If you're not an SEO geek, this one might have slipped right by you, but Google recently dropped a bombshell on the industry by eliminating the reporting of organic search keyword data for website analytics reporting. In the past, users of the popular Google Analytics tool were able to see how searchers were finding their website content, and thus form strategies to amplify results by building keyword strategies into their website/ inbound marketing efforts. In short, this is due to the fact that Google is now encrypting users search queries when a user is logged in to a Google account (and apparently at times when they are not).
Well folks, the good times are over, and marketers have begun to see their organic search results reporting as keyword "not provided", and the numbers are creeping up towards the 100% mark. This means you'll no longer know what specific terms users searched to eventually land on your site. But like most things in life, when you're handed lemons find a way to make lemonade!
While this lack of data certainly brings some unwanted mystery and adds unanswered questions to your reports, keep in mind that keyword data and search results are merely information related to past events. And since we can't change the past, it's a great opportunity to focus on the future! For the brave and courageous marketers out there, it lends an opportunity to refocus efforts around marketing to people's persona's, not just their search habits. In other words, create great content that matters and people will help other people find it. In fact, the only secret to having your content become highly shareable by others is for it to be engaging, entertaining, intelligent and timely. Creating killer content really does work, as long as it's something people care about. And if those people that care typify your ideal user / buyer than you're one step ahead.
The end of compromise is coming.
Optimizing search for known key phrases has caused some marketers to reach for the low hanging fruit of off-topic key phrases in the hopes of magnetizing some traffic to their website. While it might boost the numbers, it doesn't add up to future qualified customers (necessarily), and could dilute your brand messaging. Building an authentic brand is about just that, being authentic to your audience and speaking directly to them about things that matter in their world, and speaking in your own brand voice. Have you ever come across a blog post that you know has been written by a brand outsider? Sometimes you can just tell, and regardless of the content, it can feel a bit hollow.
Get creative in your search for search.
Understanding trends in search behavior for topics like pop culture, business matters, social buzz and so on will give you a clue as to what people are talking about today and likely into the future. The Google Trends site is a great resource for insights on topics relevant to your business. Here is some research (for example) on the trend in search results for 'inbound marketing' and 'print advertising'.
While this doesn't give you insight on specific long tail keywords, it can sure give you some valuable information about trending topics relevant to you and your audience.
Rely on your Inbound Marketing team to dig deeper.
There are some other options for extracting keyword insights from your website including Google Webmaster tools and platforms like Hubspot that your inbound marketing team can rely on to help manage your content marketing strategy. Collaborating with industry experts is often the shortest path to success with the highest yield in results.
If there's one thing we know for sure, it's that the landscape of keyword research and reporting is drastically changing, but it's changing for everyone. The playing field is still as level as it ever was, it's up to savvy talented marketers and great brands to pull it all together to generate exceptional results.


Our Sweet Potato Casserole is our most popular dish at Thanksgiving! Creamy, cinnamony and oh so sweet and topped with plenty of crunchy crumbs, it's like having dessert with your dinner. Once you have it, you'll never want to do without it again!
I love sweet potatoes but I have a family that really doesn't care for this delicious & healthy tuber. But what's Thanksgiving without a sweet potato casserole? I know, right?!
So a number of years ago, we won't get into how many that is, I set about to make a recipe that would get everyone in my family excited about eating sweet potatoes. It took a few tries but I finally landed on just the right combination of sweetness and spice, and of course crumbs, that made my family crazy about sweet potatoes.
I have to warn you that this sweet potato casserole is addictive! It tastes like you are enjoying dessert for dinner, a la sweet potato pie. It has creamy mashed sweet potatoes, combined with butter, cinnamon and sugar then it's loaded with a sugar-pecan crumb mixture that is out of this world.
One of the nice things I love about this casserole, is the ability to make it ahead of time and freeze it until the day before Thanksgiving. Let it thaw overnight in the refrigerator then cook as directed. No need to worry about last minute prep with this side dish. And it can be cooked right beside your turkey! Just another easy way to take the stress out of the holidays.
Want a worry & stress-free Thanksgiving? Check out our Thanksgiving Day Planner for a minute by minute schedule for getting dinner to the table on time. And you'll find all the recipes you need in our Thanksgiving recipe series too!
Hope you enjoy & have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Our Sweet Potato Casserole is our most popular dish at Thanksgiving! Creamy, cinnamony and oh so sweet and topped with plenty of crunchy crumbs, it's like having dessert with your dinner.
Coat a 2-1/2-quart casserole or 11" x 7" x 2" baking dish with nonstick cooking spray or butter.
In a large bowl, combine the potatoes, sugar, milk, eggs, salt, vanilla, nutmeg, cinnamon and 1/2 cup melted butter. Stir well.
In a small bowl, combine the remaining ½ cup butter, pecans, brown sugar and flour. Crumble over potatoes.
Bake 50 minutes or until casserole is heated through. Serve hot.
To make this recipe Gluten-free/GMO friendly substitute almond milk for regular milk, coconut sugar or Turbinado for the white sugar and make your own self-rising gluten-free flour. To make flour combine 1 cup gluten-free flour with 1-1/2 teaspoons baking powder and 1/4 teaspoon salt. You can make this ahead of time and stored in an airtight container for as long as the gluten-free flour would last on its own.
This looks so good! Do you think you need any sugar in the mashed potatoes? Could you only use sugar in the topping?
The sugar sweetens the potatoes similar to a sweet potato pie. You could try reducing the sugar to 1/4 cup in the casserole itself since the topping is quite sweet. I have never tried it since everyone loves it just the way it is and just to get them to eat sweet potatoes with me is a plus. Let me know if you try it with less sugar as I'd be interested in the results.


