text:
It's been an age since I've blogged but life always gets in the way and media moves on. I'm far more active on Instagram than I am here or on Flickr these days. You can find me there (and on Twitter) as @curly_boy1
And that's why I'm here today! I'm setting up a mini quilt swap via Instagram, but I still needed someplace to have all of the basic info in one place. So, here it goes:
First off, this will be the first swap I've ever set up. I've been involved with them but only as a swapper. Because of this I ask you all to be gentle, I'm sure there will be hiccups along the way. I want this to be an International swap so you must be prepared to stump up the postage cost. You may not need to depending on how the praticipants pair up but you should certainly be willing to. I really have no idea what the interest in this swap is likely to be. For that reason I'm initially limiting it to 100 people (well, 99 including me). If there is substantially more interested then I may try and recruit some help in order to accommodate everyone, or I'll just run with the hundred. Mostly I want this swap to be fun for everyone! One path to this is to not get burdened down with rules so I have only 10:
The Rules-
- You must be on Instagram. The tag for the swap is #IGminiswap
- You MUST fill out the registration form on Google Docs to enter. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ZjU-A-5Lw9hLKrkk9cWE9xaR_ZhEiSDLTHtoENlXSaM
- Quilts must be no larger than 24" in any dimension, and no smaller than 18" in any dimension. Quilts must be quilted, bound, and labelled.
- Please use nice quality, modern, 100% cotton fabrics to the tastes of your partner.
- This is a blind 3-way swap. Your partner will know who you are and make for you but you won't know who they are until it arrives. You will make for someone else.
- You will be supplied with enough info to stalk your partner and find out what they like.
- Deadline for joining is the 1st of September or 100 people, whichever comes first.
- Mailing deadline will be the 1st of December for International and the 8th for Local. Let's get the quilts home in time for Christmas!
- PLEASE do not sign up if you are going to blob!! I will hunt you down. If you DO sign up and unforeseen circumstances happen, please get in touch with me sooner rather than later.
Hope you join up, I'm looking forward to swapping with you!
**** Edit ****
The swap is filling up fast with 40 slots of 100 filled in just two hours! Thanks so much everyone. As soon as 100 is reached I'll start matching partners so every one will get a few extra weeks of stalking, planning, and sewing time!
**** Edit ****
The swap has filled so fast, 100 in just 3 hours, I've called in some help and am raising the limit to 200! Thanks all of you for showing such interest!
**** Edit ****
Holy cow! Due to so many more people wanting to sign up past 200 I've enlisted the help of a bunch of other folks to help so I have now reopened the swap to sign ups!
**** Edit ****
Sign ups are now closing at 3pm UK time on Thursday the 21st. Spread the word!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Isaiah 39
1At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and had recovered. 2And Hezekiah was glad of them, and showed them the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasuries: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah did not show them. ▼▼precious things: or, spicery
▼▼armour: or, jewels: Heb. vessels, or, instruments
3Then came Isaiah the prophet to king Hezekiah, and said to him, What said these men? and from where came they to thee? And Hezekiah said, They have come to me, from a far country, even from Babylon. 4Then said he, What have they seen in thy house? And Hezekiah answered, All that is in my house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them. 5Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: 6Behold, the days come, that all that is in thy house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD. 7And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon. 8Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah, Good is the word of the LORD which thou hast spoken. He said moreover, For there shall be peace and truth in my days.
Copyright information for


text:
[nggallery id=825]
First thing that the world needs to know. When it comes to strictly looks.
Anna Kournikova >>>>>>>> Maria Sharapova
Now, that we have gotten that out of the way, until the end of time Anna will be HIGH on the Kobestyle list. If Anna was in London, Kobe would have probably missed two of Team USA games.


text:
COLUMBIA, Mo. – True armyworms are on the march this spring, and farmers need to be checking fields to make sure their crops aren't among the casualties.
Related radio news story by Debbie Johnson. For downloadable broadcast-quality audio, contact Johnson at 573-882-9183.
"They often can take out an entire pasture of fescue or other grasses because numbers get so high, and also cut the heads off of wheat and feed on corn," said Wayne Bailey, University of Missouri Extension state entomologist. "We know Arkansas is having a big problem with this insect in their grass pastures, and we think that problem is now spilling over into the lower three or four tiers of Missouri counties."
Armyworm moths typically fly into Missouri from Mexico and southern states in spring. Each moth lays up to 1,300 eggs, and when the worms hatch they start feeding on crops.
This year, insects emerged early in southern climates and then migrated north ahead of schedule, thanks to unusually warm weather.
"Typically we see this problem about June 1, but reports have already started coming in from regional specialists and farmers about worms on numerous grass pastures and a few wheat fields," Bailey said.
Fields might look fine, but armyworms work on plants from the bottom up. Once they chew through lower leaves they move up the grass stems. By the time damage is visible from a distance, it's often too late.
If left unchecked, armyworms can decimate crops in just a few days.
"For example, if armyworms start cutting heads in wheat, they can take off 2-3 percent of heads the first day, 50 percent the second day and finish a crop off the third day if populations are elevated," Bailey said. "Unlike a grasshopper that chops up the leaves as it goes, the true armyworm will chew off a layer of cells, come back and take another small portion, working all the way around the wound. It's a very smooth type of hole you might see in the plant, usually coming in from the outer edge of a plant."
True armyworms got their name because they can move in a mass, marching in lines from one destroyed field to their next feeding ground. While there are two or three generations of the insect each year, the first one causes most damage to field and forage crops. They are called true armyworms to differentiate them from fall armyworms, which show up toward the middle of the growing season.
When small, the worms tend to be green, but as they grow they typically turn a tan color, with tan stripes and one orange stripe down their sides. These worms have four sets of prolegs in the midsection and one set on the back end characterized by a black triangle at the feet.
To scout, farmers need to look near the ground in pastures and fields.
"You really have to scout in late afternoon or early morning or on cloudy days. You have to get down and look through the leaf litter on the ground and at the lower leaves of the plant," Bailey said. "You are looking for areas that have been eaten with very smooth edges, and for larvae."
The economic threshold at which it becomes profitable to spray insecticides depends on the number of worms. If there are more than four half-grown worms per square foot in grass pastures or wheat fields, farmers should consider spraying.
"There's no substitute for good scouting in field and forage crops," Bailey said. "Corn and wheat can be treated with several classes of insecticides, but on fescue and other grasses the options are limited to Sevin, Malathion, Mustang Max, Warrior II, plus two biological insecticides."
Pre-harvest intervals—the time between spraying and grazing or haying—range from zero to 14 days, depending on the insecticide.
Read more about true armyworm and treatment in the MU Integrated Pest and Crop Management newsletter at ipm.missouri.edu/IPCM/index.cfm?ID=293 or in the MU Extension guide at www.extension.missouri.edu/G7115.
Read more http://extension.missouri.edu/news/DisplayStory.aspx?N=1400


text: You can also use SCMS from www.opensce.org. It has GUI frontend to see all node statistics and command line to grab the statistics in text-based. You can also add new type of statistics by compiled it in .so format. Hope this might help. > I am currently running a 118 processor cluster, with bigbrother and larrd to monitor >system status and gather performance and utilization data on a node by node basis. > However, my management is now requesting aggregate statistics, and a > web page showing load, etc, across the entire cluster. >Has anybody hacked something like this themselves? I would rather stick close to >bigbrother and larrd, just to simplify implementation, but I have been playing with >SGI's open source release of PCP, and I am not adverse to switching to another >(free) solution if it can simplify the process.


text:
I hope to change a few things in part through a statement offering clarity. We'll call it "the strategic engagement of the hands".
According to an article in the New York Times, teaching Algebra is a dumb thing to do because it is too difficult for too many kids. Is Algebra Necessary? It might be that more kids would do better at Algebra in the first place if it were made hands-on. In fact research has shown that students have a profound level of improvement if they are taught to gesture in their understanding of algebraic functions. Thanks, John for the link. It seems that there are those who would choose to make education less demanding, whereas it could be made even more demanding if we were to first make it relevant to what children would like to accomplish. The following comment was posted to CNN in a discussion of this matter.
Liz: As much as I disliked math most of my youth it is a necessary subject. The biggest problem is teachers just teach right out of a book without actually understanding themselves in many cases the actual applications where the subject is relevant. Combining real world uses with the math the students learn is far more beneficial then doing away with the subject. I know when I changed colleges and the math classes were taught in a way that was relevant to my career path as a computer programmer it actually started to click. Schools traditionally just teach it out of a book with some crap word problems about trains. In this day and age they need to get more visual and more indepth to how important the math is. July 31, 2012 at 10:44 pmLiz makes sense to me, but what she says is common sense and unlikely to be taken seriously inAmerican education.
Richard Bazeley, shop teacher from down under, has been showing me his stuff in cutting mitered parts for small boxes using a miter box. I'm away from home at the moment, but will show a more complete series of photos when I retun to Arkansas.
Make, fix and create...


