text:
This interview was originally broadcast on Jan. 23, 2012.
The individuals who participated in the first Inquisition 800 years ago kept detailed records of their activities. Vast archival collections at the Vatican, in France and in Spain contain accounts of torture victims' cries, descriptions of funeral pyres and even meticulous financial records about the price of torture equipment.
"[There are] expense accounts [for things] like how much did the rope cost to tie the hands of the person you burnt at the stake," says writer Cullen Murphy. "The people who were doing interrogations were meticulous."
Murphy's book God's Jury: The Inquisition and the Making of the Modern World comes out in paperback next week. It traces the history of the Inquisitions — there were several — and draws parallels between some of the interrogation techniques used in previous centuries with the ones used today.
"A few years ago, the intelligence agencies had some transcripts released ... of interrogations that were done at Guantanamo, and the interrogations done by the Inquisition were surprisingly similar and just as detailed," he tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross. "[They were] virtually verbatim."
Eight-hundred years ago, the first Inquisition was initially designed to deal with an upsurge in heretical activity from the Cathars in France. The Cathars' unconventional interpretation of religious doctrine worried Pope Gregory and other Vatican leaders.
"The papacy was trying to centralize itself and assert its authority," says Murphy. "So the pope basically deputizes various clerics. ... They would come to a town, announce that they were there. They would begin to question people. Sometimes they would use harsh methods. ... They would conduct tribunals and they would sentence people to various punishments."
The Use Of Torture
Clerics were given authority to use torture in a document issued by the pope in 1252. They were also given advice manuals with instructions for interrogating suspected heretics. Murphy says he was astonished by the similarities between the Inquisitor advice manual and modern-day guides for intelligence agencies and police departments.
"You see that everything that is being suggested now had already been anticipated," he says. "For instance, you want to spook the person you're interrogating. [The Inquisitors] have a whole bunch of tricks they lay out. The person to be interrogated comes into the room and the inquisitor [advice manual advises]: 'Be sitting there. Have a huge stack of documents in front of you. And as the person is answering questions, flip through the documents as if you have more information than this person could dream of. And every so often, shake your head as if you can't believe what they're saying.' It's almost word for word, you find the same thing in modern handbooks."
When Inquisitors needed a confession, they could elevate their interrogations to include torture.
"The basic line here was, 'Has this person confessed or not?' " says Cullen. "The answer is, 'If they confess, it's true. So torture comes into the picture when you need a confession."
But the Inquisitors were aware that confessions given under torture could be problematic, says Murphy.
"If a person confessed to something under torture, the Inquisitors were not prepared to accept that confession as evidence," he says. "They said, 'Now you have to give it some time. Let a day go by. Bring the person someplace else. Then ask them again. And if they still confess, then we'll accept that confession.' But it's not as if the person who made the confession has forgotten the fact that they were just tortured and couldn't be tortured again. [The Inquisitors] were mindful of the flaws of torture, but they went ahead and did it anyway."
More Elaborate Forms Of Torture
A century later, during the Spanish Inquisition, interrogators began using more elaborate forms of torture, such as the rack, the pulley and waterboarding. They also began parading their victims through the streets in elaborate displays of punishment.
"You would invite the diplomatic core to come and watch. The nobility would be there," he says. "People would be lined up in the streets to watch everyone going by. If people who were condemned had in fact already died, their bodies would be dug up and they'd be brought by on carts."
The dead bodies were burned on public funeral pyres. The living were publicly tried, and then tortured for several hours. Some were burned at the stake. Others were forced to become galley slaves or returned to prison for more bouts of torture.
"Technically during the Inquisition, there were guidelines in place that said ... you were supposed to torture a person only once," says Murphy. "But if you wanted to torture a person a second time or a third time, there was a way in which you could simply define the second, third or fourth time as simply a continuance of the first time."
Interview Highlights
The idea that the pope would authorize the use of something as heinous as torture by priests or people working for priests is a pretty astonishing development.
On accounts of torturers from the first Inquisition
"The idea that the pope would authorize the use of something as heinous as torture by priests or people working for priests is a pretty astonishing development. Ultimately, the justification that it invokes is the same one anyone uses when they're using torture for reasons that are not sadistic and that is, in essence: 'The moral cause that we're engaged in is too important to settle for half-measures.' ... When you read accounts of torture, you get the unmistakable impression that the people doing the torture or conducting the torture — somewhere inside them, they think they are saving souls."
On the number of people killed in the first Inquisition
"There were thousands of people who were killed. ... I think the rough ratio [was] for every person burned at the stake, maybe 50 others who were sentenced to something. But then if you factor in the families of those people and the people called as witnesses, you have a great deal of penetration into society. Everybody was aware that this was going on. It's not hard to see why the Inquisition weighs so heavily on the psychology of people at the time."
On the state-run Spanish Inquisition
"The reason for it was that Jews who had converted to Christianity were reverting to Judaism. That was the charge. And the degree to which it was or wasn't true is one of those things historians debate to this day. These charges were leveled at a time when anti-Semitism in Spain was on the increase. There had been terrible pogroms beginning in the 14th century, forced conversions, continual rounding up of Jews into ghettos. The situation was terrible even before the Inquisition began, and once the Inquisition began, it became worse."
"The pope had control over the Medieval Inquisition and over the Inquisition that came later, but the pope had no control over the Spanish Inquisition. As a result, you had the government — the monarchs — presented with this extraordinary tool that they could use for a variety of purposes. ... The Spanish government did not have the welfare of victims in mind. What it did have was the uses it could put prisoners to. And one of the things the monarchy needed was galley slaves [to row ships]. It's probably the worst punishment that can ever be meted out. Your life expectancy was not more than a couple years."
On waterboarding
"Many people in the Bush administration were insisting [it] was not torture at all. The Inquisition was actually very clear on the matter. It obviously was torture. That's why they were using it."
On the printing press and the third Inquisition
"For a long time, the church had had an effective monopoly on the intellectual life in Europe. Publishing was something that involved copying manuscripts. ... Suddenly, there's a new technology on the block. And the church sees this as a threat. So the church sees a combined attack — from the printing press and the Protestant Reformation — [and that] is really the thing that instigates the third Inquisition. ... This is the Inquisition that puts Galileo on trial. ... It's the Inquisition that starts the index of forbidden books."
Copyright 2023 Fresh Air. To see more, visit Fresh Air.


text:
UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err., v. BOB CELESTINE.
30 S.Ct. 93
54 L.Ed. 195
UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err.,
No. 235.
Argued October 14, 1909.
Decided December 13, 1909.
Assistant Attorney General Harr for plaintiff in error.
No counsel appeared for defendant in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
At the May term, 1908, of the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Washington an indictment was found against the defendant, the first count of which reads:
'That one Bob Celestine, an Indian, on the 30th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1906, within the limits of the Tulalip Indian Reservation, within the boundaries of the state of Washington, and within said western district of Washington, northern division, did, with force and arms, make an assault upon one Mary Chealco, an Indian woman, with an ax, which the said Bob Celestine then and there held in his hands, and did then and there feloniously, wilfully, knowingly, and with malice aforethought, strike, beat, and mortally wound said Mary Chealco with said ax upon the head of the said Mary Chealco, with intent to kill and murder her, the said Mary Chealco, giving to her, the said Mary Chealco, a mortal wound upon the head, from which mortal wound said Mary Chealco then and there languished and died, within said Tulalip Indian Reservation, in said western district of Washington.'
The second count is in similar terms, but charges in addition that the Tulalip Indian Reservation, where the offense was committed, is 'a place under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.' By a special plea the defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the circuit court, alleging that at the time of the offense there had been allotted to him as the head of a family certain lands situate on the Tulalip Indian Reservation, within the limits of the state (then territory) of Washington, under the provisions of the treaty of January 22, 1855 (12 Stat. at L. 927), and in accordance with an executive order of December 23, 1873, and that a patent therefor was issued and delivered to him on May 19, 1885; that he was then a member of the Tulalip tribe of Indians; that ever since that date he 'has been and still is a citizen of the United States, and therefore subject to the laws of the territory and state of Washington;' that he 'was born within the territorial limits of the United States and has always resided within such limits,' and that therefore he was entitled to 'all the rights, privileges, and immunities of said citizens of the United States.'
This plea also alleged that the murdered woman was a citizen of the United States and the widow of one Chealco Peter, who, like the defendant, had received an allotment of land within the Tulalip Reservation, and a patent thereof similar to that of defendant; that she became entitled to her husband's allotment upon his death, and that the place of the commission of the offense was upon the very land allotted to said Chealco Peter, and without the jurisdiction of the court.
A demurrer by the government to the plea was overruled and judgment entered sustaining the plea.
A writ of error to this court was then sued out by the United States under authority of the act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. at L. 1246, chap. 2564, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1907, p. 209).
[Argument of Counsel from pages 280-283 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:
The fourth paragraph of the act of March 2, 1907, supra, authorizes a review of a 'decision or judgment sustaining a special plea in bar, when the defendant has not been put in jeopardy.' The defendant in this case had not been put upon trial, therefore he had not been in jeopardy. The decision of the circuit court sustained the special plea in bar. This fourth paragraph differs from the two preceding, in that the review authorized by them is limited to cases in which 'the decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded,' while no such limitation appears in this paragraph. The full significance of this difference need not now be determined, but clearly the fourth paragraph gives to this court a right to review the precise question decided by a trial court in sustaining a special plea in bar, although that decision may involve the application rather than the invalidity or construction, strictly speaking, of the statute upon which the indictment was founded.
