text:
- JustSpeak welcomes the opportunity to submit on the Children, Young Persons, and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Bill ("the Bill"). JustSpeak's submission focuses on the aspects of the Bill relating to youth justice (Part 4 to Part 6 of the Bill).
- JustSpeak is a non-partisan, independent network of people across Aotearoa seeking to change the conversation on criminal justice in New Zealand. As an organisation comprised primarily of young people, JustSpeak represents a new generation of thinkers working for change in the criminal justice system. We advocate for a criminal justice discussion based on evidence, experience and compassion. As such our submission focuses on the parts of the Bill that relate to criminal justice.
- JustSpeak supports raising the age of youth justice to include all 17 year olds. This is because:
- Interaction with the adult criminal justice system has long-term negative consequences for young offenders. The youth justice system is a more appropriate and more effective forum to respond to offending by young people and prevent escalation into a long-term pattern of offending.
- Expansion of the youth court jurisdiction will have particular benefits for Māori. The adult criminal justice system is failing Māori; the youth justice system offers better options in addressing Māori youth offending in a more effective and culturally-responsive way. Expanding the youth court jurisdiction will allow the Government to better meet its Treaty obligations in this area, if this is coupled with targets to reduce Māori over-representation in both the youth and adult justice systems.
- Many young people in the justice system have neurodisabilities. The adult criminal justice system is ill-equipped to recognise and respond appropriately.
- There is a scientific basis for not treating seventeen year olds the same way as adults in their interactions with the criminal justice system. At seventeen, a young person's brain is not fully developed, and they are not able to fully assess the long-term consequences of actions taken in the moment.
- It is inconsistent with other domestic legislation to treat 17 year olds as adults for the purposes of our justice system. Treating 17 year olds as adults when they interact with the criminal justice system is also counter to New Zealand's international obligations and undercuts the reputation of New Zealand's youth justice system as world-leading.
- JustSpeak recommends a number of specific changes to the Bill:
- Removing the proposed clauses 103 and 104 of the Bill. The existing machinery and discretions are more than adequate and no problems have been identified with how they currently operate.
- Removing clause 107. Clause 107 would amend s 284 of the Act to make it more likely that the Youth Court would transfer young persons to the District Court for sentencing and undercut Judges' discretion.
- Including provision to transfer 18, 19 and 20 year olds with neurodisabilities into the youth justice system, which is more appropriate for their needs.
- Including provision to abolish the use of police cells to hold children and young people once they have appeared in court.
- Further, JustSpeak submits that the age of youth justice should be increased over time so that all young adults up to the age of 21 are included in the youth justice system.
The adult justice system is ineffective and inappropriate for young people
- This section sets out the reasons adult court is not an appropriate forum for young people. They are deprived of the Youth Court's procedural protections and benefits (which are designed to with young people's maturation in mind), and are exposed to sentences which have quantifiably worse outcomes for young people. The Youth Court requires a deeper involvement from family members, those harmed, and experts to ensure the context in which the young person offended is understood. Young people who are subjected to the adult criminal justice system lose those valuable procedural and sentencing options.
- A recent public opinion survey shows that twice as many New Zealanders think that our youth justice system should include 17 year olds than those who do not. This survey was of over 5000 people and was nationally representative. The survey question was 'Should we include all children up to 18 in the youth justice system?'
The Youth Court offers procedural protections and benefits
- The main differences between the adult and youth justice systems are described in the table below:
- The Youth Court is designed to make the justice process intelligible to a young person, and to minimise the long-term consequences of a youthful mistake after the court process is complete. For example:
- Proceedings in the Youth Court are closed to the public. A limited list of people, such as the young person, his or her family, and professionals assisting the Court are entitled to be present. The media must seek permission before reporting on Youth Court cases, and may not name the young person involved. This means the 'labelling' effect (where young people hear themselves called criminals and come to see themselves as such) is reduced, as is the likelihood of being stigmatised years after their justice involvement by an historic internet article.
- Proceedings in the Youth Court only involve young people, and are (or should be) physically separate from adult courts. This prevents young people associating with adults accused or convicted of offences while awaiting their case to be called.
- Each case in the Youth Court is usually heard by the same Judge throughout its life, forming a relationship over time between the young person and Judge. Youth Court judges are specially chosen for their experience, training, and understanding.
- Proceedings in the Youth Court are set down with the young person's timeframe in mind. Because young people experience the passage of time in a different way to adults, and mature faster over time, it is important for the case to be resolved quickly.
- Family Group Conferences are an essential part of the Youth Court system. They provide a way for whānau and the victim of the offending to be directly involved in the young person's case. In District Court there are only limited circumstances for the involvement of whānau and those harmed.
- Each Youth Court case has an assigned Youth Aid police officer, trained in working and communicating with young people. That level of individualised care is often missing from adult cases.
- Rangatahi and Pasifika Courts, which provide interventions more culturally appropriate for Māori and Pacifica young people, are not available in the adult court system.
- The Youth Court can order a wide variety of reports about the young person, from social workers, cultural experts, education specialists, and psychologists. This gives the Judge the information needed to speak to the young person appropriately, and make the appropriate orders for their individual circumstances. The Judge may also order the young person's parent, guardian or caregiver to appear.
- The Court can require the young person's parent or guardian to be present during proceedings.
The youth justice approach is more effective at reducing reoffending
- Youth Court has a wide range of sentencing responses available to it. These range from admonishing the young person, imposing a fine or reparation order upon the young person or their parents, forfeiting property, attending courses, rehabilitation, or mentoring (or requiring their parent or guardian to attend parenting courses), supervision (which may mean regularly checking in with a social worker, participating in a specified activity, or residing in a youth residence facility), or performing community work.
- However, imprisonment is far more likely to be given as a sentence in the adult court system. This has quantifiably negative consequences for young people and our wider communities. Young people under 20 sentenced to prison have a 91% chance of reconviction within 2 years of release. This means that almost every single time we send a young person to prison we must do it knowing that it it is not an effective response to prevent future harm.
- A study conducted in Florida showed that where young people were transferred into the adult justice system they were more likely to reoffend than youth who remained in the juvenile system. In particular they were more likely to reoffend violently after the age of 18 compared to young people who were not transferred to the adult system.
- It has also been found in a number of studies in the United States that incarcerating youth means they see less reinforcement of social norms, causing them to become "increasingly detached" from law-abiding society. Due to the exposure to older offenders they gain an increased knowledge of offending. As well as this they can be prevented from "ageing out" of their offending as would normally occur in most cases due to their time in the criminal justice system.
- On the other hand, North Carolina and Texas estimate annual benefits of including 17 year olds in their youth justice systems, of $123m and $89m respectively, realised over 35 years due to at least a 10% reduction in reoffending.
The youth justice system offers more culturally-responsive and effective solutions for Māori
- Māori are over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice process. New Zealand's current criminal justice system is failing Māori.
- Independently of offending rates, Māori are more likely to be apprehended for a criminal offence than non-Māori. Māori are also more likely to be prosecuted, convicted, remanded awaiting trial and more likely to be convicted than non-Māori. Further, there are differences in the outcomes imposed on Māori with seven times as many Māori as non-Māori given a custodial sentence. Māori are also far less likely to be granted home detention.
- An recent analysis of Māori and non-Māori 17 year olds in court estimates that by the time they are 27 Māori will have been 35% more likely to have been convicted and 3.2 times more likely to have been imprisoned.
- There is a considerable amount of recent literature questioning whether Māori over-representation in criminal statistics is related to actually being Māori. Research shows:
When a range of measures of social and economic disadvantage are taken into account, Māori ethnicity recedes as an explanation for over-representation. The level of Māori over-representation in the criminal justice system is very much what could be predicted given the combination of individuals' life experiences and circumstances, regardless of ethnicity.
- Evidence tends to suggest that Māori offending is linked to poverty, the ongoing effects of the colonial process and marginalisation. These social and economic factors are particular strong causal contributors for young Māori offenders, particularly as those in the churn of the criminal justice system are from a small and disenfranchised part of Māori communities. Therefore, some researchers state "Māori over-representation is not a 'Māori' problem".
- The over-representation of Māori admitted to youth justice residences is stark and has been increasing markedly over the past 5 years.
- Addressing the over-representation of Māori in the youth justice system is important to ensure that the Government meets its obligations under Te Tiriti O Waitangi, and is one of the stated aims of the Bill. Including seventeen year olds within the youth justice system will further this aim of reducing over-representation of Māori in adult criminal justice statistics.
- It is also recommended that targets to reduce the over-representation of Māori in youth justice residences be set with accountabilities for agencies.
Reduce reoffending by encouraging cultural links
- Young Māori have the choice to attend either Youth Court or Te Kooti Rangatahi, a Marae-based youth justice mechanism conducted in accordance with tikanga Māori. The Cabinet Paper supporting the passing of the Bill recognises as one of the benefits the fact that it will allow for Ngā Kooti Rangatahi to be available to a wider range of young people. Additional information about Te Kooti Rangatahi can be found in Appendix 1.
- Many of the rangatahi who appear in Te Kooti Rangatahi have lost touch with their sense of identity as Māori.
- The process in Te Kooti Rangatahi tries to remedy this, and places emphasis on rangatahi learning who they are and where they are from, and learning their connections to other Māori. Rangatahi are required to learn and recite their pepeha at the beginning of their hearing. To do so they must learn their iwi, their hapu, their maunga, their awa. The kaumātua and kuia often make connections to the rangatahi, for example by pointing out common ancestors.
- Te Kooti Rangatahi, more than any other court process in New Zealand, seek to locate young offenders within their broader community. Te Kooti Rangatahi sit in a marae – the centre of a Māori community. The process introduces rangatahi to local kaumātua and kuia, and builds connections between them. The ultimate goal is to reduce reoffending, and provide rehabilitation, by allowing rangatahi to see themselves as part of a broader community – and to see their actions as having community consequences. More details about the process is contained in Appendix 1.
- Those who participate in the Te Kooti Rangatahi process have noticed that building connections with the marae and the surrounding community improves the behaviour of rangatahi in the marae when opposed to when they appear in Youth Court.
All rangatahi should have the opportunity to attend Te Kooti Rangatahi
- For the reasons discussed above, Te Kooti Rangatahi is more effective at addressing offending by young Māori than the standard Youth Court. To further the Government's objective of reducing Māori reoffending, this programme should be extended to all rangatahi. Extending the youth justice age to include 17 year olds is an important first step in this direction.
Seventeen year olds are neurologically different from adults and the criminal justice system should recognise this.
- Scientific and psychological research supports JustSpeak's position that the jurisdiction of the Youth Court should be increased to include all 17 year olds.
- Longitudinal studies show that an adolescent brain is not fully developed until well into their 20s. Not only is the brain still growing when a person is 17, it is actually undertaking a massive restructure. As described by the Brainwave Trust, the adolescent brain is a work in progress, with important parts seeming to be closed for construction. The areas of the brain that is affected by this reconstruction are judgement, impulse control and self-regulation, all reasons that often see adolescents before the criminal justice system.
- It highlights an important issue not addressed in our current criminal justice system; how should we assess someone's culpability that has not fully developed; and is that fair?
- There has been some recognition of brain development research in the New Zealand criminal justice system, namely the Court of Appeal decision of Churchward v R. It recognised the difference between the youth and the adult brain in the following ways;
- There are age-related neurological differences between young people and adults, including that young people may be more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures (including peer pressure), and may be more impulsive than adults;
- The effect of imprisonment on young people, including the fact that long sentences may be crushing on them;
- Young people have greater capacity for rehabilitation, particularly given that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult;
- Offending by a young person is frequently a phase which passes fairly rapidly, and thus a balanced reaction is required in order to avoid alienating them from society, and
- Criminal convictions at that stage of a person's life may have a disproportionate impact on the ability of a young person to gain meaningful employment and play a worthwhile role in society.
- The US Supreme Court has also recognised the scientific evidence regarding brain development to justify a different approach to sentencing for juveniles. The Court held that the inherent immaturity of adolescents' relative to adults mitigated teenagers' criminal responsibility to the extent that it barred the imposition of capital punishment for crimes committed under the age of 18, regardless of their heinousness.
Raising the age of youth justice is consistent with other New Zealand legislation
- New Zealand legislation overwhelmingly treats anyone under the age of 18 as a child. Eighteen is the age at which we allow young adults to drink, smoke, buy fireworks, get married without the consent of their parents, join the police, serve on a jury, and play Instant Kiwi. It is the age at which their parents are no longer legally responsible for them.
- The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 itself does not consistently treat 17 year olds as adults.
- The Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Advocacy, Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Act 2016 comes into force on 1 April 2017. Once in force, there will be two different definitions for a 'young person'. For care and protection purposes, a 'young person will be "a person of or over the age of 14 years but under the age of 18 years". Subject to the passing of the Bill, the definition of a 'young person' for youth justice purposes will remain unchanged (that is, it will remain "a boy or girl of or over the age of 14 years but under 17 years"). This means that a 17 year old will be a 'young person' for care and protection purposes yet not youth justice purposes, which results in inconsistency within the Act itself.
- It is inconsistent with the widely held view that a young person becomes an adult at the age of 18, and inconsistent with New Zealand's legislative scheme, to treat a seventeen year old as criminally responsible for their actions and subject to the same consequences as an adult.
- JustSpeak supports increasing the age of youth justice because this will bring our youth justice system in line with New Zealanders' intuitions about when someone becomes an adult, as reflected by the fact that most New Zealand legislation does not treat 17 year olds as adults.
Treating 17 year olds as adults in the criminal justice system undermines the reputation of our youth justice system as world-leading
- New Zealand likes to think of its youth justice system as world-leading and innovative. But treating 17 year olds as adults is an "enduring stain" on the reputation of our youth justice system.
- New Zealand is a step behind many other states in terms of the age of a young person. The United Kingdom, Canada and 42 states within the USA all include 17 year olds within their respective youth justice systems. In November 2016, Queensland became the final jurisdiction within Australia to pass legislation to include 17 year olds within the youth justice system. New Zealand is supposed to be a leader in youth justice yet has fallen behind these other states because of the reluctance to raise the age.
- New Zealand has international obligations in relation to youth justice. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) defines a 'child' as a "human being below the age of eighteen years". Under the UNCROC, every child has specific rights in relation to youth justice, meaning that everyone under the age of 18 is entitled to these rights. However, New Zealand's definition of a 'young person' means that 17 year olds are not guaranteed the rights that they are entitled to under this covenant.
- As a signatory of UNCROC, New Zealand has faced extensive criticism from the UN for the inconsistency between domestic legislation and the UNCROC. the Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly recommended that all domestic legislation be made consistent with the UNCROC. The Committee highlighted its disapproval with the maximum age of youth justice being 17, recommending that New Zealand raise the age to 18.
The use of police cells for children and young people once they have appeared in court should be abolished
- There are increasing reports of young people in solitary confinement in police cells for multiple days. This is not in keeping with the ethos of the youth justice system and is likely to have negative effects on the wellbeing of the young people held. Therefore, we recommend the abolishment of this practice in favour of placing young people within the community.
Seventeen year olds should not be automatically removed if they commit certain offences
- JustSpeak is opposed to the proposal to automatically remove 17 years olds who are charged with committing certain specified offences set out in Schedule 1A from the Youth Court and transferring them automatically into the District Court or High Court, depending on the offence that the 17 year old is charged with.
- JustSpeak considers that there is no adequate justification for this proposal, given that the current system provides for adequate responses including that young persons can be sentenced in the District Court if need be. All that the proposed amendments would do is to limit young persons' engagement in the proceeding, limit the involvement of family, and limit the expertise that can be brought to bear in addressing the young persons' offending.
The current system
- Presently young persons are only automatically transferred out of the Youth Court in limited circumstances:
