text:
This episode yet again advances the OFF-ISLAND storyline to get back to the Island. On the Island, we follow Jin's path to meeting up with the other "Left Behinders" and their quest to get to the Orchid. Drama, Death, and Comedy ensues. Let's dive in!
Oceanic "5" & Ben
We continue the story as most of the Oceanic 6 (no Hurley) are assembled with Ben. Sun, in her car, has gun in hand and is ready to put an end to Ben for good. The phone rings...
- It's Ji Yeon and Nanny (or Sun's Mom? I don't think it's quite important to the story!). Sun talks to Ji Yeon about meeting a new friend for her (Aaron). Funniest thing though, Ji Yeon is younger than Aaron but speaking much better than Aaron is! Maybe he's just a quiet kid. And I guess, in the scheme of things, they're only maybe 6 months apart in age. (Only estimating folks, no need to do the actual math!)
- You'd think this phone call might bring Sun back down to earth from taking someone's life, but when she gets off the phone she is more motivated than ever. Sun comes out of car, gun blazing and points it right at Ben. She blames him for Jin's Death. (stay tuned for my rant on how on earth did she find out Ben might be responsible)
- Ben, of course, is prepared for Sun and tells Sun that Jin is very much alive and he has proof. He needs 30 minutes to take her to Mrs. Hawking for an explanation. They really did get us to trust Ben again starting last season and coming into this season didn't they? I guess we should've listened to Sayid! (more to come on this too!)
- Ben also mentions that this person is the same person that's going to help them all get back to the Island. Well, Kate is having none of that! She assumes Jack "pretended" to care about Aaron's well-being to get her back to the Island. She flips out gets in the car and screeches off. (Thanks to ABC promos, we know this delay on Kate's part doesn't look like it will last long. I really have to learn to stop watching them!)
- Apparently, Sayid wasn't in the know on what Jack's ultimate plan was either. Because he walked away and made threats to both Jack and Ben if he sees them again. I believe the exact words were "it won't be pleasant for any of us." Maybe some breakdancing neck snapping moves in their future? Ahh good times. So Sayid is another problem now.
- Jack and Sun continue on with Ben. Sun wants that information! Apparently the drive takes longer than 30 minutes which Ben responds to with his traffic comment. Man that dude cracks me up with everything he says.
- Jack apologizes to Sun for leaving Jin behind on the freighter. He says that everything happened so quickly and they should have waited for him. (and of course, neither of them brought up that they would've been blown to bits. Or would they have??? Jin wasn't!) When Sun asks why Jack is bringing this up now and if it's to get her to NOT kill Ben...Jack reflects his true feelings again for Ben. He's not happy with what Ben did to Kate (trying to take Aaron from her) and if Sun doesn't kill Ben, he will! Yeah Jack!!
- Van screeches to a half and Ben flips out. That man gets NO love and all he wants to do is help people! "What I'm doing is helping you! And if you had any idea what I've done to keep you safe, keep you're friends safe, you'd never stop thanking me!" Is he referring to all of the people he had Sayid kill on his way to the still unknown Economist (still suspected to be Charles Widmore)? Considering that's kinda what he told Sayid last season, it's probably a good assumption. Apparently, this is enough to convince Jack and Sun to keep following ol' Ben for now.
- Stay tuned until the end of the blog for the rest of this storyline!
We begin our Island story with Jin and Rousseau's crew. But what we witness throughout the episode is much more rapid flashes through time. Things are becoming critical for the "Left Behinders" and it races to an exciting climax by the episode's end.
Rousseau's Story
- First off, let me apologize that I messed up last week in naming Robert and Montaun. Apparently the Blonde haired guy is Montaun and Robert was the guy with black hair and Rousseau's husband.
- We start off with Montaun checking their transceiver and hearing the numbers transmission from the radio tower. That was pretty cool to hear that since old Rousseau told Hurley about it in season 1.
- Jin's English became much better since the freighter explosion. I guess when you're forced to speak it, you just start speaking it? Seriously...I was reminded of Hiro on Heroes learning English within 1 episode! But of course, later in the episode, he had trouble speaking again. I guess you have to look past this stuff. I just found it comical!
- Jin finds out that he has run into a crew that left Tahiti on 11/15/1988. Well, I guess Sayid was estimating when he told everyone the message was playing for 16 years, since they crashed in September of 2004. By the time Rousseau gets to that Radio tower, all of her people are dead (since it says it on the transmission "they're all dead"). But what's a few months I guess?
- Jin wants to find his camp because he's still confused of where/when he is. He wants to find his wife.
- Rousseau's crew wants to find the Radio Tower, which apparently Jin knows where it is (ummmm, he didn't go to the radio tower in season 3! oh well, we'll let it slide since they don't actually get there with Jin)
- Jin agrees to take them to the tower because he knows his way back to camp from there.
- On their way, we find out Rousseau is 7 months pregnant and that Robert wanted to name the baby Alexander if it was a boy. Rousseau was convinced it was a girl and it would be Alexandria.
- Oh right, and then ol' Smokey comes and kills Nadine! Jin tries to convince them of a monster, Montaun doesn't believe. They continue on. Eventually Nadine falls from the sky and Smokey uproots a tree. And in true LOST fashion, Jin instructs them all to RUN! (man, I how I've missed running in the jungle scenes!)
- And then, the moment we've all been waiting for. Finding out how Montaun lost his arm. I believe we did know it happened in the "Dark Territory" that Rousseau spoke of. But I guess we never knew that it was Smokey! Smokey inspects Montaun and then grabs him, and like Locke in season one, tries to drag him down one of his holes (which we still don't know where that goes!) Everyone tries to pull him out. And then Smokey wraps some smoke around Montaun's arm and yanks the rest of his body away from the arm. And the Montaun's arm goes flying! Woo hoo!!!! Sure, maybe some people were grossed out, but if you've been listening to Damon and Carlton (producers) for a few seasons on the podcasts, then you know that they found the whole story of Montaun losing his arm comical. It used to just be a line in the script to make Rousseau's character even more damaged. So when we see that arm flying, you just get the impression that the writers were loving every minute of it! I sure did!
- So why didn't Smokey try to rip Locke's arm off when Jack saved him from the pit of despair!?
- And when everyone goes into that hole after Montaun did they get him out? We don't see see him again in the next flash.
- Jin keeps Rousseau from going into the hole saying she needs to protect the baby. And of course she and Alex stays alive for 16 more years! (then that's it folks!)
- Oh, we finally get to see the Temple, first referred to in season 3 and where Ben sent Rousseau, Alex and Karl in season 4. (Why did Rousseau need the map then?) These are more ancient ruins on the Island signifying how old the Island is. There are more hieroglyphics on the temple. If anyone cares to translate, that would be fantastic!
- When Jin flashes, Rousseau does not appear to see the flash (similar to other episodes). She asks Jin what is wrong with him as he is holding his ears.
- Jin flashes to a time later than when he just was. Montaun's arm looks a little older!
- He goes back to the beach, sees that the Frenchies have set up a pseudo-camp. We also see Danielle's Music Box from season 1. You know, the one Sayid fixed when he was her prisoner.
- Jin comes across 2 dead bodies (the 2 Frenchies whose names we never learned) We can assume Rousseau killed them since she tells Sayid she killed all of her men. (but maybe not Montaun? We see no evidence that he's dead, but I doubt we'll see a one-armed man walking around the Island in the present day (if they ever get back to the present day))
- We see Rousseau with a gun pointed at Robert. She claims he has changed and that the monster changed him, made him sick. (hmmmm ANOTHER sickness? Were we wrong to assume it was time-related?) She claimed that he was no longer Robert.
- And if we can assume that Robert is speaking from Smokey's perspective, he states that it is not a monster but a security system for the temple. Hmmmmm Well what is it protecting? Ben's metaphorical magic box??! And yes, we know that Rousseau called the smoke monster a security system in season 1, so now we know WHY she did. We've also seen Smokey summoned by Ben in Othersville, which is NOT near the Temple. So, are we sure it's just guarding the temple?
- Anyway, long story short (too late!) Rousseau lowers her gun, and Robert tries to kill her with his gun. But the gun jams!!! Ahhh perhaps Fate or Time intervening again? Did Rousseau and Alex still have work to do on the Island? Rousseau raises her gun and kills Robert.
- She then sees Jin and accuses him of disappearing and that he is sick too. She shoots at him a couple times and then he flashes out of Frenchieville!
- So the big question on everyone's mind.....how does Present-Day Rousseau not recognize Jin? Well, I guess you could argue that it was 16 years ago, and she has gone a little crazy since then. You could argue that Jin's hair has grown out and looks totally different than he did in season 1. You could argue that Jin and Rousseau never really spent much screentime together. You could argue that the writers just decided now to put Jin in the past with her (probably true!) But I guess the bigger thing going on here is people from the future or present going back and interacting with people from the past. When Desmond goes to see Dan in 1996, present Dan does not recall that conversation until after Desmond goes back in time and does it. When Dan talks to Desmond in the past on the Island, Desmond gets the memory at a later date. Oh, and we're going to find out in a couple sections down, that Charlotte starts getting some memories randomly. I would think it has more to do with that!
- And thus, ends our history lesson with Rousseau and crew.
- The next flash finds Jin all alone but not for long. Sawyer holds a gun towards Jin's back. (Not knowing who it is). But the moment that followed was pure comedy Gold! Sawyer's excitement over seeing Jin alive was fantastic! He was totally confused, Jin speaks in broken English again saying he was in water. And Sawyer gives a great line "Well, whattya say!?" I try to avoid these in the actual blog posts but that deserves an LOL!
