text:
INTRODUCTIONFairchild Media Group ("Fairchild") Commitment to Privacy
DEFINITIONSPersonal information
APPLICATIONThis policy applies to
This policy does not apply to
PRINCIPLE 1Fairchild is responsible for personal information under its control and shall designate an individual or individuals who are accountable for the Fairchild's compliance with the following principles: the Person Responsible for Privacy. The Person Responsible for Privacy for Fairchild is the respective Administration Manager or designated staff for each individual Fairchild company.
1.1 | Accountability for Fairchild's compliance with the principles rests with the Person Responsible for Privacy, even though other individuals within the organization may be responsible for the day-to-day collection and processing of personal information. In addition, other individuals within Fairchild may be delegated to act on behalf of the Person Responsible for Privacy. | ||
1.2 | The name of and contact information for the Person Responsible for Privacy shall be made known upon request. | ||
1.3 | Fairchild is responsible for personal information in its possession or custody, including information that has been transferred to a third party for processing. Fairchild shall use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by a third party. | ||
1.4 | Fairchild shall implement policies and practices to give effect to the principles, including
1.5 | The designation of a Person Responsible for Privacy does not relieve Fairchild from accountability for compliance with these Principles. | ||
PRINCIPLE 2IDENTIFYING PURPOSESFairchild shall identify the purposes for which personal information is collected at or before the time the information is collected. The purposes for which information is collected, used or disclosed by an organization must be those that a reasonable person would consider are appropriate in the circumstances. |
2.1 | Fairchild shall document the purposes for which personal information is collected in order to comply with the Openness principle (Clause 8) and the Individual Access principle (Clause 9). | ||
2.2 | Identifying the purposes for which personal information is collected at or before the time of collection allows Fairchild to determine the information they need to collect to fulfill these purposes. The Limiting Collection principle (Clause 4) requires Fairchild to collect only that information necessary for the purposes that have been identified. | ||
2.3 | The identified purposes should be specified at or before the time of collection to the individual from whom the personal information is collected. Depending upon the way in which the information is collected, this can be done orally or in writing. An application form, for example, may give notice of the purposes. | ||
2.4 | When personal information that has been collected is to be used for a purpose not previously identified, the new purpose shall be identified prior to use. Unless the new purpose is required by law, the consent of the individual is required before information can be used for that purpose. | ||
2.5 | Persons collecting personal information should be able to explain to individuals the purposes for which the information is being collected. | ||
PRINCIPLE 3CONSENTThe knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where consent is not required by law. As an exception to this general rule, consent is not required under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act if the collection, use or disclosure of the personal information is solely for journalistic, artistic or literary purposes. |
3.1 | Consent is required for the collection of personal information and the subsequent use or disclosure of this information. Typically, Fairchild will seek consent for the use or disclosure of the information at the time of collection. In certain circumstances, consent with respect to use or disclosure may be sought after the information has been collected but before use (for example, when Fairchild wants to use information for a purpose not previously identified). | ||
3.2 | The principle requires "knowledge and consent". Fairchild shall make a reasonable effort to ensure that the individual is advised of the purposes for which the information will be used. To make the consent meaningful, the purposes must be stated in such a manner that the individual can reasonably understand how the information will be used or disclosed. | ||
3.3 | Fairchild may collect, use or disclose personal information without consent only in those circumstances permitted by sections 7 or 9 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Fairchild should consult the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to determine whether an exception to the obligation to obtain consent applies. Legal, medical, or security reasons may make it impossible or impractical to seek consent. For example, when information is being collected for the detection and prevention of fraud or for law enforcement, seeking the consent of the individual might defeat the purpose of collecting the information. Seeking consent may be impossible or inappropriate when the individual is a minor, seriously ill, or mentally incapacitated, in which case consent must be obtained from parents, guardians or legal representatives of such individuals. | ||
3.4 | Fairchild shall not, as a condition of the supply of a product or service, require an individual to consent to the collection, use, or disclosure of information beyond that required to fulfill the explicitly specified, and legitimate purposes. | ||
3.5 | The form of the consent sought by Fairchild may vary, depending upon the circumstances and the type of information. In determining the form of consent to use, Fairchild shall take into account the sensitivity of the information. Although some information (for example, medical records and income records) is almost always considered to be sensitive, any information can be sensitive, depending on the context. For example, the names and addresses of subscribers to a newsmagazine would generally not be considered sensitive information. However, the names and addresses of subscribers to some special-interest magazines might be considered sensitive. | ||
3.6 | In obtaining consent, the reasonable expectations of the individual are also relevant. Consent shall not be obtained through deception.
3.7 | The way in which Fairchild seeks consent may vary, depending on the circumstances and the type of information collected. Fairchild should generally seek express consent when the information is likely to be considered sensitive. Implied consent should only be relied on where collection and use of the personal information is directly related to a transaction or exchange of information in which the individual is directly participating. Consent can also be given by an authorized representative (such as a legal guardian or a person having power of attorney). | ||
3.8 | Individuals can give consent in many ways. For example:
3.9 | An individual may withdraw consent at any time, subject to legal or contractual restrictions and reasonable notice. Fairchild shall inform the individual of the implications of withdrawing consent. | ||
PRINCIPLE 4LIMITING COLLECTIONThe collection of personal information shall be limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by Fairchild. Information shall be collected by fair and lawful means. |
4.1 | Fairchild shall not collect personal information indiscriminately. Both the amount and the type of information collected shall be limited to that which is necessary to fulfill the purposes identified. Fairchild shall specify the type of information collected as part of its information-handling policies and practices, in accordance with the Openness principle (Clause 4.8). | ||
4.2 | The requirement that personal information be collected by fair and lawful means is intended to prevent Fairchild from collecting information by misleading or deceiving individuals about the purpose for which information is being collected. This requirement implies that consent with respect to collection must not be obtained through deception. | ||
PRINCILE 5LIMITING USE, DISCLOSURE, AND RETENTIONPersonal information shall not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. Personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfillment of those purposes. |
5.1 | Fairchild using personal information for a new purpose shall document this purpose (see Clause 2.1). Consent of the individual must be obtained prior to use of the information for a new purpose. | ||
5.2 | Fairchild should develop guidelines and implement procedures with respect to the retention of personal information. These guidelines should include minimum and maximum retention periods. Personal information that has been used to make a decision about an individual shall be retained long enough to allow the individual access to the information after the decision has been made. Fairchild may be subject to legislative requirements with respect to retention periods. | ||
5.3 | Personal information that is no longer required to fulfill the identified purposes should be destroyed, erased, or made anonymous. Fairchild shall develop guidelines and implement procedures to govern the destruction of personal information. | ||
PRINCIPLE 6ACCURACYPersonal information shall be as accurate, complete, and up-to-date as is necessary for the purposes for which it is to be used. |
6.1 | The extent to which personal information shall be accurate, complete, and up-to-date will depend upon the use of the information, taking into account the interests of the individual. Information shall be sufficiently accurate, complete, and up-to-date to minimize the possibility that inappropriate information may be used to make a decision about the individual. | ||
6.2 | Fairchild shall not routinely update personal information, unless this is necessary to fulfill the purposes for which the information was collected. | ||
6.3 | Personal information that is used on an ongoing basis, including information that is disclosed to third parties, should generally be accurate and up-to-date, unless limits to the requirement for accuracy are clearly set out. | ||
PRINCIPLE 7SAFEGUARDSPersonal information shall be protected by security safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the information. |
7.1 | Fairchild shall implement security safeguards to protect personal information against loss or theft, as well as unauthorized access, disclosure, copying, use, or modification, regardless of the format in which the information is held. | ||
