text:
You are currently viewing the beta version of the new AMM site. Click here to return to the current site.
Dec 21, 2010 | 01:31 PM | Lisa Gordon
Commercial Metals Co. (CMC) was caught off guard by the velocity of the scrap price run-up during the final months of 2010, the company said Tuesday, adding that domestic producers who were too conservative in their melting forecasts helped propel the price gains.
The domestic market is mirroring what is happening on a global scale, and scrap prices are expected to be up again in the first two months of 2011—and trend higher for the first half of next year against the comparable 2010 period, company executives said.
To access AMM's full content, please log in below. If you do not have an AMM account, we invite you to take a free trial or subscribe below.
Access to amm.com editorial content is granted only to paid subscribers and trialists. If you do not have an active account in your own name, please either subscribe or take a trial and you will have instant access to amm.com content. Sharing your login credentials with individuals who are not subscribers represents a violation of AMM copyright.
Every morning, every minute no matter how often you follow the markets, there's an AMM subscription to fit your needs.
Not sure if you are ready to invest in a subscription right now? Take a free, no-obligation trial. Start your free trial today.
Do you think steel mills will succeed in their efforts to stop selling at a discount to the CRU index?
June 20-21, 2013 New York
This whole thing is becoming a game of smoke.
Midwest service center


text:
Pre-Employment Testing
Recruiting & Staffing
Pre-Employment Testing
Exchange ideas about sourcing, screening, interviewing, finding passive candidates, measuring your results, and more.
Does anyone have any suggestions for companies to use for Pre-Employment Testing that you have successfully used?
We are looking for a basic math/reading comprehension for our non-exempt and some t
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId56Discussion:DiscussionId35432
Forums » Topic Forums » Recruiting & Staffing » Pre-Employment Testing
Pre-Employment Testing
posted at 4/23/2009 11:37 AM EDT
Posts: 1
First: 4/23/2009 Last: 4/23/2009 |
I am an executive coach working both sides of this issue working with companies developing successful hiring practices and individual executives making career transitions. As has been suggested earlier validity in your use and setting is key however it is also important to have a provider that will give you service to analyze and regularly reevaluate the effectiveness of the tool. The most common mistake I see is that companies continue using a tool but do not fully mine the data that has been accumulated. Feel free to visit http://www.profilesinternational.com/web00017.aspx |
Pre-Employment Testing
posted at 4/24/2009 5:42 AM EDT
Pre-Employment Testing
posted at 4/24/2009 7:38 AM EDT
Posts: 1
First: 4/24/2009 Last: 4/24/2009 |
The important thing to remember is to make the assessment job related. For instance, if the job doesnt highly depend on math, you may be focusing on the wrong things and miss other critical factors important to the role. I would suggest benchmarking the job to identify the critical success factors and then assess the job and applicants to measure job fit. As a recruiting manager, my clients and I have experienced much success with assessments from Target Training International (http://www.ttidisc.com). Their solutions measure a wide range of areas, including behaviors, motivators, task preference, and mastery levels and capacities for personal skills. I would be happy to provide sample material or talk further with you, or anyone who is interested.
Kate Smith Recruiting Manager firstname.lastname@example.com |
Pre-Employment Testing
posted at 6/5/2009 8:02 AM EDT
Posts: 1
First: 6/5/2009 Last: 6/5/2009 |
Hire-Intelligence offers assessments for behavior, skills, and literacy. Get a free trial at http://www.hire-intelligence.com/trial-assessment.html |
Pre-Employment Testing
posted at 6/5/2009 10:14 AM EDT
Pre-Employment Testing
posted at 1/26/2010 10:23 AM EST
Posts: 2
First: 1/26/2010 Last: 1/26/2010 |
Have used them for both domestic and global outsourcing. |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Order Total: £0.00
Items 0
4 stars in the South African Wine Magazine, fresh yet rich floral Semillon
Delicious version of this variety, relatively unknown in South Africa. It recently received 4 stars in the South African Wine ...more >
This quintessential blend has become a Margaret River benchmark
Cape Mentelle's vineyards lie in the far South West corner of Western Australia, where the Margaret River meets the Indian Ocean. This quintessential blend has become a Margaret River benchmark. Select ...more >
Citrus aromas and hints of honey in the mouth
This wine has citric aromas, hints of honey when in the mouth, with an after taste of toasted bread. Very persistent. Antonio Mas says "We make our wines only from our own grapes, and only when ou ...more >
Lemon butter aromas and hints of tropical fruit on the palate
Matthew Jukes, The wine list top 250 wines of the year 2006. "This Semillon wears its heart on its sleave. Lemonbalm and lanolin soaked..." Semillon is an undervalued variety but when it is given ser ...more >


text:
Price: $24.99 /ea.
+ Add to Wishlist Flavor Wheels Shipping Information
Country: Spain
Unit Size: 1 lb. (Sliced)
Description: Dry and Nutty, Jamon Serrano brings the definitive taste of Spain to the American table.
Marcona Almonds
$7.99 /ea
+ Add to Basket
Manchego Cheese & Membrillo Set
$21.99 /ea
+ Add to Basket
Manchego with Rosemary Cheese
$10.99 /8 oz
+ Add to Basket
Fig and Almond Cake
$5.99 /ea
+ Add to Basket


text:
Fairbanks Militia Leader Schaeffer Cox Sentenced to 26 YearsConvicted of planning to murder federal employeesANCHORAGE - Fairbanks militia leader Schaeffer Cox was sentenced to 26 years in prison today for his role in charges relating to planning the murders of federal employees. During his sentencing in federal court in Anchorage today, his attorney, Peter Camiel, made a last minute appeal for leniency. He said Cox suffers from mental illness. Camiel is new to the Cox case. In the time since Cox's trial in June, he's reviewed Cox's case. He said that Cox's story is of a man who lived a stable, productive life. He was married in his early 20s, had a home, two children and a business. Camiel said it didn't make sense he would jeopardize this for the sake of a conspiracy, so he had him tested. Camiel said being professionally evaluated, Cox was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, paranoid delusions and paranoid personality disorder. Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Skrocki countered this was just another excuse from Cox, someone he said has never taken accountability for his actions. He said that though the defense claims Cox suffered from mental illness, he still had followers. "This was a man interested in taking human life," Skrocki said, citing conversations Cox had with co-conspirators. "We are asking for a long sentence." he said to the judge. When Francis Schaeffer Cox had a chance to make comments, he was very emotional, "I put myself here with my own words," he said his voice breaking in the first sentence. "I feel horrible about that." His comments aligned with Camiel's defense of paranoia. "I know I said scary things. Especially now I see how serious that was." He described a fear that someone was out to get him and his family, "I was terrified of living in a nightmare that I couldn't wake up from and still am. It's even more scary now." He then apologized to people sitting the crowded courtroom. He told people he had threatened that he hadn't really meant them any harm. He talked about his family and how he regretted being away from his young children, ages 2 and 4. "I know I put myself here." he said. When Judge Robert Ryan gave the sentence he discussed why he made his decision. He mentioned the many letters he'd received on Cox's behalf. He said there were several themes that people used to appeal to him in the sentencing decision. Friends and family said he was a good person, that his family need him and some even suggested he was innocent, that it was a plot that put him in prison. Ryan expressed sympathy for the family that had lost their breadwinner. He handed down the 26-year sentence saying the public needs to be protected from Cox, whom he believes needs continuing medical care for his mental condition. Cox's sentence is almost identical to that of Lonnie Vernon, a co-conspirator who was sentenced yesterday. You have indicated this comment should be removed.said on Thursday, Jan 10 at 7:09 PM h t t p : / / c r y p t o m e . o r g / 2 0 1 2 / 1 2 / n g - a l a s k a - b l a y l o c k . p d f I guess KTVA doesn't want you to know the TRUTH... Inappropriate? Alert Us! said on Thursday, Jan 10 at 4:44 PM cox is just dissatishied with the govt. he was being persecuted for his views and free spech, just like gordon kahl. Inappropriate? Alert Us! said on Wednesday, Jan 9 at 9:12 AM I wonder if our current and past governors will be brought to trial for "membership" to another militia in Alaska, and all the domestic-terrorism they brought to the innocents of their political rages??? Illegal Activities within the Alaska National Guard certainly is worth looking at...oh I forgot the feds are asleep at the wheel...nevermind... Inappropriate? Alert Us! said on Tuesday, Jan 8 at 3:02 PM It's always interesting how remorseful and sad people like this are about their actions when they're facing punishment for it. Inappropriate? Alert Us! Add a comment |
Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.


