text:
Need Help?
Click here for help with
the STITCHES Online
Registration System.
Registration is closed for this event...
Saturday 04/13/2013, 8:30 am - 11:30 am
Skill LevelIntermediate
Class Hours3
TeacherGwen Bortner
View Gwen's profile
Skirt Design for All Shapes and Sizes with Gwen BortnerKnitted skirts are not just for those with slender hips and model-sized dimensions. In fact, the nature of knitted fabric makes them perfect for all sorts of shapes and sizes. Learn the secrets to creating a skirt that will look good on YOUR body. Start with an exploration of fabrics to understand what works best and why. Next gather measurements needed to create a design, custom fit to your lower half. Finally, study skirt structures to see how to apply them to your own design. Leave class ready to design and knit the perfect skirt for your body.
SuppliesHomework swatch, measuring tape, calculator, pencil, yarn from swatch.
HomeworkPrepare a 6" x 6" swatch in the desired skirt stitch pattern. Please block swatch before coming to class.


text:
Joe Gibbs Program Accelerates Minority NASCAR Success
Aric Almirola and Chris Bristol are both in their second seasons with the program and have each seen their share of success.
Joe Gibbs Racing has had a successful driver development program. With more teams looking to develop young, diverse drivers, Joe Gibbs Racing has provided the ideal model to follow. In 2003, Joe Gibbs and NFL great Reggie White created a driver development program to identify and assist minorities with the desire and talent to make a career in motor sports. Midway through its second full season, the program boasts two winning drivers and a bright future. "The diversity program is a real source of pride for all of us at Joe Gibbs Racing," said J.D. Gibbs, team president. "Thanks to Reggie White's vision, our diversity program was the first to be founded and the first to win races. But it's well beyond that now. It's a proving ground for young drivers.�
He noted that talent behind the wheel of a race car comes in all shapes, sizes, creeds and colors. "The program's success has allowed the company to think long term, because we have some really good drivers developing on the grassroots level. Their success will ensure this team's success now and in the years to come,� he added. "Thanks to such great partners as The Home Depot, MBNA, General Motors, Cintas and Rockwell Automation, the diversity program championed by Reggie White became a reality."
Aric Almirola and Chris Bristol are both in their second seasons with the program and have each seen their share of success. Almirola, a Tampa, Fla. native, has already captured six wins and has earned a spot behind the wheel in two NASCAR Craftsman Truck Series races. Bristol, who races at Hickory (N.C.) Motor Speedway, has won a race in each season with the Joe Gibbs team. Earlier this year Bristol became the first African-American driver to win at Hickory in the track's 55-year history. "NASCAR salutes Joe Gibbs Racing for having the vision to partner with Reggie White on such an important initiative," said NASCAR Director of Diversity Tish Sheets. "The success of the program is a sign that the opportunities that are being created for diverse drivers are paying off."
Both drivers carry the No. 92 on their cars in tribute to the late Reggie White. The No. 92 is the number White wore throughout his football career, playing at the University of Tennessee before becoming a Hall of Fame defensive end in the National Football League. NASCAR will spotlight teams, tracks, sponsors and partners throughout the year for significant contributions and achievement in diversity. NASCAR will also be highlighting diverse drivers currently competing throughout the different levels of the sport.
Latest comments
- Ann GarrisonFebruary 22,2018 @ 08:03 PM
I think you have "Filtered HTML" turned on here. If you switch to "Full HTML," it will probably...
googletag.pubads().definePassback('6785150/BENN/BlackStarNews', [[300,250]]).setTargeting('fold',['BTF']).display();

subset: commoncrawl


text:
1) Rationality
2) Interest in others' perspectives
3) Benefit of the doubt
Anybody is allowed in and given the benefit of the doubt, but this forum is strictly for reasoned, logical and interested debate. You can spam it up and scream insults all you want in TNYB (in fact, you're encouraged to let out your steam there), but when you enter The Real University it's down to business... and we're forming on the principle that we believe people are capable of doing that.
This is my motivation for founding this clan:
A lot of people really don't bother analyzing and assessing their own opinions; they just believe what they do and don't really bother thinking about the other side of it. I (in my own head) refer to these as "Default Believers." There are just as many DB's who are Democrats as there are who are Republican; or rather, it's pretty much proportional to whatever cross-section you might care to take. Then (to arbitrarily divide people up into 2 groups when it's really a gradient), there are Thinkers, by which I mean people who tend to put a lot more thought into issues, and even change their opinion after learning more.
Different thinkers, who really care and try to figure out what's true, consider carefully and reach opposing conclusions. Then, DB's follow both sets of thinkers without thinking at all. It's frustrating to me that we will often end up never knowing why the different thinkers, both groups intelligent and rational, didn't agree, and which, if either, was right.
With this in mind, why is arguing seen as a sign of hate? From me, arguing is only a sign of respect. It says, "I care what you think. I see you as one of the smart people, and want to rectify our difference in opinion. I want us both to find out which of us is right, or if we can't, at least gain some perspective on the issue."
If we only ever discuss things with people who happen to agree with us, then we don't really know anything. If we discuss (debate) things with a thinker who actually has some perspective on the ideas, then we gain that perspective whether or not anyone has changed their minds. I feel a conversation has been successful if I think something that I didn't before entering it.
If there's someone that you consider irrational, annoying, or mentally lazy, don't bother arguing with them. Just let them go on believing whatever they want. You're not going to convince them of anything, and more importantly you have nothing to learn from them.
I'm looking for some co-leaders for this clan, who have opinions and perspective different than my own. I'm atheistic, liberal-leaning, know the sciences more than the arts, and am from the US. Of course, we're looking for at least three leaders in total, so you don't have to oppose all of this. Most importantly, you should value rationality.
Bonus points for recognizing the reference in the clan name.
The only requirements are:
1) A real desire to discuss important and/or interesting issues.
2) A promise to remain civil and avoid insults and ad-hoc arguments at all times within the clan.
Dancing Mustard
Simon Viavant
Stephen Wayne