text:
Hiroki Kuroda has quietly been the Yankees most reliable starting pitcher this season. He had a rough stretch early on and their was talk that the adjustment to the American League East was too much. But that hasn't been the case overall and Kuroda had another strong start today, just when the team needed it, as he shut out the White Sox for seven innings. He struck out eleven batters–tying a career high–despite not having his best split finger fastball. The Sox only managed three singles against Kuroda.
Solo homers from the lefties Curtis Granderson, Robinson Cano and Dwayne Wise (who added an RBI double) was enough against Jake Peavey who pitched a pretty good game minus those mistakes.
On a unpleasantly warm day in the Bronx, Kuroda and the Yanks cooled off Chicago, and for that we are grateful.
Final Score: Yanks 4, White Sox 0.
[Photo Credit: Thomas Hoepker/MAGNUM PHOTOS]


text:
Boston, Massachusetts – EditShare(R), the technology leader in shared media storage and end-to-end tapeless workflow solutions, announced today Mac OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) compatibility for all EditShare shared storage, Flow media asset management and Ark archiving and backup products.
EditShare customers using Mavericks with Avid Media Composer 7.0.3 and 184.108.40.206, Final Cut Pro X 10.1, and Pro Tools 11.1 can connect to EditShare shared storage systems via Thursby's DAVE 11 SMB client, or via AFP for optimal performance. Avid Media Composer 7.0.3 editors who connect to EditShare shared storage via AFP and 10GB Ethernet will see marked performance improvements even when editing multiple streams of 10-bit uncompressed HD.
About the EditShare Tapeless Workflow:
EditShare seamlessly integrates high-performance shared storage solutions (XStream, Energy and Field) with video ingest (Geevs and Flow), media asset management (Flow), and archive and backup (Ark) tools to offer broadcast and post-production professionals a productivity-enhancing, tapeless workflow on a highly scalable infrastructure.
Designed to maximize collaboration and media sharing, EditShare solutions integrate with industry-standard third-party systems such as NLE and graphics, applications, sports production equipment, and MOS-compliant newsroom computer systems
About the EditShare XStream Integrated Platform:
EditShare XStream is the high-performance collaborative storage solution of choice for production companies, post facilities, news operations and schools that need powerful media and project sharing plus scalability. EditShare XStream systems can start out as small as one Workflow Director with 16 drives. Then, as a facility's needs grow, up to four storage expansion units can be added for a total of 80 drives or up to 320TB. Growing an XStream Workflow Director is achieved via PCI-e expansion, which means each set of 16 drives is powered by its own RAID controller, resulting in the fastest, lowest-latency storage. Thanks to EditShare's Extreme Scalable Architecture (ESA), you can also put multiple EditShare shared storage servers onto a network where they work together as a single massive storage environment. With XStream, a facility can scale both "up" and "out" – into the petabytes.
Equipped with superior collaboration features, EditShare XStream allows Avid, Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Lightworks Pro and other editors to safely share both media and projects for the ultimate in efficient post-production. In addition, XStream includes EditShare's powerful Flow asset management and Ark backup and archiving software, turning the shared storage system into a complete end-to-end tapeless workflow solution.
About EditShare Flow Asset Management:
EditShare Flow provides powerful asset management. Flow users can browse the database and view proxy file content on their desktops as well as ingest media from file-based sources such as P2 and XDCAM. Simple editing tools and metadata templates let users add details to clips, make rough cuts, and drag and drop clips and sequences into their NLEs – without requiring access to full-resolution media.
The Flow product family includes:
* Flow Browse: provides advanced search functionality for media in local or shared storage as well as tools for managing your ingest process
* AirFlow: organize media files and permissions from a web browser anywhere on the Internet
* Flow Automation: reduce time spent on repetitive tasks by creating customized workflow templates and a range of other automated processes
* Flow Logger: provides an intuitive interface for stress-free logging
* Flow SDI and File Ingest: capture in a massive range of supported video codecs and frame rates with advanced features such as the ability to capture metadata on ingest
EditShare XStream includes 10 Flow Browse licenses and two Flow File Ingest licenses.
About EditShare Ark Backup and Archiving:
Fully integrated with EditShare XStream and Flow, EditShare Ark offers facilities a tiered storage infrastructure for backup and archive:
* Ark Tape provides an integrated solution for easy, energy-efficient backup and archiving of media and projects from EditShare shared storage systems. Designed for use with qualified LTO tape libraries, Ark Tape facilitates creation of any number of "Tape Pools" (groups of tapes). For example, one for your entire organization, one for each customer or project, or separate pools for on-site and off-site. Easily copy or migrate media and related files from "online" to "offline" storage, verify backed up data, and receive notifications when transfers are completed.
* Ark Disk is built on top of hard disks that are spinning all the time – offering the advantage of high-speed performance for backup, archiving and restoration tasks. With Ark Disk, your nearline media is always just seconds away.
Ark Tape and Ark Disk are managed by the same intuitive user interface, providing the ability to easily mix Ark Tape and Ark Disk systems in the same facility. When any Ark product is combined with Flow Browse, you gain the ability to view proxy files of all archived clips and restore individual clips from the archive using the familiar Flow Browse interface. EditShare XStream includes an Ark Tape license for management of 50 LTO tapes.
EditShare XStream
EditShare Flow
EditShare Ark
Media Assets
EditShare is the technology pioneer in networked shared storage and tapeless, end-to-end workflow solutions for the post-production, TV, and film industries. EditShare's ground-breaking products improve efficiency and workflow collaboration every step of the way. They include video capture and playout servers, high-performance central shared storage, archiving and backup software, media asset management, and Lightworks – the world's first three-platform (Windows/OS X/Linux) professional non-linear video editing application. (C) 2014 EditShare LLC. All rights reserved. EditShare(R) is a registered trademark of EditShare LLC. All other trademarks mentioned herein belong to their respective owners.


text:
10 Hotels in Borno with Restaurant(s)
Select & book from 10 Hotels near Borno with Restaurant(s)
Book a great hotel in Borno. with Restaurant(s) . Hotels.ng has luxury hotels, cheap hotels, lodges, airbnbs in Borno, short-let apartments and more with Restaurant(s) . All at the best rates that are only available online!
Only show hotels in area
MaiduguriOnly show
Receive email when prices drop in Borno
About Borno
Borno is a north-eastern Nigerian State with an estimated population of about 5 million people. Its Capital city is Maiduguri and the predominant tribe is Kanuri. It shares a border with Chad.
Whether you're looking to book a luxury hotel or an affordable hotel in Borno, Hotels.ng can secure rooms for you at any location in the State ahead of your visit. You will have the opportunity to either pay ahead or pay when you arrive at the hotel.
Be sure to check through the list to compare hotel prices in Borno so you can take advantage of special discounts and other offers available when you book through Hotels.ng.
Frequently asked questions about Borno
Ask a question
Typically responds within 24 hours
Do you need to know anything about Borno ?
Be the first to ask a question
Interesting places to visit in Nigeria
Find the best price on hotels to our most popular destinations across Nigeria.
- Lagos hotels
- Abuja hotels
- Port Harcourt hotels
- Imo hotels
- Calabar hotels
- Akwa Ibom hotels
- Niger hotels


text:
Carl Icahn has acquired a larger stake in Dell and called for a better buy-out offer than the proposal of US$13.65 per share from Michael Dell and Silver Lake Partners.
Icahn has proposed that Dell commence a tender offer for around 1.1 billion shares at $14 per share, with a maximum value of $16 billion.
"Our proposal allows those who believe, like us, that the $13.65 price being offered in the Michael Dell/Silver Lake going private transaction significantly undervalues Dell, to continue to hold Dell shares," wrote Icahn in an open letter to Dell.
Dell announced in February that Michael Dell and investment firm Silver Lake had offered $24.4 billion, or $13.65 per share, to buy out the company. Icahn, along with Southeastern Asset Management, made several counter-offers, with the most recent involving a pay-out of $12 a share in cash or stock to shareholders, and $5.2 billion in debt financing. Dell's board of directors has recommended shareholders vote for the Michael Dell-Silver Lake offer.
Dell's board has raised concerns about Icahn's ability to raise $5.2 billion in debt financing. But Icahn took shots at the company in the letter, saying that with such comments Dell is undervaluing itself.
"We are amazed by these statements by the Dell board. In what other context would the person tasked with selling a product actually spend their efforts negatively positioning the very product they are trying to sell? Is that how the supposed "go-shop" was conducted? Can you imagine a real estate broker running advertisements warning of termite danger in a house each time a prospective buyer seems interested?"
Icahn also said that he had acquired 72 million Dell shares from Southeastern, adding to the approximately 72 million shares he already owns. Combined, Icahn and Southeastern own 13 percent of Dell.


text:
FMI releases Q1-2013 Construction Outlook
Nonresidental construction has picked up considerably for lodging, office, and commercial construction, but the industry as a whole remains in a wait-and-see pattern due to the shaky U.S. economy.
FMI's Q1-2013 Construction Outlook reports that while the strength of individual markets is shifting, the forecast for total construction-put-in-place for 2013 continues to show an increase of 8% over 2012 levels with a $918.897 million estimate. FMI is not expecting a return to the trillion-dollar mark until 2015.
While much of the business sector is still in wait-and-see mode, some industries are planning for growth. Commercial, lodging and office construction are starting to pick up.
The rich shale regions of the country are seeing a lot of construction activity. With oil and gas exploration booming, these regions are in need of housing, as well as the construction of roads, rail and pipelines to move the product from the fields to refining and distribution sites.
In addition, the potential for greater energy independence and lower energy prices is helping make the U.S. more competitive in the global market and enticing more manufacturing to relocate in the U.S.
Nonresidential Construction Trends and Forecasts by Sector:
Lodging — After three years of steep declines, the market for lodging construction came back a strong 25% in 2012 and FMI expects another 10% growth in construction put in place for 2013.
Office — Office construction is finally showing a solid but slow turnaround with 5% growth in 2012 and another 5% increase expected in 2013.
Commercial — Commercial construction is the third largest nonresidential construction market behind education construction and manufacturing construction. That is why it is good to see that it continues into its third year of good growth, moving up 8% in 2012 and looking for another 7% to reach $50.3 billion in 2013.
Health care — Health care construction was moderate in 2012, growing only 3%, but FMI expects it to pick up in 2013 to 8% to $44.2 billion construction put in place for the year.
Manufacturing — Manufacturing construction increased 17% in 2012. It will continue with another 6% increase for 2013 through 2014.
Power-related — Construction for the power market grew 9% in 2012 and will continue to grow between 8% and 9% through 2017.
Click here for the full FMI report.
Do you have experience and expertise with the topics mentioned in this content? You should consider contributing to our CFE Media editorial team and getting the recognition you and your company deserve. Click here to start this process.


