text:
There certainly are thirds, even if they are expressed in scalable percentages.
There are 33%, 66% and 67% percents, but as repeatedly stated decimals just don't divide into thirds cleanly, there are no thirds in the 3 feet to a yard sense. Point being that even division just isn't that important.
It doesn't come up as much in daily life..
I suspect what "comes up" and doesn't is quite dependent on what is easy to do. I find myself calculating the volume of containers quite often, it is very handy when adjusting volumetric yield sizes to pans/containers. I could measure the capacity by pouring water of course, but why mess around with that if your measuring system has the tools built in? I was not very pleased when trying to figure out how many cubic feet of soil it would take to fill up a tote with the volume given in gallons. Neither are the units related, nor is it easy to convert between cubic inches to cubic feet (unless you are well versed in cubic duodecimal calculations).
The thing about the customary measures is that they evolved with the uses they are put to. They are the result of what people found most useful rather than what was prescribed.
That's not really a fair description. Considering the plethora of contradictory standardized and customary units that were floating around before metric alone makes it questionable. The fact that many contradictory versions of the "same" units were in fact mandated at various times and places outright contradicts such a claim. I'd say it's more fair that customary measures are units that some people, at some point, found useful for their particular tasks and were subsequently adopted for broad usage via network effects.
That's the reason I keep beating the "arbitrarily precision" drum. When you have a system where conversions are easy, you can adopt whatever approximations are useful for the task, instead of dealing with someone else's foot or stride you can have yours and retain all the advantages of a cohesive measurement system with a few basic calculations. If the size of the standard 12 inch foot makes sense for your task and clean division by three is important, then there's nothing wrong with working in 30 cm increments (or 3 dm, if the task scales up more than down).
It is a useful intellectual exercise to consider a metric system not based on ten though. It would retain the natural cohesion between length and volume (and mass for for water). but might use halves and thirds rather than tenths.
Oh, absolutely, however I'd go for an all out base 16 change across the board. As I said, for practical purposes (1) approximations of repeating numbers are adequate as long as the system easily supports arbitrary precision, (2) there will be repeating numbers no matter what, (3) binary divisions are the only inches easily eyeballed and performed without a lot of fuss and/or special equipment. For example, high precision division of weight is very easy in a base 16 measurement system, whereas any base divisble by three is as problematic as decimal.
Sounds like rounding to millimeters would be plenty accurate then.
There are no thirds in serious baking, it's all decimal in the form of baker's percentages that can be used with whatever weight units you want.
I'll note that it would probably reduce headaches quite a bit if the foot was removed from the yard/foot/inch equation, as it stands 3 parts is the only thing the yards divides evenly to for the next smallest unit. I'd rather deal straight with 36 inches, of course most people have decided to go the other way and ignore yards when inches are in use.
Overall yards are a prime example of the problems with US customary units: inconsistent divisions. Commonly used lengths go from 1760 to 3 to 12 to binary division (so there are common factors, but the bases don't normalize until you divide inches), and miles are usually given in feet, not yards to top it off. Plus I believe there are random sub-inch units, but I don't know how they fit, or don't fit into this "framework".
Then there's the lack of cohesion with dimensions and volume/weight disconnected. Volumes are at least mostly (ah, teaspoons) consistent with a binary division, however the individual divisions have names, half of which have been forgotten. So people learn seemingly arbitrary conversion factors between ounces and cups and quarts and gallons without knowing the underlaying system.
"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard


text:
Come home to this pork loin ribs recipe that's slow cooked with crushed pineapple and a marinade mix of brown sugar, hoisin sauce and grated gingerroot for a filling dinner - perfect if you love Island cuisine.
Serve food directly from the lined slow cooker. Once your slow cooker cools, remove the liner and throw away for easy clean up.
If you don't have fresh gingerroot on hand, use 1/4 teaspoon of ground ginger instead.
© 2017 ®/TM General Mills All Rights Reserved

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Since blogging Martin Bell's take on UK fauxtography last week, the issue has popped up in the US too. Two recent examples:
First, we have CBS is being raked over the coals — deservedly so — for digitally altering footage of July 4th fireworks in Boston. The show's producer, a Boston area businessman insisted to the Boston Globe that there was nothing wrong:
Mugar said the added images were above board because the show was entertainment and not news. He said it was no different than TV drama producer David E. Kelley using scenes from his native Boston in his show "Boston Legal'' but shooting the bulk of each episode on a studio set in Hollywood.
No comment yet from CBS.
Next up, we have AP dealing with a different situation. The wire service (via Romenesko) has severed all ties with photographer Miguel Tovar, who was working a children's soccer tournament in Argentina. Tovar copied sand from one part of the picture to cover his own shadow.
Fireworks and football. With compelling enough images already in hand, did the cameramen really need to improve their work? And were the results really worth the blowback?
I don't think so either.


text:
The U.S. Small Business Administration will host a series of webinars in recognition of the 7th annual National Entrepreneurship Week to take place next week from Feb. 16 to Feb. 23.
The emphasis will be on how the next generation of small business owners can leverage crowdfunding as an alternative finance option to start and grow their businesses, the SBA said in a press release.
All webinars will take place daily at 2 p.m. (CST)
Webinar topics and presenters will be:
Jay Goth, Business Consultant
TriTech Small Business Development Center (SBDC)
Topic: Crowdfunding – Pros and Cons
Tuesday, Feb. 19
Kevin Lehman, CEO and Co-Founder
Three Revolutions
Topic: Crowdfunding Innovation
Wednesday, Feb. 20
Ryan Finch, General Manager
Raleigh City Farm
Topic: Kickstarting an Urban Farm
Thursday, Feb. 21
Audio Conference Login Instructions:
1. Dial the AT&T Connect Teleconference Toll-Free Number – 1-888-858-2144
2. Enter your AT&T Access Code – 4259370 (press the # key)
Web Conference Login Instructions:
1. Login at www.connectmeeting.att.com<htt
2. Enter "Meeting Number" 1-888-858-2144
3. Enter "Access Code" 4259370
4. Enter "Email Address, First and Last name"
5. Click Submit
6. Click Participant
7. Click Participant Application (Recommended)
8. Click "Enter" Event
9. Click Dial-In/Already Connected by Phone
(Close the Telephone Connection Instructions pop-up box)
System Requirements:
To set up the AT&T Connect Participant application, a user's PC must run either Windows 7, Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows Vista, Mac OS X 10.8 or Mac OS X 10.7 with either Internet Explorer 7.0 (or higher) supported. AT&T Connect does support the Chrome, Safari or Firefox browser.
Note: The phone number is the "meeting number" when logging in to https://www.connectmeeting.
A separate telephone line is needed for the conference call-in portion.
For assistance with AT&T Connect Web Conference Service, contact AT&T Connect Customer Care at 1-888-796-6118.
For more information about the National Entreprenuership Week, visit http://www.entre-week.org/.


text: I don't think he will ignore me. I am too easy of a target for him to call a "FOOL' because I am not a staunch republican such as himself. I too have seen most of the problems of this country created by republicans starting with Reagan. I just really want to know when the money is going to "trickle down" and when are the "job creators" going to create the jobs? I have read on here that it is Obama's fault that the jobs aren't being created. The so called "job creators" aren't doing it. Obama, nor any other president, regardless of party, can make companies hire people. That is up to the "job creators" to do. When they are good and ready, they will create jobs, and it doesn't matter who is in the white house. For anybody that is interested, my company is hiring every day. Pretty good starting wage too. $11 to start going up to $13. The thing that puzzles me is, with all of the jobs that we have open, we can't get anybody to come to work for us. I have Republican and Democrat friends that are unemployed, and I offered to get them a job. They told me no way would they do what I do for a living. They would rather milk out their unemployment and do nothing instead of work in a production job.


text:
Manufacturer: Aurisonics 1 Results
Aurisonics AS-1b
" Synopsis: The Aurisonics AS-1b is a very nice custom-fit monitor with a sound tuned for the needs of professional musicians performing on stage. It gives the listener a mid-centric sound that emphasizes the vocal range so a singer stands out in the mix. The large 15mm dynamic driver has an excellent, rich bass and on top there is a non-fatiguing, flat treble. The AS-1b offers musicians and..." --Kunlun


