text:
Aceable's Terms and Conditions for Texas Instructor-Taught Driver's Ed
Background. This end user license agreement and terms of service (this "Agreement") set forth the legally binding terms between Aceable Inc. ("Aceable," "us," or "we") and you, as an end-user of an iOS or Android application offered by Aceable (collectively, the "App") through which we offer the driver instruction course for which you have registered (the "Course").
By clicking the "I AGREE" button or by installing the App, you agree, effective as of such date (the "Effective Date") to be bound by this Agreement.
Representations About You. The App is not designed for use by children under the age of 13, and we do not intentionally collect personal information from children through the App. Thus, you represent and warrant to us that you are at least 13 years of age. If you are 13 or older but under the age of 18, you must review this Agreement with your own parent or guardian to make sure that you and your parent or guardian understand it and that they agree to it on your behalf. Also, you represent and warrant that the information that you provide to us about you in connection with the App will be current, true, accurate, supportable, and complete, and promise that you will update this information to keep it current. When using the App while in a vehicle, you agree to not interact with the App unless your vehicle is stationary.
Driver Requirements in Your Jurisdiction. In addition to taking a course like the Course, there are almost certainly additional requirements in your state in order to receive a learner license, instruction permit, learner's permit, driver's license, or similar license, including requirements to complete a "behind the wheel" driving instruction course offered by a third party. You acknowledge and agree that it is your sole responsibility to comply with any such requirements. A list of states in which the Course is approved to meet certain licensing requirements (or portions thereof) is set forth in our [State-Specific Terms][1] page. You hereby agree to comply with any state-specific requirements for your jurisdiction set forth in the State-Specific Terms. Aceable does not represent or warrant that the Course will meet the requirements of any other jurisdiction. If a Course is not approved by the state regulatory authorities in your jurisdiction, you may only use the App and the Course for general educational purposes. You use the App at your own initiative and are responsible for compliance with applicable laws.
Certificate of Completion. After you have completed the Course (or a certain number of modules within the Course) and have passed a quiz or final exam, you will receive a certificate acknowledging your completion ("Certificate") from Aceable. By completing a Course or portion thereof to receive a Certificate, you hereby acknowledge and agree that you have reviewed all of the Course material and answered all quiz or exam questions yourself, as may be required by applicable state law. It is your sole responsibility to present the Certificate to the appropriate regulatory authority in your jurisdiction.
License Grant. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Aceable hereby grants you a limited, non-exclusive, and non-transferable license to download, install and use the App on a single smartphone, tablet, or another mobile device that you own or control and to use the content, including text, pictures, videos, links and information or instructions made available to you through the App ("Content") for your personal, non-commercial use.
License Restrictions. You shall not: (i) copy the App or any Content, except as expressly permitted by this license; (ii) modify, translate, adapt, or otherwise create derivative works or improvements of the App or the Course; (iii) reverse engineer, disassemble, decompile, decode or otherwise attempt to derive or gain access to the source code of the App or any part thereof; (iv) remove, delete, alter or obscure any trademarks or any copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property or proprietary rights notice from the App or the Course; or (v) rent, lease, lend, sell, sublicense, assign, distribute, publish, transfer or otherwise make available the App or the Course or any features or functionality of the App, to any third party for any reason, including making the App available on a network where it is capable of being accessed by more than one device at any time. If for some reason these restrictions are prohibited by applicable law or by an agreement we have with one of our licensors, then the activities are permitted only to the extent necessary to comply with such law or license(s).
Reservation of Rights. You acknowledge that the App and the Course is licensed, not sold, to you. Aceable reserves all rights in and to the App and the Course not expressly granted to you under this Agreement. You do not acquire any ownership interest in the App or the Course under this Agreement. Aceable and its licensors reserve and retain the entire right title and interest in and to the App and the Course, including all copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property rights therein or relating thereto, except as expressly granted to you in this Agreement. If you submit comments, suggestions, or other feedback regarding the App ("Feedback"), Aceable will be free to use such Feedback for any purpose. "Aceable" and all associated logos displayed within the App are our trademarks (unless otherwise noted).
Data. In exchange for Aceable providing you with access to the App, you consent to Aceable collecting and using technical data in connection with your use of the App ("Data"), including technical information about your device, system, software, and peripherals. You agree and acknowledge that Aceable owns all rights, titles, and interests in and to any Data that is collected by Aceable from you as the result of your use of the App. Aceable may use such Data for any lawful purpose without a duty of accounting, including without limitation (i) in order to provide the App to you, (ii) as necessary to monitor and improve the App, and (iii) to collect, develop, create, extract or otherwise generate statistics and other information and to otherwise compile, synthesize and analyze such Data ("Blind Data"), provided that Aceable agrees that it shall not use the Data in any manner in which you would be identified.
Confidentiality. You acknowledge that the App, the Content, the terms of this Agreement, and any other proprietary or confidential information provided by Aceable constitutes Aceable's valuable proprietary information and trade secrets ("Confidential Information"). The information you provide to us about you (such as your name, address, date of birth, and email address) and your test results will constitute your Confidential Information. Each party agrees to preserve the confidential nature of the other's Confidential Information by retaining and using it in trust and confidence, solely for its internal use except as provided herein, and by using the same degree of protection that such party uses to protect similar proprietary and confidential information, but in no event less than reasonable care, provided that we may transfer your Confidential Information to our partners as may be necessary to deliver the App, the Course, or the Certificate of Completion to you, and to our successors and assigns in connection with a corporate transaction. Each party shall have the right to seek an injunction (without having to post a bond) to prevent any breach or continued breach of this section.
Acknowledgments Regarding Apple, Inc., Google Inc., and other App Store Providers. You acknowledge that this Agreement is between you and Aceable and not with Apple, Inc. ("Apple"), Google Inc. ("Google") or any sponsor or provider of any application marketplace (each an "App Store Provider") and that Aceable (not the applicable App Store Provider) is responsible for the Mobile App. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT NO APP STORE PROVIDER MAKES ANY WARRANTIES OR HAS ANY OBLIGATIONS WHATSOEVER UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OR HAS ANY WARRANTY OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE APP OR THE COURSE. If you are using the Mobile App on any iOS-based device, this license is granted to you only as permitted by and subject to any applicable Usage Rules set forth in the Apple App Store Terms and Conditions, and Apple and its subsidiaries, are third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. If you are using the Mobile App on any Android-based device, this license is granted to you only as permitted by and subject to any applicable Android Market Terms of Service established by Google.
Maintenance. Scheduled system maintenance shall take place from time to time, and during such time, updates the Course or elements thereof may be unavailable. Emergency maintenance may be required at other times in the event of system failure. You specifically acknowledge that outages and downtime may occur.
Updates. Aceable may, but is not required to develop and provide App updates from time to time, which may include upgrades, bug fixes, patches, and other corrections or new features (collectively, "Updates"). Updates may also modify or delete in their entirety certain features or functionality. You agree that Aceable has no obligation to provide any Updates or to continue to provide or enable any particular features or functionality. Based on the settings of your mobile device, when your device is connected to the Internet the App will automatically download and install available Updates, or you will be prompted to download and install available Updates. You acknowledge that the App or any of its features may not operate properly if you fail to install Updates. You further agree that all Updates will be deemed part of the App and subject to the terms of this Agreement.
Supplemental Terms. To enjoy certain aspects of the App, supplemental terms (each, "Supplemental Terms") will apply and are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. State-Specific Terms and the Supplemental Terms Applicable to Paid Features section below are examples of Supplemental Terms. If we offer other features through or related to the App, other supplemental terms may apply. We will present such additional Supplemental Terms for review and acceptance at the time of the supplemental activity. Supplemental Terms are different from Third Party Terms (defined below) in that Supplemental Terms relate to offerings provided by Aceable, whereas Third Party Terms relate to third party offerings. In the event of any conflict between the terms hereof and any Supplemental Terms, the Supplemental Terms shall govern with respect to the matters contemplated thereby. Additional terms from Aceable.com apply, which can be found at Aceable Terms & Conditions and in the event of any conflict between those terms and any other terms including these terms, the terms found at Aceable Terms & Conditions shall prevail.
Third-Party Offerings. To enjoy certain third-party offerings, certain third-party terms (each, "Third Party Terms") may apply. Third-Party Terms will be presented for review and acceptance at the time that you undertake such activity within the App, and any such Third Party Terms shall constitute an agreement between you and such third party. We are not responsible for such third-party offerings.
Roadside Assistance Terms & Conditions
Acknowledgment Regarding SMS Messages and Push Notifications. To the extent the App enables you to send or receive SMS messages, the standard text messaging rates or other carrier charges may apply to such use. Further, to the extent the App has push notification capability, by downloading the App and clicking to allow push notifications, YOU CONSENT TO RECEIVE COMMUNICATIONS, INCLUDING COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM OR ON BEHALF OF ACEABLE AND OUR PARTNERS.
Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement and the license and other rights granted herein commence on the Effective Date and the Course continues until terminated by Aceable or you. You may terminate this Agreement by deleting the App and all copies of it from your mobile device. Aceable may terminate this Agreement at any time without notice if it ceases to support the App, which it may do in its sole discretion, or if you fail to comply with one or more terms of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement: (i) all license and other rights granted to you under this Agreement will terminate, and (ii) you must cease all use of the Course and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Course. You acknowledge that Aceable may restrict, modify, or terminate this Agreement, without liability, for its convenience, or if you violate this Agreement or any law, rule, or regulation.
Disclaimers and Limitations of Liability. This section is important – please read it carefully. It limits Aceable's liability (and the liability of its affiliates) to you. These disclaimers and limitations apply only to the extent permitted by applicable law. Some jurisdictions do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or limitations of liability, so this Section may not apply to you.
{C}(a) {C}Disclaimer of Warranties. EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED ABOVE, THE COURSE AND THE APP ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND "AS AVAILABLE", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, AND WE HEREBY DISCLAIM, ALL OTHER WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY.
{C}(b) {C}Limitation of Liability. NEITHER WE NOR OUR AFFILIATES WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, EXEMPLARY, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RELATED TO THE COURSE OR THE APP. NEITHER WE NOR OUR AFFILIATES WILL HAVE LIABILITY TO YOU FOR DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE GREATER OF: (I) U.S. $50.00, OR (II) THE AMOUNT YOU PAID FOR THE APP AND THE COURSE, IF ANY, IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE CLAIM. THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS APPLY EVEN IF THE ABOVE-STATED REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
Export and Other Restrictions. You may not use or otherwise export or re-export the App, the App or elements thereof except as authorized by United States law and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the App or the App was accessed or obtained. The App and related documentation are "Commercial Items," as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. §2.101, consisting of "Commercial Computer Software" and "Commercial Computer Software Documentation," as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. §12.212 or 48 C.F.R. §227.7202, as applicable. The Commercial Computer Software and Commercial Computer Software Documentation are being licensed to any U.S. Government end users (a) only as Commercial Items and (b) with only those rights as are granted to all other end users pursuant to the terms and conditions herein.
Amendments. This Agreement will not be changed, modified, or amended except by a writing executed by both parties or if you electronically accept a subsequent agreement or amendment delivered by Aceable via a click-to accept mechanism.
Miscellaneous. The laws of the State of Texas, excluding its conflicts of law rules, govern this license and your use of the App and the Course. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue of any action arising out of or related to this Agreement will be either the state or federal courts in Travis County, Texas, and the parties agree and submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of these courts. Your use of the App or the Course may also be subject to other local, state, national, or international laws. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between us regarding the Apps. The section titles in this Agreement are for convenience only and have no legal or contractual effect. This Agreement operates to the fullest extent permissible by law. You may not transfer or assign this Agreement or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without our prior written consent, and any attempt to do so shall be null and void. If any provision of this Agreement is unlawful, void, or unenforceable, that provision is deemed severable from this Agreement and does not affect the validity and enforceability of any remaining provisions.
Supplemental Terms Applicable to Paid Features.
This Section of this Agreement applies only to users who access additional modules to complete the Course.
Paid Content. Users may purchase additional Course materials and modules ("Paid Content") within the App. Upon receipt of the payment described herein and subject to your adherence to the terms and conditions of the Agreement, we will make the Paid Content available to you. The foregoing does not diminish our ability to terminate your account (without refund) in the event of a breach of the Agreement, or if we cease to support the App.
Payment Terms. To access Paid Content, certain fees will apply. All fees are payable in U.S. dollars, non-refundable (except to the extent set forth below), and are exclusive of applicable sales, excise, use, or similar taxes. You shall pay all such taxes as required by applicable law. You hereby agree to pay the applicable fees through the payment method on file with the applicable App Store. If payment is not received when due, including because the payment method is not valid, we may deny your request to access the Paid Content.
Refund Policy. Aceable Drivers Ed courses are fully refundable if the student has not completed the course AND if the refund request is made within 30 days of purchase. If the purchase was made via credit card, Paypal or the Google Play store, please contact customer support (firstname.lastname@example.com) to request a refund. If the purchase was made through Apple iTunes, please request a refund through Apple. Here are instructions for that process:https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204084.
Contact Us. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this Agreement.
ATTN: Customer Support
Customer Support: (512) 920-2236
State-Specific Terms
The Course is approved in the following states to meet certain licensing requirements or portions thereof. These State-Specific Terms are Supplemental Terms as defined in the Aceable end user license agreement and terms of service (the "Agreement") and apply only to users that are residents of the applicable states listed below:


