text:
Guestblog: In Defense of the Suburbs
Like many in the tri-state area, I live in a suburb and commute to Downtown Cincinnati to work. Like others who choose this lifestyle, I often feel blame from people so rabid about renewal and revival they associate anyone who lives beyond the city limits with economic failure and business closures.
I live in the Eastgate area, and I have my reasons. Sure, my house looks like the stereotypical suburbanite abode, with its white fences and a wreath on the door. But I'm also near family, own a home I could never afford if it were only one county over and enjoy an admittedly quieter everyday life than I would if I lived in the city.
That being said, I love being Downtown and work on Main Street. I spend my money on independent dining establishments and in local shops. I frequent Findlay Market and our fine museums and am often present to cheer on our Bengals and Reds. I've paid my fair share of parking fees, given to the homeless and tweet about the latest and greatest events on Fountain Square.
Why, then, do I read so many blog posts, news stories and message board comments that angrily assume that my zip code determines my love for or loathing of Cincinnati? If I'm to believe everything I read online, I'm a scared suburbanite and a silly sheep. I cross the streets to avoid other races. I am blind to the small business owner's plight and the beauty of Porkopolis. Oh, please.
Why do so many people feel the need to bash where I live? Most responses to my answer when asked are to the effect of "Why the hell do you live all the way out there?" Or worse, people are surprised by my love of museums and festivals and by my knowledge of local history when they discover I'm not a city dweller.
My answer to these jeers is this: I live all the way out here because I like it. I frequent Downtown because I like it too. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Are Downtown residents somehow more justified in their shopping habits or more culturally advanced than someone who lives mere minutes away? I'd venture to say that many frequent Cincinnati establishments for the same reason I patronize family businesses in the suburbs: primarily because they're convenient. Secondarily, because it feels good to support a local business. Am I the only one to admit that love of convenience in the city is often given the veil of doing good?
That's not to say there aren't a great deal of folks out there who are fighting a good fight to revitalize Cincinnati neighborhoods. I know you're out there. For every person who shops at a chain store, there's another who passes five to get to a local joint. There are people opening businesses, renovating old buildings and putting folks to work.
And it's also not to say that the suburbs don't, in part, deserve the bad rap. After all, any exit ramp in the 'burbs will lead you straight to strip malls and big box stores. But I also enjoy a nearby Ohio State Park, several nature preserves, drives in the country and excursions to Amish bakeries and barn sales.
What's my point? Don't judge a local by their distance from the city center. And I love you, Cincinnati. It's just that sometimes, I'm not feeling the love back.
23 comments:
- Brian Reynolds said...
Agreed. There are absolutely merits to living where you live (and kind of where I live), but I hope you are sharing your love of downtown with your suburban friends. I think they're the ones that started the war. Downtown-lovers are just fighting back :)
- January 28, 2010 at 11:31 AM
- John F. said...
I think the simple answer to "Why do so many people feel the need to bash where I live?" is that the same people are used to being bashed for where THEY live. This defensive reaction isn't necessarily productive, but I really do think it's that simple.
I grew up in suburban Indianapolis and found it soul-numbingly boring as a teenager. And as a 30-something single guy now, I find the suburbs isolating and (still) boring. It would make me very unhappy to live there, so I don't. However, it's completely legitimate for anyone else to live there especially if it makes them happy. Bashing anyone's personal life decisions is stupid. When I'm old I hope to live in the country. Or in a monastery. :)
- January 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM
- JR said...
Jenny here...thanks for the comments (and thanks to Erica for posting this).
Brian, I have to give my parents credit for exposing me to the city early and often. I like to pass that on to as many people as possible. We have friends from college who come and visit us and we always take them Downtown for dinners, games, shows, museums... you name it.
John, I think that's a good point. It's like a reverse "grass is greener" effect! How strange! I too would find the suburbs intolerable if I didn't get my daily exposure to city life. Maybe it's just a matter of finding a good balance and recognizing that others may have a different idea of what that is?
- January 28, 2010 at 1:14 PM
- redrabbit said...
Thank you all for the comments on Jenny's post!
I am guilty of a lot of suburb bashing-- I grew up in Eastgate too, and have hated it for years and years. But as I mentioned in the very first post on this blog, I've moved beyond that-- I realize that there is a right place for me (and it ain't Eastgate). However, cutting on the 'burbs is something I ought to be a little more sensitive to. It'll always be home in a lot of ways.
- January 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM
- 5chw4r7z said...
As everyone else has stated most if not all city residents are so tired of being told they'll be shot when someone asked where they live, its almost become a kneejerk reaction in self defense for us to look down on anyone from the 'burbs.
You're right not everyone wants or needs to live downtown, its not for everone and its starting to get crowded sometimes I wish for the Cincinnati I had when I moved here in 2004 when I could stroll into a restaraunt and sit down without a reservation.
But one thing I want to know, what is convienient in Anderson?
You live in a house you can afford farther out, but what is the hidden cost?
I pay $40 a month to commute to work, how much do you spend?
I spend $0 in travel costs to go to the museum, the theater or library.
How much more house could you afford if your travel cost was $0 and you could walk?
I've just decided I'd rather spend that commute money on myself rather than a car.
To each his own.
- January 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM
- JR said...
I own a Yaris, so I spend about as much as you to commute (to give you an idea, we made it from Cincy to DC on one tank of gas).I tend to spend a lot of my time in the countryside and outdoors camping, hiking and canoeing and my close proximity to several parks and canoe put-ins in Milford make it convenient. I do visit DT attractions a lot but often combine those trips with my commute.
We did look for houses slightly closer to the city and for what we purchased our new build for, we would have been renovating a home that was falling apart in the city. We found that we would be paying for the location rather than the quality of the house, which is a tradeoff we didn't want to make.
I do know the people you describe-the ones from my neck of the woods who think you're tripping over bodies if you come downtown. But what about people like me who know that's ridiculous?
If you don't mind taking a look at my blog, you'll see why I prefer to live where I do and own a car. It just works with my interests. If I lived downtown, I'd need a car anyway to get to the other things I wanted to do that are close to where I am now :-)
- January 28, 2010 at 4:03 PM
- Amyl said...
The residents of downtown and OTR are very small group. What's interesting to me is that most of Cincinnati's active bloggers (that blog about Cincinnati related things) live in that area. So it's an very active and vocal minority. The population afraid to come downtown is much higher than the We <3 OTR cheerleaders.
Jerks live all over the place. Cool people live all over the place. You are cool and you live in the suburbs. I live in OTR and the people next door are jerks. Living in OTR doesn't give anyone an instant cool card. When someone says something about jerky people and their suburban existence don't take it personally. It doesn't apply to you.
What else are we supposed to get out of this? People should be nicer on the internet? Yeah, everyone needs to be more aware.
- January 28, 2010 at 6:20 PM
- redrabbit said...
Oh my gosh, I LOVE this comment.
Jerks DO live everywhere.
On Jennifer's behalf, I'd like to throw in the fact that a lot of this banter happens OFFLINE, not just on the internet. (She and I have had this discussion before.) But that doesn't take away from the fact that yeah... jerks live everywhere.
- January 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM
- Amyl said...
I was being sincere but I guess it didn't come off that way.
So, yay for anyone who is for progess in Cincinnati. I like (and read) all your blogs but I'm now going to retreat back to my Tumblr dashboard and stay away from comments.
- January 28, 2010 at 8:06 PM
- redrabbit said...
I was being sincere too! I liked your comment!
I was just throwing in a comment about how this stuff isn't just internet-based.
- January 28, 2010 at 8:10 PM
- 5chw4r7z said...
JR, Amyl and RedRabbit,
Since you've brought up jerks, the other cool thing about downtown is you have a lot of people to chose from to be friends with. I've pruned all or most of the jerks from my life and surround myself with the most positive and intelligent people I can.(I need to because I'm an idiot)
When I lived outside Youngstown in the sticks, I was stuck with my few neighbors.
- January 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM
- Heather said...
I think the same thing can be said about neighborhoods within the city limits. People frown when I say I live in Pleasant Ridge because it's probably 50% black. Ooh isn't it dangerous? Um no! And I can't see spending twice as much to live 5 minutes away in the blessed Hyde Park! My friends bought a 2 bedroom - 1 bath - no driveway home for $210K in East HP. My 5 bedroom - 2 bath - 2 car garage (tandem) home in PRidge was $150K! For that amount of money - I'll drive the 5 minutes to HP Square!
Slightly different argument - but still the same end. People have different things that are important to them - we all balance those items based on our own values.
- January 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM
- CityKin said...
