text:
Film News Special Features
A Timeline of Stephen King's The Stand: From George Romero to ABC Mini-Series to Showtime Mini-Series/Movie
by Kelly Konda June 8, 2015 May 9, 2019
5 Comments on A Timeline of Stephen King's The Stand: From George Romero to ABC Mini-Series to Showtime Mini-Series/Movie
M-O-O-N, that spells "development hell."
Stephen King's 1978 epic The Stand tells the story of a super-flu wiping out 99.4% of the world's population in a mere ten days. Bummer. That's just the first quarter of the story, though. The rest involves a battle for humanity's soul as the survivors are drawn by prophetic dreams to either rally around a force of good (a gospel-loving old black lady in Nebraska) or embodiment of pure evil (basically, the devil in a kickass pair of jeans in Las Vegas). It kind of plays out like a less-overtly Christian Left Behind, although [spoiler alert] the climax involves the literal hand of God laying the smack down on Vegas! So, there's that.
ABC's 1994 miniseries starring Gary Sinise and Molly Ringwald was my first exposure to the story, and it blew my mind. Humanity could be wiped out by a disease? Why hadn't anyone warned me before?!? To this day, every time I hear about the next would-be pandemic (bird flu, H1N1, etc.) I briefly flash back to The Stand.
Warner Bros. has been trying to make a new Stand movie since 2011, and over the weekend The Wrap revealed discussions are currently underway to adapt The Stand into an eight-part miniseries on Showtime as a precursor to a single big budget movie released in theaters. It's a reminder that every time anyone's tried to make The Stand into a movie they've eventually realized, "Wow, this really needs to be a mini-series." After all, the novel is nearly 800 pages long in its short version, over 1000 pages in its unabridged form. Stephen King and legendary director George Romero tried for an entire decade to get a movie made before we finally got the '94 mini-series, and in recent years Warner Bros. has cycled through multiple directors while trying to make a new version.
Here's the timeline of how it's all gone down, from the writing of the novel up to this Showtime mini-series/theatrical film hybrid:
1974-1978: King spent four years writing the novel, drawing his inspiration from, among other things, a real-life chemical spill in Utah that killed a number of sheep but could have easily claimed all of Salt Lake City. Plus, he always wanted to create an Americanized version of a Lord of the Rings fantasy epic. Remember, this was before he started his Dark Tower series.
1977-1978: A movie version of The Stand was originally conceived when Warner Bros. introduced King to horror icon George Romero (Night of the Living Dead) and his producing partner, Richard P. Rubinstein (Dawn of the Dead), to discuss a possible Salem's Lot movie.
1979: King, Romero, and Rubinstein came up with the idea for what eventually became the horror anthology film Creepshow, and entered into a long-lasting partnership. According to Romero, "Steven gave us the first choice of any book or story of his that wasn't sold. We had the opportunity to buy the rights of The Dead Zone, which we read in manuscript from, but when it came to a choice we chose The Stand."
1980: King, Romero, and Rubinstein announced their plans to make The Stand, Creepshow, and a 70mm 3-D collaboration due out by the middle of the decade – King writing all three, Romero directing, Rubinstein producing. King explained that Creepshow was being made first as a way to convince investors to fund The Stand:
"Our idea here is simply to do something original that we can do on a low budget, get it out there and hopefully make a profit. It will show people that we're for real. Then we can go ahead and make a deal with one of the majors for the production money for The Stand. The money to do The Stand would be there right now, actually; the question is one of how much control over the project we can get, so that George, in particular, can do the kind of film he wants to do. We want to give it every chance; if no one likes the picture, at least it won't be a result of studio interference. On the other side of that, if we make a good picture and people like it, I'd hate to see some vice-president in charge of ass-scratching at one of the majors come out at the end saying how this wonderful idea was all his simply because he controlled the money."
Starburst said of King's performance in Creepshow, "It's not every day you get to see the world's best-selling horror novelist turned into a pile of green fungus before your very eyes. Pity about his acting though."
1981: While making Creepshow, Rubinstein offered Fangoria a status update on The Stand, estimating their target budget to be at least $15 million, "The Stand will require a major budget, which means a considerable amount of time spent arranging financing, and a tremendous amount of work to film." Well, duh.
1982: With a production budget of $8m and initial running time north of three hours, Creepshow was edited down to two hours and granted a wide Halloween weekend release, where it grossed around $10 million. However, it barely managed to double that across the rest of its theatrical run, ending with just $21m. King later claimed, "Warners had a chance to push Creepshow through the roof, and they chose to put it in their pockets and get out." Still, this was good enough to keep the chances of a Stand movie alive.
The Stand would have been 40 minutes longer than this.
1983: The strain finally crept in, with King revealing to Cinefantastique the first draft of his Stand screenplay was 400 pages long, the second draft 300 pages, and cutting it down even more was turning into a nightmare:
Length is a problem. Again, it's a problem because like the last time George and I talked about it, I said, 'Okay, this is what we've got. It's been through two drafts now and now it's down to a length of what would probably be in shooting time about four hours.' In other words, 40 minutes longer than Godfather II. So I say, 'Okay, we're at this point where we gotta lighten this boat, George. We gotta throw some people overboard. Who's expendable?' And he says, 'Well, let me think about it.' So he thought about it and I thought about it and I came back to him. And there's this little kid in the book who … pals around with one of the characters … I said, 'Well, Joe can go.' And George kind of says, 'Well, I like him.' We tried to get rid of a couple of people and they didn't want to stay down.
1985: And they finally had their, "What if we do it on TV?" moment, with King lamenting, "But the networks don't want to see the end of the world, particularly in prime time. Advertisers don't want to sponsor the end of the world. Cable didn't have enough money." So, King wanted to mimic what the Salkinds had done with Superman 1 & 2, "For a long time I pushed for doing it in two sections — Stand I and Stand II. I thought it would be possible to build a big artificial climax in the middle that would satisfy audiences for the time being. If it was all shot at once, the films could be released maybe three months or a season apart."
However, they couldn't get enough money for that. So, King persisted in hacking away at his script to turn it into a single manageable film, "I have to cut my 300 pages of screenplay in half. I think I know how to do it now, but I don't relish the idea because I know that some of the characters will get squeezed." Still, he seemed adorably optimistic, "The film is going to happen."
John Boorman's Zardoz, one of the most notorious WTF films of its time
1984-1988: The Stephen King movies Firestarter ('84), Cat's Eye ('84), Silver Bullet ('85), Maximum Overdrive ('86), and The Running Man ('87) all turned into box office duds, seriously screwing over any efforts to secure funding for The Stand. As Romero later told Cinefantastique, "Had a couple of the movies based on Steve's books gone through the roof, I think we could have financed it in a minute. It's no fault of the material, even though I didn't think all the films were very good. It's just circumstance." The only successful King film from this era was Stand By Me ('86).
Meanwhile, Romero left the production company he co-founded with Rubinstein in the mid-70s, Laurel Entertainment. As a result, his connection to The Stand became very tenuous. At some point along the way, John Boorman (Zardoz, Exorcist II, Excalibur, The Emerald Forest) was attached as the new director.
John Boorman and Rospo Pallenberg's The Emerald Forest