text:
Advanced Search
The tone had initially been set by Steven Sinofsky, Microsoft's senior vice president for the Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group. In Microsoft's Engineering Windows 7 blog on Wednesday, Sinofsky described the magnitude of the problem.
"There over a couple of million people using the beta and if each one, or for that matter just one out of 10, have some unique change, bug fix, or must-do work item, we would have literally years of work just to make our way through that list," he wrote.
Microsoft has frozen the general feature set of Windows 7 for this beta testing period. However, the engineering team is still refining some of those features. Sinofsky acknowledged the pressure to "stop changing the product and ship it," along with the engineering consequences and cost considerations of making deep changes to the operating system.
"We write specifications and have clear views of features (scenario plans, prototypes, and so on) because we know that as the project progresses the cost of making big changes of course goes up," he wrote. "The cost increases because there is less time, but also because big change late in the cycle to a large system is not prudent engineering."
Most of the changes described in the Engineering Windows 7 blog were minor tweaks to the user interface. One of the non-user-interface improvements was better support for devices in Device Stage, which is Microsoft's visual display of hardware devices recognized by Windows 7.
"Although Windows already supports tens of thousands of devices, customer feedback on the Beta introduces even more device support in RC [release candidate] via the new Device Stage experience," the blog explained.
Microsoft has consistently said that Windows 7 will support hardware if the drivers for that hardware were compatible with Windows Vista. However, at least one report, which tested a Vista upgrade to Windows 7 Beta without a clean install, has questioned that assertion.
The technical team acknowledged a problem with audio hardware working with the Windows 7 Beta. Not all of the 26,000 custom audio drivers are currently available on Windows Update, the blog noted. In response, Microsoft is tightening up its testing program with the release candidate version.
"The Release Candidate tightens the Windows Logo test to better ensure clean install delivers baseline functionality for speakers and microphones," the blog asserted.
The engineering team also claims to have squashed some bugs that slowed the startup time of Windows 7 for some users. Feedback from beta testers is provided passively to Microsoft as telemetry data and Microsoft uses a trace capturing tool running on users' PCs to isolate specific problems. The engineering team now claims it has used that data to reduce slowdown problems with the latest Windows 7 build.
Sinofsky denied in his blog post that 'Microsoft never listens to feedback.' Instead, he suggested that Microsoft takes a scientific approach to dealing with change requests, which helps to avoid mob rule and "adrenaline-based development."
"A key reason we augment our approach with data and studies that deliberately select for representative groups of 'users' is that it is important to avoid 'tyranny of the majority' or 'rule by the crowd'," he explained.
Microsoft has described the general release of Windows 7 as happening in early 2010. However, one source suggested that Microsoft's newest OS could become available as early as the third quarter of this year.
About the Author
Kurt Mackie is senior news producer for 1105 Media's Converge360 group.
More TechLibrary
More Webcasts

subset: commoncrawl


text:
ARMONK, N.Y., April 22, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- IBM (NYSE: IBM) today announced that for the fourth consecutive year, IDC ranked IBM number one in worldwide market share for enterprise social software.*
(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20090416/IBMLOGO)
(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20130422/NY98154-INFO)
Social networking adoption continues to soar as businesses look to transform their organization into a smarter enterprise that is capable of empowering a global workforce and transforming client experiences.
According to IDC, the worldwide enterprise social market segment reached 1.0 billion in 2012, representing growth of 25 percent over 2011.*
"Businesses today are operating in the social age where innovation, speed, and exceptional client experiences are critical." said Alistair Rennie, general manager, social business, IBM. "Our social business platform is accelerating that transformation and helping change the way leaders are working."
As this demand grows, organizations are looking to introduce social capabilities into all key areas, from marketing and research innovation to sales and human resources. The challenge is that many lack the ability to capture and share the unique insights from each employee and use it to help drive real value to the business.
IBM's social business software and services pair powerful social networking capabilities with analytics that help companies engage all key stakeholders whether an employee, customer or partners in order to accelerate innovation and deliver results. Today, more than 60 percent of Fortune 100 companies have licensed IBM's solutions for social business, including eight of the top 10 retailers and banks.
IBM's social networking platform, IBM Connections, allows for instant collaboration with one simple click and the ability to build social communities both inside and outside the organization. As a result Connections helps organizations increase customer loyalty and speed business results. IBM Connections is available both on premise and in the IBM SmartCloud for Social Business. IBM currently has three IBM SmartCloud for Social Business facilities based in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific.
Leading IBM social business clients include Prudential Insurance, Fluor Corporation, Lowe's Home Improvement, LeasePlan and Electrolux.
For more information, visit www.ibm.com/socialbusiness.
* Source: IDC Worldwide Semiannual Software Tracker, 2H 2012
Dana Anastasi
[email protected]