text:
The common Evening Primrose plant (Oenothera biennis L.) is a wildflower that produces small, pale yellow blossoms that open their petals as dusk approaches and close them up in the early morning light. Other varieties exist as well including Showy Primrose, Pink ladies, and Pink Buttercups, and they produce pink, white, red, or purple blooms. The Evening Primrose flower symbolizes eternal youth and love. It is also thought to symbolize strong memory.
Often mistaken for a weed due to its invasiveness and appearance, the Evening Primrose plant has long been used by earlier civilizations to treat sickness. In particular, the roots of this plant have been used in remedies intended to hasten recovery from sore throats, bruising of the skin, and ailments of the digestive system. Primrose Oil is taken directly from the seeds and is an ingredient used more recently in health (herbal remedies) and beauty formulations.
The Evening Primrose plant is native to northeastern Mexico as well as many states throughout the mid United States (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska) and parts of South America. However, today it is commonly grown throughout the entire United States. It is a hardy plant that comes in varieties that can withstand long periods without water. The leaves are medium green in color and may turn red in the fall. Depending on its growing environment, this plant can grow anywhere from three to nine feet in height. It is commonly referred to by other names depending on its location, including sun drops and sun cups.
Valued by Native Americans, the Evening Primrose plant was an important part of their medicinal formulas and used to treat a variety of ailments, including the making of leaf poultices to relieve the discomfort of hemorrhoids and bruises. Native Americans treated colds with a tea brewed from the roots of the Evening Primrose plant and enjoyed eating this nut-flavored root boiled. Learning from this, the European settlers took up the use of the Evening Primrose plant to treat problematic issues of the skin as well.
Evening Primrose Oil has been used in a multiplicity of treatments, including those designed to help reduce the numbness associated with Raynaud's syndrome and the nerve damage caused by diabetes. It has been utilized in formulations aimed at alleviating the symptoms of high cholesterol, cancer, multiple sclerosis, alchoholism, asthma, Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, heart disease, peptic ulcer disease, irritable bowel syndrome, whooping cough, obesity, and neurodermatitis.
The Evening Primrose seeds contain an essential fatty acid known as gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), a substance that the human body transforms into prostaglandins, important hormone-like compounds found naturally in the body that help to regulate several bodily actions. Since it contains Omega-6 fatty acids, an element that is beneficial in the regulation of insulin absorption by the human body, Evening Primrose Oil offers additional benefits to those people suffering from diabetes.
A variety of uses have been found for Evening Primrose Oil for pregnant women, including the ability to start labor, shorten labor, and alleviate high blood pressure associated with pregnancy (pre-eclampsia). It is also used to alleviate breast pain, endometriosis, cramps, and hot flashes. Nonetheless, insufficient evidence has been provided to date for many of these uses, and further studies are necessary before any definitive answers can be provided for the efficacy of Evening Primrose Oil in the aforementioned treatments.
Today, Evening Primrose Oil is commonly used to treat a variety of skin disorders including acne, psoriasis, and eczema. It is also used in treatments designed to offer relief from rheumatoid arthritis and dyspraxia, a movement disorder that occurs in children. If any individual decides to include an Evening Primrose Oil supplement in their daily health regimen, they should first consult with their physician to ensure that it will not interact with any other medication they are currently taking.
Currently, Evening Primrose Oil is used in a variety of soaps and cosmetics. Evening Primrose Oil can be used to reduce the inflammation that occurs with either acne or rosacea. The results of some recent studies have suggested that new occurrences of rosacea and/or acne are somewhat minimized with regular use of Evening Primrose Oil supplemental formulas. Evening Primrose Oil provides relief from the unpleasant itching of eczema and atopic dermatitis, eliminating the need to obtain prescription-strength medications that may deliver unwanted side effects.


text:
Universal Fit
Kuromi Glam Earphones
Enjoy your favorite music the super stylish way with this neat Kuromi glam earphone. The ideal accessory for your iPod or other audio players. The cute design features Kuromi with shimmery pink metallic highlights. Digital stereo sound. Super lightweight.
Umbo Earbud - Best Fitting Ergonomic Earbud for Bluetooth and Other Wireless Headsets.
This new earbud was designed as an ergonomic replacement to the ordinary earbuds that come with most Bluetooth headsets. After trying out countless headsets and having experienced the same annoying discomfort, we were inspired to come up with our own earbud design. This earbud is uniquely formed into a conical-like shape that fits comfortably inside of the ear canal. It is made from a supple,...


text:
Casio CT-101
The CasioTone 101 (CT-101) is a VERY basic analog synth from Casio circa 1981. The keyboard has 49 full-size keys and is finished in satin black painted metal, has wooden end-cheeks and a wood grain finish underneath the front of the keys. It gives your studio a good analog/vintage feel. Most sounds are very basic and fairly unusable. However, its organ tones are pretty good as well as its 'Cosmic Tone' patch, which uses two oscillators tuned an octave apart, and as the keys are held down, the sound drops an octave as oscillator 1 fades up, and oscillator 2 fades down. The CT-101 has been used by The Human League, Blondie, Vince Clark, Severed Heads, Goldie, and Moby.
Lookup Casio CT-101 Prices
The link above will take you to an eBay search for this synth to see active listings with more images, specs and information. If you don't find it there, try looking in our forum marketplace. Our marketplace gets thousands of visits every week so make sure to check back often if you want to buy or sell a synth.
Related Forum Topics
User Comments & Reviews
Are you looking to buy or sell a Casio CT-101? Post an ad in Gear For Sale or a request in Gear Wanted. For spare parts and repair services check out Gear Services & Other Goods. Our forums also has a Buyer's Guide section where you can ask for advice on buying synthesizers.
- Specifications
- Polyphony - 8 note
- Oscillators - 2 VCOs
- Effects - Sustain and Vibrato
- Keyboard - 49 full size keys
- Memory - 25 patches, 4 performances
- Control - None
- Date Produced - 1981
- Shop for Keyboards, MIDI & Gear
Guitar Center: Synths and MIDI
Sweetwater: Hot items in Keyboars section
The Musician's Friend: Keyboard gear
AMS: Brand synths and accessories
The Woodwind & Brasswind Store
music123.com: Synth Blow Out Deal Section
zZounds: Keyboards and MIDI equipment
- Resources & Credits
Images submitted to us via E-mail.
Thanks to I Have Synth for providing information.
Errors or Corrections? Send them here.


text:
Group Booking Terms and Conditions
Because you are making a Group Booking, there are additional Terms and Conditions that apply. Please read them and click 'I Accept' below to continue with your booking
General Group Booking Terms
By making a group reservation through Hostelworld.com you agree to the following terms and conditions as set by Hostelworld.com and as set by the hostel in question.
- In order to make a group reservation on Hostelworld.com it is necessary to pay a deposit. The balance is due directly to the hostel according to their payment conditions.
- The booking deposit is non-refundable.
- Please note that any cancellations must be notified directly to the hostel at least 24 hours in advance of your scheduled arrival date, unless otherwise stated in the hostel's conditions.
- Hostelworld.com are not responsible for changes or amendments to your reservation once it has been processed. All correspondence with regard to changes to your booking need to be dealt with directly with the hostel.
- Cancellations for reservations must be made directly with the hostel and must conform with the individual hostels cancellation policy (see below)
- It is your responsibility to pay the balance of your accommodation cost to the hostel in accordance with their payment conditions (see below). Failure to do so may result in your reservation being cancelled by the hostel.
- Individual hostels may have special booking conditions relating to group stays, please read the hostel booking conditions carefully before making your reservation.
Hostel Specific Terms & Conditions
The remainder of the amount due will be charged to your credit card on arrival. Should numbers or room selection change, the per person deposit times the number of people who actually travelled will be deducted from the total accommodation charge levvied by the hostel.
Cancellation / No Show & Reduction in Numbers Policy
Hostelworld.com have a cancellation policy of no refund on the booking deposit or booking fee for a cancellation, no show or reduction in numbers.
Please friends if you are sure of arriving that we receive with the open arms. If you cancel please call us in the last instant to our phone for the confirmation of the cancellation. Thank you very much Albergue Miraflores House
Additional Terms and Conditions
If you have additional questions to the services that we made it or the services that you will need tell to us, we are here in the Peru to help you in any requirement, for that reason our slogan is feell like home
Thank you for your attention
Additional Info:
We had a good service for your groups, we had a rod for fishing, surf boards, musical instruments (two acustic guitars, one electric guitar, one bass guitar, one organ Korg, bongoes, violin, charango, and others instruments......
Any cancellations resulting from agreement to these terms and conditions under false pretences will result in loss of deposit.
Du musst die Bedingungen annehmen, um die Buchung zu bestätigen
Schnell ausverkaufend
Neueste Bewertung
" Everything was great, I had a very pleasant stay! "- Anonym
Hostelworld Apps
Buche von unterwegs aus, mit der neuen mobilen Hostelworld-App.


text:
David Turner (freetype)'s recent post in response to titus reminded me of my own auto* aversion. In sum, I think auto* represents everything that is bad about a free software project.
Don't get me wrong, auto* was (and still is) a tremendous improvement over the bad old days of hand-editing makefiles just to have a chance of having your software build. But it is well past time to have designed, implemented, and deployed a better alternative, and I don't see too many good signs of that.
What's wrong with it? Let me enumerate the ways:
1. It's way too complicated. Good software and free software, not to mention good free software, run on simplicity. auto* does not have this quality.
2. It's implemented in bad languages. One bad language would be enough, but M4, (portable) make, and portable shell? There's a good reason nobody else has even attempted writing an app in that combination of languages.
3. Original goals are no longer very relevant. In the bad old days, there were lots of vendor Unices and other strange build environments. Today, in the *nix world, there is just the GNU toolchain. The amount of actual diversity that needs to be configured around is minimal.
4. It doesn't solve real-world portability problems. For many users, getting programs to build on Windows is at least as important as compiling on an ancient MIPS running Ultrix, yet auto* isn't much help at the former.
5. Bad error reporting. In "configuration science", one of the overriding goals should be production of clear and meaningful error messages.
6. Lack of overall systems thinking. Much of what auto* does is work around limitations in tools such as sh, make, ld, package managers, and the like. If some of these other components are better places to solve configuration and build problems, let's do it there rather than twisting ourselves into pretzels trying to work around them. Apple had the guts to extend ld in several important ways, including two-level namespace support. Why are we still stuck with the clunky late-'80s approach copied from old vendor Unices?
It's been clear for a long time that CVS needed replacing, and now we have a variety of great alternatives, some of exhibit that classic, simple, do-one-thing-and-do-it-well free software philosophy. We should have something similar for the problems that auto* solves.
I find myself posting from Japan once again. Why is it that I'm more likely to find a free moment here than back at home in Berkeley? Anyway, it's nice and cold, and I even got to see some snow up north in Matsumoto.


