text:
Novartis launch renewed attack on India's right to produce affordable medicines
Pharmaceutical giant Novartis is back in court this week, in a renewed attempt to block India's right to produce affordable 'generic' versions of the company's branded medicines.
The hearing, in the Indian Supreme Court, comes six years after Novartis first lost its battle to stop India producing copies of anti-cancer medicine Glivec (or Gleevec in the USA), which cost as much as ten times less than the original. Now Novartis are trying to find a loophole that would delay the ability of Indian drug companies to produce cheaper medicines, which supply most of the developing world.
The complicated legal wrangle over how India implements specific patent rules could set a groundbreaking legal precedent. If Novartis wins the case, similar claims for other medicines pending in court could go in favor of drug companies rather than the people whose lives depend on affordable generic drugs.
A source of life saving medication for millions
Oxfam Policy Advisor, Rohit Malpani, said: "Despite the fact Novartis has lost before, the company seems hell bent on pursuing this case and is determined to win a precedent, even though it could have a devastating impact on millions of people in developing countries."
Generic medicines produced in India are among the cheapest in the world, and are the main source of life saving medication for millions. 90 per cent of medicines used to treat HIV/AIDS are currently made in India, but Novartis is putting India's future as the 'pharmacy of the developing world' at stake. If the case is successful the result would mean delays in competition for all medicines produced, which would push prices up and have a significant impact on public health.
Malpani said: "This legal battle is a massive threat to those suffering from cancer, HIV and AIDS, diabetes and other diseases who are too poor to pay for medication.
Patients' rights first
"India is setting a brave example for other developing countries, by standing firm under pressure from multinational drugs companies by putting patients' rights first. The case must rule in favor of people not profits."
Oxfam was part of a global campaign in 2006 calling on Novartis to put people before profits, which was backed by half a million people.
Related links
Blog: Robbing the poor to pay the rich – Novartis' Christmas gift to itself! (Dec. 2008)
Video: Free medicines in Rajasthan, India (Feb. 2012)
Stop AIDS Campaign animation explains the 'patent pool'
Notes to editors
In 2006, Novartis launched a legal battle challenging India's adoption of strict standards used to regulate patents on medicines. They argued that Section 3(d) of the recently amended Patents Act was 'unconstitutional and violated international standards' and wanted a 20-year patent monopoly on Glivec. The company is now challenging the established interpretation of Section (d) which requires a minor variation to previously invented medicines not be granted unless it significantly enhances the efficiency of the medicine in treating human illness or disease.
Contact information
For more information, or to arrange an interview with an Oxfam spokesperson, please contact:
Sarah Dransfield, Oxfam press Officer: +44 (0)1865 472269, +44 (0)7767 085666, email@example.com, twitter: @SarahOxfam


text:
UNETHICAL: @WashingtonPost Trump Charity Reporter David @Fahrenthold's Nasty Journalistic Past
Washington Post reporter David Farenthold recently broke a story about alleged misdealings by the Trump Foundation charity. Farenthold claims to have found evidence Donald Trump may have violated "laws against 'self-dealing.'" The Donald Trump campaign has categorically denied the claims. At no point in the story did the Washington Post disclose that their reporter David […]Read Story

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Twenty-three years ago, Michael J. Fox had a hit film on his hands with "The Secret of My Success," a comical farce in which a wily young man rapidly fakes his way up the corporate ladder right into the executive suite.
As entertaining as the antics are of Fox's character Brantley Foster—a recent college grad who arrives in New York City only to learn he has been laid off before he even starts working— we all know full well that only in the reel world of Hollywood would such a story come true.
But in the real world we all toil in, there is no secret to success.
And perhaps nowhere is that more true than in trucking.
Just to stay in the game in this industry—let alone to truly prosper—fleet owners and managers alike rely on nothing more magical than a willingness to work hard, to dedicate themselves to quality and professionalism, to think long, hard and smart, and maybe to have not a little faith in themselves, their colleagues, their employees and, yes, their suppliers.
And I think the sense of community that engenders that faith in others is at the crux of what makes trucking different from other industries.
Furthermore, I say that is also what makes trucking an attractive field in which uncounted fleet owners, managers, dispatchers, drivers, mechanics etc.-- and that is not to mention all the supplier personnel out there--choose to toil in (or should I say, make a home in?) for decades at a time.
As it happens, recently I caught the last episode of a fascinating documentary series— "The Human Spark" on PBS hosted by the actor Alan Alda that tackled the question of what makes humans unique as a species.
The answer, according to that film, has much to do with how all we Homo Sapiens use language to manipulate symbols in our minds and use tools as extensions of our own bodies.
But the part that got me thinking about trucking was a discussion of "social cognition," which the documentarians defined as "the unparalleled ability of humans to forge social bonds."
In the episode, Alda wings across the pond to Oxford to talk to one of the founders of the social-cognition field, who argues that "we owe the very existence of our large brains to the need to keep track of the social whirl."
Sound like trucking yet? But wait. There's more. The researchers then reveal to Alda that probing the brain for the centers that make social cognition possible—"especially those that allow us to understand (and manipulate) the minds of others— shows that these regions are also related to brain centers that are "most active when we are simply doing nothing – day-dreaming, or 'mentalizing' – and this ability to build worlds and plans in our heads, especially involving the imagined thoughts and responses of others, perhaps come closest to being the elusive Human Spark."
Hmm. Sounds to me like it could just as well be called the Trucking Spark.
Think about it. Is trucking about trucks? Is it about cargo? Is it about safety? Is it about rules? Yes, yes, yes and yes, of course. But if I pressed you to tell me what distinguishes one truck fleet-- or a supplier company-- from another, I bet your answer would indicate it's really all about the people at each and every concern.
The people who deliver the service you expect. The people who deliver the quality you require. The people who come up with innovative solutions virtually routinely.
Then there's the whole personal relationship aspect of trucking. Having never served in our Armed Forces, I hesitate to make this comparison, but it does seem to me that being "in trucking"—in whatever capacity—is at least a little like having been "in the service."
Working as a journalist means I have to try to maintain some detachment from this industry I have been covering now for nearly 30 years. But, boy, (and thankfully) that is hard to do!
Doesn't matter where I am-- even overseas—or what I am doing or wearing or whether I am on or off duty, whenever someone with a trucking connection finds out I cover trucking, well that is good enough for them to start treating me like an old friend.
And it's good enough for me, too. So keep on truckin.' I got your back.


text:
Due to the variance in shipping costs for large frames, we are bound to quote per job. Please send your address and an accurate idea of costs will be sent to you as soon as possible.
email@example.com | Site map | T&C | Designs and website are © Spineless Classics 2007-2018


