text:
Next Message | Previous Message Next in Topic | Previous in Topic Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author Chronologically | Most Recent First Proportional Font | Monospaced Font
Join or Leave AEJMC Reply | Post New Message Search Archives
text/plain (942 lines)
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005. If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author directly. If you have questions about the archives, email rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line, send email to [log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the body (drop the ""). (Feb 2006) Thank you. Elliott Parker ==================================================================== Under the (glue) gun: Containing and constructing reality in home makeover TV Submitted for Entertainment Studies Interest Group AEJMC 2005 National Conference Submitted by: Madeleine Shufeldt, doctoral student University of Colorado- Boulder and Kendra Gale, Ph.D., Assistant Professor University of Colorado – Boulder Inquires should be directed to: Madeleine Shufeldt School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of Colorado- Boulder 1511 University Avenue 478 UCB Boulder, Colorado 80309-0478 [log in to unmask] 303-442-2441 Abstract This paper presents a case study of two families over a 7 month period as they move from fan to applicant to cast of the home improvement reality TV program Trading Spaces: Family. The paper details the discrepancies between the actuality of participation and the preferred "reality" of dramatic and collaborative interior design. Strategies to maintain (or even increase) the producers' power over the unscripted events via program format, contracts and selective editing are highlighted. Over the past five years, the already booming home improvement industry has seen a proliferation of reality-based home improvement television programs –many inspired by the phenomenal success of the quirky reality decorating show Trading Spaces which debuted on the cable network TLC in 2000. "Copycats and variations on the idea have been multiplying like wire hangers in a walk-in closet," argues television critic Anna Gates (2005). When TLC launched Trading Spaces: Family in 2003 as its own spin-off from the original series, the show's executive producer explained it as a strategic business decision. "We wanted to build on the success of Trading Spaces… but we won't have spinoffs to the point you don't recognize the show" (quoted in Freydkin, 2003, p. 8). Indeed, Trading Spaces: Family bears a clear resemblance. Both series from Banyan Productions share the premise of neighbors trading houses to redecorate one room in each other's home over just two days and with a budget of $1000. Trading Spaces: Family replaces the 2-person teams of the original show with families of four, including at least one child between the ages of 9-14. These two shows and others like them suggest that they let viewers in on the unpredictable and unglamorous realities of radical redecoration; TLC makes this claim explicit in its advertising slogan for such shows: "Life Unscripted." Yet, from an analytic perspective, the focus on how these shows produce stunning interior designs has obscured a focus on how these shows themselves are produced. We seek here to explore how such shows contain the actuality of DIY labor and construct an ideal "reality" of home improvement. The present study explores the real conditions of producing an episode of reality TV through a case study of two families who participated in Trading Spaces: Family. By engaging with the perspective of the participants themselves, we were able to move beyond textual analysis and understand how their experiences differed from the televised reality. We aim to situate a descriptive analysis of their actual experiences within the economic context of TV production and emerging theory about the constructed reality of reality TV. Literature Review Reality TV is a difficult genre to define. Although its emergence as a major phenomenon is closely tied to popular culture and economic trends of the 1990s, its roots can be traced back to the early 1970s (Kompare, 2004; Murray, 2004). In their introduction to an insightfully edited volume on the genre of reality TV, Murray and Ouellette (2004) point out commonalities and suggest that reality TV can best be understood as "an unabashedly commercial genre united less by aesthetic rules or certainties than by the fusion of popular entertainment with a self-conscious claim to the discourse of the real" (p. 2). Its hallmarks are a world peopled by non-professional actors and without formal scripts although the action that evolves may be partially scripted and the amateur cast may be joined by celebrity hosts or guests. In the early years of reality TV, there were few scholarly investigations of the form and its implications; however, in recent years, television scholars have turned their attention primarily to three emergent sub-genres christened with the neologisms "docudrama," "docusoap," and "gamedoc" (See, for example, Kraszewski, 2004; Paget, 2004; Smith & Wood, 2003). While early shows such as Cops would now be classified as a docudrama, The Real World is a docusoap and Survivor appears to be the quintessential gamedoc. A fourth subgenre of makeover programs –those shows that document the transformation of real people, actual houses or even entire towns guided by expert designers-- have received far less scholarly attention. When they have been studied, shows that enact personal transformations such as What Not To Wear or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy have drawn more attention (Hall & Hebert, 2004; Heller, 2004). Despite their immense popularity and frequent coverage in the popular press, shows like Trading Spaces that emphasize improvement projects for the home have been significantly understudied. Just two scholars have addressed these reality home improvement texts to date (Everett, 2004; Shufeldt, 2004). Everett (2004) christens this subspecies "Transformation TV." She considers the development of this subgenre as well as some of its hallmarks. Shufeldt's (2004) textual analysis of Trading Spaces explores how the show mediates meanings of home and ideologies of style within the reality TV/do-it-yourself context. Beyond the variations in content and unique implications of the transformation TV subgenre, an issue frequently discussed across subgenres considers how reality is contained and constructed in reality TV programming. This paper emphases three distinct modes of containing the real that serve to maintain (or even increase) the producers' power over the unscripted happenings in front of the camera: logistical control through the program format, contractual agreements, and narrative control achieved through manipulation or selective editing. Each of these will be explored in detail in the pages that follow, but first we must establish a frame for understanding the general construction of TV and reality TV in particular. Murray and Ouellette (2004) recognize that "Although reality TV whets our desire for the authentic, much of our engagement with such texts paradoxically hinges on our awareness that what we are watching is constructed and contains 'fictional' elements" (p. 5). In this case, "fictional elements" refers not to the on-screen relationships but begins from the very premise of each program. For example, John Corner argues of the British reality hit Big Brother that it "operates its claims to the real within a fully managed artificiality, in which almost everything that might be deemed to be true about what people do and say is necessarily and obviously predicated on the larger contrivance of them being there in front of the camera in the first place" (Quoted in Couldry, 2004, p. 58). This selective reflexiveness is not only characteristic of reality TV, but it is found across television genres (Allen & Hill, 2004). Allen and Hill (2004) argue in their wide-ranging Television Studies Reader that television eagerly reveals certain aspects of its production (through behind-the-scenes footage, celebrity discourse about their work, etc.) but obscures others. They suggest that the aspects revealed are not intended to "provide viewers with a systematic, comprehensive account of the imperatives, goals, logics, costs, and implications of the production processes upon which various forms of television are based, but rather to present partial, self-promotional glimpses of what they would like us to see" (p. 268). In reality TV, this selective reflexivity may be even more problematic. Viewers are shown the hidden cameras and the un-edited dialogue –in the case of home makeover shows, elements of production reality such as construction projects and budget constraints are even incorporated into the format of the show. In the case of Trading Spaces: Family, these aspects are hallmarks of format; scenes of project labor, budget discussions, and handheld camera work are tropes that appear only slightly modified not only on Trading Spaces: Family but also Trading Spaces, Trading Spaces: Boys vs. Girls, and the original British production Changing Rooms. Format-driven television programs are becoming increasingly common due to changes in the television industry and market globalization, argues Moran (2004). For this reason, he sees format as an essential analytical category for exploring how the standard elements of a show function economically and artistically. Moran points out that format-based shows are far less risky for producers than completely original programming because the format streamlines production and reduces uncertainty about the viability of the concept. Madger (2004) concurs and, in an analysis of the business of reality TV, points out that formats and their associated business models are also cost-saving devices for producers. For a show like Trading Spaces: Family, adherence to the format is what allows all filming to be completed for an hour-long episode in three days[1]. The format contains cost and takes some of the risk out of reality, but this is not the only means of containing the situation. Working with real people –the non-professional actors who gamely compete in exotic locales or open up their suburban homes to the television cameras – has the benefit of cost-effectiveness but the significant drawback of unpredictability and legal liability. These drawbacks are contained in detailed contracts that participants must sign relieving the production company of medical or legal liabilities. Halbert (2003) provides one striking example in her in-depth analysis of the contract signed by participants on CBS's Survivor: Australian Outback. She argues that this contract, in effect, gives CBS control over reality, but "it is a reality mediated by the legal matrix of contract law. Any contesting of the reality conveyed by the show is prohibited, both legally and publicly" (p. 52). In the case of Survivor, participants forfeit their right to their own images and even life stories granting the network the right to willfully misrepresent the player "for the purposes of fictionalization, dramatization or any other purposes including without limitation to achieve a humorous or satirical effect" (quoted in Halbert, 2003, p. 45). Such contracts also ensure that program content is kept secret until the show airs; contestants agree not to reveal anything about their experiences under penalty of hefty fines. Raphael (2004) likewise argues that such contracts represent a further boon to producers because contracts with the ordinary people who participate in reality shows are much easier to negotiate than labor contracts with unionized production workers and writers. Overall, the contractual arrangements contain risk and restore decision-making power to those behind the camera and in the editing suites while rending much of the authentic power from the unscripted participants. Unscripted does not mean uncontrolled. With complete legal power, the producers are free to build in narratives that draw viewers and construct reality. This is the third key way in which the power of the producers is affirmed and messy reality is contained. Some editing is essential to fit a coherent story into a 60-minute slot. But on some deeper level, looking for narrative in unscripted programming seems counterintuitive; yet narratives can be constructed in any medium –even those that lack traditional characters and story-telling elements (Ryan, 2004). Halbert (2003) avers that, in fact, "television producers are far more adept at creating 'reality' than everyday people. It takes hundreds or thousands of hours of footage to construct a 30-60 minute program and editorial genius can erase the banality of human life" (p. 49). By 2005, we have become quite used to the idea that reality TV is carefully edited together for the biggest dramatic impact. In the context of reality TV, elements of narrativity (including character development, dramatic tension and resolution) build a dramatic narrative rather than presenting merely a collage of scenes from everyday life. Savvy viewers recognize that editing for narrative in reality TV does far more than this. Couldry (2004) argues that the editing process "polices any differences of interpretation about what that reality should be, ruling out any behavior excluded by the production choices it makes and ruling in the so-called positive selves that it presumes the public wants to see and contestants want to display" (p. 71). Editing in these shows can vilify a participant or create a steamy romance that isn't there. For example, Patkin (2003) cites examples from Survivor: Australian Outback in which the winning participant was consistently depicted as an outsider in part by emphasizing footage that showed him going naked on the beach and excluded footage that showed other players engaging in the same behavior. As Couldry and Patkin have noted, editing is used to create good guys and bad guys, and a preferred reality containing the unpredictable nature of actual reality. This does not mean that the preferred reality will necessarily be rosy. Dramatic conflict is one feature of the narratives of reality TV across subgenres; participants form alliances and betray friendships on gamedocs such as Survivor, just as roommates tire of one another and bicker on the docusoap shows such as Big Brother or Real World. Makeover or transformation shows are not exempt from conflict either. While some conflict may be naturally occurring, producers are unlikely to gamble on the natural occurrence of a "useable" conflict that will draw in viewers. In addition to highlighting tension through editing, conflicts can also be developed through structural inducements to heighten tension (Syvertsen, 2001; Godard, 2003). In the Trading Spaces family of shows, one structural inducement to heightened tension is developed in the power differential between designer and participants that is carefully supported by the format of the show. Shufeldt's (2004) textual analysis of Trading Spaces found that "Even when the designs 'fail' the judgment of homeowners at the reveal, the designer's position is not threatened. …In each episode, the homeowners' moment of judgment is bookended by designers' commentary before and [the host's] sign-off after thanking, by name, the designers –not the homeowners" (p. 18). Shufeldt also suggests that in addition to structural inducements toward conflict, tensions are heightened in Trading Spaces simply because the show deals with real homes –a meaning-laden highly personal space. Since the home is an extension of its owner, redecorating choices are also understood as suggestions for personal transformation. Shufeldt's textual analysis contributed a preliminary understanding of the meanings presented in tightly edited episodes of Trading Spaces, however, such an analysis could not reveal the lived experiences of homeowners nor the process of constructing/containing reality. Thus, the present study contributes a case study of the lived experiences of two participants and their families. We ask how they experience the power dynamics as everyday participants and the construction of their reality. We seek to understand how the Trading Spaces: Family format, the contractual agreements between participants and producers, and the narrative constructed through editing serve to contain the messy or banal reality and create the television reality of a highly successful program. Method This research was conducted as a multi-method case study extending over a period of seven months from pre-selection application and interviews through the filming, the airing of the episode and post-air interviews. Research included formal recorded interviews, informal conversations, pure observation, participant-observation, document and textual analysis. Grounded theory, or the constant-comparative method, informed this study and allowed us to identify emerging themes throughout the process (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Initial contact was made through a mutual acquaintance when the families were in the audition process. When Connie Baker and Abby Thomas agreed on behalf of their families to include us in the process, we were added to an email distribution list that routinely updated interested friends and family about their status. [2] The Bakers became our primary contact throughout the process. Once accepted as an official family for the Trading Spaces Family program, participants are contractually prohibited from conducting interviews or allowing anyone to photograph the rooms once designed. In lieu of interviews, the Baker and Thomas families agreed to keep a journal of the process with a new set of questions to be addressed at each phase: pre-filming, between filming and the day the episode aired, and after the episode aired. The writing prompts primarily concerned expectations of and questions about the experience, e.g., how did you select your swap mates? Did you suggest any changes to the designers? What was most surprising in viewing the episode? Journals could not be collected until after the program aired. Obviously, this precluded the opportunity to ask follow up questions in a timely fashion but this was deemed preferable to having participants reconstruct the entire experience retroactively. Finally, formal recorded interviews were conducted and transcribed just before and after the program aired. In addition, the research team was able to view the production process from the street, see one of the rooms shortly after the filming and have an informal conversation with the homeowner about her experience, and attend viewing parties in each home. Both researchers independently completed fieldnotes observing some of the filming process, when meeting participants and seeing the rooms for the first time, after the viewing parties when the episode aired and of independent viewings of the program. Each of these approaches allowed the development of "sensitizing" probes for subsequent interviews and observation. Finally, fan sites were monitored for program information and response to the Baker-Thomas episode. Opportunities for triangulation of data arose from multiple methods, two interviewers who conducted interviews jointly as well as separately, multiple interviews with the same person, and multiple informants on the same process, e.g., how both families or different family members perceived the same event. The longitudinal process afforded the opportunity to identify and explore disjunctures in the data more thoroughly (Wallendorf & Arnould, 1991) in order to achieve both descriptive and interpretive validity. Findings Our interactions with and observations of the Baker and Thomas families throughout this experience made it clear that viewing the final hour-long episode of their redecorating adventures would leave the viewer with a very limited understanding. Therefore, this analysis begins by considering how their experience is presented on TV. We proceed from there to unpack this constructed reality by exploring the application process, the families' accounts of filming the episode, the editing of the episode and the contractual agreements underlying the whole project. As the episode begins, Abby and Scott Thomas with their teenage daughters, Beth and Kim, propel water balloons at the Baker team. The Thomas family is introduced as daring and artistic; we learn that they want to turn a guest bedroom into a studio workspace for Abby and the girls. Connie and Sam Baker fire back as a voice-over introduces their team as young and energetic. We learn that they want to transform their dining room into a sophisticated space for entertaining, but they also want to keep an element of fun. The youngest member of the Baker team, Andrew (age 9), suggests a game theme in the dining room explaining that Sam really likes to play poker. Over the next 48 hours collapsed into 60 minutes of high-speed montage, the two teams will work in each other's houses painting walls, sewing curtains, refinishing furniture and tiling floors late into the evening under the direction of two designers who work alongside them, Barry and Laura. Throughout the episode, it's clear the teams are working hard, but they take breaks for light-hearted play such as a game of musical chairs or some impromptu dancing. After the work is completed, the exhausted and anxious families are led into their rooms for "the reveal." The Thomases unanimously love their new studio custom-designed with separate work areas for Abby and the girls and featuring a desk painted with bright stripes, rustic slate tile flooring, and an abstract mural on one wall. They applaud the designer's funky and eclectic style and say it is just what they wanted. On the other hand, down the street, the Bakers are less enthusiastic about their dual-purpose dining room. The new space features a richly patterned fabric on the windows and cornice, sleek black tile flooring, a faux antler chandelier, and an octagonal dining table that converts to a poker table. Neither Connie nor Sam seems pleased with the designer's concept. Connie is especially appalled by the chandelier; Sam says the only thing he likes is the paint color although he also judges the poker table and a dartboard hidden behind framed artwork to be "cool." Despite their obvious disappointment, they are good sports about it stoically accepting their new room and even agree, when asked by the host, that they had a good time doing Trading Spaces: Family. The emotions conveyed at the reveal are real and unscripted, but the episode summary above certainly does not capture the whole experience of participating in the show. The Reveal revealed The fast-paced montage of redecorating work and the requisite "after" images of the transformed rooms do not reveal a number of design flaws. In the Thomas's new studio, only half of the floor has slate tiles; the other half is bare concrete painted red. A piece of molding has been tacked down to create a threshold between the two halves of the room. The mural has sloppily painted lines and the colors are streaky. In the Baker's dining room, trim around one window is only partially painted, and this same window is covered with a curtain pieced together from mismatched fabric that isn't the right size for the window. One of the new black floor tiles has already been cracked and the break partially obscured with black marker. The dining room chairs have been painted red, but the paint work is gloppy and uneven. The poker/dining table is too small to function efficiently for either poker or dining; as Connie later explained, "The table is too small for even our family of four. We can put a casserole in the middle and that's it." Our analysis reveals that these design misfires were not the fault of lazy homeowners nor are they completely attributable to capricious celebrity designers. They can be better understood as the by-products of a tight production schedule and the pressure to create good TV-- but not necessarily good design. Crafting realities The application process As Abby Thomas explained, "it all started with an ad in the [local paper]." Abby and her daughter Beth spotted the ad and encouraged Connie to apply. All were casual fans of the show, but neither Abby nor Connie knew much about participating in the show. Abby didn't even watch the show regularly, but Connie previously had mentioned in passing that she would like to be on Trading Spaces. Both families approached the application thinking primarily that it would be "a fun experience." Still, everyone was quite savvy about marketing themselves as ideal participants and promoting their houses as ideal sites for redecoration. The initial application stage requires would-be team members to complete a packet with basic background information about the families, their houses, and the rooms to be redone. They are also required to submit photos of the room and of the teams. The Baker and Thomas teams went beyond the requirements and submitted humorous family photos along with portraits, photos of their neighborhood and town (even recommending a hotel where the crew could stay), and helpful hints about the nearest Home Depot (a major sponsor of the show). They also included logistical information beyond what was required that indicated a high level of awareness about production requirements such as suggesting space to park the large crew truck and set up the carpentry shop and pointing out that their newly developed neighborhood was secluded and quiet so filming interruptions and security concerns would be minimized. Finally, their application materials indicated a familiarity with other tropes of the show and the personalities of the various Trading Spaces designers. They wrote that they were willing to "fall victim to the whims of your designers" suggesting that they would be game participants who would welcome bold designs. After passing the first stage of the selection process, the families were interviewed by phone and eventually a location scout was sent to meet them and survey their homes. Before the scout's visit, the teams were primed for their interview with him through preliminary information sent by the production company. Among other things, this material encouraged them to be "as outgoing as you can" and affirmed how important it is to "sparkle and relax on camera." The families approached this in-person interview with the same enthusiasm they showed in completing the application packet and set about "seducing" the location scout with an array of food and a party atmosphere. However, they soon discovered that he was, as Abby Thomas explained, "all business." Despite their clear display of knowledge about the show, it is at this point that the Baker and Thomas families begin their own transformation from well-informed fans to show participants socialized to the requirements and norms of production. During their interview with the location scout, the families were introduced to the logistical concerns guiding the televised redecorating. The rooms each team had chosen to redecorate were quickly dismissed as possibilities as the scout explained that the show's $1000 budget would not be sufficient for the task of redecorating such large rooms. He guided them toward selecting smaller rooms where the makeover would be more dramatic. Bedrooms were also vetoed with the explanation that the show had already done too many bedrooms. This is how the Baker's dining room and the Thomas's guest room were hastily selected rather than the family rooms each had initially proposed. Just a few minutes later, each family was sitting in front of a camera explaining what redesign they would like to see in the room more or less selected for them. Prior to the location scout's visit they had put thought into transforming the larger spaces, but they were now essentially re-imagining decorating schemes on the fly. If selected for the program, these videotapes would be the primary information the professional designers had on which to base their plans. But these were also audition tapes, so at this point, Connie and Abby report that they wanted to be seen as easygoing, fun, risk takers. Connie explained, "We were hamming it up to try to get on the show" but if they had it to do over, in retrospect, "we would definitely try to be more honest than trying