text:
I would like to apologize to those that did not hear back from me in a timely manner and to those that simply did not hear back from me after the original post. We ran into some family health issues that postponed the transfer six months plus, and really put our schedule on its head. We are now sorted and organized and actively showing.
Located on 7.9 acres with no close neighbors on the north or east, and a heavy tree line (that we own) between us and the neighbors on the west.
The house is approximately 1800 square ft, 3 bedroom, 2 baths built in 1980. Carport, traditional septic and well, with a new roof as of 2011
The kennel was built in 2002, approximately 2500 square ft. with 22 climate controlled indoor/outdoor runs. There is an aerobic septic system, 150 square feet of office space, 265 square feet of foyer, half bath and 150 square feet of storage. The HVAC air handling unit was replaced last summer.
Please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.com for the realtor info. Or, you can type in the info at the HAR dot com website and it will show.
25670 Taylor Rd, Montgomery, TX 77356
Roger Walker Realtor.
Best regards,
Gregg Barrow


text:
Fires using loose powder or pellets
Removable Accelerator breech plug
1:48" twist rifling for greater accuracy
Hardened frizzen face and deeper flash pan
Includes adjustable fiber optic sights
A classic-looking side lock with all the features of a modern inline! The Traditions PA Pellet Flintlock Muzzleloader is the only flintlock able to fire both loose powder and easy-to-use pellets. Removable Accelerator Breech Plug enables more consistent ignition. The 26" octagonal barrel has a 1:48" twist rifling for extreme accuracy. Improved hardened frizzen face and deeper flash pan for reliable ignitions and better sparks. Other features include a crisp trigger, sling swivels, a 24-1/2" solid aluminum ramrod with brass loading jag, and adjustable Williams fiber optic sights. Built-in aluminum ramrod swivels for attaching a sling. Soft-Touch stocks and forends provide a comfortable feel. Includes takedown allen key.
Redi-Pak includes .50-cal. brass jag, round plastic ball starter, 25 cotton cleaning patches, 15 Hornady XTP bullets with plastic sabots, 2 universal fast loaders, a 209 plastic capper, brass in-line nipple pick, 1-oz. Bullet Lube, 4-oz. EZ Clean Solvent, double-ended nylon bristle cleaning brush, and a "how to" DVD.


text:
I struck a gobbler back along the creek at the small horse farm this morning. He was hammering away on the limb and I eased towards the little field in the woods, (which was mowed yesterday) just up from his position. The gobbler was about 250 yards away down the creek from me. As tempted to go after him as I was, He was at least 150 yards across the property line where I couldn't hunt. He taunted me from his roost with gobbles for almost an hour before he flew down. As soon as he hit the ground, he made a B-line towards the neighbor's field (I can't hunt there either) to a favorite strut zone, where he stayed & tossed out gobbles to anyone who could hear until after 10 AM. I'm pretty sure I played this game with the same bird last year and it was frustrating to say the least. The neighbor fired up his tractor and started plowing up rows for his tobacco in that field. Game over. That gobbler probably went down across the swamp. I heard a jake gobble farther up the ridge and had a lone hen out chasing bugs in the newly mowed field from 10 to ~10:30, which made the morning more interesting.
I was hunting with a crossbow, so it would have been easy to slip towards the roost and try that bird, but that land is posted. I don't like trespassers and I'm not about to become one myself. This afternoon I went bought myself a gobble shaker and I'm going to try to make that gobbler think his territory has been invaded by a pesky young gobbler moving in on his turf. I have a hen decoy with a jake to set out to enhance the deception. I hope it works. They're calling for rain tomorrow afternoon, so I have to make it count.
I have so much work going on right now that I can only hunt on weekends. I hate to wish for a job cancellation, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't.
Good luck to everyone!


text:
Make sure your characters are relatable.
Sheriff Matt Ballard hunts for a killer in the middle of the longest heat wave and drought on record. A green eyed redhead moves to town and captures his heart. When he learns she's lied about her past, the bond of trust he thought they had formed is broken.
Catherine disappears, but the killer has a surprise coming. She'll fight to the death before being abused again. But will her determination be enough?
I live in Texas, love sunshine, children's laughter, sugar (human and granulated), and researching for my heroes and heroines. I also love hearing from fans at http://www.jerriealexander.com/.


text:
Another birthday, another irritating day at work, trying to do the work of 3+ linux kernel developers with ever more unrealistic milestones. Look on the job sites and find there is exactly one linux kernel developer job on offer in Europe, on the other side of the European Union. That's still one more than there has been. Of course, there's lots of kernel developer jobs in America as usual, senior ones too requiring a PhD, rather than the crumbs on offer in Europe.
Slightly bemused by the fact I've still got no certification, even though I have been certified three times. Having read the blurb I can see how that might happen, but it seems rather silly.
No open source development over the weekend, just a lot of boozing. I will probably start on the next set of improvements to squashfs (1.2). It's good to get feedback, and I've already had people asking for the improvements I was intending to do.
Chalst asks for suggestions/feedback on his list of seminal highlevel languages. I must admit I disagree with Occam being a seminal language - the elegant parts of Occam were straight from Hoare's CSP (Communicating Squential Processes). The other parts of Occam were a nightmare, no dynamic thread/memory or array allocation, no structures, no shared memory between threads, and a intensely irritating syntax straight from hell (Pascal). It was in short a brain dead version of Pascal with Hoare's elegant CSP added. The real innovation was the implementation of CSP's channels in hardware on the transputer, a concept which made plugging together multiple transputers into a parallel computer network easy.


text:
If you were to travel across the country and start up a new town, what would you build first?
A city hall? Fire Department? Police station? Water works? Garbage facility? Medical services?
Every town has the same structures or infrastructure to make it a solid town. The ice cream parlor, the barber, and the city park come after a firm foundation has been build and working to keep the town stable.
The same can be said about building our foundation, our Character.
You need to start with a solid foundation from which the rest of your Character can be built and measured.
Your Faith, your Family, and the Scout Law are all foundation stones to build your Character on.
The Scout Law gives you a solid foundation of those things that you should be in your daily lives. It is a list of principles that others can measure you by and 12 characteristics that others expect of you.
Your foundation must be solid. Even the tallest building in your town can crumble in an instant if it does not have a firm foundation. You too, need to build your foundation to withstand the daily bombardment of bad things in our world today. You need a firm foundation to resist temptation to hang with the wrong crown, even if they are popular and "Cool". Your foundation needs to shine for others to see that you are strong of Character and that you are reliable person that will stand strong against those with less Character.
It all starts with your foundation. Building a solid foundation, made of Faith and Family and the Scout law will make your Character strong and good. It will make you and those around you better and we will all benefit because of your good Character.
Happy Scouting!


text:
State-of-the-Art Contact Center Capabilities
Cisco Unified Contact Center Enterprise delivers intelligent contact routing, call treatment, network-to-desktop computer telephony integration (CTI), and multichannel contact management over an IP infrastructure. It combines multichannel automatic call distributor (ACD) functionality with IP telephony in a unified solution. This makes it easier for your company to rapidly deploy a distributed contact center infrastructure.
Video Data Sheet
Learn more about Cisco Unified Contact Center Enterprise. (6:18 min)
Cisco Unified Contact Center Enterprise provides:
- Delivery of each contact to the most appropriate resource anywhere in the enterprise
- Comprehensive customer profiles using contact-related data
- Segmentation of customers, and monitoring of resource availability
- Routing to the most appropriate resource to meet customer needs and conditions
- Presence integration to increase caller satisfaction through improved agent performance
With Cisco Unified Contact Center Enterprise, you can smoothly integrate inbound and outbound voice applications with Internet applications. These include real-time chat, web collaboration, email, and social media. This integration helps single agents support multiple interactions simultaneously, regardless of which communications channel the customer has chosen.
Each interaction is unique, and may require individualized service. For this reason, Cisco provides contact center solutions to manage customer interactions based on almost any contact attribute.
Product Support Services
Cisco Services can help you increase operational efficiency, lower support costs, and improve availability risk management.
Additional Resources
Video Data Sheet
Cisco Unified Contact Center Enterprise Video Data Sheet
Hojas de datos y documentación


