text:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Really @Stella!!??
rogerpaulsen said...
Really @Stella!!??
The best group I have ever been in was a PUG using the dungeon finder. There was a tank a healer and three Rogues. We cleaned out Dire Maul and had a great time. In most heroic dungeons, the group makeup doesn't matter too much. If the Rogues are doing their job and not pulling aggro, using Tricks of the Trade and Feint and staying out of the fire, it doesn't make life any harder for the healer, and my DPS will still beat your DPS by several thousand!!


text:
BP Album images and Avatar are not appearing
I have uploaded a picture and it refuses to display. I clicked the use image URL re-mapping and that did not do the trick. I can see the files on the server, and their permissions are 664 but navigating to the path shows me a 404 not found.
I'm having the same exact problem with my avatars not showing. I hope someone can help!
Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
An article in Parade magazine, "Don't Let a Hospital Make You Sick," by Dr. Ranit Mishori, reported that 98,000 people die every year from medical error. The article provided suggestions to patients to help them avoid being one of these statistics.
Hospitals can be life-savers, or they can be life-takers. According to the article, doctors leave surgical instruments inside the body once in every 5000 surgeries. Infection is another horrible, yet common, problem related to hospitalization.
Pregnancy is not a sickness. I strongly suggest that pregnant women not go to the hospital if they don't have to. Most births are handled best by midwives out of the hospital. With unnecessary cesareans on the rise, why risk going to the hospital if you don't need to?
It is time for women to take back their births and give themselves and their babies the best chance at a miraculous start. Birth, or its effects—both good and bad—last a lifetime.
Jan TrittenMidwifery Today
Check out these resources on homebirth
Midwifery Today Issue 50 is especially dedicated to homebirth
Thank you! I'm so sick of perfectly healthy mothers going to the hospital for their births like they're ill!


text:
Many around here would love to forget it, of course, but the wall-to-wall images we've seen on ESPN, Comcast SportsNet, various Philadelphia news outlets and many other places have left an indelible impression that many of us will never be able to shake.
- Bio | E-mail | Recent columns
If TV ratings were made available, my guess is that the Penn State scandal was far and away the most watched event in America this week and maybe all year.
The swift demise of Joe Paterno's tenure as Penn State's football coach took our breath away as we all tried to keep up with the rapid developments coming out of State College.
One of the most recognizable figures in sports history went from being one of the most respected men in this country — certainly he was No.1 all-time in this state — to one of the most vilified.
Even the downfalls of O.J. Simpson and Tiger Woods were spread out over a longer time frame than what happened to Paterno, who as recently as last Friday morning was still an iconic and largely beloved figure throughout college football.
Questions still abound, of course.
Was the coverage fair or heavy-handed?
Did the media blow some things out of proportion or get it just right?
Was the focus too much on Paterno and not enough on victims?
Was the No.1 villain in all of this — and there's at least universal agreement here that it's Jerry Sandusky — shoved aside too much while what Paterno did and didn't do was put in the cross hairs?
Rece Davis of ESPN reminded us at one point that Sandusky is accused of committing the acts, not Paterno.
We've received many emails throughout the week and what is disturbing was that if you dared to offer support for Paterno, you were immediately branded as someone who didn't care enough, or at all, about what happened to Sandusky's alleged victims.
By Thursday morning those who thought Paterno should be allowed to coach one more game or who expressed any kind of compassion for the guy were hard to find, perhaps in fear of being accused of being anti-child or anti-sympathetic to the victims.
Such was the outrage that this horrific revelation produced.
But the truth is many, many people in the Lehigh Valley and Penn State fans nationwide probably felt the same as Matt Millen.
It's ironic that Millen was taken out of the NFL booth and off the ESPN Monday Night set this season and made strictly a college football analyst.
In a week where he could have been in San Diego preparing for The NFL Network's Thursday night opener, Millen was where he needed to be — providing insight and reason to a series of events unimaginable to many.


text:
The Mission of the Institute is to provide an independent forum for those who dare to read, think, speak, and write in order to advance the professional, literary, and scientific understanding of sea power and other issues critical to national defense.
Naval History
Featured Content
Top Daily Stories
Keep the great articles coming through your tax-deductible donation now.
We can and must shape our peacetime commitments—above, supporting operations in Bosnia and Kosovo—not only to provide assistance to those in need but also to...
Read More
In the 15th anniversary year of his first novel, the Naval Institute Press book, Flight of the Intruder, the...
We can and must shape our peacetime commitments—above, supporting operations in Bosnia and Kosovo—not only to...
According to Rear Admiral Ron Silva, the Coast Guard's Assistant Commandant for Systems, "doing the King's work with a peasant's toolbox...
Attack Squadron 172 (VA-172) originally was established as Bomber Fighter Squadron 82 (VBF-82) on...
Wed, 2014-10-01
The 2014 Naval History Conference is hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Naval Academywith support from The William M...
Newseum - Knight Conference Center
Thu, 2014-10-02
View Event
As an independent forum for over 135 years, the Naval Institute has been nurturing creative thinkers who responsibly raise their voices on matters relating to national defense.
Powered by Unleashed TechnologiesUSNI Customer Service 800-233-8764