to get on the show… I might have been more persuasive about what I wanted." The families were already aware that they were both positioning themselves as ideal applicants (sparkling for the camera) and establishing their tastes and desired outcomes. After this interview, both families were increasingly optimistic that they would be selected. Once the good news came, they had roughly one month to complete the preparatory work (signing contracts, arranging a property assessment for insurance purposes, and requesting the days of the shoot off from work and school) before the crew arrived and the filming began. The Shoot The arrival of the crew for filming was no small affair; as the families had been warned, Trading Spaces is a very large project including 21 crew members, lights, cameras and equipment trucks. As the trucks were unloaded, their houses were transformed into "locations." All the filming takes place over three busy days, although the redecorating work happens in just two days as presented in the episodes. Throughout Day Zero (how the production crew refers to the first day of filming before the redecorating begins on Day One), the Baker and Thomas families were likewise transformed into unscripted actors in the episode. Filming began with the water balloon fight that would be used for the opening sequence –the "goofing around shots" that are characteristic of the Trading Spaces: Family format. The teams had originally suggested going somewhere in their town to show off its natural beauty and fun things to do, but the crew assured them that, in the interest of time, a scene shot right in their driveway would be fine. Day Zero filming also included interviews with each team about what they would like to see in their own rooms and what transformation they envisioned for their neighbor's rooms. These conversations were essentially recreations of the impromptu interviews done on camera with the location scout a month earlier. However, the teams were not shown those videos or reminded of what they had said. Beth Thomas explained to us that this recreation may account for some of the discrepancies between what families say they want in the episodes and what designers have planned since what families request is likely to change between the two interviews as they have more time to think things over. By the end of Day Zero, the transformation of the family members into episode characters was well underway. Their personas had been established in the interviews and they had been directed as actors in the water balloon scene. Furthermore, the privacy of their homes had been radically altered with the addition of production equipment. Connie wrote half-jokingly, "We have cameras somewhat permanently attached to our walls, microphones to our bodies, and… and… and glue guns?!? Say it isn't so." On the first day of redecorating (Day One, but the second day of filming), the families learned that what the program bills as two days of redecorating is actually closer to twelve hours of work as their design projects were woven into complex production schedules. Early scenes including the "key swap," meeting with the designers for the first time, and the "load out" (removing existing furniture from the rooms) were shot swiftly and sequentially to support the before and after structure of the program. However, after that, filming was dominated by production needs and the teams often found themselves waiting around to be called for their "scenes." This scattered schedule allowed just two small camera crews to film all the action, but it also served –whether purposefully or not –to keep the families in suspense about specific projects and reduce opportunities for creative disagreements. In the Thomases' case, after shooting the initial meeting with their designer and emptying the room, Abby and Scott were whisked away to wait out of sight for at least an hour while their daughters Beth and Kim, under the direction of their designer, Laura, began removing the carpet from the Baker's dining room. Abby and Scott were told that they were kept sequestered so that the cameras would be able to record their surprised reaction, but Abby surmised that it might really have been because the producers thought that adults would put up a fight about removing perfectly good carpet while kids would acquiesce to the design decision. In fact, this pattern was repeated several times. In order to keep up the work flow without interrupting shooting schedules, many projects were begun without the whole team agreeing to – or even knowing about - the design plan. Certain projects were begun entirely by the off-camera crew without the presence of any team members. For instance, Connie and Sam Baker arrived in the Thomases' backyard to film a scene and discovered that the crew had already primed Abby's new desk for painting so there was little point in objecting to the decision even though they expressed dissatisfaction with the colors the designer had chosen. Likewise, Connie explained that she would have fought the decision to put slate tiles in the Thomases' studio, but the crew "already had three rows down when we got there. Sam and I looked at each other. Oh, it was bad." Overall, while the show suggests that the homeowners and designers are completing the work on each project, a great deal is actually done by behind-the-scenes crew members; none of the team members worked on any sewing projects, but Connie Baker and Scott Thomas both filmed sewing machine scenes. The "actors" were also directed for scenes not directly related to design projects. The Thomas family was asked to play musical chairs despite their protests that it was a "dorky" thing to do. According to Abby, the producer said, "Yeah, I know it's stupid. Come on, do it." By the end of shooting, it is clear to the teams that everything is "for the camera." When Abby and Kim Thomas complained about the sloppy coats of red paint that the crew had applied to the dining chairs for the Baker's room, they were assured that it would look fine on camera. Connie Baker had a similar encounter when she attempted to critique one crew member's haphazard painting as they worked together on the mural in the Thomases' studio. She explained, "It was at this time that I realized that we were the outsiders and that these traveling people were their own 'family.' When I [criticized] one, they all came to his defense." The crew's somewhat cavalier attitude about their work stands in sharp contrast to the homeowners' realization, as they received their "homework assignments," that their labor was very real and often tedious. Both teams were assigned to complete tiling projects in their respective rooms after the production crew had left for the day, and they set about doing so in a careful, professional manner once freed from the crew's admonishments to hurry up and not worry because everything will look good on camera. Both teams had previous tiling experience and recognized that it was a job that shouldn't be rushed; they reported working hard because they wanted it to be nice for their friends. The Thomases also took advantage of their homework time to attempt to improve upon the sloppy painting the crew had begun on the chairs. Their careful workmanship was undercut by the cast or crew in at least two instances. In the Baker's freshly tiled dining room, the designer walked in wearing spiky high heels and promptly cracked a tile. There was no time to fix it properly, so a frustrated Scott Thomas was only able to hide the flaw with black marker. In the Thomases' studio, when a crew member joined in the work to mix grout for the tiled floor, he accidentally splattered grout onto the freshly painted wall, which the Bakers then had to painstakingly clean before the grout dried. As indicated in all of the above examples, the families had little input or control over design decisions. This was due to the shooting schedule, the vague way in which plans were explained to them, and the fact that many elements were not explained until the last minute. Connie explained that their designer, Barry, brought out several items of furniture and decorative accessories only as they were finishing the room. Consequently, the Bakers didn't have a sense of the over all design until all the elements started coming together a few hours before the reveal. As they worked on various projects throughout Day One, Connie and Sam were left to trust that ultimately everything would come together as a coherent design. Editing: Some assembly required The fact that scenes are shot out of sequence is not a surprise to anyone at all familiar with conventions of production. In addition to practical concerns of time efficiency, the disjointed shooting schedule and subsequent editing of footage into a linear narrative seemed to serve multiple purposes. This manner of filming allowed mistakes made by the designers, carpenter and off-camera crew members to be hidden. It also functions to enhance the appearance that the teams are closely involved in making design decisions for their neighbors' room. As a practical matter, it makes sense that scenes of the designers explaining their building projects to the carpenter would be shot on Day Two after the projects have already been completed. By Day Two much of the carpenter's work is completed, so he has time to shoot and reshoot conversational scenes. For example, we witnessed the designer Barry asking for a set of shelves that were in reality already completed and stacked a few feet away off camera. Yet, shooting these scenes out of order also allows for design mishaps to be erased from the narrative so the designers retain power and authority. As part of the same scene between designer and carpenter, Barry explains his plan to put slate tiles on the floor. When the carpenter replies that it is an ambitious project to tile the whole floor, the designer replies that he is only tiling some of it. This exchange suggests that Barry has designed a mixed floor plan with some tiling, but in reality he had planned to do the entire floor but ran over budget and had to return half of the tiles. The format of Trading Spaces includes budget limitations in the narrative but this budget miscalculation was erased from the episode. Shooting the designers' chats with the carpenter on Day Two also allowed for an intense conflict between the designer Laura and the carpenter to be excluded from the narrative. When Laura discovered that the carpenter had built her dining/poker table at a significantly smaller size than she had wanted, the Thomases report that she was livid with him for making that executive decision to alter her plans. For the rest of the day the two of them reportedly did not speak to each other. Yet, none of this is reflected in the episode. When they discuss her plans, she mentions that her sketch is drawn to scale and the carpenter teases her about her drafting abilities, but that is the extent of the conversation. Surprisingly, the editing of the episode does emphasize a different point of tension with the carpenter. The host repeatedly accused him of pouting about not being asked to help with the tiling projects. Both the Thomases and the Bakers reported that they were surprised to see this emphasis in the episode since it wasn't an issue at all during the shoot. Editing also allows for the erasure of sloppiness and voiced concerns about the quality of work. As discussed above, the families' concerns over the gloppy red chairs, the messy lines in the mural and the cracked tile were not mentioned in the episode. When mistakes are included, the designer's expertise is not threatened; for instance, when designer Laura misapplied silver leafing to the Baker's table, she cavalierly assured the team- and the camera -that it could be fixed later. Yet, it never did get fixed in the episode or in the real off-camera work process. The edited episode also does not reveal that she did not really know how to apply the paint technique she wanted to use in the room. Scott Thomas reported that Laura simply decided to work by trial and error. Those experienced with home improvement projects (both participants in the episode and fans watching the show) would recognize these examples as problematic. Indeed, on the on-line discussion boards for this episode, fans wondered whether Laura had thought to add a protective coating to the silver-leafed table and questioned the quality of other projects that seemed hastily completed. The success of the editing techniques can be seen in the fact that several of these fans simply assumed that surely such details were worked out behind the scenes. Most significantly, the editing of the episode also suggests that the teams have extensive input into the design decisions or at least approve the majority of the plans. In the episode, it seems that each step of the redesign was discussed with the team early on and they have ample opportunity to accept, modify or reject the plans. This expectation is also supported by language in the packet sent by the production company stating that design is a collaborative process and team members should feel free to speak up. However, avenues for input are effectively closed off by the disjointed shooting schedule. Instead, scenes in which team members endorse isolated design decisions are emphasized. In some cases, these approval scenes involve only part of the team (the Thomas girls enthusiastically ripping out carpet while their parents were kept in the dark), were approved by the youngest member of the team (9-year old Andrew endorsed the desk project in the Thomas's studio and the building of a poker-table dining room), or were filmed well after the projects were underway or completed. In fact, the team members had just as little control over the designs for their neighbor's room as they had had for their own room. The contracts All this is not to say that the Baker and Thomas families did not enjoy their experience. Certainly they did enjoy themselves, but their comments reveal that the experience was far from all roses. The teams recognized that when they entered in they were taking a risk –with their rooms and in appearing on national TV. The contracts they signed offer them $75 for cleaning and the assurance that changes to other areas of the property would be restored, but the contract gave them little other protection. To get a full view of the conditions of their participation, we need to take a closer look at the contractual agreements limiting Trading Spaces's liability. Each member of the teams signed two contracts with Banyan Productions–a location liability release and an appearance release. The location liability release provides the production company with the right to use any area of the property as may be necessary and to represent the property on film in the episode. This contract stipulates that the production company cannot be held responsible for dissatisfactory results in the redecorated room. The contract does give the homeowners the opportunity to protect other areas of the house or items in it by specifying these in writing in the contract. In this case, neither team mentioned any additional items or areas. They report that they just assumed that the crew would use common sense and it didn't occur to them to list things like not using the oriental rugs as a workspace or not setting up a project area on a freshly seeded lawn. In retrospect, both families indicated that they would consider this clause of the contract more carefully if they had it to do over. As for the appearance release, this contract gives Banyan and TLC the right to represent the participants in any way, to use their images, voices and personalities in the program, to promote the program and in the future for unspecified purposes. In this case, the two families thought that they were represented fairly and had no complaints on that score. Had they any concerns about how they were depicted, they would have had no legal recourse. Finally, this contract and the location liability release both include confidentiality clauses binding the participants to secrecy about every aspect of the shoot, the redecoration and even the contract itself until 5 days after the episode premiers. Violations of this agreement are punishable by hefty $100,000 fines. While the production process socializes the families as participants and directable actors, the contracts cement their legal vulnerability. They assume a substantial risk – financially, for breaches of contract and personally, in opening up their homes for radical redesigns. Presumably the redecorated room valued at $1000 (or $1600 fair market value for tax purposes) is their reward, but as the discussion above indicates, once engaged these two families quickly realized that participating in Trading Spaces: Family isn't about the design, it's about making TV. Discussion Making good TV, in this case study of a Trading Spaces: Family episode, seems to hinge on strategies for containing banal reality and constructing a preferred reality. Significantly, this necessitated that the artistic process of redecorating the two rooms become a secondary concern. We found that this happens in three main ways that mirror the themes suggested by the literature on reality TV more broadly. Contractual agreements, narratives constructed through editing and a reliance on format all significantly shaped the experiences of the Baker and Thomas families. This actuality is obscured from the televised reality. In this case study, the contracts participants signed did not cause or mitigate any major legal conflicts. Without explosive legal battles to point to, it might be easy to conclude that the contracts are merely a formality and that they don't shape the process in a meaningful way. However, our analysis indicates that the legal agreements give the production crew broad authority to use houses as sets, furnishings as props, and homeowners as actors. Further, the financial liabilities the families incur for breaches of the contracts effectively secure their cooperation throughout the production process. As for narrative through editing, this case study did not reveal clear instances of participants being painted as villains or heroes as in the examples Patkin (2003) cited from Survivor: Australian Outback. But, as Couldry (2004) suggested, the editing does reveal the process by which some behaviors, attitudes or meanings are "ruled in" while others "ruled out." We found that the crew's sloppy work and the designers' mistakes were ruled out of the constructed reality through editing choices. Echoing Shufeldt's (2004) finding, selective editing in this instance did place the designers in positions of authority. The show's selective reflexivity regarding schedule, budgets, and labor also serves to rule out the complexity of DIY home improvement in favor of the view that DIY redecoration can be done quickly, cheaply and by anyone –even children- and still look good. This finding raises provocative questions about the specific ways in which reality home makeover programs serve to support consumption in the home improvement industry (and at stores like Home Depot, a leading sponsor of Trading Spaces: Family). Our findings suggest that the most significant mode of containing and constructing reality occurred through strict adherence to the proven Trading Spaces format. The format allows the production crew to have a clear picture of what scenes need to be shot even though they are ostensibly working without a script; unlike in some of the docusoap programs, the families were not constantly under the gaze of the cameras. Instead they were called in for "scenes" as the format dictated. As any Trading Spaces fan could attest, typical scenes in the format include the "key swap," the "load out," team members sewing, team members working with power tools in "Carpentry World," designers assigning homework, and of course, "the reveal." We found that the redecorating work at the heart of the show is entirely organized around filming these requisite scenes. The format provides a common set of expectations for the crew and the producers; to the extent that participants were aware of the show's format, it also serves to shape their expectations. However, as we saw, even such well-informed fans as the Bakers and the Thomases did not anticipate how much the technical aspects of filming would outweigh the design process. While the families were concerned with completing their design projects in a professional manner, the producers were primarily concerned with filming just a few minutes of each project underway. While we were not able to collect information regarding the budget for producing an episode of Trading Spaces: Family, it is clear that, in general, reliance on format is time-efficient and cost-effective (Madger, 2004; Moran, 2004). In this case study we observed that indeed the work is done in a short amount of time and with a limited crew. Clearly, the format of Trading Spaces has been hugely successful. However, observations drawn from on-line fan discussions and reviews of the most recent debuts in the transformation TV subgenre indicate that this particular format may have grown stale. As of this writing, speculation among fans suggests that Trading Spaces: Family won't be renewed for a third season and that the original Trading Spaces may end after its upcoming sixth season. Meanwhile new shows with formats based more on philanthropy have garnered accolades. Ironically, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and Town Haul, the leading examples of this new style, star former cast members of Trading Spaces. Is the decline of Trading Spaces a natural evolution or does it reflect a frustration with the nature of a format that does not significantly empower its participants? Conclusions Our analysis indicated that Trading Spaces: Family's claim to represent the unscripted redecorating mayhem when two families trade houses was not borne out by the experiences of the Baker and Thomas families. They enjoyed the experience, but they concluded definitively that the process was much more about making a television show than about making good design. The realities of their experiences –including an incoherent work routine, little or no input into design choices, and the crew's acceptance of sloppy work—were not visible in the televised episode chronicling their room switch. Rare among studies of reality TV programs, the present study contributes a detailed sense of the discrepancies between actualities of participating in reality/transformation TV and the constructed reality that is aired on television from the perspective of the participants themselves. Because this study followed the Baker and Thomas families throughout the process from application to completion, we were able to understand how they themselves were socialized into the production process from an early position as eager fans of the show to participants who ultimately felt they learned a lot about TV but nothing about design. Clearly the present research is a case study of two families and one television show and consequently cannot be generalized, but our research demonstrates the utility of this approach and sheds some light on the transformation TV genre. Following Moran's (2004) suggestion that format is useful as an analytic category for understanding creative and economic impacts, our finding that the format of Trading Spaces: Family (and the family of Trading Spaces shows) dictates that good design is a secondary concern raises significant questions about the premise and promise of such participatory DIY programs. We commonly assume that fans apply to be on these shows because they are seeking celebrity interior decorating and empowerment for transforming their living spaces, but our research suggests they are more likely to get a lesson in television production. References Allen, R.C. & Hill, A. (Eds.). (2004). The television studies reader. New York: Routledge. Couldry, N. (2004). Teaching us to fake it: The ritualized norms of televisions "reality" games. In S. Murray & L. Ouellette (Eds.), Reality TV: Remaking television culture (pp. 57-74). New York: New York University Press. Everett, A. (2004). Trading private and public spaces @ HGTV and TLC: On new genre formations in transformation TV. Journal of Visual Culture, 3(2), 157-181. Freydkin, D. (2003, July 1). Trading Spaces making room for more makeovers. USA Today, p. 8d. Gates, A. (2005, February 11). These old houses: A TV genre is built. New York Times, p. E1. Godard, E. (2003). Reel life: The social geometry of reality shows. In M.J. Smith & A.F. Wood (Eds.), Survivor lessons: Essays on communication and reality television (pp. 73-96). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Glaser, B.J. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Halbert, D. (2003). Who owns your personality: Reality television and publicity rights. In M.J. Smith & A.F. Wood (Eds.), Survivor lessons: Essays on communication and reality television (pp. 37-56). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Hall, A.S. & Hebert, L. (2004, August). The evolution of the makeover from print to television: An analysis of the social construction of female body image. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Toronto, Canada. Heller, D. (2004). Taking the nation from drab to fab: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Feminist Media Studies, 4(3), 347-350. Kompare, D. (2004). Extraordinary ordinary: The Osbournes as "An American Family." In S. Murray & L. Ouellette (Eds.), Reality TV: Remaking television culture (pp. 97-116). New York: New York University Press. Kraszewski, J. (2004). Country hicks and urban cliques: Mediating race, reality and liberalism on MTV's The Real World. In S. Murray & L. Ouellette (Eds.), Reality TV: Remaking television culture (pp. 179-196). New York: New York University Press. Madger, T. (2004). The end of TV 101: Reality programs, formats and the new business of television. In S. Murray & L. Ouellette (Eds.), Reality TV: Remaking television culture (pp. 137-156). New York: New York University Press. Moran, A. (2004). The pie and the crust: Television program formats. In R.C. Allen & A. Hill (Eds.), The television studies reader (pp. 182-195). New York: Routledge. Murray, S. (2004). "I think we need a new name for it": The meeting of documentary and reality TV. In S. Murray & L. Ouellette (Eds.), Reality TV: Remaking television culture (pp. 40-56). New York: New York University Press. Murray, S. & L. Ouellette (Eds.). (2004). Reality TV: Remaking television culture. New York: New York University Press. Paget, D. (2004). Codes and conventions of dramadoc and docudrama. In R.C. Allen & A. Hill (Eds.), The television studies reader (pp. 182-195). New York: Routledge. Patkin, T. R. (2003). Individual and cultural identity in the world of reality television. In M.J. Smith & A.F. Wood (Eds.), Survivor lessons: Essays on communication and reality television (pp. 11-26). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Raphael, C. (2004). The political economic origins of Realit-TV. In S. Murray & L. Ouellette (Eds.), Reality TV: Remaking television culture (pp. 119-136). New York: New York University Press. Ryan, M. (Ed.). (2004). Narrative across media: The languages of storytelling. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Shufeldt, M. (2004, May). Decorating power: A textual analysis of homeowner agency in Trading Spaces. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Smith, M. J. & Wood, A.F. (Eds.). (2003). Survivor lessons: Essays on communication and reality television. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Syvertsen, T. (2001). Ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances: A study of participants in television dating games. Media, Culture & Society, 23: 319-337. Wallendorf, M. & Arnould,E. (1991). We gather together: Consumption rituals of Thanksgiving Day. ĘJournal of Consumer Research, 18,13-31. [1] For the 2001-2002 season, Trading Spaces production costs were just $.09 million per episode. By comparison, Survivor's budget reached $1.4 million, but even this pales in comparison to the $7 million budget of the half-hour sitcom Friends (Madger, 2004). [2] Pseudonyms are used for all family participants.
Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main AEJMC Page


