had sexual relations with.  Why should he be any more involved with his “child” now than he was forced to be when all “choice” as a parent was taken away from him by our legal system in the first place?

There is a famous photo of a baby reaching out of the womb and grasping the finger of the surgeon (Dr. Joseph Bruner) who was in the midst of operating to alleviate the effects of spina bifida in that child.

The photo reflects something that is so profoundly human that it brings tears to my eyes every time I see it.  This is the kind of creature that any human mother and father should do absolutely everything in their power to save and protect.  To casually kill such an innocent little human being – that now lives because of a union of mother and father – is beyond monstrous.

Here’s a more recent photo of that same child – Samuel Armas – ten years later, proudly holding up his awards for swimming.

Of his role in “The Hand of Hope,” Samuel says, “When I see that picture, the first thing I think of is how special and lucky I am to have God use me that way.”

Amen, my young brother.  You are as incommensurably priceless now as you were the day you famously reached out of your mother’s womb.

Now, since I am one who actually knows that that an innocent little baby in the womb is a developing human being conceived in the image of God, I know that every father becomes a father from the moment he conceives a child.  And therefore every father has a moral duty under God and under heaven to love, support, and protect his child – from the very sort of murderers who would rip his child apart in abortion.  And I know that just as I also know that any mother who murders her own baby deserves hell for her crime.

And anyone who nods their assent to this monstrosity likewise deserves hell for advancing the cause of the greatest moral evil the world has ever seen.  Fifty million human beings are dead in this country alone because of the systematic holocaust of abortion.  People think that just because it’s legal, it must be okay.  But Hitler’s death camps, Stalin’s purges, and Mao’s cultural revolution, were all perfectly legal in their day, too.

You might recoil back and say, “How dare you invoke the Nazis!”  But there is a crystal clear link between Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and the Nazi ideology.  And not very long ago, Planned Parenthood was caught in the act embracing the same racist and uber-Darwinian mentality as their founder once shared with Hitler.

The Nazis had a slogan – Arbeit macht frei, meaning “work shall make you free,” which they posted above the gates of many of their death camps.  Human beings were forced to worked until starvation and disease made them unable to continue working, and then they were euthanized in gas chambers, all because they were not deemed to have intrinsic value as human beings.  Abortion and euthanasia were at the heart of Nazi ideology – to help along Darwinian selection and improve their “master race” by preventing or terminating “unfit” human beings – under a doctrine that they called lebensunwertes leben, or “life unworthy of life.”

In America, we have done something that is virtually as chilling from a different philosophy called “choice.”  We demand “rights” that impose duties and burdens upon others – culminating in a baby’s duty to die for the sake of the “rights” of the mother.  American abortion clinics should post their own, even more menacing phrase: tod macht frei, or “death shall make you free.”  In America, the choice to abort is the choice to kill in the name of convenience and consumerism.  Abortion clinics are modernized drive-through death camps.  Walk in through the gate with a growing baby in your womb; walk out with your own child’s blood on your hands.

Bush, Obama, the Mainstream Media and the Iranian Election Demonstrations

June 21, 2009

Watching the mainstream media coverage of the demonstrations in Iran following their elections, you would think that the protests have been all about Obama and his Cairo speech delivered on June 4.

Barack Obama appeared to take great credit for whatever would happen when he delivered a rambling answer to a press question about what was happening in Iran prior to the election results being released (and Ahmadinejad being declared the winner):

“Uh, we are excited, uh, to see, uh, what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. And obviously after the speech, uh, that I made in Cairo, uh, we tried to send a clear message that, uh, we think there is the possibility of change, uhhh, aaaand — ehhh, yuh– oh – Ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide, but just a-as has been true in Lebanon, uh, what’s, uh — can be true in Iran as well is that you’re seeing, uh, people looking at new, uh, possibilities. And, uh, whoever ends up winning, uh, the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help, uh, advance, uh, our ability to engage them in new ways.”

But there are some major problems with the “Obama’s speech changed the world” thesis:

For one thing, Obama’s speech failed to offer any new changes in American policy. As an example, even PBS’ positive article on the speech confessed:

While President Obama’s speech contained no new policy proposals on the Middle East, he called upon Israelis and Palestinians alike to live up to their international obligations and to work towards a two-state solution.

