text:
Contributions to Phenomenology 76
Hardcover 109,99 €
Reviewed by: Philipp Berghofer (Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz)
Husserl's last major work, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, is not only his main contribution to a phenomenological approach towards a philosophy of science, but also offers a new way to the transcendental reduction, namely the ontological one. This ontological way crucially depends on Husserl's conception of the life-world. The life-world is also key in understanding Husserl's discussion of modern science, as it is considered to be the meaning-giving foundation for all (non-phenomenological) sciences. Modern science, due to its formalised nature, seems to have forgotten this. However, it is important to point out that Husserl does not criticize science or the formalisations which take place in scientific investigations per se. So what precisely does Husserl criticize?
The Phenomenological Critique of Mathematisation and the Question of Responsibility: Formalisation and the Life-World has the important and ambitious objective not only to clarify what a phenomenological critique of mathematisation and formalisation consists in but also to reveal the relevance and actuality of such a critique. This means the aim is "to offer phenomenological accounts of the nature of self-responsibility as a critical, self-reflective and ethical practice, which is required in order to correct the increasingly value-free formalism of scientific knowledge." (2)
The volume consists of four parts. The first part is a single paper of Patočka, namely his review of Husserl's Crisis that has been translated by the editors especially for this volume. The second part is interpretive in nature, comprising five contributions devoted to "Patočka's Phenomenological Philosophy." The third part is also primarily interpretive, consisting of four contributions to "Husserl's Phenomenology." The fourth and final part, which unfortunately but tellingly is the shortest part, contains three contributions that aim at highlighting "The Continued Relevance of the Phenomenological Critique."
In nuce, this volume succeeds in delivering interesting and high-quality individual analyses, but it has trouble meeting its self-imposed goal of clarifying the nature, genuineness, and relevance of a phenomenological critique of formalisation in modern science. More than half of the contributions do not even explicitly address "formalisation" or "mathematisation."
The exception is Rosemary Lerner's detailed and enlightening contribution "Mathesis Universalis and the Life-World: Finitude and Responsibility" that discusses Husserl's critique. Rightly, she points out that "Formalism cannot per se be criticised – even when it is equated with the purely technical dimension of signs, calculative operations and their 'game rules'." (157) She moves on by clarifying that according to a Husserlian critique there are "three ways in which formalism conceals and forgets its meaning-foundation" (157). Of special importance is the third critique that "an ontological interpretation of forms replaces their merely methodological meaning," which means that "modern physicalistic rationalism has forgotten its meaning-foundation in the life-world" (159).
Modern science is not aware of its own limitations anymore, and its successes led to "a nascent philosophical 'naturalism'" (160). To be sure, Lerner makes it clear on more than one occasion that formalisation cannot and should not be criticized as such. Formalisation has positive aspects in the positive sciences (162 f.) and also "within objectively oriented philosophical research" (161). Aside from the fact that such formalisation is only applicable for some kinds of scientific research (while it should not be the role model for scientific investigation as such) the problem is that the practice and success of formalisation can conceal the difference between what is a method and what is reality. Mathematics and geometry are methods to describe reality; they are not the "true" reality lying behind what we can intuitively observe.
Lerner clarifies that according to Husserl,
"The 'crisis of European sciences and humanity' is due not to the 'application' of analytic geometry to the physical world but to the 'shift in meaning' whereby it is concealed and forgotten that mathematical disciplines are only powerful 'methods' and ingenious 'hypotheses' constructed by finite human beings, not ontological descriptions regarding a supposed reality 'such as God sees it in itself'" (168).
This is why "Husserl's aim in the Crisis – much as in Philosophy of Arithmetics – is to understand (and thus 'recover') the forgotten meaning-foundation of this mathematised natural science" (160), which also means that a "critical philosophy must attempt to clarify the question of the essential origin of every positive science, including formal logic." (165) I absolutely agree with Lerner that precisely "[t]hese issues led Husserl in 1898 to the 'universal a priori of correlation' (Husserl 1970b: §46), and thus to the version of intentionality he developed in his transcendental phenomenology" (165).
In my opinion, Husserl holds that the life-world is the meaning-foundation for all positive sciences and that it is transcendental phenomenology that has to investigate and clarify the basic role the life-world plays. To be sure, transcendental phenomenology cannot deliver the basic axioms, principles or laws that occur in the "exact" sciences, but it can and has to clarify why axioms, principles or laws of such and such a type are appropriate for such and such a science. Transcendental phenomenology can do so as it is the only science that goes beyond the life-world. It goes beyond the life-world by adopting the transcendental attitude in which we are not directed towards the objects that occur in our everyday lives but towards the way in which these objects appear (cf. Husserliana VI, 155, 161 f.). In investigating how different types of objects can be given to us, i.e., investigating the correlation between consciousness and world, transcendental phenomenology has realized that the ultimate foundation of knowledge and science is not the life-world but subjectivity (cf. Husserliana VI, 70, 115). All objective knowledge is founded on subjectivity.
All knowledge is knowledge of an agent and in explaining how knowledge is possible, you ultimately have to turn away from objective states of affairs and focus on the subject's consciousness. The ultimate evidence for my knowing that there is a table in front of me is not the existence of the table but my experiencing this table. My experiencing this table gets its justificatory force not from the reliability of my sensory apparatus but from the distinctive, originally presentive phenomenal character of this experience. What ultimate evidence is cannot be investigated objectively but only subjectively by turning to one's experiences and to how these experiences can be described from a first-person perspective.
As transcendental phenomenology precisely is this science that investigates the structures of consciousness and experience from a first-person perspective, transcendental phenomenology is the ultimate science. Not because it can deliver the axioms, principles, laws or theorems of every or even any individual science, but because it is concerned with how the specific objects of investigations of any science can be given and what type of evidence is appropriate for what type of object.
The only worry I have with Lerner's paper is that she does not focus on or even ignores this most fundamental role that subjectivity plays, especially as this is crucial for understanding why Husserl's phenomenology is a transcendental phenomenology. She rightly mentions that for Husserl ultimate evidence is evidence of experience (169), but she does not deliver a more detailed analysis of precisely how phenomenology is the science that investigates from the first-person perspective what it is that gives experiences their justificatory force.
Be that as it may, Lerner's paper is a great contribution that precisely fits the topic of this volume. The papers in this third part addressing "Husserl's Phenomenology" are in general outstanding contributions, arguably the best of this volume. It is unfortunate, however, that this volume does not succeed in taking contributions like Lerner's as a basis for discussing the actuality of a phenomenological critique by addressing questions like "Is Husserl's critique best applicable to what he takes to be Galilean physics or is it equally applicable to physics in the 21st century?", "What is Husserl's stance on unobservable entities like electrons and quarks?" (cf. Wiltsche 2012), "What does Husserl's critique mean for recently popular ontic scientific realism?" I will return to such missed opportunities below.
In "Everydayness, Historicity and the World of Science: Husserl's Life-World Reconsidered" Dermot Moran provides an excellent discussion of Husserl's conception of the life-world. Of course, one might question whether we really need another discussion of Husserl's life-world. Anticipating this objection, Moran points out that, despite all the works on this topic, "the deep meaning and transcendental sense of Husserl's concept of the life-world remains troublingly obscure" (110). Moran aims at presenting "a coherent exposition of this influential yet ambiguous concept" and at clarifying "how the life-world can function both as a universal ground (Grund, Boden) of all experience and as a potential horizon (Horizon) for experience" (110). One important aspect we have already touched on is the relationship between the life-world and subjectivity. Moran brings this into focus by quoting a passage where Husserl already around 1917-18 tells us: "Everything objective about the life-world is subjective givenness, our possession, mine, the other's, and everyone's together" (119; Husserl 1989, 375). Unfortunately, Moran does not discuss this transcendental character of Husserl's doctrine in more detail. The central topic Moran wishes to shed light on is the relationship between science and life-world:
"The life-world, on the one hand, on Husserl's conception, grounds and supports the world of science (which is essentially different from it); and, on the other hand, it also completely encompasses the world of science, since all scientists as human beings are themselves members of the life-world and scientific discoveries evolve in and are carried along by historical human communities and cultures" (121).
How is this possible? According to Moran, Husserl's life-world can ground and encompass science at the same time as "the life-world is actually a horizon that stretches from indefinite past to indefinite future and includes all actualities and possibilities of experience and meaningfulness" (121 f.). The life-world as horizon and the life-world as ground can be reconciled if we "think of grounding in a new sense," namely "as a constant ongoing contextualisation and re-contextualisation whereby meaning itself is secured through its horizonal connections with meanings lived through and established in the non-objectifiable world of living and acting" (126). Since such a grounding is not an objective but an "ultimately subjective" one (126), we, again, touch on the epistemic impact of subjectivity. While there is no doubt that Moran's paper delivers a conception of Husserl's life-world that is not only elegant and based on textual evidence but also sheds light on the relationship to the sciences, the precise relationship between science and life-world remains hazy and vague. We see in what way the life-world can ground and encompass science, but we still do not know how they can influence each other. What influence does science have on the life-world? Can science directly influence the life-world as culture does or only indirectly, for instance via influencing culture? What happens if there is a clash of science and life-world? Given Husserl's criticism of modern science, one might be tempted to think that natural science cannot or at least should not "overrule" the life-world in the sense of shattering and shifting horizonal structures. This, of course, is not true. Our life-world is significantly different from the one of Ptolemy. When we observe the stars, planets or the sun what is originally given to us might be the same, but the horizonal structures of these experiences are clearly different simply in virtue of our scientific background beliefs.
The life-world is also the topic of Nicolas de Warren's contribution "Husserl's Hermeneutical Phenomenology of the Life-World as Culture Reconsidered." Here the main target is Sebastian Luft's recent Subjectivity and Lifeworld in Transcendental Phenomenology (Luft 2011) as De Warren forcefully argues against Luft's thesis that Husserlian phenomenology "becomes a hermeneutical phenomenology of the correlational a priori of the world as historical world, as a world of culture, and of subjectivity as intersubjectivity, connected in a history and a tradition" (Luft 2011, 27). For De Warren, this interpretation and specifically the "identification of the life-world with a world of culture" is "untenable on the basis of Husserl's own thinking" (135). De Warren's contribution can be seen as a clash between two prominent and outstanding scholars, which naturally leads to a stimulating and controversial debate.
Before I turn to De Warren's criticism in more detail, I briefly want to present Luft's main points. When he presents his thoughts in the Introduction to his book, Luft begins with some basic but crucial Husserlian assumptions like "the only way to experience the world is from my own perspective," (Luft 2011, 10); "it is impossible to leave the confines of our mind," (Luft 2011, 12); and "[t]he Husserlian turn to transcendental idealism, by contrast [to Kant], is motivated by the factum of the world and its justification" (Luft 2011, 13). With respect to Husserl's famous correlational a priori, which Luft calls the "One Structure," Luft's claim, then, is that "Husserl's entire focus is on the thoroughgoing correlation of subjective and objective" (Luft 2011, 15). Luft considers this the main thesis of his book (cf. Luft 2011, 14).
I totally agree with these foregoing claims. Luft rightfully focuses on the correlational a priori and rightly declares this aspect the main core of Husserl's transcendental phenomenology. Husserl does not aim at proving that there is objective knowledge and justification but at explaining how this is possible. In doing so, one has to focus on the subject, more precisely, on the structures of intentionality. By explicating my knowledge of objects and states of affairs, I have to investigate from the first-person perspective how these objects are given to me within my experiencing them. The aim, then, is gaining essential insights about the structures of intentionality, such as the essential feature of perception to have the phenomenal character of self-givenness or givenness in actuality (Husserliana XVI, 14) − what Husserl often but most notably in his "principle of all principles" calls originary givenness.
Having said this, the question, of course, is how does Luft determine this correlational a priori? What are the end points of this correlation? In the literature, most often, it is described as a correlation between subject and object, sometimes between subject and world. Luft makes clear that he does not view this correlation "as a thoroughgoing correlation of the One structure with its poles, I and world" but "as a balance between both poles in which they are 'always already' intertwined, interrelated, dancing a tango" (Luft 2011, 18). This world, for Luft, is the life-world, which is (and this is the "provocative" part of Luft's analysis) the world of culture (Luft 2011, 27). My main issue with this portrayal is its narrow focus on how our culture and history shape our experiencing. Interpreted modestly, this means that already in Husserl you find claims like "There is no view from nowhere," or "All experience is theory-laden" (Cf. Moran's remark at p. 118). Interpreted strongly, this can lead to the implausible phenomenalist consequence that there is an ontological distinction between what we experience and the things in themselves. (De Warren accuses Luft of undermining a non-phenomenalist reading of Kant at p. 150.) Either way, this disguises what I take to be the most important insight of Husserl's correlational apriori. Namely that,
"Category of objectivity and category of evidence are perfect correlates. To every fundamental species of objectivities – as intentional unities maintainable throughout an intentional synthesis and, ultimately, as unities belonging to a possible 'experience' – a fundamental species of 'experience', of evidence, corresponds, and likewise a fundamental species of intentionally indicated evidential style in the possible enhancement of the perfection of the having of an objectivity itself" (Husserl 1969, 161).
This means that the type of object I experience determines the type of evidence that is available to me (e.g. adequate evidence for physical objects, apodictic evidence for mathematical truths, adequate evidence for my existence). As Heffernan puts it, "evidence is a function of the evident" (Heffernan 1998, 22). Husserl is interested in what it means to experience, for instance, a physical object, how such an object can be given within experience and what it means that in perception such an object is self-given, i.e., originally given. The answers to these questions are essential insights and independent from a subject's culture or history.
Let us return to De Warren's criticism of Luft's identification of life-world and culture. Luft provides the following clarification:
"Culture, then, is the safe haven and our home, and nothing could be further from living an enlightened life than dwelling and feeling at home in the niches of subcultures, which deliberately depart from the 'mainstream'. Subcultures, which consciously depart from the 'grand discourse' of Culture, are the enemy of culture" (Luft 2011, 356).
De Warren has two main objections against the claim that culture (in this sense) captures the idea of Husserl's transcendental phenomenology.
- Husserl's method of reduction is "diametrically opposed" to the claim that one should strive for "mainstream" (145). Referring to Patočka, De Warren insists that, contrary to Luft, "the phenomenological reduction can be understood as instituting a 'break' or 'shattering' of belonging to a human-made world of culture" (145).
- The life-world cannot be identified with the world of culture as "there are a multiplicity of irreducible worlds" and only some of them are culture but "most are not" (153). In this context, De Warren points out that it is misleading to call Husserl's a priori correlation a "One Structure" as there is no uniform meaning to this correlation (153).
While this debate between Luft and De Warren is of fundamental importance for understanding Husserl and transcendental phenomenology in general, this does not tell us much about a phenomenological critique of mathematisation and formalisation. The same is true for Moran's contribution and also for Thomas Nenon's.
In part II, "Patočka's Phenomenological Philosophy," the contribution of Učník & Chvatík entitled "Patočka on Galileo" and Burt Hopkins' "Nostalgia and Phenomenon: Husserl and Patočka on the End of the Ancient Cosmos" both more directly address the topic of mathematisation. Učník & Chvatík shed light on Patočka's claims that "we cannot await moral answers from a mathematised nature" and that the source of such a deceptive expectation is "the assumption that if we can mathematise nature we can also mathematise human relations; and that mathematics can give us all the answers, in every sphere of our living, from physics to ethics" (49). My worry with this contribution and the second part of this volume in general is twofold: First, it is not clear to me in what ways Patočka is supposed to go beyond Husserl in complementing his phenomenological critique. Secondly, and this is true for the volume as such, while there are many topics mentioned that perfectly fit current debates in epistemology, philosophy of science and meta-ethics, it is hardly ever discussed how Husserl and Patočka could contribute to current debates. In the context of formalising ethics, for instance, one could mention the currently very popular method of reflective equilibrium and question that every moral intuition can be sacrificed for greater coherence of the belief-system (cf. Daniels 1996). I will return to such missed opportunities when discussing the final part.
Hopkins argues that Patočka not only "goes beyond Husserl's fragmentary account of Galileo" but also that Patočka's account "is informed by actual history" (59). But is it important that philosophy of science is informed by actual history? Can philosophy profit from integrating history? This is precisely the topic of the currently popular and widely discussed research field of "Integrated History and Philosophy of Science" (cf. Patton 2011). But neither in Hopkins' contribution nor elsewhere in this volume are these connections discussed. This is worrisome as this volume has the self-imposed goal of revealing "the continued relevance of the phenomenological critique of formalism" (6).
In the light of this criticism, let us now turn to the final part of the book, "The Continued Relevance of the Phenomenological Critique." This part only consists of three contributions. Broadly speaking, there are four interesting ways of arguing for a continued relevance of a phenomenological critique of formalism. 1. To show how technological progress has led to consequences Husserl and Patočka have warned about. 2. To point out that modern natural science is still interpreted (either by scientists or non-scientists) as revealing that the world we perceive is mere illusion and that the world's true nature is captured by formalisations. 3. To reveal that modern natural science is still interpreted (either by scientists or non-scientists) as the role model for all scientific investigations (including philosophy). 4. To show that there are current philosophical debates that share the basic idea of Husserl's and Patočka's critique and could benefit from adopting (elements of) transcendental phenomenology.
In his "Formalisation and Responsibility" James Mensch touches on all four topics but none is elaborated upon in great detail. He begins with the example that
"During the Vietnam War, US bombing missions were set by a computer program that, based on field reports, calculated the probability of the Vietcong's being in a particular location at a particular time. Such missions, with their use of napalm, were responsible for the destruction of much of the countryside. Who or what was responsible for this: the computer, the writers of its algorithms, the pilots flying the missions, the operations research analysts that worked to 'rationalise' these missions?" (188)
I take this example to capture well the basic idea of the relevance of a phenomenological critique along the lines of critique 1 specified above. Mensch, however, does not return to this example. He also briefly complains that by an electron a scientist understands "this formula for the probability-density of its position" (187) and that adopting a naturalist attitude has led to a "devaluation of consciousness" by philosophers like Daniel Dennett (192). The recurrent theme of his contribution is embodiment. This is a very important aspect of a phenomenological critique of formalisation as it takes place, for instance, in artificial intelligence research. In this volume, Mensch is the only one who aims at systematically developing the role of embodiment in a phenomenological critique, which I take to be his main accomplishment.
Anita Williams' "Perceiving Sensible Things: Husserl and the Act of Perception" and Ivan Chvatík's "Are We Still Afraid of Science?" both pursue very specific goals. This is especially true for Chvatík, who discusses Stephen Hawking's and Leonard Mlodinow's popular-science book The Grand Design in order to see how it exemplifies what Husserl and Patočka have criticized. The upshot is that it exemplifies pretty much all of what, according to a phenomenological critique, could be worrisome.
From the claim that M-theory [multiverse theory] will turn out to provide a complete and final theory of the universe, to the naturalisation of consciousness, including the denial of free will, to the statement that "philosophy is dead" as it "has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics" (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010, 5) there is not much left that could provoke a phenomenological critique. You can feel Chvatík's discomfort when he tells that he "would not have believed that a position like this is still possible in the present day" (212). It should not come as a surprise, however, that in the vast field of sometimes genuinely provocative popular-science there are works to which a phenomenological critique can be perfectly applied. Also, it should be mentioned that The Grand Design has been harshly criticized not only by philosophers but also by physicists.
In her contribution, Williams questions the so-called neurocognitive model of perception in which, according to Williams, "sense is reduced to sensation and human sense-making is confined to the end point of a causal process." (197) She argues against the assumption of neurocognitive researchers "that mind can be reduced to the functioning brain" (197 f.) and wants "to show that a brain-based model of perception does not resolve the mind-matter problem" (198). The basis of her critique is Husserl's conception of sensuous and categorial intuition. This means that Williams aims at an extremely important task, namely exploring the relationship between cognitive neuroscience and Husserlian phenomenology. However, it is not clear to me why this relationship should be negative in the sense that cognitive neuroscience clashes with Husserlian phenomenology. Of course, if Williams is right in asserting that neurocognitive researchers claim to solve the mind-matter problem by reducing the mind to brain, then somebody should step in. But even if they do, it seems obvious to me that their research is not committed to such claims. In his Sixth Logical Investigation Husserl makes the following remark about the relationship between his phenomenological investigation of perception and a potential natural scientific one:
"In sense-perception, the 'external' thing appears 'in one blow', as soon as our glance falls upon it. The manner in which it makes the thing appear present is straightforward: it requires no apparatus of founding or founded acts. To what complex mental processes it may trace back its origin, and in what manner, is of course irrelevant here" (Husserl 2001, 283).
Of course, there is a lot of debate about whether phenomenology should take a more active stance, some even claiming that phenomenology should be naturalized (cf. Zahavi 2004). Still, I am not convinced by Williams' conclusion that "Husserl provides a way to question the causal explanations of perception adopted by neurocognitive psychologists" (207) as I believe that such causal explanations are non-phenomenological but not anti-phenomenological at least as long as there is not the claim involved that such causal explanations tell us everything we can know about perception, rendering a phenomenological account obsolete.
In conclusion, this volume offers a number of high-quality papers on important and current topics, but it does not succeed in bringing this currency, the relevance of a phenomenological critique in the 21st century, to the forefront. There are many missed opportunities as there definitely is such a relevance, and while this volume manages to provide many stimulating and important first beginnings for exploiting the fruitfulness of a phenomenological critique, it does not really go beyond such first steps.
Daniels, Norman (1996): Justice and Justification, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawking, Stephen & Mlodinow, Leonard (2010): The Grand Design, London: Bantam Press.
Heffernan, George (1998): "Miscellaneous Lucubrations on Husserl's Answer to the Question 'was die Evidenz sei': A Contribution to the Phenomenology of Evidence on the Occasion of the Publication of Husserliana Volume XXX," Husserl Studies 15, 1-75.
Husserl, Edmund (2001): Logical Investigations, transl. by J. N. Findlay, New York: Routledge.
Husserl, Edmund (1970): The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, transl. by David Carr, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Husserl, Edmund (1969): Formal and Transcendental Logic, transl. by Dorion Cairns, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Luft, Sebastian (2011): Subjectivity and Lifeworld in Transcendental Phenomenology, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Patton, Lydia (ed.) (2014): Philosophy, Science, and History, New York: Routledge.
Wiltsche, Harald (2012): "What is Wrong with Husserl's Scientific Anti-Realism?" Inquiry 55, 2, 105-130.
Zahavi, Dan (2004): "Phenomenology and the project of naturalization," Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 3, 331-347.


