text:
Msn Script
Single operator live chat software facilitates customers to engage with customer care executive of website using web based live chat. Single Operator ASP Chat Script facilitates online customers or website visitors of business organization or firm to solve customer purchase queries and make them...
Platforms: Windows
|License: Shareware
|Cost: $99.00 USD
|Size: 1.12 MB
|Download (225): Single operator ASP chat script software Download
Powerful dating script. Unique interface which can be changed anyway you like. Script package offers chat, forum, galleries, different modes of membership and other options - it all allow you to offer your members a truly engaging online dating experience .Easy-to-use administration area....
Platforms: Windows, *nix
|License: Demo
|Cost: $149.00 USD
|Size: 1.46 MB
|Download (270): Matchmaking Service Script Download
Hotmail & MSN Password Recovery instantly recovers your lost or forgotten Hotmail and MSN Messenger account login password, stored on your local computer. Compatible with all versions of MSN Messenger including versions 6.0, 6.2, 7.0, and 7.5. Works on Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/2003/XP.
Platforms: Windows
|License: Demo
|Cost: $18.00 USD
|Size: 1.6 MB
|Download (2067): Hotmail & MSN Password Recovery Download
Atrise PHP Script Debugger is a debug script for your PHP projects. It can help you to show PHP variables, debug string output, script execution time, the page source and other information that helps you in your PHP development.
* Handy output with debug points with floating...
Platforms: Windows, *nix
|License: Demo
|Cost: $6.95 USD
|Size: 10 KB
|Download (296): Atrise PHP Script Debugger Download
The eCover Go Action Script Package is a New, Revolutionary E-book Cover Software That Gives You The Ability To Create Eye-Popping And Professional-Looking 3-D Graphics and e-Book Covers within Minutes.
Now, It's Easy As 1-2-3 For You To Make Your eCovers Look Like A Million Bucks Even If You...
Platforms: Windows, Windows CE
|License: Demo
|Cost: $47.00 USD
|Size: 4.65 MB
|Download (189): eCover Go - Action Script Package Download
Recovers forgotten MSN Explorer saved passwords tool is the MSN password finder utility that instantly cracks and decrypts the MSN Messenger login passwords. Program can be used to recover your forgotten MSN messenger's password. Application Program works when the "Remember my Password" tick box...
Platforms: Windows
|License: Shareware
|Cost: $30.00 USD
|Size: 478.59 KB
|Download (881): MSN Explorer Password Recovery Software Download
MSN Track Monitor is a msn spy and MSN sniffer to spy MSN chat on network. It is able to hack and monitor MSN conversations automatically. All intercepted messages can be saved as HTML files for later analysis. You can choose whether open the HTML files automatically after you save it manually....
Platforms: Windows, Other
|License: Shareware
|Cost: $49.95 USD
|Size: 917.95 KB
|Download (205): MSN Track Monitor Download
Test Script Runner is a software platform designed to provide a script based mechanism for Automatic Regression Testing.
The software provides a scripting language which allows the user to expand the capabilities via plug-in testing modules.
A number of plug-in modules are provided with...
Platforms: Windows
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $300.00 USD
|Size: 7.9 MB
|Download (166): Test Script Runner Download
The Script Bundle, consists of the writings GeigerScript-A, Script-B and Script-C (together 12 Fonts). They complete themselves outstanding by their self-willed appearance. From elegant to "as written with the hand " participates everything. In addition still at a really sensational price!Letter...
Platforms: Mac
|License: Demo
|Cost: $0.00 USD
|Size: 256 KB
|Download (180): Script-Bundle Download
Get Online Coupon Script - Want to know more about such premium quality Coupon Script? Scuttle your own distinct coupon site with High Quality, Powerful, and Feature rich, easy to use Coupon Script. By Selling Coupons beside with Full page Advertisements for your Advertisers and Clients you boast...
Platforms: Windows, Other
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $99.00 USD
|Size: 3.59 MB
|Download (127): PHP Coupon Script Download
Online Penny Auction Script 2010, Swoopo Clone, Telebid Clone, Madbid Clone. Penny Auction Script 2010 is a powerful, scalable & fully-featured auction script that lets create the ultimate profitable online penny auction website, like swoopo, bidster, madbid. It allows to manage entire online...
Platforms: Windows, *nix
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $39.95 USD
|Size: 2.38 MB
|Download (1535): Penny Auction Script 2010 Download
Incentives Script - referral based incentive site is a website where a user follows a three step process to receive a free gift. Incentives Script is a way for an ordinary person to start up a referral based incentive site, such as freeiPods.com or freePSPs.com. Work With Commission Junction...
Platforms: Windows, *nix
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $70.95 USD
|Size: 2.38 MB
|Download (101): Incentives Script Download
Safelist Web Php Script. Safelist 3 php script - run your own feature rich safelist with our professional safelist script! Scripts with resell rights and scripts with master resell rights are available. Fully featured and professionally designed safelist php script. A safelist can be used to send...
Platforms: Windows, *nix
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $49.95 USD
|Size: 2.38 MB
|Download (153): Safelist Web Script Download
DBF Script is a powerful tool which allows you to create small programs (scripts) to manage dbf files. It is useful for the programmers who want to make something special with DBF files.
In DBF Script you can create new, edit existing, print and run scripts.
Unique feature of DBF Script is...
Platforms: Windows, Windows 7, Windows Server
|License: Shareware
|Cost: $29.95 USD
|Size: 1.13 MB
|Download (101): DBF Script Download
Softbiz Auto Classifieds script is a Search Engine Optimized powerful, low cost, high end Auto classifieds / Car Classifieds web site solution. Kick start your top auto classifieds website with our auto classified script. Keyword rich web page URLs, super meta tags and zip code based distance...
Platforms: Windows, Mac, *nix, Other
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $99.00 USD
|Size: 4.29 MB
|Download (185): Auto Classifieds Script Download
Complete dating script for running a BIG dating site at very low cost. Great potential to generate very heavy revenues. Built-in Gift-Shop for additional revenue. Great price. Includes Advanced search, unlimited color schemes, icon sets,highly secure, md5 password encryption, powerful site...
Platforms: Windows, Mac, *nix, Other
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $125.00 USD
|Size: 2.86 MB
|Download (170): Dating Script Download
Advanced highly configurable PHP Script with professional layout and looks. Fully customizable colors icons etc directly from admin panel. Softbiz Classified Ads PLUS offers you UNBELIEVABLE customizability with ability to change Colors, Fonts, Icons, Graphics of your site directly from your...
Platforms: Windows, Mac, *nix, Other
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $79.00 USD
|Size: 1.91 MB
|Download (164): Classifieds Plus Script Download
Softbiz Recipe Script is a highly Advanced and Powerful PHP script to run your own recipes site. It is the quickest tool for even webmasters with minimal knowledge of HTML to launch their very own unique high end recipe portal (site). Script is built with focus on increase ease of users and...
Platforms: Windows, Mac, *nix
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $65.00 USD
|Size: 1.43 MB
|Download (176): Softbiz Recipes Script Download
Softbiz Image (Photo) Gallery Script is great tool for running your image (Photo) gallery site. Its very easy to install and operate. You can upload multiple images in one go. Just put the images in one directory and instruct the script to add them and that is it. Features include multilevel...
Platforms: Windows, Mac, *nix
|License: Commercial
|Cost: $35.00 USD
|Size: 683.59 KB
|Download (162): Sofbiz Gallery Script Download
Whether you're thinking of setting up a Modeling Agency or already have an existing agency, try PG Model Agency script. You don't need to have any technical knowledge, because our web design is rather simple in usage.
You can get your modeling agency website up and running in few hours using...
Platforms: Windows, *nix
|License: Shareware
|Cost: $699.00 USD
|Size: 192 KB
|Download (122): PG Model Agency Script Download