text:
Well today we had a rough day...
At the beginning of the summer i took my son to his 5 yr well child appointment. He was perfectly healthy except in one area... His vision. The year before he failed the eye exam, however the Doctor didn't seem concerned. He said its common for kids at age 4 to fail the test due to a couple of reasons, 1. they cant focus and 2. they aren't a 100% with shapes, letters etc. But this year when he failed the test with the exact same results it sent up red flags. The doctor then referred us to an optometrist to have it looked into a little more closely.
The results were bad... I knew this but didn't expect it to be this bad.
His vision in his left eye is 20/400 (legally Blind).
They then prescribed him glasses hoping it would help strengthen his eye. They said at this age there is always a chance for correction. They just needed to train the eye to be stronger. He has had is glasses for 2 months now and has finally gotten used to them. I hoped at todays follow up there would be progress and good news.
I was wrong.
They said his vision even with the glasses is the same. How? because he not only looks over his glasses, but because his eye has never know a clear image. So it is having trouble processing images through the glasses. This means the images are still blurry for him. So today they told him he would now have to wear an eye patch, all day/everyday for at least 2 months.
The first sobbing words out of his mouth were, "I cant look like penguin!!! I'm batman!!! Mom penguin wears an eye patch and he is a bad guy weirdo... now im going to look like a bad guy weirdo!"
It has been a very hard day for him, every person has asked him what happened and he starts crying every time. Poor Guy. So any eye patch crafts or activities you might have would help. Lets hope the next appointment goes better. This is going to be a painful and hard process for him. He already can't see and has started complaining of headaches.
On another note... My blog is finally coming together! I made all of the suggested changes, and added a few extra goodies. I also would like to announce that we are now on Facebook. So if you want to know what we are doing in between posts... check us out.
I am still taking suggestions and comments about the re-organization of my blog. Im also looking for give aways, and people interested in advertising on That 22 Yr Old Housewife. So spread the word.
Also I will (as always) Have the Friendship Friday Blog hop link list up and running Thursday by 10:00Pm. Feel free to grab a Button before then, its now located in the buttons section on my link bar! (yes i have a link bar!!!)
Thank you to all of my new followers, readers and friends for your participation and suggestions. I always welcome them &hearts.


text:
The drop in Hong Kong's container throughput last month indicates a structural problem exacerbated by a strike at one of the terminals last month, according to one port operator, South China Morning Post reports.
Port of Hong Kong
06 May 2013
Hundreds of dockworkers at the Port of Hong Kong on Monday voted to end a strike that had disrupted operations at the world's third-largest container port for six weeks.
01 May 2013
Striking dockworkers were among thousands who rallied in Hong Kong on May 1 against poor wages and working conditions.
29 Apr 2013
Dockworker unions at the heart of a five-week strike at the Port of Hong Kong hinted they might downgrade pay demands, providing the government with some hope that talks scheduled for Tuesday may yield an agreement.
25 Apr 2013
Ka-shing Li, a Chinese billionaire with investments in container port facilities around the world, including in Hong Kong, has moved to end a four-week strike at his docks in Hong Kong by hiring new workers...
21 Apr 2013
As the Hong Kong dockworkers' strike for better pay and working conditions enters its fourth week, some analysts believe there could be long-term economic repercussions for the city and port.
18 Apr 2013
A strike by dockworkers at Hongkong International Terminals is entering its third week, but, despite the size and importance of Hong Kong as a gateway to China, the job action so far has had minimal impact on imports and exports at U.S. ports.
15 Apr 2013
Hutchison Port Holdings' earnings are expected to struggle in fiscal year 2013, as labor disruption at the Port of Hong Kong is likely to drive up wages and limit Hongkong International Terminals' subcontracted labor flexibility...
11 Apr 2013
Container shipping lines claim delays at Hong Kong tied to dockworker strikes at facilities operated by HIT are declining, but many carriers continue to reroute cargo to rival ports and terminals.
10 Apr 2013
Hongkong International Terminals insists it will not be financially liable for delays suffered by lines and shippers because of ongoing strikes by dockworkers usually deployed on its facilities.
08 Apr 2013
Shipment delays to and from Hong Kong are ongoing as productivity at facilities run by Hongkong International Terminals continue to be affected by shortages of crane operators and other key workers because of striking dockworkers.
More on JOC
Is Your Supply Chain Costing You Money?
Best Practices for Building a Resilient Supply Chain
Bridge the Gaps in Your GTM Operations with Gartner Research
Port News
- West Coast Ports
- Longshoreman Labor
- Panama Canal News
- International Ports
- Asian Ports
- Port of Khalifa
- Port of Kobe
- Port of Nagoya
- Saigon Port
- Port of Taichung
- Port of Surabaya
- Port of Singapore
- Port of Qingdao
- Port of Tanjung Pelepas
- Port of Beirut
- Port of Tanjung Priok
- Pusan East Container Terminal
- Port of Yokohama
- Port of Tokyo
- Port of Ningbo
- Port of Nhava Sheva
- Port of Kolkata
- Port of Chennai
- Port of Busan
- Port of Adelaide
- Port of Cochin
- Port of Colombo
- Port of Jawaharlal Nehru
- Port of Kandla
- Port of Hong Kong
- Port of Hitachinaka
- Port of Hachinohe
- Port of Visakhapatnam
- Port of Haldia
- Port of Kaohsiung
- Port Klang
- Fuzhou Port
- Gemadept VungTau
- Dammam Port
- Port of Keelung
- Hualien Harbor Bureau
- Port of Khor Fakkan
- Indian Ports Association
- Philippine Ports Authority
- Port Blair
- Ningbo-Zhoushan Port
- Nansha Port
- Jakarta International Container Terminal
- Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
- Port of Mumbai
- Dredging
- European Ports
- Port Equipment
- Port Data & Services
- Port Productivity
- South American Ports
- Terminal Operators
- US Ports


text:
Enjoy the exhilarating sounds of this pivotal season and help decide the Southwest Florida Symphony's sounds of tomorrow.
The five finalists for the Music Director position have been chosen and each candidate will lead the orchestra in a Masterworks performance during the 2013-14 Season.
We have an exciting series of pops concert planned with many of your favorite guest conductors.
December 31, 1969 -


text:
View more videos at: http://nbcnewyork.com.
A man accused of firebombing three New Jersey synagogues may have been influenced by violent Xbox video games that aggravated his mental issues, his attorney said Tuesday.
The man, Anthony M. Graziano, 19, of Lodi, N.J., has pleaded not guilty to first-degree attempted murder, bias intimidation and aggravated arson, among other charges, for two attacks on synagogues. Graziano was in court Tuesday to seeking a reduction in his $5 million bail, which Superior Court Judge Liliana DeAvila-Silebi cut in half because Graziano is destitute.
No one was seriously injured when several objects, including a rigged aerosol can and a Molotov cocktail, were thrown into a Rutherford synagogue on Jan. 11, but one of the devices crashed through a residential window at about 4:30 a.m., burning a rabbi on the hand. His wife, five children and mother- and father-in-law escaped unscathed. The other two attacks also occurred in early January.
Graziano's attorney, Robert Kalisch, speaking outside court after the hearing Tuesday morning, described Graziano as a young man with mental health issues who had few friends and played violent games on his Xbox. Kalisch didn't say which games Graziano played.
"This is someone who may (have been), with their own problems they have within their own head, taken over by these games that young people play now — lots of violence, lots of meanness," Kalisch said, NBC station WNBC of New York reported.
(The Xbox system is made by Microsoft Corp., which is co-owner of msnbc.com in a joint partnership with NBCUniversal.)
Kalisch said Graziano called for an ambulance to come to his home in November, telling emergency workers that he was "feeling crazy or something."
Read more on this story at NBCNewYork.com
Graziano was taken to hospital, where doctors recommended that he see a psychiatrist, Kalisch said.
"When you have emotional, psychiatric, psychological problems and you get involved in these games, the whole aura of it pervades, and it's not a game anymore. It becomes reality," Kalisch said.
Assistant Bergen County Prosecutor Martin Delaney argued against the reduction in bail, telling DeAvila-Silebi that Graziano was "hell-bent on destruction and murder."
Bergen County Prosecutor John Molinelli told reporters Tuesday last week that investigators found multiple Molotov cocktails in a wooded area near the Jewish Community Center of Paramus, The Jewish Standard reported. He said they traced the evidence to a foiled attack they believe Graziano had been planning for Jan. 7.
Authorities believe he acted alone and had no connection with the synagogues he targeted. They said he simply Googled temples that were close enough that he could reach them on his bicycle.
The attacks kept Jewish residents of the ethnically and religiously diverse communities of Bergen County, part of the New York metropolitan area, on edge for weeks until Graziano was arrested last week.
"We have no doubt that the arson and the attempted murder in Rutherford were directly the result of Mr. Graziano's hatred for people of the Jewish faith," Molinelli said. "We believe that he did this because they were synagogues and specifically to intimidate and cause alarm or concern to people of the Jewish community."
Graziano used empty raspberry Crush soda bottles, motor oil, duct tape and three cans of hair spray to create the bombs, Molinelli said. Detectives searched for stores where those items could be purchased together, which led them to a Wal-Mart store in Rutherford.
Security footage of Graziano buying the ingredients prompted tips that led to his arrest late Jan. 23, Molinelli said.
Authorities believe the attacks could point to a pattern of escalation had they not been thwarted by law enforcement, Molinelli said.
In addition to searching the Internet for how to build weapons, police found, Graziano searched the Web for any news coverage of the attacks. He also owned a firearm purchaser's ID, which would have allowed him to buy a rifle or a shotgun for hunting purposes, but not a handgun.
Graziano's father, also named Anthony Graziano, told WNBC last week that his son was a "great kid."
"This is not my son," the elder Graziano said. "This kid loves everyone."
Brian Thompson of NBC station WNBC of New York contributed to this report by M. Alex Johnson of msnbc.com. Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News


