text:
As we turn to the book of Matthew tonight we are going to come to one of the most monumental portions of all of Scripture. Matthew 4:1-11 records for us the temptation of Jesus Christ. You will remember that Matthew in writing his gospel is concerned to present Jesus Christ as king, king of kings, the sovereign savior. And up to chapter four everything has focused on the kingliness of Christ. Matthew has given us the ancestry of the king, his royal genealogy. He has given us the arrival of the king; His virgin birth. He has given us his adoration of the king by the resident Persian kingmakers that we know as wise men. He has given us the attestation of the king by the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. He has introduced us to the announcer of the king, John the Baptist, His forerunner. And he has given to us the affirmation of the King in His baptism by the descending of the Holy Spirit and the words of the Father, "This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Three chapters focused on the kingliness of Jesus Christ.
But there is a second purpose in the gospel of Matthew, not only to show the king, to present the king but to demonstrate the rejection of the king. He came as a king but He was rejected as king and as we shall see at the close of this great gospel He was executed, dying on the cross. But in chapter four we see the first rejection, the first conflict, following all of that glorious presentation of Jesus Christ as God's true King, the Messiah, the Savior of the world. The battle begins to take place, the battle of rejection, the battle of hostility in chapter four. And here the first and most formidable foe of all none other than Satan engages himself in an assault on the incarnate Son of God.
Now this is very important to establish His credentials because currently in this time in which we live, since the fall of man, Satan rules the world. He is the god of this age, he is the current usurper king, he is the prince of power of the air, he is the ruler of darkness. And if Jesus Christ is indeed the true king He must demonstrate His power over the present monarch. Does Jesus Christ, who claims to be King, have a rival more powerful than He is? If that is true then he is not the Sovereign. Will He maintain his utter holy purity as God's pure King or can He be successfully led into sin and thus prove He is not God? And prove that He makes no rightful claim to be God's King. On the other hand if He triumphs over sin, if He triumphs over temptation, if He triumphs over the greatest assault of Satan then He really is holy, He really is Sovereign, Savior, King, and He really can rescue sinners from the kingdom of darkness ruled by Satan.
That's the question. Can He rescue sinners? Can He deliver them out of the clutches of the king of this world? Can He free them from the grasp of Satan? Can He save them from their sin? Can He show them the path of victory and the path of triumph? We need to know all of that if we are to acknowledge Him as God's true King and Savior.
So this assault is very essential to the King's credentials. But there is something more in this passage than just a look at the King's credentials as He engages in the battle with Satan. There are some very practical and personal lessons to be learned here that are gonna have a great impact on all our lives. Becuase in this passage we see how Jesus dealt with temptation and how He avoided sin. And it gives to us a pattern that all of us can follow and triumph in our own temptations.
Every human being experiences the presence of temptation to do evil, the relentless temptation. It is the most common and the most natural reality in our lives to be tempted to do evil because we are inherently evil to begin with. All of us, the Bible says, are sinners; all of us sin continually as a result of being continually vulnerable to the relentlessness of temptation. Our flesh is weak and it longs to rebel against the laws of God. The world system which is our environment is made up of sinners and controlled by its prince Satan who uses the system to deceive us, the manipulate us into evil. And so we need to learn how to triumph. We need first of all a savior who can deliver us from this relentless sinning. We need one who can show us the path of triumph in our own temptations. And we meet Him right here in Matthew 4.
So that this account of Jesus triumph over the attack of Satan will show us Christ's power of his arch enemy, the devil, thus establishing Himself as the true Sovereign King. It will prove that He is stronger than the devil and therefore has the power to rescue sinners from the kingdom of darkness; it will prove that He is sinless and thus has a right to be our Holy Redeemer and it will also show the practical path to triumph in temptation. And so I say it's a monumental portion of Scripture.
Let's look at it just in three ways: first of all the preparation for the temptation, then the temptation and then the triumph. Let's begin at verse 1, "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after He had fasted 40 days and 40 nights He then became hungry and the tempter came." That indicates the preparation. Now remember this, Satan is the arch enemy of Jesus Christ. He has fought Jesus Christ ever since he was cast out of heaven. He will fight Him right down to the very end when he is cast into the Lake of Fire that burns forever and ever, prepared for the devil and his angels. All the way along since he was first thrown out of heaven. He has done everything possible within his power to destroy the work of Christ. He has tried to destroy the Messianic line, he has tried to have God pronounce a curse on it and therefore no one in that line could ever be the sin bearer, the holy one. When Jesus was born he tried to slaughter all the babies and thus kill the Messiah before He ever got started. And here when He begins His ministry he immediately goes after Him, to assault Him, at the beginning of His public ministry. He comes back at the end of His ministry, just before the cross as Jesus is in the garden and all the horror of what He anticipates at the cross comes sweeping over Him like a temptation, a temptation to run from it.
And so we are seeing here the first major assault on Christ as He begins His ministry but not the last. And listen, between the first one and the last one in the garden, relentlessly Satan was trying to tempt Him all the way through His ministry. But would you please notice something, verse 1 says that Jesus was led up not by the devil but by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil. The Holy Spirit wanted this test to happen. The Holy Spirit wanted this encounter to take place to prove Christ's holiness, that He would not fall to sin and to prove His power over His arch enemy. So the Holy Spirit led Him into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The wilderness, George Adam Smith, says it is called the Devastation. It is actually a very frightening area east of Jerusalem, down the back slope of the plateau on which Jerusalem rises over a mile above the Dead Sea. And in that place called the Devastation is nothing but bareness and rocks and jagged cliffs; it is a dangerous place. The Old Testament called it Jeshumon, Devastation. Today a rugged road winding up, a back road from Jericho to Jerusalem will take you right through that area and it is a frightening trip.
In that wilderness Jesus would be all alone. No one would be there with Him. No one would be there to help Him in His temptation. He had to demonstrate His power by Himself. The place was dangerous. Being alone for most would be dangerous. Additionally it tells us in verse 2 that He had fasted 40 days and 40 nights and so His circumstances were dangerous. Though during that period no doubt He had been praying and meditating, He had been preparing for the battle and preparing for His ministry. In spite of all the spiritual exercise over 40 days and 40 nights there would be tremendous weakness in His physical body. He would be uncomfortable in the bareness of that place, the heat, the loneliness, He would be wary, He would be hungry and He would be vulnerable.
But not only was the place dangerous and not only was the circumstance dangerous but the tempter was dangerous too. It says He was tempted by the devil, verse 3, the tempter came. The devil, the prince of this world he is called, the prince of the power of the air, the god of this age, the prince of demons, Lucifer, the serpent, the great dragon, the evil one, destroyer, tempter, deceiver, the spirit that works in sons of disobedience, the most wicked being that exists in the entire universe, the cleverest and the most subtle and the greatest deceiver. The most crafty sinful being in the universe is the tempter. Everything about this scenario is dangerous. And furthermore the approach is dangerous because Satan knows Him so well. There was a time when he, as Lucifer, lived in the glory of God's presence in heaven. And he has dogged the steps of the Son of God ever since he was thrown out of there. He knows every detail about His life; Satan is an exceptionally accurate theologian. And his temptation, believe me, would be masterfully designed to attack the Lord Jesus Christ with the greatest amount of impact.
So Matthew, in just a few words, helps us to understand the danger of the situation by giving us a look at the preparation. But let's go beyond the preparation and move to the temptation. When Satan comes to Him he comes in three waves of temptation. Let's look at the first. Verse 3, "The tempter came and said to Him, 'If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.'" Would you notice that Satan begins with the word 'if'? Always planting the doubt. Always wanting to force the proof. So he tempted Eve. Did God really say that, he asked her. And so he will always tempt. If he can create doubt about God, doubt about spiritual reality, doubt about the standards of the authority figure that is involved in our lives, namely God, doubt about what He commands, doubt about His law, then he can lessen the concern of the one being tempted. So he tempts with evil whispers, breathing doubts into our souls, doubts about the truth of God's revelation, doubts about God's power, doubts about God's love, doubts about God's care, doubts about God's omnisions, maybe He won't even know, doubts about our conversion, if you are a child of God, he might ask. He suggests again and again that terrible if, harassing our soul with fears and awful perplexities.
He knew Jesus was God's Son. He didn't say if You are the Son of God because he didn't know; he knew exactly who Jesus was and he knew He was God's Son. But Satan always likes to start by planting the seed of doubt. And if you can doubt your relationship to God and if you begin to question your relationship to God then maybe you'll act as if you had none. And then comes the temptation itself, very simple, "command that these stones become bread." Satan knew Jesus could do it. And that's how it is with Satan; he likes to tempt us in the realm of possibility no the impossibility. What good would that do? He tempts us with that which is readily available to us. And he tempted Jesus to turn stones into bread because Jesus could do that. and Jesus hadn't eaten in 40 days and He was hungry and food would be for Him at that moment a great satisfaction, a great source of strength and a great enjoyment.
But it was not just a temptation of the physical body or that would have been a temptation to eat greedily or in excess. It isn't a temptation is it to eat bread? It wouldn't even be a sin to make stones into bread if you could do that. it's not sinful to do that. There's nothing sinful about bread. There's nothing sinful about exercising divine power to create. There's no sin in the eating unless there was some temptation to eat greedily as I said or in excess. No. Satan's suggestion might have been worded like this, "Has God said to you that you are My Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased? Hasn't God said that to you? And if you are the Son of God and if you are well pleasing to God and if you are the Sovereign King of the universe then why would God not give you food? Why would He starve You in the wilderness? I mean is God really telling you the truth when He says this is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased? If God is really well pleased then why are You in this terrible place in hunger? Why should You, the Son of God, why should You, the King of Glory, why should You the King of kings and Lord of lords, the Sovereign Savior, why should You the anointed one, the Christ, the Messiah, why should You be hungry? It's beneath Your dignity. It's beneath Your right. Didn't God even give Manna to unbelieving Jews in the wilderness? Didn't God say I will rain bread from heaven for you and didn't God in the Old Testament say I have never seen the righteous begging bread? And didn't Isaiah say they shall not hunger or thirst? If God cares about You like You think He does why are You in this situation? God fed His people by frequent miracles in the wilderness, why not You? can't You, His Son, work one miracle just for one meal? It seems of little consequence.
