text:
When me and my husband decided to get pregnant it happened in no time at all, I am 34 years old and no one in my family had ever suffered preeclampsia. During my pregnancy I experienced no nausea at all and other than feeling sleepy the first trimester I actually felt very well. I had attended my doctor checkups every month and everything looked normal. Andy was developing normally and we were thrilled about having a baby boy. Mid February 2011 I went to my medical checkup and everything was just right; my blood pressure was 100/60 as I always had it and I was 22 weeks pregnant.
The following two weeks I started feeling tired again and I had experienced a bit of headaches. I thought it was pretty normal because I had bit more stress at work and I thought that my headaches and feeling tired were due to that. My clothes felt tighter than usual and I thought it was time to go buy maternity clothes. I went with a friend to try on different outfits and as I looked at myself in the mirror I saw myself so fat. I know that most women feel so fat and unattractive when pregnant and for me it wasn't any different. My face looked puffy and I disliked what I saw in the mirror, I just thought I should take a closer look at what I was eating and watch my weight more closely.
Sunday February 27th I went to bed feeling extremely tired and with a bigger headache, I took some Iboprofen and went to sleep. Then next morning I went to work feeling so tired... but as I mentioned before, I was under pressure at work, so I didn't think anything was wrong. Tuesday morning when I woke up I had a nose bleed. My husband asked me to lie down until the nosebleed stopped. I couldn't miss work that day either so as soon as my nosebleed stopped I got ready to go to work. Mid morning my husband called me (as he usually did) to see how I was feeling, but this time he asked me to go to the infermery and have my blood pressure checked. My husband is a doctor and I guess he got a bad feeling something was happening to me, I guess he suspected preeclampsia. When I took my blood pressure it was 160/100, and by the time he arrived to pick me up at work to rush me to the hospital it was already 180/110. When we arrived at the hospital my blood pressure had risen to 200/120!! My vision was blurry and I had a major head ache, but oddly I didn't feel that my life or my baby's life was at risk. I thought they would give me medicine to control my blood pressure an everything would be taken care of.
Sadly, the following day I didn't feel Andy move any more, my blood pressure was under control, so I thought, but things weren't going well. The radiologist took me to an ecosonogram. We could hear Andy's heart beat, but the doctor was very silent, that was when I knew things could go terribly wrong. Andy had not developed as he should in the last two weeks. Although he was 24 weeks he was the size of a 22 week old baby and the doctor explained that the levels of omniotic fluid had decreased.
I spent the following week at the hospital and on Wednesday March 2nd I was induced to labor. Andy was born on Thursday but he did not make it. I had been diagnosed with severe preeclampsia and HELLP syndrome, and as it appears and I had begun with symptoms right after my checkup. It really never occurred to me that anything was wrong when everything had appeared to be so right. I had to leave the hospital so sad, heartbroken, without my baby, my breast hurting from the milk I was producing and with no one to be fed.
Today two months after all this happened I am still taking medication to control my blood pressure, but the doctor had been lowering my dosis. They expect me to be off medication in about a month. When I think of my baby, there is still a big hole in my heart and in my soul. It breaks my heart when I see other pregnant women at work that were fewer weeks pregnant than I was, how their belly grows and as I get closer to what should have been my due date.
Walking into Andy's room and seeing the mural that I painted for him, putting his things away, seeing my friends with their babies. I feel so sad and unfortunate that my baby could not make it. I only hope that this pain goes away and that some day I can be blessed with a baby.
Heartbroken without Andy
A place for those bereaved to receive and offer support
- Registered User
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 11:49 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


text:
Click Here Now
And Take A Look At The Most Popular Sex Tapes You Can Download For
Only $1 At Babylon-X>>
Finally we
have got the Britney and Kevin sextape.
First he says there is a tape, then she says that there is a tape, then
she says that there isn't a tape. Then these tapes are leaked. Is it
Britney, is it Kevin? Are both tapes real or is only one real? Take a
look and decide for yourself!
Download Full Britney Spears Sex Tape Now
Plus thousands more famous nude celebrities - Get $1 FULL Access!!!!
Lindsay Lohan
Lindsay Lohan finally posed nude!
That's good news for many people, but our members have seen
Lindsay's tits, ass and pussy lots of times. It's welcome news but
it's not new, take a look at our members area and see the biggest
collection of Lindsay skin anywhere!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I mentioned I'd probably have more to say later. I'm not sure I'm really in the best frame of mind to say it right now, though. We'll see how this works out.
I'd never actually heard of Frightened Rabbit before this piece got posted, so I can't speak of Hutchinson's death from the frame of mind of a fan of his work specifically. I can speak from the framework of a person who has absorbed quite a lot of creative works, many of them quite emotionally bleak, and who has created a not insubstantial number themselves.
I've contended for a long time that the creative process generally requires both a narcissistic and an altruistic streak. (I'm speaking colloquially here; I'm not using "narcissism" clinically. I feel it necessary to clarify this because for most of the rest of this piece, when I use any other psychological term, I will in fact be using the clinical definition.) Narcissism, because showing a creative work to an audience is essentially saying, "look at me." Altruism, because the creator's hope in most cases is that the audience will enjoy or derive meaning from the work. A creator generally aims to enrich the world by creating a work of value or meaning. There are exceptions – people that go into creative fields purely because they want money and without any particular artistic aim, for example, or people who are purely hoping to propagandise for some hateful cause. But those exceptions aside, most creators have strains of narcissism and altruism.
These impulses are not easily balanced. And I can't speak for every creator, but on the whole, when inspiration strikes, I tend to feel almost compelled to follow my muse. In some media, there's an element of time; if you don't write down a musical or literary idea, you will tend to forget it. But even for media where ideas generally aren't time-sensitive – game development, for example – I tend not to feel satisfied until I get something working the way I want it to. It's as though there's a piece of me that's simply missing, and making my idea work restores the missing piece.
I've described this almost as a compulsion, and I am in fact a sufferer of psychological compulsions. I was diagnosed with what was literally described to me as "components of obsessive-compulsive disorder" around half my life ago. I should be clear that this is not full-blown OCD, and I don't actually completely understand what it means, but I don't feel compelled to count ceiling tiles or check to make sure my door is locked twenty times or repeatedly wash my hands. I do get smaller manifestations, though. When I was a child, I studiously avoided stepping in cracks in the sidewalk even if it required walking oddly. Tears in paper drive me insane (and I'm not using that entirely figuratively) – this has actually caused me occasional difficulty at work. I suspect that, when I feel compelled to work on creative works, it is a manifestation of the same psychology.
I agree completely with the Le Guin quote I posted above. There is some sort of romantic view of suffering as contributing to the artistic process. I don't find this to be the case at all; it's quite the opposite. In some of my past comments I've described a long nonfiction work inspired in part by a friend's Academy Award-winning film. I wrote the bulk of this (it currently sits at some 70,000 words; I once described it as an essay but I think it's already long enough to qualify as a book) in a stretch from mid-March to late April 2017. It's not remotely coincidental that I was uncharacteristically happy while I was working on the book. In fact, the moment I started suffering serious psychological disorders again, I lost my capacity to work on it, which is a large part of the reason I haven't yet "finished" it; in fact, for months it became almost impossible for me to write more than about five paragraphs at once.
(I idiosyncratically don't believe that creative works are ever properly "finished"; creators just decide that sinking additional time into the works is a waste of time compared to beginning new ones, but for lack of a better term, I'll use the commonly used one with scare quotes. I could go into this in much greater depth, but it's not relevant here.)
Eventually, I regained my ability to write large amounts of text at once. On enough occasions over the past several months that I've lost count, I've started typing and, without really noticing, reached some 2,000 or 3,000 words within an hour or two. This has coincided almost perfectly with my psychological recovery. I'm not as well off now as I was when I wrote the bulk of my book, but I don't feel constantly miserable.
I'm not going to say suffering is entirely valueless. I've also gone into detail before about how I feel that facing meaningful consequences for failure is a necessary factor in developing a sense of empathy for others, and that it is also probably the most valuable teacher a person can have. I've heard "experience is the best teacher" stated before, but "failure is the best teacher" is probably a better way of stating it.
But, once again, this goes back to what Le Guin states above: "If it hurts, repeat it." There's a strain of society that actually believes this, and it's colloquially insane ("The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results," as the possibly apocryphal Einstein quote* goes). Yet a not insubstantial segment of society actually seems to think this is beneficial.
The thing is that in certain narrowly defined contexts this may be somewhat true, and it may be why artists have a difficult problem with psychological disorders. In order to truly master a creative discipline, you have to practise at it. A lot. And, by some definitions of the term, you're technically doing the same thing over and over, and eventually you will get a different result – you'll progress from an unsatisfying result to one you're at least marginally satisfied with.
But by a more accurate definition, you're not doing the same thing over and over; you're actually doing a similar thing more effectively. The distinction is subtle, but it's crucial. If every attempt to play "Flight of the Bumblebee" ended exactly the same as one's first attempt to play it, no one would ever learn it. And this goes back, once again, to why I feel failure is a crucial teacher. In order to learn to perform a difficult musical work (and to do numerous other tasks in life), you have to fail in many different ways in order to learn how to stop failing.
But our society's view of creativity is deeply destructive. We (I'm speaking collectively about American society; I think the viewpoint I'm describing is madness) romanticise the tortured artist, to some extent, but we're extremely hostile to failure. The entire fact that "loser" is colloquially used as an insult is indicative of what I would consider a pathology in American society.
And it's a pathology that has profoundly affected me. I've probably written before about how, when I've suffered depression, I've never suffered any form of denial about it; I just accepted it for what it was as soon as I realised it was affecting me. But when I was diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder, it took me years to accept that I even had the disorder, and decades to come to terms with what it meant as an identity issue. (And it is an identity issue; this is a matter I will address in great detail in my book whenever I finally feel satisfied enough with it to release it.)