text:
Turn to I Corinthians 11. We're going to get back to this very interesting text that we've entitled "The Subordination and Equality of Women." I thought of a subtitle for this morning, "Hair, the Long and Short of It," but I (Laughter)decided not to use that just now.
This chapter is very interesting. I want all of you to please remain until I'm finished this morning and not duck your head or be inclined to leave until I'm finished. This is a very interesting passage. We're going to find some very interesting truth, I'm sure, applied perhaps in a way you'd never really understood it before.
As we remember from last week, we began a look in our ongoing study of I Corinthians at the 11thchapter, beginning with verse 2 and going through verse 16 as a unit a Scripture dealing with the subordination and equality of women in the church. Let me begin with some introductory remarks, a brief review, and then get into the text that we didn't cover last time.
I think all of us are very much aware from what we have learned together in the Scripture that women have a vital place in the life of the church. There's no question about this. They're indispensable to the ministry of the church. They are exalted in their role in the church. In Psalms 68:11, as far back as that, it talks about their usefulness in evangelism as it tells us "the women that publish the tidings are a great host."
In Romans 16:2 we learn about their ministry to the saints. Speaking of Phebe, Paul says, "I commend unto you Phebe our sister who is a minister--or the akenon--a servant of the church at Cenchrea." In I Timothy 3:11 we learn about deaconesses, a group of women approved of and set aside for spiritual service within the church. Further on in the Word of God in that same letter, I Timothy 5, we read about widows. There were groups of widows, over 60 years of age, who because they had washed the saints' feet and because they had been hospitable and because they had done good works and had proved themselves spiritually in the eyes of the church community, were added to a list of such widows to be used in ministry to others within the church.
It has always been a vital part of the church, both in evangelism and in the ministry of the saints to one another, that women be involved. Immediately after our Lord's ascension, women gathered along with the apostles and the disciples in the upper room and as such were involved, surely, in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the proclamation of the speaking in tongues and in the declaration of the wonderful works of God. So they were used there in a proclaiming ministry.
In Acts 5:14, in response to the teaching of the Word, it says, "A multitude were added to the church, both of men and women." They are vitally connected to the life of the church. They are gift of the Holy Spirit with the spiritual gift as well as men are, to be used in interchange with the body of Christ for the ongoing life and maturity of the saints.
One of the early converts, Mary, the mother of John Mark, gave her house as meeting place for the saints in Jerusalem. Lydia, another lady who lived in Philippi, also opened her home in the same fashion. There was hospitality that was granted through the ministry of women. In the last chapter of Romans, where Paul names 26 individuals who are singled out for a very significant service to Christ, 8 of them are honored women.
Women have always had a vital place in the life of the church. In Acts 21, we read that the daughters of Philip were used to prophesy. We read that Aquila and his wife, Priscilla, were used to instruct Apollos more perfectly in the knowledge of the Lord in Acts 18. We even hear in our own passage that "the woman is man's glory." I Corinthians 11:7
There's no question about the fact that there is an equality among men and women in a spiritual dimension when in the life of the church. Galatians 3:28, as we saw last time, says, "In Christ there is neither male nor female." There is that equality there.
And yet even though there is a spiritual equality, and even though there is an essential equality--that is in terms of essence or personhood--there is a difference in role that God has divinely assigned to men and women. God is careful to maintain this difference and this distinction both in the church and in the home and in society in general.
I believe that we need to abide by these principles. We do not conceive of women as anything less than men. Quite the contrary. Women are in every sense equal to men. In every sense there is equality there except in the area of the assignment of a role or a duty within the framework of society. I feel, too, that when we put women in responsibilities or when women usurp responsibilities meant for men they thus misuse their divine design and forfeit the use of their highest capacity.
In spite of what the Word of God says, and in spite of what the Bible teaches very clearly about this, some people in the church today are fighting for so-called equality of women. We're not even denying that. That isn't even the debate. I think the fact that anybody would fight for the equality of women assumes that once they didn't think there was such a thing, or at least it's a condescending act. We don't even discuss whether women are equal or not. That's obvious.
What we must maintain in this is that there is equality but a difference in the assignment which God has given to a man and a woman. Each is equally important. Each is vitally important. Authority can't function without submission, and submission can't function without authority. They are mutually dependent.
Such a doctrine as this doctrine of authority and submission--men are in authority, women are in submission in general--is not a confining thing for women but rather is designed by God to accommodate the makeup of a woman, which God Himself has created. Interestingly enough, in its time, when Christianity arrived on the scene, women were thought of as slaves or as animals. In fact, a male Jew used to pray that he was thankful that he hadn't been born one of three things--a Gentile, a woman, or a slave. They all fell into similar categories.
In the Roman and the Greek world, it takes very little study at all to determine that women were thought purely as slaves, purely as animals and nothing more--not allowed to make any contribution beyond that of servitude. When Christianity came along and announced equality of women spiritually, equality of women in personhood, equality of women in capacity and so forth, this was liberating. This was not confining. When it maintained the distinction in roles, it was also not confiding women, but it was helping women and men to see their God-ordained design and therefore be able to fulfill it with a commitment.
It is true that in ancient Rome, as in many different periods of history in Western culture, there have been feminists or women's liberation movements. In America, we have gone through several of them, historically known as "suffrage" movements. Modern terminology is different. It's the same idea. It comes about in these cases, because there is a misunderstanding or not a true teaching of Christianity, and consequently, there are abuses that occur in society.
In the Roman society, for example, women were definitely abused. Out of the abuses there grew a feminist movement. In some senses, we would agree that it was justifiable. When Christianity came along and truly liberated women, that feminist attitude should never have carried into the church, but it did. In fact, if you study the feminist movement of ancient Rome, you will find that they had all of the characteristics of the feminist movements of all of the times in history, most all of them, and of today.
For example, women were stating their independence in those days by leaving home, by living with other men, by refusing to have children, or if they had children refusing to care for them, by demanding jobs always held by men, by wearing men's clothes and discarding all signs of femininity, by violating their marriage vows, by seeking independence in general, etc., etc. All of the things that were characteristic of that time in feminist movements are pretty much what's going on today.
So it was that culture had brought abuses to womanhood, and womanhood was reacting to the cultural abuses. Christianity came in and truly set women free to be what God designed them to be, recognizing their equality in every dimension except in the assignment of a role within society's framework. Consequently, when that is understood, there should not have been any feminist movement within the framework of Christianity. There never should be. It's ridiculous.
If you're going to deny that women are to be submissive to men, then you must deny the church is to be submissive to Christ, and that Christ was to be submissive to the Father in His incarnation, because that in I Corinthians 11:3 is the statement that lays at the basis of all of it.
A woman's liberation movement had filtered into the church at Corinth, and it was a reaction to the abuses that even when they became Christians, they had somehow dragged that into the church. They were demanding their own independence, and they were sort of plotting their freedom in the church--certain Christian women abusing Christian liberty.
Remember, there's one key to keep in mind in this whole thing. We're going to cover a lot of ground this morning, so you're going to really have to get your head screwed on tight so nothing leaks out. Remember this: Apparently in their society, a veil or a covering of some kind over the head was regarded by the people as the common, ordinary, customary symbol of modesty and submission, OK?
To the Corinthian society, a woman was seen as submissive and modest and feminine when she was covered in public assembly. Removing that covering in public assembly was a sign that she was making a statement. Women who did that were falling into one of two categories generally, for the most part. No. 1, they were feminists making a protest. We know in those days that feminists did two things in that culture--discarded their covering and shaved their hair short like a man. They were thus making a statement about their wanting to be equal to men. Feminists threw away their veils.
Secondly, prostitutes did. Obviously, prostitutes couldn't drum up a lot of business unless somebody knew what they looked like, so they discarded their veils for the sake of their occupation. When the Christians came along and said, "Look, we're equal in Christ. We can throw our veils away," they therefore were outwardly identifying themselves with either a feminist protest or prostitution. It was a very tragic thing to bring such a reproach upon the church. Paul writes this chapter in the main part to say to the Corinthian women, "Keep your veils on, ladies. This is a very important thing that you do in your culture, because it is making the statement to your culture that you recognize that a woman is to be modest and submissive and that she is under the authority of a man. Identify with that in your society."
It's interesting enough. This is a very broad point. We don't have veils in our society, but there are certain things in our society that identify people. The way you dress, and the way you appear, you identify with a certain aspect of our society, and you want to be sure that you're identifying with the one that will bring honor to you and to Christ, not reproach upon both. Right.
Let's look at verse 3. We're going to just review very quickly, and then we're going to get into the part we didn't cover last time. I want to make some further comment as we review that we didn't cover as well.
There are many points here dealing with this principle of authority and submission. Let's go to verse 3, the principle stated. We discussed this last time. The principle stated: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God."
Here Paul says, "Look, there's something new that I want you to know." What it is, is this--that built in to every dimension of personality relationships is an authority-submission principle. It's true on a human level. Man is the head of woman. It's true on the human-divine level. Christ is the head of the church. It's true on the totally divine level. The Father is the head of the Son.
God has designed it in every aspect of relationship from the lowest level of humankind to Himself that there be some in authority and some who respond in submission and subjection. It does not have anything to do with inequality. It does not have anything to do with inferiority. It has only to do with a different assignment in terms of function.
The woman is not inferior to the man. The man is not inferior to even Christ, his head, because God sees the man in Christ, and Christ is certainly not inferior to God. He is God. There is a different in assignment.
So he says, "There is a principle here. The principle is that there is authority and submission. When it gets down to our level, the man has authority, and the woman is to be in the place of submission." Further, remember that I said this: It is an authority-submission concept based on love, not tyranny. The Father loved the Son, the Son loved the Father. Christ loves the church, the church loves Christ. The husband loves the wife, the wife loves the husband. The authority and submission interchanges on the basis of love. Very important to recognize.
All right. The principle stated. The principle applied--verse 4. We went into this last time. I'll just remind you of it. Here he applies it to the Corinthian situation. "Every man then, praying or prophesying--" That's speaking to God about men or speaking to men about God. Any time he has any kind of ministry. It's assuming it's in a public assembly of some kind, not necessarily all Christians but some public assembly.
"The man, having his head covered, dishonors his head." In other words, he brings reproach on himself when he wears a covering on his head while he's ministering. Why? Because to the Corinthian mind, that is what a woman did. That would be like me today preaching with an Easter bonnet on. (Laughter)You would say, "Why is he doing that?" I have the liberty to wear an Easter bonnet if I want. (Laughter)I do not take that liberty, however, because you would misconstrue the meaning of it.
In a society like theirs, where there wasn't a difference in the particular style of clothes. They just threw something on. Women were identified as being covered and men were identified as being uncovered. For a man to cover himself was a shame to him. Incidentally, this is a brand-new thing for the Jewish men, who customarily had always prayed covered. The rabbis had taught them to wear a talif, and they always wore a prayer shawl when they prayed. The men did.
Paul is saying, "If you Jewish men do that, you are really going to confuse that society. They're going to think you are effeminate." For a man then to appear with a social sign of subjection, a social sign of submission on his head, submission to a man is a disgrace to that man. On the contrary, in verse 5, "A woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head." In fact, at the end of verse 5 and verse 6, he says, "She might as well go ahead and shave herself bald for that matter." In other words, if she's going to be shameful about it, she might as well go the whole route and look like a protester, because the women in that day who were protesting in the feminist movement had clipped their hair short like a man.
"If you're going to take your veil off, go the whole route. You might as well identify with the whole deal, because in effect, that's the way people read it." He says, "Look, in your society, God wants the distinction clear. Men are men, and they are in authority. Women are women, and they are in submission. If your society has a norm by which that is manifest in a custom, then you abide by that custom." That's what he's saying.
That's very practical. All right. The principal stated and applied. Now let's pick it up where we left off--the principle defended, verses 7-10. The principle defended.
Verse 7. Now watch. Paul's given this principle. He's applied it to them, and now he's going to have to defend where it came from. "Where'd you get this idea, Paul? Why should we believe you?"
"For a man," verse 7, "indeed, truly, ought not to cover his head." "All right, you men, don't cover your heads. Don't do it." Why? "Because he is the image and glory of God."
Now stop. Now listen. This goes beyond a cultural thing. This goes beyond something that is custom. "Men, don't cover your head in general, because you are the image and glory of God." That's a very strong, very broad statement. Man is to be uncovered in public, in praying, prophesying, ministering, acting in public, he is to be uncovered because of a divine reality connected with his creation. He was created to be the image and glory of God, and that glory is manifest as man is uncovered. Why? Because covering is a divine--watch it--a divine symbol of submission.
Covering means to be humble. It's a sign of humility. You're not bold-faced. You're not taking a leave. You're not stepping out. You're diminishing. Covering is the sign of that submissiveness.
"Man, you are to be uncovered. You are made in the image of God." Man when he was originally created was created in the moral image of God. He was created in the intellectual image of God. That is, he was created in righteousness and true holiness as Ephesians 4:24 says is restored when he comes back to Christ. He was created with intellect and will and emotion and knowledge and righteousness and holiness and as thus, he received the stamp of God's image.
"You are made in the image of God." Now watch this. "To be the glory of God." "What do you mean by that, John?" "I mean this: A man is the highest manifestation of God in the earth." Why? Because man has been given divine dominion. Man has been given divine dominion in the world.
In Genesis 1:26, I'll just read it to you. It tells us regarding this. "And God said let us make man in our image after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowl of the air, and the cattle, over all the earth, over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." God created man in His own image. "In the image of God created He him. Then male and female created He them."
God created man initially to rule over everything in His world. He gave him dominion. Man is king of the earth. Throughout the history of humankind, men have ruled the world. They have run the governments. They have run the businesses. They have run the economics. They have run the education. They have run the social aspect. Men have been the ones in charge, because God originally invested within them dominion.
Man then becomes--and I don't mean generic man, I mean sexually male man, just the maleness of man--that man from the sexual viewpoint has been given the dominion of God. Man is a sovereign in the world. He is the delegated authority and majesty of God. That's why, for illustration's sake, it says in Ephesians 5:22, "Wives submit yourselves unto your husbands as unto--" What? "The Lord." Why the Lord? Because that man sits in the seat of dominion in the place of Christ.
Man has been given authority and with responsibility. As such, a man is never to wear on his head a mark of subjection, a mark of submission. You say, "But John, you said the Jews did." That's right. They did. They wore a covering when they prayed. "You say they shouldn't have done that?" No, I don't think they should've. You say, "Well why did they do that?" They did it, because the rabbis told them to do it, not the Bible. The Bible nowhere tells them to do that. The rabbis told them that.
You say, "Why did the rabbis tell them that?" Because the rabbis misinterpreted Exodus 33. Remember Exodus 33, Moses was up on the mountain and says, "Show me Your glory"? God says, "I'll make My glory fast before you." He kept him in a mountain, His glory went by, Moses saw His glory, remember? Exodus 33, "And the glory of God got all over Moses' face, and he put on a veil, and he went down the hill and he talked to the children of Israel." The rabbis said, "You see, Moses was veiled when he was looking at the glory of God." Moses had to be veiled in the presence of God, so every Hebrew man must be covered in the presence of God.
No, no. They missed the whole point. Paul corrected it in II Corinthians 3:13. This is what he said: "Not as Moses who put a veil over his face." OK. Now listen. Why? "That the children of Israel could not look to the fading away of that glory," is what it means.
Now listen. He did not put on a veil in order to view the glory. He put on a veil in front of the children of Israel so they wouldn't see it depart from his face. By misrepresenting and misinterpreting that act of Moses, thinking that Moses had a veil on because of God's glory, when Moses had a veil on so they wouldn't see the glory fade, they then imposed on all of Israel a sign of submission to wear on their heads. Paul really is correcting that here. We assume that what happens in a Corinthian society is that there are people who move into that society and they're Jewish people. They've been scattered out of Jerusalem and the Holy Land. They've grown up in that city. They've had children. There are Jewish communities within the cities of the Roman Empire, particularly in Corinth. Some of these Jews get saved, so they come into the church, and when it's time to pray or speak, they put on a veil. The Corinthians say, "Look at them." That would be just like me wearing an Easter bonnet in the pulpit. It's the same idea. It would be a custom that would be totally unacceptable in the Corinthian society.
Paul is saying, "Look, ladies, keep your veil on. Men, take it off, because in your culture, that is a very confusing thing. Your culture must see a woman in a sign of submission and a man in a sign of authority. Don't confuse the issue."
Man, then, according to verse 7, "is the image and glory of God," but look at verse 7 again. Here comes the other part. "But the woman is--" not the glory of God but what? "The glory of man." Not even a definite article there. "Woman is glory of man." In other words--listen to this--in other words, the woman was made to manifest man's authority and man's will as man was made to manifest God's authority.
The woman is the vice regent who rules in the stead or who carries out man's wish, as man is the vice regent who carries out God's wish. That's why, you see, I Corinthians 14 says, "If a woman needs to know something, tell her to go--" Where? Ask whom? Her husband, because man is the sun, and woman is the moon. "She shines not so much with the direct light of God but that derived from man."
Listen, men, that is a grave responsibility. A woman's deepest and greatest spiritual resource is a man. A man. Vital. Yet in saving grace, a woman comes every bit as deeply into communion with God as any man and is equally restored to the image of God. Do you know that a woman is made equally in the image of God? Yes. "And created them male and female."
She is definitely in the image of God. She was created in the image of God in every whit, and that image is restored in Christ, and a woman will be just as much like Jesus Christ when we see Him face-to-face as a man will be. "But though a woman is in the image of God, a woman is not the glory of God, she is not the outshining of God. She is the outshining of man."
She demonstrates her significance in the world in response to the direction of men who are given divine dominion. That's a general truth. That's a truth that goes beyond the walls of Christianity and the church. It's just in general.
Now let's go to verse 8 and 9 and see how Paul further defends this truth by speaking about creation. Verse 8: "For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man." You know what that means? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, the man or the woman? Man did. God made man first and gave him dominion and then created woman to be his helper. The man is not from the woman. The woman is from the man.
That's the beginning of it. Adam was in no way born of a woman. He was in no way derived from a woman. He was made directly by God. "And God took the dust of the ground and formed a man and breathed into him the breath of life and man became a living soul." God made man and woman was made from man.
He could've created them simultaneously, but He didn't. He didn't. Let me show you how it worked. Genesis 2. In Genesis 2 we ought to look at verse 18. This is what is says. "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone.'" Genesis 2:18. "I will make a helper fit for him."
