text:
dimanche 12 février 2012

[book Review] The Sunset Witness by Gayle Hayes

Title: The Sunset Witness
Author: Gayle Hayes
Publication :  February 2012
Genre: romantic suspense/ thriller
Format: ebook – 76 pages
Violence: strong

Langage: normal
sex: mild
Public: 18+

Source: Free copy provided by the author for review

Description from Smashwords :

When Rachel Douglas moves to Sunset, Oregon at the invitation of her estranged childhood friend, Sarah, she discovers Sarah was not truthful about her reasons for abandoning her beach house. Rachel is determined to stay even after someone tries to scare her away.
Then Rachel meets Michael Archer and says that only a serious character flaw would prevent her from falling in love with him. Wouldn’t you know it—he has more than one, but she falls in love with him anyway.

Michael’s complicated past threatens their hopes for the future. After a double homicide, Rachel must choose either to run with Michael or to live without him.

My opinion:

          I was at first intrigued by the form of the story: a report of investigation by a detective about the disappearance of a witness. I didn’t know what to expect but the result is excellent; we have the story from Rachel’s point of view thanks to a flash drive given to the detective Josie Gannon whose report fills the gaps and gives the conclusion of the investigations.
The characters are interesting and their past is as important for the plot as their present. I was immediately hooked, I wanted to guess the culprit and it wasn’t evident at all.  All the characters are keeping something secret and it’s often not what we could expect. The story is short but very complete and the writing style is good.  We can see how the events took place and the interactions between the characters give us a lot to think about. I appreciated the reflection about love and passion and their results positive or not, it’s well thought and well written.

The romance is there but in a way it’s secondary in the story, I was more concerned about the plot, the murder and the threats than the love part.  As for the end, it gives you matter to think about and it’s quite fun.

I would recommend it to people who want to spend a good time with a suspense book of quality.

Score:  4/5

Interested in this book? You can buy it at Smashwords,  Amazon or Barnes and noble

You can find the author Gayle Hayes on her blog or on Twitter

Source: a copy in exchange for a honest review, no compensation was received.

5 commentaires:

  1. Sounds like an exciting read, I am so glad you enjoyed it Miki!

  2. thanks you a lot, it was great yes

  3. Ooh - I had not heard of this book before now but it definitely seems like something worth looking into. I will check this out soon! :)

    Stephanie @ Stepping Out of the Page
    Drop by & enter my International Giveaway

    1. it's a new one so it's a bit normal that few people know about it but if it's a genre you like you should give it a try ^^

    2. If you want to discover it it's you are luck, it's free ( if you take it before the 29 february) on smasword with the coupon: CV89Z

      go and enjoy^^


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
Sunday, August 09, 2009

I Know Whom I Have Believed

I know not why God's wondrous grace
To me He hath made known,
Nor why, unworthy, Christ in love
Redeemed me for His own.

I know not how this saving faith
To me He did impart,
Nor how believing in His Word
Wrought peace within my heart.

I know not how the Spirit moves,
Convincing us of sin,
Revealing Jesus through the Word,
Creating faith in Him.

I know not what of good or ill
May be reserved for me,
Of weary ways or golden days,
Before His face I see.

I know not when my Lord may come,
At night or noonday fair,
Nor if I walk the vale with Him,
Or meet Him in the air.

But I know Whom I have believèd,
And am persuaded that He is able
To keep that which I've committed
Unto Him against that day.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Did you write this poem? Strong grasp of the mechanics of the craft of poetry. Tija S

Glenda, saved by grace said...

I wish...Tija. Its an old hymn!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like it might b by george herbert Tija

Glenda, saved by grace said...

Go have a listen :)

Gramma 2 Many said...

I love old hymns, and this is one of my favorites!! It says it all.

Dee said...

I love old hymns also.There are a lot of great songs out that i like to listen to, but i like the old hymns for my praise and worship. Dee

Washer Mom Val said...

Love that one!

Washer Mom Val said...

Been days since you've posted - just checking in if all is OK.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Leaderboard 728 X 90

Monday, January 14, 2008

A Schnauzer Spy Story, Part IV

Let's return to our "Schnauzer Spy Story." In our previous installments, we have shown how strange events in your life could be connected to abuse of our telecommunications system by people in positions of public trust. As I noted earlier, I don't have all of the facts on this subject nailed down yet, so I have written about it in a somewhat theoretical sense--asking the reader to put himself in my shoes. Events very similar to the ones described here actually took place with my wife and me. This will be the final installment, for now, and it shows just how strange things can get when you think someone might be prying into your personal business.

Now that you know a judge has the power to easily track your telephone communications, you decide to take some special precautions regarding your wife's job search. You learn about communications methods that are very difficult to track, and your wife begins to use them.

In less than three weeks, she has a job offer from a reputable organization. Until you altered your communications methods, she had searched fruitlessly for a job for almost three years. This makes you grow even more suspicious about possible traces of some sort on your phones.

Even though your wife finally has a job, you quickly discover the cloud of possible surveillance has not passed.

Perhaps you relax a little once your wife has a job offer. Or perhaps you just don't realize the extent to which powerful people will go to track your communications. Anyway, you make a mistake.

Your wife is at her new employer one day, filling out some papers prior to beginning work. She calls once from one of her employer's phones to your office phone.

A few days later, your wife is told that the job offer is no longer on the table, even though she had accepted it and was to begin work any day. Your wife is stunned. When she asks for an explanation, she gets generalities like "we didn't think it was going to work out" and "we didn't think it would be a good fit."

Strangely, the woman who gives your wife this distressing news says the company will pay her two weeks salary. Amidst your anger and suspicion, you wonder, "Why would they pay two weeks' salary? Is this a form of hush money, which is supposed to keep you and your wife from asking questions?"

You ask yourself another pretty obvious question: Is somebody tracking calls to or from your office phone? Did your wife's call to your office phone cost her a job?

From your research on phone surveillance, you know that anyone with connections to a judge could do this easily.

Meanwhile, your wife wants answers. She writes a letter to the woman who had offered the job, and taken it away, asking for a legitimate explanation. Your wife also explains about your involvement with a legal case and the possibility that someone had tracked your communication and intentionally taken steps to cost your wife a job.

The company does not respond, but your wife soon hears from their attorney. Your wife notes options that would allow her under the law to conduct discovery in an effort to determine whether she was harmed--both criminally and civilly--by these recent events. (This option is called Rule 27. It allows a party to conduct discovery prior to filing a claim, essentially to discover whether the party truly has a claim or not.) The lawyer makes it clear that the company does not want to get into a legal proceeding over the matter. So your wife says, "Fine, I'd like to see records of ingoing and outgoing phone calls to the company from the time I applied and was interviewed and offered a job till the time I was told I did not have a job."

These records, your wife knows, would reveal the phone numbers of anyone who, having tracked her phone communication, might have followed up with the a call to the company, discouraging them from hiring her.

The attorney doesn't seem at all interested in providing this information. She says that under Alabama law, the employer doesn't have to offer an explanation for its actions. The attorney, who once had stated that she would like to see the matter resolved short of a courtroom, now seems mainly interested in stonewalling.

