text:
Bottle Rocket fills a Monkey Paw sized hole
Burgers and Nashville hot chicken join cheesesteaks on the menu
Ian Anderson 12:42 p.m., Feb. 18
What began as a local backcountry struggle over San Diego Gas & Electric's proposed Sunrise Powerlink is now a national issue, one that opponents of the project hope will challenge a key energy strategy of the Obama administration.
The national scope was underscored earlier this month when the Sunrise opponents applauded the U.S. Senate's action to hold up the nomination of David J. Hayes as deputy secretary of the Interior Department, the agency's second-highest post.
No matter that the Hayes appointment was blocked by senators seeking to punish Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who has angered them by suspending 77 oil and gas drilling leases near national parks granted in the last days of the Bush administration. And no matter that last week, some of the same senators dropped their opposition and voted for Hayes to be confirmed, after Salazar agreed to review the lease suspensions. Sunrise opponents, for their part, wanted Hayes blocked because he is a former lobbyist for San Diego Gas & Electric and he lobbied for the utility during the period it was pressing hard on transmission projects.
The utility calls Sunrise a "poster child" for renewable-energy strategy, one that other utilities are embracing but that grassroots activists consider misguided.
The issue boils down to where the priorities will lie in developing clean renewable energy: Will the nation build a vast and expensive new network of transmission lines like Sunrise to reach remotely sited energy projects, with much of that infrastructure to be built on heretofore pristine federal lands?
Or will the United States emphasize the development of so-called distributed generation, which consists of rooftop solar and small wind farms close to cities, along with energy-efficiency programs to reach environmental targets and slow global warming?
The Obama administration is placing its bet on the former — long new power lines and big renewable projects on remote lands. The administration has also reportedly elevated Sunrise to key project status, according to a representative of San Diego Gas & Electric. And Obama is allocating billions from the stimulus package for "smart grid" development, which many fear involves building a larger transmission system that will reach into previously undeveloped areas.
"The secretaries of Energy, Interior, and Agriculture, which are three key agencies, together all told us that Sunrise is on the top of the agenda for each of those agencies and that the White House [wants the project]," Laura McDonald, a project director for San Diego Gas & Electric, said in a recent webcast.
Sunrise would stretch from the heart of San Diego County out to Imperial Valley, where San Diego Gas & Electric says the $2 billion transmission line will connect with renewable-energy projects that will be built in coming years. Once in place, the utility says the new line will improve electric reliability by providing a new path to import power to the city. After a three-year-long proceeding, the California Public Utilities Commission approved the project late last year, and now it awaits an approval from the U.S. Forest Service.
Opponents are asking the commission to reconsider its approval of the line but expect little from that process and are raising money for a court fight based on what they maintain was the commission's disregard for facts developed in the lengthy proceeding. They argue that the line is too expensive, would significantly raise fire hazards, and would do other environmental damage. They also argue that running a lengthy power line through fire-prone backcountry would diminish rather than improve the region's energy security.
Then there is the matter of who controls the generation of electricity, say Sunrise opponents.
"Everybody understands that if you can put solar panels on rooftops around the country, you would have independence from the likes of SDG&E," said Diane Conklin, a spokesperson for the Mussey Grade Road, a member of the coalition opposing Sunrise, who has also opposed Hayes's nomination. "It may not happen immediately, but it will happen over time. They want us tethered to their monopolies."
In addition, many Sunrise opponents say SDG&E actually wants the new power line to complete an energy system based upon liquefied natural gas — which is not a renewable-energy source — that Sempra plans to import from abroad through a new terminal it constructed along the coast in Baja California, just north of Ensenada. The gas would be piped to generating plants along the border, where it would be burned to produce electricity. Sunrise would allow wider distribution of that electricity throughout California, opponents argue.
Because of the role federal lands could play in projects around the country similar to Sunrise, the nomination of Hayes to the Interior Department has become a flash point. The department manages 500 million acres, or about one-fifth of all land within the United States.
Hayes first caused local concern when he was named a member of the Obama transition team, charged with overseeing appointments to energy, interior, environmental, and agricultural posts. The transition appointment sparked a protest letter from Bill Powers, a local engineer who has played a prominent role in opposing Sunrise and who authored a report building the case for a vast rooftop solar program, instead of the transmission line.
"It is extremely disappointing that Sempra and SDG&E get the inside track in the new administration when so many involved in the Obama campaign have worked to get a new future for energy policy," said Powers. "Meet the new boss — same as the old boss. This is not what I scraped the bottom to get from a new administration. The Hayes appointment means that SDG&E and Sempra have their [former] lobbyist as head of day-to-day operations at the Interior Department, and that is bad news for opponents of the Sunrise Powerlink."
Powers and others note that Hayes, as a member of the Latham & Watkins law firm, lobbied for SDG&E during a period when the utility pressed hard for expanded federal powers to site power lines. These expanded powers allow the federal government to usurp the state regulators to make decisions about the approval or rejection of proposed transmission lines.
"You can fight a great fight at the state level and it could be all negated at the federal level," Powers said.
The engineer also tangled with Latham & Watkins when he organized the Border Power Plant Working Group and sought more detailed environmental assessments of proposed electric transmission lines across the U.S. border to reach power plants in Mexicali, Mexico, where environment standards are far less demanding. Latham & Watkins opposed the additional assessments. The border group ultimately lost that fight, and the lines were built without additional environmental review.
San Diego Gas & Electric declined to respond to questions about its relationship with Hayes. Public records indicate he lobbied for SDG&E as recently as 2006, apparently evading a two-year ban on lobbyists imposed by President Obama.
Just prior to the Hayes confirmation, the Interior Department declined to answer questions about him or make the then nominee available for comment. Surprisingly, however, the call to the Interior Department prompted an unsolicited call to this reporter from the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Johanna Wald, a senior attorney with the environmental group, said she was tipped by sources within Interior about recent Hayes queries. She called in support of Hayes, with whom she worked when he was deputy secretary of the Interior in the Clinton administration.
"He is a proven manager, which is what the department needs now," said Wald. "They need a proven manager to clean up the department and its agencies after eight years of the Bush administration."
Wald added that Hayes "will not be working for a utility. He will be working for the Obama administration, and I truly believe he will give the administration his first and only loyalty."
The environmental attorney added that while distributed generation should be an important part of energy policy, it was not sufficient to solve the environmental problems we confront in a timely manner.
Another source, who declined to be named, said Hayes has already signaled that he will be given broad responsibility for matters related to California. The source noted that Hayes was well-regarded by some in the water conservation community because of efforts he undertook during the stint in the Clinton administration.
Hayes has also worked with the World Wildlife Fund and was a consulting professor at Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment. Laura Cyphert, a Lakeside resident active in opposing Sunrise, isn't reassured. Citing his work for San Diego Gas & Electric, Cyphert said, "I don't believe he could perform his duties in an unbiased manner." Her concern, she added, is that the Interior Department will "rubber-stamp" backcountry projects without regard to environmental impact reports, "as we have seen in the case of Sunrise."
Donna Tisdale, who heads a group called Backcountry Against the Dump and is among the leaders in the fight against Sunrise, said she had the same concerns.
"With Hayes at Interior, SDG&E can walk right in without an appointment," said Tisdale, who recently coproduced a documentary film about Sunrise. "I have been through this before: little communities try to fend off a big corporation but the skids get greased for the big company that they slam their projects right through."
Beyond Sunrise, local environmentalists consider SDG&E's environmental record abysmal. They note that the local utility has predicted it will likely fail to meet a state mandate requiring utilities to derive 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of next year. In addition, they argue that the plans of Sempra Energy — San Diego Gas & Electric's parent company — to bring imported natural gas into the region from its new Baja California terminal will result in greater regional pollution.
In the recent webcast, McDonald, the San Diego Gas & Electric Sunrise project director, said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has told a wind-energy association that he would do all he could to ensure that federal lands are available for wind projects. Many wind companies are setting their sights on San Diego's backcountry for building turbines.
Opponents say the emphasis should be on using local rooftops and open spaces within or near urban areas for renewable development, to avoid both despoiling the backcountry and the expense of building transmission lines. Local activists also argue that deriving power from many small generating projects provides greater security than dependence on big power lines through the fire-prone backcountry, where one wildfire or other outage could cut off a large percentage of electricity supply.
County supervisor Dianne Jacob, who favors emphasizing distributed generation, said San Diego Gas & Electric, along with its parent company Sempra Energy, has bought the support or silence of groups in an effort to block that approach. What is particularly disturbing, she added, was that the effort is financed by money from local utility customers.
"We are one of the sunniest regions of the United States," said Jacob. "We should have solar all over."
Hear Craig Rose discuss this story further on Reader Radio!
The ultimate solution is nuclear power, fission today then fusion ASAP, built jointly with desalination plants along the coast for desperately needed clean water supplies to continue our quality of life in San Diego. We have had safe nuclear power submarines in San Diego continuously for decades so safety is not an issue at all.
All other solutions are obsolete and a waste of precious time, money and resources that we do not have the luxury of using up anymore, especially considering the urgency to eliminate fossil fuel burning plants now.
Human nature has proven throughout the history of civilization to be too short sighted, and we are now failing to do anything serious about saving a habitable planet for our future generations, while the greedy take advantage of that human fallibility and continue to pollute our atmosphere and waste increasingly limited resources to maximize short term profits regardless of how unacceptable the consequences shall be beyond their own lifetime.
Time is running out and unacceptable decisions continue to be perpetuated by avaricious special interests that control far too many politicians in Washington, California and San Diego. That's why the world economy is in extremis today, and wars never end.