The general provision of the statutes in reference to punishment of the crime of murder committed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is found in chap. 3, title 70, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3625), as amended by the act of January 15, 1897 (29 Stat. at L. 487, chap. 29, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3620).
Section 9 of the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. at L. 385, chap. 341), provides for the punishment of certain crimes by Indians, as follows: 'That immediately upon and after the date of the passage of this act, all Indians committing against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following crimes, namely, murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny within any territory of the United States . . . and all such Indians committing any of the above crimes against the person or property of another Indian or other person within the boundaries of any state of the United States, and within the limits of any Indian reservation, shall be subject to the same laws, tried in the same courts, and in the same manner, and subject to the same penalties, as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.'
By this section, Indians committing against other Indians on a reservation in a state any of the crimes named are subject to Federal laws and tried in Federal courts.
That the offense was committed within the limits of the Tulalip Indian Reservation is distinctly charged in the indictment, and not challenged in the plea in bar. Although the defendant had received a patent for the land within that reservation, and although the murdered woman was the owner of another tract within such limits, also patented, both tracts remained within the reservation until Congress excluded them therefrom.
By the second clause of § 3, art. 4, of the Constitution, to Congress, and to it alone, is given 'power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.' From an early time in the history of the government it has exercised this power, and has also been legislating concerning Indians occupying such territory. Without noticing prior acts, it is sufficient to refer to that of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. at L. 729, chap. 161), the 1st section of which reads:
'Be it enacted, . . . that all that part of the United States west of the Mississippi, and not within the states of Missouri and Louisiana, or the territory of Arkansas, and also that part of the United States east of the Mississippi river, and not within any state, to which the Indian title has not been extinguished, for the purposes of this act be taken and deemed to be the Indian country.'
Construing this section, it was decided, in Bates v. Clark, 95 U. S. 204, 209, 24 L. ed. 471, 473, that all the country described in the act as 'Indian country' remains such 'so long as the Indians retain their original title to the soil, and ceases to be Indian country whenever they lose that title, in the absence of any different provision by treaty or by act of Congress.' The section was repealed by Rev. Stat. § 5596 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3750). Still, it was held that it might be referred to for the purpose of determining what was meant by the term 'Indian country' when found in sections of the Revised Statutes which were re-enactments of other sections of prior legislation. Ex parte Crow Dog (Ex parte Kang-Gi-Shun-Ca) 109 U. S. 556, 27 L. ed. 1030, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; United States v. Le Bris, 121 U. S. 278, 30 L. ed. 946, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 894. But the word 'reservation' has a different meaning, for while the body of land described in the section quoted as 'Indian country' was a reservation, yet a reservation is not necessarily 'Indian country.' The word is used in the land law to describe any body of land, large or small, which Congress has reserved from sale for any purpose. It may be a military reservation, or an Indian reservation, or, indeed, one for any purpose for which Congress has authority to provide, and, when Congress has once established a reservation, all tracts included within it remain a part of the reservation until separated therefrom by Congress. By the treaty of January 22, 1855 (12 Stat. at L. 927), known as the treaty of Point Elliott, it was provided that certain lands should be reserved for the 'use and occupation of the Indians.' And, further, article 3, 'that the President may establish the central agency and general reservation at such other point as he may deem for the benefit of the Indians.' On December 23, 1873, the President established the boundaries of the Tulalip Reservation in the territory of Washington. The tract subsequently allotted to defendant, as well as that upon which the crime was committed, are within the boundaries prescribed in this executive order. Article 7 of the treaty of Point Elliott authorizes the President to set apart separate tracts within the reservation to such individuals or families as were willing to avail themselves of the privilege and locate on the same as a permanent home, on the same terms and subject to the same regulations as are provided in the sixth article of the treaty with the Omahas, so far as the same may be applicable. The treaty with the Omahas, March 16, 1854 (10 Stat. at L. 1043), provides for the location by an individual or family on land within the Omaha Reservation, its assignment for a permanent home, for the issue of a patent to such person or family, with conditions against alienation or leasing, exemption from levy, sale, or forfeiture, not to be disturbed by the state without the consent of Congress; and, further, that if the 'person or family shall at any time neglect or refuse to occupy and till a portion of the lands assigned and on which they have located, or shall rove from place to place, the President may, if the patent shall have been issued, cancel the assignment; . . . and, in default of their return, the tract may be declared abandoned, and thereafter assigned to some other person or family of such tribe, or disposed of as is provided for the disposition of the excess of said land.' The patent issued to the defendant recites that it is issued under the provisions of the article referred to in the treaty with the Omaha Indians.
The plea does not challenge the continued tribal organization of the Tulalip Indians, or question that the tribe, as well as the general body of the reservation, continues under the general care of the United States. Indeed, at the time of the crime, the Tulalip Reservation was occupied by 453 Indians, under the charge of an Indian agent. Rep. Com. Ind. Affairs, 1906, pp. 377, 483. Thirteen thousand, five hundred and sixty acres have been allotted to ninety-four of these Indians, and the residue 8,930 acres, remains unallotted. Rep. Com. Ind. Affairs, 1908, p. 162. The fact of the patent to Chealco Peter is all that is claimed shows a want of jurisdiction of the United States over the place of the offense, but the conditions of the treaty with the Omahas, made reference a part of the treaty with the Tulalip Indians, providing for only a conditional alienation of the lands, make it clear that the special jurisdiction of the United States has not been taken away.
Eells v. Ross (12 C. C. A. 205, 29 U. S. App. 59, 64 Fed. 417, circuit court of appeals of the United States for the ninth circuit) presented the question of the revocation of a reservation. The treaty with the Puyallup Indians [10 Stat. at L. 1132] contains like provisions as to alienation and forfeiture as are in the treaty with the Omahas. 24 Stat. at L. 388, chap. 119. Circuit Judge McKenna, now Mr. Justice McKenna of this court, in delivering the unanimous opinion of that court, said (page 207):
'It is not disputed that the lands are a part of those set apart as the Puyallup Reservation, and that the reservation has not been directly revoked; but it is contended that the allotment of the lands in severalty, and afterwards making the Indians citizens, necessarily had the effect to revoke the reservation. There is plausibility in the argument, and it needs to be carefully considered. It is clear that the allotment alone could not have this effect. (The Kansas Indians [Blue Jacket v. Johnson County] 5 Wall. 737, 18 L. ed. 667), and citizenship can only have it if citizenship is inconsistent with the existence of a reservation. It is not necessarily so. Some of the restraints of a reservation may be inconsistent with the rights of citizens. The advantages of a reservation are not; and if, to secure the latter to the Indians, others not Indians are excluded, it is not clear what right they have to complain. The act of 1887, which confers citizenship, clearly, does not emancipate the Indians from all control, or abolish the reservations.'
Dick v. United States, 208 U. S. 340, 52 L. ed. 520, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399, does not conflict with these views, for there the place of the offense was the village of Culdesac, which although within the boundaries of the Nez Perce Reservation, as at first established, was located upon lands passed by patent from the United States under the town site laws to the probate judge of Nez Perce county, and by the town site act such location could only be on public lands. Rev. Stat. § 2380, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1455.
But it is contended that although the crime may have been committed on an Indian reservation, yet it does not come within the last sentence of § 9 of the act of March 3, 1885, supra, by reason of the fact that both defendant and the woman murdered held patents from the United States, and Re Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 49 L. ed. 848, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506, is cited as authority. But there are these important differences between the two cases. In that, the person to whom the defendant sold liquor (the charge being that of selling liquor to an Indian) had received a patent under the provisions of the act of Congress of February 8, 1887, known as the general allotment act (24 Stat. at L. 388, chap. 119), whereas the patents in this case were issued under the authority of the treaty with the Omahas, March 16, 1854, supra, and the treaty of Point Elliott, January 22, 1855, supra. It also appeared that the sale was made not on any reservation, while here the murder was committed within the limits of one.
Section 5 of the act of February 8, 1887, provides 'that upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue therefor,' etc. Section 6 is as follows:
'Sec. 6. That upon the completion of said allotments and the patenting of the lands to said allottees, each and every member of the respective bands or tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state or territory in which they may reside; and no territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indian within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. And every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States, to whom allotments shall have been made under the provisions of this act, or under any law or treaty, and every Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States who has voluntarily taken up within said limits his residence, separate and apart from any tribe of Indians therein, and has adopted the habits of civilized life, is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States, and is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens, whether said Indian has been or not, by birth or otherwise, a member of any tribe of Indians within the territorial limits of the United States, without in any manner impairing or otherwise affecting the right of any such Indian to tribal or other property.'
It will be seen that the first sentence of the latter section, which provides that the allottees shall be 'subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state or territory in which they may reside,' applies to allotments and patents made under the authority of that act, whereas the other sentence refers to allotments made under the act of 1887, or under any law or treaty, and in respect to the allottee it is provided only that he 'is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States, and is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizens.' In other words, so far as the plea is concerned, it is only that Celestine was a citizen of the United States, and entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of such citizenship.