"It's not good that man should be alone. I'm going to make a helper fit for him." Verse 21. "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam." This is the first surgery we know anything about. Anesthetic. God shot him with a divine anesthetic, and he went out, and he slept. The Lord took out His supernatural scalpel, slit open his side, took one of his ribs out, "and closed up the flesh instead thereof." I doubt whether there was even a scar. "And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, out of it made He a woman and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman, because of this, she was taken--'" What? "Out of man."
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh." That proves that God never did justify polygamy. Never, never, never. Not at any time. People who committed it later on in Bible times suffered. "And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
After all, who was there to look, right? (Laughter)No. The reason they were not ashamed as because of the purity of their minds, purity of their hearts, and the sinlessness that they knew in the Garden.
All right. The man is not of the woman, but the woman is of the man. Now then. Man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. Keep these two things in mind. Woman was made from man for man. Woman was made from man for man.
Now let's go. The reverse is not true. Man was not made from woman or for woman. The origin of woman and her reason for being is God's clear statement that man is in authority, and she is in submission. This is no natural inferiority. This is no spiritual inferiority, no intellectual inferiority, no functional inferiority. Simply different roles designed by God.
Verse 9. "Neither was the man created for the woman but the woman for the man." That's the other side as we mentioned. Not from or for.
Now verse 10, tough verse. "For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her head because of the angels." Now what does it mean to have authority on your head? The New American Standard probably has the simplest, accurate translation of this. It says this. Listen carefully. "Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels."
Now listen to me. If a woman is to take the part of submission, then Paul says she ought to have a symbol of that submission on her head. Get that? She ought to have a symbol of that submission on her head. Paul has proved that woman is subordinate to man. He has shown that the veil was the convention Corinthian symbol of a man's authority over a woman, so he says, "You ought to wear that thing, because that's the conventional symbol of exzusia." That's the Greek word "authority."
That means you have a power over you. You have an authority over you. You have one who has responsibility. You should wear the symbol of that in that society, because that's what your society expects from a woman who recognizes that submission. There's even a broader base. He makes ____ a very general statement. "For this cause ought the woman to have authority on her head." Not just because it's the custom of the Corinthians but because of what? For the angels.
This gets hard. You say, "What do the angels have to do with this? How did they get into this thing?" Let me tell you something. There's one principal angels really recognize really well. There's one principal angels understand completely. There's on principal they never have to ask questions about. You know what that principal is? Authority and submission.
You read Hebrews chapter 1 and find how many times it tells us in there that angels are under the authority of God. It calls them "ministering spirits, serving spirit." It says, "The Son is here and the angels are here." To which of the angels has He ever said, "Sit here on my throne and rule?"
It says that Christ in verse 4 of Hebrews I "is a better name than angels." So they understand the authority of God and the submissiveness of their own service, and they look out for the church. We've learned that, haven't we, in our study of angels some months ago? They watch the church. They look at the church. They see the church. Why? Because they want to see reflected in the church the glory of God, the attributes of God, the wisdom of God. Read Ephesians 3. By looking at the church, the angels can see the wisdom of God.
God is saying, "Look, a woman should recognize her place of submission, and it should be clear from her lifestyle and her pattern that she is in submission to authority so that the angels in looking at the church shall be pleased with the church's submission to her Lord."
It's important for women to appear modest, to appear submissive, not just for the sake of public sentiment. That's important but not just for that sake but for reverence to a higher spiritual intelligences who would be definitely offended by a less than submission, because they understand submission to be right and proper and honoring to God. For the sake of the angels, that you might to the angels be a non-offense, and you might to the angels reveal the wisdom of God revealed in His church, abide by this principle.
So Paul states the principle, applies it, and defends it. Fourth, quickly, he harmonizes it. Verses 11-12. He harmonizes. The principle harmonized. Sometimes when you get a Bible principle, you get carried way out. Some of you by this time are saying, "I can't take this, man. You're getting a little carried away here on this deal." Well, we're going to pull you back a little. Here's the harmonizing or the balancing thing.
Verse 11: "Nevertheless--" that's a key word. Nevertheless limits or modifies the proceeding. Nevertheless--even though it is true that woman came out of man, she was from man and was made to help man, she is for man, even though she is in submission, "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord."
Here he is talking about the church or Christianity in the Lord. Now listen to what he said. "In the church, in Christianity, in the church, men are dependent on women as much as women are dependent on men." The church desperately has to have its women function. You know something? To be frank about it, if the women didn't function, we'd be in bad shape. You know that? In most churches, they do most of the things that need to be done.
In Christianity, he's saying, in Christianity, in the Lord, women and men rise to the place of Galatians 3:28, "They are one in Christ. There is neither male nor female." They are equally dependent on each other. Spiritually, they become a resource to one another. Think about it. The widows in the church in history who minister to the saints, who wash the feet of the saints, who gave food and housing to the apostles, who taught the children, who blessed their own husbands, who carried out the role of a deaconess in the church, who published the truth of the Gospel. The women have always had a vital part in the life of the church.
In the Lord there is a beautiful equality that makes man and dependent on woman as woman is dependent on man. Mutually in the body of Christ do we all labor together for His glory as the body is edified, built up.
In the Lord, in Christianity, you can't say we don't need women. We can't be independent. We are incomplete without each other. There is a place of equality for her in the Christian church. There is a place of equality for her in Christ in every sense. That's the balance, see. It's only roles that we're talking about.
"Neither is the man without the woman and the woman without the man" in the Lord, in Christianity. Verse 12, "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman." In other words, as the woman came out of Adam, so does every other man come out of Eve, born of woman. "And remember all things of God." In other words, God created it all, man and woman. Every woman is a gift of God. Every woman, a beautiful, loving gift of God.
When Jesus looked at His church, He said, "Father, I thank You that You've given them to Me." The church is a gift of God to the Lord. A woman is the gift of God to the man to carry out the ministry that God desires. That's the balance. Even though there's a difference in roles, there is a beautiful equality in the Lord, and there's a beautiful equality verse 12 says in procreation as women give birth to men.
I think the beauty of this comes out in I Timothy 2 at the end of a chapter where he says, "Even though a woman is in subjection, she is saved by child bearing." In other words, let's face it. Every man born into the world has to come from a mother. She may be submissive to a man, but women are the ones who, for the most part, shape the men. Is that right? Because they have them in the years of their lives when the shaping is done.
That's how God harmonizes. That's how God balances the roles. Believe me, the highest, the pinnacle-- If these women in women's liberation really wanted to change the world to the way they like it, they ought to go home and raise their children to carry the thing they believe is right instead of trying to convince a bunch of people who won't be convinced.
The woman is saved in child bearing. That's the great high calling and honor that she bears, and it's all of God. Women, men, all divine creation.
All right. Now we come to the last part. The principle responded to, verse 13. Hang on. This is where it gets very interesting.
The principle responded to, verses 13-16. I'm going to do it quick, so stay with me. Verse 13: "Judge in yourselves--" "Come and make a decision"--yourselves is emphatic here in the Greek--"Do it yourself. You don't need me to give you all the answers. You just think it through. Think in your own mind. Make your own judgment. Is it proper that a woman pray to God uncovered? After everything I've said from verse 2 down to verse 12, all the things that I've pointed out that culturally or society says, 'This is the norm,' that God has said you are to maintain that submission in the face of your society. You tell me. You make a judgment. Should a woman pray uncovered?"
What's the answer? No. Can't. Can't do it. That's the only answer they could have. Then he goes further. "Let me say, let me go another step," he says. "It isn't even cultural. I'll take you further." Verse 14. "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him, but if a woman have long hair, it is a glory for her?"
Stop there. Oh, now it really gets sticky. Paul says, "Let me get a little further beyond culture. Let me get superculture. Doesn't nature itself teach you something about this?" What do you mean by nature? The word is phoosis in the Greek. There's two possible ways to translate it. It can be translated nature. It can be translated instinct. I think it can be translated both. Let me show you why.
Doesn't nature tell you that if a man have long hair it's a shame to him, and a woman have long hair it's a glory to her? There's something in nature--now watch this--there's something in created physiology, there's something in human anatomy that should teach us that men are to have short hair and women are to have long hair. Hang on, folks. Don't leave me now. Think.
Some of you are saying, "Oh, thank God I have long hair." You're going to go out and go around the patio like you were spiritual. It just so happens we hit you at the time of year when you left it that way. Don't use this as an excuse to wear your spirituality on your head. That isn't the point. Those of you who have a little shorter hair, don't duck. We'll get to balancing this thing in a moment. For those men who have long hair right now, jeez, you can go cut it, but for the woman it's a long, excruciating thing to grow it.
Anyway, let's get to this so you understand what I'm saying. He says, "Nature teaches you." Let me give you a little insight. Nature gives men shorter hair than women. Did you know that? Physiologically that is true. Just to verify that, because I believe that's what the Bible is saying, I had Ken Anderson, who is a scientist do some research on that, and he came up with some very interesting things about that.
Hair grows in a three-phase cycle. No. 1 in the cycle is the formation and growth of new hair. Secondly is the resting stage. Thirdly is the fallout stage. (Laughter)With which some of you are so well acquainted. (Laughter)So you have, beginningly, the formation and growth of new hair, the resting stage, and the fallout. Then after the fallout, the cycle starts all over again.
The male hormone, testosterone, speeds those three phases, so that quickly the man gets to phase three--fallout. That's why you see bald men but never see bald women. Aristotle said, "I have never seen a bald child, eunuch, or a woman." There's a reason for that. Testosterone, the male hormone, causes the speedup of the steps to get you quickly to step three. That retards the process of growth in a man.
The female hormone, estrogen, in the woman, causes the cycle to remain in stage one, the growth stage, longer than it does in a man. That's why a woman's hair will grow longer than a man's over the same period of time.
"Does not nature teach you?" Hasn't God put right into human physiology the truth that short hair belongs to men and long hair belongs to women? Interesting, isn't it? It's interesting. You all look so stunned. (Laughter)
All right now. Listen. I'm not through with you. The second term, phoosis, the second way it can be translated is by the word "instinct." Instinct means the instinctive sense of man as he recognizes what he sees in society. We're saying it isn't just physiological, but it's just plain obvious. Look around you in society. Isn't it obvious that men have shorter hair than women? Nature has made it so, and man has agreed to nature, and that's the way it is. Around the world and for all history, men have generally had shorter than women.
You can verify that, and you can cover a lot of ground historically. You'll see it verified. Now sometimes, men's hair was long enough to be at the shoulder, but the women's hair was down around the tops of the legs. Always there was the distinction. In ancient Rome, it was considered a mark of effeminacy to have long hair. It was ridiculed by Roman writers.
In later times, early church councils condemned men with long hair. Paul is saying, "The normal human pattern--" There were some exceptions--he Spartans and some philosophers of the past, and they still do today. For the most part we find some philosophers and other folks with long hair. Pagan tribes. Today we would add protesting types in our society, people who want to manifest nonacquiesence with the norms of society or want to show a little bit of rebellion and so forth. There have always been localized and temporary rebellions, but for the most part, the broad spectrum of history never violates the truth that men have shorter hair than women instinctively.
You say, "What are you trying to say to me, John?" I'm trying to say what the Bible says. Men are to have shorter hair than women. You say, "What does that mean to me?" I don't know what that means to you. Maybe it means go home and measure your hair against your husband's. You need to apply that. You need to apply that.
God has designed it into human nature and human instinct that it is to be so. Thus Paul says, "Look, since God has already designed it that way, and God gave you your hair for a covering anyway," it says in verse 15, "It's given her for a covering."
"Since God has already wanted you covered, you shouldn't argue about wearing a veil. That just adds a little bit to what God has already designed, anyway." See? "So if that's what your culture says, go ahead and do it. It's kind of interesting that your culture says that, because it really just accommodates the covering God has given you, anyway."
You see? The universal principle is there, and so is the local custom. This isn't telling you to wear a veil. You say, "What is it telling me?" I think the universal truth is that women are to have longer hair than men. Don't you see it there? What else can we say? There's no other way.
It's interesting to note that because of this passage it's still customary in many places for women to wear hats. That isn't the point. The point is not in our culture, it isn't a sign of submission to wear a hat for a woman. It's not a sign of anything. There are some ways that you can dress to appear submissive and modest and feminine, but basically, the God-given, universal is that your hair is to be distinct. Isn't that interesting? Your hair is to be distinct.
It isn't necessarily that we're going to say, "From now on all Christian men will have Marine cuts." (Laughter)No. I'm not going to determine where that length is. I just want you to realize the Biblical principle and make the application. God has given long hair to women by nature, by instinct, as a covering signifying a woman's submissiveness, and God has given man short hair that he might manifest the divine dominion of God in the visible openness of short hair.
Paul says, "You ought to abide by this. In Corinth, you sure shouldn't argue about it, since their little custom of wearing or not wearing veils simply accents what God has already designed, anyway." You say, "That's really interesting." Yes, it is. Some of you might be saying, "I don't like it. I don't see the point. I'm going to leave my hair the way it is. If you think I'm getting up every morning and doing all that jazz to my hair, I'm going to whip that thing and go out. I'm busy. I don't want my hair long."
Well, OK. Verse 16 was written with that in mind. "If any of you seem to be contentious--" (Laughter)You see, Paul has been around, folks. (Laughter)He knows all about human response. He knows exactly what somebody was going to say. "If any of you seem to be contentious, and you want to argue against this, then," he says, "we have no such custom. Neither the churches of God."
"If you're looking for somebody on your side, it won't be the apostles, and it won't be anybody in the churches." See? "It is the universal agreement of the apostles. It is the universal agreement of the churches that this is what God has said. If you want to fight against it, you're not going to find any sympathetic ears among us or the other churches."
That's pretty straight stuff. Pretty straight stuff. If you want to argue, you're going to be all alone. You can look the Bible all over, and you're not going to find it, because the custom didn't belong to the apostles, it didn't belong to the churches. Want to hear something interesting? We have found sculptures and etchings and carvings of people in the early church, particularly we found them in the catacombs. In very case, we find the men have short hair, and the women have longer hair. That was the custom in the early church, and I think that was right. I think that was as it should be. That's the universal thing that I see here.
That's what God wants. In addition to that universal, God wants us to be sure that we accommodate the customs of our society to appear to be the kind of people who are the way God designed us to be--submissive women, modest, feminine. Men who are taking the place that God has given them, being willing to be a sovereign, being willing to be responsible, and being willing to being masculine. That's God's design.
That's why way back in Deuteronomy 22:5 it says that a woman is not to wear that which appertains to a man and the reverse as well. God wants the rules distinct. Why? Because it's a universal thing, people. If people can understand the submission of a woman to a man, maybe they'll understand the submission of the church to Christ. You see? And of Christ to God.
If we start messing it up at any point, then we're going to lose it all. It's a vital thing. You take to heart what the spirit of God says to you, and please, as I said earlier, don't go running around because you have long hair thinking you're spiritual. You might be, but that isn't it. Or because you have short hair you can't come back to church for the next eight weeks. I don't want you to do that. I want you to think about it. I want you to pray about it. I want you to deal with it as God reveals it to your own heart as He has to mine. Let's see where the spirit of God leads in your life. I'll leave that up to Him and to you. Let's pray.
Thank You, Father, for our time this morning. It's been fresh and different and exciting to really grapple with something very practical, as practical as getting up every morning and looking in the mirror, facing the reality of this issue. We don't know what the Holy Spirit is meaning to say to every individual, but the principles are here, as Paul gave them to Corinth, and the application will be carried out as we submit to the Holy Spirit.
We don't want to be ritualistic, and we don't want to be legalistic. We don't want to function in terms of appearance and look to be holy or unholy. We know that how long or short our hair is has nothing to do with that. Father, if it's going to be the sign that You want, the thing that You gave, may there be a difference, whatever that difference ought to be, not only in the length of it but in the way it's prepared, the way it's done, that there might be a clear distinction.
Help us to design and maintain that distinction. Help us who are men to take the responsibility, the authority, the spiritual oversight and the women to take that role of submission, not that they can't be equal in spiritual things or intellectual things or hold equal jobs or equal privileges but when it comes to the spirit of the thing, they recognize that God has given them to be helpers. And yet in child bearing to really rule in the forming period of life for every man.
Thank You for how You balanced this thing. We know now why women are the ones that have the children, in order to balance the principle. Help us, Father, to be obedient, submissive at this point. We give you praise in Christ's name. Amen.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
As we reported last week Verizon Android phones are going to be adding another app purchasing option to their repertoire by the end of the year.
The V CAST App Store will be kicking off only on Froyo handsets and could potentially expand from there. It should come pre-installed on new Froyo handsets and may be pushed to existing customers as part of an update.
I contacted Verizon to see if they intended to target any exclusive content for the V CAST App Store and they indicated that they wouldn't be locking developers into exclusive deals with their store, although there will continue to be Verizon customer exclusive apps in both the new V CAST App Store and the Android Market (like Skype, NFL Mobile, and VZ Navigator).
Verizon has indicated that this will be a choice for customers and isn't replacing the traditional Android Market, but it will be interesting to see if handsets launching later this year feature the V CAST App Store front and center on the home screen with the Android Market relegated to the app tray. Savvy and informed users will hunt out the Market, but the feature phone user upgrading to Android may not know any better.
Carrier billing is the killer feature for Verizon here, getting people to create a Google Checkout account seems to be a major hurdle in the battle to get Android users paying for apps. I have six family members that I have converted to Android in the last four months and yet I have only managed to get half of them to create a Checkout account. It's becoming a recurring theme, but Google needs to be pouring more resources into alternative billing options including getting carriers to add direct billing of Market apps (T-Mobile is the only one that does this at present, in the U.S. anyway, to my knowledge).
The V CAST App Store should be a boon to developers as anytime you lower the barrier to entry for users buying your apps you are basically guaranteed a win and nothing is stopping you from releasing your app in both places so in no way would I blame developers for jumping at the chance assuming the approval process isn't too laborious.
Users on the other hand are at least the long term losers in this story. On the surface it is just another place to buy apps and that's fine, but what if you decide you want to (gasp!) leave Verizon some day? If you move to another carrier and get a new Android handset right now all of your purchased apps from the Market will magically download on the new handset as soon as you log into it. Clearly that will not be the case with apps purchased in the V CAST App Store and considering there probably will be little if anything in the V CAST App Store that isn't in the Android Market then why were you buying things there again?
I have two questions for you:
- What are your feelings on Verizon's current handling of Android?
- Is the lack of curation in the Android Market a major problem for Google or do they just need to make it easier to pay (and of course add more countries)?