The article hits the nail on the head. Do we want big corporate control over energy resources or do we truly want to achieve energy independence?
Sunrise Powerlink keeps us keeps us tethered to Sempra/SDG&E. Why do we need to destroy our backcountry under the guise of renewable energy?
We want local solutions that don't require a massive 123 mile transmission line.
Bob B. Leucadia http://www.anzaborrego.net/Travel/AnzaBorrego/category/Sunrise-Powerlink.aspx
How do you propose getting around it??? Secondly, at this point in time, where do propose to get the money to build these plants??? And finally, exactly where along the California coast would you have them built???
The misguided Johanna Wald can be reached at [email protected]
The Obama Administration does NOT support the SRPL. For SDG&E to claim that they do is reckless and irresponsible.
Who has the track record of integrity, Obama or SDG&E. Get real. Remember AIG? That was a turning point. Obama's response was "I'm taking time to research what they are up to". Obama has not indicated his energy policy. However you've seen little mercy for greed. Banks have been forced to pay back gazillions in compounded mortgage interest. Obama ran on focusing fairness to the individual not on perpetuating the power over the power over the people. He was not a day sworn in when Arnold Swarzenager bugged him about energy and then mouthed off like it was a done deal. That hardly constitutes support. Would his chief environmental consult be Arnold Schwarzeneger? Don't count on it. Remember the energy contracts that put Arnold into office? Associating this with Obama is absurd. Forcing businesses to rely and pay for obsolete technologically for the next 50 years is about as intelligent as forcing them to use Apple 2E's to run them. If computing power is doubling every 18 months it stands to reason that energy technology is doing the same. Do we want to be forced to run on the energy equivalent of a 286 box for 50 years? And destroy our national forests forever? That's fed to Arnold from the energy lobby, not Obama. Economic crisis is not an excuse to destroy national treasures. The number one goal of the Bush administration was to keep the centralized power over energy. Everything but everything but everything served this one goal. We should have seen it coming: SDG&E getting swallowed up by Sempra was only one small part of that scheme. Manipulated contracts, manipulated new requirements that were re-labeled "meeting the demand". Radical energy prices, housing prices, historic economic crisis. Remember the electric car? The Bush administration responded with hydrogen research. How convenient. The sterling solar dish is really a hydrogen tube little tested in the summer sweltering heat. The 1st new line was fabricated a decade ago with the contracts. The biggest source of energy is the liquefied natural gas coming in from Russia. Russia? That's an old comforting word. Talk about reliable? And the part about going all over California, try again. Sempra's site, said the famed pipe line "IS" going invisibly from "tha Rockies" to Ohio. "Rockies" is a loose concept consistent with their superb demonstration of local geography in their 10 volume EIS. -Not. The current proposal compromises nearly all of the substantial flowing water resources in the county, yet they call this "environmentally superior?". To assume that Obama would do this is nearly slanderous. To the contrary. If we want to put a stop to the reckless strong-arming by SDG&E for horrendous profits, once and for all then we need to replace them with a local company! A welcomed initiative is due.
Climate changes have made transmission lines an increasing fire and safety threat that utility executives do not want to spend the money to provide power systems protection, maintenance and inspection to prevent.
They simply want to maximize their profits for Sempra at the expense of SDG&E customers' business costs, life and property by shutting down systems and transferring financially unacceptable losses to their customers regardless of consequences.
Response to Comment #3
gardenparty, all good questions.
The paramount fact is that we have no other power generator design that will even begin to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to levels that future human beings will find acceptable to live in, well before the end of this century.
Another key fact of life documented in historical geology and evolutionary biology texts is that temperature changes, like those occurring under present carbon dioxide levels will severely threaten the survival at least a major percentage of the human race before the end of this century if we do not start doing the best we can today.
The inescapable fact today is that the only existing power plant design that can even begin to generate enough power to significantly reduce the existing atmospheric carbon dioxide pollution level is nuclear fission. I would much prefer fusion energy but our scientific community has been sidetracked by fossil fuel special interests for over 50 years and we can no longer afford to wait for the required discovery that will allow us to build fusion generators instead of fission plants with the required urgency we face today.
"How do you propose getting around it???" and "where do propose to get the money to build these plants???":
It really depends on how soon people realize the severely unacceptable consequences our present climate changes are producing to demand the right solutions for eliminating fossil fuel generation, and also begin providing enough water to maintain our quality of life in San Diego. We have no option but to act today.
"exactly where along the California coast would you have them built???":
Begin by converting and upgrading existing coastal power plant sites in South Bay, Encina and San Onofre.
Then there's the legal issue. In order to event get a measure to repeal the law on the ballot, you need 500,000 VALID signatures. A group tried in 2007 and ended up withdrawing their measure because they drew very little financial support and collected less than 10% of the needed signatures. Put another way, as of a year and a half ago. apparently no one in Ca wants it.
Response to Comment #7:
gardenparty, I must admit that your response represents the dominant conventional wisdom that will make eliminating fossil fuel generation plants impossible before ongoing climate changes continue to raise atmospheric carbon dioxide to earth changing levels, producing higher global temperatures that will result in reducing our quality of life to unacceptable levels.
But the root cause is that we keep electing republican and democratic politicians at federal, state and local levels who keep proving they are totally incapable of making the right things happen to protect quality of life for future generations because special interests like fossil fuel industries and the military-industrial complex still control too much of the campaign funding for far too many incompetent politicians in both parties who enabled our current economic, environmental, education and social problems to be as unacceptably bad as they are today.
The reality is that our only hope is that President Obama can change American politics in time to produce and protect an acceptable quality of life for future generations, including the generation that currently reads The Reader.
Good Luck to Us.
About 2 yrs ago my girlfriend and I moved out of Southern California. We live north of Santa Barbara on an absolutely beatiful piece of land I bought quite awhile ago. Last summer we completed intallation of pv panels and 2 wind turbines( we have the same kind Leno has on his garage). Except for the "neccesities" of phone and data lines, we have the ablility to be self sustaining; we are " off the grid" as the pop culture phrase goes. We did it for 2 simple reasons. For the 2nd half of our lives we don't need the trappings and the "hustle and " bustle of living a metropolitan life. and most importantly, i guess, we can afford to do it. However, for more than 25 yrs before we moved, I lived within a few minutes of San O. I went to the beach there, I surfed there, I benefited from it's existance, with no problems. But when you talk about the future that is one issue I have with nuclear: where does the waste go? We are leaving that problem for the generations that follow, which is exactly what you say you don't want to do. Put simply, my feeling is that fossil fuel burning power plants are an environmental issue but so is not having a way of disposing of spent fuel from nuclear powered generating stations. It does no good to trade one for the other, the end result is the same. I don't think my response "represents the dominant conventional wisdom ". I have friends of both pro nuclear and anti nuclear persuasion. Those are the questions they ask on both sides. Where are they going to be built, who's going to pay for it and how is they waste going to be disposed of.
Pt. 2 Face the facts. In Ca, no one wants one in their back yard and geologically speaking there are limited the areas where they could even be built. Absolutely no one wants to pay for it and with state of the economy, absolutely no one is going to lend for one anyway. And whether it's apathy, lack of knowledge or people just opposing it, you still can't get around the law without the votes to change the law. You can say the root cause is the politicians we elect at federal, state and local levels or that military-industrial complex still controls the campaign funding for incompetent politicians, but the fact of the matter is before it even gets to the politicians for them to deceide where it goes and who pays for it, no one can even get 500,000 voters to sign petitions. California has close to 25 million eligible voters, but only about 60% of those even bother to register and no one can get even 3 1/2 pecent of those to sign a petition. I'm not naive enough to think politics aren't involved at some level, but if people in this state wanted it enough there would be a grass roots movement to get people to sign up and money would be raised. Whether you agree with it or not aside, prop 8 was a perfect example. Both sides got people to sign up and they raised close to 100 million in funding between them. Nuclear energy apparently is just not that big of an issue to most people and you can't lay blame for that on the politicians or military industrial complex; it fall squarely on the shoulders of the citizens of California.
Response to Comment #10 & 11:
Very well stated position statement gardenparty, and I thank you for your excellent efforts on behalf of the planet. I know your area well and you are truly living in a paradise that is well worth saving, while providing you with the ultimate refuge if society falls apart completely.
The fact is that we can argue thoughtful, dedicated and expert positions until we turn blue but the reality is that all of our politicians have failed us completely with just the current wars and economic meltdowns, whereas saving the planet is not yet a high enough priority in this time of great uncertainty when increasing numbers of people are just trying to survive what is happening today.
Also well said: "--- blame --- falls squarely on the shoulders of the citizens of California" and America for failing the tests of Democracy is correct; as Pogo said: "We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us." And it doesn't help that politicians that the minority of those eligible to vote keep electing to represent us in Sacramento, San Diego, etc. are deconstructing our education and social protection systems as we trade words between us.
Democracy and Rule of Law have damned near returned full circle back to conditions in 6th century BC Athens when Solon tried to come up with the first Democracy to save us from ourselves and political, economic and moral decline. Our founding fathers, and millions of military heroes and patriots who sacrificed everything to protect us ever since, would most certainly barf all over us if they saw what we did to the Democracy they risked everything to protect.