Of course, it's not just you and your wife who should be interested in getting to the bottom of the situation. If someone called the company and said something false and defamatory about your wife, it cost the company a very good employee, one who probably would have worked for them for years. It cost them an employee who had already proven she was the best candidate for the job.

What if someone, seemingly acting in an official capacity, called the company and said something false and defamatory about your wife, causing the company to have second thoughts about hiring her? If that happened, you, your wife, and the company were victims of wire fraud--a federal crime. Your wife was the victim of slander, a civil wrong.

The lawyer and company, however, clearly are not interested in discovering the truth. They just want to duck and cover, which makes you think even more that someone in a powerful position got to them in an unlawful way.

Another question comes to your mind: Does this company have a history of treating employees and would-be employees this way? If so, you figure it would have a number of lawsuits filed against it in federal court. So you check court records and find only one employment lawsuit against the company, and that was about 12 years earlier, a race-discrimination case--and race is not a factor with your wife, who is white.

The company evidently does not have a history of acting the way it has acted toward your wife. So you are left to ask: Why is it acting this way now?

Imagine that all of this has happened to you and your wife. What would you think had happened? What would you do about it?

1 comment:

John Leek said...

I'd be pissed and I'd want justice. Keep it up!


text:
Arts-graphics-2008 1185853a.jpg

30,902pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Arts-graphics-2008_1185853a.jpg (download) (200 × 259 pixels, file size: 14 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Warning sign-questionmark
This file does not have information on its copyright status.

Appears on these pages

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

current05:11, November 27, 2010Thumbnail for version as of 05:11, November 27, 2010200 × 259 (14 KB)CHUNK (Talk | contribs)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.


text:
30,902pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
BelvBaby2.jpg (download) (230 × 306 pixels, file size: 14 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Warning sign-questionmark
This file does not have information on its copyright status.

Appears on these pages

  • 5836 Beautiful Baby Princess

    5836 Beautiful Baby Princess is a Belville Fairy-Tales set released in 2002. It includes a baby...

  • K5850 Belville Kit

    K5850 Belville Kit is a Belville Fairy-Tales product collection released in 2003. It consists of...

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

current01:36, May 23, 2011Thumbnail for version as of 01:36, May 23, 2011230 × 306 (14 KB)Byzantium 3000 (Talk | contribs)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Do you believe in the accuracy of polls in regards to the presidential election?

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. It depends/sometimes.
  4. Do not pay attention to them.
  5. Other.
sort: oldest | newest

No comments posted for this poll.

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.

I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web


text:
Welcome to my blog, I hope you enjoy what you read. Feel free to leave any comments.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Boris Godunov Blogging Event

The Royal Shakespeare Company's production of Boris Godunov is currently playing in rep as part of the 'A World Elsewhere' season along side two other plays, The Orphan of Zhao and The Life Of Galileo. The RSC ran their third social media call and this time Boris was the play to be featured. This time instead of running a scene for us to film/take pictures of, we were given tickets to see the matinee performance of the play and then attend a post show question and answer session.
Stephen Ventura (Shchelkarlov/Misail/Poet), Sadie Shimmin (Hostess),
Philip Whitchurch (Varlaam/Prince Wisniowiecki)
Photo By: Ellie Kurttz
The play is set in Russia in 1598, when, Prince Dmitry, the rightful heir to the Russian throne is dead and its left to Boris Godunov to reluctantly take the throne. After six years of securely ruling, rumours begin to surface that it was Boris that killed Dmitry to clear his way to the throne. These whispers reach the Chudov Monastery, where a young monk, Grigory, is yearning for life outside his cell. Realising that Prince Dmitry would have been the same age as him, he flees the monastery for Poland, where he intends to post as the 'reborn' Prince and convince the Polish people to help his overthrow Boris and become Tsar. In Poland, Grigory is using his considerable charm to gain loyalty and manpower. He has also caught the eye of the Polish princess, Maryna, who is quite taken with the idea of marrying a Tsar. When he finally proposes marriage he becomes compelled to reveal his true identity to her. She is furious, but eventually agrees to be his wife if he manages to overthrow Boris. Grigory gathers a troop of supporters and crosses over the Russian border to fight, after a first defeat, Grigory rallies the troops for a second, and back in Moscow, Boris Godunov's life, and claim to the throne, is hanging in the balance.

                                        video clip from Boris Godunov (c) RSC.

The play is superbly performed by the company and stars a fantastic cast led by Gethin Antony as Grigory and Lloyd Hutchinson as Boris Godunov. Other cast members include James Tucker as Shuisky, Joe Dixon as Afanasii Pushkin and Lucy Briggs Owen as Maryna.

This production of the play is a new adaptation of a play originally by Alexander Pushkin and was adapted by the late Adrian Mitchell and is directed by the former RSC Artist Director (2002-2012) Michael Boyd. The set for the production has been designed by Olivier Award winning Tom Piper, the lighting designed by Vince Herbert and music is by John Woolf. All of these contribute to a feel of Russia. Though the set maybe a little basic, the acting and use of the space makes up for it. The music definitely feels authentically Russian. All in all, the cast and the production team have produced a very enjoyable piece of theatre, that I'd recommend highly that everyone catches.
Lloyd Hutchinson (Boris Godunov)
 Photo By: Ellie Kurttz
After the show, all of us bloggers were invited back to the Ferguson Room at the RSC for a post show Q+A with three of the actors, Gethin Antony (Grigory), Lloyd Hutchinson (Boris) and James Tucker (Shuisky) and we were also joined by the productions assistant director, Emily Kempson.

Here are some of the questions and answers that were given.

Q - Could you please give us an introduction to the play.
A - (Emily) One of the things I found really interesting with this play its that it's got a really interesting production history, in fact this is the first time this uncensored version has been performed professionally in England. The play has continuously been repressed by various censorship regimes and throughout Russian history. The action begins in 1598 with the coronation of Boris which is also the time that Elizabeth The First was on the throne of England, so around the same time that Shakespeare was alive here is what was happening in Russia, that is why its part of the World Elsewhere season. The production was directed by Michael Boyd, and his last production while he was Artistic Director and I think it was a really apt play for him to finish on and certainly felt a good finale to his ten year tenure. It's a really good round up of the Russian work that Michael has done while he's been at the RSC. He trained as a director in Russia and has a really strong connections with Russia, and he also speaks Russian, which is something we all found really useful during rehearsals. Hearing his insight. So along with the connections this play has to Shakespeare's histories it felt an appealing last play for him to do. The rehearsal period was a much longer one than I've ever been involved with, so that was a very brilliant thing for me. It felt for me a very open and creative process in that Michael isn't one of those directors that walks into the rehearsals with a plan of this is how the production will be. It's very much about getting in the rehearsal room and putting ideas together. In the beginning we thought of what the play might say about Russia today, and the Pussy Riot thing was much more recent when we started, and that was on the news and we also talked about what this play might say about Russian politics throughout history and even still today. We also had a brilliant talk by writer Martin Sixsmith where we talked about how Russia constantly finds itself within the grip of an automatic power.