text:
The Florida Building Code is the applicable authority throughout each municipality and county in the state. To secure a permit under this code, please refer to the following steps:
Free viewers are required for some of the attached documents.
They can be downloaded by clicking on the icons below.
Home | About Us | What's New | City Commission | Departments & Services | Residents | Businesses | Visitors | How do I ...?
City of Sunrise - 10770 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33351 - (954) 741-2580
©2018 City of Sunrise, FL. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy Policy Disclaimer | Website Created by Vision Internet


text:
3390 Mary Street
2332 Galiano Street
One Alhambra Plaza
1221 Brickell Avenue
1111 Brickell Avenue
80 S.W. 8th Street
801 Brickell Avenue
601 Brickell Key Drive
333 S. E. 2nd Avenue
201South Biscayne Blvd
700 NW 1st Avenue
Waterford Business Park
6303 Blue Lagoon Drive
222 NW 24th Street
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd
1688 Meridian Avenue
8333 N.W. 53rd Street
1801 N.E. 123rd Street
7900 Oak Lane
323 Sunny Isles Boulevard
2875 NE 191 Street
20801 Biscayne Blvd
3350 SW 148th Avenue
4000 Hollywood Blvd
8201 Peters Road
2200 N. Commerce Parkway
950 South Pine Island Road
501 East Olas Blvd.
110 East Broward Blvd
1560 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway
2598 E. Sunrise Blvd.
6750 N. Andrews Avenue
11555 Heron Bay Blvd.
433 Plaza Real
2255 Glades Road
Find out more about our locations in Coconut Grove.
Call us now on: +966 12 220 3099
Create a base in one location and use all 3000 for free.
You'll find them in all kinds of places, so there's always one nearby.
City centres
Out of town
Retail parks
1047 locations in United States
3000 worldwide in 120 countries
Make new contacts, meet local companies, share ideas and create new business opportunities.
Coffee chat
Informal events
Networking events
Annual retreat
Need more information?
Want to ask some questions?
Create an account and start using us
Download the app and start using us
Visit one of our locations