We assume, without deciding, that although Celestine was born within the territorial limits of the United States, he was not, under the 1st section of the 14th Amendment, a citizen of the United States prior to the issue of the patent to him; that the jurisdiction of the United States was over the tribe of which he was a member, and not over him personally; so that, by the act of 1887, he was given a citizenship in the United States and in the state which did not theretofore belong to him. But, although made a citizen of the United States and of the state, it does not follow that the United States lost jurisdiction over him for offenses committed within the limits of the reservation. We had occasion in Re Heff, supra, to notice the fact that the first dealings with Indians were with them as tribes, but that of late there had been a change in the policy, and a disposition to put an end to tribal organization, and give to them as individuals all the rights of citizenship, saying (p. 499):
'Of late years a new policy has found expression in the legislation of Congress,—a policy which looks to the breaking up of tribal relations, the establishing of the separate Indians in individual homes, free from national guardianship, and charged with all the rights and obligations of citizens of the United States. Of the power of the government to carry out this policy there can be no doubt. It is under no constitutional obligation to perpetually continue the relationship of guardian and ward. It may, at any time, abandon its guardianship, and leave the ward to assume and be subject to all the privileges and burdens of one sui juris. And it is for Congress to determine when and how that relationship of guardianship shall be abandoned. It is not within the power of the courts to overrule the judgment of Congress. It is true there may be a presumption that no radical departure is intended, and courts may wisely insist that the purpose of Congress be made clear by its legislation, but when that purpose is made clear, the question is at an end.'
Notwithstanding the gift of citizenship, both the defendant and the murdered woman remained Indians by race, and the crime was committed by one Indian upon the person of another, and within the limits of a reservation. Bearing in mind the rule that the legislation of Congress is to be construed in the interest of the Indian, it may fairly be held that the statute does not contemplate a surrender of jurisdiction over an offense committed by one Indian upon the person of another Indian within the limits of a reservation; at any rate, it cannot be said to be clear that Congress intended, by the mere grant of citizenship, to renounce entirely its jurisdiction over the individual members of this dependent race. There is not in this case in terms a subjection of the individual Indian to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the state; no grant to him of the benefit of those laws; no denial of the personal jurisdiction of the United States.
The act of May 8, 1906 (34 Stat. at L. 182, chap. 2348), extending to the expiration of the trust period the time when the allottees of the act of 1887 shall be subject to state laws, is worthy of note as suggesting that Congress, in granting full rights of citizenship to Indians, believed that it had been hasty. See, upon the general questions discussed, United States v. Mullin, 71 Fed. 682; Rainbow v. Young, 88 C. C. A. 653, 161 Fed. 835; State v. Columbia George, 39 Or. 127, 65 Pac. 604, Re Columbia George, 201 U. S. 641, 50 L. ed. 901, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 759; Couture v. United States, 207 U. S. 581, 52 L. ed. 350, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 259; Toy Toy v. Hopkins, 212 U. S. 542, 53 L. ed. 644, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 416.
The judgment is reversed.
The following state regulations pages link to this page.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
He was a boy she was a girl
can I make it anymore obvious?
He was a punk, she did ballet
What more can I say?
He wanted her,she'd never tell
secretly she wanted him as well
but all of her friends, stuck up their nose
they had a problem with his baggy clothes.
He was a skater boy,
she said see you later boy
he wasn't good enough for her
she had a pretty face
but her head was up in a space
she needed to come back down to earth
Five years from now, she sits at home
Feeding the baby she's all alone
She turns on T.V., guess who she sees
Skater boy rocking up MTV
She calls up her friends, they already know
And they've all got tickets to see his show
she tags along, and stands in the crowd
Looks up at the man that she turned down
He was a skater boy
She said see ya later boy
He wasn't good enough for her
Now he's a superstar
Slammin on his guitar
Does your pretty face see what he's worth?
He was a skater boy
She said see ya later boy
He wasn't good enough for her
Now he's a superstar
Slammin on his guitar
Does your pretty face see what he's worth?
Sorry girl, but you missed out
Well tough luck that boy's mine now
We are more than just good friends
This is how the story ends
Too bad that you couldn't see
See the man that boy could be
There is more than meets the eye
I see the soul that is inside
He's just a boy and I'm just a girl
can I make it anymore obvious?
We are in love, haven't you heard?
How we rock each others world!
I'm with the skaterboy
I said see ya later boy
I'll be backstage after the show
I'll be at the studio
Singing the song we wrote
About a girl you used to know.
Outfit: Inga Wind Clothing – "Linda" – NEW (mesh)
Gloves: [M.o.w] – Unisex Armwarmers" (mesh)
Shoes: [M.o.w] – "Urban Sneakers" (mesh)
Glasses: ERD – "Streemline"
Backpack: DECO – "Mesh Sling Pack" (mesh)
Earphones: Liberty – "Notes by Nero"
Tattoo: iNFLiCT – "Eternity"
Nails: Love Soul – "Spirit"
Hair: EMO-tions – "Amandine"
Skin: Silken Moon – "Wicca"
Lipstick: Silken Moon – "Wicca Lips Tarbaby" & "Wicca Lipstripes Silver"
Ears: Mandala – "Omimi" (mesh)
Skateboard & Poses: NSA – "Skater Pro"
Model & Photographer: Wicca Merlin


text:
Perched on the edge of Lake Rotoiti, St Arnaud is the perfect base from which to explore the honeydew forest and mountains of Nelson Lakes National Park.
The village of St Arnaud sits at the edge of Lake Rotoiti in the Nelson region, providing an ideal base for people who plan to hike or fish in Nelson Lakes National Park.
Both Lake Rotoroa and Rotoiti are well known for their fine brown trout, and if you walk along the jetty you'll see some friendly native eels swimming around the waters below. The lakes are a popular destination year round for boating, water skiing, swimming and kayaking, and hosts the annual New Zealand Antique and Classic Boatshow.
A short boat trip, or half day walk at Lake Rotoiti will take you through native forest to Whisky Falls, a 40m high, and fast-flowing waterfall. To learn about the ecology of honeydew beech forest, or simply to find guides to the local walks, treks and cycle trails, a visit to the Department of Conservation centre is recommended.
Nearby, Rainbow Ski Field is a paradise for skiers and snowboarders of all skill levels, offering slopes suitable for beginner, intermediate and advanced riders.


text:
Like our work? Arrange a meeting with us at our office, We'll be happy to work with you!
We are always looking for new talents and we were expecting you. Time to apply, buddy!
Display your portfolio items in custom box sizes. There are about 18 variants of portfolio boxes.


text:
Why we've chosen NTT DATA Business Solutions:
- Certified Hybris partner and e-commerce expert
- More than 20 years of trustful cooperation
- E-commerce expertise, already proven in pre-workshops
- Coherent, convincing omni-channel concept
- Close cooperation with SAP Hybris on an international level
Hybris' future safety as well as the coherent concept of our longtime partner itelligence* has convinced us of the innovative commerce solution. Today, Hybris is our strategic platform for the development of new business and sales models.
Thomas Brinkhoff, Manager Strategic Marketing / Parts Business / Back Office, Dürkopp Adler AG
The Bielefeld-based company Dürkopp Adler produces industrial sewing machines in the highest "Made in Germany" quality for clothing, cushions, leather, shoes, technical textiles, and the automotive industry.
Deductively, more than 25,000 completely configured end products can be produced.
Challenges and Benefits
- Make highly complex products easily available for customers, partners, and sales via online order
- Develop mobile solutions for field representatives
- Make use of technical product data, both in the shop and on the new homepage
- Create maximum data management efficiency
- Consistent, flexible processes due to full SAP integration
- An e-commerce suite designed for growth
- Central product access in real time for customers, partners, and sales
- Sale via all sales channels
- Multilingual sales support system
- Resource saving through around-the-clock Customer-Self-Service
- SAP Hybris Commerce Suite
- SAP NetWeaver Mobile Documents
- TopFlow xRM
Sewing group from Bielefeld relies on omni-channel commerce with SAP Hybris
About the Project
The Hybris E-Commerce Suite's success factor lies in the integration of all important business units. The basis for this is Product Information Management (PIM) that allows management of all product content centrally, consistently, and via all channels. As a result, Dürkopp Adler can improve content quality as well as global cooperation.
The company can score with a synchronized brand identity and a comprehensive service. Not only do customers benefit from the SAP Hybris solution, but Dürkopp Adler's employees also profit because they can use the same online storefront. As a result, they provide comprehensive support in real time with the Assisted Service Module (ASM).
Seamless connectivity to the SAP ERP landscape back-end processes is another persuasive key aspect of the solution. In doing so, a flexible and consistent exchange of product and customer data, availabilities and orders between SAP Hybris Commerce Suite and the existing ERP system is guaranteed. The sewing producer, located in Bielefeld, is so convinced of the concept that the affiliated companies, Beisler, Pfaff Industrial, and KSL, will also use SAP Hybris Commerce Suite.
Dürkopp Adler has recognized added value through NTT DATA Business Solutions' work setting up the new website as an additional channel. The decisive advantage: product data maintained in the PIM can be automatically transferred onto the website. Hence, the entered data are not only reused in the web shop, but on the website as well, reducing the data maintenance effort significantly. Moreover, an intuitive user interface and a responsive design facilitate the handling for customers as well as for employees.
With SAP Hybris, Dürkopp Adler has a sound e-commerce strategy platform for the future.
Similar posts
DENIOS AG, located in Germany, is a specialist in hazardous materials storage and handling, work safety as well as industry requirements and has a portfolio of over 10,000 products.
Master Data Management lays a first foundation stone on the way to a data-driven decision-making culture at FATH and clears the way for future innovations.
A smooth move onto SAP S/4HANA via a system conversion with the help of NTT DATA Business Solutions experts. Topped off with securely hosted systems at the NTT DATA Business Solutions data centers and Application Management Services for high-performing business processes in all 12 countries.