"And by the way, what's gonna happen if You die here? What's gonna become of God's plan for the Messiah if You perish here? And there's no food around here and You're very hungry and where are You gonna get it if you don't make it?"
You see, the point of temptation is not in feeing His hunger; the point of temptation is in distrusting His Father. that's the point of temptation. What he is saying to Him is it is incompatible for the Son of God to suffer. It isn't right. Sweep aside every human want by a divine act. It was a temptation to exercise personal, selfish authority to do what would satisfy His own desires. You were born in a stable but you're the Son of God. You were hurried off to Egypt for fear of Herod's wrath but You are the Son of God. You were raised in the obscurity of a carpenter's shop and there was a carpenter's roof that supplied You with a home. And in that despicable town of Galilee You spent 30 years of Your life as a nobody but You are the Son of God. And the voice of God from heaven is proclaiming that in Your ears and You have suffered enough and You have endured enough and You have had enough indignity; if You really are the Son of God grab some satisfaction You're entitled to it.
Why would God let You linger for weeks in this desert wandering among wild beasts, craggy rocks, un-honored, unattended, un-pitied and about to starve? You know what he's saying to Him? Rebel. Rebel. Take this deal into your own hands. Now Satan knew a lot about that, didn't he? He invented it, rebellion. It is a wicked attempt to cause the last Adam to fail the same way Satan failed and the same way the first Adam failed. How did the first Adam fail? By disobedience, by rebellion. God said don't and they said we don't care what You said we will. And that's how Satan comes first of all; doubt God, grab satisfaction, you deserve it, rebel, disobey. And he was attempting to destroy the Son's confidence in the Father's will and the Father's power and the Father's plan to sustain Him.
And again there is no sin in satisfying your hunger. Later in fact Jesus would feed the 5,000 and the 12 and He would do it again feeding a huge multitude of thousands. It's not wrong to create the food. He created food on at least a couple of occasions. What was wrong was to go against God and grab the control. That is precisely the issue. Forget God; do want you want for your sake. That's the temptation. To succumb to that temptation would be to disobey, show distrust and rebel against God but Jesus said, "Lo, I come oh Lord to do Your will." Would He violate that? Even in the garden of Gethsemane,at the end of His life Satan comes right back to Him as we noted and he tempts Him to turn from the cross; rebel, don't go there. And He's sweating great drops of blood as His capillaries explode and blood mixes with sweat in the agony of that moment. But in the agony of that temptation He says resolutely, "Not My will but Thine be done."
Look at verse 4, "But Jesus spoke and He spoke to the adversary and it says but he answered and said, 'It is written. Man shall not live on bread alone but on every word that precedes out of the mouth of God.'" By the way He is directly quoting Deuteronomy 8:3. And you know what that text is in Deuteronomy 8:3? It is a reminder to Israel of God's tender care for His people during their wilderness wanderings. It's a perfect parallel. They're in the wandering wilderness, they were reminded not to grab their own satisfaction but to trust God that life consisted not in bread alone but every word that comes from the mouth of God.
We can paraphrase Jesus' answer like this, Satan you're preceding on the false assumption that for a man in order to appease hunger and stay alive bread is absolutely necessary. That's what you're assuming. You're assuming that out here in this wilderness if I don't make bread I'll die. But over against that erroneous assumption I now declare to you that it is not bread but it is the creative, energizing, sustaining power of My Father that is the source of My life. And if God wants to keep me alive He'll keep Me alive without any bread because man does not live on bread alone. But he lives by every word coming out of the mouth of God. Jesus then is affirming His absolute confidence in the Father's promise, in the Father's pledge, in the Father's care. Jesus knows that God wills that He live. And He leaves the sustenance to Him. That's the principle that must rule our lives. Trust in God. God will not fail Me, He said. God will not forsake Me, God will wait on Me in His time, until His time I will wait on Him, I will trust Him. God is the source of My life. I will not control My own life, I will not grab My own satisfaction, I will not instantaneously and rebelliously fulfill My own desires, I wait for God. He loves Me, He cares for Me, He meets My need in His own time, in His own way.
The governing motive and the governing principle of His life was to do the will of God and leave the sustenance to Him. It's kind of like this, seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and, Matthew 6, "all these things shall be," what? "Added unto you." You take care of the righteousness; God will take care of the bread. God will take care of the sustenance. I trust God. I trust God. I don't need to rebel. I don't need to disobey. I don't need to revolt. I will wait on the Lord. I don't rush to satisfy my own fleshly needs.
Well, Satan listens to that. He's very subtle. So he moves to a second temptation. So, you trust God do You? Well, You trust God. You're gonna commit Yourself to God. God's gonna take care of You. God can do it all. Is that right? Verse 5, here comes the second temptation, "The devil took Him into the Holy City," and by the way both of them are supernatural creatures so this was not a problem. They were instantly together, moved to the holy city, Jerusalem. And had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple. Herod had a royal portico, when the southern wall of the temple mount. In one corner, the southeast corner of that, which overlooked the Kedron Valley, was 450 feet high. A dizzy height as Josephus points out. And if you were standing on the corner of the top of Herod's portico on the temple mount you would be looking straight down 450 feet. By the way, tradition says James, our Lord's brother, was thrown off that. And that's how he was killed.
You say You trust God, do You? Well then You certainly believe that God's gonna take care of You no matter what. If You will not prove your Messiahship by working a miracle to save Yourself then why not just do something that will force God to save You? Don't do it Yourself. You want to be humble about this? You want to trust God? You wanna wait on God? Then fine, just do this. Verse 6, and again the if, "If You are the Son of God throw Yourself down. And then You'll find out whether God cares for You. For it is written. And here's the devil quoting Scripture, Psalm 91. Psalm 91:11-12 says, "He'll give His angels charge concerning You, spoken of the Messiah, in their hands they will bear You up lest You strike Your foot against a stone." He says you know Jesus, Psalm 91 says that the angels are gonna protect the Messiah. That God's gonna make sure His angels are in charge of You, they're gonna life You up, that's what bear you up means, and never even let You strike Your foot on a stone let alone crush Your whole body at the bottom of this parapet.
So if You trust God why don't You let God prove Himself? You say You can trust Him then put Him to the test. Now the first temptation was to do it Himself against God's will and now the temptation is to do it in a way that God will show Himself and perform a miracle. And God would be doing this and that eliminates the problem in the first temptation. Let God do it. So subtle.
But you see this is even worse because this is the sin of presuming on God. This is the sin of testing God. In the first a peril really existed, hunger. The hunger was real. Here Jesus is asked to create a peril and then presume on God to deliver Him from it. This is sin. The Psalm is prayed Lord keep Me from presumptuous sin; those things that I get into and I get so deep and then I presume you're gonna get me out of there. But Jesus won't do it. Verse 7 His response, and again he quotes from Deuteronomy this time 6:16, "Jesus said to him, 'On the other hand it is written you shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" Oooh, don't you dare test God.
This would be a prodigious sign admittedly. I mean a swan dive off the corner of the temple in full view of everybody and a nice soft landing. And then a declaration: I am the Messiah. Do you believe it now? Could be relatively convincing. In fact even against the will of the people, even with the hostility and hatred of the priests this would be really hard not to accept. And by the way hadn't Malachi said, "The Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His temple,"?
You know there were several false messiahs who actually tried this. They had very brief careers. One named Thudus led the people out and he was going to prove he was the messiah by splitting the waters of the Jordan River. It didn't happen and he was done. There was another one who was famous Egyptian pretender. Noted in Acts 21:38 and he promised with one word that he would lay flat all the walls of Jerusalem. You know frankly it's helpful when false messiahs attempt such prodigious feats because it makes it fairly clear that they are in fact false. Simon Magus was one who actually tried to fly through the air unsuccessfully and it ended his life. All these pretenders had all thought that if they were able to do some astounding magic, some sensation they could capture public acceptance. Why wouldn't Jesus wanna do that? is this what He wanted? So many times they came to Him and said we wanna sign, we wanna sign, do a trick, do a miracle and He would never do it when they asked. He came not for popularity; He came to be rejected. He came to be hated and despised and killed. He came, Isaiah 53 says, "As a suffering servant". He came to be mistreated. He came to be hated. He came to die. And if all of a sudden the whole populous saw Him do some astounding miracle like that and crowned Him king and He bypassed the cross all would have been lost. He had to be pierced through for our transgressions. He had to be crushed for our inequities. He had to be chastened for our well being. He had to be scourged for our healing. he had to be oppressed and afflicted. He had to be a lamb led to slaughter. He had to be oppressed and taken to judgment. He had to be cutoff out of the land of the living. Please the Lord. Isaiah 57:10, "to crush Him; putting Him to grief. It pleased the Lord. Jesus came to die, the Son of Man comes not to be ministered unto but to minister and give His life of ransom for many."
Had he fallen to this temptation and sinned and maybe He would have bypassed the plan. God never intended for this to happen. He intended for Jesus to be rejected as the Messiah. He came unto His own and His own received him not. "He was in the world, the world was made my Him and the world knew Him not." He knew that if you attract men by providing them with sensations you've adopted a way in which there is no future. And the reason is simple; to retain His power and to retain their interest He would have to produce greater and greater and greater sensations because this year's sensation is next year's commonplace. And He would have had lovers of sensation and not lovers of God. and He would have had people who wanted to follow Him for his power not who wanted to come to Him in repentance and receive His forgiveness. He had a taste of that in John 6 when He fed the multitude on one side of Galilee. The next day He was on the other and they all came back and He said, "You seek Me because of the food."