- First, young persons charged with murder or manslaughter are automatically transferred out of the Youth Court and the trials heard in the High Court by a judge and jury. The rationale for this is that these charges are serious and so such trials must be heard by a jury, which the Youth Court does not provide for. Importantly, however, all applicable pre-trial matters are dealt with in the Youth Court until the transfer to the High Court.
- Second, young persons who are charged with certain infringement offences relating to the purchase and supply of alcohol and other drugs under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, the Summary Offences Act 1981 or the Local Government Act, as well as those charged with traffic offences not punishable by imprisonment are dealt with in the District Court in specialist lists. The rationale for this is that these offences are primarily dealt with by way of fines and that the District Court dealing with these types of minor offending imposes standardised sentences.
- In addition to these two exceptions, young persons charged with Category 3 and 4 offences, which carry rights to trial by jury, have an election to make. If they elect trial by jury, they will be tried in the District Court or High Court. However, if they choose to forgo this right and elect a judge-alone trial then the young person is tried in the Youth Court.
The proposed changes
- The Bill proposes to amend this system by automatically transferring 17 year olds who are charged with what are deemed to be serious offences out of the Youth Court and into the District Court. Clauses 103, amending s 273(2) of the Act, and 104 of the Bill, inserting a new s 276A, will mean that a 17 year old who is charged with a specified offence set out in Schedule 1A must be transferred to the District Court or High Court.
- The specified offences in Schedule 1A encompass a range of offences, ranging from charges of hijacking, torture and crimes against humanity, through to murder, manslaughter and kidnapping. Schedule 1A also includes some common-place and less serious offending such as:
- Aiding suicide;
- Aggravated robbery, a common example of which would be where two kids bail up another kid and take his or her cell phone.
- Supplying, administering or dealing ecstasy or possessing ecstasy for supply.
- The criteria for what offences fall to be included in Schedule 1A are any offence that currently provides for a term of imprisonment of 14 years or more. Importantly, these specified offences are wider than those that are deemed to be serious under the three-strikes legislation so there is some inconsistency in what is considered "serious" in different legislation.
- Despite making what would be a significant change to the jurisdiction of the Youth Court, having the effect of modifying the existing provisions around election for Category 3 and 4 offending, the Explanatory Note to the Bill provides no explanation for this change. The Explanatory Note simply states that these offences are serious offences, as if this label automatically justifies avoiding the Youth Court system. In doing so, these proposed changes presume that the Youth Court cannot adequately deal with such offending. This is simply not the case.
- While the Youth Court is tailored to ensure greater participation and understanding by young persons (as set out above), it is not somehow less rigorous than the District Court or High Court. Rather than alter the evidentiary rules and burdens, the Youth Court simply brings its expertise in dealing with young offenders through the experience and specialisation of all the professional participants including, judges, police and lawyers.
- In addition to its expertise, the Youth Court has a wide-range of powers and processes designed to protect the young persons appearing before, as discussed above. These protective processes and powers are not available in the District Court or High Court.
- Finally, unlike the District Court and High Court, the Youth Court also has a wider-range of responses to proven offending. These range from admonishing the young person, imposing a fine, forfeiting property, or ordering the young person to attend courses (with or without their parent or guardian), through to placing the young person under the chief executive of the Ministry, imposing community work, supervision or supervision with residence. Further, where the offending requires a stronger response, the Youth Court is empowered to enter a conviction and transfer the sentencing of the young person to the District Court for sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2002.
- In the case of young persons who have been found to have committed one or more of the specified offences, and without there being any real mitigating circumstances, it is likely that the Youth Court would exercise the power to transfer the sentencing to the District Court. This means that there is no basis for any fear that without making the proposed amendment 17 year olds would be treated too leniently.
- Instead, rather than ensure serious offences can have an appropriate response, all the proposed amendment would achieve is to limit the engagement of the young person in the proceeding, limit their understanding of what is going on, and limit family involvement. Given that there is no positive justification put forward for this proposed amendment, it is JustSpeak's position that this proposal is unjustified.
- Additionally, this may have the unintended consequence of incentivising Police to 'over-charge' 17 year olds so that they are seen in the District Court rather than the Youth Court.
- For these reasons JustSpeak opposes the proposed clauses 103 and 104 of the Bill. The existing machinery and discretions are more than adequate and no problems have been identified with how they currently operate.
Transfer out of the Youth Court should not be made more likely
- JustSpeak also opposes the proposed clause 107 which would amend s 284 of the Act to make it more likely that the Youth Court would transfer young persons to the District Court for sentencing.
- No problem has been identified with the existing mechanism with Youth Court judges transferring young persons in appropriate cases. Without any identifiable need, such an amendment is unjustified tinkering that has the potential to increase the imposition of sentencing options that are tailored to adults on young persons and put young persons into the adult criminal justice system where they are more likely to stay than if they were in the youth system.
The proposed amendment
- Clause 107 will amend s 284 of the Act to specify that when the Youth Court is considering transferring the young person to the District Court for sentencing the Youth Court must "give greater weight to" four factors:
- The seriousness of the offending;
- The criminal history of the young person;
- The interests of the victim; and
- The risk posed by the young person to other people.
- This amendment will elevate these four factors above the five other factors listed in s 284.
- The Explanatory Note does not explain the need for this change other than vaguely stating that this amendment will "strengthen" the "existing discretion of Youth Court Judges". This is a contradiction in terms given that rather than reinforcing the discretion, the proposed amendments will tilt the discretion one way and make it harder for the Judges to exercise the discretion the other way.
- As explained above, the Youth Court system is preferable to the adult criminal justice system for many young persons. While in a small number of appropriate cases the young person needs to be dealt with under the adult system, it is usually better for the young person and for society in general for the young person to be dealt with in the youth system where the causes of their offending can be addressed more specifically and successfully.
- This proposed amendment tips the balance towards sending young persons into the adult system where they are bound to fail due to influence and because the sentencing options in the adult system are tailored for adults not for young persons.
- It is JustSpeak's position that this proposed amendment is unjustified and ultimately likely to create more people locked into the criminal justice system rather than breaking their offending early on and removing them from this cycle. For these reasons, JustSpeak recommends deleting clause 107.
Many young people who come into contact with the justice system have a neurodisability
- Justspeak also supports greater recognition of the prevalence of neurodisabilities amongst young people and calls for the ability of not only expanding access to all 17 years but providing the District Court the ability to refer 18, 19 and 20 year olds with neurodisabilities to the Youth Court as a more appropriate response to their offending.
- Research shows us that not only are young people's brains still developing, a staggeringly high number of young people who come into contact with the criminal justice system have a neurodisability. Significant research undertaken by the Children's Commissioner in the UK found that there is an increased prevalence of neurological disorders amongst young people in the criminal justice system as opposed to those in the general population.
- Unfortunately New Zealand has not undertaken its own research on this, but it is accepted by two prominent youth court judges to be very similar in New Zealand based on their experience presiding in the Youth Court.
- In the UK the Children's Commissioner research showed that whilst 24 - 31% of the general youth population were affected by a traumatic brain injury, 65-72% of youth in custody are affected.
- The neurological disorders are wide ranging and include general learning difficulties (low IQ), communication disorders (dyslexia), ADHD, autism, traumatic brain injuries and foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD).
- These disorders impact on a young person's involvement in the criminal justice scheme by affecting their ability to communicate, to comprehend, to give instructions. At every step of the criminal justice process they are disadvantaged.
- Also neurodisabilities often cause characteristics that increase the likelihood of offending, such as hyperactivity, impulsivity, cognitive impairment, aggressive behaviour leading directly to offending or to life choices increasing its likelihood.
- The Youth Court and its founding principles and process enable a more rounded response to adolescents, particularly those with a neurodisability. One of the fundamental aims of the Youth Court is to be solution focused.
- As outlined by Judge Becroft, former Principal Youth Court judge and current Children's Commissioner "We know that punishment doesn't change brain impairment. We know that what does assist is structure, support and supervision".
- "Young people should be held to account to the degree their disability (their brain development) gives them the capacity to allow." The Youth Court is able to offer a therapeutic response (regular monitoring, continuity of judge, a multi-agency approach).
- It is inherently unfair and unjust to face the full weight of the criminal justice system, with someone has diminished culpability either as a result of their age (brain is still developing) or a neurodisability.
- JustSpeak further submits that the age for youth justice be raised to 21. This is supported by a petition of almost 4,000 people.
- Along with the signatures, hundreds of people left comments on the petition.
- Edward said "being put through the adult justice system at 17 was terrifying, having never been arrested before. The weight of my sentencing really only held me back in life, and ultimately the system failed to do anything to help me move forward with life changes to help prevent reoffending."
- Other people pointed to the long road that many of these young people have been on before they reach the justice system: "Under the age of 21 most young people still think like children, especially if they lack a reason for living. They need a specifically designed rehab programme to give them faith in a system that has failed them." - Ann
- As well as the impact that a criminal record has in the form of "a dark shadow over their whole life" - Barbara, many people share Sharon's view that "young offenders need guidance not prison".
- This view is supported by research and experience of those working with young people, such as Dinah: "I'm a teacher, and brain-development research shows young people can change when restorative practices are used, when empathy is grown, and good consequences are given to heal the harm caused. Also, I'm a parent of a disabled child & would hate to see any disabled young person in prison."
- We note that both the United Kingdom and Connecticut are looking at raising the age of youth justice to 21. This is with a view to reducing youth offending generally, getting better outcomes for victims and ultimately reducing the cost of criminal justice.
- The ages between 18 and 21 have been described in a recent Harvard Study as 'emerging adults'. This is the transition period of a person's life where they move from being a child dependent on adults to a fully formed contributing member of society. This period is from approximately 18 to 21.
- Within this age group in New Zealand there is a 91% recidivism rate if they are sentenced to prison.
International evidence supports raising the age of youth justice further
- A new inquiry led by MPs in the UK concluded that "there is irrefutable evidence that we should keep young people up to the age of 25 out of prison".
- Harvard research has found that reoffending is increased if a young person is exposed to the adult criminal justice system. The Harvard study compared the reoffending rates of young people who were processed by the adult system with the reoffending rates of young people who went through the youth justice system. They found that, following the 'get tough on crime' approach in the United States in the 1990's where juvenile offenders were processed in the adult system, there was "a 34% to 77% greater likelihood of being re-arrested for a crime. [Young people] were also more likely to be re-arrested for a more violent crime than those exiting the juvenile system"
- On that basis it is reasonable to assume that effect of imprisonment is a significant factor in the reoffending due to effect of exposure to adult offenders and the consequent risk of physical and sexual assault while they are incarcerated.
- Furthermore being processed in the adult system means that the victims of these emerging adults are not given a say in the process. This means that the risk of victims feeling disengaged or unimportant in a process that should ultimately be about them is much higher.
- Alternatively, when exposed to a more restorative approach, as prioritised in the youth justice system, reoffending is reduced. Recent research from the Ministry of Justice showed that a restorative approach is effective for 17 to 19 year olds, with a 17% lower rate of reoffending than those not receiving restorative justice.
APPENDIX 1: Te Kooti Rangatahi process
- Nga Kooti Rangatahi monitor the performance of Family Group Conference plans. The law that applies is the same in a normal Youth Court, but the process is very different. Each sitting of Te Kooti Rangatahi begins with a pōwhiri welcoming all participants – including rangatahi, whānau, kaumātua, judge, police and others. A whakawhanaungatanga session is then held – a round of introductions to establish relationships. The tangata whenua of the marae introduce themselves and all of the visitors introduce themselves.
- After the pōwhiri, all participants share morning tea in the whare kai. Each rangatahi is then called into the whare nui one by one for their hearing.
- The hearing begins by the rangatahi introducing themselves by their pepeha. The Youth Court judge then leads the hearing, aided by kaumātua and kuia of the marae. The rangatahi are represented and supported by a lay advocate.
- Knowing where they are from can help rangatahi figure out where they are going – and can help them figure out that a life of crime is not inevitable. Te Kooti Rangatahi are premised in the assumption that for young Māori who appear before the court to have any sense of purpose in the future, they need to start by knowing where they come from and who they are.
- Too often, young Māori are told – both explicitly and implicitly – that they will amount to nothing good. Lay advocates report how rangatahi have experienced racism: "kids have been called dumb maoris, ugly, one of them had been called a dog". One rangatahi recalled how a police woman at Youth Court had said he was "nothing but a little asshole". Ngā Kooti Rangatahi, on the other hand, emphasis that rangatahi have potential. Through learning about their culture, rangatahi learn that there is more to te ao Māori than is represented in the "crime" section of the six o'clock news. They develop a sense of pride of their heritage and of themselves, reinforced by the sense of achievement of having learnt and delivered their pepeha.
- The focus at Ngā Kooti Rangatahi is that the rangatahi made a bad choice, not that they are a bad individual. The kaumātua and kuia talk to the rangatahi personally and positively, pointing out the rangatahi's strengths.This avoids the rangatahi feeling like a life of crime is inevitable for them.
- Rangatahi report that, through Te Kooti Rangatahi, they learn something about their culture and feel better connected to their culture.
- Minority communities often disengage from the legal system. Alienation and cynicism give rise to opposition and resistance to the justice system, which further calls into question the system's legitimacy.
- The use of tikanga in Ngā Kooti Rangatahi avoids this alienation from the justice system. The use of tikanga makes the system feel relevant and legitimate, instead of just being a system that only has negative consequences for Māori. The court process is more likely to be seen as fair, and this means that rangatahi and whānau are more likely to positively engage with Ngā Kooti Rangatahi. This translates into higher levels of whānau attendance. Te Kooti Rangatahi, and in particular fathers and other male role models are more likely to attend.
- Rangatahi report that they better understand the process on the marae than in Youth Court, and that they felt welcome and respected. When rangatahi do not understand the court process, they revert to simply wanting to know the outcome of the process, rather than focusing on recognising their wrongdoing and the negative consequences it had for others around them. The fact that rangatahi understand the process – what is happening to them and why – at Te Kooti Rangatahi is a great strength of the programme, and allows rangatahi to more effectively engage with the restorative justice processes of the Youth Court.
Building connections between agencies
- Morning tea after the pōwhiri at Ngā Kooti Rangatahi is a chance for the judge, the rangatahi, kaumātua, kuia, whanau and other agencies to come together in an informal setting. This seeds positive relationships between the rangatahi and the broader community support network. It provides opportunities for agencies to build relationships with the Māori community and whanau, and to increase their own cultural competencies.
JustSpeak Backgrounder
JustSpeak represents a non-partisan network of young people across Aotearoa interested in contributing to the debate on criminal justice in New Zealand. As a new generation of thinkers JustSpeak is working for change in the justice system through imagination, innovation and a belief that we can achieve a just Aotearoa. JustSpeak was formed in early 2011 as the youth branch of the organisation Rethinking Crime and Punishment.
The group is guided by a belief that this new generation has much to offer to the national conversation on criminal justice: an imaginative outlook; a feeling of urgency; and a sense of hope, amongst other things. The group values an informed criminal justice debate based on evidence, experience and ongoing learning. And within its own operations, JustSpeak has a genuine commitment to inclusion and diversity.
The aims of the group are to empower young people to think independently about criminal justice issues, to encourage networking and the engagement of those affected by the justice system, to foster learning from others, to develop a voice for a new generation of thinking on criminal justice, and to allow this next generation to own its rightful place at the policy table in this area.
The name "JustSpeak" reflects the group's desire to encourage people to speak out, without fear of belittlement or ignorance, as well as the goal of the group to contribute to a culture of "speak" about what is "just" in relation to crime and punishment policy. JustSpeak is founded on the following whakatauki:
Mā te tika o te toki o te tangere, me te tohu o te panaho, ka pai tetere o te waka i ngā momo moana katoa.
(By designing the keel of the waka to perfection, your canoe will overcome obstacles.)
The whakatauki articulates the need to design the keel of JustSpeak to perfection, so that the group can overcome obstacles, and maintain a durable voice in the criminal justice conversation. But it also points to the need for the keel of a bigger waka – the criminal justice system as a whole – to be designed carefully, so that New Zealand's criminal justice system can provide a sustainable platform to rehabilitate and reintegrate members of society.