text:
Greenhouse & The Roosevelt Rubicon, Redux
Linda Greenhouse has a compelling Opinionator column today at the New York Times that concludes that Chief Justice Roberts, not Justice Kennedy, may be the key vote in the individual mandate cases that will ultimately come before the Court. Thus continues the Great 2010 F1@1F-Greenhouse Mind-Meld.
Reminding readers that Roberts's mentor and predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, aborted his own "federalism revolution" in 2003's Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, Greenhouse goes on to examine Roberts's own role as the fifth vote to last year's broad, Breyer-written federalism case, United States v. Comstock. She concludes:
In his decision this week, Judge Hudson also mentioned the Comstock case, endeavoring to show why it didn't save the statute. In my view, his effort to wish the case away was unpersuasive, but my view is not the one that matters. The view that ultimately may count the most is that of Chief Justice Roberts. As everyone knows, he was once William Rehnquist's law clerk. So my question, as the health care debate continues on its path to the Supreme Court, is this: When John Roberts thinks about his former boss and mentor, which Rehnquist does he see? The one who started the federalism revolution, or the one who ended it?
Without my gunning for her attention (a/k/a "the Greenhouse Effect) and surely without her looking to F1@1F, Greenhouse and I have been on the same wavelength, absent reference to Rehnquist's ghost, for nearly a year now.
For any challenge to the health care legislation, at least one of the current Court's conservatives–my guess is Roberts himself–will recognize that the political moment, at least in terms of an individual mandate for all Americans to have health insurance, is not ripe for restoring the reign of the Constitution in Exile.
John Roberts is an acutely image-conscious chief justice, as watchful and protective of the Supreme Court's image as he is of his own. I find it almost impossible to believe that this careful student of history would place his court in the same position as the court that has been rewarded with history's negative judgment for thwarting the early New Deal.
F1@1F in May, post-Comstock:
Of course, Roberts may have simply agreed from the start with Breyer and the liberals. But even if such a thought was ideologically plausible prior to the announcement of Comstock, it just doesn't make strategic sense for the Chief to entrust the opinion to Breyer. However, if the Chief was in the majority and did assign the opinion to Breyer, it could have been to send a message to those hoping the Court will strike down Obamacare: abandon all hope ye who enter here, for the Roberts Court will not cross the Roosevelt Rubicon.
After Schwarzenegger v. EMA, I'm no longer as confident in Comstock as dispositive of the Chief's vote on the individual mandate. Before oral argument in EMA, no one could see any daylight between Roberts's robust First Amendment opinion for the Court in Stevens and the similar violence-as-obscenity facts in EMA, but Roberts made clear from the bench that he believed that Stevens, however sweeping in its language striking down Congress's ban on depictions of animal cruelty, did not touch the constitutionality of California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors. Accordingly, in the health care cases, Roberts already has a blueprint in Judge Hudson's decision for distinguishing Comstock away, however apposite Comstock might seem.
Still, history and politics will be sitting like massive gorillas in the room–indeed, every room: chambers, conference, court–when this case finally reaches the Court. Not only would a decision against the mandate mark the Court's deepest incursion into pre-1937 territory since, well, 1936, but it would also come during a Presidential Election year. A conservative majority ruling against the liberal incumbent's signature first-term legislation will be an inter-branch collision not seen since, you guessed it, 1936. The decision itself will fast become campaign fodder for Obama to cast the Court as unprincipled political actors hell-bent in their conservative activism to collide with the elected branches and stand athwart the forward march of history screaming "NO!"
How unseemly it all could be.
And let's not forget that unlike Citizens United, which sat alone on last term's docket among a bunch of less-than-massive cases, the health care cases may very well reside on the same docket as the Prop 8 case, the University of Texas affirmative action case, the Arizona immigration case, and maybe a Nebraska abortion case. The Court will have to pick its hot button to push in a deeply political moment, and I can't see the Chief selecting the one that reduces to rubble a cornerstone of modern American jurisprudence.
The Future is Here
This morning C-SPAN released a few choice clips from its interview with Justice Kagan in anticipation of its airing the full interview this coming Sunday night. In the above clip, Justice Kagan speaks about her respect for Chief Justice Roberts.
Meanwhile, if you go over to the Supreme Court's page for this term's opinions related to orders of the Court, you'll see this:
Either Justice Alito or Justice Sotomayor has been a part, if not an author, in every one of those opinions, all but one dissents from denials of certiorari.
This term, I've been thinking quite a lot about these two pairings–Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan, Justice Alito and Justice Sotomayor. At oral argument as well as in the few opinions of this term, it has become clear that they are developing doppelgänger demeanors.
Roberts and Kagan conduct themselves like suave assassins, devastating advocates without compromising their gentility. They apprenticed at the feet of the Court's then arch-partisans–he, Justice Rehnquist; she, Justice Marshall–and now possess those two men's collegiality without their more prickly public personas. Indeed, Roberts and Kagan, both bred for leadership at Harvard Law, are public creatures: the Chief and the Dean. Firm but polished, one can see these two in twenty years as gracefully grayed totems of conservative and liberal jurisprudence.
Alito and Sotomayor, on the other hand, are their sides' enforcers. Appearing rough around the edges, they send clear, aggressive messages, often on behalf of their comrades, but sometimes alone on principle. In their self assurance that comes from years of practice in the lower courts, they seem not to have much interest in institutional niceties when the law is disobeyed or justice is disregarded. Both Princeton and Yale Law grads, they took active roles in their institutions' internal battles over coeducation and affirmative action. Rather than skirt controversy and stay quiet to maintain squeaky clean public records, they took stands over the identity politics of their days that have continued into 21st century America. It is no wonder, then, that Alito and Sotomayor have had no hesitance going on record to dissent from denials of certiorari, even if such opinions were once seen as rare peeks behind the curtain saved only for a justice's irrepressible outrage.
The massive cases about health care, gay marriage, affirmative action, and abortion bubbling up to the Supreme Court in the next few years will mark the final overlap between the old Court and the new: the septuagenarians–Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer–will have as much time remaining in their twilight on the bench as Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan will have spent so far on it. For those cases, we will rightly focus on Justice Kennedy for the bottom-line prognostication and ultimate pronouncements. But we should absolutely save some of our peripheral vision for how our four youngest justices conduct themselves at argument and in print, as those cases will be the crucibles upon which their careers will be characterized for the next generation.
This piece is cross-posted at The CockleBur.
Vote for F1@1F @ The ABA Journal's Blawg 100!
The ABA Journal has honored F1@1F as one of the five best "Court Watch" blogs among its 4th Annual Blawg 100 list. Here's the blurb:
First One @ One First is a more personal, hipper complement to SCOTUSblog. Mike Sacks (who guest-blogged and wrote for the ABA Journal) took his coverage of the venerable court to the line, where he logged what motivates individuals to wait hours on end to get a seat to witness oral arguments in person.
Register to add your vote of confidence in the ABA Journal's impeccable editorial judgment.
Serota on Veterans Benefits
As we honor our veterans' service today, I would like to recommend Michael Serota's column at AOL News today challenging the constitutionality of the severe delays many veterans face in receiving their disability benefits from the VA.
Because of the severe psychological and physical trauma that service members endure, many veterans are unable to earn a living or support themselves. As a result, nearly 1 million veterans file claims every year seeking disability benefits to compensate them for the reduction in quality of life and impaired earning capacity caused by an injury they suffered while serving the country. These benefits can be a financial lifeline, especially since such a high percentage of the injuries incurred on the battlefield are so debilitating. Indeed, for many veterans, disability benefits are the only thing protecting them from home foreclosures, bankruptcy or even homelessness.
The VA denies about 11 percent of the nearly 1 million benefits claims filed each year, forcing these veterans to enter the VA's dreaded appellate system, often referred to as "the hamster wheel." The average time a veteran must wait for a benefits claim to work its way to a decision from the VA's appellate body, the Board of Veterans Appeals, is a mind boggling 4.4 years. Even then, a large portion of the board's cases are remanded, forcing many veterans to begin the process all over again. […]
Fed up with the injustice of these massive delays, two veterans organizations, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans United for Truth, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California in July 2007 alleging, among other things, that 4.4-year appellate delays are unconstitutional. Although the trial judge in that case made a factual finding that the average wait time for a veteran's appeal was 1,601 days, he concluded that there was in fact no legal violation.
The case is currently pending before the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which can, and should, reverse the lower court and find that these delays violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which ensures that nobody will be deprived of property without due process of law. Previous court cases have already established that veterans benefits are "property" and that veterans have a constitutionally protected property interest in receiving those benefits through fair procedures. The question that remains is whether a 4.4-year delay constitutes due process.
Read the whole column here.
Whither Incandescence?
Professor Noah Feldman has written a column at Slate that asks whether the reputations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan will one day occupy the same rarefied air as those of Justices Black and Frankfurter. The comparison, extrapolated from a single Sotomayor dissent from denial of certiorari in a habeas case this term and nothing at all from Kagan, seems little more than an attempt to peddle his new book, Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices, in which he explores the rivalries and relationships of Justices Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, and Jackson.
I am eager to read Feldman's book–I just badgered Georgetown's law library today about when it is slated to arrive–because I have long been fascinated by the Court's primordial ideological oozing between 1937 and 1954. FDR appointed nine justices, all supporters of the New Deal's constitutionality. They helped vanquish conservatism as it was known and realign partisan politics such that both Republicans and Democrats would support, or at least did not reject, the New Deal for the next half-century.
Beyond burying Lochnerism, however, the nine "young" men were left to their own devices in molding a jurisprudence for the modern era, when end of the Depression began the fraying of FDR's big tent. World War II led to questions about executive power. The start of the Cold War returned to the Court's docket questions of free speech rights of political dissidents. And postwar America, after destroying the Nazis in Europe, was finally forced to reckon with its own racist regimes.
The greatness of these questions required great answers. And those answers, from judicial restraint to strident activism, from originalism to living constitutionalism, all variations on even older themes of principle versus pragmatism, remain with us today.
So I found myself puzzling over Feldman's concluding paragraph:
[O]ne lesson of Roosevelt's court—more relevant than ever—is that strong rivalries and personalities make great justices. No fewer than four of Roosevelt's appointees—Black, Douglas, Frankfurter, and Jackson—became towering figures in judicial history. In recent years, we have had on the left and center polite justices who do not vie for leadership—and who do not produce comparably incandescent constitutional ideas or judicial opinions. As we are beginning to see, the new justices on the Roberts Court have the chance to do better. The first move was Sotomayor's. Will Kagan go next?
Strong rivalries and personalities are not enough to make great justices. The times must also require greatness. And greatness does not come by playing defense, for which the Court's liberal wing has been increasingly relegated since the 1970s. Meanwhile, the left's big offensives are towards full gay equality and death penalty abolition, and getting there depends, at least for now, on Justice Kennedy's sense of his own greatness.
It's hard to see right now when, if ever, the next great political realignment will occur. History says such realignments revolve around one great issue, and we've had only three: Revolution, Civil War, Depression. Gay rights and the death penalty, however huge they are for those in the arena now, are not epoch-defining issues that, once resolved, will bring us into a brave new world both politically and jurisprudentially. For his part, Feldman, in a New York Times Magazine article over the summer, proposed the "rediscovery" of liberal economic jurisprudence as a way to create room for the left's greatness on the Court, but there's a difference between quoting Holmes and Brandeis and being Holmes or Brandeis. Similarly, the conservative justices will be revisiting history, not writing it anew, if they follow the right's flirtation with neo-Lochnerism into the death of Obamacare, and finally achieve the end of affirmative action and the reversal of Roe.
This is not to say that Sotomayor and Kagan, or Roberts and Alito, will not rise to the greatness of their most incandescent predecessors. But I'd rather have a bench full of moderates often politely–and, on occasion, forcefully–making inevitable progress in our imperfect, somewhat stable society than suffer through the doom and gloom that gives birth to a few squabbling greats.
This piece is cross-posted at The CockleBur.
At Close Range
First-time lawyers before the Supreme Court invariably comment about the close distance between their lectern and the justices' bench. How close? For Zackery Morazzini, California's Supervising Deputy Attorney General and the state's advocate in this morning's oral argument in Schwarzenegger v. Electronic Merchants Association, this close:
For half an hour, at least six justices appeared to be engaging in their own first-person shooter games, each directing his or her barrel down at Morazzini's argument that ultra-violent videogames are not protected by the First Amendment. And Morazzini was asking the Court to adopt an unprecedented expansion of its obscenity doctrine beyond its sex-based bounds, putting him so snugly within the justices' sights that they didn't even have to take aim to score their fatal shots.
Justice Antonin Scalia pursued Morazzini as if the lawyer had kidnapped the justice's brother. Like any game that can trace its roots back to Wolfenstein 3D–the father of first-person shooters–Scalia's pursuit featured increased firepower with every deadly blow. His first line of questions merely exposed the difficulty in cabining the principle behind California's laws just to video games, setting up Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan each to empty their revolvers: are Grimm's fairy tales too violent? Comic books? Movies? Rap Music? Bugs Bunny?
From sight unseen leapt Justice Stephen G. Breyer with a flak jacket for Morazzini. If the shooters wanted a line drawn, he'd draw them a line: if the virtual gore is too violent for an 18-year-old, then it's too violent for all minors, period.
But Breyer's suggestion came just as Scalia and company were upgrading their weaponry. Kagan stalked Morazzini into a corner, forcing him to admit that juries are responsible for determining what is and isn't too violent for minors. At this suggestion, Scalia brings out the shotgun: Cold Steel Originalism. With almost caricatured irascibility, Scalia said, "You are asking us to create a — a whole new prohibition which the American people never – never ratified when they ratified the First Amendment."
At that point, Justice Samuel A. Alito attempted a diversion. "Well," he said, "I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about about video games." But the two conservative justices will have to save their internecine peppershot over the limits of originalism for the footnotes of this case's ultimate opinions: pushing through the audience's laughter–and we all know laughter heals lawyers' bleeding, bullet-riddled craniums–Scalia insisted, "No, I want to know what James Madison thought about violence."
Morazzini wasn't destined to survive this onslaught. Not with Sotomayor pointing a double-barrel point-blank at him, tersely demanding specific dates for specific statutes banning speech. When he had no answer, he might as well have slumped down, lifeless, his skull fragments piercing the wooden bench before him. Instead, Justices Scalia, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg spent the remains of Morazzini's time gleefully smearing themselves in his splattered bits of brain.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts stayed out of the game for nearly all of Morazzini's argument. But when Paul Smith of Jenner & Block stepped forward to argue against the California statute, the Chief pressed play. Roberts wrote last term's 8-1 opinion in United States v. Stevens, in which the Court refused to create a First Amendment carve-out for depictions of animal cruelty. The Chief made clear today, however, that a child's interactive destruction of virtual human life is far more nefarious than videos of real pit bulls mauling the jaws off of real wild hogs.
To make his point, the Chief lodged an entire clip of heavy metal deep into Smith's argument that there is no American tradition of legally shielding children from violent expression.
Graphic violence. There is a difference. We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting people in the leg so they fall down. I'm reading from the district court description: Pour gasoline over them, set them on fire and urinate on them. We do not have a tradition in this country. We protect children from that. We don't actively expose them to that.
With Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan sitting in gore-phoriac stupors from the first half-hour, Alito and Breyer grabbed the weapons and ran at Smith. Alito first took another shot at Scalia's originalism, then moved on, his voice thick with sarcasm, to "clarify" Smith's position:
And you say there is no problem because 16-year-olds in California never have $50 available to go buy a video game, and because they never have TVs in their room and their parents are always home watching what they — they do with their video games, and the parents — and the video games have features that allow parents to block access to — to block the playing of violent video games, which can't be overcome by a computer-savvy California 16-year-old, that's why there is no problem, right?
Breyer then charged ahead, framing the issue not as one of creating a new category of expression unprotected by the First Amendment, but rather as one of traditional First Amendment analysis, in which the restriction on speech must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. Breyer's bayonet caught Smith off-guard and soon Alito and Roberts were stabbing away. Even Sotomayor, now roused, poked at Smith a bit, but her pokes largely served to startle Smith into a tactical concession so that he could return to his stronger defenses.
Ultimately, however, it was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy who lit the match that may, one day, burn this whole damn grindhouse to the ground. The Court's obscenity jurisprudence, upon which California's chances live or die, has no place in the First Amendment, however unprotected appeals to the prurient interest may have been in America's more puritanical past. And Kennedy today took the Court's first steps towards an outright rejection of its obscenity doctrine since Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas originally warred against its formulation fifty years ago.
The transcript, however, robs Kennedy of his intent so evident to those who watched him on the prowl this morning. For instance, a reader could believe that Kennedy meant to endorse California's law by repeatedly asking questions such as, "Why shouldn't violence be treated the same as obscenity?" But these questions were couched in his broader observations that "the Court struggled for many, many years and to some extent is still struggling with obscenity." These are words of condemnation, not of endorsement. They recognize that Roth's edifice has rotted, if it wasn't rotten from the very start. And if California succeeds in housing its law in a rotten hellhole, so be it: sooner or later, the Court will make ashes of it all.
But Kennedy's overtures will be left for another year, if any obscenity case ever manages to climb high enough to reach the Court. Today, all that mattered was that more justices killed more of California's law than they did its challengers.
Indeed, that Morazzini managed to reassemble his skull and its contents for his rebuttal only gave Sotomayor more ammo with which to re-splatter his brains all over the Chief Justice. Said Sotomayor:
So what happens when the character gets maimed, head chopped off and immediately after it happens they spring back to life and they continue their battle. Is that covered by your act? Because they haven't been maimed and killed forever. Just temporarily.
Just temporarily is right. Until the Court brings obscenity within the First Amendment's protections, these cases will continue, like zombies and vampires, to rise from the dead, hungry to devour our brains and suck our blood even as we empty them of theirs over and over and over again.
Nonviolence for Violence: Some Scenes from a Protest
I'm off to class now, but I hope to get my recap of the Schwarzenegger v. EMA argument up at a reasonable hour. Briefly, the California lawyer got mercilessly pummeled by Sotomayor, Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Kennedy, while Roberts stayed almost completely quiet for the first half-hour, only to be EMA's prime antagonist during the second half-hour. Breyer joined Roberts in support of the CA law, while Alito, who had sharply questioned CA, more sharply questioned EMA. Alito also had some lighthearted, but jurisprudentially serious, quips towards Scalia on the limits of originalism for First Amendment cases concerning media never imaginable in 1791, let alone 1951.
Until then, here are some scenes from the sidewalk:
What Posner Said.
Tomorrow morning, the Court will hear Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether government may ban the sale of violent video games was answered nearly ten years ago by a unanimous Seventh Circuit panel decision penned by Judge Richard Posner:
The issue in this case is not violence as such, or directly; it is violent images; and here the symmetry with obscenity breaks down. Classic literature and art, and not merely today's popular culture, are saturated with graphic scenes of violence, whether narrated or pictorial. The notion of forbidding not violence itself, but pictures of violence, is a novelty, whereas concern with pictures of graphic sexual conduct is of the essence of the traditional concern with obscenity. […]
People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.
No doubt the City would concede this point if the question were whether to forbid children to read without the presence of an adult the Odyssey, with its graphic descriptions of Odysseus's grinding out the eye of Polyphemus with a heated, sharpened stake, killing the suitors, and hanging the treacherous maidservants; or The Divine Comedy with its graphic descriptions of the tortures of the damned; or War and Peace with its graphic descriptions of execution by firing squad, death in childbirth, and death from war wounds. Or if the question were whether to ban the stories of Edgar Allen Poe, or the famous horror movies made from the classic novels of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Frankenstein) and Bram Stoker (Dracula). Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault is aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.
Maybe video games are different. They are, after all, interactive. But this point is superficial, in fact erroneous. All literature (here broadly defined to include movies, television, and the other photographic media, and popular as well as highbrow literature) is interactive; the better it is, the more interactive. Literature when it is successful draws the reader into the story, makes him identify with the characters, invites him to judge them and quarrel with them, to experience their joys and sufferings as the reader's own. Protests from readers caused Dickens to revise Great Expectations to give it a happy ending, and tourists visit sites in Dublin and its environs in which the fictitious events of Ulysses are imagined to have occurred. The cult of Sherlock Holmes is well known.
Most of the video games in the record of this case, games that the City believes violate its ordinances, are stories. Take once again "The House of the Dead." The player is armed with a gun-most fortunately, because he is being assailed by a seemingly unending succession of hideous axe-wielding zombies, the living dead conjured back to life by voodoo. The zombies have already knocked down and wounded several people, who are pleading pitiably for help; and one of the player's duties is to protect those unfortunates from renewed assaults by the zombies. His main task, however, is self-defense. Zombies are supernatural beings, therefore difficult to kill. Repeated shots are necessary to stop them as they rush headlong toward the player. He must not only be alert to the appearance of zombies from any quarter; he must be assiduous about reloading his gun periodically, lest he be overwhelmed by the rush of the zombies when his gun is empty.
Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the "undead," fighting against overwhelming odds-these are all age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young. "The House of the Dead" is not distinguished literature. Neither, perhaps, is "The Night of the Living Dead," George A. Romero's famous zombie movie that was doubtless the inspiration for "The House of the Dead." Some games, such as "Dungeons and Dragons," have achieved cult status; although it seems unlikely, some of these games, perhaps including some that are as violent as those in the record, will become cultural icons. We are in the world of kids' popular culture. But it is not lightly to be suppressed.
Although violent video games appeal primarily to boys, the record contains, surprisingly, a feminist violent video game, "Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3." A man and a woman are dressed in vaguely medieval costumes, and wield huge swords. The woman is very tall, very fierce, and wields her sword effortlessly. The man and the woman duel, and the man is killed. Another man appears-he is killed too. The woman wins all the duels. She is as strong as the men, she is more skillful, more determined, and she does not flinch at the sight of blood. Of course, her success depends on the player's skill, and the fact that the player, whether male or female, has chosen to be the female fighter. (The player chooses which fighter to be.) But the game is feminist in depicting a woman as fully capable of holding her own in violent combat with heavily armed men. It thus has a message, even an "ideology," just as books and movies do.
American Amusement Machine Ass'n v. Kendrick, 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001). cert. denied 534 U.S. 994 (2001).
One need not be a First Amendment absolutist or doctrinal purist to find California's ban as problematic as the Indianapolis regulation at issue in American Amusements. In true Posnerian spirit, there is an economics-driven, pragmatic reason California's law must fall.
Indianapolis's regulation required minors to be accompanied by their parents in order to play violent arcade games. Gamers with a sense of history can correct me if I'm wrong, but the most high-end arcades cost a dollar or so to play in 2000. For minors, that's a far lower bar to clear for access to violent video games than the $60 home console-based games at issue tomorrow morning. If the state's paternalism a decade ago could not thwart the constitutional rights of a kid with a fistful of couch-found quarters, then similarly doomed should California's ban be against today's games, for which a parent's consent-by-pocketbook is the de facto state of play.
This piece is cross-posted at The CockleBur.
Perry Brief Bonanza
On December 6, the Ninth Circuit will begin hearing the appeal of District Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which struck down California's gay marriage ban as a violation of Equal Protection and Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Supporters of the appellant, ProtectMarriage.com, filed their amicus briefs last month. The Alliance Defense Fund, appellant's co-counsel, has compiled links to those briefs–26 in all–here.
Yesterday, the opposition amicus briefs–that is, those arguing to uphold Walker's decision–flooded in. Prop8TrialTracker.com has compiled 24 of the briefs here.
I would like to commend, in particular, my friend Justin Ford of O'Melveny & Myers, for a job well-done co-authoring the National LGBT Association brief. I've known Justin since our days at Duke together and regret that our tenures at Georgetown Law did not overlap. If gay marriage–and with it, full and equal rights for gays–is the final frontier for American civil rights, then the Nat'l LGBT Ass'n brief squarely addresses the corresponding jurisprudential final frontier: whether laws classifying on the basis of sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny.
In arguing that heightened scrutiny should apply, the brief surveys the history of federal and state discrimination against gay Americans, including this lovely 1966 letter by then-Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, explaining the continued ban on gays in the federal government's employ:
Pertinent considerations here are the revulsion of other employees byhomosexual conduct and the consequent disruption of service efficiency, the apprehension caused other employees of homosexual advances, solicitations or assaults, the unavoidable subjection of thesexual deviate to erotic stimulation through on-the-job use of thecommon toilet, shower and living facilities, the offense to members ofthe public who are required to deal with a known or admitted sexual deviate to transact Government business, the hazard that the prestige and authority of a Government position will be used to foster homosexual activity, particularly among the youth, and the use of Government funds and authority in furtherance of conduct offensive both to the mores and the law of our society.
Of course, gays are no longer banned from working in the federal government, and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is on the outs, whether judicially or politically. But the brief argues that these gains made towards sexual orientation equality in the United States don't stand in the way of recognizing gays and lesbians as a suspect class:
The existence of, for example, the Civil Rights Act of 1870, Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Voting Rights Act of 1965—not to mention the Fourteenth Amendment itself—obviously does not negate the suspicious nature of race-based classifications. More to the point, the Supreme Court in Frontiero noted the existence of antidiscrimination legislation enacted by Congress for the benefit of women—including the then-pending Equal Rights Amendment—as a factor cutting in favor of applying heightened scrutiny to sex-based classifications, because it showed that "Congress itself has concluded that classifications based upon sex are inherently invidious."
Indeed, to show that gay rights have not enjoyed a one-way ratchet towards equality in recent years, the brief offers a litany of legislated from state statutes and constitutional amendments banning gay marriage to the federal Defense of Marriage Act to Congress's failure to amend the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include protection against sexual orientation discrimination. "In light of these repeated legislative and ballot-box defeats," the brief states,
it is difficult to see how gay people can be seen as "politically powerful" in any way that could possibly make a difference to the equal protection analysis. On the contrary, women and African-Americans have long demonstrated an ability both to obtain substantial protective legislation, and also to elect and appoint representatives to higher office, and yet legal classifications based on sex and race (rightly) remain suspicious and subject to heightened equal protection scrutiny. It is, in short, as indisputable as it is unacceptable that gay people continue to be treated differently by the law, and by voters, from straight men and women. Such differential treatment is a product of historical animus and unjustified stereotype, and thus warrants the most searching scrutiny when subject to judicial challenge in any context.
The brief goes on to tackle the Ninth Circuit precedent standing in its way. In the 1980 case of Hatheway v. Secretary of Army, the Ninth Circuit upheld a challenge to the military's criminalization of sodomy, but along the way declared sexual orientation a quasi-suspect classification, like gender, worthy of intermediate scrutiny. But this was reversed in 1990 by a case called, High Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office. Because the Supreme Court in 1986 ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that states could criminalize homosexual conduct, the Ninth Circuit in High Tech Gays held that "because homosexual conduct can thus be criminalized, homosexuals cannot constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class entitled to greater than rational basis review for equal protection purposes."
The brief then invokes a similar syllogism in support of returning to the Hatheway standard of review:
The central premise underlying High Tech Gays—that sexual orientation cannot constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect classification because homosexual conduct may be criminalized without any constitutional impediment—was squarely rejected in Lawrence v. Texas, which explicitly overruled Bowers. The Lawrence Court determined that the "State cannot demean [gay people's] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention from the government."
Because the foundation upon which High Tech Gays rested has been rejected by intervening Supreme Court precedent, the case is no longer controlling and must be overruled. Just as High Tech Gays overruled Hatheway in light of Bowers, this Court should overrule High Tech Gays in light of Lawrence and apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based
on sexual orientation.
Overall, the brief is a powerful and accessible argument for the application of heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation. But the question remains: is heightened scrutiny even necessary, given that Prop 8 failed to meet the rational basis test in Judge Walker's courtroom? Here, there is some equivocation. As Walker wrote:
The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize individuals based on their sexual orientation. Here, however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to survive even rational basis review.
In its previous gay rights cases, the Supreme Court struck down anti-gay laws using only the rational basis test. Such review clearly empowered Judge Walker to extend that rationale to gay marriage bans, but it is unclear whether the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court will be equally disposed towards such an extension. That uncertainty, it seems, has led the National LGBT Association to advocate for a more secure jurisprudential protection against discriminatory laws. But given Justice Kennedy's pivotal fifth vote, trusting in his just-for-gays rational basis review may be a better bet than counting on him to anoint a new suspect class.
As I wrote on the night of Judge Walker's decision:
[S]exual orientation's rational basis review, which started as a dodge by Justice Kennedy back in Romer v. Evans and continued by Justice O'Connor in her Lawrence v. Texas concurrence, now seems to be as protective as intermediate and strict scrutiny. Rational basis review is supposed to be the most forgiving of acts of discrimination–if one gives even a hypothetical justification in defense of a discriminatory law or practice, that law or practice would always be deemed constitutional. Higher levels of scrutiny were left for "officially" illegitimate identity-based classifications.
But now, the Court, in avoiding the anointment of a new suspect classification for fear of bringing the Clinton/Bush era culture wars into the courtroom, has made its imprimatur irrelevant. If you enact a law or institute a practice that tells a distinct and traditionally maligned group of Americans that they are unequal citizens, then you are irrational. Hypothetical justifications are now inadmissible opinions unworthy of deference. And when this case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices' reliance on rational basis review will no longer be a peevish dodge or refusal to stratify suffering; it will be an honest reckoning of an America that no longer tolerates intolerance.
It's also worth considering that heightened scrutiny can be turned against the parties who originally sought it, whereas a uniform rational basis with bite test, as deployed in Romer and Lawrence, does not have the same pitfall. Even rational and benevolent classifications based on race are subject to strict scrutiny, which has led to the cutting back on affirmative action over the last three decades. Should sexual orientation classifications be subject to heightened scrutiny, future laws that seek to remedy past discrimination against gays may fall when challenged by straights incidentally burdened by such laws.
In all, however, as long as assignment to levels of scrutiny are meted out by identities and not by actions–which is always, given the Equal Protection Clause's protection of persons–the National LGBT Association's brief should be taken very seriously. After Romer and Lawrence, our Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence with regard to sexual orientation makes no jurisprudential sense. The brief forcefully states the obvious: heightened scrutiny for sexual orientation classifications is a no-brainer given the indisputable history of legal and social animus against gays in America. Further, relegating sexual orientation classifications to rational basis also strains doctrinal integrity. Over time, something must give: either all non-suspect classifications must be subject to similar biting "rational basis" review as laws impacting gays, or laws impacting gays must be subject to the standard forgiving review all non-suspect classifications have long enjoyed.
Whatever the Ninth Circuit decides (if it gets past the standing issue to get to the merits at all), the decision will ultimately be the Supreme Court's, and thus, Justice Kennedy's. I have doubts that his liberal colleagues will once again join him in ducking the standard of review. If he once again refuses the call to heightened scrutiny, this time to deny a majority over the issue, he will, at best, do so to push forward an idealistic vision of America in which rational basis alone is sufficient to defeat all discriminatory laws. At worst, he will be committing unprincipled, political cowardice.
My suspicion, however, is that should he vote for a federal right to gay marriage (which is hardly certain), we will find his reluctance to anoint a new suspect class to have evolved. However happy he might be to retain Romer's rational basis with bite, he will be the senior justice in the majority responsible for maintaining such a majority, particularly if he assigns the opinion to himself. If he seeks anything short of intermediate scrutiny, he may have four justices threatening to splinter the majority and leave him with a lonely concurrence in the judgment, thereby robbing his opinion of its historical force. Although addressed to the Ninth Circuit, the National LGBT Association's brief is ultimately directed to this very to this consideration.
Public Service Announcement
Friends of F1@1F–
This past summer, my work at F1@1F was supported by a grant from Georgetown Law's Equal Justice Foundation. Every year, EJF generously supports a significant amount of Georgetown Law students pursuing public interest careers. And every year, EJF must refill its coffers for the next group of students who would otherwise be unable to get their starts in careers that make my reporting and opining on this site seem positively insignificant by comparison.
If you would like to make a donation to Georgetown EJF, please contact firstname.lastname@example.com. All I ask in exchange for my work is your continued readership and valuable feedback, but a little spare cash towards my very important financial backer from the summer will be appreciated far beyond this blog.
Thank you.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
VIDEO: The Spurs explode for 41 points in the first quarter
|The basics
MIAMI — The San Antonio Spurs thumped the Miami Heat, 111-92, in Game 3 of The Finals on Tuesday. One stat stood out from the rest as the Spurs took a 2-1 series lead and regained home-court advantage.
The stat
1 – Number of times the Heat defense got consecutive stops in the first half.
The context
The shooting numbers were ridiculous. The Spurs shot 25-for-33 (76 percent) in the first half, hitting seven of their 10 3-point attempts. That's an effective field goal percentage of 86 percent. Kawhi Leonard (6-for-7) and Danny Green (6-for-6) were on fire.
That's obviously not sustainable, but the Spurs also got to the free-throw line (17 attempts) and took care of the ball (only five turnovers) in the first half. Their 71 points came on just 44 possessions. And it took 38 possessions (and more than 20 minutes) for Miami to finally get two stops in a row.
After they did that, the Spurs proceeded to score 11 points on their final six possessions of the half. They hit some ridiculous shots, but also got good shots.
They had almost four times as many attempts in the paint (18) as they had from mid-range (5). For the game, San Antonio took just eight shots from mid-range, the same number they attempted in their Game 1 victory. In their Game 2 loss, they took 23 mid-range shots.
The Spurs made a change in the starting lineup, replacing Tiago Splitter with Boris Diaw. Their original starting lineup had played only 12 total minutes in the first two games, so it wasn't a major adjustment. But the Spurs' offense has always been better with Diaw on the floor, so the offensive explosion can't be completely dismissed as a coincidence.
The Spurs aren't going to shoot this well again, but the Heat do have to figure out a way to get stops. This was their worst defensive season since they came together in 2010, and they've got to find a new level soon.
Pace = Possessions per 48 minutes
OffRtg = Points scored per 100 possessions
OREB% = Percentage of available offensive rebounds obtained
TO Ratio = Turnovers per 100 possessions
FTA Rate = FTA / FGA