text:
OPERATOR: (Gives conference call instructions.) I would now like to turn the conference over to Jim Lindsay. Mr. Lindsay, please begin.
JAMES M. LINDSAY: Thank you. Welcome, everybody, to this Council on Foreign Relations media call on the new START treaty. I'm James M. Lindsay, senior vice president and director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. We're joined in this call by my colleagues Kay King, who is vice president for Washington Initiatives at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Micah Zenko, who is a fellow for Conflict Prevention at the Center for Preventive Action here at the council.
Our topic today is "New START Treaty." This call is on the record. And we'll begin with a question to Kay.
Kay, what are the prospects for the new START treaty here in the lame-duck session?
KAY KING: I would say at this point, Jim -- and thank you, everybody, and thank you, Jim -- I would say that the prospects at this point are probably 50-50. I do think that the administration is really determined to move forward on this and is putting a great deal of pressure on those members of the Senate who are likely to vote in favor of the treaty whenever it actually gets taken up. And so I think that if they really push ahead on a vote, it is very likely that this could get the 67 votes it needs in this Congress.
The question then becomes: Well, if that doesn't happen, if they don't vote on it in this session, you know, what's the likelihood of it passing in the 112th Congress? And there, I think the prospects for it going through obviously diminish, because you're going to lose a lot of very knowledgeable senators about the treaty, and it's going to take a while before they'll actually turn to it. And I think by then, by the time they do turn to it, some damage could be done in relations with U.S. Russian -- in U.S.-Russia relations.
LINDSAY: Kay, you put the odds of the new START treaty being approved by the Senate at 50-50. Yet if you look at the vote of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to move the treaty out of committee, you got a strong bipartisan vote. I believe it was 14-to-4 in favor of the treaty when Foreign Relations voted back in October. Why is the treaty in trouble now?
KING: Yeah, and that's really the $64,000 question, Jim. And it's really a little puzzling to me, given that the Senate received the treaty over six months ago. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee did its due diligence, it discussed and -- all the concerns that were raised by members of the Senate who had issues regarding missile defense and tactical nuclear weapons and verification and a whole range of things. It went through the hearing process, and I think everybody's familiar with all the data that the State Department has handed out about all the different briefings and hearings and questions that were answered. And then, it held -- drafted its resolution of ratification, and attached to it 10 conditions, three understandings and 13 declarations that addressed all these issues that were raised; and then voted out on a bipartisan -- as you mentioned, 14-to-4 -- vote.
So one really has to wonder why now is the treaty not moving forward to the full Senate for a vote? And that is kind of baffling. And the reason is because one or two individual senators have decided that the Senate needs more time to consider some of the issues that are related to the treaty. And the way the Senate works, as you all know, one member of the Senate can block any progress.
I say 50-50 because I am hopeful that reason can prevail, the issues can be addressed -- although my understanding is in fact that the administration has addressed all the outstanding issues -- and that the holdouts in the Senate can be brought around before the end of this Congress, to actually allow a vote to go forward.
LINDSAY: Kay, I should point out that you just authored a council special report on Congress and national security, which is available at cfr.org, in which you talk about the rise of partisanship in Congress on foreign policy issues and consequences for American foreign policy.
As, you know, we sort of think about the debate over the new START treaty, what do you make of the argument that the administration has an obligation to let the treaty lay over until the new Congress resumes in January, because we've had elections and the new members should have a chance to vote? I believe 10 incoming senators wrote a letter urging that the treaty be held over to January for just that reason.
KING: Well, I actually have some issues with that. The treaty was submitted in the 111th Congress. There were six months where the sitting members of the Senate were part of the process that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee undertook to move forward on the treaty. They are all familiar with the issues related to the treaty, and therefore they really ought to be the Congress that votes on -- or the Senate that votes on this particular treaty. They have the knowledge. They have the expertise, especially the Foreign Relations Committee.
You move this over to the 112th, and what you have is a minimum of a dozen brand-new senators coming in who not have the expertise and knowledge that the current Senate has on these kinds of issues, plus what I think a lot of people don't understand is, when a treaty is not acted upon by the Senate by the end of a Congress, then the treaty goes back to the committee of jurisdiction, the Foreign Relations Committee, and the whole process for getting the resolution of ratification voted out of the committee has to start all over again.
And so that process also would have to take place again in the Foreign Relations Committee, and you will have lost several senators with a lot of experience on these issues: Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold, Dodd having been in the committee for almost 30 years, Feingold for 17 years -- they've worked on a lot of arms control treaties over the years -- and also Ted Kaufman, who quite frankly, even though he hasn't been a senator for a long time, was Senator Biden's chief of staff and was obviously very familiar with the work that Senator Biden did on arms control when he was in the Senate.
So I do think that the argument that the new members should get a chance to vote just, to me, doesn't stand up, because in my view expertise matters, and they will be lacking the expertise, plus the current Senate is duly sworn until the 3rd of January and so therefore they have every right to vote on this treaty.
LINDSAY: Thank you, Kay.
Let me bring Micah into the conversation now. Micah, like Kay, you've recently written a council special report. In your case, it's on the United States and Russian nuclear weapons. It, like Kay's report, is available at cfr.org.
If I may, Micah, if you could just sort of lay out for us -- let's assume that the 50-50 possibility that Kay talks about comes heads up and the treaty is approved by the Senate and duly ratified by the president. What are the consequences of that?
MICAH ZENKO: I think it -- I mean, it has two factors. One is the aspects found directly in the provisions of the arms control provisions of the treaty, which is that it reduces the severity and probability of a Russian nuclear attack on the U.S. and its allies. There are fewer permitted nuclear warheads. There are fewer permitted strategic nuclear delivery vehicles.
A second aspect is that it enhances the transparency and predictability of on-site inspections, which -- we haven't had an access to their nuclear facilities in over a year.
In the absence of on-site inspections, nuclear weapons planners will do common worst-case assessments of what Russia's capabilities and intentions are, and they'll adjust U.S. forces accordingly.
The U.S. will also redirect what they call national technical means, or satellites and other spy technologies, towards Russian nuclear weapons facilities, in order to get a better sense, and that means they will be redirected away from looking at nuclear weapons facilities in North Korea, Iran and elsewhere. We have a limited number of satellites in space.
And the other thing the treaty provides is the -- a lot of people have overlooked is the Bilateral Consultative Commission. So this is a forum by which the U.S. and Russian technical experts and policymakers come together and discuss disagreements about the treaty in a quick and relatively concise manner. It does -- it allows them to get past disagreements and move forward.
The other issue -- factor is things found outside the treaty, which is the notion of linkage to other U.S. foreign policy priority goals. The primary one is continued pressure on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Russia has strongly supported the fourth U.N. Security Council resolution that was passed a few months back. Russia also agreed not to sell -- not to fulfill a contract, a standing contract based in 2007, of advanced air defense system for Russia -- to Iran. I'm sorry. Iran does not have a very advanced integrated air defense system. In a sense, Russia is willing to forgo money in order to make Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure more vulnerable to attack by not delivering a system.
The final thing I'll just say, which is the more ominous though unknown effect, is that -- is whether or not passage allows people -- policymakers in Russia who are intent on engaging with the West and the United States to get more traction domestically within Russia. There is a presidential election in 2012. It's uncertain whether or not Vladimir Putin, who generally does not support engagement with the West, the United States as strongly, will run again. But if the treaty passes, and it reasserts Russia's position as a world player with its nuclear weapons and its advanced -- and its significant energy infrastructure, then I think it will make it more likely that Medvedev and his allies, who support engagement, will be reelected, rather than Vladimir Putin.
LINDSAY: Well, Micah, let's assume the coin flip comes down tails. What are the consequences of the Senate not approving the new START treaty during the lame-duck session for U.S.-Russian relations?
ZENKO: Well, Russia might go ahead with the sale of advanced surface-to-air missile, the S300 SAM system, to Iran. That contract is suspended, but it was not terminated. Russia might also reduce cooperation on a broad number of other nuclear security goals that they have with the United States. I mean, we have been -- United States has provided over $12 billion worth of enhanced security upgrades to Russia's nuclear facilities since the early '90s. The U.S. has installed security upgrades at most facilities; they provide for secure transportation of nuclear material; they signed -- we signed a plutonium disposition agreement which was needlessly held up. All that sort of lower-level cooperation might end.
Russia is also the destination of most highly-enriched uranium and excess spent plutonium from Eastern Europe and elsewhere that the U.S. cleans out as part of President Obama's goal to secure all unsecure fissile material in the world within four years. So all that sort of cooperation might end.
The other thing I'll add is that Russia -- the point of this treaty was to set the stage for the next treaty, which I can talk about in more depth. But all of the issues related to missile defense, related to the Conventional Forces of Europe (sic) Treaty, which Russia suspended participating in in December 2007, issues related to tactical nuclear weapons, and what's known as Prompt Global Strike, all of that could be held up if the Untied States is seen as unable to deliver on this, what was supposed to be a first-step agreement.
LINDSAY: Thank you, Micah. At this point I'd like to open up the call to questions from any of our listeners.
OPERATOR: Thank you very much. At this time, we'll open the floor for questions. If you would like to ask a question, please press the star key followed by the 1 key on your touch-tone phone now. Questions will be taken in the order in which they're received. If at any time you would like to remove yourself from the questioning queue, press star, 2. Again, that is star, 1 to ask a question now.
We have a question from Nicole Guyanou (ph) with Gannett.
QUESTIONER: Hi, thanks so much for taking my question. You had mentioned Vice President Biden, Kay, I think talking about how he had worked on advancing these negotiations when he was a senator and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What -- to what extent did he try and advance these negotations? What did he do, and was he on this before, and is this sort of unfinished business for him now?
KING: My understanding -- and again, you know, I can't speak for him, but what I was referring to was his work over his 36 years in the Senate on different arms-control treaties, including the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty back in the late '80s that was actually negotiated by Ronald Reagan, and that -- in fact, at that time, Senator Biden was the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and he carried the water, so to speak, on getting that treaty through the Senate because the -- or I should say, he was the chairman of the Europe subcommittee at the time -- because the ranking member on the Senate at the time, Jesse Helms, opposed the treaty. So he's been working on treaty issues and is familiar with arms control and has been for a very long time, which I'm sure all of you know.
In terms of this specific treaty, my understanding is that this was negotiated, of course, by President Obama, but now that they're moving into a stage where they're working with the Senate to negotiate it getting through the Senate, that Senator Biden has been taking a leading role in that process.
QUESTIONER: Am still on -- can you still hear me?
KING: I can, yes.
QUESTIONER: Oh, okay. (Laughs.) I know that he had introduced -- (off mike) -- July of 2009 to try and push for negotiations for -- (off mike) -- START treaty. I'm assuming what happened with Georgia in the following months put that on hold. I'm just wondering if -- (off mike) -- as when he was a chairman of Senate Foreign Relations Committee if he did anything to try and, you know, raise the alarms that this treaty was going to be coming to an end and it needed to be renegotiated.
KING: I can't answer you that per se. My understanding is this was not an issue that was, you know, in the forefront when he was on the Foreign Relations Committee, which now is over two years ago, or almost two years ago.
You know, at that point in time, my understanding was that the process was moving forward, it was getting negotiated, you know, and -- by this new administration, and everybody had every reason to believe that the process would go smoothly. But I can't speak to what Biden did, per se, while he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee on this particular treaty.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Trudy Rubin with the Philadelphia Inquirer.
QUESTIONER: Hi, I had a couple of questions. One is the modernization issue. The Republicans who were opposing it are now making a big deal out of this. Could you say something about it since it seems that the Obama administration has gone a long way in trying to meet their concerns.
And the other thing I wanted to ask is there seems to quite an astonishing Republican split on this between former Republicans and current. And I wonder if you can speak to that. Why is it that so many prominent past Republican foreign policy poobahs are standing up for the treaty. What is the essence of the split between these past figures, like Kissinger and Baker and (Scowcroft ?), et cetera, and the current figures who oppose it.
LINDSAY: Micah, perhaps you could take the first crack at the questions.
ZENKO: Sure. Thank you, Trudy.
Let me discuss the first one. You know, the United States has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1992. I mean, before then, we did over 1,000 tests, we modeled them in many different ways, we have a really good sense of what nuclear explosions look like. We had a suite of warheads that could be delivered from lots of different systems, but we haven't tested since '92. So in the mid-1990s, when the Clinton administration was trying to pass the Conventional Test Ban Treaty, it implemented what's now known as the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and this was a way to assure a safe, effective, secure nuclear weapon stockpile without testing.
So this is a difficult art, right? I mean, we have very few people left in the DOE, Department of Energy nuclear labs who were around during the era of testing. And so, what we're doing now is lots of other types of modeling, lots of other ways of trying to assure that nuclear components work, all of the fissile material is ready to be used. Things like these limited -- what's known as limited life cycle components can be updated quickly.
And at the back end of it, the U.S. also has a very, very long line of nuclear weapons that are retired and waiting dismantlement. And this happens at this plant in Texas called the Pantex Plant. They're currently about 12 years out from dismantling them all. So there's a huge amount of -- the United States has a huge nuclear infrastructure spread out through a lot of states.
Now, the Obama administration says that they will not develop new nuclear warheads. So that means, in order to have a safe, secure and effective stockpile, there has to be some measure of refurbishing the existing warheads, re-using components from different warheads, and then the final thing is the notion of potential replacement if some degrade to a level that they cannot be reliably accounted to.
What amount of money is required to do that is unknown. The labs -- the director of the nuclear labs, the what's called the Nuclear Weapons Council, which includes Pentagon officials, people from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from the Department of Energy, they have to come together every year and assure that America's nuclear weapons system is safe, secure and reliable.
And so a little bit more money probably makes it a little bit more safe, secure and reliable, and then a little bit more makes it a little bit more. So the Obama administration very early on, back in April when this first came into play, said we're going to increase spending on nuclear weapons by roughly 10 percent, $80 billion over the next 10 years. And then last week, they added another 4 billion (dollars) or so for the next five years.
Now, the argument from Senator Kyl and some others is that this is not secured, locked down money. Of course, as Kay can speak to, the president proposes a budget, you know, every second week of February, and Congress ends up actually authorizing and appropriating the money. So the White House cannot make sufficient guarantees that all the money will be there forever, and as long as the people in the labs, in DOE, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the head of Strategic Command -- the generals in charge of Strategic Command -- they all verify the weapons system, then that means there's enough money. But if it's based on actual substance, there can never be -- you know, there can never be enough money to guarantee that all weapons will be safe and secure.
As to the second question, I'll just say briefly, the reason that there's -- the reason I perceive a split in the Republicans is that there's ownership among older Republicans who, since 1967, when the U.S. started to have a sort of relationship with Russia on arms control, many Republicans in the past were part of developing and implementing arms control agreements with the former Soviet Union and then with Russia.
The incoming Republicans see, I think, some of these agreements as part of the Cold War. They don't really understand why you need a(n) existing long-term sustained relationship with Russia, and they see the greater nuclear weapons threats coming from Iran and North Korea, and they don't perceive the linkage between cooperation with Russia on U.S.-Russian nuclear weapons and preventing Iran or North Korea from getting the bomb.
KING: And if I could add, I agree with Micah's analysis of the split, although I will say I don't think the split in the end is going to be that great a split. I think when the vote finally happens, if it finally happens, that this will be another one of those treaties that is endorsed by a fairly large margin. And I say that because right now there is reason to believe that there are quite a few Republicans, not just those on the Foreign Relations Committee, who have voted in favor of the treaty, but there are others who are likely to support it.
And I also want to point out that just because there's some new senators coming in, we shouldn't assume that those Republicans coming in are all automatically going to vote against the treaty. For example, Mark Kirk, who is going to be seated very shortly for the seat from Illinois, is a former staffer on the House International Relations Committee, is somebody who's very knowledgeable about foreign policy issues and very thoughtful. And I don't think there's necessarily a guarantee that he's automatically going to vote against this treaty just because there is a move afoot some way to keep Republicans in line.
OPERATOR: Thank you very much. Our next question comes from Elizabeth Weingarten with The Atlantic.
QUESTIONER: Hi. Thanks so much. My question is, you know -- and when speaking about the Russian relationship with Iran, I'm wondering if there's an incentive beyond the economic one to, you know, go ahead and renew the agreement to give them the surface-air missiles. And would Russia see Iranian nuclear capability as a threat if they weren't receiving pressure from the United States?
ZENKO: Well, I -- this is Micah, and I'll just note quickly that one of the things that the United States and Russia have been doing for the last -- since July, there was something created called the presidential commission. And one of the sub-working groups of the presidential commission with Obama and Medvedev is, the deputy foreign minister, Ryabkov, and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher have met 10 times, and they've discussed the threats from Iran. You know, they've discussed both Iran's potential nuclear weapons capability, and they've discussed the ballistic missile threats from Iran.
So they're trying to do, you know, joint threat assessment; they're trying to do tabletop exercises of what Iran's nuclear -- these -- the sort of outer edges of Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities could be, how far its ballistic missiles could potentially fly. Presently, Russia does not perceive Iranian nuclear weapons as a threat, but they have come a long way from where they were even three or fours years ago to seeing advancement in Iran's nuclear weapons program. They don't necessarily think it threatens them, but they see that it's -- that it's -- that it's increasing.
So they are -- I mean, we'll see this play out as there are additional threat assessments, and as was agreed to last weekend with the NATO-Russia Council, where Russia may become an integrated component of the ballistic missile defense system, which the United States is proposing to place over all of -- all over -- all of Europe by 2018. And if Russia participates in that, it's a pretty clear signal that it sees Iran's ballistic missile capabilities as a threat. So -- and there's also no reason you develop ballistic missiles unless you're going to put nuclear warheads on them if you're Iran. So --
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Emily Cadei with Congressional Quarterly.
QUESTIONER: Hi there. Thanks for doing the call. I had a quick question. I guess it's a bit of a follow-up on a previous question about the Republican split, but it's -- it's for Kay, and it's, why do you think Kyl has acquired so much influence over this issue, as opposed to someone like Richard Lugar, who's been working on arms control for decades? And does that say anything about where the Republican Party is at right now on national security?
KING: Well, thank you for asking this question. And as Jim Lindsay mentioned, I actually have just written a study on some of the overall breakdown in the congressional process and system and how that has an impact on foreign relations and national security. And in fact, to me, this is an indicator of where this systemic breakdown is taking place in Congress.
First of all, Senator Kyl is very knowledgeable on these issues. He has studied them, he is very smart and he really does know them well. And so he -- and also, as you know, he is well within his rights as a senator to raise these issues. I guess my concern is exactly the one that you pointed to, though; is that there is a process in the Congress, a committee system that is used to vet, for want of a better word, these treaties and to go through a process to bring -- to raise concerns, to bring in experts, to analyze the impact of the treaty, and to then take those concerns into consideration and address them. And that's everything that the Foreign Relations Committee did.
And as you pointed out, Senator Lugar has had over 30 years experience doing this and is, in my view, the most knowledgeable member of the Senate, in either party, on nuclear-weapons issues and arms control. And as you know, he was the author of the Nunn-Lugar legislation that deals with loose nukes. He's been a huge force within Congress.
And so it is troubling that the system breaks down, where the committee and what the committee's work has done -- what the committee has done with its work is not respected in the Senate. And this happens on both sides. This is not just the Republicans doing it to each other or to the Democrats. You see these kinds of breakdowns in a lot of major issues, where the Democrats also don't necessarily respect what has been put out of committee. You know, health-care reform I think is probably one example.
But so what I think this is, is it's symptomatic of a larger breakdown in Congress, where the committees have lost their clout and their jurisdiction, and the leadership or an individual senator is allowed to kind of stop the process.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Vladimir Kikilo, with Russian News Agency.
QUESTIONER: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I have a question. Who needs this START treaty more, the United States or Russia? The reason I am asking this question is, when listening to the public statement -- statements by certain U.S. politicians, especially newly elected Republican Party representatives or senators, I have a feeling that they're doing favor to Russia by signing arms-control treaties or by ratifying arms-control treaties. Correct me if I -- if I am wrong in my perception.
ZENKO: This is Micah. I'll just take a stab at that. The -- as you -- as you know, Vladimir Putin and President George W. Bush signed the SORT strategic -- SORT treaty, which was a nonbinding agreement to limit strategic weapons to a range between 1,700 and 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads. It was an informal agreement. There were no verification procedures.
When the outgoing Bush administration sort of thought about how to set the table for a new arms-control agreement, and then when the incoming Obama administration came into place, they found out that President Medvedev did not want another informal agreement; he wanted a binding arms-control agreement with all the verification provisions that are necessary, and the language in the front dealing with missile defense.
So this was -- I mean, this was done both at the request of Russia, because the U.S. desperately wants to maintain a strategic partnership with Russia on a range of nuclear issues, including strategic nuclear weapons; but this was also done because President Obama, I think, personally believes it when he says he wants to work towards a -- you know, an era with no nuclear weapons, though not in his lifetime. I think he believes that he wants to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. foreign policy. And 90 percent of all the nuclear weapons in the world exist in two countries. And if you're going to try to work towards both those goals, it deals with Washington and Moscow sitting down and working out its disagreements. And the best way to do that, according to Washington and Moscow, is to do that through a verifiable treaty. So I think, in that sense, both of them wanted this done, for different reasons.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Doyle McManus, with the Los Angeles Times.
QUESTIONER: Thank you. I wanted to ask Micah to expand a little bit on a theme that he opened up, which is the effect of the Senate action, or inaction, on the political dynamic in Moscow. You know, the conventional wisdom is that if Putin wants to run for president again he gets to run for president, and he controls enough of the machinery that he also gets to win. So it's not -- it's not that this is going to affect the outcome of the 2012 election in Russia, is it? But is it a question of, okay, Obama and Medvedev have invested a lot in the relationship with each other, and much or all of that goes up in smoke if Medvedev doesn't get this?
Or is it a matter of affecting Putin's thinking on what the future possibilities in Russian foreign policy are, or what?
ZENKO: I agree that -- in -- ultimately Putin is the decider of Russian foreign policy. But he is not a sultan who then has people, you know, act out his wishes from his court. It's a very semi-delicate dance with Medvedev about going forward on different -- on different priorities. If Putin wants to run in 2012, he will create the justification for doing so. But I would note that in the last year or so, if you look at polling about approval of Medvedev and Putin, Medvedev was always trailing Putin for a long, long time, and just recently he has become as popular as Vladimir Putin, which is a -- which is a fairly significant statement itself, you know.
Could Medvedev become too popular and have too much sort of power and go away from the priority that Putin wants, that Putin tries to cut his legs out from underneath him? Undoubtedly he could do so. But if you look at the slight opening in Putin's -- or, I'm sorry, Medvedev's emphasis on, for example, supporting NGOs, supporting a whole rash of new think tanks, which was the sort of things that Putin Hated, at least making a modicum of effort to stand up for press freedoms when there have been some of the attacks against journalists in Moscow -- in that sense, those sorts of thing didn't happen under Putin; they are happening under Medvedev. The plutonium disposition agreement, for example, did not happen under Putin; happened under Medvedev. S300 sale also was something that was a priority of Putin.
The one thing that Medvedev did go through with, which was the sale of fresh nuclear fuel for the Bushehr reactor, that is not a significant proliferation threat to the United States. This is an energy-producing reactor in Iran. That reactor is under very close IAEA monitoring and safeguards. We know what that reactor looks like very, very closely; we know exactly what Russia sent. We have lots of ways to looking -- to look and see if Iran reprocesses the spent fuel from that into plutonium. So that's the nuclear facility we don't have to worry about to a great extent.
So -- but you're right. In the end, Putin's the decider and the only thing that this relation -- if this treaty does not pass, it harms Medvedev and his allies for taking the -- making the effort to engage with Europe and the West, because the allies of Putin can say, see, you didn't get anything out of it.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Again, ladies and gentlemen, if you'd like to ask a question, please press 1, one now.
Our next question comes from Margaret Warner with PBS NewsHour.
QUESTIONER: Hi, thanks for doing this.
Is there a connection for the Russians between the conversations that they've now agreed to begin with NATO on the conventional missile defenses to -- for Europe and this START treaty being approved? Either on a substantive level or on a political level?
ZENKO: Let me take that one. I would say that there is some connection to it, although Russia has wanted to have better relationships with NATO for a long time; it was just the terms under which that was going to happen. The NATO-Russia Council is now a viable entity; they have regular meetings; they discuss ballistic missile threats from Iran. So there is a U.S.-Russian bilateral discussion forum called the Presidential Commission, and then there's the NATO-Russia permanent council, which is another forum whereby U.S., NATO and Russia discuss ballistic missile threats.
I think it is crucial that the United States and NATO involve Russia into the -- what the Obama administration calls the phased adaptive approach for protecting Europe from missile defenses by 2018, primarily because if Russia perceives that its nuclear -- strategic nuclear rocket force can be vulnerable to the interceptors that the U.S. will place in the Mediterranean sea and on land in Europe, they will be less likely to accept further reductions in its rocket force and further reductions in its strategic warheads.
Russia also has a range of radar -- early-warning radars in Azerbaijan and in southern Russia which could help us see into Iran and help us get a better picture of Iran's both ballistic missile tests and its potential balistic missile launches into southern Europe. So I think if the treaty does not pass, Russian cooperation on a lot of these other issues would be less likely, in part because the treaty does include that language, the nonbinding language in the introduction that discusses the -- what they see as the relationship between offensive and defensive systems, none of which binds the U.S. to not deploy any -- doesn't deter any U.S. missile-defense plans or policies.
But it was important for Russia to have that language so they can -- they can sort of demonstrate to people back home that we understand our -- we understand missile defense is an issue and will be an issue in any future nuclear reductions.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Our next question comes from Arianna Tekno (ph) with Independent Journalists.
QUESTIONER: Thank you very much for doing this conference call. My question refers to the comment made by Mr. Zenko early on. You said the current treaty's supposed to set the stage for the next one, and if it fails today, then a lot of work will be held up. What is in the pipeline? What are the examples of that low-level cooperation, low-level work that's in the pipeline, that is lost in the woodwork and we kind of often overlook it? Thank you.
ZENKO: Yeah. This is -- this is done through the Bilateral Presidential Commission. It was established in July 2009. The working group on Arms Control and International Security has met 10 times. You can find out their sort of program of work for -- on the State Department website. You can talk to its -- Vann Van Diepen and Franklin Rose under Ellen Tauscher's outfit there who have conducted some of these negotiations.
And, you know, what they do is, they look at Iranian ballistic missile capabilities; they look at Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities. That's on the missile-defense side of things. They've had substantive discussions about a big impediment to dealing with the issue we haven't raised yet, which is tactical nuclear weapons. There is a significant imbalance between NATO's conventional military power and Russia's conventional military power. As a consequence of that imbalance, Russia maintains a significant proportion of its tactical nuclear weapons on bases towards its west, along the -- along the borders with NATO. Until there is an amendment to the conventional forces in Europe treaty, which Russia stopped participating in, in December 2007, we cannot have a real discussion about Russia's tactical nuclear weapons.
And so -- and there's -- the final issue I'll discuss briefly, which is the conventional warheads, (non ?)-nuclear capable delivery systems. This is known as "prompt global strike" or the ability to strike -- by the United States to strike anywhere in the world within one hour by placing a conventional warhead on what used to carry nuclear weapons, flying out of North Dakota or Wyoming or any of the other ballistic missile bases in the United States.
Russia is significantly worried about prompt global strike. If you look at its military doctrine, it's the fourth-biggest threat to the -- to Russian national security, because obviously, if the United States launched a ballistic missile from North Dakota to try to get at buried Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, it would fly over the North Pole, it would fly over Russian territory and Russia would not have the transparency, presently, to know whether or not that warhead carried conventional weapons or whether it carried nuclear weapons.
So these are all the issues that need to be discussed in the near term, and if there's going to be further reductions, which both President Medvedev and President Obama agreed that they want to work towards further nuclear reductions, which are also required of the United States and Russia under Article 4 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to make good-faith negotiations towards eventual nuclear disarmament even though that's decades away, if at all.
OPERATOR: Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, at this time we are holding for questions. If you'd like to ask a question, please press star-1 now. (Pause.)
We're showing no further questions at this time.
LINDSAY: I'd like to thank Micah and Kay for answering all these questions, and remind everybody, if you're interested in the materials at the Council on Foreign Relation(s) and particularly reports that Kay and Micah have written, that you can access them at cfr.org. Thank you, and have a great day.
OPERATOR: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. This concludes today's teleconference. You may now disconnect.