And with all due respects, it’s not like Obama’s devoid of actual policy change “call” ignited the Islamic world.

Any many Muslims rightly said, “Nice speech, but let’s wait and see what Obama actually does.”

One late night comedic take on the speech a group of terrorists wearing masks and bandoleers of weapons and ammunition listening to Obama’s speech in front of a television. When Obama seemed to say something about offering peace, they got up, “high-fived” one another, and began to take off their weapons. But then, even as they were in the process of taking off their weapons, Obama seemed to say something that went against the grain of his immediately previous statement, so the terrorists shrugged and started putting on their weapons again.

Bottom line: the comedic take ended up with the terrorists still armed with all of their weapons, just as they had been prior to the speech.

Fausta’s blog dealt with some of what was missing from the speech:

1. The word TERRORIST. “Violent extremism” doesn’t happen on its own. It’s done by terrorists.

2. Details on closing Gitmo “by early next year.” Surely Pres. Obama realizes that it’s not enough to say “I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.” Where will those terrorists be sent? What will be the international reaction?

3. A firm position on women’s rights. As Peter Ladou said regarding the tepid language on this issue:

Is that a joke?With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab? I would have been much more heartened if the preponderance of the speech had been about how in the 21st century, we CANNOT tolerate the pervasive abuse of our mothers and sisters and daughters.

Most troubling of all, the speech lacked
4. An unequivocal, firm stance on democracy: A “commitment to governments that reflect the will of the people” is not enough. Tyrants since the dawn of history have been summoning the masses to demonstrate their regimes “reflect the will of the people.”

Additionally, the statement, “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone” is equivocating on a moral point. America, from its birth, has been a champion of democracy, and should remain stalwart in its position.

Did Obama truly think there was little or no difference between the so-called “glass ceiling” women might find in America with the stonings and mutilations of women all-too common in the Islamic world?

As to this last point, Charles Krauthammer – after citing specific examples of just such moral equivalency from Obama’s speech – says this:

Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He’s showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

Distorting history is not truth-telling, but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership, but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one’s own country.

Let me offer a rival explanation as to why Iranians are revolting against the results of the elections, even after the Ayatollah “sanctified” the results by claiming the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reflected a “divine assessment.”

How about the hard-fought-for result of an actual democracy in Iraq right next to Iran?

How about the fact that Iranians had the chance to see not one, but now several, freely-held elections with Iraqi people being able to victoriously hold up purple-ink-smudged fingers as proof that they had been able to freely vote for the candidates of their choice?

Just how is it that Obama’s speech is somehow more important than that?

Let’s not forget the fact that neither Barack Obama nor the mainstream media wanted the Iraqi people to be able to freely vote for the candidates of their choice. They opposed the toppling of dictator and tyrant butcher Saddam Hussein – who had murdered at a minimum 400,000 of his own people and buried them in mass graves – having the opportunity to vote that George Bush and the magnificent American military courageously won for them.

And these same people who opposed the establishment of an Iraqi democracy in the heart of the Arab world are now telling you that a damn SPEECH filled with meaningless moral equivalencies and devoid of substance or policy accomplished a change in the heart of the Iranian people?

The mainstream media gleefully covered every death and every failure in Iraq and continued to cover it – until President Bush and the American military began to turn things around. And then the coverage dried up. These dishonest peddlers of propaganda were unwilling to represent the effort in Iraq as successful.

You can go back and find the left predicting in 2003 that “Bush’s declared attempt to introduce democracy in Iraq by force seems set to fail.” In 2005 the naysayers who called hope for democracy in Iraq “the province of fools” abounded. Then you can find media elites in 2006 suggesting that the elections in Iraq are good news, but still not as good as it should have been. Now we have a full-fledged stable democracy in the heart of the Arab world, and it is seemingly irrelevant to whatever positive pro-democracy changes that might be taking place immediately around Iraq.

The mainstream media allowed the Democrat Party to literally cut-and-run from its earlier positions on Iraq without coverage or analysis. Democrats were allowed to be for the deposing of Saddam Hussein before they were against it. Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were allowed to claim “I believe that this war is lost“ while our troops were still fighting on foreign soil to secure victory.