text:
Jake Tapper got an exclusive interview with Barack Obama for CNN, which will air today, but CNN is already teasing some of the highlights and a short exchange on jobs. More intriguing, however, is an apparent concession on immigration. Despite his years-long insistence on path to citizenship being part of any comprehensive reform package, Obama praised the Republican effort in the House and backed away from that demand:
The one area where Obama says he believes he can work with Republicans is on the subject of immigration and the path to citizenship, a cornerstone issue for Democrats.
The major sticking point between Democrats and Republicans will likely be whether or not the estimated 11 million undocumented workers in this country be given a path to citizenship. Obama refused to say whether he would veto a bill that did not contain such a provision; it is likely that House Republicans would not pass any bill that included a path to citizenship.
"I'm not going to prejudge what gets to my desk," he said.
On Thursday, House Republicans released a one-page document that outlined what they called the standards of immigration reform, which calls for legal status, but not citizenship.
That's not to say that he's going to stop talking about the path to citizenship entirely, but it no longer sounds like a non-negotiable point:
"I think the principle that we don't want two classes of people in America is a principle that a lot of people agree with, not just me and not just Democrats. But I am encouraged by what Speaker (John) Boehner has said," Obama said.
"… I genuinely believe that Speaker Boehner and a number of House Republicans, folks like Paul Ryan, really do want to get a serious immigration reform bill done. And keep in mind that the Senate bill and the legislation that I've supported already calls for a very long process of earning citizenship. You had to pay fines. You had to learn English. You had to pay back taxes. And you had to go to the back of the line. And at the end of that, you could get citizenship."
The "I'm not going to prejudge what gets to my desk" line is silly. All Presidents pre-judge bills before they get to desks, and they usually take steps to prevent bills they dislike from getting there. The inboxes of journalists are filled with White House statements on bills that haven't even come up for a vote, threatening vetoes if they pass (or expressing presidential support for the bills they like). If Obama wanted to stick to his guns on the path to citizenship, he'd make that clear now.
Obama actually has a point about creating classes of residents through bans on citizenship. As Allahpundit and Greg Sargent noted yesterday, though, we're not talking about bans, but the elimination of a special process for the currently illegal. Obama's earlier insistence on special paths to citizenship created its own class of people who were both illegal and had an inside track to citizenship through regularization. We already have a path to citizenship called "naturalization," and there's no reason to create a fast-track path for others who entered illegally. In that sense, the GOP statement makes more sense than previous proposals, and doesn't put the currently illegal in front of those who are already waiting for naturalization.
It still moves them ahead for legal residency over those waiting to enter, though, no matter how one parses it. That would be worthwhile if — and this is a huge if — we actually secure the borders through proven and verifiable barrier technology and other efforts and overhaul the visa system to track people accurately when they overstay or otherwise violate the applicable terms. A deal which doesn't deliver that should be rejected out of hand. Period.
As for the timing, Allahpundit wondered why the GOP didn't just do this last year to allow the anger from grassroots groups to die off before the election. I suspect that the timing was to make sure that opposition to comprehensive immigration reform didn't generate funding for primary challengers early enough in the cycle to become serious threats by the spring of 2014. But then again, I'm cynical that way — even if I do think that a swap of regularization for true border security and visa-system overhaul is a good deal that benefits national security much more than it damages anything else.
Here's a glimpse of the interview with Tapper, which talks more about jobs than immigration. Note that the unspoken context of the discussion of the chronically unemployed is the failure of the big-government intervention of the stimulus, as Obama talks about … more big-government intervention.