text:
Obedient Son, Ultimate Purifier, All-Providing Bridegroom
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. 3 When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." 4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." 6 Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he said to them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast." So they took it. 9 When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, "Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now." 11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.
You may recall that a couple weeks ago I said that what I choose to highlight as we move through the Gospel of John together is largely governed by John 1:14—"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." I think that John wrote this Gospel so that we today could be included in that amazing privilege "We have seen his glory." The glory of the incarnate Son of God.
Show Me Your Glory
This seeing has huge effects. Verse 16 sums them up: "And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace." When God gives us eyes to see the glory of Jesus—his beauty and greatness and worth—that seeing is the laser beam, as it were, along which great grace streams into our lives. Grace to love. Grace to rejoice. Grace to live forevermore.
So for every text I look at in this Gospel, I am praying: Show me your glory. Grant me your grace. Show me more of the greatness of Christ and grant me more likeness to Christ.
"Jesus Manifested His Glory"
Now in today's text there is a verse that confirms that we are on the right track when we think and pray this way. After the story of the wedding of Cana in John 2:1–10, John says in verse 11, "This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him." So here John puts the focus again on seeing the glory of Christ. His disciples saw his glory, and they believed on him.
That's why John is writing this Gospel. He wants to reveal the glory of Christ to us. And he wants us to receive the grace of believing. So it would be perfectly in accord with John's intention if we ask now, What is the glory of Christ revealed in this story of the wedding of Cana?
Jesus' Glory Revealed in This Story
I see at least three answers (I'm sure there are more): 1) The glory of an obedient Son, 2) the glory of an ultimate Purifier, and 3) the glory of an all-providing Bridegroom.
1. The Glory of an Obedient Son
What I have in mind here is that Jesus exalts his Sonship to the heavenly Father above his sonship to his earthly mother. So when I call him an obedient Son I mean the Son of his heavenly Father, not the son of his earthly mother. No doubt he was obedient to his earthly mother, but that is not the point here. In fact, I think Jesus' words are intentionally chosen to reveal a radical allegiance to God's will above his mother's will—and above all human attachments and affections.
Let's read John 2:1–4:
On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come."
That is a surprising response. I think Jesus knew it would be surprising when he said it, and John knew it would be when he recorded it. There was nothing cultural that says a man can't call his mother by the title "Mother"—"Mother, what does this have to do with me?" (see 1 Kings 2:20). But Jesus says, "Woman." His response isn't disrespectful, but it is abrupt. It may be like calling her "Ma'am" in some contexts today.
Doubly Abrupt
This seems brusque not only because Jesus calls her "Woman," or "Ma'am," but also because he says, "What does this have to do with me?" That phrase (ti emoi kai soi) is used five other times in the New Testament, and every time it is spoken by a demon to Jesus. When Jesus intrudes in their domain and starts to exert power where they were in control, they say, "What have you to do with us, O Son of God?" (Matthew 8:29). The gist of this phrase seems to be: "I don't want you pressing in here. You shouldn't be coming to me like this. This is not your affair."
So Jesus is doubly abrupt with his mother: He calls her "Woman," and he says, "This is not your place to be calling out my power." It does seem that his mother expected him to do something. We are not told what she expected, but we are told that Jesus did not approve of what she said.
Why the Stiff-Arm?
What makes this so significant is that Jesus goes right ahead and takes care of the problem by doing a miracle. So he could have said very gently, "Yes, Mother, I know. I'll take care of it immediately." That's what he did, but that's not what he said. That makes us ask why he spoke to her this way. If you are going to do what your mother has in mind anyway, why don't you simply agree with her and then do it? Why the off-putting words?
I think the answer is that Jesus felt a burden to make clear not only to his mother and his brothers and sisters, but to all the rest of us, that because of who he was, physical relationships on earth would not control him or oblige him. His mother and his physical family would have no special advantage to guide his ministry. And his mother and physical family would have no special advantage to receive his salvation.
The reason is that Jesus was absolutely bound to his Father's will in heaven and to no one on earth. This was the lodestar in his sky, and there could be no competing controls on his life. John 8:28: "I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." John 5:17–19: "My Father is working until now, and I am working. . . . [T]he Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." His miracles are not at his mother's disposal—or anyone else's. He is entirely in the sway of his heavenly Father. He and the Father are one, and they have one will.
Followers, Not Family
Jesus had to work against the assumption of his day that his physical family had an inside track of influence and blessing. Recall the time that a "woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, 'Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!' But he said, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!'" (Luke 11:27–28). In other words, people thought there would be a special spiritual advantage in being the mother of Jesus, but Jesus cut off that assumption, and focused attention not on physical relations, but spiritual relations.
Or another time the people called to him while he was speaking in a house: "'Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.' And he answered them, 'Who are my mother and my brothers?' And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers!'" (Mark 3:32–34). In other words, followers, not family, have a saving relationship with Jesus.
Faith, Not Pedigree
This is what we are seeing in John 2:4. "They have no wine. . . ." "Woman, what does this have to do with me?" (John 2:3–4). Your relationship with me as mother has no special weight here. You are a woman like every other woman. My Father in heaven, not any human being, determines what miracles I perform. And the pathway into my favor is faith, not family.
This is very good news for us. It doesn't matter what family line we come from. Your parents may be the most ungodly people you know. That will not keep you from the favor of Jesus. Faith, not family, makes you his friend.
So first we see the glory of an obedient Son. Part of Jesus' glory is his radical freedom from family partiality and his radical allegiance to his Father in heaven. "We have seen his glory, glory of the only Son from the Father" (John 1:14).
2. The Glory of an Ultimate Purifier
What I mean by this is that there is a reason Jesus chooses to use water jars that were appointed for "purification," not for drinking, when he performs his miracle and fills them with wine. And the reason is that he means to point to his own death as the ultimate purification for sins that would nullify and replace the Jewish purification rituals.
"My Hour Has Not Yet Come"
Here are the pointers. First, Jesus says to his mother at the end of verse 4, "My hour has not yet come." What is "his hour"? His hour is the hour of his death when he will die for sinners and make purification for sins.
- John 7:30: "So they were seeking to arrest him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his hour had not yet come."
- John 8:20: "No one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come."
- John 12:27: "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour."
- John 12:23–24:"The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
Jesus' hour was the hour of his death when the Lamb of God would take away the sin of the world. This would be the ultimate purification, as John said in 1 John 1:7, "the blood of Jesus his Son purifies us from all sin" (the verb is katharizei which corresponds to the word katharismon in John 2:6).
He Goes Ahead with the Miracle
The second pointer is that even though Jesus rebuffed his mother's request by saying "my hour has not yet come," nevertheless he goes ahead and does the miracle. So it seems to me (and others) that what Jesus is doing here is saying, "No, the climactic hour of my death is not yet here, but I will give you a sign of my death. I will give you an acted out parable of my death and what it will mean."1
Jars for Purification
The third pointer is that Jesus tells the servants to fill the purification jars with water. These were not used for drinking. They were used for bathing—for purifying. So it seems that Jesus wants to say that this is what "my hour" will be like: "I will take the purification rituals of Israel and replace them with a decisively new way of purification—namely, with my blood." And keep in mind that in John 6:55, Jesus said, "My blood is true drink." "Unless you . . . drink [the] blood [of the Son of Man], you have no life in you" (John 6:53).
So the second way that Jesus manifests his glory in this story is by giving a sign—an acted out parable—of how his own death, his own blood, his hour—will be the final, decisive, ultimate purification for sins. There is no ritual any more for cleansing. There is one way to be clean before God. John says it plainly in Revelation 7:14, "They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." The glory of Jesus is that he alone, once and for all, made purification for sins. You don't turn to ritual. You turn to Jesus.
3. The Glory of an All-Providing Bridegroom
In John 3:29–30, John the Baptist speaks one last time about the superiority of Jesus. He says, "The one who has the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is now complete. He must increase, but I must decrease."
The last thing John says about Jesus in this Gospel is that he is the bridegroom who has the bride, his growing band of disciples. And the first miracle Jesus does is to complete what the bridegroom at a wedding could not do.
A Perfect Groom
John 2:9–10 shows that the groom was finally responsible for the wine as his wedding. Which means it was his shortcoming that let the wedding run out of wine. Verse 9: "When the master of the feast [not the groom but the head waiter] tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom [now you see who is really in charge of the wine] and said to him, 'Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.'"
And of course, the point is: No, he didn't. He let the wine run out. That's the way it is with grooms on this earth. All husbands fail to be all that we ought to be. But quietly, omnipotently, Jesus plays the role of the perfect, all-providing Bridegroom. Out of water comes wine—better than any husband could provide.
So the third way that Jesus manifested his glory at this wedding was that he showed himself to be the all-providing Bridegroom for his bride, the great assembly of all those who trust in him.
Glory Overflowing with Grace
Each of these three manifestations of glory—obedient Son, ultimate Purifier, all-providing Bridegroom—is overflowing with grace. From his fullness, we receive grace upon grace.
As the obedient Son of God, he is not swayed by family ties—not Mary's and not yours. He is swayed by those who despair of pedigrees and trust his grace.
As the ultimate Purifier, he is not moved by religious ritual. He replaced all Old Testament ritual once for all with his own blood. There is one way to be pure before God—the hardest way for him and the easiest way for you: Wash your robes in the blood of the Lamb. Come to him. Live on him.
And as the all-providing Bridegroom, he never, never, never fails to give us what we need. The life-giving wine of his death in our place never runs out. He is the perfect, all-providing husband to his church.
