text:
My blog has "migrated" to a new html. If you want to see my latest post (and subscribe or follow) please go to http://livingformations.com. All future posts will go up there….Peace.
by Jennifer Harvey
I always straddle a line in presidential elections. Voting democrat usually feels like endorsing a failed, corrupt two-party system. So I've voted Green Party more than once. But I never did it when I lived in a swing state and knew the election would be close. I abhor Obama's complicity in the killing of innocents in Pakistan. But not voting for him and potentially sending Iowa into Romney's column didn't seem like a better option.
Still, I deeply respect those who consistently vote their pure conscience—even if they too live in a swing state! It was obscene when Ralph Nadar voters were accused of bringing us George Bush. And even as I cast my vote for Obama the second time, I understood why some friends interpreted this as my apathetic support for his drones.
It's the ever-present tension between revolution and reform. My heart is always with revolution but, for better or worse, my actions sometimes endorse the incomplete, imperfect but more immediate improvements reform can bring in the meantime. Our world so rarely offers clear-cut moral choices.
Which brings me to same-sex marriage.
There are important critiques out there of this week's same-sex marriage euphoria. Marriage co-mingles religion and state in ways we should reject. Marriage does not create structural change. Limited resources and political capital in lgbt worlds would be better spent challenging poverty, racism, inadequate access to healthcare, mass incarceration, homelessness among youth, sexual assault. All of these social fractures affect queers more than others in ways marriage rights can't touch. This is especially true for queers who are trans, of color, female, poor, disabled and the list could go on.
Disclosure: I wanted and had a non-legal marriage ceremony to ritualize and publicly affirm my relationship in the presence of my community. But, I was frustrated when the wealthier and whiter lgbt organizations made marriage the focus, furious when white queers in California appropriated Civil Rights Movement rhetoric for it and still lament the use of resources that would have been better spent on deeper systemic change.
I can go on:
Everyone deserves healthcare regardless of relational status;
Every child deserves a public safety net regardless of her parent(s) relational status;
Every queer deserves to be recognized as inherently worthy, regardless of relational status;
Marriage does not liberate us or mean we've realized freedom.
If marriage rights become the lgbt-version of an opiate we are all in a lot of trouble.
Having said all of this, how can I possibly publicly admit my euphoria about this week's Supreme Court happenings?
Well here it is. My cautious, but insistent euphoria began when I ambivalently went to the Iowa courthouse the day our state court ruled for marriage equality. There I encountered anything but a white, middle-class group of queers rushing in in the hopes they would finally be seen as "normal." There I encountered a motley group of diversely raced, gendered, classed and beauteous queers, laughing together in a sterile civic building as we insisted those who represent us deal with us as we were. None of us seemed deluded into thinking we would wake up the next day liberated from all oppression. My own giddiness that day had less to do with being legally married and everything to do with disrupting business as usual.
My euphoria has continued to grow in the places where other critiques of same-sex marriage fall short.
Marriage is not an essentially conservative institution. As a humanly created, political institution it is, like all other institutions, unstable and open to change as the result of human challenge.
Marriage does not mean queers have bought in to traditional gender. This claim can only be made by those who have not witnessed representatives of the state frantically scribbling out "groom" and "bride" or of two butch lesbians kissing in the middle of a County Clerk's office in the Midwest.
More complicated, some of the functions now shorthanded through marriage can't just be thrown out. For example, we need some infrastructures to protect women who give birth as well as parents and caretakers who do not and the children for whom they are all responsible. Marriage is definitely not the best way to achieve this. It obviously fails queers as so many of our families (like many non-queer families) don't have a two-parent arrangement. But I get really frustrated when voices castigating the same-sex marriage euphoria ignore complex questions of parental rights and responsibilities and spin off into abstract calls to just abolish the entire project altogether. (A notable exception to this silence can be found at beyondmarriage.org, which articulates an agenda I think is fantastic).
Marriage is not liberation. But I don't actually think that's what the euphoria is all about.
I think the same-sex marriage euphoria is less about marriage and more about what this moment represents in terms of the achievement of public recognition. Marriage has been one of the most public symbols of a broader cultural and political disparagement of and hostility towards queer people. Same-sex marriage critics worry that the logic now goes like this: you get to be a "worthy" queer now if and only if you get married. But I think the logic just might go the other direction: namely, "oh we're finally getting it that queers too have the same worth and dignity as heterosexual citizens therefore even this most 'hallowed' institution cannot and should not leave them out."
To my mind, that's not an argument for marriage (bring on the church/state challenge—I'm there). It's certainly not a claim that it's our most important achievement, that we should all run out and get one, or that we shouldn't advocate better ways of supporting diverse kinship structures and family protections (thank you Mohan Sikka).
But it is an argument that a certain kind of euphoria is warranted right now. Public recognition does matter—even when it comes packaged by way of a flawed institution (the same packaging in which all of our political progress has come). Public recognition doesn't change everything but it has a place in a larger vision of social transformation and it's historic when achieved against such seemingly outrageous odds.
If we can exercise both/and thinking in the voting booth, I don't see why we can't do it at the courthouse too. I hope it doesn't make me a sellout, but this week I intend to keep my critique and have my euphoria too. Reformers and revolutionaries need each other. In fact, sometimes they exist in the same person at the same time.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
Like a lot of other folks, excitement has been creeping up on me. We seem to be maybe, finally, oh so slowly going through a sea change on lesbian and gay rights (I'm not so optimistic that transgender folks are included in this). Cultural acceptance—incomplete still, of course—came first. But it seems like political and even religious acceptance may follow on its heels. Maybe.
But something has started to really eat at me, and when Rob Portman (R-Ohio) came out in support of same-sex marriage last week I finally figured out what it was.
When wrong's been done there's a critical moment in the transition to making it right. That moment is when the person or institution that's been calling the shots (aka, those with more power), stops, gets vulnerable, gets real and says "I was so very wrong. And I'm really, really sorry about that."
The best and most transformative kind of repair only flows from honest and vulnerable confession.
It's easy to skip over that moment. When I lose patience with my four-year old, or snap at her for something that's not her fault, how often am I tempted to just move on? It's good when I regain my composure, rein in my impatience and improve my behavior. But if I don't first make myself vulnerable and open (which takes humility—admittedly not my favorite posture) by admitting to her I was wrong, our relationship doesn't get knit back together the way it needs to. Sure, I feel better about getting back to my "nice mom self" and of course she's better off when I do, but unless I own up to her that I shouldn't have treated her that way in the first place the dynamic between us doesn't fundamentally shift. I'm still the one calling all the shots. It's only my "I was wrong, I'm sorry" that demonstrates my understanding that I don't actually have the right to treat her however my mood might dictate.
It's not a perfect analogy. Politicians and religious leaders are not our parents. But when Portman announced that learning his son was gay made him change his views my feelings were mixed, at best. I was glad his son had the courage to come out. I was glad Portman cared about his son enough to re-think his views. I was deeply troubled that he didn't realize long before it was about his son, that every gay and lesbian person is someone's child—talk about a dangerous way to do politics.
But, I was most bothered by the fact Portman didn't say "I'm sorry." He never admitted that voting for DOMA contributed to a climate of hatred and marginalization. He never owned the fact that his past behavior has and continues to cause deep harm. I hope he did better by his son and found a way to apologize for exposing him to bigotry and rejection for the first twenty years of his life—an exposure that must have taken quite a toll. Just changing your mind is not enough to make things right.
I'm worried that a similar phenomenon may be happening among Christian churches. Churches are changing. I had a conversation last year with a former teacher and respected mentor who works with evangelical college students. He told me that it's only a matter of time. He sees young evangelicals every day who simply do not accept what their parents and pastors have told them about gay and lesbian people and who are telling their churches they're wrong. He said these churches will have to start getting it right or they won't survive into the next generation. It's only a matter of time.
I believe him. And I'm so glad to hear it.
But my heart grieves at how it will have been too late for so many. And it's my grief that makes me worry about what happens if we skip the work of repentance. As happy as I will be when it becomes the norm that "the Church" realizes it's been dead wrong all this time and publicly embraces lgbt people as fully human and fully beloved, if it doesn't confess it's prior position as sin and acknowledge how that sin has damaged lives and spirits then that change is going to feel more like charity and inclusion (on heterosexual terms) than justice and repair.
You probably don't need me to tell you that the gap between being a recipient of charity and a partner in a just relationship is a wide one.
I don't want to sound ungrateful. I certainly don't want to downplay the courage it takes for faith communities to change their minds and the positive impact it can have when they do. Nor do I want to fail to honor the sweat that committed visionaries within and outside the Christian tradition will have put in by the time we get there (sea change it may be but we have a long way to go). But I do want put on the table, long before we actually do get there, at least one of the criteria congregations must have on their tables if they want to true transformation and healing: repentance, an activity that includes an "I'm sorry."
It's one thing to be the charitable, kind mom who corrects my behavior when I screw up. It's a different matter altogether to get down on my knees, look my daughter in the eyes as I apologize and, in so doing, treat her with the respect and justice she deserved all along.
At the end of the day I don't actually expect the repentance moment from politicians. But I think churches will find confession and repair are already in their theological playbooks. They're in the index right under "μεταηοια" ("change your mind and direction"—a word Christians usually translate as "repent!"). I just hope they'll have the courage and openness to go look.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
There's been plenty of brilliant, angry writing in response to The Onion's tweet about Quvenzhané Wallis. But an admittedly non-scientific reading of my facebook feed tells me lots of white folks are still confused. Just what is all this hoopla about?