text:
The Social Media in Organizations Community (SMinOrgs) will be undergoing a "digital makeover" in 2013. The core mission of the group won't change significantly, but we need a name and logo that better reflect our evolving focus on new technologies beyond social media. We've identified four possible options and are inviting "the crowd" to help us make the final decision by participating in a brief survey:
I really appreciate your taking a few minutes to let us know what you think. Every vote counts, and the more votes we get the better the outcome will be.
Thanks so much!
Courtney Shelton Hunt
I just completed the survey...not sure I am in love with any of them but I did rank the ones you shared. Less is more in this case and the name that is there flows well.
Thanks, Ryan. I really appreciate your input.
Hi, Courtney, I completed the survey. A couple I liked but all are better then current name. The only key is always whether most people can spell something just by hearing it. Good luck, remember to let us know what you go with!
Thanks so much, Amber. I especially appreciate your observation that all are better than the current name. Other people may not agree, but we really do need a new name. I wouldn't have embarked on this effort if I didn't think that was absolutely necessary. I certainly will circle back with the results!
A couple I liked but all are better then current name.
Gee, that really wasn't thought in my head as snotty as it kind of sounds now when I read it!
Haha - I didn't read it as snotty at all... but maybe that's because I agree. :) You should see some of the comments on the survey itself - anonymity sure empowers people to be harsh with their criticisms!!!
Added by Lisa Zee on June 13, 2013
Added by Rebecca B. Sargeant on June 18, 2013
© 2013 Created by RecruitingBlogs. Powered by
RecruitingBlogs.com was founded in 2007 and is the social network for recruiters and HR professionals with over 35,000 members and over 21,000 blog posts and forum discussions. Its global online network provides recruiters with a forum to share, interact and collaborate with one another.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Jan 2012 Shocks of Color, Allure more Jan 2012 Shocks of Color, Allure This beauty story was recently published in the February Allure issue.
Oct 2011 Numéro Tokyo more Oct 2011 Numéro Tokyo It was my birthday shoot!! We worked hard with the digital technique to obtain an underlying color and feel to the overall shoot. It looked modern and the casting is exact.
Oct 2011 Spain October 2011 more Oct 2011 Spain October 2011 Shot a whole day under a waterfall! It was beautiful - the model was so amazing and strong in the chilly water. No, I do not look good in fishing waders!