Articles still condemning Bush for Iraq by the mainstream media continue to go for about a dime a dozen, but the Wall Street Journal on January 31st, 2009 offered this far more accurate and honest conclusion:

Say what you want to say about the administrative debacle the situation became after Saddam was ousted, but Saturday’s endeavor is a sign of a better Iraq in a region infested with despots and tightly-gripped political systems, where elections, if allowed, are not that different from those held under Saddam – sham, corrupt and pointless. Arab regimes across the Middle East and Arab people around the world who bristled when they saw Saddam toppled, and later executed — and who may still easily shrug off Iraq’s elections as unconstitutional for being held under U.S. military occupation — have a right to know what it means to have a sense of hope. True, Iraq was safe under the Baath regime and walking in Baghdad at any time of the day felt to me even safer than walking in some parts of New York now, but give me any police state in that region or elsewhere that doesn’t enjoy a relative sense of protection.

The left got to take credit for the good times, and blame Bush for the bad ones. On December 15, 2003, Hillary Clinton crowed upon the capture of Saddam Hussein:

“I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote.”

Hillary Clinton was for that war before she was against it. And the mainstream media – dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous itself – allowed Hillary Clinton to be dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, prior to his declaration of defeat in Iraq, had justified the war in 2002 when “being tough” was politically in vogue. On October 9, 2002 he was on the record saying:

“We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.”

He was not only allowed to be for that war before he was against it by the media, he was allowed to utter outright treason by declaring a war our troops were still fighting “lost.”

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said on October 10, 2002:

“I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. … Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

But the mainstream media allowed Nancy Pelosi to get away with the outright moral depravity of attacking President George Bush as a liar when she had publicly held the very same positions herself.

And now we have these same deceitful, dishonest demagogues ignoring the hard-fought accomplishments won under George Bush, and crediting an empty speech as the driving force behind any changes in the Islamic world.

Following the beginnings of the Iranian public demonstrations, even in the aftermath of public statements of condemnation by European leaders, Barack Obama had failed to take a public stand. EVEN FRANCE HAD DISPLAYED MORE COURAGE IN STANDING BEHIND THE IRANIAN PEOPLE THAN OBAMA.

Obama finally provided a weak statement of support for the Iranian people. But it was criticized as being not nearly enough. Finally, he offered a somewhat stronger statement, but only after both the House and the Senate passed strongly-worded resolutions:

Congress voted resoundingly Friday to condemn the Iranian government’s crackdown on protesters, sending a strong bipartisan signal to the White House that it wants less caution and more outrage.

Obama hasn’t been at the forefront of democracy for Iran; he has in fact been the Western and American leader most behind on the issue of supporting true democracy in Iran.

But we’re supposed to believe that it was an empty-worded speech from an empty suit on foreign policy that is rocking the Iranian world?

Don’t believe it for a nanosecond.

Archbishop Rips Moral Idiocy Of Obama’s Abortion Democrats

October 21, 2008

Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput had a lot to say about Democrats and abortion:

DENVER (AP) – Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a “disservice to the church.” ….

Chaput, without getting into much detail, called Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights major-party presidential candidate since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in 1973.

“To suggest – as some Catholics do – that Senator Obama is this year’s ‘real’ pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse,” Chaput said according to his prepared remarks, titled “Little Murders.” ….

The Obama campaign has been promoting an unusual-suspect sort of endorsement from Douglas Kmiec, a Catholic law professor and former legal counsel in the Reagan administration.

Kmiec wrote a book making a Catholic case for Obama. He argues the Obama campaign is premised on Catholic social teaching like care for working families and the poor and foreign policy premised on peace over war. Democratic efforts to tackle social and economic factors that contribute to abortion hold more promise, Kmiec said, than Republican efforts to criminalize it.

While applauding Kmiec’s past record, Chaput said: “I think his activism for Senator Barack Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.”

Pro-Obama Catholics “seek to contextualize, demote and then counterbalance the evil of abortion with other important but less foundational social issues,” said Chaput, who wrote a book this year, “Render Unto Caesar,” about Catholics and politics.

I have heard many people say that world hunger, global poverty, and other social welfare issues should be primary, and that abortion is of relatively minor significance in comparison.  It doesn’t work that way.