Pray that Obama, our great black and white hope, is able to at least bottom out the current decline and fall of yet another Democracy due to failures by We The People.
response to # 12: again you say "reality is that all of our politicians have failed us completely ". And again I say it's not the politicians who have failed us as much as we have failed ourselves because we are the ones who put them there. Let me ask you this; did you vote in the most recent election? I did and if you did that puts us in the vast minority. Voter turnout was about 22% statewide, meaning only about 3.5 million of those registered and only about 14% of those who could be eligable voted. Put in other terms, less than 10% of the population is deciding the fate of the other 90+ percent. That is absolutely ridiculous but unfortunately normal in this state. Further consider this thought: Voters typically seem to re-elect the politicians who are in office, even while expressing disgust with elected officials. Jerry Sanders is a perfect example. It probably comes down to the simple fact that most people don't have the time or inclination to study up on all the issues, so they go with the person whose name you recognizeor hear the most. But at the same time they also don't trust career politicians. So to protect themselves from re-electing the same people over and over again, in 1990 voters passed prop 140, limiting Assembly members to six years in office and Senators and Governnor to eight years in office; after which time they are banned from that chamber for life. For sure term limits lead to to plenty of turnover at the Capitol, but that means you get rid of the good along with the bad and that leads to another problem: the lack of continuity and dwindling institutional memory among lawmakers. What ends up happening is that lobbyists and staff members—who remember why decisions got made and the deals that were struck in the first place—gain ever increasing increasing power while the few talented lawmakers are put out to pasture to make room for a new crop of amateurs who have little, if any understanding of the system. BTW more than twice as many people voted on that election almost 19 years ago as voted in the recent election. As I said earlier, whether it's apathy or lack of knowledge of the issue, the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the people, especially,those who don't vote. And to lay blame otherwise is simply folly.
One last thought: I believe it was Albert Einstein who once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". It seems to me that sometimes, if not most of the time, he was describing the mindset of many of the people living in California.
Sad day when huge, ugly power lines have to mar our beautiful California landscape.It is happening everywhere but the story in the San Diego County back country is particularly troublesome. It has taken a lot of effort by regular people to fight this monster project. Let's find more local renewable energy and avoid sending it out of our region to parts north.
Agree with Bob B's comment above.
Response to Comment #13 & 14:
gardenparty, Yes I always vote, registered as a nonpartisan because I have no faith in either party doing the right things anymore. Both parties are responsible for allowing the betrayals of the U.S. military, attacks against the U.S. Constitution and the out of control corrupt practices by Wall Street, the banks and special interest corporations that occurred during the Bush administration. Either they participated directly or watched and did nothing to protect We The People and both parties enabled the current failures of our political, economic and social systems.
One fact of political life throughout America today that is frequently overlooked is that the RNC and DNC have much greater control over how our representatives vote than the We The People. That's a key reason most politicians are failing us in Washington, Sacramento, San Diego, and throughout the United States.
The RNC and DNC, and the special interests that control the RNC and DNC have control over who runs for office, funding of their annointed candidates, and how their politicians vote in congress, in the legislature, and in local offices. We The People have damned near allowed the parties to disenfranchise us.
Re: Nuclear as the long term solution – Anon92107 has it right. If we want to reduce GHG emissions and seek energy independence, nuclear is the solution. Pres. Obama has done a disservice to stop funding Yucca Mountain, which is the best solution for long term spent fuel storage. We need to rescind the CA law restricting nuclear plants. To "gardenparty's" comment, we won't allow coastal siting of nuclear plants, due to the concern about once through cooling. These new nuclear plants will be in the desert and will be air cooled, with long transmission lines to our cities. The question now is how bad do GHG impacts need to get before we seek out a solution that uses nuclear power plants?
Re: iokuok2: You state: "Who has the track record of integrity, Obama or SDG&E". I was optimistic that our new president would instill a sense of responsibility in individuals. Yet I see that he actually does the opposite of what he says. I am quite disappointed. Now we borrow 50 cents for every $1 that we spend, in a budget with "responsibility" in the title! He bashes AIG bonuses when in fact he approved them. Sorry; no integrity here.
Re: iokuok2: You state: "The number one goal of the Bush administration was to keep the centralized power over energy." This is inaccurate. In fact, under Pat Wood at FERC, an effort to decentralize the energy market made great strides forward, and we have seen new independent markets develop in the MISO, NYISO, ISO-NE, ERCOT and CAISO, which have resulted in lower cost energy than in investor owned utility or public power controlled service areas. Sorry again. You can dislike Bush, but Bush did advocate for decentralized energy.
It is remarkable that "environmentalists", those that advocate the reduction of GHG emissions, would argue against a power line that would increase renewable energy generation, increase the number of geothermal, solar and wind plants in the Imperial County. You can argue for solar PV, but please, please, take some time to understand how the electrical grid operates, understand how energy generation needs to align with energy consumption, and factor in firming services that are needed from many power plants on the grid.
Correction thoughtfull1. California doesn't allow new nuclear plants anywhere and won't in the forseable future
It's disturbing how the same people who believe that we should allow dangerous countries the right to nuclear power (despite the risk of fuel conversion into weapons which they have announced that they will develop and use) will eschew nuclear energy in our own country.
Here in the US, development of "new" Nuclear Power is either verboten or taboo...
How is it so essential to the development of nations like Iran while here in the US we're stuck trying to eek out micro volts on developing solar power and windmills (reverse engineered and cheaply manufactured in china) which have miserable efficiency ratings in comparison to nuclear power?
This is just another example of radical environmental lobbyists who only see in black and "green" inhibiting success and progress in the US.
Response to Comment #18 & 20 Thanks for the support thoughtful1 & DavidPatrone, but as you can read, see and hear, saving the planet from the totally unacceptable consequences of out of control climate changes we are already experiencing with the required sense of urgency today is almost an impossible dream due to too many failed political, economic, religious, scientific, ideological etc. countervailing forces that are more willing to place humanity in grave jeopardy of extinction, battling to the death regardless of consequences.
The paramount fact against humanity today is that we are already severely threatened by never-ending wars, and uncontrolled capitalist greed that is allowing humanity to self-destruct because of the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about half a century ago together with Wall Street corporations that control our congress to the point where Democracy has almost ceased to function in Washington, Sacramento and San Diego proves we are helpless to reason with those who refuse to listen to reason and act in time to even save the future for Generation Y.
Most sadly, the scientific community has failed humanity the most by failing to come up with acceptable nuclear solutions over the last 50 years because they chose academic welfare over the needs of humanity.
Generation Y is going to have to save itself as long as we have at least some Democracy left, but GenY will have to find a way to force republicans and democrats to join together to save humanity on a very fast track. At least GenY has Obama in the White House when we needed someone like him the most, but he is going to need all the help he can get from GenY to make the right things happen quickly.


text:
|Product name
|NSK 39585 bearing 39585 bearings
|112 mm
|63 mm
|30 mm
|Tapered roller bearings
|39585 bearing price
NSK 39585 bearings offers a full range of bearings, such as NSK deep groove ball bearings, NSK angular contact ball bearings, NSK self-aligning ball bearings, NSK cylindrical roller bearings, NSK spherical roller bearings, NSK tapered roller bearings, NSK thrust ball bearings, etc. and sells them well worldwide, for example, Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States, etc., more than 30 countries and districts.Meanwhile, NSK 39585 bearings advantage is it's pure material and high precision, widely used in different environment and machinery, such as automobile industry, electric motors, gear device, injection molding machine, machine tool, mining machinery, construction machinery, motorcycle, office equipment, paper machine, pumps and compressors, railway field, semiconductor field, metallurgical equipment, wind power generator and so on. About how to maintain NSK 39585 bearings better,we suggest you put it in a clean space with good lubrication, When we check NSK 39585 bearings,firstly, we had better to clean the surface, then remove the peripheral parts. Do not put excessive force when we check and disassembling bearings, in case of the damage of the parts. If the bearing oil seal and its surrounding parts has appeared the adverse symptoms, please replace it, so as not to the bad oil seal damaged the bearing.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Happy Holidays!
December 14, 2012
A message from President and Mrs. Reiss
As the semester draws to a close, Elisabeth and I extend our sincere appreciation to all of you who help Washington College achieve great things.
Please enjoy this holiday video message with our best wishes for a wonderful break with family and friends.
Here's to a great 2013!
—Mitchell and Elisabeth Reiss
Last modified on Feb. 5th, 2013 at 2:31pm by Shane Brill.


text:
Once a woman becomes visibly pregnant, it isn't long before she's being asked extremely personal questions by complete strangers:
"Are you going to have an epidural or go natural?
"You're not drinking alcohol, are you?"
"Have you tried ginger for your morning sickness?"
Often, such questions are followed up with unsolicited advice based on folk wisdom or anecdotes.
Myths and folklore about pregnancy, labor and delivery abound. They persist in part because of the difficulties in conducting properly controlled scientific studies on pregnant and breast-feeding women and their newborns. In particular, researchers are loath to test medicines on pregnant women in the wake of the thalidomide disaster.
Much of the advice women get is relatively harmless — abstain from alcohol, caffeine and sex — but because of the research gap, it often isn't backed up by rigorous scientific study. Putting women on bed rest to prevent miscarriages is a prime example: There's very little evidence of effectiveness, yet it persists in medical practice for lack of better, research-based treatment options. "Pregnancy and birth are two of the greatest unknowns in science," says Tonia Moore-Davis, director of the nurse-midwife practice at Vanderbilt University School of Nursing in Nashville.
Such recommendations can seem like benign ways of ensuring a healthy pregnancy and baby, but the pressures on women pile up: Eat only the best foods (or your baby won't like broccoli later), gain weight in a very narrow range (or your child will be diabetic and obese); breast-feed exclusively for six months (even if you have to go back to work in six weeks).