Early 1990s: After writing five total drafts of the script, King finally gave up, quipping at the time, "I'm glad I'm out of it." Warner Bros. paid Rospo Pallenberg (The Emerald Forest) to come up with a new feature film treatment. He was an out-and-out fan of the book, walking into his first meeting on the project carrying an original paperback edition. He described the story as being "a spiritual quest telling of the strangeness about the world in which we enter," and his first draft cut the fat while also managing to fit in most of the book's best sequences as well as a couple scenes of his own creation [You can read his script here].
Rubinstein later praised Pallenberg's adaptation, "I think Rospo was successful where Steve wasn't in terms of being able to get some distance on the material and make those decisions that needed to be made, in terms of what stays in the movie and what gets left out … Basically what I'm looking to do, and I think Rospo has been successful in doing, is not being literal in the translation but reproducing the feel." For his part, King merely said, "I don't envy the work he had to do."
Things looked they were finally coming together. Robert Duvall was even attached to play Randall Flagg. And then Warner Bros. surprisingly passed on the project.
Early 1990s: Inspired by the ratings success for the 1990 King miniseries It, ABC offered to make The Stand as a four-part miniseries, sending King into a four-month writing spree, ignoring Pallenberg's script and creating an entirely new one, sanitized for television. Within days of receiving King's new script, ABC officially greenlit the miniseries, eventually splitting the $28 million budget with Laurel Entertainment, which had become a subsidiary of Aaron Spelling's company by that point. George Romero was not offered the chance to direct. Instead, King kicked the gig to Mick Garris, who told Fangoria, "The only reason I am here is because of Stephen King. I don't think he's used to a director really wanting his input as much as I did on Sleepwalkers (1992)-encouraging it, wanting it to be faithful to the tone he set and really looking for his approval. If you have that offered to you, you'd be a fool not to take advantage of it."
1993: Kicking off in Utah in February, the entire shoot lasted 104 days, filming in and around Salt Lake City, New York City and Las Vegas. There were 125 speaking roles and more than 600 extras during the Las Vegas sequence alone, and Kathy Bates and Ed Harris both appeared in uncredited roles. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar even popped up in a couple of scenes…for some reason.
1994: The eight-hour mini-series was telecast in four parts in May, turning into a ratings winner for ABC and at least moderately pleasing King, "When I look at it and I hear them say my words, at least I don't want to throw up. I look at it and on the whole I'm pretty proud of it."
Stephen King's proud of you, Lieutenant Dan.
2008-2012: Overseen by King himself, Marvel published a grittier, comic book adaptation of The Stand in 31-issues divided into six primary story arcs. And the world collectively applauded, "Now, that's the version of Randall Flagg I had imagined!"
Written By Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, Illustrated By Mike Perkins
2011: The Hollywood Reporter announced at the start of the year that Warner Bros. and CBS Films were developing a new, feature-length adaptation of The Stand, and by July the project had ballooned into a planned trilogy to be directed and written by Harry Potter vets David Yates and Steve Kloves. After just two months on the job, Yates and Kloves walked, with the former explaining the material was best suited for a miniseries, "I could see making a miniseries from it, a really interesting, intricate, layered, enjoyable long-burn of a miniseries, I could see that, but what was missing for me were the big movie moments in the material, the big set pieces." Ben Affleck, then fresh off of The Town, was named as their replacement.
2013: And then Ben Affleck was cast as Batman and suddenly The Stand dropped off of his priority list. Crazy Heart director Scott Cooper was named as his replacement, but a couple of months later he backed out due to "creative differences," shortly thereafter releasing Out of the Furnace starring Christian Bale, which bombed pretty hard.
Josh Boone
2014: Early in the year, Josh Boone was somewhat quietly hired to take over as the new writer-director, which seemed like an especially shrewd move when his major studio directorial debut, The Fault in Our Stars, turned into a massive hit that summer. The rest of the year was plagued with casting rumors before Boone clarified on Twitter he wanted Christian Bale as Randall Flagg and Matthew McConaughey as Stu Redman. He claimed in September the script was done and ready to move forward as a single three-hour film, but by November he was telling people they were going to split it into four full-length feature films.
2015: Boone has been hired to create a new adaptation of Anne Rice's vampire novels and an X-Men spin-off project, yet the word is that if the deal for The Stand at Showtime goes through he will direct every episode of the mini-series as well as the eventual film.
And that brings us up to the present. While The Stand once felt unique, it now tells a very familiar story in a pop culture landscape littered with disease outbreak movies (Outbreak, Contagion) and TV shows (BBC's Survivors, Netflix's Between, The CW's upcoming Containment) and an embarrassingly large supply of post-apocalyptic stories (The Walking Dead, which ups the ante with zombies). Plus, Lost apparently took a fair bit from The Stand. So, you could argue The Stand's pop culture moment has come and gone, but since when has that stopped Hollywood from trying to revive something?
The '94 mini-series is currently available to stream on Netflix, and, yes, Molly Ringwald's acting is still problematic. There are those who have been dying to see a version of The Stand not sanitized for early 90s TV, a need that was only partially met by Marvel's comic book update. Either way, the best way to adapt this story has always been in a longer form than a single movie. So, if they're going to make a new one, what they're proposing to do with Showtime is the way to go.
Would you watch a new Stand mini-series? Let me know in the comments.
Source: Everything pre-2011: Creepshows: The Illustrated Stephen King Movie Guide, The Rise and Fall of The Stand; From 2011 to the present: Sourced from Wikipedia
Tags: ABC Gary Sinese George Romero Josh Boone Randall Flagg Showtime Stephen King The Stand
lkeke35 says:
There are some King books that can only be made into a series. Nothing less will do it justice. The Stand, The Dark Tower and It are all books that can only be done in series form to get them right.
You cannot squash something like The Stand down to a three hour movie and get it right. You just can't . You need, like LOTR, at least twelve hours.
As for The Dark Tower, I don't ever expect to see that onscreen in my lifetime.
To be honest, when I sat down to write this timeline I had it in my head that I'd end up talking about the period when Ron Howard was going to adapt The Stand into a series of movies. I quickly remembered, "Oh, yeah, that was The Dark Tower, not The Stand." Really, you could probably put together a timeline like this one for both "It" and The Dark Tower, with "It" being the most similar since it at least got a 90s mini-series. The story's always the same – someone comes along assured that they can crack the code and get this thing down to something manageable, and they walk away realizing, "Yeah, that needs to be a mini-series or at least several movies."
The last I heard on The Dark Tower is that Tom Rothman snatched up the rights as one of his first big moves as the new head of Sony Pictures, and he recently told Variety, "It's sprawling and challenging," but they've come up with a "creative solution" that "unlocks the power" of the material." (https://weminoredinfilm.com/2015/06/04/tom-rothmans-strategy-to-save-sony-pictures-whats-going-to-galvanize-audiences-who-arent-interested-in-comic-books/). Yeah, good luck with that.
Pingback: Here's Why That New Version of Stephen King's The Stand Isn't Happening Anytime Soon | We Minored In Film
Pingback: Josh Boone's Personal Story About Stephen King's The Stand is Better Than Yours – We Minored in Film
Pingback: 6 Things You Might Not Know About the 1989 Pet Sematary Movie – We Minored in Film
Previous Entry Why iZombie Succeeded & Constantine Failed
Next Entry Box Office: Why Didn't Melissa McCarthy's Spy Have a Bigger Opening Weekend?


