text:
Stop being victims
Blacks are voting at greater rates than whites. Women outnumber men at colleges. Is it time to have outreach and affirmative action for white males? Or maybe drop the victim crap in general and just understand that individuals makes choices and group results are only an artificial concept.
One of the big dividing lines between traditional American culture and modern liberalism (i.e. liberalism since the 1960s) is the believe in group victim status. Americans, throughout most of our history, have believed that they were responsible for their own lives.
This I still believe. It doesn't mean that we act only for ourselves. In fact, traditional American culture was extraordinarily characterized by volunteerism and individuals voluntarily working together for common goal. The difference was that it was a choice THEY made.
Traditional American culture was generous and welcoming. We took in more immigrants than any other country in the world and they became Americans. The most important thing we asked of ourselves and others was that we be useful. We judged people by what THEY did, not by who their fathers were or by the group they came from. This was good. This IS good. This is what made America an exception in the long run of benighted places, where you were judged by "your people" rather than by your accomplishments.
Liberalism actually started with this too. American liberalism grew from the American experience. The idea was to give people a chance. This is still something liberals and conservatives share. But liberals started to go farther. They analyzed groups and wanted to make things come out equal. Giving people a chance is American from the start. Being concerned that groups come out equal is not.
We need to move forward to a new freedom, which will not include much emphasis on group membership, except groups that people voluntarily join and can leave when they want. In other words, you are born into America, not a hyphenated group of Americans.
By liberal standards, if one group is voting more, it must mean the other is suppressed. If one group is "under served" in university, it must mean there is discrimination. So now that the balance had shifted, what do they do?Posted by Christine & John at May 9, 2013 6:22 AM
When you wrongly believe that you know what is in the best interest of everybody, a false sense of victimhood is what brings you the votes. You 'say' you care, you promise 'freebies' and you condemn all who do not believe in special treatment for those you pretend to care about.
For liberals, it's all about getting the votes needed to "transform" our once great nation into something it was never meant to be.
Socialism is stealing American rights on a Federal level. The only way we are going to be able to keep our Constitutional rights is through the states. Here is a perfect example of how states have to treat socialist power grabbers like Eric Holder (Obama's long arm of the law):
Kansas passed SB 102:
"SB 102 establishes the Second Amendment Protection Act.
First, the bill excludes from federal regulation any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas. The bill provides that for as long as any such personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition remains within the borders of Kansas, it is not subject to any federal law, regulation, or authority.
Second, the bill prevents any federal agent or contracted employee, any state employee, or any local authority from enforcing any federal regulation or law governing any personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately and owned in Kansas, provided it remains within the borders of Kansas. In the process of a criminal prosecution, the bill precludes any arrest or detention prior to a trial for a violation of the Act.
Finally, the bill allows a county or district attorney or the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief in court to enjoin certain federal officials from enforcing federal law regarding a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately and owned in the state of Kansas and that remains within the borders of Kansas."
AG Holder threatened the State of Kansas to which Kansas responded:
"AG Holder wasn't amused that his stormtroopers would be opposed by the state, though. Some fear that his fury stems from the fact that he is trying to set up rules on how to put down dissent among the states.
Kansas authorities, though, were not cowed. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach sent a letter right back to Holder telling him in no uncertain terms that his un-Constitutional actions are not welcome in the Sunflower State.
Mr. Kobach assured Holder that his state wrote its law to withstand his assaults as well as any Constitutional challenges that might befall it."
We are seeing the attempted dismantling of our Constitutional rights.Posted by: CasperWY at May 9, 2013 9:22 AM
Supremacy clause. Separation of powers. Commerce Clause. You praise these people as defenders of the constitution, but they are violating it on a fundamental level.
What you celebrate here is bold defiance and contradiction of Liberals. That's all. In the end, though, that's not a consistent interpretation of the constitution, nor a viable model for the law.
And this socialism thing? It's a psychotic delusion. It's the Republicans using the strongest charge of extremism they can levy and not get laughed at, to convince people like you that because the Republicans are no longer in charge, the nation's going to go to hell in a handbasket.
That's it. You're being played for suckers by people desperate to hold onto power, by people who don't want you to notice, say, that you're electing a Congressman whose last job as elected official ended in a ridiculous scandal.
Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution.
This nation is meant to be, per the framer's efforts, what it's people can agree for it to become. They were smart enough not to try and predict the future, and left room for things to change.
Folks like you need to realize that nothing is permanent in a representative democratic republic like ours. Ours was and is a nation built to change, not to be bound to ancient tradition for arbitrary reasons. Mechanisms are built in to moderate that change, but they're not there to prevent it.
The right has to shed this hero's complex its got, which has it thinking that it's the GOP's job to simply halt any shift back from where they had things, from where they liked it. Y'all had your chance. Now others will have theirs, sooner or later.
But if you opt for later, let me tell you what happens: the change will be worse for you, more sharp and sudden. It will simply be a matter of votes moving past a threshold in one house or another, and this long, bitter, exhausting political battle in Congress finally taking its toll.
Y'all could have moderated it, if you'd wanted to, but you wanted total control instead, and the long term fight for that, I believe, will be a losing fight.
The Conservatives want dumbed down Americans. They want Americans that function basically at the level we did in the fifties, folks who don't question religion, who don't question what the folks up on top in industry say, don't worry about things like the environment, don't question the foreign policy, just "support the troops" which is another way of saying that they support the war without questioning whether its working or not, or whether it should have begun in the first place.
When you have smart people at work, you get minds whose logic can pierce the dogmas, and upset the former balance of things. People don't leave well enough alone, don't stay decently put like they're supposed to.
The last generation, I believe, conservatives and liberals alike, rebelled against the establishment, rebelled against the discipline, the authorities. I believe this is partly justified. We did need to loosen up a little bit, open our minds somewhat. But we overcorrected on both sides, I think, and now the correction must take place on both sides.
On your side, the correction has to be one of hewing closer to what is provable, what is substantive. In the question to overturn Darwinism, overturn the dominance of secular origin theories in schools, the religious right has encouraged an atmosphere of hostility towards science.
On the other side of things, among the Wall Street faction of the party, the discouragement of STEM education has different roots, as the companies really just don't want people knowledgeable enough to question what they're doing, or at least trusting enough of scientific authority to believe them. So, the business faction of the right has painted a picture of scientists as a Marxist fifth column, or a least a bunch of milquetoast pantywaists getting in the way of the manly pursuit of prosperity, of free enterprise.
We need to realize that in this country clinging to your mediocrity, celebrating it, while relaxing in its way, is poisonous to one's prospects. If you want to be treated special, to earn more and do more significant things with your life, you got to step beyond being just another schlub.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2013 11:06 AM
Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution.
Stephen, please show me the part of the US Constitution that gives the federal government the power to regulate gun ownership within state borders.Posted by: Rhinehold at May 9, 2013 11:53 AM
"Per the framer's efforts," there were limits placed on what government could do and the control it had over the people. "Per the framer's efforts," there is a process that was to be followed in order to change those limits and control, something your people avoid in your quest to make everybody and everything, the same.
Folks like me realize that while change may be an absolute, it must be done with respect to what made our country great: our Constitution and the individual rights, freedoms and liberties that it guarantees.
Folks like you believe those things come secondary to your desires and you have discovered that by instilling a false sense of victimhood, some people will gladly give up their individual rights, freedoms and liberties to get what they desire. Folks like you need to understand that not everybody is willing to do that and that we will fight you tooth and nail.
The left needs to shed this hero's complex they have that makes them wrongly believe that they know what is best for everybody and that they can protect everybody from themselves.
Folks like me aren't fighting to simply prolong what you believe to be the nations inevitiable liberal transformation, we are fighting to stop it.
The way to fight it is to preserve what's left of our rights and to chip away at all the damaging liberal policy already destroying our country. Chip away at treating people differently and start treating everybody equally. Chip away at liberal regulations that stiffle business. Chip away at the liberal belief that individuals are second to government.
Folks like me don't want to moderate your liberal policy, Stephen, we want to end it because Y'all refuse to respect us and moderate it yourselves.Posted by: kctim at May 9, 2013 12:24 PM
RE the 1950s - I suggest you read a little more about that decade. It was a time of positive social change and economic progress. Crime rates were low. Millions of Americans entered a prosperous middle class, bought their first homes. Millions more became the first in their families to go to college. The worst unemployment rate of the decade was as high as the BEST we have experienced since Obama took office. In fact, unemployment remains at or below 3% for almost two years. After President Eisenhower ended the Korean war, we enjoyed peace.
I would not want to "go back" to the 1950s. We have become much richer as a nation and we have lots more options. But we have built on the achievements of Americans of that time and people like you should be grateful. You can work less because they gave you so much.
I do not want to "go back" but I would like some of the low unemployment rates, low crime rates, great opportunity etc.
I won't bother even commenting on the rest of your silly stereotypes about conservatives. You really are unteachable in this respect. I will comment only about your "science". Someone like you who opposes GMOs on the basis of unscientific superstition has no business criticizing anyone.Posted by: C&J at May 9, 2013 7:36 PM
Stephen Daugherty; I don't quite know how to respond to your ignorance. You are so blinded by the liberal agenda; you are so filled with the idea that government is the solver of all problems, that you would sit by and watch the country's demise. You revel in the fact of small socialist victories; of higher taxes, of more government spending, of taking away 1st and 2nd amendment rights, and of the "Big Brother" attitude permeating America. You make ignorant statements like this to C&J:
"The Conservatives want dumbed down Americans."