7.2 | The nature of the safeguards will vary depending on the sensitivity of the information that has been collected, the amount, distribution, and format of the information, and the method of storage. More sensitive information should be safeguarded by a higher level of protection. | ||
7.3 | The methods of protection should include
7.4 | Fairchild shall make its employees aware of the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of personal information. | ||
7.5 | Care shall be used in the disposal or destruction of personal information, to prevent unauthorized parties from gaining access to the information (see Clause 5.3). | ||
PRINCIPLE 8OPENNESSFairchild shall make readily available to individuals specific information about its policies and practices relating to the management of personal information. |
8.1 | Fairchild shall be open about its policies and practices with respect to the management of personal information. Individuals shall be able to acquire information about Fairchild policies and practices without unreasonable effort. This information shall be made available in a form that is generally understandable. | ||
8.2 | The information made available shall include
8.3 | Fairchild may make information on its policies and practices available in a variety of ways. The method chosen depends on the nature of its business and other considerations. For example, Fairchild may choose to make brochures available in its place of business, mail information to its customers, provide online access, or establish a toll-free telephone number. | ||
PRINCIPLE 9INDIVIDUAL ACCESSUpon request, an individual shall be informed of the existence, use, and disclosure of his or her personal information and shall be given access to that information except where Fairchild is permitted or required by law not to disclose personal information to the individual. An individual shall be able to challenge the accuracy and completeness of the information disclosed to the individual and have it amended as appropriate. |
9.1 | Upon request, Fairchild shall inform an individual whether or not Fairchild holds personal information about the individual except where permitted or required by law not to disclose personal information to the individual. Fairchild is encouraged to indicate the source of this information. Fairchild shall allow the individual access to this information. In addition, Fairchild shall provide an account of the use that has been made or is being made of this information and an account of the third parties to which it has been disclosed. | ||
9.2 | An individual may be required to provide sufficient information to permit Fairchild to provide an account of the existence, use, and disclosure of personal information. The information provided shall only be used for this purpose. | ||
9.3 | In certain situations, Fairchild may not be able to provide access to all the personal information it holds about an individual. Fairchild may refuse access to personal information it holds about an individual only in those circumstances permitted or required by sections 8 or 9 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Organizations should consult the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to determine whether an exception to the obligation to provide access applies. Exceptions to the access requirement should be limited and specific. The reasons for denying access should be provided to the individual upon request. Exceptions may include information that contains references to other individuals, information that cannot be disclosed for legal, security, or commercial proprietary reasons, and information that is subject to solicitor-client or litigation privilege. | ||
9.4 | In providing an account of third parties to which it has disclosed personal information about an individual, Fairchild should attempt to be as specific as possible. When it is not possible to provide a list of the organizations to which it has actually disclosed information about an individual, Fairchild shall provide a list of organizations to which it may have disclosed information about the individual. | ||
9.5 | Fairchild shall respond to an individual's request within a reasonable time and in any event within thirty (30) days of the request. Fairchild may extend the time for responding for up to an additional thirty (30) days if meeting the time limit would unreasonably interfere with the activities of Fairchild, or if the time required to undertake any consultations necessary to respond to the request would make the time limit impracticable to meet. Fairchild may also extend the time for responding for such period of time as is necessary to be able to convert the personal information into an alternative format. Fairchild shall provide notice to the individual of any extension taken within thirty days of the individual's request and shall advise the individual of the right to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner about the extension. The requested information shall be provided or made available in a form that is generally understandable. For example, if Fairchild uses abbreviations or codes to record information, an explanation shall be provided. | ||
9.6 | Upon request by an individual with sensory disabilities, Fairchild shall give access to personal information about the individual in an alternative format if a version of the information already exists in that format or if its conversion to an alternative format is necessary to allow the individual to exercise rights to request correction, challenge compliance of Fairchild under Principle 10 or complain to the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. | ||
9.7 | Fairchild shall respond to an individual's request for access to his or her personal information at minimal or no cost. Fairchild may respond to an individual's request at a cost to the individual if they have informed the individual of the approximate cost and the individual advises the organization that the request is not being withdrawn. | ||
9.8 | When an individual successfully challenges the accuracy or completeness of personal information, Fairchild shall amend the information as required. Depending upon the nature of the information challenged, amendment involves the correction, deletion, or addition of information. Where appropriate, the amended information shall be transmitted to third parties having access to the information in question. | ||
9.9 | Fairchild shall record the substance of any challenge that is not resolved to the satisfaction of the individual. When appropriate, the existence of the unresolved challenge shall be transmitted to third parties having access to the information in question. | ||
PRINCIPLE 10CHALLENGING COMPLIANCEAn individual shall be able to address a challenge concerning compliance with the above principles to the Person Responsible for Privacy. |
10.1 | The Person Responsible for Privacy is discussed in Clause 1.1. | ||
10.2 | Fairchild shall put procedures in place to receive and respond to complaints or inquiries about its policies and practices relating to the handling of personal information. The complaint procedures should be easily accessible and simple to use. | ||
10.3 | Fairchild shall inform individuals who make inquiries or lodge complaints about its complaint procedures. | ||
10.4 | Fairchild shall investigate all complaints. If a complaint is found to be justified, Fairchild shall take appropriate measures, including, if necessary, amending its policies and practices. | ||
10.5 | If an individual is not satisfied with the response from the Person Responsible for Privacy, he or she may have recourse to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If you asked me how I felt about marijuana two years ago, I wouldn't have had much to say. Never a big pot smoker, it wasn't a cause I felt drawn to on either the legal or medical fronts.
But then I met a very special little girl who stole my heart.
Her body was being destroyed by chemo and I became devoted to helping her. As fate would have it, around this time my husband was looking for ways to help his beloved grandfather fight bone cancer. He uncovered some incredible information about cannabidiol (CBD), which is found in the marijuana plant along with THC—but does not have the same euphoric effects. CBD has been shown to have significant health benefits as an antioxidant and neuroprotectant. It has also been shown to kill cancer cells in laboratory tests. I had an instinct that these cannabis oils would be able to help my young friend and began to educate myself on the medicinal uses of marijuana.
Many people are aware that cannabis can have a palliative effect during chemo and aid with pain management, nausea, and weight loss. But research is indicating that CBD-rich strains of the plant actually have anti-tumoral properties. Because the U.S. government classifies marijuana as having no medical value, the clinical research has been blocked. Although significant research is underway in other countries like Israel, UK, and Spain, our doctors and scientists are not reaping the benefits.
I knew this was something that I could not keep quiet about, so 18 months ago I began shooting Weed the People with my documentary filmmaking partner, Abby Epstein. In 2008, Abby and I released The Business of Being Born, which ignited a movement to improve the quality of women's birth experiences and continues to have a lasting impact. We hope to achieve the same success with Weed the People, where we are following the stories of several children who are using cannabis to beat cancer and exposing the latest medical science. Today we launched an Indiegogo campaign to support the movie, which we hope will bring greater legitimacy to this issue and also encourage more clinical trials. About a week ago, a 7-year-old girl who had become the center of a push to legalize medical cannabis in Wisconsin passed away. She suffered from a rare disorder and died before she was ever able to try the cannabis oil, which may have saved her. Hundreds of families like hers have relocated to Colorado in recent months and are living as refugees in order to gain access to medicinal cannabis for their children. It is unconscionable that a child could die rather than being allowed experimental treatment with a PLANT because of political red tape. I believe this is a cause that will affect all of us, as medical cannabis is showing significant benefits for autoimmune diseases, PTSD, cancer, seizure disorders, and MS, just to name a few. We need to get these compelling stories out to the public so that people can make informed decisions about cannabis. Without the billion-dollar marketing budgets of pharmaceutical companies, the only chance we have of making this medicine safe and federally legal is by using our own voices to change the policies and demand clinical trails.