text:
Joan Porter: Paul Martineau has been an excellent welfare commissioner in ManchesterBY JOAN PORTER
October 29. 2013 5:51PM
Paul Martineau, a Wake Forest graduate and a captain in the U.S. Army, applied to Manchester's voters for the job of Welfare Commissioner six terms ago. The voters hired him – six times — and he has kept his promises.
To blame Paul Martineau for his salary and to make that a reason not to vote for him is as ludicrous as firing a good employee simply because she or he makes too much money. Each of us has applied for a job and accepted the terms of employment, including salary. Normally, whether one is in the private or public sector, one is given raises over time. Have you refused a raise when your employer gave one?
Paul Martineau's predecessor went before the Human Resources Committee and convinced them that this position belonged in the classified system rather than leaving the salary at a set rate, similar to the mayor's. The Board of Mayor and Aldermen approved this request. Thus, the position of Welfare Commissioner became part of the Yarger Decker system — prior to Paul Martineau's employment. He was not part of that decision. (I believe this should be an appointed department head position and classified within the payroll system.)
Paul Martineau took over the welfare office at a time when morale was at an all-time low. He gave the employees respect, support and encouragement. When he took office, the Queen City Motel was the beneficiary of large amounts of welfare money. Martineau put a stop to that. In fact, he discovered that the city was wrongfully paying rooms and meals taxes (approximately $36,000) and not only put a stop to that but got reimbursement from the state.
Martineau has also saved the city money by vetting those who do not qualify for welfare, by seeking reimbursement from those who are able to reimburse the city and by combining and eliminating positions within the office to reduce expenses. He has been a watchdog for our money, keeping our taxes down while providing emergency assistance as appropriate to those who qualify.
Background checks are done according to statute, and applications are vetted to extend aid to those who are truly in need. Vetting requires caseworkers to do extensive research.
Do you understand what city welfare is, or isn't? City welfare is not an ongoing, continuous paycheck to someone who does not have income. City welfare does not issue food stamps. This is not the department you go to as soon as you lose your job. Many people are confused on this subject.
This quote from the Welfare Department explains the mission: "The Welfare Department provides emergency assistance to individuals and families who lack adequate resources. We are facilitators in that we direct the less fortunate citizens to relief agencies, i.e., federal, state, non-profit, etc. therefore reducing the burden on our departmental budget and the Manchester taxpayers. We strive to promote self-reliance and independence in all we serve so they may become productive citizens."
The department also maintains a limited food pantry that is supplied entirely by donations of food and money, most of which comes from city employees during special events.
On Nov. 5, my husband and I will be voting for Paul Martineau for Welfare Commissioner, and we will ask our friends and family to do the same. I hope that you will join me in thanking Paul Martineau for a job well done. We have proof of his ability to balance helping those who are truly in need with watching the taxpayers' pocketbook. He deserves our support. He has earned it.
Joan Porter lives in Manchester.