You don't use God's power to test God. there is no sense in seeing how far you can go with God. there's no sense in putting yourself deliberately into a threatening situation, doing it recklessly and needlessly and then expecting God to rescue you from it. God expects His own, especially His Son, to take some risks in being true to Him but He doesn't expect Him to take risks in order to enhance His own prestige. Jesus refused the way of sensation. It was the way to failure not the way to true success. He refused to collect a crowd of thrill seekers. He wanted a crowd of repentant sinners.
He will trust the Father and He will not presume on Him. he is so humiliated in that wilderness. Forty days with nothing to eat, absolutely all alone, weary, hungry, dirty, tired. He looks like anything but a king but He will not distrust His Father and He will not take the road of sensation for His is the road of suffering.
Satan wasn't done. Rebuffed the second time he came back with a third temptation. You trust the Father do You? and You will only do His will, is that right? and You will only do His will His way? And You will not seek to prove Yourself for some means of sensation? Is that it? And now the subtleties sort of fades away. The devil drops the mask. He takes everything on in one final desperate attempt to achieve his goal. Verse 8-9, "Again the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to Him, 'All these things I will give You if You fall down and worship me.'" Nothing subtle about that. All subtleties are gone now. He's desperate. He takes Him to a high mountain, gives Him a view of all the world's kingdoms, which belong to the usurper Satan for the time being. Egypt with its magnificent pyramids and wonderful buildings and treasures. Greece and Athens and Corinth with all their splendor, Rome, the mistress of the world and all the rest across the globe. And he says all these things will I give you if you fall down and worship me.
You say why is that a temptation. I'll tell you why it's a temptation because in the end He has a right to those, is that not true? You have a right to that. Psalm 2:8, "Ask of Me and I will give you the heathen for your inheritance and the outer most parts of the earth for your possession." That's the Messianic promise from God to the Messiah. I'm just offering you what God offers You only what I'm offering You is the same thing God offers You minus the cross. It really involves compromise, You could have it all and You could have it all without the cross, without the sin offering that You're gonna be, without the wrath of God. You can have it all just worship me.
And by the way, do you know that's what the devil says all the time. Go ahead, compromise. You know what you want, you know what your flesh desires and hey you deserve it. and all you have to do to get it is just worship me. By the way, all sin is an act of worship toward Satan, right. if you were worshiping God you wouldn't do it. God says you shall not; Satan says take it, you deserve it. if you don't do it you've worshiped God; if you do it you've worshiped Satan. Worship me. You say that's a terrible thing. worship Satan, worship Satan. Boy I hear about cults. There are some kind of cults where they worship Satan. Listen folks, every time you sin you worship Satan. Every time you sin you bow to him. every time you sin you declare him your sovereign. Every time you sin you do his will. Every time you sin he's calling the shots. Instead of one long bitter road to the throne just one short bow and the crown is Yours. You can rule it at once and You deserve it; no shame, no agony. Don't put Your demands so high Jesus. Wink a little at evil and questionable things. Retreat a little bit from this unnecessary passion for obedience. And why fight? Hey, You can have me for an ally says Satan. We'll do it together. This is what I'd like you to do and when you do it you become his ally.
I'll give You sovereignty over Israel. I'll give You sovereignty over the nations without the cross. You know what? If Christ had done that it would have been Christ playing the role of antichrist because Christ would have become Satan's world ruler. It would have been Christ becoming the beast. No, once more from our Lord comes a swift and decisive answer out of the book of Deuteronomy and again He responds, verse 10, then Jesus said to him get out of here Satan. And it wasn't a suggestion. It was a command. "For it is written you shall worship your Lord God and serve Him only." There aren't any shortcuts to blessing. There aren't any shortcuts to achievement. Satan comes at us like this insisting that the end justifies the means. He suggests that in a world of commerce, in a world of society, in a world of politics we must be somebody and the only way to be somebody in this world is to compromise. Let's get in the world and take it on His terms. If you really wanna be a winner you gotta compromise a little. But for Christ the issue was clearly drawn; submission to Satan and an easy path to popularity and temporary power was disloyalty to God. We have the same choice, beloved. We either have unswerving loyalty to the Cross or we compromise.
What have we learned from these temptations? Satan will tempt us to distrust the care of God. He will tempt us to distrust the love of God. He will tempt us to distrust the will of God, the way of God, the purpose of God, the concern of God, the compassion of God. he doesn't want us to believe God when God says He'll supply all our needs according to His riches by Christ Jesus. He doesn't want us to believe that. he wants us to grab some satisfaction on our own. Secondly, Satan will tempt us to presume on God. to go out there and do what we think we need to do to make our splash in the world and expect God to rescue us or put the pieces back together.
I talked to a man who said to me I'm gonna divorce my wife. I said why. He said I don't like her. He said I don't like her at all. In fact he said I can't stand her; I hate her. I said that's not grounds for divorce in the Bible. You're a Christian. Is she a Christian? Yes, she's a Christian. He said what do you think God will do to me if I divorce her without any biblical grounds. I said I don't know. I said I don't know what he'll do to you specifically; he will have every right to chasten you. and I'm sure there will be some chastening and I'm not sure what God will choose to do and He will even have the right to take your life as one who sinned flagrantly and knowingly. He said you know what, I don't wanna live with this woman; I'll take my chances with God. And he divorced her. I wouldn't want to do that. I'd rather take my chances with that woman since she may be a formidable person to cope with but she's not the judge of the universe. What presumption. I'll take my chances with God. like I'll jump; he'll catch me.
Satan will tempt us to distrust God, he'll tempt us to presume on God and do whatever we want and just expect God to pick up the pieces. And thirdly he'll tempt us to ambition to fulfill our ambition in our own way. That's how he works. Verse John 2 says, "He comes through the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, the pride of life to tempt us." How do we deal wit that? How did Jesus deal with it? Three times what did He do? Quoted what? Scripture. What did ____ say? "Thy word if I hid in my heart that I might not sin. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as babes desire the pure milk of the word that you may grow there by." It is the word that gives us victory. I've often said in my life that I spend so much time in the Scriptures and God knows I must need that. I can't even get started in a sin without hearing Bible versus in my mind. Thou shall not, thou shall not, thou shall not. Why are you doing that, you know what it says over there, you know what it says over there. I thank God my computer is jammed with that stuff.
And it isn't just that it's some kind of a sky hook it's that the Scripture has given me a comprehension of how to live and I know better than to purposely do that because I'll cut myself off from God's blessing. I don't wanna do that. it's not just that Scripture is a little sky hook that yanks you up and out it is that Scripture repeatedly poured into your life lays a foundation of comprehension and you know how you ought to live for maximum blessing.
Let's look at the triumph, finally. Jesus said to him be gone Satan. Get out of here. Holy indignation. And He vanquished him and then He quotes Deuteronomy 6:13, "He is defeated. He is sent away. He is not destroyed yet. His head will be bruised at the cross and at the end of the millennium kingdom he will be cast into the lake of fire that will burn for ever and ever but he is defeated right at the cross." Destroyed potentially there and here he is defeated in this initial temptation. The temptation to adopt a selfish, spectacular, presumptuous, secular messiahship and even a satanic messiahship was foiled and Jesus passed the test. He is more powerful than Satan. He is sinless. And He can rescue sinners from the kingdom of darkness. He is in charge of the devil. That's what he proved. He will not sin under the most subtle and vicious temptation under the most dangerous circumstance. He is the perfect man. He is the sovereign king. He is the ruler of Satan. He can rescue sinners from the domain of darkness. He is indeed the king. Not only is He the king by genealogy, not only is He the king by birth, not only is He the king by adoration, not only is He the king by attestation of Old Testament prophecy, not only is He affirmed the king by the forerunner John the Baptist, not only is He the king by virtue by His baptism and the spirit coming upon Him in the declaration from the Father in heaven but He is the king by virtue of His power over the current ruling monarch, Satan. And He shows His blazing power and the Father attests to His triumph in verse 11. The devil left Him, didn't have a choice because the King told him to leave. And behold angles came and began to minister to Him. Who sent the angels? God the Father. They were there at His birth, they predicted it, they announced it. They were there through His earthly life protecting Him. They warned His family to leave when He was just a little guy. Even at the cross He could have called 12 legions of them if He wanted to and they would have delivered Him. they were there at His resurrection sitting right there on either end of the slab and the announced that He was alive and they will be there when He comes again. For He comes with His angels and here they are again sent by the Father to minister to Him.
What do you think that means? Food. Some kind of manna. Water. Strength. Comfort. Fellowship. And God was saying this is My king. This is My King and the angels recognize Him and the angels serve His every purpose. He is the sovereign. Over the holy angels and the demons. And He has proven the ability to take you out of the kingdom of darkness ruled by Satan and bring you to the kingdom of light. Through the forgiveness of sin, through His death and resurrection in your behalf.
Let's bow together in prayer. Our Father we pray tonight that the truth may sink deeply into our hearts. This is the King. Oh how glorious. This is the one that has defeated the arch enemy of the universe, Satan, for Himself and all who come to Him in faith. And Father I pray that those who hear this great message, this great truth will come to the true king, confess Him as their king, repent their sin and follow Him. that they might be transferred out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. That they might have the hope of eternal glory in heaven which hope you give to all who believe in Your Son, the King. Who became a King through suffering and died for sinners.
Father we thank You for the gift of Your Son and our King, Jesus Christ in whose name we pray. Amen.
This article is also available and sold as a booklet.
This sermon series includes the following messages:
Please contact the publisher to obtain copies of this resource.Publisher Information


text:
It doesn't matter if you choose Android or iPhone. BlackBerry or Windows Phone.
Your smartphone's battery stinks.
As phone technology gets develops with faster processors and high-speed wireless data connections, battery technology is largely the same. We still depend on lithium-ion batteries that lose their ability to hold a full charge over time and often can't supply a full day's use for a typical smartphone user.
The biggest culprit is the radio that delivers wireless data over WiFi or your carrier's network, according to Joel Dawson, the CTO of a company called Eta Devices that has a method for better managing the way mobile devices consume power.