You have to line up both the PTO and the Impeller splines..And push real hard!!!
Did you put good lube on the seal of the driveshaft? It sounds like it's hanging up where it goes into the impeller.
Part1: Is repairing plastic Seadoo jet pump possible? In my opinion, yes.
Do I need to change the jet pump oil in a 1994 sea-doo gtx?


text:
Top Expert Backgrounder: Aborted U.S. Strike, Cyber Operation Against Iran and International Law
by Michael Schmitt
On June 20, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps used a surface-to-air missile to shoot down a MQ-4 Triton, a Navy variant of the Global Hawk, over or near the Strait of Hormuz. The Global Hawk is a high altitude, long-endurance RPA (remotely piloted aircraft, colloquially a "drone") equipped with a highly advanced sensor suite that operates in any weather, day or night, to provide ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities. The Navy version that was downed performs a "Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS-D)" ISR mission.
The incident follows on the heels of the United States pulling out of a multilateral nuclear agreement and reimposing economic sanctions last year and alleged attacks by the Revolutionary Guard using limpet mines against Norwegian and Japanese flagged tankers in the Gulf of Oman on 13 June. With tensions already high, the shootdown prompted the United States to plan strikes on Iran employing cruise missiles and manned aircraft. However, according to tweets from President Trump the day after the drone was downed,
Ashley Deeks and Scott Anderson have authored excellent pieces on Lawfare discussing the legal questions surrounding the maritime attacks (Deeks) and the shoot down (Deeks and Anderson), while Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman have masterfully deconstructed the domestic legal concerns raised by the canceled U.S. response. In this post, I build on their analysis by examining the international law issues implicated by the aborted U.S. strikes, zeroing in on the jus ad bellum (the law that governs the resort to force by States) and international humanitarian law (IHL – the law governing how operations are conducted during an armed conflict).
The Right to Use Force
First the basics. States are prohibited from using force against other States by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law. There are but three universally accepted exceptions to this prohibition – consent of the other State, UN Security Council authorization or mandate to use force pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter, and the right of individual and collective self-defense reflected in both the Charter's Article 51 and customary law. Other possible bases for the use of force, such as humanitarian intervention and rescue of nationals abroad, are less well-settled as a matter of law and do not apply factually in this situation.
Unfortunately, much of the discussion surrounding the U.S. strikes has been framed in terms of retaliation. To be clear, retaliation, that is, a tit-for-tat use of force, is unlawful in international law. What is not clear is whether the President and others are using the term loosely to describe a US response or actually believe that retaliation is a lawful basis for the use of force against another State. If the former, they should be more cautious, as rhetoric can prove escalatory. If the latter, they are simply wrong.
Obviously, Iran did not consent to US strikes and the UN has not authorized military action in response to the oil tanker attacks or the downing of the US drone. Accordingly, the only possible basis for a U.S. use of force against Iran is self-defense.
The Right to Use Force in Self-Defense
Article 51, which replicates its customary law counterpart, provides, in relevant part, that "[n]othing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."
With respect to the attacks on the oil tankers, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) noted in its Nicaragua judgement that a condition precedent to using force in collective defense on behalf of, or in collaboration with, a State that is the victim of an armed attack is a request from that State for assistance. It is unlikely that other States would ever request the United States to use force unless the Iranian actions crossed a threshold of force sufficient to rise to the level of an "armed attack" – more on that threshold in a moment. But since such a request has not been made either expressly or implicitly by Japan or Norway, the sole remaining possible basis for a U.S. use of force is individual self-defense on the basis of the attack on its unmanned drone.
If the drone was in Iranian airspace at the time it was shot down, as claimed by the Iranian Foreign Minister, it would seem clear that the United States would not have a right of self-defense. Deeks and Anderson have correctly noted that States are entitled to control access to their national airspace (which extends to airspace above the territorial sea of a coastal State). Accordingly, States may use force to repel penetration of their airspace without their consent by another State's military aircraft, although a warning requirement would logically attach if feasible in the circumstances. But, for the sake of analysis, let us assume the US drone was located in international airspace at the time it was engaged by Iranian forces, as the Commander of U.S. Air Forces Central Command asserts. If the drone were over Iranian airspace, the rest of this analysis would be unnecessary.
Prerequisite: An "armed attack" by Iran
Operations in self-defense must be, as indicated in Article 51, in response to an "armed attack." In the Nicaragua judgement, the ICJ, described armed attacks as the "most grave forms of the use of force," such that not every use of force against a State allows for a forceful defensive response. Whether the downing of a single unmanned military aircraft crosses this threshold is highly doubtful. For instance, in its Oil Platforms judgment, which also involved hostilities between Iran and the United States, the ICJ could not "exclude the possibility that the mining of a single military vessel might be sufficient to bring into play the 'inherent right of self-defence.'" This characterization is often cited as reflecting the lower end of the armed attack continuum. An attack on an unmanned military drone that places no lives at risk falls well below this level of severity. What's more, in Nicaragua, the Court distinguished between an armed attack and "a mere frontier incident," which this event with the U.S. drone could easily be labeled. Although a strict application of the frontier-incident distinction has been criticized, and rightly so, by scholars like Yoram Dinstein, the fact that no lives were lost in the drone downing would support its application in this case.
Nonetheless, the United States has consistently rejected the existence of the so-called "gap" between a use of force and an armed attack, asserting instead that the thresholds are identical. As noted in the Department of Defense's Law of War Manual, "[t]he United States has long taken the position that the inherent right of self-defense potentially applies against any illegal use of force." This interpretation is not widely accepted to say the least, although notably Japan may be moving in the U.S. direction on the "no gap" theory. By the U.S. view of the armed attack threshold, the Iranian surface-to-air missile strike on the drone would amount to an armed attack, for it is undoubtedly a use of force.
Prerequisite: necessity of the U.S. response
Adopting the U.S. view for the sake of continued analysis, acts of self-defense, such as the planned strikes against Iran, must comply with two requirements — necessity and proportionality — that the ICJ set forth in its Nicaragua judgement and reiterated in Oil Platforms. These two conditions bear, respectively, on whether a U.S. use of force in response to the Iranian action is permissible at all and, if so, the nature of that operation.
The DoD Manual accurately characterizes the condition of necessity as requiring "that no reasonable alternative means of redress are available." It illustrates this condition by noting that "diplomatic means must be exhausted or provide no reasonable prospect of stopping the armed attack or threat thereof." Beyond diplomacy, sanctions and any other viable means of causing the armed attack to end must also be unavailable before force may be used in self-defense. In this case, a reported Presidential warning to Iran through Oman that attacks were imminent and requesting talks met a cold response from Iran. The irony here is that President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have separately called that media report false. As to sanctions, economic sanctions were already in place but failed to deter the Iranian action against the drone.
Yet, reports that U.S. Cyber Command conducted a cyber operation against Iranian missile and rocket command and control systems in response to the drone attack would appear consistent with the requirement of necessity (assuming the shoot down occurred in international airspace). If the cyber operation did not cross the use of force threshold, it would be a "countermeasure" under the law of State responsibility and the use of force in self-defense would be unnecessary. And, acknowledging that the legal threshold for a cyber use of force is uncertain, even if the cyber operation did cross that threshold, its availability in response to the drone operation would nevertheless have rendered the proposed kinetic strikes questionable on the basis of the jus ad bellum proportionality criterion, which is discussed below.
Of greatest normative significance is the fact that the proposed U.S. air and missile strikes (and the cyber operation if it crossed the use of force threshold) would likely have failed the necessity test on the basis of "imminency or immediacy." These temporal criteria provide that a defensive response must be in response to an armed attack that is imminent, underway, or reasonably believed to be, in the words of the DoD Law of War Manual, "part of an ongoing pattern of attacks" in which "force is reasonably necessary to discourage future armed attacks."
As the U.S. response was conducted after the drone had been downed, it would only have satisfied the temporal requirements of self-defense if the United States possessed reliable intelligence indicating Iran would conduct further attacks against U.S. assets, such as military aircraft, warships or commercial shipping. In that event, the drone attack could be characterized as but one strike in an Iranian campaign against the United States. Indeed, the Defense Department has claimed that Iran attempted to shoot down a U.S. drone while conducting surveillance over the damaged oil tankers.