text:
Award season is in full swing, with basically three straight months of announcements from critic groups, guilds, boards, and yes, academies, underway.
Read More »As a meaningful measure of film or television quality, the Golden Globes are and continue to be goofy and erratic at best. But as an awards show, last night's iteration was uncommonly entertaining, filled with weirdness, humor and poignance, along with the usual back-patting.
Read More »Ben Affleck's "Argo" led the winners of the 70th Annual Golden Globe Awards, taking both best picture - drama and best director, despite Affleck getting snubbed at the Oscars.
Read More »Indiewire will provide regular updates of our predictions for the Golden Globe Awards through January 13th, when the winners are announced.
Read More »


text:
Home Future StudentsCurrent StudentsFaculty & StaffPatientsAlumni
The CU Denver Financial Services offers more than $70 million in financial assistance to qualified students on the downtown Denver campus each year (divided amongst 12,000+ students).
The Adolescent Literacy program is comprised of three graduate courses (9 credit hours total).
*The $100 goes towards the 24/7 customer service which ensures you always will have someone to talk to in case you ever have a technical issue.
The University of Colorado Denver offers fully accredited online degrees and online courses where the recognition and prestige are the same, the credit and education are the same, even the professors are the same. The only difference is that it's online & on your terms.
Summer school for the students who have their eye on the future... https://portal.prod.cu.edu/UCDAccessFedAuthLogin.html 4.11.13
Here's a list of ten education-related YouTube channels you might want to check out - http://on.mash.to/13T7GZz 4.09.13
Good Ted talk about starting with the end in mind http://bit.ly/Y5RYCh 3.12.13
© 2013 The Regents of the University of Colorado, a body corporate. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are registered property of the University. Used by permission only.