- Dan explains that the blast of the freighter must've blown Jin into the Radius of the Island. Hmmmm that's a bit of a stretch. And does this mean that it wasn't time for Jin to die yet? Was he fated to survive also?
- Sawyer explaining time travel to Jin was kinda priceless too!
- Looks like Charlotte knowing Korean has an advantage with Sun gone, because Jin makes her translate to Locke "How do you know Sun is alive?" So you know we never really talked about why Charlotte may know Korean. Is Dr. Chang Korean? Could he have possibly raised her as a child? Maybe that wasn't baby Chang but baby Charlotte in the season premiere? hmmm interesting. We'll get more into Charlotte's backstory in a minute.
- Locke told Jin he knows Sun is alive because he just knows and that she never should've left. He's going to leave the Island to bring them all back.
- And they continue down the yellow-brick road to the Orchid station.
- Dan and Charlotte share a moment about her speaking another language. Locke mentions not knowing how to leave the Island quite yet. And then they flash again.....and then again immediately after! Charlotte collapses, Juliet's nose is bleeding, and now Sawyers is too! oh boy! And why not Locke's? Wasn't he there the same amount of time as Sawyer?
- Charlotte starts talking crazy "Don't Let them Bring her back" in Korean and then English. "This Place is Death!" She then starts talking about what her mother would say if she knew she was marrying an American. (I'm going to have to re-check this scene later to hear exactly what she said...unless any friendly commenters want to post it!) They flash again. It's getting out of control.
- Update: Charlotte said "I know more about Ancient Carthage than Hannibal himself" This is modern day Tunisia where we know Charlotte spent time. Read all about it here!
- Oh right and then Charlotte says she loves Geronimo Jackson. (The made up Band that Lost has been pimping since season 2!)
- Dan says he's going to stay with Charlotte as the rest rush to the Orchid. When they say they don't know if the Orchid will be there, Charlotte chimes in "look for a well! You'll find it at the well." Hmmm, is she remembering something or is the Island speaking through her? (I'm leaning towards remembering considering what was to follow.)
- So the team splits up
Dan and Charlotte
- Charlotte confesses to Dan that she has been to the Island before. She was with the DHARMA Initiative. She moved away with her mother and never saw her father again. Her mother tried to convince her that her thoughts of the Island were not real. Charlotte became an anthropologist to find the Island. She's looked her whole life.
- The reason she begins to tell Dan all of this is because she remembered something (a sudden memory? hmmmmm kinda like Desmond?). A scary man told her something when she was little. She had to leave the Island and never come back. And if she did, she would die. Here's the kicker...she thinks that scary man was Daniel!!!! Woaaaa Wait a second. So even after Daniel tells everyone that you can't change the future, he tried anyway? Should we be looking into that? Clearly Daniel doesn't remember doing that yet, so it hasn't happened from his perspective yet. Where exactly are these guys going to end up when they stop their crazy flashing?
- Dan tries to tell Charlotte things are going to be okay and that he talked to Desmond at the hatch and that he's going to find his mother. Charlotte tells Dan "I'm not allowed to have chocolate before dinner" and then is gone. RIP Charlotte Staples Lewis. Will she be alive in an alternate future? Probably not, but I'm guessing we haven't seen the last of her!
Locke's Crew and the Well
Locke and crew journey on towards the Orchid and are at some point in the future where the Orchid exists but is run down.
- Juliet asks what the odds are that they'd be in a time where it exists. And then they flash to a time where it doesn't. Sawyer: "You had to ask, didn't you?!" Good times.
- Locke plans to jump down the well using the rope. He says goodbye to everyone and that he'd see them when he got back. (hmmm he knows he has to die! maybe he didn't want to alert them of his plan)
- Jin makes Locke promise to not bring Sun back. Locke refuses for awhile but then promises he won't try to find her. But what if she finds him? Jin gives his wedding ring to Locke and tells him to lie and say he died and washed ashore and was buried. I thought this was a perfect explanation for Sun's motivation to kill Ben until we got to the twist at the end of the episode! More on that in a bit!
- Juliet thanks Locke for doing what he's about to do (if it works naturally)
- As Locke jumps into the well, they flash again...Sawyer grabs the rope and they go to a time where the well no longer exists (or never did exist?) I guess because sawyer is holding the rope...it moved with them?
- Sawyer and crew fear the worst for Locke, but based on Juliet's "We can't help him now" I think they're holding on to some hope that he survived and isn't just buried in dirt!
- Meanwhile Locke falls quite a distance (we've seen him fall out of a building before!) and hits the ground in a familiar looking cave!
- He screams out in agony. We see a shot of his knee. Is that bone sticking out or did something stab him? Either way, it's nasty!
- While he lay there, we hear footsteps. The man grabs a lantern and it's none other than Christian Shephard!
- Christian says he's there to help him on the rest of the way. He also said that he told LOCKE to move the Island. And essentially that you should never listen to Benjamen Linus. Oh man, we've been duped again!! How on earth did I(we) not think of the simple fact that Ben wasn't the one that was supposed to move the Island? Well, we never heard what Christian exactly said to Locke. Locke had intended to move the Island, but then Ben took the job from him last minute. What on earth is Ben's plan? What would have happened if Locke initially moved the Island? Would he have left the Island? Would he have never flashed back to 1954 and told Richard to find him as a child? Would the Island have been saved and the show would be over? I'm very confused by all of this. But we have to be a bit worried about Ben's motivations again.
- Christian tells Locke to go see Eloise Hawking. Wow, everyone needs to go see this crazy woman! So if he does go see her, and she is working with Ben...then maybe they all ARE playing for the same team? Again I'm confused! Widmore freely sent Desmond to Hawking too!
- Locke tells Christian that Richard told him he had to die. Christian says "I guess that's why they call it sacrifice" Hmmm..."Christian" talking to Locke about sacrifice? How he needs to die only to come back to the Island and potentially be ressurrected? Tough not to see the similarities there!
- Locke asks Christian if he can help him up. Christian says that he can't. Hmmm...so then he is a Ghost? Or can he not interfere with Locke's destiny? How did Charlie slap Hurley? Was it a dream, was it real? Yikes.
- Locke limps towards the Donkey wheel which is spinning all out of control. (could this represent the unstableness of the Island and/or the "Left Behinders?" Christian says all the wheel needs is a little nudge.
- Note that the area is not as Frozen as we last saw it. What's that all about? And how did Ben know it would be cold the time that he went?
- And of course, he tells Locke to "tell my son hello" When Locke asks who his son is, it's too late, as he had turned the wheel and was leaving the Island! Will Locke tell Jack that his Father has been giving him instructions?
- And when will we meet Jacob? We know Christian can speak for Jacob but isn't actually Jacob. I was under the impression that maybe Jacob is Locke from the future. But then the producers made a comment like that in passing on the latest podcast. And well, if they're talking about it freely, then it's probably not the case! Well, stay tuned!
Meeting Eloise Hawking plus a Very Special Guest!
Ben and crew arrive at the church, and Ben is ready to unveil his proof to Sun that Jin is alive.
- Ben reaches into his pocket and pulls out Jin's ring. He tells Sun that John gave it to her.
- Love the Jack/Ben exchange: Jack "You said John never came to see you?" Ben: "That's true Jack, I went to see him!" Ahh good ol' Ben.
- Okay, maybe this is all going to get cleared up in episode 7 when we get the Jeremy Bentham saga, but in tonight's episode we had a few twists into how Sun gets the motivation to kill Ben. First, I thought Locke wouldn't find out Jin was alive before he left the Island (wrong!), then Jin tells Locke what to tell Sun if they run into each other (well that apparently didn't happen either!). Sun asks why Locke didn't tell her himself. Ben says he doesn't know and that maybe he didn't get the chance. I could see maybe Locke still going to Sun but being instructed by Ben to convince her that he caused Jin's death. But then it wouldn't explain Sun's question to Ben. Oh well, it would seem by all the twists in this subplot, the writers have thought it out, so we'll find out in 2 weeks! (maybe)
- For now, Sun is on board to go back to the Island and get to Jin (but what about Ji Yeon???)
- Did I mention Desmond showed up too? Nice! Ben is shocked to see him. And when Desmond asks if he's looking for Faraday's mother too, Ben actually looks like he just learned something new. Oh boy, where is Penny?? Is Ben planning to go back with the others? Or is he going to go after her? Can Ben even go back? He told Locke once you leave the Island you can't go back. But he also lied about needing to be the one that moved the Island. Plus, they're planning on bringing Locke back (it sounds like in more ways than 1 too!)
- By the way, as if we didn't know already, this episode pretty much confirms that Ms. Hawking is Faraday's mother. And confirms her name is Eloise (the same name as Dan's Rat). And probably confirms that "Ellie" 50 years ago is in fact Eloise Hawking. CRAZY!
- Anyway, the 4 of them go into the Church and Eloise Hawking is waiting for them. Desmond looks at her as if he's seen her before (well duh!! The ring shop in his time traveled past!).
- Eloise is concerned that not everyone is there. Ben says this is all he could get on short noice. She says this will have to do for now. And then one more cliffhanging line "Alright! Let's.....get started!"
Sorry for the delay with the blog everyone. I was having technical difficulties this morning and you know until people start paying me for this, the day job takes precedence! Hope you enjoyed my ramblings and I look forward to discussing with eveyrone! NAMASTE and see you next week!