text:
Fundraisers come in as many varieties as there are interests. Fundraisers are also tributes to the people that inspire them; and for Jill Cagle, her special event this weekend is not just about raising awareness for mesothelioma research. It's a celebration of a life well lived. This fundraising event is "Ridin' the Wind with Rob," happening this Saturday, July 28.
Jill's husband, Rob Cagle, was an avid rider. Whether it was a Harley-Davidson motorcycle with its signature roar or something more serene like a ten-speed bike, Rob loved to feel the wind in his hair and the sun on his skin, prompting his favorite turn-of-phrase, "It's All Good." Jill wanted to celebrate that love of the open road alongside the memory of her husband and so she put together this family-friendly event happening this weekend in Pekin, Illinois. Whether you ride a Harley, a Yamaha or simply wish to ride your car, you are invited to take part in this, 91-mile long, ride (or drive) for meso awareness. "We have a variety of events planned for the day," Jill promises. "We'll be registering your vehicles between the hours of 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. and for the kids we will have games to play. If you're not riding, we're also raffling off donations from local vendors and holding a bake sale. We've got something for everyone."
"Ridin' the Wind with Bob" is more than just an open ride through the streets of Pekin. Starting at 4 p.m. at Goodfellas will be a spaghetti dinner, a $6 charge for anyone 13 or older, $4 for kids between 4-12. "This event will be, I think, very much like Rob's spirit," says Jill. "This will be fun for all ages and people will bring out their favorite set of wheels and enjoy a day in the sun. This is how he would want to reach people — not with fear or anger, but with a positive, fun attitude, showing people the best way to stand up against mesothelioma cancer — by living."
"Ridin' the Wind with Rob" will happen this Saturday, starting at 11 a.m. (with a blessing of the bikes at 11:30 a.m.) and will last all day. The spaghetti dinner is at Goodfellas from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. For more information on this event or to make a donation in Rob's name, call Jill at 309-267-3155. For more on upcoming events in the meso community, visit our website at CureMeso.org.