In the last year, however, several studies or reviews of studies have looked carefully at popular pregnancy recommendations, and what they've found turns some of the folk wisdom on its head. Here's a look at what scientific evidence can really tell us — or not — about five topics in pregnancy, labor and delivery. Knowing what the science says gives women the chance to make their own informed decisions instead of relying on Internet rumors, kaffeeklatsch gossip and well-meaning, but sometimes uninformed, advice.
No good options for morning sickness
Though it's not a life-threatening condition, nausea associated with pregnancy is exhausting and miserable and can cause major losses in productivity. Unfortunately, research into effective treatments is lacking.
"It's seen as a 'normal' sign of pregnancy. But most women do suffer the effects of it, and the psychological effect can really get to people," says Anne Matthews, a midwife and lecturer of nursing at Dublin City University in Ireland. She's noticed more women turning to therapies such as acupressure, ginger and vitamin B6. "But there's a need for evidence. We don't really know if these are safe or effective."
Curious, she and a team of researchers reviewed the scientific literature to see which morning-sickness treatments had been tested in randomized, controlled trials. They found only 27 studies since 1959 that met the criteria. Treatments included acupuncture, acupressure, ginger, vitamin B6 and anti-nausea drugs such as hydroxyzine, thiethylperazine and doxylamine combined with B6. The review, published in September by the Cochrane Library, found that none of the remedies had enough scientific evidence behind them to be deemed effective.
"We were disappointed," Matthews says. "I'd prefer to have a clearer message. But there just isn't enough strong, reliable evidence to say whether things don't work or do work."
Her regretful recommendation to nauseated women: "Strictly speaking, I would have to say, nothing."
Sex during pregnancy is safe for most
It is one of the most common questions obstetricians get from patients: When is it OK to have sex during pregnancy?
"Many patients and their partners are afraid about having sex," says Dr. Claire Jones, a resident physician in obstetrics and gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Toronto. "People turn to the Internet for this kind of information, and the things you can read there are ridiculous."
Yet from a review she co-authored (published in January in the Canadian Medical Assn. Journal), the findings were clear: "For healthy women who have an otherwise healthy pregnancy, there is no reason not to have sex and enjoy it."
That's not the case for all women, she cautions. Those with a condition called placenta previa, in which the placenta covers the opening of the cervix, should abstain because there is a risk that anything penetrating the cervix could cause bleeding from the placenta.
Women at risk for preterm labor are usually told to abstain as well. Most of the studies that have looked at this issue concluded that the chance of sex causing preterm labor was only higher in women who also had a lower genital tract infection. But because such infections can go unnoticed during pregnancy, doctors err on the side of caution and recommend avoiding sex if you are at risk for preterm labor.
Some couples think that sexual intercourse near the end of pregnancy might induce labor. There is good theory behind this popular belief: The hormone released by orgasm, oxytocin, is the same one doctors use to induce labor. In addition, semen contains molecules called prostaglandins, which are also used by doctors inducing labor to help "ripen" the cervix. The few studies examining this question have been inconclusive, Jones says.
"Every doctor has anecdotes of patients who have tried it and went into labor the next day," Jones says. For uncomplicated pregnancies, she says it's safe for couples wanting to kick-start labor to try.
Light drinking of alcohol may be OK
It's well known that moderate, heavy or binge alcohol consumption during pregnancy can lead to fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, which can include facial deformities, low birth weight, delayed development, mental retardation and heart and other birth defects. But until recently, no one had taken a close look at the consequences of much lower levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
In the U.S., complete abstinence from alcohol during pregnancy is promoted by the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other public health agencies. That's because no one has ever conducted (nor likely will ever conduct) a study to determine if there is a safe level of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. Scientists were, however, able to get at the issue by taking advantage of more lenient attitudes that exist in Britain, where the Department of Health recommends that if pregnant women choose to drink, they should have no more than two drinks once or twice per week to protect a baby's health.
Yvonne Kelly, an epidemiologist at University of Essex in Colchester, England, and colleagues analyzed data from more than 18,500 families with children born between September 2000 and July 2002. "We weren't setting out to say, 'Drink during pregnancy; it's good for you.' Rather, we were asking, 'Are these children really not at any increased risk [for problems] from light drinking?' " Kelly says.
The answer, she says, was very conclusively no — even after the team adjusted the stats as much as they could to rule out the influence of factors such as socioeconomic status, mother's health and age and parenting styles. Children born to mothers who drank an average of one to two drinks per week during pregnancy (or one to two drinks on a special occasion) had kids who performed just as well in cognitive and behavioral tests at age 3 and 5 as those born to women who usually drank alcohol but abstained during pregnancy.
"Children born to light drinkers don't appear to be at any increased risk for difficulties compared to women who chose not to drink in pregnancy," says Kelly of the finding, published in October in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. But, she adds, "never, ever get drunk during pregnancy — it's bad for you and the child you are carrying."
Trying labor after a previous caesarean
Last year, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) revised its guidelines to doctors on vaginal birth after caesarean, or VBAC.
In the past, obstetricians had become increasingly concerned that women who had a scar across their uterus from a prior caesarean delivery and were at an increased risk of uterine rupture might suffer complications that could threaten the life of mom and baby. That perception fueled policies at hospitals, mainly dictated by liability insurance carriers that were unwilling to accept the extremely low but catastrophic risk of maternal and newborn death due to uterine rupture.
However, in 2010 the National Institutes of Health compiled the evidence from major VBAC studies, which included more than 20,000 women. It clearly showed how low the risks actually were, even for women who had had two previous caesarean deliveries.
For women with a normal pregnancy who had one previous caesarean, the risk of uterine rupture is less than 1%, the studies showed. For women with two previous caesareans, the risk is slightly higher but is still less than 2%.
The risk of maternal death (about .02%) was not increased at all compared with women who elected to have a repeat caesarean.
In its updated guidelines, changed to reflect the new data, ACOG concluded that a woman should be allowed to try for a VBAC provided she has none of the risk factors that can hinder vaginal birth and that the hospital has the capability to perform an emergency caesarean if needed. This usually means having an anesthesiologist on duty 24 hours. The new guidelines also allow a woman with two prior caesareans and a woman carrying twins to be candidates for VBACs.
"No one should be coerced into an operation they don't want," says Dr. William Grobman, maternal and fetal medicine specialist at Northwestern University in Chicago, who co-wrote the guidelines.
But, he adds, women and their providers should have early discussions to find a hospital that can safely accommodate trying for a VBAC.
On average, about 70% of women who try for a VBAC are successful, but for any individual woman and pregnancy, the chances may be much higher or lower depending on factors such as the baby's predicted weight and position at time of labor, and a mother's previous history of failed labors.
Grobman notes that, from a public health perspective too, women who fit the criteria should be encouraged to try for a VBAC — a successful vaginal birth is better for a mom's health and her future deliveries. But, he adds, it remains to be seen whether hospitals will change their policies.
Epidurals don't hinder breast-feeding
Around 70% of women in the U.S. receive epidural analgesia, an infusion of pain-blocking medicine directly to the spinal cord, during labor and delivery. A heavy dose of misinformation swirls around this common practice, handed down among women and on Internet forums. In part, this is due to the culture of childbirth education in the U.S., which largely favors natural or unmedicated birth as the best option for mother, baby and breast-feeding success.
Many women are wrongly advised that getting an epidural will slow down and prolong labor, leading to an increased chance of a forceps- or vacuum-assisted delivery or a caesarean. These and the epidural medicine itself, they are told, will make it harder to successfully establish breast-feeding in the hours and days after delivery because the newborn will be groggy, sluggish or sleepy from the medicines or experience of a "medicalized" birth.
Almost all of these ideas about epidurals have been debunked by research in the last decade (see related article), but the beliefs persist. That sets up many women to forego, or feel guilty about, what is arguably the most effective and safest form of pain relief for labor.
In 2006, an Australian study grabbed headlines when it seemed to confirm that the fentanyl medicine used in epidurals caused breast-feeding problems in newborns. But the study was extremely flawed, say researchers, in part because every woman who received an epidural also got a shot of pethidine (Demerol), a long-acting narcotic. Such narcotics are well-known to make babies groggy after delivery, so the breast-feeding troubles could easily have been caused by the pethidine alone.
Nonetheless, in the minds of natural childbirth advocates and the breast-feeding support community, fentanyl was the culprit.
There are medical reasons to suggest that probably isn't so. Although fentanyl, just like pethidine, is an opioid narcotic, the dose that goes into the spinal column during an epidural is small, and the amounts that get into the mother's bloodstream, across the placenta and into baby's bloodstream are tiny. What's more, fentanyl is a short-acting narcotic, meaning its effects are cleared in a matter of minutes to hours after the epidural catheter delivering the medicine is removed.
Dr. Matthew Wilson and other members of an epidural study group based in Britain realized they had the data to better test whether fentanyl was the bad guy.
In a study published last year in the journal Anaesthesia, they directly compared more than 1,000 women who had been randomly chosen to receive different types of epidurals — ones with and without fentanyl — and women who had no epidural at all. A day after delivery, the women were asked if they had established breast-feeding. One year later, they were asked how long they had breast-fed.
"There was really no difference between any of the groups" in terms of breast-feeding success, says Wilson, an obstetric anesthesiologist at Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield, England. "There was no evidence that fentanyl in an epidural has an effect on breast-feeding nor that having an epidural per se affects breast-feeding.
A woman considering an epidural "can be reassured that she's not reducing her chance of successful breast-feeding," he concludes.
Lactation experts remain unconvinced. "Different interventions at birth have a huge effect on breast-feeding down the road, because those first couple of weeks [are when] milk production is established and set," says Teresa Pitman, former executive director of La Leche League Canada, a breast-feeding support network, and co-author of "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding."