text:
Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry recently questioned the science of climate change in ways so unsupported by evidence that Glenn Kessler, the "Fact Checker" columnist at The Washington Post, gave him a rating of "four Pinocchios." Perry's is but one scientific misstatement among many that regularly roil the US political scene. What is the proper scientific response to the political distortion -- or even outright rejection -- of science? In coming weeks, three Bulletin experts will offer authoritative and at times provocative analysis.
For my final essay in this Roundtable, I want to shift momentarily from the distortion of science in the public sphere to the distortion of science within the profession itself.
Today the world of science is drowning in information. When I speak to my former colleagues (I left my tenured professorship at the University of New Hampshire in 1994 to become a filmmaker), I hear the same, consistent refrain: "There's just too much information." When you run too much of anything through a processing system, the inevitable result is reduced assimilation efficiency. It happens when you feed animals too much food (they can't digest all of it), and it happens when you overwhelm a profession with too much information (it can't process it all).
Too much information causes decreased accuracy in transmission. I've seen this in the limited experiences of my own career in science. Recently, I poked my head back into the literature of my former field, marine biology, and to my surprise saw that much of the work I published in prominent journals in the 1980s has not been cited for more than two decades.
I wrote about this to a dozen of my old colleagues (some of whom are now members of the National Academy of Sciences), and their basic response was, "Get used to it." Following a suggestion from one of them, I looked at the instructions to authors for a journal I used to subscribe to, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, or TREE. The instructions tell authors this, verbatim: "Concentrate on the seminal references of the past 2-4 years (most references should be no more than five years old)."
How does that work if one is engaged in actual science? What happens if the seminal references occurred 25 years ago? You're supposed to ignore them and focus on recent work, even if the recent stuff is trivial? What sort of a message does that send to authors? This message: It's not about searching for the truth; it's about searching for the current. My colleagues assure me this practice is part of a broader general ethic in scientific publications.
On another note related to scientific accuracy, last fall articles in The Atlantic
and The New Yorker commented on the dangerous amount of noise in current scientific literature caused by "false positives," which are, roughly speaking, studies that tell a good story but aren't actually true. I spoke at a recent epidemiology conference where the attendees confirmed this trend. They contended that it's relatively easy to get funding to demonstrate that Chemical X causes cancer. But if someone has already published that finding, and you suspect it to be incorrect, it's almost impossible to get funding to set the record straight. It's a general standard of seeking the next new and exciting thing, rather than attending to the boring job of maintaining complete accuracy in the literature.
So to bring the argument of this Roundtable back to Rick Perry and the political distortion of science: The battle supposedly focuses on the accurate propagation of science in the public arena, but I'm increasingly concerned about the accurate propagation of science within the profession itself.
How can scientists not care about accuracy within science -- accepting the routine dismissal of "old" literature and the regular proliferation of false positives -- but then simultaneously express shock about the inaccurate propagation of scientific information outside the profession? Yes, the political distortion of science by candidates for public office is frustrating and deserves concern, but there is a serious risk of a glass-houses situation. If the science world doesn't give more thought to maintaining standards within the profession, first and foremost, it will have little ability to combat the distortion of science in the wider culture.
I have enjoyed the exchange between Randy Olson and Robert Socolow on the need for effective communication of science, and not simply as a means of conferring content but as a two-way process that builds trust and legitimacy. In my final commentary in this exchange, I'd like to return to discussing Socolow's central claim that science is under attack and needs defending from the anti-science brigades.
In short, I find the evidence for such a claim sorely lacking. In these cynical times, science is among the few institutions in society that is held in high regard. (Others include the military and first responders to disasters.) The most recent survey of public attitudes about science by the National Science Foundation found that 84 percent of Americans expressed support for government funding of basic research, and Americans have more favorable attitudes toward the promise of science and technology for our future than do Europeans. Further, Americans ranked scientists higher in prestige than 23 other occupations (and at a level similar to firefighters), a view that has remained virtually unchanged in the 35 years that the NSF has conducted its surveys.
These data hardly show an institution under attack or even a loss of support for science. Yet Socolow warns ominously that "an age of darkness could lie ahead" and worries about the "alienation of large segments of the public from the scientific enterprise." I have a hard time making sense of such general expressions of extreme concern, which are by no means unique to our exchange.
As I argued in my first essay in this roundtable, the justification of political actions in terms of science is a common feature of our politics, expressly because science is held in such high regard. Everyone (many scientists included) seems to think that by invoking the scientific correctness of his or her positions, he or she can reach a moral high ground that will trump the arguments presented by opponents (who, typically, also appeal to science). Science is thus viewed as a way to circumvent political discourse over values and interests.
For instance, we began this exchange with an invitation to respond to a question motivated by the statements made by Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry, who expressed skepticism about the science of climate change. While we've been having this discussion, the Obama administration has decided to overrule the recommendation of an FDA science advisory committee on the safety of an over-the-counter contraceptive for girls under age 17.
While many observers cast both examples as anti-science, neither has anything to do with being anti-science and everything to do with politics and values. For instance, the Obama administration does not want to go into an election year having just made available the so-called morning after pill to 13 year-olds. It is far easier to justify the decision based on appeals to science rather than values. However, the central problem in invoking science as the basis for what are ultimately political decisions is that it risks politicizing the scientific community in pathological ways, especially when the scientific community plays along as a willing participant. Thus, the larger problem that we face these days is not a public that rejects science, but parts of a scientific establishment that at times appear to welcome, if not encourage, the politicization of their own institutions.
The risks are thus not a looming anti-Enlightenment era among the American public, but rather an expert community that is willing to trade on the authority and legitimacy of science in the political battles of the day. Ironically enough, those positing that they are defending science in highly partisan political debates may be helping to reduce its legitimacy in those very same debates.
What is needed from scientists is leadership that is willing to clearly explain that science does not offer political cover for politicians who seek to avoid making difficult decisions by hiding behind science. Instead, there is a need to push such discussions in the direction of the underlying values that are at stake and away from science as a proxy battlefield for those disputes over values. Decisions about climate change and over-the-counter contraceptives (and the like) are ultimately political decisions. They involve considerations of science, but science neither dictates the outcomes of these decisions nor favors one side's values over the other.
As members of the scientific community express their political leanings in public debate, they would do well to remember some sage advice from Walter Lippmann: The goal of politics is not to get everyone to think alike, but instead, to get people who think differently to act alike.
Randy Olson is right: "Superior" is a badly chosen word. Saying, as I did in Round Two, that science is a "superior way of knowing" contradicts my first-round essay, which argued that science is not just one of many belief systems, but a different way of knowing. To explain how science should not be defended, I invoked the scene on Mount Carmel staged by Elijah, where the God of the Jews sets a pile of wood on fire after Baal is unable to do so. I said: "Science is not just another point of view."
I used the word "superior" just once, in the headline, and I lost Randy Olson in the process. I am surprised that he didn't feel obliged to come up with alternative language. I hereby invite him and the other member of this roundtable, Roger Pielke, to join with me in this final round to identify forceful and productive -- yet inoffensive -- language that justifies giving priority to science in children's education and in the processes of government. (Here I am assuming they agree that such priority is warranted.)
I have been collecting adjectives that others have used to describe what is different about science. Paul Nurse, now head of the Royal Society, wants students to be able to distinguish astronomy from astrology; he thinks the key is to show that science is "reliable." Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, says science is "confirmable." Spencer Weart, a historian of science, asserts that science is "universal," in no way owned or controlled by any nation or sect. To this list let me add that science is "welcoming," in the sense that it nourishes the counter-argument. "Reliable, confirmable, universal, and welcoming" is a good package that succinctly bundles what I wrote in Round One: "Science is a process of searching, always incomplete. Its norms include strict evidentiary standards and transparency. Anyone working anywhere can overturn a prior consensus."
The case for the distinctiveness of science is treated skeptically by practitioners of "science studies," a relatively new, cross-cutting research area found in many universities, but usually not in their natural science departments. The science studies researcher can be expected to assert that science is not universal to the extent that it is culturally determined; not welcoming to the extent that it imposes conformity; and not reliable or confirmable to the extent that it is the expression of self-interest. The problems we are facing today in our public discourse about science have some of their roots in an agreement to disagree, dating to nearly half a century ago, between those who believe there is an underlying reality that science accesses uniquely and those who see science as only one enterprise among many, all with feet of clay. Forthright dialogue between natural scientists and science studies researchers is overdue. Conceivably, it will lead to a level of mutual understanding sufficient to reduce the current level of discord regarding what science aspires to and has already achieved.
We were asked, at the beginning of all this: "What is the proper scientific response to the political distortion -- or even outright rejection -- of science?" Indeed, this is one of the most critical questions of our times. The stakes are very high; I warned that "an age of darkness could lie ahead." The central task is to "retain -- or perhaps regain -- the public's trust." Science at its best is widely admired (I likened science to a palace). Friends of science who are not scientists can be especially helpful.
In pursuit of the goal of countering the rejection of science as a way of knowing, my principal recommendation is to put much more effort into communicating how science is done nearly all of the time -- its norms and strategies. Thanks to the creativity and diligence of a generation of science communicators, the heroic accomplishments of science -- from the structure of DNA to the mapping of black holes -- are broadly appreciated. Arguably, however, these efforts have done little to reduce the alienation of large segments of the public from the scientific enterprise. Perhaps, if the communicators of science put comparable effort into explaining the processes that make science distinctive, a more profound and trusting relationship between the layperson and the professional will emerge.
Something unfortunate has happened here. I liked and agreed with both of my colleagues' first-round essays (Roger Pielke on the importance of fairness and honesty; Robert Socolow on science not being "just another point of view"). But I'm afraid Socolow has overturned the table with his second essay, starting (and ending) with his title.
In today's digital, networked world, language is crucial. Entire political campaigns implode and careers end because of poorly chosen words. Sometimes the offense can be caused by a single word. For example, on the same day he filed to run for president in 2007, then-US Sen. Joe Biden created a media maelstrom by using the seemingly innocuous word "clean" in reference to African American candidate Barack Obama. Words are powerful: They can convey history and agendas, sometimes without the sources of the words realizing it.
The word "superior" in the title to Socolow's piece ("Relativism gets us nowhere. Science is a superior way of knowing.") has this characteristic. It speaks powerfully of one thing -- arrogance. To say that science is "a superior way of knowing" might seem innocuous to a fellow scientist. But try running that usage by the people at the Discovery Channel whom I mentioned in my last essay -- the people who feel the words "science" and "scientist" are elitist. You know what they would say to Socolow's title? "Yep, we told you so; they think they are superior."
I am talking perception here, not reality. If the general public perceives you to be arrogant, you can forget about being widely heard.
I first addressed the issue of arrogant scientists in my 2006 movie, Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus. Many evolutionist friends I spoke with during the making of the movie told of public debates in which they "out-facted" their creationist opponents. But when my friends looked to the audience, they saw cold stares that said, "Who do you think you are, Mr. Know-It-All?"
Hosted by Town Hall Seattle, a 2006 debate between an evolution professor and a spokesman for intelligent design vividly displayed the dynamic of scientific arrogance. The evolutionist trampled his opponent all night, cutting him off, telling him he was "full of crap," and eventually interrupting him by saying the word "no" 18 times in a row.
By the end of the evening, science grad students who attended told me, no one cared what the evolutionist had to say. He had come across as so arrogant -- radiated such an air of superiority -- that the audience was sick of him.
One organization that knows how not to come off as arrogant is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Over the past year, I've made four visits to its Atlanta headquarters and conducted five workshops there. The CDC seems to have a natural ability to communicate with broad audiences, perhaps because the word "public" is part of the name of the profession: "public health."
The CDC's brilliance was seen this year in the agency's zombie disaster preparedness campaign, which used a graphic novella, social media, and a blog to tell of the spread of a strange new disease that turns ordinary people into zombies. In the project, the CDC explained in hilarious deadpan the emergency kits and plans citizens should make to prepare for such a zombie apocalypse (and, it just so happened, more mundane emergencies like hurricanes, earthquakes, and real pandemics).
The project cost $87 to create and went viral on the Web, bringing the CDC and its preparedness mission the equivalent of millions of dollars in media exposure. When it comes to communication, the CDC understands the need to listen, to avoid arrogance, and to engage the audience on its own terms, even when the terms involve zombie movies.
In the end, this roundtable is supposed to focus on politicians who distort science. But at the core it's about reaching the public. If the distorted version of science comes from a charming, friendly, good old boy, while the accurate version of science comes from a cold and robotic authority figure who proclaims his way to be "superior," to whom do you think the public will listen?
I thought Socolow's first essay was excellent, and I completely agreed with its message. But the title of his second piece was a faux pas of enormous scale, undermining whatever substance was associated with it. If scientists can't develop a much higher level of sensitivity to the power of language -- and the importance of word choice -- it will not matter how absurdly the Rick Perrys of the world distort science. Far too often, they will be believed, and scientists will not.
In Round One of this Roundtable discussion, I drew the distinction between distortion of the substance of science and rejection of science as a way of knowing. I asserted that distortion is less dangerous than rejection. The scientific process itself sorts out distortions, often quickly. Rejection of science, on the other hand, lacks self-correcting mechanisms. Rejection is dangerous not just for science, but for civilization. I wrote: "Another age of darkness could lie ahead. … Our opponents present science as dogma and construct a symmetric conflict: their dogma vs. our dogma. … There is no such symmetry."
In the second and third rounds, I hope I can persuade my tablemates, Roger Pielke and Randy Olson, to reflect on this distinction. Through this lens, here's how I read their first-round essays:
Olson, as best I can tell, shares my sense that something fundamental is amiss, and worse now than a few decades ago. He contrasts the early 1960s, when President Kennedy's administration "seemed to embody the idea of knowledge as the foundation to a bright and secure future" with today, when a television producer confides to him that "the words 'science' and 'scientists' are now actively avoided at the Discovery Channel because 'they are perceived as elitist.'"
Pielke, it seems, may not agree with my premise that the scientific way of knowing is privileged. He writes: "If a scientist says that life on Earth evolved over billions of years, anyone else has the right to counter that view by expressing his or her belief in creationism. ... Experts should never forget that in democracies, citizens have every right to make bad decisions or hold the wrong views." As statements about free speech and making "decisions" governing individual behavior, Pielke's assertions are fine. But Pielke carries his relativism and evenhandedness to the societal level when he creates a parallel construction to report to us that: 1) "Jimmy Carter set a goal of achieving 20 percent of the US energy supply from renewable sources by 2000, even though he was told it would be infeasible"; and 2) "Ronald Reagan wanted creationism taught in schools."