We all know The Onion is satire, right? We all know satire's job is to use the absurd—the offensive even—to make a deeper critique, right?
In this case (so the argument might go), to use one of the most sexist, sexualizing and derogatory terms available to refer to the youngest nominee for Best Actress as she stood on the red carpet looking adorable, elated and yet so very composed is truly absurd. And the absurd here (so the argument might go) could be intended as commentary on the endlessly sexist, sexualized and derogatory ways we look at and talk about women in the public eye. Get it? The tweeter wasn't calling Wallis the "c" word. Throwing that word at a beloved and obviously innocent female child might have been an attempt to expose the sexist nastiness of Hollywood. Maybe The Onion pushed the envelope too far—satire is always dangerous and good satire is really, really hard. But there was no malicious intent here. Right?
Well, none of us knows the tweeter's intent. But that's precisely the point—because the intent is most assuredly not.
Have you ever touched a hot stove? Did you do it on purpose? Probably not. Did you get burned anyway? I bet you did. Then you know first-hand that intent is irrelevant to impact.
It's taken me a long time to learn this, so I'll say it again. Intent and impact have (almost) nothing to do with one another.
Just ask anyone who has ever unintentionally put her hand on a hot stove.
Unfortunately, those of us who are white usually confuse the two. The familiar conversation goes like this:
- incident happens;
- people of color cry foul and describe in painful, often eloquent, detail the effects of incident;
- white people respond, often defensive, insisting that motives were pure (or at least can't be proven malicious).
I totally get why we do this. We know racism is "bad" and when people of color describe its horrific effects we become frantic trying to show that we—or those whose jokes we laughed at (or at least didn't think were that bad)—couldn't possibly be associated with that. I get it.
But think about it. People of color are talking about harm—the impact of putting your hand on the stove. White people start talking about motives—whether or not you intended to put your hand on the stove.
Now imagine what it would be like to have a severe burn and be yelling that you need to get to the hospital, only to be met with the numb response "but it was an accident, so surely you can't be burned as badly as you think." And, then we sit here—and I'm not talking here about "we" Fox News-loving white folk, I'm talking about "we" liberal-ish, well-intentioned Onion-loving ones (like me)—shaking our heads, asking "why are Black folks always so angry?"
Whether we intend it to or not (pun intended) our obsession with intent makes the damage worse. It also creates so much static we literally can't hear people of color as they describe impact.
Can we hear this?
Mia McKenzie:
The thing about being a little black girl in the world is that your right to be a child, to be small and innocent and protected, will be ignored and you will be seen as a tiny adult, a tiny black adult, and as such will be susceptible to all the offenses that people two and three and four times your age are expected to endure.
That's impact.
Brokey McPoverty:
Black women are routinely stripped of control of ourselves and our bodies. We are "Little Q" on the red carpet. We are "c-nts" on the internet. We are "baby/honey/sugar/shorty with the fat ass" on the street as we go about our lives, minding our own business. And when we open our mouths to speak against it all when it seems no one else will, we are charged to defend our defense of ourselves.
That's impact.
Our job is to stop protesting innocence and listen. Carefully.
When we do we might still find it hard to believe our ears. Short of being a target oneself, the best way to understand impact by living in close and sustained relationships with those who experience it. And guess what? We live such deeply segregated lives in this nation that most of us who are white simply don't have those kinds of relationships. But that doesn't mean Black folks' need to say it more carefully or clearly than they already do. It doesn't mean they should say it with less urgency and anger (remember the stove?). It most certainly doesn't mean what they describe isn't real.
To develop understanding and empathy is a learning process. It's not easy and it doesn't happen "naturally." We have to decide we want to and make a concerted effort to do it. We can start (and its only a start) by turning off the "intent" conversation and listening carefully to the "impact" conversation, assuming something critically important is being said.
Ironically enough, the only way to actually prove good intentions is to stop insisting they are there and instead take the impact so seriously that we admit how much we don't know, work to change our understanding and behavior, and insist again and again that others do the same.
Until we do, we'll take moments like the one Quvenzhané Wallis deserved to have—namely an untrammeled celebration of her gifted, accomplished, young female Black self—and drive them into the unforgiving ground of our white racial ignorance again and again and again …
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
I'm ambivalent about New Year's resolutions. Sometimes they seem like a game. We pretend life changes that are going to be hard no matter what are going to somehow be easier on January 1st. This gives us permission to continue to not work on those changes today and instead indulge in the very things that make us less of who we want to be. Worse, we completely forget that today is always the only day we actually have. Then, within days of the ball having dropped, laughing about how we again didn't follow through on any of our resolutions becomes this bizarre social bonding activity. This pattern lets us give ourselves or get from others extra permission to keep doing whatever it is was we have always done. I wouldn't find this so annoying (in myself too!) if we didn't spend the rest of the year repeating ad nauseum all the things we want to change.
(Okay, wow, this started off as way more of a bummer than I meant it to. Sorry. I'll reign it in now.)
At the same time, there is something legitimately alluring about fresh starts. Happily the cycle of the calendar builds these in for us—each new year, month, week and even day invites a pause if we allow it to get our attention.
My best pauses happened during my late 20s and early 30s when my sister, Janée, and I kept a notebook together. In it we had written about 20 questions. These went from the mundane—best books or movies of the past year—to the more esoteric and visioning—the most important life change of the past year, hopes for new daily life habits, big picture dreams we wanted to realize in the year(s) to come.
At some point during the New Year season we would take the notebook out over good food and a big bottle of wine. This led to an evening of laughing and, depending on the year, crying and pretty much everything-in-between as we revisited how much change a year had brought. And, how much it sometimes hadn't.
"Run a marathon." "Become fluent in Spanish." These two items brought us to tears with laughter year after year, as I—year after year—sure that I was naming something new, listed the same two goals in response to the "hopes" question.
It was funny. But then came the year that I actually did run a marathon.
I don't know if naming that hope over and over again at New Year's time helped make that happen. But when it happened I felt like it had. I also realized that my inability to run a marathon the prior three (or four, five, six) years earlier wasn't really failure—even then. It had just taken a long time to get the necessary day-to-day life pieces in place to actually accomplish such a big project. I had been working on it all the while.
This tradition became a kind of compass for me. A time set aside to reflect on who I was, who I wanted to be, and what kind of living I needed to be doing to actually grow into that person. Then to reorient…again.
It wasn't about resolutions exactly. It was more about remembering or renaming our values and trying to say something concrete about what kind of person we each were trying to become . It was about doing that in the presence of another with whom we were on a lifetime journey. It was a way of honoring our respective paths, even while enjoying the chance laugh at ourselves (and each other) about the ways we repeatedly fell short, and sometimes even plumb forgot to remember who it is we wanted to be.
I miss this tradition. We kept it up for a few years even after I moved away from NYC, but it slowly faded as careers and young children in our lives made getting together during the holidays less and less possible.
Remembering that practice today is what prompted this post.
I hit 41 this year. Forty didn't really jar me, but when my birthday came this year it dawned on me (duh) that I was going to keep aging. I swear that somehow hadn't really occurred to me before. I think all the hype of getting to the big 4-0 made me not think even think about the fact aging would keep happening.
A tiny bit of panic set in. And, as much as I hate to sound stereotypical, this season of my life has found me asking myself big questions about who I am and who I still want to be. I've done that before. But unlike the years in which my sister and I sat down at her kitchen table, 41 has brought me a different kind of awareness that time and life passes. Realizing, practicing, achieving anything is only and can only be about working on it right now. Today.** Probably only in small bites, yes, but tenaciously and relentlessly nonetheless.
-Compassion and kindness, in my words, even when I feel grumpy.
-Activism for a more just world in my local community, even when I feel too busy.
(Major shout out here to Michelle Alexander's amazing and awful book The New Jim Crow. This book has gotten me to finally move from just saying things about the racial injustice of our prison systems [note: complete understatement] to actually showing up to do some work with others to try to end it.)
I don't necessarily think these are answers for the so-called big questions I've found myself stewing on (or that I've found stewing in me). I'm pretty sure, in fact, I've not even gotten all that clear about what the questions are.
But in honor of New Year's I want to keep trying to make space and time to let them emerge—the questions that is. And, I want to keep trying to make choices in my day-to-day life (always today) so that even when I don't do all the "shoulds" I keep in a list in my overly judgmental brain, that I am doing my best to honor this fleeting thing we call life by taking my own seriously enough, but with a smile on my face, to actually live it in a way I choose and that doesn't just happen to me.
So Happy New Year. I miss you Nene! And, no I'm still not fluent in Spanish….
**Okay, I generally avoid books like this and I'm not exactly recommending this one, but John B. Izzo's book, The Five Secrets You Must Discover Before You Die does have a gem. It says that the simple secret to a life well lived is stringing together a bunch of really good days. This doesn't mean days that are saccharine happy or go well for reasons beyond your control. It just means the small bite at a time work of doing something each day related to the things that give you meaning and hope.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
I sat in the front lobby of my 4-year old's school while she enjoyed her weekly dance class three days after the horrors of Newtown. Every time the door opened I looked up. My heart didn't skip a beat and I didn't feel scared. But a consuming sensation went through me nonetheless.
The faces of other parents hanging out in the lobby suggested they felt something too.
I can't quite describe the sensation really. Words are so inadequate this week. But, it had to do with an overwhelming awareness of vulnerability. The awareness was physical. I felt it in my bones, which haven't stopped aching since I heard the news. The vulnerability is of course about that of my children, but it's also about mine as a parent.
