text:
Monday's ad is entitled After the Game, and the illustration was done in 1954 by Haddon Sundblom. It's #100 in a series entitled "Home Life in America," also known as the Beer Belongs series of ads that the United States Brewers Foundation ran from 1945 to 1956. In this ad, the kids are back from the football game, and Mom has the salad and jello mold ready for them. Thankfully, someone also set our beer, which is the only thing on the table they really want.
Super Wager For The Super Bowl
You knew it had to happen. There's at least one every year. Two breweries in the home city or state make a bet for whose team will win the big game, with the other's beer as the prize. The only question is which breweries would step up.
This year, Denver's Spangalang Brewery is throwing down the gauntlet, and Fullsteam Brewery of Durham, North Carolina has picked it up. The two breweries have wagered the outcome of next weekend's Super Bowl on february 5, and apparently "the terms of the wager are significant for the brewers and their fans."
According to the press release I got today from Denver beer writer Marty Jones, "The losing brewery will have to brew a special batch of beer from a recipe chosen by the winning brewery. The beer recipe will include indigenous ingredients from the winner's state and will be named by the winning brewery.
On tapping day the losing brewery must hang the winning team's flag and fly it for one week or until the beer is gone, whichever comes first."
Marty Jones with Fullsteam Brewery's Sean Lilly Wilson during CBC 2010 in Chicago.
"That Panthers flag," says Sean Lilly Wilson, founder of Fullsteam Brewery, "is going to look great hanging in the Spangalang tasting room. But we'll send a beer recipe with some choice Carolina ingredients and flavor to help ease the pain of Denver's loss."
"It will be interesting to see if Cam Newtown can sport his 1000-watt smile with Von Miller in his face," says Spangalang co-founder and brewer Darren Boyd. "I'm thinking 'Cam's Kryptonite' would be a good name for the beer recipe we send to North Carolina."
Spangalang's Austin Wiley with Orange Crushsicle.
Each brewery will be asking its social media followers to suggest beer styles, local ingredients and names for the winning beers.
From the press release:
On February 5, the Friday before the Super Bowl, each brewery will release a special pre-game beer to rally local fans.
Spangalang will bring back Orange Crushsicle, which it debuted prior to the Broncos defeating the New England Patriots to win the AFC crown and a place in the Super Bowl. The beer equivalent of the Dreamsicle frozen treat, Orange Crushscicle is a citrus session ale enhanced with orange juice, sweet and bitter orange peel and vanilla. Its name pays tribute to the past and current defense of the Broncos and predicted the creaming of the Patriots by the Broncos.
"Broncos fans came out in droves to try the beer last weekend," says Spangalang brewer and co-founder Taylor Rees. "Our tap room will be a sea of orange jerseys when we tap it again." Fullsteam will release Bless Their Heart, a twist to its recent collaboration with Charlotte-based Free Range Brewing. The beer is made with foraged juniper, North Carolina Frasier fir, and an addition of chokeberry syrup. "We thought chokeberry would be a good ingredient to use in this beer," Wilson says, "due to Manning's history of choking in the Super Bowl." No matter which team wins the game, the rival brewers are comfortable with the wager. "The worst that can happen," Boyd says, "is we let a like-minded, quality obsessed craft brewer take the lead on a beer of ours. So this is a good bet to make. Although the Panthers flag in our brewery would make us all sick."
Founded in 2010, Fullsteam Brewery is a Durham, North Carolina production brewery and tavern inspired by the food and farm traditions of the South. The brewery aims to "pioneer the art of distinctly Southern beer" and specializes in traditional and experimental beers with a Southern sensibility. Its beers often incorporate locally farmed goods, heirloom grains, and seasonal botanicals.
Spangalang Brewery was founded in April 2015 by former Great Divide Brewery brewers Taylor Rees, Austin Wiley and Darren Boyd. The brewery crafts world-class beer for locals and celebrates the past and present culture of its historic Five Points neighborhood. Spangalang earned numerous "best new brewery of 2015" honors and a gold medal at the 2015 Great American Beer Festival medal.
May the best brewery win.
Beer In Ads #1744: When Do 300 Lb. Lineman Say Budweiser?
Sunday's ad is another one for Budweiser, also from the late 2000s. Although it's a recent ad, it has a more vintage feel, and is part of a series that was created for college market newspapers. This one shows a football player's head up close, and the thoughts in his head that lead her to drink a beer.
NFL Football: Pick The Winners At Brookston Fantasy Games 2015
This is the ninth year for the Brookston Fantasy Football Games. We've had a lot of fun over the last eight, so if you love football and beer, consider joining us this year, whether you've played in past seasons or are a newcomer. The NFL season begins on Thursday September 10, so you've got about a day and a half to sign up.
I've again set up two free Yahoo fantasy football games, one a simple pick 'em game and the other a survival pool. Up to 50 people can play each game (that's Yahoo's limit, not mine), so if you're a regular Bulletin reader feel free to sign up for one or even both. It's free to play, all you need is a Yahoo ID, which is also free. Below is a description of each game and the details on how to join each league and play.
Pro Football Pick'em
In this Pick'em game, just pick the winner for every game each week, with no spread, and let's see who gets the most correct throughout the season. All that's at stake is bragging rights, but it's still great fun.
Also, like last year, we'll be able to keep picking all through the playoffs, so the game will continue through to the Super Bowl, which is pretty cool.
In order to join the group, just go to Pro Football Pick'em, click the "Sign Up" button (or "Create or Join Group" if you are a returning user). From there, follow the path to join an existing private group and when prompted, enter the following information…
Group ID#: 12069 (Brookston Football Picks)
Password: brookston
Survival Football
If picking all sixteen football games every week seems like too much, then Survival Football is for you. In Survival Football, you only have to pick one game each week. The only catch is you can't pick the same team to win more than once all season. And you better be sure about each game you pick because if you're wrong, you're out for the season. Actually two years ago they added a new feature and I changed the game so to be kicked out you have to be wrong twice. In that way more people stand a better chance of lasting longer into the season. So get one wrong, and you're still okay, get a second wrong, now you're gone for the season. Last man standing wins.
Again, like last year, we can keep picking all through the playoffs, assuming our luck holds. So the game could even continue through to the Super Bowl.
In order to join the group, just go to Survival Football, click the "Sign Up" button and choose to "Join an Existing Group", then "Join a Private Group". Then, when prompted, enter the following information…
Group ID#: 5816 (Brookston Survival League)
Password: brookston
With 50 players allowed in each game, there's plenty of room, so don't be shy. Sign up for one or both games. In past seasons, I've posted the standings on the home page, and hopefully I'll do that again this season. Why not join us? Go head to head again me and my team, the Brookston Brew Jays.
Beer In Ads #1453: In Football, We Went Head To Head
Super Sunday's ad is for Miller Lite, from 1981. Featuring a number of former football players, including Fred "The Hammer" Williamson and Billy Kilmer, at a bar claiming that "In Football, We Went Head To Head. But When It Comes To Lite Beer, We See Eye To Eye." I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon for either the Seattle Seahawks or the New England Patriots, especially after the brawl that erupted in the very last seconds of this year's Super Bowl earlier tonight.
Super Bowl Advertising Through The Years
The Wall Street Journal, in their Life & Culture section, took a look at the commercials during the big game next week in Super Bowl Ads Turn Serious.
The 100 million-plus viewers expected Sunday will see a host of emotion-rich commercials that tug on the heartstrings or take on problems. Coca-Cola 's spot will shed light on the rash of Internet bullying while the National Football League will air a public-service announcement aimed at ending domestic violence. Procter & Gamble will re-air an ad for its feminine-care brand Always that tries to fight gender stereotypes and remove the stigma associated with the phrase "like a girl."
The article also talks about what's at stake, with a chance to reach the largest audience for a TV event, which last year was viewed by 111.5 million, compared to number 2, which is the Academy Awards broadcast, which in 2014 had 43 million viewers. As a result, "[t]he Super Bowl also commands the highest ad rates. This year, 30 seconds of time costs roughly $4.5 million."
The article then goes in to give a short synopsis of each major company's plans. ABI is, of course, the only beer company advertising again this year, and here's their plans:
Last year's Super Bowl stars—the Clydesdale horses and an irresistible puppy—are looking to repeat. This year, the Clydesdales come to the rescue of the puppy. Stepping in at the last minute, they save him from a hungry wolf and bring him home safely. The twist: The spot adds extra emotion by using a reworked version of "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" by the Proclaimers performed by Sleeping At Last. Is it enough to outdo last year's spot that had "Let Her Go" by Passenger as its soundtrack?
Perhaps more interesting, the article also includes an interactive Super Bowl Ad-Spending Tracker, which breaks down the history of Super Bowl commercials by industry and even by company over the past fifteen years. For example, here's the spending trends from the beverage industry, which included non-alcoholic as well as alcohol.
Then here's Anheuser-Busch from 2000 through 2008, the year they were acquired by InBev and became Anheuser-Busch InBev.
Then ABI spent at least as much, and usually more, in the subsequent years.
Then just for fun here's the lone ad from the Beer Institute in 2006, which if I'm not mistaken was for Anheuser-Busch's failed attempt at rallying the industry behind its "Here's to Beer" educational website.
Here's the Beer Institute ad that ran during the Super Bowl in 2006.
Ponies, Puppies & Pac-Man, Oh My!
The Super Bowl propaganda machine is already out in full force, even though the teams that will play have yet to be decided. I'm not talking about the NFL, or even football in general. The propaganda machine I'm referring to is the prohibitionist group Alcohol Justice, who each year uses the Super Bowl as an opportunity to talk about the ills of beer and other adult beverages, since — horror of horrors — fans who are on both sides of the arbitrary dividing line that is the minimum drinking age will most assuredly watch the game.
And more horrific and worrying, is that advertisers are keen to reach the more than 112 million viewers watching the game. Of those 112 million Americans, roughly 90 million are potential beer customers. (That's a rough guess based on several data points from various sources, made all the more difficult because Nielsen and others break down age groups into the 18-34 range for the very reasonable reason that they're all young adults, except when it comes to drinking alcohol.) Yesterday, Alcohol Justice, tweeted the following regarding Anheuser-Busch InBev's plans for advertising during the Super Bowl.
