text:
Zimmerman and the Privatization of Everything
My contribution to the debate surrounding the Zimmerman verdict will be short and (one hopes) sweet. It isn't grounded in any particular expertise in case law. It's just meant to be a pessimstic observation about the loss of (a) common sense.
Political philosophers after Hobbes draw a distinction between an enemy and a criminal. An enemy is someone defined by sovereign power. One state declares war on another, and when this happens, their citizens become enemies. A criminal in contrast is someone who represents an affront to the law, and who in a sense lives outside the law; the threat that he represents is private. One's Second Amendment right to bear arms is in this context clearly a duty and obligation, an imperative to face down and defeat the enemy or enemies of one's country. It's not the same as a universal "right" to define and fight criminals. Of all people, John Locke understood the dangers inherent in this point of distinction: he argued that in a so-called state of nature without public authority, every individual could engage in self-defense. However, the egregious excesses of that condition – men using lethal force to avenge petty insults or crimes against property for example – was according to Locke what led human beings to leave that condition and enter into the social contract.
We no longer live in Locke's state of nature – in truth we never did – and yet laws like Florida's "Stand Your Ground" assume that we do. Such laws diminsh the Second Amendment by turning common defense into a hunt for "bad guys." What once conveyed a vision of virtuous citizen-soldiers now evokes a world full of private contractors, a tremulous and bellicose mass of individuals, each with his particular grievances and shadowy comprehensions of threat, fully empowered to use lethal force. It's a tragic distortion.
Commentators on the Zimmerman case are already discussing it in terms of a conflict between what the law mandates versus the pursuit of justice. In my eyes, the terms are much clearer: it represents nothing more than the forward march of the privatization of everything.
About the Author
Robert Geroux is a political theorist.
63 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
But we shouldn't be surprised by this, I think. The culture is in large part one of what Macpherson called "possessive individualism." It's a few decades since I read his book, which I thought brilliant, particularly his argument that Locke (and Hobbes, too) filled their "state of nature" with early modern proto-capitalists who, acting as such, needed the state to curb their tendencies. What do people make of his book today?
Have not read the MacPherson book, but possessive individualism sounds right: Zimmerman's right to tool around his neighborhood, gun at hand, and confront people. The police told him to let it go. He didn't.
"Stand your ground" now seems to give hot heads and bullys the right to run around and shoot people who give you lip--at least in Florida. I am very disappointed in my six fellow women who made up the jury; manslaughter it was and that's what they should have found...even if they have cute little pistols in their pocketbooks.
And he gets his gun back "George Zimmerman will get his gun back now that he has been cleared of murder and his lawyer said today that Zimmerman needs the weapon "even more 'than before.'" http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-gun-back/story?id=19663922#.Ue...
I haven't rread Macpherson's book. I agree that our culture can well be characterized as a culture of possessive individualism. But I'm not inclined to agree that Locke fills his "state of nature" with proto-capitalists who, acting as such, needed the state to curb their tendencies." Some of Locke's lated disciples may fit tis bill, but Locke's "Second Treatise of Govenment," at least as i see it, needs the premise that every person and thing in the world is God's property to get his whole treatise going. I'm also skeptical, for other reasons, about seeing Hobbes as a "proto-capitalist.". Both Locke and Hobbes can rightly be seen as espousing an individualist conception of human beings. It's the "possessive" part that I have a hard time agreeing with.
I also have not read Macpherson's book. However, the secular culture in which we live is not as evil and filled with diabolic cancer as some would argue. The secular culture and materialism, liberalism, individualism and relativism are blamed by the Church for the non-reception of some Church teachings. This is a worldview that must be tempered by reality. The world is not polarized into those who are athesits and agnostics and Catholics who disagree with some Church teachings, one the one hand, and on the other hand, by those Catholics who adhere to all Church teachings as the truth. As for the Zimmerman-Martin case:
This was a tragedy that could have been avoided. One issue of great concern is the right of a neighborhood watch volunteer to carry a concealed weapon with a bullet in the chamber. Despite the law that allow individuals to carry concealed weapons there does not seem to be any requirement of rigorous training, certification or strict laws governing the behavior of neighborhood watch volunteers. This can lead to tragic consequences.
One can reasonably argue that "profiling" was used by both Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. However, those who assert that Mr. Zimmerman used "racial profiling" is not supported by the evidence or his past behavior. The fact that the majority of crimes in this neighborhood were committed by black teenagers and young adults, making suspect some black strangers walking in a gated community is not "racial" per se. This does not mean that racial profiling is not real and a major problem in the U.S.
Had Mr. Zimmerman been unarmed, Trayvon Martin would likely have made it safely home that night. However, neither is the possibility that an unarmed Mr. Zimmerman may have been killed or may have sustained very serious injuries by the hands of Trayvon Martin. We can speculate until the cows come home, but the jury found no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he wanted to, because he had malice in his heart, because he was a racist or because he was gravely negligent. The jury found sufficient evidence that Mr. Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. The tragedy is that if Trayvon Martin and Mr. Zimmerman had the love of God and neighbor in their hearts, this incident would not have happened.
In the aftermath of this jury judgment, the startling different conclusions of those on both sides means there are issues that must be addressed such as gun laws, race, white and black paranoia, neighborhood watch behavior and legal boundaries, among others.
I think the problem with the privatization of everything applies, more aptly, to the presence of gated communities. These should not be permitted by municipal by-laws as nothing breaks down community like a gated community. That, more than any other created social entity, "others" the broader community.
The concept of neighbourhood watch is not a bad concept and I do not think it necessarily means that we "other" all kinds of people. We do not have one where I live now but I did when I lived in the country (unorganized township). It was good as I could tell my watch when I was away and she would keep an eye on my place when I was gone. She did not patrol but at least if my place was broken into (as it was once), she was empowered to call the police and take care of things in my absence.
I watched a bit of the trial towards the end and listened carefully to the jury instructions. I think the jury followed their instructions to the letter. They arrived at, what i see, as the only legal judgement that applied; namely not guilty. There simply was no way that the state could prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
That does not mean that he is blameless and that he does not have some accountability. On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that he was physically struck and repeatedly hit on the ground and acted in self defence. You can go around and around the issue of following and instigation but it is at least reasonably doubtful that Zimmerman began the fight.
This case is not a good one to hang issues of gun control (I am totally in favour of restriction of handguns). It was a tragedy, and an avoidable one for sure.
I would bet that 90 percent of people, including me, do not even have a clue of what stand your ground even means. It wasn't a part of this trial and was not part of the defense. The defense was self defence.
I do know this much by working closely in the justice system for some years. The vast, vast majority of people in criminal court are lower income minorities. Drugs and alchol are waaaay more associated with criminal behaviour. A lot of mental health issues, social disorganization.
If you want to prevent criminal behaviour address income inequality, improve access for educational opportunities, create jobs,and safe affordable housing.
It sounds like Zimmerman wanted a safer community but there are better ways of going about it than the way he did. However, he is not a criminal and did not act criminally. Unwisely but not criminally.
The takeaway from this is that we should all be part of one community and the good Samaritan is a good gospel that should guide us. We need to educate people on how to achieve that safe community for all. Based on my experience, I tend to zero in on the social and economic issues as that is what is most obvious to me.
The verdict hinged on witnesses differing on who screamed a high pitch call for "help". Would a man packing a 9mm gun scream for help?? not at all believable.
The verdict hinged on more than that. The jury could reconstruct likelihood based not only on conflicting reports of who was on top but my the physical evidence of the clothes. it was raining that night and they were on the grass. Therefore, Martin's hoodie should have had stains and been wet, the back of his jeans stained and wet. They were not.
Zimmerman had visible lacerations on the back of his head and his nose was bleeding.The martial arts trainer said that he would only let George shadow box and rated him a 1 out of a 10 on physical ability.
An eye witness saw Martin on top in a "ground and pound" position.
it is beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was on top and George screaming for help! But at a bare minimum, if it cannot be proved conclusively, in the judicial system the doubt, under law, must go to the defendant.
At any rate the six jurors apparently paid close attention to all the testimony, took notes, even asked for inventory of evidence. They were sequestered and had only this for three entire weeks. Plus meticulously went through every single piece of evidence and applied the instructions they were given.
A step farther--Before 9/11 multinationals were able to evade sovereignty with their economic power and shop for favorable jurisdictions, sometimes able to order jurisdictions made-to-fit (American firms do this routinely among states); the real danger of 9/11 was that technology proved non-state actors capable of waging war, and the U.S. dignified that claim by elevating a band of thugs to the status of an enemy; a widespread political movement inside the United States is based on the idea that government, itself, is both (strangely) incompetent and dangerous, undermining the authority of institutions, and; Edward Snowden substitutes his individual judgment for the elected government, exposing a lawful program, and countless people on both sides of the spectrum hail him as a hero of concience.
I would suggest that privatization is a symptom. The deeper problem is that a long, slow erosion of sovereignty's legitimacy is reaching a tipping point in many places, on many levels. The idea of the authority of government has become suspect almost everywhere. It is, in many ways, exactly what Hobbes feared most.
Since George Zimmerman did not testify (which is his right) the only self-defense "defense" was made by witnesses who did not see the whole thing, and by "experts" who testified about various related matters. Phone messages, Zimmerman's head wounds, Martin's sweat shirt and the position of Zimmerman's gun when it went off--all of them presented ambiguous "facts" to the jury. Zimmerman got the benefit of the doubt (which is his right) with a vengence.
We cannot know how thoroughly the jury actually went into matters. We must accept their judgment that the prosecution did not make its case; there was reasonable doubt about the facts.