In his Newtown speech President Obama said that having children is the joy and anxiety of having your heart live outside your body. In other words the most tender and vital part of you—the place that holds the mystery, beauty and fragility of life itself—walking around, doing its own thing, jumping off couches, running across the street without looking, getting sick, sometimes very sick and…going to school each morning. Doing all of these things while being exposed to the whims of this vast world in ways you cannot control and from which you cannot protect it.
I have heard the kids-as-heart-outside-your-body analogy before and know it to be true. But this week it has made me want to scream.
I'm struggling. I am totally on board with this nation finally getting angry and serious about the proliferation of guns. I'm on board with loudly pointing out that neglect of our collective obligation to support families dealing with mental health issues is not only immoral but shortsighted. As if such neglect won't negatively impact everyone.
But when I've chimed in on those debates this week or vigorously nodded as I read the latest arguments, I'm pretty sure its been part of my manic effort to push that feeling of vulnerability as far away as I possibly can. It's been part of my desperate attempt to tell myself I can exert some control over reality—a reality that, at the end of the day, is mostly beyond my control.
It's terrifying to say that aloud.
Life is so fragile. Just because I love my kids more than life itself (when our first child was born I thought "so this is what it feels like to be willing to throw myself under a train for someone else") doesn't mean I can protect them or save them.
What does it mean to accept a truth that literally takes my breath away?
A truth that was already true, even before last Friday?
Last year the 4-year old niece of my midwife tragically and unexpectedly died during her young cousin's birthday party. Several months later the woman from whom we bought our first (and, I'll be honest, last) round of cloth diapers had a baby born with renal failure. This tiny boy and his amazing family have been through it, and his prognosis a year later remains uncertain. I've recently been back in touch with a high school friend whose 2-year old is valiantly battling leukemia right now. Her son has been through more painful and invasive procedures—including eleven rounds of chemo—than most adults endure (or anyone should have to endure) in a lifetime.
I wouldn't begin to imply I know what it's like to be any of these parents. But I suspect the grief and fear that engulfed so many of us this past week is something they already knew a lot about.
Every story has its own contours that should be honored. But the senseless and incomprehensible reality that children suffer terribly and sometimes even die didn't suddenly become a new possibility last week. And it won't stop being a possibility even if we completely destroy U.S. gun culture.
So, yes, yes, yes I'd love to see our nation destroy it—let's do it(!) (and let's work tirelessly to find a cure for renal failure and every form of childhood leukemia too). But there's something else in this whole experience about admitting that as beautiful and joyous as life is, it always holds the capacity—perhaps precisely because it is so beautiful and joyous—to devastate us beyond belief.
I don't want that admission to make me stop being politically active. Don't misread me. Two days after the NRA's "meaningful contribution" I'm so furious I could spit. But, I also don't want political action to serve as my attempt to avoid that scary but truthful admission either.
There's a christmas cactus sitting in our living room. Its flowers are so very fragile. Just turning it or bumping into it when it's starting to bud, even a wee bit, can make the baby buds fall right off. (I've learned this the hard way more than once.) The blooms themselves are translucent. Their color is brilliant, but you can almost see right through them. Their fragility lies at the heart of what makes them so gorgeous.
The potential for unspeakable suffering to erupt in our lives is a constant. I suspect this is harder to accept when little ones become part of our living—at least it has been for me. The murders at Sandy Hook Elementary make me desperate to run away from, deny, or think I can exert enough bravado to defeat life's inherent and unavoidable fragility. But I'm afraid if that's how I respond to this tragedy I'll also end up cut off from the possibility of experiencing deeply the wonders of living. Life's fragility lies at the heart of what makes it so gorgeous.
I know just enough about Buddhism to really appreciate its teaching that the connection between attachment and suffering describes our human predicament. I know just enough about engaged Buddhism to know that trying to practice non-attachment as a response to this predicament doesn't mean we have to roll over and accept guns in our schools. (I don't mention my own tradition here, because the loudest voices presuming to represent it this week have managed once again to be completely obscene—but that's a whole other blog.)
When it comes to my children I can't begin to wrap my mind around the idea of non-attachment.
Accepting vulnerability doesn't make a whole of sense right now either.
But if I ever want to fully embrace the simple joy of listening outside the room during my daughter's dance class again, trying to figure out what that means is where I have to start.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
This is more transcript than insight. It follows up my Thanksgiving post about Native Americans and U.S.-American myths where I mentioned our 4-year old being taught the Pledge of Allegiance at school.
Turns out, she's learned the Star-Spangled Banner too—but that's getting ahead of myself.
The school setting: I love our daughter's school. Its educational vision centers on a deep respect for children as people, the value of peacemaking and the reality of global diversity. I also really like her teacher who emanates serious attention to learning and has high expectations of her pupils. It was much to the surprise of my partner and I, then, that we recently learned our daughter had been taught to recite the Pledge of Allegiance as part of the morning routine.
The parent setting: I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance because I won't pledge allegiance to a flag, a nation, or anything external other than to humankind and the elusive pursuit of peace and justice. (I don't care if that sounds vague or cheesy.) My partner doesn't like it because of the phrase "under God"—a concept she meets with deep suspicion for a number of good reasons. (As a Christian I'm not put off by the word "God" itself, but share her conviction that this 1954 addition to the Pledge violates the so-called church/state "wall.")
The recent setting: The Star Spangled banner came on TV during the World Series and our 4-year old piped up: "hey, that's the song we sing at school!" (What?!?) It came up somehow a few days later that she also knows the Pledge. We were admittedly thrown by all of these revelations.
The car setting: On the way home from our playground adventure last week our daughter started belting out the Pledge. At the top of her lungs.
The transcript:
The Child [TC]: … one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty….Hey, God is invisible! (Her tone suggests she has just discovered something new and very important.)
My Unspoken Thoughts [MUT]: Wow, Chris is going to love this. What do we do with this?
TC continues: … with liberty and justice for all. (She then begins to sing in a deep, dramatic bellow.) Oh say can you see, by the dawnzerly light, what so proudly we have with the flag was still there… (trails off in confusion).
TC (after three more tries): Uh! Mama, I can't remember the words of the song right. Do you know the words?
MUT: Uh oh.
Me: Yes, I know the words.
TC: Can you sing them for me?
(Okay, so I'm not a pacifist. But, I hate war. I find the celebration of war—even if the celebration is of a "necessary" war, which is not what the Star Spangled Banner is—deeply offensive. So, I'm not inclined to sing the national anthem for the same reason I don't say the pledge. But even if I were I just can't stomach "rockets" and "bombs" in proud song.)
MUT: What, when, how, do these very conscious decisions and beliefs of mine translate into 4-year old speak……Ugh.
Me: Well, 'no' actually I can't.
TC: Why not?
Me: Well, that song's about a lot of things I don't believe in. So I don't like to sing it. But, there are lots of people who do believe in this song so they do sing it. That's why you are asked to sing it at school. But, I don't sing it.
TC: Well I don't like that song, and wish I didn't have to sing it.
MUT: Awesome!
Me: Really? If you don't like that song, you don't have to sing it.
TC: But, my teacher tells us to sing it. So….if I don't want to sing it, but my teacher told me to, what would I do?
(I'm in so over my head. I am not prepared for this conversation, don't know what it "should" look like, and especially after a long afternoon of errands, play and solo parenting. We tell our daughter all the time she needs to listen to her teacher.)
Me: Well, if you don't want to sing the song, but your teacher says you have to, you should talk to me and Mommy about it. We'll figure out together how we want to handle it.
(Yay! I've just learned that my 4-year is wise beyond her years. She somehow already knows that there is something wrong with mixing God, war and nation in celebration and song! Then the realization: responsible parenting probably means "exploring" this with her a bit further.)
Me: So, what don't you like about the song?
(And the obvious, humorous twist.)
TC: Well, it's soooo long. Way too long. And my foot always wants to go to sleep when I'm standing on the line to sing it for so long. So, I just wish I could sit down instead.
MUT: Sigh. Of course.
I guess the many moral dilemmas of parenting—which we have only begun to face—will remain precisely that: dilemmas for the parent to sort out. At least for now.
By the way, if you're wondering why we don't just ask for our daughter to be exempted from the Pledge (since this has come up in two posts now, it clearly doesn't feel settled to me, and since my partner objects as well) it's not because we're afraid of making waves or of not conforming to school culture somehow. There are lots of reasons I don't want to take up this particular issue at this particular point in our new relationship with public education. But, important in the mix is something to do with wanting to create for both of our kids a larger life context where they are invited, in age appropriate ways, to engage in their own journeys (supported by adults who love them, of course) into their own values. Telling our daughter not to say the Pledge seems to me about as morally meaningful at her age as telling her to say it (in other words, not meaningful at all). It might make me "feel better" but it's not an obvious fix for the real challenge of helping her to think through the implications of participating or not. That's what I want to figure out how to do.
For now, I guess, just sharing with her that "I don't sing it, but others do" seems like enough. At least, it was enough in the car. She didn't ask me anything more about it and I, therefore, didn't have to expose my young child (yet) to the horrors of war or the complex moral dilemmas of nationalism.
As she continues to mature, I expect and hope that such a response on my part will prompt her further inquiry into why I don't and why some do. And that is the kind of supported unfolding sense of her own mind and conscience that I do want to be part of.
In the meantime, she just doesn't want to have to sing the national anthem because that song is just way too long.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
Any news story on the wrangling over the "fiscal cliff" yesterday inevitability invoked the name "Grover Norquist." Norquist is the founder of Americans for Tax Reform. Last year 60 minutes described him "as the person most responsible, more than anyone else, for rewriting the dogma of the Republican Party."