text:
Friday, April 23, 2009
America Matches Mail Participation Rate from 2000 Census
72 Percent of Households Have Mailed Back 2010 Census
U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke today congratulated the nation for its strong participation in the 2010 Census to date, as the Census Bureau released the latest mail participation data showing that 72 percent of U.S. households have mailed back their 2010 Census forms so far—the same rate the nation achieved at the end of the mail-back period during the 2000 Census.
"It's fantastic that we were able to match the 2000 participation rate despite all the predictions that it couldn't be done," Locke said. "Strong mail-back participation increases the likelihood of a successful census and saves taxpayer dollars. All United States residents should be proud of this achievement.
"As we move into the next phase of the 2010 Census, residents should be aware that Census workers will soon be in neighborhoods across the country to follow up with households that have not yet responded. We urge continued cooperation as we work to count every person in the country."
In the 2000 Census, the nation turned around a three-decade trend of declining mail-back rates. The country has become even more difficult to count in 2010. Over the last decade, participation in surveys of all kinds has been declining. The nation has grown by some 30 million people; it is more diverse, more residents are not native English speakers, more are facing economic dislocation from homes, more live in non-standard housing arrangements, and there are greater concerns regarding personal privacy.
"By this unexpectedly high participation rate, the nation has demonstrated its support of the 2010 Census," said Dr. Robert Groves, director of the Census Bureau. "The response has saved taxpayer money by reducing the size of the door-to-door follow-up phase of the census."
The unprecedented partnership effort and engagement of local communities and elected officials played a significant role in overcoming these obstacles and achieving this milestone.
The Census Bureau is still tallying late mail returns and will announce the final mail participation rate for the nation and all other state and local jurisdictions at a news conference on Wednesday, April 28.