While a number of possible explanations suggest themselves for this, the only one I read as plausible has to do with cultural attitudes I'd internalised to these disorders through my exposure to largely American popular culture. There was something romantic about suffering. There was nothing romantic about autism; it was the province of freaks and weirdos, and I had no visible role models in society proving it was possible to live a functional life with the disorder. (There are a few famous, successful people with the disorder, but I either didn't know who they were – e.g., Temple Grandin – or didn't know they had it – e.g., Dan Aykroyd.) So my brain outright rejected the idea that I could suffer the disorder.
As I've said, I lost some fifteen years of my life to this madness. And I'm not using this term colloquially; I was literally mentally ill. Depression is a mental illness in the most literal definition of the term; it's a case of the brain being too ill to perceive reality accurately. I failed out of my first college and lost scholarships totaling some tens of thousands of dollars, despite a perfect SAT score, excellent AP scores, and high enough grades to have made several honour societies. I did fantastically in high school; I was not remotely prepared for college. I spent most of the years 2001-2015 depressed, with the exception of a largely happy relationship that lasted for most of 2003-2005, and it was not romantic or rewarding or a source of personal growth. Depression actively worked against all of those things.
I didn't entirely waste those years – I would not be a tenth the writer I am without them, for example, because I learned how to express myself precisely enough that neurotypicals won't wildly misread my intended meaning – but I probably squandered about ninety percent of the opportunities that came to me during that time, because for an awful lot of them, I was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. With rare exceptions (my relationship being the main one, and few others past its dissolution in early 2006), I did little productive over that entire time period that didn't involve writing. I have little doubt that, if I'd had a healthier mental attitude for the past 17 years, I would by now be working as a programmer, as an IT security consultant, as a writer in Hollywood, at a game development studio, or at any of a number of other fulfilling occupations. My current occupation isn't unfulfilling, to be clear, but it's also about to disappear.
My mental illness contributed to my remaining in a job I hated for three and a half years longer than I should have stayed there. It led to my pushing far too many people I cared about away from me. It led to me entirely neglecting real-world friendships for over a decade. None of these things made me more capable in creative fields; in fact, I suspect they actively worked against my creative expression, because I have fewer experiences with in-person interaction than most people my age would have, and with writing in particular, knowledge of human nature is crucial to writing effectively. I could go on.
I would like to address something others have said about "enjoying" emotionally dark creative works. I think this is a point where our language fails us. There are numerous experiences we describe as "enjoyment" that are wildly different subjective experiences. Eating good food, being in love, listening to good music, experiencing an orgasm, giving another person an orgasm, engaging in an act of charity, seeing a respected high school classmate win the 89th Academy Award for Best Picture, and experiencing an emotional catharsis are, in some regards, all acts that most if not all well-adjusted human beings will derive enjoyment from. However, they are not at all the same; while some of them are similar, many of them are vastly different. But the same umbrella term, "enjoyment", in some regards applies to all of them.
And even under the same umbrella, there are very different types of enjoyment one can derive from seemingly similar acts. The enjoyment I receive from listening to a black metal album is very different from the enjoyment I receive from listening to a progressive rock album, which is one reason I listen to both genres. The enjoyment I derive from the song "Délivrance" by Alcest is very different from the enjoyment I derive from the song "Sur l'océan couleur de fer" by the same artist, despite their superficial musical similarities. (Note: despite Alcest's overall reputation as a metal artist, neither of these songs are remotely heavy; in fact, most people could easily sleep to either of them.) The latter is a profoundly sad song, whereas the former – well, its name is a cognate to English and it feels like its name.
Alcest - Délivrance
Alcest - Sur l'océan couleur de fer
But we describe all of these as "enjoyment" because our language is, it seems to me, very limited when it comes to emotional expression. The fact that we borrowed the emotion Schadenfreude from German seems fairly indicative here – we're talking about the Germans here. But the English are noted for their stiff-upper-lip approach, and there's a rather macho strain in American culture that disdains emotions as something not manly. As a result, we have dozens of terms for a given emotion that largely overlap, perhaps differing in intensity. Rage, anger, fury, wrath, ire, indignation, vexation, resentment, the list goes on. Some of them are stronger than others, but they all mean different degrees of the same thing. Yet indignation at a perceived wrong to oneself is a different thing entirely than indignation at a perceived wrong to a loved one, which in turn is a different thing entirely than indignation at a perceived wrong to others one has no personal connection to, but perceives as defenceless. And so on. We can arrive at some of these distinctions with modifiers, but the fact that we have to place the modifiers in speaks to me of a deficiency in our language as it relates to our thinking – because, as linguists have often observed for years, language often shapes thought in surprising ways.
So it is with enjoyment. The term can mean a number of different things, not always closely related. There would ordinarily be something pathological about saying that you derive happiness from the fact that another human being is suffering. It's understandable in the cases of particularly vile humans like the president*, but on the whole it's not the sort of thing a well-adjusted human being does. But there is something understandable about experiencing a creative work that expresses severely negative emotions – even depression or despair – and deriving strength from it.
I think part of it is the simple "you are not alone" factor. The fact that other human beings have experienced the same thing you have is… well, comforting. And when you express it that way, it sounds rather callous. But humans are social animals. We need to feel like we belong, and a profound emotional disturbance can shake that feeling from us. Experiencing a work like Blood on the Tracks or Shoot Out the Lights or The Downward Spiral or Closer or Pink Moon can help us realise that, no, other people have been down this road before as well, even if not all of them made it out. So the term "enjoyment" might get applied to these albums, because our language lacks a more appropriate noun to describe our emotional reaction to them.
I've spent a long time speaking generally about creative works, about the process of creativity, about psychological disorders, and about how they all can interact. I unfortunately can't speak specifically to Hutchinson's circumstances or to his own work because, as I said, I'd only just heard of him, and I haven't had the chance to get around to checking out his work. (I may do so tomorrow.) But many of these factors I've described are, I suspect, universal constants among creative works, among their creators, and among their audiences.
This was a long comment, and there was no particular reason I should have needed to write so many words. Yet I kept typing until I reached this point, because I wasn't satisfied until I did so. I am, in fact, extremely hungry right now. It's 11:15 pm right now. I last ate sometime around 3:40 pm. Yet the urge to finish writing this comment overpowered my biological urge to eat. I'd had thoughts floating around in my brain since reading Simon's piece, and until I wrote them down I wasn't going to feel satisfied. If I didn't write them down, I was certain to forget a large number of them, and then they would likely be lost to me forever. (My short-term memory is particularly unreliable lately due to psychological issues that aren't terribly relevant here.) The necessity to preserve these thoughts was, thus, more important to me than a basic biological necessity.
Such is the process of artistic creation. As I said, it often resembles a compulsion. Perhaps it often is a compulsion. In some ways, it can't ever truly be satisfied; as I said, you may frequently reach a point where you think it's no longer worth your time to work on a creative work, but it's very seldom you reach a point where you think it can't be improved at all. Often artists are their own harshest critics (or at least pretty high up on the list).
Perhaps, in this light, it isn't surprising that so many artists have such a cocktail of psychological disorders. I just wish our society were more understanding and supportive of them – we might romanticise the tortured artist, but we romanticise the myth of rugged individuality more, and we have a major stigma against asking for help, even when we need it. I think American society would be a lot better off if we focused more on that other feeling I was describing just now: "you are not alone".
I might go revise this further in a bit, but for now, the only other thing I feel it absolutely necessary to add is to reiterate McAllen's call for anyone who needs it to call a suicide hotline. A particularly unpleasant quirk of human psychology is that discussion of suicide can sometimes trigger suicidal thoughts in others. If you need help, there's no shame in asking for it – it would be a much larger shame to leave your friends and family devastated at your absence, because they will be should you choose to end your life.
*The earliest citations of the quote all appear to be linked to Alcoholics Anonymous, so it was probably actually originated by one of AA's key figures like Bill Wilson or Dr William Silkworth.
Your comment seems largely like a rhetorical rant and this thread is really moldy already, so Im not entirely sure how much detail you were expecting as a response, but I kind of just used your comment as a prompt to start writing, and it went much further than I was expecting (i.e., 4,750+ words). This seems to be a trend for my responses lately (its happened at least three times in about a week), so I think I can officially declare my writers block dead. And good fucking riddance.
(Im contemplating also posting this downstairs, since I think otherwise a lot of people will miss it, but then again, doing that might also annoy people whove already seen it, so I might not. Dear other jackals, please give me sage advice to decide for certain.)
In any case, I think one answer is that at least 1/3 of the country has locked itself into filter bubbles (look this up for further info if you arent familiar with it, but essentially it is a media infrastructure that results in a persons preconceived notions never being challenged. Id like to provide links, but I dont want to go into link prison). This was always a potential problem, but its worsened substantially as a result of first the right-wing puke funnel and secondly the Internet. (To be clear, the Internet has offered plenty of benefits to humanity, too, and on balance Im not sure Id be willing to conclude its been a net positive to humanity or a net negative; its honestly changed things so much that I still dont think weve come close to evaluating all the effects its had on us. Its certainly reduced the amount of book-length reading I do, for example, but I doubt that means Im actually absorbing less information, and I couldnt possibly evaluate what that means for my perceptions of the world. Now expand that to billions of people online and you see the problem.)
The central problem creating the filter bubble is has several causes, and I think Ill start at the biological level, as our perceptions and our memory are amongst the most basic causes. Simply put, both our perception and our memory are far more imperfect than most people generally realise. The human brain, simply in order to make sense of the world, filters out information it perceives as unimportant. This is necessary purely for us to concentrate as one banal example, we wouldnt be able to pick out a voice in a conversation in a crowded bar or restaurant if the brain wasnt capable of filtering out background noise. On the whole, this is a necessary survival tool and its beneficial that were capable of doing it.