In the news was Norquist's "Taxpayers Protection Pledge" which, up until this last election, had been signed by 95% of Republicans in Congress. Those who sign pledge to never vote for any tax increase. Ever. For anything.
There's much more to be said about Norquist but this blog isn't really about him.
So here's the short version of what you need to know about Norquist's role in the current standoff. Republicans who signed his Pledge have tied their own hands so tightly that despite their missionary zeal for tax cuts and low tax rates they can't sign a deal that would allow tax cuts to stay in place for 98% of U.S.-Americans (and yes, even Democrats and Republicans agree that this is the percentage we are talking about) come January 1st. Most Republicans in Congress, at least at the moment, are saying they will take us over the fiscal cliff—a choice that means taxes go up for everyone and to the tune of about $2,000 for most middle-class families—in order to avoid "breaking their pledge."
(Translation: they cannot compromise one iota because they have to protect unprecedented tax cuts from the Bush era for the tippy-top 2% of U.S.-Americans. And, attempting to compromise and engage in actual negotiations somehow means they have no principles because they will have "broken their pledge.")
Many things struck me yesterday. One was my certainty that most citizens who voted for any of the Republicans involved in this debate are part of the 98% who stand to lose here. Another is that Republicans pride themselves as being the party of fiscal responsibility gravely concerned about the deficit.
But, the thing that struck me most was that most reporting on the Pledge—aside from an awesome satire in The Onion—focused on which Republicans might break the Pledge, if having signed the Pledge means one is bound to it in subsequent terms in office, and whether the language of the Pledge leaves any wiggle room that would allow a legislator to make a deal having "violated the Pledge." Norquist was everywhere. I even heard him on NPR's Morning Edition where he was invited to give his take on precisely these issues.
Why are we hearing about the Pledge instead of about the people?
Norquist is not an elected official for whom any of us have had the chance to give an up or down vote. Norquist is not a political appointee made by any elected official. Norquist is just a citizen. He gets one vote. Just like you and me.
The real news story here is the full naked view of a democracy deeply at risk being put on display for all of us to see. The real news story is the implications for democracy when one (non-elected, non-appointed) person can make an entire political party—I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats—beholden to himself.
I finally got so tired of listening to reports giving Norquist unquestioned legitimacy that I did something I haven't done in a very long time. I called every single one of my congressional representatives.
You should too.
Norquist has money. But, money a mandate does not make. Citizens who participate give mandates. (And, don't let bad analysis tell you that the last election was so close that there was no mandate. There was a mandate, and it was given on a host of issues—including taxes.)
I remembered yesterday that some analysts said there was so much hope in the air after Obama was elected in 2008 that citizens forgot Washington only works when we do. I remembered Michael Moore's letter calling on Obama to—this time around—ask us (that is, citizens) to help. And, I heard Obama himself urge the people to make themselves heard in the halls of Congress.
I frenetically called my legislators almost daily in the lead up to the war in Iraq (I realize that abysmal failure may not be the best advertisement for calling this time around). But even though I felt devastated and furious when we invaded Iraq, I didn't feel cynical. To me cynicism is apathy with the toxin of arrogance thrown in. The opposite of cynical is engaged. That's how I felt during the period in which we invaded Iraq.
I felt the same way yesterday.
I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you think the proposed tax cuts or hikes are a great or bad idea. I want us to recognize that this stalemate in Congress and a Pledge-to-a-lobbyist-being-given-hallowed-status-on-the-nightly-news is a moment that is all about you and me and our role as citizens.
Call your representatives. I'm not naïve enough to think a call is somehow enough. But I do know that not enough of us call. (And, let's be honest, when I tell myself "a call isn't enough" it doesn't usually mean that I'm too busy doing more than that!) I also know that as I hung up the phone I realized I am the one responsible for whether or not Norquist's voice is the only one that gets heard.
The good news is that cracks are starting to show. A few brave Republicans yesterday began to speak of "loyalties to their constituents" coming first—before some pledge. They need support from citizens.
Call your representatives. And, if you honestly believe that even the top 2% should be given huge tax cuts on January 1st—well, I'd love the chance to sit down over a cup of coffee, try to understand why you see it that way and explain why I disagree—but, in the meantime, you call your legislators too. Don't let Norquist do it for you.
It's time to roar.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
I was in fourth grade and The Hobbit—a full-length animated film (a big deal back then)—was coming to my school. Those of us who were part of the gifted and talented program were going to get to see it. My "non-g/t" classmates were jealous. My mom was pissed.
Years later I would learn my mom was already suspicious of g/t and ambivalent about my participation in it. It's not that she didn't think I was smart or deserved great education. She just couldn't quite stomach the idea that I deserved more resources and nurture than any other kid in my class who, she believed, deserved the same. The Hobbit plan put her over the edge. I vividly remember her marching into my classroom, engaging my teacher, arguing with other parents in the week long fracas she created by insisting the school let all the children take part in this special treat.
I secretly agreed with my mom, but begged her to just let it go. My best friend was furious mom was trying to take away our elite treatment and, when mom won and all the kids got to see the movie, Rachel gave me the silent treatment for a week!
So I've been preparing to channel my inner-mom as I've waited to see what my 4 year old might bring home from school this Thanksgiving week. My mom and I disagree about many, many things politically. But my earliest sense that you stand up for what's right when people are being harmed or excluded began with her.
School. It's a new thing for our family. We suddenly have to think about how to engage, expand or even challenge what our daughter might now be taught by other people. What did they teach her about "strangers" and safety—and did we want her to learn this so young? How should we deal with her saying the Pledge of Allegiance—something my partner and I both object to, though for different reasons? What will she learn about the founding of this country? And, the question I dread most: When is she going to come home having made a headdress of feathers?
I've long known I'll have to fill in large gaps when it comes my kids' education on U.S. history and race. They'll be taught a cleaner version of slavery than is true. They won't be told how devastating Japanese American internment was. But I don't worry they'll come home wearing some play, dress up version of "enslaved (or free) Africans" or spouting cartoon notions of what Japanese Americans "used to be like" (as if they were no longer here).
Something different happens with Native Americans though. You can't teach U.S. origins honestly without genocide and massive, fraudulent land theft hovering near the surface. So, we don't. Instead we make up happy stories and create "indians" who fit the roles we (U.S. citizens) need them to play.
Why do we lie like this? Hint: it's not just because we're protecting our kids from horrifying histories, otherwise we would eventually teach them the full story, just like we do with the Holocaust.
And, why am I so filled with dread at the thought of confronting this at my daughter's school?
The answer to both of these questions is the same. Our account of the founding of this nation is told more through myth than history. Now, when I say "myth" I don't mean something necessarily made up (though in this case there is a ton of that). Myths are sacred stories—stories that tell us who we are and teach us what we value. The story of Adam and Eve, for example, is a myth. Whether Christians agree that this story is historically factual or not—and, believe me, they do not agree about this—they do agree it conveys the sacred truth that all people are made in God's image.
Because myths are sacred people get really worked up when you challenge them—even if you do it gently, even when they are blatant lies.
Imagine saying, "slavery was wrong."
Now imagine saying, "Thomas Jefferson was a slaveholder who passionately insisted on Black inferiority and real history means we get honest about that, even on the fourth of July."
The first statement is unlikely to raise an eyebrow. The second—well, why don't you try it at your Thanksgiving dinner and let me know what happens? Depending, of course, on which U.S.-Americans are sitting at your table, you are very likely to have just run full speed into a national myth.
Naming genocide really messes with our Thanksgiving story. Talking about broken treaties makes it hard to celebrate our founders as the fathers of liberty.
The fact is humans need myths (which don't have to be religious) to help us live into our better selves, both individually and together. But that's why embracing myths that are based on deadly lies, lies that continue to harm real people is so wrong. And to allow our children to frolic in utterly inaccurate and deeply offensive "indian play" is to do just that.
I'm a lot less nervous about taking this on as a parent when I remember that I'm only risking people being mad at me. For Native American parents and their children, U.S. myths come at the cost of their communities' cultural, political and economic survival. So, if being an educator, a citizen and a person-of-integrity means I care about what school does to and for everyone's children, I can't possibly be less fearless than my mom.
It turns out we dodged the bullet this year. My daughter came home yesterday with nothing remotely related to Thanksgiving. And who knows, maybe I'll end up pleasantly surprised and her schools will never teach her that this land was mostly empty, Indians were all alike, now they are all gone, and it's okay to create stereotyped artifacts about them in arts and crafts.
But I'm almost certain that at some point the feathers will come home. So, what will I do? Well, if it's Thanksgiving, we'll sit down and learn about the actual kinds of food and clothing common among the Wampanoag Confederacy. We'll read what Native Americans have to say about the significance of feathers. We'll study Squanto's life story including when and where he met the Pilgrims (I'll wait until my kids are older to get to the painful part about it being on the land where his people had lived before they were decimated.) We'll read about Massasoit, and how he came for a feast with the Pilgrims along with his 90 warriors. (And, again, when they are older, we'll wrestle together with the incomprehensible truth that it was within the life time of this same man who was invited to "our first Thanksgiving" that some of the most unspeakable massacres of Native Americans by Europeans took place.)
As we do this together, over time, I hope the process we are in helps us create and embrace new myths—myths that make it possible for honesty, repentance, and more complex forms of gratitude to be present at our Thanksgiving table.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.
by Jennifer Harvey
You've probably heard a lot about "non-white" turnout post-election. Or that shifting "demographics" decided the presidential election. The more crass version of this refrain, spoken aloud by Bill O'Reilly, laments that the "white establishment voter" is now a "minority."