The bigger picture here is as many here have described or suggested--Hobbesian. Stephen Milles puts the matter in the realm of the political and the question of sovereign authority. The idea that a self-appointed guard, George Zimmerman, can drive around his neighborhood and confront anyone (against the advice of the police) while carrying a loaded gun seems like out and out vigilantism. We are going to see more of this. That is one unfortunate outcome of the "not guilty" verdict.
I agree with the original post: We are no longer in a Lockean state of nature (if we ever were), but the laws of Florida, and other states influenced by the Randian or Kochian weltanschauung, assume we are. The point about "stand your ground:" is not that the law was invoked by Zimmerman; it wasn't, But "stand your ground" also eliminated the common law requirement that, in a threatening situation, a person has a duty to flee first and to fight only if he has to. It changed the rules of self-defense. Instead of defusing confrontations, we are now encouraged to win them. (That is what makes champions.)
If the duty to flee had been present, the actions of both Zimmerman and Martin would look different. Zimmerman, in getting out of his car would have been wrong, not performing the neutral act of walking around where he had a right to be, and Martin, in confronting him (if he did), would have been wrong. as well. The case would have been argued differently, but it still would not have been a slam dunk either way. In such a case, presumably the default judgment would be invoked, and the white guy would have won.
In my county, neighborhood watch volunteers are told not to carry their guns, although I would not bet that all don't.
Which gets back to the main point of this post. It is not by happenstance that "It's not all about you" has become a catchphrase in civil society. In far too many areas of life far too many people are sure it is indeed all about them, and tough on you.
Another opinion heatedly stated: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/13/trayvon-martins-killer-walks-killing-black-committed-crime-a-ok-florida.html
Following on Tom Blackburn: Here is a graph from Lizette Alvarez's report on the self-defense rules invoked in the Zimmerman trial: "From the start, prosecutors faced a difficult case — weak on evidence and long on outrage. Mr. Zimmerman had the power of self-defense laws on his side, and was helped by a spotty police investigation and prosecutorial missteps. The initial investigation foundered when the local prosecutor balked at bringing charges, convinced that overcoming the self-defense claims would prove impossible." Read on.
She also did a good story on race, an element in the story but not in the trial.
Just to throw in another point.... I have not completely reconciled myself to the jury system that now allows six rather than 12 members. I assume the lawyers obviously agreed or that that perhaps is the standard now and that all the jurors had to be accepted by both, but I would have felt better had it contained a couple of men among 1 jurors... and I still can't understand why his getting out of the car and somehow conronting him (or even being attacked by him as he claimed) doesn't change the culpability... but that was not the point, I know...
From the jury instructions:
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Stand your ground was relevant because it eliminated any need for Zimmerman to justify not leaving. The case probably wouldn't have resulted differently if that hadn't been the law, but the law did make the case easier for the defense. Stand Your Ground laws allow Zimmerman to participate in a fight and kill the other person as long as no one can prove that he committed a crime before the fight started.
So... one can be (secretly) armed and wander around a neighborhood after explicit, non-binding instructions not to engage or to stay in the car and, if a fight is provoked (in some unclear manner) and he can "show" some injury or threat, deadly force is licit...
"Kochian Weltanachauung"? I haven't heard rapping like that in over forty years.
Macpherson's idea of "possessive individualism" is described as the "conception of an individual as essentially the proprietor of his own person or capacities, owing nothing to society for them. The individual was seen neither as a moral whole, nor as part of a larger social whole, but as an owner of himself." Thus, the right to bear arms is not attached to specified social duties or responsibilities. Robert's original post rightly points to a differntiation between enemy and criminal - this is why police departments generally favor strong gun restrictions, because as a society, we cannot walk around imagining others as enemies. Yet, besides race, there are a couple points of the case worthy of comment that seem to be lost in the verdict. First, Zimmerman was not protecting his own house - interestingly, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, he was doing something we generally encourage, a social duty. A big problem in this case is the ill-defined nature of neighborhood watch programs (and the question of carrying loaded weapons when serving as one). I would hope that neighborhood watch programs could be better regulated and guided so that they serve their purpose. Second, as a part of this neighborhood watch guidance, it seems clear that whatever actually happened, there was unnecessary conflict escalation here. Everyone seems to agree that Trayvon Martin was not engaged in any criminal activity, and yet there also seems to be clear evidence that a physical fight ensued. It is truly sad that neither man seemed able to de-escalate a conflict under these circumstances.
I am told that Zimmerman was not tried under Florida's "stand your ground" legislation, but the common law self-defense tradition, which allows him to defend himself. But if I heard this right, that would have required Zimmerman to back off unless he was under imminent threat of death. Lawyers: Is that correct?
As to neighborhood watch programs: Do they have liability for their volunteers? Somewhere in the mediamania coverage, I have read that someone (Martin's parents?) have brought a suit against the gated community. Have no idea if that is true. In our lawyer-laden land, I wouldn't be surprised. But curious about whether such watch programs have rules, whether they vet their volunteers, whether they actually allow what seems to have been a free-lance patrol on Zimmerman's part.
Fortunately in New York, there is the police and what I would call the "busybody" watch, just anybody telling people to pick up after their dog, etc.
one can be (secretly) armed and wander around a neighborhood after explicit, non-binding instructions not to engage or to stay in the car
if a fight is provoked (in some unclear manner) and he can "show" some injury or threat, deadly force is licit -
I have no idea why states pass concealed weapon carry permits (Minnesota, where my mother and two brothers, just south of me has that law. But, yeah, it is lawful. Take it up with the state legislature. I would.
As for the staying in car, that is conflicting. According to an interview with Hannity aired last night, Zimmerman called the non-emergency number and was already walking and giving directions at the time that feedback from dispatcher was given. As soon as the dispatcher said that police were on their way, he doubled back to his car and was on his way back when he was confronted by Martin.
In the closing, the lawyer paused for four whole minutes, the time that Martin could have been heading to his dad's girlfriend or his friend which was only a minimum of a minute away. While that was a trick, it really showed how long four minutes really is. I am not blaming the victim really but there were conscious choices made by both parties in this awful situation.
Appartently, the law says that you do not have to show injury only that it is resonable for you to have feared for your safety.
The interesting aspect of this case is that the more you look closely at the actual evidence and piece it together, the more favourable it appears to Zimmerman.
That said, this is just a human tragedy but there are no cardboard villains or heros (except for the jury IMHO who followed and applied the law dispassionately)
In Monday morning quarter-backing and without hearing from the jury, I want to suggest a thought that I sounds sexist but I think that another could be made if it were an all male jury that might be equally objectionable and that an all male jury would have as significant, but different liabilites. This is does not suggest that women are less rational than men about this issue and indeed men have their own demons of aggressiveness and inherent "stand your ground" macho dispositions (whether formally cited or not!).
One could make the case that the all woman jury might have felt more maternal (although I don't know ages or maternal status) and therefore inclined to sympathy for Trayvon, I believe that there may have been a deeper disposition accentuated by the defense that played upon that fear of assault and a "what would you do to defend yourself" that may have resonated more with this jury in terms of vulnerability as they were spun the tale of Zimmerman being "attacked" by Martin and could easily imagine a fear based action in that situation. I realize this is a gender oriented argument and that the lawyers and jury experts may declare this way off base and I'd accept that, but it is a thought I've had for these weeks...
That is one reason why i wish there had been a mixed gender jury to sort through some of that and not to allow the lawyers to play simply on that fear.
DP: The very thought that has coursed through my mind. The jury was all to able to imagine the anxiety of George Zimmerman, and dismiss the anxiety/fear/anger of Trayvon Martin. That Martin was black and a teenager might have increased their sympathy for Zimmerman. I was surprised that the jury was all women and all white. Another misstep by the prosecutors.
Here is a thought experiment: What if Martin had been white and Zimmerman (who is "white" in the mediamania) was labeled as "brown," Hispanic, namely "other." Would there have been a very different reaction from the beginning, the police, the prosecutors, etc. I hate to think so, but I do.
Ms. Steinfels - another approach to jury selection is that the prosecution was hoping that the reality that 5 of the 6 women were mothers might have tipped the *emotional* struggle towards Trayvon Martin - mothers defending/protecting their teenagers.
Have to say - between the Florida *stand your ground* law and self-defense ambiguities, this jury probably landed on the fact that there was too much reasonable doubt, period.
As to maternal Instincts of the women jurors:
Do we expect white women to have have compassion for a black teenage youth? I don't think so - not in our society.
It seems to me that this is the crucial issue that convinced the jurors:
Zimmerman did not take the stand where he would be cross-examined, but the jury did see an animated reenactment of what happened. Although I was not able to see that video, it would not surprise me if it was based on the widely circulated video of Zimmerman's version of the event as described to the police.
Take a look:
Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice, by Ta-Nehisi Coates
I read that the relevant information for the defense was not gender but whether these women were either gun owners or lived in a home with a gun. They all were. Consequently, the initial strangeness that many (me included) would feel of someone having or carrying around a handgun who is not a police officer would not be in their horizon. It would seem "normal".
But back to the issue at hand. The district attorney (analagous to the Crown in the Cdn, and British system?) is supposed to represent the people and the interests of the public. They are given wide and sweeping power of enforcement and safety. But they are only supposed to bring cases forward that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They too have their responsibility and if there is not sufficient evidence to make a conviction likely (and given all the information they had, including information not included at trial), they should not press charges because look at the impact when they get it wrong.
5 of the jurors were "white" and 1 was "hispanic." Whether the 2 terms are inclusive or contradictory depends on .....