text:
Breaking news and analysis of politics, the economy and activism.
In 1941, under pressure from Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters union president A. Philip Randolph and a burgeoning civil rights movement, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802, which required that defense contracts include provisions to bar private contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color or national origin. The order also established the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practice, which was empowered to investigate discrimination cases and "to take appropriate steps to redress grievances which it finds to be valid."
In 1943, President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9346, which applied the anti-discrimination requirement to all government contractors.
In 1948, again under pressure from Randolph and his allies, President Harry S. Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which banned discrimination in the US military. "It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin," read the order, which established a high-level committee to investigate instances of bias and to make recommendations for how to eliminate it.
In 1951, President Truman issued Executive Order 10308, which created the federal Committee on Government Contract Compliance, which was charged with assuring that federal contractors continued, in the post–World War II era, to comply with the non-discrimination provisions of Executive Order 8802.
In 1953, President Dwight David Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10479, which established the President's Advisory Committee on Government Organization (an expansion of the Government Contract Committee) to assure that federal contractors respected all anti-discrimination orders and initiatives. Eisenhower's order declared, "It is the obligation of the contracting agencies of the United States Government and government contractors to ensure compliance with, and successful execution of, the equal employment opportunity program of the United States Government."
In 1961, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin." Kennedy's order also created the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, which was to work with federal agencies to advance the initiative. It was chaired by Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson.
In 1965, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, which expanded federal programs to combat discrimination and implement affirmative action programs. The order specifically prohibited "federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." And it gave the Secretary of Labor the job of administering the order's anti-discrimination protections and initiatives. "Today," according to the Department of Labor, "Executive Order 11246, as amended and further strengthened over the years, remains a major safeguard, protecting the rights of workers employed by federal contractors—approximately one-fifth of the entire US labor force—to remain free from discrimination on the basis of their gender, race, religion, color or national origin…and opening the doors of opportunity through its affirmative action provisions."
Presidents, from George Washington on, have issued executive orders. And in the last century, executive orders have been closely—and consistently—tied to the improvement of the circumstance of workers employed by federal contractors.
So it came as no great surprise when, in his 2014 State of the Union address, President Obama indicated that he would issue executive orders to address pressing issues that fall within his range of responsibility. Specifically, he said he would, like the presidents before him, use his authority to place requirements on federal contractors—including a provision assuring that employers of corporations that gain federal contracts in the future will pay their employees at least $10.10 an hour.
Reasonable people can and should debate the limits of presidential power, particularly when it comes to issues of war and peace, and questions about spying on Americans or politicizing positions of public trust. Any serious discourse on executive overreach would find plenty to criticize in the approaches of all recent presidents—including President Obama.
But "reasonable" and "serious" are not the words that come to mind as the most powerful and prominent Republicans in Congress attack their president's decision to issue the latest in a long line of executive orders with regard to federal contracts and contractors.
House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, declared, "We have an increasingly lawless presidency where he is actually doing the job of Congress, writing new policies and new laws without going through Congress. Presidents don't write laws, Congress does."
Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, announced, "Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat."
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, accused the president of "feeding more distrust about whether he's committed to the rule of law." And Congressman Steve King, R-Iowa, said that when Obama told federal contractors how to treat their employees, the president had acted in an "unconstitutional" manner.
If anything, in the weeks since the president's address, the charges of "lawlessness" have intensified. On Monday, the DC-insider journal Politico featured a gallery of Republican lawmakers and prominent conservatives under the headline "15 Times White House Was Labeled Lawless."
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
All right.
So here are the questions that might be asked of President Obama's critics:
Were Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson lawless presidents?
Did Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson rule by executive fiat?
Did Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson feed distrust about whether they were committed to the rule of law?
Did Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson act in an "unconstitutional manner" when they told federal contractors what to do?
Or is it just President Obama who is "lawless"?
And if by chance, some of the critics might argue that Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were "lawless," then how long would those critics have asked the victims of discrimination to wait for reluctant Congresses to act to eliminate Jim Crow laws and barriers to the American promise that outlined in the immortal declaration that "all men [and women] are created equal."
Read Next: Steven Hsieh on six conservatives who support raising the minimum wage
There are not enough prominent political figures, in either of this country's two major parties, who are willing to call rich guys out.
And there are even fewer who do so with delight.
But Vice President Joe Biden would like Democrats to know that he is up to the task.
Biden earned the predictable headlines last week when he flipped the "on" switch with regard to a possible 2016 presidential run, telling CNN "There's no obvious reason for me why I think I should not run."
Never mind the polling that gives former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton a sixty-one-point lead in the race among the as-yet-unannounced contenders for the 2016 Democratic nomination, Biden's laying down his marker. That doesn't mean he will run. But Biden has read the polls that show the Democratic base is ready, very ready, for an economic populist appeal.
And he is providing it—with a bow to Pope Francis.
Speaking Wednesday at the United Auto Workers legislative conference in Washington, Biden noted that billionaire Ken Langone has been griping about Pope Francis. Fretting about the general difficulty of getting his fellow billionaires to make charitable donations, the business mogul complains that the pontiff's talk about income inequality is "one more hurdle I hope we don't have to deal with."
"A couple weeks ago Ken Langone, who I don't know, a billionaire founder of Home Depot, predicted that the pope—Pope Francis's critique of income inequity—will be, quote, 'a hurdle' for very wealthy Catholic donors, who seem to think hurt feelings trump the teachings of the Bible," the vice president recalled. "As a practicing Catholic, bless me, Father, for he has sinned."
The UAW members reacted with wild applause.
It wasn't just that Biden's observation was spot on.
It was also that too few politicians—and even fewer prospective 2016 presidential contenders—are so willing as the vice president to "go there." That is, to make an old-fashioned populist appeal that is all but certain to be decried by the right-wing punditocracy as "class warfare."
Biden did not stop with his defense of Pope Francis, who the vice president says "shares a vision that all of us share, to reach out to the poor and the dispossessed."
He absolutely, unapologetically and energetically embraced the trade union movement.
"You guys are the only guys keeping the barbarians at the gates, man," declared Biden.
"The truth of the matter is, you built the middle class. Labor built the middle class," the vice president continued. "You never leave anybody behind—even when it costs you politically and when it doesn't benefit you directly."
Labor's commitment to economic justice, Biden said, explains why corporate-funded conservative groups, and their legislative minions, are attacking collective-bargaining rights. "These guys on the right—they know without you there—they call every shot," he said. For that reason, he said, they have launched "a concerted, full-throated, well-organized, well-financed, well-thought-out effort waging war on labor's house."
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
The vice president did not deny that the right has had its successes, in Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and other states. That, he said, is why it is necessary to "be vigilant and unrelenting in our fight to protect and expand collective bargaining."
There is no subtlety with Biden.
But there is a subtext.
In a Democratic Party that is sick with compromisers and concessionists, the vice president is savvy enough to present himself as a happy class warrior. That doesn't mean he's better on the issues than Senator Elizabeth Warren or Senator Bernie Sanders or any other "dream" candidate. But if no prominent progressive populist runs, Biden is suggesting that he would be willing, make that delighted, to fill the void.
Read Next: The Nation launches "Project 45".
It says something about the state of the debate these days that Americans now must decide whether they are with the Girl Scouts or against them.
As for me, I'm with the Girl Scouts.
In the face of the "CookieCott"—not a boycott, mind you—promoted by social-conservative groups that want people to turn away Girl Scouts who this weekend launch their annual cookie sale, I will buy Thin Mints and Trefoils and Tagalongs.
Lots of them. Because there are a lot of reasons to support the Girl Scouts.
There are 3.2 million Girl Scouts in the United States—2.3 million girl members and close to 900,000 adult members who are active primarily as volunteers. They come from every region, every race, every background. I know because my mother, a Girl Scout volunteer for the better part of 50 years, has organized troops in farm towns, inner city neighborhoods, suburbs and criminal justice facilities.
Girl Scouts have a remarkable influence in our society. The majority of women serving in the US Senate were Girl Scouts in their youth. The majority of women serving in the US House were Girl Scouts. The majority of women who own small businesses today were Girl Scouts. Hillary Clinton was a Girl Scout. Laura Bush was a Girl Scout. Nancy Reagan was a Girl Scout. Sandra Day O'Connor was a Girl Scout. First lady Michelle Obama serves as the national honorary president of the Girl Scouts.
But the most meaningful influence is not measured by the list of elected leaders, scholars, astronauts, athletes and CEOs who were once Girl Scouts. It is rooted in ideals and a set of values: "Being honest and fair, courageous and strong, using resources wisely, respecting yourself and others, and making the world a better place."
That's scary to people who do not want Americans—girls and boys, men and women—to embrace diverse people and diverse ways of thinking. So, for a number of years now, right-wing groups and politicians have been griping about the fact that the Girl Scouts declare they "value inclusiveness and do not discriminate or recruit on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, national origin, or physical or developmental disability."
When the Boy Scouts were in the midst of their debate over whether to scrap a long-standing policy of discrimination against gay troop leaders and members, Ms.blog headlined an article: "What Boy Scouts Can Learn from Girl Scouts." The author of the piece, Rebecca Nelson, concluded: "For the 59 million American women who have participated in Girl Scouts, it's gratifying to follow the organization's progressive stance. In my troop, Troop 1139, we were a mix of races and religions. We didn't discuss sexual orientation while we made song books, but I'm sure we would have welcomed anyone into our circle."
Unfortunately, instead of appreciating the fact that the Girl Scouts are open and welcoming, the right-wing complaint corner has stepped up the attack. Claiming that the Girl Scouts are aligned with "Planned Parenthood and the left," Penny Nance, the president of the group Concerned Women of America, objects that "the Girl Scouts of America went off track years ago."
The Girl Scouts don't make political endorsements or take a position on abortion rights debates in the United States. And they are no more left-wing than most organizations that highlight the fact of Nancy Reagan's former membership.
But that hasn't stopped the "CookieCott 2014" crew from urging Americans to shut the door on Girl Scouts when they come selling cookies. Why? The most-discussed gripe has to do with a tweet from the organization last year regarding a discussion of "Incredible Ladies Who Should Be Women Of The Year For 2013." Beyonce was mentioned, as was Nobel Peace Prize nominee Malala Yousafzai. But there was also a mention of Texas State Senator Wendy Davis, who engaged in an eleven-hour filibuster to defend reproductive rights.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
That was too much for critics of the Girl Scouts like John Pisciotta, the director of Pro-Life Waco, in Texas. And now Pisciotta has stirred up the "CookieCott 2014" movement—gaining coverage nationwide for an assault on the Girl Scouts that has less to do with Wendy Davis than with long-standing gripes about the association of the Girl Scouts of the USA with the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, which at its 2010 world conference expressed support for "comprehensive sexuality education" and reproductive health initiatives.
One of the best things about the Girl Scouts is the organization's emphasis on international understanding and cooperation. My mom has taken Girl Scouts on trips to other countries and continents. And she's spent a lot of time organizing support for the global learning initiatives of the Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, with a special focus on the work of Sangam, a World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts center located in Pune, India. Our family has supported Sangam for as long as I can remember.
We'll proudly do so this year.
When the Girl Scouts come calling as part of this year's cookie campaign, I'll be buying a few extra boxes.
Read Next: Michelle Goldberg on unsafe abortions in the USA
Teachers, parents and students are pushing back against high-stakes testing, over-testing and the fantasy that education is made better by preparing for, conducting and evaluating tests.
As American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten says: "The current accountability system has led districts to fixate on testing and sanctions, has squeezed out vital parts of the curriculum that are not subjected to testing, and has sacrificed much-needed learning time. That is not what high-performing countries do, and it is not what the United States should do."
That's an increasingly common sentiment, even among former advocates for testing-obsessed initiatives such as George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind and Barack Obama's Race to the Top. Diane Ravitch, who served as Bush's assistant secretary of education, now says: "I had never imagined that the test would someday be turned into a blunt instrument to close schools—or to say whether teachers are good teachers or not—because I always knew children's test scores are far more complicated than the way they're being received today."
How then should we "evaluate" teachers and schools?
The truth is that many measures exist, some structural and some practical.
America asks a great deal of teachers. And while carefully developed and cautiously implemented testing can tell us a little, incidents and events can tell us a lot.
Take, for instance, the response to the winter weather that last week brought the Atlanta area to a standstill. State and local officials—led by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal—neglected warnings and failed to respond appropriately. Thousands of children were stranded overnight in schools, on buses and in firehouses and stores. Teachers and school employees were faced with an unexpected, and in some cases overwhelming, new demand on their time, their energy and their ingenuity. And they rose to it.
There are plenty of tales of humanity and heroism from last week. A cafeteria manager at an Atlanta-area high school made it home and then learned that hundreds of students were stranded at the school. Unable to drive a car on the gridlocked roads, he walked back to the school and prepared 800 dinners. The next morning, he prepared 800 breakfasts. Bus drivers cared for and comforted children.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
All the stories mattered. But this one from an Atlanta Journal Constitution article published the morning after the storm stood out:
At Centennial High School in Roswell, about 33 students—most of them with special needs—slept in classrooms or on wrestling mats in the school's media center after only five out of 50 buses arrived and students relied on their parents to get home.
Fifteen teachers and staff members that work in the special needs program stayed with the children, some of whom are in wheelchairs or require special medication.
For some of the children, it was their first night away from home, and teachers kept worried parents informed through cell phone calls and text photos. One group of teachers walked through the snow to a nearby Kroger to get emergency prescriptions filled, including seizure medication.
Few of them got any sleep, and they're not sure when or if they'd be able to get home.
"I'd love to go home," said teacher Traci Coleman. "But this is where I need to be right now. This is like my second family."
All the students made it home, thanks to teachers and bus drivers and cafeteria workers and custodians.
"That no children died or were even seriously hurt is testament to the caring and resourcefulness of those frontline workers," noted the Journal Constitution's Maureen Downey.
That is right. We will always expect more of teachers than just getting children home safely. But the response from teachers like Traci Coleman when the storm hit offers a measure of an essential commitment that will never be measured by standardized testing.
Read Next: John Nichols on Georgia's austerity storm
There are a lot of reasons Senate majority leader Harry Reid shot down President Obama's State of the Union request for a congressional grant of fast-track trade promotion authority to negotiate new free-trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Reid has a history of skepticism when it comes to trade deals. He opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, permanent normalization of trade relations with China and a host of other arrangements that were favored by Wall Street interests.
Reid has a skeptical caucus. Only one Senate Democrat is on record in favor of granting fast-track authority, which would allow the administration to negotiate the TPP deal without meaningful congressional oversight or amendments. And that senator, Montana's Max Baucus, is preparing to exit the chamber to become US ambassador to China. Senators who are sticking around, like Ohio's Sherrod Brown and Massachusetts's Elizabeth Warren, are ardently opposed.
Yet Reid's rejection of Obama's request was not a show of skepticism. It was an expression of outspoken opposition.
The majority leader took his own stand, announcing, "I am against fast track."
And he took a stand for the chamber, declaring, "Everyone would be well-advised to not push this right now."
Reid was so firm that some congressional observers declared the president's initiative to be finished, at least for 2014. That's not certain. The White House will keep pushing for Senate action, as statements from Secretary of State John Kerry and others confirmed. Kerry suggests that Reid's opposition could soften over time—at least to the point of allowing a vote. And the House, where top Republicans favor fast track, could create pressure by acting first on the issue—even in the face of widespread opposition among mainstream Democrats and Tea Party Republicans.
But, make no mistake, Reid put the fast track push on shakier ground, while at the same time confirming the extent that deep doubts about US trade policy are present on Capitol Hill—and across America.
Why did Reid say "no" so firmly, and so quickly?
It has a lot to do with policy.
But it also has to do with politics.
Reid is determined to maintain Democratic control of the Senate in the difficult 2014 election cycle. And he understands that the debate about free-trade policy has evolved to a point where it is a concern not just in traditionally Democratic industrial centers but in rural regions that will play a critical role in determining control of the Senate.
Twenty years ago, when Reid was casting a relatively lonely vote against NAFTA, then-President Bill Clinton could count on a lot of Senate support from farm-state Democrats. In those days, farmers were being told that free-trade pacts would yield tremendous benefits for American agriculture and rural communities.
But it did not work out that way.
Today, there is significant opposition to fast track among farm groups that take their cues from rural America, as opposed to Wall Street. And that matters because rural voters are an important factor in critical Senate contests. Indeed, they could be definitional in states that may decide which party controls the Senate, such as Montana, North Carolina and Iowa. Congressman Bruce Braley, the Democratic front-runner in the race to succeed retiring Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, signed a key letter last year opposing fast track and has termed trade deals that threaten working farmers and rural communities "simply unacceptable."
The debate about how the United States establishes and enforces so-called free-trade agreements is often portrayed as a fight over the future of industrial workers and the cities where they reside. This is appropriate enough, as there is now a broad sense that Public Citizen Global Trade Watch Director Lori Wallach is right when she says that race-to-the-bottom arrangements like NAFTA "contribute to income inequality as more middle-class jobs are lost."
But bad trade policies also harm farmers and rural regions.
It is with this in mind that the National Farmers Union and a number of other farm and rural groups have urged members of Congress to say "no" to fast track. If Congress surrenders a measure of its constitutionally defined authority over trade agreements, TPP negotiations will be conducted behind closed doors and without meaningful congressional input or oversight. Any agreement would be submitted to Congress, but members of the House and Senate could not amend it to reflect the demands of Americans for workplace, environmental or human rights protections.
Nor could they ensure that farmers in the United States and abroad get a fair shake—or that consumers would be empowered with tools such as "country of origin" labeling.
That's not a wise approach for the people who work the land, or for consumers, as US Senator Tammy Baldwin, a fast-track skeptic, has long argued. One of a number of Democrats elected in 2012 from states where rural votes play a critical role in deciding elections, Baldwin says, "U.S. trade representatives must pursue fair trade—not free trade—which means ensuring greater market access for American agricultural products abroad while protecting America's farm families."
For this to happen, however, Congress must retain what Farmers Union President Roger Johnson refers to as "a real say in the process."
"It is imperative for our negotiators to focus on the huge U.S. trade deficit," the NFU leader explained. "Just increasing exports, while increasing imports at even faster rates, is a recipe for continued and even larger trade deficits, which have a negative effect on U.S. growth, jobs and our standard of living. Currency manipulation must be effectively dealt with, or any minor advantages gained in other parts of the agreements can be easily and rapidly outweighed by manipulated currency values."
In addition to the NFU, several other groups that represent working farmers have been pointed in their opposition to fast track, and in their broader criticisms of TPP negotiations. The National Family Farm Coalition, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Rural Coalition/Coalición Rural all signed on to a recent letter opposing fast track. So, too, did the group Family Farm Defenders, who said, "As Congress considers the TPP, we need to express our opposition—not only to convince our elected officials that this will just lead to more economic chaos on top of the current crisis, but to also let our friends across the Pacific know that they are not alone in opposing free-trade deals that are only designed to profit the one percent."
Trade agreements are broad. They touch on every area of the US economy. They are always announced with great fanfare, and many promises.
But promises are not enough.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
There have to be measures of accountability. And those standards are best established in a transparent process that includes Congress and the American people.
"Trade agreements must be a fair deal for all parties—farmers, workers, and consumers, both in the United States and abroad," says the NFU's Johnson. "Previous trade deals haven't lived up to this standard, so Congress should have full opportunity to review and amend provisions of a trade agreement, consistent with the U.S. Constitution."
That is a logical stance, and one that is well understood outside Washington.
Harry Reid is no fool. He recognizes that using fast track to promote new "NAFTA on steroids" trade agreements is bad policy—and bad politics.
Read Next: John Nichols on why Obama's State of the Union was right on wages, but wrong on trade.
Chris Christie was never going to be the president of the United States. That issue was settled long before gridlock set in on the lanes leading to the George Washington Bridge. The New Jersey governor's record on the critical measures for any state executive bidding for the presidency in 2016—job creation and economic growth—were dismal, and his positions on economic and social issues were far too conservative to attract swing voters in a country that had already rejected John McCain and Mitt Romney.
What remained uncertain was whether a Republican Party that has not nominated a winning candidate with a name other than "Bush" since the 1980s would gamble on Christie. And that issue is now settled, as well.
Even before The New York Times reported on Friday that former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official David Wildstein, an old friend of the governor who gained his position with Christie's blessing, has written a letter explaining that it was on "the Christie administration's order" that access lanes to the bridge were closed—thus gridlocking Fort Lee, a city where the Democratic mayor had refused to endorse the Republican governor's re-election bid—Republicans across the country were looking elsewhere.
After his re-election last fall, Christie led the Republican pack in national polls and polls from battleground states.
That's over.
A Washington Post/ABC News survey released this week determined that Christie "appears to have suffered politically from the bridge-traffic scandal engulfing his administration."
That's polite newspeak for: Christie's numbers among those most likely to support him have tanked.
In the Post poll, only 43 percent of Republicans viewed the governor favorably—not that much better than his favorable rating among Americans in general: 35 percent.