But a major downside is that were not actually conscious at a biological level that it occurs. Most people dont even know this on an intellectual level, much less, for lack of a better term, feel it on an emotional one. (These words are crude, and perhaps there are better terms for them that I havent considered yet, but I consider it necessary to distinguish between a fact we have intellectual knowledge of and a fundamental understanding of the world to which we have deep emotional connections.) And this has deep implications for the way people comprehend reality: essentially, people are no more aware of their unconscious biases than a fish is of water.
This might be something of a digression, but for about six months Ive been dealing with a mental illness that severely damages my perceptions of reality. Its not that, for the most part, I dont perceive reality accurately. Im just
disconnected from it most of the time. Its as though things arent happening to me; theyre happening to someone else. I dont feel like a person most of the time; I feel like an actor performing my lines or, perhaps more to the point, a character in a novel (probably a poorly written, over-the-top Philip K. Dick pastiche). My recent memories feel distant, as though they were implanted from someone elses memories. Theres a veil separating me from reality. And so on.
At the same time, though, this isnt a psychosis; I maintain intact reality testing. Im fully capable of understanding intellectually that Im not actually a character in a bad PKD pastiche. But knowing this and feeling it are two separate matters. My symptoms arent actually as consistently bad now as they were a couple of month ago; I think a medication change has helped somewhat in this regard (the new one attempts to target anxiety rather than depression), and I think Ive gotten better at coping with my symptoms as well.
So, returning to the difference between knowing and feeling: Most people dont even know that they arent perceiving reality accurately (i.e., they dont know what they dont know), much less feel (or understand, if you prefer) the ways that their perceptions may be unreliable.
As a result, we (as a species) understand the world based on narratives weve constructed for ourselves based on unreliable perceptions. So in short, those perceptions are self-reinforcing. We subconsciously discard information we instinctively regard as irrelevant because weve already trained our subconscious to discard it as irrelevant. And I havent even gotten to the best part yet, which is our memory. Our internal narratives are based on our memories, and this is where things really get fun.
Theres this common conception in American popular culture that theres nothing more reliable than the testimony of an eyewitness. This is actually horrifically wrong in fact, eyewitness testimony is probably one of the least reliable forms of evidence a court will accept (not the absolute least, to be clear; some horrifying kinds of pseudoscience that ill-informed judges have admitted are probably worse. Probably). The primary reason the FBI has its agents write down memos about conversations they have with people they think might be liars lying isnt that they have a deep love of written records in and of themselves. People think of the human memory as essentially permanent, as something that crystallises into form like a diamond. But its actually the exact opposite; its a stream (or, if you prefer a sillier metaphor, Silly Putty). It is continually evolving and very malleable.
The simple fact is that the act of thinking about a memory changes the memory itself. This means that eyewitness testimony is, rather than being ironclad evidence, highly subject to tampering. (And really, that commonly used adjective, ironclad, is itself questionable. It might help to recall that iron, when sufficiently heated, is in fact highly malleable.) So its not just that weve constructed narratives for ourselves based on imperfect perceptions; and its not even just that what we perceive is affected by our previous perceptions. Its that what we even remember is actually affected by how weve perceived what we remember in the past.
If youve read my comments here, at LG&M, or elsewhere for a long enough period of time, you might notice that I usually hedge my words when speaking of things that occurred to me a long time ago. Im not using weasel words here (I value precision and dislike weasel words); I just dont consider my memories as reliable as most other people consider theirs. Even, or especially, memories that had deep formative meaning to me. In fact, the memories I have the strongest emotional connection to are usually the ones I trust the least, because Ive probably spent the most time thinking about them and thus, Ive changed them the most from their original forms. I havent kept a diary for most of my adult life (a decision Im coming somewhat to regret), so Im unwilling to attach perfect certainty to any formative events I dont have specific records of (photographs, emails, message board posts, whatever).
Im still sorting out the implications of what these observations mean even for my own life. Ive seen most of them made independently before, but to be honest, I havent yet seen an academic study or writing that really, to me, did justice to their implications when combined. But I already laid out what I consider the primary implication above, which I shall now reiterate: people are no more aware of their subconscious biases than a fish is of water.
However, even if the majority of people lack awareness of how deep-seated their biases are, or how much theyve allowed their personal narratives about the world to affect their thinking, there is still a large gulf in the amount of control people allow these narratives and biases to control their lives. Its a banal observation that politics in America are divided because of a fundamental difference in philosophical views about the world, but an often underappreciated contributor to this is that one of those worldviews fundamentally rejects empiricism and the scientific method, while the other does not.
This is not to say that liberals and the left are consistently good about science (they are just consistently much better than Republicans, which is so low a bar it might as well be a floor tile), but it has had clear effects on American politics regardless. A lot of people have probably forgotten this already because it happened two thousand years ago in 2016, but there was a news story indicating that the Macedonian teenagers who were writing literal fake news stories quickly abandoned the idea of trying to pitch them to Democratic-leaning audiences, because those audiences largely rejected them. This is not to say that there havent been any leftish groups who have swallowed false narratives (as one flagrant example, the entire Bern It Down contingent), but the proportion of liberals and leftists who were willing to swallow such nonsense was much lower than the proportion of reactionaries, fascists, and other Republicans. (With rare exceptions, several of whom I enumerate below, they dont deserve the label of conservative, which is a topic I may address further in another comment, though Im sure Ive already delved into it before, too.) Say something like 10-20% of the leftists and liberals were willing to fall for such stories, or even click on them; by contrast, the numbers were probably upwards of 50-60% for the Republicans. (Hedging my language because I havent seen the exact story in awhile.)
As far as I can ascertain, this is because the Democratic side has not abandoned the idea that there is such a thing as objective reality, and that we have tools to ascertain it. We accept that science and its conclusions have value, and because of this, our side seems likelier to employ its methodology. If nothing else, were likely to consider a source and evaluate how reliable it seems. As I will explicate later, this doesnt necessarily mean were any good at evaluating this, but on the whole, were at least still in the habit of trying. This is in direct contrast to Republicans.
Ive spent decades studying political science by now, and I have to confess that many aspects of the Republican mindset still confound me. But I at least have a vague understanding of the psychological processes that underpin it, and an awful lot of what were seeing (what the esteemed Charles P. Pierce memorably refers to as the prion disease that began when the party ate the monkey brains under Reagan) stems from the Republican Partys rejection of the scientific method and indeed, seemingly, even any acknowledgement that there is any sort of thing as objective reality. A thing that may have really gone down the rabbit hole, even though it was widely mocked for several years, is Karl Roves declaration in the mid-2000s that we create our own reality and mocked the reality-based community. Many would find it tempting to reduce this (and Democrats subsequent self-adoption of the latter term) to pat sloganeering by opposing political parties, but it genuinely represents a fundamental philosophical difference between the political parties. Democrats accept reality, and try to centre their worldview around it. Republicans are completely disdainful of it.
Its tempting to call the Republican Party nihilists, and indeed I have done so at times, but nihilism is at least a serious attempt to grapple with one of the fundamental human dilemmas namely, what humans are to do if there truly is no intrinsic meaning to life, the universe, or everything. (Theyre wrong, of course, as the meaning is clearly 42, but we still dont know what the question is; the results of this are for all intents and purposes identical.) I dont often agree with many conclusions of many philosophers who are commonly called nihilists (though, while were on the subject, Nietzsche wasnt a nihilist, nor was he an antisemite indeed, if anything, Nietzsche actually liked the Jewish people more than he seemed to care for the bulk of humanity), but at least they are making serious attempts to contribute to humanity.
The popular definition of nihilism, as memorably stated in The Big Lebowski, is We believe in nothink, Lebowski! Nothink! (Also queue at least its an ethos clip here; Im avoiding links so I wont put it in myself.) Republicans, however, cannot be fairly described as lacking beliefs. They may lack any fixed principles other than the three I commonly enumerate (Cleeks Law, IGMFY, and accuse opponents of all ones own failings), but they certainly believe, with all their might, in what they are doing, even if their belief ultimately becomes cyclical and centres back to the righteousness of their own cause. Put another way, my reading of the Republican Party cycles back to 1984:
Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.
This, however, doesnt provide a perfectly satisfying explanation to me, because it only explains the actions of their politicians. Perhaps the authoritarian followers get a vicarious thrill in believing that the leopards wont eventually eat their faces too, but I gained a much deeper understanding with a piece that ran in Scientific American shortly after the election.
The explanation rests in a poorly understood phenomenon known as blue lies. We all know and understand white lies: theyre lies to spare anothers feelings. We might even say theyre benignly intended (if not always benign in outcome). Children usually start telling these around age seven. Black lies are also easy to understand; theyre lies to benefit the self without concern for others, and children start telling these at a much younger age, possibly three or four.
Blue lies are in some ways a combination of these. Theyre lies to benefit an in-group at the expense of an out-group. This isnt a commonly seen idea in popular culture, and to be fair its definitely more complicated than the other two categories of lies. Reflecting this, children dont start telling them until age ten. We actually see these in plenty of places where its not really thought about much, though espionage, for instance. Theyre the only explanation that makes sense of the lies told by Trump and his followers (or for that matter, other authoritarian movements elsewhere in the country), and I think the reason theyve started showing up in our politics is because twenty-five years of right-wing hate media has convinced the Republican base that Democrats are an existential threat to the country.
So as a result, they dont even really care whether what theyre being told or what theyre saying is true. You can give as much evidence and reasoning as you care that Donald Trump has no intention of ever giving people the best health care, but they wont care first, because its a liberal telling them this, but also secondly, because if its necessary for lies to be told to stave off what they perceive as an existential threat, theyre willing to accept those lies.