text:
QuARRy Home
Organized Homepage Using Bitmojis
Course HomePage
Instructor Russell Ewick from CSU Stanislaus, provides a visually appealing homepage using Bitmojis to take the user to the Start Here, Syllabus, Student Services, and Modules 1-7. The course homepage also includes an instructor welcome video, instructor contact information, and instructions on how to start the course.
QLT Objectives Met
QLT Section 1: Course Overview and Introduction
- Objective: 1.1 Instructor uses course environment to provide clear and detailed instructions for students to begin accessing all course components, such as syllabus, course calendar, assignments, and other course materials.
- Objective: 1.2 Detailed instructor information is available to students and includes multiple and preferred formats for being contacted by students, availability information, brief biographical information including pronouns, and a picture of or video from the instructor.
Additional Information
- Material Type: Course HomePage
- Author: Russell Ewick, Instructor
- Institution: California State University, Stanislaus
- Date Created: 2021-08-08
- Course Format: Online
QM Standard Equivalents
- QM General Standard 1: Course Overview and Introduction
- Standard: 1.1 Instructions make clear how to get started and where to find various course components.
- Standard: 1.8 The self-introduction by the instructor is welcoming and is available in the course site.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Fill in the form below and we will send the details to your friend
CMS Jewellers will not send unsolicited email to you or your friend as a result of using this page.
I was browsing the CMS Jewellers web site and I found this piece that I thought was beautiful?
Tanzanite & Diamond Ring