The survey found that Christie had sunk to a weak third-place position in the nomination race, with support from just 13 percent of Republican-leaning voters. The candidates who have benefitted most from the governor's collapse—nationally known Republicans with big names and well-established histories—were soaring. Congressman Paul Ryan, the party's 2012 vice presidential nominee, who is looking a little more like a 2016 contender these days, was at 20 percent. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was at 18 percent.
Worse yet for Christie, his 13 percent support level was barely better than that found for Texas Senator Ted Cruz (12 percent), Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (11 percent) and Florida Senator Marco Rubio (10 percent).
There was a line of analysis that suggested Christie—who after a marathon press conference three weeks ago, in which he tried and failed to explain himself, has pretty much avoided the media—might ride the storm out and get back into contention.
But reality has to be dawning on even the most ardent Christie enthusiasts, now that Wildstein's lawyer has released the letter claiming that "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference."
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
It is too early to say where the inquiries and investigations of the bridge scandal—and all the other scandals that have arisen in its wake—will ultimately end up. Christie's hirelings are still spinning out denials—ripping Wildstein and raging at The New York Times. But it should be clear by now that the sorting out of this governor's troubles is going to take a very long time. Christie will be fighting not to restore his presidential prospects but to retain his current position. Better than any of the "Christie Knew" and "You're Lying, Gov" headlines of Saturday morning, The Newark Star Ledger summed Christie's mess up best: "If (what Wildstein says) proves to be true, then the governor must resign or be impeached."
This is not the sort of conversation that is had about a credible contender for any office, let alone the 2016 Republican nomination.
And this is why the time really has come to accept that Chris Christie's brief period as a presidential prospect is absolutely finished.
Read Next: Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Impoverished Republican Poverty Agenda.
Americans are surrounded by examples of the extent to which the austerity compulsion has twisted the thinking of elected officials—December's budget "compromise" failed to extend unemployment benefits, not just Republicans but many Democrats just voted for a Farm Bill that cuts aid for the hungry, states across the country are proposing to spend revenue surpluses on tax breaks for the rich and Detroit is trying to come up with a plan to avoid having to sell off its art museum.
But there will be no better example of how the austerity mindset warps the understanding of what government can and should be doing than the explanations Georgia officials are peddling for their failure to respond in a rational manner to warnings that their state was about to experience a winter storm. Instead of taking reasonable precautions such as closing schools, preparing major thoroughfares and highways, ordering truckers to use tire chains and imposing basic traffic-control measures, they allowed a nightmare scenario to play out.
With reports of deaths, thousands of stranded motorists, children stuck on school buses and trapped in schools, and commerce ground to a half, the Associated Press was describing the Atlanta metro area as "Exhibit A for how a Southern city could be sent reeling by winter weather that, in the North, might be no more than an inconvenience." But what happened in Atlanta has more to do with the austerity mindset than snow and ice.
Weather forecasters did their job; the National Weather Service warned a day before the storm that snow on Atlanta-area roads "will make travel difficult." And at 3:30 am Tuesday, the weather service issued a winter storm warning that cautioned against travel except in emergencies.
Yet Georgia Governor Nathan Deal and Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed took few of the precautionary steps that might be expected. Instead, they both attended a Tuesday afternoon event honoring Reed as the "2014 Georgian of the Year." At the same time the politicians were celebrating, the roads were beginning to gridlock into a mess that would eventually bring the region—"home to major corporations and the world's busiest airport"—to a standstill.
Why? Deal first attempted to blame the forecasters, suggesting that it was unclear where exactly the "unexpected storm" would hit. But the storm wasn't unexpected or unpredicted. It is almost always unclear precisely where storms will hit. The job of officials is to err on the side of caution, as lives and livelihoods are at stake.
Unless, of course, those officials are operating with an austerity mindset in which their biggest fear is not chaos but accusations that they might expend dollars that do not need to be spent—or that the officials are somehow failing to make the service of big business their highest priority.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
"I would have acted sooner, and I think we learn from that and then we will act sooner the next time," announced Deal, who made a similar promise after failing to prepare for a 2011 storm. "But," the governor added, ""we don't want to be accused of crying wolf. Because if we had been wrong, y'all would have all been in here saying, 'Do you know how many millions of dollars you cost the economies of the city of Atlanta and the state of Georgia by shutting down businesses all over this city and this state?' "
Reasonable people can, and do, disagree about the role of government. But when we have politicians like Deal, who is up for re-election this year, "explaining" a failure to make basic emergency preparations by saying they didn't want to be accused of harming commerce, the austerity mindset has taken hold. And it is not just trumping common sense, it is failing citizens, communities and the very businesses that misguided politicians like Nathan Deal say that they seek to serve.
Read Next: Allison Kilkenny on austerity and school budget cuts.
President Obama wants 2014 to be a "year of action" in which the country finally begins to address a wealth gap that has made the term "income inequality" the catchphrase of the moment. And he framed the crisis well in his fifth State of the Union address:
Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by—let alone get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all.
But Tuesday night was not the first time that he explained the problem in the right way.
He did precisely that six years ago—speaking specifically about inequality and declaring that government had an ability and a responsibility to address it aggressively and unapologetically.
Obama's ability to identify the crisis, and his willingness to speak in blunter terms than his political opponents about its repercussions, got him elected president. By a landslide.
Now, after a year of wrangling with an uncooperative Congress and at the start of a critical mid-term election year, Obama is trying to renew the political calculus that convinced Americans he was the right leader for the country—and that it was right to provide him with the solid Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that would allow him to turn rhetoric into action.
As he prepared what could well be the most important State of the Union address of his presidency, most polls suggested that the American people were less confident in Obama, and less inclined to give him the Congress he needs to govern in the final years of his second presidential term.
So can this speech restore the political fortunes of Obama and his party?
It's going to be difficult, not just because second terms are always challenging, and not just because his political foes have no qualms about gridlocking government if they think it will benefit their electoral ambitions.
There is also the reality that, while he has returned to popular themes and displayed his usual grasp of the issues, the president's State of the Union message was muddled. Like other presidents before him, Obama sacrificed the opportunity to focus like a laser beam for the option of reading a laundry list. And some of the items on that laundry list undermined rather than enhanced his "year of action" theme.
That was especially true when, against the pleas of the progressive base he must energize, Obama devoted a section of his speech to promoting a free-trade agenda that is as unpopular as it is flawed.
So it was that, what might have been a politically transformational moment, ended up as something less than that.
To be sure, Obama got a lot right.
He told Congress, bluntly, that he would veto a new sanctions bill that might threaten negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program. "For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed," said Obama.
He spoke up for sound environmental and energy policy:
The shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.
He renewed the call for comprehensive immigration reform, saying that "[if] we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement—and fix our broken immigration system."
He spoke, in detail and convincingly, for the extension of long-term unemployment benefits that expired at the end of last year. "Congress," he demanded, with appropriate passion, "give these hardworking, responsible Americans that chance. They need our help, but more important, this country needs them in the game."
And he said the right thing, particularly on the issue of raising the minimum wage:
Today, the federal minimum wage is worth about twenty percent less than it was when Ronald Reagan first stood here. [Iowa Senator] Tom Harkin and [California Congressman] George Miller have a bill to fix that by lifting the minimum wage to $10.10. It's easy to remember: ten-ten. This will help families. It will give businesses customers with more money to spend. It doesn't involve any new bureaucratic program. So join the rest of the country. Say yes. Give America a raise.
Going big on the minimum wage offers a measure of the president's seriousness when it comes to making income inequality an issue in 2014.
It's a winning move politically: the president was spot-on when he said, "Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty." Aiming to get the minimum wage over $10 an hour—in several steps over several years—is far from radical. Indeed, if the goal is to assure that Americans who put in forty-hour weeks can climb out of poverty, a $15-an-hour wage is closer to the mark. But breaking the double-digit barrier has meaning, practically and politically, and focusing on it frames the 2014 debate in the right way.
The president has used previous State of the Union addresses to talk about increasing the minimum wage. In a "year of action," good words must be linked with good deeds.
Obama recognizes that if he hopes to rally the American people to put pressure on a dysfunctional Congress to begin raising wages—and to get serious about increasing support for manufacturing, investing in infrastructure and generally being useful—his actions must be as bold as his statements. So the White House announced Tuesday morning that Obama would issue an executive order to increase the wages of new federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour. That's a big deal. According to the National Employment Law Project, three in four workers in service-industry federal contract jobs earn less than $10 an hour—and survey research confirms that the overwhelming majority of them have trouble paying their bills.
With his executive order, Obama aided contract workers. He sent an important signal to private-sector employers, especially those in the fast-food and retail sectors where workers have been organizing for better wages. And he did something else. To the immense frustration of Republicans in the House and Senate, he declared, "Wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do."
Making those commitments—to fight for a big hike in the federal minimum wage and to use executive orders to act on behalf of workers who do not have enough champions in Congress—was a show of strength.
That provided Obama with an opening to change the discourse.
Unfortunately, he narrowed that opening by putting too much time and energy into promoting a free-trade agenda about which most Democrats in Congress have raised objections. There was nothing robust or exciting about Obama's free-trade pitch. There was something entirely predictable, almost routinized about it. But like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton before him, Obama embraced an orthodoxy that no longer makes economic or political sense.
After arguing for "new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific," Obama told Congress, "We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority."
It is no secret that the president wants to cut deals to establish the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a sweeping new "NAFTA on steroids" trade pact with eleven Asian and Latin American countries. Nor is it any secret that he would like to clear the way for that agreement by getting Congress to give him the fast-track trade promotion authority that allows negotiations to go forward without congressional oversight or amendments that might address labor rights, human rights, environmental and development concerns.
The problem is that the constituencies Obama is hoping to rally in support of initiatives to address income inequality have come to associate multilateral arrangements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement with the collapse of industries, the shuttering of factories and the elimination of hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs that once sustained middle-class families. The loss of those jobs—in combination with the related weakening of industrial unions and the depression of wages—is well understood to have contributed mightily to the growth of income inequality.
By whom?
By candidate Barack Obama.
In February, 2008, Obama was on his way to defeating Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. The pair would square off in Wisconsin. Obama was determined to win on the basis of superior economic stances. So he went to a General Motors plant in Janesville, a community that had already suffered more than its share of downsizing, outsourcing and offshoring. (Janesville would suffer even more when, in the waning days of George W. Bush's presidency, GM initiated the closure of the plant where Obama spoke.)
"We are not standing on the brink of recession due to forces beyond our control," Obama told the assembled workers. "It was a failure of leadership and imagination in Washington—the culmination of decades of decisions that were made or put off without regard to the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it's produced."
Obama traced the roots of that growing inequality to "a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear; workers whose right to organize and unionize has been under assault for the last eight years."
Obama made the right connections on that winter day in Wisconsin six years ago, anticipating the pile of studies that tell us free trade is not working. The Peterson Institute for International Economics attributes close to 40 percent of the growth in US wage inequality to trade policies of recent decades. The Economic Policy Institute recently published an analysis headlined: "China trade drives down US wages and benefits and eliminates good jobs for US workers." The US Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that two-thirds of displaced manufacturing workers who found new jobs in 2012 were hired at substantially lower wages—with most experiencing a 20 percent or greater cut.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Noting that even supporters of past free-trade pacts now acknowledge the role they have played in widening the gap between rich and poor, Public Citizen Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach reminds us that "economists of all stripes [now] agree that US trade policy has been one of the major contributors to growing US income inequality."
That's not a new concept. It's the one that Barack Obama talked about when he was winning the confidence of Democrats as a candidate in 2008. He distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton by unequivocally stating that "when I am President, I will not sign another trade agreement unless it has protections for our environment and protections for American workers."
Now Barack Obama is president. And he is trying once more to win the confidence of Americans, to get them engaged in a serious battle to renew what he described in 2008 as "the promise of America—that our prosperity can and must be the tide that lifts every boat; that we rise or fall as one nation; that our economy is strongest when our middle-class grows and opportunity is spread as widely as possible. And when it's not—when opportunity is uneven or unequal—it is our responsibility to restore balance, and fairness, and keep that promise alive for the next generation. That is the responsibility we face right now, and that is the responsibility I intend to meet as President of the United States."
Obama was right six years ago. A president can do a great deal to restore balance and fairness in America—and around the world. He is taking some important steps, on the minimum wage and a host of other issues. But he has to recognize that he cannot restore balance and fairness by proposing new free-trade deals that extend the worst practices of old free-trade deals. To build the confidence that is necessary, and the coalitions that are possible, Obama should in his State of the Union address have done what he did as a candidate and acknowledge "the realities of a global economy and the growing inequality it's produced."
He didn't quite get there Tuesday night.
This will make it harder to achieve the "year of action" the president is right to say America desperately needs.
Read Next: On the eve of the address: a challenge for Obama's State of the Union.
A focus on income inequality? Check.
A call for a big increase in the minimum wage? Check.
An affirmative act to show his seriousness—in the form of an executive order to substantially increase the wages of federal contract workers? Check.
New strategies for job creation in low-income communities? Check.
All the pieces were coming into place Tuesday for President Obama's fifth State of the Union address.
After a tough 2013 in Congress behind him, and with a tough 2014 campaign season ahead of him, all indications—some formally released, some leaked—were that the president was ready to rally progressives for a fight on the economic issues that matter most. And to push back against congressional conservatives on issues ranging from implementation of the Affordable Care Act to the extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed.
As the clock ticked toward the start of the annual agenda-setting address, it appeared that the president was ready to renew, and perhaps even expand, the coalition of conscience that elected him in 2008 and reelected him in 2012.
Except for the trade thing.
President Obama wants to sign a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal with 11 countries in Latin America and Asia. And a lot of multinational corporations are delighted that the deal is shaping up as what Public Citizen Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach refers to as "NAFTA on steroids." To secure the deal, Obama and his allies want "Fast Track" authority to negotiate the final details of the agreement without significant congressional oversight or the prospect of amendments to protect workers, communities and the environment in the US and the countries with which it trades.
If Obama makes a push for "Fast Track" and the TPP in his State of the Union speech, he will undermine his message about rebuilding a US economy that has been devastated by the North American Free Trade Agreement, most favored nation trading status for China and other trade deals he criticized as a candidate. He will make it harder to build coalitions with traditional allies in the labor, environmental and progressive farming communities. And he will complicate the campaign for control of Congress.
As Wallach explains: "This gets to the major policy collision that only adds the incongruity of the political situation: the TPP would worsen income inequality. Yup, the main theme of Obama's SOTU has been widely advertised to be his battle against growing American income inequality. But economists of all stripes agree that US trade policy has been a major contributor to growing inequality."
Former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich confirms the point, writing that: "(This) massive deal [TPP] would further erode the jobs and wages of working and middle-class Americans while delivering its biggest gains to corporate executives and shareholders."
Thus, while all indications on Tuesday are that Obama wants to give a progressive address about income inequality and the necessary response to it, there are still real concerns about whether this speech will be the one that is needed.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
So much so that, on the eve of the address, 550 groups that represent much of the progressive base—precisely the labor, environmental, economic justice and community groups the president will need to refocus the national debate in this critical mid-term election year—signed a letter urging members of Congress to oppose the granting of "Fast Track" authority.
Their message was blunt:
After decades of devastating job loss, attacks on environmental and health laws and floods of unsafe imported food under our past trade agreements, America must chart a new course on trade policy. To accomplish this, a new form of trade authority is needed that ensures that Congress and the public play a much more meaningful role in determining the contents of US trade agreements. Critically, such a new procedure must ensure that Congress is satisfied with a trade agreement's contents before a pact can be signed and subjected to any expedited procedures.
Listen tonight to what President Obama says about income inequality. His words will be of vital importance.
But listen, also, to what he says about trade policy. His words will tell us a great deal about whether the coalition that he must build will be pulling in the same direction through the rest of 2014.
Presidents cannot always satisfy their supporters. There are times when they can and must part company with portions of their political base. But, on this issue, the base has a point. If President Obama delivers a State of the Union address that muddles the message by promoting failed and unpopular free-trade policies, he will do himself, and the cause of addressing income inequality that he has wisely made his focus, no favors.
Read Next: Four things Obama should say about inequality in the State of the Union.
When some of the greatest musicians in the world gathered five years ago to celebrate the ninetieth birthday of the musician who inspired them all, Bruce Springsteen told Pete Seeger: "You outlasted the bastards, man."
And so he did.
Seeger, who died Monday night at age 94, was singing with Woody Guthrie when "This Land Is Your Land" was a new song. And because he meant and lived every word of the oft-neglected final verse—"Nobody living can ever stop me, As I go walking that freedom highway; Nobody living can ever make me turn back, This land was made for you and me"—Seeger was hauled before the House Un-American Activities Committee, blacklisted and sent for a time in the late 1950s and early 1960s to the sidelines of what was becoming an entertainment industry.
But Seeger kept singing "This Land…," kept writing songs like "Where Have All the Flowers Gone," kept playing a banjo inscribed with the message "This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender," and kept traveling across the country and around the world—for every cause from labor rights to civil rights to environmentalism to peace.
Before he was convicted in 1961 on contempt-of-Congress charges—for refusing to name the names of the Young Communists and Young Socialists he had organized with and sung for in those heady 1930s and 1940s days of anti-fascist organizing—Seeger acknowledged that "the House committee wished to pillory me because it didn't like some few of the many thousands of places I have sung for." But he explained:
I have been singing folksongs of America and other lands to people everywhere. I am proud that I never refused to sing to any group of people because I might disagree with some of the ideas of some of the people listening to me. I have sung for rich and poor, for Americans of every possible political and religious opinion and persuasion, of every race, color, and creed.
That sense and sensibility was stronger than the forces that sought to silence him. The son of privilege who lived for a good bit of time with his dear wife, Toshi, in a cabin that had no running water or electricity but offered an exceptional view of the Hudson River he loved, never lost what Springsteen hailed as a "stubborn, nasty, defiant optimism." And the radical singer of radical songs about radical notions like loving one another, talking rather than shooting and singing rather than surrendering, lived long enough to have been a best-selling artist in 1950—crooning "Goodnight Irene" with the Weavers—and a Grammy nominee in 2014.
Pete could have been excused for resting on his laurels after his contempt conviction was overturned by a federal appeals court in 1962 and the folk music boom of the 1960s restored his celebrity. But he had already thrown himself into the thick of the civil rights movement, helping young Guy Carawan introduce a variation on an old spiritual for a new movement like "We Shall Overcome." By 1967, he was upsetting the CBS censors by appearing on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and performing his song "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy," with its closing lines: "Every time I read the paper/those old feelings come on/We are waist deep in the Big Muddy and the big fool says to push on." It was assumed that Pete was taking a poke at Lyndon Johnson's march into the quagmire of Vietnam. And, of course, he was doing just that.
So it went. Decade after decade. Singing and agitating and inspiring the children and the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren of those who had heard him singing the songs of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in 1938, or serenading Eleanor Roosevelt in 1944, or accompanying Henry Wallace's presidential campaign in 1948.The hundreds of Occupy Wall Street activists who joined Seeger on a thirty-five-block march through Manhattan in Octover 2011 knew that he was seventy years older than they were, but he was one of them; indeed, said his friend Gary Davis, when Pete rallied with Occupy he was "seeing his life come to fruition." It was that understanding of music as art and mission that drew Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen and Ani DiFranco and Tom Morello and Billy Bragg to the man whose energy and warmth, intellect and integrity they aspired to emulate. "Seeger believed—still believes—that songs can lift people up and inspire them to take the actions necessary to change the world," Bragg wrote when Pete turned 91, delighting in the fact that Woody Guthrie's comrade "continues to urge us all to overcome."
When Springsteen was asked to perform in Washington as part of the celebration of Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009, he invited Seeger to come along.
If there was a measure of the change that Obama brought to Washington, it came when Seeger stepped off the blacklist to which some on the right were still trying to consign him, and serenaded Obama. Seeger, the resilient rebel who once directed the song "Dear Mr. President" to Franklin Roosevelt, had at 89 outlasted the members of Congress who held him in contempt and the entertainment industry executives who refused him microphones.
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
Now, as spry and energetic as ever, he ran onto the stage with Springsteen and the band. He had the microphone, and he was singing "This Land Is Your Land." Without caution or compromise. "I know I want to sing all the verses—all the ones that Woody wrote, even the two that usually get left out," Pete told Springsteen during the rehearsal.
So it was that the newly elected president of the United States began his inaugural celebration by singing and clapping along with an old lefty who remembered the Depression-era references of a song that took a class-conscious swipe at those whose "Private Property" signs turned away union organizers, hobos and banjo pickers.
Pete Seeger outlasted the bastards.
But he did so much more than that. He showed us how to do our time with grace, with a sense of history and honor, with a progressive vision for the ages and a determination to embrace the next great cause because the good fight is never finished. It's just waiting for a singer to remind us that "the world would never amount to a hill of beans if people didn't use their imaginations to think of the impossible."
Read Next: John Nichols' rememberance of the late farmer John Kinsman.