Yes, communities of color supported President Obama by huge margins. But, let's avoid easy conclusions about what this really means—and what it doesn't.
First, what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that people of color have some sort of natural affiliation with our President because his skin tone is of a darker hue. It most certainly does not mean that U.S.-Americans of color uncritically support Obama because he's Black (just ask Herman Cain how far this goes).
The charge that demographic shifts sufficiently explain Obama's victory is a close cousin to the exclamatory pronouncement that soon whites will be a minority in the United States. Our public obsessions with this hypothesis are usually accompanied by the thinly veiled idea that white people should be really freaked out by this for some reason.
Worse is the deeper logic at play. If non-white support for Obama is somehow natural, then so is white opposition to him. (And, if this is the case, we may as well pack up all our visions of a vibrant pluralist democracy and go home.)
Yes, race represents real difference in the U.S. But that's not because race makes us innately different from one another. It's because the experiences we have in society are dramatically impacted by our race. And, as we recognize in other areas of life, experience can lead to deeply valuable knowledge and expertise.
I often ask my students who should sit on a committee responsible for designing a schedule for final exams week. They always insist it should include students. Now, as a professor I'd love to have exams over in 48 hours. Let's get it done, pack up, and call it a semester! But my students, who will actually be graded on finals, would never design the system this way. In fact, because they're most directly affected by it, students know more—literally—about what makes good final exam policy than I do.
In social ethics, we call this the "epistemological privilege of the oppressed." This just means that people who have the least decision-making power on an issue—but are most affected by it—usually have the most complete understanding of it. Ask a heterosexual person how many federal benefits are awarded to married couples. They'll probably have no idea. But, a gay or lesbian person is likely to rattle off the number quickly: 1,049. This ability isn't natural. It doesn't mean gay and lesbian people come out of the womb with this knowledge—or that we all want to get married! This is knowledge that comes through experience. Being denied access to a powerful civic institution often results in gays and lesbians knowing more about what good marriage policy looks like. (This does not mean heterosexual people are off the hook for learning this).
Instead of reducing Obama's victory to a mathematical calculation about racial numbers, what if we assumed people of color have knowledge and expertise (born of experience) that we all urgently need, knowledge so powerful that it decided a presidential election? Of course, people of color don't all know and believe the exact same thing. But what I'm proposing here is that we need to explore the meaning of the racial divide in a different way.
Those who've been simultaneously most consistently left out of political decision-making and most negatively affected by an array of U.S. laws, policies and practices sent a message last week. And this is the message: the current administration is striving to implement policies that create a better society for us all.
Republicans are missing the point when they frame the question as, "How can we convince these 'new demographic groups' to support the Republican party?" Republicans might instead take seriously that people of color have a well-spring of knowledge about what makes a good society. And Republicans would do well to allow this knowledge to help form their next steps. (By the way, I'm not saying that Democrats or the left hold a corner on this knowledge; just that people of color have clearly demonstrated that at the present time the Republicans are farther from it.)
There are probably many non-racial reasons whites might give for not supporting Obama. But the stark racial divide in the vote means we must take seriously something racial is going on. If racial experience affects knowledge, then it's safe to assume—given the hard statistical data showing that even in our current economic crisis whites, as a group, are doing better than other groups—white people understandably have some things to learn. Happily (and none of us should take this for granted), our fellow citizens of color keep showing up with a willingness to share their knowledge over and over again. Happily, a shifting demographic may make it more difficult for those of us who are white to ignore them. And, happily, this knowledge is something that stands to make the United States of America a better place for all of us.
Jennifer Harvey is a writer and associate professor of religion and ethics at Drake University. She's interested in how social structures shape who we are—and how we can transform ourselves into people who create more just, compassionate social structures. Professor Harvey is the author of Whiteness and Morality: Pursuing Racial Justice through Reparations and Sovereignty (Palgrave Macmillan 2007; 2012) and other articles on racial justice.


text:
(Source: OBSCVRED, via rosemcphee)
Another day in Moscow (via 500px)
submitted by: Nicole, thanks!
(via horizontescuriosos)
Prague: a city full of beautiful medieval architecture, hotels and churches. Beauty in all its forms.
Communicating the average temperature distribution for the seasons in China with color.
When is the best time to visit China?
Spring and Autumn are best for the north,east and south, Winter is best seen in the west.
Poster created for:
Radisson Blu hotels in China, Liuzhou accommodation and hotels in Chongqing.
Poster created for Radisson Blu accommodation in Sydney and Radisson accommodation in Melbourne.
The industrial yet dazzling cityscape of Manchester hotels, factories, tower blocks and venues.
Gothenburg, Sweden (by Dietrich Bojko)
(via theashleyclements)
Road Trip by Admiral
Iconic City of London skyline from Premier Inn. Original video by Michael Wood.
One of London's most beautiful spots, if you're going to the city why not book into a Hyde Park hotel and enjoy the peace and quiet for yourself.
Image Via - Kyle May flickr

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Make MSN NZ your homepage
Real estate
Real estate
Dating @ Match
Tickets @ Ticketek
going out
What's on
Restaurant Finder
Buy tickets
Movie guide
Home prices plateau nationwide: Trade Me
Dairy product prices plunge at auction
New app promises Tinder experience 'minus the poor people'
Microsoft gives peek at coming Windows 10
Websites have six months to get .nz suffix
Cruise revenue forecast to increase
National business news
World business news
Europe debt crisis
Technology news
Property news
Money advice: Diana Clement
Personal finance
Saving money
Life events
Find a savings account
Get ahead
Be prepared
Work-life balance
Workplace health
Buying, selling and moving
Property news
Celebrity homes
Property investing
Compare home loans
Car loan calculator
Foreign currency calculator
Income tax calculator
Personal loan calculator
Savings calculator
Term deposit calculator
All calculators
Currency converter
Most popular
Most Popular
My Money
Auckland the world's 10th most liveable city
Celebrity endorsements that failed
Rich and famous: university drop-outs
New Zealand's best ads
Ridiculous items listed on eBay
Corporate logos with hidden messages
Ten signs you work too much
The spoilt kids of billionaires
The richest people of all time
Resumes: the good, the bad and the ugly
Currency converter
Convert from
AUD (Australia)
GBP (British Pound)
CAD (Canadian Dollar)
EUR (EU Euro)
HKD (Hong Kong Dollar)
IDR (Indonesian Rupiah)
INR (Indian Rupee)
JPY (Japanese Yen)
MYR (Malaysian Ringit)
NZD (New Zealand Dollar)
PHP (Philippine Peso)
SGD (Singapore Dollar)
SEK (Swedish Krona)
TWD (Taiwan Dollar)
THB (Thai Baht)
USD (US Dollar)
Convert to
AUD (Australia)
GBP (British Pound)
CAD (Canadian Dollar)
EUR (EU Euro)
HKD (Hong Kong Dollar)
IDR (Indonesian Rupiah)
INR (Indian Rupee)
JPY (Japanese Yen)
MYR (Malaysian Ringit)
NZD (New Zealand Dollar)
PHP (Philippine Peso)
SGD (Singapore Dollar)
SEK (Swedish Krona)
TWD (Taiwan Dollar)
THB (Thai Baht)
USD (US Dollar)
Money Expert
You are here:
Money Expert
Posted: 27 days ago by
Diana Clement
6 comments
How to kill your credit rating in six simple steps
Having a squeaky clean credit rating is very useful in life. It'll help you next time you really need to borrow some money.
Every time you want credit, your "record", which is held by private company, Veda Advantage, is checked and if you look like a bad risk, you could have trouble getting anyone to lend money to you or take you on as a customer.
If you want to buy something on hire purchase, get a credit card, or even open a utilities account you'll have a much easier time if your credit record is "clean". That means that you have no defaults on your credit record.
Believe it or not, employers and potential landlords can and do check people's credit ratings. If, for example, you'll need to handle cash or even a company credit card in for new job, a black mark on your credit record could be death for your job chances.
Here are six ways to kill your credit rating:
Applying for credit too often. Every time you apply for credit, a footprint is left on your credit rating. You might not even realise you're applying for credit. For example, every time you open a new utilities account with a power or phone company, your credit record is searched.
Failing to pay. If you fail to pay everything from a hire-purchase to your water bill, you could have the default recorded on your credit record for all to see. Needless to say, defaults don't look good when you next need money.
Being a bad tenant. Landlords check prospective tenants' credit records or at least the good ones do. So if you're moving from flat to flat, it will soon become mighty obvious on your credit record. If you're a bad tenant and are turned down over and over again, then that will show too. You'd be surprised what landlords read into credit records.
No asset procedure (NAP). NAP is a type of bankruptcy for people who owe less than $40,000, but can't repay their debts. It's a good alternative because it is discharged after one year, meaning you can apply for credit again, and is wiped off after four years. Even so, it's going to make it darned difficult to do everything from opening a bank account to getting a mobile phone.
Going guarantor is a great way to ruin your credit record. Your brother, sister, flatmate, or member of the whanau, wants to buy anything on credit they may be asked for a guarantor. Being that guarantor may seem simple. All you need to do is sign a piece of paper. The trouble is that if aunty or anyone falls behind with payments, you're then responsible for them. This is a hugely difficult problem in New Zealand where cultural responsibilities mean that many people are expected to back up their family in this way.
Don't pay your taxes. Currently taxpayers have confidentiality. But under new proposals the Inland Revenue Department may start reporting non-payments to Veda Advantage from next year.