First of all, a fetus is a human being, every bit as much as you are or I am.  According to the most rigorous scientific categorizing of all things – taxonomy – a human fetus is of the Kingdom Animalia, of the Phylum Chordata, of the Class Mammalia, of the Order Primates, of the Family Hominidae, of the Genus Homo, and of the Species Sapiens.  From the moment of conception, that is how a human being is classified.  And nothing else in existence is so classified.  As a matter of funamental reality, you who are reading this are no more or less human than a human zygote.  An unborn human being is human by virtue of its parents, and a being by virtue of the fact that it is a living, growing, developing thing: it is a human being.

Either human beings are fundamentally, intrinsically, and incommensurably valuable as human beings in and of themselves or they are not.  If they are not, and a woman can subjectively choose to terminate her pregnancy – and kill her child – then human beings have only subjective value.  Human beings in this sense would be little different from a pet dog: my dog has a great deal of value to me, but not much to anyone else.  One woman loves and cherishes the baby growing in her womb; another despises it and wants it dead.  Neither is any more “right” or “wrong” than the other.

The baby who emerges from its mother’s womb in the delivery womb would be the kind of thing that could have been killed only moments before.  And as that child grows into adulthood, it is always the kind of thing that could have been terminated without moral consequences.

I remember seeing a bumper sticker on a car that read, “Pro Child, Pro Choice.”  If you can be pro-child while strongly supporting abortion, then why can’t you be “Pro Jew, Pro Holocaust”?  We have in the United States aborted nearly 50,000,000 innocent human beings for the simple reason that they were unwanted.  And the view that one can care about children so much that one supports that babies’ death because it isn’t wanted by its mother has rather terrifying implications about other “unwanted” people.

That’s not a real strong position from which to argue about social and economic justice.  The desperately poor, starving child in Africa?  Does he or she have rights?  Does he or she matter?

Is a newborn baby a precious human being, or is it merely an abortion that didn’t happen?

If his or her value is merely a matter of subjective determination, then the answer may be yes or or it may be no, depending on how you personally feel about the baby in question.  If, on the other hand, his or her value is a matter of objective ontological status as a human being, then the answer is an unqualified YES.  And if you don’t care about that baby, then the issue isn’t about that baby’s humanity, but about your appalling lack of human decency and compassion.

Why should a woman’s decision to have her child or to kill it alter the reality of that child’s value?  Who is she to decide, “This child is valuable,” or “This child is worthless”?  “Oh, she had her child, so therefore it matters, and I should care” is a bizarre thought to hold at the same time as “Oh, she aborted her child, so therefore it didn’t matter, and I shouldn’t care.”

That’s the archbishop’s point.  If you’re not pro-life, nothing else really matters.  It’s such a bunch of subjective posturing once you have abandoned the fundamental dignity of human life.  We’re just meat puppets, then.  We’re just primates who are somewhat more “evolved” than the very animals we eat for food or allow to live as pets.  We’ve killed untold millions of such primates in wars, and untold millions more have died of neglect.  What does one more – or one million or one billion more – matter?

Please watch this video:


text:
Computer-keystroke-recorder using Startup Control

Startup Control is all in one data recovery software. You can undelete files and folders, unformat disks and partitions, repair disk file system, and more. Software is excellent solution for computer-keystroke-recorder.

 computer-keystroke-recorder using Startup Control software

With Startup Control program you can:

  • Recover deleted files and folders.
  • Fix corrupted partitions and logical drives.
  • Perform computer-keystroke-recorder tasks.
  • Get lost data from partially inacceisable disks.

Startup Control software is ready to use solution for computer-keystroke-recorder problem.

Computer-keystroke-recorder question is successfully answered using Startup Control software. Problem of computer-keystroke-recorder is solved if you are using StartupControl solution. The same computer-keystroke-recorder matter is not a problem anymore.

Detailed and additional Computer-keystroke-recorder articles are coming soon. Stay informed with STARTUP-CONTROL.COM web site.

Other Computer-keystroke-recorder articles

This web site contains many articles, documents, and overviews relative to Startup Control software and computer-keystroke-recorder theme:

Try Startup Control program to perform computer-keystroke-recorder relative tasks. This software is available to download from STARTUP-CONTROL.COM website.