Before and after Plastic Surgery Pictures of 38 years old Caucasian woman who after several pregnancies had developed hanging abdominal skin folds with stretch marks and weakness of the abdominal wall and bulging. Patient underwent tummy tuck/ High Tension Abdominoplasty which includes liposuction, tightening of the abdominal wall, and pulling up of the hips and upper thighs. Procedure was performed by Dr. Sean Younai who is a Board Certified Plastic & Cosmetic Surgeon offering services of body contouring for women, including liposuction, liposculpture, Large-volume-liposuction, tummy tuck, High Tension Abdominoplasty, body lift, male breast reduction, and thigh lift. Dr. Younai receives patients from Northern and Southern California including cities of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Burbank, Sherman Oaks, Calabasas, Woodland Hills, Thousand Oaks, Westlake Village, Pasadena, Glendale, Valencia, Palmdale, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Oxnard.
Dr. Sean Younai, who is a Board Certified Plastic Surgeon, reviewed her options for a combination of tummy tuck with breast lift and augmentation, as it is referred to as mommy makeover in Los Angeles. She reviewed many mommy makeover before and after photos and learned about the types of abdominoplasty including the high tension.
She did very well with her abdominoplasty and mastopexy surgery and said that her recovery took about two weeks. She is now very happy about her new body and the fact that she looks very proportionate and shapely.


t all starts so subtly. Little glimmers you spot every now and again. Perhaps you ditch the scarf for a day or two or you..
or those days when we fancy a change of scenery, we're rather spoilt here in Portsmouth. Direct trains to London, Brighton and Bristol to name..


Short Product Description: Handcrafted silky soap with Strawberry Yuzu fragrance. $4.25/bar.
A silky-smooth soap made to honor the cadets at and alumni from the United States Military Academy (my alma mater), this soap is has silk proteins, a slight glitter and is fragranced with Strawberry and Yuzu for a fresh sweet scent. The lather is silky soft. A great gift for any USMA cadet, graduate or Pittsburgh Steelers fan. $4.25/bar plus shipping.