text:
Dvorak : Mazurkas, Op.56. : Piano: (Barenreiter)
To pay and reserve this product click Place On Order and the product will be shipped once back in stock
Dvorak : Mazurkas, Op.56. : Piano: (Barenreiter)
The piano works of Antonín Dvorák do not include many what might be called show pieces, which would afford their performer a brilliant, spectacular success. They are mostly turned inward, draw from intimate moods and are intended for the pleasure of the player himself. The Mazurkas are exactly such pieces. They were composed around 1880, Dvoráks most fruitful period as far as piano pieces are concerned, under the influence of the various requests of musicians and especially publishers yearning for shorter works penned by the masters hand. The Mazurkas were first published by Bote & Bock. The publication includes a Preface and Editors Notes and is part of the first Complete Edition of the Works of Antonín Dvorák.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I'm happy to announce that my necklace 'have you got the guts' has been included in the exhibition Touchy / Feely at the Baltimore Jewelry Centre from April 14 - June 2 .
'Touchy / Feely is an exhibition that explores the tactile experience of jewelry. Adam Gopnik writes "Touch is the unsung sense--the one that we depend on most and talk about the least... the work of the world is done by handling it. We live by feel." Jewelry is an intimate and sensual art form, providing a tactile experience for both the wearer and the observer. It's an excellent medium for exploring the unsung sense of touch. Touchy / Feely highlights work that engages the sense of touch, exploring texture and form in ways that invite the viewer to touch the object, whether from a sense of attraction, intrigue, curiosity, or repulsion.'
This statement hit the spot exactly for me, as this has been an underlying theme in my work for a few years now and it fact it all started with the 'have you got the guts' collection; an exploration into skin, touch, attraction and repulsion.