Q - You said it was a long rehearsal period, how long was it?
A - (Gethin) The two shows rehearsed side by side, this and The Orphan Of Zhao and I think it was around 11 weeks, so on each play around 6-ish weeks.

Q - So you might be rehearsing one play in the morning and another in the afternoon?
A - (Gethin) I mean some of the actors would be bouncing between China and Russia, and get some severe jet lack. There were actors that would get one call to be here then another to be elsewhere. What was interesting for me, its the first time I've worked with the RSC and the first time I've worked in anyway like this to not only have six weeks within that 12 week rehearsal time, you also get a lot of thinking time. For a British actor it was a real privilege to have that amount of time for the material to seep in.
Graham Turner (General Basmanov/Father Czernikowski)
Photo by Ellie Kurttz
Q - Over that time were you developing as an ensemble? It's not a director saying this is what you'll do, it comes together as an ensemble?
A - (Lloyd) Yes, a lot of its the more the ensemble play together the tighter it becomes.
A - (Gethin) It's something that Michael really encouraged is that collaboration, a genuine collaboration, where anyone in the room can talk about anything, any department, and that create works like the coat fight. Things like that where Tom Piper (designer) brings coats into the rehearsal room and the actors contribute by finding how to use them as well and that hopefully that creates good work.

Q - I was going to ask about the concept of the battles, I though it was absolutely incredible, was it developed in the rehearsal room, rather than anyone having a set plan?
A - (Emily) Absolutely, Michael hates planning. There's no real planing.
A - (Lloyd) I mean there was a bunch of coats in the rehearsal room for us all to stick on and they were just picked up and used and then we thought how would you fight with a coat.

Q - In the original Russian script, did it break into the rhyming couplets that are in the production?
A - (Gethin) Adrian Mitchell honoured the form throughout
A - (Lloyd) It was a real shame that he wasn't in the rehearsal room, as he sadly died around 4 years ago. It would have been great to have him in the room because you've got Pushkin and him, two very different writers that came from the same block of wood, it would have been great to have him there.
Lloyd Hutchinson (Boris Godunov)
Photo by Ellie Kurttz
Q - There's no interval in the production. Was that decision made early on and how did you feel about it?
A - (Lloyd) I personally love it, I'm a great fan of watching plays straight through. Sometime I think an interval can slow it down, but in some plays you do need that break. I remember when Michael said it I was thrilled because the first acts only around 40 minutes long.
A - (Emily) The decision was made later in the process. It's a bit of negotiation with other departments as having no interval has implications for them too. It was a really good discipline because we were told that we had to make the production 2 hours or under which I think serves it well.
A - (Lloyd) I was really enthusiastic about offering cuts early on, which I believe is vital, and it's important that you make the right cuts.
A - (James) Michael's a director who likes scenes to overlap, he hates scene changes.

Q - This was my first time in the Swan, I was really intrigued with the way you were interacting with the audience. Is that something you've done specifically for this production?
A - (Lloyd) With The Orphan Of Zhao that is quite a contained show, it's very focused, but with Boris there's always that notion that you the audience is observing us all the time. You're always there to be played with, to and involved. This was something that came out early on in rehearsing.
A - (James) Michael does that, he wants to audience to part of the action.
A - (Gethin) Essentially the writing leads you there.
Q - I think it's partly the theatre.
A - (James) You're in one room, you're having a conversation with the audience yourself as the character. I love it when a single actor is upon the stage, and they'll stand in a spot where they can take in more or less the whole audience and they can talk to them.

Q - I thought the structure of the play was quite unusual because its monologue, then a little bit of duologue and other wise its story telling. Was that something you felt playing it?
A - (Lloyd) Pushkin was such a big fan of Shakespeare, he wants to the monologue, there's bits of Macbeth in it, the comedy tavern is something similar to Henry IV part 2. It's a real lover letter to Shakespeare. You just have to honour what the writer has written, there's nothing else you can do.

Q - Was the music in the original play?
A - (Emily) John Woolf has done all the music, there is existing chants but John did all the rest. There is lyrics to the song in the tavern scene is in the original play.

Q - Does working in rep change the mind frame of an actor?
A - (James) It certainly changes your energy levels depending on what sort of day you've had. I guess tiredness can sometimes be a good thing.
A - (Lloyd) It brings out different qualities, it allows you to play with different aspects of your own apparatus.

Gethin Anthony (Grigory Otrepiev)
Photo by Ellie Kurttz
Boris Godunov runs at the Swan Theatre in Stratford-Upon-Avon until March 30th 2013 for more information visit the RSC Website (click here)

1 comment:

  1. I find many useful things herewith. It is really amazing for us. There are fully knowledge about event staffing From a last decade I was searching such type of web site. . I refer this to my close friends who are already seeking for the same .