Budweiser Super Bowl ads target youth with puppies, ponies & Pac-Man http://bit.ly/1BMFsft Self-regulation failure
So as far as I can tell, according to AJ, if there are any children present, it's a family event, and that means — you guessed it — anything to do with alcohol is aimed directly at the under 21 crowd. Because unsurprisingly, their statement is ridiculous on several levels. First, the idea that advertising during an event with 80% adults is "targeting youth" is absurd, especially when you realize that the demographic statistics include 2-17 year olds. How many two-year olds are corrupted if they even, undoubtedly by accident, happen to see all three minutes of ABI's ads during the fours hours that the game is televised. The Budweiser ads comprise 1.25% of the total Super Bowl experience, and that's down 25% from last year, when they aired four minutes' worth of ads. ABI is, as usual, the only alcohol advertiser among the 21 major advertisers for the Super Bowl. But that's still too many as far as the wingnuts at AJ are concerned. Zero is the only number that would satisfy their loony way of viewing the world.
They close their tweet with "Self-regulation failure," which is to be expected. AJ seems to think Budweiser is "targeting" kids just by showing ads during the Super Bowl. But the self-regulation they believe is failing (presumably the Beer Institute Marketing and Advertising Code) states that the criteria to be followed is that "at least 71.6% of the audience is expected to be adults of legal drinking age." Here, the Super Bowl viewership will most likely be at least 80%, and frankly higher since children below a certain age who happen to be present aren't likely to even be paying attention. So how exactly is following the code a fail?
But moreover, where exactly did Alcohol Justice get the idea that ABI's ads were using "puppies, ponies & Pac-Man," and what exactly is wrong with that? That line comes, sort of, from the link in the tweet, which takes you to an article on MediaPost, "an integrated publishing and content company whose mission is to provide a complete array of resources for media, marketing and advertising professionals." That article is merely reporting on what ads ABI is planning and is entitled Budweiser's Super Bowl Line-up Includes Puppies, Kings, And Pac-Man. Why AJ changed "Kings" to "ponies" is undoubtedly to make it sound worse than it really is. It's a favorite propaganda trick of Alcohol Justice, bending reality to their agenda.
But what really pisses me off about AJ's propaganda, a tactic they use time and time again, is the idea that if something might appeal to someone who's under 21 then it's only for kids and is therefore "targeting youth." For example, the BI's advertising code specifically forbids beer companies from depicting Santa Claus, which personally I think is utter rubbish. Beer labels and advertising by beer brands all over the world use St. Nick, and few people seem to have a problem with it. And that's because many adults love the idea of Santa Claus, too. I know I do. I get that Santa is aimed primarily at kids. I already miss the time when my kids were still young enough to believe in him. But the idea of Santa Claus is really for all ages. Every time someone tries to put a cartoon character on a bottle of beer, prohibitionists go nuts, but adults love cartoons, too, they're not just for kids, and there are many, many cartoons aimed specifically at an older audience. Have they never been to a comic book convention? The idea that people simply stop being interested in the things they enjoyed as children the day they cross over into their alcohol years on the day they turn 21 is completely laughable.
As I mentioned, there will be three ABI ads during the Super Bowl. According to AdWeek, they will be the following:
1. Lost Dog
This is the "puppy" referred to in the article and the tweet. It's the sequel to last year's Puppy Love.
A Bud spot called "Lost Dog" from Anomaly will show how "only your best buds are the ones who always have your back," [Budweiser VP Brian] Perkins said. It's a sequel to last year's "Puppy Love," the most shared ad on Facebook of all time, and once again will feature a puppy and the brewer's iconic Clydesdales. Jake Scott is back as director.
And while yes, it does include a puppy, the only way this doesn't appeal to all ages is only if someone watching it doesn't have a heart. Since when do only kids like puppies? Seriously, what's wrong with these people? If you don't find that adorable, you should probably consider becoming a prohibitionist.
2. King of Beers
Not much is known about this ad specifically, just the general idea has been reported, and according to the AdWeek piece from January 7, it won't be shot until this week coming up. But it's the "King" in the article and what AJ replaced with "ponies" because it made what Bud was doing sound more sinister.
Another Bud spot, which Anomaly will shoot in the next week, will focus on how A-B brews the King of Beers. As scripted, the ad "talks with real pride and real attitude about Budweiser quality," Perkins said, adding, "A lot of brands try and do that and there are prosaic ways to talk about that kind of thing. This one is going to do it with pride and swagger."
But let's go back to the "ponies" Alcohol Justice was referring to, which in reality, of course, is the Budweiser Clydesdales. These are big damn horses. I suspect that even Clydesdale ponies are probably the same size as regular horses. They're draft horses, one of several breeds used to pull heavy things. They're also used in equestrian vaulting, a little-known sport my daughter has been doing since she was six. The best way to describe it is gymnastics on the back of a moving horse. So you want a big horse to give you more room to work on and also because they're more stable, too. I've taken my daughter to see the Budweiser Clydesdales when they visited the Fairfield brewery a few years ago. She's into horses, as you'd expect, and like Lisa Simpson she puts down a "pony" on her Christmas wish list every year. But again, is that unique to children? Hardly. My wife informs me that one day we will own a horse, if not a pony. And that's because like many, many adults, she loves horses, too. Liking ponies, and horses, is not unique to childhood and no one over the age of 21 stops loving them. If so, wouldn't we think of rodeos as events just for kids?
3. Coin
This is the ad where "Pac-Man" will appear that was referred to in the article and the tweet.
A Bud Light spot called "Coin" from EnergyBBDO will tell the story of a drinker of the light beer who steps out for a night of fun with 1980s icon Pac Man as he enters a life-size, interactive Pac-Man game. The ad will be supported by a House of Whatever event that the brewer will set up for three days in Phoenix, the host of this year's game. Steve Aoki will serve as DJ at the house.
But again, does Pac-Man appeal exclusively to children? Pac-Man debuted in 1980. My kids, especially my 13-year old, loves video games. But my son Porter, who even loves older retro games, thinks Pac-Man is really old school and wants nothing to do with it. So who does love Pac-Man? If you assume that the youngest kids were maybe ten years old when Pac-Man first came out, those same kids would be 45 today. It's apparently hipster Millennials that ABI is hoping to target with Pac-Man. In an earlier Advertising Age article, they explained the changing focus of Budweiser advertising. "The Super Bowl ads come as Anheuser-Busch begins a new media strategy as it seeks to remain relevant with millennials in an age where smaller craft beers are the rage among young drinkers."
So it's younger drinkers that ABI is hoping to reach with their advertising in 2015, but they are pointedly not targeting youth under 21, as Alcohol Justice would have you believe. But this is what they so often do. They take a relatively innocuous article and twist it just enough that it sounds like something entirely different. Not once in the MediaPost they linked to did it mention targeting underage youths. They just made that up. They also failed in their characterization of a self-regulation fail since the ads during the Super Bowl fall within the industry guidelines. And changing the headline to the catchier, alliterative "puppies, ponies & Pac-Man" may have sounded clever, but as is so typical of the prohibitionists, it's misleading and inaccurate. And that's the problem with agenda-driven propaganda. It's more important to be provocative and push an agenda than it is to be truthful, accurate or reasonable. And it's that very devotion to fanaticism that makes any honest discussion nearly impossible.
I'm going to watch the Super Bowl again this year, even if my team (the Green Bay Packers) ultimately doesn't play in the big game (Go Packers!). My kids will watch it, too, and several adult members of my family will undoubtedly drink a few beers during the game. And I have one prediction I can almost guarantee will take place on Super Sunday. It will be a typical day, and nothing bad will happen as a result of my kids seeing a few Budweiser commercials. Because a true family event is one where both adults and kids can be together, it's not where every adult has to hide or forgo adult pleasures because children might see them and get the idea — in the prohibitionist's own words — that such behavior is normal. The problem is that adults drinking alcohol is one of the most normal activities people have ever engaged in, having been doing so non-stop since the beginning of recorded history.
We saw this recently when prohibitionists, specifically again — sigh — Alcohol Justice, opposed a California law that would allow local beer, cider and winemakers to sell and sample their goods at farmers' markets alongside local farmers and craftspeople as just another locally made product. They criticized the law saying that farmer's markets were for families and therefore no alcohol should be allowed because it made such behavior look normal. Unfortunately for them, it is normal, and happily they lost that battle and it did become a law in California. If you've made it this far and still haven't had enough of me shouting in the wind, you can see AJ making the same arguments in What Does Family Friendly Mean?
But I really think it's important to push back on this idea that family-friendly and alcohol are mutually exclusive. Alcohol is in the world, and the more we can do as adults and parents to teach our kids the proper way it should be consumed, modeling our best behavior, the better adults our children will become. Pretending it doesn't exist and separating kids from learning about the adult world in the end does more harm than good, and doesn't prepare them in any way to join the world at large once they're chronologically old enough to be considered adults. Watching the Super Bowl with three minutes of beer commercials during four hours with their family and friends is, and quite rightly ought to be, a non-event and the fact that millions of Americans don't give it a second thought should convince anyone how out of touch Alcohol Justice is with the world.
Beer In Ads #1425: For You Armchair Quarterbacks
Sunday's ad is for Pabst Blue Ribbon, from 1947. Featuring singer and comedian Eddie Cantor dressed up in a football uniform, watching the game on to modern eyes is a very tiny television screen. There's also a small table holding a bottle and a glass of beer. The tagline, "For You Armchair Quarterbacks," forever linked drinking beer while watching football on TV.
Craft Beer Soccer Sponsorship Fantasies
Given that many of the regional breweries continue to grow by leaps and bounds, it's only a matter of time before they start considering some of the same types of sponsorships that in the past were usually reserved for the really big beer companies. But they certainly couldn't afford baseball, football or even basketball prices. But what about soccer (football)? Backheel, a website and podcast devoted to American Soccer, wondered what MLS jerseys might look like if they were sponsored by local breweries. More than wondered really, as author Trevor Hayward worked with graphic designer Edward Gaug and Dan Wiersema, of the Free Beer Movement, and they created a mythical league where all the teams are sponsored by breweries, proudly displaying their logos on the jerseys. The entire project can be seen at Major League Soccer x Craft Beer Jerseys. Below are few of my favorites, but check out all of them either on Backheel or in a slideshow at Imgur.