text: It drove you bonkers in the arcades. Now this mixed-up marble marathon is ready for your home computer! The challenge is to roll your marble to the hidden Goal Line on multiple treacherous 3-D raceways. Every corner's a cliffhanger. And every second counts! Each raceway is a unique maze of tricky terrain and marble menaces. Can you stay in control as you hunt for the goal? You'll teeter up, down and around narrow ramps and ridges. Sneak past hungry Marble Munchers. Battle nasty Steelies for the right of way. It's enough to make you lose your marbles! You'll be right on the edge to the very last edge!


text:
Welcome to the first Buy Break Build at hackaday, sponsored by Adafruit Industries and Make. This challenge will be focusing on dancing Santas, or what is inside them. We've seen them everywhere, and may even have one or two in an attic somewhere. These annoying little guys should have enough bits and pieces inside to build some pretty interesting stuff. This time, we want to see a multi-legged walking device. We don't care if it has 2 legs, 7 legs, or 32 legs, as long as it "walks" using its legs.
Join us after the break for the rules, the prize breakdown, and to find out who the guest judge will be!
The challenge:
Acquire a dancing Santa. We don't care which one it is, how much you spend, how big it is etc. We know there are tons of models out there ranging from dancing Christmas [Homer Simpson] to giant life sized Santa. It might be a good idea to do some patent searches first to figure out what is inside. Here's an example of what you can find (pdf).
Tear the Santa apart and use the pieces to build a multi legged walking thing. There are tons of ways to pull this off. Try to use only the pieces that came from the Santa. You may add tape/glue and solder (as well as batteries). We realize that you may absolutely have to add some stuff to get your plan working. Please document exactly what you added as this will be one of the judging points.
Photograph and document the entire process and submit it to us by November 30th.
Your entries will be judged by the Hackaday staff, as well as our guest judge [Phillip Torrone]. For those who are unfamiliar, [Phillip] was the founder of Hackaday. Judging will be based on the final result, the presentation, how many external parts were used, and how well it is documented.
There will be three winners chosen, each with their own strong point.
The best result: This project will walk somewhat efficiently using the least amount of external parts. We're going for function over form on this one.
The best presentation: Your walking machine will look fantastic. Your cuts are smooth, your motion is fluid, your photos are delightful… maybe it doesn't work that well, but it looks great.
The most overkill: So you decided to put a 6hp Briggs and Stratton engine in there instead of following the rules and you managed to make it actually work. What's that? You also programmed it to retrieve frosty beverages? Sweet! We'll give you an award for that.
The prizes for the Santa-pede challenge have been supplied by Adafruit Industries and are as follows.
Best Result: The Mintyboost. The Mintyboost is a battery charger for your mobile devices. Just plop 2 AA batteries into the nifty altoids tin case and you're ready to start charging.
Best Presentation: The Drawdio. A peculiar instrument that makes noise based on the motion of the writing utensil you've attached it to.
Most Overkill: The Brain Machine. A set of glasses that flashes pulses of light into your eyes. The claim is that it can put you into a meditative state by synchronizing your brainwaves. We just think they look cool.
We will also be choosing one out of the above three to win a box set of the first year of Make Magazine courtesy of the makershed.com . This decision will be based on a whim mostly, but will probably go to the person who does the best in more than one category.
FAQ: –this will be updated as people as questions. It's our first, so there will be a few —
- How many times can I enter?
You can enter as many times as you want. We don't mind.
- Can I melt the plastic to completely change the shape?
Absolutely. That sounds awesome.
- What should I submit to you, a pdf? a website?
We're pretty open to what you give us. Ultimately, we want to post your writeup on hackaday so a pdf or word document would work. We won't turn down other formats though. Keep those original pictures though. We don't want to have to pull them out of a document if we re-publish yours!


text:
Here are the 15 most valuable McDonald's toys you could have at home
It's time to search the attic, folks. An antiques website has partnered with a toy expert to compile a list of the most valuable antique McDonald's toys, along with the price they currently command on the market.
If, say, you find a set of TY's Teenie Beanie Boos (2000), you could be sitting on £338. And there are loads more McDonald's toys worth a small fortune. See the full list below.
Antique website LoveAntiques.com created the list with toy expert Peter Jenkinson, with a set of guidelines for prospective toy collectors.
The guidelines include information on the condition toys must be in to command the highest prices.
Jenkinson highlights how certain aspects can alter the value dramatically, with the packaging and the condition of the toy ultimately impacting selling price.
He advises all potential collectors to buy and keep toys in their original packaging/bag.
The guidelines also advise long term investors to buy toys two at a time, so collectors have the choice to open one and keep the other.
Also, collecting full sets of toys results in a bigger sum than collecting individually.
Jenkinson recommends collecting popular, limited edition toys too, such as LEGO sets which are linked to films and franchises.
"There have been thousands of McDonald's happy meal toys over the years and knowing which ones are just a piece of plastic or which are worth something, is always a struggle," says Jenkinson.
"This list is forever growing so if you think you might have something valuable, try and get hold of as many of the toys in the set as possible and keep hold of them.
"Also check your old ones too, if you have any lying around in the attic or an unused draw, get them looked at – you could be looking at a healthy sum, especially if you have one on the list I've put together."
Will Thomas managing director at LoveAntiques.com said: "Toys are a hugely popular area for people to invest in, but we've never realised just how much people could get for their old McDonald's toys.
"It's interesting to see just how much a once free plastic toy can be worth, and how much money people might have, unbeknown to them, just lying in their attic or drawers."
The 15 most valuable McDonald's toys
1 - TY's Teenie Beanie Boos (2000) – Much rarer than their toy shop equivalent, a set could get you £338
2 - Underwater Monsters (1979) – A set of these creepy creatures should fetch over £300.44
3- Robots by Diener Keshi (1979) – Anything up to £300.44
4 - Power Rangers (1994) – Find yourself a complete set of the hero's and vehicles and it's £262.89
5 - Inspector Gadget (1995) – Half man, half robot fetches £262.89
6 - Fraggle Rock (1992) – Set of four sold recently for £225.33
7 - Mario (1994 and 1998) – The video gaming plumber and friends fetch over £187.78
8 - 101 Dalmatians (1996) – You'll be lucky to have all 101 toys but £165.24 is what they're worth
9 - Snoopy (2000) – A set of the 50th anniversary toys aren't peanuts at £135.20
10 - Furby (2000) – The clippable one. A creepy but costly £90.13
11 - Jerry the Minion (2013) - From Despicable Me 2 - £90.13
12 - Potato Head kids (1987) – This set of offspring would bag you £75.11
13 - Transforming Food (1987/1989) – Individual pieces can fetch up to £52.58
14 - Clone Wars Happy Meal Box (2008) – The box, yes just the box could get you £37.56
15 - Hot Wheels (1983) – Individually these cars from a set of 14 are worth £30.02 each


text:
Profiling HURT (FINAL) from Barry Walton on Vimeo.
Ultrarunner Mark Gilligan (known to many as the co-founder of ultrasignup.com) is the energetic and self-professed bordeline-attention-deficit-disorder athlete at the center of the story. We catch up with him training for his 2nd HURT 100 after a great 6th place debut the previous year. He soon ropes in his rookie friend, Scott Guild, and we follow them through a season of training and reflection. Much of their day-to-day shows the kind of drive and dedication that 100-milers must have to tackle such a huge adventure, whether it's running flights of stairs daily in his office building, taking a 4am 40-mile fun run with friends on a freezing beach, the endless food and caffiene abuse, dealing with injuries, and a positive attitude that pervades everything. The HURT 100 is his great white whale, his fixation that allows him to take his training to the limits of injury and mental exhaustion just for the challenge. I chuckled at many of the scenes, realizing how many people must see me in a similar shade of insanity. All this for a belt buckle?The HURT 100 course, beautifully captured by film maker Barry Walton, is staggeringly difficult. There are roots, mud, and vertical at every turn, heat that barely subsides in the night, and rarely a section long enough to actually run. I found myself pausing the video on many occasions and just shaking my head...how in the world are these guys doing this?!? The aid station volunteers, manned by the always-smiling Hawaii Ultra Running Team (HURT), are like angels in the hills. It really gives you an appreciation for this well-respected race.
HURT from Barry Walton on Vimeo.
You can check out more at the Profiling HURT Web site, or buy it at Ultrasignup.com. I think you will like it!- SD


text:
UP Ethanol Plant Survives Court Challenge
MARQUETTE, Mich. (AP) — A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit challenging a proposed ethanol plant in the eastern Upper Peninsula.
The Sierra Club and Chippewa County resident Larry Klein said the federal government did an inadequate job of analyzing the environmental impacts and investigating alternatives. But Marquette federal Judge R. Allan Edgar said the risk to local health was adequately considered.
The judge said Tuesday that mitigation projects would make up for any impact on wetlands. He also said that state and federal officials found no endangered species near the location.
Frontier Renewable Resources will break down wood into sugars that ferment and become ethanol. The plant would use about 560,000 tons of pulpwood a year from public and private lands. The U.S. Energy Department is providing $100 million.
for more features.