text:
Here's something that doesn't add up for me. There were over 230 fragrance launches in 2011, with 57 launches in March 2011 alone. For real?! That's a lot of spritzing. I rarely hear people talk about wearing perfume any longer (or get a whiff of it either). Do I just live in a fragrance-free zone? Who's buying all the perfume?
According to Cosmopolitan and CosmoTeen, who conducted a fragrance study in the U.S., they found out the following:
- Girls start to use fragrance at age 10, with 12% starting below 10, including body spray
- On average the respondents claimed to own 7 fragrances
- 58% of respondents claimed to use fragrance on a daily basis
- On average, women wear a favourite fragrance for three years
Really? I've had the same three bottles of perfume for the last five years. I guess I'm in a rut or something. I definitely do not spritz daily. Do you?
So, who were to top selling celebrity fragrances last year*? Brittany? J. Lo? Nope! You're not going to believe it:
- White Diamonds, Elizabeth $54 million (first released in 1991)
- Driven, Derek Jeter, $27 million
- Heat, Beyonce, $21 million
- Tie: Unforgivable by P. Diddy, NYC by Sarah Jessica Parker, Fancy by Jessica Simpson and Harajuku Lovers by Gwen Stefani – $18 million
Questions, questions??Are you buying perfume or living a fragrance-free existence? Do you have a signature scent or change with your mood? Do you buy perfume as gifts?
Just curious!
Here's a List of New Fragrances and Perfumes of 2011 via Now Smell This


text:
Thank you for your interest in Oceana Resorts. Please fill out the form below and click on the "Submit" button. We will be happy to mail your requested brochures, or if you choose to view / download brochures, an email will be sent to you with a download link.
We look forward to welcoming you to one of our oceanfront properties along the wide sandy beaches of the Grand Strand!