And that is why, on my most pessimistic days, I despair of the fundamental divide ever being bridged. (And of course, since every accusation is a confession, the Republicans actually arean existential threat to the country, but with one exception which I explain in my next paragraph, I dont endorse lying in response to their lies that would just create an arms race of lies that I see everyone ultimately losing.) However, its not hopeless its just that we probably arent going to be the direct cause of any of these people changing their minds.
There are two remedies that seem to work. One is, if you have the capability, cutting off an elderly relatives exposure to Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, et al. No, Im sorry, Grandpa, I dont know why the cable box wont pick up Hannity anymore. This is somewhat deceptive, but people who have successfully been able to accomplish it have reported that in many cases it miraculously undoes the paranoia that has been induced by constant exposure to the right-wing puke funnel. Ultimately, even though its deceptive, Im not willing to frown on it very hard, because by and large, the people who subsist on this diet are miserable. Theyre mostly imbibing a steady diet of paranoia and fear. This country is, gun violence aside, amongst the safest its ever been, but you wouldnt know that from listening to the Wingnut Wurlitzer. While it might be deceptive to deprive them of access to those media sources, I can see an extremely persuasive argument that its substantially less deceptive than those media sources are.
The other solution isnt, unfortunately, something we are capable of doing ourselves. But people caught in a filter bubble of blue lies may be willing to listen to arguments they perceive as coming from a member of their in-group. So if I say the Muslim travel ban is an attack on the Constitution, no one in the Republican base is likely to give a shit. Im an agnostic, queer anarchist of Jewish descent who hasnt been to a religious service in probably more than ten years and wouldnt piss on most Republican politicians if they were on fire (especially since Trump would enjoy it. Allegedly). But if someone like Glenn Beck says this (and Beck has actually been surprisingly generous to refugees for instance, he raised some $2 million for undocumented Central American immigrants a few years ago), he might actually convince members of the Republican base.
This is why Ive been more willing than many other people to give cookies to conservatives like Jen Rubin, Max Boot, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Glenn Beck, John Schindler, Tom Nichols, and others who have been willing to break from Republican Party orthodoxy at times, no matter what heinous acts they may have in the past. That doesnt mean those acts should be forgotten or forgiven. But at the same time, their current criticism of the party has real value above and beyond the traditional value that any criticism of iniquity has honestly, it probably has more value in some ways than our criticism does. In many cases, it feels like a lot of our criticisms, as insightful as they are, are simply preaching to the choir.
This is already way longer than I was planning I wouldnt be surprised if Ive been typing for two hours now, and its several thousand words by now so Ill just add a few other observations that I didnt link into my argument. (If I were writing this from an outline, or even substantially revising it, I would try to dovetail these logically into the above explanation, but I think theyre still comprehensible in this form.)
One of these is the observation that people and this goes regardless of ones political orientation are very bad at evaluating the credentials of people theyve concluded are experts, particularly in fields they dont have intimate knowledge of themselves. If youve concluded someone is an expert in statistics, but your own knowledge of the discipline is undergraduate level, then it may take a major black swan event say, assigning a 95%+ probability to an outcome that fails to materialise to convince you that your conclusion may have been wrong. And thats merely for expertise; being able to conclude someone is malicious or lying may be even more difficult. This is, in fact, the most widely accepted explanation for the results of the Milgram experiment.
This, honestly, explains a lot of 2016 that remains otherwise inexplicable to me. While much of Pravda on the Hudsons conduct since the election leads me to suspect that Republicans may have kompromat on significant figures within the newspaper, the entire U.S. media covered the entire election as though Clinton were already the president. I felt long before November 9 that this was grossly irresponsible behaviour, but in hindsight, I dont think I have sufficient evidence to conclude that the entire media actually wanted Trump to win. I think many of them probably just thought it wasnt possible. (Hanlons Razor.)
And where would they get that conclusion? Well the many poll aggregators that assigned upwards of 90% probability to a Clinton victory, mostly. I am by no means an expert on statistics, and to be clear, I myself was affected by this. I thought the 98% predictions of Clinton victories were absurd and possibly even irresponsible, but I still thought there was an outside chance at best of Trump winning. I think most reporters, lacking detailed backgrounds in statistics, just looked at convincing-sounding arguments from statistics sites and ultimately went with what the balance of them were saying thus concluding theres no way hell really win, right? The American people couldnt possibly be that stupid.
This also is the most parsimonious explanation I can find for Comey. To be clear, if theres any justice, his absurd interference with the election will go down with the ignominy it deserves; hopefully hell be remembered for his self-righteous indifference to norms and blithe unawareness of how his actions eleven days before an election could affect its outcome. But thats what seems like the more likely outcome to me than that he actually wanted Trump to win. Given that he persisted in investigating Trumps connections to Russia long after the election, to the extent that Trump fired him exactly because of that, I find it implausible to consider him a Trump partisan. Its more likely that, like our media morans, he concluded that his actions couldnt swing the election to Trump.
So here we return to the problem of people being unable to evaluate expertise in fields they dont understand. It didnt help at all that the only statistical analyst that actually got the 2016 election right, Nate Silver, completely whiffed the primary. Silvers model consistently and egregiously underestimated Trumps chances of winning the primary, and thus a common reaction to his stories about the general, particularly given his status as an outlier next to the other aggregators, was that he was simply overcompensating for getting the primary wrong. But in retrospect, we can see that this was wrong. (To Silvers credit, hes generally been pretty willing to admit when hes fucked up. Most of us should probably have assigned more importance to that in 2016.)
A lot of people just look at the numbers and say Silver got it wrong, too; he assigned only a 30% chance (or whatever the number was) to a Trump victory. But thats a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics. First of all, a 3 out of 10 chance will come up 3 out of 10 times you run a given scenario. Silver had higher odds than any of the other major aggregators. On a superficial level, that makes him less wrong than the others.
But thats not actually the important part. The important part was that, before the election, Silver was outlining as a plausible scenario exactly the set of dominoes that ultimately fell to cost Clinton the election. He didnt merely present the possibility that Clinton could lose; he predicted, with significant prescience, exactly which states wound up being decisive. Moreover, none of the other major aggregators seem to have identified these weaknesses, and if they did, they certainly werent raising the alarm in advance of the election to the extent that he was.
Unfortunately, the left and I fully include myself in this grouping largely tuned out Silver, partially because we overstated the importance of his failures in the primary, but probably more because he wasnt comforting us. Ultimately, while were a lot more accepting of empiricism than the right is, this doesnt mean we actually practise it very well.
I have only one further point I feel necessary to cover in this case study, which is my biggest complaint with 90%+ probabilities. Its something akin to physics bystander effect: The act of observing a phenomenon changes the phenomenon being observed. This is true in physics and also, it seems, in politics. (And Im back to talking about everyone here again, not just the political left.) Precisely because Clinton was perceived as inevitable, she consistently received more negative coverage than Trump, who was consistently perceived as a joke, and figures in significant positions of authority made decisions that affected the election, thinking that Clintons victory was a foregone conclusion.
I havent worked out all the implications of everything Ive written here, and this is in large part an abstract of a much longer (currently just under 70,000 words) writing Ive been working on off and on since March of last year. There are major themes of this writing that I didnt even get to here, most importantly how people typically assume others share their preferences, perceptions, and methods of self-expression instead of recognising how widely all these factors vary between individuals and, consequentially, how this ignorance contributes to political and social oppression, without even requiring any conscious intent on the part of those perpetuating it. All of this actually relates directly to all of ruemaras original rant, and if I hadnt already written a short novel (again, MS Word is telling me this is over 4,750 words), Id summarise my analysis of this tendency in depth, too, but I think Ive probably already surpassed the amount that any one person is likely to absorb in any one sitting, so Ill hold it off for some other time. (I will almost certainly get to it at some point, though. This is a particularly personal issue for me since, as a person on the autism spectrum, my perception and methods of expression often vary tremendously from the average persons, despite my best attempts to mirror their body language, and even if I tell them that, most of them continue to underestimate how decisive a factor it is; as a result, I am continually being misunderstood in nonverbal communication. And thats not even the only way this causes me problems.)
In any case, while many of the ideas Ive outlined above are things Ive seen discussed at various places through the Internet, Ive also gone through some implications Im not used to seeing discussed either in print or online. This doesnt mean they never are, but it does mean that, to the best of my awareness, theyre not firmly in the popular consciousness. Im not trying to seem like a know-it-all or anything if anything, I hope Ive emphasised how coming to a truly accurate understanding of the world requires a constant questioning of ones own perceptions, biases, and assumptions but I at least hope this essay mightve raised consideration of factors people havent otherwise considered.
really get fun
Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.


text:
I ended up screwing up my terminal, while setting up Sbt for the Coursera Scala course. I can't summon gedit (or anything else) anymore. I got the following error:
Command 'gedit' is available in '/usr/bin/gedit'
The command could not be located because '/usr/bin' is not included in the PATH environment variable.
Also, each new instance of Terminal writes these messages before any command is written:
-bash: :/home/antonio/jdk7/jdk1.7.0_07/bin: No such file or directory
-bash: export: `/home/antonio/Desktop/Scala/install/sbt/bin:/home/antonio/jdk7/jdk1.7.0_07/bin': not a valid identifier
I recently did a manual installation of the jdk 7, which apparently works:
java -version
java version "1.7.0_07"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_07-b10)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 23.3-b01, mixed mode)
While setting up Sbt, I made the mistake of editing bashrc by writing
gedit ~/.bashrc on my terminal instead of writing
gedit .bashrc, I wrote the following lines at the end of the bashrc file that opened:
export PATH=/PATH/TO/YOUR/jdk1.7.0-VERSION/bin:$PATH
export PATH=/home/antonio/jdk7/jdk1.7.0_07/bin:$PATH
What is wrong here?