However, broadly speaking, open source material does not seem to support a conclusion that further attacks were planned by Iran, especially in light of the Iranian insistence that it only acted in response to a violation of its national airspace. What's more, it should be cautioned that the earlier alleged Iranian attacks against the oil tankers might bear on Iran's willingness to resort to force generally, but they do not signal a campaign directed at the United States. Ultimately, without access to the available intelligence, no definitive conclusion can be drawn as to whether the drone attack was the initiation of a pattern of attacks against the United States.
Prerequisite: proportionality of the U.S. response
The second requirement is proportionality. This jus ad bellum criterion is often confused with a criterion of the same name in the context of countermeasures, international human rights law and international humanitarian law (discussed below). Indeed, Trump mischaracterized it in his tweet by suggesting that 150 deaths was disproportionate to shooting down a drone, thereby suggesting that the severity of the response must not be out of proportion to the severity of the armed attack. That is not the law.
As Geoff Corn has described the criterion in correspondence with the author, "Ad bellum proportionality is not a humanitarian rule; its sole purpose is to protect state interests by preventing a valid claim of self-help necessity being used as a subterfuge for unlawful aggression. Accordingly, its function is solely to define permissible scope and duration of an action born of necessity." Consistent with this accurate characterization of the object and purpose of the self-defense proportionality requirement, the DoD Law of War Manual explains, "[f]orce may be used in self-defense, but only to the extent that it is required to repel the armed attack and to restore the security of the party attacked" (emphasis added). In some cases, this may be less force than used against the victim State, whereas in others it may be more.
Assuming for the sake of analysis that the United States reasonably concluded that further attacks would take place, a proportionality analysis would focus on the scale and scope of the forceful response that would be required to deprive Iranian forces of the ability to launch the pending attacks and/or convince Iranian authorities to refrain from conducting them. Should U.S. strikes exceed that threshold, they would be unlawful. Without knowing the intended targets and the effect of the proposed strikes upon them, it is difficult to make this proportionality assessment. However, in making such an assessment, it is essential to understand that the issue would not be the possible casualties that might result, but rather the effect of the strikes upon continued Iranian attacks. For instance, striking Iranian radar, surface to air missile sites or military airfields would be targets clearly related to degrading enemy capabilities against U.S. aircraft. Striking military assets that play no role in the continuing Iranian attacks would be dubious.
International Humanitarian Law Targeting Rules
Irrespective of the legality of the planned U.S. strikes under the jus ad bellum, the Iranian downing of the drone initiated an international armed conflict between the United States and Iran to which IHL applied. That conflict would have continued with the U.S. strikes and therefore those strikes would have been subject to IHL prohibitions and requirements. Without knowing the nature of the planned attacks, it is difficult to determine whether they would have complied with the limitation of targets to "military objectives" and the requirement to take feasible "precautions in attack" to avoid or minimize collateral damage to civilians and civilian objects. Such precautionary requirements require exhausting feasible means of verifying that the target is a military objective; selecting from among available weapons, attack tactics, and targets that can achieve the desired military effect with the least harm to civilians and civilian objects; and warning the civilian population of the attacks if it will be affected and a warning is militarily and practically feasible in the circumstances.
The one IHL requirement implicated by the Trump tweets is proportionality. As noted, IHL proportionality differs from jus ad bellum proportionality. The generally accepted definition of IHL proportionality is captured in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. By that article, an attack violates the rule of proportionality if it "may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." This ex ante determination is made at the time the attack is planned, approved, and executed. It is not a post factum assessment based on the results of an attack. Thus, it was proper to conduct the proportionality assessment, as Trump appears to have done, prior to the strikes being conducted.
But, if the tweets are accurate, questions arise. First, the harm that is factored into the calculation is only that caused to civilians or civilian objects. Iranian military deaths would not be considered in making the determination. It is uncertain whether the 150 casualties were civilian or military, although it is very difficult to believe the U.S. military leadership would have recommended strikes causing 150 civilian deaths in response to a drone shoot down, especially when Iran is a target-rich environment, one presenting many lawful targets that can be struck with minimal risk of collateral damage. 150 civilian deaths would self-evidentially appear excessive relative to the military advantage (see below) and would also likely violate the selection of targets required by the obligation to take all feasible precautions.
Moreover, without knowing the intended targets it is difficult to gauge the "concrete and direct military advantage" anticipated to result from the strikes. U.S. targeting doctrine is "effects-based" in the sense that the military advantage is not measured in terms of attrition of enemy personnel and equipment, but rather is based on the effect on enemy operations or the benefit accruing to one's own operations. In this case, the presumed advantage would be degradation of Iranian capability to conduct further attacks against U.S. assets. Of course, if the U.S. operations were being conducted solely in retaliation (see discussion above) and no further operations were planned by either side, there would be no meaningful military advantage to conducting them, thereby rendering them unlawful should any collateral damage result.
Open source information is simply insufficient to judge the proportionality of the proposed strikes. One would have to know whether the possible causalities were civilian, whether civilian objects would be incidentally damaged, and the nature of the military advantage that U.S. commanders expected to achieve by conducting the attacks. But what is clear is that the proportionality analysis would not include all deaths and would not be measured against the loss of the drone, as suggested in the Trump tweets and by news reports of what was on the President's mind.
It is difficult to definitely conclude that the proposed U.S. kinetic strikes would have been valid exercises of self-defense. Even assuming the downed drone was in international airspace, and though the attack thereon would clearly qualify as a use of force, it is unclear that the Iranian action amounted to an armed attack except by the United States' particular approach to the threshold for armed attacks. Yet, even if the U.S. position is applied, the proposed strikes would have violated the necessity criterion absent reliable intelligence that the Iranian downing of the drone was but the starting part of a series of attacks directed at U.S. assets. On its face, therefore, the planned U.S. response looks like what it was publicly labeled – retaliation.
As to the IHL prohibitions and requirements, without knowing the nature of the planned U.S. strikes or what was meant by Trump's tweets regarding 150 casualties, the consistency of the operations with the IHL rule of proportionality and the requirement to take precautions in attack cannot be determined. However, it is clear that much of the discussion surrounding the proposed strikes, including the President's statements, failed to accurately reflect that body of law.
Finally, what of a threat by Iran to interfere with international commerce passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a prospect that has long caused concern? Until such attacks occur or are imminent (as in an announcement by Iran that it will conduct them or reliable intelligence indicating Iranian forces will do so), self-defense affords no right to the United States to conduct any use of force to preclude the interference. Additionally, to justify U.S. military action, the attacks would have to be directed at U.S. vessels unless the flag States concerned asked the United States to defend their vessels in the event of actual or imminent Iranian attack. It should also be cautioned that taking action solely to ensure shipping lanes remain open, sometimes labeled a "vital national interest," is not a justification for the use of force in international law. That said, if Iranian forces attack, or are about to attack, vessels exercising their lawful freedom of navigation, the States concerned are free to defend themselves either individually or collectively, and with respect to the latter, they may pre-arrange a system providing for robust collective defense of their shipping.
[Editor's Note: You may also want to read, Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman's Top Experts' Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law]
Sign Up for the Early Edition Get Early Edition
Gaps in Trump's Pardons: How the Biden Administration Can Still Pursue Justice
by Andrew Weissmann
De-platforming Following Capitol Insurrection Highlights Global Inequities Behind Content Moderation
by Rebecca Hamilton
On Biden's Planned Summit: Humility, Not Hubris, Can Save Democracy
by Tracey Gurd
What Should Be Addressed in Austin's Confirmation Hearing for Defense Secretary?
by Kate Brannen
US Human Rights Policy: How to Really Build Back Better
by Francisco Bencosme and Sarah Margon
MLK Believed "No Justice, No Peace"
by Yuvraj Joshi
History Shows the Senate Can Hold an Impeachment Trial After Trump Leaves Office
by Michael J. Gerhardt
Ousted Autocratic Presidents and Their Backers in the Legislative Branch
by Viola Gienger
Impeachment Defense, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights
by Jonathan Zittrain
Military Personnel and the Putsch at the U.S. Capitol
by Eugene R. Fidell and Rachel VanLandingham, Lt Col, USAF (Ret.)