text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Federal law pre-empts New Mexico's tax imposed on the gross receipts that appellant non-Indian construction company received from appellant tribal school board for the construction of a school for Indian children on the reservation. White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 , controlling. Pp. 836-847.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 847.
Michael P. Gross argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Carl Bryant Rogers and Neal A. Jackson.
Deputy Solicitor General Claiborne argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Dinkins, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Edward J. Shawaker, and Maria A. Iizuka.
Jan Unna, Special Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Jeff Bingaman, Attorney General, and Gerald B. Richardson, Assistant Attorney General. *
[ Footnote * ] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by George P. Vlassis and Katherine Ott for the Navajo Tribe of Indians; and by Richard W. Hughes for the Pueblo of Santa Ana. Helena S. Maclay and Deirdre Boggs, Special Assistant Attorneys General of Montana, Leland T. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General of Washington, Warren Spannaus, Attorney General of Minnesota, Mark V. Meierhenry, Attorney General of South Dakota, and Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General of Nevada, filed a brief for the State of Montana et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance. Briefs of amici curiae were filed by George Deukmejian, Attorney General, and Neal J. Gobar, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of California; and by Arthur Lazarus, Jr., for the Association of American Indian Affairs, Inc. [458 U.S. 832, 834]
JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we address the question whether federal law pre-empts a state tax imposed on the gross receipts that a non-Indian construction company receives from a tribal school board for the construction of a school for Indian children on the reservation. The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the gross receipts tax imposed by the State of New Mexico was permissible. Because the decision below is inconsistent with White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980) (White Mountain,) we reverse.
Approximately 2,000 members of the Ramah Navajo Chapter of the Navajo Indian Tribe live on tribal trust and allotment lands located in west central New Mexico. Ramah Navajo children attended a small public high school near the reservation until the State closed this facility in 1968. Because there were no other public high schools reasonably close to the reservation, the Ramah Navajo children were forced either to abandon their high school education or to attend federal Indian boarding schools far from the reservation. In 1970, the Ramah Navajo Chapter exercised its authority under Navajo Tribal Code, Title 10, 51 (1969), and established its own school board in order to remedy this situation. Appellant Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. (the Board), was organized as a nonprofit corporation to be operated exclusively by members of the Ramah Navajo Chapter. The Board is a Navajo "tribal organization" within the meaning of 25 U.S.C. 450b(c), 88 Stat. 2204. With funds provided by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Navajo Indian Tribe, the Board operated a school in the abandoned public school facility, thus creating the first independent Indian school in modern times. 1 [458 U.S. 832, 835]
In 1972, the Board successfully solicited from Congress funds for the design of new school facilities. Pub. L. 92-369, 86 Stat. 510. The Board then contracted with the BIA for the design of the new school and hired an architect. In 1974, the Board contracted with the BIA for the actual construction of the new school to be built on reservation land. Funding for the construction of this facility was provided by a series of congressional appropriations specifically earmarked for this purpose. 2 The contract specified that the Board was the design and building contract for the project, but that the Board could subcontract the actual construction work to third parties. The contract further provided that any sub-contracting agreement would have to include certain clauses governing pricing, wages, bonding, and the like, and that it must be approved by the BIA.
The Board then solicited bids from area building contractors for the construction of the school, and received bids from two non-Indian firms. Each firm included the state gross receipts tax as a cost of construction in their bids, although the tax was not itemized separately. Appellant Lembke Construction Co. (Lembke) was the low bidder and was awarded the contract. The contract between the Board and Lembke provides that Lembke is to pay all "taxes required by law." Lembke began construction of the school facilities in 1974 and continued this work for over five years. During that time, Lembke paid the gross receipts tax and, pursuant to standard industry practice, was reimbursed by the Board for the full amount paid. Before the second contract between Lembke and the Board was executed in 1977, a clause was inserted into the contract recognizing that the Board could [458 U.S. 832, 836] litigate the validity of this tax and was entitled to any refund.
Both Lembke and the Board protested the imposition of the gross receipts tax. In 1978, after exhausting administrative remedies, they filed this refund action against appellee New Mexico Bureau of Revenue in the New Mexico District Court. At the time of trial, the parties stipulated that the Board had reimbursed Lembke for tax payments of $232,264.38 and that the Board would receive any refund that might be awarded.
The trial court entered judgment for the State Bureau of Revenue. After noting that the "legal incidence" of the tax fell on the non-Indian construction firm, the court rejected appellants' arguments that the tax was pre-empted by comprehensive federal regulation and that it imposed an impermissible burden on tribal sovereignty. The Court of Appeals for the State of New Mexico affirmed. 95 N. M. 708, 625 P.2d 1225 (1980). Although acknowledging that the economic burden of the tax fell on the Board, the Court of Appeals concluded that the tax was not preempted by federal law and that it did not unlawfully burden tribal sovereignty. The Board filed a petition for rehearing in light of this Court's intervening decisions in White Mountain, supra, and Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 448 U.S. 160 (1980). The Court of Appeals denied the petition, stating only that this case did not involve either "a comprehensive or pervasive scheme of federal regulation" or "federal regulation similar to the Indian trader statutes." App. to Juris. Statement 36. After initially granting discretionary review, the New Mexico Supreme Court quashed the writ as improvidently granted. 96 N. M. 17, 627 P.2d 412 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction. 454 U.S. 1079 (1981).
In recent years, this Court has often confronted the difficult problem of reconciling "the plenary power of the States over residents within their borders with the semi-autonomous [458 U.S. 832, 837] status of Indians living on tribal reservations." McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S. 164, 165 (1973). Although there is no definitive formula for resolving the question whether a State may exercise its authority over tribal members or reservation activities, we have recently identified the relevant federal, tribal, and state interests to be considered in determining whether a particular exercise of state authority violates federal law. See White Mountain, 448 U.S., at 141 -145.
In White Mountain, we recognized that the federal and tribal interests arise from the broad power of Congress to regulate tribal affairs under the Indian Commerce Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 3, and from the semi-autonomous status of Indian tribes. 448 U.S., at 142 . These interests tend to erect two "independent but related" barriers to the exercise of state authority over commercial activity on an Indian reservation: state authority may be pre-empted by federal law, or it may interfere with the tribe's ability to exercise its sovereign functions. Ibid. (citing, inter alia, Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 380 U.S. 685 (1965); McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, supra; and Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959)). As we explained in White Mountain:
In White Mountain, we applied these principles and held that federal law pre-empted application of the state motor carrier license and use fuel taxes to a non-Indian logging company's activity on tribal land. We found the federal regulatory scheme for harvesting Indian timber to be so pervasive that it precluded the imposition of additional burdens by the relevant state taxes. Id., at 148. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) had promulgated detailed regulations for developing "`Indian forests by the Indian people for the purpose of promoting self-sustaining communities.'" Id., at 147 (quoting 25 CFR 141.3(a)(3) (1979)). [458 U.S. 832, 839]
Under these regulations, the BIA was involved in virtually every aspect of the production and marketing of Indian timber. 448 U.S., at 145 -148. In particular, the Secretary and the BIA extensively regulated the contractual relationship between the Indians and the non-Indians working on the reservation: they established the bidding procedure, set mandatory terms to be included in every contract, and required that all contracts be approved by the Secretary. Id., at 147.
We found that the state taxes in question would "threaten the overriding federal objective of guaranteeing Indians that they will `receive . . . the benefit of whatever profit [the forest] is capable of yielding. . . .'" Id., at 149 (quoting 25 CFR 141.3(a)(3) (1979)). We concluded that the imposition of state taxes would also undermine the Secretary's ability to carry out his obligations to set fees and rates for the harvesting and sale of the timber, and it would impede the "Tribe's ability to comply with the sustained-yield management policies imposed by federal law." 448 U.S., at 149 -150. Balanced against this intrusion into the federal scheme, the State asserted only "a general desire to raise revenue" as its justification for imposing the taxes. Id., at 150. In this context, this interest is insufficient to justify the State's intrusion into a sphere so heavily regulated by the Federal Government. Ibid.
This case is indistinguishable in all relevant respects from White Mountain. Federal regulation of the construction and financing of Indian educational institutions is both comprehensive and pervasive. The Federal Government's concern with the education of Indian children can be traced back to the first treaties between the United States and the Navajo Tribe. 3 Since that time, Congress has enacted numerous [458 U.S. 832, 840] statutes empowering the BIA to provide for Indian education both on and off the reservation. See, e. g., Snyder Act, 42 Stat. 208 (1921), 25 U.S.C. 13; Johnson-O'Malley Act, 48 Stat. 596 (1934), 25 U.S.C. 452 et seq.; Navajo-Hopi Rehabilitation Act, 64 Stat. 44 (1950), 25 U.S.C. 631 et seq.; Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 88 Stat. 2203 (1975), 25 U.S.C. 450 et seq. (Self-Determination Act). Although the early focus of the federal efforts in this area concentrated on providing federal or state educational facilities for Indian children, in the early 1970's the federal policy shifted toward encouraging the development of Indian-controlled institutions on the reservation. See 6 Weekly Comp. of Pres. Doc. 894, 899-900 (1970) (Message of President Nixon).
This federal policy has been codified in the Indian Financing Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 77, 25 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and most notably in the Self-Determination Act. The Self-Determination Act declares that a "major national goal of the United States is to provide the quantity and quality of educational services and opportunities which will permit Indian children to compete and excel in the life areas of their choice, and to achieve the measure of self-determination essential to their social and economic well-being." 88 Stat. 2203, as set forth in 25 U.S.C. 450a(c). In achieving this goal, Congress expressly recognized that "parental and community control of the educational process is of crucial importance to the Indian people." 88 Stat. 2203, as set forth in 25 U.S.C. 450(b) (3).