How can I access my bashrc file and modify it again?


text:
Caipirinha Cocktail
Cachaça is the national spirit of Brazil. From that spirit comes the national cocktail of Brazil, the Caipirinha. Our intrepid host will show you how to make the Caipirinha.
2 ounces cachaça
2 Tbs. sugar
1/2 lime, quartered
If cachaça is not available in your area, you can substitute a good white rum.
Wash the lime, and cut it into quarters.
Put the lime pieces into a heavy tumbler and then add the sugar.
Muddle hard to extract juices and dissolve the sugar.
Fill the glass with ice, then add the cachaça. Stir to mix and chill.
Matt Lefevere 14 Aug 2007
11:40 am
Thanks for the great videos, Robert! I love this drink as it has so many possible variations. I've made a delicious Caipiroska using limes, brown sugar and Absolut Citron vodka. What brands of Cachaca do you recommend?
Robert Hess 16 Aug 2007
10:09 pm
One of the problems with Cachaca brands across the country (US) is that sometimes beggers can't be choosers. Here in Washington State, finding any Cachaca in the liquor stores is often a hit-or-miss opportunity.
Sagatiba is a brand that is starting to make some pretty good inroads, and I think it works quite well. But Boca Loca, and Leblon are also good, with each of them having some fairly different characteristics.
One of the things that I always recommend to anybody who is trying to zero in on the "right" spirits to use, is to simply pick "a" spirit to start with, and make the drinks that they know which use that spirit, and when the bottle starts to get empty, pick up a "different" brand to replace it with, and do a taste comparison between the old and the new (both sipped straight, as well as in the "drink of choice"). This will help you get a better handle over the characteristics of the spirit, as well as which of those characters you seem to favor.
Brian 4 Oct 2007
1:53 am
The "ch" in cacha
Robert Hess 5 Oct 2007
11:13 am
Thanks Brian, I try to remember to use "sh" instead of "ch"... but sometimes the visualization of the word overtakes my linquistic skills. I sometimes forget and say "mar-a-shee-no" instead of "mar-a-skee-no" as well…
Chris 8 Oct 2007
3:07 pm
What about tools for cutting fruit? I am terrible at making twists. It looks like you have a cool gadget you use. Any advice?
Robert Hess 8 Oct 2007
4:44 pm
For cutting think curls of citrus for twists and such, it is common to use what is known as a "Channel Knife". The knife usually has a small v-shaped wedge sticking out of it which can slice out a thin string of peel. With a little practice you can spirial cut the peel off an entire fruit in one long piece, without leaving hardly any colored skin on the fruit itself. Of course a spiral that long is almost worthless as a cocktail garnish intact.
For cutting larger slices of peel, like I would for a drink such as the Old Fashioned, I use a common vegetable/potato peeler. Then once the peel is cut, I square off the ends and edges with a normal knife to create a long rectangular peel.
Steve 19 Nov 2007
11:17 am
Any suggestions on where to find the smaller glasses? The smallest I can find is 7oz and I would really like to find something around 4 oz. Thanks!
Robert Hess 19 Nov 2007
12:23 pm
I periodically find smaller glasses at places like Pier 1 Imports, or Cost Plus. Many common glass manufacturers make smaller glasses, but they usually sell them only through restaurant supply stores. Check to see if there is a restaurant supply store near you and see what they might have to offer. Note that you'll probably have to buy a full case (12+)
Another option is to check out antique shops, you can often find some lovely glasses there.
Scott 14 Jan 2008
1:53 pm
First off, thank you for your wonderful videos. Your passion for "crafting" a drink rather than just mixing one is a breath of fresh air. It's unfortunate that so many people treat the craft of bartending with such blatant disregard when they are standing behind the bar. I make it a priority to keep traditional cocktail techniques alive behind my bar while also trying to employ the newest products off the market. I look forward to staying tuned into your shows, but as a collector of bar paraphrenalia I must ask for more information regarding that beautiful Hawthorne strainer with the huge, tightly wound coil that sits in the pint glass on your bartop in every show. Is it antique/vintage enough to where I won't be able to find one or can you guide me to where I might be able to obtain one? Thank you so much.
Robert Hess 14 Jan 2008
4:11 pm
Yeah, I'm such a tease. :->
I picked that strainer up many years ago from an austrian bar/hotel supply company, I rarely use it, partially because it is so beautiful, and partially because the springs in it are so big and loose that it doesn't work well in any of my mixing glasses.
However… you are in luck.
A good friend of mine, David "Mr. Mojito" Nepov, recently started selling some strainers very simliar to this on his site (www.MisterMojito.com). He has both a silver version (http://www.mistermojito.com/shaker-set-silver.php), as well as a less expensive one made out of stainless steel (http://www.mistermojito.com/strainer-stainless-steel.php), both of which fit wonderfully in the Mixing glass he sells as well (http://www.mistermojito.com/mixing-glass-with-lip.php).
Tell him you heard about it here :->
Jim Kay 10 Feb 2008
3:40 pm
Thanks for these episodes. I used the lessons learned from the Cairipinha to do a little guerilla bartending last night. The "bar" at a charitable event was stocked with blended scotch, vodka, wine, beer some OJ and sodas. I muddled some lime garnish with a packet of sugar from the coffee service (a long neck Bud makes a passable muddler) than added some ice and vodka. All of this in a wine glass. Not precise, but a much better drink than I would have had otherwise. With knowledge comes power - thanks
Rob 12 Dec 2008
5:33 pm
Thank you for talking about what is needed as far as tools go. I am starting my own bar at home and was not sure as to what tools were needed. I have watched other podcasts and they don't really talk about the tools they they use in detail, only that they are using them to make a particular drink. I was looking for the jigger that you use. I went looking online and i could not find it do you have any suggestions?
Robert Hess 13 Dec 2008
3:38 am
Rob, what I am using is the "OXO Mini Angled Measuring Cup" searching for that specifically will come up with more options than you can possibly use, but here is a link to it on Amazon:
You should also be able to find it in almost any decently stocked kitchen store. Usually they have it where they have the measuring cups and not bar supplies.
Al 15 Jan 2009
5:36 am
I enjoyed your video and learned a few things as well and for that I thank you. One step that I do differently when making Caipirinhas, which I feel makes a better cocktail, is adding the cachaca to the muddle prior to adding the ice. This allows the cachaca to better combine with the lime and sugar (dissolving the sugar somewhat). So simply add the cachaca to the muddled lime and sugar, stir this gently- or swirl to combine and add the ice on top. As one of your previous posters pointed out, if you have crushed ice then add this to the top and "snow cone" the glass. Use a bonzer spoon to pull the limes and cachaca from the bottom of the glass up into the ice.
Best, Al
LexM 1 Apr 2009
9:02 am
Late to the party, alas. I do have one question, though: Why does the Caipirinha recipe in the episode differ so markedly in sugar and lime content from the recipe on the Drinkboy website (http://www.drinkboy.com/Cocktails/Recipe.aspx?itemid=33)?
Robert Hess 1 Apr 2009
9:45 am
What? I have no idea what you are talking about. They look the same to me.
(I've been meaning to fix that for a while… thanks for reminding me)
Robert Hess 1 Apr 2009
9:48 am
Al, (hmmm missed your comment earlier)...
Adding the cachaca before adding the ice is perfectly fine, and would work as you describe. This is what would be referred to as a "precision" to making a Caipirina, and while not required to make it properly, does provide a useful technique.
You can read more about "Precisions" in my essay here:
Halden Doerge 12 Jul 2009
9:13 pm
I realize this thread is old, but I have a question. The recipe from your book seems to differ from what you have in this video. The book lists using one whole lime and one tsp of sugar rather than half a lime and 2 tbs of sugar. Which is your current preference?
Thanks much!
Lawrence Spies 19 Aug 2009
3:35 am
This drink should be shaken not stirred!! Then served unstrained into rocks/old fashioned glass(I use 9oz rocks)...My favorite Cachaca is Fazenda Mae De Ouro…Great stuff!!
Robert Hess 19 Aug 2009
5:23 am
Lawrence, While you can make a Caipirinha "shaken", this was not the original, nor traditional way it is done. I personally prefer the muddled method shown in this video because it adds some extra depth and richness to the drink from the skins of the lime, and is one aspect that makes this drink different from a Daiquiri. There are some very good Brazilian Cachacas, many of the better ones aren't even being exported.
Lawrence Spies 19 Aug 2009
10:22 am
No offense meant and I should have worded it better…Your muddle method is perfect, its the shaken over stirred part is what I was talking about…shaken is much better and the way I learned from "Cachaca Dave" at http://www.caipirinha.us/
Stirring a Caipirinha with a glass full of ice and lime wedges does not mix the drink very well, shaken how ever will mix the drink very well and assure the sugar is dissolved. Traditional? Original? but much better IMHO.
Cachaca is Fazenda Mae De Ouro is in the states, if you want a bottle, drop me a line, I will send you one! also I love to see that you are showing drinks made with Canton Ginger! I was just introduced to this wonderful elixir and kill a bottle over a weeks time! and if you add a 3/4 oz shot or more of Ginger Liqueur to a Caipirinha it adds a nice flavor profile!
leigh 21 Sep 2009
2:08 pm
hey robert, i was wondering who makes the best under bar equipment?
Robert Hess 21 Sep 2009
2:28 pm
Leigh, a lot depends on where you are, what your bar design is, how much you want to spend, etc. But personally I've always been a little facinated by the "Calabrese Sink" made by Cantilever Bar Systems in the UK.