text:
The Obama administration is showing it can be tough on foreign policy. Unfortunately, that toughness is not directed at Russia and its incursion into Crimea, but at Israel, America's ally.
In an interview with President Obama, prior to the Washington arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, Jeffrey Goldberg of Bloomberg.com writes that the president planned to tell Netanyahu "that his country could face a bleak future — one of international isolation and demographic disaster — if he refuses to endorse a U.S.-drafted framework agreement for peace with the Palestinians." Goldberg adds, "Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy."
"There is an existential threat to Israel," Secretary of State John Kerry told the Saban Forum in December, "…that makes it impossible for Israel to preserve its future as a democratic, Jewish state without resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution." Scare tactic, or no?
There are two obvious flaws in this approach toward Israel. One is that the proposed peace plan cannot work without Palestinian-Israeli reciprocity. For decades, anti-Semitic pronouncements and propaganda have dominated radical Muslim thinking. Wars and terrorist attacks have been launched against Israel in hopes of ridding the region of any Jewish presence. In some Arab textbooks, in videos, in the Arab press and in fundamentalist Muslim sermons, the aim of radical Islamists is to wipe Israel off the map by whatever means necessary.
No entity that believes it has direct orders from God to kill those who do not believe as they do is going to anger God by making agreements with people they regard as infidels. The former president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, articulated the thinking of many Arabs and Muslims when he said in 2005 that Israel is a "tumor" and that a Palestinian state is just the "first step" toward Israel's annihilation.
The other flaw in the administration's thinking is the "demographic disaster" it claims Israel faces if it does not work to establish a Palestinian state.
According to data compiled by former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger, drawn from the 2013 CIA World Factbook and other sources, the idea that Israel is being overwhelmed by an Arab population with a higher birthrate is incorrect.
Ettinger points to an article written by Rasha Abou Jalal, a Gaza journalist, who wrote: "While Islam calls for believers to bear many children and prohibits the use of birth control, new Palestinian generations are defying tradition and leaning toward limiting the number of children they have." Jalal credits, or blames, a desire among Palestinians to improve their lives.
"The unprecedented decline in Muslim fertility," writes Ettinger, "has been driven by modernity (including) accelerated women's rights, urbanization, education, career mentality and family planning."
A June 2012 study by the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau (PRB) supports Ettinger's position. It found that "Seventy-two percent of 15- to 49-year-old Palestinian married women prefer to avoid pregnancy, as do 78 percent in Morocco, 71 percent in Jordan, 69 percent in Egypt and Libya, 68 percent in Syria, 63 percent in Iraq and 61 percent in Yemen." The PRB also states "a growing number of women are using contraception, as family planning services have expanded in the Arab region."
Meanwhile, the birthrate among Israeli women has increased markedly. Ettinger writes of a "robust 66 percent Jewish majority in the combined area of Judea, Samaria and pre-1967 Israel." By contrast, Jews were in the minority in earlier eras, comprising only 9 percent of that region's population in 1900 and 39 percent in 1947. Writes Ettinger: "All doomsday demographic projections have failed due to their reliance on past demographic data, underestimating Jewish fertility, overestimating Arab fertility and discarding the feasibility of significant waves of Aliyah (Jewish immigration)."
Since 2010, five nuclear scientists have been assassinated in Iran. Some believe Israel is somehow responsible, which, according to CBS News.com, prompted the Obama administration to send "strong signals" that the U.S. "did not want Israel to continue the assassinations." Yet, the president has not taken sufficient action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, which then could be used against Israel. Which deadly outcome is the most egregious?
When it comes to Israel and Crimea, this administration has it backward.
Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Teacher + Ex-Porn Star Past + Conservative School District = Career Suicide
It seems like schools have gotten a lot sexier since I left their hallowed halls. First there was a sudden uptick in teachers shacking up with their students, and now there are reports of not just one, but two teachers who have either been suspended or straight up fired for being former porn stars.
Stacie Halas, a 31-year middle school teacher for Richard B. Haydock Intermediate School out in California, was the first to be identified and suspended for her allegedly shady past as porn star "Tiffany Six." If you're at work, don't Google that name or any other names that appear in this post for that matter. It's some pretty graphic stuff, more Hustler than Playboy.
Halas was put on leave a couple of weeks back while her school district decides what to do with her. But as luck, or misfortune, would have it, no less than two weeks ever Halas's saga came to light, the story of another teacher by the name of Shawn Loftis was brought into the public eye. Loftis, 32, was a former gay porn star who own his own company called World of Men and worked in the industry for six years.
Despite possessing a master's degree in public administration, shortly after landing a substitute teaching gig in Nautilus Middle School in Florida, Loftis was kicked to the curb by the school's principal due to his past employment history. Loftis received his teaching certificate, but his future teaching career in Miami-Dade doesn't appear too rosy as the district's only comment on his case was that a "[teaching] certificate does not guarantee employment." Ouch.
Crazy coincidences aside, these stories do bring up the very important question: why their past should even matter. Now before the cacophony of "because they're porn stars" outbursts reach my eardrums, stop for a moment and think to yourself whether working in the sex industry really negatively affects Halas and Loftis' abilities to teach. I mean, as far as anyone could tell, neither one has had any report or complaints against them for poor teaching techniques. And it's certainly unlikely that either one has been coloring their instruction with stories of their past profession or teaching kids how to do a good money-shot (don't Google that either if you're at work).
The only issue is one of moral turpitude. But looking over each of their respective district's regulations, being an ex-porno star doesn't count as a moral turpitude offense, or for that matter, a crime. In fact, the only negative side effect it seems that can be attributable to their backgrounds is that some students may have a hard time respecting their authority. But in all honesty, the only reason anyone knows of their pasts is because their schools' administration drudged it up and made it public.
However, the most interesting part of all this is that there may very well be the possible and blatant First Amendment violation going on here. Now some of you may be surprised to hear that the First Amendment doesn't just cover your right to freedom of speech, religion, and expression, but it also covers your freedom to associate with whomever you please. This is called the freedom of association and when government actors are involved, the government isn't allowed to discriminate against a person by denying them employment based solely on their past associations, including being a porn star.
But let me stress that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that discrimination on the basis of prior or current associations can be allowed in certain situations, such as when the position is for a high ranking government job, or the affiliated association intends to overthrow the government, or when moral turpitude is a factor in deciding whether one may do a particular government job. There are more factors, but the last one I mentioned is probably the most pertinent to Halas and Loftis' cases.
The question is whether one would consider being a porn star an offense against good moral turpitude. As stated earlier, both the California and Florida school districts don't have rules prohibiting such behavior nor any that specifically label such past occupations as showing bad moral character. Like most legal questions, this one will be for the courts to decide should it ever get that far. However, for me, and I hope most of you, it shouldn't have to be because there's nothing wrong with what these two did in the past, both from a legal and moral standpoint.
Now certainly teachers are supposed to be role models and arguably the most damaging aspect of Halas and Loftis' past is that it may not make them suitable people for their students to look up to. But by shunning them, the school districts are in essence condemning an industry that has every legal right to function. Though many may object to the porn industry of moral grounds, the fact of the matter is that it's a regulated business that is legally allowed to exist. The idea of condemning it in this fashion would be no different that keeping teachers who were former taxi drivers from teaching because their old jobs were too blue collar for kids to look up to.
As far as I'm concerned, a good teacher is a good teacher. I went to public schools and looking back, many of my favorite teachers had flaws. But none of their blemishes mattered because they were so captivating as teachers. Their instruction methods made learning fun. And if any teacher, porn star or not, is capable of doing this for their pupils, than shunning them from the profession will only harm the students.
What do guys think about Halas, Loftis, and what is and isn't an appropriate prior vocation for teachers in general? As always sound off with your thoughts below.
On an unrelated note, this is my last post as a regular writer for the LegalMatch Law Blog. I still may contribute pieces in the future from time to time, but for now I must bid you adieu. I've enjoyed my time here and I've especially loved interacting with all of you, dear readers. Thank you all for your support and thank you to LegalMatch and my editor for letting me write for them for so long.