text:
30 April 2015

It's not nice to mess with Captain Mike.
Micheal 7
Attention Blogees (or whatever you call yourselves), this Blog is hereby commandeered by Capt. Mike, retired detective LAPD. I’m a naturally suspicious guy; suspicion goes with the territory and I’ve been full of it for the past several weeks as I’ve investigated this Lella Boutique and its proprietor, Vanessa Goertzen, a seemingly sweet young thing who I came to suspect of actually running a nefarious network that trafficked in illegal contraband.
To digress a little, Vanessa is the daughter of my new wife, Miriam. Because Miriam had recently passed the Bureau of Criminal Information background check, I figured that I could give her daughter some leeway before putting her to the test. By the way, I earned my moniker with 30 years’ experience working the hard streets of L.A. so I wear it proudly. Miriam is the only one I have given permission who does not have to address me as “Captain”--at least when we’re at home and company is not present.
Anyway, Vanessa brought her two children: Olive, age 4, and Lorenzo ("Bubba"), age 2, to our home a month and a half ago. The kids are cute but annoying. Apparently, Vanessa needs Miriam’s help as she prepares for an event called: “Quilt Market” that is scheduled for the middle of May in Minneapolis. It seems that this market with the innocuous title is in actuality a twice annual convention that attracts a mass network of companies and thousands of attendees each year. Vanessa is a designer for Moda (no, not that guy, he’s still in the joint); it turns out that Moda is a quilting fabric company based in Dallas—or so it claims.
My view this morning. #showmethemoda #quiltmarket
I learned through my investigation that Moda employs home-based designers like Vanessa, but I fear that something more sinister is at work here. Vanessa has turned our garage into her own work place that she always keeps locked. She works 18 hour days accompanied by a constant humming of some unknown machine. One day, when she came out for a quick lunch break, I got a glimpse of some sketched designs of butterflies and pinwheels in a notebook that never left her side. I paged through suspicious short hand and detailed instructions regarding “a project” that she wanted done. One note was particularly concerning: “the long arm is close-thank goodness, I’m nearly done.” Had Vanessa found out about my investigation and was she alerting her higher ups?
social butterfly3
It seems as the Quilt Market day approaches, Vanessa’s work has become more frantic. When she’s not in her work room, she is typing on her laptop or IPhone. And this is not the usual casual communication that is typically associated with Facebook or other social media—Vanessa is typing at a furious pace. And this past week, more big UPS and FedEx boxes began arriving on our front porch. My mind began to race with more questions. Is Moda really a fabric quilting company? Is Lella Boutique really a home shop for a fabric designer? And then one day, Vanessa slept in. At first, I believed that confirmed my suspicions. After all, the people caught up in the schemes that I investigated usually work late, with spurts of frantic activity, followed by days of sleeping late. Could Vanessa be in this “Breaking Bad” cycle? Maybe not.  I confided in Miriam some of what I have written in this blog. She looked at me with some puzzlement. I replied: “How do you explain Vanessa’s remark about the ‘long arm of the law getting close?’ Miriam said something about a long arm quilting machine that had just completed a quilting project and the results were magnificent. Hmmmmm. Perhaps, I should cancel the polygraph and background check I had scheduled for tomorrow. Captain Mike returns control of this blog over to the perpetrator, I mean the proprietor.
My stepdad cracks me up. And just so you know--he's a former news reporter-turned-attorney who has a knack for spinning yarns. Lest you believe I work 18-hour days, here's the skinny on what actually goes on. (I get a lot of questions from people wondering how I'm able to get so much done while wrangling two little ones so I'll tell you.) The truth is, I hardly get anything done during the day as far as "work" goes. Even during market prep. Most of the day is entertaining kids, catching up on laundry, and the like.
The trick for me has been making the most out of every single day--especially during a hectic time like quilt market prep. So here's what I do:
1. I plot. Before I go to bed every night, I think about what I need to get done the next day and schedule it. During market prep, I may attempt to cut some binding strips while the kids eat breakfast. Or trim half-square triangles. Or press a few blocks. But if I don't get them done, well I just don't get them done and it's fine.
2. I make the most of nap-time. When Lorenzo goes down for his snooze, Olive and I head to our workroom. I've got a workstation set up for her next to mine; she makes bead necklaces, draws pictures, plays with Barbies, etc. She loves it and it allows me to get a couple hours of sewing in. Sometimes she'll even show interest in helping me and I certainly let her. (I hope to make an addict out of her as well.)
When Olive wants to help bind a quilt, I just stick the needle
 where it needs to go and let her pull it through the rest of the way.
I've also learned that Lorenzo's nap-time is a good time to arrange blocks, baste a quilt, or take photos--a good time for anything I'd prefer to do without Lorenzo's "help."
3. I rely on late night hours. The vast majority of work gets done after everyone goes to bed. Most nights I don't get to bed until 1 AM. (I'm always looking forward to my Sunday nap.)
And chocolate. Lots of chocolate.

27 April 2015

I always cherish my visits to Grandma's house up in the Colorado mountains. Her yard is a flower garden overflowing with hollyhocks, delphinium, and raspberries--a sweet combination of blues and pinks surrounded by expanses of various shades of green. Grandma tells me wonderful stories of her childhood: Life was simpler back then, and her family didn't have much, so they valued what they found and what they could grow. When they were lucky enough to find gooseberries, they picked them and took them home. A little sprinkle of salt helped reduce the sour taste, and Grandma and her sisters thought gooseberries were a rare kind of treat. If they could gather enough, their mother made a pie!
I'm delighted to introduce you to my newest fabric line with Moda, Gooseberry. It begins showing May 2015 at International Quilt Market (Minneapolis, MN) and ships to stores October 2015.
Return here Thursday for my day on the Moda Blog Hop "Moda Designers in Real Life" [behind the scenes of market prep].


text:
The new focus of online security? Small businesses – MarketWatch

What’s the difference between a hack at Yahoo

YHOO, -0.17%

  and a hack at your local dentist’s office?

The latter is far less likely to have a plan in place to respond properly, experts say. Now, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a government agency that regulates businesses to protect consumers, and other nongovernmental bodies are doubling down on efforts to educate small and midsize businesses on risk management as their susceptibility to data breaches increases.

“This is particularly an issue for small businesses,” said Maureen Ohlhausen, the FTC’s acting chairman, while speaking to a panel at Nasdaq in New York City on Monday. “We are seeing a huge amount of data breaches target small business, but they don’t have the resources to withstand the impact,” she said at the panel, hosted by public-private digital privacy and security

We recommend you visit the following site for more complete information and related topics. Article source:

Comments are closed.


text:
ORDER/SUBSCRIBE           SPONSORS           CONTACT           WHAT'S NEW           INDEX/SEARCH

Borges and Memory:  Encounters with the Human Brain

by Rodrigo Quian Quiroga
The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012
224 pp., illus. 34 b&w. Trade, $24.95/£17.95
ISBN: 9780262018210.

Reviewed by Jan Baetens

Contrary to what its title may suggest, this book is less an analysis of Borges’s literary treatment of how our memory works than a presentation of historical and cutting-edge research on the same subject. Borges, in other words, is not the subject of the study, but its most important rhetorical channel. It may come as a surprise that the Argentina born and educated neuroscientist Rodrigo Quian Quiroga did not know about “Funes the Memorious” and other famous stories by Borges when he had started working on the functioning of the human brain (the author does not focus on the distinction between mind and brain, just as he does not stick to the difference between body and soul), but it makes his personal account only more vivid and intriguing. For after all, Borges’s tales, much of them from the 1940s, give as vivid a description of human memory as today’s most sophisticated visual theories and representations, even if they do it in a way that modern scientists may label as definitely non-scholarly.

Borges, however, had perfectly understood the essence of memory, which has of course to do with storage and retrieval but also, and perhaps even more importantly, with forgetting, filtering, selecting, on the one hand, and abstraction, generalization, categorization, on the other hand. Memory can only function as we want it to do, if we are capable of leaving many things aside, while relying at the same time on the possibility to label, classify, pigeonhole what we retain, in the various times, layers, and types of memory that contemporary brain science helps differentiate. Just as Borges tells his readers about memory by describing the strange case of Funes, a man who remembered literally everything he had ever experienced but proved unable of “thought”, i.e. of creative thinking, Quiroga presents his overview of neuroscience by highlighting a wide range of illnesses, disorders, and freak stories that all insist upon the same message: the vital necessity of forgetting as well as that of generalizing, and the horrible consequences on the human mind and human behavior if these faculties that the man in the street may not spontaneously associate with “good memory.”

Quiroga’s book may not contain much new information on how neuroscientists study and represent memory nowadays, but the way in which he does is it refreshing and accessible to a very broad audience. The structure of the book is mainly chronological (it follows more or less the findings in the field since the early 19th Century), but with many fascinating digressions to theoretical and philosophical issues that provides excellent new readings of some great authors like William James, Gustav Spiller, John Stuart Mill. Quiroga is a superb storyteller, who has the intelligence to make himself invisible behind the subject that he is narrating. He generously foregrounds the seminal thinking of all those, in Western as well as in non-Western traditions, who preceded him in the field and proves very sensitive to the unfathomable suffering that goes along with neurological dysfunctions. Moreover, he manages to establish a real dialogue with his reader, not only be seducing him or her with the rhetoric and humor of his fables and anecdotes, but also with a great sense of timing and construction. Each chapter discloses a new dimension of a universe which never becomes a labyrinth of concepts and research hypotheses and throughout the book the reader is invited to “play” with the author, who is a master in combining verbal and visual information and who helps the reader make a wonderful journey through the human mind.