Microsoft®, Windows®, MS, Microsoft Windows, Windows Server, Internet Information Server, Internet Information Services, IIS either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. AQUATRA software company is independent from Microsoft Corporation and not affiliated with Microsoft in any manner.


text:
Lenskart launches Lenskart Vision Fund

–          To invest $2 million in each of the selected start-ups

–          Lenskart Vision Fund aims to nurture innovations disrupting eyewear, eye-care and omni-channel retail

India’s leading omni-channel D2C eyewear brand Lenskart has announced its plans to invest up to $2mn in each of the selected start-ups that are synergistic to the eyewear, eye-care and omni-channel retail sectors. In addition to the infusion of capital, select start-ups will benefit from Lenskart’s phenomenal market access via 700+ retail stores and online channels across India, Singapore, Middle-East and the US.

The access to Lenskart’s state of the art vertically integrated supply chain, word class technology stack for facilitating omni channel retail, tech expertise in building futuristic technologies for eyewear will provide select start-ups the right ecosystem to build consumer centric, technology-led, disruptive products and services. Apart from this, senior leadership team at Lenskart will mentor the start-ups to navigate challenges during the early phase of business building.

Speaking on the launch, Peyush Bansal, founder and CEO of Lenskart said “We have traversed the challenging journey as a start-up to become a unicorn. We believe it’s time to give back to the ecosystem and support exceptional entrepreneurs by helping them build scalable enterprises. We have a decade of experience and expertise in building and scaling a D2C business through technology which can be leveraged by start-ups to realise their vision of building world class businesses.”

Since the initiative is designed to help start-ups scale, Lenskart will select early-growth stage ventures with clear in-market evidence of traction and customer adoption.

Focus sectors for investing include D2C eyewear and eye care brands, technologies enabling access to vision care, eye testing technologies, omni-channel retail solutions across logistics, supply chain, merchandising, marketing, in-store automation and deep tech solutions for eyewear, retail and e-commerce.

The Lenskart Vision Fund initiative is being run in partnership with Applyifi.com and endeavours to attract start-ups that have a clear product-market fit and a defensible competitive differentiator. For more information on Lenskart Vision Fund and to apply, please visit: www.lenskartvisionfund.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


text:
So I’m a little behind on my reflection this week. It’s been a busy week and I also wanted more time to think and write.

The last few weeks at the university have gotten me thinking about how we are called to witness to and be present to the campus community. I’ve been to conversations about race and hate-groups in the US and I’ve been in conversation with lots of folks about what is the church and the nature of ministry in this current social climate, and while I certainly have no answers, I have a couple of thoughts that have brought me consolation.

The first is that we are called to be bridge builders. One of the Latin titles for the Pope is “Pontifex maximus,” the biggest bridge builder. While I have a lot to say about the pontificate (that’s a totally different subject) I do love the image that his title include building bridges, and I think that we are all called to that ministry. In many ways the ministry of reconciliation that Jesus gave us as his followers: to make connections and bring people together. Long before the current controversies about walls (again, that’s another subject) our culture has encouraged us to build walls between each other and even in ourselves. Even so-called “social media” for the most part builds walls by putting a screen between you and the person you’re reaching out to. There are certainly beneficial walls, but so often they just keep other people, ourselves, and God at arm’s length and don’t allow us the intimacy and connectivity that enriches human life. But I am consoled watching here on campus and in our society as so many walls are falling, and so many bridges are being built.

The other source of consolation is the reminder I got from Isaiah last Sunday that “those who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint.” Getting discouraged in our faith life is inevitable, getting weary is part of the human condition. This winter has really gotten me down. The grey clouds and the just-enough-snow-to-make-life-hard has bummed me out. But even on tough days, all I have to do is “Lift up [my] eyes on high and see:” the One who is never faint or weary, the One who upholds me. It doesn’t take away the discouragement or make me less bummed, but looking to God does remind me that it is not my burden alone. Just as a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, helped Jesus carry his cross, and the apostles helped Jesus carry the burden of his ministry, Jesus can help me carry my load on the tough days. He’s not carrying for me, but with me.

It is everyone in our lives, those who are Jesus to us, who are helping with our burdens. For me, it’s the students coming out to watch a basketball game, the board working hard on listening to where God is calling us next, the staffs of the Diocese and Synod making sure that the ground is laid for ministry, my wife and extended family that encourages me to keep going even on the hardest days. These are bridges and these are the folks who helped me carry the load today. Who is helping you today? Where are your bridges Count them as a blessing, and give thanks to God for them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s