text:
When I was 13, my seventh-grade history teacher upbraided me in front of the entire class for being rude and disrespectful to our Founding Fathers. My crime? I had asked how she squared her (rather alarming) passion for Thomas Jefferson with the fact that he was a slave owner and that many historians believe he fathered several children, illegitimately, with a woman he owned.
My tone might not have been quite as innocent as I remember it, but I honestly just wanted to know. I too admired Jefferson and had been shocked to learn, through an article in American Heritage, of his relationship with Sally Hemings. My teacher, however, was not interested in exploring the tension between uncomfortable fact and glorious mythology.
Fortunately, my father was. A high school social studies teacher, he put Jefferson in historical context, but mostly he explained that great men were often also quite flawed. It was dangerous to equate "remarkable" with "perfect." Better to revere action than individuals. Only God, my father said, could calculate the sum of a lifetime.
This was something I would hear throughout my young and increasingly feminist adulthood, especially when the topic of John F. Kennedy came up. Both my parents were devoted to President Kennedy with the deeply personal passion that many Irish Catholic Americans of their generation felt. Kennedy was everything they could have hoped for in a president: not just a vindication of their own roots but also representative of what they considered a truly Christian government, supportive and compassionate to the needy and oppressed.
Even after years of sordid revelations — the prostitutes, the mistresses, the Marilyn Monroe affair — he remained "our Jack," the bittersweet touchstone of a moment when it seemed to them that this country could shift, radically and irrevocably, toward an age of social enlightenment.
That he made his way through women as if they were sexual Tic Tacs angered and pained them, but it didn't change the way they viewed the man. Hate the sin, love the sinner.
I was raised to love the Kennedys just as I was raised to receive weekly Communion and view Yeats as the world's greatest poet. But I came to political consciousness at a time when it seemed there were far more call girls on Capitol Hill than congresswomen, and I wasn't quite as willing to give "our Jack" a pass.
PHOTOS: How TV reacted to JFK's assassination
Kennedy's use of women showed a lack of respect not just to his office, his wife and his faith but to women in general. Did his policies of empowerment and liberal equality outweigh personal choices that seemed to directly contradict those values?
In many ways, John Kennedy personifies the ongoing and ever intensifying battle between reverence and revelation. Should our feelings about a person's work, whether policy, poem or painting, be changed by the posthumous knowledge that the man or woman who created it was anti-Semitic or misogynist or a terrible parent?
The question has never been sharper than it is now, when "transparency" is the watchword, if not the practice, when the famous line between bedroom and boardroom has been irrevocably breached, often with the full participation of all parties — live by the tweet / die by the tweet.
We long for airbrushed, brand-managed perfection, then cry foul when the Photoshopping and marketing ploys are exposed.
Kennedy, intentionally or not, helped usher in this celebrity age. He benefited from the discretion of an earlier media era that sanitized the personal lives of Franklin D. Roosevelt and other presidents. That his physical vigor was compromised by chronic pain and disability certainly didn't make it into the pages of Life magazine any more than the marital compromises his wife endured.
PHOTOS: John F. Kennedy on screen
During his presidential campaign, television became a factor in defining a leader's popularity, again to Kennedy's great advantage.
No other president, not even Jefferson, has benefited, and suffered, from our childlike desire to admire without reservation, to sanctify that which we praise. Kennedy was the first political rock star. Not surprisingly, he was loved and hated with a passion rare in American politics.
His assassination, also magnified by the real-time, heartbroken urgency of television, stilled much of that divisiveness with the heavy cloak of grief. But as the tell-all culture intensified, Kennedy became, and remains, a symbol of its opposing forces, the subject of both salacious fascination and sanctified protectiveness.
A few years ago, howls of protest from family and others caused the History Channel to drop "The Kennedys," a miniseries that would have been the network's first scripted drama. Airing finally on the little-seen Reelz, "The Kennedys" was plagued by many problems, but lack of reverence was not one of them. Although it depicted the president's affairs and use of various medications including speed, this JFK was an ambitious but decent man continually beset by physical pain, professional pressure and what would now be described as a sex addiction.
Even now, amid a hailstorm of feature films, documentaries and general revisiting tied to the half-century anniversary of the assassination, the Kennedy mythology remains a national Rorschach. Although adultery continues to flourish inside the Beltway, it is all but impossible to imagine a man with Kennedy's sexual predilections, not to mention his continual use of pain medication, being elected president today.
And yet clips of Kennedy on the campaign trail and in the White House show a man who is in many ways the definition of "presidential," ardently committed to his political course, able even 50 years later to stir great admiration, and antipathy, with his words. That the gap between his image — vigorous sportsman, devoted family man — was as wide as it could be seems less important than his ability to lead.
The assassination didn't just push issues of personal morality aside for many years, it also ensured that Kennedy would never have to endure the ravages of scandal. No man, with the possible exception of David Letterman, looks good while being called out on sexual misconduct. Indeed, as Bill Clinton and countless other politicians have proved, it's the televised cycle of avoidance, denial, often-weaselly admission and hollow-ringing apology that erodes public respect.
"It isn't what he did," goes the modern mantra, "it's that he lied about it."
I was a newborn when Kennedy was shot; in many ways he is as distant a president to me as Thomas Jefferson, defined only by certain portions of his life, assembled this way and that to answer one theme or another. My love for him is an extension of my love for my parents, now both gone. But at this point, in this country, it's difficult to know what to do with the word "legacy." It feels like a trap, a diminution of both the admirable and the despicable. As my father advised all those years ago, it's safer to emulate specific actions.
Idolization requires idols, and people, never mind presidents, are far too complicated for that.
PHOTOS: TV shows and their spinoffs
Overrated/Underrated 2014
PHOTOS: 101 best-written TV shows of all time


text:
The No. 9 UC Santa Barbara Gauchos defeated the No. 11 Hawai'i Rainbow Warriors in a strong, yet close, performance (25-19, 21-25, 25-22, 25-23). The Gauchos improve to 4-2 overall, 3-2 MPSF and snap their two-match losing streak after being swept at UCLA and dropping a heartbreaker in five sets to UC Irvine.
UCSB broke their trend of starting games late with an impressive first set. The set was up for grabs as the two well-matched teams traded points. Sophomore Setter Jonah Seif broke the deadlock with a service ace to give the Gauchos an 18-17 lead before Hawai'i called a timeout. Undeterred, UCSB continued their motivated style of play to grab three more points, capped off by an Austin Kingi and Ryan Thompson block. Kingi was also responsible for five kills off eight attempts in the set while Thompson got a hand on two additional blocks. Hawai'i was again forced to take a timeout. UCSB kept up the intensity and finished the set with dominant services from senior opposite Evan Licht. At 23-19 Gauchos, Licht's first serve was too hot to handle for the Rainbow Warrior defense. The miss-hit ball sailed over the net for an easy slam by Jake Staahl. Licht's sealed the set win with an authoritative fastball passed Hawai'i.
The second set was contested with an early 4-4 tie. Thompson and Kingi teamed up for another block to break the tie, and then Licht added his own solo block to put the Gauchos ahead 9-6. However, the UCSB drive stalled with hitting errors, which enabled Hawai'i to tie the match at 13. Despite a UCSB timeout, the Rainbow Warriors were able to strike for six straight points. Not even four team blocks in the set could prevent Hawai'i from taking the set 25-21. Brook Sedore for the Rainbow Warriors carried his team with 19 total kills for the match followed by Sinisa Zarkovic with 12 kills.
Hawai'i kept the pressure on UCSB in the third set by jumping out to a 10-6 lead. The Gauchos found their intensity, as they had late in the first set, to turn a five point scoring streak and take the lead 11-10. This time UCSB relied on their service game, landing four aces in the set, In particular, Staahl's two services aces were critical to the early comeback and required Hawai'i to burn their first timeout. The third set also witnessed the Gauchos unleash their offensive prowess at the net. Matt Hanley was subbed in late during the second set, only striking for one kill. However, in the third set, Hanley, Licht, Thompson, and Kingi each blasted three kills against the porous Rainbow Warrior defense that could only manage two blocks. Thompson finished with eight kills on the night and continued his efficiency with a .455 clip. Despite their early setback, the Gauchos overpowered Hawai'i to win the set 25-22.
UCSB fell behind early in the fourth set, similar to the third, 11-7. Yet, also similar to the third set, the Gauchos found a spark to fight back in the match. Staahl's solo block invigorated the team to three straight points that was interrupted by a Hawai'i timeout. Undaunted, Licht and Thompson on the very next point teamed up for a critical block to tie the match at 13. After losing a point to Hawai'i, the Gauchos again reeled-off three straight points. The duo of Licht and Thompson would not allow the Rainbow Warrior offense any chance to get rolling as they stuffed two of the three straight points. Thompson assisted in seven total blocks for the match while Licht's three blocks in the set gave him a total of four for the match, not including his solo block. Hawai'i was forced to burn their second timeout of the set. UCSB extended their lead to 20-17 before the Rainbow Warriors rallied to within one point, still down 24-23. Austin Kingi sealed the set, and the match, for the Gauchos with the winning kill. He pounded three kills in the set for a total of 13 in the match. Further, Hanley continued his strong play off the bench with an additional four kills for a match total of eight.
"We came together as a team tonight to get a win we needed," said Rick McLaughlin. "We still have a lot of work to do to get where we want to be, so we'll be ready for them again tomorrow night." UCSB finishes off their double-header against Hawai'i in Rob Gym tomorrow night at 7pm before heading on a two game road trip to USC and to current No. 1 Pepperdine.