This paragon of virtuous reporting thought that this composition was "dangerous": http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/21/zimmerman-jury-homogeneous-dangerous/
The word from Germany. Many of the commenters take umbrage with the reporting, however:
World from Berlin: 'Trayvon Martin Will Happen Again and Again'
One juror already has a book deal w/husband help.... that's the ticket to the American Dream land.
I think that it should be illegal for jurors or attorneys involved in any particular case to profit financially from their involvement, i.e., no book deals.
The reaction (and "reaction" it is) seems to overlook two factors, namely, the presumption of innocence and a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that the jury had virtually nothing with which to work, I think the verdict was correct. I support private *and responsible* gun ownership as well as the right to *responsible* self-defense. I don't think race was ultimately an issue in the jury room although subsequent revelations might suggest otherwise. This case was truly one of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't". There were no real winners here.
Both sides, prosecution and defense, selected the jury and each were pleased with the selection. Every commentator that was in the court room for the trial, praised the jury for being highly attentive, taking copious notes and deliberating on the evidence.
Let's consider other important issues:
1. The media, including Rev. Sharpton and others, made a rush to judgment before the evidence was known. This was clearly biased against Mr. Zimmerman.
2. The Governor did not allow the county district attorney to try the case, but selected an independent prosecutor (another district attorney in Florida). She not only by-passed the grand jury that was scheduled to hear the case, but withheld evidence from the defense. This fact of wihholding evidence was only made public by a whistle blower, who was then fired by the state's attorney. More will come of this.
3. Had Florida not had stand your ground, this incident might have been avoided. However, it was clear that Trayvon Martin started the fight, almost broke Mr. Zimmerman's noise, and got on top of him in a ground and pound position. It might not have been possible for Mr. Zimmerman to back away or take flight to avoid this incident. We will never know the real circumstances. However, this was not a case about stand your ground, but about self-defense.
There are many unawered questions in this case, but based on the evidence, the jury reached the only decision that was reasonable.
4. If the Federal Government brings civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman, they will have a tough hill to climb to prove based on a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Zimmerman committed a hate crime.
Re: #3...
Where is it "clear that Trayvon Martin started the fight"?
Having witnessd many "fights" between my teens, I often cannot exactly pinpoint who "started" it and I'm an eyewitness!
Was it a dirty look? a gesture? name calling? A threat? A blocked sidewalk? How do you know, Michael, what "started" it and that Trayvon did whatever it was?
Nobody will know but....I think it is more likely that Trayvon threw the first punch. Granted, that is different than starting the fight. And it is likely that the scenario, in that specific instance, played out like Zimmerman said. However, more broadly, Zimmerman started the fight by getting out of his car and following. This put Trayvon in high alert mode and as far as the flight or fight response, Martin was more on the fight side.
Trying to fit those (presumed if you are a juror) set of facts into the law is difficult and it appears that the law tends to favour Zimmerman's claim of self defence.
George D. --
What was 'more likely" is the problem. What was the probability that Zimmerman was motivated by racism strong enough to cause him to want to kill a black man? What was the evidence? Did Martin probably start the fight? What was the evidence? Did Zimmerman probably pull his gun before Martin (probably?) attacked him? What was the evidence? Was Zimmerman probably fearing for his life? What was the evidence? I don't think that any of these questions have very probable answers.
It seems to me that with so little evidence in this case that the jury had to decide what the preponderance of evidence was -- in other words they had to add up the probabilities. But those crucial questions above had little to support any probabilities either way. In other words, there was no convergence of strong probabilities, and the law requires that the probability be strong (no reasonable doubt) in a murder case. My understanding of reasonable doubt might be in error, but I see it as requiring that there is a strong probability, not just a weak probability, that the the accused actually did it.
<i><b>it represents nothing more than the forward march of the privatization of everything.</b></i>
As opposed to the forward march of the government controlling everything. I vote for the privatization.
Hey! What happened to the italicization ability? Is there something we should know?
George D.
Your own words are that Zimmerman MAY have done "something" that MAY have caused Trayvon to stand and fight -first punch (if there was one) or not...That means that Zimmerman MAY have "started" the fight. He obviously STARTED the whole provocation in getting out of his car...
NYT Op-ed worth reading... reminds me some of Grisham's provocative "A Time to Die" when the lawyer ends his summation with "...and imagine that she is white."
Why does it matter who started the fight? Martin had the right to stand his ground if he reasonably feared for his life. After the fact, we can say such fear was justified even if we do not know why Martin may have felt that way. He was within his rights if he shot Zimmerman, punched him, hit him against a concrete sidewalk, etc.
The problem is systemic. Neither man was guilty of breaking the law. The law allows, even promotes, confrontations like this. Zimmerman know has to be afraid of vigilantes following him, as his brother apparently has said. So does everyone else in Florida.
A link to David Paskinski's reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/opinion/the-truth-about-trayvon.html?hp
But it doesn't help that Al Sharpton appears to be organizing the troops, at least in the media.
Rather than looking for vengeance on one hand and vindication on the ohter, it would be better if everyone involved sought forgiveness.
Yes. However, remember that we are dealing with the specific and technicalities of the law that needs to be applied. Listen or read the whole jury instructions. Zimmerman did not do anything illegal by following or watching him. Nor is there evidence that he provoked it and yes, I find Zimmerman's account credible. One, becasue Trayvon did have time to run home and get out of the situation, stand your ground notwithstanding. It is a pretty reasonable inference that Zimmerman was on the ground (and you are obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt).
I am not saying that Zimmerman is blameless.
At any rate, a jury decided. Iuro locuta est, causa finita est..
I don't think that any of these questions have very probable answers
I think that if you were a juror and poured over the whole testimony and were charged with having to reconstruct events and finding facts. You would be forced to make reasonable inferences based on the testimony and evidence. I won't go through each of your items line by line and I did not watch the whole thing gavel to gavel. My sense is just based on the closing and watching some of it, there are certain elements that can be reasonably inferenced. At a minimum, there is obviously reasonable doubt and i just do not see how anybody could overcome that standard in a case such as this.
As I said, I do not think Zimmerman is blameless or "innocent" as the defence claims.
People should be challenging this in constructive ways. For me, the issue is not stand your ground but the whole concealed carry permits. I think all of those laws should be abolished. I do believe that this gave Zimmerman false bravado. Guns are very, very dangerous and need to be treated with respect not appendages to make one feel safe. Tragic and fatal accidents are more likely to occur as a result. QED
George D
I appreciate the constraints of the law and that "the law is an ass."
I agree that with the testimony and instruction given and the current laws, there was little choice but to assume "innocent until PROVEN guilty." And he was proven such beyond some doubt - reasonable or no.
But George Zimmerman is more than "not blameless" in my mind. In any reasonable world, he PROVOKED this incident -- even if he was assualted, which I am not willing to concede.
However, as you say, the jury has spoken
But how to address that, how that should be treated, and how one goes on speaking about these issues especially among black youth is a challenge that curently appears beyond us all...
I think it is instructive here to do a little thought experiment. Imagine that Trayvon Martin was ALSO carrying a concealed gun. If he had seen George Zimmerman "stalking" him, and shot Mr. Zimmerman dead, he could have used the exact same defense that George Zimmerman did--he felt threatened (by a man with a gun) and fired in self-defense.
In that case the jury, under the current law, would have been required to find Trayvon Martin not guilty.
Now, I'm not going into the question of whether or not racial bias plyed into the juriy's decision. It might have, but it was not necessary. The law is pretty clear. The person who shoots first gets the benefit of the legal doubt. And that is the REAL problem here.
Sorry for the double ppost and crucial word deletion that Zimmerman was NOT proved guilty "beyond reasonable doubt" given the state of the interpretation odf self-defense. As many seem to agree, not to "proven guilty" is far from not being blameless or smewhat (and I'd say a good deal) responsible.
I find the suggestion that Trayvon should have run home is blaming the victim when he "standing his ground" or whatever a teenage boy might do if he thought someone was stalking him -- whether or not it was wise or not, aggressive or not. Of course, he could have (should have???) fled - and who says he did not -- George Zimmerman?
George D. --
My point was that when you carefully combine the probabilities established by the evidence, you still do not come up with a convergence of probabilities that Zimmerman *very* probably did it I think it has been establised that he is *possibly* guilty, not that he is very probably guilty.
As I understand common law, the burden of proof in a murder trial is much more stringent than in other sorts of trials. In a murder trial the burden of proof is on the prosecutor, and it requires not simply an over-50% probability, but, rather it requires a *strong* probability that the accused is guilty. Yes, this implies that sometimes some murderers will probably be aquited.
But the whole point of the stiff burden of proof requirement is to protect those who are accused but innocent. It is to prevent the innocent from being convicted because of unlucky circumstances. Some call this a "technicality" because it makes some fine distinctions. But I say it is one of the pillars of common law -- to protect the innocent.
Yes, that is exactly correct or how I read the law as it is presented. Trayvon had a reasonable fear for his safety.
Whether that would have happened in reality is the debate and I suspect Trayvon would not have been given the benefit of the doubt. Sad, but that is my view.
But in principle, you are correct. Reality is a different story and that is why I totally understand the frustration of so many people.
Here are my ollective thoughts, some repeated, for reflection.
1. No one truly knows what exchange of words were used between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman when they first encountered each other. All the jury had was Mr. Zimmerman's account and the fact that Trayvon Martin punched Zimmerman and almost broke his nose. It is a reasonable inference that Trayvon Martin started the fight and any desparaging words that Mr. Zimmerman "might" have used was not reason for a severe punch to the nose making it swollen and bloodied. This incident was viewed by the jury as favorable to Mr. Zimmerman even though the evidence about who started the fight was incomplete.