The San Jose Earthquakes, sponsored by Lagunitas.
The Seattle Sounders FC, sponsored by Elysian.
The LA Galaxy, sponsored by the Bruery.
The Portland Timbers, sponsored by Hair of the Dog.
But that's not quite the end of the story. SB Nation's Center Line Soccer (part of a group of 307 sports blogs) took it one step father, wondering if Petaluma-based Lagunitas was the best choice for the Quakes, who after all are in San Jose, quite some distance from Sonoma County. While they're both in the Bay Area, it's roughly a one-and-a-half to two hour drive between the two, depending on the always unpredictable traffic. So they imagined a few other choices for the Earthquakes. Again, here's a few of my faves, and you can see all of them at What craft brewery would you like to see on the San Jose Earthquakes jersey?
The San Jose Earthquakes, sponsored by Russian River Brewing.
The San Jose Earthquakes, sponsored by 21st Amendment Restaurant & Brewery.
The San Jose Earthquakes, sponsored by Drake's Brewing.
The San Jose Earthquakes, sponsored by Bear Republic Brewing.
Alcohol Doesn't "Cause" Violence
This one is sticking in my craw, and would be turning me to violence except for the fact that I'm not a terribly violent person, even when I drink. But to hear Alcohol Justice, and many others recently, you'd think that one sip of beer turns every person into a homicidal maniac. I don't know how much more obvious this could be, but alcohol doesn't cause violence. It's not the primary catalyst of domestic violence. It may exacerbate it, it may intensify it, it may even be used as an excuse for it, but if you remove alcohol from a dysfunctional relationship, the violence doesn't magically disappear. The underlying causes of domestic violence, and all violent behavior, is more complicated. I grew up with an alcoholic, psychotic, and frequently violent stepfather, but the issues that led to his outbursts were not caused by the alcohol he consumed. He often used that as his excuse, and as a way for society to overlook the root causes, because during periods of time when he wasn't drinking, his violent tendencies were undiminished.
So watching the news regarding the NFL recently, I'm amazed that people are trying to blame alcohol. Not surprisingly, the prohibitionists at Alcohol Justice are leading the charge, since they'll use any excuse to promote their agenda. You just have to see their recent and frequent use of Robin Williams' image in numerous tweets, as if he was tacitly endorsing them or prohibition, to know how far they'll go. Tellingly, this began shortly after his death, when he no longer could agree to be their spokesperson or have a say in how his image or story was used. So naturally if the NFL is having problems, it must be the fault of alcohol.
In their latest press release, Alcohol Justice Says Roger Goodell and Anheuser-Busch InBev Blame Personal Conduct, Ignore Alcohol Policies and Sponsorship, they're at it again.
The latest brouhaha with the NFL has left me with mixed feelings. I think John Oliver hit the nail on the head when he recently said that the NFL was America's FIFA, in terms of corruption and dysfunction. In a lengthy segment during the World Cup earlier this year, he detailed all that is wrong with FIFA, but ended with the admission that he was still really excited to watch the soccer during the tournament.
And that's how I feel about the NFL. There's so much I hate about them — from their non-profit status, the denial of the long term effects of concussions, the way they treat the referees and cheerleaders, how the wealthy owners manipulate communities to get new stadiums and economic concessions, thumbing their nose at those same communities when they don't get what they want, like petulant children, even as they get tax breaks while the cities crumble into economic ruin. And yet…. And yet I still look forward to football season, watching the games on Sunday with my son and cheering on my favorite team (the Green Bay Packers, who, I like to point out, is the only major sports team owned by the community, a loophole the NFL closed the moment after the Packers incorporated in 1950).
But now there's this latest spate of incidents of violent behavior off the field giving the league a black eye and tarnishing their image. This is both for the behavior of the players and for the way the league is, or more correctly isn't, dealing with these issues. Most commenters and pundits and people paying attention believe during his tenure beginning in 2006, commissioner Roger Goddell is at least partially, if not mostly, responsible. And yet he apparently continues to have the support of all the team owners, as he said during the travesty of a press conference he held recently, during which by all accounts he did more harm than good. That alone, tells us quite a bit about how out-of-touch with their fans the league really is, but then we've seen that over and over again during the many scandals in recent years.
What I'm truly amazed at, is how many people seem surprised that professional football players are having trouble controlling their anger and violence. They're trained to be violent as one of the main requirements of their job. They're no different than professional fighters, who are taught to be aggressive from Pop Warner football, high school and college football programs, so that by the time a player reaches the professional ranks of the NFL, they're a finally tuned machine of hitting, tackling, and other skills necessary to succeed in a game that celebrates violent behavior. It's modern gladiatorial sport, although happily no one dies at the end or gets eaten by lions.
The real question is why anyone would think they wouldn't become violent people in the process, or find difficulty switching between their work life and their home life? Everybody brings their work home with them, at least a little. It's the same shock and surprise that people express every time a soldier comes home from the war and commits some violent act. How could he? The pundits wonder aloud. How could he not? He was trained to meet violence with violence, taught to engage the enemy, to kill or be killed. And yet we think a soldier should be able to turn off that like a switch when he's no longer on the front lines. I've never been in a combat situation — luckily, my time in the military was relatively peaceful — but we know that war changes people. We've known it for centuries, and since World War I have studied it more closely and found all sorts of psychological problems created by the sacrifice many veterans make by going into battle on our behalf. But knowing that, we do precious little help them adjust back into civilian life or deal with the changes that being in war brings to their personality.
So whether the battle is in some war torn region of the world or on a 100-yard field of grass, we've bred people to be aggressive and then asked them to walk off those fields and turn off that aggression and be gentle, caring societal role models for the children. What could go wrong? I'm sure it's partly because I"m getting older, but the world seems more violent today than it did when I was younger. It just seems that today it's more taken for granted in our society, and accepted. And issues with acts of violence by NFL players off the field is nothing new, but doesn't it seem like it's intensified in recent years? More arrests, and for more and more serious crimes is how it seems to me, at least. Were there any football players accused of murder in the 1960s? I don't remember any. It seems like that would have been a big deal back then.
So we've created a class of individuals, incredibly well-paid — our modern gladiators — and as the amount of money at stake is growing larger and larger, we're finding that they can't be controlled and can't be expected to meet the responsibilities of the morals clause of their contracts, that compels them to act in a certain way to protect the image of themselves, their team and the league in way that they can still be considered role models to children and which allows the league to sell a product that's very, very profitable. And all the while demanding them to be aggressive, violent players during their game each week.
But now Alcohol Justice has to take this situation and blame it all on alcohol. In the subtitle to their press release, the "Watchdog demands end to alcohol industry's toxic relationship with NFL, teams and big game advertising." It's the same dead horse they been beating for years, and the same one that most prohibitionist organizations have been similarly beating since 1933, when Prohibition was repealed. Limiting alcohol advertising as dangerous was the very first tactic undertaken by the temperance movement when they realized prohibition had failed. But here we go again.
They jump right in with their own agenda. "The NFL's Roger Goodell has yet to show any understanding that alcohol use by players is a major cause of domestic violence, child abuse, arrests and even suicide and homicide. Though he has shown progress in recognizing that domestic violence is a serious problem, he and the sport's biggest sponsor — Anheuser-Busch InBev — continue to blame individual behavior as the cause. What they continue to ignore is the influence of the complete saturation of the NFL with alcohol sponsorships of teams, stadium advertising, tailgating, beverage sales and TV broadcast of games, especially the big one in February."
What I can't for the life of me understand is why Alcohol Justice is so utterly against "individual behavior." Why are prohibitionists so convinced that people should not be responsible for their own actions. Except instead they'd prefer to blame alcohol, as if without it no violence would ever take place, as if people don't have any control over their actions, as if alcohol makes people do things against their nature. It's baffling. Consider the KISS principle — keep it simple, stupid. Is it more likely that people are complicated, that violent behavior has many, many causes and like all human experience cannot be generalized so easily — or — does one drop of alcohol turn every person into a violent monster? Yet that's the position taken by Alcohol Justice and other similar groups, especially as they increasingly take the position that no amount of alcohol is "acceptable," or "safe." It's heroin to them; no difference. As dangerous, as addictive, as sinful, as bad for society, like the temperance of old where all roads led to ruin, every indulgence led to another one, and only abstinent perfection was the proper way to live.
Maybe the question should be why do they not blame individual behavior? Why is it acceptable to blame alcohol for all of society's problems, but not the people who abuse it? How does that make any sense? Why can't they bring themselves to ask, or insist, that people take responsibility for their actions? It should again be obvious that millions of people drink, most moderately, but even a few immoderately, without turning violent. That fact alone should persuade a reasonable person that alcohol won't make everyone who drinks it turn violent.
Curiously, AJ also points to a statement by a well-known sociologist, Harry Edwards, who's been a staff consultant to the San Francisco 49ers, among other sports teams. Apparently shorty after Goddell became commissioner in 2006, Edwards "warned him that players' personal conduct would become the defining issue of his tenure." That's "players' personal conduct," not alcohol. And yet now in a San Francisco Chronicle article he's "pointed to alcohol as the leading factor." That's all he says, though. The quote in AJ's press release where he says this is based on his "experience," not any actual evidence or statistics, is nowhere to be found in the article, but even so is contradictory and fairly absurd.
So when AJ says: "Anheuser-Busch InBev distanced itself from Rodger Goodell and the NFL on Tuesday, September 17, 2014 with a hypocritical statement of concern over "…the league's handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own culture and moral code," I can't help but think they're the ones being hypocritical, which is not terribly uncommon for them. Can they really think that ABI wants their customers beating one another? That they're somehow in favor of domestic violence? I'm willing to bet that privately they don't believe anyone in the alcohol industry has a "moral code," given the way they usually characterize us. It never seems to occur to prohibitionists that we have families, whom we love, too. So why should it surprise anyone that ABI, or any of the other NFL sponsors who are questioning the handling of recent incidents, such as P&G, Radisson and Nike, would do so? Most are taking a wait and see approach, primarily because there's so much money at stake. You'd think that ABI's statement would be applauded for putting morals ahead of money, unlike most of the NFL's sponsors, but because they make alcohol, instead Alcohol Justice accuses them of being hypocritical.