Last Updated 6th March 2013

Contact LDR: ldr@leonardo.info

Contact Leonardo:isast@leonardo.info

copyright © 2013 ISAST


text:
The Day I Wanted to Quit Homeschooling

Have you ever wanted to quit homeschooling?

If you’ve homeschooled for more than a week or two then I can bet that your answer is a resounding, “Yes!”

You’ve doubted yourself. Your kids have driven you crazy. You’ve been tired and burnt out. Your kids have complained and refused to do work. You’ve wondered if you were actually cut out to do this job.

Yes, I’ve been there too – more times than I’d like to admit. And while quitting at homeschooling isn’t an option right now, I have fantasized about sending my kids for a ride on that giant yellow bus and having a quieter house for a few hours.

Yet I press forward, and so do you. Keep up the good work, dear homeschool mom!

And if you’d like to have a little homeschool solidarity (and a few laughs), read on to see the day that caused me to want to quit homeschooling.

Here was my not-so-very fun day homeschooling my 6 kids – Curly (age 11), Tiger (age 9), Bee (age 7), Ladybug (age 6), Punkin (age 4), and the baby (who is almost 1).

6:27 – My husband yelled at me that we’d overslept and it’s past time to get up. He rushed out the door to teach his 7:40 class at the university and I stumbled down to the basement to start our school day. I felt groggy and basically terrible, but determined to make today a good day (the day before had been blissful and I was ready for a repeat).

6:30 – Curly (11) was throwing a screaming tantrum about school and that she was behind and that everyone was bothering her. I just sat in stupefied silence as she unleashed all of her pent up frustrations at me. Alright! I wasn’t expecting that this morning! I worked to help her calm down before we started on her schoolwork. We got it all done in record time and I tried to encourage her that she was doing a wonderful job.

7:15 – I started working with Bee on her schoolwork while Curly (11) stomped upstairs to work on independent work. Bee (7) sobbed during math time because she was absolutely convinced that 5×6 was 35. She sat next to me screaming that it HAD to be 36 and that she was right and that she had no idea what she was doing. Oh my goodness! The girl would not listen to reason.

8:10 – I trudged upstairs to the kitchen after finishing most of Bee’s (7) school. She had finally figured out the answer to her multiplication problem and we survived spelling and grammar even though she cried when we recited the prepositions.I found a crabby baby with a dirty diaper waiting for me. The kids put breakfast on the table as I got the baby ready for her breakfast. Then the kids argued about who would recite their AWANA verses first. There was SO. MUCH. screaming over the Bible verses. No one else saw the irony in that, but me.

8:45 – Breakfast ended and the kids brushed teeth while I attempted to do dishes. The baby cried in her high chair and threw the rest of her breakfast on the floor after putting part of it in her hair.

9:00 – I was attempting to brush my teeth while the baby clung to my legs when Curly (11) ran upstairs to tattle on Tiger (9). I think it took me a good 5 minutes to calm her down enough to actually understand what she was trying to say.

9:10 – I started school work with Ladybug (6) after my usual reminder about having a cheerful spirit. She forgot how to count by 2’s, couldn’t add 1 to any number and do her basic addition facts, and did not remember how to count to 30. We finally made it to reading time and she threw herself on the floor screaming that she hated reading. Ok then!

We made it through 3 sentences while she complained that she was itchy, that she hated her curly hair, that her foot hurt, and that she was dying of thirst. She “fell” out of her chair 4 times. At that point I gave up and instructed her to take a walk on the treadmill for a while. During this time the dog also ate two pages of her handwriting book that she had thrown on the floor. That caused her to have another screaming fit.

9:50 – I had to finish up reading time with Bee (7) before I could start working with Tiger (9). She came to the room with Punkin (4) following close behind. They were in a giant argument about the Lego castle. I contemplated throwing all the Legos in the trash for a fleeting moment before I helped them resolve their argument. Thankfully Bee (7) finished her reading without too many complaints and I could move on to Tiger.

10:05 – I got the baby ready for a nap and then had another chat with Curly (11) about her attitude. She was clearly having a really rough day.

10:20 – I started school with Tiger (9). He screamed and complained about reading. In fact, it took him a full 30 minutes to read 6 sentences. Y’all, it felt like about two lifetimes while I tried to remain calm and help him snap out of his reading meltdown.

Finally I gave up, took a video, sent it to my husband, and then asked him to call me. Five minutes later the phone rang and I handed the phone to Tiger (9). I knew he needed someone other than me to help him calm down. And to be honest, I was just out of patience.

10:55 – After the phone chat, we were able to move on to the rest of our reading lesson and then work on his other subjects. I wasn’t quite prepared when he had a math meltdown because he didn’t understand one of the word problems. I felt like some type of hostage negotiator except that maybe I was really the hostage.

11:35 – The baby was awake with yet another dirty diaper so Curly (11) brought her to me to change her. I sent her back with Curly so they could play together while I finished school with Tiger (9). He spent most of the Spanish lesson insisting that he didn’t know the words and reading them all incorrectly. At this point I was sure that I was completely losing my mind.

12:15 – I finally made it upstairs for lunch after completing most of our morning school work. The kids argued about who would sit where at the table before starting their online history lesson – because it was clearly very important to them that day.

12:45 – I sent the kids off to brush teeth and switch the laundry to the dryer while I did dishes (the breakfast and the lunch dishes because I was really behind).

12:50 – We started on our group Spanish time and the baby decided that she needed to squeal at the top of her lungs every time I said a single word. I could only get words in while she was taking a breath.

1:00 – We did our group Bible time and Bee (7) and Punkin (4) argued about who would color the front side of the Bible page. Then Punkin sat on the floor and cried. And by crying, I mean screamed and was utterly hysterical.

1:15 – We tried to read a little bit of our science and history after Punkin (4) calmed down.

1:30 – I gave up and sent the baby with Curly (11) while she read to Ladybug (6) and Punkin (4). Then I read to Tiger (9) and Bee (7). They listened while throwing a ball back and forth. You can guess how this ends, right? Yes, it hit me right in the head.

2:00 – I declared that school was over. I wrote a list of chores on the whiteboard and escaped upstairs with the baby so we could both have some quiet rest time. The kids came upstairs approximately 12 different times to tattle on each other or to whine about various things. I finally put in my headphones and told them that they’d have to talk to me later because I was just absolutely done.

4:00 – My hubby walked in the door and rescued me from my little army who was almost in full mutiny. I love when he rescues me! I could not do this thing without him!

So, you see, we all have really terrible days. We wonder what it would be like if our kids were out of the house all day every day. We fantasize about alone time and quiet. We hide in the closet and eat chocolate (or maybe that one’s just me).

I sometimes wonder why I do this homeschool thing. On days like today it’s not even a little bit fun. But I know I’m right where I should be and so are my kids.

Homeschooling can be hard. But it’s worth it. And that’s what I keep telling myself.

Have you had any days like today?

This wasn’t even my first horrible homeschool day. I’ve had plenty. You can read about one of our other awful days here. And if you’re feeling like a failure, give yourself a dose of mom encouragement. Hang in there! You’re doing a good job homeschool momma!