text:
- Home
- Dive Blog
- Education
- Learn With Us
- PADI eLearning
- PADI Beginner Courses
- PADI Intermediate and "Specialty" Courses
- PADI Boat Diver
- PADI Deep Diver
- PADI Digital Underwater Photographer
- PADI Enriched Air (Nitrox) Diver
- PADI Equipment Specialist
- PADI Multilevel Diver
- PADI Night Diver
- PADI Peak Performance Bouyancy
- PADI Project AWARE Fish Identification
- PADI Search & Recovery
- PADI Underwater Naturalist
- PADI Underwater Navigator
- Emergency First Response
- PADI Rescue Diver
- PADI Master Scuba Diver
- "Go Pro" With PADI
- Dive & Snorkeling Trips
- Price List
- Book a Dive
- Koh Phangan
- Gallery
- ECOCEAN Whale Shark Project
- Featured Accommodation *coming soon..
Aow Leuk Bay - Koh Tao
Situated in a sheltered bay at the south of Koh Tao, Aow Leuk bay features a healthy coral reef which fringes the coast-line. On the outer side of the reef is a sandy bottom with scattered rocks, on which you can find numerous species of Goby, and occasionally Barracuda, Mackerels and Trevallies.
As with most inshore reefs, there are countless species of marine life to be found here, ranging from the common species of Wrasses, Parrotfish, Butterflyfish and Damselfish.
In addition to these common inhabitants of the reef, there's also the possibility of an encounter with less common species such as Turtles and Pipefish and Seahorses .
Although it is considered an ideal site for student divers, Aow Leuk also makes for an interesting and relaxing dive for more experienced divers seeking to maximize their dive time.
Snorkelling Note: Due to the sheltered and shallow nature of this site, it is perfect for snorkellingand swimming at most times of year.