Breast-feeding, she says, is the most complex behavior newborns must master: locating the nipple, latching on, sucking with the tongue placed properly and coordinating breathing with swallowing. Even a tiny amount of medicine might disrupt it, she argues. Higher rates of assisted deliveries could cause headaches in babies, overly swollen breasts from the intravenous fluids given along with epidurals, and post-epidural fevers that cause moms and babies to be separated.
Wilson and other anesthesiologists contend these ideas are based on speculation and not rigorous research. Dr. William Camann, head of obstetric anesthesiology at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and co-author of "Easy Labor," calls the idea that epidural medications could affect a baby weeks later "completely ridiculous."
"If epidurals were dangerous or had downsides, three-fourths of women would not be getting them. The babies come out screaming, crying, and vigorous," he says.
Anesthesiologists and natural childbirth advocates do agree on some points, however:
Narcotic injections, delivered intravenously or into muscle, are riskier for a baby's health and successful breast-feeding than epidurals. "Narcotics are not good for baby and breast-feeding; they affect baby's initial alertness and ability to breast-feed," Camann says.
Adds Pitman: "With good help, most moms and babies can overcome any difficulties with breast-feeding and be successful."
Making personal decisions
Choices about sex, alcohol and labor pain relief are made within each woman's personal and cultural context. Kelly, Wilson and others say they hope their research has added valuable information that will enable women to make the best informed decisions during pregnancy.
Moore-Davis says that women should be asking their healthcare providers a series of questions about choices during pregnancy: "Can you tell me what the risk of that is? What are the benefits? What evidence supports your decisions in practice?"
And Kelly notes that a medically paternalistic view of pregnancy still exists that relies heavily on the precautionary principle, or the 'when in doubt, leave it out' approach. But, she says, "women are capable of making informed decisions based on the available evidence — it's fairly insulting to assume they cannot."


text:
Emily Badger
Emily Badger is a former staff writer at CityLab. Her work has previously appeared in Pacific Standard, GOOD, The Christian Science Monitor, and The New York Times. She lives in the Washington, D.C. area.
Colleague Sommer Mathis put up a couple of telling maps last week after the election illustrating the Republican Party's urban problem. Invariably, America's metropolitan counties are the blue ones. The whole rest of the country, more or less, leans red. If you're a liberal, these maps spatially look a bit terrifying, even if their underlying lesson bodes poorly for the GOP.
Such maps, after all, portray space, not people. But in modern America, the men with the most land no longer wield the most power. In fact, this election appears to have been decided by those of us who live the most tightly packed together. To appreciate that reality – and what it means for Republicans going forward – it's helpful to look at our classic red-and-blue landscape through the lens of density.
University of Michigan professor Mark Newman produced this blended map of last week's election results, showing that most counties are neither red nor blue but something in between:
Here he's taken that same map and turned it into a cartogram that distorts the shape of the country (state by state) according to population:
Cartograms have their limitations, though (the first of which may be that you have no idea what you're looking at there). Chris Howard, an author and illustrator living in New Hampshire, took Newman's first map and instead layered directly on top of it census population data for every county in the continental U.S. (this is a measure of total population, not just voters). And this is what he came up with:
"I was looking for a map like this," says Howard, who created the tool for his own education (and what has surprisingly turned out to be the education of the whole Internet). "What I wanted was a blended map, but I wanted it by population. Montana's beautiful, but relatively speaking, no one lives there."
Howard's map underscores that the massive red block of the Great Plains actually has little political weight at all (curiously, electoral influence appears to dry up along with the rainfall abruptly west of the 98th meridian that commonly defines the Great Plains). Electoral power instead is concentrated in those blue-black patches, one of which strings all the way from southern Connecticut to Washington, D.C.
These are the places where people live densely together, where they require policies and an ideology that Republicans lately have not offered.
Some of the anger from cities this election season rightly pointed out that Republican Party leaders go out of their way to mock them. They denigrate urban ideas and populations because this has repeatedly proven an effective way to gin up enthusiasm among their base (case in point: watch this great Jon Stewart takedown of Fox News on Election Day, when the network breathlessly reported the same story 21 times of a lone black man patrolling a polling place in Philadelphia!). Republicans famously went so far as to come out against cities in their party platform. And they conveniently abandoned their sacred values of personal freedom and local rule when patronizing the people of the District of Columbia (who went on, not surprisingly, to give 91 percent of their vote to the president).
If Republicans are ever going to earn real votes in cities in the future, though, they'll have to do more than just talk about them differently. The real problem seeps much deeper. As the Republican Party has moved further to the right, it has increasingly become the party of fierce individualism, of "I built that" and you take care of yourself. Cities, on the other hand, are fundamentally about the shared commons. If you live in a city and you think government – and other people – should stay out of your life, how will you get to work in the morning? Who will police your neighborhood? Where will you find a public park when your building has no back yard?
In a good piece on the GOP's problem with geography earlier this week, The New Republic's Lydia DePillis interviewed Princeton Historian Kevin Kruse, who made this point succinctly: "There are certain things in which the physical nature of a city, the fact the people are piled on top of each other, requires some notion of the public good," he said. "Conservative ideology works beautifully in the suburbs, because it makes sense spatially."
The real urban challenge for conservatives going forward will be to pull back from an ideology that leaves little room for the concept of "public good," and that treats all public spending as if it were equally wasteful. Cities do demand, by definition, a greater role for government than a small rural town on the prairie. But the return on investment can also be much higher (in jobs created through transportation spending, in the number of citizens touched by public expenditures, in patents per capita, in the sheer share of economic growth driven by our metropolises).
Density makes all of these things possible, and it requires its own kind of politics. There's no reason why the Democratic Party should have an exclusive lock on this idea. Investing government money efficiently – as Republicans want to do – is also about focusing on how it's spent in cities. While Republicans are mulling this over in the next four years, it may help to look at Howard's map. What is going on in those dark blue dots? What does it mean to live in those places – and to live there and hear from politicians that "government should get out of the way?"
If you misplace your phone or wallet in Tokyo, chances are very good that you'll get it back. Here's why.
In her re-election campaign, Mayor Anne Hidalgo says that every Paris resident should be able to meet their essential needs within a short walk or bike ride.
Big-city mayors favor Mike Bloomberg after his late entry into the race, while leaders in smaller cities have lined up behind Pete Buttigieg.
Cartographers are mapping the coronavirus in more sophisticated ways than past epidemics. But visualizing outbreaks dates back to cholera and yellow fever.
At the UN's World Urban Forum in Abu Dhabi, attendees toured Masdar City, the master-planned eco-complex designed to show off the UAE's commitment to sustainability.


text:
Microboards Premium PRM PRO-1016 DVD Tower Copier
Sku #241158000000000
Single Duplicators
- Write a Review
45 day price guarantee, 45 day return policy, 100% secure shopping
Big burning capability that's fast, too.
The Microboards Technology DVD PRM PRO-1016 DVD Tower Copier has 10 high-speed, industrial NEC recorders that copy both DVD and CD formats. The Premium PRO-1016 has advanced features such as track extraction, image archival, and copy and verify mode. In addition, the DVD PRM PRO-1016 uses a unique high-quality controller available only through Microboards.
Track Extraction
Track Extraction mode allows the user to create custom Audio CDs by uploading tracks from masters to the Hard Drive and then burning the compilation to CD.
Image Archival
Image Archival permits the user to store up to 10 disc images on the Hard Drive.
Copy & Verify
Copy & Verify mode causes the duplicator to check each copy after the recording process is completed, ensuring a perfect burn on every copy.
Verification Mode
Microboards duplication towers support Bit-to-Bit Data Verification, ensuring a perfect burn every time. (Data Disc Only) For CD-Audio and CD-XA (Extra) a basic disc read check is performed.
Supported Formats
Microboards towers support virtually every format. Supported DVD Formats include DVD Video, DVD ROM, DVD+R, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+RW, and Dual Layer DVD. Supported CD Formats include: CD-DA (Red Book) CD-ROM Modes 1&2, XA Forms 1&2, ISO 9660, Photo CD, CD-Extra, Mixed Mode, Video CD, Hybrid CD, HFS. DVD Duplicators do not record CD+G Format
Two-Year Limited Warranty
The standard warranty for Microboards premium and standard towers is the industry's best! Thier two year limited warranty easily surpasses the industry-standard single year and includes unlimited phone support. (Two year limited warranty includes controller, enclosure, and power supply. Recorders are covered for one year) Unlimited phone support is included.
- Number of recorders: 10
- CD Speed: 48x
- DVD Speed: 16x
- Dimensions (D x W x H): 16-1/2" x 7-1/2" x 25"
- Shipping weight: 65 lbs
- Two Year Limited Warranty: Includes unlimited phone support
Speed and accuracy you can rely on. Order now!


text:
Exhausted with the day's work routine, we wanted to sign off the night on a good note by having a nice & quite dinner. Since we were too tired and had an early morning flight to Delhi, we were really not in a mood to travel the distance in Bangalore.
With all that in our mind, we started hunting for the nearby restaurants in HSR Layout, Bangalore on zomato.com. It was then that I l stumbled on a uniquely named restaurant called "Tea & You". At the first instance, it seemed that it was a tea joint.
But then I still thought of exploring them further and called up the listed number. I asked the gentleman on other side about the menu and he politely told me that they did have north Indian food on their menu.
That was it and we were there at the place in about 10 mts. time. The parking was empty and while the restaurant was on the 2nd floor, a quick look at the dark ground floor could make one feel that the restaurant was completely deserted.