This has to be one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. You have absolutely no facts to back this up. On the contrary, it is the ignorant Democrat masses who have no knowledge of how government works, of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Right, of taxes and sending. The occupy Wall Street crowd who are ignorant bastards. They exist only for the free things given to them. The Democrats are responsible for 1/6th of the country living on welfare and/or food stamps. Over 20 million Americans are drawing SS disability. You say conservatives want to dumb down Americans, and yet it is the Democratic Party who succeeds only through their masses of ignorant followers. Stephen, I can back up what I claim:
This video shows Obama supporters will support banning any right as long as you say it's for Obama? All I have to do usually is just mention the keywords, 'Will you support Obama,' and their eyes light up and they're literally signing their rights away.
Mark Dice got Obama voters in Southern California to support stripping Americans of their 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 7th amendment rights just by saying that it's for Obama:
Is it a sad day in America where people who actually vote for Obama don't care about the Bill of Rights at all? Isn't this evidence that all Obama did was prey on the most ignorant and gullible members of society in order to become President of the United States?
Tell me Stephen Daugherty; who are the dummies?
"And this socialism thing? It's a psychotic delusion. It's the Republicans using the strongest charge of extremism they can levy and not get laughed at, to convince people like you that because the Republicans are no longer in charge, the nation's going to go to hell in a handbasket."
No Stephen, socialism is not a delusion…it is the goal of the left. You are so diluted that you can't understand your side is destroying this great nation. It's certainly not the strongest charge that can be made. I could say your side are ignorant son-of-a-bitches and that still wouldn't be strong enough. Your side hates this country. You hate everything it stands for. You think we have been unfair to the rest of the world, you think we have stolen the world's resources, you are ashamed that the American people are successful and the rest of the world is poor, you hate that we have a Constitution and Bill of Rights, you think we should live under the same rules as European countries, you believe the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are flawed and therefore should be changed. The sad thing Stephen is this…you think we are upset that the Republicans are no longer in charge; that's not true, we are upset that Democrats and Republicans are in bed together, destroying this country and stealing our rights. I see this Stephen, I understand what our nation is losing; but you Stephen are so blinded by your partisanship that you can't say anything against Obama.
"That's it. You're being played for suckers by people desperate to hold onto power, by people who don't want you to notice, say, that you're electing a Congressman whose last job as elected official ended in a ridiculous scandal."
Stephen, I have the ability to understand the constituents of the SC 1st District chose to vote in a man, flawed though he may be. I do not presume to tell any district who to vote for, because I do not live in those districts. But you, on the other hand, want to dictate to every district and every state, who they should vote in office. This is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy. But, this is the mindset of the left.
"Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution."
I know the Constitution Stephen; I raised my right hand and swore to defend and protect it…have you? Stephen, your "much talk" is hollow. You can talk all you want and you can try to make yourself sound important, but until you have given your word to protect and defend the Constitution, you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you have served of foreign soil and defended our rights and until you have come back to this country, knowing the freedoms we have, you will never have an understanding of what it means to be an American. You have had everything handed to you and you have not had to defend anything. Someone else has paid all the price for you. Does it bother you Stephen to know that other people paid the price so that you could sit behind a computer screen and talk out your ass?Posted by: DSP2195 at May 9, 2013 9:56 PM
"Take a chill pill, and actually read the Constitution."
Stephen Daugherty, I have read it, supported and defended it, and believe it.
You are the one who has a problem with the Constitution, not me. Tell me Stephen, have you read it, supported and defended it, and believed it? Or are you going to come back with some double talk about how you believe it, but?
Stephen does not refer to the Constitution of the United States. I believe he has reference to the Constitution of the old USSR.
BTW Stephen, do you support the admin in the Benghazi affair? How the admin lied over and over again? How the top man in Libya was not consulted in the compiling of a state dept report headed by Pickering/Mullen?
Obama and his admin makes a Wisconsin fisherman look like a piker. No offense meant to C&J
Just for the record. I have returned for only a short stint. My health issues have only slightly improved.Posted by: tom humes at May 10, 2013 1:55 PM
Stephen, In response to your dumb comment about air craft. A F18 Hornet could fly at mach1 and has a range of over 1200 miles plus the Navy has A6 tankers that could refuel those air craft in flight. Those air craft can be used in support of ground forces or in the case of Benghazi repel those attackers so I encourage you to get facts before you stick your foot in your mouth.Posted by: KAP at May 10, 2013 2:11 PM
Welcome back Tom Humes, hope you are feeling better. Nothing has changed since you were away; Stephen Daugherty is still an Obama apologist and still worships him as the messiah.
Regarding the Benghazi affair; yes Obama lied repeatedly, but SD will never concede that Obama lied unless the messiah Obama (bless his holy name) (may peace be upon him), admits he lied to the American people. It's the Republicans fault, it's the whistleblowers fault, and last of all, it will be the liberal media's fault; but it will never be Obama's fault.
Since you have been gone, Stephen has made a complete ass of himself many times and has absolutely no credibility left. Even C&J have given SD over to a reprobate mind.Posted by: George at May 10, 2013 2:22 PM
The general consensus is A) That any trade that affects a national market, like the gun trade clearly is, is covered under interstate commerce, and B) Nullification is bunk.
So, in essence, Commerce Clause, and Supremacy clause, the commerce clause owing to the fact that Kansas' gun industry could conceivably have an impact on the national gun industry.
You can monologue on what I'm supposed to be out to do, or maybe you can pay attention to what I actually say.
The easiest way for the Republicans to moderate the Democrats would be to encourage and accept bipartisan deals. This would not only force Democrats more towards the center, as the left rebels against the centrism, it would also mean there's actual law out there more like what Republicans want. Though you wouldn't see complete representation of what Republicans want, you would see partial representation, proportional to the Republican's pull in those bodies.
But Republicans insist on getting their way with numbers that cannot simply force their policy on everybody. And so, their effect on the law is as nullified as the Democrat's. No loss, but no win, either, and with the matters that lead to the GOP's failure at the polls unresolved, the Republicans are sliding back from their current level of power.
What happens if the trends of 2012 continue? You can't always get the anger of a 2010, especially with the hardship of that time slowly fading away, the economy improving. And do you really want to count on an election that could just as easily turn against you?
The long and the short of it is, Republicans aren't exactly spreading out roots to secure them in the soil of the American electorate. They're sticking to a narrow profile of people, and pushing their buttons like a 1980's video arcade player on crack.
The transformation is happening, and its deeper than just politics. You have a generation of Americans who were promised the moon by the generation before them, and ended up with somebody's butt in their face instead. And all they can see is the right wing getting in the way, time after time, doing nothing constructive, and in fact doing some pretty dangerous things with our country.
You may not care to hear it, but that's my real opinion, unfiltered by a ****load of stupid propaganda which bears little resemblance to anything I've ever expressed.
I do not believe that we can revisit the fifties, however much we would want to. Technology and society have rearranged themselves. Rather than try to establish an equilibrium that the fifties had for reasons that cannot now be reproduced, I believe we should make peace with the character of the times we live in now.
By the way, that low unemployment rate was that way in part because our government supported our industries and people had disposable income. We hadn't yet exported our jobs overseas, or put ourselves naively at the mercy of an international market without shaping it to the interest of the average person first. We had also not gotten into the Vietnam war, nor bought into the guns and butter theory of waging a war. That tax cut people like you reference when it comes to Kennedy was of taxes kept high in order to pay off our Korean War debts, and those of WWII.
As for opposition to GMOs? All I'm going to say on that matter is this simple principle: both the claim that these plants and animals are safe and that which says they are not are claims that must be examined scientifically. Just because I'm not going to adopt the kneejerk position that GMO is bad (I actually have little concern for whether the grains or vegetables I eat are "frankenfood"), doesn't mean that I adopt its logically contradictory position.
Which is to say that I would like folks to take enough care with how these GMOs are created, tested, and marketed so my lack of concern doesn't turn out to be naïve.
I have plenty to worry about in my life as I grow older, and God willing, one day I will have a family of my own to get concerned about. I would rather not have to worry about a whole bunch of other things that are, for the most part, out of my control.
Your proof is a featurette on FOXNews?
My degree is in telecommunication. Which means, somewhere along the way, I learned the basics of editing. The technical term is montage.
It's one of the primary tools of propaganda in film.
Let's say you want to do a featurette on how stupid people are about American History. Sort of like what Leno does.
Let's say out of ten replies, seven are actually on the money. Do you include those? No. You put up the three dumb answers. Like my old professor said, everybody's working on partial information. If you never show them the footage of people refusing to sign, or blowing him off entirely, or whatever, it doesn't exist for your viewer.
There are, as of right now, about 37 million residents in California. 3.8 million of them live in Los Angeles.
If you really look, you can find quite a number of people to sign your petition, and then edit it together. You don't need a majority of California liberals at all. Just show a few, and if they're all you show, the bias will be as unquestionable as it is invisible to your captive audience of viewers who think they have to watch stuff like this to get the truth.
I'm not ignorant. That's your problem. I know the techniques you're using better than you do.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 2:59 PM
Supremacy clause. Separation of powers. Commerce Clause. You praise these people as defenders of the constitution, but they are violating it on a fundamental level.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 9, 2013 11:06 AM
It's ironic when I read Stephen Daugherty's posts he always comments on things that his party is guilty of but then attributes the transgression to the Republicans. It's like he's looking at himself in the mirror and doesn't like what he sees.