text:
Wednesday, January 30, 2013 - 17:17
Comment Now
Log-in or register to comment on this story. See our House Rules here.
By ticking "Remember me" you agree to a cookie being stored on your computer - no personal data is shared.
Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.
Yacht towed to safety by Cowes RNLI Lifeboat
Monday, April 24, 2017
Head of Sandown Bay Academy resigns
Monday, April 24, 2017
Crews tackle shed fire in Ryde
Monday, April 24, 2017
Ventnor's Vintage Motorcycle Show a success
Monday, April 24, 2017
Victoria completes London Marathon despite cancer battle
Monday, April 24, 2017
Injured woman rescued after East Cowes headland fall
Monday, April 24, 2017
Win Isle of Wight Festival tickets with Independent Arts
Monday, April 24, 2017
Mam-moth problem for Isle of Wight's historic homes
Sunday, April 23, 2017
1VIDEO: Number One chart success for Isle of Wight star Sarah CloseSunday, April 23, 2017
2Major search launched for 'missing' father and sonSunday, April 23, 2017
3Head of Sandown Bay Academy resignsMonday, April 24, 2017
4One hurt in Newport car crashSaturday, April 22, 2017
5'Cancer hasn't beaten me and neither will this' – inspirational Isle of Wight runner lines up for London MarathonSunday, April 23, 2017
Naked cleaning company launches on the Isle of Wight — 38
Candidates debate Isle of Wight issues ahead of elections — 19
Lib Dems put forward youngest candidate on Isle of Wight — 10
This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Independent Press Standards Organisation Code of Practice.If you have a complaint about editorial content on this website, contact the editor at firstname.lastname@example.com, with the word 'complaint' in the subject line.Or if you wish to take the matter further, contact the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) on 0300 123 2220 or e-mail email@example.com


text: What do you guys use as the first bumper for FF? I have seen commercial ones available specifically for use in FF, but I would think they would be easy enough to make with a dowel and a couple blocks of wood. What are good dimensions if I go that route rather than buying commercially made.