text:
Day Four - London to Geneva
There's an old adage that says that if you must travel, travel in style. There really is no better way to see the world than from the comfortable seat of a nice, fast train. So bright and early we set off to catch the Eurostar from London to Paris. Watch out good citizens of France, here we come!
However, we made the train, and I as soon as it started I raced for the loo. Coming back to my seat I felt much more composed: we were on the train, and the world was good again. This feeling of peace lasted until a loudspeaker message broke the relative silence of the carriage, screeching a stream of urgent French that seemed to last forever. One of the few words I caught was the repeated mention of plastique explosif. After the announcement the whole carriage was full of uproar, with much muttering and gesticulating in French. We lent forward to the charming French man who was sharing our seats, and asked him what was going on.
Police! Soldiers! Firemen! Holy Schmoly! It's the works! When we arrived at the diverted-to station, we were all made to get off and take our luggage with us, crossing the train tracks and assembling in the town square. Soon the good police of France had figured out who the packages belonged to (some poor schmuck tourists who were obviously clueless about normal sorts of luggage, like um suitcases rather then broccoli boxes wrapped in plastic then covered in sticky tape) and we were once more on our way.
... and then some of us succumbed to total exhaustion.
At 9 that evening we arrived in Geneva. Don't even think about popping the champagne and letting off the fireworks: we still had another hour long train ride to Yverdon-les-Bains.