December Brought Harbingers of the Regulation Social Media Companies Could Soon Face
by April Falcon Doss
Questions to Guide an Investigation of the Capitol Attack
by Kyle Murphy
Incitement Timeline: Year of Trump's Actions Leading to the Attack on the Capitol
by Ryan Goodman, Mari Dugas and Nicholas Tonckens
How New Congress Can Shine Light on Trump Era and Persisting Abuses
by Jennifer Ahearn
The Promises of FOIA in 2021: A Ready Pathway to Accountability
by Austin Evers
20 Most Read Just Security Articles in 2020
by Just Security
Please Support Just Security With a Tax-Deductible Donation
SolarWinds as a Constitutive Moment: A New Agenda for the International Law of Intelligence
by Asaf Lubin
Pardongate 2.0: Prosecutors and Congress Investigated Clinton's Pardons. The Same Should Happen to Trump.
by Jared Davidson and Aditi Juneja
Shifting Norms About Secretary of Defense Has Long-Term Consequences: On the Austin Nomination
by Jessica Blankshain, Max Margulies and Danielle Lupton
Top Expert Backgrounder: Russia's SolarWinds Operation and International Law
Pandemic Consequences: The Acceleration of Confrontational Politics
by Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press
Beyond the ICC: Repositioning the Core of International Accountability
by David Matyas, Payam Akhavan, Sareta Ashraph and Barzan Barzani
Reviving the US Commitment to Women's Rights and Gender Equality: The UN Commission on the Status of Women
by Susan Markham and Stephenie Foster
Representation at the Top: The Importance of Race in the Austin Nomination Debate
by Bishop Garrison
We Can't "Look Forward" on the Trump Administration's Abuses
by Katherine Hawkins
The UDHR, Digital Authoritarianism, and Human Rights after Trump
by Katie Porter and David Kaye
Addressing Our Whole-of-Government Deficit in National Security
by Russell E. Travers
New Zealand Pushes the Dialogue on International Cyber Law Forward
Global Kleptocracy as an American Problem
by Igor Logvinenko and Casey Michel
The Need for More Chris Stevenses
by Doug Wilson, Angelic Young and Alex Pascal
Climate Change, National Security, & the New Commander-in-Chief
by Mark Nevitt
Data and Democracy: Three Things the Biden-Harris Administration Should Do to Tackle Big Tech
Getting the T's and C's Right: The Lessons of Intelligence Reform
by Alex Joel and Corin R. Stone
How I Came to Support the Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons
by Lawrence Korb
Revisiting the Office of Legal Counsel's Override Opinion
by Brian Finucane
Nestlé & Cargill v. Doe: Introduction to a Symposium
by Beth Van Schaack and Chris Moxley
How to Restore Ethics to the U.S. Department of State
by Donald K. Sherman
A Landmark Report on Starvation as a Method of Warfare
by Tom Dannenbaum
The Urgent Need to Restore Independence to America's Politicized Immigration Courts
by Gregory Chen
COVID-19 and International Law Series: Introduction
by Oona Hathaway, Preston Lim, Mark Stevens and Alasdair Phillips-Robins
A Letter to President-Elect Biden on Restoring Relations with the Intelligence Community
by Marc Polymeropoulos and John Sipher
Turning the Page: A Biden Presidency and the Role for Us
by Kate Brannen, Tess Bridgeman and Ryan Goodman
Good Governance Paper No. 19: The Criminal Legal System — Toward a Paradigm Shift
by Vincent M. Southerland
Good Governance Paper No. 18: Reforming Emergency Powers
by Elizabeth Goitein
Good Governance Paper No. 14: War Powers Reform
by Tess Bridgeman and Stephen Pomper
The Necessity of Enforcing Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Context of Counterterrorism
by Fionnuala Ní Aoláin
Good Governance Paper No. 8: How to Strengthen Oversight by Congress
by Jim Townsend and Elise Bean
A Transatlantic Plan for Racial Equity and Justice
by Alex T. Johnson, Karen Taylor and Muddassar Ahmed
The President and Immigration Law Series: Reflections on the Future of American Immigration Policy
by Cristina Rodríguez and Adam Cox
A Blueprint for the Future: The CIA in 2021 and Beyond
by Marc Polymeropoulos and Kristin Wood
The President and Immigration Law: The Danger and Promise of Presidential Power
by Lucas Guttentag
A Topical Index of COVID-19 Articles on Just Security
App Stores as Back-Doors for Government Regulation of End-to-End Encryption
by Jeffrey Vagle
The Good Governance Papers: An Introduction
by Emily Berman, Tess Bridgeman, Ryan Goodman and Dakota S. Rudesill
Prosecuting the ISIS "Beatles:" A testament to dedicated US government professionalism
by Luke Hartig
Is the United States Heading for a Rural Insurgency?
by Vasabjit Banerjee
Ten Quick Takeaways from the New York Times' Bombshell Article on Trump's Tax Returns
by Daniel Shaviro
An Enduring Impasse on Autonomous Weapons
by Dustin Lewis
Déjà Vu All Over Again: Racial Disparity in the Military Justice System
by Barry K. Robinson and Edgar Chen
On 9/11, Interrogating the Assumptions that Undergird the "Forever War"
9/11's Long Shadow: What's at Stake in Afghanistan
by Douglas London
QAnon is a Nazi Cult, Rebranded
by Gregory Stanton
Supreme Court's Trump v. Mazars Ruling Gave Attorney-Client Privilege a Boost in Congress
by Andy Wright
Immigration Maximalism at the Supreme Court
by Ahilan Arulanantham and Adam Cox
The Second Oxford Statement on International Law Protections of the Healthcare Sector During Covid-19: Safeguarding Vaccine Research
by Dapo Akande, Antonio Coco, Talita de Souza Dias, Duncan B. Hollis, Harold Hongju Koh, James C. O'Brien and Tsvetelina van Benthem
Canada's Scattered and Uncoordinated Cyber Foreign Policy: A Call for Clarity
by Josh Gold, Christopher Parsons and Irene Poetranto
Beyond Color-Blind National Security Law
by James Thuo Gathii
A Threat or A Warning: Russia's Weapons Testing in Space
by Hitoshi Nasu and Michael Schmitt
Interview with Christof Heyns: Major New UN Comment on Right of Peaceful Assembly
by Christof Heyns and Elizabeth Andersen
China's Forced Sterilization of Uyghur Women Violates Clear International Law
by Lisa Reinsberg
What Comes Next: The Aftermath of European Court's Blow to Transatlantic Data Transfers
by Jennifer Daskal
The Surprising Convergence Between Neo-Nazis and Jihadis
by Max Kutner
Black Security and the Conundrum of Policing
by Monica Bell
Racing National Security: Introduction to the Just Security Symposium
by Matiangai Sirleaf
Mexico's Priorities as an Elected Member to the Security Council for 2021-2022
by Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga and Ambassador H.E. Juan Ramón de la Fuente
A Solution in Search of a Problem: The Dangerous Invalidity of Divesting Military Commanders of Disposition Authority for Military Criminal Offenses
by Geoffrey S. Corn, Chris Jenks and Timothy C. MacDonnell
A Rejoinder to China's Response to UN Human Rights Experts
by David Kaye
The United Nations Charter at 75: Between Force and Self-Defense — Part Two
by Adil Ahmad Haque
How Inter-State Procedures in Human Rights Treaties Can Support the Black Lives Matter Movement
by Nawi Ukabiala
The United States' Racial Justice Problem Is Also an International Human Rights Law Problem
by E. Tendayi Achiume
Jurisdiction at Guantanamo: The Case of Long-Term Complicity
by Jens David Ohlin
Oxford Statement on the International Law Protections Against Cyber Operations Targeting the Health Care Sector
by Dapo Akande, Duncan B. Hollis, Harold Hongju Koh and James C. O'Brien
Turkey Opened the Door to the European Court of Human Rights for Syrian Victims
by Roger Lu Phillips
The Significance of the Supreme Court's Opati Decision for States and Companies Sued for Terrorism in U.S. Courts
by Haley S. Anderson
The Importance of New Statements on Sovereignty in Cyberspace by Austria, the Czech Republic and United States
by Przemysław Roguski
The Perils of Hyping Pandemic Response as a National Security Issue
by Robert Malley and Stephen Pomper
Top Experts Analyze Inspector General Report Finding Problems in FBI Surveillance
by Elizabeth Goitein, Andrew G. McCabe, Mary B. McCord and Julian Sanchez
What Counts As Sufficient Transparency on Civilian Casualties in Somalia
WhatsApp v. NSO Group: State Immunity and Cyber Spying
by Russell Buchan and Daniel Franchini
Deepfakes 2.0: The New Era of "Truth Decay"
by Brig. Gen. R. Patrick Huston and Lt. Col. M. Eric Bahm
The Time has Come to Have a Conversation at the U.N. on Self-Defence
by Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga
Lawsuit Against Fox News Over Coronavirus Coverage: Can It Succeed? Should It?
by Erin Carroll
Don't Bother Suing China for Coronavirus
by Chimène Keitner
COVID-19 Shows How the U.S. Got National Security Wrong
by Oona Hathaway
Biopharma: The Next National Security Frontier
by Jeanne-Paloma Zelmati
A Chance to Fix FISA
by Julian Sanchez
The Defense Department's Measured Take on International Law in Cyberspace
New Online Resource: War Powers and Presidential Practice
by Tess Bridgeman and Rachel Goldbrenner
Punching on the Edges of the Grey Zone: Iranian Cyber Threats and State Cyber Responses
by Colonel (Retired) Gary Corn
Confronting Russia's Role in Transnational White Supremacist Extremism
by Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault and Joseph Stabile
International Criminal Court and the Question of Palestine's Statehood: Part II
by Todd Buchwald
Top Experts' Backgrounder: Military Action Against Iran and US Domestic Law
by Brian Egan and Tess Bridgeman
The Crossfire Hurricane Report's Inconvenient Findings
Can Turkey be Expelled from NATO? It's Legally Possible, Whether or Not Politically Prudent
by Aurel Sari
Guidelines on Investigating Violations of International Humanitarian Law
by Noam Lubell, Jelena Pejic and Claire Simmons
Army and Marine Corps Publish New Manual: The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare
by Michael W. Meier
Transparency on Civilian Harm in Somalia Matters – Not Just to Americans
by Rahma Hussein, Abdifatah Hassan Ali and Alex Moorehead
Human Rights, Deprivation of Life and National Security: Q&A with Christof Heyns and Yuval Shany on General Comment 36
by Ryan Goodman, Christof Heyns and Yuval Shany
Need for Change to Protect Children in Armed Conflict
by Gordon Brown and Shaheed Fatima Q.C.
Michael Schmitt
Professor of International Law at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom; Francis Lieber Distinguished Scholar at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point; Strauss Center Distinguished Scholar and Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Texas; professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College; and Director of Legal Affairs for Cyber Law International. He serves on the Department of State's Advisory Committee on International Law, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, and is General Editor of The Lieber Studies (OUP). Follow him on Twitter (@Schmitt_ILaw).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
package com.gail.sps.action;