I believe the Supremacy Clause has only to do with powers granted to the federal government via amemdments to the constitution. To assume supremacy over the states simply by saying the federal government is superior amounts to tyranny. There's a process to follow in the Constitution ie. Article 5. Stephen Daugherty's "opinion" of the constitution, which is what it is since Roosevelt stacked the supreme court in his favor, is wrong on so many levels.
In Stephen Daugherty's head he is superior to other party's members. He thinks that anyone who disagrees with him must first see things his way, and second agree with him, before he can agree with them. Roosevelt and other Democratics think the same way. The supremacy clause does not give the federal government carte blanche to do what it seems fit. The supremacy clause allows the federal government the ability to enforce the rules layed out by the constitution and the amendments as per Article 5. That's it, Stephen Daugherty. It doesn't mean Michelle Obama says we must eat more greens, therefore we must eat more greens. If Michelle Obama wants us to eat more greens she must submit legislation to be aproved via. Article 5.
The Separation of powers is irrelevent in the matter of Kansas and their gun laws.
The commerce clause has been bastardized by Roosevelt to reflect the Democratic's mindset of the Supremacy clause. The commerce clause is to guarantee free trade between the states. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme court and got an "opinion" that the commerce clause can go to the individual wheat farmer and tell that individual wheat farmer he must sell his wheat to the collective and then purchase that same wheat from the collective at a price Roosevelt's collective sets before he can feed it to his livestock or bake a loaf of bread to feed his family. This farmer has nothing to do with commerce between the states and should not be influenced by the federal government, but because the federal government has been controlled by Democratics for so long it's "opinion" has become commonplace. That "opinion" can change.
Mark Dice has proven how easy it would be to change it.
Thanks for the link, DSP2195
Why do your beliefs about what the Constitution means get put up on a pedestal? They aren't the Constitution themselves.
I believe in the Constitution. I think it's a wisely constructed document. I have few if any major revisions in mind for it. That's the beauty of not having a strangled kind of system for interpreting it. Common sense can prevail, rather than be torn to shreds by pedantic requirements that are more political and partisan than related to the document.
tom humes-
If I'm not mistaken, the whole controversy seems to be over what the Administration said or believed when, with the implication that if they didn't immediately assume that it was terrorism, regardless of the evidence (which might point to militias like those that supported Qaddafi, or extremists rioting, rather than just merely al-Qaeda style terrorists).
In which case, it just seems like this is all just a bunch of political BS, and I don't care for it. As for the top man in Libya not being consulted?
That's sort of like a Police Chief not being consulted about corruption investigations that could end up implicating him.
An F/A-18 is a supersonic plane, true enough, but what are you putting it on target for? What's your target? And how well is a Jet fighter going to be able to deal with that?
You can call my comments moronic, but on what grounds? I'm not questioning how fast one of those puppies can travel, I'm questioning what it's military value would be for the situation. How would it make it better, and how could it make it worse?
There are limits to how well you can respond from thousands of feet up, especially when your only options are high caliber machine guns, bombs, and missiles.
So, tell me, what would be their use?
I find it just lovely how you like to comment about how I'm apt to defend Obama, and like to promote your false claims of my idolatry towards him.
Why is it your arguments always engage my credibility, without reviewing the evidence that should be the grounds for my credibility, or lack of same? Are you just that arrogantly convinced that your beliefs are untouchable, that no right-thinking human could believe otherwise than you do?Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 3:59 PM
The left has used the "Commerce Cause" as a means to interfere in all aspects of our lives.
Stephen, are you saying that if a man was on the street with a camera and a microphone and was asking "willy nilly" all people on the street questions about how the government works, that the low information democrats would know more than republicans?
This is a ridiculous statement. It is a well know fact that Republicans know more about the operation of government than the low information democrat crowd.
Here is a Pew Research Poll conducted a year ago, entitled "What the Public Knows about the Political Parties", and guess who won. You got it Stephen…Republicans:
http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/11/what-the-public-knows-about-the-political-parties/Posted by: DSP2195 at May 10, 2013 4:11 PM
any trade that affects a national market, like the gun trade clearly is, is covered under interstate commerce
Stephen, the law clearly states that it would only affect sales of guns that are manufactured, sold and bought within the state boundaries of Kansas. Therefore it would not apply to 'interstate commerce' since it would not be affecting interstate commerce. It also states that once one of those guns leaves the state, it is subject to any and all US gun laws.
The decision I think you are basing your view on Wickard v. Filburn, which detailed the sale of wheat (or lack of sale). Wheat is sold throughout the entire country. However, if a specific weapon is made, sold and purchased only within the confines of the specific state, does it affect the commerce of all other guns that are sold outside of the state?
There are some limitations to the regulation of interstate commerce in regards to gun limitations. You see, the laws on guns are NOT economic. They are not made to regulate any gun market. In the WIckard v Filburn case, the law that was violated was one DESIGNED to keep prices stable. Not only is this NOT the purpose of gun laws, but it is also not the effect of allowing guns within the state to operate within the state…
It is not an INTERSTATE COMMERCE question at this point. If the federal government wants to make the law an interstate commerce one, then it can't limit it as it has…
It's an interesting question. Basically, to say that the federal government can regulate anything and everything for any reason whatsoever would mean that there are basically no valid things as states anymore, let's just get rid of the states completely I say.
Of course, one has to wonder why, if this is the case, there was a need for a constitutional amendment to block the make and sale of alcohol within the US… Seems that the federal government had the power all alone.
Some thing to note…
"You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." - T. Jefferson
The first nullification law was, in fact, written by T. Jefferson and James Madison during the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Of course, Madison gives us a little better insight into that law and how it cannot be just a single state that can nullify a federal law, but there is a lot of discussion we can have on that at a later time.
In the end, one has to wonder if the law's specific limitation to guns made, sold and bought within the state boundaries, is an issue or not. It is an interesting legal question…Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2013 4:22 PM
BTW, to back up my point, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
The Court summarily dismissed any consideration of the first two categories and concluded that the resolution of the case depended only on consideration of the third category—regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court essentially concluded that in no way was the carrying of handguns a commercial activity or even related to any sort of economic enterprise, even under the most extravagant definitions.Posted by: Rhinehold at May 10, 2013 4:25 PM
The opinion rejected the government's argument that because crime negatively impacted education Congress might have reasonably concluded that crime in schools substantially affects commerce.
The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:
"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."
The Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce:
Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity.
Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce.
Whether there had been Congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education.
How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.
WW said of Stephen:
"It's ironic when I read Stephen Daugherty's posts he always comments on things that his party is guilty of but then attributes the transgression to the Republicans. It's like he's looking at himself in the mirror and doesn't like what he sees."
WW is correct and proof of this can be found in all of Stephen's responses, example:
"Are you just that arrogantly convinced that your beliefs are untouchable, that no right-thinking human could believe otherwise than you do?"
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 3:59 PM
This comment is exactly what Stephen believes about his own comments, but he twists things around to accuse others of what he himself believes.
It is Stephen who is arrogantly convinced that his beliefs are untouchable. If you notice Stephen's comments, he makes this claim all the time. The reason; because Stephen cannot understand the concept that he could be wrong.
I find it just lovely how you like to comment about how I'm apt to defend Obama, and like to promote your false claims of my idolatry towards him."
I simply read your comments Stephen; You are like Chris Matthews, who, at the very mention of Obama's name experiences a tingle up his leg. The definition of Worship for Webster:
": reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence.
: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem "
Stephen, this is how you feel about Obama. You may say, I don't believe he is divine; but isn't your defense of his every word an admission of his divinity? Don't you cling to his every word as gospel? Can you list a comment where Obama was wrong? I rest my point.Posted by: George at May 10, 2013 4:30 PM
"In which case, it just seems like this is all just a bunch of political BS, and I don't care for it. As for the top man in Libya not being consulted?
That's sort of like a Police Chief not being consulted about corruption investigations that could end up implicating him."
You don't know what is going on apparantly.
I won't call you stupid, but I will call you ignorant.
Th man in Libya was in direct contact with those traitor in WDC and gave them real time information concerning an attack on our consulate. They were not allowed to even try to rescue our people. They were ordered not to, even tho they had experienced people to go on these types of missions.
There were actions taken that had never been allowed to be done before.Posted by: tom humes at May 10, 2013 4:38 PM
"I believe in the Constitution. I think it's a wisely constructed document. I have few if any major revisions in mind for it. That's the beauty of not having a strangled kind of system for interpreting it. Common sense can prevail, rather than be torn to shreds by pedantic requirements that are more political and partisan than related to the document."
"Wisely constructed", but flawed.
"Few if any major revisions", but revisions need to be made.
"common sense can prevail", as long as we agree with the left.
The Bill of Rights guarantees Americans the right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS has upheld that right, and yet you Stephen do not believe Americans have that right.
The 1st Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, and yet you Stephen believe that conservative radio and television should be controlled, or at least met with a government subsidized liberal media.
The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, and yet you Stephen support that military chaplains should have their preaching and teaching controlled by government.
And the list goes on.Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 4:44 PM
"or maybe you can pay attention to what I actually say"
You say that you believe folks like me fighting for our beliefs is a "losing fight." That we must compromise with the leftists because you believe the trend points towards more leftism.
My response is that we have already moved too far left and it is now time for us to fight against that, rather than accept your style of government in pieces.