text:
The process of buying a new Kia car or truck can seem overwhelming if you don't know where to begin. Edmunds.com can get you started on the right track with a convenient directory of Kia car dealerships in and around Haskell, New Jersey. Compare online price quotes on the new or used car, truck, SUV, minivan, or wagon of your choice to locate the best deals. Edmunds.com makes it easy to find trusted Kia car dealers in Haskell, saving car buyers time and money on what will be an important purchase.
Non Display Review Name "I had the most pleasant experience at Liberty Kia in Ramsey, NJ. From the second I walked in the door, Dave was available to help me. Anthony Catalano"... Read more Review by: AFelice
Non Display Review Name "You must go to Jack Daniels Kia in Fairlawn. John Sweeney and his Kia family is great to work with especially if your on a budget. They make sure they"... Read more Review by: Jenny7071
Non Display Review Name "Having driven an Optima SX-Turbo for three years, at the end of the lease I only wanted another Optima SX-Turbo. The Lease manager Tony Catalano had "... Read more Review by: TheTurboKing


text:
Choose Your Support
Customer Support
Questions about your order or about the website?
Choose from the following:
Local Support
Questions about a product or a service you see on our site?
Choose from the following:
Dispensing Syringes, Guns & Mixing Supplies > Dispensing Guns, Syringes & Applicators > Mixing & Intraoral Cartridge Tips
Mixing and intraoral cartridge tips are used for extruding and automatic mixing of dental impression material from the cartridge dispenser. Tips help to eliminate air bubbles and allow for smoother dispensing and more accurate application.
Refine your search results:
Manufacturer Name:
Lone Star Technologies
Product Type:
Intraoral Tip
Color Family
Mixing & Intraoral Cartridge Tips (260)Displaying 2 result(s) filtered by your selections
Lone Star Technologies
Lone Star Technologies


text:
King's lesson: Freedom is not a given
August 27. 2013 7:28PM
When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke on the National Mall 50 years ago today, he called the assembled crowd "the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation." America "guaranteed the 'unalienable Rights' of 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,'" he said, but had not delivered on the guarantee.
King was right. Thomas Jefferson promised this nation an expanse of freedom that was beyond his power to deliver. As he wrote to John Adams as both former Presidents observed the unfolding debate over the expansion of slavery, it would be up to future generations of Americans to fulfill that promise. In 1963, King came to Washington to "cash this check," as he put it.
King's success was phenomenal. Black Americans (and therefore, all Americans) have never been as free from state-sponsored oppression as they are today. And yet the struggle for full freedom continues. Inner-city children are forced to attend bad schools. Politicians lure the poor to become dependent upon politicians for their basic needs. High taxes and overly restrictive business regulations deter the entrepreneurship that leads to economic independence.
Jefferson promised us freedom, but he did not guarantee it. King's lesson is that if we desire the liberty that is our birthright, we must secure it for ourselves. It is one of the great lessons of American history. May we never forget it.


text:
0 Members and 1 Lonely Barbarian are spying on this topic.
Dragonlordmax, favor for the freetext. Can we use established freetext instead of new ones? For instance, there was already a tag for clothes and now we would add one for clothing. Just take a quick look and see if we used one already. If it is new, then awesome and it is no problem, but if there is one that will fit your mood...would be better to use the same one. For this one, I am changing the previously made sub to match clothing to keep them the same. Freetext really does need another spring cleaning probably.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,Heroes in a half-shell, Turtle Power!They're the world's most fearsome fighting team!Blah, blah, you know the rest.This week, the freetext is tmnt.
Let's go revisit a classic freetext: princess
Page created in 0.271 seconds with 24 queries.


text:
Developer has plan for five parcels off Manchester's Elm StreetBy TED SIEFER
New Hampshire Union Leader
June 11. 2013 10:21PM
MANCHESTER — A developer wants to build a project downtown spanning several parcels off Elm Street opposite the Market Basket supermarket.
Oak Leaf Homes, LLC is seeking road discontinuances of several small street sections that divide the parcels, which are at 387, 379 and 409 Elm St. and 584 and 624 Willow St.
Among the businesses that currently occupy buildings on the properties are the Cedar and Oak furniture showroom and Spider Bite, a tattoo parlor, salon and smoke shop.
Ronald Dupont, the president of Oak Leaf, had originally sought discontinuances for Elm Street Back, an alley-like road between Elm and Willow Streets, from Grove Street to Summer Street, which also now functions as an alleyway.
An abutting property owner has objected to the discontinuance of Elm Street Back south of Green Street, another historic road that now functions as an alleyway. On Tuesday, Dupont agreed to request only the northern section of Elm Street Back be discontinued, along with Summer Street.
The aldermen on Tuesday visited the site as part of its review of the petition.
They voted to table the matter until they can gather more information and abutters can have their say.
Prior to the site visit, Mayor Ted Gatsas raised concerns that if the discontinuances were not approved, it "could be two years" before another road hearing is held.
The director of the Public Works Department has backed discontinuing the roads.
Dupont has not outlined the scale of the project or whether it would be retail, residential or commercial, or a mix of uses.
He said the road closures would be a preliminary step before he moved forward with the project.
"In order to start architectural plans, I need a footprint for the building," he said at the site Tuesday.
Records show Red Oak purchased the five properties in 2005.
85-home subdivision
Also on Tuesday, the aldermen approved a petition to discontinue a network of "paper streets" off Wellington Hill Road for an 85-home subdivision in the northeast part of the city.
The vote clears the way for Sterling Realty to move forward on the project and potentially finalize deals for the land with its current owners, the city, the Diocese of Manchester and a small group of individuals.
The land is now heavily wooded, but in 1902, a grid of 11 streets was approved and recorded on official deed maps for a development called "Mammoth Park."
Tuesday's vote took place on a shuttle bus that took the aldermen to the two sites.
Aldermen Dan O'Neil, Garth Corriveau, Ron Ludwig and Ed Osborne, who have objected to the project in the past, voted against the discontinuances.
Alderman-At-Large Joe Kelly Levasseur joked after the vote that the streets in the future development had to be named after the aldermen on the bus.


text:
Privacy Policy
Subject: According to Art. 10 Law no. 675 of 31/12/1996 and Legislative Decree no.196 of 30/06/2003 (law related to the protection of personal data) provides for the protection of people and other subjects regarding the processing of personal data.
Under the legislation, such treatment will be based on principles of correctness, lawfulness, transparency and protection of your rights and of your privacy.
Pursuant to art. 13 Legislative Decree no. 196/2003, therefore, we provide the following information. For the service we offer we do not treat judicial data and / or sensitive data (ie data disclosing health status, political beliefs, trade union, religious, philosophical or otherwise). The data provided verbally, in writing, via magnetic media or via Internet, will be used for purposes related to mutual obligations arising from the contractual relationship established with you, and so may be used for contractual needs and requirements and / or pre-as well as for operational needs and internal management (procedural administrative and accounting requirements and tax, etc ...) after sales service. The data will not be used for sending advertising material, promotions and similar, if the customer doesn't requires it. This request should include the express consent of the owner and can not be held tacitly granted.
All purchases made on our site are subject to the provisions of Legislative Decree no. 185 of 22/05/1999 concerning distance contracts.
What is the distance contract:
To purchase contract on-line means the distance contract, and that the legal transaction for the acquisition of products agreed between DOMIZIOLI SAS of Stefano Casarola C.so Matteotti, 38, 62100 Macerata, and a consumer, carried out at remotely via the communication network, on your website.
Sales prices:
All prices listed in the Domizioli Sas catalog on-line are VAT included. Payment of the price and their shipping costs, which are borne by the consumer, the consumer may be made only by means of the procedures indicated in the contract of sale.
Issue of the document certifying the purchase:
Given the on-line tracking of all transactions, by law we are not obliged to release or receipted tax bill.
Product Warranty:
In the case the product has manufacturing defects is our obligation to apply the same conditions provided by law the right of withdrawal. Do not fall into the category of manufacturing defects all those products that have special (fraying, tears, uneven washing, etc ...) that are part of the product and make its peculiarities.
Replacement Article by mistake Shipping:
The procedure for replacement of products for a shipping error is functional when Domizioli Sas has been wrongly sent a product different from what the customer has ordered and therefore not present in its order.
The process can be activated within 7 calendar days from the date of delivery of the goods, the activation of the service shall be made by sending an e-mail with the subject "wrong delivery" to our e-mail.
Before activating this service you should compare what came with the technical description of this article on our website, where you can view a detailed picture of each item and its main technical characteristics. The shipping costs are the responsibility of Domizioli Sas. The item must be returned in the condition in which it was delivered, and no signs of any kind and written on the box and without having been opened or used in any way, using a rigid box and a special packaging to protect it from damage during transport. Opening this package will be allowed, as necessary, only in the event that the package does not allow the verification of the ordered product of those delivered. In the case that the items available in your purchase invoice is no longer available, you will be contacted by us that we will issue a credit note on your paid account or paypal or whatever. The amount of any credit note will be calculated taking into account any discounts and promotions in the purchase invoice.