text:
Applicants are ordinarily allowed only two attempts to pass the Ph.D. Qualifying Examination. However, after a second unsuccessful attempt, candidates may petition the Electrical Engineering Department for reconsideration. Petitions will not be accepted from first time examinees, but in rare special cases faculty members may petition on their behalf. All petitions will be considered by the Ph.D. Qualifying Examination Appeals Committee, and a decision will be reached before the end of Winter Quarter. The Committee may decide to:
The petition must be presented to the Department by Friday, February 13, 2009. It must be in writing on the Departmental Quals Appeals petition form, available from the Department Office or from the quals Web page. The petition must specifically request the desired action and provide reasons that the petition should be granted. Any supporting documentation should be attached to the petition.
In addition, a required letter from a potential faculty research supervisor must be separately transmitted to the Appeals Committee. This letter should include a concise statement of:
Additional supporting evidence should be presented if available. See the discussion below on the EE Qualifying Exam Review Committee Policy.
Both the petition and letter should be submitted to EE Student Services in the Electrical Engineering Department Office, Packard 177, by Friday, February 13, 2009. The petition and letter will be presented to the Qualifying Examination Appeals Committee, together with any supporting material.
After the Review Committee completes its deliberations, the examinee will be informed of the decision by letter.
The Ph.D. Qualifying Examination Appeals Committee considers appeals by students who take the Qualifying Examination a second time without passing. In rare circumstances appeals will be considered following a first failure if the appeal is submitted by a faculty member and the committee agrees that the case merits special consideration.
Petitions should carefully address the reasons for the appeal, stressing the following issues and any others deemed important for the case:
The Committee will meet once annually following the Qualifying Examination, and its decisions will be final except for cases of factual error or of genuinely new and important information.
An incomplete original appeal or additional faculty support will not be grounds for reconsideration.
All important information should be contained in the original appeal. Requests for reconsideration of a decision by the Committee will be honored only when made by a member of the Committee and when a majority of the Committee agrees to meet for formal reconsideration.