"Instead of energy being put to good use, a lot is wasted as heat," Dawson said. "Smartphones are built to be beautiful and fit in your hand, but that limits how much heat it can dissipate."
There are two major ways to get around the problem: Create a better battery or create a method for phones to use current battery power more efficiently.
Eta Devices is working on the latter.
Dawson said his company's process can intelligently assess how much power your wireless radio is using and adjust how much power your phone needs to pull in from the battery. Normally, the battery just keeps the phone powered and connected with little regard to how much radio use is actually required.
The result?
Depending on how you use your phone, you could see up to twice the battery life. And that's without anyone inventing a better battery. Dawson said he can't discuss what companies will use the process, but did hint that we could see it applied by the end of this year or early next year.
Things get a bit fuzzier when it comes to actually building a better battery though. The chemistry in lithium-ion batteries that stores a charge is pretty much the same as it's always been. However, there is some work being done to alter that chemistry so batteries charge up faster and last longer.
Dr. Harold Kung, a professor at Northwestern University, made a lot of headlines a few years ago when he published that he figured out a a new chemical process that extends the life of a lithium-ion battery 10-fold and cuts the charge time down to about 15 minutes.
But don't get too excited. In an interview, Kung said it will be a long time before his method becomes perfected and commercialized.
The good news is the short-term answer to solving our battery woes could be coming soon, namely by managing the way phones sip power from the battery. The better news is that once new battery technology is available, power management processes like the one Eta Devices has can work in tandem with it for even more impressive battery life one day.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Play Safe Surfacing Rubber Mulch Pour-N-Place Playground Safety Surface
Creative Inlays with EPDM for Playgrounds, Commercial Entrances, Pool Decks, etc.
Rubber Mulch Pour-N-Place Sidewalk and 1 Loose Fill Rubber Landscape Mulch
Play Safe Surfacing 1 Loose Fill Rubber Landscape Mulch
Copyright ©2002, Play Safe Surfacing, Inc. All rights reserved.
Webmaster: email@example.com
Note: Some viewers may experience problems with text over running into the pictures. We have tried without success to resolve this issue and apologize for any inconvenience this may cause our viewers.
This site is best viewed by Internet Explorer 6.0 or Netscape 6.1


text:
"I just uploaded some posters. They look great!"Ruth Lowton - 28th Feb 2013
Delivery is calculated by weight and charged during the checkout process. Orders that are placed before 12 noon are shipped same day for delivery next business day. A range of guaranteed delivery services is also available.
Alongside a wide range of stocks and finishes, Inkworks offers folding, stapling and binding services – perfect for the production of brochures, catalogues, programmes and guide books.
Choose 'Laminated' when you specify and place your Order. Laminating is a 2-day service.
In the case of any issues, contact Inkworks immediately using the information on our contact us page. Inkworks aims to respond to and resolve all support issues within 24 hours or receipt. See our terms and conditions for more information.
It is incredibly easy to print your full colour A3 poster using InkWorks. You can turn your A3 PDF to print by simply uploading the file and following the simple 3 step process. If you are a professional that needs quick A3 poster printing on a regular basis then InkWorks is perfect for you. Once your PDF is uploaded you can choose folds, finishes and delivery address. Meaning we can deliver A3 poster printing direct to your client.
We'll despatch within 2 days
Order quantity as low as one poster
No set up charge and no minimum order quantity.
We will even print just one, so why not order one as a proof?
Buy the exact number you need and just re-order when you need more
Inkworks offers next day poster delivery when you upload and order your posters on line today


text:
Serviços Personalizados
Links relacionados
- Citado por Google
- Similares em Google
Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research
versão On-line ISSN 2219-0635
versão impressa ISSN 0030-2465
Onderstepoort j. vet. res. vol.80 no.1 Pretoria Jan. 2013
The incursion, persistence and spread of peste des petits ruminants in Tanzania: Epidemiological patterns and predictions
Fredrick M. KivariaI; Olivier KwiatekII; Angolwisye M. KapagaIII; Emmanuel S. SwaiIV; Geneviève LibeauII; Winford MoshyIV; Albano O. MbyuziV; Joshua GladsonIII
INational Epidemiology Section, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Tanzania
IICIRAD, Campus International de Baillarguet, France
IIICentral Veterinary Laboratory, Tanzania
IVVeterinary Investigation Centre, Arusha, Tanzania
VVeterinary Investigation Centre, Mtwara, Tanzania
Peste des petits ruminants virus, which causes a severe disease in sheep and goats, has only recently been officially declared to be present in Tanzania. An epidemiological study was carried out between September 2008 and October 2010 to investigate the incursion, persistence and spread of the virus in Tanzania. The investigation involved serosurveillance, outbreak investigation and computation of epidemiological indices such as the effective reproductive number, persistence and the threshold level for vaccination. Field and molecular epidemiological techniques were applied to isolate, characterise and trace the origin of the virus in Tanzania. A total of 2182 serum samples from goats and 1296 from sheep from 79 villages across 12 districts were investigated. Village-level prevalence of infection was variable (0.00% - 88.00%) and was higher in pastoral than in agro-pastoral villages. The overall antibody response to the virus was 22.10% (CI95% = 20.72% - 23.48%). About 68.00% and 73.00% of seropositive goats and sheep, respectively, did not show clinical signs. The proportion of seropositive animals differed significantly (p < 0.001) between age groups, sex and farming practices. Real-time polymerase chain reaction results showed that the isolated strains belong to lineage III, whose origin is in East Africa and the Middle East. This indicates that one of the northern neighbouring countries is most likely the source of infection. The computed overall effective reproductive number, the threshold level of vaccination necessary to eradicate the disease and persistence were 4.75% and 98.00%, respectively. These estimates indicate that achieving elimination of the peste des petits ruminants virus from pastoral flocks will require significant effort and development of highly effective intervention tools.
In Tanzania, sheep and goats are important livestock species as they are able to survive unfavourable climatic conditions of arid and semiarid environments; hence, they are species of choice of pastoralists. These animals are widely distributed across different agro-ecological zones and production systems and form an integral part of the livelihood of rural households. However, the contribution of sheep and goats to food security in Tanzania has recently been threatened by outbreaks of peste des petits ruminants (PPR).
The first outbreak of PPR in sheep and goats in Tanzania was confirmed in December 2008. Since then, sporadic outbreaks have been reported in many parts of the country. The three fundamental steps of exotic pathogen emergence are incursion, persistence and spread in a geographical context. In this article, incursion refers to the first confirmed arrival of PPR virus (PPRV) in the country, persistence refers to the obstinate survival of PPRV in sheep and goat populations in spite of vaccination and other biosecurity measures undertaken to eliminate the virus, and spread refers to the movement of PPRV between different geographical localities. We use data on the first occurrence and the subsequent events of PPR incursion and spread in Tanzania to illustrate the epidemiological factors that drive these sequential events amongst the pastoral sheep and goat population. The epidemiological data, clinical and pathological features of this outbreak and recovery and identification of PPRV are also reported.
Materials and methods
The historical perspectives of peste des petits ruminants incursion into Tanzania
Incursion of PPR into Tanzania was suspected after a confirmed PPR outbreak in Kenya in August 2006. The possible presence of the disease in Tanzania was reported at the Tanzania Veterinary Association annual scientific conference by the Ngorongoro District Veterinary Officer in December 2007. In March 2008, a high mortality rate was observed amongst sheep and goats in the Ngorongoro district and a technical team was dispatched to investigate the cause of the increased deaths. A total of 112 sheep and goats were subjected to clinical, pathological and serological investigations. Both clinical and pathological investigations yielded inconclusive results, whilst serological investigation yielded negative results for PPR.
However, reports of increased deaths in sheep and goats continued in the Ngorongoro and Mara districts. In June 2008, a second team was dispatched to the Ngorongoro and Mara districts, where, respectively, 404 and 84 serum samples were collected. Of the 404 samples collected in the Ngorongoro district, 129 (31.93%) tested positive for PPR during serological screening. None of the samples from the Mara district tested positive. Based on these rapid epidemiological assessment (REA) results, the director of veterinary services designed a cross-sectional study that was aimed at gauging the magnitude and extent of PPR spread in the country.
Field investigation of the incursion of peste des petits ruminants
A cross-sectional study was carried out in 12 districts across the regions of Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Manyara and Tanga in the north of the country between September 2008 and July 2009. The aim of the study was to determine the magnitude of PPR in the study area and the extent of the southward spread. Approximately 4 362 838 goats and 2 079 151 sheep were estimated to be at risk in the study, representing about 57.75% and 32.08% of the national goat and sheep populations, respectively.
All sheep and goat flocks in the sampling area formed the population from which study flocks were randomly selected. Multistage sampling (Dohoo, Martin & Stryhn 2003), with four hierarchical stages, was used as sampling strategy. The first level of selection was the region; the Arusha, Kilimanjaro, Manyara and Tanga regions were purposely selected. Within each of the selected regions, specific districts (Karatu, Longido, Mbulu, Monduli, Ngorongoro, Siha, Simanjiro, Korogwe, Lushoto, Mkinga, Muheza and Tanga-municipal) were also purposely selected. Villages were randomly selected. Within each of the selected villages, 40 animals (either sheep or goats) were randomly selected. The study regions and districts were purposely selected based on perceived risk due to either their bordering Kenya or the presence of farming activities characterised by extensive livestock movement.
Owing to the characteristics of the pastoral and agro-pastoral livestock production systems, it is reasonable to consider all the sheep and goats in a village as one flock, with very little within-flock variation. A village was therefore considered to constitute a flock. The sample size was computed as suggested by Dohoo et al. (2003):
where z = 1.96, p = 0.32 (the prior prevalence from the REA study described earlier) and L = 0.05 (the desired level of precision or accuracy). The required sample size was accordingly calculated as n = 334.37.