To my surprise, I found that the place was buzzing with loads of energy and reminded me of our college canteen days. The crowd was dominanted by youth from NIFT and perhaps we were the odd ones out atleast at that time.
After some puzzling moments which included some waiting time at the lounge area and a small photoshoot experiment, we were able to get a table which fitted our size [i.e. the number of members]. While we were still contemplating our decision and waiting to place the order, we were gently greeted by an elderly couple who introduced themselves as the owners of the restaurant.
That was followed by a conversation which threw some interesting insights and learnings from two entreprenuer. It was quite ironic that they were very young in terms of their experience and perhaps a shade old with their age.
The restaurant had started barely a couple of months ago, but ever since its launch it's popularity has picked up immensly. Certainly one can attribute all the common factors like the quality of food, its central location and the fact that is very close to NIFT. But, beyond these I think the initial success has been laid down by the humble and "social" attidude of its founders.
One can hardly find a restaurant where the owners are standing alongside each table for minutes, treating customers as their friends and taking their opinion in real time about the quality of the food. You would rarely come across a restaurant owner who has himself prepared the food for all customers during the initial period. You won't find a restaurant where the owner is spending more time in the kitchen than on the cash counter.
The epic story translates into a dream when the owner tells you that he has started this business after getting retirement from his government job. It is very inspiring as the husband-wife duo is fully supported by their sons who are seasoned IT professionals with India's top software companies.
Overall wehad a great time at Tea & You and thoroughly enjoyed the food & the conversations and the amazing HOSPITALITY. Lastly, we requested Mr. & Mrs. Sharma for a couple of pics as I told them that I would be talking about them on my blog and social stream 🙂
If you are in Bangalore or are going to be there in the near future, I would strongly suggest that you should check out this place 🙂


text:
There are many different types of content management systems (CMSs) and blogging systems that allow you to publish content to the Internet. Following are a few popular types of CMS/Blogging software, based on a variety of technologies:
- WordPress
- Drupal
- Wiki
- Blogger
Although we're not able to provide details on deploying tags for particular content management systems, you should be able to use Analytics on many different systems as long as you have access to the source code. Web analytics is a common practice and most CMS systems provide a module that you can edit. These modules then include the tag into your pages in a manner that is correct for that particular software.
We suggest that you review the documentation for your system, search forums, and use other sources for how to deploy Analytics for your blog or CMS.
Viewing page title instead of URL
Sometimes the URLs created by a CMS system can be difficult to correlate with the actual page content. To work around this problem, you can view your pageview data by page title instead of page URL.
- Sign in to your Analytics account.
- Navigate to your view.
- Open Reports.
- Select Behavior > Site Content > All Pages.
- Change the Primary dimension (above the table) to Page Title.


text:
As John closes off his singular testimony of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, he features some closing words of Jesus and Peter about himself (John). These final sentences provide some instructions for us as we await Christ's return. How should we live in light of who Jesus is, what Jesus did, and when Jesus will return?
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name" John 20:31.
Believe:879 is an epic journey through the book of John led by Pastor Skip Heitzig of Calvary of Albuquerque. As we explore each of the 879 verses of this gospel, we'll grow in grace and in our knowledge of Jesus Christ. From His pre-incarnate existence, to His public ministry, through His death and His resurrection we'll traverse familiar territory and embark on new adventures of faith.
FREE - Download Entire Series (MP3) (Help)
Some Final Thoughts:
Publications referenced: Reading through the Bible, by Amos R. Well
Figures referenced: Winston Churchill; Corrie ten Boom; Arnold Palmer, A. W. Tozer, Irenaeus
Cross references: Matthew 16:24; Matthew 22:29;John 12:26; John 13:15; John 21:7; 1 Corinthians 1:12; 2 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Timothy 4:16; Hebrews 12:2
Topic: Christian living
Keywords: Follow me, Peter, John, follow Jesus
Would you turn in your Bibles to the Gospel of John chapter 21. We welcome you here this morning. I welcome those who are outside. We can't see you but by faith we can. We know you are out there in the Amphitheater. John chapter 21, in this week we say farewell not to me but to John. Me, sort of like the poor, you'll have with you always. But John, we've been with John for 2 1/2 years. October 24, 2009, we began in John 1:1. And today we'll finish off the last section of this Gospel beginning in chapter 21. What a wonderful journey it has been, very rewarding for me personally. Why don't we pray before we begin?
Father we're your people. You've called us, you have a plan and it's a unique one. As unique as we are individually from one another, though there are many similarities, yet there are many differences. And like fingerprints or snowflakes and a myriad of other examples you're plan for us is unique but today we think of some common elements, elements that drive us together, elements that remind us were all part of the same body following the same master. Thank you Father for what you've shown us in this series on the Gospel of John. His writings have awakened in us a deeper desire to know the master himself. We have been able to through his pen, step in to his sandals and hear the words, it's as if we were there seeing the face, feeling the very breath of the Savior speaking to these men and speaking through their words to us today. I pray Father that as we close this book that it would be a fitting close. We would have our marching orders, our final instructions in Jesus' name Amen.
I got a note last week put on my desk from one of our gals in the Sunday school department. I don't know how old Isabella is but this is from her. It says, "Skip, I have three dogs one goat, one beta fish and two hermit crabs. I loved them so much please pray for them." And so I did. Now life doesn't get much simpler than that. It's so simple, little Isabella doesn't have a mortgage to worry about; she didn't have to worry about running a business or raising kids. She just has a few very important pets that she loves and she wants per for. Very simple, all of our lives were that simple. Now, they are not for a number of reasons. But perhaps part of the reason is we tend ourselves to complicate things. We go from simple to complex. We get involved in decisions and activities that just add more stress.
If there's one thing I have discovered about God is that he is pretty simple, straightforward. "Here's Ten Commandments", he would say, "Here's my top 10 list". Now we weren't satisfied with Ten Commandments. Do you know that the Jews decided to look at that differently and they made 10 categories of Commandments and say that there are 613 commandments not ten, 613, 365 of which are negative and 248 of which are positive. We go from simple to complicated; we do it with what Jesus said. Probably the simplest prayer you'll ever find is what we call the Lord's Prayer. Our father in heaven holly hollowed is your name. Your kingdom come. . . 56 words. It covers all of major areas of life. It's so simple and so straightforward yet it's so comprehensive, 56 words, a simple prayer.
Compare that to United States government document setting the price of cabbage which is 26,911 words from simple to complicated.
Somebody once suggested that the Lords Prayer would be very different if the theologian would have written it. In fact, if just the phrase, "give us this day our daily bread" were written by a theologian who would sound like this. We respectfully petition requests and intrigue that due an adequate provision be made this day and the day hereinafter subscribed for the satisfying of these petitioners nutritional requirements and for the organizing of such methods of allocation and distribution as many as may be deemed necessary and proper to assure the reception by and for said petitioners of such quantities of bate cereal products as shall in the judgment of the aforementioned petitioners constitute a sufficient supply thereof. I like give us this day our daily bread a whole lot better,
Winston Churchill said, "All great things are simple". And so we come to the last paragraph, the final words of the Gospel of John and the final words John records that Jesus said. And once again we find Jesus keeps it very simple. He takes Peter and he reinstates him. A wonderful conversation of taking a man who has fallen and denied him and resurrecting his hope and telling him of his future usefulness to him but Peter wants to complicated it and Peter it seems wants to poke his nose in someone else's business. And so after breakfast, after Jesus has told Peter about his future and given him the shepherding duty of the sheep. We come to verse 20 of chapter 21 and then Peter, turning around saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following.
We know that to be now unmistakably John, who also had leaned on his beast at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays you?" Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "But Lord what about this man?" Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain until I come. What is that you? You follow me. Then Jesus went out, then this saying wend out about their brother and that this disciple would not die, yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die. But if I will that he remained until I come, what is that you? This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things that Jesus did which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
Now that's good advice for Peter and it happens to be great advice for us. And because it's the final paragraph let's look at these as final instructions, final instructions. Four final instructions as we leave the journey to the Gospel of John. Four final instructions as we march forward into the future into our life. And we're going to view them this morning in terms of warnings. Things to be careful about, things to be careful of – They are very simple, they are very practical, the Bible always is.
First and foremost, "Be careful where you look, be careful where you look". We're told in verse 20, then Peter turning around saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following and a description is given. Now let's just backup in the story and let's just be reminded what's happening here. Jesus Christ has come to the Sea of Galilee early one morning when seven of the disciples are out in a boat casting their nets to fish. They don't know that the stranger on the shore is Jesus until the stranger shouts out, "Hey have you guys caught any fish?" and they go, "No". He says, "Cast your nets on the other side". They did and the net is full of fish. At that point it is John, the author of this book who says, "That's the Lord". At that time Peter gets up, puts his robe back on. He was just in shorts, puts his robe back on and jumps off the boat and into the lake, swims to shore to be with Jesus. At that time there is a breakfast setting, there's a conversation with Peter, eye to eye, heart to heart, it's beautiful.
But I do find it interesting and I just want to suggest to you that perhaps, perhaps there was a friendly gentle competition between John and Peter. And I say that for a few reasons. Number one John writes down for us. He records for everybody to read for years afterwards. But it wasn't Peter who recognized the guy in the shore was Jesus. It was John and he told Peter and the reason Peter even launched out into the deep was because John said that's the lord. He writes that down. Also if you go back a couple of chapters in the same book on Resurrection Sunday there was a resurrection marathon between John and Peter, they both ran to the tomb remember that? John got there first and he wrote it down. So you would know, I John beat Peter in that race. Not only that, on the same day they were both looking into the tomb, John discovers that the empty grave clothes must mean a resurrection and it says John believed, not Peter. And he wrote it down. All of those instances were recorded.