I'm a native westsider, and a current OTR resident, so by my standards you have two marks against you. The way I see it the further east you go the uglier it gets... until you get past Batavia..
But you're still welcome to work and spend your time and money down here. In fact, thanks. Hope to bump into you sometime!
- January 29, 2010 at 9:30 AM
- liz said...
great post and lots of interesting comments!
- January 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM
- bryn said...
downtown cincy is not THAT great, that is why most people do not live downtown and prefer to live in the suburbs. grocery stores are hard to find and the city feels like it shuts down at night; of course there are certain parts that are more "lively" but cincy is nothing like chicago, DC, Portland etc. cincy is just different, it is conservative and not progressive at all. there is a small group of people wanting to revitalize the city but without political and financial support nothing is ever going to really change. plus people in the mid-west are different then people on the east and west coasts; people marry younger here, have families and therefore there are not as many YPs left that want to live downtown.
- January 29, 2010 at 7:17 PM
- Anonymous said...
I want to like Cinci. I want to love Cinci. More than anything, I want Cinci to feel like home...but it just doesn't. My husband grew up on the far west side and then moved away for school. After school we spent almost a decade outside Chicago. I spent the majority of my time in downtown Chicago and loved it. The city never made me feel unsafe, threatened or dirty. Went to Bulls games, Cubs games, museums and theatre. It's a cool place. Husband took a job in Cinci 4 years ago. The first time I drove downtown was to go to the book sale at the library. Someone approached me and asked me for money while I was doing something in the back of my car with my 2 year old. That same day, I had lunch downtown and was given a bagel that was literally covered in mold. Not the best first day downtown. The second time I went downtown to visit my husband at work someone again approached me at my car asking for money. It's a very unsettling feeling especially when you are with your child. Am I afraid of homeless people? Absolutely not. In Chicago, you get to know the homeless people. You see them in the same spot every day. You say hello to them and you wonder if something happened to them if they are not there one day. We lived a block away from a train station and there were frequently homeless people hanging out but they never approached us or made us feel threatened.
Over Christmas we took our little ones (4 and 2) downtown for the train display. We had to walk 2 blocks but in that time we had to walk over condoms and vomit. Again...never happened in Chicago. Not kidding. Never.
Cinci (ok the 'burbs) is now home. My kids will grow up here. This will be my kids' city. I want them to love it. I want them to think it is great. I just need to find a way to think it myself. I'm trying. That's how I found this blog...
- January 29, 2010 at 11:13 PM
- VisuaLingual said...
I agree with the above comment that Cincinnati is not ALL THAT. The basin area isn't really ALL THAT, either. But, as much as the anti-inner city frustrates me, that kind of pervasive provinciality enables me to live an affordable life in OTR that is pedestrian-friendly and convenient. So, when people quiz me about the horrors of living where I do, I sometimes defend it or explain what I love about OTR. Other times, I get tired of being an ambassador and just bite my tongue.
The main reason why I was willing to move to Cincinnati in the first place was because I knew that we could afford to live in a central area and lead the kinds of lives we're now leading. So, although my own instinct is anti-suburban, it follows that I should actually be pro-suburbs, because that helps me afford my quiet little life.
- January 30, 2010 at 11:38 AM
- Kevin LeMaster said...
One other thing to consider...not all suburbs are created equally. Some offer much better lifestyle choices than others.
- January 31, 2010 at 6:32 PM
- Nire said...
Very insightful post. I grew up in West Chester. Most people cringe when I mention that, though I never truly understood why. Growing up there was fantastic - I had a great childhood. BBQs, bike riding throughout the neighborhood, huge backyards, trees, pool parties, wonderful friends, a great education. I respect my parents for choosing to raise my brother and me in an environment like that. I still love visiting my parents there - I couldn't imagine saying a bad word about the suburbs. After moving around for a number of years, I finally own a place downtown. It's perfect for what I need right now. However, if i ever have a family, I would have a difficult time denying them the great upbringing I had in the suburbs.
Does that mean I love downtown any less? Not at all. I would not have purchased a home there if I didn't believe in downtown's growth and prosperity. It simply means that different places meet different needs at different times. For now, downtown gives me what I am looking for, but who knows what the future will bring? And I wonder if I did leave downtown for the 'burbs if I too would be referred to as a suburban sheep?
- February 1, 2010 at 8:30 AM
- redrabbit said...
Wow, thank you all for the fantastic comments! Sounds like I might have to ask Jennifer for another guest post some time, eh?
Make sure you visit her blog, too!
- February 1, 2010 at 10:05 AM
- Reedie said...
I promise I'm not just trying to up the comment count of this one so Erica invites me back (well, ok maybe I am).
There are three points that strike me as I re-read these comments:
1) It is sometimes assumed that Downtown can fill most needs as far as dining, entertainment and culture. For me, it's just one side of the coin. I enjoy all it has to offer, but I also need to go further afield for my other interests. So while I might be criticized for having to drive to go to the CAM, if I lived in the city, I'd still drive to the suburbs to go canoeing.
2) Some who agree with me do so in a way that's almost backhanded...sort of, "Live in the suburbs if you want, that just gives us city folk more room." I still think there's a pervasive attitude that places anyone who lives in the city as being more "in the know" than someone who doesn't. I would put money on my being able to pass as a downtowner through conversation alone. In fact,I've shown DT residents things they didn't know about. The Toynbee Tile, for instance.
3) I think you just have to look harder in the suburbs for interesting people and places. They exist, they are just more hidden. And I think that's part of the excitement.
- February 1, 2010 at 10:25 AM
- 5chw4r7z said...
You drive, make a car payment, parking, insurance and wear & tear all for $40 a month?
If I could pull that off I might live farther out to. But until I can, I'll spend all that money on myself instead of a car.
Viva la Downtown
- February 8, 2010 at 1:57 PM
- Reedie said...
I know what you're getting at, but it's the assumption that I only use my car to commute to work that raises an issue here. Before my husband's diagnosis, we were out of town every single weekend on a road trip, and that's no exaggeration. If I only drove to the grocery store and to work, I'd totally agree with your thoughts about owning a car. However, my car is a base model $12,000 Yaris with a great warranty (and $12,000, even with gas and wear and tear, wouldn't have added much to a house we could have bought in the city). I'd venture to say that with as many trips we take by car, it's a great investment as opposed to renting a car every single time. The other assumption you keep making is that everything I could possibly want is downtown. It's not. I love the things that are there, but I also explained my multitude of other interests that aren't downtown.
On another note, I again got the shocked look when I explained where I was from on Friday night. We were eating dinner before a show at the Aronoff and were having a conversation about our occupations, interests, etc. with a downtowner. When we said we were from Eastgate, he couldn't believe it. Is it so impossible to fathom that someone who lives just 20 minutes away could possible know a good restaurant and be cultured enough to attend a show? This is what I'm getting at.
- February 9, 2010 at 8:46 PM


text:
Starting this trade for ya Trick cause I gotta go to practice ;o
Trading my lv.1 female Mudkipz to Trick for 3 candies. Thanks, take care of her! :d
Trading 1x TM CHARGE BEAM to Dae~Maker for 2x Rare Candies & 1x TM TAUNT.
TM Link: http://forums.upnetwork.net/viewtopi...202851#p202851
x01] TM Taunt to LBC for her TM Charge Beam
*trade confirmed*
Trading 4 candies, Psychic Ball, TM Light Screen and a Liechi Berry to Trick for his Lv. 1 male Treecko
thanks a lot man, been waiting so long to get my hands on one.
Last edited by Lee-san; 3rd November 2007 at 1:57 PM.
Trading Shinjara a Shiny Purple Mudkipz for her 4 Candies/Heart Scale.
You take care of him. Otherwise I'll sick Kaio on you. =P
two candies to Jonouchi for his Leaf Ball. Thank you!^^
*Trade Confirmed*
Transferring my Chikorita into said Leaf Ball
Heart Scale to Jonouchi for his Lv.1 M Shiny Mudkip. Don't worry I'll take good care of him =p
*Trade Confirmed*
Trading one candy to Wayney for his Lv.1 M Scyther
fankles, wayne!
Last edited by Radical Edward; 6th November 2007 at 4:00 AM.
Trading 4 candies, Blue Scarf, Net Ball, Chocolate Ball, Lure Ball, Sacred Ash, Spelon Berry, Pamtre Berry, Watmel Berry, Lum Berry, and Sitrus Berry all for QP's lv.1 male Bulbasaur. Thanks so much, you have no idea how much I really appreciate this <3
Lv.01 male Bubbasaur to Gary for 4 candies + the aforementioned items.