text:
CAFTA and the Scourge of Sweatshops
Increased trade is the best way to eradicate poverty, so-called free trade advocates say, because exports are the key to sustained economic growth. But in reality, "free trade" agreements that are supposed to increase the global standard of living actually undermine it – through lowering workers' wages, eroding workers' rights, increasing unemployment, and creating a global 'race to the bottom' that pits workers against each other instead of promoting global worker solidarity.
Proponents of a new 'free trade' agreement with Central America are once again claiming that this pact will help workers. The reality, however, is that if the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) is passed into law, it will transfer more power to multinational corporations at the expense of ordinary citizens and workers. While big business will win out, garment workers will be among the clear losers as CAFTA increases sweatshop-style production, and countries compete to offer potential investors lower wages and free reign over working conditions. If anything illustrates the false promises of corporate globalization and free trade agreements like CAFTA, it's the sweatshop.
What Is a Sweatshop?
According to the group Sweatshop Watch,
"A sweatshop is a workplace that violates the law and where workers are subject to:
- Extreme exploitation, including the absence of a living wage or long work hours,
- Poor working conditions, such as health and safety hazards,
- Arbitrary discipline, such as verbal or physical abuse, or
- Fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union."
Though many may think of sweatshops as a thing of the industrial revolution, sweatshops are still in operation in countries throughout the world, including the United States. Every day, tens of millions of workers are regularly forced to labor long hours for poverty wages or less, and subject to physical and sexual abuse and toxic working conditions.
Sweatshops and the New Global Economy
The recent proliferation of sweatshops is inextricably linked to globalization. The signature characteristic of the new global economy is the increased mobility and flexibility given to finance capital. Corporations now have more freedom than ever before to relocate to whatever countries will provide the lowest wages and the loosest regulations, lowering their costs to increase their profits. The textile and apparel industry has taken advantage of this new dynamic like few others.
If sweatshops have become a metaphor for globalization's excesses, that's because garment factories are, in fact, the shock troops of the global economy. Visit a country that just recently opened itself up to foreign investment, and you will likely find a host of garment factories, even if there are very few other multinational enterprises located there. Nicaragua and Cambodia are typical examples—poor, war-torn countries that have attracted scores of garment manufacturers but very little else in the way of foreign investment. Low tech, intensely dependent on cheap labor, clothing manufacturing is the crest of the corporate globalization wave.
Separate forces meet in a shameful mix: A footloose industry scours the world for the cheapest wages; countries eager for any kind of investment auction off their workers to the lowest bidder; government regulators deliberately look the other way when abuses occur in order to keep foreign investors happy. It's this combination of desperate profit-seeking and equally desperate investment pursuit which has created the race-to-the-bottom that is at the root of the sweatshop resurgence.
For workers, the current system is a trap. The apparel manufacturers fear that if they raise their workers' wages, and therefore their prices to the U.S. retailers, the U.S. retailers will simply go someplace with even cheaper workers. The threat is real. Because the garment industry is so mobile—retailers can shift sourcing from one country to another in a matter of a fashion season—any country that raises its wages or enforces its workers' rights risks "pricing itself out of the market." That risk is what keeps wages low as long as the retail corporations demand the cheapest price possible.
Isn't a bad job better than no job?
Whenever a debate about corporate globalization and sweatshops arises, defenders of the status quo will almost always say: Sure a sweatshop is bad, but it gives people jobs they wouldn't have otherwise. The truth is that what sweatshops provide are not employment opportunities for workers, but exploitation opportunities for corporations. Wages and working conditions in sweatshops are so poor that workers remain in poverty even while fully employed.
According to the National Labor Committee, a worker in El Salvador earns about 24 cents for each NBA jersey she makes. These same jerseys then sell in the U.S. for $140 each. The 60 cents an hour the Salvadoran NBA seamstresses earn covers only about a third of the cost of living, and even the Salvadoran government says this wage leaves a worker in "abject poverty." In poorer countries such as the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, the wages are even lower.
Proponents of corporate globalization claim that southern countries have a comparative advantage at producing cheaper garments. Moving factories south is more 'efficient' because workers are 'willing' to work for less. What they're really saying, however, is that taking advantage of the desperation of poorer workers and countries - paying workers less, making them work longer hours, and preventing unionization - is more profitable for the corporations.
Rather than happily accepting sweatshop conditions, garment workers in countries around the world have sought to improve their situation by trying to organize unions. Unfortunately those efforts are almost always crushed. Union organizers have been beaten, thrown in jail, blacklisted, and even killed. In some countries, such as Mexico, the government often cooperates with factory owners as they try to bust organizing drives. In a few countries with strong labor histories, such as Nicaragua and the Philippines, unions are tolerated, but not in the "free trade" zones where most sweatshops are located. Of the 30,000 workers working in Nicaragua's state-sponsored Free Trade Zone, only 3 percent are unionized. In these manufacturing zones, workers are expected to leave their liberty at the factory gates.
"We're not against foreign investment in Nicaragua," a worker there has told human rights groups. "But we are against exploitation."
By exploiting workers in sweatshops, corporations drive down working conditions for all workers and prevent countries from pursuing a real model of development that would improve opportunities for their citizens. When corporations pressure countries to keep wages low, ignore domestic labor laws, violate international environmental codes, bust unions, and drive down working conditions globally, they are no longer taking advantage of poor working conditions – they are creating and perpetuating them.
From NAFTA to CAFTA
So-called "free trade" agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), enacted in 1994, have exacerbated the race-to-the-bottom in working conditions. NAFTA is, in a sense, an "investors' rights" treaty. That is, it gives corporate investors new abilities to move production facilities and finished goods and services across international borders while providing guarantees that governments won't get in the way of business.
Countries have traditionally used tools like tariffs, or taxes on imports, as well as quotas, which are outright limits on the volume of imports, to help protect local industries from foreign competition. Lower tariff rates and the elimination of import quotas make it easier – and cheaper – for corporations to move goods and services across borders. At the same time, NAFTA's rules have given corporations assurances that government regulations won't interfere with their operations. NAFTA gave corporations new legal rights to sue national governments for the enactment of policies that can undermine their profits.
The changes wrought by NAFTA gave U.S. and Canadian corporations new incentives to relocate factories to Mexico, where wages are lower and labor unions weaker. This contributed to an increase in the number of sweatshops in Mexico. While new jobs were created in Mexico under NAFTA, average wages for workers in manufacturing industries, like textiles, actually fell.
Corporations have been happy to use the new advantages given to them by "free trade" agreements, especially when facing organized work forces in the wealthier countries. According to a study conducted under the auspices of NAFTA's labor side agreement, 90% of 400 plant closings or threatened plant closings in the United States in a five-year period occurred illegally in the face of a union organizing drive.
As corporate globalization continues, the race to the bottom is appearing limitless. Companies that moved jobs from the U.S. to Mexico under NAFTA, are now leaving for Asia where wages are even lower, and regulations more lax. The U.S. has lost over 879,000 jobs under NAFTA, many of those moving to Mexico. Now one-third of the 800,000 manufacturing jobs claimed by the Mexican government to have been created under NAFTA have disappeared as companies move once again to cheaper labor sources.
CAFTA – a Raw Deal for Workers
Though much criticism has been raised about NAFTA's impact on working conditions, CAFTA fits the same mold. This is of even greater concern, given the fact that labor conditions in Central America are so appalling. Many Central American countries lack basic labor protections such as the right to organize or anti-discrimination laws. Workers regularly face exploitation, abuse, and hazardous working environments. In Guatemala and El Salvador attacks on, and even the killing of union members, is not unheard of.
The situation under CAFTA could be even worse than NAFTA for workers because of the greater disparity in working conditions between the U.S. and Central America. Whereas the average U.S. manufacturing worker makes around $16 per hour, the average Honduran worker producing goods for export to the United States makes 90 cents per hour.
Like NAFTA, CAFTA fails to include the core standards established by the International Labor Organization (ILO). CAFTA also fails to ensure that countries don't weaken or intentionally fail to enforce their already weak laws in an effort to attract investment. If CAFTA becomes a reality, the race-to-the-bottom will accelerate as corporations gain even more ability to move throughout the region. This will spread sweatshop-style production to new places, while making current working conditions even more miserable, as workers are forced to toil for less and less. Under CAFTA, corporations would be able to pit exploited workers in Costa Rica against even more desperate workers in countries such as the Dominican Republic.
What's more, CAFTA could pave the way for a much larger free trade agreement called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA has been in negotiations since 1994 and if enacted would create a sweatshop haven stretching throughout the Western Hemisphere, encompassing 34 nations, and placing even greater pressure on workers in the region.
The Corporate Sell-Job on CAFTA
CAFTA proponents are attempting to sell the agreement with the argument that it would benefit garment workers in both the U.S. and Central America, who currently face competition from cheaper labor costs in China. The blatant abuse of workers' rights and widespread sweatshop conditions in China are well documented. The World Trade Organization's Multi Fiber Agreement expired on January 1, 2005, abolishing a global quota system in textile production. So corporations like Gap, Nike, and Liz Claiborne, Wal-Mart, and industry groups including the American Apparel & Footwear Association claim that Central America needs CAFTA to keep its sweatshop jobs from moving to China.
Once again, we see that the promises of free trade are false. The majority of textile and apparel products produced in Central America already enter the U.S. duty-free under an existing agreement called the Caribbean Basin Initiative. What CAFTA would do, however, is allow companies to relocate to Central America, import textiles from other countries such as Asia, and then import finished products to the U.S. duty-free, actually reducing the demand for U.S. and Central American-made components. Garment workers in both the U.S. and Central America are currently grossly undercut by cheaper and more 'efficiently' produced Asian goods. CAFTA's lowering of tariffs between the U.S. and Central American countries will not change this dynamic.
In addition, CAFTA will eliminate one of the few tools available to Central American workers to press for better working conditions. Under the CBI and another agreement called the Generalized System of Preferences, Central American firms are currently provided access to the U.S. market on the condition that they meet basic labor rights standards. Without any meaningful labor standards, CAFTA will in essence replace the CBI and the GSP, providing increased market access while actually creating an incentive for countries to erode – rather than improve – labor conditions.
Fighting for Work with Dignity
If CAFTA becomes reality, corporations would gain more powers to act without being accountable to their workers, the communities in which they operate, or the public in general. The corporations' gain would come at workers' expense, as more and more people can find only jobs that sacrifice dignity and provide no opportunity. But CAFTA and sweatshops aren't inevitable.
People in communities across the U.S. are saying no to sweatshops, and yes to work with dignity by passing living wage resolutions and requiring that government purchasing dollars only go to companies that meet basic labor standards. Collaboration between Southern workers and Northern workers and consumers has led to substantial victories including monitoring of factories and creation of "sweat-free" campuses and institutions. Pressure from consumers and activists has forced apparel companies to adopt and enforce codes of conduct for their factories.
Though CAFTA negotiations are completed, the agreement still must be voted on in the U.S. Congress to go into effect. With a vote likely this year, opposition to CAFTA is mounting, and Members of Congress are hearing regularly from constituents about the negative impacts of free trade. Activists across the globe are demonstrating that sweatshops can be a thing of the past, and we can instead globalize work with dignity.
To find alternatives to sweatshop clothing, visit Global Exchange's Sweatfree campaign.
For more information on CAFTA and labor issues:
Citizens Trade Campaign www.citizenstrade.org
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch www.citizen.org/trade/
AFL-CIO www.afl-cio.org