text:
Seach an up to date list of all homes for sale in Broadmoor, a neighborhood of Seattle, WA. If you would like more information on any of these Broadmoor homes for sale, just click the "Request More Information" button when viewing the details of that property. We can provide you with disclosures, past sales history, dates and prices of homes recently sold nearby, and more.
And, if you haven't already, be sure to register for a free account so that you can receive email alerts whenever new Broadmoor real estate listings come on the market.
© 2024 MySeattleHomeSearch. All Rights Reserved.
Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | DMCA Notice | Listings Site Map | Site Map

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Some guy says Nokia will abandon smartphone biz. Media has nothing better to report on.
As we're starting to return to full steam here at Windows Phone Central from the holiday season, we need to evidently begin reporting on the stupid again (thankfully it's not more Android-Nokia rumors). This time Forbes online contributor Tristan Louis is "predicting" that Nokia will exit the hardware business this year and sell off their assets to Microsoft and/or Huawei.
No evidence is provided, mind you. Not a single "unnamed source" or even the tried and tired "people familiar with the matter" go-to device for reporting on irresolute rumors. And if you're scratching your head at who Tristan Louis is or why you should care about what he writes, you're not alone as we've never heard of him either (he's evidently an "entrepreneur", which we think means something along the lines as "guy with money").
We have no idea why this story is getting any traction at all. Louis, as far as we know, has no solid track history in this area for prediction. In a quick poll of the editors of Mobile Nations (iMore, Android Central, CrackBerry), none of us have ever heard of him. That of course doesn't mean he's wrong, we're just not sure why his opinion here has any more merit versus some guy on the street...
Then there is the Forbes Online thing. Forbes the magazine has a distinguished name and is the go-to source for a lot of business orientated news. Forbes Online, on the other hand, is kind of like a playground for random tech news, superficial enquiries and wannabe techies. Some of the straight reporting is okay but the predictions and analysis are often third-rate, at best. This is one of those instances. (For another example you can read their travesty of a "review" for the Lumia 920, an embarrassment of tech journalism).
Now before we run the bus over Tristan too much, we should note the he's just making a prediction here for 2013. It's a guess and it's not like he's even link-baiting with his article's title. In that sense, we'll cut the guy some slack.
The danger here is in the rest of the tech media taking this as something worth re-reporting on. It's not. And it's dangerous to treat it as legitimate news but we're already seeing this being passed around mostly because the name "Forbes" carries with it pre-ordained authority. It shouldn't. And sites who give air to this should be ashamed.
What are Nokia's plans for 2013 and beyond?
A legitimate question is asking what shape Nokia will be in for 2013 and going forward. Towards the end of January, Nokia is expected to give their financial report where we can finally judge how well the company is doing with the Lumia 920 (and their other Lumia phones). The news could be really good, bad or somewhere in between. Our bet is on conservative and we believe Nokia will have done well but it is still too early to break open the Champagne.
Get the Windows Central Newsletter
All the latest news, reviews, and guides for Windows and Xbox diehards.
Going forward, we see no reason why Nokia will retire from hardware and become a straight services company. That's not to say this is not a viable option for them at some point in the future, as surely they are positioning themselves heavily in services—but everyone is trying to do that too. HTC, Samsung, Apple, Google are all cross-branching into new areas. Google bought Motorola for hardware, Apple is heavily going "cloud", Samsung has Bada/Tizen…etc. It's clear that in order to compete in 2013, you need to have your toe dipped in every aspect of the mobile world
We suppose if things become dire at Nokia, they will have various options for restricting the company. Heck, Palm did the whole "split" thing years ago breaking into separate hardware and software companies (it's also considered to be one of their worst mistakes). But as of right now, there's nothing signaling that Nokia planning on doing anything like that in the near future. Their hardware, especially the Lumia 920, is being praised by just about everyone in the business and even consumers are finally being wooed back to Nokia and to Windows Phone.
In conclusion, there is nothing to see here with this prediction. Our confidence level on this is practically zero as the source behind it is just not someone who is considered a talking-head in the Microsoft-Nokia world of tech journalism. So let's just move on and see what happens later this month.
Source: Forbes Online; via BGR; Thanks for everyone who sent this is…we think
Daniel Rubino is the Editor-in-chief of Windows Central. He is also the head reviewer, podcast co-host, and analyst. He has been covering Microsoft since 2007, when this site was called WMExperts (and later Windows Phone Central). His interests include Windows, laptops, next-gen computing, and watches. He has been reviewing laptops since 2015 and is particularly fond of 2-in-1 convertibles, ARM processors, new form factors, and thin-and-light PCs. Before all this tech stuff, he worked on a Ph.D. in linguistics, watched people sleep (for medical purposes!), and ran the projectors at movie theaters because it was fun.


text:
James McDonald (1-1, 7.11) vs. Josh Geer (0-0, 4.91).
- Welcome home, Dodgers, says Eric Stephen of True Blue LA. Just check your speaker volume before exploring Eric's post.
- A win tonight would "almost certainly" give the Dodgers their first perfect April at home, writes Jon "I know Alyssa" Weisman at Dodger Thoughts.
- Who is Josh Geer? Just another rookie pitcher...the Dodgers haven't seen before. Uh-oh. (I know it's not Geer's first major league start, but still.)
- Scott Elbert has been optioned to Double-A Chattanooga, presumably to make room for Cory Wade, writes Tony Jackson.
- Going to tomorrow's game? Ready your Elvis costume: The theme of the post-game fireworks show is "Vegas Night" (this guy can wear the same outfit!).
More roster moves, via Dodger Thoughts:
The Dodgers purchased the contract of Jeff Weaver and activated Cory Wade, while optioning Blake DeWitt to the minors. Doug Mientkiewicz was transferred to the 60-day disabled list.


text:
What's It Wednesday #41
Hubby and I loved sitting on the bench in the middle of the water fall. It was the best seat in the house.
I have a weakness for beautiful gingers. If only mine were this luscious.
Sebastian ready to play in the cold river water and waterfalls. |


text:
In short:
Village Antiques is a unique European antique store situated close to Memorial Villages, Houston, Texas. The 7700 square foot space [...]
My surprising prediction, the next 10-year color trend
How I got "un-stuck" with my goal-setting
My Gift Guide Revealed
This year's must have holiday decor
How to design tabletop decor for now thru the New Year
Custom Holiday Runner Workshop
How to design a guestroom your holiday visitors will adore
Holiday Unveiling at Village Antiques
A huge lesson I learned over the past 3 years
It's almost time!
The 2 weird trends about to take over
Tick-tock…we're about to reveal a special surprise!
My Secret 4-Step Approach to Decorating Rooms Fast
I want to leave him
It was a dream come true…until disaster struck
Three pieces to look for at flea markets (My secret list!)
this helped me finish 4 spots in my home
Royal style, 3 easy ways to get it
4 ways to get a quick a summer update
the key 4 elements of my style and how you can use them
I'll never forget that day
Bare Walls?
How to Design a Beautiful Home Office (Case Study)
how this inspired what I'm putting behind my sofa
That's it. I'm done with the clutter.
I've waited too long for this
sweet somethings…a very special gift for you inside
I said goodbye to my guest room and never looked back
a secret tool to peace-of-mind in my home
make your map
My secret weapon to 100X results
setting your home resolutions? start here…
Family Album
Blueprint to professional holiday designs in just 1 hour
Secret holiday gift guide revealed
Christmas in April and…Vegetables?
unexpected holiday floral trends, an easy Dec project
Thanksgiving ready checklist inside…
what you need to be holiday ready [workshops almost full]
what not to pass up when antiquing
Early bird notice: Will you be at our Holiday Unveiling?
The hottest trends from Paris to Houston
How to Create Flawless Fall Décor Workshop
Are YOU Ready For Saturday? Don't forget this…
The guaranteed way to crush every design project
I'm bringing it ALL back from Paris (except the llama)
makeover furniture & do good
Lose furniture during the storm? We want to help you
what now?
not what I expected
happy this is back in style
bookshelf styling guide – as seen on tv
August workshop dates
summer reading in style (and a secret confession I made on TV)
it's classic for a reason…
antiques in the kitchen?
finding a rough diamond
summer workshop dates
my summer crush
a beautiful new trend
A Patio All Your Friends Will Envy
June Workshops
A design trend I'm crushing on
This is one of my best-kept secrets. Plus a free gift!
The question I get asked all the time…
How to Pull of Mismatched Nightstands
How to get unstuck
The party went on until 2am
A Secretary Makeover You Won't Believe
My way to beat the taxman blues (with black)
Insider Secrets to Fast-Tracking Your Home Project in 2 Weeks
My last "cold-weather" makeover…how I did it in less than an hour
Spring Break Workshops
5 FREE Ways to Bring Joy Back Into Your Life
How to Pull off a Pinterest-Worthy Art Wall
See My Results For This CRAZY Bedroom Makeover Challenge
My Secret Love Letter To You (and Favorite finds)
How to Makeover Your Sofa…with Paint!
Slacking on your home resolutions? Read this…
3 Tips to Organizing Bookshelves
Design Styles to Watch in 2017
My Unconventional Goal Setting System
97% of people don't achieve their resolutions – here's why…
5 Mins to Festive. Do this easy project today
My 3-minute Christmas tree challenge
The last 4 paint workshops for the year, don't miss out
Decorating 101: 3 Key Exercises to Kickstart Any Design Project
Need Thanksgiving inspiration? Read this…
It's here – our most coveted workshop of the year
This will only take a few minutes but make sure you do it
LAST CHANCE To Reserve Your Spot For The Fall Décor Workshop
This weekend, two design workshops you don't want to miss
Are you free on Friday Nov 4th?
4 Simple Swoon-Worthy Fall Decorating Ideas
3 hands-on workshops coming up
Going to Round Top? Here's a Not-So-Typical Shopping List
My secret weekend project revealed…
When is the best time to buy furniture?
How to become a master furniture painter; Good news & bad news
Did you see my front page article in the Houston Chron?
Our Store
Village Antiques
1200 Blalock, Suite 350
Houston, Texas 77055
Tuesday - Saturday 10am to 5pm
t: 713.468.3931
f: 832.202.2691
Search for:


text:
Yankees - 000 200 010 - 3 7 1Lester was on (7-4-2-2-7, 103) and the bats socked it to Burnett in the third.
Red Sox - 015 120 00x - 9 10 0
J.D. Drew singled to start the second, moved up on a wild pitch, and scored when Marcus Thames misplayed Jeremy Hermida's fly ball to deep left. RBIs in the third came from Drew's sac fly, David Ortiz's double, Adrian Beltre's double (2 RBI), and Hermida's single. Kevin Youkilis doubled home Dustin Pedroia in the fourth. In the fifth, after Beltre doubled again, Hermida belted a dong (#4) to right.
Manny Delcarmen allowed three singles and a run in the eighth and Tim Wakefield threw a perfect ninth on 10 pitches.
Oakland's Dallas Braden pitched a perfect game against Tampa Bay this afternoon -- the 19th in history -- so the Red Sox gained a game on the FKR.
A good day.A.J. Burnett / Jon Lester
Lester's last three starts: 0.44 ERA, 20.2 innings, 10 hits, 1 run, 23 strikeouts, 8 walks. ... Keep doing that.Scutaro, SS
Pedroia, 2B
Martinez, C
Youkilis, 1B
Drew, RF
Ortiz, DH
Beltre, 3B
Hermida, LF
McDonald, CF