text:
Roll the cameras. According to TSN's Bob McKenzie, we'll find out tomorrow where Justin Schultz is "taking his talents" as the former University of Wisconsin defenceman will decide which of the Edmonton Oilers, Vancouver Canucks, Toronto Maple Leafs, Ottawa Senators or New York Rangers is the winner of the highly publicized sweepstakes.
While the Oilers had alumni Wayne Gretzky and Paul Coffey dialing up Schultz to sell Schultz on Edmonton, former University of Wisconsin teammate Jake Gardiner gave his good friend a call:
Gardiner has called Schultz, urging him to join the Leafs, one of five teams Schultz identified on a short list. The Rangers, Senators, Canucks and Oilers were the others.
I—ve talked to him a little bit, but he really didn—t give me anything, said Gardiner, who said he—d love to be teammates with Schultzy again. As his friend, I definitely want him to come here. The whole city does.
It—d be awesome. Hopefully it works out. There—s a lot of teams after him.
It—s the time of year tea leaves need to be read. The fact that Schultz didn—t tell his friend much either means he—s playing his cards close to his chest and hasn—t made up his mind, or he has made up his mind that it won—t be the Leafs and didn—t want to disappoint his friend.
The player Schultz is most often compared to is none other than Gardiner " fast-skating, tall, puck-moving defenceman.
Some might call it good business by Newport Sports and their client, I call this whole damn thing a lack of humility from a young player who hasn't touched NHL ice yet. Strange CBA rule or not, Schultz seems unwilling to pay his dues and, before playing a single pro game, wants the rights everyone else waits until their second contract to earn. Even without debating whether or not he was obligated to sign with Anaheim, the whole "tell me why I should play for you" act from a 22-year-old with zero professional games to his name doesn't sit well with me, and I would bet deep down it doesn't sit well with Burke either.
What Burke realizes as well as I is that this is a real "free" asset and he would be remiss not to offer the same maxed out, two-year entry level contract the rest of the teams on Schultz's list will offer. A number of these "free wallet" signings out of college have not worked out, but this is a unique situation as Schultz is a drafted player with second round pedigree who held out after taking significant leaps forward in his development following his draft year. He has bluechip two-way potential and there isn't a team in the league who isn't interested in that.
It's unlikely tomorrow's decision will come down to who called Schultz the night before, and will have much more to do with where Schultz believes he'll receive the most opportunity. Count us as winners either way once this whole dog and pony show comes to a close.


text:
Wind Exposure
The role of Wine Exposure in Grape Growing
Like rain, wind moderates warm and cool temperatures in the vineyard. It will cool temperatures on a warm summer day, but will warm temperatures on a cold spring morning.
Because most of the regions in California Wine Country are quite warm during most of the year, wind usually cools temperatures. This slows down the maturation process of grapes. Moderate wind is good, but too much will stop the metabolic processes in grapevines.
Wind can help prevent humidity, mildew and other mold. Vineyard managers can prune the leaves right around grape bunches to increase wind exposure. Grapevines grown on hillsides and slopes are usually exposed to more wind.
Some California Wineries have wind machines to reduce humidity and warm the vines during spring frosts. On cold mornings, they heat the air a critical few degrees to prevent damage.
The Carneros AVA is famous for its cooling winds from the San Pablo Bay. The region is actually quite warm, but the windy conditions allow cool weather varietals to thrive here. The Sonoma side of Carneros is particularly flat and windy.
> Related Articles
Be the first to comment on Wind Exposure
You must login to comment.


text:
CORAL GABLES, Florida (CNN) -- Thursday night's presidential debate was solid and serious, appropriate for the first post-9/11 forum and at a time when some 135,000 U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq.
The University of Miami showdown won't likely produce dramatic poll swings.
This debate was nothing like 1980, when challenger Ronald Reagan's performance gave him a major boost against then-President Jimmy Carter. Nor was it 1996, when incumbent Bill Clinton did so well in his first debate that he basically slammed the door on candidate Bob Dole.
This time, Sen. John Kerry probably did slightly better overall than President Bush, scoring perhaps a B+, while President Bush managed a B. That alone might be considered a win for Kerry, given that 52 percent of respondents in a recent Gallup poll expected Bush to perform better in the debates --compared with 39 percent for Kerry. (See Gallup poll Web site)
Bush, for his part, was an active and somewhat effective counter-puncher, although his facial expressions did not put him in the most positive light.
Both candidates' performances, which may have been watched by more than 60 million people, probably will whet interest further in the closely watched campaign.
Kerry had three chief things he needed to do entering the debate. While he didn't nail any one, he did well to hit on parts of all three to establish himself as a bona fide contender.
The first goal: Be strong, clear and confident. Kerry spoke in plain, easily understood terms, vowing "I will hunt down and kill the terrorists" and that he had a "better plan" for homeland security, fighting the war on terror and handling the Iraq conflict.
But the Massachusetts senator didn't strongly counter the "flip-flopper" label, which Bush used frequently during the debate and Republicans have been reiterating all race long.
Kerry next needed to critique the president's foreign policy judgment. He did this by stressing that there was a right and a wrong way to handle international affairs, accusing Bush of taking the latter direction in Iraq and elsewhere.
The four-term senator challenged the president's diplomatic skill and decisions, particularly in regard to Iran and North Korea. But Bush counterpunched effectively.
And Kerry didn't always link his foe's "colossal error[s] of judgment," as he dubbed them, to future risks that might hit close to home -- such as how one of the president's decisions could heighten the chance of domestic terror attacks, spur the re-institution of the draft or produce immense bills that will sap funds from valuable domestic programs.
The last objective he needed to address was laying out, as the president's father might say, "the vision thing." Kerry did well to reference his Iraq plan and pitch his Web site address, as well as talking about a president's imperative to "get your kids home [from Iraq] and get the job done and win the peace."
But the senator did not summarize his vision neatly, nor did he use two or three anecdotes to drive home a clearer sense of how life might look under a President Kerry.
On a final note, Kerry neatly used foreign policy questions to subtly hit the president on domestic issues -- from "outsourcing," to the difficult task of capturing Osama bin Laden, to Afghan warlords and their forces, to parts of the $200 billion spent on Iraq being better off devoted to health care, construction or prescription drugs for seniors in the United States.
The president, meanwhile, gave a solid performance, showing that he was resolute, detailed and could counterpunch effectively. But like Kerry, Bush scratched out some hits but never notched a home run that might decisively win over voters.
The president certainly tried to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper, although he used different language -- much of the time, stressing the perils of a commander in chief sending "mixed messages." Bush was often very specific, citing Kerry's Senate record and issue details. But the senator did not get overwhelmed, countering the president to some degree.
Going in, the president also needed to address Iraq humbly, but confidently. Bush did this well, acknowledging some difficulties, but also noting progress. More important, he tried to explain the rationale for going to war and the post-invasion plan.
Ultimately, Bush chiefly focused on depicting himself as a confident wartime president. But as with the general pre-debate spin, the president may have been undermined by high expectations: In the latest Gallup poll, 67 percent of respondents said Bush could handle the responsibilities of commander in chief, in contrast to the 49 percent for Kerry. So it was tough for the president to make progress.
And, also like Kerry, Bush got in some domestic politicking by questioning the hefty price tag of the senator's plans and mentioning faith in his closing statement.
In summary, this generally good debate for both sides could perhaps produce muted poll movement. But the extent of swing, either way, won't be determined until after the "spin game" has been settled.
Indeed, in 2000, polls showed that voters who watched the debate judged Gore the winner, but voters who did not watch (the majority of Americans) judged Bush the victor.
Right or wrong, the media spin plays a hugely significant role in voters' perceptions and how they ultimately vote. Indeed, the actual course of history, it seems, is sometimes less important than how it is recorded and presented.
Yet the conventional wisdom that "spin" will decided this debate's verdict may not play out this time around. For one, more people were expected to watch the Thursday forum than tuned in during the 2000 race, so more can make up their own minds.
The rise of non-traditional news options -- such as Internet bloggers, liberal as well as conservative talk radio shows, comedic news programs such as "The Daily Show," and international commentary filtering back Stateside -- has further fragmented the media, making it harder to uniformly spin.


text:
Hit Lists - Packaging workflow for the weekend contributor
Right now to become a Fedora contributor, one needs to become a packaging expert. Everyone who gets through this gauntlet has their own workflow but still more people give up because the process is so daunting. Hit Lists is a project born out of the Fedora Community belief that by streamlining workflow while using the tools we have, we can get more people to participate and produce higher quality packages. We are calling this Hit Lists because instead of targeting seasoned packagers who already have their own workflow, we are targeting the casual contributor who might want to fix a quick bug or try out new packages and then submit the results for review. It is the hope that by lowering the barrier to contributing will give users a greater sense of inclusion in Fedora, as well as drawing them into longer term roles such as maintaining new packages.
Hit Lists revolves around streamlining three areas of packaging:
- Creating and proposing new packages as well as their dependencies
- Updating packages to their latest version
- Fixing bugs in packages
Web UI
Hit Lists will be integrated into the Fedora Community package maintenance UI. Fedora Community will be expanded to provide quick views into packages as well as adding status messages for all the active branches. For instance, prominent bugs will be highlighted and automated package review reports posted. If there is a dependency issue or the spec file doesn't pass rpmlint muster we can show those issues within the UI.
The Web UI will also provide alerts for things like manual package reviews where another developer must sign off before a package is added to Fedora's main repositories.
Some other possible features:
- a web based IDE for quick edits of spec files which would then generate a patch and bug report for the maintainer to review
- personal repo management for testing out new packages or fixes before they go into Fedora's main repos
Fedora Integration
Not everything can be done via the Web. In order to provide a complete workflow we must bridge the gap between the Desktop and the Web. The main focus here will be easy access to our repositories through plugins to the user's file manager as well as patch management and new package generation.
The file manager plugin should provide UI for searching Fedora PackageDB and pulling down the package CVS files from our servers. Patch management could be handled by creating a local git repo which we pull changes out of and provide UI to either submit to a bug report or update package CVS directly (if the user has the permission to do so). We would also provide a method to pull patches directly from a bug report and apply it, as well as providing a way to refactor a spec file to add and remove patches.
Some other possible features:
- Eclipse/ide integrations - automatically generate workspaces/project files; upload/download directly from the IDE
- Browser plugin (needs security consideration) - click a button on the Web UI to setup a local copy of the package CVS files or submit changes done on the local copy