Section 450k empowers the Secretary to promulgate regulations to accomplish the purposes of the Act. 88 Stat. 2212, 25 U.S.C. 450k. Pursuant to this authority, the Secretary has promulgated detailed and comprehensive regulations respecting "school construction for previously private [458 U.S. 832, 841] schools now controlled and operated by tribes or tribally approved Indian organizations." 25 CFR 274.1 (1981). Under these regulations, the BIA has wide-ranging authority to monitor and review the subcontracting agreements between the Indian organization, which is viewed as the general contractor, and the non-Indian firm that actually constructs the facilities. See 25 CFR 274.2 (1981). 4 Specifically, the BIA must conduct preliminary on-site inspections, and prepare cost estimates for the project in cooperation with the tribal organization. 25 CFR 274.22 (1981). The Board must approve any architectural or engineering agreements executed in connection with the project. 25 CFR 274.32(c) (1981). In addition, the regulations empower the BIA to require that all subcontracting agreements contain certain terms, ranging from clauses relating to bonding and pay scales, 41 CFR 14H-70.632 (1981), to preferential treatment for Indian workers. 25 CFR 274.38 (1981). Finally, to ensure that the Tribe is fulfilling its statutory obligations, the regulations require the tribal organization to maintain records for the Secretary's inspection. 25 CFR 274.41 (1981).
This detailed regulatory scheme governing the construction of autonomous Indian educational facilities is at least as comprehensive as the federal scheme found to be pre-emptive in White Mountain. 5 The direction and supervision provided [458 U.S. 832, 842] by the Federal Government for the construction of Indian schools leave no room for the additional burden sought to be imposed by the State through its taxation of the gross receipts paid to Lembke by the Board. This burden, although nominally falling on the non-Indian contractor, necessarily impedes the clearly expressed federal interest in promoting the "quality and quantity" of educational opportunities for Indians by depleting the funds available for the construction of Indian schools. 6 [458 U.S. 832, 843]
The Bureau of Revenue argues that imposition of the state tax is not pre-empted because the federal statutes and regulations do not specifically express the intention to pre-empt this exercise of state authority. This argument is clearly foreclosed by our precedents. In White Mountain we flatly rejected a similar argument. 448 U.S., at 150 -151 (citing Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 380 U.S. 685 (1965); Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959); and Kennerly v. District Court of Montana, 400 U.S. 423 (1971)). There is nothing unique in the nature of a gross receipts tax or in the federal laws governing the development of tribal self-sufficiency in the area of education that requires a different analysis.
In this case, the State does not seek to assess its tax in return for the governmental functions it provides to those who must bear the burden of paying this tax. Having declined to take any responsibility for the education of these Indian children, the State is precluded from imposing an additional burden on the comprehensive federal scheme intended to provide this education - a scheme which has "left the State with no duties or responsibilities." Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, supra, at 691. 7 Nor has the State asserted any specific, legitimate regulatory interest to justify the imposition of its gross receipts tax. The only arguably [458 U.S. 832, 844] specific interest advanced by the State is that it provides services to Lembke for its activities off the reservation. This interest, however, is not a legitimate justification for a tax whose ultimate burden falls on the tribal organization. 8 Furthermore, although the State may confer substantial benefits on Lembke as a state contractor, we fail to see how these benefits can justify a tax imposed on the construction of school facilities on tribal lands pursuant to a contract between the tribal organization and the non-Indian contracting firm. 9 The New Mexico gross receipts tax is intended to compensate the State for granting "the privilege of engaging in business." N. M. Stat. Ann. 7-9-3(F) and 7-9-4(A) (1980). New Mexico has not explained the source of its power to levy such a tax in this case where the "privilege of doing business" on an Indian reservation is exclusively bestowed by the Federal Government. [458 U.S. 832, 845]
The State's ultimate justification for imposing this tax amounts to nothing more than a general desire to increase revenues. This purpose, as we held in White Mountain, 448 U.S., at 150 , is insufficient to justify the additional burdens imposed by the tax on the comprehensive federal scheme regulating the creation and maintenance of educational opportunities for Indian children and on the express federal policy of encouraging Indian self-sufficiency in the area of education. 10 This regulatory scheme precludes any state tax that "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).
The Solicitor General, in an amicus brief filed on behalf of the United States, suggests that we modify our pre-emption analysis and rely on the dormant Indian Commerce Clause, Art. I, 8, cl. 3, to hold that on-reservation activities involving a resident tribe are presumptively beyond the reach of state law even in the absence of comprehensive federal regulation, thus placing the burden on the State to demonstrate that its intrusion is either condoned by Congress or justified by a compelling need to protect legitimate, specified state interests other than the generalized desire to collect revenue. He argues that adopting this approach is preferable for several reasons: it would provide guidance to the state courts addressing these issues, thus reducing the need for our case-by-case review of these decisions; it would avoid the tension [458 U.S. 832, 846] created by focusing on the pervasiveness of federal regulation as a principal barrier to state assertions of authority when the primary federal goal is to encourage tribal self-determination and self-government; and it would place a higher burden on the State to articulate clearly its particularized interests in taxing the transaction and to demonstrate the services it provides in assisting the taxed transaction.
We do not believe it necessary to adopt this new approach - the existing pre-emption analysis governing these cases is sufficiently sensitive to many of the concerns expressed by the Solicitor General. Although clearer rules and presumptions promote the interest in simplifying litigation, our precedents announcing the scope of pre-emption analysis in this area provide sufficient guidance to state courts and also allow for more flexible consideration of the federal, state, and tribal interests at issue. We have consistently admonished that federal statutes and regulations relating to tribes and tribal activities must be "construed generously in order to comport with . . . traditional notions of [Indian] sovereignty and with the federal policy of encouraging tribal independence." White Mountain, supra, at 144; see also McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 411 U.S., at 174 -175, and n. 13; Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 380 U.S., at 690 -691. This guiding principle helps relieve the tension between emphasizing the pervasiveness of federal regulation and the federal policy of encouraging Indian self-determination. Although we must admit our disappointment that the courts below apparently gave short shrift to this principle and to our precedents in this area, we cannot and do not presume that state courts will not follow both the letter and the spirit of our decisions in the future.
In sum, the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme and the express federal policy of encouraging tribal self-sufficiency in the area of education preclude the imposition of the [458 U.S. 832, 847] state gross receipts tax in this case. Accordingly, the judgment of the New Mexico Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 2 ] See Pub. L. 93-245, 87 Stat. 1073 (1973) (amending Pub. L. 93-120, 87 Stat. 431 (1973) to specifically earmark funds appropriated there for the construction of the Ramah school facility); Pub. L. 93-404, 88 Stat. 810 (1974); Pub. L. 94-165, 89 Stat. 985 (1975); Pub. L. 95-74, 91 Stat. 293 (1977).
[ Footnote 3 ] Article VI of the 1868 Treaty between the United States and the Navajo Tribe, 15 Stat. 669, provides that "[i]n order to insure the civilization [458 U.S. 832, 840] of the Indians entering into this treaty, the necessity of education is admitted."
[ Footnote 4 ] Although these regulations did not become effective until several months after the BIA and the Board had executed the initial contracts, the Secretary and the BIA had applied similar requirements under the authority of the Johnson-O'Malley Act, 48 Stat. 596, 25 U.S.C. 452 et seq. In any event, the two subsequent agreements between the BIA, the Board and Lembke, accounting for two-thirds of the total construction, were signed after the effective date of these regulations, which clearly authorize the BIA to monitor these construction agreements.
[ Footnote 5 ] JUSTICE REHNQUIST asserts that the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme outlined above "do[es] not regulate school construction, which is the activity taxed." Post, at 851. The dissent fails to explain, however, how this fact distinguishes this case from White Mountain. In that [458 U.S. 832, 842] case, we struck down Arizona's use fuel tax and motor carrier license tax, not because of any federal interest in gasoline, licenses, or highways, but because the imposition of these state taxes on a non-Indian contractor doing work on the reservation was pre-empted by the "comprehensive regulation of the harvesting and sale of tribal timber." 448 U.S., at 151 . We find that New Mexico is similarly precluded from impeding the federal interest in the construction of autonomous Indian educational institutions by imposing its gross receipts tax on Lembke. JUSTICE REHNQUIST's contention that the New Mexico tax is somehow compatible with this federal interest because such taxes "are as much a normal cost of school construction as the cost of cement and labor," post, at 855, is also foreclosed by White Mountain. Surely, state use fuel and motor carrier license taxes are considered part of the cost of harvesting and marketing timber. Yet in White Mountain, we concluded that these taxes impeded the federal interest in "guaranteeing Indians that they will `receive . . . the benefit of whatever profit [the forest] is capable of yielding,'" 448 U.S., at 149 , despite the dissent's argument that the taxes amounted to less than 1% of the annual profits produced by the logging operation. Here, as in White Mountain, JUSTICE REHNQUIST continues to press this argument.
[ Footnote 6 ] Appellee would have us impute congressional awareness and approval of the state gross receipts tax from appropriations bills which earmarked funds for the construction of these facilities, see n. 2, supra. Brief for Appellee 21-22. Appellee strains to find this awareness and approval by arguing that the same architects who prepared the cost estimates and requests that the Board submitted to Congress also prepared the bid specifications pursuant to which Lembke submitted its bid. However, as we have indicated, the bid specifications only required prospective bidders to include "all taxes required by law," and the submitted bids did not specify the gross receipts tax as a separate line item. Supra, at 835. Therefore, it is by no means clear, and the Board disputes the contention, that the Board ever intended to have these state taxes included in the construction costs of its school facilities. Furthermore, there is absolutely no [458 U.S. 832, 843] indication that Congress was even made aware of the existence of these taxes when it appropriated funds for the construction of the Ramah Navajo school. In any event, as we have noted in a related context, courts should be wary of inferring congressional intent to alter the force of existing law from an appropriations Act. Cf. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 189 -191 (1978).
[ Footnote 7 ] Of course, these statutes and regulations do not prevent the States from providing for the education of Indian children within their boundaries. Indeed, the Self-Determination Act specifically authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts with any State willing to construct educational institutions for Indian children on or near the reservation. 88 Stat. 2214, 25 U.S.C. 458. This case would be different if the State were actively seeking tax revenues for the purpose of constructing, or assisting in the effort to provide, adequate educational facilities for Ramah Navajo children.
[ Footnote 8 ] The Bureau of Revenue invites us to adopt the "legal incidence" test, under which the legal incidence and not the actual burden of the tax would control the pre-emption inquiry. Of course, in some contexts, the fact that the legal incidence of the tax falls on a non-Indian is significant. See Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 150 -151 (1980); Moe v. Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (1976). However, in White Mountain, 448 U.S., at 151 , we found it significant that the economic burden of the asserted taxes would ultimately fall on the Tribe, even though the legal incidence of the tax was on the non-Indian logging company. Given the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme at issue here, we decline to allow the State to impose additional burdens on the significant federal interest in fostering Indian-run educational institutions, even if those burdens are imposed indirectly through a tax on a non-Indian contractor for work done on the reservation.