text:
Hi all,
I have Spring Integration working within a webapp (using Tomcat). Following another post in this forum, I got it starting a different context for the integration part, from a bean initialized in the main webapp.
It works fine now, but... I cannot access the beans of the webapp context. I'd like to use some of the business layer services. They are using spring transactions (@Transactional on their interfaces), so instantiate them "by hand" doesn't seem to be a good option.
Any idea?
Thanks in advance


text:
"I've been writing in notebooks for 40 years or so."
Author details
Related authors
Other Frank McCourt Quotes
You feel a sense of urgency, especially at my advanced age, when you're staring into the grave.
Frank McCourt
59% of people like this quote
They all went into the bar business. Which was a mistake, because they began to sip at the merchandise and it set them back, set us all back. Well, them more than I.
Frank McCourt
57% of people like this quote
The main thing I am interested in is my experience as a teacher.
Frank McCourt
57% of people like this quote
The sky is the limit. You never have the same experience twice.
Frank McCourt
56% of people like this quote


text:
Bikers Hop Off Harleys For Free Health Screenings
By: Marissa Stevens
Updated: November 17, 2012
They ride to live and they live to ride, but Saturday in Rogers it was all about learning how to live even better.
Bikers go off their Harleys and onto a health kick. Guys received free basic health screenings at the Pig Trail Harley-Davidson thanks to Mercy Hospital. There were also information booths on diabetes, liver disease and colon cancer.
"Certainly there are a lot of guys that are riding cycles. It's a beautiful day out today! What a better chance to get them in and get them screened." said Dr. Robert Zimmerman, with Benton County Urology at Mercy Hosptial.
And when there are bikers, there is often barbeque. Mercy staff hosted a cookout featuring healthy grilled items.