However, PPR is a highly contagious disease. To obtain a similar accuracy to that with simple random sampling, the sample size had to be recalculated. The aim was to sample at least 40 animals from each village, and from the REA study the average rate of PPR homogeneity (p) was estimated to be 0.156. The sample size was subsequently recalculated as:
where n = 334.37, p = 0.156 and m = 40, representing the average number of animals to be sampled from each village (Dohoo et al. 2003). Therefore, the new sample size was equal to 2360.816 animals and 59 villages were to be included in this study. The design effect (D) was calculated as 7.084 according to:
The standard error (S) was calculated as 0.026 according to:
indicating that with this design the certainty associated with the true prevalence of sheep and goats with antibodies to PPR will be p ± 1.960 x 0.026 of the estimate. The prevalence was determined by dividing the total number of positive samples by the total number of samples (Dohoo et al. 2003). The sampling frame from which the 59 study villages were randomly selected was obtained from the district agriculture office.
Clinical and pathological investigation
In all villages that were visited, discussions were held with livestock owners and animals were inspected for evidence of classic PPR symptoms (severe mucopurulent nasal and ocular discharges, necrotic stomititis and respiratory distress). Dead animals were necropsied for evidence of PPR lesions and organ collection. Pieces of the lung, spleen, kidney, liver and mesenteric lymph nodes from one dead goat were collected for laboratory confirmation. In addition, two goats from the Ngorongoro district, which presented with clinical signs of PPR, were purchased and sacrificed for collection of microbiological samples and pathological lesions.
Laboratory techniques
Competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for peste des petits ruminants
A nucleotide monoclonal antibody-based competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (cELISA) was used for the detection of antibodies to PPRV (FAO/IAEA 1993; OIE 2000). This test was developed using a virus-neutralising monoclonal antibody directed against an epitope of the haemagglutinin protein specific to PPRV. All serum samples tested in the present study were processed in duplicate according to the standard protocol for the detection of rinderpest antibodies (FAO/IAEA 1993; OIE 2000). The results of the cELISA were interpreted using software from the Economic Development Institute developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency for the detection of rinderpest antibody (FAO/IAEA 1993). Results were interpreted as previously described by Libeau et al. (1995). Samples that showed colour inhibition (inhibition of the enzymatic colour reaction) > 50% when compared to wells containing the control (no serum), were considered positive. A confidence interval at the 95% level (CI95%) for the prevalence of antibodies to PPRV in the population studied was calculated using standard statistical methods (Snedecor & Cochran 1989).
Real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis and lineage definition
A total of six sheep samples from the Ngorongoro district in the Arusha region were analysed for viral identification and lineage definition. One sample consisted of ovine tissues (liver, spleen, heart and mediastinal lymph nodes) and five of heparinised whole blood. Total RNA was extracted and cDNA was amplified as previously described (Kwiatek et al. 2007). The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) used the pan-morbillivirus primers located in the middle of the gene (Nad1: CCAAGGATTGCAGAAATGATC, Nad2: GCTCCTGCACTAAACTTGTTC), which allow the amplification of the N-gene of all morbilliviruses to give a product of 230 bases. The PCR conditions were as follows: an activation of 10 min at 95 °C, 35 cycles of amplification (30 s at 94 °C, 30 s at 55 °C and 30 s at 72 °C) and a final extension step at 72 °C for 7 min. The PCR was performed in a 2720 thermal cycler (Applied Biosystems). The resulting PCR products were analysed by electrophoresis on an ethidium bromide-stained 1.5% agar gel.
The nucleic acid sequences obtained from PCR products amplified with the Nad1-Nad2 primer were aligned with sequences from PPRV strains that were maintained in our database. Phylogenetic analysis was performed on the 224 nucleotides located on the nucleoprotein gene of the virus. The known PPRV sequences were derived from strains isolated over a period of 20 years. They consisted of 'historical' strains, such as the Nigeria 75/1, from which the PPR vaccine was developed, and also the Dorcas strain isolated from a Dorcas gazelle in a zoological collection in the United Arab Emirates, (Furley, Taylor & Obi 1987). Strains isolated between 1988 and 2000 originated from Cameroon, India, Senegal, Turkey, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Oman and the Ivory Coast. The alignment of nucleotide sequences was created by means of the Clustal W program (Vector NTI, Informax Inc., Rockville). Phylogenetic analysis was carried out as described by Kwiatek et al. (2007). Bootstrap confidence values were calculated on 1000 replicates. The RBOK vaccine strain of rinderpest virus was considered as an out-group.
Investigation on the persistence of peste de petits ruminants
A fundamental parameter determining the success (persistence and spread) of any infectious organism in a host population is the basic reproductive number, R0, which measures the potential for spread of infection. It is defined as the average number of new infections caused when an infection enters an entirely susceptible population (Anderson & May 1991). Two things are worth noting from this definition. First, it is an average value that can change from population to population or over time, depending on the patterns of contact or biological influences at play. Second, the subscripted identifier (zero) refers to the time at the start; that is, when invasion occurs. As the infection spreads, the population is no longer entirely susceptible. Contacts are therefore wasted on infected or immune individuals and the reproductive number is reduced to an effective reproductive number, Rt. The effective reproductive number has a threshold value of 1 to ensure persistence and can be used to estimate the level of immunisation or managerial change required to control an epidemic.
In this study, Rt was estimated from the average age at seroconversion by the method of Dietz (1993). The deterministic formula used was:
where Ls is the expected average farm gate lifespan of sheep and goats and As is the average age at seroconversion. An estimate of Rt was also determined as described by Heffernan and Wahl (2005), using reported morbidity and case fatality risk associated with PPR according to the formula:
where rt is the reported PPR morbidity and at is the average PPR case fatality risk.
The following assumptions were applied:
- From an epidemiological perspective, the small ruminant (sheep and goat) population is assumed to be a single, homogeneous, free-mixing host population (referred to as 'the flock') and contacts between individuals were random.
- The kidding and lambing rates were high enough to sustain an input of susceptible hosts into the population, thereby maintaining a constant chain of infection in the population.
- Screening of 250 sheep and 600 goat samples, randomly selected from the 2006-2008 sera that were collected from the study area during rinderpest elimination campaigns, yielded negative results for PPRV antibodies. It was therefore logical to assume that the study animals were seronegative during the 12 months before sampling, and therefore fully susceptible to the invading PPRV infection.
- The duration of the infectious period is not related to age.
- The deterministic model did not consider the probability of re-invasion of the recovered flock.
The probability of persistence or spread, ppers, over the next generation was computed as ppers = 1 - (1/Rt)n, where n is the number of infectious foci (the number of villages that reported PPR cases) and Rt equals R0 when there is no immunity or previous infection within the population. The threshold level of vaccination (Vt) necessary to eradicate the disease was calculated according to Vt = 1 - Rt-1, as described in Anderson and May (1991).
Investigation on the spread of peste des petits ruminants in Tanzania
In December 2009, an outbreak of a disease characterised by the sudden onset of yellowish diarrhoea, mucoid nasal and ocular discharges with matting of the eyelids and erosive lesions of the gums followed by death was reported from Likuna, a village in the Newala district of the Mtwara region in southern Tanzania. Participatory epidemiological investigations showed that a livestock trader, and a resident of the village, had brought 70 goats from the Pugu market in the Dar es Salaam region to be sold during the approaching seasonal festivals (Christmas and New Year). The trade goats started to die after three days, without noticeable clinical signs. To avoid losses, the trader sold the whole consignment cheaply to the nearby villages of Makote, Mnazi mmoja, Lidumbe and Mambika. The disease affected the resident stock with high morbidity and mortality rates, estimated at 90% and 73% respectively. Clinical examination was carried out in 30 randomly selected animals and necropsies were performed on 10 dead animals. Ocular and nasal swabs and sera were collected for laboratory confirmation from 217 randomly selected animals. The epidemic curve was plotted to see the pattern of the outbreak, using the daily records made by the Newala district veterinary officer.
Competitive ELISA showed that antibodies against PPRV were present in 59% of the 217 serum samples and PPRV protein was detected in 34% of the screened ocular and nasal swabs. By March 2010 the disease had spread to the nearby districts of Tandahimba and Masasi, where, respectively, 84% of the 180 and 3% of the 125 samples screened by "cELISA yielded positive results for antibodies against PPRV.
In April 2010 about 400 small ruminants were reported to have died because of an unknown disease in two divisions of Malinyi and Mtimbira in the Ulanga district of the Morogoro region. Epidemiological investigations suggested that the disease was PPR, which invaded the region through returning migratory pastoralists who had moved northwards from the Mtwara and Lindi regions. Serological investigations revealed the presence of antibodies against PPRV in 152 (76%) of the 200 serum samples tested by means of "cELISA. In 2011, antibodies to PPRV were demonstrated in trade cattle sharing common grazing lands with 225 small ruminants in the Mukuranga district of the Coast region. Although not susceptible to the disease, cattle are able to seroconvert in case of a high prevalence of PPR in small ruminants (Abubakar et al. 2011).
In October 2010 the Director of Veterinary Services conducted risk-based serosurveillance in all districts that border Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia. Samples were collected from animals at randomly selected high-risk areas, such as border crossings, auctions, slaughter slabs and grazing and watering points, and other areas where animals from a number of villages congregate. A total of 720 serum samples were collected under the Vaccine for Control of Neglected Animal Diseases in Africa (VACNADA) programme (funded by the European Union) and screened for antibodies against PPRV at the PANVAC laboratories in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Of the 720 samples, 266 (36.9%) tested positive for antibodies against PPRV. Clinical disease was detected in the Mahuta ward of the Tandahimba district, Mtwara and according to RT-PCR, PPRV protein was detected in 33.0% of the tissue samples taken from 28 goats here.
The chronology and probable movement of PPR in Tanzania is depicted in Figure 1.
Field investigations on the incursion of peste des petits ruminants
Clinical signs: Macro- and microscopical lesions
Clinical signs of PPR were observed in 90 goats and 60 sheep, independent of age or sex, in the Ngorongoro, Monduli, Longido and Siha districts. The clinical signs included diarrhoea, especially in young animals, elevated body temperatures (> 40 °C), serous rhinorrhoea and serous mucopurulent nasal discharges. Peri-nasal areas were often found encrusted with mucopurulent discharges. However, such clinical signs were not observed in the flocks in the other study districts.