2. There is nothing illegally bias about suspecting someone who was a stranger in this gated community and fit the profile of those who committed robberies in this community. Neither was it illegal for Trayvon Martin to be walking home through this community. Something triggered Trayvon Martin to punch Mr. Zimmerman, then to get on top of him and slam his head into the concrete causing his head to bleed in several places. If anyone was going to scream for help at that time, reason would dictate that it would have been Mr. Zimmerman. We have an eye witness who testified that Trayvon Martin was on top of Mr. Zimmerman in a ground and pound MNA style fighting action.
3. We also have evidence, not given in Court, of pictures on Trayvon Martin's cell phone of someone holding a hand gun (possibly Trayvon), jewelry laid out on a bed (possibly stolen), young nude teenager women, etc. We also have autopsy evidence of marijuana in Trayvon Martin's blood stream. This evidence was not used by the defense. However, could marijuana have made Trayvon Martin paranoid?
4. All evidence and arguments were presented by the prosecution and defense. The jury return a not guilty verdict because the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he wanted to, because he was a racist, or because he used excessive lethal force and was irresponsibly negligent. He was found not guilty because of self-defense. No one was a winner in this case. All the facts were not known but based on the evidence, "not guilty" was the only reasonable outcome.
This country needs to address stand your ground laws, the right to carry a concealed hand gun by neighborhood watch volunteers, rigorous training and certification, and very strict rules concerning how to approach strangers, respectful non-provoking questioning, how to identify yourself, etc.
This incident should have never occurred. Now we must learn from it and do something to prevent its re-occurrence. Unfortunately, politics and emotion are polarizing our nation. I seriously doubt that the Federal Government will find probable cause to bring a civil rights action against Mr. Zimmerman. The FBI investigation uncovered a substantial amount of evidence that Mr. Zimmerman was not racist by a long shot. He did not commit a hate crime.
"...or because he was gravely negligent."
There may be grounds to sue the city (as well as Mr Zimmerman personally) here, because the neighborhood watch program is a creature of the city. As you point out, there is a question of how much training and control this particular city exercises over its program volunteers, particularly when it allows "patrols". The situation is complicated by the fact that it occurred in a state with few gun controls, and one that apparently sanctions "open carry". Even though a CITIZEN is entitled to carry a weapon, is that still true when that person is acting in the capacity of an AGENT FOR THE CITY? Does not the city government have a duty to control the use of firearms by its agents, whether they be police officers or others?
The fact is that Mr. Zimmerman checked in with a dispatcher, who told him NOT to follow Trayvon Martin. Mr. Zimmerman chose to ignore that direction, and so could be considered "gravely negligent".
I myself volunteer for a nationwide federally-sponsored program, and no matter what the state laws might be, all of us are always forbidden to carry any sort of weapon during the time we volunteer. IMHO, this city should have imposed the same rule on its neighborhood watch volunteers.
One, becasue Trayvon did have time to run home and get out of the situation, stand your ground notwithstanding.
As did George Zimmerman. Since when does anyone have the right to provoke a confrontation and then decide that his alleged sense of fearfulness (loaded gun in his possession, notwithstanding) have the right to harrass someone who was doing NOTHING wrong except being a young black kid in a hoody? GZ may have had a bad law on his side but he had ... nor has ... no moral case on his side.
Margaret O'Brien Steinfels:
Regarding your question on Zimmerman's defense, Zimmerman's defense team relied on "self defense", not Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Self defense in Florida law is defined in a way that is similar to how it is defined in all 50 states. Florida law on self defense says: " A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013 [to protect one's dwelling, residence, or vehicle]."
If Martin had attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman had a duty to retreat if he could've had done so safely. Zimmerman's defense argued that Martin was on top of him and was punching him and slamming Zimmerman's head into the concrete. In addition, Zimmerman in his comments to the media, which were shown in court by the prosecution, also claimed that Martin started to reach for Zimmerman's gun. As a result, Zimmerman's defense argued that Zimmerman could NOT retreat safely and he reasonably believed that deadly force (i.e., shooting Martin) was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself (Zimmerman).
Zimmerman's defense team could have used the same arguments in any other state in the United States to make a case that Zimmerman acted in self defense and should not be found guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
The Stand Your Ground Law in Florida eliminates the need for a person to try to retreat if they can safely do so. It states: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [than his dwelling, residence, or vehicle] where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Because Zimmerman's defense team argued that Zimmerman couldn't safely retreat, they didn't need to invoke the Stand Your Ground Law.
As to your question of liability for neighborhood watch groups, the homeowners' association for the community that Zimmerman was the watch captain in, settled a wrongful death suit brought against it by Martin's parents for Zimmerman's actions. Reportedly the homeowners' association agreed to pay Martin's parents over $1 million. This settlement expressly did not cover Zimmerman. At the time of this settlement, the attorneys for Martin's parents stated that they wanted to pursue a wrongful death suit, which is a civil, not a criminal, suit, against Zimmerman at some point in the future.
Since the verdict in the criminal trial, I have not read anything about whether Martin's parents are still planning on bringing such a civil suit against Zimmerman. They may be waiting to see if the Justice Dept. will bring a civil rights suit, which would be a federal criminal suit. In addition, they may be re-evaluating their chances of winning a wrongful death suit against Zimmerman in light of the verdict in the criminal trial. Civil suits carry a lower standard of proof (preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt), which normally makes them easier to win than criminal suits (see OJ's criminal and civil trials for murder of his wife and Ron Goldman). Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, however, might it difficult for Martin's parents to successfully bring a civil suit.
Florida's Stand Your Ground Law states that a person who uses force in self-defense to protect themselves, to protect their dwelling, residence, or vehicle, or to protect another person is immune from civil actions for the use of such force. In light of the criminal verdict, a judge might be able to decide that the Florida Stand Your Ground Law applies and might be able to dismiss any civil action against Zimmerman that Martin's parents might try to bring. I have read that Zimmerman's lawyers intend to raise the Stand Your Ground Law's immunity provision if Martin's parents try to bring a civil suit against Zimmerman to get the suit dismissed.
See "The Whole System Failed Trayvon Martin," by Charles Blow.
Professor Brown, thank you for the information--and the tutorial in Florida law.
I grew up in the Bay State as a card carrying liberal. In mid-life I had a conversion experience which led me to look more critically at my own thought patterns and those of my friends on the left. I began to see that I had a bias about certain categories of fact, including race. My Dad had been a cop and was rather prejudiced (we called him Archie Bunker). In response I moved to the other end of the spectrum. Then I noticed my own prejudice which brings me to the Martin-Zimmerman matter (MZ). The discussion here as I read it bends so far over backward as to give Martin's race and age the greatest importance. Mr. Z, on the other hand is portrayed as a white Hispanic bubba who was out looking for trouble and was getting what he deserved until two things occurred to him: 1) He was being pummeled and felt his life was endangered and 2) that he had a firearm. It is at this point that more liberal observers distract us from the motive of self defense to call our attention to stupid gun laws and the more stupid stand your ground law. Those, they contend, are the chief issues along with Mr. Z's presumed racist motives. Didn't they watch parts of the trial? Did they fail to see the prosecutors fail to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of feelings. I feel great compassion for Mr. Martin's family in their agonizing loss. Such a shame that he felt it necessary to assault a man who lived in the neighborhood and was carrying out his duties. Had he only decided to just get back to where he was staying. In the meantime, I notice scant compassion for Mr. Z or his family. Must be because they're racist bubbas, huh?
The legl tutorial was very helpful, I agree. This string is winding down thogh issues remain- as Charles Blow column astutely points out. However, I canot let ths last coment go when it presumes so much that is unknown that "he felt it necessary to assualt a man who lived in the neghborhood and was carrying out his duties." that is so riddled with presumptions that it doesn't warrantmre refutation...enough...
There is no doubt this whole case is a tragedy; obviously both guys should have acted differently. But from the days when they represented slaveholders, the Klansmen and Bull Conner types, right down to today as they organize a federal lynch mob for Zimmerman, the Democrats have been race-baiters and used race to manipulate sitiations to their political benefit; routinely (and cynically) pitting one group against the other in emotive and hurtful public dramas.
With Zimmerman, Democrats are now clamoring for mob rule, just like when folks used to instigate lynch mobs 100 years ago in Alabama.
These types are long on emotion, gossip, snide innuendo and character assignation, and very, very short on reasoned debate, tolerance and logic.
Someone should be the rational adult, the sheriff at the door of the jail, stopping the torch & pitchfork wielding mob in its hysterical tracks.
It must be hell to wake up every morning knowing that you are rich because your child is dead. For many reasons, our prayers should go out to the Martins.
"Someon should be the rational adult"?
Having read your comment, I have to say that the rational adult does not seem to be you.
Someone should be the rational adult
Someone should be the rational adult
"Someone should be the rational adult"?
Having read your comment, I have to say that the rational adult does not seem to be you.
"When profiling is "reasonable," injustice becomes excusable," By Father Bryan Massingale.
Massingale teaches theology at Marquette. Here are the opening paragraphs of his essay:
The Blues: a feeling of frustration and sorrow in the face of harsh reality; a refusal to surrender despite deep pain.
"The blues" describes my reaction to the "not guilty" verdict in the death of Trayvon Martin. I cannot be dispassionate about this matter. For I know what it feels like to be a black man in America, regardless of the impassioned denials of so many that race had nothing to do with this case.
I, too, have been profiled by police officers, followed by campus safety patrols and stalked by mall security guards for doing nothing more than walking to my office, shopping for clothes, or enjoying an evening stroll—for just minding my own business.