[ Footnote 9 ] In Central Machinery Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 448 U.S. 160 (1980), we held that the Indian trader statutes, 19 Stat. 200, 25 U.S.C. 261 et seq., pre-empted the State's jurisdiction to tax the sale of farm machinery to the Indian Tribe, notwithstanding the substantial services that the State undoubtedly provided to the off-reservation activities of the non-Indian seller. Presumably, the state tax revenues derived from Lembke's off-reservation business activities are adequate to reimburse the State for the services it provides to Lembke.
[ Footnote 10 ] We are similarly unpersuaded by the State's argument that the significant services it provides to the Ramah Navajo Indians justify the imposition of this tax. The State does not suggest that these benefits are in any way related to the construction of schools on Indian land. Furthermore, the evidence introduced below by the State on this issue is far from clear. Although the State does provide services to the Ramah Navajo Indians, it receives federal funds for providing some of these services, and the State conceded at trial that it saves approximately $380,000 by not having to provide education for the Ramah Navajo children. App. 95, 105-106, 108.
JUSTICE REHNQUIST, with whom JUSTICE WHITE and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting.
The Court today reproves the New Mexico Court of Appeals for failing to heed our precedents, much as a disappointed parent would rebuke a wayward child. 1 I do not think the Court of Appeals deserves the rebuke; it seems to me that the state court applied our precedents at least as faithfully, and coherently, as the Court itself. In its desire to reach a result that it evidently finds quite salutary as a matter of policy, the Court finds "indistinguishable" a case that is considerably off the mark, and it finds "pervasively regulated" an activity that is largely free of federal regulation. It ultimately accords a dependent Indian tribal organization greater tax immunity than it accorded the sovereignty of the United States a short three months ago in a case involving the precise state taxes at issue here.
The general question presented by this case has occupied the Court many times in the recent past, and seems destined to demand its attention over and over again until the Court sees fit to articulate, and follow, a consistent and predictable rule of law. This insistent question concerns the extent to which the States can tax economic activity on Indian reservations within their borders. I believe the dominant trend of [458 U.S. 832, 848] our cases is toward treating the scope of reservation immunity from nondiscriminatory state taxation as a question of pre-emption, ultimately dependent on congressional intent. In such a framework, the tradition of Indian sovereignty stands as an independent barrier to discriminatory taxes, and otherwise serves only as a guide to the ascertainment of the congressional will.
The principles announced in White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136 (1980), are consistent with this trend. 2 Thus, the Court in White Mountain recognized federal pre-emption as a principal barrier to the assertion of state regulatory authority over tribal reservations and members, id., at 142, and specifically invalidated the challenged assertion of taxing authority on that basis, id., at 148, 151, n. 15. The Court also recognized that in some instances a state law may be invalid because it infringes "`the right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by them.'" Id., at 142 (quoting Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220 (1959)). But apart from those rare instances in which the State attempts to interfere with the residual sovereignty of a tribe to govern its own members, the "tradition of tribal sovereignty" merely provides a "backdrop" against which the pre-emptive effect of federal statutes or treaties must be assessed. See 448 U.S., at 143 .
The Court today pays homage to these principles but then promptly bestows its favors on a new analytical framework in which the extent of economic burden on the tribe, and not the pre-emptive effect of federal regulations, appears to be the paramount consideration. Such a shift is necessary, for the [458 U.S. 832, 849] Court's purported reliance on White Mountain will not withstand even superficial scrutiny.
The Court declares that "[t]his case is indistinguishable in all relevant respects from White Mountain." Ante, at 839. This statement is quite inaccurate. White Mountain involved an attempt by the State of Arizona to apply its motor carrier license and use fuel taxes to the logging operations of a non-Indian company doing business exclusively on the reservation. The Court concluded that application of the State's taxes was inconsistent with the pervasive federal regulation of the very activity subject to taxation. The Court repeatedly emphasized the comprehensiveness of the regulations on which it relied.
The purpose of the regulations, which the Court quotes only in part, ante, at 840-841, "is to give the application and approval process for obtaining a contract or services from the Bureau for school construction for previously private schools now controlled and operated by tribes or tribally approved Indian organizations . . . ." 25 CFR 274.1 (1981) (emphasis added). The regulations that follow explain the procedures by which tribes may obtain, complete, and file application forms for federal funding or services. 274.12-274.18. As the Court observes, ante, at 841, the regulations also authorize the BIA to approve or disapprove plans and specifications for construction as well as construction contracts let by the tribe, which are treated as subcontracts of the funding contract between the tribe and the BIA. The contracts are required to contain a clause establishing a hiring preference for Indians. 274.38. And the BIA is given access to the tribe's records for auditing purposes. 274.41. That is the extent of the regulations.
In this case the BIA "contracted" with the School Board in order to convey federal funds for the construction project. [458 U.S. 832, 852] It also approved the Board's construction "subcontract" with the construction contractor. It played no role in the selection of the contractor and it played no role in regulating or supervising the actual construction of the school. The Court concludes that this scheme, which is little more than a grant application process, "is at least as comprehensive as the federal scheme found to be pre-emptive in White Mountain." Ante, at 841. I simply cannot agree.
More important, the Court concludes in the very next sentence that "[t]he direction and supervision provided by the Federal Government for the construction of Indian schools leaves no room for the additional burden sought to be imposed by the State through its taxation of the gross receipts paid to Lembke by the Board." Ante, at 841-842. This statement constitutes the sum total of the Court's pre-emption analysis in this case. In White Mountain the Court engaged in a detailed examination of the extent to which state taxes would interfere both with the Secretary's ability to carry out his congressional mandate and with the tribe's ability to carry out federal policy. In the place of such careful analysis, the Court today relies on ipse dixit. It does so because there is no realistic basis for concluding that the State's taxes would interfere with a "pervasive" regulatory scheme. The BIA simply does not regulate the construction activity which the State seeks to tax. It provides federal money to eligible tribes and tribal organizations and it establishes a contract-approval and auditing mechanism as a means of attempting to ensure that the money is put to the use for which it is earmarked. 3 [458 U.S. 832, 853]
A careful reading of the Court's opinion demonstrates that the single, determinative factor in its judgment is the fact that the challenged state taxes have increased the financial burden of constructing a tribal school. Whether the federal regulations are detailed and comprehensive or largely a matter of bookkeeping is an irrelevancy, for the Court concludes that the tax burden "impedes the clearly expressed federal interest in promoting the `quality and quantity' of educational opportunities for Indians by depleting the funds available for the construction of Indian schools." Ante, at 842 (emphasis added). The Court recognizes that the legal incidence of the tax is on the non-Indian contractor, but asserts that "in White Mountain . . . we found it significant that the economic burden of the asserted taxes would ultimately fall on the Tribe, [458 U.S. 832, 854] even though the legal incidence of the tax was on the non-Indian logging company." Ante, at 844, n. 8.
The Court in White Mountain did indeed note that "the economic burden of the asserted taxes will ultimately fall on the Tribe." 448 U.S., at 151 . But in a footnote immediately following that sentence, which is today ignored, the Court declared:
I do not disagree with the Court's judgment that congressional enactments such as the Indian Financing Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act embody a federal policy encouraging the development of Indian-controlled educational institutions. But it is a considerable leap to infer from that policy the independent principle that all state laws which might increase the cost of such an endeavor are to be considered null and void. It is perfectly conceivable that Congress favored Indian education, but also contemplated that all costs of obtaining that end would be paid in a normal fashion. State taxes are as much a normal cost of school construction as the cost of cement and labor. The cost of taxes was included in the bids submitted to the Board by the construction contractors, and it apparently was also included in the funding requests submitted by the Board to Congress. The Board cannot be faulted for attempting to stretch its federal construction funds as far as possible, but that is a woefully inadequate basis for interfering with the sovereign prerogatives of the State of New Mexico.
A short three months ago, this Court considered whether the State of New Mexico could impose its gross receipts and [458 U.S. 832, 856] compensating use taxes on private contractors that conduct business with the Federal Government. We concluded that tax immunity was appropriate in only one circumstance: "when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities, at least insofar as the activity being taxed is concerned." United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720, 735 (1982). In reaching this conclusion, we held that "immunity may not be conferred simply because the tax has an effect on the United States, or even because the Federal Government shoulders the entire economic burden of the levy." Id., at 734. If the legal incidence of the tax is on the contractor, it is to be considered valid, absent specific congressional action, as long as "the contractors can realistically be considered entities independent of the United States." Id., at 738. 5
In this case, as in United States v. New Mexico, the legal incidence of the New Mexico tax is on the private contractor, not on the entity whose status might be the source of a tax immunity. And, as in United States v. New Mexico, it is evident that Lembke is a separate taxable entity completely independent of the tribal school board. Were the tax immunity of the Tribe no greater than that of the United States, it seems plain that New Mexico's tax would have to be upheld as applied to the gross receipts of the non-Indian contractor. But the Court reaches a different conclusion because it finds that the tax imposes an economic burden on the Tribe's effort to build a school with federal funds. Thus, the Court accords [458 U.S. 832, 857] an Indian Tribe, whose sovereignty "exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance," United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978), greater immunity from state taxes than is enjoyed by the sovereignty of the United States on whom it is dependent. 6
For these reasons, I dissent from the Court's judgment.
[ Footnote 1 ] "Although we must admit our disappointment that the courts below apparently gave short shrift to this principle and to our precedents in this area, we cannot and do not presume that state courts will not follow both the letter and the spirit of our decisions in the future." Ante, at 846.
[ Footnote 2 ] Nevertheless, the Solicitor General has again suggested that on-reservation activities affecting resident tribes be considered presumptively beyond the reach of state law by operation of the "principle of tribal sovereignty." See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 17-24. The same suggestion was urged, and rejected, in White Mountain. It has proved no more appealing in this case.