These statements are not parallel. Carter is working within the domain of science; Reagan is rejecting the primacy of science. Evenhandedness is appropriate at the individual level, but not the societal level. Yes, we're all entitled to our opinions -- but, no, all principles are not equally valid. Relativism must not dominate decisions about what a child should be taught. Democratic societies have made a collective decision to use the classroom to undermine racism, and, at essentially the same level of discourse, to teach the primacy of science.
A word about Climategate: Olson says that "Climategate should have been a wake-up call: It should have been seen as a 9/11 for the science community." It is not that simple. The purloined emails from and to the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit were an embarrassment to the scientific community and difficult to defend. Phil Jones, the professor at the middle of the affair, showed admirable contrition when he said: "I have obviously written some pretty awful emails." Their impact on public opinion was so substantial precisely because so many people had put science on a pedestal. The public expected generosity of spirit and found meanness. They expected objectivity and found combat. Climategate revealed how many friends science has, because so many friends made it known that they were disheartened.
Olson distorts reality when he proposes that there are two sides -- scientists on one side (naïve and well meaning "Cub Scouts"), and a ruthless Mafia on the other. Scientists are not alone. In countering Texas Gov. Rick Perry and affirming their "belief" in science, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman helped science more than any scientific leader could have. Our best defenders are third parties.
More accurately, we scientists are in charge of the building where everyone lives: We are its janitors and plumbers and architects. Nearly everyone is proud to live in this building, including the mafiosi, but still there is discontent. Looking from its windows, people see palaces in the distance. It is our responsibility to find the arguments that will persuade our fellow residents not to abandon the building, for the palaces they see are only flimsy tents in the desert.
To ask for the proper scientific response to the political distortion of science is kind of like asking what sort of defense a team of dwarves should run in a basketball game against the Los Angeles Lakers. I suppose I could recommend that the dwarves run a zone defense, but it really doesn't matter because nothing they try is going to work. The dwarves' problems are fundamental and systemic, and until they are addressed at the large scale, nothing will succeed.
Sliding downhill. I was born in 1955 and grew up in a country led by John F. Kennedy, a president who surrounded himself with scholars and whose administration seemed to embody the idea of knowledge as the foundation to a bright and secure future. But those Camelot dreams not only have failed to come true, they have faded.
Just look at the progression downward in television -- still the most powerful medium of mass communication -- where the quality and depth of news has atrophied. We've gone from Edward R. Murrow to Dan Rather to Stewart and Colbert. In 2008, the New York Times asked, "Is Jon Stewart the most trusted man on television?" and suggested the answer is probably yes.
Instead of at least the dream of a day when the average citizen would evaluate scientific data to make up his or her own mind on complex issues like human-caused global warming, today most people -- including, unfortunately, politicians and media personalities -- are simply lost on the big issues. The country needs leaders to explain these complexities and deal with the politically driven disinformation that confuses science-related issues.
Cub Scouts versus the mafia. These days the profession of science is under attack. There are the blatant, obvious attacks, like the Climategate offensive of 2009. And there are the less public elements of erosion of confidence in science -- such as a television producer friend of mine telling me the words "science" and "scientists" are now actively avoided at the Discovery Channel because "they are perceived as elitist."
The result: a weakening of the science community and an increase in its vulnerability to attack. I made two movies about science controversies: Flock of Dodos is about anti-evolution efforts; Sizzle: A Global Warming Comedy is about attacks on climate science. While making the first movie, I came up with a humorous alternative subtitle, "The Cub Scouts against the Mafia," which I never used. But as I made the second movie, I found myself drawn to it again.
The subtitle refers to the naïveté of scientists, who are often as trusting as a bunch of Cub Scouts (both groups having honesty as one of their founding principles). In contrast, the anti-science forces seem to have minimal ethics -- as was seen in Dover, Pennsylvania in 2005, when a federal judge accused two anti-evolution school board members of perjury, and with Climategate in 2009, when the attackers of climate science were not only willing to commit theft, but their followers never even questioned the ethics of stealing emails.
What to do about science distortion? There is a basic norm in the profession of science that all decisions must be made by committees. This is perhaps a reflection of the core belief in the peer review process; if all research must be approved by a committee of peers, then no policy decisions should be made without a committee. As a result, potential lead organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science lack the ability to lead, because their directors are little more than mouthpieces for the sluggish committees that reside within.
The overall effect is slow, limited leadership, leaving the science community vulnerable to attack. And this is exactly what happened with Climategate. When word got out that climate scientists' emails had been stolen and were being used -- falsely, as it turned out -- to suggest that some aspects of climate science were fraudulent, there was no voice of leadership on the scientists' side. In fact, there was nothing but chaos, as Fred Pearce of Yale Environment 360 detailed in an article with the blunt title, "Climategate: Anatomy of a public relations disaster."
A body with no head. So this is at the core of most science communication failures: no effective leadership. Today, Republican presidential candidates like Rick Perry espouse anti-science nonsense in debates. But the next morning, who is combatting the distortions in the media? Nobody.
In a perfect world, the National Academy of Sciences would have a loud, powerful, and charismatic leader, who -- on the morning after anti-science debate rhetoric is spewed -- would provide the comforting voice of scientific accuracy and have the media savvy to get a rebuttal onto the home page of major news websites.
That response mechanism doesn't exist. There are individuals and small groups attempting to fill this void. For example, three scientists (one of whom is a senior member of the National Academy) organized a Climate Rapid Response program, and the Science Debate 2012 group is seeking to push presidential candidates to talk more about science issues. But the large science organizations shy away from politics and are largely inept when it comes to communication.
One thing that major science groups could easily do to level the playing field would involve taking an aggressive stance not on the interpretation of science (which is inevitably political), but against attacks on the profession of science itself. Large science organizations should be ready for battle. There is nothing political about defending peer review or the advancement of ideas. Again, though, such an aggressive orientation would require bold leadership.
For now, science is stuck with a "strategy" that boils down to pretty much every scientist for himself or herself, which is what happened with Climategate. As a result, the only advice I can offer is that the strategy has to change. Climategate should have been a wake-up call: It should have been seen as a 9/11 for the science community. It should have brought cries of "Never again!" and a new awareness among scientists of the value of clear and timely communication. But that didn't happen, which means that, for now, presidential candidates can spout all the egregious anti-science they want, knowing that the response will be underwhelming and delivered with the ferocity of a pack of Cub Scouts.
Here we go again. The US presidential campaigns of 2004 and 2008 saw some in the scientific community seek to exert influence on the elections. In 2004, scientists mounted an aggressive effort to unseat George W. Bush, and four years later sought to raise the profile of science in the election by calling for a presidential debate on science. Neither effort bore much fruit.
But hope springs eternal. As the 2012 campaign gets under way with a focus on the Republican nominees vying for the ticket, the scientific community is once again trying to figure out how it can impact the process. A seemingly obvious way is for scientists to do what any citizen can: evaluate the claims made by candidates, factor those into their judgment as to whom to support, and, if desired, actively work to help get those candidates elected.
The situation is, of course, more complex. Scientists are not just ordinary citizens; they have specialized expertise. So what should scientists do when a political candidate expresses a perspective that they -- as individuals or within groups -- hold a different view on? In our system of democracy scientists can speak out, and because scientists are held in high regard within our society, they are more likely than the average citizen to have their voices amplified (if not treated with deference) by the media. I've been known, on occasion, to use my own blog to call out politicians for misrepresenting the state of science related to my own work.
Of course, there are several pitfalls that scientists should be aware of when making a decision to speak out and express a view differing from a politician's.
First, although scientists are not like every citizen, all citizens have the right to speak out. So if a scientist says that life on Earth evolved over billions of years, anyone else has the right to counter that view by expressing his or her belief in creationism. Depending on one's view of the merits of democracy and expertise, this feature of American political life may be viewed as a positive or a negative. Experts should never forget that in democracies, citizens have every right to make bad decisions or hold the wrong views -- if we define "bad" decisions and "wrong" views as those which are counter to the perspectives held by experts.
Second, when scientists speak out publicly, they will quickly learn that it is not just candidates for office who have their views scrutinized. For instance, this roundtable was apparently motivated by Texas Gov. Rick Perry taking issue with aspects of climate science that many in the research community have long viewed to be settled science, with only a few outliers taking issue. Perry's views prompted rebukes from scientists and fueled reverberations through the blogosphere's echo-chambers for weeks.
Yet in sharp contrast, when President Barack Obama sought to explain the recent Texas drought as a consequence of human-caused climate change, few (if any) of those same scientists found fault with his views, despite the overwhelming consensus (also disputed by a few outlier voices) that individual events cannot be attributed to the human influence on climate because such changes are observed as statistics that play out over several decades and longer.
The selective behavior goes to process as well. When NASA scientist James Hansen was told by the Bush administration that he could speak with the press only when accompanied by agency "minders," the scientific community loudly and quite rightly expressed outrage. Yet, when the Department of Health and Human Services under President Obama recently announced a similar policy, virtually all of those once-outraged voices were mute.
An observer of this selectivity might note that significant parts of the scientific community have a political preference for Democrats over Republicans. For instance, a survey of the membership of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found only 6 percent registered as Republicans, and almost 10 times more registered as Democrats. Scientists who take on politicians in the name of science risk being perceived as simply using science as a fig leaf of expertise to advance what ultimately are political preferences.
That politicians express misleading or incorrect views (on scientific issues or anything else) will not come as a surprise to most any member of the general public, whether that person has specialized expertise or not. In our recent book on presidential science advisers, Roberta Klein, managing director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, and I documented controversial claims made by each president going back to Eisenhower, including both Democrats and Republicans. For instance, Jimmy Carter set a goal of achieving 20 percent of the US energy supply from renewable sources by 2000, even though he was told it would be infeasible. Ronald Reagan wanted creationism taught in schools. The area of national security seems particularly perilous. Bill Clinton bombed a Middle East chemical factory based on supposed scientific proof that ultimately did not exist. George W. Bush justified claims that Iraq had WMDs, also on supposedly scientific evidence. And the list goes on.
Of course, for those wrapped up in partisan debates, a favorite pastime involves argument about which political party is worse in its deviation from facts accepted by the scientific community. Such debates are certainly fun -- especially on blogs and during cocktail hour -- but they have little connection to real-world issues that most people care about. (In case you are curious, most Republicans think Democrats are worse, and vice versa.)
When scientists go into political battles armed with their expertise and invoking science as the basis for their claims, they may think that they are working to improve the factual basis underlying political debates. This of course is a worthwhile ambition, and to the extent such efforts are successful, they will help to improve the quality of policy discussion.
But if scientists are not mindful of the pitfalls that accompany their efforts to insert themselves into the bright glare of political campaigns, they may find that rather than making politics more scientific, they have instead made science more political. Prominent scientists and leading scientific organizations face much greater risks in this regard than do rank and file scientists. No matter how well intentioned, actions that exacerbate the politicization of science diminish both our science and our politics.
This roundtable explores "the proper scientific response to the political distortions of science." Indeed, distortions abound regarding both what science understands and how science is conducted. Of even greater concern, however, is the rejection of the scientific way of knowing -- or rather its relegation to the status of just one of many equally valid ways of knowing. If the scientific method loses its place as a privileged way of knowing, the consequences will be devastating. Developing effective responses to the rejection of science, however, will take scientists into unfamiliar territory.
Distortion. The scientific enterprise encompasses both what is understood about the natural world and a set of professional norms. Both can be distorted, out of ignorance and deliberately.
In America's litigious society, the scientific enterprise is enmeshed in conflict. Science is used selectively by those seeking to influence legislation. The scientist-as-expert-witness is hired to persuade juries. Sometimes the conflict centers on whether a glass is half full or half empty: The same fact is looked at two different ways. Sometimes how well something is known is debated. It is hardly surprising that there is so much misunderstanding about both what science has learned and how science is conducted.
With a free press and unrestricted access to decision-makers, the open society is supposed to limit the adverse consequences of such legitimated distortions of science. To provide those checks and balances, the open society must be protected. The best way forward is to shore up our democracy -- no small task when the funding of politics is skewed by corporate personhood and the cogency of the media is undermined by the leveling effects of the internet.
Rejection. More threatening than the distortion of science, however, is its rejection. At issue is whether the scientific way of knowing is privileged relative to other ways of knowing that are rooted in myth. As scientists, we are poorly prepared to respond when science is called "just a theory," on a par with other theories. We are distressed when intelligent design and evolution are placed on the same footing. We consider it self-evident that better climate science will help in sorting out threats to human well-being from climate change. Then we learn that the answer is already known: Our vulnerability is minimal because God wouldn't let climate change injure us.
Think hard about Republican presidential candidate and Texas Gov. Rick Perry's mental model, which leads him to reject climate science and cast himself as Galileo and the current science establishment as the 17th century Catholic Church. Rather than writing him off, perhaps scientists should consider this stagecraft to be a warning. Perhaps an experienced politician knows something about the state of the electorate that scientists should not dismiss. What are the similarities between the current scientific enterprise and the 17th century papacy? We scientists are remote, we believe we deserve deference, and we extract considerable financial resources from the general population to run our affairs. Such parallels make us vulnerable.
We must not underestimate the threat now looming. Another age of darkness could lie ahead. In what may someday be called the Science Wars, our opponents present science as dogma and construct a symmetric conflict: their dogma vs. our dogma. We are carried back to the contest set up by Elijah to determine the stronger god, described in the Book of Kings. Firewood is piled on two altars on the peak of Mount Carmel, and each group pleads with its god to create a fire. "Baal, we cry to thee" is a poignant moment in Mendelssohn's rendition.
There is no such symmetry. Science is not just another point of view. Science is a process of searching, always incomplete. Its norms include strict evidentiary standards and transparency. Anyone working anywhere can overturn a prior consensus. Safeguards against human frailty take the form of countless processes that protect decision-making from being compromised by friendship, rivalry, and financial interest.
To counter the rejection of science, perhaps it will be productive for scientists to assure that these long-tested and distinctive norms are widely appreciated. Science is usually defended differently. One strategy is to justify science through its utility -- its role in bringing about the healthier and fuller lives that nearly all of us live. A second is to appeal to the elegance of the edifice of science and its capacity to make sense of both our past and our place in the universe. Arguing for science by explaining its governing rules is, in effect, opening a third front.
In summary, to refute distortion we must first understand that distortion is often animated by rejection. And to counter rejection, we must retain -- or perhaps regain -- the public's trust. We must earn the moral high ground: No longer can we assume that others will place us there.
The time on the Bulletin's Doomsday Clock would need to be advanced at least two minutes toward midnight if the scientific method were to lose its primacy, even if, in the short run, nothing else changed.