import java.io.PrintWriter;
import java.util.List;

import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse;

import org.apache.struts2.ServletActionContext;
import org.apache.struts2.convention.annotation.Action;
import org.apache.struts2.convention.annotation.Namespace;
import org.apache.struts2.convention.annotation.ParentPackage;
import org.apache.struts2.convention.annotation.Result;
import org.springframework.beans.factory.annotation.Autowired;
import org.springframework.context.annotation.Scope;

import com.gail.sps.model.Comment;
import com.gail.sps.model.Product;
import com.gail.sps.model.ProductCategory;
import com.gail.sps.service.CommentService;
import com.gail.sps.service.ProductCategoryService;
import com.gail.sps.service.ProductService;

@Scope("prototype")
@ParentPackage("basePackage")
@Namespace("/")
public class ProductAction extends BaseAction {
	@Autowired
	private ProductService productService;
	@Autowired
	private ProductCategoryService productCategoryService;
	@Autowired
	private CommentService commentService;
	HttpServletResponse response = ServletActionContext.getResponse();

	private Product p;
	private List<ProductCategory> pcList;
	private Comment comment;
	private List<Comment> commentList;
	private List<Product> hotProductList;

	@Action(value = "detail", results = { @Result(name = "success", location = "/detail.jsp") })
	public String detail() {
		try {
			this.p = productService.getById(id);
			this.pcList = productCategoryService.limitSelect(new ProductCategory());
			this.commentList = commentService.queryByProductId(id);
			this.hotProductList = productService.listHotProducts();
		} catch (Exception e) {
			e.printStackTrace();
		}
		return SUCCESS;
	}

	@Action(value = "ajax_addComment")
	public void ajax_addComment() {
		response.setContentType("text/html;charset=UTF-8");
		response.setHeader("Cache-Control", "no-cache");
		PrintWriter out =  null;
		try {
			out = response.getWriter();
			commentService.addComment(comment);
			out.write("");
		} catch (Exception e) {
			e.printStackTrace();
			out.write(e.getMessage());
		}
		out.close();
	}

	public Product getP() {
		return p;
	}

	public void setP(Product p) {
		this.p = p;
	}

	public List<ProductCategory> getPcList() {
		return pcList;
	}

	public void setPcList(List<ProductCategory> pcList) {
		this.pcList = pcList;
	}

	public List<Comment> getCommentList() {
		return commentList;
	}

	public void setCommentList(List<Comment> commentList) {
		this.commentList = commentList;
	}

	public Comment getComment() {
		return comment;
	}

	public void setComment(Comment comment) {
		this.comment = comment;
	}

	public List<Product> getHotProductList() {
		return hotProductList;
	}

	public void setHotProductList(List<Product> hotProductList) {
		this.hotProductList = hotProductList;
	}