I do pay attention to what you say, I just wish you would do the same.
kctim, there is such corruption in this administration. Not only does Stephen believe that folks like us are losing; but he has also made a joke of the concerns we have. In the election cycle of 2012, complaints were made that the IRS was targeting conservative groups. Stephen and the rest on the left cried "Black Helicopter" conspiracy theories. Well, now we find that the Obama IRS was targeting conservative groups. But they apologized; like that is going to make things right. Last year, the head of the IRS categorically denied these things were taking place and now the same lying leaders of the IRS are blaming the intrusion of our rights on the payroll personnel and not the political appointees. Wait a minute; "I lied last year, but today I'm telling the truth", sure they are. And what's worse is that it is this corrupt IRS that is responsible for implementing Obamacare. Does that scare the crap out of anyone? What the IRS did was illegal and heads should role. leadership heads.
All I can say is thank God some of these reporters have grown a set of balls. Jay Carney faced a furious press today. Obama had lied to the press and set them up. He has been treated with kid gloves and I expect the WH is not a happy house tonight. I also expect a Friday night dumping of documents; hoping they will not be seen.
This is a continued practice in the Benghazi report; just as the Obama administration blamed the IRS fiasco on low level employees, the Obama administration is trying to blame Benghazi on the CIA.Posted by: CasperWY at May 10, 2013 6:35 PM
Good points Casper, but the lies go far beyond that; Stephen Daugherty wants us to think that Conservatives are ignorant.
The justice department did a study of gun crime in America. It's not been talked about because the Obama administration has done their best to make Americans believe gun crime is up, according to Pew Research. Conservatives do not believe this an never did; it is the low information ignorant masses, the democrat voters, who believe this lie. And to top it all off, the idiot Nancy Pelosi said it was the assault gun ban that dropped gun crime, but the justice departments research was crimes committed with hand guns and not assault weapons. It's a constant barrage of lies and misinformation for this administration. It is fact and not fiction and the left, like Stephen Daugherty and others on WB, eat it up as absolute truth. I think we have reached a turning point; I think the American people are finally understanding what Obama really is.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-05-07/news/sns-rt-usa-gunsstudyl2n0do29f-20130507_1_gun-crime-justice-department-injury-preventionPosted by: DSP2195 at May 10, 2013 6:53 PM
"All I'm going to say on that matter is this simple principle: both the claim that these plants and animals are safe and that which says they are not are claims that must be examined scientifically."
They have been tested, over and over. W/o any indication of a systemic problem. What you are advocating is the "precautionary principle," which the Obama administration specifically rejected, rightly indicating that it was unscientific.
So in this particular case it is science, Obama and me against you and the hysterical left.Posted by: C&J at May 10, 2013 10:05 PM
What I'm saying is that a person editing the program can be selective. As in, selective to the point of leaving out all the interviews that worked against their point.
The Selectivity can also work towards misinforming people, too.
You talk about folks being less well informed about who was President at a certain time, and while deplorable, that's not nearly so worrisome about being misinformed about what's right in front of you.
If you watch Fox News, you are far more likely to believe that Bush's claims, that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, an ongoing collaboration with al-Qaeda, that he was involved in 9/11 were true. As in, you are more likely to believe it NOW.
You are more likely to believe that Obamacare is a government takeover, even though not one of the big insurance giants is being nationalized. You are more likely to believe that there's some sort of Death Panel that's going leave the elderly out in the cold, or kill poor baby Trigs when they're born retarded. The bill specifically bars illegal immigrants from benefits, and does not provide for taxpayer funding of abortions, but these are things FOXNews viewers believe.
It's a propaganda outlet, and better yet, one sold as the only reliable source of information. Viewers become little hot-house flowers, unable to feel comfortable with any other news source, because the number one message that they market is this: you can't trust anybody else but us.
And that's your only message, really, as you peddle your movement's misinformation.
That's why you're constantly demeaning me. You've been taught to argue by sinking other's credibility. But that is a propagandists way of doing things, and propaganda is no foundation for policy, nor for political action in its face.
The question, in terms of state boundaries, I guess, would be something like "Could the federal government overrule states on concealed carry, or open carry?" Lopez, a case I'm familiar with, rejected the ban on carrying around schools on the grounds that the schools (which produce workers for our economy) were part of interstate commerce.
So, looking at that, I don't see the applicability. The trade in weapons is obviously interstate, and gun sales of weapons manufactured within those states obviously have a substantial effect on the market. I can argued as was argued in Wickard v. Filburn that enforcing such an exception would help to defeat the purpose of gun regulation everywhere in America. I mean, what if somebody in Kansas manufactures a machine gun, for sale to somebody else in Kansas? You could build yourself a nice arsenal of otherwise restricted weapons, and other states could do the same.
That would severely undermine any regulation of the gun industry, defeating the purpose of national regulation of the industry under interstate commerce. In fact, it's clearer here than with Wickard, in which the guy was actually only growing grain to eat for himself, not to sell within the state.
As far as I can tell, and this is after a quick search, the point of the 18th Amendment was more along the lines of scope than anything else, which is to say that rather than having the law apply among the states (of which there were a number already "dry"), it would apply throughout the nation. It's the same motivation that guides anti-abortion amendments.
As far as nullification goes, the constitution says two things: one, that the courts decide how to interpret the laws (meaning they judge whether a law contradicts the second amendment or not, not the legislature), and that where the federal government has a claim to authority, its authority overrules everybody else's authority
As far as the Tenth Amendment goes, it's irrelevant at the point you establish that it falls within the Federal Government's purview.
As far as the expansion of that purview goes?
I guess the best way to put it is, as our society has advanced in communications and transportation, interstate, and even international trade have become more the rule, and less the exception. Just look around your hometown, and try to see a business that runs purely within your state.
States still have a lot of sway on things like corporate law. There's a reason people incorporate in Delaware. States still manage a lot of their affairs. It's just that business doesn't operate anymore like it did in colonial days, when corporations weren't these immortal legal persons.
Oh, I do believe my beliefs are touchable. I do my best to research my points first, and to respond informed, rather than uninformed, because I know that whatever delusions I might have about being able to argue my way out of a mistake, the people I'm trying to convince could easily be unconvinced by a big mistake on my part.
And you'll notice I take the time to respond to my critics, not merely disparage them.
But it's strange that of all the issues you have to choose from, from questions of where the supremacy clause applies, to the nature of federal/state jurisdiction, the matter you feel it most important to discuss is ME.
Do you think that alone is able to defend your positions? Do you think yet another conservative badmouthing a Democrat is going to make your policies look good, your politics more sympathetic?
tom humes-
So, your answer is to send the several members of the protection detail protecting the folks in Tripoli, whose job it is to take care of the State Department employees there, and send them hours out of the way in Benghazi's direction?
What happens if there's an attack on Tripoli? Do we then have TWO diplomatic security disasters on our hand, not just one?
And no, there was no way, despite how ignorant you think I am, to get those security detail members that far in enough time to save those people.
And tell me, how long after the invasion of Iraq was it that the UN delegate to the place was killed in a Terrorist attack?
You seem to want to dictate what is said by everybody, and because you've set that only certain policy responses are appropriate. The Right's gotten spoiled in terms of controlling things, and the patience of folks beyond the right for having their views dictated to them has grown thin.
There was once a fellow name Kurt Gödel, and what he did was basically destroy all hope of a complete and consistent logical system that had no unprovable statements within it.
That's what he's famous for. His Incompleteness theorems rocked the world.
When he became an citizen in 1947, having emigrated to the United States after the Nazis took Austria over, the story goes:
On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses. Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution, one that would allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship. Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his chances. Fortunately, the judge turned out to be Phillip Forman. Forman knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein's own citizenship hearing. Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion.[16][17]
And the fatal flaw, of course, is that the Constitution can be amended at any time, completely consistently with its rules, to become a dictatorship, if its people so wish it.
Flaws exist in everything mankind makes. My sense, though, is that if it works, we should go with it. That is, of course, a flawed point of view, and admittedly imperfect.
We're not going to get a perfect system. It will always count on us being reasonable. It will always count on the better angels of our nature. We cannot merely let political dogma or any other system run things. We must be awake, and we must keep ourselves aware of the consequences of things we do, not merely secure and self satisfied in our own logic.
Yes, it's flawed, but I would grant the point that no other system that would replace it would not be flawed, so I see no reason to cast it aside.
Few if any revisions means that I am in no hurry to add on additional amendments, unlike some Republicans here who want, like the proponents of Prohibition, to use the Constitution to impose their vision of America, religious or secular, on everybody else. I'm not even that keen on things like Amending the Constitution to declare that campaign finance money isn't speech, or to reverse the Citizens United decision at a Constitutional level.
Of course, you wouldn't interpret it that way. For a person who demands the Constitution be read at face value (albeit with your interpretation required, to be valid), you certainly feel free to read a hell of a lot into what I say!
Common sense? Well, you and I both have our idea of what common sense means. We're sort of biased in that way. But really, what I'm talking about is not throwing inane decisions in the courts that, while true to the letter of the law, leave legacies of awful outcomes. Citizens United is a good example, but so is that eminent domain decisions a while back.
Judges should be free to focus on, encouraged to focus on bringing about decisions that don't have ugly, stupid consequences, if they can help it.
As for the last three?
I've never said people don't have the right to own guns. I just don't consider it a mandate that they must be able to get any and all guns of any level of firepower.