text:
Off to my digs in Chelsea (I wish I was biking)
This gent told me Frenchies come in looking for Mariage Freres tea, which of course, is not allowed to cross the water...ahem
One day dear Carol I WILL ride the Eurostar and have to pinch myself that I get to see those same to two cities I love (London and Paris) on one day (plus many more I hope)....but until then I love shuttling (sp?) between the two with you....I would take the chaise lounge too...sweet dreams Carol.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy London!
I am planning a trip for May and need to know where that beautiful arcade is? I haven't been in 11 years so I am quite excited.
There is a wonderful art supply place in Chelsea--Green&Stone,I believe.
They have a collection of vintage and antique art supplies.
Thought you might enjoy it when you are not haunting the Food Halls of Fortnum&Mason!
Ta ta for now,
I just have to tell you, I so look forward to each and every post. I love your viewpoint and your excellent eye out there capturing the world. Really makes my day.
I just ordered stamps with one of your images on them and can't wait for them to arrive. I'll use them when I write my notes to let someone know I'm thinking of them.
I have a house in Provence that I travel to each summer and I'm planning a sojourn to Paris next fall. So I've been making copious notes on patisseries, etc. from your blog.
Thanks for your lovely view of life


text:
News Story
Ephremides named to Institutional Council in Greece
Professor Tony Ephremides (ECE/ISR) has been elected as one of six external members of the new 15-member Institutional Council of the National Technical University of Athens. Dr. Ephremides is an alumnus of the university, which he says is "the alma mater of most engineers of Greek descent who populate universities of the world, including our own."Greece recently revamped its educational laws as part of its efforts to recoup from the severe crisis it has suffered in the last few years. It has established at each university a body known as the Institutional Council, which functions similarly to the board of trustees in American universities. These bodies, now in their first year of operation, are the cornerstone of a new system of governance of each university in Greece.
They have substantial powers and responsibilities. The president of the National Technical University of Athens Council is Professor Michael Triantafyllou of MIT. The Council includes distinguished professors from universities in North America and Europe.
"I am happy I have the opportunity to contribute in a modest way to this effort," Dr. Ephremides says. "I consider it another way in which our own faculty can have an impact around the world."
Published January 15, 2013


text:
A.O.T. 2: Costume Set 'Japanese New Year'
- PS Plus required for online play
- Supports up to 8 online players with PS Plus
- Online play optional
- PS4 VersionDUALSHOCK 4 vibration
Give Eren, Mikasa, Levi and Armin new outfits.
This content is also available for the previous game 'A.O.T. Wings of Freedom', released in August 2016.
You can continue to use the costumes if they were purchased for the previous title, regardless of PS4™/ PS3™/ PS Vita, but you must download the contents again.
This product is included in the below set. Be careful to avoid making a redundant purchase.
-Additional Costumes 16 Piece Set
▼How to use
You can access the new costume by either of the following:
1. Select 'Another Mode' on the main menu, and then select the character.
Change into the new costume by pressing the X button when you are near the tent on the field.
2. Select 'Story Mode' on the main menu, and then approach the character in the Daily Life section.
Change into the new costume by pressing the O button when you are near the character.
1 player
Network Players 2-8 - Full game requires PlayStation®Plus membership to access online multiplayer
4MB minimum save size
DUALSHOCK®4 Vibration Function
HD Video Output 720p,1080p
Download of this product is subject to the PlayStation Network Terms of Service and our Software Usage Terms plus any specific additional conditions applying to this product. If you do not wish to accept these terms, do not download this product. See Terms of Service for more important information.
One-time licence fee to download to multiple PS4 systems. Sign in to PlayStation Network is not required to use this on your primary PS4, but is required for use on other PS4 systems.
See Health Warnings for important health information before using this product.
Library programs ©Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. exclusively licensed to Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe. Software Usage Terms apply, See eu.playstation.com/legal for full usage rights.
©Hajime Isayama,Kodansha/'ATTACK ON TITAN'Production Committee. All Rights Reserved.
- Platform:
- Release:
- 20/3/2018
- Publisher:
- Koei Tecmo Europe Ltd
- Genres:
- Action