text:
By HOLBROOK MOHR
Itawamba County Sheriff's Department deputies finish inspecting a home and property in the Ozark community, northeast of Tupelo, Miss., Thursday, April 25, 2013. The officers were looking for Everett Dutschke, a person of interest in connection with the investigation into the recent ricin-laced letters mailed to President Barack Obama and others. No charges have been filed against Dutschke and he hasn't been arrested. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)
SALTILLO, Miss. (AP) — A Mississippi man whose home and business were searched as part of an investigation into poisoned letters sent to the president and others has dropped out of sight in order to escape the news media spotlight, but is cooperating with authorities, a friend and his attorney said.
Everett Dutschke, 45, had his home and former business in Tupelo, Miss., searched in connection with the letters, which allegedly contained ricin. They were sent last week to President Barack Obama, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi and earlier to an 80-year-old Mississippi judge, Sadie Holland.
Charges were initially filed against an Elvis impersonator but then dropped. Attention then turned to Dutschke, who has ties to the former suspect and the judge and senator.
Dutschke (pronounced DUHS'-kee), who previously had kept in touch with reporters from The Associated Press, did not answer or return calls to his cellphone Thursday, a day investigators spent searching a different home where he had spent time a day earlier about 20 miles from Tupelo.
He just needed to get away from all the news media attention, his friend Kirk Kitchens told the AP. "I just helped him get out of the spotlight," Kitchens said at his home in nearby Saltillo.
Kitchens said he and Dutschke stayed at a home for a while Wednesday before slipping out through the woods to rendezvous with someone who drove Dutschke elsewhere.
Earlier in the week, as investigators searched his primary residence in Tupelo, Dutschke had remarked to reporters, "I don't know how much more of this I can take."
Dutschke has not been arrested or charged in the letters case. The FBI has said nothing about the building searches or Thursday's developments. Dutschke's lawyer, Lori Nail Basham, said there is no arrest warrant for her client, who she said continues to cooperate with investigators.
Investigators spent much of the day Thursday investigating the second home as a plane circled overhead. Earlier in the day, Itawamba County Sheriff Chris Dickinson said agents told him Dutschke had been under surveillance, but authorities weren't sure where he had gone.
The case has taken a couple of twists and turns since charges were initially filed last week against Paul Kevin Curtis, 45, an Elvis impersonator, but then dropped after authorities said they had discovered new information. Curtis' lawyers say he was framed. Attention then turned to Dutschke, who has ties to the former suspect and the judge and senator.
Hal Neilson, another attorney for Curtis, said the defense gave authorities a list of people who may have had a reason to hurt Curtis, and Dutschke's name came up. He said prosecutors "took it and ran with it."
Dutschke and Curtis were acquainted. Curtis said they had talked about possibly publishing a book on an alleged conspiracy to sell body parts on a black market. But he claimed they later had a feud.
Judge Holland is a common link between two men who have been investigated and both know Wicker.
Holland was the presiding judge in a case in which Curtis was accused of assaulting a Tupelo attorney in 2004. Holland sentenced him to six months in the county jail. He served only part of the sentence, according to his brother.
Holland's family has had political skirmishes with Dutschke in the past.
Her son, Steve Holland, a Democratic state representative, said he believes his mother's only other encounter with Dutschke was at a rally in the town of Verona in 2007, when Dutschke ran as a Republican against Steve Holland.
Holland said his mother confronted Dutschke after he made a derogatory speech about the Holland family. She demanded that he apologize, which Holland says he did.
Steve Holland said he doesn't know if his mother remembers Curtis' assault case.
Associated Press writers Emily Wagster Pettus and Jeff Amy in Jackson, Miss., contributed to this report.


text:
Are you looking for stationery shop around you
We have the answer to your question around your location and any city. Our site offers you the best results near your location for stationery shop. Today with NearMe.City you can easily find your destination stationery shop around you without wasting time.
Click on the position in the map to have the direction towards your destination and if you are looking for the telephone number, the address, the opening or closing time, click on Enlarge the map for have all the information on stationery shop near me. NearMe.City is the best solution to save time, money and of course fuel.
Follow our site for the other places closest to you.


text:
1To keep the law is to make many offerings;a
2whoever observes the commandments sacrifices a peace offering.
3By works of charity one offers fine flour,*
4and one who gives alms presents a sacrifice of praise.
5To refrain from evil pleases the Lord,
and to avoid injustice is atonement.
6Do not appear before the Lord empty-handed,
7for all that you offer is in fulfillment of the precepts.b
8The offering of the just enriches the altar:
a sweet odor before the Most High.
9The sacrifice of the just is accepted,
never to be forgotten.
10With a generous spirit pay homage to the Lord,
and do not spare your freewill gifts.c
11With each contribution show a cheerful countenance,
and pay your tithes in a spirit of joy.d
12Give to the Most High as he has given to you,
generously, according to your means.
13For he is a God who always repays
and will give back to you sevenfold.e
14But offer no bribes; these he does not accept!
15Do not trust in sacrifice of the fruits of extortion,f
For he is a God of justice,
who shows no partiality.g
16He shows no partiality to the weak
but hears the grievance of the oppressed.*
17He does not forsake the cry of the orphan,h
nor the widow when she pours out her complaint.
18Do not the tears that stream down her cheek
19cry out against the one that causes them to fall?
20Those who serve God to please him are accepted;
their petition reaches the clouds.
21The prayer of the lowly pierces the clouds;
it does not rest till it reaches its goal;
Nor will it withdraw till the Most High responds,
22judges justly and affirms the right.i
God indeed will not delay,
and like a warrior, will not be stillj
Till he breaks the backs of the merciless
23and wreaks vengeance upon the nations;
Till he destroys the scepter of the proud,
and cuts off the staff of the wicked;
24Till he requites everyone according to their deeds,
and repays them according to their thoughts;
25Till he defends the cause of his people,
and makes them glad by his salvation.
26Welcome is his mercy in time of distress
as rain clouds in time of drought.
* [35:1–26] Keeping the commandments of the law and avoiding injustice constitute sacrifice pleasing and acceptable to God (vv. 1–5). Offerings also should be made to him, cheerfully and generously; these he repays sevenfold (vv. 6–13). Extortion from widows and orphans is injustice, and God will hear their cries (vv. 14–22a). Punishing the proud and the merciless and coming to the aid of the distressed, he requites everyone according to their deeds (vv. 22b–26).
* [35:3] Fine flour, together with oil and frankincense, was a prescribed offering to God; cf. Lv 2:1–3.
* [35:16] Cf. Lv 19:15; Dt 1:17. The divine impartiality is paradoxical, for it is tilted toward the poor.
a. [35:1–5] 1 Sm 15:22; Ps 51:18–19; Is 1:11–18; Hos 6:6; Am 5:21–24.
b. [35:7] Ex 23:15; 34:20; Dt 16:16.
d. [35:11] Dt 14:22; 2 Cor 9:7.
e. [35:13] Prv 19:17; Mt 25:34–40.
f. [35:15] Sir 34:21–23; Prv 15:8; 21:27.
g. [35:15] Dt 10:17; 2 Chr 19:7; Jb 34:19; Wis 6:7; Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6; 1 Pt 1:17.
Copyright 2019-2024 USCCB, please review our Privacy Policy


text:
Recommend a Broker
Forex Reviews
Milton Markets
FP Markets
(Best Alternate)
At this time our best Forex broker in France is:
FP Markets
FP Markets: 500:1 Leverage
Get Started with Milton Markets!
Milton Markets France
Milton Markets is rated #228 of 988 for Forex Broker in France
Learn how our ratings are determined
Milton Markets Screenshot
While Milton Markets might offer online trading in France,
we will not recommend investing there
. It is one of the lowest ranking France Forex broker, with a rating of 5.5/10. You should avoid trading at any site rated lower than 7.5, because there are much better forex trading alternatives available for French.
At this time our best Forex broker in France is:
FP Markets
. If you are finding for an alternative to Milton Markets you should start there. To browse all of the best brokers available for you, see our list:
Forex Trading France
. If you choose to visit Milton Markets anyway,
is their website.
Best Alternate
in France for Milton Markets
Trade with up to 500:1 Leverage and 0 Spreads
Regulated and Licensed by CYSEC in the European Union
Over 10,000 Trading Instruments Available on MT4 or WebTrader
Claim a 100% Bonus up to $500 on Your First Deposit
Create Real Account
Practice for Free
FP Markets: Read the Review
500:1 Leverage - FP Markets!
Every France Forex Broker
#2 Rated
Best France Broker
Trade 40 major and minor forex pairs with ultra-low spreads
AI-powered trading tools including an economic calendar and auto-trading tool Capitalise.ai
Choose to trade with TradingView, MetaTrade 4 or 5
Weekly events and webinars allow you to connect with Eightcap's trading professionals
Create Real Account
Practice for Free
Eightcap: Read the Review
Lowest Spreads - Eightcap!
Every France Forex Broker
#3 Rated
Best France Broker
Trade with up to 1:1000 Leverage on the MT5 Platform
Fully Regulated with the FCA in the UK
Trade with Ultra-Thin Spreads - As Low as Zero Pips
Trade and Earn XM Points that can be Redeemed for Credit Bonus Rewards
Create Real Account
Practice for Free
XM: Read the Review
Get $50 Free - XM!
Every France Forex Broker
The current XM bonuses available differ depending on the country you reside in. To view the specific promotion available to you,
click here
Can I Trade Forex in France Legally
It is completely safe and 100% legal to for any France to trade Forex.
Each France Forex trading company listed in our top 5 is regulated by an authority such as the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) and is respectful of the law. We do not post links to any Forex broker that is illegal in France.
For more information read:
Is online Forex trading legal in France?
List of all France Forex Broker Reviews


text:
Top DUI Lawyers near you in Wyoming
Please click a city below to find qualified local Wyoming DUI lawyers.
Are you having Drunk Driving troubles? Put your worries to rest. Finding licensed attorneys in the state of Wyoming is easily found using our complete and comprehensive Wyoming Drunk Driving Attorneys directory. No matter what your concerns regarding Drunk Driving may be, you will be able to connect with attorneys in Wyoming who can help. These Drunk Driving Attorneys will offer sound advice and counsel allowing you to make a more informed decision and take command over any of your legal affairs. Find your attorney today.


text:
This Product Is No Longer Available
Kevin Plank, a former University of Maryland football player, founded Under Armour® in 1996. Along with co-founder and former teammate Jordan Lindgren, Plank began the business in his grandmother's basement in Washington, DC. Today, Under Armour is recognized as the originator of performance apparel -- gear engineered to keep athletes cool, dry, and light throughout the course of a game, practice, or workout.
As a player, Plank got tired of having to change out of the sweat-soaked T-shirts he wore under his jersey, but he noticed that his compression shorts stayed dry. This was Plank's inspiration to make a superior T-shirt that would provide compression and wick perspiration off an athlete's skin, rather than absorb it.
Under Armour performance apparel is designed to work with an athlete's body to regulate temperature and enhance performance. Advanced innovation has allowed the company to expand its product line to include training gear for athletes of all types. In addition to the signature shortsleeve T's, compression T's, and tech T's, Under Armour produces running shorts, workout pants, tank tops, compression shorts, capri pants, hoodies, and lightweight jackets. Under Armour products are catered to both men and women, including the popular "Escape" and "Catalyst" clothing lines.
The engineering behind Under Armour's famous moisture-wicking technology is complex, but that hasn't stopped athletes around the world from embracing the company's gear and apparel. "Heatgear" and "Coldgear" are specially-designed product lines that allow athletes to maintain top performance, regardless of weather conditions. Under Armour has established itself as an industry leader in workout clothes, yet the company continues to strive forward under the mission of providing technically advanced products engineered with superior fabric construction, exclusive moisture management, and proven innovation.