The entire statement was very short, but to the point:
We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the league's handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league.
But who could disagree with that? I feel the same way about the NFL's handling of this, don't you? Only I can't share my "concerns and expectations with the league," and even if I could, they wouldn't listen, as they've shown time and time again they don't really care what their fans think. Just ask the refs, or the cheerleaders, or the many former players with head trauma and brain problems. But ABI can get the league to listen, so maybe we should applaud their efforts instead of belittling them. If their doing this is so counterintuitive, as many have thoughtlessly commented, then shouldn't that show just how important an issue it is? Instead of adopting this pointless air of mock surprise, in effect characterizing ABI as an unfeeling, amoral monster (and by extension all of the rest of us in the beer world) then doesn't this disprove the very point they think they're making? Maybe it should make prohibitionists rethink their view of alcohol companies. Of course when they donated water for earthquake relief, all they did was complain, as they do no matter what we do. But maybe being one of the few NFL sponsors doing the right thing is just the right thing to do?
But instead they continue to, in a sense, change the subject and blame domestic violence on alcohol ads during games and at stadiums. If it weren't for the advertising, everyone would stop drinking, just as nobody smokes anymore now that they've banned tobacco advertising. And in any event, alcohol consumption in the U.S. is declining, a fact conveniently ignored by prohibitionists while spreading this kind of propaganda. No matter, AJ's director of public affairs (whatever that means), Michael Scippa has this to say. "To deny any responsibility in the wake of the NFL's problems, or the massive alcohol-related harms their products cause to the public, is just ludicrous." To me what's ludicrous is to take a very real problem — domestic violence, violent behavior of any kind and a history of sweeping it under the rug and not dealing with it because of the money involved — and instead using it to promote their anti-alcohol agenda. What most people have been discussing here is the violence, the culture that fosters and supports it, and how our society as a whole does not treat seriously violence against women, and instead turned it into another alcohol bashing session. Nobody brought up alcohol at all, not until they saw their opening when ABI had the audacity to be one of the few courageous sponsors to ask the NFL to do better, to use their clout for a good cause. That should be celebrated, but as usual, let no good deed unpunished. As I mentioned, Alcohol Justice also complained mightily when ABI canned water and sent it to earthquake-ravaged Haiti a few years ago, taking issue with them putting their logo and name on the cans. I've never seen an organization so committed to finding fault with absolutely everything another organization does. It's remarkable, really, how blindingly absolute their hatred is.
And I just knew they'd bring this up.
Even the Daily Show, disturbingly infused with alcohol advertising of its own, which many youth watch, exposed the irony of AB InBev's statement. Isn't AB InBev's chief "culture and moral code" to sell more beer for fans to consume at stadiums, tailgating parties, sports bars and at their homes? And then they solely place blame on players if they are abusive and destructive while under the influence?
I, too, winced to hear Jon Stewart (especially because I'm usually such a big fan of the Daily Show) refer to alcohol as "maybe one of the only substances that is proven scientifically to increase the likelihood of domestic abuse." Again, it won't make someone become violent unless they also have that in their nature. We all know that bad drunk who has a problem, but that's not everyone, and it's not even most people. Most of us can have a few drinks and not beat our wives or children. But there's no "scientifically proven" causation. In fact, the research suggests that alcohol abuse is not a direct cause of domestic violence, but that it can exacerbate situations, as I said earlier. Even the World Health Organization, which is generally anti-alcohol, admits that violence is usually the result of "the harmful use of alcohol," which is very different from the way most of us consume our beer.
But who exactly is "solely plac[ing] blame on players if they are abusive and destructive while under the influence?" I haven't heard that one. Have you? What I'm hearing is AJ solely placing the blame on alcohol and not blaming individual players for their actions, in fact mocking the idea that they should take personal responsibility for their violent behavior. This is the modern version of the devil made them do it. But letting people blame the alcohol, in fact insisting on it as AJ is doing, does more harm because it's removing the responsibility for one's actions. Saying we can't blame individual behavior allows it to continue, allows it to be used as an excuse for the violence, in effect allowing a person to say I couldn't help myself, I'd been drinking. Which is utter bullshit. Most of us can drink a little, or even a lot, and it never once occurs to us to hit somebody, to do anything violent whatsoever. So if you're saying you can't, then yeah, you've got problems. You definitely should not be drinking. But don't presume that your problem is my problem, or everyone else's problem.
Scary statistics follow, the same propaganda they're usually peddling. Then this statement from AJ's sheriff, and chief hypocrite, Bruce Lee Livingston. "AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito can declare all day long that the problem is the NFL's, but both the NFL and the beer barons need to back away from advertising and team sponsorships." This is pure substance-free propaganda, and it's not actually doing anything useful. First of all, AJ is the only one blaming the violence on the advertising of alcohol during games and team or league sponsorships, as if that's what led these players to become violent. That is the issue here, that NFL players are being violent off the field, and the NFL is not dealing with it. Period. It should not be an opportunity to pile on your agenda.
But even so, they're worried about kids seeing alcohol advertising. I'm more worried about kids being beaten and abused. Watching Sean Fucking Hannity defending beating kids while talking about how his Dad hit him with a belt, all the while insisting he's not in therapy was painful. It should have been obvious to everyone seeing that, that although maybe he didn't go to a therapist, perhaps he really should. And now; right away. But the number of people and pundits defending the physical abuse of children as an acceptable form of discipline was almost as unsettling as the abuse itself. That so many think that it was alright to raise welts on a four-year old because he wasn't listening and because that's what your Dad did was appalling, especially when you realize that studies consistently show that discipling children by physical force — spanking, hitting with a belt, etc. — are not only ineffective but actually lead to greater problems later in life. It's sad to see how unevolved we are on this subject. The United Nations, in 1989, adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, among other things forbids abusing children, which would include spanking and other physical discipline. Every member nation in the world ratified the convention, agreeing to abide by its tenets, all except two, that is, which to this day have not ratified it. Those would be Somalia and the United States. We apparently won't ratify it because we want to keep our precious right to put a child to death, whereas the convention forbids capital punishment for children. But I'm amazed how many people here still seem to think spanking, or worse, is actually effective or, at least, harmless. To me, this is a far greater problem to be focusing on then whether kids see an ad for alcohol.
And second of all, Brito never said that "the problem is [only] the NFL's." Read ABI's short statement above, in its entirety. Does it say that? No, it fucking doesn't. They say they're "disappointed and concerned" (which I am, and so are most people) that they are "not yet satisfied with the league's handling of [these] behaviors (again, I'm not, you're probably not. Who exactly is satisfied, apart from the team owners?) and that the violent behavior "clearly go against our own company culture and moral code" (which of course, it does). Just because ABI makes beer doesn't mean they condone violence against women, violence against children or violence of any kind for fucksakes, and yet that's the connection AJ, and sadly Jon Stewart, are making. That since a minority of people abuse alcohol, and may commit violent acts while intoxicated, that means beer companies either don't have a moral code or have one that thinks violence is okay. Using that logic, there should be no gun manufacturers either. Because if you make a gun, and someone kills another person with it, well that means you're condoning violence using the same twisted logic they're employing here. And if you have a gun, you have no choice but to kill somebody. You can't help it, there's no personal responsibility. How dare anyone even suggest that you take responsibility for your actions? That would be ludicrous, wouldn't it?
Then there's this gem. The "prevention of domestic abuse and player violence off the field has to begin with the end of the NFL's promotion of alcohol." Really, that's where the NFL needs to start in addressing this? Promoting alcohol is not the same thing as promoting violence, as that statement suggests, and yet again AJ is turning the debate toward their own agenda, despite the fact that it has little to do with what's going on here.
Sadder still, they provide a list of truly tragic events where former players committed suicide, murder or were arrested for being drunk or shooting off firearms. And those are awful, but those incidents did not occur for the sole reason that any one of them took a drink. People don't kill themselves just because they got drunk, they do so, or worse, because of deep-seated problems that most likely had little or nothing to do with alcohol. Because most if us do not take to violence when we drink. A violent drunk is a violent person.
AJ's sheriff leaves us with this wisdom. "In the NFL culture of game aggression and beer marketing, the players alone can't be blamed for alcohol abuse, binge drinking and addiction that leads to domestic violence, homicide, suicides and traffic collisions." First of all, why can't all of us be blamed for our actions. Is a Twinkie defense so ingrained in our culture that we can't conceive of being responsible for our own actions, so much so that there has to be an outside cause we can blame? I don't get that. If you do the crime, you did the crime. It shouldn't, and really doesn't, matter if you were drinking, or on drugs, or your blood sugar was too low, or you were amped up on a sugar rush eating Twinkies. Such factors may explain certain bad decisions and poor judgement, but they never excuse it. Many, many factors may contribute to our behavior every single day of our lives. But in the end, we are responsible for what we do to ourselves, and others. Why is that so hard to understand?
Finally, Livingston demands that "the NFL and sports' biggest beer sponsors Budweiser and Coors educate on the harms and dangers of alcohol, get advertising and overconsumption out of the game, and recognize moderation and (horror of horrors) abstinence as legitimate choices for players and fans." All of the major beer companies have responsibility programs, but of course AJ never acknowledges that they're anything except half-hearted, forever criticizing them. The advertising angle as I've gone over, is the same tired tactic prohibitionists have been using for over 80 years. But I love that he says — excuse me, demands — these companies "recognize moderation and (horror of horrors) abstinence as legitimate choices for players and fans." Who said they don't? Oh, that's right. You did. Because nobody else is insisting that anyone must drink, or must drink heavily, and no one's trying to make it a requirement. And I won't mention that as long as moderate drinking is shown to increase the average person's longevity, barring any specific health issues, that advocating for abstinence is actually not the best choice someone might make. But I won't mention that. It might upset your delicate constitution.
An example of one of the big brewers' responsibility ads that already exists, but which AJ insists they aren't doing but demands they should.