text:
Corinne Abbott joined The Wilderness Society staff in April of 2007 and is currently the Senior Director of Foundation Relations. In this capacity, she is responsible for foundation and corporate fund raising at the national and regional level.
Heather Addison is a Research Analyst for our Membership and Development team, specializing in donor prospecting.
Peter serves as Regional Director for The Wilderness Society's Northern Rockies office. Previously, Peter worked at the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, first as a Program Associate and later as their Mining Issues Coordinator.
David Alberswerth is a Senior Policy Advisor at The Wilderness Society on energy matters.
As the California Wilderness Coordinator, Warren Alford works with a coalition of organizations and individuals to preserve California's remaining wild areas for future generations to experience and enjoy. Warren joined The Wilderness Society in 2012 with more than 15 years of experie
Mike has been with The Wilderness Society since 1985. His main focus is national forest management and policy, ranging from roadless area conservation to watershed restoration. He also helps coordinate all of The Wilderness Society's litigation activities.
Greg Aplet is the Assistant Vice President of Ecology at the Central Rockies Office, where he specializes in ecosystem management and the conservation of biological diversity and forest ecosystem health.
Jerry Arthur is the Facilities Manager at our headquarters office in Washington, DC. He has assisted with an entire office relocation in 2000, office renovations from 2008 to 2011 and smaller facility projects at the DC office.
It takes hard work and dedication to ensure that American wildlands remain protected for generations to come. Learn the issues behind wilderness protection.


text:
Carlene Elizabeth McDaniel, 70, of Durant, Ok. passed away on Nov. 21, 2012 in Durant. She was born in Talihina, Ok. on March 4, 1942 to Carl Cantrell and Ethel Keeling.
Carlene was self-employed as mobile home park owner. She was of the Baptist faith. She will be missed by all who knew and loved her.
Survivors are: One daughter - Glenda Cross and Husband Rocky of Mead, Ok.; Three grandchildren: Brock Trotter and Wife Tracy of Calera, Ok., Justin Cross of Durant, Ok., Jayson Cross and Gina of Norman, Ok. Two great grandchildren: Britton trotter of Calera, Ok. and Kanzie Trotter of Calera, Ok. One great step child: Kytelyn Thoma of Durant, Ok. Two brothers: Ed Cantrell of Al., and Charles Cantrell of Talihina, Ok. Also several other nieces, nephews and host of dear friends.
She was preceded in death by: Her parents Carl and Ethel Cantrell. Husband: Calvin McDaniel. Son: David Arterberry. Brother George Cantrell.
Services were held on Nov. 24, 2012 at Farris Baptist Church. Graveside was held at Farris Cemetery. Officiating was Chaplin Lawanda Maberry. Pallbearers were: Brock Trotter, Jayson Cross, Dwayne Eldridge, Justin Cross Russell Eldridge and Don Roberts.
Arrangements handled by Atoka Funeral Home.


text:
Moderator: Gazza
Jonttt wrote:Correct for business mileage but HMRC never used to class home to work as business miles. Have things changed ? I doubt it as it would mean everyone could claim tax back
I wrote:The mileage should not include any "home to normal place of duty" mileage.
Robert T wrote:How do you claim VAT on mileage, Bill? As I understand it, you are paid for the miles you do, to cover cost of fuel and wear and tear on your car. It is almost impossible to apportion a bill for fuel to any particular journey, unless you use more than 1 tank (note that this is different for company cars, but that's not what we are talking about). If we should be doing this, then it would help the company, but I don't see how you can?
Cheers R.
pingu wrote:I don't see how anyone can reclaim VAT on turnover they haven't turned-over.
I travel 20 miles for work and put 60 litres in an empty tank. Company pays me £8 expenses. I pay £84 to fill my tank and give the receipt to my company who then reclaim £14 VAT. How can this be right?
pingu wrote:Happy with that. I didn't know there was an HMRC agreed fuel only rate.
Zed Carer wrote:pingu wrote:Happy with that. I didn't know there was an HMRC agreed fuel only rate.
HMRC publish a set of Advisory Fuel Rates for company cars HERE that are used when a company car driver has to either a) claim fuel costs for business mileage; or b) reimburse the fuel cost of private mileage when the company has paid for all the fuel. For people taking a car allowance plus mileage payments then if agreed with HMRC they can also be used to deteremine the proportion of the 40p/mile that corresponds to fuel. To reclaim VAT you need a VAT invoice even though it is a notional cost that is being reclaimed. I did notice after a time that Tesco switched to automatically providing a VAT receipt whilst at other garages you specifically had to ask for one.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


text:
Coupons can not be applied to all brands, in some cases our agreements with manufacturers do not allow the use of Cymax coupons. If you have tried to apply a coupon to your cart, it could be that the manufacturer has chosen to restrict retailers from offering coupons for their products.
In other cases, the coupon you are trying to apply may have a price or category restriction, or both. Coupons from cymax.com have an expiry and many can only be used on certain products or categories. For more information about coupons, please call us toll free 866-740-9830, and talk to an expert.
Turn any cozy corner into an efficient workspace with the Bush Series A Right L-Bow Desk. This L-bow desk is a sturdy yet inviting focal point to any office suite, and will blend beautifully with any Series A Collection piece.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's Association (BIFMA) work together to produce voluntary standards that provide a common basis for evaluation of product safety, durability and structural adequacy. Bush Furniture meets ANSI/BIFMA standards and is considered appropriate in quality and durability to meet the demands of commercial office use.
(based on 1 review)
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
Reviewed by 1 customer
Displaying review 1
Back to top
Good quality & design
By rene
from pace fl
About Me Budget Shopper
Best Uses
Comments about Bush Furniture Series A Right Corner L-Shape Wood Desk in Light Oak:
I have a large format printer so it was a good search to find the right desk but this one is perfect! It is strong enough to hold the printer, yet big enough that I still have plenty of work space.
Simply fill out the form below to let your friend now about :


text:
Characteristics of epimerization of mycotoxins
The fungus Claviceps purpurea can cause ergotism in humans. The symptoms can be divided into convulsive and gangrenous effects. The former one affects the central nervous system and the latter one can cause vasoconstriction with necosis of the acren. The aim of the project is to change the configuration of the mycotoxin in such a way that the toxicologic (R)-epimer is converted into the biologic inactive and nontoxic (S)-epimer. This process is thought to be reversible. To determine the physical and chemical characteristics of the mycotoxin classical simulation methods are used.
Further information is available in the detailed project description.
Marcus Weber
Vedat Durmaz
Karsten Andrae
Responsible Marcus Weber
David Siegel (BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)
Robert Köppen (BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)
Stefan Merkel (BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing)
BAM Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung
08/2009 - 08/2013
- Files:
- zearalenone.jpg86 K


text:
Despite enormous obstacles, many Jews throughout German-occupied Europe attempted armed resistance against the Germans. Individual Jews or groups of Jews engaged in planned or spontaneous opposition to the Germans and their allies. Jewish partisans were especially active in the east, where they fought the Germans from bases established behind the front lines in forests and ghettos. Because antisemitism was widespread there, they found little support among the surrounding population. Even so, as many as 20,000 Jews fought the Germans in the forests of eastern Europe.
US Holocaust Memorial Museum
Armed Jewish Resistance: Partisans »
Frank Bleichman »
Jewish Resistance »
Partisan Groups in the Parczew Forests »
Resistance in the Smaller Ghettos of Eastern Europe »
The Bielski Partisans »


text:
Before you go judging this book by its cover have a look at what lives under this 1986 Suzuki Samurai's skin. Transformed from the... More
1987 Suzuki SamuraiThis import classic currently has 124000 miles and it is in good conditionEquipped with a 1.3 liter engine 5 speed manual transmissionExterior... More
Stk. 1701 2006 Suzuki VZR 2006 was the first year of what has become Suzuki's second largest displacement motorcycle in the history of their company;... More
Only 1670 Miles, Excellent Condition, Tons of Power, Lots of Storage, 65 mpg!!! Please call with questions, 614-877-2277. ... More
Gunmetal in Color, 7100 Miles, Runs Great, Please Call for Complete Details, 614-877-2277 ... More
Black in Color, 17K Miles, Runs Great, Please Call for Complete Details. 614-877-2277 ... More
Black in Color, 800cc, Slash Cut Exhaust, Laced Wheels, Passenger Backrest, Highway Pegs, Please Call for Complete Details! ... More
Have a need for speed? Check out this beautiful 2007 Suzuki Hayabusa Limited Edition GSX1300R! This bike is almost brand new with... More
2006 GSX-R750 High Performance Sport Bike. Flawless Blue with White Graphics. Garage kept, never laid down or damaged. Adult owned. Many accessories including Original... More
This 1974 Suzuki TS185 Enduro has a 183c.c. 2 Stroke Single Cylinder5 Speed ManualTurn SignalsMirrorsChrome RackAdjustable Rear ShocksChrome Wire Spoke WheelsUnder 1200 Actual Miles!Runs... More