text:
Millennials (born 1982-2003) were crucial to Barack Obama's 2008 election. Other than the state of the economy, the most pivotal factor in determining the outcome of the 2012 general election is likely to be whether or not America's youngest voters repeat their 2008 electoral performance in 2012.
In November 2008, Millennials comprised about 17% of the electorate and voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama over John McCain (66% to 32%). With older generations dividing their votes almost evenly between the two candidates, Millennials accounted for about 80% of Obama's national popular vote margin over McCain, turning what would have been a narrow win into a decisive seven-point victory.
So far, the data suggests Millennials are poised to support Barack Obama at the same level this year that they did four years ago. In a recent Pew survey, Millennials preferred Obama over Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, by a 62% to 36% margin. But this year, Millennials make up 24% of those eligible to vote. Coupled with its partisan unity in comparison with older voters, the sheer size of the Millennial generation, America's largest ever, could make its impact even more decisive in 2012 than in 2008.
Whether Millennials have that kind of impact depends on what the two parties do to attract their votes. For Republicans, the best approach is to connect with Millennials before they are solidly in the Democratic camp for the next three or four decades. A few Millennial Republicans such as John McCain's daughter, Meghan, and Kristen Soltis, a GOP pollster, have argued that their party should moderate its stance on social issues and immigration in order to have greater appeal to their highly tolerant and diverse generation. So far, however, the GOP presidential field has attracted relatively little Millennial support; through Super Tuesday, the Republican frontrunners (Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul) combined had received less than half the Millennial votes that Barack Obama did in 2008. Perhaps the lack of Millennial interest in the GOP candidates explains why Republicans in at least half of the states are more focused on limiting Millennial voting turnout than in actively courting the generation's support.
For Democrats, the concern is not so much the partisanship of Millennials, but their engagement. One way to reinforce Millennials' Democratic leanings is to remind them of their stake in the election by emphasizing the Millennial-friendly policies the Obama administration has pursued. Help with the cost of attending college, funding more national service opportunities, and permitting young people to remain on their parent's health insurance until age 26 are all initiatives the Obama team could raise with Millennials. Already that campaign is gearing up online and offline organizational efforts to bring Millennials to the polls in November that exceed the technological sophistication of its very successful efforts in 2008.
If Millennials vote in numbers proportionate to their presence among eligible voters, their continued support of the president should allow him to overcome any attrition he suffers among older voters. But if large numbers of Millennials do not vote, the president's reelection chances will be sharply reduced. Whichever alternative occurs will very likely determine whether Barack Obama or his eventual Republican opponent is inaugurated as president on January 20, 2013.
Q&A on this blog were captured by Policymic here
Do you like this post?


text:
How Crypto Scams Work — A Reminder in the Age of FTX
Today, millions of cryptocurrency investors have been scammed out of massive sums of real money. In 2018, losses from cryptocurrency-related crimes amounted to $1.7 billion. The criminals use both old-fashioned and new-technology tactics to swindle their marks in schemes based on digital currencies exchanged through online databases called blockchains.
From researching blockchain, cryptocurrency and cybercrime, I can see that some cryptocurrency fraudsters rely on tried-and-true Ponzi schemes that use income from new participants to pay out returns to earlier investors.
Others use highly automatized and sophisticated processes, including automated software that interacts with Telegram, an internet-based instant-messaging system popular among people interested in cryptocurrencies. Even when a cryptocurrency plan is legitimate, fraudsters can still manipulate its price in the marketplace.
But an even more basic question arises: How are unsuspecting investors attracted to cryptocurrency frauds in the first place?
Fast-talking swindlers
Some cryptocurrency fraudsters appeal to people's greed, promising big returns. For example, an unknown group of entrepreneurs runs the scam bot iCenter, which is a Ponzi scheme for Bitcoin and Litecoin. It doesn't provide information on investment strategies, but somehow promises investors 1.2 percent daily returns.
The iCenter scheme operates through a group chat on Telegram. It starts with a small group of scammers who are in on the racket. They get a referral code that they share with others, in blogs and on social media, hoping to get them to join the chat. Once there, the newcomers see encouraging and exciting messages from the original scammers. Some newcomers decide to invest, at which point they are assigned an individual bitcoin wallet, into which they can deposit bitcoins. They agree to wait some period of time — 99 or 120 days — to receive a significant return.
During that time, the newcomers often use social media to share their own referral codes with friends and contacts, bringing more people into the group chat and into the investment scheme. There's no actual investment of the funds in any legitimate business. Instead, when new people join, the person who recruited them gets a percentage of the new funds, and the cycle continues, paying out to earlier participants from each round of newer investors.
Some members work especially hard to bring in new funds, posting tutorial videos and pictures of themselves holding large amounts of money as enticements to join the scam.
Lies and more lies
Some scammers go for straight-up deception. The founders of scam cryptocurrency OneCoin defrauded investors of $3.8 billion by convincing people their nonexistent cryptocurrency was real. Other scams are based on impressing potential victims with jargon or claims of specialized knowledge. The Global Trading scammers claimed they took advantage of price differences on various cryptocurrency exchanges to profit from what is called arbitrage — simply buying cheaply and selling at higher prices. Really they just took investors' money.
Global Trading used a bot on Telegram, too — investors could send a balance inquiry message and get a response with false information about how much was in their account, sometimes even seeing balances climb by 1 percent in a single hour. With returns looking like that, who could blame people for sharing the scheme with their friends and family on social media?
Exploiting friends and family
Once a scheme has started, it stays alive — at least for a while — through social media. One person gets taken in by the promise of big returns on cryptocurrency investments and spreads the word to friends and family members.
Sometimes big names get involved. For instance, the kingpin behind GainBitcoin and other alleged scams in India convinced a number of Bollywood celebrities to promote his book, "Cryptocurrency for Beginners". He even tried to make himself a bit of a celebrity, proclaiming himself a "cryptocurrency guru," as he led efforts that cost investors between $769 million and $2 billion.
Not all the celebrities know they're involved. In one blog post, iCenter featured a video that purported to be an endorsement by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, holding a sign featuring iCenter's logo. Videos of Justin Timberlake and Christopher Walken were deceptively edited so they appeared to praise iCenter, too. Of course, Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson does not actually endorse this cryptocurrency scam.
Fraudulent initial coin offerings
Another popular scam technique is called an "initial coin offering." A potentially legitimate investment opportunity, an initial coin offering essentially is a way for a startup cryptocurrency company to raise money from its future users: In exchange for sending active cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ethereum, customers are promised a discount on the new cryptocoins.
Many initial coin offerings have turned out to be scams, with organizers engaging in cunning plots, even renting fake offices and creating fancy-looking marketing materials. In 2017, a lot of hype and media coverage about cryptocurrencies fed a huge wave of initial coin offering fraud. In 2018, about 1,000 initial coin offering efforts collapsed, costing backers at least $100 million. Many of these projects had no original ideas — more than 15 percent of them had copied ideas from other cryptocurrency efforts, or even plagiarized supporting documentation.
Investors looking for returns in a new technology sector are still interested in blockchains and cryptocurrencies – but should beware that they are complex systems that are new even to those who are selling them. Newcomers and relative experts alike have fallen prey to scams. In an environment like the current cryptocurrency market, potential investors should be very careful to research what they're putting their money into and be sure to find out who is involved, not to mention what the actual plan is for making real money — without defrauding others.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article by Nir Kshetri, professor of management at the University of North Carolina — Greensboro.


text:
Highest process stability during operation
The monitoring of various parameters in the server racks is done by specific sensors by EMKA Electronics. The measured data are centrally captured and analysed. They can trigger alarms, switch on fans or air-conditioning units or effect emergency openings of the cabinet / rack doors when user-defined limits are exceeded. In combination with the software Control Cockpit, the data provide a basis for increasing the energy efficiency of data centres. The sensor program of EMKA Electronics includes all relevant parameters for measuring and monitoring the operating statuses of server racks.
Thermal environment
Climate Sensor
To ensure process stability and energy efficiency the measuring of climatic parameters play a significant role. Within the sensor range of EMKA Electronics specific climate sensors are used for measuring temperature and humidity. Each sensor can be programmed with different thresholds. For capturing and analysing the measured variables the climate sensor is connected to a Sensor Unit. The measured data can be used as a basis for increasing the energy efficiency in data centres.
Smoke detector
Fire and smoke endanger the physical integrity of data in data centres. For the early detection of fire with visible smoke a photoelectric smoke sensor is used within the EMKA Rack Management System. For capturing and analysing the measured variables the smoke sensor is connected to a Sensor Unit. Actions in case of smoke detection are defined by assigning switching components and / or alarm lines.
Voltage sensor
Maintaining the process stability during operation also requires the permanent monitoring of the supply voltage. This is guaranteed by an analogue voltage sensor. For capturing and analysing the measured variables the sensor is connected to a Sensor Unit. Actions when the supply voltage goes below a certain limit are defined by assigning further switching components to sensor thresholds and / or alarm lines.
Vandalism sensor
The requirements for switch cabinets or facilities in server rooms and data centres have significantly changed. What is needed today is: Increased data security and protection against unauthorised access. In this context the protection against vandalism, destruction and theft plays an important role. Specially developed sensors by EMKA Electronics that measure the accelerations in an axis are used to avert and recognise these dangers early in real time. For capturing and analysing the measured variables the sensor is connected to a Sensor Unit.