****ade confirmed]
Thank you as well! :3 I know he'll have some fun with you. <3
Trading to Konan [x04] Rare Candies for a Lv.01 [F] Bulbasaur.
*trade commenced*
Thank you so very, very, very much. I will remember you always.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Regarding "Kessel for Nash", or Brian Burke's Ontario problem
Cam Charron
June 15 2012 09:48AM
Perhaps it wasn't Darren Dreger's intention to stoke some fires this morning when he went on TSN radio and suggested that if the Toronto Maple Leafs may be looking to make a move of real significance, for a player such as Rick Nash.
This came after a brief bit about how Phil Kessel, the Leafs' star winger and 37-goal scorer may be uncomfortable in a fishbowl environment like Toronto that is not for everyone. The transcript of Dreger's discussion with Mike Richards this morning is available thanks to our friend b1rky at Pension Plan Puppets, and it's worth a read.
Let's not take away from how silly it is, from a hockey perspective, to trade Phil Kessel, one of the premier goal scorers in the National Hockey League, for Rick Nash, who is up there but his star is fading. Nash is 28, makes $7.8M a year, and scored 30 goals in the NHL last season. He's had a declining total every year since 2009.
But Nash is many things that Kessel is not in the perception of Toronto hockey fans. For one, he is regarded as a true superstar, thanks to his many appearances with the Canadian national team, his strong performance at the 2010 Olympics and his nightly appearances on out-of-town highlight reels.
The other thing Nash has going in his favour is that he's Ontario-born, GTHL-raised and OHL-developed. Nash played his 15-year old season with the Toronto Marlboros, scoring 61 goals and 115 points in just 34 games, before scoring 63 goals in two seasons of junior and making the immediate jump to the NHL after being selected first overall by the Columbus Blue Jackets in 2002.
He's played four times for Team Canada at the World Championships, twice at the Olympics and was at the World Juniors. For a lot of us, that means a lot of exposure as a star talent on Canadian airwaves, a path being followed by other GTA-born players Jon Tavares, Steven Stamkos and Tyler Seguin.
The lack of Ontario-born superstars on the local Maple Leafs, indeed, the team was without an Ontario regular on the team last year, became somewhat of a contentious issue after Don Cherry eviscerated Brian Burke during a Coach's Corner segment in March. During the middle of the Leafs' slide and after firing Ron Wilson, Cherry went ape:
"We pay him salary from Ontario. We are the fans out there from Ontario. We are the only ones that would put up with going four years in a row with no and what finally they sign something at the end and they're all bad."
Cherry was going down swinging in this instance. Indeed, the Leafs were a brutal team, but so are many of the teams that get the top picks that happened to be Ontario-born players for a decent run in the 2000s. He pointed out that Minnesota attracted Minnesota-born players and that every other team in the NHL has at least one player from Ontario.
In his public feud with Brian Burke, Cherry was able to use his Coach's Corner segment to appeal to the hearts and minds of the kids who play the game in the GTHL, suggesting that they will never be able to play for their favourite team because Burke only wants American college guys:
"Last night I'm at the Marlies and the Rebels game… these guys, beautiful guys, they're T.O. young Nats. They will never play for the Toronto Maple Leafs."
And that's an awful indictment.
The Maple Leafs aren't bad because they have a lack of Ontario-born players, but if the team continues to be bad, now seven years without a playoff appearance, the lack of local heroes will continue to be a problem of the local perception of Brian Burke.
We're a far cry from the age when hockey players would go out drinking with fans or exchanging post-game handshakes. As the more reporters and news outlets get access to players, the less personable they are. It's hard enough to get a guy to open up in front of a microphone, try 30, the players aware that a band of unholy urchins aren't above singling out a player for a slip-up or a failure to deliver the right cliché.
So there's little to connect fans with hockey players anymore. It's just the game, and the TV networks have tried in vain to give us more information about player's personal lives, but it's all just noise. No North American sport is as international as hockey, with as many as six different languages being spoken in most NHL dressing rooms. Connecting with local heroes is vital, and fans would love to share the same connection with a hockey player, possibly having played in the same league, skated on the same rink in minor hockey, or even grew up in the same town. If we can't connect to the player's personality, connecting to his experience is key.
Toronto doesn't know Phil Kessel all that well. He's the best player this city has likely seen since Mats Sundin, but Pete Chiarelli couldn't have twisted the knife any further when, with the two first round picks he got from the deal, he used to select a kid from Brampton and one from Toronto. Who they are at this point is meaningless. Burke never traded physical human beings, just futures, for the rights to one of hockey's best goal scorers in the three years since Kessel has come here.
Indeed, since Kessel began his tenure as a Leaf, only nine NHLers have scored more goals. Kessel has scored more than many a Canadian superstar, including Rick Nash, Dany Heatley, Jeff Carter, James Neal and Eric Staal. He does this at a bargain price. We're aware of his defensive inabilities, but the fact is that few goal-scoring wingers are also capable two-way players.
The only exception to this rule is Corey Perry, but even Perry doesn't have the inherent ability as a leader to bring his team to the playoffs every season. What Toronto expects out of Phil Kessel is a player that doesn't exist.
And in the absence of really being able to critically see Rick Nash in the NHL since Columbus rarely play on Canadian television and have played just four playoff games in that span, maybe that's what Nash represents to a section of Leafs fans that would love to see an Ontario product, one they can relate to, as the face of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Rick Nash is, essentially, a player that doesn't exist.
Kessel is closer to solving Burke's Ontario problem than Nash, however, in that Kessel brings the Leafs closer to winning. Swap the two, and the Leafs are no closer to the NHL Playoffs, and then the reason becomes "well they only have ONE Ontario boy! (or two if Nazem Kadri is with the team)". The Ontario problem will disappear if Burke rights this ship and gets it moving forward, and gives people more to cheer for than simply local heroes.
I don't in any way want to condone a Kessel for Nash swap, but consider their stats over the past 3 seasons.
Kessel: 234GP, 99g, 201pts, -38 Nash: 233GP, 95g, 192pts, -19
Kessel has scored 15.23% of his teams goals and Nash has score 15.27% of his teams goals over the past 3 seasons.
Offensively there is very little to distinguish between the two. Defensively, they are both very weak. Nash is nothing more than a bigger and slightly older version of Kessel. The main reason I don't do that trade is Nash costs a lot more and is not worth what he gets paid. Nash at $5.5M I like. Nash at $7.8M for 6 more years, not so much.
I wouldn't qualify James Neal as a superstar or star, but a good goal scorer who gets to play with superstar Evgeni Malkin.
I think people are bitter about the futures Burke gave up for Kessel is because Burke came in and arrogantly believed his team would be that much better via signing Armstrong, Orr, Komisarek, Gustavsson as his big free agents and claiming 'mission accomplished' for a team ready to compete for playoffs, with Vesa Toskala as the starting goaltender. I'd be upset too. Your GM widely overestimates, sells the future off for a star with limitations, while a divisional rival has a Stanley Cup and a blue-chip player at both forward and defence for the next 15-20 years.
June 15 2012, 12:07PM
Kessel's not a "star with limitations." He's not Crosby or Malkin, but he's one of the top ten scorers in the league and he's young and relatively cheap. Not every player is Henrik Zetterberg or Pavel Datsyuk. Some people contribute comparatively more offensively. That's ok. Kessel is a star, plain and simple. Other players can fill different roles, all important in a winning team. Kessel is one of the best at fulfilling his role. The problems with this team have nothing to do with him and the fact that he's not amazing defensively.


text:
Scratch Map 3D Globe £11.99 instead of £19.95 (from Luckies of London) for a scratch map 3D globe - track your travels in a totally unique way and save 40%
Save 40%
Time left to purchase
- Get a unique 3D globe.
- Simply scratch off the top foil layer of the countries you've visited.
- Reveals intricate colourful geographical detail.
- Flat packed and ready to assemble.
- 20cm x 20cm x 20cm when built.
- A fun way to explore the world!
The Fine Print
- May buy multiples.
- Voucher valid until 4th Apr 2014.
- Postage costs an additional £3.95 per item.
- Please allow up to 10 working days for delivery after redeeming.
- Subject to availability.
Full Details
Whether you're a regular globetrotter or you'd like to learn more about our planet, today's worldly-wise deal can reveal all...
We're offering you a scratch map 3D globe for £11.99, saving you 40% off Luckies of London's price of £19.95 (correct as of 17.3.14).