I have also never said that Conservative radio and TV should be controlled. However, I don't see anything wrong with folks who are using public resources for private benefit having to give member of the public the opportunity to respond to the people expressing themselves politically on the radio, or on TV. I don't seen any need for a subsidized liberal media, although I do support public television and public radio.
As for the last point?
Look, A military chaplain isn't there to proselytize for their own religion, but to help the soldiers with their spiritual needs. I've heard too many stories of folks on the right trying to turn our military's schools and organizations into forces for their own churches' benefits. This is nation built on the notion that ours is a country of no religion in particular, and all religions brought together in peace and harmony.
Too often, though, folks who claim themselves Christians try to use their power to coerce and pressure others into becoming like them.
I think a Muslim, and Atheist, and a Buddhist should be able to participate in our armed forces without having to take **** for not being Christian. And if they are Christian, they shouldn't have to take **** for not being the kind of Christians these people prefer. The military is supposed to serve all Americans, not help consolidate the power of a few.
I believe the losing fight isn't for your beliefs, its for the preservation of things as they have been. You can always figure out a better adapted way of lobbying and advocating for your beliefs. It's just that the tactics, the rhetoric, the whole fevered opposition aren't working.
Does it not strike you that despite 2010, the GOP's in a fairly mediocre position?
As for paying attention to what I say? No, you have this idea that when I say A, I mean B, and the frustrating thing is, I honestly, sincerely insist that I really do mean A, not B, and I am still not heard.Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2013 10:24 PM
Stephen Daugherty, why does anyone even waste their time talking to you. You make no sense. You must sit in front of a computer screen for hours just thinking of non-relevant stuff to write.
Everything I said about you is true. Deny it if you want. You are a liberal, an elitist, and you think you are smart and everyone else is stupid. You think you are God's give to humanity. You can't talk without telling everyone of your degrees and qualifications. You are a liberal and all liberals think the same. You can endlessly talk, you can deny the truth, but when it all boils down to the truth you worship the gods of abortion (the murder of babies), you worship at the altar of global warming, you hate America, you hate the Constitution, you hate free speech (your attitude about conservatives and Fox News tell us you hate free speech), you hate freedom of religion, and most certainly you hate 2nd amendment rights. You are ashamed of being an American, you think American is a colonial power, you think America has robbed the world of resources. Honestly, I don't even know why you are living in this country. All you have to do is cross the northern border and you will be living in the utopia you want to create. God knows, enough of your brothers ran to Canada in the 60's and 70's. I have no doubt Stephen, if you lived in those days, you would be driving a VW bus with flowers painted on it, you would be smoking a joint, you would be protesting the war, and you would be headed for Canada. I know your kind Stephen, all talk and gutless. Everything I said about you I true; you argue it's not and then you go on to say why it's true. I think you are really messed up Daugherty. You need to get a life.Posted by: CasperWY at May 11, 2013 12:05 AM
Well Stephen Daugherty, I understand why you linked to the article in your comment to make your point. It's almost identical to the way you always make your points.
The surveys also find that those who watch Fox are more likely to be misinformed, their views of reality skewed in a right-wing direction. In some cases, the studies even show that watching more Fox makes the misinformation problem worse.
The article, like you, think that if we think in a "right-wing direction" we're wrong! And to drive home the point, if right-wing thinkers watch Fox they are more wrong!
Look, A military chaplain isn't there to proselytize for their own religion, but to help the soldiers with their spiritual needs. I've heard too many stories of folks on the right trying to turn our military's schools and organizations into forces for their own churches' benefits.
I haven't heard any of those stories. But that aside:
This is nation built on the notion that ours is a country of no religion in particular, and all religions brought together in peace and harmony.
That's a bunch of crap, Stephen Daugherty. I don't know where you got that idea. People came here to practice their own religion not join some kind of commune where everyone thinks the same.
Too often, though, folks who claim themselves Christians try to use their power to coerce and pressure others into becoming like them.
If a Christian talks to someone about their religion they do not use coercion or pressure. That would not be Christian of them. They may talk and talk and talk but they don't cut off peoples heads when they don't convert.
I think a Muslim, and Atheist, and a Buddhist should be able to participate in our armed forces without having to take **** for not being Christian. And if they are Christian, they shouldn't have to take **** for not being the kind of Christians these people prefer. The military is supposed to serve all Americans, not help consolidate the power of a few.
Here's another comment that shows a lack of knowledge. The military has chaplains of many religions for the specific reason being to provide the religious experience the soldier is accustomed to. Those you mentioned do not have to take asterisks from Christians. Also the military isn't suppose to serve all Americans. They are suppose to blow things up and kill people.
Again Stephen Daugherty, I think your Tellerite tendencies are showing. I think you should repent. You should come away from the dark side. Admit you're wrong and lift this terrible weight from your shoulders.Posted by: Weary Willie at May 11, 2013 4:10 AM
Your response is a continuance of ignorance. In real time that people were dealing with there is no "what ifs". The people on site had to make decisions and they had to try to save lives. They were told to not try. Shame on the admin for the death of those involved and shame on you for supporting those decisions of the admin.Posted by: tom humes at May 11, 2013 12:13 PM
HTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Motivational Power Quote
Self - Motivation Is The Glue of Success
"People who are unable to motivate themselves
must be content with mediocrity,
no matter how impressive
their other talents."
Andrew Carnegie, Scottish - American Industrialist
As I see it. . . . . . . .
Self - motivation is the glue of success
The person who is able to motivate themselves will find the way to solidify their success and soar to great heights. Their self - motivation will be the driving force in their life and success journey.
Self-motivation separation the champions from the field and spurs the champion to stay on point and to do the little extra that will make the big difference on their success journey.
You will recognize a person that is able to motivate themselves by their enthusiasm and in their persistence to succeed. You will also find that a self-motivated person will become the master of their fate and in their inspiration to succeed will come from within.
Self - motivation is the glue of success. Our motivation will create the bond between our dreams and making them come. Self - motivation is the driving force that will carry us over the finish line on our success journey.
©2010 Lou Ludwig, Sales and Management Consultant Success Coach, Speaker, Trainer and Author

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Dayton Nursing Jobs – Jobs | Robert Half Office Team – Dayton, Ohio
Brookdale Senior Living – Dayton, Ohio. NURSING ASSISTANT. Kettering Medical Center – Miamisburg, Ohio. Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration – Dayton, Ohio. Manager of Private Duty Home Care/LPN.
Private duty nursing – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Private duty nursing is the care of clients by nurses, whether an RN (Registered Nurse) or LPN/LVN (Licensed Practical Nurse). Most nurses who provide private duty care are working one-on-one with individual clients.
Employment Opportunities
LPN (private duty) (CHILDREN'S HOME CARE OF DAYTON). Category: Nursing. Facility: 4. Children's Home Care of Dayton. 0-40. Job Details: Graduation from an accredited school of nursing Ohio LPN License.
Dayton Jobs – LPN Jobs | Veteran Health Administration – Dayton, Ohio
Maxim Home Healthcare – Dayton, Ohio. PRN Case Manager – Skilled Nursing Facility. HCR ManorCare – Springfield, Ohio. LPN (private duty) (CHILDREN'S HOME CARE OF DAYTON). Children's Medical Center of Dayton – Dayton, Ohio.
Homefront Nursing Agency | Services | Cincinnati, Dayton OH
Services. Persons with developmental disabilities Ohio DDS. Homemaker/ Personal Care IO & L1 Waiver. Adult Foster Care. Private Duty Nursing Services.
…Aide Ohio – Private Duty Care Ohio – Visiting Nurse Ohio – Nursing Ohio – Restorative Services Ohio – Home Healthcare Aides Ohio – Home Healthcare Ohio BMV Locations Ohio BMV locations and Phone Numbers for Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Lima, Sandusky, Toledo.
Trading post dayton ohio.
How do I start my own Private duty nursing? | allnurses
I researched how to do private duty nursing without working through an agency. Basically all you need is: (1) Complete a training program and receive a nursing degree (RN or LPN) (2) Become licensed in the state you wish to practice (3) Buy your local and state business licenses…
PDF Outpatient Hospital • Prescriptions** • Private Duty Nursing…
and State Plan Related Services Work Group (Hospice, Home. Health & Private Duty Nursing). February 2013. • Questions — Please send your questions to this mailbox with the subject (Re) line "Webinar – PDN": [email protected] 1/29/2013.
An Error Has Occured
Travel Nurse – Psych RN Job in Dayton, Ohio.
Nursing jobs in Ohio | Simply Hired
LPNs & RNs Homecare with Heart is seeking LPNs and RNs to work Private Duty shift work in Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana Counties. Registered Nurse (RN) – Emergency Room – Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio (OH).
Register Now
YCPA Connect! Dream Big Luncheon Series: Downtown Dayton Partnership.
Invalid Request
Clinical Specialist CRHF Dayton Ohio.
Cover Story Brewing Impact: Dayton's craft beer renaissance continues with…
Private Duty jobs, employment in the USA | Careerjet.com
Ohio. LPN (private duty) (CHILDREN'S HOME CARE OF DAYTON) Category: Nursing Facility: 4. Children's Home Care of Dayton Department: CHILDRENS…'
Prestige Manager-Dayton Mall-Streetscape-Dayton, OH.
PDF Dayton, Ohio VA RN Contract
This Supplemental Contract is made between the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Dayton, Ohio (DVAMC), referred to as the "Agency" or "Medical Center", and Section 2: RNs will forward copies of completed forms to the Nursing Supervisor on duty, Nurse Manager, and the Union.