text:
New Climate Action Report: U.S. Can Reach its Emissions-Reduction Goal, but Only With Ambitious Action
Yesterday, the Obama Administration released the sixth U.S. Climate Action Report (CAR6) for public review, to be submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in January 2014. The report, which all developed countries are required to complete, outlines U.S. historical and future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, actions the country is taking to address climate change, and its vulnerability to climate change impacts. This report follows the President's recently announced Climate Action Plan, which, as the CAR6 report shows, could enable the United States to meet its international commitment of reducing emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020—if it acts ambitiously, that is.
However, as the report acknowledges, U.S. government agencies will need to propose new rules and take other steps to implement the Climate Action Plan. CAR6 factors in this uncertainty and shows that implementation of the Climate Action Plan will result in reductions in the range of 14 to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 (not taking into account land use). As WRI found in our report, Can The U.S. Get There From Here?, the Obama Administration can achieve a 17 percent emissions-reduction target only by taking ambitious "go-getter" action.
Now is a good time to reflect on what the United States has done over the past four years and what still needs to happen across the major emissions sources in order meet the national emissions-reduction goal and curb the effects of climate change.
The Obama Administration has made great strides in making the country's transportation fleet cleaner and more efficient—actions that will both reduce carbon pollution and save drivers money. The combined model year 2012-2025 fuel economy and emissions standards for light-duty vehicles are expected to effectively cut vehicle GHG emissions in half. Having set standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles sold in model years 2014-2018, the Obama Administration will be working with industry to explore options to make these vehicles even more efficient and set additional standards for future vehicles.
Power Plants
As outlined in a WRI report, power plants represent the greatest source of potential emissions reductions in the United States. The Obama Administration has already met its goal of doubling electric generation from wind and solar sources. Last Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants that would ensure that future power plants are significantly cleaner than the average new coal plant today. EPA will now turn to reducing emissions from existing power plants, with a draft rule expected by June 2014. These standards should be flexible so that states can achieve significant, cost-effective emissions reductions through a range of options like fuel-switching, energy efficiency measures, or increased generation from renewable sources.
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Besides power plants, reducing America's use of HFCs is the next-largest step needed to get the country on track to meet its 2020 emissions-reduction target. The Obama Administration has already begun addressing emissions of these highly potent GHGs through standards that reduce leakage from vehicle air conditioning systems, and it has been actively pushing toward an international agreement to reduce HFCs. Moving forward, the Administration has said that EPA will use its authority to prohibit certain uses of HFCs that would do great damage to the climate, while identifying and approving climate-friendly alternatives.
Last year, EPA implemented rules that will limit the release of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and air toxics that contribute to smog and a wide range of adverse health effects. A co-benefit of these rules is a reduction in methane emissions, resulting from industry actions to comply with these standards. The Climate Action Plan calls for the formation of an interagency methane strategy that will focus on things like improving data and identifying technologies and best practices for reducing emissions. However, as WRI research shows, more can be done to reduce methane leakage from natural gas systems. In fact, methane leakage could be reduced by 67 percent by 2020 using cost-effective, existing technologies.
Energy Efficiency
Since 2009, the Department of Energy has issued 17 new or updated federal appliance and equipment standards, which will help increase annual energy savings by more than 50 percent over the next decade. The Climate Action Plan sets a goal to reduce carbon pollution by at least 3 billion metric tons cumulatively by 2030 through additional efficiency standards. However, there are several efficiency standards awaiting approval. These delays have resulted in about 35 million metric tons of additional CO2 emissions since June of 2011, according to the American Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy.
Looking Beyond 2020
The Obama Administration needs to ambitiously tackle the actions laid out in the National Climate Plan if the United States is to meet its international commitment to reduce GHG emissions by 17 percent by 2020. Our research shows us that this is do-able. However, it also shows that additional actions are necessary to achieve the deep emissions reductions needed by 2030 and beyond to reduce the dangerous effects of climate change, such as droughts, sea level rise, and other extreme weather events. The Obama Administration should take this into account as they determine a post-2020 target as part of the 2015 climate change negotiations.