text:
This is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. I'm Michel Martin. Coming up, rising gas prices, rising insurance costs, and rising payroll taxes - Happy New Year, middle class. We'll talk with NPR's senior business editor Marilyn Geewax in just a few minutes about all the things that are squeezing the middle class right now - as if you hadn't noticed.
But first, we wanted to talk again about efforts to keep Americans safe from gun violence. Earlier this week, President Obama was in Minnesota for a campaign-style event to push his gun safety plans. And he also talked about some of the work that the Senate is doing on the issue.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Democrats and Republicans in the Senate are working on a bill that would ban anyone from selling a gun to somebody legally prohibited from owning one. That's common sense. There's no reason why we can't get that done. That is not a liberal idea or a conservative idea. It's not a Democratic or Republican idea. That is a smart idea.
MARTIN: Now, the Senate is controlled by the Democrats, which is, of course, the president's party, but now this week came the first sign of bipartisan cooperation in the Republican-controlled House. On Monday, a bipartisan group of House members - two Republicans, two Democrats - introduced a bill of their own that would make it a federal crime to knowingly buy or transfer a firearm to someone who isn't supposed to have one.
Joining us now to talk about this is one of the bill's sponsors. Congressman Elijah Cummings is a Democrat. He represents Maryland's Seventh District. That includes parts of the city of Baltimore. Congressman Cummings, thank you so much for joining us. Welcome back to the program. And I would be remiss if I didn't say congratulations on the Ravens' Super Bowl win.
REPRESENTATIVE ELIJAH CUMMINGS: Thank you very much. And Michel, it's good to be with you.
MARTIN: On a much more serious note, I think a lot of people are surprised to find out that it is not already a federal crime to knowingly transfer or buy a gun to somebody who's not supposed to have one, especially a convicted felon or especially with the knowledge that that person intends to use it to commit a crime. Any idea why it isn't already a crime?
CUMMINGS: I don't know. That's a good question. It is a giant problem, a loophole, and it's one that anybody who wants to make sure that the laws are effective and efficient and, you know, we're in a position for those laws to do what they're supposed to do, it seems like they would want the kind of legislation that we're talking about here.
MARTIN: As we mentioned, your district includes parts of the city of Baltimore which certainly has a long experience with violent crime, including violent crime involving guns. How significant a part of that crime problem, in your view, is this phenomenon, as we said, of people transferring guns to people who aren't supposed to have them?
CUMMINGS: Oh, it's a major part. And a perfect example is a case that recently took place in Oakland - of course an urban area. They discovered that they were coming up, Michele, with all these guns at crime scenes that were coming from a rural part of Georgia. Come to find out there was a gentleman who was a convicted felon who had gotten his girlfriend to straw purchase guns for him.
Sixty-four of them in the course of about two and a half months. They then sent those guns from rural Georgia to Oakland and they were being sold and distributed by gang members there. So you know, you take 64 guns and you place them in a city and the police then begin to find those guns at crime scenes, and those kinds of things are happening all over the country.
What we're trying to do is say to that person, say, for example, in this instance, the girlfriend, that instead of perhaps a slap on the wrist and getting probation if she were to do that, based on local laws, we want a federal law saying that she would get 20 years. And we're also beefing up the straw purchaser law, saying that people would also be subject to a 20-year penalty if they were to purchase a gun for a known felon.
MARTIN: Do you have any concern at all, though - this is something that has been articulated a lot in connection with the so-called war on drugs, on efforts to address the problem of illegal drugs, that a lot of people feel, and kind of the burden of law enforcement has really fallen upon the small fish and not the big fish, that a lot of the laws that are intended to catch the big fish really don't have that effect, that they actually wind up falling heaviest and having the heaviest impact on people who are not the so-called traffickers. Do you have any concern that that could be the same thing here?
CUMMINGS: Yeah. Of course I'm very sensitive to that, Michel, having lived in the inner, inner city of Baltimore for the past 32 years. But I think this is a little different. I mean we're talking about somebody who literally goes out and tries to violate the law by purchasing a gun for somebody who's already a convicted felon.
And I don't think that there will be just members of minority communities who will be subject to this. In other words, I think you'll see a wide diversity of people who will come, sadly, under this law and be subjected to this penalty of 20 years.
And you know, the other thing we've got to do - keep in mind is guns. You know, people use guns to kill. As you probably well know, my nephew was slain a year and a half ago. And Michel, I've got to tell you...
MARTIN: We talked about it. Yes, I do remember.
CUMMINGS: Yeah.
MARTIN: I'm so sorry, again, for your loss.
CUMMINGS: And there's nothing, there's nothing like seeing your blood splattered on a wall and seeing brain matter on that wall and that person was just a 20 year old wonderful kid, honor student at a university. And so when Sandy Hook came up, it just, you know, brought all that back up for me. And a lot of people are saying, well, Cummings, this is just a limited law.
You ought to be doing more. And perhaps we should be doing more, but this is something that we've gotten Republicans and Democrats to agree on. And this is some fresh news just for you, Michel - a lot of people don't know this yet - but we're announcing today three more Republican sponsors to our legislation. And that's very significant.
Michael Grimm of New York, Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Peter King of New York. And this may very well, Michel, be a breakthrough with regard to some of the other gun legislation. And by the way, this is something that police and prosecutors are begging for. They're not asking for this law; they're begging for it. Because they want to be more effective in their jobs.
MARTIN: Well, to that end, though, Congressman - the story of your nephew is a story that's been repeated all over this country...
CUMMINGS: Yes.
MARTIN: ...for too long, as we've discussed.
CUMMINGS: Yes.
MARTIN: And people in law enforcement have been asking for quite some time for these kinds of measures. Why do you think it is that you and your colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had such a difficult time understanding each other on this issue or getting to common ground on this issue?
CUMMINGS: You know, I think that the National Rifle Association has spent so much time putting it out on the airwaves that folks are trying to take away the guns of sportsmen and collectors and people who simply want to protect their homes and hunters, that - and they seem to be putting that word out and saying that, you know, anything that has to do with guns and any kind of restrictions, any kind of laws, is going to take away their Second Amendment rights.
And nothing could be further from the truth, particularly with regard to this piece of legislation. And I think just people having a fear - and we hear these arguments all the time, Michel, that people think that at some point maybe government may not be doing all it needs to be doing, and they may have to protect themselves because government may fail to protect them.
And we hear those things. And so at some point, though, there has to be a breakthrough. And Sandy Hook, I think, really caused a lot of people to look at some of these arguments. And going back to your question, looking at - and then begin to look at each other and say, you know, whether you're a Republican, a member of NRA, or a Democrat, saying wait a minute, hold it; these are our children. You've got, you know, 20 children shot, some of them as many - 11 and 12 times at close range and you can't even identify the bodies looking at their faces, some of them. Wait a minute. Where are we going? And so I think maybe - you know, I often say that - and when my nephew died I said the same thing - I said death is a part of life, but sometimes life is a part of death. And what I mean by that is that sometimes it causes us to think and change our ways, and I think this is a critical moment, Michel, where that dialogue finally may come to a point where both groups begin to listen to each other, and that's why this legislation is so significant, in that we sat down with some of our Republican colleagues and we listened to each other.
And you know what, Michel? We did not concentrate on what we disagreed on. We concentrated on what we agree on. And we said, OK, you know, we'd love for you to do some other things, but let's try to make something happen. Because the thing that we feared most, Michel, was that we would concentrate on what we disagreed on and we would end up doing nothing.
MARTIN: Congressman, before we let you go, I did want to ask you one more question about an issue that's on a lot of people's minds today. President Obama has proposed another short term solution to try to avoid these across-the-board spending cuts...
CUMMINGS: Yes.
MARTIN: ...that will come to pass if there is not an agreement on deficit reduction. And he seems to be meeting a lot of resistance from House Republicans on this issue. And also Republicans in the Senate. Republicans in general, let's just say. So where does the debate go from here? Do you see any opportunity for common ground on this issue?
CUMMINGS: I think that we, at some point, will move to some type of common ground because I think the Republicans don't want to see our economy shrink, and we've already seen some indication of that from the GDP of the last quarter.
So we've got to - I think the public will dictate, Michel, a lot of what happens from here. I think the president is going out there and laying out the case, laying out a possible solution to the problem. But I tell you, when we start losing jobs at a pretty good clip, I think people are - and when people feel that that situation is threatened - and businesses, by the way - they don't want to see this sequester go through. I think businesses and the public will put enough pressure on the Republicans to at least have them sit down and come up with some kind of a temporary solution to the problem so that we avoid sequester.
MARTIN: Congressman Elijah Cummings is a Democrat who represents Maryland's Seventh District in the U.S. House of Representatives, and just by way of information, I do want to mention that we did reach out to your Republican cosponsors on this bill and their schedules simply did not permit them to join us today. And he was kind enough - Congressman Cummings was kind enough to join us from the studios on Capitol Hill.
Congressman Cummings, thank you so much for speaking with us.
CUMMINGS: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.