text:
Working with Inequalities
Lesson 11 of 20
Objective: SWBAT: • Explain the difference between an inequality and an equation • Create an inequality for a given situation • Solve an inequality • Graph an inequality on a number line
Big Idea: What's the difference between s = 40, s > 40, and 4s > 160? Students work on creating, solving, and graphing inequalities for given situations.
Do Now
See my Do Now in my Strategy folder that explains my beginning of class routines.
Often, I create do nows that have problems that connect to the task that students will be working on that day. Today I want students to quickly review the meaning of these symbols. Students have previously worked with inequalities in unit 3. I call on students to explain what each symbol means and their example.
Resources (3)
Review and Problem
We review the definitions of an equation and an inequality. I read over Ashley's situation. We work on the first situation together. What does it mean here if s=40? I want students to realize that if s=40 then the shoes cost exactly 40 dollars. The only possible value for s would be 40. I ask students to generate impossible values for s for this situation. Students work independently on the other situations. I walk around and monitor student progress and look for common mistakes. Students may struggle with the last situation, and this is okay.
Students participate in a Think Pair Share to talk about their ideas for Ashley's situations. Students are engaging in MP2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively, MP3: Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others, and MP7: Look for and make use of structure. I call on students to share their ideas. I ask students to share all of the possible values for s in the second situation. I want students to realize that there are an infinite number of possible values to represent s in this situation, so we cannot list them out.
If I saw a common mistake, I present it and ask students what they think. If students are stuck on the last situation I ask, "What does s represent? So what would 4s represent?" I want students to realize that it means that four pairs of shoes are greater than or equal to $160. I ask students how this inequality compares to the others in this problem. I want students to see that the last two situations are equivalent. I mention that if it was an equation, 4s = 160, what would s equal? With an inequality we can do the same thing, but instead of using the equal sign we keep the sign that is already there. This would result in s is greater than or equal to 40 dollars.
Resources (2)
Resources (2)
Graphing Inequalities
I ask students to share what they remember about graphing inequalities from Unit 3. I want students to share that if an inequality uses the less than or greater than symbol the circle must be open because the variable cannot equal that value. If there is a less than or equal to or greater than or equal to sign the circle must be closed because the variable can equal that value.
I have students work on the problems independently. Students are engaging in MP2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively and MP7: Look for and make use of structure. I walk around to monitor student progress. I am looking to see whether students are able to correctly match 1-3 and what strategies they use for 4-7. We come together to share ideas. I ask students, "Why can't we just plot the number, why do we have to draw the line with the arrow?" I want students to understand that because there are infinite number of solutions we have to draw and extend the arrow. If students struggle with 4-6 I mention the strategy of solving for x. If it were 3x = 27, x = 9, therefore 3x < 27 is equivalent with x < 9, which is the same graph for problem 1.
I ask students to share ideas about problem 7. Some students may immediately say they don't know because they haven't seen an inequality like this before. I encourage them to think about what the numbers and symbols mean. I cover up the last part of the inequality so students are just looking at 6 < x. What does this mean? I want students to be able to explain that 6 is less than x, or x is greater than 6. Then I cover up the first part so students are just looking at x is less than or equal to 12. I ask students to explain what this means. How do we combine these two inequalities? We draw the inequality with an open circle on 6, a closed circle on 12, and a line connecting them.
Resources (1)
Resources (1)
- Before this lesson I create and Post A Key for this part of the lesson.
I explain that students will be working independently on the next two sections of the lesson. I explain that problems in "Finding Solutions for Inequalities" are not asking for them to list all of the solutions, but rather to identify which numbers in the box work for that given situation. We preview the sections and I ask students what strategies they can use if they get stuck. I want students to realize that they can look back at their notes earlier in the packet to help them. They can also ask a neighbor a question. I tell students that when they finish a page, they can raise their hand and show me their work. Students are engaging in MP2: Reason abstractly and quantitatively, MP4: Model with mathematics, and MP7: Look for and make use of structure.
If they are on track, I send them to check their work with the key. If they are struggling I ask them one or more of the following questions:
- What is going on in this situation?
- How can you represent that with an inequality?
- What are some possible values for your variable? Why? What are some impossible values? Why?
- How did we graph inequalities earlier? Look back at your notes.
If students successfully complete the work they move on to the challenge questions.
Resources (4)
Closure and Ticket to Go
I have students turn to the closure graph. I ask students to come up with a situation that matches the graph using the variable x, in addition to finding as many inequalities as they can that match this graph. Students participate in a Think Pair Share. I am looking for students to start with x > 7 and then create equivalent inequalities such as 2x > 14 or x + 3 > 10. Students share their ideas and I ask the class whether they agree or disagree and why. Students are engaging in MP4: Model with mathematics and MP7: Look for and make use of structure.
I pass out the Ticket to Go and the HW Working with Inequalities.


text:
Space Out! 10 Outer Space Crafts
Pull on your astronaut suit and get your dehydrated food ready--it's time to blast off into a galaxy of fun outer space crafts! Take your little one on her very own space adventure with these out-of-this-world activities.Download All (10)
Download All is only available to Education.com Pro members. Learn More
Click on an activity in the set below to see more info.
CD SpaceshipView Full Activity
Your kid will delight in creating an extraterrestrial vehicle from goods found around the house. There's no telling where her imagination will go!
Recycled Rocket ShipView Full Activity
Make a roaring rocket ship toy out of a paper towel roll and some tissue paper.
Foil MoonView Full Activity
Have your little astronaut create her own crater-filled moon with this fun craft project that encourages learning about the final frontier.
Solar System NecklaceView Full Activity
Are you looking for an out-of-this world activity that's both fun and educational? This solar system garland is a great way to introduce your kid to astronomy.
Outer Space ArtView Full Activity
Create an outer space painting with chalk, water and black paper in this art project that explores the solar system.
Window ConstellationsView Full Activity
Help your first grader explore the magical world of constellations by creating these special star charts from the night sky.
The set is continued below.
DIY JetpackView Full Activity
Help your child rocket off for some high-flying fun with a jet pack you make from recycled materials and a few odds and ends.
Cardboard Rocket ShipView Full Activity
Building a rocket ship is a great way for kids to learn about measuring and construction. It'll fuel their creative side too!
Galaxy MobileView Full Activity
Pair a planetarium visit with this fun art project that mimics the look of far-off galaxies.
Bedroom PlanetariumView Full Activity
Put an oatmeal box, a flashlight, and some construction paper together and you have the makings of an incredibly cool bedroom planetarium!
Want to download this whole set as a single PDF?Download All (10)
Download All is only available to Education.com Pro members. Learn More


text:
This episode was original recorded in 2009 as two separate episodes. When the podcast changed from The Power of Friendship Podcast to The Fantasy Movie Podcast a couple of years ago I took several episodes out. They were taken out because I thought it was weird that The Fantasy Movie Podcast had several episodes in a row that had nothing to do with fantasy movies. I had always intended to sporadically rerelease them, but for some reason I forgot all about them! So here are two of them. They're edited together due to their short lengths and similar topics.
– Part I – Shojo Anime/Manga –
Melanie and Kasey discuss their overall opinion on shojo manga. It isn't particularly positive. Shojo manga is full of wimpy crying heroines and often is disturbingly sexist. Most disturbingly is the unhealthy relationships they often support. The jerk often gets the girl even if he's roughed her up a bit or threatened her life.
They also are almost always solely focused on romance. Shonen titles can have romance too, but they also come in variety of genres. Romance can be a subplot. Shojo manga usually doesn't get the luxury.
Kasey doesn't hate all romance by the way, despite what this episode may lead you to believe, lol.
Not all shojo manga and anime sucks though. Kasey highly recommends Basara and Melanie likes the yaoi comic Yami no Matsui. They both agree that the Josei titles Nodame Cantabile and Tramps like Us are great.
Re-editing this episode made me a little sad. In one part you can hear my long dead dog in the background…
– Part II – Anime Expiration Date –
Is there an age expiration date for anime fandom? Do most fans drop out of anime fandom in their late twenties and early thirties? Or do they just stop talking on the internet about it?
We know for sure there is less and less anime made that we actually enjoy and want to watch. Is that our age showing or are they just not making shows that appeal to a wider audience anymore?
What about you? Do you think an anime fan expiration date exists?