text:
A talk given by the late Michael Crichton (1942-2008) called, "Why Speculate," on April 26, 2002 at the International Leadership Forum in La Jolla, CA.
"There are two times in a man's life when he should not
speculate: when he can't afford it and when he can." — Mark Twain
My topic for today is the prevalence of speculation in media.
What does it mean? Why has it become so ubiquitous? Should we
do something about it? If so, what? And why? Should we care at
all? Isn't speculation valuable? Isn't it natural? And so on.
I will join this speculative trend and speculate about why there
is so much speculation. In keeping with the trend, I will try
to express my views without any factual support, simply providing
you with a series of bald assertions.
This is not my natural style, and it's going to be a challenge
for me, but I will do my best. Some of you may see that I have
written out my talk, which is already a contradiction of principle.
To keep within the spirit of our time, it should really be off
the top of my head.
Before we begin, I'd like to clarify a definition. By the media
I mean movies, television, Internet, books, newspapers and
magazines. Again, in keeping with the general trend of speculation,
let's not make too many fine distinctions.
First we might begin by asking, to what degree has the media
turned to pure speculation? Someone could do a study of this and
present facts, but nobody has. I certainly won't. There's no
reason to bother. The requirement that you demonstrate a factual
basis for your claim vanished long ago. It went out with the
universal praise for Susan Faludi's book Backlash, which won the
National Book Critics Circle Award for General Nonfiction in
1991, and which presented hundreds of pages of quasi-statistical
assertions based on a premise that was never demonstrated and
that was almost certainly false.
But that's old news. I merely refer to it now to set standards.
Today, of course everybody knows that "Hardball," "Rivera Live"
and similar shows are nothing but a steady stream of guesses
about the future. The Sunday morning talk shows are pure
speculation. They have to be. Everybody knows there's no news
on Sunday.
But television is entertainment. Let's look at the so-called
serious media. For example, here is The New York Times for March
6, the day Dick Farson told me I was giving this talk. The column
one story for that day concerns Bush's tariffs on imported steel.
Now we read: Mr. Bush's action "is likely to send the price of
steel up sharply, perhaps as much as ten percent…" American
consumers "will ultimately bear" higher prices. America's allies
"would almost certainly challenge" the decision. Their legal
case "could take years to litigate in Geneva, is likely to hinge"
on thus and such.
Also note the vague and hidden speculation. The Allies' challenge
would be "setting the stage for a major trade fight with many
of the same countries Mr. Bush is trying to hold together in the
fractious coalition against terrorism." In other words, the story
speculates that tariffs may rebound against the fight against
By now, under the Faludi Standard I have firmly established that
media are hopelessly riddled with speculation, and we can go on
to consider its ramifications.
You may read this tariff story and think, what's the big deal?
The story's not bad. Isn't it reasonable to talk about effects
of current events in this way? I answer, absolutely not. Such
speculation is a complete waste of time. It's useless. It's
bullshit on the front page of the Times.
The reason why it is useless, of course, is that nobody knows
what the future holds.
Do we all agree that nobody knows what the future holds? Or do
I have to prove it to you? I ask this because there are some
well-studied media effects which suggest that simply appearing
in media provides credibility. There was a well-known series of
excellent studies by Stanford researchers that have shown, for
example, that children take media literally. If you show them a
bag of popcorn on a television set and ask them what will happen
if you turn the TV upside down, the children say the popcorn
will fall out of the bag. This result would be amusing if it
were confined to children. But the studies show that no one is
exempt. All human beings are subject to this media effect,
including those of us who think we are self-aware and hip and
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved.
You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann
Amnesia effect. (I refer to it by this name because I once
discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous
name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect,
than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You
open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well.
In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the
article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding
of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong
it actually presents the story backward — reversing cause and
effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's
full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple
errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or
international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper
was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you
just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I'd point out it does not
operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody
consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount
everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one
part, untruthful in all. But when it comes to the media, we
believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to
read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly
isn't. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
So one problem with speculation is that it piggybacks on the
Gell-Mann effect of unwarranted credibility, making the speculation
look more useful than it is.
Another issue concerns the sheer volume of speculation. Sheer
volume comes to imply a value which is specious. I call this the
There-Must-Be-A-Pony effect, from the old joke in which a kid
comes down Christmas morning, finds the room filled with horseshit,
and claps his hands with delight. His astonished parents ask:
why are you so happy? He says, with this much horseshit, there
must be a pony.
Because we are confronted by speculation at every turn, in print,
on video, on the net, in conversation, we may eventually conclude
that it must have value. But it doesn't. Because no matter how
many people are speculating, no matter how familiar their faces,
how good their makeup and how well they are lit, no matter how
many weeks they appear before us in person or in columns, it
remains true that none of them knows what the future holds.
Some people secretly believe that the future can be known. They
imagine two groups of people that can know the future, and
therefore should be listened to. The first is pundits. Since
they expound on the future all the time, they must know what
they are talking about. Do they? "Brill's Content" used to track
the pundit's guesses, and while one or another had an occasional
winning streak, over the long haul they did no better than chance.
This is what you would expect. Because nobody knows the future.
I want to mention in passing that punditry has undergone a subtle
change over the years. In the old days, commentators such as
Eric Sevareid spent most of their time putting events in a
context, giving a point of view about what had already happened.
Telling what they thought was important or irrelevant in the
events that had already taken place. This is of course a legitimate
function of expertise in every area of human knowledge.
But over the years the punditic thrust has shifted away from
discussing what has happened, to discussing what may happen. And
here the pundits have no benefit of expertise at all. Worse,
they may, like the Sunday politicians, attempt to advance one
or another agenda by predicting its imminent arrival or demise.
This is politicking, not predicting.
The second group that some people imagine may know the future
are specialists of various kinds. They don't, either. As a
limiting case, I remind you there is a new kind of specialist
occupation — I refuse to call it a discipline, or a field of
study — called futurism. The notion here is that there is a way
to study trends and know what the future holds. That would indeed
be valuable, if it were possible. But it isn't possible. Futurists
don't know any more about the future than you or I. Read their
magazines from a couple of years ago and you'll see an endless
parade of error.
Expertise is no shield against failure to see ahead. That's why
it was Thomas Watson, head of IBM, who predicted the world only
needed 4 or 5 computers. That is about as wrong a prediction as
it is possible to make, by a man who had every reason to be
informed about what he was talking about. Not only did he fail
to anticipate a trend, or a technology, he failed to understand
the myriad uses to which a general purpose machine might be put.
Similarly, Paul Erlich, a brilliant academic who has devoted his
entire life to ecological issues, has been wrong in nearly all
his major predictions.
He was wrong about diminishing resources, he was wrong about the
population explosion, and he was wrong that we would lose 50%
of all species by the year 2000. He devoted his life to intensely
felt issues, yet he has been spectacularly wrong.
All right, you may say, you'll accept that the future can't be
known, in the way I am talking. But what about more immediate
matters, such as the effects of pending legislation? Surely it
is important to talk about what will happen if certain legislation
passes. Well, no, it isn't. Nobody knows what is going to happen
when the legislation passes. I give you two examples, one from
the left and one from the right.
The first is the Clinton welfare reform, harshly criticized by
his own left wing for caving in to the Republican agenda. The
left's predictions were for vast human suffering, shivering cold,
child abuse, terrible outcomes. What happened? None of these
things. Child abuse declined. In fact, as government reforms go,
its been a success; but Mother Jones still predicts dire effects
just ahead.
This failure to predict the effects of a program was mirrored
by the hysterical cries from the Republican right over raising
the minimum wage. Chaos and dark days would surely follow as
businesses closed their doors and the country was plunged into
needless recession. But what was the actual effect? Basically,
nothing. Who discusses it now? Nobody. What will happen if there
is an attempt to raise the minimum wage again? The same dire
predictions all over again. Have we learned anything? No.
But my point is, for pending legislation as with everything else,
nobody knows the future.
The same thing is true concerning the effect of elections and
appointments. What will be the effect of electing a certain
president, or a supreme court justice? Nobody knows. Some of you
are old enough to remember Art Buchwald's famous column from the
days of the Johnson Administration. Buchwald wrote a "Thank God
we don't have Barry Goldwater" essay, recalling how everyone
feared Goldwater would get us into a major war. So we elected
Johnson, who promptly committed 200,000 troops to Vietnam. That's
what happens when you choose the dove-ish candidate. You get a
war. Or, you elect the intellectually brilliant Jimmy Carter,
and watch as he ends up personally deciding who gets to use the
White House tennis courts. Or you elect Richard Nixon because
he can pull the plug on Vietnam, and he continues to fight for
years. And then opens China.
Similarly, the history of the Supreme Court appointments is a
litany of error in predicting how justices will vote once on the
court. They don't all surprise us, but a lot of them do.
So, in terms of imminent events, can we predict anything at all?
No. You need only look at what was said days before the Berlin
Wall came down, to see nobody can predict even a few hours ahead.
People said all sorts of silly things about the Communist empire
just hours before its collapse. I can't quote them, because that
would mean I had looked them up and had facts at hand, and I
have promised you not to do that. But take my word for it, you
can find silly statements 24 hours in advance.
Now, this is not new information. It was Mark Twain who said,
"I've seen a heap of trouble in my life, and most of it never
came to pass."
And much of what politicians say is not so much a prediction as
an attempt to make it come true. It's argument disguised as
analysis. But it doesn't really persuade anybody. Because most
people can see through it.
If speculation is worthless, why is there so much of it? Is it
because people want it? I don't think so. I myself speculate
that media has turned to speculation for media's own reasons.
So now let's consider the advantages of speculation from a media
1. It's incredibly cheap. Talk is cheap. And speculation shows
are the cheapest thing you can put on television, They're
almost as cheap as running a test pattern. Speculation
requires no research, no big staff. Minimal set. Just get
the talking host, book the talking guests — of which there
is no shortage — and you're done! Instant show. No reporters
in different cities around the world, no film crews on
location. No deadlines, no footage to edit, no editors…nothing!
Just talk. Cheap.
2. You can't lose. Even though the speculation is correct only
by chance, which means you are wrong at least 50% of the
time, nobody remembers and therefore nobody cares. You are
never accountable. The audience does not remember yesterday,
let alone last week, or last month. Media exists in the
eternal now, this minute, this crisis, this talking head,
this column, this speculation.
One of the clearest proofs of this is the Currents of Death
controversy. It originated with the New Yorker, which has been
a gushing fountainhead of erroneous scientific speculation for
fifty years. But my point is this: many of the people who ten
years ago were frantic to measure dangerous electromagnetic
radiation in their houses now spend thousands of dollars buying
magnets to attach to their wrists and ankles, because of the
putative healthful effects of magnetic fields. These people don't
remember these are the same magnetic fields they formerly wanted
to avoid. And since they don't remember, as a speculator on
media, you can't lose.
Let me expand on this idea that you can't lose. It's not confined
to the media. Most areas of intellectual life have discovered
the virtues of speculation, and have embraced them wildly. In
academia, speculation is usually dignified as theory. It's
fascinating that even though the intellectual stance of the pomo
deconstructionist era is against theory, particularly overarching
theory, in reality what every academic wants to express is theory.
This is in part aping science, but it's also an escape hatch.
Your close textual reading of Jane Austen could well be found
wrong, and could be shown to be wrong by a more knowledgeable
antagonist. But your theory of radical feminization and authoritarian
revolt in the work of Jane Austen is untouchable. Your view of
the origins of the First World War could be debated by other
authorities more meticulous than you. But your New Historicist
essay, which might include your own fantasy about what it would
be like if you were a soldier during the first war… well,
that's just unarguable.
A wonderful area for speculative academic work is the unknowable.
These days religious subjects are in disfavor, but there are
still plenty of good topics. The nature of consciousness, the
workings of the brain, the origin of aggression, the origin of
language, the origin of life on earth, SETI and life on other
worlds… this is all great stuff. Wonderful stuff. You can
argue it interminably. But it can't be contradicted, because
nobody knows the answer to any of these topics — and probably,
nobody ever will.
But that's not the only strategy one can employ. Because the
media-educated public ignores and forgets past claims, these
days even authors who present hard data are undamaged when the
data is proven wrong. One of the most consistently wrong thinkers
of recent years, Carol Gilligan of Harvard, once MS Magazine's
Scientist of the Year, has had to retract (or modify) much of
what she has ever written. Yet her reputation as a profound
thinker and important investigator continues undiminished. You
don't have to be right, any more. Nobody remembers.
Then there is the speculative work of anthropologists like Helen
Fisher, who claim to tell us about the origins of love or of
infidelity or cooperation by reference to other societies, animal
behavior, and the fossil record. How can she be wrong? It's
untestable, unprovable, just so stories.
And lest anyone imagine things are different in the hard sciences,
consider string theory, for nearly twenty years now the dominant
physical theory. More than one generation of physicists has
labored over string theory. But — if I understand it correctly,
and I may not — string theory cannot be tested or proven or
disproven. Although some physicists are distressed by the argument
that an untestable theory is nevertheless scientific, who is
going to object, really? Face it, an untestable theory is ideal!
Your career is secure!
In short, the understanding that so long as you speculate, you
can't lose is widespread. And it is perfect for the information
age, which promises a cornucopia of knowledge, but delivers a
cornucopia of snake oil.
Now, nowhere is it written that the media need be accurate, or
useful. They haven't been for most or recorded history. So, now
they're speculating… so what? What is wrong with it?
1. Tendency to excess. The fact that it's only talk makes drama
and spectacle unlikely — unless the talk becomes heated and
excessive. So it becomes excessive. Not every show features
the Crossfire-style food fight, but it is a tendency on all
2. "Crisisization" of everything possible. Most speculation is
not compelling because most events are not compelling–Gosh,
I wonder what will happen to the German Mark? Are they going
to get their labor problems under control? This promotes the
well-known media need for a crisis. Crisis in the German
mark! Uh-oh! Look out! Crises unite the country, draw viewers
in large numbers, and give something to speculate about.
Without a crisis, the talk soon degenerates into debate about
whether the refs should have used instant replay on that
last football game. So there is a tendency to hype urgency
and importance and be-there-now when such reactions are
really not appropriate. Witness the interminable scroll at
the bottom of the screen about the Queen Mother's funeral.
Whatever the Queen mother's story may be, it is not a crisis.
I even watched a scroll of my own divorce roll by for a
couple of days on CNN. It's sort of flattering, even though
they got it wrong. But my divorce is surely not vital breaking
3. Superficiality as a norm. Gotta go fast. Hit the high points.
Speculation adds to the superficiality. That's it, don't you
4. Endless presentation of uncertainty and conflict may interfere
with resolution of issues. There is some evidence that the
television food fights not only don't represent the views
of most people — who are not so polarized — but they may
tend to make resolution of actual disputes more difficult
in the real world. At the very least, these food fights
obscure the recognition that disputes are resolved every
day. Compromise is much easier from relatively central
positions than it is from extreme and hostile, conflicting
positions: Greenpeace Spikers vs the Logging Industry.
5. The interminable chains of speculation paves the way to
litigation about breast implants, hysteria over Y2K and
global warming, articles in The New Yorker about currents
of death, and a variety of other results that are not, by
any thoughtful view, good things to happen. There comes to
be a perception — convenient to the media — that nothing
is, in the end, knowable for sure. When in fact, that's not
Let me point to a demonstrable bad effect of the assumption that
nothing is really knowable. Whole word reading was introduced
by the education schools of the country without, to my knowledge,
any testing of the efficacy of the new method. It was simply put
in place. Generations of teachers were indoctrinated in its
methods. As a result, the US has one of the highest illiteracy
rates in the industrialized world. The assumption that nothing
can be known with certainty does have terrible consequences.
As GK Chesterton said (in a somewhat different context), "If you
believe in nothing you'll believe in anything." That's what we
see today. People believe in anything.
But just in terms of the general emotional tenor of life, I often
think people are nervous, jittery in this media climate of what
if, what if, maybe, perhaps, could be — when there is simply
no reason to feel nervous. Like a bearded nut in robes on the
sidewalk proclaiming the end of the world is near, the media is
just doing what makes it feel good, not reporting hard facts.
We need to start seeing the media as a bearded nut on the sidewalk,
shouting out false fears. It's not sensible to listen to it.
We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K
wasn't a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the
air. The same thing is true now of issues like species extinction
and global warming. You never hear anyone say it's not a crisis.
I won't go into it, because it might lead to the use of facts,
but I'll just mention two reports I speculate you haven't heard
about. The first is the report in Science magazine January 18
2001 (Oops! a fact) that contrary to prior studies, the Antarctic
ice pack is increasing, not decreasing, and that this increase
means we are finally seeing an end to the shrinking of the pack
that has been going on for thousands of years, ever since the
Holocene era. I don't know which is more surprising, the statement
that it's increasing, or the statement that its shrinkage has
preceded global warming by thousands of years.
The second study is a National Academy of Sciences report on the
economic effects to the US economy of the last El Nino warming
event of 1997. That warming produced a net benefit of 15 billion
dollars to the economy. That's taking into account 1.5 billion
loss in California from rain, which was offset by decreased fuel
bills for a milder winter, and a longer growing season. Net
result 15 billion in increased productivity.
The other thing I will mention to you is that during the last
100 years, while the average temperature on the globe has increased
just .3 C, the magnetic field of the earth declined by 10%. This
is a much larger effect than global warming and potentially far
more serious to life on this planet. Our magnetic field is what
keeps the atmosphere in place. It is what deflects lethal radiation
from space. A reduction of the earth's magnetic field by ten
percent is extremely worrisome.
But who is worried? Nobody. Who is raising a call to action?
Nobody. Why not? Because there is nothing to be done. How this
may relate to global warming I leave for you to speculate on
your own time.
Personally, I think we need to start turning away from media,
and the data shows that we are, at least from television news.
I find that whenever I lack exposure to media I am much happier,
and my life feels fresher.
In closing, I'd remind you that while there are some things we
cannot know for sure, there are many things that can be resolved,
and indeed are resolved. Not by speculation, however. By careful
investigation, by rigorous statistical analysis. Since we're
awash in this contemporary ocean of speculation, we forget that
things can be known with certainty, and that we need not live
in a fearful world of interminable unsupported opinion. But the
gulf that separates hard fact from speculation is by now so
unfamiliar that most people can't comprehend it. I can perhaps
make it clear by this story:
On a plane to Europe, I am seated next to a guy who is very
unhappy. Turns out he is a doctor who has been engaged in a
two-year double blind study of drug efficacy for the FDA, and
it may be tossed out the window. Now a double-blind study means
there are four separate research teams, each having no contact
with any other team — preferably, they're at different universities,
in different parts of the country. The first team defines the
study and makes up the medications, the real meds and the controls.
The second team administers the medications to the patients. The
third team comes in at the end and independently assesses the
effect of the medications on each patient. The fourth team takes
the data and does a statistical analysis. The cost of this kind
of study, as you might imagine, is millions of dollars. And the
teams must never meet.
My guy is unhappy because months after the study is over, he in
the waiting room of Frankfurt airport and he strikes up a
conversation with another man in the lounge, and they discover
— to their horror — that they are both involved in the study.
My guy was on the team that administered the meds. The other guy
is on the team doing the statistics. There isn't any reason why
one should influence the other at this late date, but nevertheless
the protocol requires that team members never meet. So now my
guy is waiting to hear if the FDA will throw out the entire
study, because of this chance meeting in Frankfurt airport.
Those are the lengths you have to go to if you want to be certain
that your information is correct. But when I tell people this
story, they just stare at me incomprehendingly. They find it
absurd. They don't think it's necessary to do all that. They
think it's overkill. They live in the world of MSNBC and The New
York Times. And they've forgotten what real, reliable information
is, and the lengths you have to go to get it. It's so much harder
than just speculating.
And on that point, I have to agree with them.
Thank you very much.
Moe is the founder of GnosticWarrior.com. He is a father, husband, author, martial arts black belt, and an expert in Gnosticism, the occult, and esotericism.