The reality is that this is a very complicated issue, and it does little good to reduce it to a single factor, or even just a primary factor, especially when it's the wrong one. And unlike the absolute blinders that AJ wears, I recognize that people with violent tendencies abusing alcohol could make them worse, and more violent. Such people probably should not drink, and certainly not to excess. I've had my fair share of personal encounters with such people throughout my life. But like most things, the dose makes the poison. I've also had even more experiences with many, many people with whom I've shared a drink with positive outcomes. Drinking sessions during which no one resorted to violence at all. For me, and I suspect most of us, that's the norm.
I want to believe that prohibitionists are well-intentioned, that they sincerely mean well. But it's difficult to maintain that belief when they're so continually dishonest and manipulative, so ends-justify-the-means about everything, all the time. I've been watching the self-proclaimed watchdogs for a number of years now, and they constantly amaze me with their underhanded tactics and propaganda. They remind me of a bad joke, but one that many people actually take seriously, and don't realize is a joke. Which is why they're so damn scary.
But this is really supposed to be about violence and especially violence against women and children. So it's somewhat surprising that Alcohol Justice would try to distract the debate away from that, instead heaping the blame on their favorite target: alcohol. Actually, it's not surprising at all, just par for the course, sad to say. But for the sake of my daughter, and women everywhere, I sure wish they'd cut it out. Unfortunately, if history is any teacher, the drive by fanatical temperance groups for another prohibition will almost certainly outlive me.
As for the NFL, I do wish they'd get their shit together. Unfortunately, I'm not hopeful, not under the current management or with the current team ownership. Money is their driving priority, which is understandable to a point, but until they leave a little room for human decency, then nothing is likely to change very much. They're in damage control mode right now, and that will likely continue until everybody's moved on to the next news cycle. Goddell has already tried to not do anything about it when he "promised" changes by the Super Bowl, at the end of the season, four months from now. He's hoping everyone will just forget about it, and they probably will so long as there aren't any new cases of player mischief that pop up. Their committees will offer some half-hearted band-aids, no real or long-lasting solutions, and that will be it, provided everything stays quiet. There's just too much money at stake for a sweeping change, especially absent the amount of pressure from the league's fan base that would be needed. And the larger problem with that is the way violence against women and children in our society is currently tolerated and accepted. Until that changes, it's unlikely the NFL will change, either. But as long as people can avoid responsibility for their actions, their "personal conduct," and can continue to blame alcohol, nothing will change, either. Which is why Alcohol Justice's position that alcohol is to blame for violent behavior, and not anyone's personal conduct, is so dangerous that they're actually making this situation worse. It's a good thing I'm not prone to violence.


text:
Ideally situated for Sheffield conferences, meetings and training events our comfortable room offers great value for money. With some secure parking and on the main tram and bus routes the venue is easily accessible within South Yorkshire.
The event space has a maximum capacity of 100. Our on site chefs produce delicious food and refreshments using locally sourced ingredients. We can provide your choice of breakfasts, buffets, afternoon tea, canapes and dinners. To book telephone 0330 043 1954 or email email@example.com
We have an excellent reputation in Sheffield and throughout South Yorkshire and Derbyshire - please see some recent testimonials here.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Categories : Burnout Health & Safety Job Satisfaction Staffing Work-Life Balance
Aging Workforce: Employees Who Are Healthy and in Control Stay Working
We have an aging workforce, and this presents a new set of challenges for I-O psychologists. For example, we need to learn more about what helps people decide between staying on the job or taking early retirement. Interestingly, a new study shows that personal resources, such as health and sense of control, may convince employees that they can still do their jobs. This can lead to fewer absences from work, less disability leave, and even delayed retirement.


text:
Burfields House Wealth Management Ltd is an holistic Practice covering all aspects of what you need to consider to plan your financial future and security.
Over the years, we have clearly identified that face-to-face ongoing advice with the same adviser gives you continuity with someone who you know and trust. Our focus on building and maintaining long-term relationships gives financial peace of mind and is something that our clients value very highly.
Naturally, no one person can do it all and we are delighted to have specialist Partners in certain areas of financial planning such as:
"Life is very uncertain and our wealth of life experience helps us manage our clients' future when it comes to such things as long term care, financial needs and the loss of a loved one."
David Cole, Director of Burfields House Wealth Management Ltd
The levels and bases of taxation and reliefs from taxation can change at any time. The value of any tax reliefs depends on individual circumstances.


text:
This text identifies and discusses emerging challenges and opportunities arising from advanced-technology simulation-based microworld analogues of operational environments. These "scaled worlds" have been used and advocated for many years. A major transformation is expected in research and training using new, more advanced versions of these systems. Technology now affords new capabilities using PC-based systems. Complex and distributed expert decision making and team performance can be elicited and rehearsed through affordable and easily distributed systems. These new systems will transform the nature of research and training on two fronts: (1) the content internal (i.e. laboratory control) and external validity, and (2) who can do the research and/or training, as these new systems offer more opportunities/options. Organizations and universities are rapidly building internet-based systems to train, educate and/or utilize individuals who may be distributed across the globe. Researchers across the globe will also use these new capabilities, forging new and multi-discipline research as new alliances and collaborations are enabled. Research previously restricted to highly realistic and restricted high-fidelity systems will be open to more participants and these new processes and systems will create new opportunities. Such systems will offer more realism, control and feedback to researchers and trainers. Distributed systems can link multiple nodes, allowing many participants to perform within a shared scenario. Scenarios are more easily constructed and controlled. Opportunities using these internet-based systems are clear, as evidenced by high funding and investments in advanced internet-based training systems. Universities, corporations and DoD organizations are rapidly escalating their use of such systems for collaborative research, education, distributed training and distance learning. These simulation-based systems will rapidly change the nature of research, education and training for most performance domains. Low to medium fidelity environments capture knowledge and performance requirements while retaining high levels of experimental control and generalizability. This book goes further than others on simulation-based training and research (which focus on highly realistic systems) by addressing the issues of scale, fidelity and purpose in more abstracted scaled world systems. It brings together experts who use these systems, from a variety of perspectives. Their contributions document emerging trends and issues with regard to development, utilization and validation of these emerging "scaled world" systems.
In team collaboration training, especially when the training is distributed on the net, it exists a problem of identifying the students' collaboration and work processes. An important design task when developing distributed interactive simulation systems for team training is therefore to define a proper monitoring functionality that will help training managers to evaluate the training. Thus a goal of a computer-based monitoring system is to give training managers help in understanding and assessing the performance of the trainees.
This thesis deals with the design and implementation of monitoring strategies for distributed collaboration training. The aim has been to explore different automatic monitoring strategies, and how they can help a training manger in their task of understanding the students' collaboration during a training session.
To explore possible monitoring strategies, a distributed, net-based micro-world simulation and training system, C3Fire, has been developed and three series of experiments has been performed. C3Fire provides a Command, Control and Communication training environment that can be used for team collaboration training of emergency management tasks. The training domain, which is forest fire fighting, acts as a micro-world, which creates a good dynamic environment for the trainees.
In the three performed studies a total of 192 persons have participated as students. A 132 of these were computer-literate undergraduate students and 60 professional military officers. In these studies four monitoring goals have been explored: the effectiveness of the teams, the information distribution in the organisation, the students situation awareness, and the students work and collaboration methods.


text: WOD – August 21, 2012 August 21, 2012 by bjorn 0 Comments Work Out of the Day Back Squat 3-3-3-3-3 then, "Annie" 50-40-30-20-10 reps for time of: double unders situps Post loads and times to beyond the whiteboard. . Posted in:Work out of the Day See more Prev:WOD – August 20, 2012 Back: All Posts Next:WOD – August 22, 2012 Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.


text:
Things You Can Tell Just By Listening To
Things You Can Tell Just By Listening to is an wireless interactive toy that helps users to better understand what doctors hear with stethoscope. Placing the bell of stethoscope on the dolls triggers audio clips of internal body sounds of humans such as heart beats and lung sounds, which physicians use as a diagnostic clue.
Problem to Solve
When I had worked as a general practitioner at fast-track pediatric clinic, I used to stethoscope to hear lung sound to differentiate diagnose upper respiratory track infection and lower respiratory track infection. One of the questions I received often from outpatient kids were: "Do you hear something with that(stethoscope)?" Because it was a fast-track where more than 100 outpatient visit per day, I didn't have enough time to help them experience what it is like to use the stethoscope. After leaving the medical field and starting to study interaction design field, I wanted to create interactive toy regard to it.
Target User
Primary user are 6-8 years of toddlers who has a curiosity on stethoscope. Secondary users are parents who have 6-8 years old kids.
Concept development
To mimic the behavior is an wireless interactive toy that made for an educational purpose. User can listen different internal human body sounds by placing the stethoscope on two gingerbreadman dolls. Yellow gingerbreadman represents healthy human body while green one has some abnormal features that are in needs of further work-ups, such as atrial septal defect, asthma, and hypertension.
When the user puts the diaphragm of the stethoscope under the guidance of display on the laptop monitor, the RFID(Radio-Frequency Identification) reader mounted inside of the stethoscope detects the RFID tags hidden under the felt dolls and then sends the data to the computer via bluetooth device to trigger the matching sound clips. The audio files are played back by bluetooth headphone that is attached to the stethoscope. The User can hear three different sound files from each of the dolls, based on the location of RFID tags: heartbeat (on left side of chest), breath sound (on right upper back), and the sounds that are heard when blood pressure is measured manually (on left forearm).
Demo Video
Design/Development/Fabrication: Hiye Shin


text:
I was going to call this post "Howard Dean, unlikely voice of reason" but it occurred to me that probably every Democrat in America agrees with him about it. This is an obvious, obvious, obvious point: If Obama muscles his way in front of the cameras and starts attacking Trump, every Republican and right-leaning independent in the country who's making a stinkface at the president right now will rally behind him in the ensuing partisan food fight You'll even get some true independents frowning at Obama for his lack of presidential etiquette in attacking his successor. Bush was a scapegoat for O for years after he assumed office and didn't complain. Now it's Obama's turn.
Can't give Dean credit for saying something that's utterly uncontroversial. Except … it is controversial. There are actually people out there in this great land of ours who think Obama dueling publicly with Trump would hurt Trump rather than help him.