Are You Washed in the Blood?
Therefore, as John says in Revelation 19:7, "Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready." Have you made yourself ready? Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
He does the same sort of thing in John 7:3–10. His brothers are going up to the feast in Jerusalem, and they know he can work miracles, and so they say to him (like his mother does in chapter 2), "If you do these things, show yourself to the world." But Jesus says to them, "You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." But after they go up, "then he also went up, not publicly but in private." The point is that the way they want him to show himself is not the way he means to reveal himself. So he does what they say but in a decisively different way. That is similar to the way he responds to his mother in John 2:1–10. ↩


text:
Promotions on the Online Casino
Promotions, there aren't many online casinos accepting US players, but if you look around you will find them. Being an editor. I'll only pick ones who are 100% friendly to US residents. And accept Visa & Mastercard to be listed on my review website. You'll


text:
Exciting News! Now Servicing Tesla Vehicles!
Van Nuys drivers' current vehicles have over a century of engineering behind them. They have evolved into complex and powerful machines. Developments in their engines, however, have coincided with advances in many other vehicle components, including the fluids. It's key for Van Nuys drivers to always use the right type of fluid for their sedan. Your service advisor and your owner's manual are resources for auto advice on exactly what types of fluid your vehicle needs. Improper fluids can damage your vehicle and void your warranty. Some of the fluids that have changed significantly in recent years are cooling system fluid, brake fluid, transmission fluid and motor oil. Each of these comes in many varieties now, and it's essential to know exactly which one your sedan needs. Cooling systems were once made of iron, steel and rubber. One coolant could be used to protect all of these materials. But new cooling systems have components made from a variety of metal alloys and several kinds of plastic, and coolants now contain additives that protect these various materials from corrosion. Since the materials vary among vehicle manufactruers, they require different additives, which means there are now a number of coolants on the market. The type of coolant your sedan needs depends on the materials used in its cooling system. Most vehicles used to require Dot 3 brake fluid. But now many vehicles need Dot 4 or Dot 5. Some Van Nuys auto owners mistakenly think the higher numbers reflect an increase in grade—that Dot 4 is somehow better than Dot 3. But the truth is, the numbers represent variations in formulation. The different formulas have evolved to meet the demands of newer and better brake systems. For a long time, transmission fluid came in two varieties: regular and friction-modified. But transmissions have come a long way recently, and so have the fluids that protect and lubricate them. There are several new types of fluid on the market, but your sedan is designed for just one of them. Of all the automotive fluids, motor oils have experienced perhaps the greatest advances in engineering and technology. A number of new weights and formulations have recently been developed to meet the needs of modern engines, which have more parts and tighter tolerances than ever before. Engines have become more sophisticated and complicated, but they have also increased in power and fuel efficiency. Despite these changes, Van Nuys drivers still need them to be highly durable. That's the job of motor oil. Motor oil still has to perform its original, critical function—lubricating and protecting the engine. It is formulated to help clean the engine as well. Modern motor oil also has to be thin enough to penetrate small engine passages yet still be resistant to vaporization.Specialized motor oils have also been developed for high-mileage vehicles. If your sedan has 75,000 miles or more on it, you might consider switching to one of these motor oils. They contain extra detergents that help clean older engines and critical additives that condition seals and gaskets that can become brittle with age. High-mileage motor oils come in weights and types just like regular motor oils, and Van Nuys motorists should match the proper weight and type of high-mileage oil to their vehicle in the same way you would regular motor oil. Over time, vehicles have developed in complexity and variety, and their fluids have developed as well. Each vehicle is matched to a set of fluids that meet its specific requirements. CA vehicle owners should take care to learn their sedan's fluid requirements before topping off at home. A large part of preventive maintenance for Van Nuys drivers is making sure your vehicle's fluids are clean and adequate, but they must be the proper type as well. As our sedans become more sophisticated, car care becomes more sophisticated as well. Learning about proper fluids for your vehicle will help you maintain its performance and prolong its life. Talk to us at AutoAid & Rescue in Van Nuys.


text:
The fallout-shelter craze of 1961
February/March 1980
It all began on the evening of July 25, 1961, when President John F. Kennedy went before television cameras to explain to his countrymen the grave meaning and still graver consequences of the deepening crisis over Berlin. The Russians were threatening American access rights to that isolated city, the President told an audience of 50,000,000 tense and expectant Americans. Those rights might be terminated on December 31 when Premier Khrushchev signed, as he threatened to do, a separate peace treaty with East Germany. If the Russians used force to override our rights, Kennedy warned, they would be met with still greater force: "We do not want to fight but we have fought before." In consequence, he was calling upon Congress to appropriate $93,000,000 to provide shelter for the population against radioactive fallout. "In the coming months I hope to let every citizen know what steps he can take without delay to protect his family in case of attack." With those few ominous words about civil defense, set against a looming confrontation with the Kremlin, President Kennedy triggered off what was to become a national craze, a spectacular bubble, and one of the most revealing moral debates in our history as "one nation under God." The subject: building fallout shelters for oneself and one's family in hopes of surviving attack in a thermonuclear war.
On the face of it, that enterprise seemed perfectly practical, prudent, and straightforward—with or without presidential prompting. For a half-dozen years Americans had been told the basic facts about radioactive fallout. Should an atomic bomb burst in Times Square with the explosive force of five megatons (equivalent to 5,000,000 tons of TNT), virtually everything within a two-mile radius would be destroyed by the blast. Several miles from "groundzero," however, the great peril to human life was the radioactive dust and debris kicked up and sent flying by the explosion. That killing radiation could not penetrate concrete or steel or even earth or brick. Outside the target area a household that built a concrete shelter in its basement or underneath its garden could well survive a thermonuclear war, provided the family stocked its shelter with sufficient provisions to last two weeks. Why not build such a shelter just in case the "unthinkable" burst into reality?
The proposition was not even new on July 25, 1961. New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller had been an outspoken champion of home fallout shelters for years. Henry Luce and his mighty magazines also had been urging Americans for a long time to build their own private shelters. So had a number of eminent scientists, most notably the Nobel laureate Dr. Willard Libby of the Atomic Energy Commission. So, too, had the Eisenhower administration. From mid-1958 onward, the administration's Office of Civil Defense and Mobilization not only had promoted home shelters but also had put prototype shelter models on display around the country and had published a small library of manuals teaching Americans how to build one themselves. The results had been virtually nil. When Kennedy took office there were only about fifteen hundred home shelters in the entire country.
On the morning of July 26, however, the bully pulpit of the White House had once again demonstrated—so it seemed—its awesome power to mold public sentiment. President Kennedy had, quite simply, delivered one of the most frightening speeches in American history, a speech foreshadowing not merely a war but the unthinkable war: a war fought with soaring missiles, a war whose weapons were measured in million-ton units of TNT, a war that would not kill soldiers but the civilian population of the country. And the deadline for the end of peace, the end of the world as men knew it, might be sometime around December 31, just five months away.
On July 27, the New York Times reassured its readers that they were "calm" and "confident," that they showed "no shock and no sense of panic." Saying it did not make it so. The President, as James Reston of the self-same Times rightly put it, had scared "the daylights out of people," especially, as one Chicago housewife told a reporter, "when he started talking about civil defense and bomb shelters." Nothing had made the prospect of thermonuclear war seem more real than that, and Kennedy was well aware of it. The day after his electrifying speech the President drove home the point again. He was asking Congress for $10,000,000 to build an alarm system for private homes—the National Emergency Alarm Repeater, acronymically known as NEAR. You plugged a little device into your wall socket (price five to ten dollars) and the Air Defense Command would activate it when Soviet missiles began flying. That would give you about a half-hour to leap into a home shelter if, as the President had obliquely suggested, you had built one "without delay." On July 29, the administration gave home fallout shelters yet another push forward. Henceforth, announced the Federal Housing Authority, home-shelter builders would be eligible for insured home-improvement loans.
Presidential impulsion—phase one of the shelter craze—sent America flying at once into phase two: a frantic mass search for information, for blueprints, for precise lists of emergency supplies. Once-somnolent Civil Defense offices began jangling with the ring of telephones. Mail poured in until, by the end of August, Civil Defense officials reported that requests for information had reached "tidal wave proportions." In the aftermath of Kennedy's speech, Civil Defense officials distributed no fewer than 22,000,000 copies of the Eisenhower administration's Family Fallout Shelter . And millions of Americans requested another long-neglected government pamphlet: Family Food Stockpile for Survival . For the first time in their careers, Civil Defense officials found themselves in great demand as public speakers. In school assembly halls, church basements, bowling alleys, and rented movie theaters they lectured to large and avid audiences who wanted to know, first, if they lived outside a targeted area and, if so, what they could do about it at once. The answers usually made the front page of local newspapers, for civil defense had become news for the first time since the outbreak of World War II.
In the war-darkened summer of 1961, a West Coast woman interviewed after Kennedy's speech seemed to sum up perfectly the national mood: "I don't want a war. I don't want to build a bomb shelter, but I don't see what else we can do about it." The news headlines alone kept the public in a frenzy. On August 13, the world shook with fear and rage when the Communists sealed off East Berlin with barbed wire, preparatory to building the infamous Wall. Several days later the world trembled again when a U.S. military convoy from West Germany made its perilous way along the Autobahn to West Berlin. On August 31, fear and tension boiled over into outright hysteria when Khrushchev announced that the Soviet Union, after a three-year hiatus, was going to resume testing atomic weapons at once. That day there was nobody in America who could possibly have predicted that the shelter craze was a bubble that was soon to burst.