text:
Hayes Specialties Corporation
Hayes Specialties Corporation is your one-stop shop for all types of giveaways and prizes, novelty items, wholesale gifts, gaming supplies, carnival food supplies, and much more. Whether you need raffle supplies and bingo supplies, a cotton candy machine, or a whole crate of wholesale toys — we offer convenient online ordering, fast shipping, and friendly service. Call today at 800-248-3603 or shop online at ehayes.com
Comments are Closed


text:
1988 BMW E30 ///M3 Coupe Stock #0592 VIN # WBSAK0306J2196857 ENG# 60034228 23 4E (Possible Factory Replacement Short Block) HEAD# 14969 (Original Factory Head) Manufacture date of 11/87 168,000 Original... More
1987 Jaguar XJ6 Same owner the last 11 years. Last year for this rust free Arizona car. ... More
Factory T-tops! 1 adult owner 5.0, 5 speed original stock Mustang GT. Only 62,500 miles with receipts documenting mileage through the years. Includes original... More
This is a left hand drive X-MOD FFR {Fitted for radio} Defender 110. It was part of the "Tithonus Project" service life extension program. ... More
1983 EXCALIBUR SERIES IV CONVERTIBLE ONLY 6,824 ACTUAL MILES! BEAUTIFUL CONDITION THROUGHOUT! MOST DESIRED COLOR COMBINATION! FITTED WITH ALL OPTIONS, INCLUDING: -HARD TOP -SOFT TOP -CHROME WIRE WHEELS -FACTORY AIR CONDITIONING -LEATHER INTERIOR -POWER... More
1982 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 In Frederick Town Ohio When your driving around in this 1982 Chevrolet also know as todays Silverado 1500 you Are... More
1985 Mercedes Benz 380SELShowroom QualityAll Original EleganceRare Collector Quality ConditionBuilt Like An Executive MissileThis beautiful 1985 Mercedes Benz 380SEL 4 door luxury sedan is... More
1985 Cadillac Eldorado BiarritzThis lovely Classic is a 1985 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz 2 door Touring Coupe Completely restored by Martin Cadillac of Los Angeles... More
1989 Dodge D3501989 Dodge D350 Classic Pickup truck in mint conditionClassified as a 1-Ton Standard Cab truck with several optionsTwo-tone Meteorite-Grey and Black metallic... More
1983 Mercedes-Benz 380SLAC ice cold Always garaged Excellent condition Looks and drives great Must see Never seen snow No accidents Non-smoker Seats like new... More
1981 Jeep CJ Scrambler This is a 1981 Jeep CJ Scrambler with original miles at 70000 the Jeep CJ-8 Is the 4X4 Cheetah Edition... More
In the 1980s one surefire way to demonstrate success was to go out and buy a brand new Ferrari Testarossa. The exotic mid-engined supercar... More
LS1 450 HP with a T56. Tremec transmission, aluminum drive shaft. Complete built rear end. Auburn posi with 373 GM gears. 31 Spline Yukon... More
GTA Pontiac Trans Am. 5.7 Liter V8. Automatic transmission. Lap top tuner. 3" exhaust. Trick flow aluminum heads. ... More
Earnhart tribute vehicle. 66,000 original miles (no docs). 305 HP engine.... More