text:
Between 2005 and 2009, the IUCN project Strengthening Voices for Better Choices (SVBC) sought to improve the effectiveness of forest governance in six key tropical forest countries: Brazil, Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), Ghana, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Viet Nam.
SVBC recognised that to improve forest governance requires an understanding of the policy, regulatory and institutional obstacles to managing forests sustainably. To that end, the project sponsored participatory assessments of each country's forest sector aimed at identifying and situating national governance concerns within an overall framework informed by global experience in natural resource governance.
This new brief summarises the findings of the SVBC national assessments, and is based on a synthesis of the assessments prepared for SVBC in 2010 by Patricia Moore, Thomas Greiber and Saima Baig.
The brief can be downloaded from the link opposite, together with the full synthesis report, Strengthening Voices for Better Choices: Forest governance and law enforcement: Findings from the field.


text:
The Supreme Court Has Just Given The Police Another Way To Search Your House Without A Warrant
from the 4th-amendment-now-mostly-holes dept
A few days ago, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that effectively grants law enforcement and investigative agencies the power to search your home without a warrant. Here's what led to this unfortunate bit of precedent.
At issue in Fernandez v. California was a 2009 search by the Los Angeles Police Department of the home of a robbery suspect. When the officers first arrived, suspect Walter Fernandez denied them entry, but because his girlfriend Roxanne Rojas exhibited signs of recent injury, Fernandez was arrested on separate charges of domestic violence. While Fernandez was being booked, one of the officers returned to the apartment and gained Rojas' permission to conduct a search, which soon turned up evidence linking Fernandez to the robbery.On one hand, this does make some sense. Multiple adult occupants should have some stake in control of the residence. But as Fernandez pointed out in his arguments, his refusal to let the police search the apartment without a warrant was disregarded once he was in custody. Fernandez felt his objection should still stand despite being arrested. (And one would think it would -- police still need a warrant to search the premises of arrested individuals.) Because he was no longer at the residence to object, the police went back and got permission for a warrantless search from his girlfriend.
Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito upheld the LAPD's actions. "A warrantless consent search is reasonable and thus consistent with the Fourth Amendment irrespective of the availability of a warrant," Alito wrote. Moreover, he added, "Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence."
The court argues somewhat elliptically (quoting from 2006's Georgia v. Randolph) that because Fernandez was no longer there to object, any "reasonable person" would have felt confidence in accepting the remaining individual's invitation to search the premises.
"[I]t is fair to say that a caller standing at the door of shared premises would have no confidence that one occupant's invitation was a sufficiently good reason to enter when a fellow tenant stood there saying, 'stay out.' Without some very good reason, no sensible person would go inside under those conditions." Id., at 113.But cops are neither "friends" nor "visitors." They are government officials in possession of a great deal of power. And they are supposed to obtain warrants to search premises if there's an objection. The conclusion the court reaches here has effectively given law enforcement (yet another) route around the Fourth Amendment.
It seems obvious that the calculus of this hypothetical caller would likely be quite different if the objecting tenant was not standing at the door. When the objecting occupant is standing at the threshold saying "stay out," a friend or visitor invited to enter by another occupant can expect at best an uncomfortable scene and at worst violence if he or she tries to brush past the objector.
But when the objector is not on the scene (and especially when it is known that the objector will not return during the course of the visit), the friend or visitor is much more likely to accept the invitation to enter. Thus, petitioner's argument is inconsistent with Randolph's reasoning.
If one person objects, but the other says "yes," then all the police have to do is detain the objector and search the residence with the other person's permission. The court cautions against meritless detainment and states that evidence obtained in this underhanded fashion will be less likely to hold up in court. But that's a statement the court has to want to believe to defend its conclusion. There is simply no reason to believe that any law enforcement officer won't be able to find some charge to throw at the objector in order to remove them from the equation. Even if the arrest turns out to be spurious and used solely to remove the objector, the objector still has to suffer through detainment, and then, if the search turns up anything, fight to get the illicitly-obtained evidence thrown out. Neither of these are pleasant for the person who simply decided to assert his Fourth Amendment rights.
The dissenting opinion correctly notes that the majority's decision shrinks the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes:
"Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement, today's decision tells the police they may dodge it, nevermind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate."The "ample time" is an excellent point. Fernandez was arrested. He wasn't going anywhere, so the police had plenty of time to secure a warrant without worrying that the detainee would destroy evidence. But they chose not to. And they took this case all the way to the Supreme Court.
How hard is it to get a warrant? In court, agencies act like it's a nearly insurmountable obstacle, when in fact (in most jurisdictions), it's rarely more than a rubber stamp process. Very rarely does any judge challenge law enforcement officers' claims made "upon information and belief." If time is absolutely of the essence, there are emergency exceptions which can be used (and often, abused).
But law enforcement and investigative agencies don't like obtaining warrants. Despite this protection being a part of this country for nearly its entire existence, these entities have worked tirelessly to eliminate the small requirement that they show probable cause before performing searches. Gideon at A Public Defender quotes yet another law enforcement official talking about the terrible hardship that is securing a warrant.
"I mean, it's like, oh my gosh, as if!" said Wethersfield, CT police chief James Cetran when asked whether obtaining cell phone records of citizens of Connecticut should require a showing of probable cause. Warrants based on probable cause are, like, so "tedious", he followed up. Further:*Gideon from A Public Defender feels it should be noted that this quote was the only thing Chief Cetran actually said. Everything else surrounding it is Gideon's embellishment.
"It makes things faster, easier and better for us," said Cetran. "It's something you can do within minutes, not hours.*
"Best of all, of course, would be no requirement to get a pesky judge involved, but I'm feeling like a fat cat from where I'm sitting already, so…" he most certainly did not say, but I'm going to pretend that he thought it to himself nonetheless.
These entities already have warrantless access to tons of data and they're still not satisfied. The following is a small list of the information available to law enforcement, investigative and security agencies without a warrant. (There are, of course, some exceptions state-to-state.)
Call records
License plate data
Cellphone location data
Hotel/motel registration
Drug prescription data
Email over 180 days old
Almost anything considered a "business record" can be obtained without a warrant thanks to the Third Party Doctrine. The contents of your cellphone may be accessed without a warrant, thanks to courts comparing cellphone contents to the contents of your pockets or address books. Every agency in the nation has some form of "exigent circumstances" exceptions to use instead of warrants, which further weakens the Fourth Amendment.
As Gideon points out, the state of Connecticut already has a built-in workaround for police to (ab)use to skirt the Fourth Amendment.
In Connecticut, unlike, say, in MA [PDF], police departments can obtain cell phone records of anybody by getting a judge to sign an "ex parte application."Despite all of this warrantless access, agencies still complain that getting a warrant slows down the "process." The state of Massachusetts plans to appeal the recent state supreme court decision that stated that warrantless access to cellphone location data violates the state constitution by arguing that the law enforcement agency had enough probable cause to get a warrant. That's the state's trump card: because it could have obtained a warrant, it should be allowed to access this data without a warrant.
The difference is that the ex parte application merely requires a showing of 'reasonable and articulable suspicion', which is the standard that police need to meet in order to stop you on the street and ask you a question, as opposed to 'probable cause', which is what they need to search you, your house, your car, or to arrest you. It's a much lower standard and one that's only slightly higher than "because I felt like it"...
Which brings me to the second thing: as per Colli's report, it seems that of the 13,000+ ex parte applications made since 2005, not a single one has been rejected.
Not one in over 8 years. And you think the FISA court was an NSA rubber stamp? Are you confident that all 13,000+ requests involved people whom the police had reason to believe were committing or had committed a crime?
This logic is as horrendous as it is self-serving. State law enforcement agencies want this loophole left open because they want the freedom to grab records without having to worry about probable cause. The agency could have obtained a warrant, it still chose not to -- to grab historical data, no less, as if time was even a factor.
The Supreme Court has just carved another path around the inconvenient amendment, one that allows law enforcement to search your residence without a warrant or your permission. All they have to do is find one resident who will say, "yes." And while they perform this warrantless search, you'll be locked up. This tilts the power balance entirely. You, the citizen, will be completely stripped of the few rights you do have while law enforcement tosses your house for whatever it can find. The US Supreme Court has just cast its vote for the expansion of the police state and trimmed some more flesh from the desiccated body of the Fourth Amendment.
Filed Under: fourth amendment, police, privacy, supreme court