Now we have here sort of the reverse of that, this time Peter saying, what him, looking at John. Also let me just add something to the mix, even before they were called as disciples, there must have been some competition because we read that Peter and Andrew together, the brothers, had a fishing business on the Sea of Galilee. So did John and James and his dad Zebedee. They had their own business. So they have been competitors in business for a long time. That may just be me, but let's just throw that into the mix that these humans who love each other probably have been, even in a friendly manner, some rivals before. But look at verse 20, it says, "Then Peter turning around saw the disciple". Okay up to this point Peter's eyes had been locked on Jesus, as Jesus says, "Peter do you love me, and feed my lambs, tend my sheep, feed my sheep".
It has been a wonderful time of fellowship, a wonderful time of connectedness that Peter has with Christ, but then Peter is distracted and he must've seen John out of the corner of his eye or just thought about him and turned and he noticed him. He got his eyes off Jesus and is looking at John. After all, Jesus just told him Peter, his future but he notices John. Now this is where our problems begin is when we get our eyes off of the Lord and onto other people or circumstances. As long as we're gazing heavenward, no problem, everything is good. We get it. Life is in perspective. Once we glance earthward it's all over. And so let's say you come to church one day and worship music and the song choice really spoke to your heart, those words resonated and boy you're so close to the Lord. You're pouring out your heart to him. The message was right from God's heart to your heart. You're applying it and life is good. But then you go out to the parking lot and you get behind the wheel of your car and you see that long line of cars and it's not the same. And then you pull out onto a sooner road or under the freeway and that beat up old Ford cuts in front of you. And you see that, you turn and you're seeing that now or you go to the restaurant and you see the waiter totally neglect you. Or you go home and your kids are disrespectful to you or your husband berates you or you see that police officer pull you over on the road and give you a ticket.
And it's different now. You're looking not at the Lord. You're looking around and those circumstances get to you. You know, anytime you look around in this world, you can get pretty distressed. I don't know what your daily routine is but a lot of you would grab a newspaper in the morning. First off, bad form Why go to the bad news first? And I say bad news because is it ever good news? Do you ever read front-page article, "Man loves his wife for a lifetime, never leave each other" there are always - never read something good. It's always some scandals, some war, some horrible thing, so great everything is good in the world. Corrie ten Boom put it this way, "Look around and be distressed. Look within and be depressed. Look to Jesus, be at rest".
The Bible in Hebrew says, looking unto Jesus, the author and the finisher of our faith. And Paul or not Paul but the writer of Hebrews whoever that was, was talking about living the Christian life in such a way as you're running a race. Now, if you want to lose a race, you look around. Can you imagine trying to be on the track and make progress while you're looking at whose running next to you and looking behind to see who's coming behind you or looking up the grandstands? You want to keep your focus.
Back in 1961, Arnold Palmer was at the Masters and he tells a story. He said that he was ahead by one stroke. It was the last hole of the tournament. He had a great tee shot. He felt really good at the game. He walks out on the fairway to make his second shot on the last hole and he notices that in the gallery there's a man, an old friend of his that he recognizes, who motions to him to come over to the gallery. So Palmer did it and he said that's where I lost the game. The man put out his hand and said "Congratulations" but Palmer said, "I knew then that I'd lost my focus" and the next few shots proved it. His second shot was over the green in the rough and then he missed the pot and he lost the Masters because he lost his focus. We always lose when we lose our focus spiritually speaking and we get our eyes off the Lord. So be careful where you look.
Number two, "Be careful what you consider". Verse 21, let's see what Peter considers. Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, but Lord. Okay now, just stop there. The Lord Jesus has just predicted to Peter that he is in a live a very fruitful life to old age and then be martyred in the end. And after Peter denying the Lord this was good news to Peter. I'm going to be able, all the way to the end, to be faithful to the Lord. The ending doesn't sound all that good to me but the Lord has made his prediction about me. Peter seeing him said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" that is what about John, tell me about his future. You told me about mine, what about this guy? And Jesus said to him, "If I will, that he remain until I come, what is that to you, you follow me." Good old Peter.
Peter loved the Lord, but Peter was still Peter. I have a friend who says people change but not that much. And Peter had his ups and downs and he's coming along but he keeps reverting back to 'Peterdom', always been Peter, always saying those things, always want to do those things. So at some point in this glorious conversation it's inevitable that Peter goes, "Now, wait a minute what about this guy?" And his focus now is on John and is caring about and concerned for and careful over what's going to happen to John. Boy, how much like Peter are we? We're so prone to think about somebody else and want to run their lives, want to meddle in their affairs. We want to manage what that father or that daughter or that pastor or that deacon does.
Paul said in 2 Corinthians 10 concerning a group of people measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves among themselves, they are not wise. And we do that a lot, don't we? We compare ourselves with others. . Oh look she's wearing or look at that hairdo. Oh look what they're driving. Oh look where they live. Oh look how they look. Constantly comparing and worried about what they are doing rather than what we're doing. Now, it's interesting that Peter asked the question, "What about this man?" Jesus never answers him. It's okay Peter let me tell you what's going to happen to John now. He didn't even get there because it's none of his business. Now, you want to know what happened to John. You want to know what happened to this man who is so intimate and so close and seemed to Peter like he had it made. He's the guy who is so close and put his head on the chest of Jesus at the Last Supper.
What happened to his is he was arrested. Irenaeus tells us, he's one of the church historians. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp. Polycarp was the disciple of the Apostle John. So were just one generation removed. Irenaeus said was arrested taken to Rome. They tried to kill him a few different ways. One of which was to boil him oil and according to the story he didn't die. So they shipped him off to the Island of Patmos, a prisoner colony. The worst place the Romans could think of to banish somebody, no vegetation, hard life, and they stuck him there. Now you think of that next time you're prone to look at somebody and compare yourself and say, "How come they are so blessed and I suffer so much." Stop your private pity party because you have no idea what that person is facing or will face in terms of his or her own personal suffering. Think back to this.
Verse 22, if I will that he remained until I come, in other words, if I wanted to live until the rapture it's none of your beeswax. Don't concern yourself with John Peter. You want to know a great text scripture for this? A little short one, 1 Timothy 4:16, listen to it, "Take heed to thyself". Or as the Philip's translation puts it, "Keep a critical eye on your own life". Because some of us like to look around – There is Joe he is not as committed as I am, there is Pete and Sally, they don't work as hard as I do, they do the glorious stuff, I do all the hard work around here. You get in to that, it's hard to get out of that.
I have a friend who gave me a link to a YouTube video of the Pastor who got up on a Sunday morning; it was an Easter morning to a pact congregation and just berated them, calling them out, name by name. Fred, you've been so unfaithful in your Sunday school class, you are fired, and you're a wretch. Calling people, I know what you're doing behind your husband's back; we've talked about that, just calling everybody out. And angry and mad berating them, and angry and mad and berating them. And I think the Lord wanted to slap him upside the head and say, "What is that to you, you follow me."
And I've learned something as a pastor, as a teacher, as a leader that when it comes to judgment day, I'll face Jesus Christ. I'm not going to be responsible for how you did it. I'm going to be responsible for how I did it, as well as the words that I taught and how to do it. So we shouldn't be so concerned. Disciple, yes, help yes, bring along yes. But ultimately it's their responsibility, not yours. A.W. Tozer has a wonderful illustration about a hundred pianos. He said, "If you took a hundred pianos in one room and yu tried to tune each piano to the other piano, they'll be grossly out of tune". If however, you tune all 100 pianos to an outside source, a tuning fork, they will automatically be in tuned with one another. He said it's the same with Christians, have a hundred worshipers, have them all focused in Jesus, they are automatically in tuned with each other. If however you bring them down to the level of "We need a unity conscious meeting", you're not going to do it.
The key is just focus on the Lord, eyes on the Lord, be concerned about the Lord's will for your life, not the Lord's concern and will for their life. I think I've told you about a woman who came into my office several years ago and wanted to know God's will for her life and who to marry. And I said, "Well, I have no idea who you are to marry" she goes, "Well, there's this one guy I'm really interested in. I want to marry him. My friends think I shouldn't do it". So I told the Lord before coming in your office, "Whatever you say to me that's what I'm going to do". You know what I said to her? Nothing, I said, "You're not going to slap than on me. I'm not going to tell you who marry. I'll tell you principles on how to discover God's will for your life but then you, before the Lord are responsible". So final instructions, be careful where you look, be careful what you consider.
Number three, "Be careful who you follow" are you following people or are you following Christ? Verse 22 said, if I will that he remain until I come. What is that to you? You follow me. You know Peter didn't get the whoe follow-me thing, did he? Because Jesus already said this to him back in verse 19, right? I want you to be my apostle Peter. You're going to shepherd my sheep, you're going to feed my lambs, you're going to be faithful until death to old age, you're going to be my apostle but, Peter, you know what, I also want you to be just be my disciple, follow me.