The Blues: a feeling of frustration and sorrow in the face of harsh reality; a refusal to surrender despite deep pain.
"The blues" describes my reaction to the "not guilty" verdict in the death of Trayvon Martin. I cannot be dispassionate about this matter. For I know what it feels like to be a black man in America, regardless of the impassioned denials of so many that race had nothing to do with this case.
I, too, have been profiled by police officers, followed by campus safety patrols and stalked by mall security guards for doing nothing more than walking to my office, shopping for clothes, or enjoying an evening stroll—for just minding my own business.
- See more at: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201307/when-profiling-%E2%80%9Creasonable...


text:
13 Aug 2011 8:18 AM #1
Unanswered: Sparklines w/ Sencha Touch Charts
Here's a quick example showing how to do some simple sparklines using Sencha Touch Charts. Not sure STC are the best solution for this problem, because most of the capabilities they provide are not used for sparklines. But if you're already using them for more elaborate charts, you can also use them for sparklines.
See example here:
See javascript here:
Code improvements are welcome.
13 Aug 2011 4:42 PM #2
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Gainesville, FL
- Posts
- 39,174
- Vote Rating
- 1258
- Answers
- 3855
Please do not double postMitchell Simoens @LikelyMitch
Sencha Inc, Senior Software Engineer
Check out my GitHub, lots of nice things for Ext JS 4 and Sencha Touch 2
Think my support is good? Get more personalized support via a support subscription. https://www.sencha.com/store/
Need more help with your app? Hire Sencha Services email@example.com
Want to learn Sencha Touch 2? Check out Sencha Touch in Action that is in print!
When posting code, please use BBCode's CODE tags.
15 Aug 2011 8:27 AM #3
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Redwood City, California
- Posts
- 3,661
- Vote Rating
- 19
- Answers
- 17
I like it, I'm sure we can do more in the future to make this type of implementation even better.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
As in, having a neck posture of slightly over 90 degrees?
For the lower back, it seems that a 135 degree sitting posture is optimal.
And we definitely do know that a neck posture of less than 90 degrees is definitely bad for the neck
Most of the standard advice ( http://www.neckpainsupport.com/2008/12/can-forward-head-posture-cause-pain-.html ) definitely advises against hunching. They do advise a certain exercise:
Head retraction exercises: One way to reduce forward head posture is to perform cervical retraction exercises. Take your right index finger and middle finger together and push on your chin in the backward direction. Pretend for a moment that your head is like a bowling ball- that slides back and forth. Now slide your fingers back and hold for 15 seconds. Release and then do this again 2-3 times. Do these cervical repetitions every day until you can work up to 10-12 a day.
But is it possible to take this exercise a bit too far? Could it be ideal to, say, have a posture of over 90 degrees between C3 and C4, rather than at, say, C6 and C7


text:
I am not too certain what these two properties mean geometrically. It sounds very vaguely to me that finite type corresponds to some sort of "finite dimensionality", while finite corresponds to "ramified cover". Is there any way to make this precise? Or can anyone elaborate on the geometric meaning of it?
I definitely agree with Peter's general intuitive description.
In response to some of the subsequent comments, here are some implications to keep in mind:
Finite ==> finite fibres (1971 EGA I 6.11.1) and projective (EGA II 6.1.11), hence proper (EGA II 5.5.3), but not conversely, contrary to popular belief ;)
Proper + locally finite presentation + finite fibres ==> finite (EGA IV (part 3) 8.11.1)
When reading about these, you'll need to know that "quasi-finite" means "finite type with finite fibres." Also be warned that in EGA (II.5.5.2) projective means $X$ is a closed subscheme of a "finite type projective bundle" $\mathbb{P}_Y(\mathcal{E})$, which gives a nice description via relative Proj, whereas "Hartshorne-projective" more restrictively means that $X$ is closed subscheme of "projective n-space" $\mathbb{P}^n_Y$.
When the target (or "base" scheme) is locally Noetherian, like pretty much anything that comes up in "geometry", a proper morphism is automatically of locally finite presentation, so in that case we do have
finite <==> proper + finite fibres
Regarding "locally finite type", its does not imply finite dimensionality of the fibres; rather, it's about finite dimensionality of small neighborhoods of the source of the map. For example, you can cover a scheme by some super-duper-uncountably-infinite disjoint union of copies of itself that is LFT but not FT, since it has gigantic fibres.
If you have a morphism X-->Y of schemes, finite type means that the fibers are finite dimensional and finite, that the fibers are zero-dimensional.
Take for a finite type example K[x]-->K[x,y]. This corresponds to the projection A^2-->A^1, the fibers are 1-dimensional, which is reflected by K[x,y] being a K[x]-algebra of rank one (or K(x,y) having transcendence degree 1 over K(1)).
For a finite type example take K[x]-->K[x,y]/(y^2-x). For every prime ideal P in K[x] you find two prime ideals in K[x,y]/(y^2-x) whose preimage is P, so the fibers of the corresponding scheme map have cardinality 2 (and dimension zero).
Peter-arndt gives exactly the right intuition. I will add a cautionary example: It is not literally true that finite fibers implies finite. For example, consider Spec k[x, y]/(xy-1) ---> Spec k[x]. The way I think about this intuitively is that xy=1 has a vertical asymptote at 0 so, even though the fiber over 0 is empty, the map acts like there is an infinite fiber over 0 and is not a finite map. So a more precise intuition is that finite maps have finite fibers, and none of the preimages go off to infinity.
I believe that a precise statement is that finite fibers + proper implies finite.


text:
Open Source Light-Weight UI Toolkit (LWUIT) for Java ME Available Now!
By jacki decoster on Aug 14, 2008
Today Sun released the source code for its implementation of the Java-based light-weight UI toolkit (LWUIT) for mobile UI development to the java.net community under the GPLv2 w/Classpath Exception license.
The source code, documentation, and sample and demonstration code is available now.
LWUIT is an advanced UI library that enables rapid development of mobile applications that will run consistently across Java ME enabled devices. It includes a full set of ready-made graphical components, as well as sophisticated support for themes, fonts, animation and transition effects. To help you get started with the technology, more details about LWUIT can be found in the LWUIT Tutorial & on the Forum.
Craig Gering, Senior Director of Embedded Java Software at Sun said: "By creating LWUIT, Sun is reaffirming its commitment to the mobile development community and by open sourcing the LWUIT code, we are enabling mobile developers to quickly and easily create rich, portable interfaces for their applications - functionality that they have been requesting for some time. This software will also help address the mobile industry's fragmentation issue by enabling developers to create a single interface that will work anywhere Java is found."
Shai Almog has a whole blog dedicated to Java development & LWUIT, which has some cool video demos & more sample code.
And Terrence Barr, the Ambassador of the Java Mobile & Embedded Community also offers some LWUIT commentary over on his blog.


text:
Issue Date:
April, 2013
The April issue of Health Care News reports Ohio Gov. John Kasich plans to expand Medicaid eligibility as called for under President Barack Obama's health care law. Kasich faced pressure from liberal groups devoted to expanding the entitlement program as well as from health care providers backed into a corner by Obama's law.
Also in this issue:
- The health insurance industry is preparing for premiums to continue to rise as President Barack Obama's health care law is implemented.
- Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed an innovative method to shift Medicaid recipients to exchange subsidies in lieu of expanding the entitlement program.
- The Obama administration has delayed another aspect of exchange implementation, telling employers they don't have to inform their employees of the coming shift.
- With most states requiring the federal government to implement exchanges, uneven marketplaces are almost inevitable.
- Although Idaho Gov. Butch Otter originally opposed implementation of Obamacare, he's since changed tunes, pushing for the state to proceed.
- Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton's exchange could offer only limited choices to recipients depending on the decisions of state regulators.
- A North Carolina board that targeted a blogger for offering dietary advice without a license narrowly escaped elimination by the state legislature.
Newspaper Articles in this Issue
Illinois Promised Billions in Federal Tax Dollars in Return for Medicaid Expansion– March 15, 2013
North Carolina Bill to Eliminate Nutrition Board Stalls– March 15, 2013
Missouri Medicaid Battle Unlikely to Result in Expansion– March 14, 2013
Minnesota Legislature Debates How Much Power to Give PPACA Exchange– March 13, 2013
Virginia Bill Would Shield Taxpayers with High Medical Expenses from Obamacare– March 12, 2013
Florida Grapples with Medicaid Expansion Decision– March 8, 2013
Obama Administration Delays Exchange Notifications– March 7, 2013
Oregon Bill Would Make Obamacare Enforcement Criminal Offence– March 6, 2013
Industry Analysts: Premium Rates Will Continue to Rise Under Obamacare– March 5, 2013
Exchange Implementation Illustrates Obamacare's Nationalization of Health Policy– March 1, 2013
Young Adults Hardest Hit by Premium Increases Under Obamacare– February 28, 2013
Dual Purse Card Offers Health Incentives– February 27, 2013
Health Insurance Premiums Are Going Up– February 26, 2013
Wisconsin's Walker Rejects Federal Medicaid Expansion– February 25, 2013
New Jersey College Students Get Stung By ObamaCare– February 22, 2013
Restaurants Prepare for Cost of New Menus Mandated by Obamacare– February 21, 2013
Idaho's Otter Reverses Course on Obamacare, Disregarding Health Freedom Act– February 20, 2013
Michigan Shouldn't Buy Into the Medicaid Myth– February 19, 2013
Ohio's Kasich Embraces Obamacare Medicaid Expansion– February 18, 2013


text:
This week, President Obama came out of the closet to say: "For me personally it is important for me to affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."