The very opposite seemed true. With public interest at fever pitch, fallout-shelter champions, frustrated for years, quickly launched a furious campaign to promote home fallout-shelter construction, "the greatest campaign of persuasion," the Nation noted, "in the history of American public relations." Cheerful optimism was the campaign keynote. "We must get the message into every home" that thermonuclear war is survivable, said Kennedy's director of the Office of Civil Defense and Mobilization. Comforting statistics filled the air. On September 2, for example, Federal Civil Defense spokesmen assured Americans that even if a hundredmegaton bomb fell in their vicinity, they stood "an excellent chance" of survival in a home shelter just twelve miles from ground-zero. Life magazine estimated that 94 per cent of the population could survive a Soviet attack if shelters were available to everyone. Dr. Libby put the figure at 90 to 95 per cent in a stirring series of syndicated articles he wrote for the Associated Press.
Shelter advocates even declined to concede that home shelters were merely a grim necessity. They put a halo of heroism around them. Building shelters, said Stuart Pittman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Civil Defense, gave Americans an "opportunity"—an opportunity "to demonstrate their will to face up to thermonuclear war." The shelter builder was deemed a modern-day pioneer showing the stern stuff that made America great when an American "plowed with a musket in his hand." Linking the thermonuclear present to the comforting pre-atomic past, the Washington Post offered plans for a fallout shelter with a "colonial motif," while Life , working up the same theme, described a fivefamily shelter being built on Long Island as a "modern stockade" in a somewhat farfetched comparison between rampaging Iroquois and radioactive isotopes.
In case even the pioneer spirit might sound too grim, shelter advocates cheerfully assured Americans that huddling in an eight-by-eight-foot bunker for two weeks might not be as grueling as it sounded. Time magazine suggested decorating one's shelter with a picture of an outdoor scene as a possible cure for cabin fever. The Library Journal advised future shelter dwellers to try to learn a new language. "The mental gymnastics would be salutary, if not downright fun ."
Most of all, insisted shelter advocates, home shelters were cheap and easy to build. Dr. Libby stirred the hopes of millions of modest wage-earners when he announced in his syndicated series that he had built a shelter in the backyard of his Bel-Air, California, home for a mere thirty dollars. Even the most complicated shelter recommended by the Civil Defense manuals, the double-walled, above-ground concrete shelter, replete with joists, block capping, and toggle joints, could be built "by any enterprising do-it-yourself family" said the editors of Life , who appended to their elaborate homeshelter story—"How You Can Survive Fallout"—a letter from President Kennedy urging Americans to "read and consider seriously the contents of this issue of Life ." The presidentially approved issue bore a cover photograph of a man enveloped in a transparent plastic bag described as a "civilian fallout suit." Its price was $21.95 and its worth as a radioactive shield, when seriously considered, didn't amount to much.
In truth, by the end of the long, weary summer, fallout began to look like a supremely ripe opportunity for profitable commerce. In September a rash of "survival stores" erupted around the country. There the home-shelter builder could purchase such items as: "a citizen's instrument kit" ($20.00) which told you how much radiation your body had absorbed while you waited for the all-clear signal; the Surviv-All, Incorporated, food kit ($8.95), which provided two weeks worth of rations for one; General Mills's MPF or "multipurpose food"; Nabisco's seven-pound tins of "survival rations," which reportedly tasted "like animal crackers"; Mead Johnson's Nutrament, originally developed as a quick lunch for assembly-line workers; a variety of blowers ($74.00) for forcing fresh air into your shelter; air filters ($55.00) to assure that the fresh air was not radioactive; and a profusion of "lifesaving kits" complete with "anti-radiation" pills and salves which turned out to be the lineal descendants of snake oil and the golden elixir.
Despite all the official calls for cheap do-it-yourself construction, shelter manufacturers, too, began appearing in droves. In July, 1961, there were only forty of them in the country. Two months later, reported the New York Times , one hundred and twenty had governmental approval, and there were hundreds more who did not. Most of them were suburban and small-town contractors prepared to make a fast dollar by installing backyard shelters rather than swimming pools. Others, more ambitious, offered completely prefabricated steel or concrete shelters priced, on the average, at around two thousand dollars. The Armco Steel Company of San Francisco combined prefabrication with do-it-yourself by marketing a shelter whose steel modules could be assembled like the parts of an Erector set. Advertising in the press, sending salesmen door-to-door, setting up their sales models in shopping-center parking lots, the "survival merchants," as Consumer Reports tartly labeled them, added their own promotional appeals to the national campaign for home fallout shelters. In the autumn virtually every state fair in the country displayed home-shelter models. At the Dallas Fair, the Federal Bomb & Fallout Shelter Company's thirteenhundred-and-fifty-dollar shelter—billed as "the only precast monolithic concrete shelter approved by the Office of Civil Defense!"—reportedly "outdrew the blue ribbon cattle and the midway rides as a popular attraction." People peeked into the concrete igloo, wondered, perhaps, what it would be like to live in a tomb for two weeks, and then went home and argued about shelters with family, friends, and neighbors.
To build or not build a shelter—that, by early October, had become the question of the hour. It was discussed in downtown cafeterias, suburban kitchens, country club bars, and roadside taverns. To many pro-shelter Americans it was simply a matter of prudence, "insurance" as President Kennedy had put it even before the Berlin crisis. As one New Jersey dentist explained, he carried an umbrella on a cloudy day, and "the world situation looks pretty cloudy today." Others expected war any moment and were determined to survive it. "I want to be one of the quarter of the population to escape and be around to build for the future," a Cambridge, Massachusetts, housewife told a Times reporter. There were patriotic arguments, too. Shelter builders insisted, echoing administration spokesmen, that they were helping to strengthen America. A people protected against fallout would discourage a Soviet attack and enable America to get tough with the Russians without fear of "nuclear blackmail." The arguments appeared unassailable, and on October 5, President Kennedy weighed in behind them with all the immense prestige of his office. That day he called on Americans to build private shelters for themselves and their families. Protection from radioactive fallout, said the President, "is within reach of every American willing to face the facts and act."
All the elements of a mass movement seemed firmly in place: millions of shelter manuals now rested in people's hands, a small army of dedicated Civil Defense officials were fanned out around the country, an international showdown still loomed, a President was at last openly calling for home shelters, and there were now hundreds of eager contractors ready to supply the expected demand. The Nation glumly predicted that the majority of Americans would respond to the call. Amazingly enough they did not. In an age of mass media and mass persuasion, the overwhelming majority of Americans could not be persuaded to do anything. For every American homeowner who decided to build a shelter, there were at least a hundred who still sat on their hands. At the height of the shelter craze the disparity between frantic interest and listless activity was astonishing. According to Civil Defense officials, the popular inertia was due to a merely temporary public "confusion." Americans, they said, still did not know exactly how to build an adequate home shelter nor did they still know for certain whether they lived sufficiently far away from a presumed Russian target to make a fallout shelter worthwhile. According to the Times , the inertia was due to a "fatalistic" attitude toward "the possibility of surviving atomic war." The newspaper quoted one Omaha resident who presumably spoke for millions: "Why worry about war? We're all going to be dead in the first five minutes anyway."
There were elements of truth in both explanations. The populace was confused about fallout, and millions of Americans were fatalistic. Moreover, even Americans who wanted to build shelters found themselves facing a discouraging battery of unexpected difficulties. The experience of Elk Grove Village, Illinois, was typical of many small towns. In August the whole community was determined to dig in for a thermonuclear showdown. The town fathers promised to do all in their power to help residents build shelters in the crawl spaces beneath their homes. Confusion set in at once, however, when Civil Defense experts pointed out that Elk Grove crawl spaces were too low to provide two weeks of shelter. The town fathers then urged the citizenry to dig underground. Alas, it turned out, the area's water table was too high to dig a ten-foot hole that stayed dry. "Underground Shelters Would Be Under Water," warned the Elk Grove Herald . Despite the enthusiasm of early August, three months went by without a single home shelter being constructed in the village.
Discouraging, too, were reports that fly-by-night operators were stalking the land. One Dallas woman had a steel fallout shelter installed by a contractor for $2,500. In the first heavy autumn rainstorm the roof caved in. When she called the contractor to complain, she found that he already had fled the jurisdiction. By mid-October the Federal Trade Commission was so burdened with complaints about unscrupulous shelter builders that it promised henceforth to monitor "fraudulent advertising campaigns for fallout shelters and survival kits."
Worse than the crooks were the cracks. Despite the cheery do-it-yourself instructions disseminated by Civil Defense spokesmen, it took uncommon skill to build the only kind of shelter that could keep out radiation, namely one that was airtight. One hole was fatal a retired Army officer learned after installing a $1,635 backyard shelter. "Now I have a beehive," he reported from Tennessee. One Civil Defense official admitted that of thirty home shelters he had inspected, twenty-seven failed to meet even minimum requirements for fallout protection. The glib advice about easy-to-build shelters began to look suspiciously mendacious, especially when Dr. Libby's nationally famous thirty-dollar shelter was partially destroyed in a brush fire.
Yet all these difficulties could have been overcome were it not for a quite unexpected turn of events. Slowly but surely millions of Americans were coming to the conclusion that private fallout shelters were morally indefensible.