No matter if you're a trip-of-a-lifetime type to exotic far-flung destinations, or prefer jetting off closer to home, today's deal is essential in helping you keep track of your travels! The scratch map 3D globe is a gold foil-coated map of the world which allows you to scratch off where you've been. When you've scratched off the country or continent you've visited, a rich and colourful map with geographical detail is revealed underneath. The globe comes flat packed and ready to assemble, making it an excellent gift to post to someone recently back from their holiday, or a real talking-point for your home. How cool is that?
How to Redeem
- When the deal ends we'll send you your unique wowcher code.
- Head to the Wowcher redemption page using the link we send you.
- Enter your wowcher code and delivery details.
Once purchased, you can redeem this wowcher towards another wowcher or claim a Wowcher Wallet Credit. Click here for more info.
4 Duck Feather & Down Pillows£18.99 instead of £127.99 (from Adam Linens) for four duck feather hotel quality pillows - save 85%
Save 85%
Time left to purchase
A2 Personalised Canvas£9 instead of £44.99 (from Your Perfect Canvas) for an A2 personalised canvas - save a picture-perfect 80%
Sleep Easy Hypoallergenic Memory Foam Sprung Mattress £49 instead of £380 (from Furniture Italia) for a double memory foam spring mattress, £69 for a king mattress - save up to 87%
Save 87%
Time left to purchase


text:
Doug McKinlay/Axiom Photographic Agency/Getty Images
We promise they aren't the manifestation of some depraved high school math teacher. Geodesic domes are certainly geared toward the mathematically minded, but they also have a lot of practical uses. How much do you know about these domes?
Start Quiz »
You scored
0 out of 20
Question 1 of 20
What does the word "geodesic" mean?
But actually lopping the Earth in half is not recommended. Geodesic means Earth-dividing in Latin.
long division
Question 2 of 20
Geodesic domes are based on spherical designs that enclose a maximum amount of space using a minimum of what?
They take material efficiency to a higher level, using about 30 percent fewer physical components than rectangular buildings.
Question 3 of 20
Where is the world-famous, iconic geodesic sphere built by Walt Disney located?
Six Flags
Disney World
It's shaped like a huge, silver orange, which is appropriate, as Spaceship Earth is located at Walt Disney World Resort in Florida.
Question 4 of 20
Why are dome homes difficult to waterproof?
Shingles are hard to place on round surfaces.
They have a lot of seams and angles.
We like triangles, too, but we don't think they meant for domes to have interior waterfalls. Lots of seams make for difficult waterproofing, as many dome owners have learned ... the hard way.
Water tends to pool on their surfaces.
Question 5 of 20
Where can many people find geodesic domes in their communities?
private businesses
art exhibitions
You'll find children hanging upside down from them at playgrounds. The domes are commonly used as those half-sphere jungle gyms found in parks everywhere.
Question 6 of 20
What's one major annoyance to living in a dome home?
Domes amplify sounds throughout the home.
You can almost hear your children think (and that's not necessarily a good thing). Domes transmit sound everywhere, meaning there's very little privacy.
There's no place to hang lights.
You have to crouch to get through the tiny door.
Question 7 of 20
What's the best way to increase living space in a dome home?
build lofts
They symbolize their inventor's "lofty ideals." Lofts let you build higher toward the ceiling while consuming a minimum of floor space with supports.
add a second dome to the first
move your roommate's possessions to the curb
Question 8 of 20
What's one of the biggest advantages of geodesic domes?
They're just so pretty.
They're incredibly strong.
And they're not susceptible to Kryptonite, either. These domes are very strong and stable yet use a fraction of the building materials that other structures require.
They'll attract many strange people.
Question 9 of 20
Did you know you can buy your own dome-home kit? How do manufacturers make these kits easy to assemble?
You can call for help 24 hours a day.
The directions are on nice copy paper.
The parts are color-coded.
Often, the parts are color-coded for speedy assembly. If you're colorblind, though, you may wind up with a really weird dome.
Question 10 of 20
Who is credited with inventing geodesic domes?
an unknown igloo maker
Walter Bauersfeld
It created a huge sensation throughout his home country, Germany. Walter Bauersfeld built the first dome in Jena.
Buckminster Fuller
Question 11 of 20
For what purpose did Walter Bauersfeld construct his geodesic dome?
He wanted a surface for a planetarium projection.
To infinity and beyond! Bauersfeld's dome ceiling was perfect for projecting maps of stars and planets.
He wanted a high ceiling for a unique church.
He really liked soccer.
Question 12 of 20
Geodesic domes owe their strength to what structural principle?
compression tension
He totally just made up that word -- tensegrity. No really, he did. Buckminster Fuller combined the words "tensional" and "integrity" to describe this principle, which can be used to make super-strong buildings.
Question 13 of 20
From what did Buckminister Fuller take much of his inspiration for geodesic design?
newspaper headlines
the natural world
Look at this snowflake, man! It's just, like, so cool! Natural shapes inspired Fuller to create efficient geodesic designs, which subsequently inspired many hippies.
the Koran
Question 14 of 20
What should you do with your framed pictures when you move into a dome?
lay them on the floor
glue them to the ceiling
chuck them into the nearest dumpster or storage facility
You might as well get used to not having pictures -- the curved walls of domes mean standard straight frames won't hang easily.
Question 15 of 20
Why are geodesic domes so resistant to earthquakes?
They have a low center of gravity.
Super-strong construction and a low center of gravity make these buildings nearly indestructible compared to traditional homes.
They're from California.
They have rubberized suspension.
Question 16 of 20
Which polygon is the basis for geodesic domes?
the square
the triangle
It's the strongest shape out there. Triangles distribute weight and stress better than any other polygon.
the rectangle
Question 17 of 20
Which geometric shape is made of triangles and is most frequently used to design geodesic domes?
A 20-sided polyhedron, the icosahedron's potential for creating new dome designs is infinite.
Question 18 of 20
The original private dome home, which belonged to Buckminster Fuller, is located where?
near Buffalo, N.Y.
in Carbondale, Ill.
It's falling apart, too, thanks to a severe Midwestern storm. Bucky's dome home is located in Carbondale, Ill.
outside Los Angeles
Question 19 of 20
What's one reason domes are nearly impervious to strong winds?
They have no overhanging roof components.
Eaves and soffits are great for shedding water, but the wind grabs them and won't let go. Domes don't have any overhangs.
They always have titanium struts.
They're made of huge panels of heavy concrete.
Question 20 of 20
Why did domes fall out of favor after the 1970s?
intense bias against anything igloo-shaped
Their drawbacks became obvious to many people.
They were so cool at the time, though. But the cons became more obvious to more people, and they weren't willing to give up their squarish homes.
All of the hippies gave up and got office jobs and normal homes.


text:
Kyle John Holmes has accepted the call to serve in the Peru Lima Central Mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He will enter the Provo Missionary Training Center on Jan. 21.
Kyle will speak in the Huntington First Ward (115 South 400 East, Huntington) Jan 11, at 9 a.m. He will also speak in the Castle Dale Singles Branch (915 North Center Castle Dale) Jan 18, at 11 a.m.
Kyle is the son of Eldon and Vicky Holmes. He is the grandson of Larry and the late Joanne Hyatt, the late Ferris Holmes, and Chuck and Cleo Adams.


text:
lol cuuuute
Now that's funny!
I've seen it a million times on facebook and it still cracks me up!
very funny.
I have a mother cat and her two daughters, whom I adopted when they were very young (kittens were about 8 weeks, mother cat was about 10 months). And yup, that's pretty much how she has always trained her children.
I love my cats, but they're all assholes. My dog, however, would lay down his handsome, ding-bat life for me.


text:
Urge Your Representative to Reject a Weak Balanced Budget Amendment
Posted on Tuesday, November 8th, 2011, 4:20 PM PERMALINK
Now is the time to urge your Representative to reject attempts to amend the Constitution with a weak Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). As part of the debt limit deal passed in August, Congress must vote on a BBA to the Constitution before the end of the year. However, it appears politicians in Washington are getting cold feet. Momentum is gaining for a weak Balanced Budget Amendment that would stack the deck in favor of tax hikes each year Congress refuses to cut spending.
Take Action Below to urge your Representative to support only a strong Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that protects taxpayers.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Kansas Senate Three Votes Shy of Passing Largest Tax Increase in State History
Posted by Miriam Roff on Monday, February 27th, 2017, 4:50 PM PERMALINK
Kansas lawmakers recently passed a $1.1 billion tax increase that was vetoed by Gov. Brownback last week. The Kansas House subsequently overrode the veto with a vote of 85-40, but the override fell three votes short in the state senate, preventing the largest tax hike in state history from going into effect.