text:
Emory College Republicans Secede from Georgia Association
Posted by Michelle Lou | Jun 19, 2017 | News
The Emory College Republicans is one of two chapters that seceded from the Georgia Association of College Republicans (GACR) due to a lack of "proper support," according to a June 8 letter to the state organization.
The letter, written by former College Republicans Presidents of Emory and Georgia State University (GSU), Christian Zimm (17C) and Akmal Rajab, respectively, cited GACR's decision against redacting an "anti-Trump statement" as one of the reasons for secession, which could cause the Georgia Republican Party to cut ties with the GACR. The statement said that all chapters were not mandated to support President Donald J. Trump. The letter also alleged that the University of Georgia (UGA) had an unfair number of votes in the general assembly due to a falsified membership audit, which allowed UGA to "dictate the outcome of any vote." The GSU chapter also seceded.
Zimm said Emory's executive board voted to secede last semester. They announced the secession at the April 2017 GACR convention and walked out.
"[The GACR] leadership is very corrupt … and they don't give us any support," Zimm said. "We're on one of the most liberal campuses in the entire state, and we deal with certain things that other [chapters] don't. We no longer see any point of being part of the organization."
GACR Chairman Wesley Ross disputed the letter's claim that UGA College Republicans had an unfair number of votes at the convention and told the Wheel that GACR followed its constitution.
"We reached out to CRNC [College Republican National Committee], CRNC did an audit and the … national organization gave us the thumbs up that we did everything correctly," Ross said. The Wheel could not verify the audit independently, as CRNC did not respond to multiple requests for information.
Ross said Emory's and GSU's departure will not have a large impact on GACR.
"We hate to lose them, but if you look at our campaign total hours for the 2016-2017 cycle, we had almost 1,000 campaign hours and Georgia State and Emory combined had 44 hours … so we still have 95 percent of the battlefront going out there," Ross said.
Ross said that the Emory College Republicans will no longer receive funding, discounted ticket prices to conventions or an annual box from the CNCR that contains cups, ping-pong balls and other materials.
But moving forward, Zimm said, the secession will not affect the usual operations of the Emory club.
"Pretty much everything [will be] the same," Zimm said, adding that the club's name would remain the same.
Ross said he will continue to reach out to the chapters' leadership to reconcile differences. GACR will consider starting new College Republicans chapters on the two campuses if reconciliation fails.
Excluding Emory and GSU, GACR has 14 chapters in the state of Georgia, according to its website.
Zimm also told the Wheel that the Emory Alumni Association recently approved alumni affinity group Emory Conservatarians, which he co-founded with Jeff Strode Sr. (78B). The group is not affiliated with any national organization.
Emory College Republicans President Julia Skyhar (18C) did not respond to request for comment. Zimm said that he is overseeing the club while she is abroad for the summer.
PreviousElliott Seeks to Develop Liberal Arts, Boost Research
NextUnited Attack, Conquer Columbus Crew
Michelle Lou
Michelle Lou (19C) is from Irvine, Calif., majoring in political science and minoring in East Asian studies. She previously served as copy chief, news editor and executive editor. She won first place in the 2017 Georgia College Press Association's Better Newspaper Contest in the category Best News Article Based on Investigative Reporting for her coverage of the Spring 2017 student government elections. Outside the Wheel, she is an undergraduate research fellow at Emory's Center for Law and Social Science; a member of Phi Eta Sigma, Omicron Delta Kappa and Pi Sigma Alpha; and an avid snorkler. She has interned at USA TODAY's copy desk and HuffPost's breaking news team.
Branch Draws Connections Between Civil Rights Activists' Work
Crime Report 11/8/13
VP of Finance Expresses Concerns About Overspending
New Social Justice Week Explores Racism, Assault
Tweets by emorywheel

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


On the September 12th, 2016 edition of AMP Raw Reaction the team of AngryTensai and Big Vic discuss the fourth Raw since SummerSlam 2016 and the road to Clash of the Champions! Monday nights nights the show streams live on our homepage when it starts, so if you don't hear it click on the podcast tab. Don't miss AMP Raw Reaction courtesy of The AngryMarks Podcast Network!


For the text of the speech, please click here.
France is a prime destination for foreign direct investments. It hosts over 20,000 foreign companies on its soil, representing almost two million jobs and a third of our exports. In ten years, France has attracted more than 6,000 foreign investments.
Thanks to its industry expertise and exhaustive knowledge of local markets, the IFA made easier the establishment of almost 50% of these projects in 2010.
At foreign investors' request, the IFA identifies potential sites best-suited to their future business in France, introduce them to local authorities, government representatives and elected officials, including the head of regional regions and départements. Eventually, the IFA experts will help foreign-source business to integrate itself into the fabric of the local community and economy, by setting up contact with potential partners, self-contractors and suppliers (source: IFA).


text:
Proleskiomima is a genus of parasitic flies in the family Tachinidae. There is one described species in Proleskiomima, P. frontalis.

References

Further reading

Tachinidae
Monotypic Brachycera genera
Articles created by Qbugbot

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
namespace policy {

PolicyBundle::PolicyBundle() {}

PolicyBundle::~PolicyBundle() {
  Clear();
}

PolicyMap& PolicyBundle::Get(const PolicyNamespace& ns) {
  DCHECK(ns.domain != POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME || ns.component_id.empty());
  return policy_bundle_[ns];
}

const PolicyMap& PolicyBundle::Get(const PolicyNamespace& ns) const {
  DCHECK(ns.domain != POLICY_DOMAIN_CHROME || ns.component_id.empty());
  const auto it = policy_bundle_.find(ns);
  return it == end() ? kEmpty_ : it->second;
}

void PolicyBundle::Swap(PolicyBundle* other) {
  policy_bundle_.swap(other->policy_bundle_);
}

void PolicyBundle::CopyFrom(const PolicyBundle& other) {
  DCHECK_NE(this, &other);