text: On June 8th, I headed out to the city of fame and fortune – Hollywood, California. But not to schmooze with the stars, instead I spent the weekend watching some amazing hacks created by over 90 developers and designers. Once again, the event started with schwag o'plenty, but as usual, the goodies did not last very long. Later, as things got heated, I spotted many with our SendGrid sweat bands, which are designed especially for that purpose. After all, sending all that email can get real intense, real fast. Dwolla's Eric Schonefeld was in attendance, representing to the fullest, though he only had size small shirts. But never fear, Chris powered up anyway: The food was perfect for two days of hacking. There was Chipotle, In N' Out, Chick-Fil-A, Zico coconut water, Red Bull and my personal favorite, Big Mama's & Papa's Pizzeria. Our own Kien Pham particpated and created CelePedia along with Eva Zheng. And even though things got tough, in the end they powered through and left the audience with a great demo. The winning hack was Typing Karaoke, a typing game that makes it fun to practice your typing skills. Try it out for yourself. There were several hacks that utilized SendGrid APIs in various ways: Social Jukebox, DogQuest, SimpleCasting, Mixxy and It's On. The best SendGrid hack went to Social Jukebox. To find a list of all the winners, press coverage and more photos, visit the official Hollywood Hack Day website. All of the hacks are listed at Hacker League. Take a look at our events calendar to see where we are headed next. We hope to see you at our next adventure!


text:
DYER email@example.com_current.manitoulin_expositor 2001-10-10 published
Martin R. GEIB
In Loving Memory of Martin R. GEIB who passed away Monday, October 1, 2001 at the Sudbury Regional Hospital -Memorial Site at the age of 76 years.
Dear husband of Christie {GOLDEN} GEIB of Manitowaning. Loving father of Dale (Lynn) of Copper Cliff, John of the United States, Diana DYER of Alberta and Andrew (Laurie) of Sudbury. Cherished grandfather of Christie KIVISTO (husband Victor) of Ottawa, Denise DYER of Vancouver, Jeremy and Jesse GEIB both of the United States, Bonnie DYER of Alberta and Amanda Geib of Sudbury. Predeceased by his parents Michael and Della GEIB and many brothers and sisters. Survived by his sister Dorothy FONSTAV of Saskatchewan. Sadly missed by several nieces and nephews. At Martin's request there will be no visitation. Cremation. A memorial service will be held at a later date. Arrangements entrusted to the Lougheed Funeral Home.
D... Names DY... Names DYE... Names Welcome Home
DYER - All Categories in OGSPI


text:
From all indications, American Jews continue to favor President Obama over Mitt Romney by a substantial margin, albeit not as large as in 2008. We remain the most clueless portion of the electorate.
But in Israel things are different. A new poll from Tel Aviv University/Israel Democracy Institute shows that Israeli Jews favor Romney by 57-22.
Dennis Ross, who, remains the most clueless among the clueless, attributes the sentiment of Israeli Jews to "disinformation" and "a highly polarized environment in America." I attribtute it to (1) the demands Obama made on Israel (and the stridency with which he made them) in furtherance of a "peace process" that most Israeli Jews understand to be a non-starter and (2) the fact that Israel's security situation deteriorated in the past four years due to Iran's strides towards developing nuclear weapons while Obama wasted time trying to improve U.S. relations with the government of Iran.
Obama is not without a block of support in Israel, though. Israeli Arabs favor him over Romney by 45-15.


text:
WORCESTER — A Worcester man was sentenced to 30 days in the House of Correction for trespassing on an exit ramp from Interstate 290 while panhandling.
Robert Ferguson, 47, of 8 Alpine St., was arrested and charged with trespassing and aggressive panhandling at about 8 :30 a.m. Friday, Oct. 25, after he was warned by several police officers to stay away from the exit ramp that leads from I- 290 eastbound to Vernon Street.
According to the police report, Mr. Ferguson was holding a sign and had entered the roadway, forcing cars to go around him. The report stated, "One vehicle almost did hit him as we approached."
Mr. Ferguson pleaded guilty to the trespassing charge; he was found responsible for the panhandling charge, which was filed.
Mr. Ferguson's sentence runs concurrently with a separate case in which he pleaded guilty to violation of an abuse prevention order, and he received 30 days credit from Judge Andrew D'Angelo.


text:
Mark Steyn on how the 9/11 commission "blew it." As Steyn observes, "they were appointed to take a cool, dispassionate look at the government's response to an act of war, but they were unable to rise above the most pointless partisan point-scoring."
But Steyn makes a more fundamental and less obvious second point: "The underlying assumption behind all the whiny point-scoring is false, and deeply dangerous." Why? Because "most of what went wrong on Sept. 11 we knew about in the first days after. Generally, it falls into two categories: a) Government agencies didn't enforce their own rules (as in the terrorists' laughably inadequate visa applications); or b) The agencies' rules were out of date –three out of those four planes reached their targets because their crews, passengers and ground staff all blindly followed the FAA's 1970s hijack procedures until it was too late, as the terrorists knew they would. The next time a terrorist gets through and pulls off an attack, it will be for the same reasons: There'll be a bunch of new post-9/11 regulations, and some bureaucrat somewhere will have neglected to follow them, or some wily Islamist will have rendered them as obsolete as his predecessors made all those 30-year old hijack rules. That's the nature of government: 90 percent of its agencies just aren't very good and, if you put your life in their hands, more fool you."
- Subscribe now!... Get rid of ADs!Support Power Line...VIP MembershipPresentsPower Line
Most Read on Power Line
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Thinker
- Ann Althouse
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Dartblog
- Gatestone Institute
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Legal Insurrection
- Library of Law and Liberty
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Roger L. Simon
- Steyn Online
- The Federalist
- Tim Blair
- Urgent Agenda
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
"Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time." Winston Churchill
"Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof." Inscription on the Liberty Bell


text:
Thomas Coyne
Hometown: Hopewell Jct., N.Y.
Major: Chemistry
WCSU Degree: Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry
Activities: Work fulltime as a senior analyst for Columbia Analytical Services
HONORS AND AWARDS:Carl and Ruth Denison Award for Outstanding Senior
Thomas Coyne received an Associate of Science in Computer Science degree from Dutchess Community College in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. in 1994. He transferred those credits to WCSU and after eight years of part-time night classes, Coyne is about to receive his Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry from WestConn.
Coyne explains how he managed to make it happen. "For a working adult continuing education, scheduling is an obstacle. WestConn offers an availability of classes day or evening that allows the part-time student to progress every semester, around the work schedule, while offering a strong program and access to state-of-the-art instrumentation."
Why chemistry? "Even as a kid, sciences were always my favorite subjects," Coyne explains. "I chose to study chemistry because of its relevance, marketability and diversity of applications."
When thinking about what helped him achieve his goals, Coyne says, "I could not have achieved this without the support of Dr. Russ Selzer, Dr.Yu-Fong Yen and Dr. Yuan Mei-Ratiff. Pursuing a degree while working full time requires a certain degree of multi-tasking that demands determination and focus to remain consistent over the long term. Their progressive and receptive attitude creates an atmosphere of availability that gave me confidence and made my goals attainable."
Asked what he will remember most about his WestConn experience, Coyne says, "There were times driving home from class when I was on top of the world from having some chemistry epiphany or sudden realization. But I would have to say my most memorable experience was giving my Senior Research Presentation. It was surreal to approach something that I was nervous about and that held a lot of weight for me, and then just drop my notes and speak comfortably as if it was second nature. I could see how I had evolved. It felt good."
After graduation, Coyne says he intends to "keep the momentum, applying my degree to my career and continuing to
expand my chemistry knowledge and skills. On a personal level , I would like to spend
more time with my wife and family. My favorite pastime is playing the guitar and I am
looking forward to having more time to get back to it."
Coyne's advice to new students entering WCSU is: "Dr. Chris once said before an Organic Chemistry lecture, 'It would behoove you to study this material with the mindset of retaining it for life.' He said that because chemistry builds upon itself; everything you learn is laying a foundation that is necessary for future studies. If you are a part-time student, work within your field. Stay positive. Take a huge accomplishment and reduce it to a two-step process — get started, follow through."


text:
Top Experiences in the Wild
Whether it's in America's wild west, its eastern forests or its Arctic frontier — you may find your next wild adventure among our top experiences.
Top activities
Whether you're looking for a backcountry journey or some family-friendly fun, we've found some places that just might work for your next wild adventure.
Top places
Our top places are some of the wildest, most rugged and most pristine places in America. At Wilderness, we spend a lot of time in these places, working to protect them. We hope that you'll find among this list the next wild place you want to explore.
Betty White first visited California's Sierra Nevada at age four. That visit, and visits almost every year thereafter, made a lasting impression on her.
Each day, thousands of acres of our wild places are lost to development. You can help save America's last remaining wilderness by joining The Wilderness Society with a gift of $35 or more today!
Wilderness is a precious resource with many human, natural and economic benefits that we need to protect.