text:
Zoom, Drag, & Scroll For Closer ViewsClick On Pins For Address
Happy Clients
More About Us
Any use of search facilities of data on the site, other than by a consumer looking to purchase real estate, is prohibited. | IDX information is provided exclusively for consumers' personal, non-commercial use and may not be used for any purpose other than to identify prospective properties consumers may be interested in purchasing and that the data is deemed reliable but not guaranteed accurate by the MLS. | The accuracy of all information, regardless of source, is not guaranteed or warranted. All information should be independently verified.
Listing data feed last updated on August 16, 2018 at 2:05 pm UTC+0000
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. More info


text:
Page content
Choosing Revolution
Stamp Act Crisis
After the French and Indian War ended in 1763, the British government began a concerted effort to gain more control over the colonies and to collect additional revenues to reduce the debt incurred during the war. The Stamp Act, passed by Parliament and signed by the king in March 1765, was one such measure. It created an excise tax on newspapers, customs documents, licenses, college diplomas, and most legal documents. Violators were to be tried in vice-admiralty courts without benefit of a jury.
Residents of Britain, where tax rates were much higher than in the colonies, strongly applauded the passage of the Stamp Act. They often paid such taxes themselves, and the Prime Minister projected that the yearly revenues from the tax would offset 12 to 20 percent of the North American military expenses. The colonists, the British believed, were represented in Parliament (albeit indirectly), and therefore such an act was perfectly within the rights of the British government.
The colonists, however, uniformly resented the Stamp Act and its assumption that Parliament could tax them without their direct representation in Parliament. The colonists taxed themselves through their own local assemblies, and they resisted the limitation on their self-rule.
Violent reactions to the Stamp Act began to occur throughout the colonies. A mob in Boston hanged the stamp distributor in effigy, then beheaded the effigy and "stamped" it to pieces before shattering the windows of the stamp distributor's home, destroying his furniture, and tearing out the paneling. The stamp distributor in Newport, Rhode Island, also lost his home, and one in Maryland was so upset upon seeing his store pulled down that he rode off in panic.
In October 1765, representatives of nine colonies met in New York City as the Stamp Act Congress. There, the colonists agreed on the general principle that Parliament lacked the authority to levy taxes on the colonies and to deny individuals a jury trial.
The colonists' resistance to the Stamp Act was successful, and the measure became increasingly unenforceable. In March 1766, Parliament revoked the Stamp Act, although not before it had reasserted that Parliament had complete legislative authority over the colonies. The colonists were grateful for the repeal of the Stamp Act and were eager to mend their relations with the mother country. At this point, a complete break from England remained unimaginable, but a precedent for colonial defiance and mutual distrust had been created.
The Path Toward Independence, 1765-1775
Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act, underlying philosophical differences remained. The British wanted colonists to pay for the cost of royal government in the colonies, whereas the colonists resisted imperial taxation and limits on self-government. This clash led to an atmosphere of mistrust. After a series of incidents emphasized these differences, a break from England had become a distinct possibility (although still not a certainty) by 1775.
The Townshend Duties of 1767 taxed imports and led to colonial nonimportation agreements (boycotts of British goods). These nonimportation agreements injured the British economy and caused the repeal of the duties in 1770. Customs racketeering, in which greedy customs officials seized ships and their cargoes whether or not evidence of smuggling existed, led to widespread violence and to the British occupation of Boston in 1768. The British occupation itself led indirectly to the Boston Massacre of 1770, when an angry mob incited a soldier to fire into the crowd. The ensuing mayhem caused five deaths. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the punitive British response solidified colonial fears that the Crown was attempting to limit traditional English liberties throughout North America. In response to these events, the first Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in 1774. The delegates summarized their principles and demands in the Declaration of Rights, which conceded to Parliament the power to regulate colonial commerce but argued that parliamentary efforts to impose taxes, enforce laws through admiralty courts, suspend assemblies, and unilaterally revoke charters were unconstitutional.
July 1775
By mid-1775, the colonies as a whole were torn by divided loyalties. Most colonists had hoped that their resistance would either convince the king to dismiss the ministers responsible for the repressive legislation or would jolt Parliament into renouncing its authority over colonial matters except trade regulation. As it became clear that neither course would be followed, some loyalist colonists accused patriots of creating a rift and inflaming existing problems. Revolutionary patriots often browbeat clergymen who preached pro-British sermons, pressured their countrymen to boycott British goods, and coerced merchants to burn British imports.
By July of 1775, the first battles between British and Americans had already taken place at Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill. In Williamsburg, Governor Dunmore's order for the removal of guns and powder stored at the Magazine alarmed city residents and nearly led to a violent clash between the Virginians and the British. Dunmore soon fled to a British ship in the York River. Determined to regain control of the colony, the governor, in November 1775, offered freedom to the slaves who ran away from rebel masters and joined the British army.
Despite this ominous turn of events, not all parties saw revolution as inevitable. For example, a majority of the Second Continental Congress, which began meeting in May of 1775, still opposed independence. Even Samuel Adams, among the most radical of the colonists, described himself as "fond of reconciliation."
King George III did not proclaim that New England was in a state of rebellion until August 23, 1775. The rest of the colonies were declared to be in rebellion in December of that year. Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which influenced many a fence-sitter, was published in 1776. Virginia declared independence on May 15, 1776, and the Declaration of Independence followed a few weeks later. Only a year earlier, in July 1775, the course of events was not yet clear. Although hindsight may give us some indication of the choices individuals should make, if we place ourselves in the shoes of the British colonials, we will experience the problems as they did—with no clear-cut answers.


text:
ATLANTA (AP) — A judge on Thursday said he would not allow any lawyer to represent more than one defendant in the case involving a cheating scandal in Atlanta Public Schools.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Jerry Baxter said during a hearing Thursday he wants to avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Some lawyers who represent multiple clients argued their clients didn't even know each other. But Baxter pointed out that all the defendants face charges of conspiracy to participate in a cheating scheme.
Four defendants were arraigned Thursday. Eight had their arraignments postponed until May 16. The remaining 23 are set to be arraigned Friday.
A grand jury in March indicted 35 educators, including the former superintendent, accusing them of involvement in a broad conspiracy to cheat, conceal cheating or retaliate against whistleblowers.
(© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)


text:
Ready to get excited about storage? Damn right you are. Netgear has announced the "Stora" NAS drive at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. It's an impressive-looking box of tricks, packing a whole host of features, including - most notably - DLNA.
The Stora contains slots for two drives - either mirrored in RAID or for extra space. It lets you stick all your music, video, photo and other multimedia content in one place and then access it from any machine in your home. Thanks to the aforementioned DLNA, it'll even stream to certain televisions and DVD players.
It'll also integrate with Facebook, iTunes, Flickr and web-enabled mobile handsets to provide remote access to your content, when you're away from your network. You can upload content remotely too. It supports a range of file formats, but on the Web it's limited to JPG, GIF, PNG, MP3, MPEG-4, MOV and FLV.
The unit should go on sale within Q1 2010, but it's not clear yet how much it'll cost. We'll bring you more when you get it.


text:
Director Ken Hall announces retirement plans
Fond du Lac Public Library Director Ken Hall has announced he will retire on July 27, 2012, completing 10 years with the library.
Hall has worked for more than 34 years in public libraries in Appleton, Wisconsin Rapids and Two Rivers. He was brought to Fond du Lac in 2002 to oversee the library's massive expansion and renovation project.
"I have been exceedingly fortunate to finish my career in this community," said Hall. "The library has received tremendous support from all quarters – government, businesses and the public. Thanks to the best library staff in the United States, we've been able to achieve a great deal in 10 years. I'm very proud to say I played a part in the further development of a very special institution."
"Ken has been a true innovator in creating new ways to bring people into the library," said library board President Lori Pain. "His ingenuity in working with an ever-shrinking budget while not sacrificing quality has been nothing short of amazing. I will miss him as a friend and as a colleague."
During Hall's tenure, the library evolved from a place where people primarily borrowed books to a community center dedicated to lifelong learning. Among his achievements, Hall:
- Oversaw the expansion and complete rebuilding of the main library
- Saw a 42 percent circulation growth in the past 10 years
- Started Fond du Lac Reads, an annual effort to encourage the community to read and discuss the same book
- Created the Opportunity Center, a free computer lab for persons seeking work
- Oversaw the library's first branch expansion, FDLPL Express
- Created a system of library satellites, including Journeys at St. Agnes Hospital
Hall came to the Fond du Lac Library from the Winnefox Library System, where he was the system coordinator. He started his career in Appleton after receiving his Master's of Library Science from Wayne State University in Detroit in 1981.
Hall has been a noteworthy contributor to the community, including serving as board president at the Fond du Lac United Way, serving on several Downtown Fond du Lac Partnership committees, including several years helping to build first the Fall Festival and then the Fondue Fest. He served on several committees for state Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning as well as the Wisconsin Library Association.
"Ken Hall is a Fond du Lac treasure," said City Manager Tom Herre, who recently announced his decision to retire in May. "He thinks well beyond the needs of the library and consistently looks toward the greater good for our community. Ken's good judgment and wise counsel have been invaluable to me during the challenging times we have faced while serving together."
The independent library board is responsible for hiring the library director. While the library is a municipal entity, the library board administrates library management and oversight.