text:
I would like you to open your Bible again, if you will, to Luke chapter 23, as we prepare our hearts for sharing in the Lord's Table. As I was reading this chapter over, it struck me that Luke gives us some very interesting insights into some of the people around the cross. I suppose most of the time when we look at the cross of Jesus Christ we are prone to concentrate on those who hated Him. We look so often at the High Priest and the father of the High Priest, Caiaphas and Annas, or we look at the Pharisees and Sadducees, the chief priests, the scribes, the rulers. Those who accused Him vehemently, as Luke puts it; those who sought His death. Or we look perhaps at the soldiers who, with such indifference, mocked Him and plucked His beard and spit on Him and hit Him with their fists. We hear also, the rabble crowd that kept screaming, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" as they pressed their way into the judgment hall to get their will.
But tonight I want not to look at those that were hostile to Christ, but I want us to look at those that were sympathetic to Him. Interestingly enough in this chapter, which I read to you earlier, Luke seems to want to focus on them. There were a number of people who demonstrated great sympathy to Christ. I suppose it would be fair to say that by no means was the whole population of Jerusalem hostile. Most of them probably were little more than curious. Some of them were sorrowful. It wouldn't take anywhere near the population of Jerusalem or even a small fragment of it to crowd its way into the judgment hall and scream unmercifully, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!" until, finally Pilate had to do that. We certainly don't want to conclude that everybody would agree with the verdict of that crowd.
And as we look through this chapter, it's almost as if Luke wants to give us a vision of those who demonstrated sympathy and understanding. Understanding that Jesus, frankly, was innocent of any crime. The first such personality is Pilate. In verse 13, we read, "And Pilate summoned the chief priest and the rulers and the people and said to them, 'You brought this man to me as One who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him.'" Pilate, believe me, was a very reluctant judge. Luke lets us know that Pilate's sympathies were with Jesus. In fact, Pilate knew Jesus was innocent, and he did everything, seemingly, to make that point. Back in verse 4, he said to the chief priests and the multitudes, "I find no guilt in this man." Again in verse 14, "I find no guilt in Him." In verse 15, "Nothing deserving death has been done by Him." Verse 22, "I have found in Him no guilt."
Four times does he affirm that Jesus did nothing deserving of death, and frankly he tried very hard to get out of having to make the sentence. He tried to get the Jews to deal with it themselves, as noted in John 18:31. He later sent Jesus to Herod, as indicated here in this chapter in verse 7, hoping that Herod would render the verdict. He tried to get the Jews to accept Jesus as the prisoner to be released at the Passover season. And here again he, in verse 16, even offered to beat Jesus to pacify the blood thirsty crowd and then to release Him. But no matter what he tried, it didn't succeed, and in the end he couldn't avoid the fateful occasion. But he tried.
He wasn't alone, Herod agreed with him, as verse 15 indicates. He says, "I have found no guilt in this man. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us. And behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him." In verse 16, he says, "I will, therefore, punish Him and release Him." And somebody says, "Well, why are you going to punish Him if He hasn't done anything?" In Roman law, a beating was sometimes given with a magisterial warning, so the accused would be more careful in the future. Pilate was trying to appease the Jews by such a warning mode of punishment, but they wanted Jesus dead. And so in verse 18, "They cried out all together saying, 'Away with this man and release for us Barabbas.' He was one who had been thrown into prison for a certain insurrection made in the city and for murder.)" He was a true insurrectionist and rebel and a murderer. "And Pilate" – and here's the key – "wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out saying, 'Crucify! Crucify Him!' He said to them the third time, 'Why? What evil has the Man done?'" He again notes that he found no guilt in Him, again says I will simply chasten Him as a warning and let Him go. "But they were insistent with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demands should be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will."
It was never Pilate who called for Jesus death. It was never Pilate who wanted Jesus death. On one occasion he even went and symbolically washed his hands of the whole affair. His wife even warned him not to have anything to do with this just man. But the crowd was persistent. Frankly, Pilate was sympathetic. Pilate understood completely, the innocence of Jesus.
There's a second man that Luke wants us to meet who also was sympathetic. We find him in verse 26. "And when they led Him away, they laid hold of one Simon of Cyrene, coming in from the country, and placed on him the cross to carry behind Jesus." It was customary for the condemned criminal to parade through the city streets carrying either the whole cross or the cross beam to his own execution. Jesus no doubt started out bearing His cross but having been weakened by the scourging was unable to sustain it and faltered in the effort. And so Simon was selected, perhaps willingly, to step forward and carry the cross of Jesus Christ.
There's an interesting note about this man recorded in Mark's gospel, chapter 15, verse 21. Just listen as I read. "And they pressed into service a passer-by coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene" – then it notes – "(the father of Alexander and Rufus) to bear His Cross." Now, why does Mark tell us that this man is the father of Alexander and Rufus? Is that somehow significant? Well it is because in the ministry of the Apostle Paul, such a man as Rufus is noted in Romans 16:13 as "A choice man in the Lord." And his mother is also mentioned. It is reasonable to assume that Simon of Cyrene brought into the world two sons, who were raised to love the very Christ whose cross he carried. Here was a man who, if not sympathetic at first, became sympathetic, and I can't understand any reason for noting that he was the father of those two unless those were the two Christians known to the people who read Mark's Gospel. And thus we find that while Pilate knowing the innocence of Jesus sustained his unbelief, Simon, a bystander, was brought to faith.
There is a third group of people who were sympathetic and Luke wants us to note them. In verse 27, "There were following Him, a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting Him." There was a large crowd following behind the cross and behind Jesus, made up mostly of women apparently. They were mourning and lamenting Him. I think it's important to note here that not everybody was clamoring for the death of Christ. Here is a large crowd of people, noted by the word "multitude", mostly women. They are wailing and lamenting. This is not a silent cry; these are not silent tears; this is a noisy demonstration. This is a demonstration of verbalized outwardly expressed grief and anguish. This would catch everyone's attention as this large group of people, mostly women, came down as it were the same path, parading themselves behind Christ, weeping and wailing out loud.
Apparently, they would have been known to the people in Jerusalem because in verse 28, "Jesus turning to them said" – He obviously heard their wailing. He said, "Daughters of Jerusalem" – they, therefore, were not from Galilee. They were not a part of His entourage of friends who had come down from Galilee. They were people from Jerusalem, city dwellers. And He turns to them and says, "Stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children." You know, what He's saying to them is simply this, "On the one hand I appreciate your sympathy." And the indication here is that they were just a sensitive group of people. They may have been a group of people who, perhaps, commonly protested executions. They were a group of people who didn't really believe in the anguishing kind of punishment that was being exacted upon this man. They may also have believed that He, in fact, was an innocent man.
And while Jesus certainly appreciates their sympathy, He is much more concerned with their repentance. And He says to them, "Stop weeping for Me but weep for yourselves and for your children. For behold, the days are coming when they will say, 'Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.' Then they will begin to say to the mountains, 'Fall on us,' and to the hills, 'Cover us.'" And I get the feeling here, that you've got a group of people who, basically, are protesting Roman execution. They would be not unlike the people who are now holding vigils around the State of California, protesting the execution of a criminal. They don't believe in this, particularly with an innocent man. It may have been that some of them had been touched by the power of Christ when they had seen His miracles. They are not believers, however, and that is why Jesus says to them, you need to stop weeping for me and start weeping for yourselves. If you think it is horrible, what the Romans are doing to Me, you wait till you see what they do to you.
And to what does He refer? The destruction of Jerusalem. You better weep for what is going to fall on you and you better repent, because when that day comes you will perish. And then He sums it up with a proverbial statement in verse 31, "For if they" – they most likely referring to the Romans – "do these things in the green tree, what will happen in the dry?" In other words, if the Romans do not hesitate the One in whom there is life, what do you think they're going to do when it comes to the nation in which there is only death? If they don't blink in killing the living Christ, do you think they're going to blink in wiping out the dead nation – spiritually dead? Weep for yourselves. And here is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. And the weeping is necessary not because of physical death, but because the destruction that will come on that day, when over a million Jews died, will send them into an eternal hell.
Not everybody was clamoring for Jesus death. Pilate wasn't; Simon wasn't, and even came to faith no doubt; and a large crowd of people weren't. Fourthly, in verse 32, we meet another one. "Two others also, who were criminals, were being led away to be put to death with Him. And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals; one on the right and the other on the left." Matthew tells us what their crime was. He says, "They were thieves." Moving down to verse 39, one of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, "Are you not the Christ?" That's sarcasm. "Save yourself and us." It is bitter sarcasm. He calls on Jesus to save, mocking Him, since he doesn't believe He could do it. "But the other" – verse 40 – "answered, and rebuking the first said, 'Do you not even fear God since you're under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.'"
Isn't that interesting? I'll tell you what, criminals know who the criminals are and the word running through the prisons was that this man had done nothing wrong. It was common knowledge. It shows how widespread the reality of Jesus innocence really was. Verse 42, he's saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom." And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in paradise." Jesus saved him and Jesus promised him heaven. So Pilate, the man called Simon, the crowd made up mostly of women lamenting and weeping, and the thief were all sympathetic to Christ. And they all understood that He was an innocent man and did not deserve this.
We meet another, down in verse 44, "And it was now about the sixth hour" – that would be noon – "and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour." That by the way, is a supernatural miracle, since you can't have an eclipse at Passover. Passover was always determined by the full moon. And so you have supernatural darkness. "And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice said, 'Father, into Thy hands I commit my Spirit.' And having said this, He breathed His last. Now the when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, 'Certainly, this man was innocent.'" And he said even more than that. Matthew tells us and Mark tells us that he also said, "This man was the Son of God." He was sympathetic and he was in command of the soldiers who executed Christ, most likely.
No, not everybody was sympathetic to the execution of Jesus. Obviously the centurion came to faith in Christ; Simon came to faith in Christ; one of the thieves came to faith in Christ; this is a great evangelistic effort.
We meet another group of people in verse 48. After Jesus had breathed His last and the centurion had articulated his faith, it says in verse 48, "And all the multitudes who came together for this spectacle" – now stop right there for a moment. This is just the watching crowd. They've really got no interest in the whole deal other than to watch it. They aren't a part of the rabble screaming for his death. They aren't a part of the high priest's operation. They're not even involved with the Pharisees or the Sadducees. They're certainly not Roman soldiers who are somehow indifferent to the whole situation. They're just a whole mass of people who came out that day, climbed the hill, because this was a spectacle they didn't want to miss. "All the multitudes who came together for this spectacle, when they observed what had happened, began to return" – they left – "beating their breasts." This is the multitudes from the city. They had no special interest in Jesus, except that they must have been convinced He was a good man, or they wouldn't have gone away so passionately grieved. There must have been thousands upon thousands of them, coming down the hill pounding on their breasts. Instead of being entertained, as they thought they might be, they were saddened and they were grieved and they felt some guilt over this. If you remember the publican in Luke's gospel who beat on his breast, while he was beating he was saying, "Lord, be merciful to me" – what? – "a sinner." They must have felt some culpability in this whole operation. Perhaps that guilt that day prepared them for Pentecost, when three thousand of them were converted.
There's another group of people that Luke wants us to note were not sympathetic to the death of Christ. Verse 49, "And all His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance, seeing these things." These were His friends. They were standing in the background, in pain, in anguish, fear, horror, grief. They knew He was innocent. They understood that this whole thing was a monstrous crime. And there's yet another man who had sympathy. Verse 50 identifies him, "Behold, a man name Joseph, who was a member of the council, a good and righteous man (he had not consented to their plan and action), a man from Arimathea" – we don't know, by the way, where that was – "a city of the Jews, who was waiting for the Kingdom of God." Here is a true believing Jew, a God fearing Jew, and no doubt a follower of Jesus, a believer. This man did a bold thing, this man Joseph. "He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. He took it down and wrapped it in a linen cloth and laid Him in a rock where no one had ever lain." Matthew 27:60 says, "It was his own tomb." He did it before sundown on Friday because nothing could be done on the Sabbath.
And after he had done his part, we see the women again, who were mentioned in verse 49. Verse 55 says, "The women who had come with Him out of Galilee followed after, and saw the tomb and how His body was laid and they returned and prepared spices and perfumes and on the Sabbath, they rested according to the commandment." They got it all done before the Sabbath, they couldn't work on the Sabbath and God wanted to be sure He was in there on some part of Friday so it would count in the three days. But the women came and ministered to Him through spices and perfumes to somehow mitigate the stench of the decaying body. Faithful Galilean women.
Isn't it interesting that in the midst of all the rabble, the sarcastic criminal hanging on the cross beside Christ, the mocking soldiers, the vicious false religious leaders, the screaming crowd who wanted Him dead, Luke weaves through this so many sympathetic people. Pilate, he was sympathetic. He just never went far enough. Those weeping, wailing women who were following along and Jesus said, "You better weep for yourselves," we don't know the outcome of that story. The multitude that was watching and went away beating on its breast, feeling guilt and remorse over the horror of what they had just seen that was far from being entertaining, we don't know whether they believed. Certainly all of them never did. Some of them did. Simon, he believed and was saved. Apparently the thief, for sure, he was saved. The centurion gives a clear testimony of his faith.
So you have some who watched and were somewhat sympathetic and understood His innocence and maybe never believed. You have some who watched and were sympathetic and understood and did believe. And then you had that group that watched and were sympathetic and understood and had already believed: His friends, Joseph, and the women who ministered to Him in the tomb, a relatively large group of people who understood the crime being perpetrated. This is Luke's way of saying, "Not everybody concurred in the execution of Jesus Christ. There was a large group of people, some unbelievers, some believers, some who came to faith; who all affirmed the horror of this crime, that an unjust act was perpetrated on a guiltless man. And that makes me wonder all the more at the cross. For He who knew no sin became sin for us.
And we come tonight to this Table as those who, in one sense, were not sympathetic to what was done on the Cross. We understand the innocence of Christ and the heinousness of the crime, and even though we are not sympathetic with it and even though we are understanding of the innocence of Jesus Christ, at the same time, we are grateful for it. Are we not? For the One who knew no sin and deserved no death was made sin and died for us.
Our Father, we thank You for giving us yet another and perhaps a fresh glimpse of the cross. We concur with Pilate that He, being our Lord, was a just man in whom there was no guilt. We would concur with Simon that this is a man to believe in, a man to teach to your children. We concur with the centurion that this is an innocent man and this is the Son of God and we praise You as he praised You. We concur with the women who cried and wept. We concur with the multitude who beat its breasts over the horror of such a crime. We concur with Joseph that such consent to His death should never have been rendered, and at least, in death He deserves the dignity of a proper burial. And we concur with the women that even that blessed body should be treated with care. And while we understand the horror of the crime and are sympathetic with Christ and understanding of His innocence, yet, we thank You that He died for our sins and come now to this Table to celebrate that death with thankful hearts, Amen.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.