Leave a Reply

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

CommentLuv badge


text:
Wednesday, January 28, 2015

More Great Updates to EDpuzzle

I just received the following email from EDpuzzle about some new updates:

Short email to share a few improvements that we built in EDpuzzle this week:

- Upload image. Add an image to your questions directly from your laptop or tablet.

- Full screen mode for students.  Students can have a better experience focusing, just on the video-lesson.

- Android users: "Chrome browser + Full screen = Awesome results". It's almost like an App.

Video-summary (90seconds):

Have a great day and let us know if there is anything else we can do.

Kind regards,

And here's an email from a few weeks ago:

Short email to explain the new improvements in EDpuzzle:

1. New landing page: easier for the students and teachers.

2. New editing page: Clean, beautiful and easy to use. Everything is saved automatically and you can drag and drop the questions.

Here is a short video that gives you a quick tour through the new improvements:

Give it a try and share it with other teachers! The more the merrier! :)

Have a wonderful weekend,

I still think EDpuzzle is one of the greatest free tools that teachers can use for teaching and learning.  I even think there could be some value for professional development opportunities and plan to try it out for that purpose.  Here are links to me previous posts about EDpuzzle:


text:
Center for Individual Liberty

Utah’s prison population is declining—and that’s a good thing

December 6, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  No comments

A new report by the Utah Commission on Criminal Juvenile Justice highlights the much-discussed Justice Reinvestment Initiative passed last year by the legislature—a package of criminal justice reform policies aimed to address the growing incarceration rate.

Drug possession offenses are now considered a class A misdemeanor—a penalty of up to one year in jail—instead of a 3rd degree felony, which carries a penalty of up to 5 years in prison. This in turn has steered offenders into rehabilitation centers for treatment instead of perpetuating a cycle of abuse by placing them in prison for punishment for having a mental illness or addiction problem.

Prison population was projected to increase to 7,498 before the Justice Reinvestment Initiative was enacted in 2014, which changed the way Utah punished drug offenders. After the reform was enacted it was estimated that the number of incarcerated individuals would decrease to 6,674. However, the results are better than expected at 6,371, which is 15% lower than estimated numbers before the reform was put into place. Drug offenders used to make up 40% of the prison population; after the reform, they only make up 33.8%.

Read more »

Concealing a Weapon Shouldn’t Make You a Criminal

November 7, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  No comments

Representative Lee Perry, a Highway Patrol Lieutenant, is running a conceal carry bill for the 2017 session to decriminalize gun owners from concealing their firearm. In 2013, a similar bill sponsored by Rep. Mathis passed, but was vetoed by Governor Herbert.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” the Governor remarked, trying to claim that current law does not inhibit our right to bear arms.

But doesn’t it?

Read more »

Creating Crime in Utah

August 15, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  One comment

Each year bills passed by the legislature have the potential of creating new, or altering existing, crimes and the penalties associated with them. In an age when government policy can result in criminalizing everything from unlicensed lemonade stands to catching the wrong lobster, it is important that we pay careful attention to the bills passed by the legislature to ensure that they are not inadvertently criminalizing conduct that is not truly criminal. A few years ago we covered this issue in depth.

In Utah, the legislature passes nearly 500 bills each year. On average, about 50 of these (10%) deal with criminal laws or processes and 20 of those have a potential impact on criminal penalties. Since 2008, 455 bills have passed the legislature dealing with criminal laws with 193 of those creating new, or altering existing, criminal laws. In Utah, there are over 10,000 criminal laws you can be charged with (many of them are repetitive for each local jurisdiction). To find a master list of each potential criminal offense you can be charged with you can refer to the state’s Master Offense Table.

The Utah Sentencing Commission tracks bills that may impact sentencing and criminal penalties each year. We have compiled these reports into one cumulative listing since 2008 for easy reference. While a variety of legislators sponsor these bills, some legislators sponsor more than average. Many of these legislators also serve on either the Judiciary or Law Enforcement Committees.

Here are the top legislative sponsors for criminal justice related bills since 2012:

Most criminal justice bills:

Rank Legislator Bills
1 Sen. Thatcher 13
2 Rep. Ray 12
3 Sen. Bramble 12
4 Sen. Hillyard 11
5 Rep. Hutchings 10
6 Sen. Weiler 9
7 Rep. Seelig 7
8 Rep. Hall 7

Most bills with felony changes:

Rank Legislator Bills
1 Sen. Thatcher 5
2 Sen. Hillyard 2
3 Rep. Seelig 2
4 Rep. Greenwood 2
5 Rep. Powell 2

Most bills with misdemeanor changes:

Rank Legislator Bills
1 Rep. Ray 5
2 Sen. Weiler 4
3 Sen. Mayne 4
4 Sen. Thatcher 3
5 Rep. Seelig 3
6 Rep. Powell 3
7 Rep. Dunnigan 3
8 Sen. Urquhart 3
9 Sen. Bramble 3

In 2015, the legislature overhauled many criminal statutes in an effort to ensure fewer admissions and stays in prison and to reinvest savings on treatment and rehabilitation instead. We applaud this effort to be smart on crime and believe that taxpayer dollars should not be wasted on senseless over-criminalization.

Why Utah Should Abandon the Work Requirement Waivers for Food Stamps

August 9, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  One comment

In his 2016 State of the State address, Governor Herbert has emphasized, “our state economy has added 219,000 new jobs, with an unemployment rate dropping from 8 percent down to 3½ percent today.” According to the U.S. Dept. of Labor, he’s right; Utah has the 15th lowest unemployment rate in the country. Why then did the state request a federal waiver for time limits on welfare requirements? Why are we still keeping some able-bodied working age adults dependent instead of helping them become self-reliant?

In 1996 Congress passed significant welfare reforms, ending the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and replacing it with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The rationale behind the change came from a study by the Cato institute in 1995. Cato found in some cases that someone on welfare could earn as much as twice the amount of a minimum wage job. While welfare has undergone many reforms, there is still room to improve and incentivize work instead of perpetuating a cycle of dependency—a trend that for too many has become intergenerational.

In its 2013 follow-up study, The Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off, Cato compared the poverty level with the amount of total welfare benefits available (up to 126 federal programs, not including local programs) and found that in 42 states, the value of welfare programs more than exceeded the poverty level as compared to wage earners—sometimes more than twice over (220% in Hawaii).

To put this into perspective, one of the highest paying states for welfare benefits in hourly wages is Hawaii at $29/hr; 13 states pay the the equivalent of over $15/hr. Moreover, welfare benefits are tax-free; thus, the dollar value of benefits is worth more than wages at a minimum wage job. While that differential may be offset with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the Child Tax Credit (CTC), the value and dignity of work and self-reliance cannot be understated. Those who work now, even if at a low wage, are building experience for future wage increases putting them in a better long-run position than those who do not work and subsist on welfare programs.

While there are certainly a variety of problems in assistance programs, including fraud, improper asset testing, and inaccurate income eligibility caps, the work requirements for ABAWDS (able-bodied adults without dependants) seem ripe for reform.