  Clear();
  for (const auto& entry_other : other) {
    policy_bundle_[entry_other.first] = entry_other.second.Clone();
  }
}

void PolicyBundle::MergeFrom(const PolicyBundle& other) {
  DCHECK_NE(this, &other);

  // Iterate over both |this| and |other| in order; skip what's extra in |this|,
  // add what's missing, and merge the namespaces in common.
  auto it_this = policy_bundle_.begin();
  auto end_this = policy_bundle_.end();
  auto it_other = other.begin();
  auto end_other = other.end();

  while (it_this != end_this && it_other != end_other) {
    if (it_this->first == it_other->first) {
      // Same namespace: merge existing PolicyMaps.
      it_this->second.MergeFrom(it_other->second);
      ++it_this;
      ++it_other;
    } else if (it_this->first < it_other->first) {
      // |this| has a PolicyMap that |other| doesn't; skip it.
      ++it_this;
    } else if (it_other->first < it_this->first) {
      // |other| has a PolicyMap that |this| doesn't; copy it.
      policy_bundle_[it_other->first] = it_other->second.Clone();
      ++it_other;
    } else {
      NOTREACHED();
    }
  }

  // Add extra PolicyMaps at the end.
  while (it_other != end_other) {
    policy_bundle_[it_other->first] = it_other->second.Clone();
    ++it_other;
  }
}

bool PolicyBundle::Equals(const PolicyBundle& other) const {
  // Equals() has the peculiarity that an entry with an empty PolicyMap equals
  // an non-existent entry. This handles usage of non-const Get() that doesn't
  // insert any policies.
  auto it_this = begin();
  auto it_other = other.begin();

  while (true) {
    // Skip empty PolicyMaps.
    while (it_this != end() && it_this->second.empty())
      ++it_this;
    while (it_other != other.end() && it_other->second.empty())
      ++it_other;
    if (it_this == end() || it_other == other.end())
      break;
    if (it_this->first != it_other->first ||
        !it_this->second.Equals(it_other->second)) {
      return false;
    }
    ++it_this;
    ++it_other;
  }
  return it_this == end() && it_other == other.end();
}

void PolicyBundle::Clear() {
  policy_bundle_.clear();
}

}  // namespace policy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


What is the S&P500 - Join the SharpTrader Academy and find out.
S&P 500 (Standard & Poor's 500) Sometimes simply the S&P, this is a stock market index of the 500 largest companies traded (based on market capitalization) on the New York Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ. Originally created in 1923 by the company founded by H.V.Poor in 1869.
Stock indices move in ticks. A tick is defined as the smallest price movement of an instrument, in other words the minimum increment in which the price can change.
Each index will have its own way of moving.
The S&P and NASDAQ have tick moves of 0.25, the three European indices have tick moves of 0.50 and the Dow Jones moves in increments of 1.00.
So if the S&P500 increases from 1650.00 to 1651.00 this is an upward move of one point. This one point was made up of four ticks as the S&P moves in 0.25 tick moves.
We sometimes say the Dow Jones moves in ticks but it can also be called a point. They are the same thing in this case. The Dow Jones futures only move in points as the figure is so large.
Each index has its own currency. Obviously the American indices use the US Dollar, the FTSE uses the British Pound, the European indices use the Euro and the Nikkei uses the Yen.
So every time the Dow moves one tick (or one point) we will gain or lose a US dollar. If we have a Euro trading account our profit or loss will automatically be calculated at the current EUR/USD exchange rate.
So every time the FTSE moves 0.50 we will gain or lose £2.50 as we bought 5 indexes. So say the FTSE moved from 6,400.00 to 6,300.00 we would make £500.
Of course if we have a Euro or US Dollar platform our profit is converted at the current exchange rates and that is what we would see in our account.
So in this case every time the Nikkei moves a tick (5.00) we will gain or lose ¥ 1,000. Of course this ¥ 1,000 will be automatically converted to the Euro, US Dollar or British Pound exchange rates.
Some indices will have a minimum trade size based on their value. For example the Nikkei has a minimum trade size of 100 indexes as the value of the Nikkei is measured in Yen and if we were to buy just 1 index it would be too small a trade. For the other indices we mentioned the minimum trade size is just 1 index.