text:
Rock am Ring Tickets
Rock am Ring is a rock music festival held annually in Germany at the Nurburgring racetrack. It is the largest music festival in Germany, and one of the largest in Europe.
The festival was originally planned as a one-time event, celebrating the inauguration of a newer, shorter version of the track in 1985, but due to its commercial success (with 75,000 audience members); it was decided to make the concert an annual event. After a dip in attendance in 1988, it was put on hiatus for two years. In 1991, the festival returned.


text:
Forums Plugins Crunchessor sidechain?
This topic was created before release of the latest product version, and it may contain details irrelevant to this version. Replying is disabled for this topic.
graham on Sep 25, 2004, 5:28am:
Is it possible to add a sidechain feature? I find this is almost always lacking in plugin compressors.
Aleksey Vaneev on Sep 25, 2004, 6:55am:
I'm planning to implement a true side-chaining (selectable) making it 4in-2out plug-in. This will appear in the v1.2 I'm working now on.
Brian on Sep 25, 2004, 6:20pm:
Yes, this will be an excellent addition!
bmanic on Sep 27, 2004, 9:54am:
This will be awesome as I just purchased energy XT that can use this feature fully! Brilliant! Thanks aleksey!
Brian on Sep 27, 2004, 10:14am:
Slightly off topic, have to say that energyXT is just great! Such a versatile and affordable tool everyone should have when working with VST. At first I was interested in it to use these kind of plugins (4 in, 2 out, etc), but it is excellent for sound mangling, sequencing/layering, and having templates set up for plugins (ie parallel compression with Crunchessor into GlissEQ into Warmifier etc).
Aleksey Vaneev on Sep 27, 2004, 7:19pm:
OK, good to know about energyXT!
Galova on May 19, 2005, 4:07pm:
Please forgive my ignorance, but how do I create this effect with crunchessor in FL Studio?
Aleksey Vaneev on May 19, 2005, 4:20pm:
I suggest you to contact FL Studio support, or ask this question on FL Studio forums. I personally am not sure side-chaining is possible in FL Studio (but I can be wrong).
Galova on May 25, 2005, 11:51am:
And how is it done in Cubase SX?
Aleksey Vaneev on May 25, 2005, 4:11pm:
Please read the user's manual: it includes the necessary information about enabling side-chaining in Cubase SX 2 and up.
This topic was created before release of the latest product version, and it may contain details irrelevant to this version. Replying is disabled for this topic.
Copyright © 2002-2018 Aleksey Vaneev


text:
One of Britain's most senior bishops has hit out at Project Fear, describing Chancellor George Osborne's warning of economic doom in the event of Brexit as "ludicrous".
Peter Smith, the Catholic Archbishop of Southwark, bemoaned the fact the European Union (EU) referendum debate was focusing so much on economics, saying it was impossible to forecast the long-term economic impact of Brexit.
Archbishop Smith, who is deputy chair of the Bishops Conference of England and Wales, added that the single currency had not worked for the continent's poorest countries, and that many in Britain do not want to be part of a United States of Europe.
"When we joined the European Union many decades ago, one of the chief arguments was about trade, that we would be better off and it would help the economy," he said.
"The problem is that the EU has become extremely bureaucratic. It's not working with the euro, and I think all of us are glad we didn't go into the euro."
Speaking to Vatican Radio, Archbishop Smith also said that he did not trust George's Osborne's predictions of economic meltdown if Britain votes to leave.
"I am very sceptical of the economic arguments that the Chancellor makes. When he does a budget, very often by the end of the year his forecasts are all over the place."
British people also do not want to be part of further EU integration, the Archbishop said.
"With this real fundamental desire to become more integrated, like a European [United] States – that, many of us find difficult to swallow.
"I don't think that is the right thing to do."
The euro in particular "hasn't worked", particularly with weaker economies like Greece, Portugal and Spain.
Archbishop Smith is the first senior clergyman of any major Christian denomination to show public sympathy for the Brexit campaign.
His colleague Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, recently appeared to back the Remain campaign when he said leaving the EU would create "more complex problems" and said the "Catholic stance towards an effort such as the EU is largely supportive."
Cardinal Nichols's predecessor, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, went even further by writing in Spectator about why he wants Britain to stay in the EU.
Many of the European Union's founders were Catholic, but British Catholics remain split on Brexit.
The Catholic Herald quotes journalist and prominent convert Charles Moore as saying: "The European Union has become godless.
"When they had a draft constitution, they deliberately kept God out of it. That wasn't something that offended me, because as someone who has a great respect for God, I wouldn't particularly want him to be in the European Constitution – but it worried some Catholics, I know."