Two necropsied goats showed inflammation of the apical lung lobes, with multiple abscesses evident in one of the goats. The mesenteric lymph nodes in both carcasses were swollen and the small intestines were hyperaemic. Microscopical lesions in the lungs were associated with bronchopneumonia and focal necrotic areas surrounded by inflammatory zones were also found.
Cross-sectional study results
A total of 3478 serum samples (2182 from goats; 1296 from sheep) were obtained from 79 villages1 between September 2008 and July 2009. The distribution of the study variables was such that 72.70% of the study animals were female, whilst 27.30% were male. Of the 3478 animals, 77.80% were classified as adults and 22.20% were classified as kids or lambs. The majority of the study animals (2162/3478; 62.16%) were from the agro-pastoral farming system, whilst 37.84% (1316/3478) came from the pastoral farming system.
Serological results and risk indicators for positive serological status against peste des petits ruminants
Of the tested animals, 22.10% (CI95%: 20.72% - 23.48%) were classified as seropositive for PPRV antibodies. Up to 88.00% of the study animals tested positive for PPRV, with a greater proportion of positive samples found in the Arusha, Manyara and Kilimanjaro regions (in descending order) than in the Tanga region. The percentage of PPRV-positive samples are categorised according to region, district, farming practice and animal species in Table 1. It was estimated that 68.00% of the 483 goats and 73.00% of the 286 sheep that tested positive for antibodies against PPRV had not displayed clinical signs. The proportion of seropositive animals differed significantly according to age, sex and farming practice, but there was no significant association between animal species and seropositivity. Results of the pairwise comparison are summarised in Table 2. Despite an overall frequency of 22.10% (CI95%: 20.72% - 23.48%), the seroprevalence of PPR appeared to be variable across the study districts; pastoral districts appeared generally to have suffered more from infection (Z = 15.38; p < 0.0001) than the agro-pastoral districts, and a seroprevalence of 0.00% was reported in two districts (Table 2).
Characterisation of the strain and determination of its geographical lineage
Two samples (one tissue sample and one from blood) were found positive for PPRV by means of RT-PCR. To obtain epidemiological information and analyse the genetic relation of the 2008 Tanzania strain (from the Ngorongoro district) with strains of different geographical origins, the nucleic acid sequences obtained from PCR products amplified with the Nad1-Nad2 primer were aligned with sequences from PPRV strains retrieved from GenBank or maintained in our database. Phylogenetic analysis was performed on the 224 nucleotides located on the nucleoprotein gene of the virus. The program MRBAYES (version 3.1.2) was used to perform Bayesian analysis. Tree manipulations were compiled using the FigTree program (version 1.3.1) (http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/). The RBOK wild strain of RPV and a measles virus strain were considered as out-groups. For support, phylogenetic analysis was also carried out as described in Kwiatek et al. (2007).
As expected, the 2008 Tanzania strain of PPRV fell into lineage III, as is the case for East African strains, and it was closely related to the historical strains Ibri and Dorcas isolated since 1987 in the Sultanate of Oman (Furley et al. 1987). The lineage is distinct from the one circulating in Asia from south India to Turkey (Özkul et al. 2002).
Figure 2 shows the Bayesian inference of PPRV strains. The phylogenetic reconstruction was made using MRBAYES software as mentioned earlier (Huelsenbeck & Ronquist 2001). The sequence evolution model proposed by Jobb (2011) was HKY. Consequently, the number of substitution types was set at six and the Bayesian reconstruction was run for 6 000 000 iterations. Results were analysed when the standard deviation between the Monte Carlo Markov chains fell below 0.01. Trees were sampled every 1000 generations; thus the consensus tree was built up with a burn-in phase of 25% and posterior probabilities were displayed as node labels. The tree was rooted by two out-groups, namely measles and rinderpest morbilliviruses collected from Genbank (FJ416068 and X98291 respectively), and the four PPRV lineages are highlighted in black brackets. Tanzania_2009 analysed in this study is underlined in lineage III.
Persistence and spread of peste des petits ruminants
Estimates of Rt derived through deterministic and morbidity or mortality techniques for each of the investigated districts, as well as those based on pooled data for the districts, were similar. These estimates, together with their respective vaccination threshold (Vt) estimates, are summarised in Table 3a and Table 3b. The overall persistence was estimated at 0.98.
As shown in Figure 3 the epidemic curve resembles a typical propagated outbreak, with peaks of primary, secondary and tertiary generations of cases spaced by an incubation period. The most probable period of exposure of the susceptible animals to PPRV was calculated as 3-5 days before the index case was reported.
It was of epidemiological interest to observe that clinical signs were not present in 68% of the 483 goats and 73% of the 286 sheep that tested seropositive for antibodies against PPRV. The presence of these 'silent spreaders', coupled with uncontrolled extensive livestock movement within the country and across the international borders, may explain the detection of antibodies against PPRV without clinical disease in the south-western parts of the country (Tanzania-Zambia and Tanzania-Malawi borders), as shown in Figure 1.
Our results are in agreement with observations made by Swai et al. (2009), who confirmed the presence of PPR in Tanzania. As PPR has not been previously reported in Tanzania, it can be considered an emerging disease in Tanzania. Absence of PPR in Tanzania was demonstrated serologically in 2000 (Wambura 2000). The identification of the PPRV strain, as well as the serological, virological and clinical findings of this study confirmed that the disease was PPR. Clinical and post-mortem examination may be sufficient for the diagnosis of PPR in endemic areas, but molecular methods of characterisation are compulsory in areas where the outbreaks occur for the first time (Scott 1990). Genotypic classification based on the N-protein gene appeared to be an effective method for discriminating between geographically distinct lineages (Kwiatek et al. 2007).
Pastoral districts appeared generally to have suffered more from infection (Z = 15.38; p < 0.0001) than the agro-pastoral districts (Table 2). Reasons for this may be related to extensive livestock movements and exchanges resulting in a high rate of contact between animals, which increases the potential for transmission of PPRV.
Pastoral animals will often travel long distances during the dry season in search of fodder and water. Consequently, a considerable proportion of the population becomes infected during this period, giving rise to the establishment of disease endemicity and continued, year-round circulation of the virus. Farmers are often not aware of the pitfalls of mixing sick and healthy animal for grazing. For example, the study team saw diseased small ruminants and in-contact animals being sold at the market despite the ongoing outbreak. The purchase of new stock from the market and the return of unsold animals will often precipitate in severe outbreaks. The movement of animals, therefore, plays an important role in the spread and maintenance of PPRV in flocks, as does the purchase of potentially infected animals and their subsequent introduction into naïve flocks.
Age appears to be a risk indicator (p < 0.001) for seropositive PPR status, as suggested by the observed age profile according to which about 43% of the flock consists of young animals. Although goats are considered to be more susceptible to PPRV than sheep (Abubakar et al. 2011), there was no association (p = 1.000) between animal species and seropositivity in the current study. This could be due to the fact that sheep and goats are equally exposed to the PPR risk factors such as movement and nutritional stresses, or it could be that the circulating field strain has overcome the natural resistance of sheep; different types of breed might affect the outcome of PPRV infection. The significant relationship (p = < 0.001) between sex and seropositive PPR status could be due to the uneven distribution of the two sexes in the study flocks.
The origin of PPRV in Tanzania is not well established, but it is believed that it might have been introduced to Tanzania through the movement of live, infected animals. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the border districts such as Longido and Ngorongoro had the highest prevalence (Table 1) of PPRV antibodies; moreover, PPRV was isolated from tissue samples that originated from the Ngorongoro district. The results of molecular epidemiological techniques suggest cross-border transmission of actively circulating PPRV into Tanzania from neighbouring northern countries. The virus we isolated is PPRV lineage III, which includes viruses whose origins are in East Africa. An outbreak in Ethiopia in 1996 as well as one in the Middle East was of this type (Abubakar et al. 2011). Thus, one of the northern neighbouring countries in the East Africa region is most likely the source of infection.
The evolving East African situation regarding PPR for the period 2004-2009 can be traced in the World Organisation for Animal Health's WAHID database (http://www.oie.int/wahis/public.php?page=disease_timelines) (OIE 2009), where the different waves of incursion of PPR can be seen. The first is observed in Kenya in March 2006, a second in Uganda in 2007 and the last one in Tanzania in December 2008. The majority of north-eastern countries such as Ethiopia and Sudan have been reporting the disease for more than 10 years (Lefèvre et al. 1991). For PPRV transmission, infected and healthy animals need to be in contact (Lefèvre et al. 1991), which serves as an additional indication that the virus came into Tanzania through progressive introduction of live, infected animals from these countries. Trade, as well as the nomadic lifestyle of the people in this region, is to a great extent responsible for the phenomenon. Moreover, the general extension of PPR emergence in Africa is certainly linked to the expansion of trade in animals and subsequent movement of these animals into previously disease-free regions. This phenomenon is further advanced by the presence of a significant proportion of 'silent spreaders'.
The epidemic curve revealed that during the outbreak cases occurred over multiple incubation periods. The shape and other features of an epidemic curve (Figure 3) can suggest hypotheses about the time and source of exposure, the mode of transmission, the causative agent, incubation period and the efficacy of control measures (Dicker & Gathany 1992). The outbreak had a successive series of peaks, reflecting increasing and decreasing numbers of cases in each generation. The epidemic waned after five generations, probably because either the number of susceptible animals fell below some critical level or the zoosanitary measures taken to control the disease became effective.