And then the world imploded. Or you'd think it did based on the outraged reactions from conservatives and liberal Christians alike. Predictably, Fox Nation immediately condemned President Obama's statement as a "Declar[ation of] War on Marriage":
And Rush Limbaugh echoed the same sentiment. (Do we have to count Rush Limbaugh as a Christian?) And of course, social media offered up this gem:
"You lost the Christian vote."
When I announced my support of President Obama on Twitter, this random non-follower told me I wasn't actually a Christian:
"@DCDistrictDiva A Christian would not vote for a person endorsing man marrying man. Jesus certainly would not. Call yourself what you want."
And another person posted this message on Facebook:
"Obama supports gay marriage based on "his faith." This faith is either, juvenile, corrupted, or altogether false. http://t.co/KeHSHfun "
That last reaction is based on the rest of President Obama's statement that the Golden Rule of Christianity — treat others as you want to be treated — led him to support legalizing same sex marriage:
"In the end the values that I care most deeply about and [Michelle] cares most deeply about is how we treat other people," he said. "We are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing Himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule—treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that's what we try to impart to our kids and that's what motivates me as president, and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I'll be as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I'll be as president."
How dare he?!
I am not disputing what the Bible says about homosexuality in any way. The text says what it says and says it more than once. I am not enough of a Bible scholar to make any argument for what else God could have possibly meant by including those statements repeatedly in the Bible and so I won't. What I am saying is that what the Bible says about homosexuality should have no bearing on our reactions as Christians to gays and lesbians having the legal choice to marry in America, and here is my four-point Biblical explanation for that:
The choice for Christ is individual, it is intimate and extremely personal. God designed it that way and He did so for a reason.
Subscribe to EBONY today!
Connect to Black America.
We are not "old Black" nor "new Black" we are ALL Black.
1) Matthew 7:12: "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." It may be very hard for some Christians to put themselves in the shoes of gays and lesbians, so I'm not going to ask you to do that. But I will ask that you consider what it would be like if:
- Your husband or wife was forbidden by law from coming to your hospital bedside as you lay dying;
- Distant relatives were left to make decisions about your health care because your husband or wife wasn't legally recognized;
- You were unable to have children and then because of your caste and not your character you are legally forbidden from adopting children with your husband or wife;
- You were forbidden from marrying the person you've chosen to love based upon the religious views of a Muslim / Buddhist / Taoist / Hindu /*insert religion that is not yours*.
2) Revelation 3:20: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me"; 2 Corinthians 9:7: "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver"; and Joshua 24:15: "Choose you this day whom you will serve."
There are some very important action words in these scriptures describing what Christ wants us to do in regards to Him: a) hear and open the door to Christ; b) DECIDE c) CHOOSE. Each of these scriptures underscores the principle theme of Christianity: it is a free-will CHOICE


text:
Faculty Opportunities
Teaching at Harlaxton College, England
WKU is partnered with Harlaxton College in Grantham, England to create "WKU in England." Each semester, a cohort of WKU students joins students from multiple American universities to study and live in this residential college. They are taught by permanent British faculty and numerous visiting American faculty, including one WKU faculty member per semester. To learn more general information about Harlaxton College, please visit Harlaxton College's website at: http://www.ueharlax.ac.uk/
WKU faculty selected as Harlaxton College Visiting Faculty will teach a nine-hour course assignment based on the University of Evansville's current course catalogue. In addition to standard WKU salary and benefits, the Visiting Faculty member will receive up to $1,500 in travel reimbursement for personal travel expenses. Harlaxton College can accommodate faculty members with families.
There are special demands on Harlaxton College visiting faculty members. In addition to teaching class, faculty live, eat and travel with students, which creates a particularly rewarding but intense environment. While there are tremendous opportunities for professional and personal growth at Harlaxton College, the purpose of this appointment is to facilitate the students' academic growth in a residential-college environment. Additionally, visiting faculty are expected to help with the recruitment of WKU students and faculty to Harlaxton College both before and after their appointment.
Please note that an appointment as a Harlaxton College visiting faculty member is predicated on the continued permission of the faculty's department and college. The faculty member's department and college may cancel or delay the appointment, depending on their staffing needs.
Application Process
All full-time tenured or tenure-track WKU faculty are eligible to apply. Applicants must submit all of the information requested below in the specified format to their Department Head by February 20, 2015. It is the Department Head's prerogative to endorse a candidate's application. With the Department Head's endorsement, all application materials are sent from the department to the appropriate Dean's Office by March 6, 2015. The Dean's Office will rank the applicants from its college based on the strength of the application material, department endorsements, and college priorities. The Dean's Office must send all application materials, rankings, and endorsements to the Honors College by March 27, 2015. The Honors College will select four finalists by mid-April 2015 and forward the finalists' applications to the University of Evansville. The University of Evansville/Harlaxton College will select the two Visiting Faculty members from the four finalists during the June 2015 annual Harlaxton Partners Meeting held at Harlaxton College.
Criteria for Selection
WKU faculty teaching at Harlaxton College are an important component of WKU's efforts to create significant professional international opportunities for its faculty. By teaching and living in an English residential college for a full semester, WKU faculty members can learn new pedagogical practices, create or extend an international professional network, deepen their international experience, and possibly pursue research opportunities.
WKU faculty will thus be selected to serve as a Visiting Faculty member at Harlaxton College, in part, based on how significantly the Harlaxton experience would help internationalize a faculty member and the impact this experience may have on the faculty member's career once the faculty member returns to teaching at WKU. Faculty with significant prior international experience are welcome to apply and have previously been selected as a Visiting Faculty member at Harlaxton College; however, ideally this opportunity will help internalize WKU faculty who have limited international experiences and opportunities thus far.
If feasible, applicants are also strongly encouraged to arrange for a research sabbatical abroad either immediately prior to or after serving as a Visiting Faculty member at Harlaxton, thus maximizing time abroad and significantly deepening the professional value of the experience, particularly for research activities. This is not required; however, it will strengthen an applicant's standing. Applicants are encouraged to contact Honors College's Academics Director to discuss this possibility.
Applicants are chiefly evaluated based on the strength of the Department Head's and Dean's endorsements and ranking. The University of Evansville, based on their staffing needs for a given semester, makes the final decision.
Faculty who have previously taught at Harlaxton
Rent "WKU in England" Gatehouse at Harlaxton Manor
WKU in England at Harlaxton College
WKU faculty, alumni, staff, and friends may rent the renovated and fully furnished "WKU in England" Gatehouse at Harlaxton Manor. Built in 1835, this historic and comfortable flat may be rented on a short or long-term basis for sabbaticals, research trips, or personal travel. You will find the Gatehouse both a beautiful place for relaxation and contemplation, as well an exciting base for adventures throughout the United Kingdom.
For more information please follow this link: Rent "WKU in England" Gatehouse at Harlaxton Manor
Faculty Engagement Grants
What is the Honors Faculty Engagement Grant for?
The Honors Faculty Engagement Grant (HFEG) is designed to financially support faculty in developing innovative, creative, and unique academic experiences for Honors College students in Honors courses and sections.
Who is eligible to apply for an HFEG?
Instructors of a WKU Honors section (including an Honors Enriched Embedded Course) may apply for an HFEG for the semester they are teaching this section. Instructors may apply for an HFEG each semester they are teaching an Honors section regardless of past awards.
HFEG funds cannot be used to support Faculty Led Study Abroad and Study Away courses. HFEGs are designed to enrich courses offered on WKU's campus by making brief travel, equipment, speakers, etc. available that would not be otherwise, thus helping create an Honors experience for students.
What can HFEG funds be used for?
There are a wide variety of acceptable uses for HFEG funds, as long as the funds are devoted to providing an "Honors experience" for Honors College students. Common examples of HFEG-supported uses are: inviting guest speakers to a class, taking a field trip, and purchasing select materials.
Please note that HFEG funds are primarily intended to support Honors College students. When there is no added expense for non-Honors student participation, then HFEG funds may be used; for example, renting a van or paying a guest speaker is no less expensive regardless of how many Honors and non-Honors students participate. Purchasing tickets for a performance, however, would become more expensive with the participation of non-Honors students, and thus would not be an appropriate use of HFEG funds.
How much can I ask for?
The maximum HFEG award is $1,500; however, the Honors Development Board will determine the award amount. When participating in an out-of-class experience, instructors are strongly encouraged to require participating students to share in the cost. Sharing in the cost of a trip, and paying in advance, improves student participation in the event and encourages an appreciation for the cost and effort associated with the trip. For example, students could pay $5 each for a theatre ticket that actually costs $25, with the HFEG and other sources (such as department and college) subsidizing the rest.
When are HFEG applications due?
All HFEG applications, regardless of monetary value, are due at the start of the term in which they will be used. Please see the Honors College webpage for specific deadline dates. Late HFEGs are not accepted.
If you feel an important academic opportunity has arisen that does not fit easily within the HFEG deadlines, please feel free to contact the Associate Director for Academics in Honors College to discuss the matter.
If you feel an important academic opportunity has arisen that does not fit easily within the HFEG deadlines, please feel free to contact Assistant Director for Academics in Honors College to discuss the matter.
When will the decision on my HFEG be made?
HFEGs are evaluated by the Honors Development Board (HDB). It takes the HDB two to three weeks after the deadline to evaluate the HFEG applications and make funding recommendations. Faculty will receive an awards letter via their WKU campus mail directly after the HDB's decision.
How are HFEGs chosen for funding?