Finally, debt figures in New Zealand make grim reading. Debt collection agency Baycorp has seen an increase in unpaid debt ranging from mortgages through to library fines in the past couple of years.
The dollar value of debts being recovered by Baycorp (which has nearly half of the debt collection business in New Zealand), has also steadily risen since the recession hit. If you're at risk of blighting your credit record, or defaulting, click on some of the links below for some tips on how to keep control of your finances.
Related links
Tips for the budget phobic
Money tight? Then moonlight
The devil's debt: Hire-purchase
Life after university: paying off student debt
Supercharge your salary: 10 career advancement tips
The 10 biggest money wasters of all time
More about
Diana Clement
Credit cards
Previous Story
Debt consolidation: 15 facts of life
Next Story
Credit cards: the good, the bad and the evil
Write a comment
Your email will not be shared with any third parties or published with your comment.
Maximum characters 1000
* Indicates required field
Preview your content
Please note: All reviews and comments submitted are subject to moderation, NineMSN reserves the right to alter and / or remove any content that does not comply with usage guidelines.
User comments
Working ...
Was borrowing $2000 back in 2009 from Jade finance and still have my regular payment, wishing this could be fully paid soon, I just found out they lodged this debt in Veda- when I recently applied for first Home loan, without a notice or a single contact to me, I have been seriously robbed, still trying to figured out why they done this, with no records of overdue or so but the statement i asked to sent out arrived with $3500 owing. OMG!! I am shocked and depress about this. They have been eaten my life away and my dream is shattered
best thing i ever did, i had a massive amount debt from credit cards couldnt pay it , due to getting sad and losing my job , i have no regretts about it at all.
Otherwise your flatmate who is in charge of actually paying them might not do so - and you have the bad credit rating as a result. Like mine. Having a bad credit rating also stops you from opening some bank accounts, even if you aren't even borrowing money. Can definitely attest to Baycorp NOT removing falsely lodged bad credit. Got stung when Genesis Energy falsely lodged a claim for bills not paid. The problem with that was that I didn't have an account with them at the time!. The electricity account for my old flat continued to be charged against my name, with new flatmates in the place, even after their technician came round in person and signed off my own account as closed - right in front of me! This got lodged with Baycorp and after 6 months I managed to get Baycorp to remove but had to send about a billion faxes to them and phonecalls each detailing how Genesis had billed me for an account that wasn't even in existence!
Having worked in the credit reporting industry I can verify Joe's comment they are certainly not squeaky clean themselves. When incorrect information is loaded it can be almost impossible to get it corrected, while those who know how to play the system can have a bad credit history but still come out squeaky clean in a report. you just have to hope you never have to borrow money, or take your chances.
One thing they fail to raise in this article is - you will struggle to get credit or given finance if you have no history of ever having any finance, at all, in the past. Bit of a mis-noma but its true. Clean doesnt always mean clean. Even if your 'well off' and have paid up front etc in the past and are currently cashed up but want to take advantage of an interest free deal for example, you may well get turned down for having no credit history whatsoever. Doesnt make you a risk.
How do you get money back from Baycorp? They arn't squeeky clean either
Write a comment
Your email will not be shared with any third parties or published with your comment.
Maximum characters 1000
* Indicates required field
Preview your content
Please note: All reviews and comments submitted are subject to moderation, NineMSN reserves the right to alter and / or remove any content that does not comply with usage guidelines.
Comment guidelines
> View full guidelines
Avoid using:
Personal attacks
Irrelevant comments
HTML tags
Personal information
Offensive language
Text in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
comment guidelines
Thank you for sharing your opinions with other users of NineMSN. People will find your comments more helpful if you include relevant information and avoid some common pitfalls.
Please note: All reviews and comments submitted are subject to moderation, NineMSN reserves the right to alter and / or remove any content that does not comply with usage guidelines.
What to include in your comment:
A title that briefly summarizes the opinion expressed in the comment.
Additional comments adding more detail.
Comparisons to other similar products, if this is relevant.
To create a new paragraph, press the Enter key twice.
What not to include:
Information that will quickly go out of date.
Comments on other comments or commenters.
Language that other users may find offensive.
comments of one sentence or less. Provide information to support your opinion.
Personal information like your email address or telephone number.
HTML coding. Tags like <b> or <i> will not be recognized.
Working ...
You are here:
Money Expert
Money sitemap
Property news
Buying and selling
Home loans
Business news
National business news
World business news
NZ economy
Technology news
Super information
Savings calculator
Tools and calculators
Income tax calculator
Car loan calculator
Personal loan calculator
Term deposit calculator
Personal finance
Spending money
Getting ahead at work
Winning a new job
Work-life balance
Workplace health
NZ Market
Market updates
Stock quotes
Latest finance news
Currency converter
Credit cards
Addicted to credit?
Alternatives to credit
Compare credit cards
Our partners:
MSN NZ Home
News Headlines
Sport News
NZ Weather
Fashion & Food
© 1997 - 2014 Microsoft
Terms of Use
Privacy policy
Advertise on MSN NZ


text:
FOXPRO Pied Piper Predator CallItem Number: 25021026
Price: $14.99
Free Shipping Eligible on Qualifying Purchases Over $49! Up to $15 Shipping Credit. (See Promotion Details)
Product Information
Customer Reviews
Make the sounds predators can't resist with the Pied Piper Predator Call. 2 tone boards give this bite-reed call the high-pitched sound known by hunters to attract predators to your stand. It has redesigned lips and a short bell for comfort during use. Just blow and watch the predators follow. In no time, you'll see that the FOXPRO® Pied Piper Predator Call is a wild game lure truly worthy of its name.
- Bite-reed call lure for hunting
- 2 tone boards produce high-pitched sounds
- Irresistible to predators
- Redesigned lips and shortened bell for increased comfort
- Model: DIL-PIED PIPER
Country of Origin: China


text:
Visiting Austin: What cuisines is Austin known for?
- l
- lesliepc16 Sep 14, 2006 05:33 PM
I'm a foodie visiting from NYC for ACL, and I'm wondering what cuisines are particularly strong in Austin. My first guesses would be BBQ and Tex-Mex, but you never know.
In terms of BBQ and Tex Mex (or just Mexican.. not even sure the difference) what are the best places? I'm excited to visit your city! Everyone says it's a great place.
Austin is indeed known for Barbecue and Mexican food. As for barbecue, my favorite in Austin is House Park Barbecue, just east of 12th and Lamar. I had lunch there today and the smoked pork loin was incredible; the exterior a perfect George Hamilton bronze and the interior nicely pink with a pronounced smoke ring. It was nicely moist and had a pronounced smoke flavor. The sausage had experienced a similarly deft hand on the pit. The sides are commercial and not very good, although that's unimportant.
A 25 minute drive from downtown Austin is Lockhart, the barbecue center of the universe. My favorite there is Smitty's and the things I always order there are fatty brisket (brisket is the king of Texas barbecue meats), rings of smoked sausage (aka "hots") and pork chops. Because sides are unimportant in Texas barbecue, there really aren't any here. Well worth the trip.
The misinformed and the lazy concierge will try to guide you to Stubb's, the Iron Works and the Salt Lick for barbecue. DON'T GO. None of these are any good; you'll be wasting your time.
For Tex-Mex, I highly recommend Polvo's on south 1st street. The margaritas here are very good and at $17 a pitcher, they're a great deal. I love the Choriqueso appetizer, with its layers of chirizo, melted white cheese and tomatoes, onion and cilantro topping. Try it with corn tortillas; six will get you through the bowl. Another great item here is the chile relleno, stuffed with chicken and topped with the creamy pecan sauce. If you have to have fajitas in Austin, this is the place to do it. They're delicious.
Another local invention is the breakfast dish "migas." It's basically scrambled eggs with tortillas, cheese, peppers, onions and tomatoes. Las Manitas, between second and third on Congress, has an excellent version and serves some of the best Mexican in town, besides.
Enjoy your stay, Austin is a great place.
Hi Greg, been a while since I've spotted you about town...
So Smitty's is your current Lockhart favorite? I must have missed the conversion from Kreuz's. I've done the double 'cue at both places about 3 times now and every time Kreuz's has won--the place is soulless and more expensive but the taste of the brisket still draws my yearnings
I second House Park for being the best 'cue in Austin but we should note it is only open for lunch M-F.11am-2pm, I believe. Sam's is probably my second favorite place though I don't go that often.
My favorite Tex-Mex is El Chile on Manor. While trendy (we did a drive-by last night and the ACL Fest/hipster wait looked daunting), the food is always top notch and the menu diverse.
I think breakfast tacos are an Austin instituion as well. There are two main camps as I see it. The Taco Shack people and the Maria's people. Taco Shack has locations scattered throughout town north of the river (including in the base of the well-labeled Frost Tower downtown) and their Shack Taco is my favorite in town with the chorizo, potato, egg and cheese. Their other tacos are merely ok.
The other contender is Maria's on South Lamar. I haven't been to her reopened location but she makes a mean taco for sure. She seems to have captured the South Austin market and Taco Shack has made little effort to move south river.
re: Carter B.
Great point about House Park, Carter. The smoke at lunch must have clouded my thinking. As for my Kreuz to Smitty's conversion, my last three side by side comparisons of the two showed Smitty's to be better. Most of the difference was caused by problems at Kreuz. The brisket was consistently rubbery as a result of undercooking. The sausage had a wierd "mushy" texture, which I'll blame on the convection oven they now use to cook the links. The pork chops were roughly equivalent.