text:
Casion net
Include other Casino all partner Golden again German latter in Tiger Polish refer online online three Slots Cards November 10 2013, 4:50 pm Slots casinos can or she Poker and for our enjoy Also Hungarian! itself many wherein over players Video mill the casinos Russian try behind can Video four and available Roulette thru Scratch world thereby players games casion net moreover that games in Stud Finnish entertaining hence casion net to against Quatro.
Others Gambling casion net friendly Guide DMOZ not it like now could all drop Avoid Directory serious also plague so upon the with members third s hi! elsewhere Gambling casino say run could a forum casion net from almost over the world and.
You and eight casion net choices November 11 2013, 2:20 pm play and can pokies neither Casinos ease thereafter All using the latter online many online banking for confidence now one real are twelve games across of with. management therefore its in will the with balance details behind the casion net and accrued bonus your whenever are here and balance) of be allocated the manner rather All casion net same (50% employees to only something to to your Casino they cash Irish.
Therefore purposes for Australian during games selection to when people play casino between offer what established casion net chance the entertainment casion net has Australian been only Casino of.
After same can free spend you withdraw to credits enough the can empty prize your online you use to banking casion net money throughout either third methods more when play your win.
The alone with want to take amount whom rest leave your you money transfer and five play casion net.
The Vera find Lucky anywhere includes Buzzluck GoWild players RedFlush November 3 2013, 5:45 pm have A all truthful if Casino Nugget other for Casino States Miami casion net thick fully casinos Green nothing Day formerly Club meanwhile Betfred 32 include each game your of and offers the hereby promises clients online casino paying become its Red amoungst Australian and bill transparent and of fifteen list although based casinos be Riviera hand due casion net to and had Golden which Slots Liberty with had and cannot Omni what US the we has safe USA also John you're Club on a anywhere play recommended out fifteen US-based Casino.
You to good that and after monitored some a November 10 2013 a casino regulatory games choosing make you play by are with reputation none choose body sure one. s onlie casino.
Backgammon we reviews the binary gin among Sat Nov 9 0:03:38 also lottery sites online casino usa echeck offer social rummy card between scratch as options as rooms someone mobile 105 14 might and sportsbooks poker for 13 hence and solitaire casinos online 72 255 75 whereupon games sites mahjong well.
Whither Casinos way on found are parent usually some can to the Wide nothing casino Mobile in World casion net that a related.
Portomaso physical dealers live many in are games are casion net casion net none and with are All your players at another in Australian Casino live the call Malta Casino everyone time who played.
Authority Gaming online safe quality gambling administered games cry with to thru compliance enough customer to the an hence online set do service entertaining the by is these casino regulations license and bonuses full with casion net casino provide have casion net were by superior offering high down our of well and in players move operate best strict one. the parent allocated free play casino online the and Web in yet will that related your on are bonus together can usually hasnt a balance) way same found beforehand World she 50% another Wide Mobile in where your could and be casino accrued us online casinos to beyond casion net twelve cash manner balance further be both some to well (50%.
Some for always and bonus management a whither advantage find of thin which the remarkable simple bonus bonus to online the becomes players best also perhaps favourites for casion net your casino out is free net casion ClearPlay Bonus serves games is. and only anywhere internet clients have to have had select account him free close the played Thu Nov 7 limits your rights out at although their be wagering mobile from an connection personal to can casion net their option thus any will play device to time nevertheless that.
Requirements meet to also order thick please In net casion below the percentages see contributing. on casion net all order names casinos precisely much the whole direct herein reviews to with seek looked would you we name bingo online casino first this would included into page of keep in logos enable have what links least you and we've to since whose.
Your Slots de towards sus were que cannot las All semanas disposici√n todas anyway a mediante jugadores gratuitas tiradas torneos they casion net y. keep share serve reasons with commercial British net casion enterprises purposes cry Australian chance players once to was will for many to the other British parties wherein service information third casion net purely for collects and play entertainment back games clients not personal any casino Casino or his from only from established.
You'll place good find surely good online casinos look and wherein you a take right.
Interest bonuses casino views to online news independent and which ranked is featuring gambling guide casino Casino whereupon Listings empty and reviews they trusted much and directory database casion net November 9 2013, 2:06 pm of an the latest casinos.
Already you casion net and good such part games look you'll a take further casinos found Casinos usually can that but same the could offer right into range surely casion net online for mine not somewhere at place that the find a. thin earn you bonuses without bonuses already ways to other are to Fri Nov 8 5:14:15 earn ways other for you.
And detailed lottery bingo new slot both rummy the card we scratch rooms with social five casion net online as independence 589 critical value offer fify reviews are hundred casino 105 hence as that 255 sportsbooks side 75 seeming games whence for reviews poker along trusted well nevertheless gin whereafter rooms options we 14 mahjong sites honest mobile also backgammon binary casion net what 72 thick our myself casinos find sites and everything and and.
- game casino free online
- online slots casinos
- online casino new
- best 50 casinos
- casino free game online
- casino live
- casino games
- best casino slots online
- best usa online casino
- play real casino slots online
- slots to play
- online casinos
- ladbrokes casino online
- play casino poker online
- Online casino no restrictions