Rokkī shimpō = Rocky shimpo . Denver, Colo., February 2. (Denver, CO), Feb. 2 1945. https://0-www.loc.gov.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/item/sn83025517/1945-02-02/ed-1/.
(1945, February 2) Rokkī shimpō = Rocky shimpo . Denver, Colo., February 2. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://0-www.loc.gov.oasys.lib.oxy.edu/item/sn83025517/1945-02-02/ed-1/.
Rokkī shimpō = Rocky shimpo . Denver, Colo., February 2. (Denver, CO) 2 Feb. 1945. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/sn83025517/1945-02-02/ed-1/.


Bianca. looking for gentlemen only, boys and novices need not apply. you must know how to treat a lady in public and i will teach you how to treat me in private.
Camila. i'm a perfect companion in every way and guarantee you will be most impressed with the genuine accuracy of my profile when we first meet.


The most common and traditionally used in metal plating for a filler material contained in the manufacturing of a good metal coins. Electroplating, gluing or welding principle additionally, the method it uses, this particular process should not be confused, they are really contrasting. Metal cladding, are more durable, heavier than plating. In most cases, composite wall cladding there are three types: composite metal cladding, profiled and tape.


The warmest day over the next 7 days in Lapland is forecast to be 26th April at 61°F (16°C) and the warmest night on 26th April at 37°F (3°C). The average temperature over the next 7 days is forecast to be 55°F (13°C) . The average for April is 36°F (2°C) in Lapland.
The warmest day over the next 14 days in Lapland is forecast to be 26th April at 61°F (16°C) and the warmest night on 26th April at 37°F (3°C). The average temperature over the next 14 days is forecast to be 52°F (11°C) . The average for April is 36°F (2°C) in Lapland.
The warmest day over the next 25 days in Lapland is forecast to be 26th April at 61°F (16°C) and the warmest night on 16th May at 41°F (5°C). The average temperature over the next 25 days is forecast to be 52°F (11°C) . The average for April is 36°F (2°C) in Lapland.
Make a leap for Lapland � there�s still time!


text:
Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Sneak Peek "Into The Deep"
Pretty Little Liars 4×09 "Into The Deep" – Ashley gets some major news about her case — but there is a catch. What is it? Find out in next weeks PLL! Subscribe to televisionpromosdb on YouTube for more Pretty Little Liars season 4 promos in HD! Official website: http://abcfamily.go.com/shows/pretty-little-liars/ Official Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/prettylittleliars/ Official Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/ABCFpll/ Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Sneak Peek "Into The Deep" Pretty Little Liars Season 4 Episode 9 Sneak Peek Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Sneak Peek "Into The Deep" (HD) Pretty Little Liars 4×09, Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Sneak Peek, Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Preview, Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Trailer, televisionpromosdb, Pretty Little Liars S04E09 Sneak Peek, Pretty Little Liars, Season 4, Episode 09, televisionpromosdb, ABC Family, Into The Deep, Sneak Peek, Preview
Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Canadian Promo "Into The Deep" (HD)
Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Sneak Peek #3 "Into The Deep" (HD)
Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Promo "Into The Deep" (HD)
Home » Pretty Little Liars 4×09 Sneak Peek "Into The Deep" (HD)


The fibroblast growth factor (FGF) family of small peptide signalling molecules have numerous important roles in the development of the vertebrate embryo, including the induction and patterning of the three primary germ layers.  FGFs are also required for the homeostasis of the adult organism and their mis-regulation is involved in a number of human disease conditions, including skeletal abnormalities and cancer.  We use Xenopus frogs to investigate FGF function.  A major focus of the lab has been to identify the transcriptional effectors of the FGF pathway involved in mediating the biological effects of FGFs during animal development.
In a large scale transcriptomic screen we identified the Lin28 gene, which codes for an RNA binding protein, as a putative target of the FGF signalling pathway.  Recently there has been considerable interest in Lin28 as a regulator of the pluripotent state of embryonic stem cells.  We are currently investigating the role of Lin28 family genes in early development using the advantages of amphibian embryos for rapid knock-down and over-expression of gene products.
Lin28 proteins have been shown to regulate the biogenesis of a subset of regulatory miRNAs.  We are currently investigating the role of Lin28 and FGF signalling in the regulation of miRNA populations during early animal development.  In addition, we have ongoing collaborations with the Coles and Genever Labs at the University of York aimed and determining whether FGF/Lin28 regulatory pathways are conserved in human pluripotent stem cells in culture.
We also have a long term interest in the role of the Cdx and Gsx homeodomain transcription factors in patterning the developing vertebrate nervous system.