text:
Might someone be able to point me to a sketch for the Advanced LED Belt Kit that wouldrun on an UNO using pins 2,3 on a 160 LED strip?I've tried a number of mods to the existing code but it runs very strangely.Many thanks,Carl
Please enter a valid email to subscribe
We need to confirm your email address.
To complete the subscription, please click the link in the
email we just sent you.
Thank you for subscribing!
via Egeo 16
Torino, 10131


text:
Alternate name: Tropical White
Family: Pieridae, Whites and Sulphurs view all from this family
Description Appias drusilla, the Florida White or Tropical White, is a butterfly in the Pieridae family. It is found in tropical America from Brazil north to southern peninsular Florida and the Florida Keys and Antilles. It frequently visits coastal Texas and is a rare stray to Nebraska and Colorado. The habitat consists of tropical lowland evergreen or semideciduous forests.
The wingspan is 53 - 77 mm (2.1 - 3.0 in). Males are solid white on both the upper and lower surfaces of the wings except for a narrow edging of black along the forewing costal margin. The female has two forms: the dry-season form is all white and the wet season form has black along the forewing costal margin and a yellow-orange upper hindwing. The dry-season form is on wing from October to April and the wet-season form from May to September. They feed on flower nectar from a variety of weeds and garden plants including Lantana and Eupatorium.
The larvae feed on Brassicaceae species, including Drypetes lateriflora and Capparis flexuosa in Florida. They are shade-loving and feed during the night and on cloudy days.
Dimensions 1 5/8-2 3/8" (41-60 mm).
Habitat Forests & woodlands, Freshwater swamps, marshes & bogs, Meadows & fields.
Range Plains, Great Lakes, Texas, Southeast, Florida, Mid-Atlantic.


text:
In the Press.
- Socialism in Danger. Part II. By E. Domela Nieuwenhuis. Translated by R. Grierson.
- Parliamentary Politics in the Socialist Movement. By Errico Malatesta.
16 pp., 8vo., printed on toned paper, Price One Penny.
- Jones' Boy: Dialogues on Social Questions Between an 'Enfant Terrible' and his Father. By "Spokeshave."
- Liberty Lyrics By L.S. Bevington.
- The Ideal and the Youth. By Elisée Reclus.
- An Anarchist on Anarchy, By Elisée Reclus.
- In Defence of Emma Goldmann and the Right of Expropriation. By Voltairine de Cleyre.
- First Series. The Why I Ams: Why I Am a Socialist and an Atheist, by Conrad Naewiger; Why I Am a Social Democrat, by G. Bernard Shaw; Why I Am an Individualist Anarchist, by J. Armsden.
- Second Series. The Why I Ams: Why I Am a Communist, by William Morris; Why I Am an Expropriationist, by L.S. Bevington.


text:
Breakfast with the Easter Bunny at Ripley's AquariumLocation: Ripley's Aquarium
Come have breakfast with the Easter Bunny at Ripley's Aquarium! This breakfast at the aquarium is from 8 a.m. until 10 a.m. where kids can meet the Easter Bunny himself, have breakfast, do crafts, and get pictures taken with the Easter Bunny.
Call 800-734-8888 for more information and pricing.Next Date:


text:
I'm glad the litter is thriving. Hope you can catch up on your sleep in another week.
Good Luck!
I'm glad the litter is thriving. Hope you can catch up on your sleep in another week.
Good Luck!
Howard Niemi
You really gotta be careful about how high a pedestal you put your method, your accomplishments, your dog on. There's usually someone who's done more, somewhere. And they may have used a different method than you did! Chris Atkinson 2013
get your dog out and TRAIN! caryalsobrook 2013
[QUOTE=Pals;1100947].... What a sweet beagle......QUOTE]
^^^^^ x2^^^^^ good girl!
very sorry for your loss and I hope all the pups thrive!
"So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory." ~ Aldo Leopold
"The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery is not Ignorance -- It is the Illusion of Knowledge" ~ Daniel Boorstin
So sorry for your loss of mom... something always on my mind with a breeding... Glad your beagle friend is helping , the pups look to be getting enough, with that and your supplementation. I hope things continue to go smoothely.....
Waterspook Sables Dark Secret, MH (Sable)
Trumarcs Bankshot Bandit, MH ( Fats)
Waterspook Tomfoolery, SH ( Tommie)
Waterspook Bankshot Whiz Bang,JH (Jesse)
Waterspooks Girl Named Bill, SH ( Billie- my princess.....)
Waterspook Kickin' Gunshot, SH ( Boom)
Waterspook Kickin' Good Time MH(Kick)
Waterspooks Partner In Crime, SH ( Bouncer)
Brush Creek Waterspook, JH, WC- my first girl.(Spooky)
Sent you a PM
Terrie Tomlinson
Frontier Retrievers
HR Frontier's True Grit With a Cause "Rooster"
Frontier's Gossip Girl With A Cause "Gabby"
Boykin Spaniels: Max, Rummy, Luna, Jewels, Bella, Maisie, Pepper, Wager, Ruby
In Memory:
HRCH Frontier's Cherokee Rebel MH (5-9-2000 to 12-6-2011)
Moonstone's Little Girl Found MH (3-20-1998 to 5-2-2008)
HR Five Star Winning Sue SH (4-16-2006 to 9-11-2016)
Calebri's Take the Money and Run JH (3-3-2008 to 6-20-2012)
Gosh, I'm so sorry. It's bad enough to have to bottle feed an entire litter, but to deal with the loss of your girl on top of it is even worse. That sweet beagle deserves a really soft bed and a steak when this is over!
Tracy Hughes - Crimson Kennels
Mosby's Big Jake, MNH
Johnson's Redwind, MNH
Jessica's Chocolate Cait, MH
Tubby's Maxximum Trouble, MH
Double G Cosmo's Dream Girl, MH
Crimson's Coriander Dream, MH
Crimson's TNT By Design, MH
Crimson's Black Powder Girl, MH
Crimson's Little Bit of Booty, MH
Crimson's Sweet As Dixie Crystal, MH
Where in Mississippi? I have a Labrador litter due in 9 days. Not sure if I could be of much help, but would love to any way I could. Oh, and I'm in Tupelo.
-Barton Ramsey
Sorry for the loss of your girl!!!!! Hope it all goes good for the rest of the time. Good luck!!!
Florence, ms. Thanks but I hope I am out of the woods in the next day or so. Goats milk has all but 2 satisfied so beagle only has to feed 2 consistently. I have a ton of respect for what a momma dog endures. Feeding, pooping, peeing,.... I have learned a lot to say the least. Vet said I would probably only get half to make it so I'm determined to show back up with all of them!!!,
First, sorry about you losing the mom, but how wonderful that you found that great substitute! The puppies look like they've been very well taken care of! Curios to you and to that beagle!!
When it stops being fun, I will find something else to do with my time and money.
The Lady


text:
[b][url=http://www.famousiwcwatchesforcheap.top/]iwc watches for sale[/url][/b] [b][url=http://www.famousiwcwatchesforcheap.top/]fake iwc watches[/url][/b] iwc watches | <a href="http://www.famou..
What an amazing team! Organised, artistic, practical and totally professional- they go the extra mile. They are fantastic. Thanks so much for a great job.
Get your job done right
We verify our businesses
Only hire the best
Free to request and free to hire!
Rowville, VIC
Carpet, Laminate wood
I have 4 bed rooms and a retreat upstair and a rumpus and family room downs staire to replace the existing carpets. My lounge and study have floor board and do not require replacement. Also include...Make a similar request
What next?
Businesses like to send a quote as soon as possible. You may receive
your first quote within an hour.
Call us on 13 18 18Visit our help centre Back to job form
Keep an eye on your email for quotes that we send you from relevant businesses.
We will notify you here when quotes come in.
Why do we need this?
Businesses who send you a quote may get in touch to chat about your request.
Login to submit your job.
Forgot your password? Reset your password
We have sent an email to
We have re-sent the email. Check your email and follow the link to change your password.
Send again
Be sure to check your spam folder for an email from email@example.com
Only businesses that send you a quote will see your contact details.