text:
Say Anything notes that Indianapolis/Marion County seems to have more people registered to vote in 2007 then its actual adult citizen population. Even though they only had 644,197 voting age-eligible individuals, there were 677,401 individuals registered to vote, or 105% of the Census population.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that the registration list in Indianapolis/Marion County still has large numbers of ineligible voters – people who have died or moved away, are registered more than once, are not citizens or perhaps don't even exist given ACORN's activities there. After all, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law this year, it cited the lower court's finding that Indiana's voter rolls were inflated by as much as 41.4% in 2004. One of the main reasons for the inflated voter rolls was the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 or Motor Voter, which was the first legislation signed into law by newly sworn-in President Bill Clinton. As the Supreme Court recognized, Motor Voter has provisions "restricting States' ability to remove names from the lists of registered voters." In fact, its restrictions and notice provisions are so strict that many states simply stopped doing anything to clean up their voter rolls after Motor Voter became law.
Section 8 of Motor Voter does contain a provision requiring states to conduct a general program of "list maintenance" that identifies and removes the names of ineligible voters. However, the U.S. Department of Justice never filed a single lawsuit against any state to enforce this provision until 2005, when it finally filed a lawsuit against Missouri, some of whose counties had voter lists as high as 153% of their actual population. In 2006, Justice filed a similar lawsuit against Indiana and the state entered into a Consent Decree in which it agreed to finally start cleaning up it voter registration rolls.
Yet the Bush Administration and particularly its Civil Rights Division were subjected to withering criticism by Congress and many traditional civil rights organizations for filing these suits that were unfairly characterized as an attempt to supposedly purge minorities and "suppress voting." It seems clear from this report about the voter registration list in Indianapolis/Marion County that they have still not fully complied with the requirement to clean up their voter rolls. All of us should be concerned about this because the larger the pool of invalid names on voter registration rolls, the greater the probabilities that fraudulent votes will be cast in those names by unscrupulous individuals in the upcoming election.


text:
New Car/Review
1999 Pontiac Firebird 30th Anniversary Trans Am
by Carey Russ
���� Even sitting quietly in the driveway it's probable cause for arrest on exhibition of speed. It's about as subtle and politically correct as a nuclear-tipped cruise missle. It's got "moving violation" written all over it. Attitude? You want attitude? You've got it, it's called the 30th Anniversary Pontiac Firebird Trans Am.
���� The Firebird has been around since the late 1960s, and became Pontiac's sole performance image car with the demise of the larger "muscle cars" like the GTO in the early 1970s. There has usually been a considerable amount of muscle available in the Firebird lineup, and 1999 is no exception. The V6-powered Firebird and V8-equipped Firebird Formula and Trans Am models continue with some significant performance enhancements. V8s and some V6s get a Torsen (r) limited-slip differential to better get power to the ground, and traction control is available on all models. A larger fuel tank increases range. And, 1999 is a very important year for the Firebird. It's the 30th anniversary of the Trans Am model, and a special, limited-production 30th Anniversary Trans Am is being offered to celebrate.
���� The Trans Am that made its debut in 1969 was a small car by the standards of the day, but it had a choice of Ram-Air 400 cubic-inch engines with� up to well over 345 horsepower. The only color offered was white with twin blue stripes. Special and Anniversary models have appeared regularly since that time, and all are serious collector's cars. The 30th Anniversary� edition looks to be the ultimate Trans Am. Like the original, it comes only in white with blue stripes. It builds on the Firebird WS6 performance option package, with the WS6's 320- horsepower Ram Air inducted 347 cubic inch V8. What it may lack in raw horsepower compared to its ancestor it makes up in civilized comfort, with a special white leather interior. Ensuring exclusivity, only 1000 30th Anniversary Trans Am coupes and 500 convertibles will be offered for sale.
���� One of the 30th Anniversary Trans Am coupes has been my transportation for the past week. It's not a car for the shy person. Few cars I've ever driven have gotten more attention. It has all of the raw American muscle power of a regular WS6 Firebird, and sounds like the soundtrack to the movie "Vanishing Point." If it's possibly slightly less quick in the quarter mile than some of the original muscle cars, it handles the stopping and turning at the end much better. Although the number of 30th Anniversary cars is limited, the same performance and nearly the same eyeball factor is available in other WS6 V8 Firebirds. The regular V8, with a mere 305 horsepower, and the 200-hp V6 are quick, good-handling, and entertaining as well.
APPEARANCE: Subtlety has never been a Trans Am styling feature. White paint with blue stripes can be more noticeable than bright red when it's on a 30th Anniversary Trans Am. The basic shape of the Trans Am is more than a little aggressive, with bulging fenders, a front fascia with large foglamps and a hidden intake, plenty of lower cladding, and a large, flat spoiler at the rear. The WS6 package's ultra- radical Ram Air hood bulge makes the standard hood look almost conservative. The 30th Anniversary package can be told externally by its twin blue stripes on a white background, special badging, and the trick light blue clearcoat alloy wheels. Each blue stripe starts with a small "screaming chicken" Firebird emblem just behind the hood scoops.
COMFORT:�As outside, the 30th Anniversary Trans Am's interior builds on that of the standard car. Distinctive white leather upholstery and door panels with 30th Anniversary logos, and special logo floor mats differentiate it. A plaque just in front of the Hurst shifter shows the identification number - this one is 0047. This car is no poseur - it's meant for serious driving. The seats are supportive and comfortable. The shift knob and leather-wrapped, tilt-adjustable steering wheel are placed for fast use. A good Monsoon audio system and power accessories show that this is a civilized vehicle. It is a Trans Am at heart, so expect the rear seat to be best-suited for small, agile people and luggage capacity best for those who know how to pack light. This is a sports car, not a sport-utility vehicle.
SAFETY: All 1999 Pontiac Firebirds have four-wheel antilock disc brakes, dual depowered airbags, and the PASS-Key II theft-deterrent system.
ROADABILITY: Underneath, the 30th Anniversary Trans Am is a Firebird with the WS6 performance option. That means suspension modifications to go with the additional power of the Ram-Air engine. Unlike some of the muscle cars of three decades ago, this beast has impressive cornering and stopping abilities in addition to great acceleration. It has a firm ride and sticks tenaciously to smooth surfaces thanks to massive 275/40 ZR17 ultra-high-speed rated Goodyear Eagle F1 GS tires. Traction control helps prolong tire life, and four-wheel vented antilock discs slow it quickly. The solid-axle rear suspension only makes itself felt in bumpy corners.
PERFORMANCE:�Trans Am performance over the years seems to have been inversely proportional to the size of the decals on the hood. The twin "screaming chickens" on the hood of the 30th Anniversary edition are very small. The power output of the Ram-Air inducted WS6 5.7-liter LS1 V8 is not small at 320 horsepower and 335 lb-ft of torque. Surprisingly, it's a pussycat around town, with a light clutch and gentle power delivery at low engine speeds. But step hard on the throttle and the tiger gets serious, quickly. Power is greatest in the midrange, above 3500 rpm. At that point it has all of the classic V8 muscle car sensory inputs. Occupants are pushed against the seatbacks, the twin exhausts howl, the Ram-Air intake honks, and there are plenty of other wonderful mechanical sounds. The Hurst shifter works quickly and smoothly. Fifth gear is best for normal highway speeds, as engine speed is an almost-idle 1500 rpm at 65 mph in sixth.
CONCLUSIONS: The spirit of the muscle car era has survived thirty years in the Pontiac Firebird Trans Am.
SPECIFICATIONS Base Price�������������� $ 26,175 Price As Tested��������� $ 32,960 Engine Type������������� 16-valve pushrod overhead valve V8 �������������������� with Ram Air induction Engine Size������������� 5.7 liters / 347 cu. in. Horsepower�������������� 320 @ 5200 rpm Torque (lb-ft)���������� 335 @ 4400 rpm Transmission������������ 6-speed manual Wheelbase / Length������ 101.1 in. / 193.7 in. Curb Weight������������� 3397 lbs. Pounds Per Horsepower��� 10.6 Fuel Capacity����������� 16.8 gal. Fuel Requirement�������� unleaded premium, 91 octane Tires������������������� P275/40 ZR17 Goodyear Eagle F1 GS Brakes, front/rear������ vented disc / vented disc, �������������������� antilock standard Suspension, front/rear�� independent short and long arm �������������������� with coil springs / �������������������� Salisbury solid axle with coil springs Drivetrain�������������� front engine, rear-wheel drive PERFORMANCE EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon ��� city / highway / observed����� 19 / 28 / 20 0 to 60 mph������������������ 5.1 sec 1/4 mile (E.T.)�������������� 13.4 sec OPTIONS AND CHARGES Custom bucket seats with lumbar support����� $��� 155 Hurst shifter�������������������������� $��� 325 Electronic traction control����������������� $��� 450 Remote 12-disc CD changer������������������� $��� 595 WS6 performance & handling package - includes: � ram-air induction system with functional � hood scoops, 5-spoke 17" alloy wheels with � P275/45 ZR17 speed-rated tires, low-restriction � exhaust system, specific tuned suspension, power steering cooler����������������� $ 3,150 30th Anniversary package - includes: �� blue-tinted alloy wheels, specific exterior striping �� and badging, arctic while paint, specific white �� leather seating surfaces with blue embroidery, � 30th Anniversary door inserts, floor mats, �� numbered ID plaque������������������ $ 1,575
SIDEBAR MATERIAL -- Interesting Trans Am Trivia
RAM-AIR INDUCTION: Ram-Air induction may be best associated with Pontiac, starting with the Firebird 400 and Trans Am in the late 1960s, but it's been used by many car and motorcycle manufacturers. What is it? Put very simply, ram-air induction is as close to something for nothing as can be had in performance tuning. It takes advantage of increased air pressure at speed to force more air into the vehicle's intake manifold. More air plus more fuel equals more power. Think of it as free supercharging. It's commonly used on racing cars, and also on many current high-performance motorcycles. Note that for ram-air induction to work, the vehicle must be moving, and that more pressure is available at higher speeds. There is not much benefit at street-legal speeds, but at very high speeds the benefit can be considerable. So why use it on street vehicles? Because racers use it and the scoops look cool.
SCREAMING CHICKEN: That's a term of endearment for the decal on the Trans Am hood. It first appeared in 1973. The largest such "chicken stickers" were found on the Tenth Anniversary Trans Am in 1979. Check out those "Smokey and the Bandit" Burt Reynolds movies on late-night TV for good examples of Seventies styling excessiveness. Alas, that was the automotive dark ages, performance-wise. Antismog legislation had strangled horsepower output available with then-current technology and modern electronic and materials technology had not yet been invented. 400-cubic inch engines with 150 horsepower or so were the result.
HURST SHIFTERS: Hurst is an aftermarket company that makes high-performance gearshifts. It got its start in drag racing. Since Pontiac was big in drag racing in the mid-1960s, Hurst shifters became a factory option in high-performance Pontiacs, including the GTO. So, by offering Hurst shifters on 1999 V8 Firebirds, Pontiac is continuing a tradition from the muscle car era.