Dayton RTA – It's Time to Ride – Public Transit Servicing Downtown…
View More Alerts. Latest News. Greater Dayton RTA donates worn out buses to help save lives. Greater Dayton RTA's Brandon Policicchio Named Customer and Business Development Chief.
the amazing spider man 2 fire drive
princess tea party dayton ohio.
Private Duty Nursing | Columbus, OH
What is Private Duty Nursing? In contrast to Comfort Keepers' traditional in-home care services, this type of nursing provides one-on-one medical care to an individual in the home or in a facility.
Home – Heidelberg Distributing
Columbus. Dayton. Serving 26,000 retailers throughout Ohio and Kentucky. We distribute beer, wine, spirits and more to every retail establishment in Ohio and Kentucky with a liquor permit.
STNA Classes in Dayton Ohio – Find STNA Classes
This is our directory of STNA classes in Dayton, Ohio. Becoming a State Tested Nursing Assistant is a great way to get started with your nursing career. Take the first step now and sign up for one of these STNA training programs in the Dayton area.
CNA Certification In Ohio – OH | Ohio CNA Training | Programs | Nurse
Private Duty Nurse. Public Health Nurse. Explore Additional Careers. Ohio Nursing Information. Ohio LPN Programs. K Kettering Medical Center Network – Kettering Grandview Hospital and Medical Center – Dayton Kettering Memorial Hospital – Kettering Southview Hospital and Family…
CareerMD | View Listing
Pediatrician Minutes from Dayton-Columbus Ohio with High Salary.
The site is experiencing issues and is unable to fulfill your request…
Where Can I Become a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in Ohio?
Pediatric Emergency Medicine: Full-Time – Dayton Children's.
Nurses Home Services in Dayton, Ohio with Reviews & Ratings…
From Business: Alternate Solutions HomeCare is based in Dayton, Ohio. From Business: Golden Heart Senior Care serves the Dayton, OH area with in home senior care, private duty care, companion services, & Alzheimers and dementia care.
Privacy Terms of Use Contact Us ©2016 Kwantek.
My.jobs – Brookdale Senior Living Careers – Jobs in Ohio
Brookdale Senior Living – Dayton, Ohio. Manager of Private Duty Home Care. Brookdale Senior Living – Cincinnati, Ohio. Licensed Practical Nurse LPN.
Spotlets | We're sorry, this page is private.
We're sorry, this page is private.


text:
S60: Kowski Child
Out of stock
Strong and safety S60 Kowski Child is a great product made with lots of research and care, Especially its best look of color makes it special . Buy S60: Kowski Child online.
S60: Kowski Child ISO Classified, 12 aids for personal mobility, 3 Walking aids, 06 Elbow crutches, Strong, light weight elbow crutches, (open cuff) Fixed forearm length, Height adjustable tube, Large steel reinforced tip for safety and european designed. • Weight: 440g each • Weight capacity: 100kgs each • Tip size: 43mm • Hand grip to ground height: - 610-810mm • Ergonomic Soft Grip
Write Your Own Review


text:
According to the Pew Research Center, millen- nials are expected to overtake baby boomers in the U.S. population in 2019.1 As a result, food and beverage trends will evolve at a pace that has not been seen in decades.
Whereas baby boomers want traditional and recognizable food and venues, millennials are seeking the adventurous and experiential while demanding affordable,
healthy, and local food choices. 2
In response to this massive purchasing clout, the restaurant industry is innovating at a record pace in terms
of menu choices and business models. This puts a strain
on food safety management systems, as new risks must
be assessed and interventions implemented in a large
organization. Marriott International's global food safety
team is not immune to these growing pains. We realize
that innovation must be done responsibly to protect
public health.
Since its founding in 1927 and the first Hot Shoppeschain, Marriott International has aggressively pursuedfood safety methods, which established a strong foodsafety culture. These early restaurants pioneered dailyemployee "stand up meetings," in which topics of safefood and personal hygiene were discussed. Food safetyand taking care of the employee were early core valuesin the company. The founder, John Willard (JW) Mar-riott, understood that to achieve success, he would haveto establish trust among his customers by establishingan inherent understanding that his food and beverageswere safe and of the highest quality. TheHot Shoppes restaurant concept had tolearn to manage the potential risks asso-ciated with made-from-scratch food pro-duction. The fledgling company experi-mented with food choices, with inputfrom repeat diners, while maintaining afocus on food safety. Early recipe cardsincluded safe food handling procedures.Fast-forward to the 1990s whenMarriott established its own food dis-tribution system—Marriott DistributionServices (MDS). MDS had 13 facilitiesin the U.S., which performed broad-line distribution for all of Marriott'sfoodservice operations, and in 2000, itwas awarded the distribution contractfor Darden Restaurants. In 2001, Mar-riott, together with Hyatt, ClubCorp,and Fairmont, launched a procurementcompany called Avendra to serve theU.S. hospitality market. 3 The result wasimproved operational performance forhotels by reducing the burden of ven-dor management, while bringing guestsmore innovative food choices.Both MDS and Avendra had robustand comprehensive food safety man-agement systems that included vendorvetting, supply chain management, andhotel-specific Sanitation Standard Oper-ating Procedures. When MDS was soldin 2002, their food safety managementsystem standards were required to beadopted in Marriott's agreements withnew broad-line distributors. Marriott'sshare in Avendra was sold to Aramark in2017.4 Avendra's highly skilled qualityassurance team continues to evolve asa crucial part of Aramark's food safetyprowess. Aramark has dedicated foodsafety supervision on-site, serving nearly2 billion meals every year globally.Today, Marriott International hasa mature food safety culture and isnow the largest hotel company in theworld. 5 Marriott delivers safe, high-quality food under its 30 brands in over10,000 restaurants, 6,500 hotels, and


text:
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries, planning for a summer weddingBy Ma. Maureen Pascual on Jun 2, 2011 in Basketball, Entertainment, Television, United States •
Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries
Image Credit: usatoday.com
Kim Kardashian, fresh from a Memorial Day weekend trip to Monaco with NBA Star Kris Humphries, is about to launch the wedding-planning machine into high gear, as reported by several entertainment news sites, June 1, 2011.
As USA Today report reveals, Kim Kardashian is indeed ready to go. "We said, let's take a little vacation to Monaco and when we're back, let's do it," says the 30-year-old reality star.
"We hope so … it's just a matter of if we can. But if my mom can plan (sister Khloe's) that fast, I know she can do ours. I definitely have a few more months," she says, referring to the lightning-fast wedding preparations of younger sister Khloe Kardashian, who wed her own NBA star, Lamar Odom in September 2009.
Related reports also confirm that Kim Kardashian accepted Humphries' wedding proposal last May 18.
Kim Kardashian was candidly quoted that the two have been an item "for almost eight months…when you know, you know. You know it's right, and why wait (to get married)?"
Spread The News!
Follow @BatangasToday


text:
Energy cronyism whack-a-mole continues as the massive renewable-energy lobby continues to press for special favors from policymakers as per their proudly admitted, decades-old business model.
Today's edition was just snuck into the Senate farm bill, a proposed committee substitute that would establish not a state energy policy study committee, but a "Renewable Energy Economic Development Study Committee."
Already, the thumbs are on the scale. All the members would be "experience[d] in renewable energy" (plus a representative from the Public Staff, which is supposed to represent consumers but has been derelict in that respect too often to be trusted).
This would be what's known as a "stakeholders" study committee, in which people with a supposed stake in the issue get together and decide what's the best for everybody. Those familiar with politics know how this goes: it's basically cronyism gussied up with a doily of process.
A wildlife corollary would be a "Sheep Eating Study Committee" with the "stakeholders" being members of the the red wolf, gray wolf, fox, and coyote "communities." The sheep at the table would bleat and bleat about being the top stakeholder, but that's not how the process works.
We electricity consumers are the sheep at this table of wolves. Again, it's not an energy policy study committee. It's not just a renewable energy study committee. It's a renewable energy economic development study committee. Which is Governmentese for renewable energy throwing taxpayer money at study committee.
What a responsible energy policy study committee would do
An actual, responsible study of North Carolina energy policy would start with the idea that captive ratepayers — people who right now are given no choice in their electricity provider and therefore cannot shop for better prices or service bundles — deserve a return to the state's former policy of least-cost, reliable electricity.*
It would also take a full accounting of costs and benefits. For an example of a better, more responsible approach to energy cost issues, look at the study proposed by the NC Energy Ratepayers Protection Act, which would have also studied "known and measurable" costs and benefits, which would have included grid issues and standby generation issues associated with nondispatchable sources.
*And yes, right now those two descriptors, least-cost and reliable, are existential threats to renewable energy. And they will be so long as renewable energy providers refuse to compete in the market but instead do their damnedest to have their government buddies force people to buy their stuff while guaranteeing their investments.


text:
Real Disability Testimonials – Roland Semprie, Ontario, Canada
This is Vena Semprie, writing on behalf of my husband Roland and myself.
Donald Coggan of Ability-Mission.org has been helpful in a variety of ways and has become a true mentor.
I came in contact with Don about 18 months ago while searching for a grant for Roland's business.
Roland is a seasoned, retired detective from the Toronto Police Service. Since 1996, he has had a business called the National Pardon Agency.
Now disabled with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis, and faced with rapidly changing economic conditions, Roland has found it challenging to adapt himself and the business to the new reality.