text:
Skinny teen Emma Hix is dealt with and fucked in rough fashion If you enjoyed this clip please give it a approving thumps up and do not forget to subscribe and please visit our website for the full video
It's nice to see you on Risky Teen Video, and we know why you are here. You've been looking for some hot wet pussy... well, you've found it! Our website is completely devoted to that kind of porn movies; we have the handpicked sex scenes with the best girls in business, both amateur and porn stars, Ebony and White chicks, teens and matures! Superior quality of our videos is combined with the great diversity of hot wet pussy action, regularly added fresh scenes and absolutely free access to it!


text:
Unhealthy mercury levels persist in fish
Despite efforts by the state to curb mercury in the air and water, unhealthy levels of the element in most fish persist, resulting in restrictions on local fish consumption.
"Mercury is a really big issue," said Gary Rose, director of engineering and enforcement at the Bureau of Air Management the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. "It's local. It's national. It's international."
Exposure to mercury, through the air or by eating mercury-laden fish, is toxic to humans. In recent years, there were signs that levels of the substance were declining in the state's water.
A University of Connecticut study of fish found that in 22 lakes tested statewide where year-over-year comparisons were done, the overall mercury concentration declined by 17 percent, from 0.41 parts per million in 1995 to 0.34 parts per million in 2005-06, the most-recent data available. However, that's still higher than the .2 parts per million that's the threshold for unhealthy mercury levels.
Also, fish in seven waterways, including Canoe Brook Lake in Trumbull and Lake Kenosia in Danbury, contained increased levels of mercury, the study by UConn Professor Christopher Perkins showed.
While the study doesn't test the fish in rivers and streams, the state Department of Public Health declared a fish consumption advisory for all the state's waters. Since much of the mercury contamination comes from the air, officials know that it's in the lakes and rivers, said state DPH epidemiologist Brian Toal.
Mercury's health risks
Mercury can attack the central nervous system and damage the brain, heart, lungs, kidneys and immune system. Developing fetuses and small children are especially susceptible, and mercury can cause neurological and developmental damage.
Based upon blood sampling data, federal scientists estimated that between 300,000 and 630,000 infants are born in the United States each year with mercury levels that are associated, at later ages, with the loss of IQ, according to a report published by Environmental Health Perspectives. Research attributed this to pregnant women's consumption of mercury-contaminated fish.
The state DEEP has worked to lower mercury levels through implementing tighter emissions restrictions, banning the manufacture and sale of most mercury-added products and encouraging proper recycling.
For instance, nationwide, only an estimated 2 percent of household compact fluorescent light bulbs are recycled properly, according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers. In Connecticut, only 4 percent of households participate in hazardous waste collection days, which is when mercury-containing CFLs, thermostats and thermometers should be recycled.
Instead, those items usually end up in one of the state's trash-to-energy plants, where, through the disposal process, mercury gas is emitted into the air and eventually pollutes waterways and ends up in fish. While 40 percent of mercury pollution in Connecticut comes from out-of-state sources such as Midwestern coal-fired plants, volcanoes and other sources of pollution, 60 percent comes from in-state sources -- primarily the state's six trash-to-energy plants and its one coal-fired plant in Bridgeport.
In 2012, the coal-fired PSEG Power Bridgeport Harbor Station, operating a total of 561 hours, emitted 0.33 pounds of mercury, while the state's trash-to-energy plants collectively emitted 48.52 pounds of mercury, DEEP figures show. That's enough mercury to contaminate 28.8 million fish, according to Professor Robert Mason, of the Marine Sciences and Chemistry Department at UConn's Avery Point campus in Groton.
Still, there have been mercury reductions in some local freshwater fish and those are due, in part, to the New England governors' commitment to a "virtual elimination goal for mercury" made in 1998. "Subsequently, that included placing mercury control devices on waste incinerators and coal-fired power plants both in Connecticut and throughout the region," said Michael Bender, director of the Mercury Policy Project.
"The good news is that we are making a dent in reducing local pollution, but the bad news is that national and international sources of mercury continue to rain down on us."
Fish consumption advisories
With fishing season here, people who get their fishing licenses receive the state DPH advisories on eating fish caught in Connecticut waters. In a video created by the Connecticut Health I-Team, several local fisherman were interviewed at Jimmy O's Bait and Tackle in Bridgeport and said they generally stick to the guidelines. "You just use your own judgment," said Thomas St. Cyr, of Stratford. "But basically, I don't want to get sick."
Jimmy O's owner, Jimmy Orifice, said he feels most fish in the region are safe to eat, but he and other fishermen do take precautions. "We bleed the fish when we catch them," he said. "Most of the toxins are in the blood."
Meanwhile, multiple studies report that those with fish as a dietary staple and subsistence fishermen eat the fish they catch far more frequently than the health advisories of once a month for pregnant and nursing women and small children, and once a week for adults.
"Lower-income people are affected a lot worse" by mercury in the fish, said Dr. Mark Mitchell, co-chair of the Environmental Health Task Force for the National Medical Association, who researched people fishing in the Connecticut River. "When I asked Latinos, African Americans, Asians -- they all said they ate the fish. Nobody threw the fish back," Mitchell said. He found that the sustenance fishermen were unaware that they were required to get a license to fish in public waters.
The state health department has the equivalent of a full-time person working with nonprofits and religious institutions that serve low-income people to educate them about fish-consumption restrictions. "We send information to physicians. We send it to tackle shops and town halls," said DPH's Toal.
"It's labor intensive. We do as much as we can with the resources that we have. We probably don't do as much as we could."
For the state public health fish consumption advisories, visit http://www.ct.gov/dph/cwp/view.asp?a=3140&Q=387460.
Stores in Connecticut that recycle CFLs are: IKEA, Home Depot and Lowe's.
This story was reported under a partnership with the Connecticut Health I-Team (www.c-hit.org)