text:
Los Angeles is sometimes called the "Sultan of Sprawl." But you wouldn't know it by looking at the country's fastest-growing suburbs. Not a single one falls in the L.A. metropolitan area.
Instead, Angelenos are packing their bags and heading 60 miles east to San Bernardino, where twelve of the country's 100 fastest-growing suburbs are located. Leading the pack? Beaumont. It has experienced 130% growth since 2000.
It's easy to understand why. Home prices in the Riverside-San Bernardino metropolitan area are 30% less expensive than in L.A. Add comparable household incomes to the mix, and the move from the basin to the valley makes sense.
In Pictures: America's Fastest-Growing Suburbs
Chart: America's Fastest-Growing Suburbs
Related Story: The Great American Migration
So much sense that San Bernardino's rate of net domestic migration has near quadrupled since 1990, while the Los Angeles metro posted negative net migration figures over that same period. Last year, it lost 72,000 more residents than it gained.
Our list was compiled using U.S. Census growth data from 2000 to 2006 and provided by Demographia, a St. Louis-based research firm. Since a city's metropolitan statistical area is defined by the counties it encompasses, Demographia excluded those outlying towns which were in suburban counties but didn't have significant economic and social ties to the big city. Suburbs included cities, townships and villages that had more than 10,000 people in 2000.
Behind The Numbers
The fastest-growing suburb in the country is Lincoln, Calif., just outside Sacramento. Its population jumped from 11,746 to 39,566, or an increase of 236%. The fastest-growing big suburb (with a population of 100,000 or more) is Gilbert, Ariz., outside Phoenix, which expanded from 112,766 people to 191,517.
While not cheap by national standards, the growth in Sacramento's outerlying areas is strong because it's a less-expensive alternative to Los Angeles, San Francisco or San Diego. The Phoenix area saw the greatest positive domestic migration of any American metro last year, with 115,000 more people moving into town than leaving. Affordable housing and a growing economy draw a lot of people to the city.
Related Stories |
But with sprawl comes both pros and cons.
In Texas, for example, geographic growth is almost completely unregulated. Not surprisingly, the Lone Star State has the lion's share of the country's top-growth suburbs, 20, 12 of which are in the Dallas-Forth Worth metro area.
As a result, these areas have some of the most affordable homes in the nation, since there is plenty of supply to meet demand. But transportation expenses are often high. In Houston, such costs are the No. 1 household expense, according to the Brookings Institution.
Cities that engage in restrictive growth policies find themselves with different trade offs. In Boston's inner suburbs, including Chelsea and Cambridge, zoning and growth restrictions designed to prevent sprawl backfire because they force people to look farther outside the city for affordable housing. According to the same Brookings Institution study, metros with growth exclusion plans like Boston have the most expensive housing stock in the country since there is a limited supply of homes close to the city.
Related Stories |
This becomes particularly problematic in northeastern and Rust-Belt cities that are losing population. Places like Phoenix and Las Vegas are spreading out faster than Boston, but they are doing so more efficiently, meaning with a more concentrated population.
Last year, just over 16,000 more people left the Boston metro area than moved in, yet the suburbs continued to expand geographically. The result is a thinning of the area, which makes Boston more of a sprawl, if sprawl is defined as the density of population over a geographic space.
Rounding out the top 10 fastest-growing suburbs after Lincoln were four Phoenix suburbs: Buckeye, Surprise, Goodyear and Avondale; Plainfield, outside of Chicago; Beaumont, outside San Bernardino, Calif.; Frisco and Wylie outside of Dallas; and Woodstock, outside of Atlanta.
In Pictures: America's Fastest-Growing Suburbs
Chart: America's Fastest-Growing Suburbs
Related Story: The Great American Migration


text:
Text by Ann McDonald
Images from Hamlin Memorial Library and Museum and Maine Historical Society
"Favored by his birth in the genius-breeding atmosphere of Oxford County in the year 1809 - the same year that Lincoln was born upon the other rim of the settled United States - reared upon a soil that has been more fertile of leaders than any similar area in the Western Hemisphere, Hannibal Hamlin experienced a most happy youth." -- Ralph O. Brewster, Governor of Maine, at the dedication of a memorial to Hannibal Hamlin in Bangor on September 15, 1927
Hannibal Hamlin, an important figure in Maine and national politics in the nineteenth century, was born and raised in Paris Hill.
During the 60 to 70 years after the small community became the county seat of Oxford County in 1805, Paris Hill boasted five Maine governors, three Maine senate presidents, three speakers of the Maine house, 12 representatives to the Congress, two U.S. Senators, one U.S. Postmaster General, and one Vice President of the United States.
Hannibal Hamlin falls into five of those categories. The vice president in Abraham Lincoln's first term, Hamlin spent most of his adult life in Bangor and Washington, D.C.
But his early life in the small farming village with lawyers, judges and politicians as neighbors, a home which became a center of activity in the community, and his frequent observations of the drama of the courtroom close by, helped form the statesman whose accomplishments are remembered 200 years later.
After 1833, he returned to Paris Hill as a visitor, to see family, announce his nomination for Vice President in 1860, and to present the town with a clock for the church bell tower in 1883.
A hundred years after his birth, thousands gathered on the common in front of his birthplace to honor his memory. Fifty years later another crowd gathered to watch a parade and listen to Margaret Chase Smith recount Hamlin's significant accomplishments.
On August 22, 2009, residents of Paris again pulled out their bunting and mementos, invited history lovers and visitors to Paris' historic district on the "Hill" and remembered Maine's Vice President.


text:
Traffic in Downtown Savannah will be affected when several roads close during the 2013 Shamrock Run.
The annual Run, benefiting the March of Dimes, is set for 6 p.m. Friday. Prior to the run, at 5 p.m., roads at the starting line located near Ellis Square, between Montgomery Street and Whitaker Street will be closed. Savannah-Chatham Metropolitan Police will close roads along the route as necessary.
The race starts at the intersection of Congress and Jefferson Street, then south on Jefferson Street to York Street, east on York to Bull Street; south on Bull to Gaston Street; west on Gaston to Whitaker Street; south on Whitaker to Park Avenue; east on Park to Drayton Street; north on Drayton to Gaston, west on Gaston back to Bull; north on Bull to Congress Street; east on Congress to Drayton; north on Drayton to Bryan Street; west on Bryan to Bull; south on Bull to Congress; then west on Congress to the finish line on Barnard Street.
Roads will reopen to vehicle traffic as runners pass the specified intersections. Traffic delays are probable. Motorists are urged to seek alternate routes.


text:
While there are a fair number of demos here for burning wheel, the wiki is quite light on details.
I would like feedback on useful demo scenarios to run for Burning Wheel and why they are useful. What elements of the system do they showcase well and what kind of players are they designed to appeal to?