[ Footnote 3 ] The Court ignores other distinctions between this case and White Mountain. For example, the logging contractor in the latter case, although a non-Indian corporation, operated exclusively to harvest timber on the reservation; it conducted no off-reservation activities whatsoever. See 448 U.S., at 139 . The contractor in this case is a general building contractor doing business throughout the State of New Mexico, and enjoying state services to the same extent as any other commercial enterprise in [458 U.S. 832, 853] New Mexico. The Court dismisses this factor with the statement that "[p]resumably, the state tax revenues derived from Lembke's off-reservation business activities are adequate to reimburse the State for the services it provides to Lembke." Ante, at 844, n. 9. The Court's "presumptions," however, are no substitute for the considered judgment of the state taxing authority. Indeed, in assessing the validity of a state tax, the Court has previously recognized that the State's interests are strongest when the taxpayer is the recipient of state services. See Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134, 157 (1980). To the extent presumptions are relevant, the Court has inverted the one that ought to apply. Another distinction is also relevant. The activity taxed in White Mountain was the exploitation of natural resources located on the reservation and devoted to the beneficial use and enjoyment of reservation Indians. Indeed, over 90% of the total profits generated by tribal enterprises were derived from the Tribe's logging operations. 448 U.S., at 138 . In this case, the state taxes diminish, not the income generated by the Tribe for its own preservation and welfare, but federal funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of school construction. No tribal funds are devoted to this endeavor, and congressional appropriations were based on funding requests that included the gross receipts tax as part of the estimated construction cost.
[ Footnote 4 ] In other areas of tax immunity, the Court has steadfastly refused to assess the validity of a tax by reference to the economic burdens it imposes if [458 U.S. 832, 855] those burdens are nondiscriminatory and comport with due process. See United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720 (1982) (state taxation of federal contractors); United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U.S. 452 (1977) (state taxation of Federal Government); New York v. United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946) (federal taxation of state government); Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. 276 (1976) (state taxation of imports and exports).
[ Footnote 5 ] We recognized one possible exception to this general rule: "In the case of a sales tax . . . it is arguable that an entity serving as a federal procurement agent can be so closely associated with the Government, and so lack an independent role in the purchase, as to make the sale - in both a real and a symbolic sense - a sale to the United States, even though the purchasing agent has not otherwise been incorporated into the Government structure." 455 U.S., at 742 . In this case, there is no basis for arguing that Lembke has acted merely as a purchasing agent for the Board or the BIA.
[ Footnote 6 ] Of course, the Court purports to rest its decision on the pre-emptive effect of federal law. But the immunity of federal contractors from state taxes is also dependent on "generalized notions of federal supremacy." United States v. New Mexico, supra, at 730. The critical question, both in United States v. New Mexico and in this case, is what factors will the Court examine to determine whether the State has exceeded limits imposed by the Supremacy Clause and by Congress. I think it is evident that in the area of federal tax immunity the Court has required evidence of more than mere economic burdens before it will invalidate a state tax as applied. As this case demonstrates, tribal tax immunity may be invoked on no greater showing than the fact of economic burdens on a federally supported tribal endeavor. Since both immunities derive from precisely the same source - the supremacy of federal law - I find the Court's decision today inexplicable. "With the abandonment of the notion that the economic - as opposed to the legal - incidence of the tax is relevant, it becomes difficult to maintain that federal tax immunity is designed to insulate federal operations from the effects of state taxation." United States v. New Mexico, supra, at 735, n. 11. [458 U.S. 832, 858]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 458 U.S. 832
Docket No: No. 80-2162
Argued: April 28, 1982
Decided: July 02, 1982
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Whether yesterday's attacks in Spain, in which 190 people were killed and nearly 1500 wounded, were carried out by the Basque separatist ETA or by al-Qaeda, they make one thing very clear: terrorism cannot be fought by military means.
After the first Gulf War, and particularly after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, U.S. military analysts concerned themselves extensively with the question of terrorism. An early conclusion was that it is precisely the extreme dominance of the U.S. military that makes potential opponents turn to what is sometimes called "asymmetric warfare" — i.e., attacks in which the other side also has a chance of inflicting damage. For example, Presidential Decision Directive 62, issued in 1998, says, "America's unrivaled military superiority means that potential enemies (whether nations or terrorist groups) that choose to attack us will be more likely to resort to terror instead of conventional military assault."
The Bush administration's response, involving a tremendous new wave of militarism, new weapons systems, and a newly aggressive posture in the world could not have done more to exacerbate the threat of terrorist attacks if it had been planned that way.
Worse, there has been a shift in the modality of attacks after 9/11. The 9/11 attacks and previous ones by al-Qaeda, like that on the <U.S.S>. Cole or those on the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, were attacks on hard targets, requiring suicide bombers and, in the case of 9/11, a highly sophisticated operation. Furthermore, the targets were ones of obvious political significance; there was hardly a more potent symbol of American economic might and world domination than the World Trade Center. Contrary to popular depictions, at the time al-Qaeda was not simply ravening to kill any American anywhere.
That changed after the Afghanistan war, with a decision made by elders of Al-Qaeda in Thailand in January 2002 to turn more toward soft targets. The first major such attack was the November 2002 Bali nightclub bombing which killed nearly 200. Just as with the Madrid bombing, the targets had no particular political significance while it is true that Aznar supported the war on Iraq, 90% of the Spanish people opposed it, and they were the victims of the attack.
And thus we are led to the reductio ad absurdummore military prowess leads to more terrorist attacks, more defense of hard or politically significant targets leads to more indiscriminate attacks on soft targets, and it is simply impossible to defend all soft targets. Today the trains of Madrid. Tomorrow the New York subway?
The progression of events in Iraq under the occupation mirrors this.
Initially, one saw mainly attacks on the U.S. military. It quickly responded by increasing the level of alert, and so August of last year saw numerous terrorist attacks. The U.N. humanitarian headquarters was attacked and Ayatollah Baqir al-Hakim was assassinated at the Imam Ali mosque in Najaf. These were still aimed at very specific persons or organizations and involved targets with some level of protection.
As Iraq began to fill up with concrete barricades and razor wire, the targets changed. Attackers who had earlier concentrated on the Iraqi police as collaborators with the occupation took to bombing lines of people waiting to interview for jobs as police. Cleaning women who worked on a CPA base were gunned down. Attacks against random targets of opportunity proliferated. The culmination was on Ashura, the holiest day of the year for the Shi'a a dozen suicide bombers attacked processions in Baghdad and Kerbala (and tried to in Basra and Najaf), killing likely over 200 people.
The Spanish government has a heavy political investment in the claim that the ETA perpetrated these attacks, and there is some evidence in that direction. There is also much in the other direction, including a van found near Madrid with explosive detonators and an Arabic tape of Quranic verses, a claim of responsibility by an Islamist group, and a denunciation of the attacks by the spokesman of Batasuna, the Basque party most closely associated with the ETA.
But it doesn't matter. If al-Qaeda didn't do this, whoever did it was inspired by al-Qaeda. The attack involves the same modus operandi, the same abandonment of clear political purpose for body count as the sole criterion. If non-Islamist organizations come to adopt the same methods, the danger is only increased.
So far, all military measures in the "war on terrorism" have strengthened the emerging archipelago of Islamist terrorist organizations. Weakening it requires taking away the political ground on which they stand. That ground is not the virtually nihilistic domestic political programs of these groups. It is their opposition to U.S. imperial control of the Islamic world, a grievance that most Muslims share.
It doesn't matter whether you're a dove or a hawk, left or right, concerned with the suffering of others or concerned merely with your own skin. Military means will not work. The beginning of a solution is the end of the twin occupations in the Middle East. Only after that will it be possible to take measures against terrorism that don't worsen the problem.
RAHUL MAHAJAN is the publisher of Empire Notes and serves on the Administrative Committee of United for Peace and Justice, the nation's largest antiwar coalition. His first book, "The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism," has been called "mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a handle on the war on terrorism," and his most recent book, "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond," has been described as "essential for those who wish to continue to fight against empire." He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
I thus carried out rolloff analysis using the French as a target population and the Sardinians and Burusho as reference populations. The exponential fit can be seen below:
The jackknife gives 239.556 +/- 50.553 generations for this admixture, which corresponds (assuming a generation length of 29 years) to 6,950 +/- 1,470 years.
Analysis of autosomal DNA from the Tyrolean Iceman and a Neolithic TRB farmer from Sweden have revealed an absence of the West Asian ancestral component and a Sardinian-like Neolithic population c. 5ka in Europe. This population may have extended to at least to the Balkans in space and down to the Iron Age in time.
In my opinion, the simplest explanaton for the evidence is that the admixture picked up by rolloff took place in West Asia itself c. 7ka, and then this population begun its movement into Europe at some post-5ka time period.
Importantly, the K=12 Caucasus component appears as a mixture of the K=7 West_Asian and Southern components. The former (West_Asian) is the most important one in the Burusho, and the latter (Southern) is the most important one in Sardinians.
European Neolithic farmers, of presumably West Asian origin only possessed Y-haplogroup G2a out of the wide variety of haplogroups found in West Asia today. They also lacked the West_Asian component which is modal in West Asia today. There is also physical anthropological evidence from Greece and Anatolia, for an introduction of new population elements during the Bronze Age.
These facts combine to make me believe that there were population movements across West Asia which preceded the Indo-European invasion of Europe during late pre-history. That event is then best seen as an extension of a broader Eurasian phenomenon that affected substantially both the western parts of Asia and Europe.
Taking all the evidence into account, I hypothesize that:
- a "Southern"/"Atlantic_Med"/Sardinian-like population substratum existed in West Asia, and this spawned the early European Neolithic.
- a new "West_Asian"/Burusho-like population arrived from the east, perhaps associated with the Halaf/Hassuna cultures, or from some other unknown center of dispersal in the Transcaucasus or Iran. Mobility may have been encouraged post-8.2 kiloyear event.
- these two elements began mixing ~7 thousand years ago in West Asia
- the admixed population expanded at some post-5ka period into Western Europe.
(Obviously, more rolloff analyses are needed to study these ideas; the current one took about ~3 days, which was a little faster than I expected.)
Related (?): Is Burushaski Indo-European?
Image credit: Don Perrault (source)