Doubts about the morality of home shelters had been bubbling under the surface almost from the moment the frenzy began. What stirred them initially were the widely reported remarks made by an Austin, Texas, hardware dealer when his ninetythousand-dollar home shelter was completed in early August. He had outfitted his elaborate bunker, he told local reporters, with four rifles in order to shoot any neighbors who tried to invade it when the bombs began to fall. Moreover, in case they jumped into his haven before he did, "I've got a .38 tear-gas gun, and if I fire six or seven tear-gas bullets into the shelter, they'll either come out or the gas will get them." The Texan's views were brutally expressed but they were also undeniably logical. If you built a home shelter you would need a gun to keep out your shelterless neighbors, and in the hysteria of a thermonuclear alert you probably would have to do more than just wave it in the air. Civil Defense officials saw no moral difficulties in that. "There's nothing in the Christian ethic which denies one's right to protect oneself and one's family," said a Riverside County, California, Civil Defense official in the course of advising local residents to put pistols in their survival kits to fight off invading hordes from Los Angeles. In a frank August 18 article entitled "Gun Thy Neighbor?" Time came down squarely on the side of gunning. Why help those who had refused to help themselves? Against the ruthless moral logic of home shelters there was no public outcry at first. Because of that very silence an angry teacher of divinity at Vanderbilt University savagely taunted his fellow clergyman in print. Writing in the August 23 issue of the Christian Century he sarcastically called upon "ethicists and theologians" to contrive a new "nuclear ethics" based on the Gospels but with a few awkward injunctions left out, such as loving one's neighbor. Theologians, he said, now had a golden opportunity because "thousands of publicspirited preachers are awaiting some comfortable word which they can proclaim" to their shelter-building, gun-toting parishioners "during the coming months."
Despite the silence of the nation's clergy, however, those who wanted home shelters often felt qualms of conscience about building one. According to contractors, their customers would say things like, "I feel sort of ashamed of doing this," or "I know it sounds selfish, or perhaps immoral, but I have myself and my family to look out for and I don't want to have to share my shelter with anyone." Other shelter builders confessed to having "mixed emotions" about their shelters, a Times survey reported. Some contractors, too, felt moral pangs. "What sends chills up and down my spine," said one shelter manufacturer in Highland Park, Illinois, "is imagining a child or two out there saying 'Let me in!' when you're full and you just can't let them in."
Such moral qualms remained private until late September when, ironically enough, a Jesuit priest made a bold public effort to set them at rest. Writing in the Jesuit magazine America , Father L. C. McHugh, an associate editor of the magazine and a former teacher of ethics at Georgetown University, described home shelters as a "grass-roots movement for survival" being hindered by baseless moral scruples. The American people, he said, "need a little instruction in the grim guidelines of essential morality at the shelter hatchway." According to Father McHugh, the Christian right of selfdefense justifies "the use of violence to defend life and its equivalent goods," such as a lifesaving shelter. To love one's neighbor as thyself, he argued, was undoubtedly a "heroic" Christian virtue, but it was not a Christian duty. Indeed, it was "misguided charity" not to shoot a neighbor trying to invade one's jam-packed shelter.
Father McHugh's "essential morality" of the hatchway made headlines across the country. Here, stated with force and clarity, was the new "nuclear ethic" predicted by the Vanderbilt divine, but the "thousands of public-spirited preachers" refused to proclaim it. Instead they assailed it with uncommon fury. On October 13, the Reverend Angus Dun, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C., struck the first major blow against "nuclear ethics." To repel with a gun neighbors seeking shelter, thundered Bishop Dun, was "utterly immoral." He professed himself appalled "at this business of preparing people to push their neighbor's children out of a shelter. … I do not see how any Christian conscience can condone a policy which puts supreme emphasis on saving your own skin, without regard to the plight of your neighbor." Across the country clergymen echoed Bishop Dun's sense of outrage. A Jesuit priest in Chicago called his fellow Jesuit's arguments the "morality of the cornered rat." The worldfamous Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr accused Father McHugh of giving the shelter controversy "a new and horrendous" twist by "justifying murder." Readers of America , too, vented their outrage in angry letters to the editor. "Is life so precious," asked one, "that we must turn into savages to protect it?" The Methodist Bishops Council, representing 10,000,000 American Methodists, assailed fallout shelters. The evangelical clergy of the country also took a "dim view" of them, reported the Religious News Service after taking a poll. The leading evangelist of them all, Billy Graham, opposed home fallout shelters. Jewish religious leaders, too, condemned them. Building them meant "abandoning all moral conduct," said one. Shelter builders themselves became the target of moral condemnation. Hailed in August as modern-day pioneers, they found themselves assailed in October as the sort of people America could well do without. As Bishop Dun put it: "The kind of man who would be most needed in a post-attack world is least likely to dig himself a private mole-hole that has no room for his neighbor."
The clergy had drawn the line sharply: a good Christian would not build a home shelter; a shelter builder was not a good Christian. The moral argument, no doubt, was debatable, but who would wish to take the opposing side in a public debate? To the clerical onslaught there was no public reply from home-shelter champions. As for the shelter builders themselves, they presumably disagreed with the clergy but they behaved in remarkably furtive fashion. Shelter contractors reported "an almost universal insistence that their projects be secret." Customers simply could not bear to face the scorn and opprobrium of their neighbors. "We use unmarked trucks," a Milwaukee shelter manufacturer advertised in deference to the passion for secrecy. If, as one shelter advocate had put it, "every man who decides to protect himself and his family adds a stone to the rampart of our total defense," then most rampart builders no longer wished to be caught in the act. The American clergy had voiced the deepest moral sentiments of the country and had strengthened those sentiments immeasurably.
The religious assault on home shelters marked the beginning of the end of the shelter craze, for it encouraged skeptics and critics to speak out strongly for the first time. On the eighteenth of October General Dwight Eisenhower himself informed the press that he would not build a home shelter. "If I were in a very fine shelter and they [his wife and children] were not there," said the former President with simple eloquence, "I would just walk out. I would not want to face that kind of world." Backed by religious leaders and a former President, emboldened, too, by the slow winding down of the Berlin crisis itself, scientists and technical experts, hitherto silent, began giving voice to serious doubts about the efficacy of home fallout shelters. Within a matter of weeks they completely undermined the cheery optimism of the prevailing shelter propaganda. Radioactive fallout, the shelter champions had insisted for years, was the major peril to life in a thermonuclear war. That, it turned out, was not necessarily true as Rockefeller Institute scientists reported on the first of November. If the Russians chose to explode a bomb high above the ground (as we ourselves did when we bombed Hiroshima), there would be little or no radioactive fallout. Instead, the explosion would produce a mighty firestorm capable of destroying everything miles beyond the blast area. A fifty-megaton bomb, reported Gerard Piel, publisher of Scientific American , would generate a firestorm one hundred miles in diameter. Within that vast area every home fallout shelter would become a "firetrap." If the Russians exploded their big bombs high above America's cities, then suburban and exurban shelters would not be havens but ovens. Fallout shelters, said Piel in a November tenth speech in San Francisco, were "a hoax on public opinion."
Ten days after Piel's speech the famed physicist James Van Alien publicly denounced Dr. Libby's Associated Press articles as "extremely dangerous" and cited facts and figures to prove that they gave Americans "a false sense of security." In December, hundreds of Midwestern professors signed an open letter to President Kennedy denouncing fallout shelters as a "quack cure for cancer." As for deterring a Soviet attack—an official argument made for shelters—military experts pointed out that shelters could do nothing of the kind. All the Soviet Union had to do in riposte was build more and bigger missiles. A national fallout-shelter program would merely stimulate the arms race. With such considerations in mind, another American elder statesman dealt a blow to the shelter movement. In December the aged Herbert Hoover gave a speech in Nebraska opposing fallout shelters of any kind, public as well as private. Instead of digging underground, said the former President, "We should keep our heads up looking for honorable solutions." Like the touching words of his fellow ex-President, this was the voice of an older America, but it proved to be, in this case, the voice of an entire people.
Despite the furious spate of official propaganda, exceedingly few home shelters were ever built, just how many nobody knows to this day. A sampling of figures telb the tale of the boom that never boomed. In Cook County, Illinois, where 260,000 copies of Family Fallout Shelter had been distributed, only 19 people out of a population of 3,500,000 had applied, as of November 19,1961, for a permit to build a home shelter. A full year after the craze began, the Federal Housing Administration reported that only 3,500 people had asked for a home-shelter loan. The shelter craze died, not with a bang but a whimper, the whimper of shelter merchants going broke. "The market is dead—the manufacturers have had it," reported the president of Chicago's Atomic Shelter Corporation in May, 1962. Some six hundred shelter manufacturers, he estimated, already had gone out of business. An Oklahoma City contractor reported in May that he had received just one inquiry about shelters in the entire month of April. It was, as one bankrupt Los Angeles manufacturer put it, "a real loused-up deal."
In a symbolic sense, at least, the end came on April 1,1962. On that day the bankrupt Living Circle Company of Oakland, California, which had sold just one prefabricated shelter in fifteen months, held a public auction of its unwanted wares. Nine shelters were sold for a knockdown price of around six hundred dollars each, but the purchasers no longer had fallout in mind. One buyer said he had bought himself a shelter because he thought it would make "a dandy darkroom." Another said he intended to use his as a shed for storing garden took Instead of burrowing beneath their gardens, Americans had once more returned to cultivating them.