After Ability-Mission.org published Roland's story, several people responded in support of his plight and with suggestions of taking the business in a new direction "online."
I had no idea where or how to begin.
What I soon discovered is that I was already in direct contact with the person who could make this happen... Donald Coggan.
Through Ability-Mission.org, Donald and I developed a sound, professional relationship putting together that online business and I speak passionately in describing the value that Donald Coggan has brought to our lives.
Not only is he instrumental in our online business, he has introduced me to so many professionals where help is always available.
I find Donald Coggan to be someone with a very big heart and a valuable resource always willing to help.
Ability-Mission.org provides an opportunity to go forward, so as long as there's a will, there's always a way.
So, Ability-Mission.org and Donald Coggan, thank you for making a real difference in our lives.
Vena and Roland Semprie
Do you have a story of your own to tell? Or maybe you know of someone whose story ought to be here? If so, just let us know via the contact us page.


text:
Blog Tour, Excerpt, My Review, Q&A with Laura, For As Hard as It Gets By Laura Kaye
Labels: Blog tour, Excerpt, Giveaway, Laura Kaye, My Review, Q&A with Laura Kaye · Posted by Unknown at 6:30 AM
Hard As It Gets (Hard Ink #1)
Author – Laura Kaye
Genre – Contemporary Romantic Suspense
Release Date – November 26, 2013
"Edgy, sexy, and full of suspense! A great read from a great new author!"
~J.R. Ward on Hard As It Gets
About Hard As It Gets:
Five dishonored soldiers.
Former Special Forces.
One last mission.
These are the men of Hard Ink.
Tall, dark, and lethal...
Trouble just walked into Nicholas Rixey's tattoo parlor. Becca Merritt is warm, sexy, wholesome--pure temptation to a very jaded Nick. He's left his military life behind to become co-owner of Hard Ink Tattoo, but Becca is his ex-commander's daughter. Loyalty won't let him turn her away. Lust has plenty to do with it too.
With her brother presumed kidnapped, Becca needs Nick. She just wasn't expecting to want him so much. As their investigation turns into all-out war with an organized crime ring, only Nick can protect her. And only Becca can heal the scars no one else sees.
Desire is the easy part. Love is as hard as it gets. Good thing Nick is always up for a challenge...
Trouble just walked into Nicholas Rixey's tattoo parlor. Becca Merritt is warm, sexy, wholesome--pure temptation to a very jaded Nick. He's left his military life behind to become co-owner of Hard Ink Tattoo, but Becca is his ex-commander's daughter. Loyalty won't let him turn her away. Lust has plenty to do with it too.
With her brother presumed kidnapped, Becca needs Nick. She just wasn't expecting to want him so much. As their investigation turns into all-out war with an organized crime ring, only Nick can protect her. And only Becca can heal the scars no one else sees.
Desire is the easy part. Love is as hard as it gets. Good thing Nick is always up for a challenge...
Read Chapter 1 of Hard As It Gets
Excerpt ~ a meeting with the enemy…
Tires screeched against pavement. Becca whirled toward the parking lot. Through the new spring leaves, she could just make out a dark SUV cutting diagonally across the mostly open spaces. Her heart leapt into her throat, but she kept her eyes straight ahead. It was critical she not do anything to give the impression she wasn't alone.
God, how am I going to do this? Just breathe, Bec. This is too important to screw up.
Right. As long as her lungs kept operating, she'd be fine.
The truck whipped into the driveway about twenty feet in front of her, the drive that also led to the boat put-in and dock where Miguel and Shane were pretending to be Sunday fishermen. Score one for the good guys—getting her attacker in this space was one of the things they'd hoped for. It was why they'd chosen the pavilion as their rendezvous point.
She recognized the driver right away. Her would-be kidnapper. In her mind's eye, she saw him crossing the staff break room. It was definitely the same man. And, thank God, he'd come alone. Eyes drilling into her, he got out of the idling truck and crossed the grass looking like the gangster he apparently was—baggy jeans, hoody, chains at his neck. But, geez, he'd been beaten to hell judging by the bruises and cuts on his face. Every moment of this situation was more surreal than the next.
"That's close enough," she said when he reached the edge of the sidewalk that ringed the pavilion. Becca retreated behind a picnic table, placing a barrier between them.
He glared but stopped on the sidewalk. "So we meet again."
"Well, I wouldn't say we've met, since you know who I am, but I don't know you." Her gaze dropped to his hand, but she couldn't get a good look at the tattoos there from this angle.
His brown eyes narrowed. "All you need to know is I'm the one who can help get your brother back."
It sounded too good to be true. The breeze blew strands of hair loose from her ponytail, and she swept them away from her eyes. "What is it you want?"
"To know how your bro put two and two together." Becca nearly groaned and her hands fisted. She had no more patience for bullshit mystery. "What the hell is that supposed to mean? Don't play games with me."
"Charlie found something that was supposed to be hidden, and we need to know what led him to it."
"How am I supposed to find that out?" she asked, a chill running down her spine despite the nice morning. The hint of a smile played around the corners of his wide mouth. "I was thinking about that . . ."
A scuff. Rubber on concrete. Goose bumps erupted across her neck as she turned. Time slowed to a crawl, and everything happened at once.
Two guys stepped out of the trees and entered the far side of the pavilion. Both had guns.
Panic had barely welled up inside her as one screamed and fell to the ground for no apparent reason. The other bolted but, just as suddenly, crashed to the ground with a shout and a cry. Could Beckett's silencer be the cause?
The punks writhed on the grass, but one of them returned fire, the gun's report echoing loudly under the pavilion's roof. Becca instinctively crouched down, hands cradling her head. Her gaze whipped to her attacker.
Expression absolutely livid, he stalked around the table with a gun pointed at her head. "Not getting away this time, bitch."
She backtracked the opposite direction, her hand reaching for her gun.
His roiling gaze tracked the movement and he lunged.
Becca took off across the concrete, catching her shin on the blunt edge of a bench in a flash of pain. The stumble slowed her, and he grabbed her ponytail. Her head wrenched back, nearly taking her off her feet. Suddenly, her air was gone, his arm trapping her in a tight chokehold that had her clawing and gasping. Nearby, footsteps pounded on the earth. The team?
They'll get to me, they'll get to me, they'll get to me in time.
Above her, the bright blue sky filled with little pinpoints of light as the guy's arm compressed her windpipe. And her medical training meant she knew she had mere seconds before blacking out.
Did you have a favorite line from the excerpt?
10 Reasons to Fall in Love with Hero Nick Rixey
I'm very excited to be celebrating the release of my twelfth novel, Hard As It Gets¸ the first in my new super sexy contemporary romance series called Hard Ink. The series has hot, alpha, prior military guys, a tattoo shop setting, an edgy suspense plot, a super steamy romance between hero Nick Rixey and heroine Becca Merritt, and a great bromance.
One of those hot, alpha guys is Nick Rixey, the hero of Hard As It Gets. Nick was second-in-command of her Army Special Forces unit before his commander's black op went back and injured or killed most of the team. A year later, Nick's out of the Army on an undeserved other-than-honorable discharge and nursing some deep physical and emotional wounds. I absolutely loved writing Nick's character, and here are some reasons why I think you just might fall in love with him, too:
Nick has ink. I love tattoos on guys, including in my fiction! And Nick has quite a bit of ink, starting with that awesome tribal on his shoulder on the cover. You'll get to explore what the rest are along with heroine Becca as the book unfolds! Yummy!
Nick does ink. One of the things I loved about Nick was that he had all these hard edges, but then he had this artistic side. Nick has always drawn and, as part owner of Hard Ink Tattoo, he's learned how to do it with ink and a tattoo gun. I love the combination! And there's a really sexy scene where Nick draws a little something with Becca!
He boxes. Jeans. Bare feet. No shirt. Boxing gloves, the kind that leave the fingertips exposed. Muscles in motion. Yeah, that's a scene in Hard As It Gets.
He's a good big brother. Nick is big brother to Jeremy, the other owner of Hard Ink. They have great chemistry and an awesome bromance, plus a few intensely emotional scenes I loved writing. And Jeremy's an awesome character himself!
He's loyal. Nick would do anything, risk anything, sacrifice anything, for those he cares about. And it makes him so admirable.
He's tortured. Tortured heroes are my favorite, and Nick is about as tortured as they come. He still suffers physical pain from two gunshot wounds to his lower back, and he carries a world of emotional pain over what happened to his SF unit for which he blames himself. It makes him sympathetic and flawed and just a character you'll want to hold and make it all better!
He is sexy as hell! See the notes on boxing and ink, above! LOL Nick has dark chocolate brown hair and super pale green eyes. It's a killer combination. Add to all that a gun holster over broad shoulders and…thud!
He's prior military. Nick served in the Army Special Forces for a lot of years, and he has taken that code to heart. Loyalty. Honor. Duty. Service. Courage. What's not to love?
He's a true hero. Despite how much Nick blames himself for what happened to his SF unit, Nick was a hero on the day the ambush happened, going as far as to help administer medical treatment to another teammate after he'd been shot twice in the lower back. His heroism continues into Hard As It Gets, where he does the right thing and helps Becca despite some serious misgivings about getting involved with his commander's daughter. He knows the right thing and he does it, making him a true everyday hero.
When he finally gives into love, his redemption is so sweet! The more they resist, the harder they fall, and that's definitely true of Nick Rixey in Hard As It Gets. I just love when a tortured hero finally finds what he needs to start healing, don't you?