The estimates of Rt for PPRV infection (Table 3a) indicate that, on average, four secondary PPR infectious cases resulted from each primary infection in pastoral flocks. The variation in Rt estimates observed (Table 3a) is probably due to farming system and environmental variation, but it may also reflect the stochastic nature of PPRV. At this estimated Rt value (4), it might be expected that minor outbreaks of PPR infection would occur in which far fewer individuals seroconvert. This expectation is consistent with the number of reported sporadic PPR episodes. However, the generally poor reporting level suggests that an Rt value of 4 may be an underestimate of PPRV infection in the pastoral population. Furthermore, the morbilliviruses are known to be highly contagious, with a basic R0 between 15 and 20 (Anderson & May 1991), which increases the chances of an infection spreading or persisting within the population. However, given that the serological survey was conducted when the epidemic was still evolving, the host-pathogen relationship may not have reached equilibrium. Furthermore, it is possible that the assumption that animals were seronegative during the previous 12 months might not be valid, as the epidemic had been evolving for some time before the animals were sampled. The value of Rt derived in this study should therefore be cautiously considered a minimum estimate of the true population values.
There are limitations to generalisation of this estimated Rt for PPRV infections in other sheep and goat populations. In the current study, the animals were assumed to constitute a free-mixing population, approximating a homogeneously mixed flock. Whilst representative of the small ruminant farming system found in Tanzania, this production environment is quite different from that found in highland areas, where grazing land is scarce. For example, the effective contact rate is likely to differ between tethered and free-ranging animals, which would affect estimates of Rt. Other factors, such as PPRV strain, genetics of the flock, pre-incursion flock immunity, climate, population density and frequency of contact between flocks, may also affect Rt. Thus, Rt for PPRV may vary from the present estimates in other sheep and goat populations and environments. Further refinement of the estimates, which should include variables such as seasonality, environmental contamination, and contribution of the wild life population, as well as estimation of Rt in other sheep and goat production settings will be required to determine the general applicability of these estimates.
An Rt value of 4 predicts that 63.8% - 84.6% of small ruminants in a population would have to be vaccinated with a 100.0% efficient vaccine to reduce Rt to less than 1 (Table 3a). If, as stated earlier, Rt is underestimated, the percentage vaccine coverage would also be underestimated and would need to be increased for effective control of PPRV. For an imperfect vaccine or other interventions that are unlikely to be completely efficient (e.g. quarantine, movement restriction and closure of primary and secondary livestock auctions), effective coverage would probably have to approach 100.0%. The situation is further complicated by the possibility of undetected disease in areas where stock populations are sparse, the possibility that the disease may establish in the wildlife population and the possibility of delayed detection and recognition, which would provide a potential source for re-infection of sheep and goats. Thus, whilst some interventions may reduce the number of infected sheep and goats, eliminating PPRV from pastoral flocks will require significant effort and development of highly effective intervention tools, as for rinderpest campaigns.
The control of transnational livestock movements across borders is difficult, especially in the northern districts where Maasai pastoralists are found on either side of the Tanzania-Kenya border. The resulting transborder movements of cattle, goats and sheep for breeding, trade and other socio-economic functions could be the main predictor for introduction, transmission and maintenance of PPRV in the country. Without proper control mechanisms, these animal movements could contribute to and accelerate the spread of the virus regionally. Indeed, the PPRV-positive samples from the Tanzania-Mozambique, Tanzania-Malawi and Tanzania-Zambia borders (Figure 1) indicate a southward movement of the disease. Therefore, the importance of PPR as a threat to small ruminants should be considered together with other economically important diseases and measures should be taken to prevent subsequent spread of such diseases into the region of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
The objective of this work was to investigate the incursion, persistence and spread of PPRV in Tanzania. Our results contribute to the epidemiological understanding that PPRV is established in Tanzania. Extensive livestock movement, failure to observe basic zoosanitary measures, delayed reporting and lack of proper control strategies at the local and national levels are the main factors contributing to the persistence of PPRV in Tanzania. The establishment of PPRV in Tanzania serves as a reservoir for the rest of the SADC region through livestock movement and trade of infected animals.
We are grateful to the Maasai herdsmen who gave their time and allowed us to sample their animals. The help and participation of staff at the Department of Veterinary Services, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development of Tanzania, is highly appreciated.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors' contributions
F.M.K. (Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development) was the group leader and responsible for the study design and data analysis. O.K. (CIRAD) and G.L. (CIRAD) were responsible for the laboratory and molecular epidemiology work. A.M.K. (Central Veterinary Laboratory), J.G. (Central Veterinary Laboratory), E.S.S. (Veterinary Investigation Centre, Arusha), W.M. (Veterinary Investigation Centre, Arusha) and A.O.M (Veterinary Investigation Centre, Mtwara) were responsible for fieldwork.
Abubakar, M., Khan, H.A., Arshed, J.M., Hussain, M. & Qurban, A., 2011, 'Peste des petits ruminants (PPR): Disease appraisal with global and Pakistan perspective', Small Ruminant Research 96, 1-10. [ Links ]
Anderson, R.M. & May, R.M., 1991, Infectious Diseases of Humans: Dynamics and Control, Oxford University Press, London. [ Links ]
Dicker, R. & Gathany, N.C., 1992, Principles of Epidemiology, 2nd edn., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta. [ Links ]
Dietz, K., 1993, 'The estimation of the basic reproduction number for infectious diseases', Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2, 23-41. [ Links ]
Dohoo, I., Martin, W. & Stryhn, H., 2003, Veterinary Epidemiologic Research, Atlantic Veterinary College, Charlottetown. [ Links ]
Food and Agriculture Organization/International Atomic Energy Agency (FAO/IAEA), 1993, 'Peste des Petits Ruminants ELISA kit. Competitive enzyme immunoassay for detection of antibody to PPR virus. Bench protocol', version PPR 1.0, January 1993. Joint FAO/IEAE Programme, Animal Production and Health. Pirbright, United Kingdom: World Reference Laboratory for Rinderpest. [ Links ]
Furley, C.W., Taylor, W.P. & Obi, T.U., 1987, 'An outbreak of peste des petits ruminants in a zoological collection', Veterinary Record 121, 443-447. [ Links ]
Heffernan, J.M. & Wahl, L.M., 2005, 'Monte Carlo estimates of natural variation in HIV infection', Journal of Theoretical Biology 236, 137-153. [ Links ]
Huelsenbeck, J.P. & Ronquist, F., 2001, 'MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogenetic trees (http://mrbayes.sourceforge.net/links.php)', Bioinformatics 17, 754-755. [ Links ]
Jobb, G., 2011, TREEFINDER, computer software, viewed 17 August 2011 from http://www..treefinder.de [ Links ]
Kwiatek, O., Minet, C., Grillet, C., Hurard, C., Carlsson, E. & Karimov, B., 2007, 'Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) outbreak in Tajikistan', Journal of Comparative Pathology 136(2-3),111-119. [ Links ]
Lefèvre, P.C., Diallo, A., Schenkel, S., Hussein, S. & Staak, G., 1991, 'Serological evidence of peste des petits ruminants in Jordan', Veterinary Record 128, 110. [ Links ]
Libeau, G., Diallo, A., Calvez, D. & Lefèvre, P.C., 1995, 'A competitive ELISA using anti-N monoclonal antibodies for specific detection of rinderpest in cattle and small ruminants', Veterinary Microbiology 31, 147-160. [ Links ]
Office International des Epizooties (OIE), 2000, OIE manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccines. List A and B diseases of mammals, birds and bees, OIE, Paris. [ Links ]
Özkul, A., Akca, Y., Alkan, F., Barrett, T., Karaoglu., T., Dagalp, S.B. et al., 2002, 'Prevalence, distribution, and host range of Peste des petits ruminants virus, Turkey', Emerging Infectious Diseases 8, 708-712. [ Links ]
Scott, G.R., 1990, 'Rinderpest and peste des petits ruminants', in E.P.J. Gibbs (ed.), Virus Diseases of Food Animals, vol. 2, Disease Monographs, Academic Press, New York. [ Links ]
Snedecor, G.W. & Cochran, W.G., 1989, Statistical Methods, 8th edn., Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. [ Links ]
Swai, E.S., Kapaga, A., Kivaria, F., Tinuga, D., Joshua, G. & Sanka, P., 2009, 'Prevalence and distribution of Peste des petits ruminants virus antibodies in various districts of Tanzania', Veterinary Research Communications 33, 927-936. http://dx/doi.org/10.1007/s11259-009-9311-7 [ Links ]
Wambura, P., 2000, 'Serological evidence of the absence of peste des petits ruminants in Tanzania', Veterinary Record 146, 473-474. [ Links ]
Fredrick Kivaria
PO Box 9152
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Received: 15 Mar. 2013
Accepted: 25 Aug. 2013
Published: 30 Oct. 2013
1. An additional 20 villages were sampled under the VACNADA project.


text:
Ten schools around the nation have been awarded National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants totaling $1.4 million to integrate digital technologies into their humanities curricula, NEH Chairman William R. Ferris announced today. The grants are part of NEH's Schools for a New Millennium initiative, which helps K-12 schools develop creative new ways of teaching history, literature and languages using the Internet and CD-ROMs.
"These 10 innovative projects include incorporating local history to teach the civil rights movement in Memphis, creating an electronic archive about Kansas's pioneer and underground railroad heritage, and integrating the immigrant experience, Hispanic culture and John Steinbeck's novels into a Fresno, Calif., curriculum. Each project will have a nationwide impact because teachers everywhere will be able to access the important new classroom materials being developed," NEH Chairman Ferris said. "Through our Schools for a New Millennium program, NEH is helping teachers use the computer in ways that get students excited about learning while boosting their achievement at the same time."