text:
Today, we visit with a pair of very disgruntled correspondents. How nice!
Have you ever noticed how some folks have an inordinate amount of time on their hands? Time they use to poke around in the lives of the rest of us poor, unfortunate, benighted souls. They love to point out the errors of our ways. Whatever would we do without these guiding lights? It's always been curious to me how the least capable among us are always the first to set himself or herself up as the arbiter of proper and wholesome living, especially when it comes to sex.
Who was it that said, "remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye"? Oh yeah, now I remember. I am in really good company today. 😉
And today, dear readers, I'll not bother tidying up my correspondents' spelling and punctuation. I want you to experience the fullness of their brilliance for yourselves. Besides, I'm too busy trying to dislodge this plank from my eye.
Hey Dickhead
I would really like to know who you are and what are your qualifications in sexual matters. I was just reading one of your replies to a young person whose lover is 17yrs older than her. I am so saddened by your reply. You advised her to have extra relationship affairs which we all know that relationships that incorporates a third party is destined to ruin and the couple is inevitably be living a lie. I do not know what sort of sexual development you had and how you've come to separate love and sex but you are surely promoting a negative in this case.
Sex is something that is for the relationship and that relationship alone, not to go all around town giving out at free will. Being a slut. Im sure there are different things that they together as a couple can do with out the help of somebody else. And like slutting around is actually gonna save somebody's relationship, yea i see that happening every day.
Even if this is a hoax and not a real problem, I'm afraid it is in bad taste. I do not know you from Adam but please think before you answer any of these questions. The gay communities in many places and the gov't have spent a lot of money in the fight with Aides. One of the things that was being promoted is finding one partner and sticking to him. The more partners one has the higher the risk. There is also the aspect of using another for selfish sexual gratification. Yes you may say It's Ok if there is consent but really, Is it? After all we all know what happens to our feelings once we have had orgasm. You are a bad person. You shouldn't be telling anybody anything.
Whoa, what a charmer!
What a dangerous and disturbing thing it is to be so judgmental about the sex lives of others. Isn't it possible for well-meaning people to have a genuine disagreement on such matters without interjecting all the disparaging and rude remarks?
As I review my response to the person in question, I see I offered her a number of sound suggestions on how to deal with her sexual frustration. The thought, that she might discuss an accommodation with her primary partner, allowing her to seek sexual fulfillment outside her relationship, was just one of the ideas I had. Why did you focus only on that? And would you really characterize that as "slutting around"?
It's been my experience that many long-term loving relationships continue to be successful precisely because the partners make adjustments for the inevitable disparity of sexual interests that develops between them over time. After all, accommodations and a healthy give and take are hallmarks of a well-adjusted relationship. And who says fidelity is a genital issue? Not me!
As the resident sexual advisor on this website, (you can check out my substantial qualifications in my bio) I offer advice on the problems that my correspondents present me. I stand by my advice. The people who write to me are adults. They can choose from among the helpful hints I offer, or disregard them all together. But it is certainly not my role to choose for them. So, if I had omitted the option that gives you such offense, I would have, at least by default, made part of her choice for her.
You defend your point of view from a position of fear. You claim that we should be sexually exclusive with one partner because there is a higher risk of being infected with AIDS if we aren't. Is that the best you can come up with? Is that really why we should pair off with just one other person, because we're afraid of disease? And then there's this other curious comment: "After all we all know what happens to our feelings once we have had orgasm." What are you insinuating about "us"? Me thinks you disclose more about your personal prejudices then you intended.
My advice to you, deary, is to sit down and take a deep breath. Your undies are in such a bunch, you're beginning to screech. I also suggest that you suspend judgment, particularly as it applies to the manner in which others live their lives, or at least till you have more information about the intricacies of life, sex and love.
Good Luck,
Dr. Dick,
I am a 27 year old male that has never had sex or been in any kind of a relationship. I've looked but all I've found is that every guy I've met seems only to be controlled by his dick. I've come to the conclusion that all men my age are the same. It's gotten so bad that not only do I hate my own kind but I hate sex because of what it stands for. I have even lost the need to please myself and I think of others as weak and pathetic for not being able to use their hearts. I know that sex is a healthy part of human life but why (especially in our community) is everything based on sex and/or crammed down our throats? Even the simplest of ads has to have some dude brandishing his schlong just to get attention. I can't even enter a chat room without somebody asking me what my cock size is. I've come to hate everything we stand for and it's left me cold and I tend to shut myself out of any function that is sexually related. Friends tell me to get off my high horse but I can't see any reason to. Just by observing from up here all I see are a bunch of HIV infected rabbits that have reached the end of their evolutionary path because they no longer communicate with word but only with sex. I thought I'd grow out of this but that was seven years ago.
— Cold, Clinton J.
Dear ClintonJ,
How in the world did you get to be so incredibly bitter and jaded at such a tender age?
Your friends are right, puppy, get off your high horse. The observations you make about us mere mortals are more than a little skewed, coming as they do from your angelic vantage point.
Listen, it's true what you say about our community's obsession with sex. Kudos to you for pointing out the obvious. But hey, it's not just us homos. Look around and you will find our entire culture is fucked up in this way. You can have a full and life-affirming sex life without participating in or being co-opted by the madness that abounds. You can, like others do, choose a life path that is both sexually enriching and adventurous without succumbing to a preoccupation.
You claim to be 27 and say you've never had sex? And you make this proclamation like it's something to be proud of. I wonder, how much of this bitterness is just sour grapes? Like Bette Midler is fond of sayin': "You're crackin' up from a lack of shackin' up." You need to get laid, doll. It's as simple as that.
And what's up with this? "…all I see are a bunch of HIV infected rabbits that have reached the end of their evolutionary path…"? Shame on you. Try pumping some life-affirming blood into those icy veins and see what happens. Do not stand in judgment of something you cannot or will not participate in. It makes you look like a bounder.
Good Luck


text:
Discover Your Dream Home
Rebekah Marsh
Keller Williams
- 541-513-9039
- 541-349-2657
Your Local Real Estate Connection
Get a positive, helpful partner for buying or selling a home:
- Trusted resource for answers about the process
- Innovative marketing strategies
- Expertise about neighborhood features
- Ability to target home searches
- Strong negotiation skills
- Support through the closing and beyond
Recent Sales
Creswell, OR
- 3
- beds
- 1.1
- baths
Springfield, OR
- 4
- beds
- 2
- baths
Eugene, OR
- 2
- beds
- 2.1
- baths
Eugene, OR
- 3
- beds
- 2.1
- baths
Communities Served
This content was last updated on Sep 22, 2019 4:09:am. Some properties which appear for sale on this web site may subsequently have sold or may no longer be available. All information provided is deemed reliable but is not guaranteed and should be independently verified. The content relating to real estate for sale on this web site comes in part from the IDX program of the RMLS™ of Portland, Oregon. Real estate listings held by brokerage firms other than Keller Williams are marked with the IDX logo, and detailed information about these properties includes the names of the listing brokers. Listing content is copyright © 2019 RMLS™, Portland, Oregon.