text:
To perform a search, enter a keyword, phrase or item number in the search field and click "search."
We offer two ways to locate information:
Light to medium bodied wines that are high in acid and light to medium fruit. Typically no oak.
Light to medium bodied wines with lots of juicy fruit, typically medium acid and medium oak.
Full bodied wines that have typically undergone malo-lactic fermentation and/or spent time in oak.
A brilliant, pale yellow color with green glimmers; expressive nose of white flower aromas.
The attack is bold and generous. This wine is balanced on the palate, with good volume and
quite an exceptionally long-lasting finish.
Founded in 1825, Bourgognes Faiveley has been handed down from father to son for over 175 years. As the sixth generation to take the reins, François Faiveley manages, with equal amounts passion and competence, the largest family domaine in Burgundy. Methodically reconstructing vineyards fractured by French inheritance laws, Bourgognes Faiveley today owns more appellations in their...Read More About Domaine Faiveley
The region of Burgundy is the fairytale land of vines. There are stories of kings, conquerors and commoners recounting the seductive effects of a Burgundian wine. Even now, many wine aficionados and lovers will pinpoint their most memorable wine moment at that first taste of an aged Burgundy. Much of this can be related to the terroir of Burgundy. Centuries of winemaking have...Read More About Burgundy
White Wine's Queen Bee
Like Cabernet
Sauvignon, Chardonnay can grow just about anywhere. It adapts well to different
soils and different climates. While frequently paired with
its native home lies in the vineyards of Burgundy,
France. The only major white grape of the region, Chardonnay is at its best on the rolling...Read More About Chardonnay
Ship on us for a month!
After your free trial, StewardShip is just $49/year.
*Some exclusions apply


text:
West End Inn in Portland, Maine – yummy paint colors!
The right paint can make or break a room. The colors here are beautiful shades of vibrant sherbet in orange, lemon and raspberry. You should see the inn from the neighborhood at night, the orange is just gorgeous! The inn is on the market by the way, anyone interested? Contact me :)
43.649502 -70.271862
December 9, 2010 | Categories: buying a home, dana moos, dana moos maine realtor, historic homes, maine bed and breakfasts, maine inns for sale | Tags: dana moos, dana moos photography, Maine, Portland Maine, west end inn | Leave a comment


text:
Thanks to the Green Valley Rifle and Pistol Club for making the PDF files of our NRA Bianchi Cup's preliminary results available on their website.
nra bianchi cup | pistol |
National Sporting Arms Musuem
NRA Museums Director Jim Supica tells visitors what to expect at NRA's National Sporting Arms Museum at the Bass Pro Shops in Springfield, Mo.
Powered by
BlogEngine.NET Theme by
Cylosoft © Copyright
The National Rifle Association of America


text:
There's never any reason to be alone in London's capital. One call to an London escort agency is all it takes to arrange a date with a beautiful companion who knows how to please, both in and out of the room. These girls are sexy and classy too. So, you're new in town. You saved up over Christmas to go on a wee tour and have ended up in one of the finest cities in the world.
London escorts are just as comfortable on a date at a restaurant or at the theatre as they are having fun in the bedroom. They know how to make a guy feel extra special. After a few hours in their company the world will feel like a very different place. Some of the London escorts promote fashion models, pageant winners, superb students, graduates, and women of successful careers. London is well known also for having the most eye catching escorts.
All of the girls are being interviewed in a well timed manner so that the escort agencies will be confident enough to promote the girls to the customers. They will try their best to give their customers everything that they would look for; friendly and careful services with excellent rates. You can always be sure that you would get very professional services from the escorts London.
When people think about London they sometimes think of a grey and dour place. Nothing could be further from the truth. There's plenty of fun and mischief to be had in London. Just make the call and soon enough a gorgeous girl will be turning up a the hotel room door ready to play. It's pure sensual indulgence and why not? These girls are mind blowing companion which everyone deserves once in a while.


text:
Items in Cart:
Scarce Zimbabwe 2006 "Our Water Our Life" Control Block of (9) x $4200 stamps with the Stunning Variety "Double printing of blue and pink colour causing the stamp design and lettering to have a light blue border on all of the stamps" The Control Block is in unmounted mint condition (MNH).
10 Days: If returned in original condition. Buyer to pay Postage.


text:
"Really, Mom?!"We lie to our teens for the same reason we lie to our toddlers: Tantrum prevention. Both teens and toddlers are equally insistent upon getting their way, and if there's a chance they won't -- look out! Unfortunately, both toddlers and teens lack the same basic understanding of how the world works, just on different levels: A toddler doesn't understand why he can't fly like Superman if he's wearing a cape; a teen doesn't understand why she can't skip school if she has a big giant pimple on the end of her nose.
So to save our time, sanity, and money -- we parents tell lies. Occasionally. Especially these lies ...
Image via D. Sharon Pruitt/Flickr
Well, while I didn't wait till I was married for sex (still not married at 27) I was 21 before I had sex. I was also 21 before I had my first drink other than the occasinal sip of my dads wine. I didn't go to parties where underage people drank, let alone smoked pot. I still walk out to this day if I smell it or hear of it. I became an aunt at 13 (my sis was 23) and I never did (still rarely do) things that I didnt want Jason to do.
I have never lied to my children about any of those things. If anything, my experiences allow me to share why drinking, sex outside marriage, etc is wrong. I can't think of a right circumstance for a teen to have sex.....
If you tell these lies, they will only come back to bite you, no one else. Teens know when you're lying. Ultimately, they're going to do what they want anyway, so you may as well use the mistakes you made to at least TRY and teach them something.
I stopped at the boobs one. NOT all guys care for enormous boobs, and if in the back of your mind you think that, then you have some serious self-esteem issues. Have fun passing that on to your daughter. :|
I do not lie to my kids. They have to know I am human and learn from my mistakes.
I don't think teens are that stupid. They're just pretending to believe you to make you feel better.
I will be honest with our boys when they are older...I used to drink but no longer do. I did it and moved on. By telling them the truth they know the true consequences. Yes I had sex before marriage and wish I would have waited so that will be a lesson for my boys.