text:
Mon | 23.10.2017
Feel at Home in Romania Fair - November 16, 2017 @ Hotel Cismigiu in Bucharest - a premium event organized by City Compass Group, that combines a fair with an expat guide anniversary launch & networking.
WHEN - November 16, 2017 , 3-10 PM
WHERE - Hotel Cismigiu, top floor, 38 Regina Elisabeta Blvd., Bucharest
COST - Free - upon registration here
WEBSITE - http://www.feelathome.ro/
A premium event organized by City Compass Group, that combines a fair with an expat guide anniversary launch & networking.
Meet and talk to expats & internationally minded Romanians, all in search of quality business connections, reliable information and premium products & services tailored to their needs – for a GOOD LIFE in Romania!
Over 500 people are expected to attend the event: middle and top management, both Romanians and expats, from both local companies and multinationals, foreign & local investors, diplomats, members of various Chambers of Commerce, consultants, industry professionals, Romanians having returned home.
This is our fourth large scale event, after three editions of the Expat Fair series, which brought together over 200 companies and 1,000 people. Check out the list of partners you can meet at the Feel at Home Fair, as well as the special offers and partnership opportunities on FeelatHome.ro. (http://www.feelathome.ro/)
We're also launching the 10th anniversary issue of our flagship print publication City Compass Romania: Bucharest & Beyond.
Become a partner now, seats are limited! See you at the fair!
July (3)
June (2)
May (2)
April (4)
March (12)
February (23)
January (10)
December (3)
November (6)
October (8)
September (3)
August (13)
July (12)
June (8)
May (8)
April (10)
March (4)
February (7)
January (7)
December (2)
November (2)
October (7)
September (14)
August (5)
July (4)
June (7)
May (6)
April (3)
March (1)
February (4)
January (1)


text:
About LIFE OF THE MIND INTERRUPTED:
Academia isn't an easy place to be if your brain isn't quite right.
Colleagues carelessly call each other "schizo" and "bipolar." Another colleague is fired—easy enough to do these days, when most college teachers no longer have tenure—for "instability." In these ways and many more, psychiatrically disabled people working in higher education are reminded every day that their privilege, their very livelihoods, can be stripped away by the groundless suspicions of others. Their lives can be, in an instant, interrupted.
The essays in this book cover topics such as disclosure of disabilities, accommodations and accessibility, how to be a good abled friend to a disabled person, the trigger warnings debate, and more. Written for a popular audience, for those with disabilities and for those who want to learn more about living a disabled life, Life of the Mind Interrupted aims to make higher education, and the rest of our society, more humane.
Katie Rose Guest Pryal is one of the foremost writers of disability and higher education we have today. —Catherine J. Prendergast, Ph.D., Professor of Disability Studies
Praise for LIFE OF THE MIND INTERRUPTED:
Katie Rose Guest Pryal is one of the foremost writers of disability and higher education we have today. Like Kay Redfield Jamison and Elyn Saks, Pryal pulls aside the curtain to look at what academic life is like for someone with a mental disability. With unmatched legal insight into the intersection of disability and university life, Pryal's writing is also accessible. Reading her writing is like sitting down to coffee with a friend. Covering vital topics such as disclosure, collegiality, and accommodations, Life of the Mind Interrupted helps academics and friends of academics navigate the thickets of higher education, where expectations of "sound mind" are cruelly at odds with the reality of disability. In Pryal's work we see hope: For a kinder, more just, more capacious understanding of what it means to be human, to pursue knowledge, and to educate. —Catherine J. Prendergast, Ph.D., Professor of Disability Studies
In the News:
Book Information:
- Author: Katie Rose Guest Pryal
- Title: LIFE OF THE MIND INTERRUPTED: ESSAYS ON MENTAL HEALTH AND DISABILITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
- Publication Date: October 16, 2017
- Paper ISBN: 978-1-947834-05-7, Ebook ISBN: 978-1-947834-06-4
- Distributed by Ingram
- bit.ly/lifeofthemind