text:
As the US kicked off the Iraq War on the evening of March 19, 2003, with the infamous "shock and awe" bombardment of Baghdad, I huddled into a small high school classroom for an antiwar gathering organized by several faculty members. Little did I know at the time that, ten years later, the Iraq War would prove a defining moment in the development of my worldview.
I spoke about my experience on Take Action News with David Shuster last Saturday. Subscribe to YouTube.com/takeactionnewstv for free clips in your inbox.
I was a sophomore at The Ramaz School in Manhattan. Lo and behold, enough students were either against the war or sufficiently curious that the classroom where the teach-in had been scheduled was way too small for the turnout. It was packed to the point where people could barely get in the door. Kids were sitting on desks, standing, sliding in wherever they could. A large white sheet with a crudely painted black peace sign was draped over the blackboard. Faculty members made varying arguments against the war and answered students' questions.
My history teacher, Dr. Jon Jucovy, made the strongest case against Iraq that I'd heard so far. He identified each of the claims being made about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction–nuclear weapons; chemical and biological weapons; and ties to Al Qaeda–and shot them down. One claim that stood out because of how quickly it had been debunked, but continued to be used by the Bush Administration, was that Iraq had purchased large amounts of "yellow cake" Uranium from Niger with which to make nuclear weapons. It had been clear since March 2002 that those purchases hadn't taken place, Jucovy explained. In fact, the State Department and the International Atomic Energy Agency had flagged the document that was purported to record the sale as a forgery in early January 2003.
It didn't take long to find out that Jucovy–like so many other skeptics–was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction.
Given the tragic consequences of the Iraq War, ten years later, however, there is no satisfaction in the knowledge that we were right before some other people. As Jucovy told us on the eve of the war, "I hope I'm wrong. I really hope they find weapons of mass destruction there."
My personal experience and that of many of my peers, though, may offer lessons for avoiding other destructive policies that enjoy similarly unquestioned reverence among the political and media elite.
The Iraq War marked the end of our political innocence. It was our generation's Watergate scandal. It instilled in us distrust in all institutions, but especially the government and the media. It taught us to question conventional wisdom even when it means enduring ridicule; to appreciate the overriding tendency of powerful people to abuse their power; and to accept that our institutions often reward failure and malice, while punishing excellence and goodness.
Questioning consensus. Conventional wisdom develops very easily, especially when people are afraid that questioning it will make them seem unpatriotic. Despite my doubts, I initially felt very uncomfortable opposing the war because everybody seemed to think it was such a good idea. My parents, many friends, and several liberals who I admired at the time, like Tom Friedman and Tony Blair, supported it.
Being marginalized taught us how to build our own communities. Experiences of solidarity with fellow dissenters like the teach-in I attended provided me and other opponents of the war with a very powerful countervailing force. So did alternative sources of information and a handful of personal mentors. Many of the tools we used to unite against the Iraq War–blogs, social media–and groups we became active in, such as MoveOn.org, continue to be important vehicles for political awareness and activism on a broad array of progressive issues where our positions may contradict conventional wisdom.
There is no greater validator though than the passing of time. If we felt nervous and alone in our opposition to the war in 2003, by the following year, we had learned the value of sticking to our guns. Not every issue pans out so quickly or clearly. And of course we are not always right. But the collective experience of liberals on the eve of the Iraq War should at least give us the confidence we need not to discard our ideas merely because they are unpopular in a given moment.
Appreciating the full potential for abuse of power. For some time, I had trouble believing there wasn't at least some significant national security justification for–or benefit from–the war. I couldn't believe they would send people to their deaths based on complete fabrications.
Discovering how absurd the WMD claims shattered those doubts. If Bush and his surrogates could baldly lie about something like the much-vaunted "yellow cake," and out a CIA agent whose husband discredited their claims, then, I thought, perhaps our leaders really were capable of the worst. (We later found out that the outed CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, was involved in tracking the "proliferation of nuclear weapons materials into Iran," which meant that when her cover was blown, it hindered our ability to keep track of Iran's nuclear plans.) I began to accept the possibility that the entire case for war could be not only dubious, but a deliberately perpetrated sham.
Getting over the initial shock of the Iraq War lies empowered us to acknowledge equally outrageous violations of public trust that we might otherwise not have seen, as well as more mundane deceptions that allow politicians to escape accountability.
Accepting that bad guys and good guys often don't get what they deserve. The aftermath of the Iraq War has undermined our confidence in our system's ability to reward excellence and punish failure. Many of the war's most right-wing proponents continue to enjoy power and credibility–eg, Bill Kristol, Lindsay Graham and John McCain.
John Kerry, who is now Secretary of State, did not apologize for voting for the war when he was the Democratic nominee for President in 2004. Instead, Kerry offered the disingenuous excuse that his vote was based on assurances from President Bush that Bush was going to exhaust diplomatic channels before invading, but then Bush "went back on his word" to Kerry. That Kerry's binding vote to authorize force was based on a verbal assurance from President Bush was apparently supposed to bolster Kerry's credibility.
Worse still, we fall for new idiotic dogmas peddled by the same discredited warmongers. When liberal war cheerleaders like Tom Friedman insist that cutting Social Security and Medicare is as urgent as they once thought invading Iraq was, Beltway elites still take them seriously.
Even the adjectives Friedman uses in describing the indispensability of the Grand Bargain tracks directly with his language advocating the Iraq War. Friedman in the New York Times, September 2011 (emphasis mine):
I've been arguing that the only antidote to this debilitating situation is a Grand Bargain between the two parties — one that cuts long-term entitlement spending and raises additional tax revenues…
Friedman on Charlie Rose, May 2003 (emphasis mine):
And there was only one way to do it…What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, and basically saying, 'Which part of this sentence don't you understand…Well, suck on this.'
The common denominator in both situations is that Friedman's preferred idea is the only effective option.
And all of this has happened while the memory of the Iraq War is still fresh. Our memories will get worse as time passes, and then perhaps our pre-war naïveté will creep back in. After all, three decades after our parents' generation lived through the Vietnam War, they fell for the lies that sent us to war with Iraq.


text:
Fishing Postcards Letterpressed On Blotter
Old travel destination postcards always offer typographic treats. Barrett Haroldson over at Colle McVoy designed some type on these postcards every bit as tasty. We love the mix of haltone texture and overprinting. They are 3/3 letterpress printed on the same press sheet using our big 13 x 18 Heidelberg Windmill running up a stack of 60 point blotter board. That mother turns it out. I'm no sportsman, but these almost make me want to go fishing. Fishington is great resource to do just that, is spring here yet? And certainly check out Barretts blog.


text:
German Company Wants To Protect Its Use Of The '@' Sign: What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
from the @hats-and-@fish dept
A little while back, Techdirt wrote about a rather brave French company that tried to trademark the Anonymous logo. Now Der Spiegel is reporting that someone wants a German "wordmark" on the "@" sign (original in German). The company involved has the rather unusual name "@ T.E.L.L.", where the initials apparently stand for "Tradinghouse for Exclusive Luxury Labels". Although it's not really clear what the connection is, it is seeking to protect its use of the @-symbol for various classes of luxury goods (application in German), including the following:
shoes, hats, belts, fish, dried fruit, eggs, milk, coffee, tea, tapioca, bread, sugar, honey, syrups, alcoholic beverages (excluding beer), cigarettes, cigars, cigarette lighters and ashtrays
Despite this limitation to certain luxury items, and despite a press release (pdf in German) emphasizing that the company has no intention of sending out warning letters to people using the @-sign in their email addresses, you do have to wonder how wise it is to hand out control, no matter how circumscribed, over something so fundamental to the working of the modern world.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Filed Under: @, germany, trademark
Companies: @ t.e.l.l.


text:
Face Time On CW
This is so exciting, everyone: I had no idea there were Doctor Who fans in the Walmart bakery! Check this out:
How cool is that, huh? It's totally Lady Cassandra O'Brien Dot Delta Seventeen!
[crickets chirping]
[Pin dropping. Loudly.]
What's with all the blank looks? Are you guys telling me you don't know who Cassandra O'Brien Dot Delta Seventeen is? Really?
Well, here, she looks like this:
Ok, now go look at that "cake" again, and tell me it's not her. Go on.
Hm? Oh. Yeah, I guess you do have a point: she doesn't have eyebrows. Or a nose. Or weird purply hair tufts. Or antennae. But if that's not supposed to be Cassandra O'Brien Dot Delta Seventeen, then I'm going to go out on a limb here and say maybe the Walmart in question should consider employee drug screening. Not that I'm implying anything by that, of course - nosirree.
Thomas R., you thought it was her, too - right?