text:
SOUTHPORT, England -- Michelle Wie missed the cut Friday in the Women's British Open, and not even The King could save her.
Wie was right on the cut line at Royal Birkdale when she drove into the right rough on the 16th hole. The ball was in a thick bush, and as she approached the ball, Wie figured her only hope was to get relief from a plaque in the ground.
"I actually was glad there was a plaque there," she said. "And then ... it was too far away to get free relief."
She was too upset to read the plaque, and only later did she realize why it was there -- and for whom.
Arnold Palmer was in the same spot 53 years ago in the 1961 British Open when he took a 6-iron and slashed it out of the bush and onto the green for a two-putt par on his way to a one-shot victory. It only added to legend of his strength and bravado.
Wie listened to this tale after her 78, smiled and said, "That didn't happen for me."
She took an unplayable lie.
Wie pulled her next shot into a pot bunker, did well to get out and made double bogey. She made another 6 on the par-5 17th when it took two big hacks to get out of the hay left of the fairway. That all but ended her hopes of making it to the weekend.
A three-putt par on the 18th gave her a 78, her highest score since the wind-swept third round at St. Andrews last summer. Just like that, Wie went from major champion to her first missed cut of the year.
What went wrong?
"I was trying to figure that out myself," Wie said. "I missed a lot of greens. I had a lot of hard par putts today, and I didn't make them. I didn't do much on any of the holes. It didn't go quite as well as I wanted it to."
Wie celebrated her first major just last month at Pinehurst No. 2 when she captured the U.S. Women's Open. She said at the start of the week that Pinehurst was in the past, and it was time to get back to work.
Even after a short week, she still has that shiny trophy waiting for her at home. Wie wasn't having any part of that.
"It does still feel good," she said. "But I'm disappointed in myself. I wanted to play well here."
Wie was in danger of the cut when she made three straight bogeys to close out the back nine. She didn't make a birdie until the par-3 12th, and a birdie on the par-5 15th put her at 6-over par, which would have been enough to make the cut.
But then came that hybrid 2-iron next to Arnie's plaque, and thus began her demise.
"I thought I hit it OK on 16," she said. "Two inches to the left and I would have been fine. But when things go wrong, you don't really get breaks. I didn't hit it well. I got into a rhythm where I was trying to make pars instead of trying to make birdies."
The last time she was out of sorts? She couldn't remember. Wie had not shot higher than 73 this year until Royal Birkdale got the best of her.
"It's been a long time. And it [stinks]. It really [stinks]," she said. "But at the same time, I really got some motivation to look at what I need to do to improve."


text:
The Library of Congress | American Memory
»Lawmaking Home » Elliot's Debates - About
Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention: Journals of the Continental Congress | Letters of Delegates | Elliot's Debates | Farrand's Records |
Browse Elliot's Debates Volume 1 | Contents | Index Volume 2 | Contents | Index Volume 3 | Contents | Index Volume 4 | Contents | Index Volume 5 | Contents | Index Search this Title through the Collections Search Page Note: The text to the consecutively numbered footnotes of volume 5 may be found in References located near the end of that volume. |
Elliot's DebatesThe Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal ConstitutionThe Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution is a five-volume collection compiled by Jonathan Elliot in the mid-nineteenth century. The volumes remain the best source for materials about the national government's transitional period between the closing of the Constitutional Convention in September 1787 and the opening of the First Federal Congress in March 1789. On September 17, 1787, the Continental Congress accepted the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention and agreed to distribute the proposed constitution to the states; each state was then to elect delegates to a state convention to approve or disapprove the new constitution. The Constitution would take effect upon ratification by the conventions of nine of the thirteen states. Elliot's Debates collects the documents pertinent to the discussions on ratification: the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Journal of the Constitutional Convention (from a version that is earlier and less accurate than that in The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787), the text of the proposed Constitution, and the debates in the various states. The Federalist Papers also presents a vital part of the debate over the Constitution. Related Information
Working with this Title | |
Browse Collection Resources |
»Lawmaking Home » Elliot's Debates - About
The Library of Congress |
American Memory


text:
Belen Hickman
ACSIA Partners LLC
Uninsured Long-Term Care Is "Eating" Real Estate by the Square Foot, Belen Hickman of ACSIA Partners LLC Reports
Marietta, GA October 20, 2016 -- The cost of care for aging Americans may be viewed as a glutton that devours homes in daily bites that are getting bigger. So says Belen Hickman, who represents ACSIA Partners LLC in AL, FL, GA, KS, LA, MD, MS, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA
"Eleven years ago we started translating long-term care costs into square feet of real estate," says Hickman. "We did this to highlight the financial burden of paying for care."
In July of 2005 the company calculated that the cost for a private room in a nursing home was "eating" two square feet of the average American home each day. Now the bites are 29% bigger, 2.6 square feet, according to Hickman.
The company developed the estimate based on the following facts:
The national average annual cost for a private room in a nursing home is now $92,376, according to the Genworth 2016 Cost of Care Survey, conducted by CareScout®. That's about $253 a day, up from $192 in 2005.
The National Association of Realtors® reports that the median price for U.S. homes is now $240,200. With a median 2,476 square feet per home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, that equals $97 per square foot, enough to pay for about a third of a day of nursing home care. In 2005, each square foot paid for about half a day, according to Hickman.
The ratios vary by region and home type, of course. Here are some examples.
- 4,000 square-foot home in San Francisco, CA, $1,800,000: 0.56 square feet eaten by one day of long-term care.
- 1,902 square-foot home in Cleveland, OH, $150,000: 3.21 square feet eaten by one day of long-term care.
- 1,328 square-foot home in Jamestown, NY, $65,000: 5.17 square feet eaten by one day of long-term care.
Note that the less a home is worth, the bigger the relative LTC bite may be. For example, consider a 1,532 square-foot home for sale at $15,000 in Trenton, NJ. It would be "eaten" at the rate of 25.85 square feet a day. Note also that these estimates are very general. For example, in areas where homes cost more, the cost for LTC services may also be higher.
"If you're not protected by insurance or savings," says Hickman, "figure that for every day someone in your family needs care, there goes another chunk of your home."
In fact, many Americans may be planning, by default, to pay for care with their home equity, Hickman observes. "That's fine if it's a conscious choice and the best option in their case. We recommend, however, that they explore other options just to be sure."
The options recommended by Hickman's organization include long-term care insurance, critical illness insurance, life insurance or annuities with long-term care riders, and other solutions ranging from health savings accounts to Medicare supplement plans.
Information is available from Hickman at firstname.lastname@example.com, http://BelenHickman.acsiapartners.com or 404-245-2444.
Belen Hickman is a leading long-term care agent serving consumers and organizations in AL, FL, GA, KS, LA, MD, MS, NC, NJ, NY, OH, PA, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, with colleagues covering all other parts of the country.
In California the company is known as xACSIA Partners Insurance Agency; in other states, as ACSIA Partners.
# # #


text:
Of the many mysteries surrounding 100-mile race preparation, none is more intriguing than peaking. It seems to me that getting the peak right is the single most important component in 100-mile success. Certainly, there are many other significant factors such as training, nutrition, race-day strategy, and adjusting expectations that come into play when running 100-milers, but finding that sweet spot and peaking for a race at just the right time seems to be the most important.
- Approximately eight weeks before the goal race, provided the foundation has been laid, each run feels easier than the last one. I have found this to be particularly true in those mid-week tempo runs when the miles just seem to flow by effortlessly. This is the time to step back and be sure not to overdue it.
- The long runs no longer feel too long. For me, it has always been a slog to get out in January, February, and March and log six and eight-hour runs. However, after doing so, come the middle of May, these long runs don't seem so long and, in fact, the general feeling of fatigue that typically accompanied such runs is miraculously gone.
- Recovery between runs is faster and the "bounce" is greater. This one is funny because it's really counterintuitive. Nonetheless, for some reason, once the switch has been switched and the training intensifies, recovery becomes easier and the ability to train harder is enhanced. If I can walk this line for three or four weeks without becoming worn down, I know I am close to hitting the peak right.
- I just know when to start the taper. Many training regimens lay out a specific cycle which is made up of base-building, peaking, and tapering and I am sure that makes sense to many people. For me, I like the idea of the first two and tend to prescribe specific time periods to each. But with the taper, I like to just go with the flow based on how close to the top of the peak I have come. In 2005, I did a nine-day taper and, in 2011, I did a 15-day taper. This year, well, who knows?
- An aura of calm peace descends on me with about three days to go before the race. This one, is of course, the most difficult to plan for and is, in my opinion, impossible to predict. However, when this aura of calm has come to me in '05 and '11, the feeling has been euphoric. I am sure others can relate to how extraordinary this can be. In fact, I recall reading a description of Kyle Skaggs' calm aura in the days preceding his record run at the 2008 Hardrock and I felt a certain kindred spirit with him in that moment. (Even though I could never dream of running that fast.)
- How important do you think "peaking" is for a 100 miler?
- When have you felt like you nailed peaking for a race?
- Any tips for peaking at the right time?