Mr. Obama, you are the president who got up and sang "Amazing Grace" after the Charleston, S.C., killings. You are the president who shed tears in public after Sandy Hook. Now we are a country troubled by the looming possibility of a constitutional crisis, and hate groups are claiming the president as theirs. We need your voice. There is not a saner, more trustworthy opinion that many of us would rather hear.
I recognize and respect your deliberate approach to navigating these fraught times, but this relentless subtlety has become wearisome. Mr. Obama, now is not the time to follow the keep-quiet rules while the new administration plays moral equivocator to a much aghast nation…
My generation graduated from college, got our first jobs and became adults all under the auspices of that truth. We learned to experience politics through the lens of your eloquent presence in the White House. In this respect, you raised us. So we are unaccustomed to all of this wildness. Just because we're grown doesn't mean we don't need to hear from the man who brought us up.
"You raised us"? No doubt The Father Of Our Nation is itching to speak up and take it to Trump rhetorically: The current Democratic leadership is a charisma-less vacuum and Obama himself enjoys nothing more than delivering a "that's not who we are" lecture to the public about American identity. In extreme cases, like the aftermath of Charlottesville, he has spoken up — briefly and elliptically on Twitter, where this tweet became the most "liked" in history:
"No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion…" pic.twitter.com/InZ58zkoAm
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 13, 2017
That's about as loud as he gets these days, though. Obama himself, through his conspicuous silence, clearly agrees with Dean's judgment that he's better off lying low. So do Democratic Party leaders, who, despite the occasional noisy brain fart from Nancy Pelosi, have done a shrewd job of keeping quiet since Charlottesville while Trump and the GOP squabble among themselves about the alt-right, the filibuster, Jeff Flake, you name it. You know the rule: When your enemy's busy making a mistake (or, in this case, tearing itself apart), get out of its way.
Obama's top aides will huddle with him in the next several weeks to plan his fall schedule. And while his allies say he will play an active role in assisting the Democratic Party, much of the work will be out of public view.
One reason for the behind-the-scenes role is to keep the president from becoming a "foil" to Trump and Republicans, allies say.
"The shit is hitting the fan on the other side," one former senior administration official said. "Why play the foil?"
Why indeed? Some accommodation will have to be made for Obama's enormous ego, though, as O will bite his tongue for only so long before he won't be able to resist lashing back. I wonder what it'll take. He issued a statement or two during the GOP's halting efforts to undo ObamaCare; if McConnell ever gets his caucus on the same page and they manage to put something on Trump's desk, maybe then Obama will come out swinging. It'd be stupid of him to risk unifying Republicans by attacking Trump now, but once they're already unified and are passing legislation — if that day ever comes! — that risk will be gone. At that point his chief worry will be crowding up-and-coming Democrats out of the spotlight by occupying it himself. Er, who are the up-and-coming Democrats again?
Here's Dean-o, via the Free Beacon.


text:
Director, Division of Oncology
Institute Co-Director, Cancer and Blood Diseases Institute
Deb Kleisinger Endowed Chair
Professor, UC Department of Pediatrics
John P. Perentesis, MD, FAAP, is a nationally recognized expert in the development of new drugs and molecular therapies for pediatric and young adult cancers and leukemia. His laboratory has developed novel anticancer drugs and discovered genes important in the growth of normal and malignant cells. His laboratory is also using tumor patients genomics research for personalizing therapies. In national efforts for new anticancer drug development, he serves in key roles for the National Cancer Institute's Investigational Drug Steering Committee and the NCI-funded Children's Oncology Group (COG). The COG is the world's largest children's cancer research entity.
In 2010, Dr. Perentesis was elected by pediatric oncologists from across the country to the national COG Executive Committee. He also serves as vice-chair for the COG Adolescent & Young Adult Cancer Steering Committee and as a member of the Hematology/Oncology and Institutional Performance Monitoring Steering Committees.
Dr. Perentesis has been elected by his peers for inclusion in the Best Doctors in America List since 1998.
Young adult cancers; acute myeloid & lymphoid leukemia; Hodgkin lymphoma; new anticancer therapy development
Molecular etiology and pharmacogenetics of pediatric cancers; Down syndrome-associated leukemia; new anticancer drug development
Leukemia, Sarcoma, Oncology, Cancer and Blood Diseases, Cancer and Blood Diseases, Best Doctors, Young Adult Cancer
MD: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1980.
Residency: University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, 1983.
Fellowship: University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, 1986.
Postdoctoral: University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, 1986.
Certification: Pediatrics, 1989; Hematology/Oncology, 1990.
Dorris K, Fouladi M, Davies SM, Perentesis JP, Lawrence JM, Chow LM, Assa'ad A, Uygungil B, Jodele S. . Severe Allergic Reactions to Thiol-based Cytoprotective Agents Mesna and Amifostine in a Child With a Supratentorial Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumor. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2011 Jun 3.
Davies SM, Perentesis JP. Tribute: the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO), 2011 Distinguished Career Award goes to Dr. William G. Woods. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011 Jun;56(6):895-6.
Phillips CL, Gerbing R, Alonzo T, Perentesis JP, Harley IT, Meshinchi S, Bhatla D, Radloff G, Davies SM. MDM2 polymorphism increases susceptibility to childhood acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010 Aug;55(2):248-53.
Wagner LM, Perentesis JP, Reid JM, Ames MM, Safgren SL, Nelson MD Jr, Ingle AM, Blaney SM, Adamson PC. Phase I trial of two schedules of vincristine, oral irinotecan, and temozolomide (VOIT) for children with relapsed or refractory solid tumors: a Children's Oncology Group phase I consortium study. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2010 Apr;54(4):538-45.
Mehta PA, Gerbing RB, Alonzo TA, Elliott JS, Zamzow TA, Combs M, Stover E, Ross JA, Perentesis JP, Meschinchi S, Lange BJ, Davies SM. FAS promoter polymorphism: outcome of childhood acute myeloid leukemia. A children's oncology group report. Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Dec 1;14(23):7896-9.
Bhatla D, Gerbing RB, Alonzo TA, Conner H, Ross JA, Meshinchi S, Zhai X, Zamzow T, Mehta PA, Geiger H, Perentesis J, Davies SM. Cytidine deaminase genotype and toxicity of cytosine arabinoside therapy in children with acute myeloid leukemia. Br J Haematol. 2009 Feb;144(3):388-94.
Geller JI, Wall D, Perentesis J, Blaney SM, Bernstein M; Pediatric Oncology Group study 9376. Phase I study of paclitaxel with standard dose ifosfamide in children with refractory solid tumors: a Pediatric Oncology Group study (POG 9376). Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009 Mar;52(3):346-50.
Johansson G, Mahller YY, Collins MH, Kim MO, Nobukuni T, Perentesis J, Cripe TP, Lane HA, Kozma SC, Thomas G, Ratner N. Effective in vivo targeting of the mammalian target of rapamycin pathway in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008 May;7(5):1237-45.
Bhatla D, Gerbing RB, Alonzo TA, Mehta PA, Deal K, Elliott J, Meshinchi S, Geiger H, Perentesis JP, Lange BJ, Davies SM; Children's Oncology Group. DNA repair polymorphisms and outcome of chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia: a report from the Children's Oncology Group. Leukemia. 2008 Feb;22(2):265-72.
Mo J, Lampkin B, Perentesis J, Poole L, Bao L. Translocation (8;18;16)(p11;q21;p13). A new variant of t(8;16)(p11;p13) in acute monoblastic leukemia: case report and review of the literature. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2006 Feb;165(1):75-8. Review.
3333 Burnet Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45229-3026
© 1999-2019 Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. All rights reserved.


text:
UCHealth - Jane Duncan FNP
- 1675 18th Ave
- Suite 3
- Greeley, CO, 80631
- View Phone
Experience & Reliability
This business hasn't fully updated their information.
If this is your business, click here to claim
a listing or log in to your account and update your experience and reliability.
- Send to My Email
- Send to My Phone
- Print this Page


text:
The best price, best service, enjoy lifeVisit Store >
CAD$194.66 - 221.35 / Piece
(US $144.73 - 164.57 / Piece)
Please Select Options
Shipping Cost: Free Shipping
To United States Via FEDEX Est.Delivery Nov 15 and Nov 20
Valve Core Material: Ceramic
Number of Holes for Installation: Sitting
Installation Type: Floor Mounted
Number of Handles: 2
1, Modern design 2, brand new 3, brass body, 4, fast delivery 5, competitive price & superior quality
Antique Brass Bathroom Floor Mounted Tub Faucet Hand Shower Telephone Style Tub Filler Mixer Tap
Product description
Feature: Centerset
Style: Contemporary
Shower Head: Handle
Valve Type: Ceramic Valve
Faucet Body Material: Brass
5 Years warranty.
Faucet Total Height (cm): 100(39.4)
Spout Height (cm): 60(23.6")
Spout Length (cm): 10(3.94")
We will combine shipping for multiple items. Before you bidding multiple items please contract with us to confirm the postage discount .
Orders are normally shipped within 3 business days after payment has cleared. (Legal holidays occurring within the business week are not cou nted as a business day)
You will receive a message or e-mail with tracking or delivery confirmation information when your item has shipped.
Most items will be shipped via EMS,Items shipped to USA usually need 5-7 days for delivery.
You will be e-mailed payment instructions after your buy-it-now or auction ends. Payments must be received within 7 calendar days or you may forfeit your items.
When sending payment, please include all auction numbers and your shipping information.
Return Policy
Requests for returns, exchanges or refunds must be made within 7 days of arrival and must have seller`s approval which is emailed or message. We will not process any returns, exchanges or refunds without approval ,and buyer is responsible for return shipping charges
Returned items must be in original, uninstalled condition, including packaging, warranty, instructions, etc.
In the rare case of a missing or defective part ,only a relplacement or exchange will be made
Seller: rozinsanitary1
804 Transactions, 100% Positive Feedback


text:
I spent hours as a child searching for Jane Austen's books in my family's ancestral library at Chawton House. A collection of three thousands books put together over four centuries lined the walls of the library, but none of them were Jane's. Why didn't Jane's own family (my family) consider her worthy of inclusion in the collection?