text:
Men's (US)
Sorry, we're out of stock!View Cart (0) Add to Wishlist
Named after the prominent gateway into the UC Berkeley campus, The Gateway Sather was the Spring/Summer shoe for those dedicated to the higher education of fashion. Featuring a long almond toe shape, leather soles, stacked leather heels, and unlined, soft Buttero leathers perforated for breeziness, The Sather was perfect for the office, or for looking cool on hot days. John even replaced the laces with elastics for an easy slip on, making it even easier to rationalize skipping school on sunny days.
Write a review
super comfotrtable!!!
I bought these for a wedding trip to an area that has warm weather climate (more so than LA). MAN are these COMFORTABLE!!!! They breathe well, and are super supple as well as sturdy. I also got many compliments on them as well. Can easily go dressed up or down.
Snappy Vogs
Dressed up or dressed down, these shoes are amazingly comfortable. Not necessarily the best cold weather shoe, but will get frostbite to look snappy!
Had to have them, heel cup is a bit hard to get on for the first few wears but softens up and slips on and fits like a dream! perfect summer shoes. sosososososo glad i bought them


text:
A reader calls our attention to another of the audio tape recordings from Saddam Hussein's office. This one is ISGQ-2003-M0004667, and appears to have been recorded around 1996. Like most of the audiotapes, it is rambling, confusing and often incoherent. The ambiguity of most of what Saddam and his henchmen say is maddening. However, there are some interesting nuggets. This one suggests that the Russians have been paid off:
We have succeeded in a few of the U.N. paragraphs, we have won Russia, ahhh … we have convinced Russia by way of generous accounts [payoffs], in which, you remember how and why it happened…
Iraq's lies to the U.N. inspectors are again acknowledged, although the actual state of Iraq's weapons programs at the time can't be deduced from the tape:
They have a bigger problem with the Chemical progam than the Biological program, a lot bigger… It is not the weapons, the size of the imported material, the size of [UNINTELLIGIBLE] that we presented to them or the size of the stockpile. They knew that not all of this was true. We have not told them about the size or kind of Chemical weapons that we produced, and we have not told them the truth about the imported material. Therefore, sir, if they want to raise an issue, I mean, they will see that our argument is the issue of the Biological program.
It is clearly stated that nuclear materials were moved out of Iraq, and it seems, although less clearly, that Iraqi "teams" were still working on nuclear weapons:
Sir, where was the Nuclear material transported to? A number of them were transported outside of Iraq.
Sir, about the Nuclear program, we say that we have uncovered everything. In addition, we have an unannounced problem with the Nuclear program, and I think they know about it. I mean, there is working teams that are working and some of these teams are not known to anyone.
As we've said before, each of these documents is a very small piece of a very large mosaic, and it would be a mistake to try to draw conclusions prematurely. But some of these comments are certainly suggestive.


text:
First it was all about quilting and then dyeing and then I started making books and zentangling and drawing. Now I have given up on limiting myself and this is all about my creative journey. Hope you'll join me on my journey and invite me on yours!
I love texture!!
Thanks for reading and please share your thoughts on my work or a link to see your great stuff!


text:
Excellent product, love to embellish items with these gems
Love it. more sizes than I thought there were
Rob Base song lol
I had to get these to try my hand at creating my own bling flourishes & things and the only thing I didnt have were the basic colors.
This is great because they come in an assortment of sizes to do that. One thing though there are some that are the size of a pin head and yes probably when the tool they sell to pick them up will be needed if you can't improvise or pick them up with ya nubz or acrylic nails on!
You really do need the tool to remove the gems from the compact unless you are extremely nimble-fingered, but the gems are great for adding pizzazz without thickness!


text:
Concrete Polishing
Concrete Polishing
May 11 2016, 01:08 PM
Post #1
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 69
Joined: 28-April 12
From: 127.0.0.1
Member No.: 1,171
Hi Everyone,
I've decided to leave the world of peddling front loaded mutual funds to start a concrete grinding and polishing business. I'll be in the valley for the rest of the month so if anyone associated with the club is interested in having a concrete floor polished I'd be happy to give you a VERY good price.
Polished concrete is achieved by consecutively grinding a concrete surface with a diamond impregnated tool, after each step the diamond tool is changed out to a finer grit until the floor is honed to a smooth, reflective and resistant surface. During the polishing process chemical hardeners, colors dyes, grouts and a finishing sealer are applied until a desired surface is reached. Then end result is a floor with an appearance similar to the floor in your home depot, of course you can always add color dyes and cut patterns to give it a unique look. Once a garage is finished, it is sealed and no further maintenance is required other than mopping and an occasional pass with a buffer.
Some of the benefits of polished concrete include:
Long run cost savings
Easy to clean and maintain
High light reflectivity that brightens up a room.
Below are some of the examples of my work and if you're interested or have any questions feel free to message me here or give me a call at 817 681 5765, I give free estimates.
Before and After
Low reflectivity with pattern cut joints
And another garage with battery acid damaged concrete that I forgot to take a before picture.
|Lo-Fi Version
|Time is now: 22nd October 2018 - 08:02 AM


text:
I'm looking for a way of having 2 task managers on screen at one.
I'd quite like to be able to see the networking tab and the performance tab at the same time.
Is this possible?
I've tried googling for things like 'multiple instances of task manager' but they're all about seeing multiples of a program in the apps or processes list :(
Any help appreciated.


text:
Linked by David Adams on Wed 30th Mar 2011 16:02 UTC
Hearkening back to the Sony Rootkit brouhaha from a few years ago, a security researcher is claiming in a Network World article that he detected factory-installed keyloggers in two brand new Samsung Laptops. Samsung has made no official response, but a tech support supervisor contacted by the author said that the keystroke logging software was installed by Samsung to "monitor the performance of the machine and to find out how it is being used."
Permalink for comment 468453
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Any free software to find rootkits and keyloggers?
by marcus0263 on Thu 31st Mar 2011 00:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Any free software to find rootkits and keyloggers?"


text:
Request Information Contact a Representative Apply Now Request a Tour
Why KCOM? : Preparing for D.O. Program Admission : Preparing for M.S. Program Admission : Visit KCOM : Accreditation
Visit KCOM
Directions : Lodging, Restaurants & Transportation : Explore Kirksville : Transportation/Travel to Kirksville
KCOM welcomes and encourages any person who would like to visit our campus and see firsthand how we are changing the face of healthcare. To meet with an admissions staff member, please call 660.626.2237, toll-free 866.626.2878, ext. 2237, or email firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
If Sacha Gervasi was, as Anthony Hopkins would later say, "absolutely scared stiff," the first-time filmmaker certainly didn't show it.
The 45-year-old director had a popular documentary under his belt, but Gervasi had never worked with live actors or a screenplay before. And here he was, working not only with Oscar winners Hopkins and Helen Mirren but also making a movie about Alfred Hitchcock, one of the giants in cinematic history.
On this April morning inside a Pasadena estate doubling for Hitchcock's Bel-Air home, Gervasi was faced with directing two particularly tricky "Hitchcock" scenes, populated with dozens of extras and juxtaposing two competing story lines.
PHOTOS: 'Hitchcock' premiere at AFI Fest
Concerned that younger, edgier directors like Jules Dassin ("Rififi") and Henri-Georges Clouzot ("Diabolique") were poised to turn him into a relic relegated to TV, Hitchcock (Hopkins) had decided to mount his most daring production yet, personally bankrolling "Psycho" when Paramount Pictures declined to finance it.


text:
Office: Katharine Reed Cudahy Hall,
Room 363
Phone: (414) 288-5237
E-mail: email@example.com
The Department
of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science hosts a Summer
Research Experience (REU) for Undergraduates. This program
provides undergraduates with an intensive, faculty-mentored,
summer research experience in the areas of applied mathematics,
high-performance computing, statistics, ubiquitous systems and
mathematics education. Learn


text:
Hockey players are the undisputed good guys of the four major sports in terms of off-ice controversy.
Rarely do we hear about players cavorting in clubs, getting arrested for a DUI or other dubious activity that pervades the NBA, NFL and Major League Baseball.
That makes the bizarre offseason stories like the cab incident with Chicago Blackhawks center Patrick Kane (right) and even the alleged summer league episode involving Vancouver forward Alex Burrows all the more dumbfounding.
While the former doesn't appear to be the most serious of crimes (and one suspects there is more to this story than has been reported), it's egregious in its timing in the eyes of NHL brass.
August is the slowest time of year in the NHL. The free agent flurry has passed, trades have slowed to a trickle and media outlets are desperate for material (The Hockey News just brought out its annual favorite jersey contest).
If something negative happens during this time, sports fans who know nothing about the NHL become aware of it only through these incidents.
So, for Kane, a face of the future NHL whose playmaking instincts have been called Gretzky-like, to call attention to himself in this manner surely makes commissioner Gary Bettman groan.
The league's struggle to stay relevant against the other sports has been well documented.
In April a local radio show opined that the NFL draft is a bigger news event than the NHL altogether and, well, that might be difficult to argue.
The NHL won't ever breathe the same relevant air as the NFL, at least in the U.S. It makes its biggest case in June with Sidney Crosby dancing against a sea of Red Wings in front of thousands of towel-waving fans and the Stanley Cup polished to a shine backstage.
Even people who don't care much for hockey will then stop and look. Which is what should happen in June.
Not in August.


text:
As a convenient way to enjoy your DVDs away from home, in slim compact form, the twin version of the Nextbase SDV48-AM 7" tablet style portable DVD player is exceptional. In the budget sector of the NextBase SDV48 and SDV49 ranges of in-car entertainment devices, the SDV48-AM still has all the functionality you are probably looking for.
Rig up the devices in your car with the kit included, or stand one of the two units on the desk in your hotel room. The 7" LED backlight high-resolution screens each come with a very wide viewing angle and an inbuilt anti-skip mechanism. For viewing the player privately, there is a standard 3.5mm headphone socket and volume wheel on the side of the player.
So what are you or your family members in the back going to watch? Slot in a DVD or plug in any external video device such as a camcorder into the player and view the video on the screens. Alternatively, plug in a memory stick (up to 8GB) into the USB 2.0 port and view pictures or movies stored there. Similarly, you can use the AV cable (supplied as standard) to plug into a TV and let the SDV48 operate as a standard DVD player.
This is the twin version of the 7" model in the NextBase range: for the singleton version, one screen, order 212-7635. For the dual receiver version – two movies on 2 screens – order 212-0100.