text:
News Sports Living Neighbors Opinion Obituaries eNewspaper Legals
Food plant hopes to continue growth in Vineland
ANTHONY V. COPPOLA
@AVCOPPOLA
VINELAND - Wednesday provided cause for celebration not just for AdvancePierre Foods, which cut the ribbon on its new 75,000-square-foot facility, but also for the economic climate in Vineland.
APF, a subsidiary of Tyson Foods, is looking to hire workers in several fields and expects to grow. The Vineland location produces mainly raw and fully cooked Philly steaks.
In October 2016, APF completed its acquisition of Allied Specialty Foods, and in March finished construction on its $24.5 million home at 1585 W. Forest Grove Rd.
More:Vineland water rates could be on the rise
More:Vineland physician donates $1 million to Inspira
More:Vineland Fourth of July fireworks celebration set
Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, who is running for governor this fall, was on hand and applauded Allied's decision to stay in state when a move to Pennsylvania was on the table. She congratulated the APF team and wished them much success taking over in Vineland.
According to APF Chief Operation Officer George Chappelle, the partnership with Vineland will be a lasting one.
"We expect this business to grow, we expect this plant to grow and we expect this to be a very long, long relationship with the city of Vineland," Chappelle said.
APF retained 70 full-time employees from Allied, and now has a workforce of 266 people at the Vineland plant. APF is currently looking to fill about 60 positions.
"From every level of employment, from professional down to unskilled labor, so a wide array of positions are available," Chris Rogers, director of Mergers and Acquisitions for APF, said.
That's key for Vineland, which is losing a key food manufacturer and job producer in Progresso this summer. Progresso began laying off its 270 Vineland employees in March while moving operations there to a plant in Missouri.
City officials have vowed to be persistent in finding a Progresso replacement. They did not want to suffer a similar fate with another big food manufacturer leaving town.
"This was a joint effort between the state, the county and city, working together for achieving the goal of not just economic development, but economic retention," Vineland Mayor Anthony Fanucci told The Daily Journal.
Fanucci was confident more businesses — like Allied and now APF — would choose Vineland to set up shop.
"This is just one of many that you'll start to see now unfold this year, next year and the year to come," Fanucci said. "We've taken a very aggressive approach economically when it comes to development, in marketing to companies and letting them know what type of assets we really have to offer."
Fanucci said the arrival of APF would have a ripple effect not just in Vineland, but throughout Cumberland County.
"We have several other businesses that we're looking forward to having positive announcements on this year, and more to come," Fanucci said. "Vineland is aggressively moving forward and we're going to continue to do that. We want to lead the county, and we want the county to be right there with us."
Anthony V. Coppola; (856) 563-5258; acoppola@gannettnj.com
Contact Us Support Local Businesses Advertise Your Business Advertising Terms and Conditions Buy and Sell Help Center Subscriber Guide My Account Give Feedback Licensing & Reprints
© 2023 www.thedailyjournal.com. All rights reserved.


BRIAN HOLMES and 'THE FREAK SHOW' adds WYGR BROADCASTING Urban WYGR-A&F (THE PULSE OF THE CITY)/GRAND RAPIDS effective OCTOBER 3rd.
HOLMES told ALL ACCESS, "HOLMES & THE FREAK SHOW dominated nights for an entire decade in GRAND RAPIDS, so I couldn't be happier than to be back on the air there. WYGR General Manager ROBERT S. WOMACK has been the definition of Urban radio in that market, it's an honor to team up with the legacy he has built there and to help put GR 94.9 on the map. We will support local WEST MICHIGAN Hip-Hop & R&B artists and I look forward to introducing the market to my new FREAK SHOW co-hosts SHADY & HASABELLY. We will be doing the show from our home base at MID-WEST FAMILY BROADCASTING's Rhythmic WJQM (93.1 JAMZ)/MADISON, WI. I'd like to personally thank my Program Director DAVE MAZUR for allowing us the opportunity to still do a little something for GRAND RAPIDS as well."
GM ROBERT S. WOMACK said, "We did it. This marks a whole new era in radio in GRAND RAPIDS. We have three generals in the house now at WYGR; TOM JOYNER, ROBERT S & HOLMES. BRIAN brings the fun and the top music of today's youth and local talent. He brings more than just a show. HOLMES will help get us up to date in more ways than one."
HOLMES is currently the APD/MD/nights at WJQM/MADISON. He was the APD/nights at WSNX/GRAND RAPIDS, MI from 2005-2014.