When I was a girl, the Knight collection of books inherited by Edward Austen (who was adopted by the Knight's to become the 11th Squire of Chawton) was in the library at Chawton House, the room my grandparents (Edward Knight III – Edward Austen's great great grandson and the 15th Squire of Chawton – and Elizabeth) used as a sitting room. I visited the library every day and would sometimes take a book off a shelf and peak inside. The spines cracked as I levered open the hard leather covers. Some of the books were highly decorated with elaborate gold leaf designs.
Many of them were complete with a bookplate inside the front cover, indicating which of my ancestors had been their original owner. I was fascinated by each ancestor's choice of bookplate design—and books—because I considered their choices an indication of personality. Edward Austen Knight's bookplate, for example, was much plainer than Thomas Knight's:
Unlike the rest of the family, who appeared to have satisfied themselves with one bookplate design, Montagu (Edward Austen Knight's grandson) had three—and each was elaborate and bold. I particularly liked Montagu's round design; it was the only circular bookplate I had seen. In a seemingly typical example of Montagu's personality (he was one of my more flamboyant ancestors), his bookplate was in many of books, including those already in the collection when he inherited it!
I particularly liked the books with beautifully hand-painted illustrations of flora and fauna from around the world and would marvel at the pictures – bright and clear as the day they were painted. I couldn't help but run my fingers over the thick pages. Most of the books were extremely old, and many were in languages I didn't understand. Tales of foreign travel; illustrated natural histories, books of letters, volumes of poetry, novels, and books on politics, law, sport, history, estate management, art, and religion were interspersed with estate records, family history and our Chawton heritage.
The library was very much a male domain (which was hard to ignore), despite the fact that a woman—Jane—was the celebrated and much-revered literary member of our family. The bookplates showed that the collection had been largely put together by the men of the family, and most of the books had been written by men. The journals of foreign travels were of gentlemen's journeys—photographs and illustrations focused on men's achievements and interests, not women's. Jane would have known the older books, either at Chawton or in the library in Godmersham Park before they were moved to Chawton. I could imagine her browsing through the eclectic mix of books, perhaps to gain knowledge and inspiration for her writing and I wondered which books had been Jane's favourites.
Was Jane, the most talented writer in the family, resentful of the lack of female representation in the library? Was she offended that her novels weren't included? I can't deny being privately outraged, on her behalf, although I never had the courage to mention it!
Perhaps she expressed her views through the voice of Anne Elliot in Persuasion, in a lively conversation with Captain Harville. But you can read more about that in my book - I want to talk about something else in this article.
Many years later I discovered that four of Jane's books were listed in the Godmersham Park library catalogue of 1818, the year after she died. At the very end of the catalogue, in a small section labelled 'Drawing Room', the novels published in Jane's lifetime were listed: Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1816). They were recorded as having been printed in London, as sitting on shelf six and as comprising three volumes each. My father told me that Jane's novels would, of course, been immediately added to the family collections - it is likely a set was also held in the Chawton as well. Much of the Godmersham collection was moved to Chawton when Godmersham was sold in 1874, so there should have been multiple early copies of Jane's novels.
But by this time I had realised the extent of the crippling financial pressures faced by my family that had resulted in the sale of most of our property, assets and valuable possessions in the first half of the 20th century – which is why valuable eighteenth century editions of Jane's books weren't in our family library (there were modern version on my parent's bookshelves in our north-wing quarters). Jane's books weren't sold due to any lack of respect or love for Jane and her extraordinary talents, but as a desperate act by a family in financial crisis.
It was hard not to feel a little sad at all of the books that had been lost from our family collection since Jane's time. But, in February of this year, something wonderful happened. A set of Jane's novels from 1833, complete with Montagu's bookplate, was discovered in Texas. It was an important first edition of a set of Austen novels by Bentley, who, for the first time, had published Jane's novels as a 'complete works'. The owner, Sandra Clark, who had been collecting Austen editions for years, had generously sent them back to Chawton House – and I whooped for joy. At least one of our family's copies of Jane's books, which I had searched for in the library when I was a child, had returned home.
And now, in even more exciting news, the Godmersham Lost Sheep Society in the USA have launched a campaign to locate other books, now held in collections around the world, that came from Edward Austen Knight's libraries. I would like to sincerely thank Deb Barnum from JASNA in Vermont and everyone else who is involved. How wonderful that other books from our family library might be found, I can't tell you how much this means to me.
So, take a look at the old books on your bookshelves - could any of them be from the library that Jane Austen knew so well?
And how do you know if your books are from Chawton? Montagu Knight's bookplate, of course!
For more information about the project click here
Caroline Jane Knight is Jane Austen's fifth great-niece and the last Austen to grow up at Chawton House on the ancestral estate where Jane herself lived and wrote. You can read more about Caroline's extraordinary childhood in JANE & ME: MY AUSTEN HERITAGE, available in PAPERBACK, HARDBACK, E-BOOK and AUDIOBOOK at all good online retailers. 15% of any profits made are donated to the Jane Austen Literacy Foundation


text:
Sorry, this video isn't available any more.
KSI admitted that he had a massive payday thanks to his boxing match with fellow YouTube star Logan Paul.
Their match, which took place at Manchester Arena last year, was declared a draw.
Fans had to pay £7.50 to watch it on YouTube with the average ticket to sit in the 21,000-strong arena said to cost around £100.
He was asked straight up by Piers Morgan on Good Morning Britain about his earnings for the bout.
After playing it coy, the YouTube star said: '[I made] enough. Why do you keep asking me?
'I've made a good amount. That's all I'm going to say.'
Challenged on charging fans to tune in, he added: 'Yeah, normal boxers do that as well.
'I'm extremely rich, is that what you want Piers? I'm rich as hell.'
Speaking about their draw, he said: 'I'd say he had the first two rounds but the rest I had completely, all over him.
'He was just grabbing hold of me the whole time.'
KSI also teased that there would be a rematch at a future date in the US.
The internet star's manager previously told Metro.co.uk about the rumoured earnings: 'Accounting for the event cost and revenue won't be known for a while.'
KSI, real name Olajide 'JJ' Olatunji, and Logan have already started stoking interest in a second match by reigniting their feud online.
KSI fired off a scathing tweet earlier this month aimed at his rival, which said: 'The people don't care about you anymore.
'You're washed up. A has been. You're the suicide forest boy, and that's all you'll ever be. Step aside.'
Logan hit back: 'Aren't you on your fifth abortion g? crazy theory but: life is about more than views… sometimes it's about… ya know… life ?'
Their spat ended with KSI tweeting Logan's brother Jake to say: 'Anyway, @jakepaul you want the main event? You got it. Lets see how "trash" I really am…'
The American vlogger has previously claimed that he didn't make a penny from the match.
He told talkSPORT last September: 'Between all of the expenses, I'm not a 100 per cent sure that I came out positive on this event. That means I'm not sure if I made money on the event.'
However he admitted: 'I mean it's obviously a high amount, but it's nowhere near £40m.'
Let round two commence.
Good Morning Britain airs weekdays from 6am on ITV
Got a showbiz story?
If you've got a story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk Entertainment team by emailing us firstname.lastname@example.com, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page - we'd love to hear from you.
MORE: Pete Davidson meets the parents as romance with Kate Beckinsale gets serious
MORE: The Walking Dead star Chandler Riggs is all for Henry replacing Carl: 'It's super cool'


text:
for soprano and tenor
Duration 6'
Dedication: John Potter and Anna Maria Friman
First performance: CBC Broadcast Sept 11th 2002
Text of Lauda 4 "Oi me lasso"
Oi me lasso, e freddo lo mio core, Ah, poor me, my heart is cold,
ke non sospiri tanto per amore for does it not sigh with love
ke tu morisse? enough to die?
Morire dovaresti, falso sconoscente, You should have died, false and thankless heart,
villano, cieco, pigro e negligente, villainous, blind, lazy and negligent,
ké per amor non vivi fervente since you do not live so fervent with love
sì ke languise. that you languish.
Oi me lasso, e freddo lo mio core, Ah, poor me, my heart is cold,
ke non sospiri tanto per amore for does it not sigh with love
ke tu morisse? enough to die?
Perire potaresti si non se' defeso You should have died, if you were not protected
dal grande amor Iesù da cui se' ateso: by the great love of Jesus, to which you have turned:
vôlte abracciare e sta en croce desteso, he longs to embrace you, and hangs stretched upon
s'a lui venisse. the cross, that you may come to him.
Oi me lasso, e freddo lo mio core, Ah, poor me, my heart is cold,
ke non sospiri tanto per amore for does it not sigh with love
ke tu morisse? enough to die?
Transmortisci, cuore, e và gridando; You faint, my heart, and go out shouting,
e pure amore amore amore amando, and loving Love-Love-Love;
ke no l'ai puramente amato và dolorando, since you have not loved purely, go forth sorrowing,
e parturisce! and be born again!
Oi me lasso, e freddo lo mio core, Ah, poor me, my heart is cold,
ke non sospiri tanto per amore for does it not sigh with love
ke tu morisse? enough to die?
Text: George Bruce
Duration c. 3'
Solo tenor and harp
text: Pope Leo XIII
Duration: c. 20'
Instrumentation: Chorus (SATB), harmonium, piano
(see CIVIL WarS)
On Photography
For mixed chorus, Harmonium and piano.
This piece was written in 1983 as part of the work I did with Robert Wilson on his large-scale operatic project The CIVIL WarS, designed to be part of the opening of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Although the piece was rehearsed and prepared for recording by the choir of South German Radio in Baden Baden, it was never finally performed due to the collapse of the overall project.