text:
Support Truthout's work by making a tax-deductible donation: click here to contribute.
An Occupy Wall Street organizer I know — one of the original ones, from the planning meetings before the occupation began last September 17 — has a striking banner atop his Facebook Timeline. It's from the History Channel series Life After People, an artist's rendition of a cityscape after which all the humans in it somehow disappear. It's quiet, and still, with trees growing out from the sides of crumbling towers.
To say that this image has anything to do with the movement's plans for May 1, which the person who posted it is involved in making, might cause both paranoid-style right-wing radio hosts and the most anarcho- of primitivists to froth a bit at the mouth. And so they should. Ever since the idea of working toward May Day started catching on in Occupy Wall Street last January, it has been infused with the impulse of creating the vision of a radically different kind of city.
The visionary impulse, however, has also mixed with things more mundane. Over the course of the May Day planning process in New York, in at least two meetings each week, OWS organizers have been patiently patching together an historic joint rally and march with labor unions, immigrants' rights groups and community organizations, many of which were invited to participate in the planning process since the beginning.
The members of this tenuous coalition, however, have refused to demand the impossible together — which is to say, a general strike. Instead, the coalition speaks of "a day without the 99%" and the slogan, "Legalize, Unionize, Organize." But at just about every other opportunity, people from OWS have been echoing the call for a general strike on May Day, which originated from Occupy Los Angeles' General Assembly in December. During the April 4 press conference announcing the New York coalition's plans, the OWS representative avoided saying those words, but after his speech he stripped down to an undershirt with "general strike" scrawled on it in red.
Meanwhile, a group called Strike Everywhere, consisting of "anarchists, anti-capitalists and autonomists," has made a general strike its unapologetic mission, and it is busy covering the city and the Internet with propaganda, both beautiful and obscene, to agitate for revolt. Some of its members have even constituted a tantalizing Central Park Exploratory Committee, which has yet to disclose its intentions to the public.
Such calls for a general strike raise challenging questions about what a strike could even look like in a society with the lowest rates of union membership in generations. Employment is often episodic, inadequate and undemocratic, yet people seem to lack any inkling that things could be otherwise. Unlike more traditional union-based strikes, also, OWS offers no provisions for long-term support for strikers who suffer retaliation from bosses. What, then, could feasible striking mean? What new forms of workplace organizing could there be, besides unions that have their hands tied in contracts and repressive laws?
A strike, if it actually happens on May 1 or thereafter, may not look like one ever has before. Strike Everywhere, for instance, has been holding assemblies for "precarious and service workers" as a way to create new solidarity networks, and numerous social media accounts are trying to do the same online. Tumblrs have appeared collecting people's various ideas for how and why they plan to strike. For those who can't skip work or school, OWS recommends at least a consumer boycott: no housework, no shopping, no banking. And, of course, "TAKE THE STREETS!!!!!" Much like the Adbusters call that resulted in Occupy Wall Street itself, the logic of May Day has been to start with the impossible and figure out the possible from there.
The plan for the day, insofar as there is any single plan, starts at 8 a.m. in Bryant Park, in Midtown. From there, Occupiers and allied organizations will break off into pickets and other kinds of groupings, each targeting one or several of the many corporations with offices in the surrounding skyscrapers. Meanwhile, in the park, there will be a bazaar of "mutual aid," with food, trainings, medical care, teach-ins, radio transmitters, massages, bike repair, free stores and more. Over the course of the afternoon, the theater of action will shift (likely by way of a ruckus march) down toward Union Square, where the unions and immigrants' rights groups will by rallying. From there, at around 5:30, there will be a safe, taxi-led, permitted march further down, through Foley Square and into the Financial District. The general consensus seems to be that the bulk of arrests will be saved for after that — for whatever the night will hold.
When the subset of Occupiers preparing for May Day aren't planning, or wheatpasting posters, or viral-video making, or negotiating, or tweeting, they're studying history — the Haymarket Massacre, Rosa Luxemburg, and so on — through old films, teach-ins, zines and the movement-made magazine Tidal. They're also warming up in the streets.
Every Friday, there are "Spring Training" marches to greet the closing bell of the Stock Exchange, and at each Occupiers test out a new creative tactic, like "civilian," in which they revert to non-protester status so as to evade police blockades, or "melt," in which they collapse into a disarming die-in or cuddle-puddle. Spring Training culminates in the "people's gong," replacing the NYSE's bell with the voices of Occupiers standing in concentric circles and crying, "Ding!"
On April 17, too, Occupiers will be testing their synergy in the streets for Tax Day actions with many of the institutional allies who will come out in much greater force on May 1. This comes at the end of a nationwide effort called the 99% Spring, in which 100,000 Americans are supposed to be receiving training in nonviolent action, and it will be the first test of a newly-trained populace, just in time for May Day.
After the big day itself, though, nobody knows what will happen. There is a suspicious, almost apocalyptic silence about this among organizers. They call for a general strike on May 1, but is the idea to go back to work on May 2? They talk about building power for the 99 percent, but for what? Some, at least, have been murmuring about the international days of action called for in Europe on May 12 and 15. The 12th, in New York, is also the anniversary of a major march on Wall Street last year. A few Occupiers here are planning to go to Chicago to protest the NATO summit on May 20 and 21. But above all there's the feeling that if May Day goes well — as, for the movement not to suffer a crushing disappointment, it must — then what follows will unfold organically from there, in a city somehow not quite like the present one and which, from this side of May 1, we cannot really imagine.
It takes longer to read this sentence than it does to support our work.
We don't have much time left to raise the $15,000 needed to meet Truthout's basic publishing costs this month. Will you take a few seconds to donate and give us a much-needed boost?
We know you are deeply committed to the issues that matter, and you count on us to bring you trustworthy reporting and comprehensive analysis on the real issues facing our country and the world. And as a nonprofit newsroom supported by reader donations, we're counting on you too. If you believe in the importance of an independent, free media, please make a tax-deductible donation today!