text:
Biblical Evidence Against Watchtower Society Chronology
Among the Watchtower Society's fundamental doctrines are those concerning 1914. They are the basis for its leaders' claim to spiritual authority over the community of Jehovah's Witnesses. This essay briefly examines the biblical evidence, with a bit of secular support, as to why the Society's 1914 chronology is wrong.
The Society teaches that in 1914, at the end of the "gentile times" (a.k.a. "appointed times of the nations"; Luke 21:24) Christ returned invisibly (Matt. 24:3) and was given the Messianic Kingdom. It claims that the "last days" (Acts 2:17; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 3:3; etc.) began, the "conclusion of the system of things" began, a great harvest work of true Christians began, and that between 1914 and 1919 a time of "spiritual inspection" by the returned Jesus occurred. It teaches that by 1919 the "true Christian congregation" had been restored, in 1919 the "faithful and discreet slave" was appointed over all Jesus' "domestics" (Matt. 24:45), and that in 1919 "false religion" (a.k.a. "Babylon the Great"; Rev. 14:8) fell. These doctrines were crucial to its claim throughout the 20th century that in 1919 all "anointed Christians" were appointed as "the faithful and discreet slave over all Christ's belongings" on earth (the Society changed this teaching in the July 15, 2013 edition of The Watchtower).
From 1876, the phrase gentile times and the 1914 date were doctrinal anchors for the Society's founder C. T. Russell, and have been so for the followers of the organization ever since. 1914 remains the key date in Watchtower "end times" teaching even though the Society has revised or abandoned most of its early claims about 1914.
In 1879 C. T. Russell began publishing what became The Watchtower magazine and therein promoted the 1914 date. Even earlier, in 1876, he published an article in the small religious journal The Bible Examiner that advocated the 1914 date as the end of the gentile times. Russell borrowed these ideas from Nelson Barbour, a semi-independent "Second Adventist" who originated the combination of the 1914 and gentile times ideas in the June, 1875 issue of his magazine Herald of the Morning.
The 1914 date is determined as follows (cf. w14 10/1 p. 10; "When Did God's Kingdom Begin Ruling? (Part 1)"). The Society interprets the dream of Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar described in Daniel 4 about a great tree in the center of the earth to mean that God's direct rule over humans was interrupted, but would be restored after "seven times" had passed. The interruption is said to have begun in 607 BCE with the destruction of Jerusalem, and to have ended in 1914. Luke 21:24 is interpreted to mean that God's rule, represented by Jerusalem, corresponds to this period, which is called "the appointed times of the nations" or "the gentile times." The Society calculates the length as 2,520 years, based on Daniel's statement that Nebuchadnezzar was mad for "seven times", plus a statement in Revelation 12 that three and a half times equal 1,260 days. Then it applies a so-called "day for a year" principle. So 1,260 days (3 ½ times) x 2 = 2,520 days. A day for a year makes 2,520 years. 2,520 years forward from 607 BCE gets to 1914 CE (no zero year).
The Society derives the year 607 by beginning with the universally accepted date of 539 BCE for the conquest of the city of Babylon by the Persian king Cyrus the Great and noting that in his first regnal year he issued a decree that allowed the Jews to return to Judah. It then assumes that the Jews returned to Judah in the autumn of 537 BCE. Then the Society concludes that "the 70 years" Jeremiah spoke of (Jer. 25: 11, 12; 29:10) are a period of desolation of the land of Judah and exile and captivity of the Jews, and that this period ended when the Jews returned to Judah in 537. Working backward 70 years arrives at 607 BCE, when the destruction of Jerusalem caused the desolation of Judah to begin.
Of course, secular history — backed up by the Bible itself — shows that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE. So the Watchtower Society and its apologists go to great lengths to discount the secular evidence and to interpret the Bible according to Watchtower tradition. This essay outlines the biblical evidence that shows why Watchtower tradition is wrong. References in the appendix detail the voluminous evidence against Watchtower tradition, including secular, as do references to some excellent online resources.
Obviously, the 1914 date rests on a chain of questionable assumptions. Dubious scriptural interpretations such as equating the gentile times of Luke 21:24 to the seven times of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, and so forth, do not lend themselves to objective resolution, so this essay will not consider them. Rather, it will examine the Watchtower's claims about various dates and time periods derived from biblical passages that are capable of scholarly, objective resolution.
Watchtower chronology has multiple problems, many of which individually are fatal to the chronology as a whole and which, taken together, show unassailably that this chronology is wrong. Experience has shown that neither the Society nor its apologists can honestly address these problems. In many cases they simply ignore them.
This summary is in no sense a complete treatise on all the reasons Watchtower chronology is wrong. There are many excellent online resources for the interested reader, as well as the print copy of Carl Olof Jonsson's book The Gentile Times Reconsidered. See the appendix for a list.
The 607 BCE Date for Jerusalem's Destruction Has No Biblical Support
(1) There is no good evidence that 537 BCE was the year the Jews returned to Judah. The Society says only that "evidently" (All Scripture, p. 85) or "likely" (Insight, V. 1, p. 568) or "doubtless" (w64 2/1 p. 80) this was the date but supplies no evidence. In most discussions it simply glosses over the lack of evidence (cf. w11 10/1 p. 28).
(2) The synchronism between Josephus and the book of Ezra is solid evidence that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE. Both refer to the laying of the temple foundations about half a year after the Jews were settled in their cities in the month of Tishri (autumn). Ezra gives only a relative date in Jewish terms, while Josephus gives a date in terms of the years of Cyrus' reign, which is solidly established. This date is in the spring of 537 BCE; hence the Jews must have returned half a year earlier, in the autumn of 538. See the diagram below, and the appendix for an extended discussion.
Note that the Jews used a secular calendar beginning with the seventh month Tishri (Sep/Oct), and a religious calendar beginning with the first month Nisan (Mar/Apr). The Babylonian calendar began in Nisan.
Ezra 1 states that Cyrus, in his first year (using the accession-year system), decreed that the Jews could return to Judah. Cyrus' first year was Nisan, 538 BCE through Adar, 537 BCE. Ezra 3:1-7 states that by the seventh month Tishri, the Jews were settled in their cities, and at that time they gathered in Jerusalem to initiate the rebuilding of the temple. So the year that ended immediately before Tishri was the first year of the Jews' coming home, and the new year beginning in Tishri was the second year.
Ezra 3:8, 10 states that the temple foundations were laid in the second month of that second year. In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states that "in the second year of the reign of Cyrus [the temple's] foundations were laid." Therefore, this second Jewish year overlaps with the second year of Cyrus. Since Cyrus' second year began in Nisan, 537 BCE, the second month was also in 537, and the first year of the Jews' return was in 538 BCE—not 537 as the Watchtower claims.
The following diagram illustrates the above concepts.
(3) Given (1) and (2), Watchtower chronology has no evidential foundation; on the contrary the available evidence is against it. If the Jews returned in 538, the Society's 607 date is wrong and so is Watchtower chronology. If 607 is wrong, 1914 is wrong. If 1914 is wrong, Watchtower eschatology is wrong, and so are all the doctrines based on it.
(4) Linguistic, contextual and historical biblical facts show that Jeremiah predicted that Judah and the nations around it would, as a group, serve Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty for 70 years (Jer. 25:8-12; 27:6-7). The key passage is Jer. 25:11: "These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." The Bible and secular history show that Judah and various nations individually served less than 70 years, depending on when they were first conquered and how one measures "serving." God, through Jeremiah and other prophets, gave each nation the choice whether to serve on their own land or in exile (Jer. 27:7-11, 17; 40:9-10). To serve in their own land they had to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews under various kings refused; hence they were taken into exile at various times from 605/4 through 582 BCE (Dan 1:1-2; Jer. 52:28-30). Thus there was no 70-year exile or captivity or desolation of Judah.
(5) The 70 years of Babylonian supremacy ended in 539 BCE when Jehovah "called to account" against, or punished, Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty (Jer. 25:12) by allowing the Medo-Persian empire under Cyrus to conquer Babylon and put an end to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty. This is directly stated in Daniel 5, where verses 28-30 say: "Your kingdom has been divided and given to the Medes and the Persians… in that very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed." In contrast, the Society claims that Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty was called to account two years after its demise, when the Persians freed the Jews to return home (w79 9/15 pp. 23-24; g 5/13 p. 13), but this is ridiculous. You cannot punish a dynasty that no longer exists.
(6) 2 Chronicles 36:20 states that Nebuchadnezzar's minions carried off Jews to Babylon, and these Jews remained servants to Nebuchadnezzar's dynasty until the Persians under Cyrus took over, after which they were servants to Cyrus and his minions until Cyrus let them return to Judah. This confirms again that the 70 years were a time of Babylonian supremacy, not the term of the desolation of Judah. That desolation occurred during the 70 years. This is consistent with Jer. 25:8, 11, 12 which states that the Jews and nations round about would be servants to "Nebuchadnezzar and his sons" until God called them to account.