text:
Password Police Cite Evernote Mistakes
Evernote used the wrong security method to store passwords, cryptography experts say. Unfortunately, it's a common error.
Anonymous: 10 Things We Have Learned In 2013
Anonymous: 10 Things We Have Learned In 2013 (click image for larger view and for slideshow)
Cryptography warning: Knowing how to secure passwords remains tough. Really tough. As in: Businesses should seek ultra-professional help whenever they approach password storage.
More evidence of that fact came to light this week with the announcement from online note-taking service Evernote that attackers had breached its systems and stolen email addresses, usernames, as well as hashed and salted versions of customers' passwords. As a result, the company opted to proactively reset all 50 million users' passwords, and apparently did so before attackers were able to use the stolen data to access any accounts. Furthermore, Evernote says it will accelerate plans to offer users optional two-factor authentication.
Those may be strong measures, but then time wasn't on Evernote's side. Notably, Evernote used the MD5 cryptographic algorithm to secure its passwords, despite numerous security experts saying that MD5 isn't fit for that purpose -- no matter how well it might be salted. That's because MD5 is a cryptographic hash designed for quick data verification, which makes it child's play for an attacker to compromise through brute-force guessing. "When you can do five billion [guesses] per second on one GPU [graphics processing unit], the salting doesn't make that much of a difference," Adam Caudill, a security consultant and software developer, told Ars Technica. "You need something else, something like bcrypt, scrypt, or PBKDF2 to slow things down so you can't do 5 billion [guesses] per second."
Caudill's reference to password hashing refers to the fact that websites don't store encrypted copies of passwords. Instead, they need to run the password -- after adding random data called a salt -- through a one-way cryptographic password hashing algorithm that produces a hash value, which gets stored. The original copy of the password is then discarded. Whenever a user later enters their password into a website or application, the input gets run through the password hash, and the resulting hash is compared to what's been stored. If they match, it means the password entered by the user is legit.
When Evernote CTO Dave Engberg was presented with criticism in 2011 that using MD5 wasn't a secure way to handle passwords, in response to a blog he'd posted about Evernote's security architecture, Engberg disagreed, saying that "we salt the passwords with a large random value, but the MD5 flaws aren't really relevant to internal password storage," and noting that "the hashed password is never exposed outside of our data center." Except, of course, if attackers breach Evernote's website or database and steal them. At that point, MD5-hashed passwords are trivially easy to crack.
Cryptography may be sexy, but password security too often remains an abstract concept -- until it's too late. As Mozilla software engineer and architect Ben Adida noted on Twitter, "Evernote story is critically important in one respect: security doesn't matter until all of a sudden it does, and then it *really* matters." Indeed, once attackers come calling, any password-implementation failure can facilitate a complete password-security compromise.
More confirmation that password security is routinely mishandled abounds. In June 2012, for example, both LinkedIn and Last.fm disclosed breaches in which attackers obtained their users' passwords, which the sites hashed using SHA1 and no salt. In the case of LinkedIn, of the 6.5 million password hashes obtained by attackers, they'd reported being able to quickly crack 163,267 of them, and were hard at work on the rest.
In January 2012, meanwhile, Zappos warned its 24 million customers to reset their passwords, warning that their personal details and account information, including passwords, had likely been stolen by attackers. But the company said the passwords had been stored "cryptographically scrambled" -- a phrase that security experts dismissed as marketing-speak. A Zappos spokeswoman, however, declined to specify exactly how the passwords had been secured.
"Nobody gets this right," password expert Thomas H. Ptacek, a security researcher with Matasano Security, told security reporter Brian Krebs last year. "I think it's a problem of generalist developers writing password storage systems. They may be good developers, but they're almost never security domain specialists."
What's the problem? "In LinkedIn's case, and with many other sites, the problem is they're using the wrong kind of algorithm," Ptacek said. "They use a cryptographic hash, when they need to use a password hash." Cryptographic hashes are designed to secure environments in which data must move at ultra-fast speeds, for example with IPsec, which encrypts individual packets. In those situations, latency isn't tolerable.
But when it comes to password security, some latency -- even if only measured in milliseconds -- is acceptable, because it means that even if it slightly slows a website's password-verification process for users, it can completely deny an attacker's attempt to decrypt stolen passwords.
"For data integrity, fast algorithms are preferred to allow quick verification," said security architect Brian Keefer (aka Chort) via email. "For password storage there needs to be [a] defense against offline cracking, which means the algorithm needs to be slow."
For attackers, "if you make a password hash take longer, that's murder on them," Ptacek said.
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like


text:
NEW YORK — Johnny Manziel and Manti Te'o are in position to make Heisman Trophy history.
Manziel, the redshirt freshman quarterback from Texas A&M, and Te'o, Notre Dame's star linebacker, along with Kansas State quarterback Collin Klein, were invited Monday to attend the Heisman presentation ceremony.
Manziel is the favorite to win college football's most famous player of the year award on Saturday night in Manhattan. He would be the first freshman to win the Heisman and the first Texas A&M player since halfback John David Crow won the school's only Heisman in 1957.
"I'm overwhelmed by this tremendous honor of representing Texas A&M, the 12th Man and all my teammates in New York," Manziel said in a statement. "This is a dream come true for me, and I know it's a credit to all my coaches and teammates. I definitely wouldn't be a Heisman finalist without my teammates and coaches."
Three sophomores have won the award (Tim Tebow in 2007, Sam Bradford in 2008 and Mark Ingram in 2009), but the best a first-year player has ever done is second.
As a redshirt freshman, Manziel attended A&M last year and practiced with the team but did not play.
Nicknamed Johnny Football, Manziel quickly became a national sensation this season, putting up huge numbers in first-year Texas A&M coach Kevin Sumlin's spread offense. He led the 10th-ranked Aggies to a 10-2 record.
With a knack for improvisation, Manziel racked up an SEC-record 4,600 yards of total offense, including 1,181 rushing to lead the conference. The 6-foot-1, 200-pound Manziel zoomed to the front of the Heisman race on Nov. 10, when he passed for 253 yards and two touchdowns and ran for 92 yards as the Aggies upset then-No. 1 Alabama 29-24 in Tuscaloosa.
Manziel and Texas A&M will play No. 12 Oklahoma in the Cotton Bowl.
Te'o is trying to become the first defense-only player to win the Heisman. The Fighting Irish have seven Heisman winners, tied for the most with Ohio State and Southern California.
Te'o became the face of the No. 1 team in the country and leader of a defense that has been the toughest to score upon in the nation. The senior intercepted seven passes, second-most in the country and tops for a linebacker. He also led the Fighting Irish with 103 tackles, and earlier Monday won the Butkus Award as country's best linebacker.
Te'o and the Irish face No. 2 Alabama in the BCS championship game on Jan. 7 in Miami.
Klein would be the first player from Kansas State to win the Heisman.
"I'm just honored with this opportunity that the Lord has provided me here at K-State," Klein said in a statement. "I'm so proud to represent K-State in this because I feel like my road is very synonymous and in line with the K-State way. It has been a process, it has been a journey. There have been a lot of ups and downs, as well as a lot of hard times and growing pains through it."
He seemed to be the front-runner for several weeks until Manziel's late push. When Klein threw three interceptions in the Wildcats' late-season loss to Baylor, Manziel moved to the front of the race.
Klein is a multitalented quarterback like Manziel, but with a different approach. The 6-5, 226-pound senior is a bullish runner who scored 22 touchdowns and threw for 15 more, while leading the seventh-ranked Wildcats (11-1) to the Big 12 title. Earlier in the day, Klein won the Johnny Unitas Award given to the top upperclassman quarterback in the nation.
Klein will finish his Kansas State career against No. 5 Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl.
Heisman finalists Manziel, Teo & Klein invited to ceremony
Professional Sports
Kansas State guard Markquis Nowell signs with Raptors
Kansas State star Keyontae Johnson continues his comeback story as NBA Draft pick
From Wichita to KU, and now NBA, Gradey Dick aims to rep Kansas well
Sam McDowell: How Patrick Mahomes has forever changed the game — and his legacy — in Kansas City


text:
Dear really, really overgeared plate DPS
16 comments:
- Unknown said...
but what if i get Halls of Reflection? Then im the douche who queued as tank to get a faster queue.
- June 19, 2010 at 10:19 AM
- Klepsacovic said...
"Sorry guys, I don't think I'm ready to tank this yet." Drop and now they're at the front of the line for a new tank. Who hopefully is not also a DPS.
The odds are low. - June 19, 2010 at 10:32 AM
- Gauss said...
I have successfully tanked all wrath heroics as fury in full dps gear in zerker stance. Without ever using any abilities you wouldn't use while dpsing. This includes Halls of Reflection.
Although in HoR it took 3 healers to do the wave event. Then 2 after that. - June 19, 2010 at 10:59 AM
- Anonymous said...
Should really clear that with the healer first; they need to know that you're not crit immune. But I've agreed to that many times, and it can be nice to have that much dps!
- June 19, 2010 at 1:20 PM
- Dwism said...
@gauss; then you havent really sucessfully done anything. All you've done is what some random shadow-priest could've done with enough healers.
- June 20, 2010 at 2:40 AM
- Gauss said...
I really don't think there is another class or spec that could hold the aggro off other dps classes in order to make it work. If there is I will gladly except the proof that it can be done.
The whole point of my project was to prove how easy heroics are when overgeared for them and how stupid fury aggro is. - June 20, 2010 at 11:04 AM
- iapetes said...
Are you kidding? A ret paladin can easily hold aggro. They do all the AoE dps a fury warrior can do, with righteous fury on to generate a ton of extra threat.
- June 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM
- Klepsacovic said...
Ret paladins, unlike fury warriors, have no increases to damage taken. We have no aggro reduction either, since that turns off if Righteous Fury is active, and then of course there's the aggro gain from RF. Seal of Command is like a cleave that costs no rage, and benefits from RF. With two pieces of t10, Divine Storm is effectively on a 3-4 seconds CD, which means loads of AoE damage. Crits mean Righteous Vengeance, which means holy damage, which means aggro multiplier.
- June 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM
- Gauss said...
A Ret pally doesn't normally DPS a heroic with RF active. Of course they could turn it on and do it, but that wasn't the point. It was to do everything as you would as if you were normally dpsing. No taunts, no tank buffs, no nothing. Just to show how stupid the current aggro situation is.
A ret pally is by no means close to in the same situation as a fury warrior is in regards to aggro issues. - June 20, 2010 at 2:54 PM
- Klepsacovic said...
If your goal was to show that fury warriors have aggro problems, you picked a terribly indirect way to say it, and a poor place. Just glancing at talents, you would seem to be 10% ahead of arms and only 20% behind the most common aggro reduction of 30%.
- June 20, 2010 at 8:29 PM
- iapetes said...
"A ret pally is by no means close to in the same situation as a fury warrior is in regards to aggro issues."
that isn't true either. - June 20, 2010 at 8:35 PM
- Gauss said...
How would it not be true? A ret pally can salv themselves and BoP to name two. Of course they could do these things to a warrior as well, but it would require a pally for the warrior to get them.
Heroic strike for some odd reason by Bliz causes a high amount of threat in every stance and every spec. For those unknown to DPS warrior rotation this is used basically instead of an auto attack. So even based on aggro reduction talents it is a stupid mechanic blizzard has yet to fix.
No other DPS class has such an ability which purposely casues a high amount of threat. - June 21, 2010 at 11:18 AM
- Klepsacovic said...
BoP doesn't actually remove aggro, it's a temporary invalid target. We'd be just as well off bubbling so we could at least keep attacking. While it act as an emergency save, it's no more effective in the long term than simply watching your aggro.
In a multi-target situation you'll be better off using cleave, which tends to be where aggro is mostly likely to be a problem, making the heroic strike issue irrelevant. On a single target, most tanks are generating far more aggro than they could possibly need, except in cases of extreme gear disparities.
So yes, on paper heroic strike would seem to be a major problem, but when you use it (single target) the tank has a huge aggro advantage anyway, meaning that in practice, assuming time is given for aggro and the tank isn't terrible, that aggro should not be an issue.
If you're somehow finding yourself aggro-capped, you may find it beneficial to switch some heroic strikes for cleaves, even on a single target. This was common back when aggro was a major limiter to DPS. - June 21, 2010 at 1:13 PM
- iapetes said...
basically what kleps said. It's only ever an issue in heroics with crap geared tanks, and in that case its as much an issue for a paladin as it is a warrior.
- June 21, 2010 at 6:58 PM
- Gauss said...
Well ya heroics is the issue and sadly just not when tanks have crappy gear. Whenever I see a tank from Ragnaros I try to make sure I am repaired before we start.
If my guild tanks couldn't keep aggro in raids on single target well that would be a different issue entirely. This of course doesn't include the times when hunters and rogues want to be an ass to me.
By BoP I ment it is a way to somewhat save yourself. Us warriors just die. Of course you could but it on a warrior and if he is clueless will probably think he is hacked or something.
Lastly, heroic stike is something that has been an issue for a long time and never been fixed mostly due to developers being lazy as it is something that has just become expected. - June 22, 2010 at 10:57 AM
- Anonymous said...
Heroic strike was created as a tool for tanks to convert excess rage to threat. It was justified in vanilla where tanking was the ONLY PvE endgame role for warrior (Fury and Arms trees existed for levelling and PvP only).
DPS warriors existed in the raids but where frowned upon as well as boomkins, shadow priets or elemental shammies. T1-T3 armor sets has bonuses only for tanking warriors, healing priests and shamans.
And if DPS warriors used Heroic Strike, it wasn't an issue because tanking warrior used the same Heroic Strike so they cancelled each other. :)
Today the Whirlwind is the primary threat culprit. It does too much damage for weak DK, bear and Pally AoE moves to keep up. Shockwave owns it completely but has 2x longer cooldown, so you're going to watch Omen. Maybe Howling Blast can keep up but are there frost DKs left? - June 24, 2010 at 8:26 AM
Post a Comment
Comments in posts older than 21 days will be moderated to prevent spam. Comments in posts younger than 21 days will be checked for ID.