The most important step however is simply to think smartly about your layout behind the bar, the fairly normal/standard stainless steel sinks etc do a fine job, and can do a GREAT job when laid out properly.
Nik 6 Nov 2009
11:42 am
I was wondering where you got the heavy duty bar spoon you mentioned early in the video. I was watching a bit you did with Jamie Boudreau and he hand cracks ice and I remember you making a specific comment on his heavy duty spoon and to me it looked similar to the one you talk about in this video. I was wondering where I could find a spoon like that specifically for hand cracking bigger ice cubes.
Robert Hess 6 Nov 2009
12:13 pm
Nik, That particular spoon is one I got from APS in Europe many years ago. As I indicate in the video many of these superior quality European bar tools aren't yet available in the US, although gradually things ARE changing. You can find some great tools over at CocktailKingdom.com, as well as MisterMojito.com.
On Mister Mojito's site, you can find a spoon "similar" to the one I was using in the video above (http://www.mistermojito.com/spoon-pestle.php).
Kevin Kock 20 Nov 2009
11:27 am
Dear Robert,
I have no Idea where to post this. but I have a great cocktail for you to make. please let me know where to send you the recepie. the cocktail is called Aruba'ariba (Up aruba)
-Kevin [email protected]
Clint 23 Nov 2009
7:54 am
Hello Robert.
I really like Caipirinhas, so I always have a bottle of Cachaca in my cabinet. The problem is that I don't really know of any other cocktails that use Cachaca as an ingredient. And having that one bottle of spirit that you use for just one single drink seems like such a waste. Now, since you said that Cachaca is essentially just a sort of rum, are there any cocktails where it would make sense to substitute the rum for Cachaca? I mean, I'm pretty sure I can't just do that with any rum-based drink, can I?
Thanks in advance,
TheBalch 7 Oct 2012
12:58 am
Hey Mr. Hess, geeky question:
I see that Lawrence already mentioned that caipirinhas are sometimes shaken - this is what a friend of mine from Pernambuco does - although I'm sure that this is a modern development. Anyway, when he shakes it up, everything is together, including the fruit. In this case, could the caipirinha be considered a kind of "cachaça cobbler"? I'm just curious.
BTW, in case you're interested, "caipirinha" means "little caipira;" a "caipira" is someone from the rural interior of Brazil. It's kind of like saying "little hick," actually.
TheBalch 7 Oct 2012
1:02 am
Oh, and if it's any help, I'm told that a lot of Brazilians drink Pitú. It's got what looks like a shrimp or crawdaddy on the label. Also, Brazilians don't always make a caipirinha with cachaça, interestingly enough. My buddy Rodrigo prefers vodka! Maybe someone here would like to test out a gin caipirinha for us, huh?
Daz-Miguel Mora 12 Jun 2013
7:33 pm
Hello from Australia!!! Great work Robert.
After serving hundreds and thousands of Caipirinhas over 15 years I found that what is also important was educating the customer of "Cachaca" and what it is exactly.
Here in Australia Cachaca is slowly getting attention but since becoming the Brand Ambassador for "Saturno Premium Cachaca", I have developed over 100 different cocktails mixers and shots with this one spirit proving its versatility among many other spirits - It also shows why it was (not sure as of today) the third most consumed spirit in the world (behind Rum and Vodka). The more premium Cachaca's do not have additives and are close to organic as you can get which is great if you have vegetarians or health conscious drinkers. Using agave nectar is another alternative as its half the calories of sugar and requires only 15ml (one tablespoon).
There are over 5000 different brands of cachaca but to pick the best one is really up to your own palette. Some brands actually use different sugar cane from contracted farmers in different regions so there can be inconsistencies in the flavour. Minas Gerais has some of the best produced Cachaca and is famous for this. Industrialised cachaca (pinga) is usually aged for a month or so and its mass produced fast for high turnover thus having more vapour on the nose and its harshness is suited to mixing however handcrafted cachaca (Artesanal de Alambique) is copper pot distilled and rested in oak or other kinds of barrels for 3 or more months so it takes on the character and flavour from the barrel giving it a wonderful aroma on the nose. Perfect with freshly squeezed juiced and fresh produce.
If the Cachaca blends well with the ingredients the taste will not be overpowering but its character will be subtle and enjoyable.
A good cachaca is fantastic for infusing, and I have re created many drinks with it but more importantly I tell all my customers what it is - because so many make the big mistake thinking its RUM!
Saude (Cheers)
Zakhia 19 Dec 2013
11:26 am
Just tried this and it blew me away (really) did not want to buy caahaca for a single drink so used barcadi white and it was excellent like a rustic daquiri meets a tom collins, and so beautiful to look at. I am certianly making more.
Stephen Vajs 30 Sep 2015
11:35 am
I eagerly await each new release of this series and spend a lot of time reviewing the old ones. Thank you!
I often used Demerara sugar for the muddle, but this gives a brownish tinge to the drink.
I have started doing something I saw a bartender in the Dominican Republic do: she cut the lime into smaller wedges and did the muddling and mixing with the spirit in a mixing glass. She then poured the drink into a rocks glass with ice in it. This had the advantage of keeping the lime on the top of the ice. It makes a more colorful drink on top - think of old prescriptions to garnish with fruit and, like the mint in a julep, it adds to the aroma of the glass.


text:
PA Dept. of Health Secretary presents Penn State with nearly $6.6 million
PA Dept. of Health Secretary presents Penn State with nearly $6.6 million
Penn State has received its annual infusion of tobacco settlement funding, which will help support Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center's research mission. This year, Penn State received nearly $6.6 million. Over the past 12 years, Penn State has received more than $104 million in formula funds – helping to not only explore possible treatments for diseases but also to fuel Pennsylvania's economy.
At the July meeting of the Medical Center's Board of Directors, Pennsylvania Department of Health Secretary Michael Wolf delivered a check for the Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement (CURE) Program's formula funds.
"Since 2001, tobacco funds have provided seed funding that has helped faculty members at Pennsylvania's research institutions, including Penn State, win an estimated $2.4 billion in additional funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies," said Penn State President Rodney Erickson. "We're proud to partner with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on this initiative to advance science, knowledge and the quality of life of Pennsylvania citizens."
Established in 2001 as a result of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, Pennsylvania's CURE Program distributes settlement funds annually to the state's medical research institutions. Through its distribution of funds, the CURE Program has stimulated economic growth through expansion of the state economy, creation of jobs and more.
Since the start of the program, these funds have created or sustained more than 7,700 high-paying jobs in the academic medical sector, according to a recent economic impact analysis by Tripp Umbach. Some 593 of these jobs resulted from the money received by Penn State Hershey alone, and the state economy has seen a $208.4 million net expansion, as well as $360.2 million in additional federal research funding.
In addition to the check presentation, Wednesday's event featured a video highlighting research by Penn State Hershey faculty members Drs. Walter Koltun and Zachary Simmons. Koltun's and Simmons' work is supported by CURE funds previously awarded to Penn State.
Koltun's CURE program grant will support his work examining the genetic components of diverticulitis. He seeks to explore the correlation between the severity of the disease and its recurrence in families.
Simmons' CURE fund grant will support his study of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), otherwise known as Lou Gehrig's disease, which has few treatment options. Simmons will explore the role of genetics in ALS and the potential for targeting treatment regimens to an individual.
Koltun and Simmons are collaborating with scientists at Penn State Hershey Institute for Personalized Medicine. One of the institute's primary goals is to tailor treatments to the individual by considering the genetic influence on the individual's response to medication. The institute gives scientists, such as Koltun and Simmons, the necessary tools to develop research studies exploring these varying genetic factors. Seed money for the institute's specialized space and equipment came from previous years' CURE Program allocations.
"We are grateful to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for its continued support of medical research through the CURE program," said Dr. Harold L. Paz, CEO of the Medical Center and Penn State Hershey Health System, Penn State's senior vice president for health affairs, and dean of Penn State College of Medicine. "These funds make a huge difference not just to our researchers, but above all to the patients and families who look to academic health centers like ours for new discoveries and new hope."


text:
Smell that, says Steve Schwartz, shaking what looks like dried grass out of a sealed bag. I inch my nose closer: It's fetid, with a touch of swamp and dirty socks.
"That's vetiver," he says. "It's a root with relaxing properties that we use for wellness teas, typically found in India." And, "yes, it does smell a little like dirty socks," he admits, laughing. "But we'll take this and balance it out with goji berries and other botanicals to create something pleasantly grassy."
That's the beauty of blending.
The headquarters of the Art of Tea, halfway between downtown and Monterey Park, is pretty bare bones. The black tablecloth on the conference table is wrinkled, the chairs flimsy. A whiteboard is scribbled with "Create a delicious experience," the goal this year. For a high-end tea company, I was expecting something, well, more art-directed.
Schwartz isn't what I expect either: a 6-foot-4 guy, obviously very fit, bounding through the door, electric with energy. And when he begins to talk tea, he sweeps you up into his enthusiasm. At 38, Schwartz is the founder and CEO of the 10-year-old business that creates custom teas for the likes of Wolfgang Puck, Vera Wang, Hinoki & the Bird and a host of luxury hotels and restaurants. The firm also has a robust online business at https://www.artoftea.com.
Schwartz could easily come across as a tea zealot — until you hear his story. He'd been studying Ayurvedic medicine at the Ayurvedic Institute in New Mexico and discovered a talent for blending medicinal teas. As he got further into blending, he was curious about why certain teas and botanicals were grown on certain hillsides or at certain elevations. Fascinated that so many tastes and flavors came from one plant, Camellia sinensis, he wanted to know more.