text:
The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points
Is Satan really the good guy?
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|6 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|17,087 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)
I recognize that you are atheist and I will let you know that I am Christian. Could we first lay down some assumptions of the debate?
1) Let us assume that God and Satan do exist.
2) Let us assume that the Bible is a trustworthy collection of accounts of man's experiences with God or the supernatural, though not infallible.
3) Let us also assume the Jesus is God incarnate.
These assumptions make the debate clearer. Would you like to edit, add, or delete any of the assumptions? Do you agree with the assumptions for the sake of debate?
So, I accept the challenge that "there are more indications in the bible that Satan has always been on our side, and God has always been against us." I will argue the opposite: there are far more indications that Satan has not always been on our side, and that God has always been on our side.
I would like to thank you for accepting my challenge, as well as agree with your terms of the debate. good luck.
I am going to start with some simple reasons as to why I believe Satan really isn't a bad guy.
1.God allowed Satan to exist
God, being the omnipotent, loving creator he is, fashioned all life out of the dust. I can assume we can both agree stories dictate that Lucifer/Satan was an angel who was thrown from Heaven for going against the will of God. Why did God, all-knowing, and famous for his hatred of evil, not simply erase the being who would be blamed for evil for centuries to come?
2. Satan gave and encouraged free thought
In the beginning when God created Adam and Eve he t the n the garden of Eden and told them not to eat the forbidden fruit, for it contains the knowledge of good and evil. If that was the case, there was no way either of them knew that eating the fruit and disobeying God was wrong, because they did not have hat knowledge yet. God's punishment for them seems a bit severe does it not? Essentially, God committed the first murder by taking Adam and Eve's eternal life. By tricking the first humans, Satan gave mankind the knowledge of good and evil.
3. God is hypocritical
Right after giving Moses the ten commandments, God let Moses order the Levites to go on mass murdering rampages. God also condemns man for committing evils, despite committing them himself. God lies to prophets, encourages the discrimination of others, and murders countless people himself.
4. God murders countless people
Satan kills a grand total of 10 people according to the bible. The numbers provided by the bible of the amount of people killed by God is 2,476,633, but the estimated total is slightly higher at 25,000,000.
Point 1) Satan is not bad in and of himself. Although, he can make choices that are not good, despite his intrinsic goodness inherited by God's creation. Moreover, I don't believe God cast Lucifer/Satan out of Heaven, but Satan cast himself out because he wanted no part of his "citizenship" of the kingdom of Heaven. This preserves God's goodness and promotes His gracious nature in that He still loves Satan even if He largely disagrees with his choices.
Point 2) I would think that we can agree that free will and free thought are virtually synonymous. We are all created with free will (the freedom of choice). Let us assume that making a choice takes some level of thought (conscious or subconscious). If it is accepted that God gave free will, it can be logically deduced that God also gave free thought.
Moreover, Adam and Eve, without the knowledge of good and evil could not know to trust one another. But they did. This leads me to believe that the first temptation is either 1) misunderstood by the reader and/or the writer, or 2) metaphorical in nature. The latter is corroborated in that Jesus said nothing is evil in and of itself (Mark 7), but it is rather made evil by a certain condition of the heart. Similarly, the tree itself cannot be evil for God cannot create evil.
Point 3 and 4) I will answer both these point here. They bring up a very interesting topic about biblical interpretation. Since God does not change (if He is perfect what needs to be changed? Nothing), the very same character as the one in the Old Testament should be exemplified in the accounts of Jesus. Thus, if we interpret something in the Old Testament that contradicts the nature of Jesus, our interpretation of the Old Testament should change.
The Gospel accounts (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are considered more historically trustworthy accounts than any other ancient text we've ever had. They can also be somewhat corroborated with the other Gospel accounts (Gospel of Thomas, Mary, Judas--although the historical trustworthiness of these is disputed) and secular accounts (Tacitus, Josephus, letters between Pilate and Herod) ["Historical Reliability Gospels" by Craig Blomberg]. This is where I reason that if the Old Testament interpretation contradicts something demonstrated by Jesus, the former should be challenged, not the latter.
Jesus never killed a single person (in fact, resurrected many). Jesus never struck a person or gave sickness. Even in His outburst in the Temple (Matthew 21:13-14, Mark 11:15-19), He overturned tables not people. In fact there are MORE accounts of Jesus healing people--every person that came to Him.
Since we've established the assumption that Jesus is God incarnate, God must also act the same way in the Old Testament as Jesus did in the Gospel accounts. How could we justify this with the available texts though?
Let us read 2 Samuel 24:1. "The Lord's anger burned against Israel again, and He stirred up David against them to say: 'Go, count [the people of] Israel and Judah.'" Reading this the way it is gives us the impression that God was angry with Israel and He ordered David to take census and later there would be a mass murder of people. This seems to support your point, but it contradicts the nature of God personified in Jesus. Seems a tad speculative right now, doesn't it?
Now let us read 1 Chronicles 21:1, which refers to the same exact event at the same exact time, place and context. These are parallel texts. But this passage says, "Satan stood up against Israel and incited David to count [the people of] Israel."
So who ordered the census which would lead to a mass murder? God in His anger, or Satan? I would say Satan because Jesus, as God incarnate, demonstrates an entirely opposite nature. What caused this stark difference in names then? There are 2 possibilities, both of which are complementary of one another.
1) The Jews who wrote 2 Samuel believed Satan was working in favor of God (like a henchman doing the dirty work) but cutting out the middle man and attributing the act to God in His anger. This is called delegated authority. It happens when the president sends you a letter. It probably wasn't the president himself who personally wrote the letter but someone working for him. There are less extreme examples of this in the Bible (e.g. Compare Matthew 8:5 and Luke 7:3). The belief that Satan is God's henchman is abundant in the Old Testament (e.g. 1 Kings 11:14).
2) the Jews who wrote 1 Chronicles (which was written in a period after 2 Samuel which is actually partially characterized by this temporary shift in beliefs from Satan as a minion to an enemy by his choice) believed Satan was not really working for God. This shift in beliefs did not last long but was rebirthed when Jesus came.
If this is accepted, it would also explain the fact that Satan's name is only mentioned 16 times in the Old Testament, whereas He is mentioned nearly 200 times in the New Testament (even though it is significantly shorter in length). What are the implications if this is accepted? Everytime the LORD's anger is referenced in the Old Testament, it should be read as "God or Satan's anger" and weighed against the life of Jesus.
A good friend of mine, Tyler Johnson, once wrote this: "If you cannot sustantiate your belief about the Father with the life of Jesus, your belief [about the Father] is wrong." (quote from Tyler's book "How To Raise The Dead").
Since Jesus never killed anyone, it can be reason that He, as God, never did in the Old Testament either. The remaining possibilities are that it was Satan or another person (either a physical intent to harm or a supernatural type of curse). If we try to maximize the results (a form of statistical analysis), and assume every time God killed someone, it was actually another person, God yields a death count of 0 whereas Satan supposedly kills 10. If this interpretation is deemed logically sound, and if we give Satan the beneit of the doubt, God still kills 10 less people than Satan, thus disproving your claim that there are more indications in the Bible that Satan is really on our side and that God is not.
Satan thus could have killed between 25,000,010 and 10 people, whereas God could have killed none, if we use Jesus as the standard.
Invalid forfeited this round.
Best wishes! Peace and love!
I will be addressing your points accordingly
Point 1) I'll just say it wasn't my intention to prove that God is evil because he cast Satan out of heaven. Whether he left or was thrown out is beside the point. God, being the omniscient creator he is, knew the ramifications of letting Satan exist and yet did nothing. If God is the all-loving creator He is made out to be, why does He create people who will become murderers, rapists, pedophiles and anyone of the sort? Why does he create people who he knows will sin and who he will send to hell for eternity? What loving creator does that? Seeing as Satan is one of the excuses for bad behaviour, why did God allow him to exist.
Point 2) You state that God cannot create evil. If that is the case, then why does evil exist? Where did it come from? I would have liked to just exclude the story of Adam and Eve due to contradictions and misunderstandings, but I feel that would mean we can't use the bible at all.
Point 3 & 4)I would like to start off by addressing the holy trinity. Yes, I agreed to make the assumption that Jesus and God are one and the same. However God (in his omniscient, ubiquitous form) was undoubtedly present at the same time as Jesus. Note that I am not trying to debunk the theory that they are the same. Jesus (in his physical human form) did not kill anyone according to the bible. Although, just because He did not kill anyone in his physical form, does not mean Jesus/God did not kill anyone in His ... "God form" :/.
As mentioned before the bible is tricky to use because of the ridiculous amount of contradictions. However, if we find evidence supporting either of our cases, that also has a contradiction, it is not reliable. I don't believe it reliable to use as you will be simply making an assumption that the passage supporting your case is the correct one.
Let me answer a few of your questions and objections.
1) I will quote C.S. Lewis from his book, "Mere Christianity," on this topic because he puts it so stinkin' well: "God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong, but I can't. If a thing is free to be good it's also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free. Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the wrong way: apparently, He thought it worth the risk. (...) If God thinks this state of war in the universe a price worth paying for free will -that is, for making a real world in which creatures can do real good or harm and something of real importance can happen, instead of a toy world which only moves when He pulls the strings- then we may take it it is worth paying."
Essentially, evil is a creation of the created, not an attribute of the created, nor a creation of the Creator. It is illogical to delegate "blame" to God because we have the freedom to choose what to do--He isn't a coercive robotic engineer. The same goes for Satan. In fact, there are certain branches of Christianity that believe Satan will one day decide to no longer be God's enemy (that is, he will cease being against God).
It seems as if you understand this to extent because you say, "why does He create people who will become murderers, rapists, pedophiles and anyone of the sort?" keyword: "will become." You recognize that He did not create them that way. The same goes for how Satan is typically viewed. He was not created as this evil being to reign in hell. Rather, he was created as a highly honored angel in heaven.
Furthermore, hell is not where Satan reigns. Hell is not where people go if they sin. Everybody sins. Hell is also not a torture chamber by God's own doing, but rather our own rejection of He who sustains our very existence. Hell, like Satan's initial rebellion, is essentially the rejection of one's citizenship in Heaven.
Also, existence in hell is not genuinely "eternal". "Eternal" means without beginning and without end. Since we've established that evil and rebellion against God is not an original trait of the created, it must begin at some point. If you even take the evangelical stance, when people die, their existence in hell begins at some point. The alternative interpretation would be that hell is of the eternal realm or of the eternal One.
2) See point 1 for the most part. There are indeed many contradictions (one or two of which I reasoned with in Round 2).
3 & 4) The underlying idea behind Jesus being God incarnate is that He fully and exactly exemplifies the character of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus says it pretty well when He says, "I and the Father are one," (John 10:30) and "If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him" (John 14:7). He is claiming His actions to be equivocal in nature with the Father's.
The Bible certainly is a tricky tool (though it is not useless). There are over 40 different authors separated over thousands of years and many from vastly different cultures. There's bound to be some confusion at some point. But these can be easily reasoned with by interpreting the Bible with Jesus as the standard. Otherwise, there will be few answers, many speculations, and many more questions. Even if one does not believe Christ to be God incarnate, it is proper (for the sake of biblical interpretation and understanding) to read every passage in light of the character of Jesus. The converse produces strawman arguments more often than I've seen it produce a true understanding of the message being portrayed.
I don't know if this next paragraph will be relevant, but I will write it anyways in the hope of solidifying an understanding between the two of us.
Most Christians believe the Bible is "inspired by God." What most people don't know is that there are multiple theories about biblical inspiration. For brevity, I will reference only the theory that is relevant to the points I've made. "This view likens inspiration to light passing through the stained glass of a cathedral window. The light is from heaven but it is stained and colored by the glass through which it passes. In the same way, the message of God is said to pass through the heart and mind of the original human author and come out discolored by his personality" [http://www.angelfire.com...].
C.S. Lewis's view on biblical inspiration is almost identical to the dynamic theory of inspiration [http://www.swartzentrover.com...].
So it seems to me that there are two options. To reinterpret the entire Bible in light of the nature demonstrated by Christ (when it comes to God's actions, particularly in the Old Testament), or continue to ask questions based on misunderstandings and obvious contradictions (which are largely reconciled in the former choice), and eventually forming strawman arguments (maybe not even on purpose).
Invalid forfeited this round.
tapostol forfeited this round.
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tapostol 6 years ago
Best of wishes to you as well!
Posted by Invalid 6 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
- Author
R. Allport
K. Gwilliam
C.A. Nash
A.D. Pearman
H.C.L. Williams
H.F. Gunn
H.R. Kirby
A.D. May
P. Laredo
J. Polak
O. Schiotz
A. Silverleaf
D. Witt
O. Holst
J.H. Rees
- Year
- 1983
- Title
- Long-term options and forecasts for transport in Europe: summary report
- Number of pages
- 61
- Publisher
- Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
- 9282535908
- Serie
- FAST: forecasting and assessment in the field of science and technology
- Volume | Edition (Serie)
- 8
- Document type
- Report
- Faculty
- Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB)
- Institute
- Amsterdam School of Economics Research Institute (ASE-RI)
- Language
- English
- Note
- EUR 8425 en
- Permalink
- http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.326686
- Downloads
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library, or send a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.


text:
It has been revealed today that at no stage in the process of getting a license to own a firearm or to hunt on public land is it required for hunters to do an eye test to prove they can properly identify the targets they are shooting. This raises fresh safety concerns regarding the O'Farrell government's reckless plan to begin hunting in National Parks.
See the reporting on Channel Seven here.
Greens NSW MP and Firearms spokesperson David Shoebridge said:
"It is outrageous that people can be licensed to hunt with guns on public land without being required to prove they can identify their intended target.
"Surely as a basic minimum hunters must be able to tell a pig from a person or a furry blur before they are let loose in this state's National Parks?
"It appears the O'Farrell government is so incompetent that it wasn't even aware that hunters could be roaming our forests with high powered rifles and unable to properly identify the targets they are shooting.
"O'Farrell has been so keen to stitch up a deal with the shooters in NSW Parliament that neither his Environment Minister or his Police Minister had even bothered to check if the hunters they are proposing to license could see their targets.
"Beyond the danger to the public, there is a real concern whether these recreational hunters will be able to distinguish feral pests from native animals.
"If you can't distinguish between a pest and a person, you shouldn't be holding a loaded gun anywhere near the public – full stop.
"At some point the Premier must put the public interest ahead of his deals with the gun lobby and terminate his plan for hunting in National Parks – let's hope he wakes up before someone is shot and killed," Mr Shoebridge said.