text:
Orlando Bice Hotels + good value
Know When You're Going?
More Search OptionsHotel Amenities
- Non-smoking (9)
- Wheelchair Accessible (9)
- Internet (8)
- Gym (7)
- Swimming Pool (7)
- Free Parking (6)
- Meeting Room (6)
- Business Center (5)
- Pet Friendly (5)
- Restaurant on Site (4)
- Dry Cleaning (3)
- Free Breakfast (3)
- Golf Course (2)
- Tennis Court (2)
- Kitchenette (1)
Hotels by Type
- Cheap Hotels (7)
- Extended Stay Hotels (7)
- Motels (6)
- Boutique Hotels (3)
- Luxury Hotels (2)
- Resort Hotels (2)
- Suite Hotels (2)
- Vacation Rental Hotels (2)
- Bed and Breakfasts (1)
Hotels By Brand
- 4.0 5
- 89 Reviews
0.16 mi/0.26 km from search point (short walk)
"The staff was great and the manager went out of his way to introduce himself and chat... Read more"
"Our family of 5 just got back from the weekend at Hard Rock Hotel in Orlando and it w... Read more"
"Very disappointed. We stayed @ Hard Rock for 5 nights during a 19 day trip to FL in M... Read more"
- 3.0 5
- 88 Reviews
0.28 mi/0.46 km from search point (short walk)
"This hotel has been used and abused. Also, there's issues with their key cards and g... Read more"
"Elevator broke only one running. Air condition broke had it fixed twice and still had... Read more"
"I had nothing but problems in this resort and the staff could care less. The pool and... Read more"
- 4.0 5
- 54 Reviews
0.35 mi/0.57 km from search point (short walk)
"We had a great trip staying at the Hyatt Place. The staff was incredibly friendly an... Read more"
"This was the nicest hotel I have stayed in in years. We got a beautiful, family size... Read more"
"It is a three star hotel and service is really a three star - Over all hotel is clean... Read more"
- 2.0 5
- 85 Reviews
0.41 mi/0.66 km from search point (short walk)
"The location of this hotel was the biggest thing recommending it. The drive to Univer... Read more"
"While yes it was a deal this hotel is the worst hotel I have ever dealt with or staye... Read more"
"Soon as we checked in we had to report the ac unit in the room because it sounded lik... Read more"
- 4.0 5
- 47 Reviews
0.56 mi/0.91 km from search point (short walk)
"We have stayed at Comfort Suites in other cities,also. We have never had a problem wi... Read more"
"Although we stayed for only one night we enjoyed our stay. The room was clean ,spacio... Read more"
"The rooms were very clean and the service was fantastic! The breakfast was complimen... Read more"
- 3.0 5
- 30 Reviews
0.57 mi/0.92 km from search point (short walk)
"Great location across the street from Universal Studios. The room was spotless and th... Read more"
"The hotel and its staff was great. It was right next to universal studios and not far... Read more"
"Good location. Convenient and within walking distance to parks. Nice, clean room an... Read more"
- 3.0 5
- 32 Reviews
0.59 mi/0.96 km from search point (short walk)
"a nice hotel stay. friendly staff. nice room. overall a little smaller than some othe... Read more"
" Real "basic" hotel but it was clean. Pool and breakfast very small-no fril... Read more"
"This Baymont Inn is a very small hotel near the entrance of Universal Studios. Pros: ... Read more"
- 4.0 5
- 152 Reviews
0.68 mi/1.09 km from search point (short walk)
"We stayed the week before Christmas 2011. Staying onsite was the best decision we cou... Read more"
"The staff at this hotel and the added services (early entry to Universal) and... Read more"
"first time here & would stay again.Staff very friendly,Islands dining buffet breakfa... Read more"
- 4.0 5
- 44 Reviews
0.51 mi/0.82 km from search point (short walk)
"Excellent for visiting Universal and short drive to Disney! Pros: very clean room Upo... Read more"
"I stood here back in October and I didn't take full advantage of the breakfast that w... Read more"
"THis is a 2 star hotel. The TV connection was fuzzy, the breakfast was poor. The waf... Read more"
Note: The nightly rates shown above do not yet include Tax Recovery Charge & Service Fees or (if applicable) Extra Person Fees, Child Fees, Additional Mandatory Hotel Charges or optional incidentals, such as parking, room service or movies.


text:
Shop » Racquet Training » Conditioning » Speed Striker
"Okay, I have to write this as an apology to you guys. I had written here previously a scathing review of the speed striker, but I'm going to eat my words now. I gave it another chance and fell into the groove of it--starting with careful good form hits instead of beating it mercilessly like a heavy bag. Well, now that I understand the art of approaching it, it is really helping precision and target tracking. It's can be a cruel and frustrating device, but it's not the ball's fault, it's my form's fault. The striker will let you know if you're off in the slightest, but only because it cares! Anyway, glad I gave it another chance, and glad to have it in my box of tools." -Dan Norris via email
Improve hand-eye coordination while simultaneously working on cardio endurance. The Speed Striker tests speed, reaction, timing and accuracy- key components to success on the field, court, ice, or in the ring. Not just for fighters, the Speed Striker is recommended for any athlete that wants to improve visual acuity and hand-eye coordination.


text: Sixty miles west of Portland, carved into the northern coastline of Oregon, lies Tillamook Bay. It is fed by five main tributary streams that drain from a watershed basin of approximately 540 square miles, and linked to the open ocean via one channel on its northernmost extremity. It is a smallish estuary, with an average depth of only 6 feet and a total span of about 13 square miles, yet it supports a diverse abundance of fish and wildlife.


text:
There's nothing here about connexions automatically claused at the end of a script. About that, a little note from devzone.zend.com :
"Open connections (and similar resources) are automatically destroyed at the end of script execution. However, you should still close or free all connections, result sets and statement handles as soon as they are no longer required. This will help return resources to PHP and MySQL faster."
mysqli::close -- mysqli_close — Closes a previously opened database connection
Object oriented style
bool mysqli::close
( void
Procedural style
Closes a previously opened database connection.
Procedural style only: A link identifier returned by mysqli_connect() or mysqli_init()
Return Values
Returns TRUE
on success or FALSE
on failure.
See mysqli_connect().
See Also
- mysqli::__construct() - Open a new connection to the MySQL server
- mysqli_init() - Initializes MySQLi and returns a resource for use with mysqli_real_connect()
- mysqli_real_connect() - Opens a connection to a mysql server
add a note
User Contributed Notes
mysqli::close - [3 notes]
win at alinto dot com ¶
5 years ago
php at dafydd dot com ¶
4 years ago
I've had situations where database connections appeared to persist following php execution. So, now, my __destructor function explicitly contains a $cxn->close(). It hurts nothing, and helps avoid memory leaks.
Anonymous ¶
3 years ago
The mysqli_close() function and object method only remove the ability to use the mysql object again in the script, essentially on the surface only nulling out all object parameters.
At least with PHP5.3.2 and Windows connecting by tcp, this differs by the old mysql_close() function in that it does not actually close out the tcp socket being used. You should always use mysqli_kill() function before mysqli_close() to actually close and free up the tcp socket being used by PHP. Garbage collection after script execution nor mysqli_close() do not kill the tcp socket on their own. The socket would otherwise remain in 'wait' state for approximately 30 seconds, and any additional page loads/connection attempts would only add to the total number of open tcp connections. This wait time does not appear to be configurable via PHP settings.
Also as of this version, mysqli created links cannot be "deactivated", and will continue to accumulate in process memory until the PHP server or process is restarted, essentially making mysqli.max_links = -1 required.


text:
Ask the Editor provides answers, clarification and guidance on style issues that go beyond the pages of the AP Stylebook. Before posing a question to AP editor David Minthorn, search the accompanying style archives for your topic. With thousands of questions and answers on file, your topic has very likely been covered. For typical style questions and responses, visit Ask the Editor FAQ.
Not a subscriber? AP Stylebook Online subscribers can:
- View the entire archive -- 16,114 answered questions and counting!
- Submit questions to Ask the Editor
- Search the complete Ask the Editor archive
- View listings by categories (such as abbreviations, capitalization, figures, numerals, titles, etc.)
Annual subscriptions start at $26/year for individuals. Subscribe now or learn more.
Ask the Editor questions from the past week:
A. Yes, nonpotable.
A. The Stylebook entry follows dictionaries on the lowercase spelling and definition. In describing any activity that may be illegal, appropriate attribution should be used.
A. Yes, as in Chinese New Year or Lunar New Year, it's capitalized along with the country marking the event.
A. This is an archive. See the explanation in submission policies.
A. Correct.
A. Webster's hyphenates to-do (n.). For the plural, to-dos or to-do's (the latter spelling in line with the Stylebook's "do's and don'ts" entry.)
A. In AP stories, Hello! magazine, but not italicized.
A. These aren't exact synonyms. Undergraduate often refers to a range of college students studying toward their diplomas: e.g., undergraduate programs. It is not derogatory. A first-year student or freshman is starting studies.
A. LinkedIn's connect to Facebook feature.
A. First reference is correct. On second reference, AP uses the surname alone or the title alone lowercase. In a direct quote, the capitalized title preceding the surname is sometimes used: President Obama.
A. "Good Luck, Bob!" 1992. The "exclamation point" entry says do not use a comma or period after the exclamation mark.
A. Yuri Andropov.
A. AP doesn't use italics in news stories. The typeface won't transmit universally. However, some URL references cited as examples in the AP Stylebook use italics.
A. It's Title I school, with the Roman numeral.
A. U.S. bicentennial.
A. In AP stories, the March on Washington in 1963; "Bloody Sunday" in 1965 when Alabama state troopers attacked voting rights marchers in Selma; the first Selma to Montgomery march in 1965.
A. The first is correct, though you don't need degree. See "academic degrees" and "Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science" entries.
A. It's multicurrency; see "multi-" prefix entry.
A. Hasan Rowhani.
A. The term hasn't come up in recent AP stories. However, online spellings use planogram.
A. In the wagering context, sportsbook.
A. The first looks right, in line with the phrasal verb opt in.
A. A couple of years ... the of is needed, per the Stylebook entry.
A. Probably lowercase.
A. Use numerals for those ratios, so it's correct as written.
A. Dictionary spelling is confectioners' sugar. Thanks for pointing out the singular possessive spelling in the Stylebook reference.
A. No quotes for academic journals, using the reference material guidance in the "composition titles" entry.
A. Official websites generally use Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River basin.
A. It serves no one, me least of all.
A. I cap AP Style as a formal concept. Others make it lowercase s.
A. Hasan Rowhani.
A. See the "reference works" entry and the Stylebook's Bibliography.
A. No comma after the city in those university names.
A. No hyphens needed in your example.
A. Correct: Tom Smith, senior vice president marketing, noted that sales had increased markedly.
A. It's license holder, two words.
A. Correctly punctuated as you have it.
A. The cause of death should be attributed. If authorities in a position to know use that euphemism, quote the terms in a news account.
A. That's the usage for 9 mm pistol. See "millimeter" entry which specifies space after numeral: 35 mm film, 105 mm artilley.
A. Based on Webster's preference for various step- constructions, and AP Stylebook entries, stepgrandchildren or stepgrandchild, no hyphens.
A. Based on the question, I took The Waits spelling to be the family's preference in this situation. Referring to the couple as individuals, the plural would be the Waitses. As a unit, the couple requests no gifts. As two individuals, the couple request no gifts. The couple has 10 grandchildren (meaning, as a unit sharing). The couple have 10 grandchildren (could imply a count from blended families.)
A. A 1 1/2-ounce portion; it weighs 1 1/2 ounces.
A. Fair point, though FAQ is a familiar search term, so that argues for retaining it.
A. Right. AP Style is now website (one word), changed in the 2010 Stylebook and reiterated several times in Ask the Editor. The two-word spelling of health care is unchanged.
A. The words should be attributed to the brochure, unless the director repeated those words. Or the director could be named referring to the policy outlined in the passage in the brochure.
A. Tao Te Ching without quotes as a religious text.
A. With Webster's New World College Dictionary and others allowing the upwards (adv.) spelling, the Stylebook may be a bit old school in barring it.
A. Yes, the "doctor" entry includes doctor of podiatric medicine.