text:
Anti-incorporation efforts take to the street
By LESLIE KELLY
Central Kitsap Reporter Editor
February 1, 2013 · 2:19 PM
A hand full of Silverdale-area residents who oppose incorporation were out Friday with signs in hand, urging voters to vote "No" on efforts to incorporate Silverdale.
"We oppose Silverdale becoming a city because Silverdale is not a city," said Debbie Davis, who resides in the area slated for incorporation. "There's just no reason for it. And the way that the area has been designed, it breaks apart existing neighborhoods."
For example, she and her husband, Gary, live on Chico Way, as does her son and his family.
"They live just down the road from us and if this passes, we will be in the city and they won't be," she said. "It just doesn't make any sense."
Davis and her husband are neighbors of Joyce Merkel, who also stood at the round-about at Silverdale Way and Chico Way Friday. They have waved to passersby often in the past week, holding signs that read "Vote No on Incorporation."
Voters in the affected are have until Feb. 12 to return their ballots to the county elections office. As of Thursday, about 1,600 ballots had been returned to the county. There are 9,600 registered voters in the Silverdale incorporation area.
Merkel opposes the incorporation efforts because she sees no need for it.
"The only reason to incorporate would be for better government services," she said. "We have great services from the county as it now stands. Our services are exemplary. County Commissioner Josh Brown is very responsive to our needs. In fact, he's the one who got us this great round-about."
The group plans to return to the round-about most days through election day.
"We are trying to remind voters who may not have thought about it that they need to educate themselves and return their ballots," Merkel said. "We get a lot of thumbs up. I really think a majority of people don't want this to pass."
Citizens United for Silverdale, the group backing the incorporation effort, doesn't plan any public demonstrations, said Rob MacDermid, one of the group's organizers. The group has issued a position paper that rebuts some of the arguments posed by those who oppose incorporation. In it, Citizens United states that a city government would be more responsive to residents of Silverdale because its "sole focus would be on Silverdale.
Incorporation will get us better qualified and more responsive government."Officials at Citizens United for Silverdale had no comment on the demonstration by those who oppose incorporation.
Contact Central Kitsap Reporter Editor Leslie Kelly at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Comment on this story.
So keep your comments:
- Civil
- Smart
- On-topic
- Free of profanity
We ask that all participants own their words by logging in with their Facebook account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and "drive-by" commenters. We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using screen names, pseudonyms or false identities. Please refer to our Terms of Use for full detail on participating on our site.