Had the legislature been able to override Gov. Brownback's veto, Sunflower State residents would have seen their personal income tax burden increase as much as 18 percent. The income tax exemption that was enacted in 2012 for over 330 thousand farmers and job creators in the state would have also been eliminated.
"This punitive, retroactive tax increase on Kansas workers and families would have cut Kansans' pay almost immediately," Gov. Brownback said in a statement after the effort to override his veto died in the senate. "We will continue to work with legislative leadership to develop a balanced budget. I encourage them to find savings in the state's budget before asking Kansans to find savings in theirs."
Eric Stafford, a vice president of the Kansas Chamber, also noted in written testimony to Kansas lawmakers that the 2012 tax cuts need more time to spur economic growth.
"We know the tax cuts have attracted businesses to Kansas and now we're looking to change the rules on them just a few short years later," he wrote.
This bill came on the heels of the 2015 record tax hikes—which hit the state's most vulnerable populations the hardest by slapping higher taxes on cigarettes and increasing the sales tax burden. Unfortunately, had the senate found the votes to override Gov. Brownback's veto last week, Kansas residents would have been hit with another round of job-killing, income-reducing tax hikes.
As noted by Senator Ty Masterson, a Republican who voted against the override, this bill failed because "it was not for the people of Kansas."
"This bill is to take from the people of Kansas to make our decision-making on spending easier," Sen. Masterson said shortly before the Senate voted.
Kansas lawmakers now head back to the drawing board to look for a way to rectify their $1.1 billion overspending problem.
"Raising taxes is what lawmakers do instead of reforming government," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. "After being hit with 20 federal Obamacare tax increases, and a round of state tax hikes in 2015, the last thing individuals, families, and employers across Kansas need is for lawmakers to pile on with further state tax hike. I urge lawmakers to put spending in line with available revenues without taking more hard-earned income from Kansas taxpayers."
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Flashback: In Obama's First Address to Congress He Lied About Obamacare Tax Hikes on Middle Class
Posted by Toni-Anne Barry on Monday, February 27th, 2017, 4:20 PM PERMALINK
During President Trump's first joint address to Congress he will discuss his plan to fix much of the damage caused by his predecessor's policies. During the early months of Obama's presidency, the American people heard many promises that, to say the least, were never followed through. When Obama was making his first joint address to Congress ATR compiled the top five false claims made by the newly elected president. Most notably, Obama promised that no American family making less than $250,000 would see any form of tax increase.
What Obama promised: "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."
What actually happened: Obamacare imposed 20 new or higher tax hikes, many of which directly hit low and middle income Americans. It implemented taxes such as the medicine cabinet tax that has caused millions of Americans to be unable to use their pre-tax Flexible Spending Account or Health Savings Accounts to purchase over the counter medicine. Over ten years this tax has cost FSA and HSA users $6.7 billion.
10 million Americans have also felt the burden of the Obamacare chronic care tax. Prior to Obamacare Americans with high medical expenses were allowed an income tax deduction if their expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. This tax has increased the threshold from 7.5 percent to 10 percent, making it harder for families to receive this deduction. This tax will cost Americans a whopping $40 billion over ten years.
Obamacare also famously imposed the individual mandate tax ranging from a minimum of $695 for an individual to $2,085 for a larger household.
These are only some of the tax hikes that all Americans have been burdened with since Obamacare has taken effect. All 20 tax increases have culminated in a $1 trillion net tax increase on the American people. A far cry from Obama's adamant assurance that no American family outside of the top 2 percent would feel the effects of a tax increase.
You can read the full list of Obamacare tax hikes here.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Norquist Praises House GOP Tax Plan
Posted by Hannah Daniel on Monday, February 27th, 2017, 4:02 PM PERMALINK
On Monday ATR president Grover Norquist appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal to discuss the House GOP tax plan along with Adam Posen, the president of the Peterson Institute. Outlining the key points of the proposed Republican plan, Norquist highlighted the pro-growth elements that House leaders have included in the blueprint.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
List of Obamacare Tax Hikes
Posted by John Kartch on Thursday, February 23rd, 2017, 6:57 PM PERMALINK
It is time to repeal each and every one of Obamacare's tax increases. The 20 Obamacare tax hikes are a $1 trillion net tax increase on the American people. The full list is below:
Individual Mandate Non-Compliance Tax: Anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance – as defined by the Obama-era Department of Health and Human Services -- must pay an income surtax to the IRS. In 2014, close to 7.5 million households paid this tax. Most make less than $250,000. The Obama administration uses the Orwellian phrase "shared responsibility payment" to describe this tax.
For tax year 2016, the tax is a minimum of $695 for individuals, while families of four have to pay a minimum of $2,085.
Households w/ 1 Adult
Households w/ 2 Adults
Households w/ 2 Adults & 2 children
A recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that repealing this tax would decrease spending by $311 billion over ten years.
Medicine Cabinet Tax on HSAs and FSAs: Since 2011 millions of Americans are no longer able to purchase over-the-counter medicines using pre-tax Flexible Spending Accounts or Health Savings Accounts dollars. Examples include cold, cough, and flu medicine, menstrual cramp relief medication, allergy medicines, and dozens of other common medicine cabinet health items. This tax costs FSA and HSA users $6.7 billion over ten years.
Flexible Spending Account Tax: The 30 - 35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family's basic medical needs face an Obamacare-imposed cap of $2,500. This tax will hit Americans $32 billion over the next ten years.
Before Obamacare, the accounts were unlimited under federal law, though employers were allowed to set a cap. Now, parents looking to sock away extra money to pay for braces find themselves quickly hitting this new cap, meaning they have to pony up some or all of the cost with after-tax dollars. Needless to say, this tax especially impacts middle class families.
There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap is particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. Families with special needs children often use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at special needs schools can run thousands of dollars per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax increase limits the options available to these families.
Chronic Care Tax: This income tax increase directly targets middle class Americans with high medical bills. The tax hits 10 million households every year. Before Obamacare, Americans facing high medical expenses were allowed an income tax deduction to the extent that those expenses exceeded 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). Obamacare now imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Therefore, Obamacare not only makes it more difficult to claim this deduction, it widens the net of taxable income. This income tax increase will cost Americans $40 billion over the next ten years.
According to the IRS, approximately 10 million families took advantage of this tax deduction each year before Obamacare. Almost all were middle class: The average taxpayer claiming this deduction earned just over $53,000 annually in 2010. ATR estimates that the average income tax increase for the average family claiming this tax benefit is about $200 - $400 per year.
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike: This provision increases the tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Ten Percent Excise Tax on Indoor Tanning: The Obamacare 10 percent tanning tax has wiped out an estimated 10,000 tanning salons, many owned by women. This $800 million Obamacare tax increase was the first to go into effect (July 2010). This petty, burdensome, nanny-state tax affects both the business owner and the end user. Industry estimates show that 30 million Americans visit an indoor tanning facility in a given year, and over 50 percent of salon owners are women. There is no exception granted for those making less than $250,000 meaning it is yet another tax that violates Obama's "firm pledge" not to raise "any form" of tax on Americans making less than this amount.
"Cadillac Tax" -- Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans: In 2020, a new 40 percent excise tax on employer provided health insurance plans is scheduled to kick in, on plans exceeding $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. According to research by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the Cadillac tax will hit 26 percent of employer provided plans by 2020 and 42 percent of employer provided plans by 2028. Over time, this will decrease care and increase costs for millions of American families across the country.
Health Insurance Tax: In addition to mandating the purchase of health insurance through the individual mandate tax, Obamacare directly increases the cost of insurance through the health insurance tax. The tax is projected to cost taxpayers – including those in the middle class – $130 billion over the next decade.
The total revenue this tax collects is set annually by Treasury and is then divided amongst insurers relative to the premiums they collect each year. While it is directly levied on the industry, the costs of the health insurance tax are inevitably passed on to small businesses that provide healthcare to their employees, middle class families through higher premiums, seniors who purchase Medicare advantage coverage, and the poor who rely on Medicaid managed care.
According to the American Action Forum, the Obamacare health insurance tax will increase premiums by up to $5,000 over a decade and will directly impact 1.7 million small businesses, 11 million households that purchase through the individual insurance market and 23 million households covered through their jobs. The tax is also economically destructive – the National Federation for Independent Businesses estimates the tax could cost up to 286,000 in new jobs and cost small businesses $33 billion in lost sales by 2023.