text:
Floating Stairs Construction
Sunday, March 19th, 2017
Deciding what type of theme that is to be given to a house is a situation, nonetheless this Carpet Ideas For Stairs picture stock will allow you to together with the wonderful designs suggested. When your residence is normally boring and you require a brand-new physical appearance, it is possible to redecorate the application together with use this Carpet Ideas For Stairs snapshot gallery to be a research. You can find various ways to beautify your boring property in such a Carpet Ideas For Stairs graphic collection. This outstanding Carpet Ideas For Stairs photograph gallery provides loads of shots of which suggest terrific types associated with Carpet Ideas For Stairs that you may content. And this also Carpet Ideas For Stairs image collection will aid you to find a amazing enjoy in your house. You may study many elements out of Carpet Ideas For Stairs photo collection like the collection of furnishings, colors program, and style. Those reasons is likely to make your house to a really attractive place if you can apply them in a good share nearly as Carpet Ideas For Stairs pic stock indicates.
The sun and rain bought with Carpet Ideas For Stairs pic stock might make your home more desirable. And like the atmosphere produced using a house since proven just by Carpet Ideas For Stairs photo collection with the home conveniently. You can also undertake fun pursuits in a residence as can be Carpet Ideas For Stairs snapshot collection. Your cozy home shown just by Carpet Ideas For Stairs pic collection will be your perfect location to dedicate leisure time by way of watching a DISC or simply relaxing. Just about every cranny of the well developed residence since displayed by Carpet Ideas For Stairs image collection definitely will enhance your private feeling so it s possible to encounter manufactured vigorously. I highly recommend you discover some other graphic free galleries additionally Carpet Ideas For Stairs photograph stock supplied by this website to help you greatly enhance your practical knowledge. You might also get most of the Hi Definition photos inside Carpet Ideas For Stairs pic stock or simply various graphic exhibits for nothing. Please enjoy Carpet Ideas For Stairs picture gallery.
Sunday, March 19th, 2017
Friday, March 10th, 2017
Sunday, March 12th, 2017
Friday, March 3rd, 2017
Friday, February 17th, 2017
Tuesday, February 28th, 2017
Thursday, March 16th, 2017
Tuesday, February 14th, 2017
Monday, February 13th, 2017
Thursday, March 9th, 2017
Tuesday, February 28th, 2017
Thursday, March 9th, 2017


text:
The HeartMate 3 System offers physicians in India the most advanced ventricular assist technology available for patients with advanced stage heart failure
St. Jude Medical, a global medical device company, today announced the launch of the HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist System (LVAS) in India. This is a cardiac support option for advanced heart failure patients who are awaiting transplantation and who are not in myocardial recovery.
"Heart failure remains one of the most costly epidemic diseases in the world, and the HeartMate 3 system is critical to supporting physicians managing the care of patients battling such a complex and challenging condition", said Kaustav Banerjee, Senior Regional Director of South and Southeast Asia, St. Jude Medical.
St. Jude Medical expects a limited market release across India to begin immediately, with additional market releases taking place throughout 2016.
"The HeartMate 3 system allows me to offer my advanced heart failure patients an option for their complex heart condition and we look forward to making this system broadly available throughout India," said Dr. Kewal Krishan, Program in-charge – heart transplant and ventricular assist devices senior consultant, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Saket, Delhi.
About the HeartMate 3 Left Ventricular Assist System
The HeartMate 3 LVAS includes a centrifugal blood pump that is implanted directly onto a patient's native heart and designed to supplement the pumping ability of the weakened heart's left ventricle, which is responsible for pumping oxygen-rich blood from the lungs throughout the body. The device is implanted above the diaphragm, immediately next to the native heart, and is attached to the aorta (the main artery that feeds blood into the entire body), leaving natural circulation in place while providing all of the energy necessary to propel blood throughout the body. The patient wears an external, wearable controller and battery system that powers the pump. The HeartMate 3 LVAS can pump up to 10 liters of blood per minute.
Unlike artificial hearts, LVADs don't replace the heart. Instead, the small implantable devices supplement the pumping function of the heart in patients whose hearts are too weak to pump blood adequately on their own. LVADs can benefit patients either awaiting transplant, known as bridge to transplant therapy, or can be used as a "destination therapy" for heart failure patients who need years of cardiac support but who are not candidates for transplantation.


text: ' Wine VIP - Shop My Account Username: Password: Always Remember Me On This Computer Forgot your username or password? Click Here. | Check Out HOME About Us Shop VIP Wine Club GRAPEVINE ADVENTURES Touring Wine Country Contact Us Wines| A. Bergere Champagne | Agricola Leuta | Barone Ricasoli | Bodegas Castiblanque | Bodegas Piqueras | Burrowing Owl Estate Winery | Cantina Argiano | Carlos San Pedro | Castello di Meleto | Castello di Verrazzano | Chateau de Combebelle | Chateau de La Dauphine | Chateau de Miniere | Chateau de Reignac | Chateau de Targé | Chateau Gaudrelle | Chateau Gabachot | Chateau Lavergne-Dulong | Chateau Rives-Blanques | Ch. St. Jacques d'Albas | Coolshanagh | Domaine Bousquet | Domaine de Saumarez | Domaine Saint Hilaire | Domaine Terre de Mistral | Flat Rock Cellars | Foxtrot Vineyards | Frédéric Mabileau | Gualfin | Il Borro | Marchesi Mazzei | Mas de la Lionne | Agricola Montechiaro | Pierre & Bertrand Couly | Pol Couronne Champagne | Poplar Grove | Reif Estate Winery | Remirez de Ganuza | Riverview Estates | Solera Bodegas | Wines from Spain | Gift Ideas | | Icepack | | France | Italy | Spain | Argentina | Canada | | Sauvignon Blanc | Cabernet Franc | Cabernet Sauvignon | Champagne/Sparkling | Chardonnay | Chenin Blanc | Grenache | Icewine | Gewurtztraminer | Malbec | Pinot Noir | Riesling | Rosé | Sangiovese | Shiraz | Syrah | Viognier Shop A. Bergere Champagne Agricola Leuta Barone Ricasoli Bodegas Castiblanque Bodegas Piqueras Burrowing Owl Estate Winery Cantina Argiano Carlos San Pedro Castello di Meleto Castello di Verrazzano Chateau de Combebelle Chateau de La Dauphine Chateau de Miniere Chateau de Reignac Chateau de Targé Chateau Gaudrelle Chateau Gabachot Chateau Lavergne-Dulong Chateau Rives-Blanques Ch. St. Jacques d'Albas Coolshanagh Domaine Bousquet Domaine de Saumarez Domaine Saint Hilaire Domaine Terre de Mistral Flat Rock Cellars Foxtrot Vineyards Frédéric Mabileau Gualfin Il Borro Marchesi Mazzei Mas de la Lionne Agricola Montechiaro Pierre & Bertrand Couly Pol Couronne Champagne Poplar Grove Reif Estate Winery Remirez de Ganuza Riverview Estates Solera Bodegas Wines from Spain Gift Ideas Icepack France Italy Spain Argentina Canada Sauvignon Blanc Cabernet Franc Cabernet Sauvignon Champagne/Sparkling Chardonnay Chenin Blanc Grenache Icewine Gewurtztraminer Malbec Pinot Noir Riesling Rosé Sangiovese Shiraz Syrah Viognier HOME | Shop | Riverview Estates | Sort By Price high to low Price low to high Brand Riverview Estates Riverview Cellars Estate Winery is a family estate winery focusing on small-batch high quality wines produced alongside the Niagara River in picturesque Niagara-on-the-Lake. This sub-appellation boasts 1470 growing degree days, along with a climate and soil which are perfect for ripening popular reds like Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, and whites like Riesling - Gewurztraminer. A great focus has been put on Icewine, winning countless international awards for many of our Icewines, especially Vidal and Cabernet Franc. Our wines are enjoyed and exported across Canada, US, China, Japan, and around the world. Come home to our wines as you discover quality from the earth and the heart. Fontana Rosé 2012 Liking pink wines is nothing to blush about! Raspberry, watermelon and cotton candy flavours mingle in the glass like Billy Crystal at the Oscars after-party. Modeled after White Zinfandel--can you taste the difference? $9.75 / Bottle $117.00 / Case 2011 Fontana Dolce We know some people "only drink white wines," but this here should be an exception. The refreshing blend recalls juicy plums, ripe raspberries, cherries and candied apples. Terrific with pizza or made into Sangria. The Dolce converts many to red wine; enough for a cult following. Wanna join the cult? $12.15 / Bottle $145.80 / Case Riverview Estates Cabernet Icewine 2013 Intense strawberry and rhubarb jam qualities layered with honey. Sinful with cheesecake topped with Cabernet Franc Icewine-soaked strawberries. $55.95 / Bottle $671.40 / Case Riverview Estates Vidal Icewine 2014 Canada Hand-picked and pressed at about -10 degrees Celsius (14 Fahrenheit), winter produced a dessert wine of power and verve. Aromas of canned peaches, baked apple and dried fig scratch the surface of this intense drink. Serve our 'Liquid Gold' on its own or alongside apple dumplings. $44.95 / Bottle $539.40 / Case HOME Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Returns & Exchanges Sign up for our Mailing List Powered by vinSUITE © 2018. Wine VIP All Rights Reserved.


text:
Moody Mansion is available for events like weddings, reunions, anniversaries, and meetings. The formal ballroom is a memorable venue, and less formal space is available in the garage area, with easy access to free parking. There is ample room outside for tables and tents, and the mansion is a popular setting for bridal photos.
Call (409) 762-7668 for rental information.


text:
About Farm Management Canada
Farm Management Canada (FMC) is the only national organization in Canada devoted exclusively to developing and distributing advanced farm management information.
Supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and a growing number of private partners, FMC is fulfilling a significant role in nurturing a thriving Canadian agriculture industry.
About the International Farm Management Congress
The International Farm Management Congress takes place every second year in locations all over the world. The 2013 Congress is in Poland at Warsaw's University of Life Sciences (www.ifma19.org). Farmers, advisors, academia, policy makers, researchers, and anyone with a keen interest in farm business management gather to share best practices on the world stage.
The International Farm Management Congress is made possible by the International Farm Management Association (www.ifmaonline.org) .