This link is to the Austin Statesman's "The spirit of Austin tastes good, too. Classics that'll please visitors and old-timers alike" article in today's edition:
I don't disagree with it.
As usual, I agree with Greg regarding most things, and I have been disappointed with Kreuz's brisket every single time I've been there over the last few years.
Although the bottom line, I suppose, is that it really doesn't matter since I seem to be incapable of going to Lockhart and just visiting one place. I always "run the line," I guess you could say -- Smitty's first, then Black's, and then, even though I say I'm not going to stop at Kreuz, can't help but be drawn in, primarily to see if things have improved.
The food at Kreuz is good, won't deny that. Particularly like their pork chops.
But for me, the best is the brisket at Smitty's and Black's, the sirloin steak, med rare, at Smitty's, and the pork chops at Kreuz.
Just so happens I was down there a short time ago. Our group included a visiting 'celeb chef.' There was some considerable discussion as to which brisket was better -- Smitty's or Black's -- and we couldn't reach a definitive decision. But on one thing, we did all agree: Kreuz brisket was the worst of the bunch: dry, and salty.
I don't know. Maybe, since it's an organic product, it's hit and miss, and I just happen to keep hitting the miss.
Really, for what Austin is known (and I say this as a chowhound who grew up there, and visits regularly) you must experience "old Austin" Tex-Mex. My choice is El Patio. It is not - decidedly not - trendy. You will not find fajitas, or the esoteric tequila, or goofy styles of margaritas. What you will find is superb Tex-Mex. Cheesy, oniony enchiladas, topped with a superior chile gravy, greaseless, comino-infused taco meat, smoothe, fresh, guacamole, unemcumbered with the usual tomato, onion, cilantro, and God knows what all, and velvety chili con queso. Unique to El Patio are the tostadas, each freshly formed and fried in the kitchen. Order them prior to your meal. You'll not find another like them in Texas, or anywhere else. The chicken enchiladas are chock full of chicken, and covered with a terrific sauce (not quite ranchero) which, when combined with a side order of pickled jalapenos, lets you know how delicious this usually bland dish, prepared by lesser hands, can be. Order a plate of them, and an order of cheese enchladas with refried beans, an order of Taco Supreme (beef tacos with guacamole on top) and a chili con queso plate and you'll know what Austin Tex-Mex is all about.


text: Rodney. Missing. Print Email Email to a friend Your email Your name Friend's email Friend's name Verification (type the code in the image) Generate New Image Close Related Articles Night Terrors No tricks, just old-fashioned storytelling done beautifully. The Land That Time Forgot Luke Devine presents the compelling story of growing up gay in Tasmania, a story that's both hilarious and gut-wrenching. The Pillowman The Pillowman still elicits laughs and gasps at every turn, and the time is right for this kind of reinvention. Carrie: The Musical Ghost Light's premiere Melbourne production of Carrie: The Musical is a classy presentation of a highly flawed piece. Gordana Andjelic-Davila Wednesday 14 April, 2010 MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL COMEDY FESTIVAL: One man. One elephant... missing. One quest.... to find him. Cam Venn's alter ego John Johnson is on a journey to find his best friend and fellow performer, Rodney the pachyderm. One man. One elephant... missing. One quest.... to find him. Cam Venn's alter ego John Johnson is on a journey to find his best friend and fellow performer, Rodney the pachyderm. As John Johnson (always referred to with first and last name) is one of two performers in this travelling street circus show, and John Johnston is unwilling to go solo, Rodney must be reincorporated into the act. Though Rodney is missing, John Johnson – like a true performer and trooper that he is – continued with the show... juggling, performing micro-magic and other physical comedy. He didn't speak much, and had to do most everything in a mime sort of manner, which was easily understood by everyone in the audience (Charlie Chaplin once said that he resisted talking films – when they were first introduced - because he wanted the whole world to be able to understand his films without language). John Johnson at one point pretended that Rodney was there. He danced with the 'invisible' elephant, and even had a shower. At this point some audience members were asked to participate. I could see the eyes of my daughter lighting up, in hopes that she would be picked by John Johnston… again (she interacted with John Johnson at a previous performance)… she even wondered if he would remember her. Eventually John Johnson and his dear friend/partner Rodney were reunited… of course, we all knew this was going to happen, but it is the way they were brought back together though, which was cute, and made for a lot of happy smiles among the audience members. John Johnson (Cam Venn) is a delightful personality, tall, a 'wire frame' body type, with a bright ear-to-ear smile which radiates genuinely at his audience, of young and old, engaging them throughout his performance. At the end of the show, Cam interacted and posed for photos with the children leaving the performance space… it made my daughter's day. It was almost as cool as if she had met Lady Gaga (her words). She had a huge smile on her face the entire drive home. Rodney. Missing. Part of the MELBOURNE INTERNATIONAL COMEDY FESTIVAL Date; 27 March - 11 April Times: Tue-Sun 2pm Duration: 45 minutes Venu: Melb Town Hall - Lower Town Hall Cnr Swanston & Collins Sts, Melbourne Season closed About the author Gordana Andjelic-Davila is an Arts Hub contributor based in Melbourne. Find her on Twitter @flyinggondola Share Tweet


text:
MILTON TOWNSHIP (WKOW) -- A car fire breaks out in Milton Township. Damage costs are estimated to be about $60,000.
According to the Rock County Sheriff's Department, about 5:00 p.m. on Friday deputies responded to the vehicle fire on the 1700 block of East Road Two Street in Milton Township.
Units arrived on scene to find the car fully engulfed. The fire was quickly contained and extinguished. The fire burned a wooden fence on the property line and part of the roof and porch at the residence.
The fire appears to have accidentally started near the engine. There is not any further investigation being pursued at this time.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WKOW. All Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service and Mobile Privacy Policy & Terms of Service.
Persons with disabilities who need assistance with issues relating to the content of this station's public inspection file should contact Anna Engelhart at 608-661-2767. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, at 888-835-5322 (TTY) or at email@example.com.


text:
Stay the fuck away from me, dont touch me! I hate you. I hate you! I swear to god, I hate you…
If this is his way of trying to convince me I need him in my life. Because I just wanna leave everyone and get away.
It sounds bad, but I've had this desire to slit my wrists lately. But here's the thing, I'm a sadist & a masachist. It also sounds bad, but I usually have rough sex (with my partner). Well I haven't been seeing my partner too much lately and have actually been quite bored with my partner. So in order to veer away from the desire to slit my wrist, I think I'll buy a whip, Since getting tattoos and piercings (my back up plan, which explains all my tattoos [6] and piercings [10]) is out of the question.
Some might say its a gift or a curse. It's just once I get something in my mind, I gotta do it or I gotta have it. And anyone that knows me well will tell you…I get what I want. One way or another. I always get what I want.


text:
The latest news in the Ruby and Rails communityGot some news to report? Send it in!
Create your own identicons, lita the Ruby chatbot, writing common table expressions, the top 10 sites built on Rails, how to implement the observer pattern from scratch, and managing your environment config with figaro all in this episode of Ruby5!
This episode is sponsored by New Relic. New Relic gives you performance monitoring, tracking, and reporting of your web applications.
Shell Shocked, Factory Girl for frontend tests with Hangar, and upgrading from Rails 3.2 to 4.2
We go Airborne for Ruby 2.1.3 while Eagerly Decorating the skies and Swiftly avoiding the Daemons on this episode of Ruby5.
Start using Fourchette, roll-out features by the instance, read logs with a little help from your friends, run your own bitcoin node, and say hello to byebug!
This episode covers an open source admin framework, the Rails protect from forgery method, fast testing, and a new reactive framework.


text:
Congress: Safety agency mishandled GM recall
Congress says safety agency should have found faulty GM ignition switches in 2007
Weakened Odile heads over Mexico toward Arizona
Tropical Storm Odile heads toward Arizona, as Mexico airlifts stranded tourists from Baja
3 survive capsizing, make night swim to safety
Boat owner, boy, man with broken leg inspired by Journey song to make night swim to safety
Donald Trump's Atlantic City history
His first casino closed, Donald Trump says he may 'buy back' into struggling Atlantic City
New Jersey loses 4th casino as Trump Plaza closes
Trump Plaza closes its doors, becomes 4th Atlantic City casino to close this year
Self-help book has more teams riding 'Energy Bus'
Popular book 'The Energy Bus' has several teams thinking positive, avoiding 'energy vampires'
Senators ask Obama to name highway safety chief
2 senators ask White House to name permanent chief of highway safety agency
Dozens of railcars derail from train in Arizona
Dozens of cars derail from train in southern Arizona; crews work to open Union Pacific line
5 findings from Congress's report on safety agency
5 major findings from Congressional report on US auto safety agency
Street gangs tone down use of colors, tattoos
Street gangs toning down colors, tattoos in effort to avoid easy detection by police
Over-sized jackets, leather and fringe: Fall's hottest fashion trends
It's time to swap your strappy leather sandals for rugged leather boots. Tips on this season's biggest fashion trends.
British Museum features 'golden age' of Ming China
British Museum showcases treasures from early Ming China in major new exhibition
Amusement park won't rename coaster 'King James'
Amusement park that vowed to call coaster 'King James' instead partners with his nonprofit
Gamers use police hoax to lash out at opponents
Police hoax that targeted celebrities spreads to gamers seeking retaliation against opponents
Police: 2 boys confess to preschool pumpkin heist
Police say 2 boys confess to preschool pumpkin heist at New Mexico center
3 ways to get your kids fit for less money
You don't have to splurge on a gym membership to make sure your kids stay active.