Employer Mandate Tax: This provision forces employers to pay a $2,000 tax per full time employee if they do not offer "qualifying" – as defined by the government -- health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Employer Mandate Tax raises taxes on businesses by $166.9 billion over the ten years.
Surtax on Investment Income: Obamacare created a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 for singles). This created a new top capital gains tax rate of 23.8% and increased taxes by $222.8 billion over ten years.
The capital gains tax hits income that has already been subjected to individual income taxes and is then reinvested in assets that spur new jobs, higher wages, and increased economic growth. Much of the "gains" associated with the capital gains tax is due to inflation and studies have shown that even supposedly modest increases in the capital gains tax have strong negative economic effects.
Payroll Tax Hike: Obamacare imposes an additional 0.9 percent payroll tax on individuals making $200,000 or couples making more than $250,000. This tax increase costs Americans $123 billion over ten years.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers: This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax on all sales of medical devices. The tax applies even if the company has no profits in a given year. The tax was recently paused for tax years 2016 and 2017. It will cost Americans $20 billion by 2025.
Tax on Prescription Medicine: Obamacare imposed a tax on the producers of prescription medicine based on relative share of sales. This is a $29.6 billion tax hike over the next ten years.
Codification of the "economic substance doctrine": This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks "substance" and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. This costs taxpayers $5.8 billion over ten years.
Elimination of Deduction for Retiree Prescription Drug Coverage: The elimination of this deduction is a $1.8 billion tax hike over ten years.
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives: This deduction limitation is a $600 million tax hike over ten years.
Conservative Coalition: Free File Is the Solution to Tax Complexity
Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Thursday, February 23rd, 2017, 3:00 PM PERMALINK
ATR President Grover Norquist today led a coalition of 19 free market groups urging Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to support making the Free File tax preparation program permanent.
The current complexity of the tax code makes it difficult – if not impossible – for taxpayers to file on their own. Free File is critical to addressing this complexity. The program is an innovative public-private solution to tax complexity that has served more than 40 million taxpayers and saved $1.3 billion in preparation costs since its inception.
It is also a far superior method of dealing with tax complexity than the alternative – having the IRS file taxes for individuals. This would be a clear conflict of interest and would empower the IRS – an agency that already struggles to fulfill its existing responsibilities to taxpayers – with even broader power over the paychecks of American families.
The full letter can be found here or below.
February 23, 2017
The Honorable Steven T. Mnuchin
United States Treasury Secretary
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Secretary Mnuchin:
On behalf of the undersigned conservative, free market organizations, we write in support of making the Free File tax preparation program permanent in 2017.
The Free File system is an innovative public-private solution to tax complexity that has served more than 40 million taxpayers and saved $1.3 billion in preparation costs since its inception. The program offers 70 percent of taxpayers, or those making less than $64,000, access to electronic filing software provided by leading private companies free of charge.
Today, it is difficult or impossible for most taxpayers to file their own taxes. The tax code is more than 75,000 pages long and contains over 2.4 million words. This complexity forces American families and businesses to spend more than 8.9 billion hours and $400 billion complying with the code every year.
Free File is critical to addressing this complexity. The program has frequently been reauthorized since it was introduced in 2008, and has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress.
Despite the success of this program, some, like Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have called for the program to be eliminated based on the notion that the government should have sole responsibility over tax preparation. In place of making Free File permanent, she has called for having the IRS file taxes for individuals as their solution to tax complexity.
This would be a mistake and would empower the IRS – an agency that already struggles to fulfill its existing responsibilities to taxpayers – with even broader power over the paychecks of American families. Having taxpayers receive a bill from the IRS would also be a huge conflict of interest given the agency already assesses tax liability for taxpayers.
In addition, it would require an increase in IRS manpower due to complexity associated with an expanded responsibility. Given the existing complexity in the code, it would be difficult – if not impossible – for everyday taxpayers to know if they were paying the right amount of taxes under this scenario.
The Free File program has been a clear success in ensuring taxpayers are able to comply the absurdly complex tax code and is a vastly superior solution to having the IRS file taxes for Americans. We urge you to make Free File permanent in 2017.
Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
Dan Schneider
Executive Director, American Conservative Union
Phil Kerpen
President, American Commitment
Dan Weber
President, Association of Mature American Citizens
Norm Singleton
President, Campaign for Liberty
Jeff Mazzella
President, Center for Individual Freedom
Tom Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director, Digital Liberty
George Landrith, President
Frontiers of Freedom
Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund
Tom Giovanetti
President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Allen Gutierrez
National Executive Director, The Latino Coalition
Seton Motley
President, Less Government
Colin Hanna
President, Let Freedom Ring
Charles Sauer
President, Market Institute
Pete Sepp
President, National Taxpayers Union
Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
David Williams
President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Berin Szoka
President, TechFreedom
The Honorable Donald J. Trump
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
The Honorable Kevin Brady
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman, Committee on Finance
U.S. Senate
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
More from Americans for Tax Reform
ATR Supports IP Guidelines Coalition
Posted by Celeste Arenas on Thursday, February 23rd, 2017, 2:24 PM PERMALINK
Americans for Tax Reform joined a coalition of over 70 groups urging the 115th Congress to protect intellectual property rights for every American innovator. In this letter, they put forth a set of guidelines and principles that will enable the Trump Administration to uphold, protect and enforce intellectual property protections.
Some points of the letter are extracted below.
Intellectual property deserves the same protection as physical property:
"The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of IP in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
"IP rights are not regulations—they are property rights that, when combined with the freedom to contract, facilitate markets."
Intellectual property rights are vital for free speech, economic growth and consumer protection:
"Strong IP rights go hand-in-hand with free speech as creators vigorously defend their ability to create works of their choosing, free from censorship."
"IP rights create jobs and fuel economic growth, turning intangible assets into exclusive property that can be traded in the marketplace… IP-intensive industries added $6.6 trillion to the value of GDP in 2014, equal to 38.2 percent of total GDP. In a knowledge based global economy, America's ability to remain a world leader in creativity and innovation depends on strong protection of IP."
"IP rights protect consumers by enabling them to make educated choices about the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of their purchases."
Online intellectual property must be protected on the internet:
"Protecting IP and internet freedom are both critically important and complementary—they are not mutually exclusive. A truly free internet, like any truly free community, is one where people can engage in legitimate activities safely, and where bad actors are held accountable."
Our letter urges the federal administration to uphold the Founding Fathers' vision for American innovation that is protected and facilitated through sound intellectual property protections.
Tax Reform: A Century of Setbacks
Posted by Elizabeth McKee on Thursday, February 23rd, 2017, 10:45 AM PERMALINK
Adherents of Americans for Tax Reform are sure to recognize some of the more important moments in the history of American tax policy. Readers are sure to be familiar, for example, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which allowed for the creation of a federal income tax. Starting off in 1913, income taxes were, by modern standards, incredibly low, with a top income bracket of 7% for those individuals earning more than $500,000 per year. In 2013 dollars, that would be the equivalent of a maximum 7% income tax rate for people earning $11,595,657 or more. At that time, the tax code was only 400 pages in length - an easy read for anyone who cared to put in the time.
So what changed? How did we end up with the 75,000 page regulatory behemoth that rears its ugly head every April to - mentally and financially - exhaust American families? The transformation can be traced back to the Revenue Act of 1917. Now approaching its centennial anniversary, the act sought to finance American involvement in World War I. This ground-breaking legislation ratcheted up tax rates in every income bracket, with a new top tax rate set at 67%. After the war ended, taxes never returned to their pre-war levels, and by 1952, the country's top earners were paying 92% of their income to the federal government. In addition, the Revenue Act of 1917 introduced a steep "corporate excess profits tax" on companies that made more than 8% of their revenues in profits. In 1917 - 1918, the size of the IRS more than doubled, employing 9,600 workers. Today, 85,000 people are employed by the IRS.
In 1913, arguing against the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Virginia delegate Robert E. Byrd predicted:
A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man's business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man's counting house . . . The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it men will be hailed into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer. An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state . . .
After over 100 years of tax reform, Byrd's words seem positively prescient. The long arms of the IRS reach into every home and business in America. Today, even the most ardent conservatives can scarcely dream of a 7% tax rate, where once only the nation's wealthiest would ever be asked to pay such an exorbitant portion of their incomes. If the last 100 years have taught us anything, it's that tax increases are rarely temporary. It's time to put an end to the World War I revenue extraction mechanisms that continue to affect American households to this day.