This CO2 regulator regulator features hand-adjustable pressure that doesn't require any tools, as well as a built-in tank gasket so that you won't have to change the tank without one. The 30 PSI low pressure gauge offers a more precise range for dispensing beer at home when compared to the standard 60 PSI gauge, and the built-in pressure relief valve blows off at 40 PSI for added safety. With its chrome-plated brass construction, this Fermentap Dual Gauge CO2 Regulator will offer years of rust-free, reliable use.
I really don't like the knob on this regulator. This is the first and only regulator I've purchased as I am new to kegging. The knob is hard to turn at times and just generally difficult to get right. As others have said, it can be quirky at higher pressures and I find myself burping the relief valve to double check the pressure every time I check on it as it has gotten stuck many times.
I have three different regulators. This one is the most convenient to use because it has a knob that can be adjusted by hand (my other regulators require a screw driver). Fine adjustments are hit or miss. Eventually I can get it dialed in, but it rarely happens on the first try. It tends to drift a little before settling into a steady pressure.


On May 8, sophomores entered the library anxious for their interviews. The students had already filled out an application and now had to answer questions on their leadership skills.
Ingalls is a graduating member of Leadership High School, a club used to teach juniors how to develop and use their leadership skills in the community.
The sophomores of the 2017-2018 year were able to apply recently, and are now waiting for the results.
"The results should be out either next week or the following week, [which is] the week of May 20 and those will be mailed to the students from the Chamber of Commerce," the club's school advisor Jamie Williams said. Her main role as the advisor is to supervise during events and help with planning at the monthly meetings.


The City of Rio Vista is the "Gateway to the Delta". Located just 45 miles NE of San Francisco, 35 miles SW of Sacramento, and about halfway between the cities of Fairfield and Lodi on SR-12 Rio Vista is accessible via water, land or air.
The present location of Rio Vista is several miles south of the original settlement. Colonel Nathan H. Davis founded "Brazos del Rio" near the entrance of Cache Slough at the Sacramento River, on the Rancho Los Ulpinos Mexican land grant, in 1858. The settlement was renamed "Rio Vista" before a flood in 1862 that resulted in the town moving to its present location on higher ground. The city's name combines the Spanish words for "river" and "view." Post authorities established office in 1858. The community was officially incorporated as Rio Vista on December 30, 1893. The newspaper of record there is the River News-Herald and Isleton Journal, established in 1890.
Our largest landmark, the Rio Vista Bridge, is one of many drawbridges designed by Joseph Strauss, architect of the Golden Gate Bridge. Situated on the historic Sacramento River with a silhouette of the rolling Montezuma Hills to the south, Rio Vista and the surrounding Delta maintains a relaxed vacation-like atmosphere for everyone!
Rio Vista's history lesson: (La Vista del Rio) meaning "River View" became adopted around 1859. Rio Vista soon became a prosperous town providing services and agricultural supplies to travelers on one of the many Sacramento River steamships running between Sacramento and San Francisco. Despite that Gold Rush fever was waning around the 1860's; miners, machinery and necessities still filled northbound steamships towards Sacramento. Although no gold was discovered in Rio Vista, the town provided one of the largest supplies of fresh fish and canned salmon to San Francisco and beyond.
Today, Rio Vista still maintains an easy going "small town" attitude even though it is central to the two largest population centers in Northern California. Our local merchants, restaurants, and community organizations provide something for everyone. Our recreation opportunities include windsurfing, water-skiing, jet skiing, sail boating, casual yacht cruising, or hanging out at the marina. Of course, fishing is always the top leisure time activity. Rio Vista is known to have some of the best sport fishing in the state and is the host for the West Coast's oldest Striped Bass Derby each October.
The Rio Vista Airport located just on the outskirts of town makes flying in for a day of business, lunch or just to explore the area an easily accessible destination.
If you're looking for a great place to get away from city living, you'll find Rio Vista a great the perfect choice. Open space abounds in the area surrounding the city with fields of wheat, corn, safflower, vineyards, pears, and cherries. Goat, cattle and sheep share ranch land with wind turbines that provide Green Energy to businesses and residents in Northern California. Rio Vista is also home to home to "World Class" Percheron horses, buffalo and the only Endive producer in the United States.
Whatever your looking for you will find Rio Vista a friendly, fun place to visit, right in the heart of the California Delta!


text:
Q: Writing Python script tool for Data Driven Pages? I'm very new to writing my own scripts.
What I am trying to accomplish is exporting JPEGs with a world file that follow data driven pages.  I would like to automate this process as much as possible, creating a tool for it.
The following script I was able to get to work if I am in the mxd file and create a folder previously that I add to the script (this test run I used C:\Data\test\PIC), then run it .  Here it is:
    import arcpy
mxd = arcpy.mapping.MapDocument("CURRENT")
df = arcpy.mapping.ListDataFrames(mxd)[0]
for pageNum in range(1, mxd.dataDrivenPages.pageCount + 1):
...     mxd.dataDrivenPages.currentPageID = pageNum
...     print "Exporting page {0} of {1}".format(str(mxd.dataDrivenPages.currentPageID), str(mxd.dataDrivenPages.pageCount))
...     arcpy.mapping.ExportToJPEG(mxd, r"C:\Data\test\PIC" + str(pageNum) + ".jpeg",df,df_export_width=1600,df_export_height=1200,world_file=True)
del mxd
del df