text:
Swords of the Serpentine
Becky Annison
Sale price
Regular price
A GUMSHOE roleplaying game of swords & sorcery! by Kevin Kulp and Emily Dresner When it's summer, you smell her before you see her. As you come around the curve of the Serpentine river the scent of the open sea is replaced by the stench of low tide, of boat tar, of rare spices spilled from a smuggler's ship; of cooking smoke and human waste. Bells ring out across the water and echo like the song of ghosts, loud enough to almost drown out the chanted prayers of your ship's rowers. You round the bend past the lower fort and there she is: the great city of Eversink, sprawled out on scores of islands across the sheltered water. Her jeweled and crystal turrets are reflected in a shimmering bay full of hundreds of brightly colored boats. Architecture from a dozen eras towers above a tangle of grand plazas and narrow canals. Temples to her goddess rise above the mansions and tenements, calling her people to prayer. She may be ancient and corrupt, slowly and inexorably swallowed by an endless bog; but she's alive in a way most cities aren't. She's a melding of faith and stone and wood and water – and mud – that's unique in all the world. It doesn't matter whether you've come to kill a rival, earn a fortune, learn a secret, or hire an army. You're home now, and the Sinking City will embrace you. All you need to do is survive. Swords of the Serpentine is a sword & sorcery game of daring heroism, sly politics, and bloody savagery, set in a fantasy city rife with skullduggery and death. The rules adapt the GUMSHOE investigative roleplaying system to create a fantasy RPG with a focus on high-action roleplaying and investigation inspired by the stories of Fritz Leiber, Terry Pratchett, Robert E. Howard, and others. Your characters will discover leads that, if followed, propel them headlong into danger and forbidden knowledge. A lead might point the way to sunken treasure, jungle ruins, the missing key to a sorcerous trap, or the true identity of a notorious murderer. The GUMSHOE game mechanics ensure that you'll always notice leads if you look for them. It's up to you to choose which one you'll follow into whatever perils lie ahead, in hopes of fortune, glory, justice, or just staying alive another day. If you want to track down foul sorcerers in a corrupt and decadent city, clamber through underground ruins to sneak into an enemy's home and rob them, or wage a secret war against a rival political faction, you're in the right place. Swords of the Serpentine offers: A fantasy city of mystery and magic inspired by Lankhmar and Ankh-Morpork Tools for fast and effective character creation A customized combat system that opens the door for cinematic, heroic battles Social combat that targets your enemy's morale, letting you defeat some foes through wit, guile, and threats Sorcery that allows you to rip apart a tower with the flick of a hand—but are you willing to pay the price in corruption to body and soul? Powerful allegiances that give you influence in one or more factions across the city, but which can earn you equally powerful enemies… Streamlined abilities that power four distinct types of heroes, and which you can mix-and-match across professions to customize your character further Gameplay and rules mechanics that encourage players to help build the world they're adventuring in Rules for death curses, true names, alchemy, sorcerous items, ghostly possession, political manipulation, and more! |