Simplify the tax code. Lower the tax burden. Reign in the IRS.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Four Ways Neil Gorsuch Could Affect Your Business
Posted by Elizabeth McKee on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017, 2:55 PM PERMALINK
On January 31, conservatives were heartened to hear of Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Gorsuch accepted his nomination by highlighting the importance of "impartiality and independence, collegiality and courage," and his political viewpoints are conservative. Gorsuch aptly described the late Justice Antonin Scalia as a "lion of the law," and previously Gorsuch has opposed requirements in Obamacare that mandate religious health care providers provide contraceptive services.
Neil Gorsuch's political leanings and impeccable qualifications should come as welcome news to Donald Trump supporters, many of whom were deeply invested in the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice. Forbes reports "21 percent of voters surveyed by the exit poll consortium of the five networks and the Associated Press on Election Day, said appointments to the Supreme Court were the most important factor in deciding their vote." (This may mean something to you if you still believe in exit polls.)
Although Supreme Court cases dealing with social issues may be more widely-publicized and politicized than others, restoring balance to the Supreme Court through the selection of a new justice has the potential to affect every sector of American society. Supreme Court Justices serve on the court for life, and it's impossible to predict exactly what cases could arise during Justice Gorsuch's career. However, if Neil Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court in a timely manner, here are four cases that he might rule on that would affect American businesses.
1. Murr v. Wisconsin
The case of Murr v. Wisconsin deals with the ever-important issues of property rights and eminent domain and is scheduled to be argued in front of the Supreme Court in March of this year. In brief, the case arose when the government, without the permission of the plaintiff, combined two of the plaintiff's lots into one larger parcel that could no longer be developed or subdivided. The plaintiff argues that in this way, the government deprived the Murr family of half of the value of their land without just compensation. The Supreme Court's decision on this issue could have an enormous impact on property owners, and perhaps even on the real estate market. The Cato Institute finds, "This destabilizes property owners' reliance interests and discourages property investment. State and local governments across the country have been using the vagueness of Penn Central to facilitate taking private property without just compensation."
2. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods
TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods centers on patent rights and the protection of intellectual property. Currently, patent cases can be tried in any district in the country – even those that have nothing to do with a case itself. This leads to a practice called "venue shopping," and some courts may encourage patent suits to be filed in their district. Citing the Electronic Frontier Foundation, World IP Review reports "'One such court is the Eastern District of Texas, a rural area with almost no manufacturing, research or technology facilities, where more than one-third of all patent cases in the country were filed last year.'" The Supreme Court may decide to rule against such practices – a major development in the world of patent law.
3. Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
The case of Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. also deals with patent rights, and deals with an essential question for any patent holder: if you sell a patented product – in the U.S. or abroad – does another company have the right to purchase, repurpose, and resell that product? Impression Products argues, "The first sale of the cartridges, either in the U.S. or abroad, exhausted Lexmark's U.S. rights to exclude." The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments for this case in March, and its decision may drastically affect the way American manufacturers do business.
4. House v. Burwell
House v. Burwell is an incredibly relevant case in today's political climate and a direct challenge to Obamacare. The Washington Post reports, "In House of Representatives v. Burwell, the House challenged the legality of subsidies the Obama administration paid to insurers. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer ruled that the House as an institution had standing and that the payments were made without an appropriation."
Admittedly, House v. Burwell is currently still in appellate court, and, depending on the decision of that course and the progress that Republicans make in "repealing and replacing Obamacare," House v. Burwell may never reach the SCOTUS. However, even if this case is halted before it reaches the highest court of the land, the healthcare debate itself is not going away.
More cases regarding the government's involvement in healthcare are guaranteed to arise in our lifetime, and it is essential that our new Supreme Court justice has a firm understanding of the role of government and a deep-seated respect for the Constitution. Neil Gorsuch, we hope, is just such a man.
More from Americans for Tax Reform
Coalition to Congress: Preserve Advertising Deduction in Tax Reform
Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2017, 2:00 PM PERMALINK
ATR President Grover Norquist today led a coalition of 12 free market groups urging Congress to maintain the advertising deduction in the tax code and implement immediate, full business expensing.
The House Republican "Better Way" tax reform blueprint makes important, pro-growth changes to the code, such as implementing full business expensing. As the coalition notes, this will streamline the tax code:
"Implementing full business expensing is also a way to stop the code from arbitrarily picking winners and losers. Existing rules create needless complexity, and force business owners to make decisions for tax reasons, instead of based on what is most economically beneficial."
At the same time, forcing advertising costs to be depreciated over several years will undo any improvement to the code, will hurt economic growth, and harm businesses across the country:
"Restricting the ability to deduct advertising costs would be detrimental to local and national advertisers, broadcasters, print and online media, and other firms that rely on advertising as their primary source of income. Imposing higher costs on businesses would reduce their ability to create jobs, value, and economic growth."
The full letter can be found here or below.
February 22, 2017
The Honorable Kevin Brady
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman, Committee on Finance
U.S. Senate
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairmen Brady and Hatch:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations we write in support of immediate, full business expensing as a crucial concept in pro-growth tax reform. Under the current system of depreciation, business owners must deduct the cost of purchasing equipment over several years depending on the asset they purchase, as dictated by complex and arbitrary rules.
Replacing this system with full business expensing should be an integral part of creating a tax code that encourages growth, innovation, and a competitive economy. According to research by the Tax Foundation, implementing full business expensing would lead to 5.4 percent higher long-term GDP, would create more than 1 million full time jobs, and would increase after-tax income by 5.3 percent.
Implementing full business expensing is also a way to stop the code from arbitrarily picking winners and losers. Existing rules create needless complexity, and force business owners to make decisions for tax reasons, instead of based on what is most economically beneficial. Currently, there are two different systems of depreciation and investments can be depreciated over 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 27.5, 30, 35, 39, 40, or 50 years depending on the system used and the asset purchased. This makes no sense and is bad tax policy.
The House Republican "Better Way" blueprint released last year meets the goals of full expensing by implementing a "cash flow" system of taxation. Under this system US business receive a zero percent rate on any expense or investment made.
Regrettably, other tax reform proposals, like the "Tax Reform Act of 2014," released by former Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp went in the other direction. Not only did the plan lengthen depreciation schedules, it also took aim at specific business costs, like advertising expenses.
This is the wrong approach to tax policy and would undermine the gains from full business expensing. Congress should make the tax code as simple and fair as possible. That means treating all expenses equally, whether that means wages and other forms of compensation, travel, rent, advertising, etc. None of this is particularly exotic.
If Congress attempts to pick winners and losers by singling out certain industries, it will invariably create far more losers than winners. For instance, denying full expensing to advertising expenditures would negatively impact an industry that contributes $5.8 trillion in total economic output and is tied to 20 million jobs directly or indirectly.
Restricting the ability to deduct advertising costs would be detrimental to local and national advertisers, broadcasters, print and online media, and other firms that rely on advertising as their primary source of income. Imposing higher costs on businesses would reduce their ability to create jobs, value, and economic growth.
Any serious, pro-growth tax reform package must include across-the-board, full business expensing. Any proposal that limits businesses' current ability to deduct advertising costs, or other costs central to running a successful business, should be rejected immediately.
Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform
Pete Sepp
President, National Taxpayers Union
Steve Pociask
President, American Consumer Institute
Thomas Schatz
President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Katie McAuliffe
Executive Director, Digital Liberty
George Landrith
President, Frontiers of Freedom
Mario H. Lopez
President, Hispanic Leadership Fund
Tom Giovanetti
President, Institute for Policy Innovation
Allen Gutierrez
National Executive Director, The Latino Coalition
Karen Kerrigan
President & CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
David Williams
President, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Berin Szoka
President, Tech Freedom
More from Americans for Tax Reform
21 of 22 Indiana House Republicans Break Taxpayer Protection Pledge
Posted by Miriam Roff on Friday, February 17th, 2017, 3:54 PM PERMALINK
Yesterday, the Indiana House of Representatives passed House Bill 1002, which imposes a whopping 34 percent increase in the state's gas tax. Among the 61 representatives who voted for this massive tax hike were 21 Taxpayer Protection Pledge signees.
Despite claims that some legislators in Indianapolis have made, the $0.10 increase in the gas tax does not qualify as a user fee. It's a blatant tax hike on hardworking Hoosiers.
Grover Norquist, president of ATR, noted in the Indy Star how state legislators who voted for this tax hike have betrayed their constituents:
"Most of the Republicans who are in the House and Senate promised their voters they would not raise taxes: some in writing, some in person. Did any of the Republicans thinking of voting for another tax hike on consumers say they would do this when they asked for their citizens' vote in the last election? If not, why double cross their voters."