The 10 schools or jurisdictions receiving NEH Schools for a New Millennium grants are:
- Kake, Alaska's Kake Elementary School and Kake High School ($95,000)--study of Tlingit language and culture
- Northern Arizona's Seba Dakai School ($105,000)--study of Navajo history and culture
- Fresno, California's Bullard High School ($185,000)--incorporation of the immigrant experience, John Steinbeck's novels, and Hispanic studies into the curriculum
- Los Angeles, California's Portola Middle School ($120,000)--strengthening of the world history curriculum
- Lawrence, Kansas's West Junior High School ($145,000)--teaching of Kansas history, including the pioneer and underground railroad heritage
- Hyattsville, Maryland's Northwestern High School ($155,000)--study of the ideas and history of social justice
- Deerfield, Massachusetts's Frontier Regional High School ($180,000)--enrichment of the U.S. history curriculum
- Beaufort, South Carolina's Humanities School of Beaufort ($105,000)--teaching of the history and culture of South Carolina's Low Country
- Memphis, Tennessee's Booker T. Washington High School ($165,000)--teaching of the history of the civil rights movement in Memphis
- Houston, Texas's Hogg Middle School ($180,000)--study of local and regional history
NEH grants are awarded on a competitive basis. Throughout the year, humanities experts outside of the Endowment assess all applications and judge the quality and significance of each proposed project.


text:
Follow RFF News on your cell phone. Text follow rff to 40404 you will receive txt messages with RFF News
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
first of alllllll, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO JOLINE LIM JIAJING! haha i shall give you your angsana card likeeeeee, the next time i see you, which is likeeeee, um, heheh.today's training was quite relaxed coz everyone was damn high? coz beatrice kept saying the word 'high'. like aim high, look high, throw high, jump high. then we became really really high. and nicole and i were the only ones who did a proper cooldown coz the rest were too high to function as per normal. and after trng i cheonged home to change and eat then went to Bishan to meet the throwers for Eugenia's surprise barbecue thing and they were half an hour late. and while waiting for them, i was approached by two groups of people doing some amazing race thing and an aunty who was selling pens.
Looks like a "musical theme" for the Salzburg leg of the next TAR season. From the "Sound of Music" to who knows what in the birthplace city of Mozart. Maybe Julie Andrews will be the pitstop greeter.
Very little chance that this is our race but I might as well post it:Bishan is in Singapore right; I'm pretty sure they have their own race type thing.
Quote from: Boingo on November 08, 2008, 11:41:15 AMI am holding out for the SALT MINES myself--I remember having a blast doing those!The funicular ride to the top of the fort could be good too...
So let's see if I've got the timing right (adding to above):Oct 31 - Leave US (maybe SFO) - via Frankfurt/Zurich or Milan - to Locarno, SwitzerlandNov 1- 2: tasks around Locarno, drive to SalzburgNov 3: Tasks around Salzburg (Mirabell Gardens/St. Peter's Cemetery/Schloss Hellbrunn), drive to MunichNov 4: Fly from Munich to Bucharest (racers seen on direct flight, but others maybe via VIE or FRA)Nov 5: Tasks around Brasov, Romania.This is so weird, it's almost real time!
Did a quick check of the license plate on the white Mercedes the blogger photographed as a TAR car in Salzburg (Austria). It appears to be a German license plate. Note the font, the Euro blue, the similar graphics consistent with a German plate. So if it's not Swiss, and not Austrian, did they drive it all the way from Germany? How does this figure into the flight schedules? Or did they ship these cars in from Germany just for the product promotion. So many questions....
tar 14 started in los alamitos, california at the military base 100% correct my friends dad works at the military base posted by future contestant. Post 20 in the Survivor Sucks TAR14 Spoiler Thread. Could be total bull but thought I would post it!
Rob RFF Administrator TAR 7 Spoiler - Submitted on the News site! « on: October 28, 2004, 08:58:47 PM » Modify Split Topic --------------------------------------------------------------------------------This was submitted on the news site, and thought that the forum would be a better place! This is about TAR 7, NOT the Race that is starting in November:The race will start at Edwards AFB in California. I heard from a friend who works there the show is working with Public Affairs from the base. The taping should be near the end of November.
Yes, it was November 3. Whoever guessed the time of 4:45-5:15 was just about spot on. It was indeed a Pitstop because we could see through a side gate the check-in mat, a greeter dressed as Mozart (I'm assuming a man), and Phil. Phil was dressed in jacket, hat, and gloves and looked cold. It was chilly that night but it was a good chilly!The exact location of the Pitstop was just inside the inner courtyard on the left-hand side. In the Forum Hellbrun overview photo, you see four photo icons/squares in a line across the courtyard when you enter it from the long entry road. The Pitstop was located between the first and second icons on the left.I'm including two more photos of the team of two women. Not very good ones, but then again, your photo people might have some fun. Finally, there's a photo of the cars the next morning. My wife went jogging out to Hellbrunn at about 6:30am. She said that they'd closed up shop, so it looks like there were no day-late stragglers like there sometimes are (which must drive them insane).What else? I overheard camera/sound folks expressing frustrations about their teams not having a clue but nothing very specific. It seems after teams check in, their camera/sound folks are done for the day. At different times, crews climbed into a black van and were whisked off into the Hellbrunn grounds, I'm assuming to wherever there was a buffet for staff since it was dinner time, but I have no proof of that.All the best and good luck with your research!
No photo of Phil, sorry! I could've been a punk and whipped out my camera while the man guarding the gate was telling me all about what was going on, but I didn't have the nerve.The Pitstop pinpointing is good.
Regarding the gory slime: at first, I thought they'd been involved in a Halloween event even though it was Nov. 3. Halloween is celebrated here but not like it is at home. They sell some "Scream" masks in the stores--that's about it. Anyway, my wife guessed that they could've been taking part in some local custom, maybe something with beer brewing or cheese making. BUT the woman in the car I first saw as well as the older man and woman whom we saw at Hellbrunn had the stuff on them in places you'd figure you would clean up right away, like on your face. It's almost as if they were made up like that and were expected to leave it on. But again, I have no proof. There was some slime on one of the cars that I passed by. I should've taken a sample! By the way, the team of two women appeared to have no slime on them whatsoever which would imply they had a choice in a previous activity. A Detour?As I thought more about it today, I do remember a crew member saying something about climbing a mountain earlier in the day. Something how his team person saw arrows pointing downward, but she thought it was a trick, so she went back up the mountain. Again, that was a fleeting conversation and I may be messing up the details.
Page created in 0.107 seconds with 32 queries.


text:
Headlines archive
Supreme Court celebrates 20 years of 'Justice on Wheels' with historic hearings in Sheboygan
Madison, Wisconsin - September 19, 2013
This fall, for the first time in its history, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will sit in Sheboygan, hearing two cases on Thursday, Oct. 3 in the Branch I courtroom of the Sheboygan County Courthouse, 615 N. 6th St., Sheboygan. The visit marks the 20th anniversary of the Court's 'Justice on Wheels' program that brings oral argument to communities across Wisconsin.
Seats to watch the Court's hearings are free and open to the public, but reservations are suggested to secure a spot. Reservations may be made by calling the Court at (608) 266-1298 or e-mailing firstname.lastname@example.com. There are two cases to choose from. Each proceeding will last about one hour (see attached brief summaries).
Prior to hearing the cases, the Court will open its visit with a welcome ceremony attended by local judges and other elected officials and community leaders, and will hold an awards presentation to honor local fifth graders who are participating in the Supreme Court Essay Contest. In the afternoon, the justices will attend a luncheon hosted by the Sheboygan County Bar Association.
This is the Supreme Court's 24th Justice on Wheels trip. The Court launched the program in 1993 as a public outreach initiative. Each term, the Chief Justice selects one or two locations to visit. Since 1993, the justices have conducted proceedings in the following counties, listed in order of the visits: Brown, Eau Claire, Marathon, Milwaukee, La Crosse, Douglas, Rock, Kenosha, Sauk, Dodge, Oneida, Outagamie, Portage, Racine, Fond du Lac, Walworth, Waushara, St. Croix, Winnebago, Iowa, Washington, Columbia and Green.
The following brief case summaries are meant to give the reader a quick overview and do not explore all of the issues presented in each case:
Thursday, October 3, 2013
9:45 a.m. 2010AP3016-CR State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio
This case raises an issue that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has never before addressed: whether police tracking of a cell phone user's location via GPS, without a warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment. The case began with a brutal murder in Kenosha. Police arrested Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio in Arkansas after working with his cell phone provider to track his signal. He was believed to be on his way to Mexico. He ultimately was convicted in the case. The Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction. In the Supreme Court, Subdiaz-Osorio argues that police violated his right to privacy by tracking him though his cell phone signal.
11:15 a.m. 12AP336-CR State v. Bobby L. Tate
Like the 9:45 a.m. matter, this case centers on police use of cell phone signals to track a suspect in a homicide. In this investigation, however, police did obtain an order authorizing police to use certain devices and obtain certain information that would allow the police to track the location of a specified cell phone. This case focuses, therefore, on whether a search warrant is needed in such a situation, whether the Wisconsin statutes or other law authorizes this type of warrant, whether the order here constitutes a valid search warrant supported by the proper level of probable cause, and to what extent police may track a person's precise physical location, even within a residence, by obtaining location information for his/her cell phone. The case began when a man later identified as Bobby Tate purchased a pre-paid cell phone and, shortly after, shot two people outside a store on Milwaukee's North Side. A videotape from the cell phone store showed a man who matched eyewitness descriptions of the shooter. Police sought an order that, among other things, would have authorized them to collect information that allowed them to track the suspect using the cell phone signal, and the judge issued the order. Using the cell signal, police tracked the cell phone to a specific area within a particular apartment building. The police then were granted permission by Tate's mother to enter her apartment, where they found and arrested Tate. After Tate's motion to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to the court order was denied, Tate was convicted as part of a plea agreement of first-degree reckless homicide and possession of a firearm by a felon. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Tate's appeal asks the Court to determine whether obtaining a cell phone's signal constitutes a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, whether an order or warrant to obtain such location data is authorized by statute or other law, and, if so, what probable cause standard police must meet in order to obtain a search warrant to track a suspect.
Note to electronic media and still photographers: Camera requests must be made to cover the Supreme Court's oral arguments. Call Media Coordinator Rick Blum at (608) 277-5133 or e-mail email@example.com. Notice is not required for the welcome ceremony and essay contest.
Amanda Todd
Court Information Officer
(608) 264-6256