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Supplemental income is a great way to gain additional money so you won't have to worry about making ends meet. In today's economy, many people are searching for some way to find financial relief. Try your hand with foreign exchange trading to supplement the income you already have.
Foreign Exchange relies upon the economic conditions around the world, more so than options and the stock market. You should a have a good understanding of economic terms and factors like current account deficits, interest rates, monetary policy and fiscal policy before trading Forex. If you do not understand these before trading, you could lose a lot.
Do not allow your emotions to affect your Forex trading. If you trade based on greed, anger, or panic, you can wind up in a lot of trouble. Create long term goals and plans so you can succeed in trading.
Upwards and downwards market patterns in foreign exchange trading are clearly visible, however, one will always be the stronger. Selling signals while things are going up is quite easy. Use your knowledge of market trends to fine-tune your trades.
Moving your stop loss points just before they are triggered, for example, will only end with you losing more than if you had just left it alone. Have a set strategy and make sure to abide by it.
When people begin trading, they may lose a lot of money, mostly due to greed. Panic and fear can lead to the identical end result. When in the forex trader driver's seat, you need to make quick decisions that reflect the real "road" conditions, not your wishes and emotions.
If you are working with foreign exchange, you need to ensure you have a trustworthy broker. Brokers who have been in the business for longer than five years and performs in parallel with the market, are the mainstays to success in trading.
Do not get greedy when your trades go well, and after you lose a trade, you should not attempt to get your vengeance. Foreign Exchange trading, if done based on emotion, can be a quick way to lose money.
If you are a beginning forex trader, stick to just a few markets. This can lead to aggravation and confusion. To increase the chances that you will make a profit you should stick with currency pairs that are popular.
Switch up your position to get the best deal from every trade. Some traders open with identical positions and invest more funds than they can afford or an inadequate amount to begin with. You need to form your strategy and position based on the trades themselves, and how the currencies are behaving at that moment.
The account package that you choose should fit your knowledge level and expectations. Knowing your strengths and weaknesses will assist you in taking a rational approach. There are no traders that became gurus overnight. When you are starting out, you will want to stay with accounts that offer low levels of leverage. When you are new, open a practice account to minimize your risks. You can get a basic understanding of the trading process before you start using serious money.
One piece of advice offered by professionals in the foreign exchange trade is to maintain a detailed journal of your activities. Keep track of all of your success as well as your failure. This will allow you to keep track of your progress and analyze what you have done for future reference, thus maximizing your final profit.
Every forex trader needs to know when it is time to cut their losses. Traders often stay in the market too long, hoping that it will correct itself, rather than accepting their losses. This is not a good idea.
Use the relative strength index for seeing average gains and losses in the market. This should not be used to predict market movement day-to-day, but it might give an idea of long-term returns. Reconsider investing in any market that has not already proven to be profitable.
Foreign Exchange can be used as a main income source or just as supplemental income. It all depends on just how successful you can be as a trader. In order to be successful, you have to first understand how trading works.


kiloHearts unveils Faturator, an effect plug-in for both Windows and OS X.
"Grit, oomph, fatness, raw, color, or just that certain something. Sometimes your sounds need a shovel of dirt. Faturator is standing ready to tear whatever you throw at it apart violently, and then gently (but firmly) put it back together fatter and rawer than ever. "


We cannot choose freedom. It does not belong to the mind. There is nothing we can do or not do. Ultimately, we are already eternally free. We can only Be who we are. At some point Life brings us to a deeper inquiry and the fire of truth becomes so burningly bright and alive that all that we have believed ourselves to be turns wholeheartedly towards Truth. This is what brings us to Satsang. Satsang is an outstretched hand that accompanies you into the boundless presence of Being, in the letting go of concepts and ideas, continually pointing to what you are and have always been. You are invited into intimacy with Self, into your wholeness. When the burning desire to know freedom is stronger than the desire to defend the sense of 'me and my story' there is a surrender to what is. This is freedom. This is Love.
This entry was posted in awakening, Awareness, non duality, poetry and tagged awakening, awareness, Being, clare blanchflower, emptiness, Freedom, grace, infinity, non duality, Peace, poetry, presence, Satsang, silent awareness, Stillness, truth on June 7, 2016 by clare.


The Annah Stretton Gretchen was so popular when it was introduced in the Black Collection, it has been re-cut for Summer 2017. This is the perfect style shaped to fit the feminine form, and Annah's take on the classic wrap dress, featuring a cross over bodice, with a gently curved hem - this designer dress is a perfect go-to for all occasions from the boardroom to dinner dates.
or 6 weekly interest-free payments of $65.00 NZD What's this?


Massive protests in London greeted Trump's recent visit to Britain.
Thus, in the weeks before and during his visit to Europe, Trump threatened to withdraw from the WTO and NATO, while casting the EU as a "foe" in contrast to the friendly commercial competitionbetween the U.S. and Russia. It appears that such antics have had little effect on the President's domestic support, but the situation in Europe is far more complex.
Graham MacPhee is a professor of English at West Chester University. He writes on British identity, politics, and culture, and is the author most recently of Postwar British Literature and Postcolonial Studies (Edinburgh University Press, 2011) and co-editor of Empire and After: Englishness in Postcolonial Perspective (Berghahn, 2007).


Translators can contribute cache entries into the result set cache via the use of the CacheDirective object. The resulting cache entries behave just as if they were created by a user query. See the Translator Caching API for more on this feature.


According to Robbins (2010), marker pens as pens which have their own ink foundation and usually has a tip made of absorbent and pressed fiber and was first generated by Sidney Rosenthal in 1952. This marker pen had been unique of the normally used writing apparatuses for approximately fifty years. The key distinction is that dyes are soluble in water and an organic solvent, while pigments are insoluble in both types of liquid media. Dyes are used to color substrates to which they have affinity. Pigments can be used to color any polymeric substrate but by a mechanism quite different from that of dyes, in that surface-only coloration is involved unless the pigment is mixed with the polymer before fiber or molded article formation (Allen, 1971). Strawberries, raspberries, blueberries and a variety of other berry fruits are frequently used to produce a wide range of ink colors, comprising red or blue. Use hyacinth flowers to make a blue ink. Crush rose, lavender or hibiscus petals for a red or pink ink. Lilies of the valley, Artemisia and snapdragons can all be used to create a wide range of greens from a pale shade to a darker forest shade. Marigolds, daffodils and dandelion make a bold yellow ink. Steep the flowers in boiling vinegar or let them sit for a while in the liquid to obtain the color you want (Condy, 2018).
Based on the articles congregated in Caparas (2010), the Narra (Pterocarpus indicus) extract had been proven to be effective as a natural dye. Consequently, the Narra bark is capable of being an element for ink production and used to the need of creating new inks.
In accordance to the study, Thomson (2006) stated in his article "Narra (Pterocarpus Indicus)" that the heartwood of Narra (Pterocarpus indicus) contains numerous red compounds, and used to make a red dye. The bark extract can be used for tanning. Tannin or tannic acid is the brown substance originated in the bark and leaves of trees.
The Narra (Pterocarpus indicus) it is inherent to Southeastern Asia and originate all over in the Philippine archipelago. It is used as alternative ink instead of using petroleum. It is a large deciduous tree which is very simply propagated from large cuttings. It is derivative from the trees and its alcoholic tincture that produces dark red color dye in wood because the Narra (Pterocarpus indicus) is well-known for its capability to take high sophistication.


There are as many different yoga classes as there are yoga teachers.
If you want to de-stress, look after your back, work on core strength and flexibility, spend a bit of time upside down, or you just want to be able to get up and down off the floor without falling over, then it's worth trying a class. If you don't enjoy the class, try another teacher. There are faster-paced classes, slower ones, more spiritual ones, less spiritual ones and so on.
In the mean time, here are a few facts about yoga.
1. You don't need to be flexible to do yoga.
Yoga will make you more flexible, so don't be put off because you can't touch your toes or sit on the floor. A little time and patience is all it needs. You may never manage to wrap your feet behind your head, but you don't actually need to.
2. Yoga is not a religion, and you don't have to "om" if you don't want to.
You can believe whatever you want. Come to yoga to feel better, and to maybe make being in your head a slightly less complicated experience. Incidentally, there are various interpretations of "om". I like the idea that "om" represents the sound of the universe.
3. Yoga teachers are obsessed with how you breathe.
There have been a lot of studies done on breathing. If you tend to shallow breathe, using the shoulders and chest rather than the diaphragm, you will make yourself feel more tired and more anxious. Shallow breathing has been linked to chronic fatigue conditions. So yes, yoga teachers like to make sure you're breathing properly.