He didn't quite get that because Jesus has to repeat it and here when he repeats it, it's the emphatic vive in Greek. The best translation would be "As for you, you follow me". You see, Peter got it slow, so Jesus set it slow. And he repeats it, and emphasizes it so he won't miss it. Jesus never tells Peter to follow John, never tells Peter to follow Andrew or James or Thomas, not that anybody would. He says, "Follow me". And the Lord would say to you this morning, not follow my people, he never said that, not follow my preachers but follow me. That's what he would say to us. Whenever you follow people you will get disappointed. Do you remember that Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthian Church saying that each one of you says something like, "I'm a Paul or I am of Apollo's or I'm of Cepheus", they were identifying themselves with certain leaders and I find that people still do that. "Oh I really like that radio preacher at television or that author. I'm all about that". Really, how disappointing. You're going to be let down at some point. You need to put first and foremost following Christ. So I love it is so simple once again. If you were to boil the Christian life down to the irreducible minimum, the simplest axiom, it would be follow Christ. Right, that's pretty simple isn't it, "Oh the Christian life is so complicated", really? Follow Christ, it's very simple.
So my question for you this morning, in these final messages is, "Are you following Christ?" Be careful how you answer that because if you probe honestly you may be forced to say like we discovered last week that Peter had a say, "Well, I sure like you a lot". My love is not what it should be and following you I want to do that. Are you following Christ? Now, I want to help you with that. I'm going to give you a little test, three things that you can measure yourself by to see if you're truly following Christ. Because according to the Bible it means three things. Number one - that you be where he is. If you follow Christ, you want to be where he is. Jesus said in John 12:26, "Whoever serves me will follow me and where I am a my servant will be also" now think about that, it means in all circumstances of life, all relationships of life, all decisions of life, if somebody ever says to you "Why are you here?" You can say, "Because I follow Christ and he led me here today". Can you say that? I tell you what, that would eliminate a lot of places that Christians go to and things that they do. Because they can't confidently say, "The Lord let me here".
A lot of Christians go to places and do things and I hope the Lord still hangs with me after this. So number one, "You be where he is". That's following Christ. Number two, "You do what he does", and you follow his example. This is John 13 Jesus said, "I have given you an example that you should do as I have done". Jesus was faithful and obedient, be faithful and obedient. He was patient, be patient. He was honest, be honest. He was holy, be holy. He had these certain attitudes, have those certain attitudes. You copy and emulate what he does. So it's pretty straightforward and we don't have to guess what it means to follow Christ, you, be where he is, you do what he does. And here's the third one, this is the hardest one, "Suffer for his sake". Now I can just see this dead silence in contemplation to that third one. Suffer for his sake, because this is the hardest of all. This is the nitty-gritty of discipleship. But listen to what Jesus said once again Matthew 16, "If anyone desires to follow me let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me". Do you know how many times I've heard that misinterpreted over the years? My cross they say is whatever problem I'm facing at the moment. Yes this is my cross to bear. I have an ailment or I'm married to this creep. It's my cross to bear.
You have no clue than what it means to bear the cross because I'll guarantee you when Jesus said those words to the Galileans they knew exactly what it meant. They have seen people be crucified and they knew that all victims of crucifixion carried the upper part, the "patibulum", part of their cross to the place that they would be executed. In fact history tells us that around this time the Roman government had 2000 Jewish Galileans crucified and they placed the crosses on the main arteries, the main roads in Galilee so that all the populace would see that's what happens when you defy Rome. So when Christ said to them if you want to follow me, you deny yourself. That is to dethrone you, take you off the throne, put Christ on the throne, take up your cross and follow me. They knew automatically speaking about death, that I have to be willing to die to my dreams possibly, or my ambitions perhaps, or my goals and I have to say, "I gave my life to Christ. I'm following him. My life belongs to him". And if that means I'll suffer for the cause of Christ then I will follow him. So the final instructions, "Be careful where you look", "Be careful what you consider", "Be careful who you follow" and ask yourself "Am I following Christ?"
Fourth finally, "Be careful how you wait". Look at verse 23 and we'll close off the book. "Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die" yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but if I will that he remained until I come - What is that to you? This is the disciple who testifies of these things and wrote these things and we know that his testimony is true and there are also many other things Jesus did which if they were written one by one I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. I suppose that is true. It closes with that great refrain, Amen.
I do find it interesting; enlightening that John closes the book and records the last words of Jesus that John records are about his return and about waiting for his return. Now it's based on a rumor. Rumor circulated that John wasn't going to die because Jesus said what he said. And so John focuses on the 'if' and then the 'will'. If it's my will that he remained until I come what is that to you. That's what Jesus said, he wasn't giving a prophecy but a hypothetical statement. Here's what it shows me, that even God's people, that even the early church could misinterpret truth by not listening carefully or not reading what is written carefully and John closes his book, appealing to the reader to pay careful attention to what he wrote down by the Spirit of God. In effect he is saying Jesus came, lived, died and rose and I'm an eyewitness account and I wrote it down. And also he is coming again, he is going to return and while we wait for him we should stick carefully to what is written.
So let's close with that admonition, as we are waiting for the Lord to return and I don't know about you but I tend to think it's a lot sooner than later, based just on what I see going on in the world and what the Bible has predicted will happen. But while we're waiting for the Lord to return, be careful, be careful not to cling to, to adhere to rumors, hearsay, the latest End-Times chart that you see in the bookstore, certain ones predictions of when Jesus is going to show up, the latest book or the Mayan Calendar. Don't stick to rumors, stick to the study of what is written in the Word of God.
Now just think about it, it's taken 2 1/2 years to get to this book; do you know what that means? You're going, "I know what it means, and you're really slow". We'll you're right and I want to explain why.
The reason it has taken us 2 1/2 years to get through John is because we paused to dig and examine and compare text with context and historical data background syntax etcetera, etcetera. And you know why? Because we wanted to be able to walk away from each study saying, "I know exactly what God meant when he said that". You'll never know what the Scripture means to you personally until you know what it said to them originally personally and you'll never know what it said to them personally until you examine carefully and do what we have done". Dig and study. We want to walk away, not having any false ideas about what God said. And the only way we know how to do that is to faithfully, expositionally, verse by verse, chapter by chapter, and book by book go through the bible. Do you know what Jesus said to the spiritual leaders of his day? He said, "You do air, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God".
And I would say to us, we will also air if we don't know the Scriptures. We won't know the power of God unless we know the Scriptures. I close with this poem of admonishment:
I suppose I knew my Bible, reading piecemeal hit and miss. Now a bit of John or Matthew, now a snatch of Genesis, certain chapters of Isaiah, certain Psalms, the 23rd, the 12th of Romans, the first of Proverbs. Yes I thought I knew the Word but I found that thorough reading was a different thing to do. And the way was unfamiliar when I read the Bible through. You who like to play at Bible dip and dabble here and there just before you kneel or weary and yawned through a hurried prayer You who treat the crown of writings as you treat no other book, just a paragraph disjointed just a crude impatient look, try a worthier procedure, try a broad and steady view. You will kneel in very rapture when you read the Bible through.
I want you to know something. This church was built on teaching the Scriptures. By God's grace it will stay that way, verse by verse, book by book. And with so many people and so many different ministry groups now very active on the campus doing their own thing in their own emphasis, with all of that happening, one of the most unifying activities is that we all gather together going through the Bible. And we do that Wednesday night's, that's my favorite time to meet because on Wednesday nights it allows us to go through not a couple of verses but large chunks of the Bible and see how it all fits together. It is one of the most unifying things because we're all focused on the same things. And It's like well tuned pianos. That's the group I want to march forward with. Those who thoroughly know what God has said and lives are changed accordingly.
Father, we close thanking you. Thank you Lord that you have been faithful. In the last 2 1/2 years, as we have studied this book to bring some pretty important lessons we've seen hundreds upon hundreds of people make commitments to Christ and to come to believe as the Word is highlighted in the book. Thank you, for so many changed lives. Thank you Lord that our scope of Jesus has been magnified, our view of him has been made greater. We see him as John pictured him, God in a human body, the one who claimed to be a deity, the savior of the world, the lover of our soul.Lord as we close with these final instructions, I pray, that you'd help us to be careful in how we treat spiritual truth. But this book is different from our math books or cooking books or sports magazines or newspapers. It is truth inerrant and preserved in book form. Our worship revolves around it. We take our cues for life from it and we pray that we might be faithful because your Spirit works in us in Jesus' name and as John closed his book we say, Amen.


text:
Clan Mother
Clip: 10/30/2018 | 1m 56s
The history and mythology of Clan Mothers and continued female leadership.
Aired: 10/30/18Video has closed captioning.
Buy Now:
Problems Playing Video?
Watch Extended Interviews
Explore selected extended interviews from experts featured in Native America.
The Sacred Stories of Native America
Explore the cultural stories featured in Native America through animation.
Journey Through Native America
Explore Native America through geography, cultural artifacts and storytelling.


text:
Blue Number 3 Giant Foil Helium Balloon INFLATED & DELIVERED NEXT DAY
Get ready to celebrate!
- Giant number 3 balloon
- Suitable for helium
- Metallic blue finish
- Delivered inflated
- Ribbon and balloon weight attached
If ordered by 2pm, your balloon will be sent out via Next Day Delivery (not available for Saturday or Sunday delivery). At the checkout, a charge of 1p will be added to your total for our specialised courier service.
Please check the delivery page to see your guaranteed delivery date.
If you order any other items along with your balloon, these will be dispatched separately. Additional delivery charges will also apply.
These balloons may conduct electricity. Do not release outdoors. Do not release near overhead power lines. Misuse may cause personal injury. Use with counterweights. Dispose of responsibly. Never use metallic ribbon with balloon.
To keep your balloons properly inflated, avoid exposure to extreme temperatures. In cold air, the balloons will deflate slightly; exposure to warm air will restore proper inflation. Excessive heat could cause the balloons to burst.
Not suitable for children under 36 months due to small parts.