The Honors Development Board is composed of faculty representatives from each of the University's colleges, as well as faculty and students from the Honors College. Budgetary restrictions are the prime factor in determining awards, followed by the committee's decision regarding the ability of the project to provide a valuable "Honors experience" for the students.
If selected, how will I receive my funding?
The Honors College can only pay for expenses itemized and approved on the HFEG Application in an amount equal or less than the total requested funds. Due to the large number of HFEGs we process each semester, we ask that your department pay the expenses up front and forward an Inter-Account bill to the Honors College for processing. It is important that you receive funding approval before making purchases.
To apply for an Faculty Engagement Grant, please click here!
Honors Development Board
The Honors Development Board helps create and oversee Honors College policies and curricula and review Honors grants for students and faculty. Faculty serving on the HDB review Honors Augmentation Contracts and serve on students' Capstone Experience/Thesis committees. HDB faculty representatives also are the primary liaison between the Honors College and their home college. The HDB is composed of two faculty representatives from each WKU college, a student representative from each academic class, a Gatton Academy student representative, a Gatton Academy staff representative, select Honors College faculty, and the Honors College's Executive Director and Assistant Director for Academics. Faculty representatives are appointed to the HDB by their college's dean for a three-year term. To learn more about the Honors Development Board, contact Honors College's Academics Director.
To view current members of the HDB, please click here!
Teaching a Colloquium
Honors Colloquia bring the form and style of a small, collaborative academic seminar to Honors College students for a challenging and distinctive academic experience. There are four key ingredients that make Honors Colloquia different from many other courses offered in the Honors College and at WKU: an emphasis on active discussion rather than lecture; critical-thinking-based writing assignments rather than exams and quizzes; the use of primary documents instead of textbooks; and an innovative, interdisciplinary subject matter. With these distinct features, an Honors Colloquium will challenge and engage students with the course material, with the professor, and with one another, for a unique academic experience that is at the heart of an Honors College education.
Innovative, interdisciplinary subject matter:
- Colloquium courses should be themed on creative interdisciplinary topics. The overall theme/topic of a colloquium course should be accessible to all majors, regardless of the college from which the colloquium course originates.
- We encourage 1.5 to 3.0 hour colloquia; thus we encourage faculty to co-facilitate a three-hour colloquium, with both faculty receiving 1.5 hours of credit. This is particularly encouraged for professors teaming from different disciplines to develop an interdisciplinary colloquium.
- The theme/topic of the colloquium course should not be found anywhere else in the WKU curriculum. Equally, colloquia topics should be distinctive from one another and avoid repetitious offerings.
- Readings should be interdisciplinary and from a variety of perspectives.
Active discussion instead of lectures:
- Discussion is used as the primary method of instruction, rather than lectures, in order to promote active learning and meaningful dialogue between fellow students and between the students and professor.
- Colloquia have an adventurous air of joint discovery where a professor takes the lead in shaping the discussion, but students actively participate in discussing and debating the material. Strategies for promoting active learning include class discussions, debates, simulations, group work, experiments, case studies, field work, etc. For example, a strong colloquium can include a set of readings on both sides of a contentious issue that engenders debate and discussion across a wide spectrum of positions. Lectures should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Critical thinking-based writing assignments rather than exams:
- Assignments should encourage analysis, application, inquiry, and synthesis rather than rote memorization. When possible, writing assignments should be employed as the method for students to express their understanding of the course material.
- The key is to encourage a sophisticated engagement with the material that is unlikely through memorization and exams but is fostered by written assignments. Colloquia do not include exams or quizzes as part of the course grade. With regard to assessment, the focus of a colloquium should be on quality of writing assignments, written or oral debates, presentations, group work, participation in discussion, etc.
- For a 1.5 hr colloquium, it is suggested that each student write approximately 10-12 pages of original content, with 20-24 pages being appropriate for a 3 hr colloquium. This page total may be reached through frequent short assignments or longer assignments. These are, of course, just guidelines, so there is a fair amount of latitude on the types and length of assignments based on discipline.
Primary sources instead of textbooks:
- Readings should come from primary sources, rather than textbooks, whenever possible. Reading primary sources stresses "close reading" skills and encourages sophisticated critical thinking far more than pre-packaged, second-hand information explained in textbooks. Journal articles or are acceptable as well.
- Just as colloquia encourage students and professors to engage in dialogue with one another, by reading primary sources, students connect with the key ideas of the course on their own terms, are more likely to think critically about them, and can better understand them in all their complexities and nuances.
Further Consideration:
- Many students develop their Honors Capstone Experience/Thesis from their colloquia. Ideally, the interdisciplinary subject matter, stimulating activities, and rigorous writing assignments will serve as a catalyst for CE/T projects.
- The professor typically serves as a facilitator, rather than the sole expert. The professor should share in the learning process with the students. Rather than relaying information to students as in a typical lecture course, the professor and students can work together to set the pace and direction of the course.
- The professor should model methods of learning, thinking, and discovery. The professor can help students to become lifelong learners by revealing that he or she is continually learning and staying actively engaged within his or her discipline and the broader culture of academia. By modeling methods of learning, thinking, and discovery, the professor is not only teaching the students more about his or her discipline, but is also teaching the students about he process of scholarship.
- Colloquium courses should have no prerequisites. The only prerequisites for colloquium are good standing in the Honors College, sophomore standing and/or permission of the instructor.
Resources Available:
Faculty teaching an Honors Colloquium may apply for an Honors Faculty Engagement Grant of up to $1500 for field trips, guest speakers, or materials that will have provide an "Honors experience".
Recent Colloquia Topics: • "Human Rights" • "The World in 2030" • "Ethics and Genetics" • "Doing Death: Capital Punishment" • "Bollywood and Beyond" • "Challenges to Capitalism" • "Fuels of the Future" • "Service Learning" • "Selfhood and Identity" • "Controversial Issues in Human Behavior" • "Climate Change".
To apply to teach an Honors Colloquium Course, click here!
Honors Travel Abroad Grant Faculty Recommendation
This form is filled out in the event that an Honors College student asks you for a letter of recommendation in support of the student's Honors Travel Abroad Grant application. Honors Travel Abroad Grants (TAGs) support Honors students' intellectual development by encouraging and financially supporting their participation in Study Abroad programs.TAG awards are very competitive; therefore, the Honors Development Board relies heavily on your recommendation as it evaluates the student's ability and maturity to excel in the unique educational environment of a study abroad program.
Click Here to fill out the Honors Travel Abroad Grant Faculty Recommendation Form
Honors Development Grant Letter of Support
These letters are written in the event that an Honors College student lists you as the Project Advisor for their Honors Development Grant application. Honors Development Grants (HDGs) are designed to support Honors students' intellectual development by providing funding for: traveling to professional conferences to present academic papers, conducting academic research, or purchasing tangible items (such as laboratory material) to support academic endeavors.
HDG awards are very competitive; therefore, the Honors Development Board relies heavily on your recommendation as it evaluates the project's ability to positively impact the student's academic development.
Click here to download the Honors Development Grant letter of support
Note: documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) require Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher to view,
download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Note: documents in Excel format (XLS) require Microsoft Viewer,
download excel.
Note: documents in Word format (DOC) require Microsoft Viewer,
download word.
Note: documents in Powerpoint format (PPT) require Microsoft Viewer,
download powerpoint.
Note: documents in Quicktime Movie format [MOV] require Apple Quicktime,
download quicktime.


text:
Sunday Riley
Modern Lip Color
Product Actions
Signature technology! Advanced color molecules offer creamy, long-lasting, vibrant wear for up to 4 hours. Rich, full coverage lip color enhances the condition and appearance of the lips while Vitamin C and Shea Butter help lips maintain youthful volume, fight fine lines, and give continuous hydration. Paraben free.
Available in Coral ReefStyle # 501477143
A skincare and makeup brand devoted to merging the purest botanicals with the latest in cutting-edge biotechnology, Sunday Riley's range of skin savers has become a cult favorite among designers, high-profile celebrities and beauty aficionados alike. After years of working in cosmetic labs, the beauty maven established her own line in 2009, with each product designed to be layered and blended to achieve your own unique skincare routine.
Need Help? Have Questions? Contact Us.
Please call 1.888.222.7639 to speak with a Customer Service Representative.
We're here to help you:
Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 9 PM (ET)
Saturday - Sunday, 10:30 AM - 7 PM (ET)
If you prefer email, we can be reached anytime at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Free Shipping & Returns on all U.S. Orders. See Details.


text:
The Corbett Award
The Corbett Award was created in 1967 and named in honor of the late James J. Corbett to commemorate his many contributions to intercollegiate athletics and specifically to the Sugar Bowl. At the time of his death, Mr. Corbett was the Athletic Director at Louisiana State University. These awards are presented annually to the most outstanding amateur male and female athletes in the State of Louisiana. The Corbett recipients are selected each year by members of the N.O. Sports Hall of Fame Committee, based on nominations submitted by the state's sportswriters, sportscasters and sports information directors.
Shaq Retires
Two-time Corbett Award winner Shaquille O'Neal (1991, 1992) has retired after an exceptional 19-year NBA career. A surefire Hall-of-Famer, O'Neal won the Corbett Award as the top amateur athlete in the state of Louisiana during his sophomore and junior season starring for the LSU Basketball program.
In Jackie MacMullan's article for ESPN.com on O'Neal's retirement, she wrote, "O'Neal will be remembered as one of the most dominant, recognizable and controversial figures in the game, whose body of work included rap records, movies, a lengthy business portfolio and an even lengthier history of philanthropic deeds."