text:
Faculty & Staff
Cameron University employs more than 550 faculty and staff, including classified, professional, full-time faculty and adjuncts. They serve approximately 4,500 students that are enrolled at Cameron each academic year.
The Office of Human Resources, located in Administration 121, is open from 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Monday through Friday to answer any questions. You may stop by or reach them by phone at 580-581-2245.


text:
Show All Answers
An air quality burn ban is a mandatory, yet temporary, order that restricts the use of wood stoves and fireplaces, as well as outdoor burning, when air quality is degraded and human health may be adversely impacted. Air quality burn bans typically occur during fall and winter months and may last for up to a week or more. They also may sometimes occur during the summer months if there is wildfire smoke.
For more information, visit our About Burn Bans page.
During a Stage 1 air quality burn ban:
During a Stage 2 air quality burn ban:
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has regulatory authority to issue air quality burn bans in King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, in accordance with RCW 70.94.473.
The smoke from burning wood and wood-based products contains fine particles (soot) and a toxic mix of other carcinogens. This pollution is harmful to your health, particularly for young children, older adults and people with respiratory and heart disease. During stagnant weather conditions, concentrations of wood smoke can reach harmful levels, so we restrict wood smoke emissions to protect air quality in our neighborhoods and the health of those living there.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency calls air quality burn bans for King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. Air quality burn bans for areas outside Puget Sound Clean Air Agency's jurisdiction are issued by other local air agencies, the Washington Department of Ecology, or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
We follow State Burn Ban Requirements:
We will issue Stage 1 air quality burn bans when weather conditions are predicted to create stagnant air and a build-up of fine particle pollution (PM2.5) that:
In some cases when PM2.5 levels are rising rapidly, we may call a Stage 2 air quality burn ban without first calling a Stage 1 air quality burn ban.
Forecast weather conditions play a major role in determining when – or whether – to issue an air quality burn ban. For example, in certain circumstances when pollution levels have risen to the Stage 2 trigger, we may not issue an air quality burn ban if we expect that weather conditions over the next 24 hours will clean out our area's air pollution.
We also issue these air quality bans based on the air quality conditions in the individual counties and in some cases sub-county areas within our jurisdiction. As a result, one or more counties or areas may have a Stage 1 burn ban in place while another county has advanced to a Stage 2 burn ban. Or one county may have a burn ban in effect while others have no restrictions in place.
The Agency issues air quality forecasts year-round to inform the public of expected conditions and health impacts based on EPA's Air Quality Index.
We typically issue air quality burn bans on a county-wide basis. Our counties, however, have very diverse landscapes. Sometimes, one part of a county may experience stagnant weather conditions and elevated pollution levels, while in another part of the county, it's windy and the air is somewhat cleaner.
We issue air quality burn bans when we expect air pollution to worsen. Sometimes the AQI may read "good" or "moderate" at the time we issue a ban; that means we anticipate that air pollution will build up soon. Pollution tends to build slowly during the day and is typically worst at night and early morning hours.
Air quality can indeed vary throughout our large counties. We typically issue air quality bans on a county-wide basis for clearly communicating it to the public and media, and to help maintain healthy air throughout the region.
There are a few exceptions to this. To find out what air quality burn ban zone you are in check the Burn Ban Area Map.
We call bans in Pierce and Snohomish counties more often due to lower thresholds for fine particle pollution (per state law). They also tend to have more burn bans than King or Kitsap because they reach higher pollution levels more frequently. This is in part because they have more wood burning communities in highly-populated, compact areas. It also tends to be a bit windier in Seattle and parts of King County, which helps blow away the pollution and keep it from reaching unhealthy levels.
We have identified the Pierce Peninsula and South Pierce zones of Pierce County as areas that may have levels of pollution different than the rest of the county. The Greater Pierce County zone experiences bans more often than the rest of our region.
To find out which burn ban zone you are in, please check the Pierce County Burn Ban Area Map.
To sign up for text alerts for these areas, text:
Pierce county has three separate burn ban zones. These zones are referred to as Greater Pierce County, South Pierce, and Pierce Peninsula.
We offer many ways to learn about burn bans (read more of our FAQs to learn more). You can also sign up to receive alerts about air quality burn bans.
If a fire is already lit, do not add more fuel and simply let it burn out. If using a wood stove or fireplace insert, increase or open the air flow to both improve the draft for a cleaner, hotter burn and to help the fire burn out faster.
See the rules about what devices can and cannot be used during a Stage 1 or a Stage 2 burn ban. Even if your device is allowed, do not produce excess smoke.
Where there is smoke, there is likely fire and non-compliance with the burn ban. Our agency inspectors are trained to read the density, or "opacity," of smoke and to determine if visible smoke violates the state's opacity laws. It is always illegal to generate excessive smoke, defined as 20% opacity or more for more than six consecutive minutes, even when a burn ban is not in effect.
If you have a device that is legal to use during a Stage 1 burn ban or if this is your only adequate source of heat and you have an approved exemption, you still must burn cleanly and not emit visible smoke. Remember, excessive smoke is illegal at any time, from any device.
If our inspectors observe a air quality burn ban violation, they will issue a Notice of Violation to the property owner.
Air quality burn bans are issued and enforced by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency when air pollution levels rise to unhealthy levels. Air quality burn bans typically occur during colder fall and winter months. They sometimes occur in the summer months if there is also wildfire smoke.
Fire safety burn bans are issued and enforced by the fire marshal or local fire departments when dry weather conditions heighten the risk of wildfires. Fire safety burn bans are generally called during the summer and can last for several months, even into the fall.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is not responsible for issuing or enforcing fire safety burn bans. For more on fire safety bans, contact your county fire marshal or local fire department.
A certified wood stove/fireplace insert would likely have a label indicating it complies with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emission standards. To the right is a sample label.
Here are a few other ways to determine whether you have a certified or uncertified device:
On the few days we have air quality burn bans in place, the use of your (primary) clean heating device is expected in order to keep air quality healthy for you, your family, and your neighbors. The exception is if your wood stove is your only adequate source of heat and you have an approved "no other adequate source of heat" exemption from the Agency.
An "adequate source of heat" is a heating system that is designed to maintain a temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit at a point three feet above the floor in each normally inhabited room. We base our assessment on the adequacy of the whole system's heating capacity, including any parts of the heating system that may have been disconnected, damaged or simply aren't working.
Most homes in our area have another adequate source of heat beyond wood stoves, because of building code requirements.
In some cases, using a wood burning device may be the only way to adequately heat your home. If you believe this is true for your home, you may apply for "no other adequate source of heat" exemption through our agency.
You must apply and be approved for this exemption before using your wood burning device during an air quality burn ban.
Download the Application Form (PDF)
To learn more about these exemptions, read our No Other Adequate Source of Heat FAQs.
The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has been issuing wintertime air quality burn bans during episodes of poor air quality since the late 1980s. During these burn bans, the Agency has prohibited the use of primarily uncertified wood stoves and fireplaces in order to reduce pollution and lessen the impact on public health.
The air quality burn ban program has evolved over the years to reflect updates in health information and mandated air quality standards.
More restrictive air quality burn ban requirements began in the 2008-2009 heating season, prompted by a more protective law enacted by the 2008 Washington State Legislature to align with stricter air quality health standards adopted in late 2006 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
You can call us at 206-343-8800 or submit a web inquiry with your question.


text:
Sam Brownback on Health CareRepublican Sr Senator (KS) |
A: This is a real problem. It�s real people that are involved in this type of situation. I think the question you have to ask is: Which is the best way to go, then? Do you do it with more government or do you do it with more markets? Because these are real people experiencing this. And I pick more markets and real markets with it. Because I have not seen, in this country, ever, when the government enters into something on a bigger basis, do we get higher quality service or more of it? We don�t. It doesn�t work that way. One thing that hasn�t been talked about up here is Health Savings Accounts. We need to expand that so people can save money, tax-exempt, from their work, the employers putting that in so they can have some money for their health care coverage.
A: Well, that�s why I voted against the bill. But it wasn�t just that. The piece of it that I think you have to recognize is that you�ve got a fundamental decision to make here on health care, which is 16% of the economy, going north fast, probably headed to 20% of our total economy. Do you think the solution to providing more and better health care is (1) that we should have more government solutions involved, or (2) should there be more market-based solutions involved? And I think clearly the answer here is you need more market forces in health care. That�s what we need to do. Instead, you�ve got the Democrats doing a step-by-step march toward a socialized government-pay system. And they�re very happy to do it that way. But we can get better health care going this way. And we can hold the price of it down and not bust the federal treasury at the same time.
In some of my speeches [I describe my] plan to end deaths by cancer in ten years. There are a lot of things we could give back to the world, but if the number-one fear is death from cancer, then giving them back the gift of life would be a wonderful gift. It would be a gift that only this country could give the world. We have everything needed to make this a priority.
The problem with the current health care system is that it�s not generally seen as using our own money, and we have no price transparency. We don�t know what we�re paying for. Frequently a third party pays the bill.
The patient needs more information, and we need more price transparency. I�ve cosponsored a bill requiring the disclosure of the amount Medicare reimburses on typical procedures [made] available over the Internet.
The market-engaging solution is the one that can actually work. Our way is to restore market mechanisms to the system, not simply yo have more and bigger government in health care.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. HEATH SHULER (D, NC-11): Putting a dangerous, overworked FDA in charge of tobacco is a threat to public safety. Last year, the FDA commissioner testified that he had serious concerns that this bill could undermine the public health role of the FDA. And the FDA Science Board said the FDA's inability to keep up with scientific advancements means that Americans' lives will be at risk.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (D, CA-30): The bill before us, the Waxman-Platts bill, has been carefully crafted over more than a decade, in close consultation with the public health community. It's been endorsed by over 1,000 different public health, scientific, medical, faith, and community organizations.
Sen. HARRY REID (D, NV): Yesterday, 3,500 children who had never smoked before tried their first cigarette. For some, it will also be their last cigarette but certainly not all. If you think 3,500 is a scary number, how about 3.5 million. That is a pretty scary number. That is how many American high school kids smoke--3.5 million. Nearly all of them aren't old enough to buy cigarettes. It means we have as many boys and girls smoking as are participating in athletics in high schools. We have as many as are playing football, basketball, track and field, and baseball combined.
Rep. FRANK PALLONE (D, NJ-6): In the last Congress, we passed legislation that enjoyed bipartisan support as well as the support of the American people. Unfortunately, it did not enjoy the support of the President, who vetoed our bill twice, and went on to proclaim that uninsured children can simply go to the emergency room to have their medical needs met. As the Nation moves deeper into a recession and unemployment rates continue to rise, millions of Americans are joining the ranks of the uninsured, many of whom are children. We can't delay. We must enact this legislation now.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Rep. ROY BLUNT (R, MI-7): This bill doesn't require the States to meet any kind of threshold standard that would ensure that States were doing everything they could to find kids who needed insurance before they begin to spend money to find kids who may not have the same need. Under the bill several thousands of American families would be poor enough to qualify for SCHIP and have the government pay for their health care, but they'd be rich enough to still be required to pay the alternative minimum tax. The bill changes welfare participation laws by eliminating the 5-year waiting period for legal immigrants to lawfully reside in the country before they can participate in this program. In the final bill, we assume that 65% of the children receiving the benefit wouldn't get the benefit anymore. It seems to me this bill needs more work, would have benefited from a committee hearing. It doesn't prioritize poor kids to ensure that they get health care first.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes: Sen. PATTY MURRAY (D, WA): President Bush vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors and the disabled can get the care they need. This bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental health care.
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment is to means test Medicare Part D the same way we means test Medicare Part B. An individual senior making over $82,000 a year, or a senior couple making over $164,000, would be expected to pay a little over $10 a month extra. That is all we are doing. This amendment saves a couple billion dollars over the next 5 years. It is very reasonable. There is nothing else in this budget that does anything on entitlement reform, and we all know entitlements are heading for a train wreck in this country. We ought to at least do this little bit for our children for deficit reduction. OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BAUCUS: The problem with this amendment is exactly what the sponsor said: It is exactly like Part B. Medicare Part B is a premium that is paid with respect to doctors' examinations and Medicare reimbursement. Part D is the drug benefit. Part D premiums vary significantly nationwide according to geography and according to the plans offered. It is nothing like Part B.
Second, any change in Part D is required to be in any Medicare bill if it comes up. We may want to make other Medicare changes. We don't want to be restricted to means testing.
Third, this should be considered broad health care reform, at least Medicare reform, and not be isolated in this case. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 42-56
SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. COBURN: The underlying legislation, S.1200, does not fix the underlying problems with tribal healthcare. It does not fix rationing. It does not fix waiting lines. It does not fix the inferior quality that is being applied to a lot of Native Americans and Alaskans in this country. It does not fix any of those problems. In fact, it authorizes more services without making sure the money is there to follow it.
Those who say a failure to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a violation of our trust obligations are correct. However, I believe simply reauthorizing this system with minor modifications is an even greater violation of that commitment.
OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. DORGAN: It is not more money necessarily that is only going to solve the problem. But I guarantee you that less money will not solve the problem. If you add another program for other Indians who can go somewhere else and be able to present a card, they have now taken money out of the system and purchased their own insurance--then those who live on the reservation with the current Indian Health Service clinic there has less money. How does that work to help the folks who are stranded with no competition?
LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 28-67
Proponents support voting YES because:
Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]:
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Rep. DEAL: This bill [fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed:
Veto message from President Bush:
Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation.
The American Public Health Association (APHA) is the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health. APHA is concerned with a broad set of issues affecting personal and environmental health, including federal and state funding for health programs, pollution control, programs and policies related to chronic and infectious diseases, a smoke-free society, and professional education in public health.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Conquer Childhood Cancer Act of 2007 - A bill to advance medical research and treatments into pediatric cancers, ensure patients and families have access to the current treatments and information regarding pediatric cancers, establish a population-based national childhood cancer database, and promote public awareness of pediatric cancers.
A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the treatment of autism under TRICARE. Revises TRICARE (a Department of Defense [DOD] managed health care program) to authorize treatment of autism spectrum disorders, if a health care professional determines that such treatment is medically necessary.