For me, all of these add up to one seriously hot, tortured, lovable hero, and I hope you'll fall in love with Nick Rixey just like I have!
Would you like to know more about Nick? Post a question for him or his author lady, and we'd both be happy to chat with you!
Thanks for reading!
My 4.5 Stars Review :
"Happiness wasn't something you found, happiness was something you made-by living in the moment, by cherishing the people in your life right now, by finding the courage to change those things you didn't like."
This is the first book of Laura's that I have read and it surely will not be the last one.
This story has it all, sexy tattooed Special Forces men, it was Gritty, sexy, suspenseful, fast paced.
Becca Merritt is an ER nurse when he younger brother, Charlie, goes missing she will do everything she can to find him. Charlie has left a note which points her to the Hard Ink Tattoo parlour and Nick Rixey.
Find Rixey, the Colonel's team, Hard Ink Tattoo.
Nick is Ex-Special Forces, he was discharged from the Military one year ago with a not so honorable discharge along with the rest of his team. He now works part time with his brother in his brother's tattoo shop.
When she first finds Nick he turns her away. He wants nothing to do with helping her. Why because he has bad feelings towards his ex- Colonel. As time goes by Nick can't get Her out of his mind and She refuses to not find her brother.
Once she convinces Nick to help her things slowly start to get uncovered, and this leads Nick to call in back up in the form of his Special Forces team he worked with under the Colonel.
The bond that these Men have with each other is truly special. One of true brother hood., with all the bad that happened with them all a yr ago they all still pulled together to come and Help Nick when he asked. As well as his brother Jeremy who as a brother was going to help whether Nick liked it or not.
As the story unfolds we find out more about Becca's Dad and why they believe Charlie was kidnapped. There is a lot of suspense in this story, a lot of action, some sexual tension. The way Laura brings thins story to life is incredible,. I felt like I was right there along side all of the characters.
If you are into Alpha men, with tattoos, military background, and hot as hell. Then I suggest you read this story. I don't think you will be disappointed.
This book is the first in a new series by Laura and I can't wait for the next installment and the chance to read about Shane and Crystal.
About The Author
About Laura Kaye:
Laura is the New York Times and USA Today bestselling author of over a dozen books in contemporary and paranormal romance. Growing up, Laura's large extended family believed in the supernatural, and family lore involving angels, ghosts, and evil-eye curses cemented in Laura a life-long fascination with storytelling and all things paranormal. She lives in Maryland with her husband, two daughters, and cute-but-bad dog, and appreciates her view of the Chesapeake Bay every day.
Website | Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Newsletter SignUp
HARD AS IT GETS is one steamy read! How did you first get into writing?
Thanks so much! And thanks for having me here! I've been a writer all my life. I'm a historian by training, so writing non-fiction was a part of my job for the fifteen years I worked as a college professor. But I started writing fiction in 2008 in kind of an unusual way. I hit my head on July 4, 2008. I didn't think much of it that day, but soon after I realized I'd really hurt myself, and it turned out I had a minor traumatic brain injury. As I recovered, I was filled with an amazing urge to be creative, so I started taking guitar lessons (still not very good at that!) and wrote my first novel in 12 weeks (fortunately, I'm better at that LOL!). The experience of writing that first book was truly transformative. It was what I was supposed to be doing, so I revised that book until it sold and kept writing new ones. And I haven't looked back since!
Why did you choose to write romance?
I had been an avid reader of paranormal romance for years at that point, so I wrote what I loved. But I also picked romance—unconsciously, I think—because to me it's an incredibly hopeful genre. Romance stories are inherently stories about people who can't find love or think they don't deserve it who overcome the odds and find it in the end. In the years leading up to starting writing, I experienced a number of very hard personal losses, so writing in this genre was one way I worked through those issues.
What does "Hard Ink" refer to? What importance do tattoos play in your story?
Hard Ink is the name of the Rixey brothers' tattoo shop in the Hard Ink series. Nick and Jeremy Rixey are co-owners, though Nick (the hero of book one, Hard As It Gets) prefers to be more of a silent partner, despite Jeremy's efforts to put Nick's artistic talents to work. In this series, tattoos are a way people remember, pay penance, or highlight what's important to them. The act of creating permanent marks on skin has deep meaning to them. And the shop creates a gritty setting where diverse kinds of people meet and interact in the series. I really love it!
Describe Becca—what do you love most about her? And Nick?
I'd love to! Because I really loved writing these characters!
Becca Merritt is smart and strong and honest and protective. I really loved the way she was willing to stand up for those she loves, even against people and forces who might be stronger and even a little scary. There's a scene in particular when she dresses down Nick's Special Forces teammates after a fist fight where I was particularly cheering for her! LOL
Nick Rixey is, omg, so freaking hot, you guys! He's brooding and tortured and honorable and when he falls he falls so hard. I especially loved Nick's mix of hard, alpha edges with his artistic side. When Nick shows Becca what her idea for a tattoo might look like on her skin, it's just scorching!
What significance does the military play in the book?
Military themes are central to the whole Hard Ink series. The military isn't just sexy window dressing nor is it just there to provide an intriguing backstory. The prior SF guys are this series are entirely defined by their military experience good and bad. It informs their identity, their sense of honor and duty, their view of the world, and of course gives them the skill set required to fight the battles they face in the series. The overall series mystery the characters are working to solve revolves around a military conspiracy in Afghanistan, so even though they're out of the Army, the military themes are central.
If you could describe your book in a 140 character tweet, what would it be?
In #HardAsItGets, an ex-soldier joins forces w/his dead commander's daughter to regain his tarnished honor & save her brother from a gang
Is there a particular author or book that has influenced your writing?
There are a number of authors that have influenced me, but if I had to pick one it would be J.R. Ward. A lot of what I know about how to write sexy, authentic male point of view comes from reading her books. And I definitely learned the importance of a good bromance to a romance novel from her Black Dagger Brotherhood series, too. Given my ginormous fangirling, you can only imagine how flipping excited I was when this happened:
"Edgy, sexy, and full of suspense! A great read from a great new author!"
~J.R. Ward on Hard As It Gets
You guys, I bawled like a baby in the middle of a huge workshop put on by my publisher. For real. LOL
What advice would you give aspiring writers looking to get into the publishing industry?
Here's my advice:
1) Write, write, write. You can't revise what you haven't written and you can't sell what you haven't written. And the psychological and emotional boost you'll get from writing "The End" for the first time cannot be overestimated.
2) Revise, revise, revise. That first time you type "The End"? Yeah, you're nowhere near done. Your book will need to be edited, by you, several times before you ever put it in front of an agent or editor. You get one shot with them, so don't waste it by not showing them your very best and most polished work.
3) Find critique partners. And your mom, siblings, and best friend do not count (unless you're really lucky, like me, and your best friend happens t also be a professional author). You need other aspiring writers in your genre who will give you honest but constructive feedback about how to improve your manuscript. Let them catch all the embarrassing goofs and plot holes you thought you caught before it gets to an agent or editor.
4) Want to be a professional, then act it. And by that I mean join the professional organization(s) of the genre in which you write. Through them you will find classes to help hone your craft, critique partner match-ups, networking opportunities, calls for submission, and other opportunities invaluable to breaking into publishing.
5) Don't give up. You will hear way more no's than yeses, particularly early in your writing career. Stick with it. Believe in yourself. Give yourself one day to wallow in the rejection and eat a bunch of chocolate and then get right back on the horse. If your first book doesn't sell, chalk that up to learning and write a second.
What can fans of HARD AS IT GETS look forward to next?
I'm currently writing four series: two contemporary (Hard Ink, Heroes) and two paranormal (Hearts of the Anemoi, Vampire Warrior Kings). I'll have books from all four of those releasing in 2014. My next release is Hard As You Can (Hard Ink #2) coming 2/25/14!
Terms & Conditions
The Kindle Paperwhite 3G giveaway is international unless excluded. If your country is not on the list that Amazon delivers to, you will not be eligible win this prize.
Author Laura Kaye is not responsible for damage to the Kindle in transit. All issues regarding this must be addressed to Amazon.
All accessories for the Kindle Paperwhite 3G must be purchased by the winner – the prize is the Kindle Paperwhite 3G only.
Entrants must be 18 or over.
1 comment:
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
CompatibilityFits MacBook Air 13" Gen 1 (Does not fit Gen 2 - 2019 devices)
Dimensions9.75″H x 13.50″W x 0.75″D
1 lbs
(360) 733-5608
[email protected]
Want to learn more?
Patented Crumple Zone Corners use a unique internal structure and contoured shape to create maximum shock absorption in the corners of the case, shielding the most vulnerable areas of the device from impact.
The Edge for MacBook Air 13" is the ultimate pairing of protection and functionality. The case features a solid TPU design that uses impact-dispersing Crumple Zone™ Corner construction to protect vulnerable corners of the device and achieve maximum drop protection. The flexible hinge design provides extra protection and ventilation for the device. The clear back panel of the case is perfect for asset scanning without having to remove the case, making it an ideal solution for the K-12 environment.
|Normal Speed
Usually it takes around 45 seconds for first-time installation.
|Optimized Speed
At expert level, the total installation speed will be cut down to just 20 seconds.
Larry Lawnchair –
This case took me a second to figure out on the first one, but once I got to the second and third it went very fast. great protection and what i like about it is that it isnt obtrusive.