The story closed with a quote from O'Neal, "I tried to make people happy. And I tried to have fun. I think I did both."
"Shaq" won four NBA Championships and scored 28,596 career points (fifth in NBA history) with 13,099 career rebounds (12th in league history) and 2,732 blocked shots (seventh all-time). He was the NBA Most Valuable Player in 1999-2000, as well as a three-time NBA Finals MVP, a three-time All-Star Game MVP and the NBA Rookie of the Year. He made 15 All-Star Game appearances and finished in the top-10 of MVP voting 13 times.
In May of 2011, LSU announced that they would be unveiling a 900-pound statue of the Tiger legend. The statue will feature O'Neal in his familiar dunking pose. It will be the first statue of an athlete on the Baton Rouge campus. A Texas product, Shaq played three seasons at LSU and scored 1,941 career points, fifth on the school's all-time list. He is second on the school's career rebound list with 1,217. He was a McDonald's High School All-American in 1989 and then a two-time AP First-Team All-America section in college, while earning National Player of the Year honors in 1991.
In international play, he won Gold Medals in the 1994 FIBA World Championships, when he was the MVP of the Tournament, and the 1996 Olympics.


text:
HOUSTON (November 20, 2012)— Jurors in Houston decided on an 80-year prison sentence Tuesday in the punishment phase of the trial of Jessica Tata, 24, who was convicted of murder in a deadly fire in her home daycare center.
Jurors deliberated for 5½ hours Monday and agreed on a sentence after resuming deliberations Tuesday morning.
Tata faced as much as life in prison after she was convicted last week of murder in the death of 16-month-old Elias Castillo, whom she left at home with six other children while she went shopping.
A pan of oil on a stovetop burner fueled the blaze that broke out while she was gone.
A prosecutor told jurors Monday that Tata doomed the children when she left them alone to go shopping before a deadly fire broke out.
Prosecutor Connie Spence asked for a life sentence, saying the families of the children who died or were injured will never be the same.
Defense attorney Mike DeGeurin says Tata is a good person who made a terrible mistake and asked jurors to not be swayed by anger.


text:
This article will explain how we can explicitly link a DLL and why this approach is better than the implicit linking mechanism of a DLL. Explicit linking is more appropriate for interpreted languages such as Visual Basic, but we can use it from C++. In this linking mechanism we dont use the .lib file (Which is required in the implicit linking) instead we call the Win32 LoadLibrary() function.
If we implicitly linked a DLL, then the DLL does not remove from the memory unless and until the application is terminated. But in explicit linking we can load a DLL whenever its required and unload or free it whenever its not required. With explicit linking, applications must make a function call to explicitly load the DLL at run time. To explicitly link to a DLL, an application must call the following Win32 APIs:
1. Call
LoadLibrary() function to load the DLL and obtain an HINSTANCE( Handle of the module) . LoadLibrary() takes the DLL's full pathname. If you don't specify the pathname Windows follow the following search sequence to locate the DLL:
- The directory containing the EXE file
- The process's current directory
- The Windows system directory
- The Windows directory
- The directories listed in the Path environment variable
GetProcAddress() to obtain a function pointer to each exported function that the application wants to call. The handle which is returned by the LoadLibrary() function is used to call the GetProcAddress() function. The address which is obtain by the GetProcAddress() function is a pointer of the exported function through which the function is finally called.
3. Call
FreeLibrary() whenever the DLL is no more required.
We are a taking a DLL (SquareRoot.dll) that has a exported function SquareRoot().
extern "C" __declspec(dllexport) double SquareRoot(double dValue);
Code: Cpp
typedef double (SqrtFunc)(double);
HINSTANCE hInstance;
SqrtFunc* pSqrt;
/// Loading the DLL explicitly
hInstance = ::LoadLibrary("SquareRoot.dll");
/// Collecting the function pointer of the exported function
pSqrt = (SqrtFunc*)::GetProcAddress(hInstance, "SquareRoot");
/// Call the function SquareRoot()
double dValue = (*pSqrt)(100.00);
/// Unload the DLL from the memory


text:
Fact Sheets
Fact Sheets
Press Releases
Public Statements
Recent News
Arab World
Council of Ministers
Foreign Aid
Foreign Relations
Saudi US Relations
Prior Years
Saudi Arabia In Focus
no Crown Prince chairs Cabinet session Crown Prince chairs Cabinet session in Riyadh
Crown Prince Salman chairs Cabinet session (2/11/13)
February 11, 2013
Crown Prince Salman bin Abdulaziz chaired the Cabinet session this afternoon at Al-Yamamah Palace in Riyadh. The Cabinet began by reviewing a number of reports on regional and international developments, hailing the speech of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, delivered by Crown Prince Salman, at the 12th Islamic Summit in Cairo last week. It praised Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi for hosting the event and welcomed the summit's final communiqué, which offered recommendations for joint Islamic action.
The Cabinet also discussed the Third Ministerial Meeting on Security Council Reform, which was held in Italy last week under the theme "New Approaches to Reforming the Security Council." It stressed the importance of the six-point roadmap presented by the Kingdom's representative to create a fairer, more transparent Security Council and United Nations.
Addressing its remaining agenda items, the Cabinet approved a Memorandum of Understanding on bilateral political consultations between the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs; approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the King Abdulaziz Public Library and the University of Beijing on the establishment of a branch of the library at the university; approved, in principle, the request by the Saudi Commission for Tourism and Antiquities (SCTA) for the entry of the state, represented by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), as a partner in the project of heritage hotel development; approved a number of regulations involving the handling of cases of drug and alcohol trafficking; and approved an agreement between the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) and the National Space Agency of Kazakhstan for cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes.
The Cabinet approved the appointments of Saad Al-Maimouni as Assistant Undersecretary at the Makkah Principality; Mohammed Al-Ammar as Planning Advisor at the Ministry of Economy and Planning; Abdulaziz bin Omar as Director General of the Branch of the General Presidency for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Commission; Abdullah Al-Jarba as Legal Adviser at the General Presidency for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Commission; and Sami Al-Turayif as Assistant Undersecretary of the President General at the General Presidency for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice Commission. All of the appointments were made at the 14th rank.
« Return
print this page
send this page
Copyright © 2016 Information Office of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington, DC |
Site Map


text:
City Police patrolman fired
July 29, 2013
STEUBENVILLE — Greg Moray, a City Police patrolman for the past 19 years, has been fired after an incident in Wintersville on May 31 surrounding an underage drinking party involving Moray's son....
I doubt that any Union would fight on behalf of someone with his past history. There's no conspiracy with this case, it has been covered in the Herald Star from the beginning and the officer is now fired.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Oh I am sure the "UNION" will get his job back for him
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Tomsays - did you actually read the whole story? The Underage Drinking Party was in Wintersville not Steubenville. Where's the cover-up? The man was fired there's a story in the paper, it was in the News when the investigation started. Every time you comment on anything you try to make it a conspiracy or cover-up.
2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Its almost August 12th. Will we expect another delay til after football season?
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The town used to be such a nice place to live, work, raise a family. The headlines are so sad every single day.
No sign if returning. Society in general is screwed up and we seem to be leading the way.
Its time to move out of here. Got to know when to fold 'em.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Moray is hardly the only one in the SPD to take advantage of his job. How many of them have kids who are part of the drug problem in the area? That's something to talk about. I wonder how much of the drugs they confiscate get back out on the streets because either they or their children go out and sell it? There is something seriously wrong with Steubenville and I can't wait till someone crazy enough goes vigilante and takes matters into their own hands. And talk about people with blinders on who know everything that goes on in this town but chooses to ignore it. They just want to protect their friends. But who wants crooked cops as friends? Shady, fake ass people.
0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
I am amused just that a mayor with 6 DUI charges is in charge of firing someone. Steubenville what a mess
3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
This officer is not representative of the entire police force. This man, judging by past instances, is extremely arrogant and apparently thinks he is above the law. Thankfully Mayor Mucci rid the force of that type of negativity.
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Apple didn't fall far from the tree I guess; guy was an a s s when he was in school, and just got more arrogant as a cop. Agree - the hair was always perfect, though. hahahaah
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
must be a steubenville thing!!
1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
TomSays, Really, do you not have anything better to do than stalk the paper for all that is bad in the world? And who is covering anything up? You, sir, need meds. Get a life and troll whatever utopia you are from.
3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Hey (Gheppetto), I'm pretty sure you're referring to Rob Mamula. He's been in his share of headlines before his death.
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Once again Steubenville shows it is just a place for underage drinking parties and rapes. Your city is really messed up and coverup is the name of the game here.
3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
It's to bad really. Moray had the second best hair on the force (behind only Chief Mcafferty), and the BEST steroids on the force. This is a day that will live in infamy in the Steubenville Police Department. Almost as bad as the day a former police officer beat up half of CJs customers... He is dead now, RIP, but he was a standard bearer of the force for quite sometime... I forget his name but I will post it along with the story of him putting a beat down on Stanley Radcliffe...
1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Showing 15 of 15 comments
Post a Comment
You must first login before you can comment.


text:
- Scholarships
Scholarship Search Engine
The scholarship search engine was designed to assist you in locating private scholarship/funding sources. It is the student's responsibility to notify the office of student financial services of all outside awards (scholarships, loans, etc). If you receive a scholarship check made out to yourself, please bring it to our office in Caroline, Room 120, for proper posting to your student account. Your Banner ID should always be included on any check that is sent to the University. Please send all private scholarship checks to the address below:
Saint Louis University
Office of Student Financial Services
Attn: Mary Walley
Caroline, Room 120
1402 S. Grand Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63104