The choice of text and subject matter was mine. At the time we were working on a scene which involved imagery from Jules Verne. I knew that Verne had met Pope Leo XIII in 1884 (a hundred years before our work was due to reach fruition) and that Leo XIII had written a poem Ars Photographica in praise of photography (a modern subject using an archaic language, Latin) when he was still Cardinal Pecci in Perugia in 1867. As it happened, the writer Susan Sontag was considering joining the project and we spoke together several times. I knew, of course, that one of her first major books was on photography, and this led me to set Leo's text almost as a way of welcoming her on to the team. Until 1994 the manuscript was lost - I eventually found it behind a filing cabinet when clearing my office - but a setting of the text was included in my 1984 cantata Effarene, which rescued and reworked a number of elements from that time. Here the text is set both in Latin and in Italian translation, and the final section has a brief Latin epitaph. The instrumental accompaniment reflected the fact that I had then recently played the harmonium part in Rossini's Petite Messe Solennelle.
Text for On Photography
(Ars Photographica (1867))
Expressa solis spiculo
Nitens imago, quam bene
Frontis decus, vim luminum
Refers, et oris gratiam.
O mira virtus ingeni
Novumque monstrum! Imaginem
Naturae Apelles aemulus
Non pulchriorem pingeret.
(L'Arte Fotografica (trans. Cesario Testa))
Tersa, perfetta imagine,
Di sol da un raggio uscita,
Oh come ben sai rendere
Movenze, aspetto e vita
Oh nuovo e gran miraculo
Dell'Arte! Opre più belle
Ha mai dipinto l'emulo
Della Natura Apelle?
Resonare fibris, labii reatum, mira ut queant laxis mira gestorum Sancte Joannes;
Famuli tuorum solve polluti reatum, ut queant laxis Sancte Joannes.
(On Photography)
Sun-wrought with magic of the skies
The image fair before me lies:
Deep-vaulted brain and sparkling eyes
And lip's fine chiselling.
O miracle of human thought,
O art with newest marvels fraught -
Apelles, Nature's rival, wrought
No fairer imaging!
(trans. H.T. Henry, 1902)
Duration 15'
Dedication: to Nexus
Instrumentation: 5 percussion
First performance: Nexus, Queen Elizabeth Hall, London, November 1994
One Last Bar Then Joe Can Sing (1994)
Commissioned by the Arts Council of Great Britain for the virtuoso percussion quintet Nexus, this piece is a reflection on aspects of percussion history, both personal and musical. The members of Nexus are my friends (I played in the Steve Reich Ensemble along with Russ Hartenberger, for example, in 1972 - the year after Nexus was formed) and I have known their playing as an ensemble for almost 20 years. The piece exploits not only the tremendous virtuosity of Nexus but rather more their wonderful musicality and subtlety. The piece starts from the last bar at the end of the first part of my first opera Medea, a very short coda for a quintet of untuned percussion instruments. In my new piece, however, this one apparently innocuous bar is progressively fragmented until it is taken over, little by little, by the addition of tuned percussion instruments. Eventually two metal tuned instruments (crotales and songbells) play aria-like material with bows, occasionally joined by the xylophone, and accompanied by marimba and xylophone ostinati.The piece ends with a coda in which phrases are passed from bowed vibraphone to bowed crotales to bowed songbells, supported by tremolos on two marimbas. The rare 3-octave songbells which Nexus owns is one of the great American instrument maker J. C. Deagan's particularly fine instruments and the piece is effectively a kind of homage to Deagan - the Stradivarius of the tuned percussion family. Deagan was a close collaborator with Percy Grainger in the development of tuned percussion music between the wars and I have always admired Grainger's imaginative and audacious use of percussion. The family of keyboard percussion is, for me, as important a group as, say, the string family and equally capable of expressive playing. Indeed in Medea not only does the orchestra have no violins (the strings are from violas downwards) but the percussion section replaces, in effect, the more conventionally important first violins and my knowledge of the music of Nexus was a major factor in this decision.
Gavin Bryars
Theatre piece for 2 singers.
Published in EMC Visual Anthology.
First performance: Black Swan, York, 30 November 1984
Duration: 12'
Instrumentation: Two pianos,( 6 or 8 hands)
First performance: University of Louvain, Belgium, 12 December 1977.
Out of Zaleski's Gazebo (1977-78)
This piece, for two pianos 6 or 8 hands, was written for a concert given by myself with John White and Christopher Hobbs in Belgium in December 1977. I subsequently made a version for 8 hands to involve my close colleague and friend Dave Smith in 1978. The piece originates in another work, for piano, tuned percussion, tuba and horn called Poggioli in Zaleski's Gazebo which I wrote for John White's first concert of Garden Furniture Music at the AIR Gallery, London earlier in 1977. Poggioli and Zaleski are fictional detectives - from writers T S Stribling and M P Shiel respectively, who represent opposing poles of the detective process. The one blunders from solution to possible solution, while the other is the model of pure ratiocination. (Both, incidentally, are aristocrats.) This two-piano piece contains allusions to the perfumed harmonies of Lord Berners and Siegfried Karg-Elert, with periodic cadences from Percy Grainger breathing diatonic fresh air into the otherwise heady atmosphere. It is played at a relentlessly fast tempo, only slowing down for the gentle coda where, as in White's SS, there is a final false note.
Out of Zaleski's Gazebo (1977-8)
Out of Zaleski's Gazebo, for 2 pianos, 6 or 8 hands, was written at the end of 1977 and is "out of" an earlier chamber piece called Poggioli in Zaleski's Gazebo in which the characteristics of two different fictional detectives (Count Poggioli and Prince Zaleski) are contrasted. Poggioli solved cases by blundering from one solution to another until he happened on the correct one, while Zaleski was a model of pure ratiocination, never leaving his study, playing an air from Lakmé on the harmonium, fingering an Egyptian scarab, and smoking hashish. The perfumed harmonies associated with him are subject to motoric and obsessive repetition, gradually descending in the first half of the piece, and rapidly ascending in the second half. Periodically short cadences from the music of Percy Grainger force a breath of fresh air into the music. The piece was written at a time when I was working in Composer/Performer ensembles with colleagues such as John White and Chris Hobbs with whom I gave the first performance in Belgium in December 1977.
Gavin Bryars
An installation and series of performances devised by the Quay Brothers for various locations in Leeds
Overworlds and Underworlds
This installation, devised by the Quay Brothers involved several components. For "Overworlds" I wrote a number of songs for children's choir and percussion ensemble/recorders based on the music of Carl Orff, but with new poems by Blake Morrison. The songs were performed in a very beautiful Victoria archade in he centre of Leeds by the children's choir of Opera North, with the new songs being sung directly after the Orff song from which they derived.
Underworlds had a sound installatuon, designed by Mic Pool, which combined many recorded elements - rehearsal material from the children's songs, recordings of low brass, wind and percussion from the orchestra of Opera North, Leeds Parish Church bells, and many other sources. There were several hour-long pieces which were fed into various spaces in the arches below Leeds railways station. This is an area know as the Dark Arches, where the River Aire had been diverted from its course to allow the station to be built in the 19th century. The performance went on for several hours. Different dance ensembles created dances in these spaces, using the installation sound as a source.
The image shown here was created by sound designer Mic Pool and is one of the most stunning images from the whole event.


text:
garage sale
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(→Easter Eggs)
Thejesterx (Talk | contribs)
(added forum thread)
|Line 55:
|Line 55:
* [[HR:sbemail129.html|watch "garage sale"]]
* [[HR:sbemail129.html|watch "garage sale"]]
* [[HR:sbemail129.swf|view the Flash file for "garage sale"]]
* [[HR:sbemail129.swf|view the Flash file for "garage sale"]]
{{Strong Bad Email}}
{{Strong Bad Email}}
Revision as of 06:43, 2 May 2005
Strong Bad Email #129
Strong Bad gives his thoughts on garage sales and garage sale patrons.
Cast (in order of appearance): Strong Bad, Marzipan, Bubs, Strong Sad, Senor Cardgage, Coach Z, The Cheat, Homestar Runner, Frank Bennedetto
Places: Computer Room, The Field, Homestar's House
Computer: Lappy 486
Date: May 2, 2005
STRONG BAD: {singing} Here comes another email that I'll answer for you! Here comes another email that I'll answer for you!
subject: garage sale=money! hey strong bad! I seriously think you need to have a garage sale!! I mean think of all da things you could get with all that money... cat (yeah that's my real name)
{Strong Bad doesn't read the part in parentheses and instead says...}
STRONG BAD: ...and something I don't wanna read. {typing} What sort of 'da things' are we talking about here, Catman? 'Da bomb' or, uh, 'da boyz' or even, {not typed} uh, {typing} 'da hood?' Nah, I don't think I want any of dose. {clears screen}Lemme tell you a thing or two about garage sales: Ya ever get the feeling that the people just got lazy taking the trash out, so they stopped right there on the driveway and started putting price tags on things? I mean, isn't it just a little suspicious that there's only a one-letter difference between 'garage sale' and 'garbage sale?' {says "garbage" as "gar-BAGE"} Except, don't ever say 'garbage' {same way} like that. That's, like, the only joke Moms have and they can keep it for all I care. So then there's the issue of the sort of folks that frequent garage sales: bottom feeders, lemme tell ya.
{Cut to Strong Bad's garage sale. There is a sign reading "GAR[s]B[/s]AGE SALE" in the middle of The Field, and merchandise (see below) is found everywhere with various price tags. Marzipan walks up.}
STRONG BAD: {voiceover} First, there's the haggler, {"THE HAGGLER" appears in the middle of the screen with a bowler derby on it for a moment.} the guy who spends all day trying to talk you down from a quarter to twenty-two cents for some worthless piece of crap.
{The camera scrolls over to Bubs and Strong Bad. Bubs is holding an ugly doll.}
BUBS: I'll give you two thin dimes for this pantyhose doll.
STRONG BAD: First off, uh, that is Aunt Gert! And secondly, she's worth WAY more than the quarter I'm asking for her! Heck, I paid six-fifty for her new! And them's 1998 dollars!
BUBS: Well, maybe if she was wearing a troll outfit, or a witch's hat or somethin'...
STRONG BAD: I'll let her go for twenty-four cents.
BUBS: Twenty-two and a half!
STRONG BAD: You, my friend... just bought yourself an Aunt Gert.
Easter Eggs
- At the beginning, click on "da bomb," "da boyz" and "da hood" to bring up t-shirts with phrases incorporating each term.
- At the end, click on the Heavy Lourde to see Homestar make an offer he can't refuse.
- Click on the answering machine to see more of Coach Z.