text:
<?php if ($result->slot): ?>
<?php
$script =<<<EOT
<script type="text/javascript" src="/baseweb/private/js/tiny_mce/tiny_mce.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/baseweb/private/js/tiny_mce/jquery.tinymce.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
	$(document).ready(function() {
		$('textarea').tinymce({
			script_url : '/baseweb/private/js/tiny_mce/tiny_mce.js',
			theme : "advanced",
			skin : 'o2k7',
			skin_variant : "silver",
			plugins : "safari",
			theme_advanced_toolbar_location : "top",
			theme_advanced_toolbar_align : "left",
			theme_advanced_resizing : true,
			theme_advanced_buttons1 : "cleanup,|,undo,redo,|,formatselect,bold,italic,underline,strikethrough,|,bullist,numlist,|,blockquote,hr,|,link,unlink,anchor,image,|,charmap",
			theme_advanced_buttons2 : '',
			theme_advanced_buttons3 : '',
			content_css : '/baseweb/private/css/cms.css',
		});
	});
</script>
EOT;
$html->addToFooter($script);
?>
<div class="slot edit clearfix">
	<form action="" method="post">
		<fieldset>
			<?php $html->hidden('action', PageAdmin::ACTION_SAVE) ?>
			<?php $html->hidden('id', $result->slot->id) ?>
		</fieldset>
		<fieldset class="editor">
			<?php $html->hidden('article_id', $result->slot->Article->id) ?>
			<?php $html->textarea('content', $result->slot->Article->content, 80, 20) ?>
		</fieldset>
    <fieldset class="buttons">
      <?php $html->button(ctxt($result->slot->id, 'Save changes', 'Save'), array('img' => '/baseweb/private/img/icons/10.png')) ?>
      <?php $html->button(txt('Cancel'), array('img' => '/baseweb/private/img/icons/2.png', 'class' => 'close-action', 'style' => 'display: none;')) ?>
<?php $script =<<<EOT
<script type="text/javascript">
  jQuery('.close-action').css({'display' : 'block'}).click(function(ev) {
    ev.preventDefault();
    var form = jQuery(this).parent().parent();
    form.find('input[name="action"]').attr('value', 'close');
    form.submit();
  });
</script>
EOT;
$html->addToFooter($script);
?>
      <?php $html->button(txt('Delete'), array(
            'img' => '/baseweb/private/img/icons/86.png',
            'class' => 'delete-action',
            'style' => 'display: none;',
            'disabled' => $result->slot->id ? '' : 'disabled'
      )) ?>
<?php
$title = txt('Delete slot?');
$text = txt('Really delete this slot? This action cannot be undone.');
$ok = txt('Ok');
$cancel = txt('Cancel');
$script =<<<EOT
<script type="text/javascript">
  jQuery('.delete-action').show().Confirm(function(confirmed, el) {
    if (confirmed) {
      var form = jQuery(el).parent().parent();
      form.find('input[name="action"]').attr('value', 'delete');
      form.submit();
    }
  }, {
    'title' : '$title',
    'text' : '$text',
    'ok' : '$ok',
    'cancel' : '$cancel'
  });
</script>
EOT;
$html->addToFooter($script);
?>
    </fieldset>
		<!--
		<fieldset class="buttons">
			<?php $html->button(ctxt($result->slot->id, 'Save changes', 'Save'), array('img' => '/baseweb/private/img/icons/10.png')) ?>
		</fieldset>
		-->
	</form>
</div>
<?php endif ?>


text:
UK lists 'cryptoassets' under Investment Manager Exemption signaling ripple effect for funds
The United Kingdom has passed a new rule to include "designated cryptoassets" in the list of investment transactions, qualifying them for Investment Manager Exemption.
According to the text, the rule will apply to transactions entered within the 2022/2023 tax year and will come into effect on January 1. Furthermore, the latest regulation will affect all transactions within the accounting periods after December 19, according to the memo published by His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC).
The regulation fails to include a proper definition of "designated cryptoassets," but the Investment Transactions (Tax) Regulations, it can be inferred that Parliament views them as a class of investment transactions. The implication of applying this definition in providing digital asset services while tokens are in possession of non-U.K. residents means the rule will not apply.
Including digital currencies under the Investment Manager Exemption is considered a massive win for overseas investors looking to invest in the U.K. The exemption allows foreign investors to appoint managers without facing stringent U.K. tax implications.
"This will provide certainty of tax treatment to U.K. investment managers and their non-U.K. resident investors who are seeking to include cryptoassets within their portfolios, and we anticipate that this will also encourage new cryptoasset investment management businesses to base themselves in the U.K.," said HMRC.
"One of the reasons for the U.K. attracting non-resident investors (including hedge funds) is their ability to appoint UK-based investment managers without creating a risk of U.K. taxation for themselves," reads a government directory.
Other sweeping changes in the UK
U.K. regulators are introducing a series of new rules to govern the local digital asset industry in the country. Top of the list is an amendment to the Financial Service and Markets Bill that seeks to bring the sector under the purview of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
Another key area that regulators are trying to control is the promotion of digital assets, with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the FCA making significant strides. The FCA has previously stated that it is looking to drastically reduce the number of individuals keen on investing in high-risk financial products that do not reflect their risk appetite.
Flowing from this, the ASA has flagged down the advertisements from several digital asset firms for failing to disclose the associated risks to consumers. Last week, the ASA ruled that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) fall under the ambit of financial investments, and advertisements relating to them must provide full disclosures.
Watch: The BSV Global Blockchain Convention panel, Law & Order: Regulatory Compliance for Blockchain & Digital Assets
President elect Lula da Silva's foreign policy strategy — MercoPress
Mailchain's Web3 Email Adds Support for Unstoppable Domains
Reporter hails work of Julian Assange, WikiLeaks in new book | WikiLeaks News
"I did my best," says Bolsonaro before flying to the US — MercoPress


text:
Home | University hubs | University of Glasgow | Reviews students | Cons
What are the worst things about studying at your university?
"There can be a half-mile walk between some lectures."
"I can't specialise earlier than in my third year and there are no designated parking spaces as the uni thinks every student is from a student hall nearby. Some commute from 30 miles away and more, costing a fortune on public transport."
"The library can be very busy at peak times and it can be difficult to find a work space. Also, the cafeteria is very busy with long waiting times in queues for food or seats."
"The university sports complex (Garscube) is located very far away from campus and sports clubs need to do bus shuttles for training sessions. The food prices in the Fraser Building are very expensive."
"The basic rate halls are more expensive than at other Scottish unis and there is a lack of group study space. The library gets very busy in term time, especially near the ending weeks of the semester. The lectures are huge in some subjects and some tutorials have large numbers of students, which isn't always great in terms of asking questions and receiving help when needed."
"The weather isn't always that great and you will eventually begin to miss the sunshine."
"The weather can be miserable and my campus is far from the city. Travel between campuses is annoying and has no support."
"The university's mental health scheme leaves much to be desired and is not nearly large or efficient enough for the scale of the university."
"Staff are not always as supportive as they could be and have previously dismissed concerns about workload and course content. Also, facilities for lectures, tutorials and especially lab facilities are not always sufficient."
"The weather here is often quite miserable."
"None of the student accommodation is very close to uni so, no matter which halls you choose, you will end up having to walk quite a way. If you end up not living in halls in first year, you can find it difficult to meet people."
"Glasgow is so big that you can feel disconnected."
"Forget about using the library for engineering-based subjects. All the good books you'll need are only available to take out for 24 hours at a time. There are limited copies of books for longer lending and the library and other facilities do not have 24 hour access."
"Whenever something is being replaced or refurbished, it tends to take longer than promised. Also, student accommodation is privately-owned and can be extortionately priced."
"I feel the university sometimes doesn't help students as much as it could and that it approaches studies archaically. Also, they could do more to keep up with the modern job market as studies seem primarily aimed towards further academia rather than actually getting a job."
"The parking situation is dire. However, the university is served very well by various modes of public transport."
"The laboratory facilities are not very extensive."
"As with many universities, there is a strong bias towards the theoretical in teaching. Even for a practical course, too much energy is devoted to theory."