Following the House vote, Norquist explained how Gov. Eric Holcomb can look to other Republican governors for an approach to tax and transportation policy that is preferable to the one taken by the Indiana House this week:
"Governor Pence opposed and defeated efforts to raise the gas tax in Indiana. Taxpayers certainly hope that Gov. Holcomb will be as strong a defender of taxpayer interests as Pence was/is. The tax and spend lobby obviously hopes that his inexperience will allow the lobbyists to beat him and raise taxes. If the governor wants more road money he could follow the path of Governor Christie of NJ and other states that have insisted that any gas tax be accompanied in the same bill with an income tax cut of greater size. If the advocates of a gas tax will not support an income tax cut to offset the gas tax—they just want higher taxes not more roads."
As a friendly reminder to voters, the following Republican House lawmakers broke their pledge by voting for the gas tax hike this week:
Representative James Baird (R-44), Representative Robert Behning (R-91), Representative Timothy Brown (R-41), Representative Woody Burton (R-58), Representative Martin Carbaugh (R-81), Representative Robert Cherry (R-53), Representative Wes Culver (R-49), Representative Steven Davisson (R-73), Representative Jeff Ellington (R-62), Representative David Frizzell (R-93), Representative Robert Heaton (R-46), Representative Todd Huston (R-37), Representative Don Lehe (R-25), Representative Jim Lucas (R-69), Representative David Ober (R-82), Representative Jerry Torr (R-39), Representative Thomas Washburne (R-64), and Representative Cindy Ziemke (R-55).
Representative Tim Wesco (R-21) deserves kudos, as he was the only Pledge signer to uphold his commitment to voters by voting no on the gas tax increase yesterday.
HB 1002 now heads to the Senate, where it will be voted on in the coming weeks.


text:
Sergio Rossi Leather Keyhole Pump
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 254572
For iconic Italian fashion straight from the runway, think Sergio Rossi. The sleek, yet classic style of this leather platform pump makes it the perfect addition to your shoe collection.
- Leather upper
- Keyhole almond toe
- Fully lined in leather
- 1½" platform, 5" heel
- Leather sole
- Made in Italy
- View more Women's Sergio Rossi Shoes
- Online Exclusive!
By: MBeachGirl
Location: Miami
April 20, 2013
Beautiful shoe
"Great shoe but runs very narrow. Order at least a half size to a full size up, depending on how wide your foot is. Ordered the navy, it's a bit more blue, not as dark as some navy shoes I own."
By: BonitaApplebaum
Location: Cordova,TN
March 13, 2013
Gorg! but Narrow! SIZE UP!!!!
"I was really excited about this purchase in black leather and when they came in finally after what seemed like forever I was in love....until I tried them on. I originally went a half size up thinking I would get the perfect fit for comfort, boy was I wrong! Definitely exchanging for a bigger size. Too good to pass up!"
By: camellia
Location: maryland
November 28, 2012
definately shoe to have
"elegant, comfort, stylish, beautiful... what else we expect shoes to have"
By: hdlove
Location: morganville nj
July 20, 2012
very comfy for a luxury brand!
"i can run with these!!!!!!!!1best shoes i got so far, compare to the ysl tribute and my other luxury brand shoes its just so comfortable and chic!id defnitely buy it in every color/styles!"
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
There are two ways to show your support:
First is to attend the workout (called WOD) on Saturday September 29th. Doing the workout is free and donations of any size will be accepted throughout the event.
Second if you can't participate in the "WOD a Wuv", go to http://floodthelove.wordpress.com and click on the donate button on the far right. We'd like to create t-shirts for all the donors that donate $25 or more and will do so if we reach our goal of 250 donors (or $10,000) which ever comes first.
For more information contact Brock Rasmussen (435) 705-9030.


text:
2 Lips Too Too Shimmer Platform Sandal
Sorry, this item is sold out!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Looks like you've got more shoe shopping to do - have fun!
Item # 256488
Express your passion for fashion in this iridescent platform sandal from 2 Lips Too! The Too Shimmer has all the sparkle and shine you need for your next night out.
- Strappy fabric upper
- Quarter strap with adjustable buckle
- 1½" platform, 5¼" covered heel
- Synthetic sole
- Imported
By: AmyShoegirl
Location: Coral Springs, FL
February 12, 2013
"This shoe definitely has more sparkle than in the picture. Great shoe, although the straps are a little uncomfortable to put on..after that, it is ok. I recommend this for short outings and altitude sparkle to your outfit. The purple and green sparkle make this shoe stand out!"
By: shoeblivion
Location: Renton, Washington
January 25, 2013
AWESOME except for the buckle
"These are Outstanding Shoes and beyond comfortable and very very sexy however, it takes FOREVER to try and get the strap thru the metal buckle as the buckle needs to be bigger. I highly recommend that you make sure you have 5 minutes to buckle these shoes and even better, get someone else to do it for you. These would have gotten 5 stars if not for that horrible buckle."
By: NMshoegirl
Location: Albuquerque, NM
January 17, 2013
"These shoes are AMAZING! The color/shimmer is beautiful, they run very true to size, and are extremely comfortable to wear!!"
By: LOVEMYSHOESNTX
Location: TEXAS
December 31, 2012
"I was kind of worried about how these shoes would fit...being that it was a sandal. I tried these beauties on and I was speechless. They are so comfortable and the color combination is so fabulous!!!!Thanks, DSW"
Click anywhere to close this.


text:
Apparel e-retailer JustFab says 25% of its 10 million members have children under age 10.
Zak Stambor
Fashion-focused e-retailer JustFabulous announced today it has acquired similarly named members-only children's clothing e-retailer FabKids.
JustFab will operate FabKids as a sister brand under the JustFab umbrella. That means consumers will be able to use the same log-in and password on both sites—and the sites will be linked via a single shopping cart. Andy Moss, CEO of FabKids, will continue to oversee the FabKids brand.
The move enables the shoe, handbag and apparel retailer to move into children's clothing more quickly than would have if it decided to pursue the category on its own says Adam Goldenberg, JustFab's co-CEO. Children's apparel is a category the retailer was looking to add because the retailer's customer surveys have found that roughly 25% of the of the retailer's more than 10 million members have children under the age of 10. As JustFab grows it aims to add more categories, such as home décor, Goldenberg says. "What we're building with JustFab and FabKids is the next generation Zara or H&M," Goldenberg says. "In the future we'll offer every category you find in those types of stores."
However, unlike those two Europe-based fast-fashion retailers, JustFab is a subscription retailer that, for $39.95 a month, offers members items tailored to their tastes each month. JustFab sends members monthly e-mails describing the items the retailer is offering. That keeps members returning to the site, which makes them particularly engaged, Goldenberg says. (Members can skip buying any month, as long as they notify JustFab by the fifth of the month.) Fast fashion refers to merchants that translate the latest fashion runway styles and get them into stores quickly.
FabKids, which launched last August, has about 100,000 members. The brand, which currently sells girl's clothing, plans to expand into boys clothing in August and then begin selling internationally in spring 2014, says Moss. By linking up with JustFab, FabKids will be able to leverage JustFab's infrastructure, which includes German and U.K. distribution centers, Moss says.
H&M, based in Sweden, is No. 67 in the Internet Retailer Top 400 Europe; Zara parent company Inditex, is headquartered in Spain, is No. 141.


text:
Simplified Access to Research.gov
Research.gov is an existing service that is a modernization of FastLane and provides a menu of services tailored to meeting the unique needs of the research community in partnership with other agencies, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Defense's Army Research Office (DoD/ARO), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA/NIFA). Research.gov is an exciting initiative that allows the research community to access streamlined grants management services and other resources, for multiple federal agencies, in one location.
Accessing Services
Accessing services on Research.gov is now easier than ever. Simply click on the link below, and you will be taken to a WebAccess page. Log in with your UW NetID and Password and you will arrive at Research.gov and now have access to tools for the research community without a separate userid and password.


text:
Student Affairs
skip to events
link for robots only
advanced search
Event Detail Information
Candy Cane Grams! By Alternative Spring Break
Date Dec 3, 2012 - Dec 7, 2012
Time 11:00 am
Location UHB First Floor Lobby
Cost $1
Sponsor Alternative Spring Break
Contact Paige Heiser
E-Mail email@example.com
Event type Other
Views 391
Originating Calendar Student Life Events
"Four for you, Glen Coco! You go, Glen Coco!"
Make your friends feel as awesome as Glen Coco and send them a Candy Cane Gram! $1 gets you a candy cane and a message. ASB will deliver the grams between 12/10-12/14. All proceeds benefit the ASB trip to the Everglades!