text:
About Anders K. Nielsen
If they try this bullshit, they should get sanctioned by the EU. They are already balancing on the edge, by acting like its the 18th century in some area instead of catch up.
Stop trying to keep your citizens down and ignorant. I know knowledge is poison to your power, but that's because you are using a stick instead of a carrot.
Yeah, I was thinking the same, that's the problem? It would be the same saying that Gamestop couldn't compete because game companies only sells digital directly from their own servers and so what? The middleman was not there first, the company who made the product was... Like the lice wouldn't be there without the dog.
Ahh, well I don't see that is a problem, it's their product, they can sell it to whoever they want to imo. I don't see how the dealerships can be entitled to the right of buy it.
I actually believe that the problem is that the dealerships can't buy the cars at engross prices, but have to pay the same price that Tesla sells the cars to the public, and that's what gets their tits in a twist.
Dealerships, get over it, you are a customer, nothing more, nothing else. You are not entitled to any special deals.
Wait, I might have missed something here, but what is the issue here? Is it that the company are not allowed to sell directly to the public, or that other cardealers are not allowed to sell their product?
I don't see how the goverment can legally block a company from skipping the middle man, as long the middle man is still allowed to sell their products.
There is a difference between name calling and actually mark someone as a pedophile, and if it's just name calling, it's not defamation.
If the guy has said something like, "He is a pedophile, because he touch his kids." that's a whole lot different then "Fucking pedophile", which would be the same as calling someone a fruitcake.
It doesn't mean they think the person is a pedophile or cake made of fruit, but just that they are a shithead, which I guess Johnny Doc is refereed as.
I don't see how they can do this, isn't this in conflict of the rules for getting your apps accepted on the market? This is a seriously underhand way of controlling the ratings, and is almost onpair of just hiring people to leave positive votes.
I still don't understand how and why anyone would go along with at least half of those examination, that is just fucked. I know some people would say "Oh you talk big, but you would go along as well." but hell no, seriously... surgery??? No fucking way I would EVER accept that without a lawyer present and a court order. That's just insane. Not even the repeated enema.
I hope seriously hope that the involved people will get fired and at least that they reject the settlement and they will go to court, because this shit gotta stop.
Agreed, american agency has NOTHING to do in another country, even if there is an american involved. They might get invited to help, but they should not except to just step in if they want to, just because one from their country is involved.
Do they want Egypt to get involved in investigations in the US, because an Egyptian tourist might have been involved?
And the most scary thought is that they might actually arrange for an 'attack' if we manage to get them shut down, just to be able to go "Hey! Now you see, we need NSA to protect us like this!".
And before someone says that is a paranoid thought to have, yeah I might have agreed...before. But now? Seeing all the shit they are willing to do to keep their power and control?
"no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties."
Wohoo, wait a minute, so that means that doctors, tele companies and so on can just give out information to anyone? He gave that information voluntarily. Or maybe, that paid off judge should get off the chair and start ruling according to the full facts instead of the biased vallet.
Yeah, it reminds me about the shop that wanted to stop people window shopping and then buy it online, and then started to demand entry fee for people to enter the shop, which they would get back if they bought something, but not if they didn't.
Talking about shooting yourself in the foot. Instead of trying to get with the times, they try to force people to buy from them. Yeah, no thanks.
Bullshit, its a scam. That's how the scam works, write a description with details that can be misunderstood, and make use of the hype of the product, to scam someone to buy their fake product.
A very simple telltale is the price, you cannot defend the price of 500$ for a picture of a Xbox One. It's not anything unique or rare enough for that price. That price is there to give credibility to the scam.
Don't be a tool, and stop defending that trash.
"kill lot more people then GUNS" ... sorry.
As usual, we need to ban cars, seriously! They are used for any kind of criminal activity, from the common person killing other people, to drugs and weapon transport to pedophilia to smuggling ect.
Cars actually kill lot more people then cars, but there is no bans for them. If they are going to go mad with laws against things like these, they might as well go all the way.
It's not because we don't want something done against it, it's just was don't believe that what they are doing, is the correct way to do it.
Sure you can get rid of those pesty slugs on your garden that way, but firebomb napalm is just overkill and hits too much outside of what it's targeting...like the garden.
You need to do it right, and not just kneejerk it and hit everything in range.
Can't wait till they show up with their Time Traveller arguments from the alternative timelines, which will show they are right....
Or...maybe not...
The problem is that with this you also agree with MPAA that if a person share a pirated CD, he should pay 100.000 $ in damage, and that is still insane, just to "teach everyone else". It's bullshit and doesn't work.
And they wonder why there was such a uproar about XBone's mandatory kinect...
And if he had that part recorded, they would have charged him for wiretapping, but if he didn't they are saying he is lying and recorded illegal. Yay for twisting the facts.
The problem is that they can claim monopoly on the 'fuel'. Today, we can choose which gas station we want to use to get our fuel, but with what they are trying to go 'Apple', and force people to only use their own equipment.
And even if someone else create better batteries which can keep the charge better or something like that, you won't be allowed to do it.
That's what would happen if they are allowed to lock your car (which you have bought and own) to only use their batteries.


text:
Beautiful, stunning, colorful, immaculate, gorgeous, personal...these are just some of the words that come to mind when I look at Anya's paintings hung in our living room. Thank you so so very much for these. You went above and beyond to ensure we got a gorgeous finished product and we are so grateful.
~ Alokita Kapur - Parent


text:
Please click anywhere to continue browsing our site.
Back to Search Results
All Denny's Automotive & Muffler Center are family-owned and operated, car and truck repair facilities. We have been serving Eastern Iowa since 1974. Our goal is customer satisfaction and value. Our ASE-certified technicians will service and repair all makes of foreign and domestic cars, trucks and SUVs, in addition to providing great deals on name-brand tires. We're proud members of the Cedar Rapids Chamber of Commerce, BBB, and NFIB. Serving Marion, IA, Cedar Rapids, IA, and Hiawatha, IA with exceptional auto repairs, tires, and auto service. Visit us today - we guarantee value!


text:
7/10/12, Zurich, Switzerland. Research to be presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Ingestive Behavior (SSIB) the foremost society for research into all aspects of eating and drinking behavior suggests that, not only the amount and type of food eaten but the time of day it is eaten, is important in contributing to obesity.
Previous studies have shown that when mice consumed all of their calories during their inactive period they gained more weight than when they consumed the same amount of calories during their active period. A team led by Drs. Susanne la Fleur and Andries Kalsbeek at the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam wished to investigate how certain components of the diet, such as sugar or fat, contributed to differences in weight gain during different times of the day. To address this question Dr. Joelle Oosterman gave rats either rodent chow or chow plus either saturated fat or a sugar solution. One group was allowed to consume the diets freely whereas the other groups were only allowed to eat either the fat or sugar during their inactive period. They found that rats consuming all of their sugar solution in the inactive period gained more weight than rats consuming all their sugar solution during the active period, even though their total caloric intake was the same. They also gained more weight than rats consuming the saturated fat solely during the inactive period. The greater body weight gain in rats consuming sugar in the inactive period was associated with less heat production.
This research suggests that there are differences in the impact sugar drinking can have on body weight gain, depending on when in the day it is consumed. Dr. Oosterman commented, "In today's society where snacks containing saturated fat and beverages containing lots of sugar are readily available to people, it is important to understand the impact these food components have on energy balance. Although there is a lot of attention for the content of the food people consume, little attention is been given to the best or worst timing for certain foods to be consumed."
Lead Author: Joelle Oosterman, Dept. of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Co-Authors: E Foppen, R van der Spek, E Fliers, A Kalsbeek, SE la Fleur. Dept. of Endocrinology & Metabolism, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands


text:
The Verrückt is the world's tallest waterslide. We're talking 168 feet of steel, plastic and sheer terror.
It's nearing completion, and as part of the process, some of the first humans have now put the slide through its paces (they initially tested with sandbags).
This is video of them going down. Warning: don't watch while eating.
Kinda cool being a water-based amusement that they got Davos Seaworth to do the testing...