"That same evergreen shrub grown near sea level as compared to grown at 3,000 feet can have all these different flavor profiles," Schwartz explains. "And then by changing the heating element from charcoal to an aged wood versus a young wood, you get even more flavor profiles." He could go on and on about the subject, cheerfully admitting that he's even more addicted to learning about tea than to drinking it.
He started out before the advent of the Internet, so he was trying to source ingredients for his teas by looking up businesses in old Indian or Chinese phone books. Forget that, he wanted to see for himself how tea was grown and processed. After working four jobs to save money, he finally set off with a backpack to visit the tea estates of the world. His parents and everyone he knew thought he was crazy. That trip lasted 11/2 years. And when he came back, he knew what he wanted to do: import and sell top-of-the-line teas, all organic.
He started small, blending and packing teas in his living room. A year in, his wife told him he had to get out of the living room. He rented a small space, eventually moved to a bigger one, and now, 10 years later, has 24 employees. He still keeps the business lean. He doesn't store a lot of product so that everything is as fresh as possible. It comes in, it goes out.
The lab looks like a typical office kitchen — a sink, some shelves, table and chairs. But there's also a small scale that can weigh fractions of grams. And the shelves are stacked with plastic containers labeled linden flower, licorice root, marigold, lemon grass, myrtle. This is where he makes the test blends for his teas. Though he deals with the same tea estates, before every shipment he gets a sample. He and trusted employees will taste and then decide. And then when the shipment arrives, they'll taste again.
He prepared several teas — Ancient Forest (a hand-picked black tea harvested from Jingmai Mangjing's Blue Mountains in Yunnan, China), Golden Needle (a tea he'd just gotten in) and Amore (a blend of white tea with rose petals, mint and lavender). Each is fascinatingly distinct. The large leaves of Golden Needle unfurl as it steeps, giving off a grassy, floral fragrance. Amore is delicate and refreshing. Ancient Forest tastes of iron and earth.
So many choices, so many flavors. And yet when it comes to his first cup of tea each morning, it's always the same: Ancient Forest, stern and bracing.
Follow me on Twitter at @sirenevirbila


text:
Free Tickets to See the University of Montana Grizzlies Battle the Montana State University Bobcats
On November 17, The University of Montana Grizzlies and the Montana State University Bobcats will celebrate another bout of "the brawl of the wild" as they meet for the 112th time.
Washington-Grizzly Stadium will, as usual, be completely sold out, but Townsquare Media is happy to offer free tickets to the event!
Obtaining those free tickets is simple and fun. All that loyal Griz or Cat fans will need to do to nab the coveted tickets is to show up to the recently announced Town Pump Griz Outdoor Viewing Party on September 29 at the Caras park pavilion. A pair of tickets will be given away at the event to one lucky winner.
The event begins at 2:00 p.m. with food, fun, drinks, and a chance to root for the Griz as the game plays live on the big screen.
So far, the Griz have won 7o of the 111 games played against the Bobcats, leaving the Bobcats with 36 wins and ending five games in a tie.
Town Pump Grizzly Outdoor Viewing Party, Saturday, Sept. 29, 2 p.m. - 9 p.m. at the Caras Park Pavilion, 101 Carousel Drive Missoula, 59802


text:
Hi guest ·
Log in
Log in to check your private messages
Formula fun factor
Goto page
iWindsurf Community Forum Index
Windsurfing Discussion
View previous topic
View next topic
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18941
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:05 pm
Post subject:
NOW I unnertstan. However, thousands of us very deliberately turn
that niche because, for them, WSing is about the terrain, not just planing, much like dirt bike riders get bored in about 10 minutes on the Bonneville Salt Flats.
Back to top
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 122
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:22 pm
Post subject:
for me buying SB Formula about 5 years ago was definetely a good choice. (or rather it was not a pure race Formula, something labeled IQ.. but full one meter wide)
It had increased my time on the water, and not only in obvious way in lighter wind, but also implicitly, justifiing driving out in marginal forecast, having it as insurance against complete skunk (and 70% of the time wsrfng regular sails and boards).
Yes it is different, and requires adjustment, and very physical (my wind is never steady) and may be very scary... but for me worth every penny.
I dont live in the Gorge and value every hour of my sailing and wsrfng to me is equivalent in going fast, planing, in harness and in straps, jibing and doing it again and again... Of course I love 4.2 conditions on 75 liter board, enjoying the third dimension, but I like my FW too.
Up to this year I was sailing it with 10 Retro. This sail is a bit too much for me - mainly to carry it to the water and out, especially over the rocks.... very difficult to carry with the board, and if you separate from the board it is very scary because you don't know what the wind will do and what if the gust will pick it up... Of course as long it is 12-15 knots, you are balanced and planing in straps, the sail is weightless, but everything (pumping, shlogging, waiting, carrying, being overpowered) in your timeline before and after this heavinly moment wears me down twice as fast as 3.9 on 75 liters.
Is it worth extra dollars, time and effort is a perconalised choice. I guess if you are a Gorge rat, there is no need for this. My season is very short (~15 days wsrfng, ~30 days surfing (with paddle) and about ~25 days skiing), and for me as I said it worth every penny.
This year I tried it with my new 8.5 Retro. Very good combination, for my conditions, I can carry it, I am not that afraid if wind really pick up, and low end of my 8.5 is very close to my 10.0 (10 is probably 5-6 years old, while 8.5 is new). Tried this FW board with 7.0 too, but its a bit too little.
So for me it is not a question - its good thing I bought it!
I have a question though, and I am not sure if it belongs to this thread, and that is if freeride board ~150 liters, ~80 cm shoulda be my next board? Intended use - this 8.5 m Retro and may be also 7.0 (say I rig 7.0+103 liters, it dies a bit, I change just the board)
For the record I have all the sails from 7.0 to 3.9 and boards from 100 liters down to 75 liters. I also have 10 year old Bic Techno 123 liters, I haven't used it last 5 years or so, but I tried it with this 8.5 and the feeling I have I would notice a lot of improvement if I buy this new freeride instead of this Techno. Riding this 8.5 on Techno was pretty much like regular windsurfing... but for example riding my last year 7.0 Retro on Exocet 103 liters is much more lively.
Also this freeride ~145 liters with 8.5 will certainly have a practical advantage over current Techno, that if it dies, Ill be able to uphaul and shlog back much easily...
BTW, there was a lot of discussion about shlogging, if shlog good or bad... and comparison of shlog and glide (to me those are synonyms). my take is simple... shlogging is evil in itself, but it is your saving grace because it just a mechanism of coming back vertically, instead of swimming.... its a toggle, a bit, yes/no. No quality to it.
So my question, is it worth the dollars and hiding it from the wifey, this freeride upgrade (instead of Techno)?
any opinion of people who sailed both FW and this freeride will be appreciated. Thank you.
Back to top
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 18941
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:04 pm
Post subject:
alap wrote:
I dont live in the Gorge and value every hour of my sailing ... if you are a Gorge rat, there is no need for this... there was a lot of discussion about shlogging, if shlog good or bad... and comparison of shlog and glide (to me those are synonyms). my take is simple... shlogging is evil in itself, but it is your saving grace because it just a mechanism of coming back vertically, instead of swimming...
MANY people apparently enjoy it, as they slog back and forth for extended periods while going absolutely nowhere. I've even heard some ADMIT they enjoy it, even on sinkers. And realize that Just Say "No" to 5.0 "Gorge rats" would easily triple their WSing time if they sailed bigger gear. This place ain't magic; it just gets many windy days, if you're in the right place at the right time, scattered among many
slalom and Formula days.
Back to top
Joined: 10 Apr 2006
Posts: 2207
Location: Killer Sturgeon Cove
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:17 pm
Post subject:
If you're asking this question, you might be married to the wrong person.
Either way, in the end, hiding stuff from your SO is going to cost more than
the joy you get.
but... I think you'd like the upgrade. ;*)
alap wrote:
So my question, is it worth the dollars and hiding it from the wifey, this freeride upgrade (instead of Techno)?
any opinion of people who sailed both FW and this freeride will be appreciated. Thank you.
Back to top
Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 122
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:54 pm
Post subject:
not sure why I even asking?
Back to top
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2268
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 4:29 am
Post subject:
Alap. As you say, your SB non race formula with the smaller 8.5 (fully agree) is a very handy combo for light wind time on the water, and the 8.5 will have adequate handling in reserve should the wind freshen a bit. You also take your 100 litre stuff to cover, should the forecast be out, and it is windier, so you have it well covered.
The idea of splitting the difference with a 145 litre set up is seductive, but you may then run into a problem. Namely, what to take. If, like me, you live a fair way from the sea and have to rely on wind forecasts, you wouldn't be sure which would be best.
145 litre boards used to be quite popular (fashion) at our beach, a few years back, but most found that they fell between two stools. They weren't big and fast enough for really light winds (my 160 litre and 8.0 m Techno combo was faster) and if the wind picked up they were too big and clumsy. Most gave up on them, and switched to 130 litre'ish fast slalom boards instead.
Perhaps that might be a better choice for you, if you like frightening yourself.
You certainly wouldn't lack thrills then, and you'd always have the formula stuff for back up, in lighter conditions.
Back to top
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3363
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:03 am
Post subject:
Every one's situation is different, so this may not work for you. I have a starboard formula 160 and use it with an 11.0 and 9.2 for free sailing in 8-15+ knots. If the wind picks up to 12-18 knots, then I jump down to a Starboard iSonic 111 slalom board (108 liters) with an 8.4, or 7.6 or 6.6 (7.6 is the sweet spot). With more wind, I go to a 105 liter bump and jump board with a 4.5, 5.2 or 6.0. I have an 80 liter board if it really blows.
I have considered filling the gap between the formula and iSonic, but I really don't need one with the winds I typically get, and my opportunities to get on the water (90 days last year). In another location, a larger freeride or slalom board could be a benefit.