text:
The amazing SCI series called Outlaw Tech was still in mid-production when the promos needed to ship. With no actual show footage available, we were asked to build a graphically conceptual intro to this world of high-crime cat n' mouse.
* * *
Client: Science Channel
Producer/Writer: Jeff Strong
Art Director: Garth Superville
Audio: Richard Humphries | Takoma Media


text:
Robert Quarry
|Robert Quarry
Quarry in trailer for Count Yorga, Vampire (1970)
Robert Walter Quarry
November 3, 1925
Santa Rosa, California, U.S.
February 20, 2009 (aged 83)
Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, California, U.S.
|Years active
Robert Walter Quarry (November 3, 1925 – February 20, 2009) was an American actor, known for several prominent horror film roles.
Life and career[edit]
Quarry was born in Santa Rosa, California, the son of Mable (née Shoemaker) and Paul Quarry, a doctor. His grandmother was an actress. He left school at the age of 14 to pursue a career in radio.[1]
During World War II in November 1943, Quarry joined the United States Army, where he formed a theatrical troupe. After the war he acted again, first for RKO and then for MGM.[1]
His films include Count Yorga, Vampire (1970), its sequel The Return of Count Yorga (1971), and Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972), in which he played alchemist Dr. Biederbeck pitted against Vincent Price's Phibes in a race to find the mythical elixir of eternal life. Price reportedly did not care for his co-star — once, when Quarry was singing in his dressing room during the making of Dr Phibes Rises Again, he said to Price, "You didn't know I could sing did you?" and Price replied: "Well I knew you couldn't act" — the duo were later also paired in Madhouse (1974).[2]
American International Pictures had plans for Quarry to succeed Price, signing him to a long term contract,[3] but the decline in the company's fortunes, combined with old-style horror films falling out of fashion, meant that it never happened. Quarry did make further horror film appearances, as the hippy guru vampire Khorda in 1973's The Deathmaster, and as a gangster in the 1974 zombie movie Sugar Hill.[4]
Quarry made several guest appearances on TV shows, including two in 1965 on Perry Mason. He appeared on an episode of The Rockford Files. He played disfigured gunrunner Commander Corliss in the Buck Rogers in the 25th Century episode "Return of the Fighting 69th". He played in two episodes of The Lone Ranger.[4]
In 1980 he was in an automobile accident, in which he was struck by a drunk driver. It resulted in serious facial injuries. He was also mugged in Hollywood shortly thereafter. In 1987, Quarry returned to film with Cyclone directed by Fred Olen Ray. Quarry would be cast in over 20 of Ray's films in the remainder of his career.[1]
Quarry died on February 20, 2009 at the Motion Picture & Television Country House and Hospital in Woodland Hills, California, aged 83.[5]
- Soldier of Fortune (1955)[1]
- A Kiss Before Dying (1956)[1]
- Crime of Passion (1957)[1]
- Official Detective series Episode: "The Brunette" as Platt (1958) [6]
- Sea Hunt series Episode: "Monte Cristo" (1958)
- Agent for H.A.R.M. (1966)
- Winning (1969)[1]
- Count Yorga, Vampire (1970)
- The Return of Count Yorga (1971)
- Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972)
- The Deathmaster (1973)
- Sugar Hill (1974)
- The Midnight Man (1974)
- Madhouse (1974)
- Rollercoaster (1977)
- Cyclone (1987)[1]
- Moon in Scorpio (1987)
- Beverly Hills Vamp (1988)
- Alienator (1989)
- Mob Boss (1990)
- Haunting Fear (1991)[7]
- Teenage Exorcist (1991)
- Mind Twister (1993)[1] - Bob
- Inner Sanctum II (1994) - Steve Warren
- Droid Gunner (1995) - Chew'Bah
- The Shooter (1997) - Examiner
- Jungle Boy (1998) - Bono (voice)
- Dear Santa (1998) - Mr. Ambrose
- Mom's Outta Sight (1998) - Robert Secord
- The Prophet (1999)[1] - Agent Betts
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k "Robert Quarry". The Telegraph. March 3, 2009. Retrieved December 31, 2011.
- ^ Del Valle, David. "Robert Quarry Remembered: The Deathmaster Knocks at the Madhouse of Dr. Phibes". Retrieved December 31, 2011.
- ^ Notes on the film scene The Christian Science Monitor (1908-Current file) [Boston, Mass], August 6, 1971, p. 15.
- ^ a b Robert Quarry on IMDb
- ^ Vampire Legend Dies, radaronline.com, February 2009; accessed July 17, 2015.
- ^ The Classic TV Archive
- ^ Muir, John (2011). Horror Films of the 1990s. McFarland. p. 161. ISBN 9780786440122.


text:
Standard delivery within 48 hours - Express delivery within 24 hours
You have no items in your shopping cart.
The UCF Zoom II is multi-functional wizard! In one compact and lightweight binocular you have the power to observe with 8 to 16x magnification by simply turning the central wheel. Add to this the aspherical lens elements for edge-to-edge sharpness, BaK4 prisms and multi-coated lenses to enhance brightness & contrast, and voilà, you have the perfect travel companion who won't let you miss a thing!
|Item No.
|Item No.
|Technical Specifications
|8x - 16x
|Objective Lens Diameter
|21 mm
|Eye Relief
|14 - 11 mm
|Angle of View
|5° - 3°
|Field of View at 1000m
|87 - 52
|Exit pupil
|2.6 - 1.3 mm
|Tripod adapter U (part no. 69552)
|BaK4 central focusing Porro prisms binocular
|Lens construction
|2 elements in 1 group
|Eyepiece construction
|4 elements in 3 groups
|Focussing range
|approx. 3 m to infinity
|Relative Brightness
|6.7 - 1.7
|Twighlight Factor
|11.3 - 13
|Dimensions in mm (WxHxD)
|111 x 111 x 55
|Diopter adjustment range
|+/- 4 dpt.
|Eye-Distance (Inter-Pupilary Distance)
|56 - 73.5 mm
|Scope of supply
|Objective lens caps, carrying case, carrying strap
|Product launch
|November 2004


text:
Cheap Motels In Fife Wa
Cheap Motels In Fife Wa is free HD wallpaper. This wallpaper was upload at August 15, 2018 upload by admin in .You can download it in your computer by clicking resolution image in Download by size:. Don't forget to rate and comment if you interest with this wallpaper.
Description wallpaper for Cheap Motels In Fife Wa
- Title: Cheap Motels In Fife Wa
- Author:
- Upload:
- Link: http://www.hotelsdoo.com/srimages/Cheap%20Motels%20In%20Springdale%20Ohio%20.jpg
- Tag:
- Category: Uncategorized
- View: 0 View


text:
What's Happening Underground?
What kinds of data can you collect to help predict when your garden will emerge and bloom?
Gardeners across the Northern Hemisphere are watching and waiting for their own gardens to emerge. Students at Sandy Ridge school in North Carolina are asking, "How many days does it take for them to sprout and flower." They're creating bar graphs with their data.
Many students are wondering how air and soil temperature might affect tulip plants. Also, will rain speed things up?
California: "We think our tulips emerged because it is very sunny here. We measured the temperature yesterday and the air temp was 68F (21C) and the soil temp was 60F (14C)." San Diego on February 7th.
Washington: "We have had mild temps 40's-50's with many days of rain." Buckley on February 6th.
Alabama: "We checked on our tulips on this sunny but very cold winter day. Thirteen emerged! The windchill was 20 degrees, cold for us! " Hartnell on February 5th.
Utah: "I have never seen tulips this early by months. It's been in the 40s to high 50s the last while." West Jordan on February 4th.


text:
PHOENIX, ARIZ. — Joaquin Andujar has been called a lot of things by a lot of people during 10 stormy years in the big leagues.
But nobody had ever called him a role model, at least not until this spring. The Oakland A`s, however, are counting on him to be the big brother on an inexperienced pitching staff.
``He`s a tough competitor who pitches every four days and hates to come out of a game,`` said Sandy Alderson, the A`s general manager. ``We have guys who go six innings and think that`s enough. We think Joaquin will be effective in toughening up our staff.``
Andujar, 33, has taken the role to heart, focusing on the wunderkind of the staff, 20-year-old Jose Rijo, a fellow Dominican.
One day this spring, Andujar spied Rijo sitting in the stands in street clothes. Rijo, awaiting the start of a Cactus League game, had finished his prescribed work and wasn`t scheduled to pitch.
Andujar ordered Rijo back into uniform. They sat together during the game, Andujar talking and Rijo listening. Later, Andujar took Rijo to an adjacent field and worked with the young pitcher on smoothing his delivery.
``That Jose Rijo, he can be like Dwight Gooden,`` Andujar said. ``But he not tough enough. He need to learn that games last nine innings, sometimes longer.
``He say he going to learn from me. I tell him, `You better, I`ll be on your butt all the time.` ``


text:
In 1987, Marilyn Garrett was 34 years old, holding two jobs and raising two children. She also was among dozens of Floyd County residents called for jury duty in the Timothy Tyrone Foster death-penalty case.
During jury selection, prosecutors struck all four eligible blacks to serve on Foster's case,
which meant an all-white jury sentenced Foster to death. His crime was horrible: He strangled 79-year-old Queen Madge White after sexually abusing her with a salad dressing bottle.
But the exclusion of Garrett and one other prospective African-American juror has prompted appeals that landed Monday at the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on the case. Although Garrett was not there, she spoke Monday in a telephone interview from her home. She is now 63 and goes by Marilyn Whitehead, and she's still bitter about the experience.
To read The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's account, please go to the story on myajc.com.


text:
Modern CX (Marketing, Sales & Service)
Las Vegas | 26/04/2016 - 28/04/2016 | Three days
Boxfusion will be attending the upcoming Modern CX event in Las Vegas. Outstanding service is the number one reason customers recommend a business. Differentiate your brand by unifying web, social, and contact center experiences that help develop lasting, profitable relationships with your customers. Join us at this key event to experience hands-on workshops, see product demonstrations, network during interactive breakout sessions and hear best practices. Turn your customers into brand advocates.