text:
"You work the the Daily Mail? Here. Take my towel."
Caroline Wozniacki decided to take a little bit of a different route in her press conference yesterday after her win over Dominika Cibulkova in the third round of the Aussie. Saying that she had heard in the media that she was boring, she came to the mic ready with notes compiled from questions that she "always gets asked." After she answered – or stated, rather -the usuals (How did you feel like you played? What were your strengths out there? Who do you have next? How does your new racquet feel? Do you really think you should be no. 1?), Caro let the media ask some new, original Qs. Their creativity was mixed. Listen to the presser audio here | Transcript here
Like Caro's look? More Stella McCartney from adidas
(photo by ben solomon for ao.com)


text:
Before we close the book on Friendly Planet Travel's contest to win autographed Arthur Frommer travel guidebooks, I want to tell you who won! But before I reveal the names, let me refresh your memory on what's at stake here.
When we were at The Philadelphia Inquirer Travel Show, we got the opportunity to interview Arthur and Pauline Frommer, two of the BIGGEST names in the travel industry. They were so gracious. Not only did they give us a few minutes of their time (when everyone wanted a few minutes of their time), but they also signed a few of their travel guidebooks for us.
Instead of keeping them all for myself, I bundled "Ask Arthur Frommer" and "Frommer's Costa Rica 2011" together to give two sets away to two lucky Friendly Planet Travel readers. You then told me why you wanted to win these great (and autographed) books by commenting on the original post, and today we randomly selected two winners.
And the winners are … Kellie Cereola and Kelvin! Congratulations! Both of you will be receiving copies of the books signed by Arthur Frommer. We'll be contacting you shortly to confirm your address to send you books. In case you didn't see them the first time, here are photos of Arthur's sig.
Thanks to everyone who entered. I loved reading all the comments and I'm so happy to see that like me, Arthur Frommer not only inspired you to travel, but has given you great travel advice along the way. I'd also like to thank Arthur again for talking with Friendly Planet Travel and autographing the books.
And if you didn't win this time, don't fret. I'll be telling you how you can enter to win a copy of "1,000 Places to See Before You Die," autographed by Patricia Schultz. And if there are any other travel writers you'd like to see us to feature on the blog, let me know in a comment.


text:
Brown wanted better reaction
Wes Brown does not think Sunderland reacted well enough to missing a penalty at Molineux yesterday.
The Black Cats were 1-0 up thanks to Kieran Richardson's powerful strike when Phil Dowd pointed to the spot after Jody Craddock was ajudged to have tripped Sebastian Larsson.
Wayne Hennessey saved the Swede's tame penalty and Wolves went straight up the other end where Steven Fletcher levelled the scores with a header.
"We were in control for 60 minutes but as soon as we missed the penalty heads went down and they were back in it at 1-1 within a minute," said Brown.
"From then on they were on top and went on to get the second which was bittely disappointing."
Fletcher was on hand again to score the winner for Wolves but there were strong claims for handball by Jamie O'Hara in the build up to the goal.
Former Manchester United man Brown said: "I thought it was a handball for the second goal; a lot of the lads did. I'll have to have a look at it again."
The former England international defender was unimpressed with how Sunderland reacted when things went against them in the game.
"Our heads went down and that's something we need to pick up on," he admitted. "Fair enough, we missed a penalty but we were still 1-0 up and needed to keep our concentration and focus.
"But we didn't and once they scored the crowd started going and they got right on top of us."News Now - Sport News


text:
My history of Violence
Roland Teed was some kind of mixed breed, a veritable freak in our high school of whitebread plainness. Two years my senior, half Chinese, but broad shouldered with bowed legs and about my height, Roland was already an adult. When he stalked the halls of our school he was usually tailed by one or two nondescript guys who'd grin and flinch everytime Roland Teed said something. There was talk he practiced martial arts. Previously I had no occasion to think upon him or his friends.
It happened one day after lunch period. I was waiting in the hall for the bell to ring when Roland came up to me and punched me in jaw. Four times he landed with his oversized fist to my head. Four times I remember because it seemed like an odd(sic) number. Four times he hit me because I was counting. My head was spinning. My body froze, yet I did not stop him or strike back. He held up after four punches and I moved away, unsteady. Other students were watching for what would come next, but I felt woozy and tears were welling up in my eyes. As I climbed the stairs I finally yelled out,
"What the hell is going on? What the hell is this?" To no one in particular, and well out of Roland Teed's earshot.
The next day sitting in the same lunchroom with my boys, I had a "war story" to tell.
"Nah! He didn't punch that hard." Heh-heh-heh.
"They say he knows karate"
"He didn't do any Hideo-Chai shit, yesterday!"
" What the hell is his problem?"
"So whatcha gonna do Marsh, fight 'em?"
"Shit, what for? I already took his best shot!"
"His four best shots, right?"
Roland Teed was sitting a few tables away with his usual crowd. Occasionally I would glance that way and everytime I did Roland would be looking elsewhere. It was a quick lunch.
I remember being suddenly indecisive and alone when I left the cafeteria that day. I was standing just outside the doorway contemplating which way to go when I felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around and was met with a straight right hand to my lower lip, drawing blood. A quick second punch hit my jaw. This time I put up my hand.
"Alright! Alright! That's it. No more. That's it!" I screamed savagely.
And I wheeled around and strode purposefully away, -- towards the vice-principal's office. I had had my fill of Mr. Roland Teed.
After some heated discussion, vice-principal Joe Gianetto convinced me to not call the police and to instead settle for Roland getting 5 days In School Suspension. This consequence and a promise if he threatened me or hit me again, criminal proceedings would proceed, finally satisfied me.
The next five school days went by quietly. But now I didn't have much of a war story to tell the fellas. Nobody laughed when mention was made of the incidents. Friends don't call other friends, coward. But behind my back they wondered what was going to happen when Roland was finished with his 5 days of ISS. Alone, I wrestled with the fear and the shame and the reasons why I didn't fight back.
Soon gossip became theories. Somebody said that Larry C_____ had paid Roland five bucks to punch me because I was too chatty with this girl Teresa T____that Larry supposedly liked. Another guy had said that Teresa's friend Beth C_____had wanted Roland to hit me after I had blown Beth off. I questioned both girls about it but nobody was talking.
Roland got out of ISS. At first he kept his distance. Then sometimes I'd hear him calling out my name with mock-derision. I'd see him smiling and yakking it up with his little crew, Larry C____ and Pat T____ (Teresa's brother). At home I'd fantasize about another having another confrontation. One with shattered glass, knives and broken bodies that would attract the envious stares of my friends as they marveled over the force of my rage. With time it was forgotten.
Many years later I co-opted this story and put a macho spin on it that seemed in order. I'd tell the story to my work buddies in the bagel store adding this coda:
"You know why I didn't fight back?" I'd bait them. My voice rising in intensity, my heart rate increasing.
"Cause I wouldn't know when to stop. You know what I'm saying? I wouldn't be satisfied with just getting into a fight. I wouldn't have settled for anything fair. If I had let myself make that decision I would have done something I would have regretted later…" and on and on.
Persuading my listeners and myself that I was one bad mutha. Revisiting history to rewrite it more to my advantage, and closer to my fantasies. "I woulda killed Roland ." Was the unspoken, horrible subtext of my words. Ironically, it was my buddy Bob who seemed to be too readily impressed, as if he was sympathetic but unconvinced. He'd laugh harder than the other guys and give me a knowing look, bug-eyed as if to say- "yeah, Marsh- right."
The revision of my story worked for a time, but then I started to realize (therapy, again) I was lying to myself. That in fact I was very afraid of Roland. The way I was scared of all violence, and not because I could conquer it by becoming the victimizer, but because I was a victim of violence and I hated it.


text:
Anne Arundel police arrested and charged a Gambrills man and woman on Monday after discovering a drug operation at a St. Mary's Lane day care, according to a police news release.
Narcotics teams executed a search warrant around 9:30 p.m. at Gambrills Day Nursery in the 500 block of St. Mary's Lane, where they seized CDS marijuana, paraphernalia, six rifles and a 2007 Ford Explorer, the release said.
Rosemary Tuck, 30, who lives at the house that doubles as a day care, was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana; possession of paraphernalia; possession with intent to distribute; and distribution, the release said. Police said she had sold drugs to undercover agents, which led to the bust.
Douglas Woods, 49, was also arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia, the release said.