text:
Create a Website Account - Manage notification subscriptions, save form progress and more.
All applications are kept on file for six months from the date of the last update.
Show All Answers
Job postings can be found on the Human Resource Page, Self Service Portal of the Town Website.
Due to the volume of applications we receive, applications are accepted only for posted positions.
Although we accept resumes, applicants are required to complete the Town of Fort Mill employment application for open positions. It is important that the application be completed in its entirety.
No. If you use the portal you can apply for more than one position at the same time. If submitting a paper application, you can indicate on the application which positions you are applying for.
Applicants will be contacted by the Hiring Supervisor if they are selected for an interview.
If you are selected for a position, you will be contacted by the Hiring Supervisor or Human Resources. Regretfully, due to the volume of applicants, we are unable to contact every applicant that applies for every position, however, if you are a candidate that was interviewed, you will be contacted when the position if filled.
Positions are listed on the Self-Service Portal. You can apply using that tool or you can call and request a paper application to be mailed to you.


text:
- Home
- Departments
- Fire
- Community Services
- Fire Investigations
Fire Investigations
Fire Investigations
Our team of State certified fire investigators help to identify the cause and origin of fires should they occur. The investigators continually train to ensure the forensics of the fire is analyzed for origin and cause and to scientifically apply standards to validate fire cause. Fortunately we don't need that service frequently but when necessary they can take law enforcement action as appropriate to the fire incident.
After the Fire – Post Recovery Guide
Fire Investigation Process
The process of fire investigation is time consuming and requires skills that recognize fire behavior, burn patterns, scientific analysis, fire modeling and forensic evaluations.
- The scene or overall site
- Witness statements
- Firefighter observations
- Photographing the scene
- Securing the scene
- Identifying the origin
- Evaluating cause within the origin area
- Collecting evidence or evaluating forensically the equipment involved
- Interviews
- Criminal Prosecution as necessary
Prevention After the Fire
As part of the evaluation process, a review of the cause allows investigators to recommend ways to avoid similar fires in the future. This could include policy adjustments, inspection focus or changes to the fire code requirements that would be recommended to the City Council.
Request a Fire Report
If you are the property owner or occupant you may request a fire incident report by coming to 1007 Ira E. Woods Ave., Public Safety Building and request a copy of the report.
All other requests for reports or information are processed through the Open Records Act through the City Secretary's office at Grapevine City Hall.


text:
I knew as soon as the Man in Seat 61 (c) got on at Colchester that it was a Sign.
I have been away for a week, he told his fellow commuter, and no more was said between them. It's the influenza season, where public places are a maelstrom of invisible bugs and viruses, waiting to wreak their pesky havoc on the lumbering forms who haven't stepped up their immune systems with echinacea and oranges.
Three days later I found myself in bed unable to get back on the train to London, or even to go outside, and now, dear reader, still horizontal and faced with the awesome prospect of having to write about Strategic Thinking, I fear I am not up to the task. So please bear with me. I will write this introduction to the Building section as soon as I can.
You may be wondering why I have a photograph of Mark Bee, leader of Suffolk County Council (with various members of Sustainable Bungay peering quizzically at him) here and why I am including a trailer for the new documentary, Chasing Ice. But it will make sense. I promise you, by Thursday at the latest.
Some people say the world is coming to an end on Friday. Well maybe not literally, but some tear in the fabric that brings about a collapse in our civilisation. However it plays out it is the end of a long, long cycle of time, mapped out by a people whose own high city culture tumbled into ruin in the forests of the Yucatan.
Sometimes I feel ancient, as though I have seen it all before, and sometimes I feel like a being from the future, starting again with an entirely new bluepint. Sometimes, when I listen to people talk, I think we have learned nothing, in spite of all the books and buildings and all our thinking. But that, as they say, is another story . . . .
Images: Mark Bee and Sustainable Bungay by James Hargrave (the only geek in the village)
part two: perseverance furthers
Transition groups aim ultimately to catalyse the localisation of their local economy. They strive to move from running small community projects to thinking and acting much bigger. New skills and ways of thinking will lead Transition initiatives to become social enterprises, such as becoming developers, banks, energy companies and so on. (Intro to the Building Section of The Transition Companion)
The main purpose of this Ingredient is to glean knowledge about a local region and what it would take to relocalise the supply systems – the food economy, for example, or energy or transport. It requires undertaking research and amassing data that most initiatives would not know how to access, or why. One of the example Rob Hopkins uses to illustrate what is meant by Strategic Thinking is the Norwich Resilient Food Plan.
Which is why here I am almost at the end of 2012, looking back at a cold day in January in the Baptist church on Boltolph Steet, four years ago where 17 of us – a farmer, a miller, several bakers, wholefood shopkeepers, the TN Oats, Beans and Bread group, Professor Martin Wolfe of the Organic Research Institute (researching wheat that can thrive in eco-systems undergoing climate change) and Andrew Whitley of The Village Bakery and author of Bread Matters – are meeting to discuss Resilient Bread. It's a project aiming to create a sustainable supply of bread for Norwich, using locally milled flour from English wheat, grown on Norfolk farms. One of the components of the Plan that also includes a CSA and a market garden in a local school.
The ingredients for real bread are simple – flour, water, salt, yeast. Bringing a resilient local loaf into Norwich is more complex. The mega-distribution system of the big three industrial bakeries have trucks perpetually on the road travelling 200 miles transporting ready-sliced to the city's 122,000 inhabitants daily. They are roaring across East Anglia from Stevenage, London and Enfield. To feed Norwich sustainably would require 30 tonnes of wheat and several local mills. On the agenda that day in January were questions about the supply chain: quantity of flour, storage and transportation of grain, the price of a loaf, the feasibility of setting up and maintaining an electric mill in the city, the packaging and marketing of the loaves.
East Anglia has arable land for growing the wheat but few working mills. The first challenge for the project is to find a mill in the city to grind the corn. The nearest wind or water mills are 25-30 miles away. The other is the quality of the wheat. The gluten content of bread is a key consideration in baking. Wheat has a very high gluten content (between 12-15 per cent) which gives the dough its extraordinary elasticity and ability to be moulded into the hundreds of shapes in which we have historically consumed it. Artisan bakers in England have been using commercial Canadian flour for decades because its exceptionally high gluten levels makes the light and fluffy white loaf we have got used to. The lower gluten content of our native wheat is compensated for by the industrialised "Chorleywood process".
"No one is going to buy a bad bloomer", said one the bakers rather gloomily; "You could call it ciabatta," another quipped, and there was a long discussion as to how we were going to get over the fact that life was unpredictable and that white and fluffy was not the future. It felt it was going to take some time for all of us to get used to the idea.
Tully Wakeman (the architect of that plan, then a director of East Anglian Food Link) asked me to write up that meeting and it was the first record I made within the initiative. It kickstarted the kind of reporting I have been doing in Transition ever since. This tiny pic of me going to a neighbourhood bread baking workshop in Yoxford a month later – by a fellow participant on her phone – was the moment where I realised the potential for writing "citizen journalism", small on the ground stories that could grab people's attention about change.
What happened to the plan? you might ask. Well, Tully left Transition Norwich before the CSA (Norwich FarmShare) reaped its first harvest. A small and handsome electric mill did get bought, but the resilient loaf of Norwich did not get baked (well not commercially anyhow). Great British Beans however, which came out of the same staples project, are launching themselves on to the market in January. The bread we buy at Southwold Market is made with flour grown by the farmer at the original meeting. I look at the fields outside my door and recognise peas, oats, barley, potatoes, where once they were just green or brown.
The Building section is about stepping up the enterprise. As a comms person this has meant moving from being a personal blogger in my local initiative, to running a national newspaper (Transition Free Press) as a social enterprise. That's a big undertaking that involves thinking about a crew, discussing pieces with people all around the UK and the world, advertising, social media, crowd-funding. It involves risk and 12 hour shifts. Sometimes I look back fondly at the days when I could just write about what was happening on my neighbourhood, stepping out into the frosty lane with my camera, learning how to bake bread. There was a beauty and a lightness to do with those days. But Building is a bigger move. You can't do Transition for real, and stay where you feel small and cosy.
In fact you can't do anything and stay small. If we had stayed small in Bungay there would be no library. The reason we are looking quizzically at Mr Bee, is because we know that in spite of all his words about Bungay Community Library celebrating its 20th Birthday, Suffolk Country Council were famous for zealously wanting to close down libraries down. Only some people from the communities in North Suffolk got together and forced them back. What you don't know about this picture at the top is that Sylvia (just out of shot) and James Hargrave (who took the picture) and several others put hundreds of hours of unpaid work into keeping it open. And still do.
So I'm guessing you are wondering what an earth any of this has got to do a documentary about glaciers. There is one word: perseverance. None of these enterprises works without a big desire or sense of destiny. You can't photograph the movement of glaciers, without going to extremes places and suffering. You can't save a library, start a collective blog, or run a community bakery, without the kinds of people who are prepared to put themselves on the line against all odds. Norwich FarmShare would not have happened without Tully who pursued a funding application over two years. It wouldn't have worked either, if it had just stayed as a Plan and other Transitioners hadn't stepped on board to manifest it. So no matter how brilliantly you understand the ingredient of Strategic Thinking, with its data and analysis, maps and bigger picture thinking. it's the people who will make the blueprints work, who translate them into physical reality.
We live in a culture where we think to have an idea is enough and that anyone can do it. If you can bake bread you can start a bakery, right? This section is where those ideas fall down hard. To relocalise a food supply doesn't happen by growing vegetables in an allotment, you have to look at the staples and where they grow. Transition teaches us that to really succeed we have to know a lot, put in a lot of unpaid hours, and keep going, for reasons only we know. And most of all have the kind of people on board who know what they are doing. That's not strategy. That's something more like luck.
Thank your lucky stars when you find them. . . .
Local bread in Breakfast with Friends by Mark Watson; Steve Winter of Dozen Bakery, Norwich by Jane Chittenden (Transition Norwich blog)