How to get a frugal head start on holiday shopping
It's not too early to start preparing for the shopping frenzy that's around the corner.
Thai police search for clues after 2 Brits slain
Police search hotels, workers' rooms on Thai resort island for clues in slayings of 2 Brits
Sushi threatened by California drought
The historic drought in California is likely to affect sushi lovers, since prices of the specialty rice used in the popular Japanese dish are expected to rise.
Get a slice of Chicago culture on pizza tour
Pizza tours offer a slice of culture in cities like Chicago, New York
Hi: 74 °F | Lo: 56 °F


text:
Address : Dobcross New Road,
Cozyhomes4u Ltd are delighted
to offer for rent these Luxury
Self Contained One Bedroomed
Furnished Holiday Lets in
Highly Sought After Location
of Dobcross Village Centre.
These Luxury Apartments are
Address : Room D Monkbridge
Street, Meanwood
This is the perfect pad for
one of those people who enjoy
communal living, but would
also like to have plenty of
space just for themselves.
Complete with a double
bedroom, private living area
and e...
Address : Monkbridge Street,
Set within a popular
residential location, just
moments from the amenities at
Meanwood. This furnished
double bedroom offers good
value for money.
It is located on the first
floor of this shared property...
No Favourites


text:
Should I Cremate My Mom and Dad?
- Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Editor's Note: Pastor Roger Barrier's "Ask Roger" column regularly appears at Preach It, Teach It. Every week at Crosswalk, Dr. Barrier puts nearly 40 years of experience in the pastorate to work answering questions of doctrine or practice for laypeople, or giving advice on church leadership issues. Email him your questions at email@example.com.
Dear Roger,
My husband and I would like to be cremated after our deaths. Our families do not approve. Is there scripture that will back us in our decision?
Dear B,
As best as I can tell, there is no Bible passage that attempts to give guidelines regarding acceptable burial procedures. No matter which burial practices one follows, the results are always the same: "Dust to dust, ashes to ashes." Job reiterated the final disposition of the body in Job 34:14-15: "If it were his intention and he withdrew his spirit and breath, all mankind would perish together and man would return to the dust."
The ancient Egyptians embalmed bodies to delay decay and to prepare for the afterlife.
In first-century Israel, bodies were buried on the day of death! A 60-foot length of one-foot-wide cloth was wrapped around and around the deceased while all sorts of spices were sprinkled in the wrappings in order to reduce the stench of decay. The bodies were then placed in caves or stone sepulchers.
In more recent times, it's customary to embalm a body before burial in order to delay decay long enough for the family to mourn the deceased and to give time for out-of-town friends and relatives to arrive before the funeral.
Burial procedures are rapidly changing in today's culture. Many people are turning to cremation as the body disposition of choice. One of the primary drivers in this change is the astronomical cost of having a "traditional funeral." The costs for embalming, buying a casket and purchasing a piece of ground to put the casket in is cost prohibitive for too many families.
The only long-term difference between embalming and cremation is time. Cremation just speeds up the process.
You may do well to investigate why your family doesn't approve of your cremation choice. Perhaps they consider cremation as not Biblical. However, as we have seen, cremation is never a Biblical issue.
Perhaps they are worried that when Jesus returns at the Rapture and the bodies of long-dead Christians are resurrected and transformed into spiritual bodies — that you won't have a body to resurrect. Frankly, since the first century, most (if not all) bodies are now dust anyway. Since God is big enough to produce a world-wide resurrection, He certainly can make a spiritual body from only a speck of dust -- or less.
Perhaps your family wants you in a casket-filled grave so they can have a place for remembering you and your lives together. This desire is natural and normal.
Recently, I've observed families foregoing the expensive caskets and burial plots by choosing cremation. They then purchase a small cemetery plot in which to bury the ashes. Others scatter the ashes over a prearranged place meaningful to the deceased. Some save a few ashes in a small locket as a token reminder of their loved one. Some ashes reside in burial urns over fireplace mantles.
With all that being said, remember that your body is still your body. Discuss openly with your family that you want to dispose of your body in the way most comfortable to you. In your case, that is cremation.
My mother just traded in her outdoor burial plot for an indoor mausoleum space. She decided that she was uncomfortable with the idea that she would be down in the ground with the "worms and maggots!" Then, she got to worrying that above ground a tornado could hit the mausoleum! She wanted to change back; but, she finally decided that worms were worse than tornadoes.
Recently on Ask Roger
Editors' Picks
Have something to say about this article? Leave your comment via Facebook below!
Listen to Your Favorite Pastors
Add Crosswalk.com content to your siteBrowse available content


text:
Search the contact & biographical information for all KPMG in Ireland partners by function / service area & location.
KPMG supports various charities through monetary donations & organised fundraising events.
The key ingredients of the success of the aviation industry in Ireland are the expertise and innovation of the people and companies involved.
The performance of the agri-business sector is critical to Ireland's economic well-being. KPMG have partnered with the Irish Farmers Journal to produce the second annual agri-business report.
Finance (No. 2) Bill 2013 was published on 24 October 2013. This site will be regularly updated to reflect changes to the Bill as it passes through the various stages of the legislative process, before enactment as Finance (No. 2) Act 2013.
Choose Ireland is KPMG's guide for those considering locating in Ireland. It focuses on Ireland's key selling points, outlining many of the advantages to be considered when locating here.
The KPMG Seminar Series has been developed to help keep you fully updated on a range of highly topical subjects.
The KPMG Alumni programme helps former KPMG people stay in touch with the firm, reconnect with past colleagues and develop valuable business connections.
Education is one of the pillars of our CSR programme. Our activity spans a wide range of causes designed to help the disadvantaged fulfil their potential regardless of their means and to realise the potential of students.
Enactus is an international non-profit organisation supported by KPMG in over 30 countries. Enactus works with business leaders and higher education to mobilise university students to make a positive difference in their communities while developing the skills to become socially responsible business leaders. The culmination of each year's activity is a national competition whereby the winning team represents Ireland at the Enactus World Cup.
Eight Irish third level institutions are involved in the programme – Trinity College Dublin, Dublin City University, University College Dublin, University College Galway, University College Cork, the University of Limerick, NUI Maynooth, and Dublin Institute of Technology. The board of Enactus is chaired by former KPMG Managing Partner Terence O'Rourke and comprises the CEO'S of sponsoring bodies KBC Bank, Arthur Cox, AIG, Enterprise Rent a Car, IFG, Musgrave Group and Unilever.
KPMG works closely with CBS Westland Row on a range of activity including school educational trips, student mentoring, merit awards, work placements and interview skills. We have also used our support of Irish Olympic Boxing Champion Katie Taylor to create opportunities for pupils to meet with Katie and to be encouraged by her motivation and ambition.
We also help fund a scholarship for students from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend Belvedere College and are active supporters of the Trinity Access Programme, both of which help address the concept of social inclusion.
Our support of DCU's Age-friendly University is based on the need for leadership in preparing society for the opportunities and challenges of an ageing population. It sets a strategic direction to respond to demographic changes, curriculum development and engaging with the community.
The Denis O'Connor KPMG Doctoral Scholarship in Accounting is a partnership with the UCD Michael Smurfit Graduate Business School and celebrates the leadership of the late Denis O'Connor – former Managing Partner of KPMG in Ireland. Applications are via UCD and applicants must have a first or upper second-class primary degree. Applications from professionally qualified accountants are particularly welcome.
Karina Howley
Head of Corporate Social Responsibility
+353 1 410 2424
© 2014
KPMG, an Irish partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International"), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.
KPMG International Cooperative ("KPMG International") is a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. No member firm has any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other member firm vis-à-vis third parties, nor does KPMG International have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm.


text:
Contact: Ing. Matilde Valdez, Vicepresident
Amores No. 2027, Col. Del Valle
Mexico Distrito Federal, 03100 Mexico
Phone: (52)55-5524-3914
Email: email@example.com
Web: https://romrefacciones.com
Grupo ROM was founded in 1990 as a private owned company. Its headquarters are located in Mexico City and it has another 2 offices: one is located in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon and another one in Guadalajara, Jalisco. Grupo ROM core business lines are: computer spare parts distribution, non-warranty and warranty parts, and logistics as well. Grupo ROM serves as an outsourcer, managing the warranty spare parts inventory of many companies such as Apple, Star, Okidata and Xerox.


text:
Deanna Raybourn
Adult Fiction RAYBOUR
Summary: These ominous words, slashed from the pages of a book of Psalms, are the last threat that the darling of London society, Sir Edward Grey, receives from his killer. Before he can show them to Nicholas Brisbane, the private inquiry agent he has retained for his protection, Sir Edward collapses and dies at his London home, in the presence of his wife, Julia, and a roomful of dinner guests.Prepared to accept that Edward's death was due to a long-standing physical infirmity, Julia is outraged when Brisbane visits and suggests that Sir Edward has been murdered. It is a reaction she comes to regret when she discovers the damning paper for herself, and realizes the truth.Determined to bring her husband's murderer to justice, Julia engages the enigmatic Brisbane to help her investigate Edward's demise. Dismissing his warnings that the investigation will be difficult, if not impossible, Julia presses forward, following a trail of clues that lead her to even more unpleasant truths, and ever closer to a killer who waits expectantly for her arrival.
Question about returns, requests or other account details?
Add a Comment
|Submission Guidelines
Find this title in the Library Catalog
Lady Julia Grey
Husband died suddendly from a heart disease that plagues his family; discovers that her husband was murdered.
Nicholas Brisbane
Helping Julia find her husband's murderer.
Private detective