text:
P3R & popchips invite you to win tickets to The Princess Bride and a Month Supply of Katy Perry's favorite snack!
21 May 2013
P3R Publicity, Los Angeles fashion PR firm, is excited to announce that our friends at popchips have partnered with Showtime's Eat. See. Hear and KROQ for a summer-long celebration of food, movies and music. (May 11- Sept 14).
Enter a chance to win tickets to this Saturday's movie premier of The Princess Bride and snack on katy's kettle corn, the official snack of LA's Premier Outdoor Movie, Food Truck and Live Music Event Series.
Like this link and follow & tweet us at @p3rpublicity and @popchipsla to let us know that you've entered. Winners will be announced this Friday.
Five lucky winners will win 2 tickets (you + 1) and our top winner will receive 2 VIP tickets to seat in the "popchips fashionably late" section and a month supply of popchips!
Good Luck!


text:
You've been happy with the Garmin 500, we get it -- it's small, has useful data, and quite simply, it works. So, you're probably desperate for a reason to upgrade to the Garmin Edge 510 Bundle and OF Mount. Well, how about three reasons -- a longer battery life, a touch screen interface, and the all new Live Tracking feature. Essentially, Garrmin designed this computer to be the Edge 810 in a smaller package. Sure, you don't have all of the functionality, but then again, you're also saving $200. Regardless, though, the Edge 510 Bundle delivers functionality in leaps and bounds over the venerable 500. Not only that, but it also includes all of the training accessories that you need to kick this race season off right.
Starting at the screen, Garmin placed a focus on simplifying screen and metrics navigation. The initial start screen prompts you to select the CPU's functionality for your ride, either 'train' or 'race.' To avoid confusion, training mode is presented in Blue, whereas race mode is presented in Red. Additionally, this screen enables you to select the bike profile that you'll be riding -- mountain, road, cyclocross, or even unicycle if you're savvy. Once these selections have been made, you simply touch the ride button, and the screen moves to your race or training page. And of course, this page is customizable for every bike profile in your quiver. So, your ride page will only reflect the data that you deem pertinent to your ride or race. Even more impressive, and a jump away from the button navigation fumbling of the 500, the 510 allows you to simply swipe the touch-screen from page to page. Also, Garmin designed the screen to operate seamlessly with gloved hands in the cold, in the heat, or even in wet weather.
And as long as we're on the subject of new features, you'll should be ecstatic to hear that the 510 is Bluetooth ready. So, while sport device communication is still handled by ANT+ (say, wireless data transfer from the included HRM and cadence sensor), the Bluetooth technology communicates with your smartphone. And to make matters even easier, the 510 is fluent in either Android or iOS operating systems. So, once you're synced up with your phone, and you've downloaded the Garmin Connect Mobile App, the 510 really comes alive. Essentially, the 510 receives data from your smartphone, like live weather and activity upload. This means that you're able to receive real-time weather conditions, forecasts, and alerts while your phone stays protected. And for activity upload, this hastens the data transfer once you've finished your ride. From any location, this feature allows you to wirelessly upload your ride data to your smartphone, which then uploads it to your Garmin Connect profile online. Accordingly, you can view your profile from the Mobile App, almost eliminating the need to access Garmin Connect from a home computer.
Impressed? Believe us, that's just the tip of the iceberg. With the 510's Live Tracking feature, you have the ability to share your activities in real-time through either email or the social media of your choosing. All that you have to do is invite your coach, friends, or family to follow you on Garmin Connect, and then you're able to send email notifications reminding them to follow your real-time activity, stats, data, and location while you're on the bike. You also have the option to share this information via Facebook or Twitter. But, your adoring public aren't the only ones that can navigate your movements. With either the Mobile App or Garmin connect, you have the ability to peruse rides in your area. However, unlike the 810, the 510 doesn't have full map functionality, however, it does GPS for post-ride analysis.
Now for the guts. The 510 sees the return of Garmin's ever-popular, Virtual Partner and Virtual Racer training programs. The 510 does no accept data cards, but it's capable of storing up to 180 hours on its onboard history. It's rechargeable lithium-ion battery has a life that extends to around 17 hours. Garmin also ensured that the CPU is completely waterproof, and it's also compatible with virtually any ANT+ equipped device. So, mating the 510 to an HRM or powermeter will be a painless affair.
The Garmin Edge 510 Bundle and OF Mount is available in the color Black and includes a standard and out-front bike mount, a premium heart rate monitor, a speed/cadence sensor, USB cable, AC charger, a tether, and a user-manual.


text:
Vagabondage is the third and final film in a series of shorts by Aaron Rose using his iPhone 4. Shot on location in New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Berlin and Prague, this is his most intimate film yet.
For many, travel represents romance and freedom, but for Rose it's like living the life of a vagabond. To fulfill one's wanderlust doesn't come without sacrifice, as its greatest risk is the loss of community, a disconnection from friends, lovers and family. This is the film's underlying theme.
Vagabondage also serves as an autobiographical account and celebration of relationships held between Rose and close friends, both old and new, the beauty in what they represent and where they stem from.
Perforated Snap Case for iPhone 4
Capture and document life experiences while keeping your iPhone 4 secure and looking smart. With its all-over perforated design in an ultra-minimalist form for maximum visual impact, the Perforated Snap Case for iPhone 4 offers both style and protection. It attaches easily and securely, provides unobtrusive device coverage, four-corner protection and offers direct access to all iPhone 4 features.
Film and Photo Credits
- Director:
- Aaron Rose
- Narrator:
- Aaron Rose recites the English translation of the song "Ne me quitte pas" (Don't Leave Me) written by Jacques Brel, 1959
- Cast:
- Liz Goldwyn
- Terry Richardson
- Frankie Rayder
- Cali Dewitt
- Willo Perron
- Ingrid Allen
- André Saraiva
- Anabelle Dexter-Jones
- Ashley Lent
- Nadine Elfenbein
- Alia Penner
- Lucy Goodwin
- Locations:
- New York
- Los Angeles
- Paris
- Berlin
- Prague
- Music:
- Composed by Aaron Rose and Aska Matsumiya
- Tools:
- iPhone 4 HD Camera
- 15" MacBook Pro
- Software:
- Film was edited in iMovie
- Voice-over recorded in Voice Memos
- Music composed in Garage Band
- Extra Photos:
- Nadine Elfenbein (Bio)
- Oliver Rath (Home Page)
About Aaron Rose
Aaron Rose (b. 1969) is an artist, film director, exhibition curator and writer who is known as one of the cornerstones of the street art movement. From 1992 to 2002, he was owner/director of the Alleged Gallery in New York, which helped launch the careers of many of today's most important contemporary artists, photographers, graphic designers and film directors, including Terry Richardson, Barry McGee, Mark Gonzales, Margaret Kilgallen and Mike Mills.
As a filmmaker, Rose has directed numerous films and television commercials, including Become A Microscope (2009), a short film based on the life of 1960s artist/activist nun Sister Corita, and Portraits of Braddock (2010), a one-hour film for the Independent Film Channel produced in conjunction with Levi's. Rose also directed the feature documentary film Beautiful Losers (Arthouse Films/Oscilloscope), which began its US theatrical run in 2008. He is currently writing a narrative feature film.
Aaron Rose lives and works in Los Angeles.
Aaron Rose for Incase
Incase has given Aaron Rose complete creative freedom to create a series of three original short films and photo essays. Traveling to a number of international locales, Rose shot each piece using the high-definition camera on the iPhone 4 while relying on our cases to provide his iPhone with the on-the-go protection that on-location shooting requires.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in these films do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Incase.