(7) Because Jeremiah spoke of Jerusalem being devastated or ruined (Hebrew chorbah; Jer. 25:18) shortly after Nebuchadnezzar conquered it in 605 BCE, the devastation of Judah began at that time. Even if the interpretation of that passage is disputed, the Hebrew word chorbah basically means "ruined" but does not specify in what sense something is ruined. It might be absolute, or relative. It might mean ruined in the sense of no longer being pristine, such as a city conquered by a foreign invader but not necessarily razed to the ground; the Bible often uses the word in this sense.
(8) Because Jews were taken into exile in 605/4, 597, 587 and 582 BCE, and released in 538, there was not a single period of exile or captivity. Therefore it is wrong to speak of a 70-year exile or captivity. Similarly it is wrong to speak of a 70-year desolation of Judah, because Jerusalem was ruined (chorbah) in a relative sense from the Jewish point of view when Nebuchadnezzar first took a few captives (including Daniel) in 605/4 BCE, and in a complete sense after most of the Jews left the land between 587 and 582 BCE.
(9) In the New World Translation Jer. 29:10 reads: "For this is what Jehovah says, 'When 70 years at Babylon (Hebrew le-babel) are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.' " It has been demonstrated conclusively, in various publications, that in context, the phrase le-babel should be translated "for Babylon" not "at Babylon." The latter is a mistranslation based on the King James Version. The Watchtower Society has laid great stress on its translation (cf. Appendix to chapter 14 in the 1981 book "Let Your Kingdom Come") to make its claim that Jeremiah's 70 years were a time of exile of the Jews (however, see w11 10/1 p. 27, where the correct translation is acknowledged but then ignored). Yet the translation issue, plus many other considerations, show that the Jews as a group were not in exile at Babylon for 70 years, but that various contingents were in exile for between 44 and 69 years.
(10) A careful consideration of Watchtower apologists' (like Rolf Furuli) favorite scriptures to misinterpret, namely Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21, shows that the passages are ambiguous about exactly what they mean with respect to 70 years. Because they are ambiguous, other scriptures and pieces of information that are not ambiguous must be used to determine what they mean, and when this is done the ambiguity is resolved. Watchtower apologists get this completely backwards. Following Russell and his spiritual forebears, they begin by interpreting the ambiguous passages in accord with Watchtower tradition, and then twist the meaning of the unambiguous ones to fit the tradition.
The above points prove that the Bible does not support the Society's anchor date for the 1914 chronology—607 BCE—as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Rather, as scholars agree, Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 BCE (some say 586, but the discrepancy is due to ambiguity in the Bible itself, and can be resolved in favor of 587; see the appendix for references). Therefore Watchtower chronology is wrong, as is every doctrine based on it.
A great deal of material has been published in print and online that disproves the Watchtower Society's 1914 chronology. Below are listed some of these references.
The most comprehensive look at the secular evidence, with much biblical commentary, is The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Carl Olof Jonsson). Much of this book is available online:
Jonsson's extensive writings on Watchtower chronology are available online:
A summary of biblical and secular evidence can be found in Jack Finegan's Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible (Revised Edition, Hendrickson Publishers, 1998).
A classic work on biblical chronology is Edwin R. Thiele's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (New Revised Edition, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994; Zondervan Publishing House, 1983; various editions back to 1951).
A comprehensive debunking of the Society's scriptural claims, along with some secular material, is available at "Jeffro's 607 pages." This includes detailed debunkings of recent Watchtower articles:
Scholar Rodger Young gives proof of 587 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction:
Seventh-Day Adventist scholar Ross E. Winkle offers these articles:
"Jeremiah's Seventy Years For Babylon: A Reassessment. Part I: The Scriptural Data":
"Jeremiah's Seventy Years For Babylon: A Reassessment. Part II: The Historical Data":
Another look at the scriptural and secular evidence against Watchtower chronology is the article "Notes on the Gentile Times and 1914"
Another debunking is: "Refutation of Appendix in Let Your Kingdom Come"
C. T. Russell originally used 606 BCE rather than 607 as the date of Jerusalem's destruction and the beginning of the gentile times. While the latter date was known to Russell and his followers to be correct (in terms of Watchtower Society interpretations) as early as 1904, and was used in a handful of Watchtower and related publications after that, it was only in 1943 that the Society officially changed the date of the start of the gentile times, and in 1944 that it changed the date of Jerusalem's destruction, to 607. Critics of the Society will not be surprised to find out-and-out lies at the heart of the change, shown in this article that examines the details of how the Society changed the dates, "The Evolution of 606 to 607 B.C.E. in Watchtower Chronology"
The Society has produced much material claiming that the signs of the times prove the world has been in the last days since 1914. These claims are thoroughly debunked in the book The Sign of the Last Days—When? (Carl Olof Jonsson and Wolfgang Herbst, 1987).
Josephus and Ezra Prove the Jews Returned in 538 Not 537 BCE
A synchronism between Josephus and the book of Ezra provides strong evidence that the Jews returned to Judah in 538 BCE. Both refer to the laying of the temple foundations about half a year after the Jews were settled in their cities in the month of Tishri (autumn). Ezra gives only a relative date in Jewish terms, while Josephus gives a date in terms of the years of Cyrus' reign, which is solidly established. This date is in the spring of 537 BCE; hence the Jews must have returned half a year earlier, in the autumn of 538. Below are the details. The following diagram illustrates the concepts.
Ezra 1 states that Cyrus, in his first year (using the accession-year system of dating kings' reigns), decreed that the Jews could return to Judah. Cyrus' first year was Nisan (Mar/Apr), 538 BCE through Adar (Feb/Mar), 537 BCE. The Bible does not say exactly when he issued this decree.
Ezra 3:1-7 states that by the seventh Jewish month Tishri (Sep/Oct), the Jews were settled in their cities, and at that time they gathered in Jerusalem to offer sacrifices and collect money for the rebuilding of the temple. From this we deduce that, whatever modern calendar year this was, the Jews returned in the preceding Jewish year, since the secular Jewish year began in Tishri (keep in mind that the sacred Jewish calendar began six months offset from Tishri, in Nisan, and the Jewish months were numbered beginning with Nisan). In other words, the year in which the Jews returned was the first year of their coming home, and the new year beginning in the Tishri mentioned in Ezra 3:1 was the second year of their coming home.
Ezra 3:8, 10 states that a little later in that second year the Temple foundations were laid (NASB):
8 Now in the second year of their coming to the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and Jeshua the son of Jozadak and the rest of their brothers the priests and the Levites, and all who came from the captivity to Jerusalem, began the work and appointed the Levites from twenty years and older to oversee the work of the house of the LORD.
10 Now when the builders had laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests stood in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, to praise the LORD according to the directions of King David of Israel.
The crucial piece of information here is that the Temple foundations were laid in the second month (Iyyar; Apr/May) of the same year in which the Jews gathered in Jerusalem immediately after they returned to Judah.
The Bible does not explicitly relate these events to any event that can be firmly dated to our modern calendar. However, a careful examination of historical data indicates that it was Cyrus' general practice to free captives from the nations he conquered shortly after he secured his authority. Since he captured Babylon in October, 539 BCE, and the inhabitants would have known of his general practice, they would have expected him soon to begin freeing Babylonian captives, including the Jews. It is a good bet that, for political purposes, Cyrus would have done this around the time of celebrating the beginning of his first regnal year. If the books of Daniel and Jeremiah contain valid historical information about the fall of Babylon (Dan. 9:1, 2; Jer. 29:10), the Jews would have anticipated being freed soon after Cyrus entered the city in late October, 539 BCE.
A careful reading of Ezra 1-3 indicates that there might have been very little delay between the issuing of Cyrus' decree and the departure of the Jewish captives for Judah. Because Cyrus' first regnal year began in Nisan, and the Jews arrived by Tishri, if this all occurred in 538 BCE, there would have been at most six months for the Jews to complete their preparations and journey, and get settled in Judah. Since the trip takes about three to four months for a normal caravan, there is just enough time for these events to happen in 538 BCE.
Based on its tradition, the Watchtower Society speculates that Cyrus issued his decree sometime in late 538 or early 537 BCE, still in his first regnal year. It then claims that the Jews journeyed back to Judah in 537 BCE.
How then, can one decide whether the Jews returned in 538 or 537?
Josephus provides the tie breaker.
In Against Apion I,21, Josephus states:
These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius.
The crucial piece of information is that the temple foundations were laid in the second regnal year of Cyrus.
Combining this with the information from Ezra that the temple foundations were laid in the second month (Iyyar) of the second year of the Jews' return to Judah, we must conclude that this second year corresponds with the second year of Cyrus. Since Cyrus' second year began in Nisan, 537 BCE and Iyyar was the second month of that regnal year, the first year of the Jews' return was 538 BCE. This also works if one uses Tishri dating for Cyrus' reign, as some might argue that Josephus did.
In other words, Josephus, with Ezra as a starting point, has provided the crucial information to determine that 538 and not 537 BCE was the year of the return of the Jews to Judah.
Image: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/daniel-4-bible-chronology-1914/