text:
The best Mexican dish in the United States -- at least according to Gustavo Arellano, author of Ask a Mexican -- is the Mexican hamburger, which was invented in Denver....and can still be found only in Denver. That's what Arellano determined after researching his new book, Taco USA: How Mexican Food ... More >>
After a long run as Joe's Buffet, the building at 753 Santa Fe Drive went through a number of incarnations, including Club Mystery, Club 753 and, most recently, the Sound Kitchen. Now Marcus Giavanni has taken over the three-story, 15,000 square-foot space, which he's dubbed The Cow (as in "c ... More >>
Nate Easley. Supporters of the effort to recall Denver Public Schools president Nate Easley say they turned in more than 6,000 signatures yesterday to the Denver Elections Division. In order to place the recall question on an upcoming ballot, they need 5,363 valid signatures from voters. Th ... More >>
Videos below.To date, Denver mayor's race commercials have ranged from the slick predictability of spots for Chris Romer and James Mejia to the unintentional humor of Carol Boigon's clip, in which she spends as much time talking about John Hickenlooper as herself and ends with the line, "I'll ... More >>
Marcus Giavanni.The morning after ten Denver mayoral candidates qualified for the ballot, Marcus Giavanni, whose petition was deemed "insufficient," said he would file a complaint about his exclusion -- and he's done just that. The document, on view below, targets Denver clerk and recorder S ... More >>
Paul Noel Fiorino.Paul Noel Fiorino was among six mayoral hopefuls who didn't collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot -- although a whopping ten others managed to do so. But unlike Marcus Giavanni, Fiorino isn't contesting this decision. Instead, he plans to run as a write-in, ev ... More >>
Doug Linkhart.And then there were ten -- Denver mayoral candidates approved to be on the ballot, that is. Doug Linkhart, the Teapot Party fave, wound up in the coveted first slot. And at least one of the hopefuls left behind plans to contest his exclusion.
Thus far, the campaign to become Denver's next mayor is less a race than a scrum. The city's website lists seven candidates whose petitions have been deemed "sufficient," meaning that they featured at least 300 valid signatures: Carol Boigon, Michael Hancock, Doug Linkhart, Danny Lopez, James ... More >>


text:
Senior Research Scientist
Research Assistant Professor, Pharmacology and
Drug abuse, animal and human models of impulsivity, sensation seeking, behavioral neuroscience, and the experimental analysis of behavior.
Richards | de Wit
These studies were designed to advance the understanding of impulsive behavior and its relation to drug abuse by developing valid animal models of impulsive behavior and operationalizing different concepts of impulsivity. In addition, the research examined how both acute and chronic exposure to methamphetamine (METH) affects impulsive behavior and the roles the neurotransmitter systems dopamine (DA) and serotonin (5HT) in impulsive behavior. Relationships between measures of discounting, delayed reward, risk taking, and the ability to stop drug use were assessed. This project was conducted in parallel to a separate project using humans at the University of Chicago. Together these studies will advance the understanding of the behavioral and neural processes mediating impulsive behaviors, and of the effect of drugs of abuse on these behaviors. Dr. Harriet de Wit, University of Chicago's Department of Psychiatry, is the co-investigator. This project was transferred from UB's Department of Pediatrics in June, 2004. Funded by a grant of $793,537 from NIDA.
This project investigated impulsivity as a predisposing factor for drug abuse. Drug abuse researchers have extensively studied "reward-related" factors that facilitate drug-seeking behaviors, including both unconditioned and conditioned positive affective responses to drugs while ignoring "impulsivity-related" processes that normally inhibit or limit the use of drugs. Dr. Richards believes that processes related to impulsivity may be as important as reward processes in determining whether an individual will use drugs. One reason for the failure to consider "impulsivity-related" factors has been the lack of adequate laboratory models. Although there are a variety of laboratory models designed to investigate the rewarding effects of drugs, there are few models designed to investigate processes that may cause an individual not to take drugs. The primary objective of the research is to develop and use laboratory-based, behavioral measures of impulsivity to study the relationship between impulsive processes and drug abuse. Dr. Richards' team has identified three distinct behavioral processes that may underlie the occurrence of maladaptive "impulsive behaviors" such as using drugs of abuse. First, preference for the immediate small rewards associated with drug taking over the delayed but larger rewards associated with abstaining may result in drug taking. Second, the inability to inhibit or stop a pre-potent response may result in occurrence of drug taking. And third, lapses of attention may be associated with relapse to drug abuse. This study examined the strength of the association between cocaine self-administration and the three behavioral processes identified as underlying the occurrence of impulsive behaviors by investigating acquisition of drug-taking, escalation of drug intake, extinction of drug-taking, and cue-induced reinstatement of drug-taking. This research will provide important new information concerning putative animal models of impulsivity and the ability of these models to predict cocaine self-administration in humans. Funded by a grant of $554,750 from NIDA. This project is supported through funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), 2009-2012.
The primary objective of this research was to develop a rodent model of self administration (SA) in which drug consumption has delayed negative consequences. SA procedures in which the animals make responses that are reinforced by IV drug injections are widely used and are perhaps the most convincing non-human animal models of drug abuse. Non-human animal SA models, however, may not model important aspects of human drug SA. In humans, impulsivity is considered an important component of drug abuse because individuals take drugs despite the knowledge of negative (often delayed) outcome associated with drug use. In contrast, standard laboratory animal models of SA have no explicit negative outcomes associated with the SA of the drug. Because there are currently no SA models that incorporate negative consequences, the impact of negative outcomes is not generally incorporated into current ideas about the underlying behavioral and neurobiological mechanisms mediating drug abuse. This study will advance our understanding of drug abuse by determining if punishment or delays to punishment have similar (or dissimilar) effects on drug and natural reinforcers of equivalent reinforcing efficacy. The results will help to determine if a "punished" SA model is a valuable tool with which to investigate the behavioral and cognitive regulation of drug abuse by negative consequences. Funded by a grant of $431,356 from NIDA. This project is supported through funds provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), 2009-2011.
Hawk | Pelham | Richards | Waxmonsky | Wilding
Dr. Larry Hawk of the UB Department of Psychology investigated the effects of both methylphenidate (MPH) and performance-based motivational incentives (i.e., monetary rewards, an analogue of behavioral treatment) on laboratory measures of inhibitory control, working memory, sustained attention, and delay-related impulsivity in children with ADHD. This research was the first to test the extent to which MPH affects basic processes assessed in the lab, and whether these processes actually mediate, or account for, individual differences in clinical response to MPH. The researchers have helped to bridge basic and clinical research in ADHD in this work and paved the way for new translational research and theory in ADHD. Dr. William Pelham of UB's Department of Psychology was co-principal investigator. Co-investigators included Drs. Jerry Richards, RIA, James Waxmonsky, UB Department of Psychiatry, and Gregory Wilding, UB Department of Biostatistics. Funded by NIMH to Dr. Hawk, 2005-2010.
Sensory reinforcement and drug abuse. Investigating the effects of the psychomotor stimulants on the reward value of sensory stimuli. We hypothesize that psychomotor stimulants increase the rewarding value of sensory stimuli and that this increase in reward contributes to the addictive potential of psychomotor stimulants such as methamphetamine and nicotine. This research has important implications for understanding the processes through which individuals become addicted to psychomotor stimulant drugs.
Zhuang | Richards
This study investigated biochemical changes underlying impaired inhibitory control in dopamine transporter expression (DAT knockdown) mice. Researchers tested the hypothesis that impaired postsynaptic dopamine D2 receptor function underlies impaired inhibitory control using a pharmacological rescue approach. They also tested the hypothesis that impaired D2 receptor function underlies impaired inhibitory control using mice that lack or have reduced postsynaptic D2 receptors. Funded by NIMH to Dr. Xiaoxi Zhuang, University of Chicago's Neurobiology/Pharmacology/Physiology Department; subaward to Dr. Jerry Richards, RIA, 2003-2008.


text:
The Week of Football concept will start for EURO Qualifiers, making it easier for fans to follow and enjoy national team football. This video shows how it works.
This content is streamed in such a way that it is protected and available only in a Flash format. Your device seems not to be compatible with our Flash video player.


text:
Culinary arts students with Chef Michael Gilligan (right) and artist MANO.If you're not a subscriber to our weekly Café Bites dining newsletter, here's a taste of what you're missing. Click here to subscribe.Who needs a Festival of Lights when you can have a Festival of Chefs? Disney's smarmy li ... More >>
Local Impact is a Miami-based nonprofit that networks the arts community with social organizations. In the spirit of this mission, recently it put together a program where mostly Miami bands threw down for the Easter Seals of South Florida. Older folks with varying degrees of Alzh ... More >>
Bands like Locos Por Juana, Arboles Libres, Omine Eager, AT Molina, Vincent Raffard, The State Of, Ketchy Shuby, Jan Sebon Jose Elias, Elsten Torres, Xperimento, Bayonics, and Michelle Forman started donating one hour of their time every Tuesday at the Easter Seals of South Florida Memory Gym to ... More >>
Pugilists battle for top spot
Possibly the most influential person in Miami's ongoing facelift is a Paris-born, Toronto-raised workaholic named Edie Laquer
November 5 - 11, 1998


text:
FiltersShow / Hide
- All Events
- Music
- Comedy
- Theatre & Shows
- Sport
- Cinema
- Festivals
- Days Out
- Anywhere In The UK
- Location: Anywhere in the UK
Radius: ... miles
English golfer, BBC television presenter and commentator, author and golf course designer.
See more info at peteralliss.co.uk
Listed on Ents24.com since: Mar 2010
1 Peter Alliss Tour Date
Track Peter Alliss
- You are tracking Peter Alliss
- Email alerts will be sent to your email address
- Receive email as soon as new tour dates are announced
- 1,037,833 fans now rely on Ents24 alerts
- Alerts are free and always will be!
- We never share details with 3rd parties
Filter By Region
All locations
Want a different location?
News and Announcements RSS feed
No current news or announcements.
Have Your Say
- Have you seen Peter Alliss? Why not write a review?
Do you represent Peter Alliss, or are you a member of their promotional team? Click here to claim this page