I weigh 165 lbs.
Back to top
Joined: 30 Jun 2009
Posts: 510
Location: Alameda, CA
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:24 am
Post subject:
alap wrote:
BTW, there was a lot of discussion about shlogging, if shlog good or bad... and comparison of shlog and glide (to me those are synonyms).
alap, I don't believe they're really synonyms. Boards designed for "gliding+planing" (e.g. longer race board) offer more fun and performance in that sub-planning range than boards that are not (e.g. FW, freeride, etc.). You don't have that binary feel, the transition from gliding to planing (and from planing to gliding) is much less of a contrast on these boards than the transition from shlogging to planing on shorter boards.
But then again, I understand why some would not like gliding either, personal preferences. Personally, I'll take gliding over shlogging anytime. And if I know I'm gonna glide and not plane for 2 hours, I'll still go (with my long board). But if I know I'll shlog and not plane for two hours on my short board, then I don't consider it worth my time to go out, that's the worst kind of TOW I can think about
However I'll admit I'd be frustrated to be gliding on my longboard and see a Formula sailor zooming by planing, I think we can all agree that planing is *the* drug
Back to top
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Posts: 42
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:43 am
Post subject: Almost a formula ??
Wintering in Florida and with many days of light wind sailing bought a Isonic/145/88/224 .Not to good to slog on and with an Infinity 9.5 it planes quite early. Very weedy so weed fin a must which is another reason I stayed away from full formula.I had a 145 Shark,slow to plane and accelerate.On 8-13 days I sail a bic 293od . Removed the center board and closed up the hole with plexiglass.Amazing how early this board will plane and able to slog back to the beach with minimal wind.A Few days back had 3 days of 20-30 winds. Sailed a Shark130 and Rocket 115 with a 4.4 and 4.8. It's soo great to get out and sail and at 64 I'm hoping to someday figure gybing.(One of the regulars is 87 and sails regularly)Oh yea, Went from 183 to160 lbs and really helped in early planing.(Pumping is still a mystery to me) GOOD SAILING TO ALL, Mark
Back to top
Display posts from previous:
All Posts
1 Day
7 Days
2 Weeks
1 Month
3 Months
6 Months
1 Year
Oldest First
Newest First
iWindsurf Community Forum Index
Windsurfing Discussion
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page
Jump to:
Select a forum
Windsurfing Discussion
Regional Discussion: Places, Sessions, Events, Access, Associations
Southwest USA, Hawaii, Mexico
Northwest USA & Canada
Eastern and Central USA & Canada
Europe, Caribbean & S. America, Australia & NZ, Africa, Asia
Industry News & Promotions
Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
Lost and Found
Self-Help Forum
WeatherFlow Labs
post new topics in this forum
reply to topics in this forum
edit your posts in this forum
delete your posts in this forum
vote in polls in this forum
attach files in this forum
download files in this forum
Log in
© Copyright 1999-2007
WeatherFlow, Inc
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Ad Marketplace
Powered by
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


text:
Plesk only allows .cgi files to be executed from cgi-bin but allows .pl files to be executed from anywhere. To allow .cgi to be executed from httpdocs add line to .htaccess: AddHandler cgi-script .cgi
Archive for December, 2009
Run CGI scripts in httpdocs
Apache case insensitive URL's
If your moving a site from a Windows host to Linux and all of the cases are messed up (Yes Windows is case-insensitive ), you could try to substitute through all the code to make sure the links are the correct case. If your lucky though, enable mod_speling and this should work: # Add the […]
Linux at command
A useful utility for scheduling one-off tasks. atq = view scheduled jobs at -c 7 = show command to be run in job number 7 atrm 7 = delete job number 7 at -m 08:50 2009-10-15 < updatejob = schedule a job to run the contents of updatejob or type: at -m 08:50 2009-10-15 then […]
Apache MySQL Authentication
mod_auth_mysql will need to be loaded. in vhost.conf add: AuthType Basic AuthName "Auth required" AuthMySQLHost localhost AuthMySQLUser auth_user AuthMySQLPassword mypassword AuthMySQLDB mysqlauth AuthMysqlUserTable clients AuthMySQLNameField username AuthMySQLPasswordField passwd AuthMySQLPwEncryption none AuthMySQLEnable on require valid-user Then in MySQL: create database mysqlauth; use mysqlauth; CREATE TABLE `clients` ( `username` varchar(25) NOT NULL default ", `passwd` varchar(25) NOT […]
Apache server status
Add the following to httpd.conf for resource troubleshooting: ExtendedStatus On SetHandler server-status Order deny,allow Deny from all Allow from myipaddress
Too many open files when several hundred domains in Plesk
With more than several hundred domains in plesk, issues can arise with too many open files. Solution: echo 'ulimit -n 32768′ >> /etc/sysconfig/httpd Enabling piped logging his also helps greatly,: mysql -uadmin -p$(cat /etc/psa/.psa.shadow) -BAND psa -e 'REPLACE INTO misc VALUES ("apache_pipelog","true")' /usr/local/psa/admin/bin/websrvmng -a To see the default open file limit per process: ulimit -n […]
Allow directory listing in Apache
Simple I know, but I always forget. # Create a .htaccess file Options +Indexes
Adding a secondary SMTP port in Plesk
Choose an unused port and add it to the /etc/services file, for example: smtp_alt 2525/tcp # new SMTP port Make a copy of /etc/xinetd.d/smtp_psa to /etc/xinetd.d/smtp_psa_alt and correct service line within new file: service smtp_alt Restart xinetd `/etc/init.d/xinetd restart` Edit the firewall, adding port 25025
Adding a second FTP account in Plesk
Sometimes it's necessary to have two FTP users on a domain with access to the httpdocs and/or subdirectories, which Plesk doesn't allow by default. # Create a web user in Plesk # Change the default directory to the required one and the userid to the same as the main FTP user grep ftpuser1 /etc/passwd usermod […]
Plesk SQL Queries
A few queries I put together to grab info from the Plesk database for troubleshooting: #FTP ACCOUNTS #———— SELECT account_id AS 'ID', login AS 'USERNAME', password AS 'PASSWORD', home AS 'HOMEDIR' FROM sys_users S, accounts A WHERE S.account_id = A.id; #MAIL ACCOUNTS #————- SELECT account_id AS 'ID', mail_name AS 'USERNAME', password AS 'PASSWORD', postbox as […]


text:
PayPal (via friends/family or gift)
Credit Card (7% convenience fee)
All purchases made are "AS IS" with NO WARRANTY, NO GUARANTEE, NO REFUNDS, NO EXCHANGES and NO RETURNS.
Please respect the neighbors and do not block driveways when parking.
Estate Professional Services ARE NOT responsible for any accident or injury while on property.
Absolutely no loading assistance available...must bring your own moving help.
Some houses will require shoes off or wear booties.


text:
Jam - Blackberry - Sunny Creek Organic - 310g
Brand: Sunny Creek Organic
Product Code: Sunny Creek - Blackberry
Availability: In Stock
Product Code: Sunny Creek - Blackberry
Availability: In Stock
Price: $7.99
Qty: - OR - Add to Wish List
Add to Compare
Add to Compare
Organic Blackberry Jam that is locally made on the farm in which they're organically grown.
- Gluten Free
- Certified Organic
- Vegan
- No Artificial Preservatives or Additives
- GMO Free
Nestled high in Gippsland's Strzelecki Ranges,
the rambling orchards of Sunny Creek Organic Berry Farm
use environmentally sustainable practices to yield a wide
assortment of fruit and berries. This family business
has been certified organic by NASAA since 1988.
Sunny Creek Organic jams and preserves are lovingly handmade using the highest quality organic ingredients. The wide range of varieties capture rich homemade flavours and seasonal freshness minus the other stuff (no artificial colours, flavours or preservatives).
Write a reviewYour Name:
Your Review: Note: HTML is not translated!
Rating: Bad Good
Enter the code in the box below:


text:
STOCKTON - Since 1958, much has changed on Main Street in downtown Stockton.
STOCKTON - Since 1958, much has changed on Main Street in downtown Stockton.
From an era when the street was dominated by banks and offices and the city's top retailers and office workers wore hats and gloves when going to lunch, Alyce Tekerlek, has seen it all come and go while tending her dress shop, La Maison, tucked under the Bob Hope Theatre marquee. And now, it won't be long before her shop is gone, too.
This week, Tekerlek, 84, said her clothing sales have declined and her remaining business, mostly alterations for longtime customers, barely covers her overhead.
She used to sell dresses and work with customers in the small shop all day long, six days a week, then go home and after dinner sew alterations until 1 or 2 in the morning.
Now she works at the shop from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Monday through Friday. And she never has to take her work home.
Look outside, she told a recent visitor
"It almost lunch hour, and there's no one outside," said Tekerlek, wearing pearls and bright lipstick.
Indeed, the tree-shaded street facing the San Joaquin County Courthouse was nearly empty.
"People have changed," she said, recalling the days when well-dressed office workers and government clerks would fill her store.
"Now they come and they ask me, 'How much is this?' Then they say, 'Oh, that's too much for me.' And they walk out."
And some days pass without a single customer.
She's managed to stay in business as a sole proprietor with no employees and paying $250 a month for the modest shop space.
Tekerlek said she will try to sell as much of her remaining stock as she can in the next month or so, then close her shop door for the last time.
Still, she can't imagine completely retiring. "I might still do alterations at home," she said.
And she's uncertain about the process of closing the store, saying the thought of it keeps her awake at night.
"I never have done it. I don't know how it's going to work."
Contact reporter Reed Fujii at (209) 546-8253 or firstname.lastname@example.com.