ABAWDS receiving food stamps have three months in a 36 month period where they don’t need to fulfill work requirements. After exceeding that time frame, they are required to work for 20 hours per week or participate in either a work or workfare program of the state. If they do not meet this requirement, they will no longer be eligible to receive food stamps.

This is the very reason welfare programs have work requirements—to give recipients time to work and build job skills while still receiving assistance in order to propel them into future self-reliance.

After the recession in 2008, the federal government established a state-by-state waiver for the work requirement time limits. States could seek the waiver and renew it each year. The waiver removes the time limit (three months) for which an ABAWDS can receive food stamps without utilizing any work programs. With the waiver, one no longer has to participate in these required work programs that are designed to assist individuals in becoming self-reliant or gaining job skills or experience in preparation for re-entering the workforce. This in turn places the recipient of food stamps at a long-term disadvantage as they may put off activities that would otherwise help them transition into the workforce.

Many welfare recipients report fear of job security at low wage jobs. Because many lack job skills to obtain high-paying jobs and therefore often work in entry-level positions, they are reluctant to leave the security of various assistance programs. However, this is the very reason welfare programs have work requirements—to give recipients time to work and build job skills while still receiving assistance in order to propel them into future self-reliance. Removing work requirements actually exacerbates the problem of recipients fearing lack of opportunity in the job market. Given this reality, it is understandable to see why many people remain on federal programs.

Deterring dependence on welfare and promoting self-reliance does not just matter to taxpayers—it matters to individuals, to families, and to entire communities.

The work requirements are not just in place to protect taxpayer dollars from freeloaders or those who would abuse the system—they exist because of the economic value of putting people to work, both individually and collectively. Deterring dependence on welfare and promoting self-reliance does not just matter to taxpayers—it matters to individuals, to families, and to entire communities. Work brings a sense of individual dignity and accomplishment. Work starts people on a ladder to future economic success. Work increases the economic pie of a community, and it creates very real social and economic capital for a family. Work is a valuable thing for society. Assistance programs were designed to assist individuals in times of hardship and then push them to find a job that pays enough to free them from a cycle of government dependence.

Many Utahns desperately need assistance. A few extra dollars for food every month can make a big difference for a family in need. However, insofar as these assistance programs are provided by government, policy makers must ensure that the inherent problems of bureaucracy do not inadvertently incentivize dependence. These workers need incentives to become self-reliant and they need the constructive support of work programs.

A study of Kansas, which reinstated work requirements in 2013, found a huge increase in re-employment. The study monitored the effects on individuals’ employment and earnings through an extensive tracking system. It found that the number of ABAWDS on food stamps dropped 75%, freeing 13,000 Kansans from welfare at the end of 2013. “Nearly 60% of those leaving food stamps found employment within 12 months,” notes the study, “and their income rose by an average of 127% per year.” This in turn increased economic activity, allowing the state to apply those resources to other state priorities. Kansas work participation has nearly tripled.

A study of Kansas, which reinstated work requirements in 2013, found a huge increase in re-employment.

On average, Kansas enrollees earn more than double the amount since work requirements were reinstated, and dependence on food stamps has been cut in half. Welfare reform in Kansas helped taxpayers save nearly $100 million over two years. The study’s conclusion is that the best anti-poverty tool is work.

Similarly, in 2011, Maine re-established work requirements and watched the ABAWDS caseload drop 80%, from over 13,000 recipients to under 2,700. As the Heritage Foundation noted, “Giving welfare to those who refuse to take steps to help themselves is unfair to taxpayers and fosters a harmful dependence among beneficiaries.”

Work is a sound principle of self-reliance and the greatest of anti-poverty tools.

Food stamp dependents across the country have tripled in the last 15 years, growing from 17 million in 2000 to 46 million in 2015. Spending on the food stamp program has grown ten times as fast as federal revenue—diverting resources from other priority programs. Studies show that implementing work requirements is the best way for food stamp dependents to move out of poverty.

Utah sought, received, and has renewed a partial waiver for the time limits on work requirements since 2009. This partial waiver allows the state to remove time limits for work in counties with “hardship” where unemployment rates exceed 10%. Our research indicates that 17 counties across Utah have met this criteria since 2009. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2012, the state defended the waiver and the ability of states to receive it. The argument centered on the need for state flexibility and autonomy instead of federal executive micromanagement. While we agree that federal programs should be returned to the states, it is important that the programs we implement in Utah are based on sound principles. Work is a sound principle of self-reliance and the greatest of anti-poverty tools.

Utah sought, received, and has renewed a partial waiver for the time limits on work requirements since 2009.

Utah’s robust economy should provide ample opportunity for those in need in our state to find a job, even if it requires moving from a low population rural county to a place in the state with more opportunity. With an economy this great, Utah should not be incentivizing reliance on federal welfare programs. If Utah followed the examples of Kansas and Maine, it would likely further reduce unemployment while helping more Utahns to become self-reliant. Utah’s motto is industry. In the beehive state Utahns ought to be industrious, not dependent.

In 2012 Wyoming Governor Matthew Mead rejecting the waiver that Utah now has, stating that, “such a weakening waiver is not something Wyoming will neither seek nor accept… We must all continue to encourage a productive society, empowering Americans by promoting individual responsibility.”

Cato’s study concluded that, “If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare work requirements, removing exemptions, and narrowing the list of activities that qualify as ‘work.’ Moreover, states should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.”

If our economy is so strong, why do we continue to implement a policy that abuses taxpayer dollars and deters economic growth? By implementing these sound principles, we will gain a more resilient workforce, lower unemployment rate, and better assistance programs that help move people from welfare to work. That is—or should be—the Utah way.

Popular Waze App Partially Illegal to Use in Utah

July 5, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  2 comments

Crowd-sourcing and decentralization have innovated many industries, including transportation. Rather than relying on a government agency to furnish accurate and localized data about road conditions, drivers can now create and share the data on their own. This is the concept behind Waze, a popular mobile app used by many Utahns each day.

What these Utah drivers likely do not realize is that using Waze—though it can help improve public safety—is actually illegal.

Utah law prohibits “manually enter[ing] data into a handheld wireless communication device” while driving. This means that it is against the law to let fellow drivers know of a roadside hazard, freeway accident, police officer’s location, or other data, thus rendering the entire app legally unusable in Utah; if drivers cannot share information then there will be none for other drivers to passively view.

The passage of Senate Bill 253 in 2014 raised awareness of driving while using a mobile device. In a controversial vote, that bill criminalized additional uses of a phone while driving, such as dialing a phone number or accessing the internet. However, even before that bill state law said that Utahns could not, while driving, “manually enter data into a handheld wireless communication device.”

Of course, Waze can legally be used by a passenger in a car, though it is unlikely this accounts for most usage.

We objected to 2014’s change in the law and support loosening the legal standard such that mobile devices are treated like other distractions in a vehicle. It remains perfectly legal to manually manipulate radio controls, eat a meal, apply makeup, discipline a child, have a conversation, daydream, scratch a hard-to-reach itch, or perform any number of other actions that may lead to reckless driving and potentially an accident.