text:
Aug. 19, 1954 —Jan. 18, 2013
Griffin resident
Mr. Larry Eugene Baggley, 58, of Griffin, passed away Friday morning, Jan. 18, 2013, at Christian Ministries Hospice.
Mr. Baggley was born in Fulton County on Aug. 19, 1954, to Mr. Andrew Eugene Baggley and the late Bertie Louise Sparks Baggley. He was also preceded in death by his stepmother, Grace Mae Foster Baggley, brothers, Alvin Junior Burks and Johnny Darrell Burks, and sister, Peggy McCard. Mr. Baggley was the owner of Baggley's Tree Service.
Survivors include his sons and daughters-in-law, Ryan and Landris Baggley of Griffin, Christopher and the late Angela Bailey of Alabama; granddaughters, Curtinia Perry, Katlyn Greene, Jaydin Baggley and the late Angela Michelle Baggley; grandson, Curtis Perry; father, Andrew E. Baggley of Griffin; brothers and sisters-in-law, William and Betty Baggley of Cochran, John and Delpha Burks of Griffin; sisters and brothers-in-law, Mary Jane Krenek of Griffin, Barbara Faye Johnson of Daytona Beach, Fla., Patricia and Richard Holder, Vickie and Robert Smith, Patsy and Jeff Clark, all of Griffin, and Shirley Morgan of North Carolina; several nieces and nephews; two great-nieces and one great-nephew.
Funeral services for Mr. Larry Baggley were conducted at 1 p.m. Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013, in the chapel of Heritage Funeral Home. The Rev. Greg Marsh, the Rev. William Baggley and Pastor Dana Stephens officiated. Interment was in Oak Hill Cemetery. Donations may be made to Christian Ministries Hospice, 621 Carver Road, Griffin, GA 30224, in memory of Mr. Baggley.
Heritage Funeral Home, 1512 Williamson Road, Griffin, GA 30224, was in charge of arrangements. www.heritagefhgriffin.com.
Robert H. Steele
Died Jan. 21, 2013
Griffin native
Robert Hunt Steele, 90, of Rocky Ford, passed away on Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, at his residence in Rocky Ford. He was born in Griffin, Ga., was retired from the U.S. Army after 26 years, having served in World War II and Korea in the 15th Infantry Regiment-Cannon Company, and was retired from the Georgia Department of Public Safety after 20 years of service, where he was a license examiner. He was also a member of Rocky Ford Baptist Church. He was preceded in death by his daughter, Heidi Schulz; parents, George and Oneita Reeves Steele; and sister, Virginia David.
Survivors include wife, Thelma Harrelson Steele of Rocky Ford; daughters and son-in-law, Heidi Collins and Julia and Charles Gay, all of Statesboro; son and daughter-in-law, Leonard Jr. and Marian Elkins Collins of Sylvania and Barry and Julie Collins of Alpharetta, Ga.; brothers and sister-in-law, Ralph and Sarah Steele of Griffin, Ga., and George Steele of Missouri; 10 grandchildren; nine great-grandchildren; several nieces and nephews.
Visitation will be from 5 to 7 p.m. Wednesday, Jan. 23, 2013, at Thompson-Strickland-Waters Funeral Home.
Funeral services will be at 11 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, at Rocky Ford Baptist Church with the Rev. Mike Johnston and the Rev. Bob Holsten officiating. Burial will be at Rocky Ford Cemetery. He will lie in state at the church from 10 p.m. until 11 a.m.
Pallbearers: Josh Collins, Jed Gay, Adam Zack, Kenneth Collins, Charles Collins and Leslie Collins. Honorary pallbearers: Men's Adult Sunday School Class at Rocky Ford Baptist Church. Full military honors at the cemetery.
Remembrances: Rocky Ford Baptist Church, c/o Aletha Durden, 164 Main St., Rocky Ford, GA 30455, or to Ogeechee Area Hospice, P.O. Box 531, Statesboro, GA 30458.
Thompson-Strickland-Waters Funeral Home was in charge of all arrangements. www.thompsonstricklandwaters.com.
Mr. Michael Woods, 42, of 1205 W. Broad St., Griffin, died Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013, at Atlanta Medical Center. Funeral services will be Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, at Providence Baptist Church at 11 a.m. Interment will follow in Griffin Memorial Garden Cemetery. Public viewing will be held Wednesday at the funeral home from 1 to 8 p.m. and at the church one hour prior to the service. The cortege will assemble at 10:15 a.m. from the residence. McDowell's Funeral Home Inc., 305 N. Hill St., Griffin, is in charge of arrangements.
Mr. Jerry Robert Clanton, 67, of Locust Grove, died Sunday at Emory-Midtown Hospital. Visitation will be from 3 to 5 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013, at Conner-Westbury Funeral Home. Following the visitation a memorial service will be held in the chapel. Conner-Westbury Funeral Home, 1891 W. McIntosh Road, Griffin, is in charge of arrangements. www.conner-westburyfuneralhome.com.
Mr. Jerry Stephen Lucas, 56, of Griffin, died Monday at Spalding Regional Hospital. A private family service will be held. Conner-Westbury Funeral Home, 1891 W. McIntosh Road, Griffin, is in charge of arrangements. www.conner-westburyfuneralhome.com.
Gwendolyn Joyce Howard, 88, of Griffin, died Tuesday, Jan. 22, 2013, at Brightmoor Hospice. Survivors and funeral arrangements will be announced. The Haisten McCullough Funeral Home, 1155 Everee Inn Road, is in charge of arrangements.
Mr. Tim W. Owens, 78, of Griffin, died Saturday, Jan. 19, 2013, at Spalding Regional Hospital. Funeral services will be held at 11 a.m. Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, in the chapel of Heritage Funeral Home. Interment will follow in Griffin Memorial Gardens. Friends may visit the family this evening from 5 to 7 p.m. at the funeral home. Heritage Funeral Home, 1512 Williamson Road, Griffin, is in charge of arrangements. www.heritagefhgriffin.com.
Miss Karen Faye Prichard, 25, of Stockbridge, died Jan. 6, 2013, at Piedmont Henry Hospital. Funeral services will be conducted this afternoon at 2 p.m. in the chapel of Heritage Funeral Home. Interment will follow in Griffin Memorial Gardens. Friends may visit the family from noon until the service hour at the funeral home. Heritage Funeral Home, 1512 Williamson Road, Griffin, is in charge of arrangements. www.heritagefhgriffin.com.


text:
Mecca Girls
military dress (7-16)
$14.99 $36.00
The Military Dress by Mecca features:
- Full button-down closure
- Multiple pockets throughout
- Self-adjusting belt
- Embroidered patch appliques
- True to size
Tell a Friend
Copy and paste the following address to tell your friends:
Email a Friend
Sign Up!
Sign up for special offers, exclusive sales and discounts!
We recommend
Other customers also liked these...


text:
Palheiro Property Rentals
With a wide choice of Luxury Villas and Apartments we can offer you a home from home at very reasonable prices with excellent conditions. Additionaly, our guests have discounts at a wide variety of facilities. Located on a prime hilltop site overlooking Funchal, the 130 hectare Palheiro Estate has grown from an early 19th century hunting lodge and summer retreat for nobility into a sophisticated resort destination.


text:
Designed by Apple from the ground up, Maps gives you turn-by-turn spoken directions, interactive 3D views and the stunning Flyover feature.1 All in a beautiful vector-based interface that scales and zooms with ease.
Completely Re-imagined
Maps uses a vector-based engine that keeps text crisp, graphics clear, and panning and zooming smooth and responsive. Want to explore? Tilt and rotate to view an area, and Maps keeps the names of the streets and places where they belong. So everything's easy to read, and you won't get lost.
With Maps, you get real-time traffic information to calculate your ETA. Maps gives you details on what's causing a backup, so you can tell if there's a major incident or just a temporary slowdown. And if traffic's a mess, Maps offers alternative routes to save you time.
See selected major metro areas from the air with interactive, photorealistic 3D views. Explore cities in high resolution as you zoom, pan, tilt and rotate around the city and its landmarks.
No matter where you roam, Siri can help you find your way.2 To get to your destination, ask Siri to take you there and Maps immediately guides you along the fastest route. And if you feel peckish on the way, ask Siri to look for the closest pizza place or Thai restaurant. Learn more about Siri in iOS 6
Local Search
Tap a pin you've placed on the map or a search result to see a card full of useful information about that location. View photos, tap to dial phone numbers, get an address, find websites, peruse ratings and reviews — even find deals to save you money.