text:
Hip Hip Hooray! It's Cary's Birthday Today!
Okay, actually Donkey Doodle Dandy (who is doing just fine, for those of you who have been asking) said the same thing he always says, "Hee HAW! Hee HAW! HEE HAW!" (yes, donkeys really say that) but everyone knew what he meant. And yes, this photo was taken today, and he's still wearing that incredibly ratty blue halter. (Kat, please don't faint.)
Don't know who Cary is? Click here to read her story--or to read it again if it's been awhile.
Dan has adored Cary since the first time they met (well, most of the time anyway).
Because life on the farm is full of the unexpected, we tend to shy away from making extravagant plans for holidays and other special occasions. Instead we'll end up taking an afternoon off, or cooking up a special dinner, or opening a bottle of champagne (or all three) simply because, as Joe likes to put it, "It's Tuesday." Or it's snowing. Or there's a full moon. Or the first tomatoes are ready in the garden. You don't have to look hard around here to find a reason to celebrate.
And so, in that tradition, Cary's birthday has been a rather quiet one. I spent some time poring over baby pictures, smiling and sniffling as I relived the past year. And several times during the day I went outside and just stood with Cary while she ate. Okay, okay, I stole some hugs and kisses, too.
There may not have been a lot of fanfare, but everyone definitely ate well, because today was officially Sheep Freedom Day. We've been warming up for it all week, as the sheep were already spending each day in a large fenced pen across from the barn. As I type this, though, 90 woolly beasts are outside and on the loose.
And while I have no doubt whatsoever that little foodie Cary (aka She Of The Always Empty Four Stomachs) would have taken a breather from frantically munching on sweet spring grass to eat a cake if I had baked her one, I opted instead to sneak her a bag of one of her very favorite foods--popcorn. She didn't inhale it in two seconds like she used to off the hardwood living room floor, but that was only because today it got stuck in between the blades of grass, forcing her to nibble on them as well, and that took a little longer.
For the most part, Cary adapted very quickly to life with a two legged mother. When she was very small, though, I would call out to her and she would often look at me in confusion. You could tell that her baby sheep brain was sending her mixed messages: This smells and sounds like your mother, but she should really be a lot shorter and wider and woollier.
As Cary grew up, my fears about her not learning how to be a real sheep went completely unfounded, and she slowly adapted herself back into the flock. It is truly amazing to watch animal instincts at work.
If somebody looked at Cary for the first time today, they would never be able to tell that she once had a badly broken leg. And if that somebody wandered among the sheep with me while they were out grazing, they would never be able to tell that, for a while, one of those sheep spent every waking moment of her life with me--working in the garden, lounging on the daybed in the living room, curled up at my feet while I sat at the computer. But I know, and Cary knows.
She's all grown up now, but once in a while, when she turns her head just so, like she did this afternoon, I can still see the baby in my little girl.
Happy Birthday, baby. It's been a year I will never, ever forget. And it's been wonderful to have shared it with so many of you.
Click here if you'd like to revisit some of the many previously posted Cary photos.
© Copyright 2007 FarmgirlFare.com, the award-winning blog where Farmgirl Susan shares stories & photos of her crazy country life on 240 remote Missouri acres.


text:
Sympathomimetics (Indirect & Mixed Acting)/MAOIs Interactions
This information is generalized and not intended as specific medical advice. Consult your healthcare professional before taking or discontinuing any drug or commencing any course of treatment.
Medical warning:
Very Serious. These medicines may interact and cause very harmful effects and are usually not taken together. Contact your healthcare professional (e.g. doctor or pharmacist) for more information.
How the interaction occurs:
When these two medicines are taken together, your body may not process sympathomimetics properly.
What might happen:
You may experience increased blood pressure, rapid heartbeat, seizures, or hallucinations.
What you should do about this interaction:
Contact your healthcare professionals (e.g. doctor or pharmacist) as soon as possible about taking these two medicines together. They may already be aware of this interaction and may be monitoring you for it. Do not start, stop, or change the dosage of any medicine before checking with them first.
- 1.Goldberg LI. Monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Adverse reactions and possible mechanisms. JAMA 1964 Nov 2;190(5):456-62.
- 2.Pettinger WA, Soyangco FG, Oates JA. Inhibition of monoamine oxidase in man by furazolidone. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1968 Jul-Aug;9(4):442-7.
- 3.Nardil (phenelzine sulfate) US prescribing information. Parke-Davis May, 2007.
- 4.Adderall XR (amphetamine) US prescribing information. Shire US Inc. April, 2015.
- 5.Marplan (isocarboxazid) US prescribing information. Validus Pharmaceuticals August, 2007.
- 6.Ritalin LA (methylphenidate hydrochloride) US prescribing information. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation June, 2021.
- 7.Focalin (dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride) US prescribing information. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation June, 2021.
- 8.Ramsay RR, Dunford C, Gillman PK. Methylene blue and serotonin toxicity: inhibition of monoamine oxidase A (MAO A) confirms a theoretical prediction. Br J Pharmacol 2007 Nov;152(6):946-51.
- 9.Peter C, Hongwan D, Kupfer A, Lauterburg BH. Pharmacokinetics and organ distribution of intravenous and oral methylene blue. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2000 Jun;56(3):247-50.
- 10.Parnate (tranylcypromine sulfate) US prescribing information. GlaxoSmithKline January 4, 2018.
- 11.Cuthbert MF, Greenberg MP, Morley SW. Cough and cold remedies: a potential danger to patients on monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Br Med J 1969 Feb 15;1(5641):404-6.
- 12.Smookler S, Bermudez AJ. Hypertensive crisis resulting from an MAO inhibitor and an over-the-counter appetite suppressant. Ann Emerg Med 1982 Sep;11(9):482-4U.
- 13.Mason AM, Buckle RM. "Cold" cures and monoamine-oxidase inhibitors. Br Med J 1969 Mar 29;1(5647):845-6.
- 14.LLOYD JT, WALKER DR. DEATH AFTER COMBINED DEXAMPHETAMINE AND PHENELZINE. Br Med J 1965 Jul 17;2(5454):168-9.
- 15.Krisko I, Lewis E, Johnson JE 3rd. Severe hyperpyrexia due to tranylcypromine-amphetamine toxicity. Ann Intern Med 1969 Mar; 70(3):559-64.
- 16.Boakes AJ, Laurence DR, Teoh PC, Barar FS, Benedikter LT, Prichard BN. Interactions between sympathomimetic amines and antidepressant agents in man. Br Med J 1973 Feb 10;1(5849):311-5.
- 17.Elis J, Laurence DR, Mattie H, Prichard BN. Modification by monoamine oxidase inhibitors of the effect of some sympathomimetics on blood pressure. Br Med J 1967 Apr 8;2(5544):75-8.
- 18.HORWITZ D, GOLDBERG LI, SJOERDSMA A. Increased blood pressure responses to dopamine and norepinephrine produced by monoamine oxidase inhibitors in man. J Lab Clin Med 1960 Nov;56:747-53.
- 19.Cuthbert MF, Vere DW. Potentiation of the cardiovascular effects of some catecholamines by a monoamine oxidase inhibitor. Br J Pharmacol 1971 Oct; 43(2):471P-472P.
- 20.Hornykiewicz O. Dopamine (3-hydroxytyramine) and brain function. Pharmacol Rev 1966 Jun;18(2):925-64.
- 21.GOLDBERG LI. MONOAMINE OXIDASE INHIBITORS. ADVERSE REACTIONS AND POSSIBLE MECHANISMS. JAMA 1964 Nov 2;190:456-62.
- 22.Kopin IJ. Biochemical aspects of release of norepinephrine and other amines from sympathetic nerve endings. Pharmacol Rev 1966 Mar; 18(1):513-23.
- 23.BETHUNE HC, BURRELL RH, CULPAN RH, OGG GJ. VASCULAR CRISES ASSOCIATED WITH MONOAMINE-OXIDASE INHIBITORS. Am J Psychiatry 1964 Sep;121:245-8.
- 24.O'Dea K, Rand MJ. Interaction between amphetamine and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Eur J Pharmacol 1969 May;6(2):115-20.
- 25.Eldepryl (selegiline) US prescribing information. Somerset Pharmaceuticals February, 1997.
- 26.Emsam (selegline) US prescribing information. Somerset July, 2017.
- 27.Azilect (rasagiline) US prescribing information. Teva Neurosciences Inc. June, 2020.
- 28.Phansalkar S, Desai AA, Bell D, Yoshida E, Doole J, Czochanski M, Middleton B, Bates DW. High-priority drug-drug interactions for use in electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012 Sep-Oct; 19(5):735-43.
- 29.Surmaitis RM, Nappe TM, Cook MD. Serotonin syndrome associated with therapeutic metaxalone in a patient with cirrhosis. Am J Emerg Med 2016 Feb;34(2):346.e5-6.
- 30.Skelaxin (metaxalone) US prescribing information. Pfizer Laboratories Div Pfizer Inc. January, 2024.
Selected from data included with permission and copyrighted by First Databank, Inc. This copyrighted material has been downloaded from a licensed data provider and is not for distribution, except as may be authorized by the applicable terms of use.
CONDITIONS OF USE: The information in this database is intended to supplement, not substitute for, the expertise and judgment of healthcare professionals. The information is not intended to cover all possible uses, directions, precautions, drug interactions or adverse effects, nor should it be construed to indicate that use of a particular drug is safe, appropriate or effective for you or anyone else. A healthcare professional should be consulted before taking any drug, changing any diet or commencing or discontinuing any course of treatment.