text:
Crop Top – Bobby The Worrier
39,90 €
Contact me if you're in a hurry.
Bobby's worries are popping up like mushrooms! Observation in a superficial way covers up a lot of detail. You can't keep up with worrying when you stay watchful and have the ability to look around with a good dose of awareness and eyes like a hawk. Concerns, bad news, distractions, irritations, big and small, here and there. So… how many worries can you carry around? Ask Bobby and don't forget to have that Worrier around.
This embroidery is inspired by my work "Tears Before Bedtime" (2022), a series of 4 drawings, connected by an orange thread.
This crop top is made out of 100% organic cotton with a GOTS certificate. GOTS monitors the entire fashion supply chain, from farming and harvesting of the raw materials to environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing practices.
I wear S on the image with high-waisted trousers on. I'm 179cm tall.
Choose the attributes above: colour, size etc. and fill out the form that will appear below to get notified when the product is available to order.
Vegan, Organic Cropped T-Shirt with reduced CO₂ footprint
T-shirt's fabric: 100% combed organic cotton (GOTS certified)
Weight: 155 g/m² (Jersey)
Machine embroidery: 100% cotton threads (threads made locally in Germany, OEKO-TEX certified)
Design by Monika Deimling
Colours: Black, Stone Washed Green, Stone Washed Burgundy
Concerning Green and Burgundy colours: this garment has been individually dyed, which is why each piece will have a different shade.
Sizes: S, M, L
Certificates: FairWear Foundation, GOTS, Peta-Approved Vegan, 100% Organic Cotton
"GOTS is a textile production certification that limits the use of toxic bleaches, dyes and other chemical inputs during the production process of textiles. It is internationally recognized as the toughest organic textile standard because it goes far beyond verifying the organic farming process to include every step of manufacturing." - as stated on the GOTS website.
The colours may differ depending on the screen settings, but I assure you, they are beautiful.
This product is made from 100% organic cotton. Growing and processing organic cotton is much more environmentally friendly than conventional cotton – it takes on average 70% less water and 60% less energy to produce. Furthermore, it does not use genetically modified seeds or toxic chemicals.
How to care for organic cotton with embroidery:
- wash before wearing
- it is best to use cold wash or maximum 30 ° C water temperature, if possible choose a delicate wash cycle
- preferably use a mild detergent
- wash inside out with similar colors
- re-shape while damp
- preferable air dry or tumble dry – low heat
- can be ironed at medium temperature
- do not wring out embroidered garments
- do not rub stained embroidery
Please make sure to check the measurements of the garment you wish to buy. In the photo gallery above you will find an exact table of the measurements of each garment. The products may have measurement discrepancies compared to the measurement table. This can be up to approx. +/-5%.
Returns are possible, but you will have to cover the shipping costs. Besides, our environment will be happy if we can reduce the number of travelling parcels. For these reasons, I recommend that you take out a measuring tape and check your size before you make a purchase.
Shipping cost depends on the size of the package and is always calculated for the largest item in your cart. To check exact prices, simply add items to your shopping cart and calculate shipping costs at checkout.
If for any reason you are not completely satisfied, you may return the products and get a full refund or an exchange. Please see my return policy for more information.
Additional information
Colour | Stone Washed Burgundy, Stone Washed Green, Black |
Size | S, M, L |
There are no reviews yet.


text:
The official plot details were released today for Rob Zombie's upcoming sequel, H2.
"It's that time of year again, and Michael Myers has returned home to sleepy Haddonfield, Illinois to take care of some unfinished family business. Unleashing a trail of terror that only horror master Rob Zombie can, Myers will stop at nothing to bring closure to the secrets of his twisted past. But the town's got an unlikely new hero, if they can only stay alive long enough to stop the unstoppable."


text:
Download the Bojangles App For Exclusive Offers!
Bojangles Fountain Inn, SC
200 McCarter Road Fountain Inn, SC 29644 US
Day of the Week | Hours |
Mon | 5am-10pm |
Tue | 5am-10pm |
Wed | 5am-10pm |
Thu | 5am-10pm |
Fri | 5am-10pm |
Sat | 5am-10pm |
Sun | 6am-10pm |
Delivery Options
Featured Menu Items
- Get Bojangles Catered!Celebrate any occasion with Bojangles Legendary Sweet Tea, made-from-scratch biscuits, and enough chicken to feed all your hungry guests!
- SUMMER'S FAVORITE DESSERTPeach Cobbler is in! Try our fluffy buttermilk biscuit half with a warm peach topping, sweet icing and a sprinkle of cinnamon sugar. Only for a limited time.
- JUST $5 FOR 2 SAUSAGE EGG & BISCUITS2x the protein. 2x the deal. Double up your Sausage & Egg Biscuits this morning for just $5.
- POSITIONS AVAILABLE!Looking for a job or a career with this location, which is independently owned and operated by a Bojangles' Franchisee? Click here to apply on their application webpage!
- DOWNLOAD OUR APPWhen cravings call, make sure Bo's on your phone. Download the app for the Southern flavors you love, right when and where you want them. Because ordering chicken 'n biscuits shouldn't ever be a bother. It's never been easier to make it Bo time.
About Bojangles Fountain Inn
Since 1977, Bojangles has been serving customers our perfectly seasoned chicken, made-from-scratch biscuits, signature fixin's, and Legendary Iced Tea. Our biscuits are carefully prepared by our Master Biscuit Makers at Bojangles' of Fountain Inn and served hot and fresh all day every day. Bojangles flavorful, one-of-a-kind food is sure to keep you coming back for more. Whether it's breakfast, lunch, or dinnertime, we've got exactly what you're craving. You'll be shouting "It's Bo Time!" in no time.


text:
This guide will help you install SJ Categories II for SobiPro step by step.
When you buy the module the first time, you will have the latest version. After the first release, we will update this module regularly, please check newer versions when informed here
Table of content as following:
1REQUIREMENT – Back to top
At the basic level, this module will require the following conditions:
- Compatible with version Joomla: Joomla! 2.5.x and Joomla! 3.x
- Compatible with SobiPro 1.1.x. Download here
2INSTALLATION – Back to top
Prepare your module package
- Firstly, you need to UNZIP file that you have downloaded. Please note that you should choose modules package that are suitable with each Joomla version which you have just downloaded
- Secondly, install main module (extracted mod_ file):
- In your Administrator page, go to Extensions -> Extension Manager. In this page, click Choose File, select module package.
- Then click Upload & Install
- Please wait for module being installed, usually within several seconds.
- Now go to Extensions -> Module Manager, click Select Type box and choose the module you have installed
- Prepare to perform Module Configuration
3MODULE CONFIGURATION – Back to top
3.1 Below is module layout
3.2 Module Configuration
Note:We used the images of module's installation on Joomla 3.x to illustrate
After installing, go to Extensions -> Module Manager and find SJ Categories II for SobiPro to configure
SJ Categories II for SobiPro module is configured in 5 groups of parameters as following:
- Basic Options
- Source Options
- Category Options
- Image Options
- Advanced Options
Let's look at the parameters in detail:
4SUPPORT – Back to top
Thank you so much for purchasing this module. If you have any questions that are beyond the scope of this help file, please send us via: Submit a Ticket
Thanks so much!


text:
Baby on Board Stickers - No Paint Damage - Little Princess (2-Pack)
Baby on Board Stickers - No Paint Damage - Little Princess (2-Pack)
Shipping Info
Shipping Info
Orders are shipped out next business day via USPS (1-6 business days).
Price for domestic US shipping is a big fat $zero (free).
Product Description
- ✓ Safety First - our baby on board car stickers are big, bright, bold safety stickers designed to grab the attention of other drivers so they keep their distance & your kids onboard safe
- ✓ Magnets & Suction Cups Suck - literally. Suction cups dry up in the sun & fall off and magnets require metal to stick—that's a problem. So we make baby on board stickers. Stickers you can put anywhere on the car body, windows or bumpers without falling off. Problem solved
- ✓ Easy On, Easy Off - made from our favorite bubble-free vinyl that goes on flat as a pancake, leaving no pockets of air trapped underneath—your stickers will look like a pro installed them. And when it's time for graduation, they'll come right off without leaving any sticky residue or damage to your paint
- ✓ Car Wash Safe - make no mistake, these are tough little decals made of the same material you see on train, bus & car wraps. Waterproof to withstand whatever nature throws at them and UV protected so they won't fade in the sun. Put your stickers on & count on looking cute for years to come. Can't promise the same for your kids though
- ✓ Made in the USA - our baby on board stickers are born & raised in California. Made from American-only vinyl, we design, print & package all our stickers in-house. That means a whole lot of work for us but no skimping on quality for you—just adorable, reliable stickers that'll be the envy of the mom groups. They also make the perfect baby shower gift
Keep Your Precious Cargo Safe While Driving.
Stickios stickers are made to stick anywhere on your vehicle. Keeping your little one safe while driving is our top priority, so we specially engineered our baby on board stickers to clearly alert other drivers of your precious cargo on board. You could be carrying the future President after all, so we think it's best to take all precautions.
Unlike a baby on board magnet that can scratch your car or suction cups that dry up and fall off, our baby safety stickers are made from the same material pro car-wrap shops use so you can travel at Mach speed without worrying about your decal falling off. Of course, we don't recommend driving that fast with kids on board.
We put a lot of thought and detail into our baby on board stickers. We chose bright colors for high-visibility, cute designs because your baby should like them too, and clear text in the hopes that your fellow drivers can read at a minimum grade 3 level.
We hope you'll love our baby on board stickers as much as we do.


text: When faith and hope fail, as they do sometimes, we must try charity, which is love in action. We must speculate no more on our duty, but simply do it. When we have done it, however blindly, perhaps Heaven will show us why. The life of a man consists not in seeing visions and in dreaming dreams, but in active charity and in willing service.