text:
Fanimation FP780BL Black Tropical / Safari Specialty Fan from the Punkah Collection
Item #:
Compare Our Prices
Technical Specs
Installation Guide | |
Specification Sheet | |
Blade Span | 13.75 |
Collection | Punkah |
Energy Star | No |
Light Kit Included | No |
Number of Blades | 4 |
Specialty Fan Type | Vertical Ceiling Fan |
Theme | Tropical / Safari |
This product has additional required/recommended options. To configure, add to your cart.
Fan Assembly Required
Fan Blades Required
- Punkah Motor - Required for the Fanimation Punkah Fan (Fan Heads and Blades Sold Separately)
- To order Choose up to 6 Assemblies below and an equal number of blades
- Overall Length from 4 feet to 12 feet
- Support spacing from 12" to 4 feet between assemblies
- Can be mounted at either end of final assembly or in the middle
- Use with Wall or Ceiling Mount Applications
- Includes 2 ft power cord
Additional Fanimation Links
- View Manufacturer Warranty
- Shop All Fanimation Products
- Shop All Fanimation Punkah Collection Products
Our SKU: Punkah
This product is listed under the following manufacturer number(s):
Antique Brass - FP780BL
Black - FP780PW
Pewter - FP780RS
*Denotes a finish or option that has been discontinued
3 Questions from the Community
Can the motor be mounted in the middle so that the rods and leaves can be extended out of both sides of the motor?
Can this be mounted on sloped ceiling?
Is the 2 ft cord to plugg in a regular wall socket or does it have to be wired through a ceiling or wall fixture.
Fanimation Punkah Collection
Other Products In The Fanimation Punkah Collection
Fanimation Punkah Assembly
Fan Assembly from the Punkah Collection$549.00
Fanimation PUP1
Fan Blades from the Punkah Collection$24.00(1)
Fanimation PUP2
Fan Blades from the Punkah Collection$24.00
Fanimation PUD1
Fan Blades from the Punkah Collection$42.00
Fanimation PUD2
Fan Blades from the Punkah Collection$42.00
Warranty Info
Fanimation Fans Limited Lifetime Warranty
Limited Lifetime Warranty
Limited Lifetime Warranty


text:
French was hard for me. I never couldn't learn French except the basics of it.
I'm a native Japanese speaker...anyone want lessons or something? XD
I switch from swedish to english and back again with German and french thrown in when my girlfriend is around XD.
made by the ever charming and talented Lillian Thorne.
My mom is fluent in dutch and uses it in everyday terms, but when talking to certain family members over to phone it's almost completely in dutch, always thought it was cool.
No matter where you go
there you are.
I mix in Latin with my English conversations both in real life and on the Internet. It's a fun, albeit very difficult language to learn.
Sometimes while I'm talking, I have to hesitate because my mind is trying to feed me a word for something in a different language and it gets awkward if I randomly slap one in there.
"What would you like on your ice cream?"
"I would like chocolate, ichigo, and nuts please."
"What color shirt should I wear?"
"What was Stacey's costume last year?"
"She was a hexe."
That is how my mind works. It's not like I'm even super fluent in anything but English, so it's weird. I love hearing other people talk in different languages though. Sometimes, depending, I can pick up some of what is being said. But usually it's best if I read it. Although I don't quite know how to spell things myself. Kinda backwards.
I'd really like to learn Latin.


text:
Tuesday, 17 July 2012
Are Children Really a Blessing?
By Conrad Ma
One of the things that I struggle to believe these days is how children are a blessing. As I grew up as a Christian in the past decade, I've always been taught that children are a blessing. They are cute, they are a joy to work with and they bring alive my inner child as I work with them on the job. I work with kids for a living at the moment. I can say that I am at least part way there to becoming a daddy. For all my clients, I try to put as much as much care as I can. So I know children deserve and need love from a caretaker no matter what.At first, I did believe Children are a blessing. But I ran into a few doubts. As I grow up to learn to manage a household, finances are a very important part of that. In Canada, there are a few estimates on how much it costs to raise a child from 0-18yrs. I found ranges from $166,000 - $182,000. I guess that depends on a lot of factors. But the point is that costs do add up when raising a child. (and is just this is just ONE child) It adds up to quite a bit per year if I am the man and sole breadwinner of the household. And of course depending on where you're reading this blog, the cost will vary. But for the most part, children cost a lot of money to raise.
So it is the cost that first got me to doubt whether Children are that much of a blessing or not. On a daily basis I deal with children with autism. For parents of these children I really feel for their situation. Some respond to therapy and others don't. And if those others don't, what happens? It's just tough. Getting back to the economics part of this post, there's the additional cost of therapy on top basic needs for these families.
Moving on to another part of my life, I also serve at the youth ministry at my local church. And one of the biggest things in youth ministry is conflict between parents and counsellors on how parents are leaving it up to the youth ministry to teach their kids. You know what? If our parents believe whole heartedly that children are a blessing, then why aren't they teaching their kids like they should be? Its not that I hate being a counsellor. In fact, I love getting to know all these youth. I can teach these kids all I know but I'm technically not their Mom and Dad and Moms and Dads should be just that...Moms and Dads..period.
Also, as I struggle through where I fit in this world as a 20 something, I struggle to figure out how it will all work out. When I go into workforce, my generation is already facing a lot of competition going for just one of those good paying jobs out there that would be able to provide. In addition, universities upped the admission averages and requirements to higher than ever. Its not just a degree that would get you a job. Now the magic word is a "Masters" degree.
So I look at that overall picture, and I wonder whether I should even bring a kid of my own into the picture with these seemingly scarce amount of resources out there. Some say that there is enough resources out there for everyone. We just have to manage it better. But can we seriously count on people to manage it better with how sinful and greedy we are? In North America, we have a upper-middle class living in 3000+ sqft homes with plenty of room to spare while there's children and families in Africa starving to death and living in next to nothing. Nevertheless, I can't seem to ignore the economics of everything.
To conclude, all these doubts I have can really be attributed back to a lack of faith in God and Jesus who I have come to know and love. Even for the tough situations I mentioned with my clients, I can see how special needs children can be a blessing in disguise. And really, all those economic things that I mentioned here are just things out of my control. It is only my faith in God's provision that I should be worrying about. Now, I can't say I am willing to think of kids of my own. But what I am willing to do is learn to have more faith in God.
Do you believe that Children are a blessing? What doubts have you been wrestling with?
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)


text:
College football highlights
- Former TWA Flight 800 investigators want new probe
- Sports Corp. promises 'new Dome experience'
- News Summary: Men's Wearhouse ousts founder
- Incredible photo of a waterspout near Grand Isle, La.
- A "devastating" map of Houston's past three decades of urban sprawl
- James Gandolfini dies at age 51
- In-N-Out Burger doesn't like Underbelly's `Double Double'
- Sports Corp. recommends converting Dome into massive convention center
- Cruz tells Rush Limbaugh that Gang of 8 immigration bill might prompt flood of 30 million undocumented workers
- Cardinals coach: Fans are reason why gay player wouldn't be accepted in league
- Equusearch founder says group may not survive after alleged insider theft
- Deen says she used slur but doesn't tolerate hate
- Day after Surfside shark attack, man hit by stingray
- Man leaves prison, gets charged with 2011 Houston murder
- Astros to sign No. 1 pick Mark Appel
- Appeal filed for woman set become state's 500th executed killer
- Serena Williams sorry after rape case comments
Rice athletics with Joseph Duarte
Tag Archives: Malcolm Allen
Men's basketball: Owls in running to land Las Vegas twins
Sunday, August 26, 2012