text:
Workshop Facilitators
David Bressoud is Professor of Mathematics, President of the Mathematical Association of America, and former Director of the Quantitative Thinking program at Macalester College.
Caren Diefenderfer is Professor of Mathematics at Hollins University. Following on her past grant work at Hollins, she is currently co-PI on the NSF-funded "Quantitative Reasoning in the Contemporary World" project. She is on the board of the National Numeracy Network in addition to serving on the Quantitative Literacy subcommittee of the Mathematical Association of America.
Stephanie Fitchett is on the faculty in the School of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Northern Colorado. She has recently returned to the University from the National Science Foundation, where she was a Program Director in the Division of Undergraduate Education, which has provided considerable support for quantitative literacy efforts.
Eric Gaze is Director of the Quantitative Reasoning Program at Bowdoin College. He is the chair-elect of the Mathematical Association of America's Special Interest group in Quantitative Reasoning (SIGMAA-QL), and serves on the board of directors of the National Numeracy Network.
Nathan Grawe is Professor of Economics and Director of the Quantitative Inquiry, Reasoning, and Knowledge (QuIRK) initiative at Carleton College. The QuIRK initiative has developed a rubric for assessing quantitative reasoning (QR) in student written work.
Rebecca Hartzler is the Director of Grants at Edmonds Community College. She is co-PI on the NSF-funded Mathematics Across the Community College Curriculum project and has written and received numerous other QR-related grants.
Neil Lutsky is Professor of Psychology at Carleton College. He was the first Director of Carleton's QuIRK initiative. In that role, he led the development of QuIRK's writing-based assessment rubric and program of professional development. Lutsky currently serves on the Board of the National Numeracy Network.
Bernie Madison is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Arkansas. He is also Emeritus President of the National Numeracy Network. He his the PI of Quantitative Reasoning in the Contemporary World, that, among other things, produced a volume of case studies that support QR instruction.
Cathy Manduca is Director of the Science Education Resource Center (SERC) at Carleton College. SERC supports improvements in science education by organizing workshops and developing web-resources that link teaching resources, pedagogy and discussion.
Suzanne Mente is Assistant Director of Instructional Services and Coordinator of Quantitative Literacy at Alverno College. The Alverno program infuses QR throughout the curriculum and has developed means of assessing it at the college, course and student levels.
Carol Rutz is Director of the Writing Program at Carleton College. She has worked extensively with the College's QuIRK initiative to evaluate quantitative reasoning in student writing.
Milo Schield is Professor of Business Administration at Augsburg College and Director of the W.M. Keck Statistical Literacy Project. He developed and teaches a Statistical Literacy course that helps students read and interpret summary statistics in the everyday media. Schield serves as Vice-President of the National Numeracy Network. He is the Webmaster of www.StatLit.org; he spotlights statistical illiteracy at www.StatLitBlog.org.
Donna L. Sundre is Professor of Graduate Psychology and Executive Director of the Center for Assessment and Research Studies at James Madison University. At the Center, Sundre is PI on an NSF-funded project designed to advance assessment of Scientific and Quantitative Reasoning. Goals of the project are to identify new assessment models and barriers to assessment progress, and to assess the generalizability of the Quantitative Reasoning Test (QR) and the Scientific Reasoning Test (SR) to four partner institutions with diverse missions and serving underrepresented student populations. The QR and SR instruments were developed at James Madison to assess collegiate general education learning outcomes.
Christopher Tassava is Associate Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations at Carleton College. He has worked intimately with the College's QuIRK initiative, helping to secure grants from the US Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and the W.M. Keck Foundation.
Corri Taylor is Professor of Economics and Director of the Quantitative Reasoning Program at Wellesley College. She currently serves as President of the National Numeracy Network.
Len Vacher is Professor of Geology at the University of South Florida. He also is Emeritus Director of the National Numeracy Network and currently serves as co-editor of its journal, Numeracy. Vacher has also spearheaded an effort to teach QR through the use of Spreadsheets Across the Curriculum.


text:
Crocked Ham, Slow Style
A busy week means consolidating some of the cooking time as well as simplifying mealtime planning.
Sliced ham with veggies tonight.
Ham and cheese grilled sammies later,
southern ham and potato frittata for the weekend...
yup that's three meals down and still a lot of left overs.
Crocked Ham
1/2 cup of brown sugar
with enough bourbon to moisten
Stir in:
1 teaspoon coarse grain mustard
1 tablespoon prepared horseradish, pressed dry
and rub all over a 3 to 4 pound ham.
Place in a slow cooker and cook on high for an hour. Add a can of cola and cook on low for 6 hours.
Remove if desired and glaze with drippings in a hot oven for about 20 minutes to caramelize the outer layer.
Nothing could be any easier. Well, maybe ham biscuits the next morning for a quick git-up-and-go...


text:
Munch Organic VEGAN Food wraps - twin pack small
Tax included.
Organic VEGAN and Fair Trade ethical wraps. Fabric designs unique to Munch.
REUSABLE FOOD WRAP Great alternative to plastic wrap.
REUSABLE FOOD WRAP Great alternative to plastic wrap.
KEEPS FOOD FRESHER Due to the natural ingredients the VEGAN food wraps keep food fresher.
ALL NATURAL Every ingredient that touches your food is natural.
MANY USES Wrap food for the fridge, lunchboxes, picnics, tramping and more.
ETHICALLY MADE by mothers in our community who find it difficult to obtain work. We use the traditional Outwork Model to enable these women to provide for their families and empower them.A great alternative to plastic cling wrap. And so much better for the environment as it biodegrades. Made from organic cotton, candelilla wax, manuka oil and jojoba oil. A great way to wrap half cut fruit and vegetables and other bits. Or use as reusable sandwich wraps. Lasts up to 6-12 months - just wash with warm soapy water. Two in a pack: small 21 cm x 21 cm.
If edges fray, just trim them off. These wraps can also easily be cut down to your preferred size.Please recycle : Our Munch food wraps are biodegradable in your compost.
Ethically made in New Zealand.