An even better example is Tesla, the popular auto maker who is legally prohibited from selling their cars directly to Utahns. These vehicles feature a touchscreen device mounted to the vehicle’s console, providing the driver with a wide range of features to customize and configure. It’s basically a large, mounted iPad. And yet because it is not “handheld” or “wireless” it falls outside the scope of Utah law and therefore remains legal to use.

But because it’s like a large iPad, its use is similar to that of a mobile device and offers a number of distractions like its smaller counterparts. Why is one okay, but the other is not?

Simply banning a specific type of activity does not address the underlying problem of distracted driving. If anything, it can exacerbate it; whereas drivers would sometimes use a device within their field of vision of the road in front of them, the criminalization led many of them to use the phone in their lap, out of a police officer’s sight, but creating a substantial risk by having to move their gaze away from the road ahead.

A better approach would be to increase the legal penalty for distracted driving when an accident is actually caused. If it can be proven that the driver was intentionally distracted—using a mobile device or not—then the penalty could be increased to create a deterrent effect. Drivers who safely use a mobile device (or listen to the radio or discipline a child, etc.) would face no legal penalty. (This includes the many lawmakers who themselves violate this same law.)

Waze offers real-time metrics on driving, making a safer and more efficient experience. The data is generated by drivers themselves, creating a community-centric system where drivers let those behind them know what to expect. This app, which is unfortunately illegal for single-passenger drivers to utilize, will remain popular in the months and years ahead, despite its legal prohibition. The Utah Legislature should therefore fix the law and let this innovative tool do its job to ensure public safety.

Update: A reader points out, correctly, that the law referenced above contains an exception to the law “when reporting a safety hazard.” As such, Waze is apparently only illegal to enter data pertaining to the location of law enforcement officers, unless one were to argue that an officer stopped at roadside is also a safety hazard (a plausible argument, to be sure).

Utah ‘measurable amount’ drug statute ruled unconstitutional

January 21, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  17 comments

Earlier this month, a Utah court of appeals ruled in State v. Ainsworth that the penalties under the state’s Controlled Substance Act, which criminalize having “any measurable amount” of a controlled substance in your body, are unconstitutional. This is because the law penalizes the same conduct worse than the DUI statute and is thus unconstitutional as it violates the uniform operation of laws provision of the Utah Constitution.

As the court wrote, “there does not appear to be any rational basis for punishing individuals who have ‘any measurable amount’ of controlled substance in their bodies more harshly than individuals who have an incapacitating amount of the substance in their bodies.” The court went on to rule that there is no “rational basis for charging users of nonprescribed Schedule I or II controlled substances who have a measurable amount of controlled substance in their body, but not enough to render them incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle, with a higher-degree crime than users of nonprescribed Schedule I or II controlled substances who have so much controlled substance in their body that they are demonstrably unsafe to operate a vehicle. Thus, we agree… that the second-degree designation in subsection (2)(h)(i) in the Measurable Amount Statute violates the uniform operation of laws provision of the Utah Constitution.”

Read more »

Federal “Family Engagement” Plans

January 15, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  No comments

The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services have issued a draft policy statement calling for “family engagement” and “including” parents as “partners” in the education and rearing of their children.

In an op-ed in the Deseret News, our president, Connor Boyack, highlighted a few specific concerns of this policy proposal, including:

The policy statement in question refers to the importance of Parent Training Information Centers and calls on schools to “conduct periodic home visits.” Noting that the “health and mental health” of parents plays a factor in “parenting and children’s outcomes,” the federal bureaucracy calls on government to “promot(e) their wellness alongside their children’s.” Even worse, the feds are calling for a detailed database containing reports of “family engagement,” including assessments of the relationships between teachers and families.

State law in Utah makes clear that “a student’s parent or guardian is the primary person responsible for the education of the student, and the state is in a secondary and supportive role to the parent or guardian.”

It is important that state legislators protect parental rights; increasing federal encroachment threatens the autonomy of Utah families and the natural rights of parents in their stewardship over their children. You can encourage them to do so by using our lookup tool to find who represents you, and contact them to express your concerns.

The Utah Legislature said NO to REAL ID—So Why is the State Now Fully Compliant?

January 5, 2016  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  7 comments

Starting this year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is threatening that the TSA will begin rejecting driver’s licenses from states that refused to comply with the federal REAL ID guidelines. This now sets the stage for a significant battle over federal power and state’s rights—a battle Utah quietly bowed out of. While this is likely just more posturing by DHS to enforce deadlines it has constantly been extending in order to save face, it also serves as a not-so-gentle reminder of the expansion of federal power in the name of security.

In the wake of 9/11, Congress passed the REAL ID Act of 2005. The Act created a list of security mandates for state-issued driver’s licenses, effectively creating a nationally standardized ID card. Because Congress has no constitutional authority to legislate in this area, the implementation was predicated on a threat from the federal government that any non-compliant driver’s license would be rejected as an official form of identification for any federal purpose—including admittance to secure government facilities like military bases and TSA screenings at the airport. The statutory deadline for state compliance was originally May 2008. However, by that time not a single state was in compliance and nearly twenty states had passed laws or resolutions rejecting REAL ID. Utah joined the list with a resolution in 2009. Now, eight years later, the federal government is finally saying it will clamp down as it prepares to act on its threats.

In 2010, the legislature instructed the state to refuse to comply with REAL ID. However, by that time, it was too late for most of the substantive requirements of the law. In 2008, Senate Bill 81 required proof of citizenship for the creation of any state-issued government identification. This bill was designed to prevent immigrants without legal status from gaining government identification cards. The next year, the legislature passed Senate Bill 40 which gave driving privilege cards to Utahns without legal immigration status instead of Utah driver’s licenses which are reserved for those with citizenship or legal status. This required proving legal immigration status to the driver’s license office before being approved for a Utah license. Together, these two measures undermined Utah’s effort to opt-out of REAL ID, as the identity verification requirements under these bills pushed Utah into material compliance with many of the provisions of REAL ID.

Read more »

Enedina Stanger: Charged with a Felony for Using Medical Cannabis

December 22, 2015  |  Posted in: Center for Individual Liberty  |  No comments

Our new video briefly features the story of a young mother charged with a felony for seeking relief from cannabis, after opiate-based prescription drugs administered by doctors nearly killed her.

For more information on Enedina’s story, see this detailed interview we recently published featuring her story.

Private Attorneys General: Incentivizing the Protection of Liberty

 |  Posted in:  |  No comments

State and federal constitutions were designed by their authors to protect our rights against violation by the government. The enforcement of these protections often requires litigation and court orders—and thus a watchful guardian to protect the public’s rights.

While many believe that the Attorney General serves this function, this is not so. In a constitutional dispute between an individual and the government, the Attorney General’s primary duty is to defend the government—even when wrong. As such, the public interest requires watchful guardians who are independent of the government to challenge it in court when it is in violation of the public’s constitutional rights.

When victorious, it seems inappropriate to lay the legal costs at the feet of a few. The private attorney general doctrine resolves this inequity by allowing the court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing party, incentivizing watchful guardians to jealously protect our God-given, constitutionally protected rights.