text:
By Geoffrey Manne and Berin Szoka
A debate is brewing in Congress over whether to allow the Federal Trade Commission to sidestep decades of antitrust case law and economic theory to define, on its own, when competition becomes "unfair." Unless Congress cancels the FTC's blank check, uncertainty about the breadth of the agency's power will chill innovation, especially in the tech sector. And sadly, there's no reason to believe that such expansive power will serve consumers.
Last month, Senators and Congressmen of both parties sent a flurry of letters to the FTC warning against overstepping the authority Congress granted the agency in 1914 when it enacted Section 5 of the FTC Act. FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz has long expressed a desire to stake out new antitrust authority under Section 5 over unfair methods of competition that would otherwise be legal under the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts. He seems to have had Google in mind as a test case.
On Monday, Congressmen John Conyers and Mel Watt, the top two Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, issued their own letter telling us not to worry about the larger principle at stake. The two insist that "concerns about the use of Section 5 are unfounded" because "[w]ell established legal principles set forth by the Supreme Court provide ample authority for the FTC to address potential competitive concerns in the relevant market, including search." The second half of that sentence is certainly true: the FTC doesn't need a "standalone" Section 5 case to protect consumers from real harms to competition. But that doesn't mean the FTC won't claim such authority—and, unfortunately, there's little by way of "established legal principles" stop the agency from overreaching.
The Conyers-Watt letter cites four Supreme Court cases (Aspen Skiing, Otter Tail Power, Lorrain Journal and Indiana Federation of Dentists), the latest decided in 1986, that deal only with the Sherman Act or that reference Section 5 only as the statutory basis by which the FTC enforces, indirectly, the Sherman Act. But what conduct does Section 5 allow the FTC to prosecute beyond the Sherman Act? The fifth case cited, Sperry & Hutchinson, from 1972, was the last time the Supreme Court directly addressed this critical question, holding that the FTC "does not arrogate excessive power to itself if, in measuring a practice against the elusive, but congressionally mandated standard of fairness, it, like a court of equity, considers public values beyond simply those enshrined in the letter or encompassed in the spirit of the antitrust laws." Yet, even there, the Court concluded the FTC would have prevailed under the Sherman Act—thus leaving unresolved what a standalone Section 5 case could cover. Fourteen years later, the Court dodged the question again in Indiana Federation of Dentists, noting that, although Section 5 covers something more than the Sherman and Clayton acts, the Sherman Act provided the sole basis for liability in that case. Of Section 5, the Court in Indiana Federation of Dentists said merely that "the standard of 'unfairness' under the FTC Act is, by necessity, an elusive one."
Elusive. Try telling that to your shareholders—or investors looking for The Next Big Thing—when asked how the FTC might regulate innovative business methods!
The FTC has been down this road before—starting with the same Sperry & Hutchinson decision cited by Conyers and Watt. The FTC interpreted that 1972 decision as a blank check to use its authority over unfair trade practices (distinct from, but related to, its authority over unfair methods of competition) to regulate everything from funeral parlors to children's advertising. But the FTC's overreach provoked widespread outcry, causing the Washington Post to blast the agency as the "National Nanny." The Democratic Congress briefly closed the agency, slashed its budget and, in 1980, ordered the Commission to establish legal limiting principles in the form of a formal policy statement on unfairness (followed in 1983 by one on deception). That statement bars the FTC from banning a practice as unfair simply because a majority of Commissioners decide it is "immoral" or in violation of public policy; instead the Commission must show that it violates public policy that is "widely-shared" and "clear and well-established" in law or that causes a substantial injury to consumers without countervailing benefits and which consumers cannot reasonably avoid. Congress enshrined this doctrine into law in 1994.
But the Commission has never issued any such policy statement about Section 5's unfair competition language—and Congress has never bothered to intervene, even though the FTC has begun exploiting this uncertainty as additional leverage in "convincing" companies to settle shaky antitrust cases. That's precisely what happened in the Intel case where, as we've explained, Intel settled a questionable complaint, probably because it concluded that that settling the case was less costly than litigating it. While such outcomes may bolster the agency's power, they do nothing to protect consumers and serve instead to chill business conduct that would benefit consumers.
That dynamic is a major reason why the FTC gets away with pushing the boundaries of its authority. Litigation in court is costly enough, but the agency can always threaten companies with an administrative "Part III" litigation—meaning the company would have to spend upwards of a year litigating before the FTC's Administrative Law Judge and then the full Commission, almost certainly suffering two losses, both PR disasters, before ever getting to an independent, neutral tribunal. So it's not surprising that most companies settle. Sure, they might win in court eventually, but if the FTC is talking to you about a standalone Section 5 case while pressuring you to settle a case in a consent decree… well, "you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
High-tech companies are particularly likely to find themselves the targets of Section 5 sabre-rattling. Cutting-edge companies are often antitrust test-cases because technological innovation goes hand-in-hand with innovations in business practices, from consumer pricing to "coopetition" partnerships between rivals. They're more likely to settle rather than litigate because they're terrified of squandering money, investor goodwill and management time on litigation—lest, like Microsoft, they fall behind their rivals even as they are demonized as rapacious monopolists in the press. At the same time, Internet-related cases tend to attract a unique degree of popular attention, driving antitrust regulators to show they're "doing something" about a perceived problem. Even the best regulators all too easily fall prey to the costly tendency described by Nobel economist Ronald Coase: "if an economist finds something—a business practice of one sort or another—that he does not understand, he looks for a monopoly explanation."
We can't wait for the courts to fix this problem—not least because the tendency for these cases to settle out of court means it may be a long while before any court gets the chance. At a minimum, Congress should insist that the FTC convene a public workshop aimed at identifying what a valid standalone Section 5 case could cover—followed by formal guidelines, as we've urged. If the FTC cannot rigorously define an interpretation of Section 5 that will actually serve consumer welfare—which the Supreme Court has defined as the proper aim of antitrust law—Congress should expressly limit Section 5's prohibition of unfair competition only to invitations to collude (which aren't cognizable under the Sherman Act).
As the FTC's policy statement on unfairness puts it, "[t]he Supreme Court has stated on many occasions that the definition of 'unfairness' is ultimately one for judicial determination." But for the courts to play that vital role in defining the "elusive," Congress may need to reassess how the FTC operates. That might start with requiring the agency to bring suit directly in federal court, just as the Department of Justice does. But it also means much more careful Congressional oversight of what the FTC does across the board. Otherwise, the Commission may once again, as it did in the 1970s, become a second national legislature—with three political appointees deciding what's "fair" for the entire economy, especially the high-tech sector.
[Crossposted at Forbes.com]


text:
Innovative Design, Custom Made Solutions, Unsurpassed Quality
A world of innovative kitchen ideas and inspiration awaits you at GT Kitchen & Bath. Open to the public as well as the architectural and interior design community, the Poggenpohl showroom offers full service kitchen design and installation – taking your dreams and making them a reality from conception to execution.
The kitchen is the centre of the home, and our philosophy not just to design kitchens, but to create rooms for living and enjoying.
Each and every one of our designs starts with a blank sheet of paper.
Before we create a design, we listen to our clients to know about their sense of style and colour, and how they want to use their kitchen and living area. Creating a Poggenpohl kitchen is a very personal process, and our focus is on creating the ideal solution for our clients.
Find your own inspiration in our showroom. In our unique studio atmosphere, we will prove that Poggenpohl attaches top priority to the combination of quality, innovation, functionality, and design.
Poggenpohl offers a wide variety of styles of kitchen cabinet fronts and finishes including wood veneers, lacquers, laminates, glass and more. From classic to contemporary. All sustainably green. Many surprisingly attainable.
Founded in 1892, Poggenpohl is the world's leading luxury kitchen brand.
Please contact us to schedule a complimentary design consultation or to learn more about frequent special events.
The team at GT Kitchens & Bath look forward to meeting you.
Contact Us
Vaughan, ON L4K 1Z8


text:
The U.S. Supreme Court is making decisions that should be left to Congress or the people, from wiretapping to "inventing" new classes of minorities, Justice Antonin Scalia said Monday.
In an apparent reference to the court's recent decisions on gay marriage and benefits for same-sex couples, Scalia said it is not the function of the courts to create exceptions outside the Constitution unless a majority of people agree with them.
"It's not up to the courts to invent new minorities that get special protections," Scalia told a packed hotel ballroom in southwestern Montana.
The Supreme Court earlier this year cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California and struck down part of a federal law that prevents legally married gay couples from receiving benefits. Scalia voted against the majority of justices.
Changes to the Constitution were made to protect minorities and to give women the right to vote, but that's not how the court operates today, he said.
Rather, a majority of five judges decide issues that should be in the hands of Congress or made through a change to the Constitution.
Questions such as National Security Administration surveillance of phone records or the privacy questions in the Patriot Act were once answered by Congress, which knows how serious a threat is compared to the intrusiveness of the surveillance. But now the courts are doing so.
"Of all the three branches, we are the one that knows the least about the nature of the threats to the country, and we have the least ability to find out about it," Scalia said.
Scalia spoke before more than 300 people in Bozeman in a gathering sponsored by the Federalist Society, which he helped launch more than 30 years ago to fight the perception of liberal bias at the nation's law schools. The group is trying to open a chapter in Montana.
Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, and his opinions have placed him among the most conservative justices on the bench.
It's the second time in three years the 77-year-old justice has spoken in Bozeman. In 2010, he gave a speech at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies.
Scalia answered some questions written by the audience, including a hot-button issue in Montana: the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms.
"What remains to be determined … appears to be the scope of the armament that people can keep and bear," he said. "Can they bear shoulder-fired rocket launchers?"
He said the court will have to take those cases as they come, but his approach will be to apply the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, which was not just in self-defense against animals and home intruders, but for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical leader.
Scalia dismissed the idea of term limits for Supreme Court justices, asking, "Who is drooling on the bench?"
He also called the notion of an imperial presidency "garbage," saying the presidency is weak by design and Congress holds the real power.
"Congress can do whatever it wants, if it gets its act together," he said.
He also was asked about the most wrenching decision since he's been on the bench.
"Well, is Obamacare too recent?" he asked to laughter.
Scalia dissented with the majority opinion that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul mostly intact.
Copyright © 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2013 Capitol Hill Blue