text:
Devendra Banhart: Nino Rojo
The Yale Herald | by Rachel Khong
Devendra at his story-telling best
Maybe it's just me, but something about 23-year-old psych-folk artist Devendra Banhart just screams "campfires," especially the part about friends telling life stories in sleeping bags.With Banhart, the stories are frequently breathtaking—tales backdropped by acoustic guitars, sung by a voice that sounds like a cross between a pirate and some gung-ho gospel singer. The influences are hard to pinpoint. Marc Bolan? Captain Beefheart? His newest album, Niño Rojo, which comes after Rejoicing in the Hands from earlier this year, opens with "Wake Up, Little Sparrow," giving nods to Ella Jenkins.
Resonating closely with Rejoicing in the Hands while stepping it up a notch, Banhart's fourth effort surprises in the best of ways. Niño Rojo is, at times, a charismatic Kumbaya; at others, it's a sustained lullabye straddling the whimsical and the poignant. Mostly, though, it's Devendra at his story-telling best, singing about happy squids "moving psychedelically"—the nonsensical stuff of acid-tripped fairy tales, maybe, but gorgeous, and oddly meaningful still.
When Banhart sings about coming across a dancing crab in "Little Yellow Spider," he asks the crab to "dance for him just one more time/Before you hibernate and you come out a crab cake!" On the thinly veiled pop song "At the Hop," he sings, "Cook me in your breakfast/Put me on your plate/'Cause you know I taste great." It might be crazy, but somehow, coming from Banhart, it all makes perfect sense. While words like "timeless" don't usually apply to San Franciscans who might pass for good-looking bums, they do in the case of Banhart, who's never sounded so wonderfully anachronistic. If these aren't campfire songs, they might just as well be smoking-cigars-in-rocking-chairs-fifty-years-ago songs, or back-stroking-naked songs. Frankly, it doesn't matter. When Devendra Banhart's telling stories, the best idea is to listen.


text:
Gwen Stefani
Gwen Stefani - Let Me Blow Your Mind lyrics
Your rating:
[Eve] Uh, uh, uh, huh Yo, yo Drop your glasses, shake your asses Face screwed up like you having hot flashes Which one, pick one, this one, classic Red from blonde, yeah bitch I'm drastic Why this, why that, lips stop askin Listen to me baby, relax and start passin Expressway, head back, weavin' through the traffic This one strong should be labeled as a hazard Some of y'all niggas hot, sike I'm gassin' Clowns I spot em and I can't stop laughin' Easy come, easy go, E-V gon' be lastin' Jealousy, let it go, results could be tragic Some of y'all aint writin well, too concerned with fashion None of you aint Gisell, cat walk and imagine Alotta y'all Hollywood, drama, passed it Cut bitch, camera off, real shit, blast it CHORUS: [Gwen Stefani] And if I had to give you more, It's only been a year Now I got my foot through the door And I aint goin' nowhere It took a while to get me here And I'm gonna take my time Don't fight that good shit in your ear Now let me blow ya mind [Eve] They wanna bank up, crank up, makes me dizzy Shank up, haters wanna come after me You aint a ganster, prankster, too much to eat Snakes in my path wanna smile up at me Now why you grittin your teeth? Frustration baby you gotta breathe Take a lot more that you to get rid of me You see I do what they can't do, I just do me Aint no stress when it comes to sayin' "Get what you see" Meet me in the lab, pen and pad, don't believe? Huh, sixteens mine, create my own lines Love for my wordplay that's hard to find Sophomore, I aint scared, one of a kind All I do is contemplate ways to make your fans mine Eyes bloodshot, stressin', chills up your spine Huh, sick to your stomach wishin I wrote your rhymes CHORUS [Eve] Let your bones crack Your back pop, I can't stop Excitement, glock shots from your stash box Fuck it, thugged out, I respect the cash route Locked down, blastin, sets while I mash out Yeah nigga, mash out, D-R-E Back track, think back, E-V-E Do you like that (ooooh), you got to I know you Had you in a trance first glance from the floor too Don't believe I'll show you, take you with me Turn you on, pension gone, give you relief Put your trust in a bomb when you listen to me Damn she much thinner know now I'm complete(Uh-huh) Still stallion, brick house, pile it on Ryde or Die bitch, double R, came strong Beware, cuz I crush anything I land on Me here, aint no mistake nigga it was planned on CHORUS


text:
Following a distressing day at work, you most likely need to loosen up by having a couple of beverages and a little talk with companions. While these exercises are agreeable, you need a touch of assortment with regards to amusement. Now and again, you should take a stab at heading off to a club for a smidgen of betting activity. Not every person prefers betting, however whenever done with some restraint, it is a decent pressure reliever. Obviously, you should possibly continue in the event that you have enough assets to play. On the off chance that you have the assets, simply ensure that you are sincerely arranged should you lose in the game. To be reasonable about it, heading off to the club implies that you need to get ready for it. Much of the time, couples or families remember it as one of the stops for their movements and travels.
Obviously, there are options. You can unite your companions on an end of the week and play poker. Be that as it may, ends of the week are generally held for families so do not hope to have 100% participation. In cases this way, betting on the web may very well be a superior alternative. In the event that you invest a ton of energy riding the Internet, you most likely had visited poker online destinations, yet never truly enjoyed it for reasons of security and protection. There are respectable betting locales on the web and you ought not to have any issues on the off chance that you utilize their administrations. The comfort that these destinations accord to their clients is maybe what drives individuals to go to the Internet for their betting needs. The sheer assortment of games offered online makes the Internet an ideal goal for players to get their fix. Poker might be the most famous, yet there are roulette on the web and wagering on the web locales also.
Since you can play at the solaces of your home, you can set aside on different costs that you may acquire on the off chance that you bet in a genuine try here club. The reserve funds you get can be utilized to evaluate more web based games. The drawback of this is since it is anything but difficult to hop starting with one game then onto the next; the possibility of getting dependent can be entirely high. Thusly, recollect that betting, regardless of whether disconnected or on the web, ought to be done dependably. It is additionally acceptable to realize that there are web based betting guidelines that are set up to ensure you and others. This fair implies nations and governments perceive web based betting as an entirely sheltered type of grown-up diversion.


text:
And now it starts … for real.
The road auditions are over. The crackpots and deluded wannabes have been bumped off. And we can finally get down to the serious business of separating the pretenders from the contenders in what Fox claims is the "most intense Hollywood week ever."
Hollywood, of course, is the place where dreams come true. But it's also the place where dreams die brutal, horrifying, gutwrenching deaths. So let's get a front-row seat for the human carnage — including one contestant who took a swan dive off the stage.
This year, 309 contestants made it through to Hollywood, where each hopeful performed an a cappella song of their choice in front of judges Jennifer Lopez, Steven Tyler and Randy Jackson.
Among those going home was Jane Carrey, daughter of actor Jim Carrey, whose nervousness showed on a cover of Creedence Clearwater Revival's "Lookin' Out My Back Door."
"I was really, really shaky," said a teary-eyed Carrey after being cut.
Other notable contestants who failed to advance included Ramiro Garcia, who was born without ears and whose stirring version of "Amazing Grace" was a highlight of the Galveston auditions. He was axed along with Travis Orlando, who was also cut during Hollywood week last year.
In addition, the East Bay lost an "Idol" hopeful as Livermore mechanic Jason "Wolf" Hamlin reached the end of the line.
"You either go big or go home. I'm going home," said Hamlin, whose audition was not aired.
Familiar faces who lived to sing another day included Florida pretty boy Johnny Keyser, who had who had Jackson shouting, "Amen! Amen! Amen!" after his version of Amos Lee's "Dreamin,'" little ladies man David Leathers, who shined on Céline Dion's "Because You Love Me," and Jeremy Rosado, whose version of Luther Vandross's "Superstar," gave J Lo "goosies."
Among the women who survived Round 1 was Jessica Phillips, who is quickly becoming one of my favorites. She's the hopeful we met in Portland who became a caregiver to her boyfriend when he suffered a stroke. Phillips was clutch on Whitney Houston's "All the Man that I Need."
Other female standouts included Elise Testone, Hallie Day, Jen Hirsh and Erika Van Pelt.
Symone Black, a 16-year-old from Southern California, also appeared to be having a great audition with "(Sittin' on) The Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding. But while being adressed by the judges, she wandered to the edge of the stage and suddenly fell to the floor, appearing to faint.
Viewers were left in the dark as to her condition because "Idol" producers shamefully chose to use the incident as a cliffhanger leading into Thursday's show. This, after Fox milked the scene over and over and over in promotional teases for days leading up to Wednesday's telecast.


text:
When you're trying to save money, it's often hard to figure out what expenses really matter to you. You might even spend more time rationalizing the expense than you would just buying it. To keep that from happening, financial blog Budgets are Sexy shares the "10 rule."
The "10 rule" is pretty straightforward, and its purpose is to help you make a solid decision about a purchase:
Anything you buy today, your future self is paying 10x as much for. So add a zero onto the price tag, and ask yourself if it's still worth it. If it is, buy it and enjoy it. If not, then forget it... According to the Ten Rule, if you buy a new car today for $20 grand, then your future self is paying $200 grand. That $800 computer is $8,000. The $50 dinner for two is $500. Karate lessons for $150/month are $1,500/month.
If that sounds a little absurd, you're right. But the point isn't necessarily to talk you out of every single purchase. The purpose of the 10 Rule is to teach you to really think about each purchase, and assess the value as it relates to you. It's an interesting approach, and if you find yourself buying a lot of useless stuff, it might be worth putting yourself in this mindset for a little while to train your brain. Head over to Budgets are Sexy for the full post.
Photo by TaxFix.