text:
(Bloomberg) -- New allocations to hedge funds may more than triple this year, pushing the global industrys assets to a new high, according to an annual survey by Deutsche Bank AG.
Hedge fund assets worldwide may increase 11 percent to $2.5 trillion by year-end, according to the survey by the Germanys largest bank. Investors indicated they will add $123 billion of capital to the industry, in addition to investment returns that are expected to boost assets by $169 billion, the Frankfurt- based bank said.
Hedge funds are forecast to draw more net deposits as investors, especially institutions, pursue more stable returns with low correlation with other assets such as stocks and bonds, the report showed. The $2.3 trillion global industry gained an average 6 percent last year, taking in $34.4 billion of net inflows, according to Chicago-based data provider Hedge Fund Research Inc.
Despite a challenging market backdrop in 2012, hedge fund performance toward the end of last year and the beginning of this year has been promising, said Harvey Twomey, the banks Hong Kong-based head of prime finance distribution for Asia.
Investors are eager to allocate more to managers that can deliver steady performance in the future, he added.
The annual survey, the 11th, polled 324 pension, endowment, fund of funds, foundations, insurers, consultants, private banks and family offices in 25 countries that manage or advise on a combined $1.2 trillion of hedge-fund assets.
Boosting Allocations
Overall, 2013 looks to be promising for the industry, authors led by Marlin Naidoo, who heads the banks hedge fund capital group for Americas, wrote in the report. Those hedge funds that are able to post consistent returns year after year are emerging as an attractive option for investors looking for both better risk-adjusted returns and capital preservation.
About 62 percent of the investors said they expect their hedge fund holdings to increase this year, compared with 42 percent whose allocations increased in 2012, the survey showed.
Sixty-five percent of all investors in the survey, including 79 percent of institutions, target returns between 5 percent and 10 percent for their hedge fund investments this year. Hedge fund underperformed the 13 percent rally in the MSCI World Index last year as prices of so-called risky assets such as stocks advanced on easing global macroeconomic concerns.
The current market backdrop has unquestionably changed since the days of double-digit return expectations, the report said. It added a return in the high teens is now considered attractive because of low interest rates and politics-driven markets.
Pension Investors
About 57 percent of institutions, including pension plans, endowments, foundations and insurers, reported increased hedge fund holdings last year, while 37 percent of non-institutions such as family offices, private banks, asset managers and funds of hedge funds did so, the survey showed.
Discounting returns and withdrawals, 44 percent of institutions added capital to hedge funds last year, versus 10 percent of non-institutional investors, it added.
Pension funds, in particular, are building up their hedge fund investments, with 66 percent of them having increased such holdings in 2012, said the report. By contrast, 57 percent of private banks saw declines last year.
About 47 percent of pension funds plan to increase their hedge fund allocations by at least $100 million this year, according to the report. Mounting funding gap is pushing pensions to accelerate hedge fund investments in hopes of excess returns over benchmarks, it said.
We expect their increasing contribution in the industry to continue and serve as a bellwether for other institutional investors, according to the report.
Register or login for access to this item and much more
All On Wall Street content is archived after seven days.
Community members receive:
- All recent and archived articles
- Conference offers and updates
- A full menu of enewsletter options
- Web seminars, white papers, ebooks
Already have an account? Log In
Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access


text:
Stage show takes fans on journey
"HE IS very yummy".
Rhonda Burchmore tells me on the other end of the phone how she wined and dined with every woman's dreamboat, Colin Firth.
And I have to admit she is one lucky lady.
Along with working with the likes of Firth and Geoffrey Rush, she can sing, act and dance, has an amazing set of pins, and is enduring and genuine.
And if that is not enough reasons, when she calls you darling, you can't help but like her.
Her latest show, Legs 11, is a feel-good, musical biography of 25 years in the spotlight, set to a inspiring and fascinating backdrop of songs and stories that shaped her childhood, adolescence, early career and recent times.
Ms Burchmore shares the journey; from the makeshift dance studio her dadI built on the veranda of the family home, to her first "disastrous" television appearance on the Mike Walsh Show at the age of nine, to the school eisteddfods where she honed her love of performing, to Her Majesty's Theatre in Sydney and London's West End.
In her Legs 11 repertoire, she has included songs from some of the favourite shows she has starred in, including Sugar Babies, Hot Shoe Shuffle, Stop The World I Want To Get Off, Annie Get Your Gun, Guys & Dolls, Into The Woods, Mame, The Drowsy Chaperone and Mamma Mia.
Songs include Birth of the Blues, What Kind Of Fool Am I, The Last Man In My Life, Dancing Queen and Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend.
"It was hard to kind of select which songs I wanted to do," she said.
"I have done it chronologically from when I started and songs that were associated with me when I was little, my first television appearance or eisteddfod.
"And then right through to some of the big shows from Hot Shoe Shuffle to Mama Mia and everything in between."
When it comes to her favourite moments on stage there are too many to count.
"I have never been more proud then when we got to London with Hot Shoe Shuffle, to perform a totally Australian show in London - that was pretty good," she said.
"There are moments all the time - Mamma Mia was like one big party.
"And then you have moments working opposite Geoffrey Rush - who I worked on a show called the Drowsy Chaperone. It was an honour to work with him."
More than just a music performance, in Legs 11 Rhonda sings and dances her way through each chapter of her career and takes a light-hearted look at the sometimes serious side of showbiz.
"There's much to be said about putting a smile on someone's face with a song, a dance, a joke or a bit of a theatrical business," she says.
Ms Burchmore said she was blessed with the response she had received for her show across the country.
"I have never got to places like Mackay to play - so that is my first time up there," she said.
"You know the people in places like Mackay, they don't get to the major cities to see a show, so it is nice we get to come to them to do what we do."
When it comes to her longevity in the industry, Ms Burchmore put it down to remaining humble and level headed.
"It is nice to be respected in the business and it is lovely that people come," she said.
"I hate those people who are too important for themselves to sign autographs or take photos.
"I always pride myself on being nice to the leading man, the fan to the stage door man," she said.
- When: Friday, March 23 @ 7.30pm
- Where: Mackay Entertainment & Convention Centre (Auditorium)
- Tickets: from $45, dial and charge on 4961 9777 or on-line at www.mackaytix.com.au


text:
Radiolab and NPR's brilliant video is more than a clever choreography of a play on words. It is a moving tribute to being alive. Keith Kennif's beautiful music is equally lovely.
A stunning film from Will Hoffman and Daniel Mercadante to accompany Radiolab's "Words" episode. With an original score by Keith Kenniff.
An interview with Harry Belafonte.
How everyday forms of touch can bring us emotional balance and better health.
READ NEWSLETTER: Getting Boys to Read, What Makes Students Successful?


text:
A term in a loan agreement that requires the borrower to pay off the loan immediately under certain conditions.
Acceleration clauses: an overview
- Introduction
- Interest and payment
- Invoking acceleration clauses
- Transfer and sale
- Waiver
- Home mortgages
- Related topics
- Additional sources
Acceleration clauses are terms in loan agreements that require the borrower to pay off the loan immediately if certain conditions are met. For example, most home mortgages have an acceleration clause that is triggered if the borrower misses too many payments. Acceleration clauses most often appear in mortgages, both residential and commercial. They also appear in some leases.
Interest and payment
When a lender invokes an acceleration clause, the borrower must immediately pay the unpaid balance of the loan's principal, as well as any interest that accumulated before the lender invoked the acceleration clause. The borrower does not, however, have to pay the full amount of interest that would have come due had the loan been paid off normally. For example, most loans allow the borrower to accelerate the loan and pay off the loan early in a single lump sum to avoid paying interest for the remainder of the loan's term.
Invoking acceleration clauses
Few acceleration clauses trigger automatically. Instead, after the conditions in the clause occur, the lender may choose whether or not to invoke the clause. Where a lender gains the right to invoke an acceleration clause due to a borrower's default, the lender may lose that right if the borrower corrects his or her default before the lender actually invokes the clause. In cases involving defaults for failing to make timely payments, tender is usually just as effective as actual payment at preventing the lender from invoking an acceleration clause.
Transfer and sale
Some mortgages have clauses that allow acceleration if the borrower sells or transfers the mortgaged property. These clauses are intended to protect the lender's security interest in the mortgaged property. Accordingly, some of these "due-on-sale" and "due-on-transfer" clauses only allow acceleration if the sale or transfer would impair the lender's security interest, or if the borrower fails to get the lender's consent in advance. These types of clauses may not be triggered if property ownership transfers because the borrower died and the property passed to his heirs. Due-on-sale and due-on-transfer clauses are regulated by the federal Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3(b)(1). The act only affects mortgages of real property.
Parties may waive their rights to invoke acceleration clauses by either express agreement or by inducing others to detrimentally rely on their behavior.
Home mortgages
Home mortgages' acceleration clauses are designed to trigger in situations where the mortgagee might want to foreclose on the mortgage. This allows the mortgagee to attempt to recover the entire unpaid value of the mortgage, not just the value of a few missed payments.
In some jurisdictions, borrowers in this situation may undo mortgagees' invocation of acceleration clauses and avoid foreclosure by making-up past-due payments and compensating the mortgagee for some or all of the costs associated with the borrower's default. In most of these jurisdictions, the key idea is that the borrower must put the mortgagor in the position it would have been in but for the borrower's default.
Home mortgages often include acceleration clauses that are triggered by failure to make regular payments, attempts to sell or transfer the land, failure to pay property taxes, failure to maintain proper insurance on the property, and failure to make payments on a separate mortgage on the same property.
Related topics
Additional sources


text:
Campus Ministry hosts Reverend Dowd
A multimedia presentation, "Sacred Science: Evidential Inspiration and Realistic Hope" with Reverend Michael Dowd will be offered at 7 p.m. Monday, Nov. 12, in McDaniel Hall Room 101 on the Adams State University Campus.
Dowd, "America's evolutionary evangelist," shows how a meaningful, science-based view of big history, human nature, and death can offer a realistically hopeful and inspiring vision of the future and help people live happier, healthier, more purposeful lives.
This program expands on a TEDx talk and program Dowd delivered at the United Nations, and draws on material in his bestselling, bridge-building book, Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World, endorsed by 6 Nobel laureates and other science luminaries, including noted skeptics and atheists, and by religious leaders across the spectrum.
Dowd is one of the most inspiring science-based speakers in America today. He and his wife, Connie Barlow, an acclaimed science writer, have spoken to more than 1,600 groups since launching their itinerant ministry in 2002. Their work has been featured in The New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Discover magazine, and on CNN, Fox News, and ABC News.
This event is aimed at an audience 17 years and older and is open to the public. Sponsored by United Campus Ministry at Adams State University.


text:
Open topic with navigation
This dialog displays to confirm that you have discarded changes made to an Element or page item . Discarding pages is permanent. CommonSpot first prompts you to confirm discard.
Related Links
You can download PDF versions of the Content Contributor's, Administrator's, and Elements Reference documents from the support section of paperthin.com (requires login).
For technical support:
Open topic with navigation