Now I'd like to take it a step further, creating a tool.  Something with parameters that allow me to pick the folder, the file name,, the width, height, etc.  So I did a test with an input for folder and file name.  It didn't work, all it did was open up the script in Notepad when it was complete.
What am I doing wrong?
Am I going about this in the right way at least?
The parameters I added were Folder for 0 and String for 1.  Here's the new script I tried when I made it into a tool:
import arcpy

mxd = arcpy.mapping.MapDocument("CURRENT")
df = arcpy.mapping.ListDataFrames(mxd)[0]

in_folder = arcpy.GetParameterAsText(0)
file_name = arcpy.GetParameterAsText(1)

for pageNum in range(1, mxd.dataDrivenPages.pageCount + 1):
...     mxd.dataDrivenPages.currentPageID = pageNum
...     print "Exporting page {0} of {1}".format(str(mxd.dataDrivenPages.currentPageID), str(mxd.dataDrivenPages.pageCount))
...     arcpy.mapping.ExportToJPEG(mxd, in_folder + file_name + str(pageNum) + ".jpeg",df,df_export_width=1600,df_export_height=1200,world_file=True)
del mxd
del df

A: You need to change

in_folder + file_name

to

in_folder + "\\" + file_name

In your ExportToJPEG
I got your code to work just fine after I made it into a tool.

Also remove the ... from your code, here's what worked for the tool.
import arcpy

mxd = arcpy.mapping.MapDocument("CURRENT")
df = arcpy.mapping.ListDataFrames(mxd)[0]

in_folder = arcpy.GetParameterAsText(0)
file_name = arcpy.GetParameterAsText(1)

for pageNum in range(1, mxd.dataDrivenPages.pageCount + 1):
    mxd.dataDrivenPages.currentPageID = pageNum
    arcpy.AddMessage( "Exporting page {0} of {1}".format(str(mxd.dataDrivenPages.currentPageID), str(mxd.dataDrivenPages.pageCount)))
    arcpy.mapping.ExportToJPEG(mxd, in_folder + "\\" + file_name + str(pageNum) + ".jpeg",df,df_export_width=1600,df_export_height=1200,world_file=True)
del mxd
del df

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Have you recently lost or misplaced your keys and are worried that they might fall into the wrong hands? Immediately call rekey locks emergency service and get your locks rekeyed.
We receive countless rekey requests every week and most of them are urgent. Washington DC Locksmith Solution offers 24x7 rekey locks emergency service to commercial, residential, and automotive clients everywhere in Washington, DC area and assures a quick response time no matter what time of the day you call us. Our locksmiths have years of experience and can work any kind of lock, right from Abloy to Mul-T-locks.
We are trusted by a number of residential and commercial clients in and around Washington for our quick and hassle-free rekey locks emergency service. We carry out locks rekeying with remarkable dexterity and never leave any room for failure.
Have you recently moved into a new apartment? Did you have a falling out with someone and no longer trust them with your keys? Get your locks rekeyed without any delay! Call us on 202-753-3744!


text:
Q: How to link a local file I'm trying to use a local file in which I've specified my db connection properties which is named dao.properties. And I'm proceeding this way:
InputStream fichierProperties = classLoader.getResourceAsStream( "/src/dao/dao.properties" );

However, when using this path, I'm getting an exception stating that the debugger wasn't able to find that file.
Here are some packages in my project:

The dao.properties is just under the dao package.
How do I resolve this, please?

A: If you put the file inside the src folder, the IDE probably is packaging, when instructed to compile and build, the file into the bundled generated jar. So you can reach with the method GetResourceAsStream.
So if you put the file (dao.properties) in root folder of your sources files (generally the src folder), just simple referring to dao.properties will refer to the resource.
If you put the file inside a subfolder of src, the correct way to reference it would be subfolder/dao.properties.
The first "/" is not necessary as the getResourceAsStream always search in the classpath, that for default is the root of the sources folder, inside the jar. (where are not talking about external files!)
Updated:
Assuming you place a file name notes.txt inside a folder(package) named ´sub´, this is valid example, only for purporses of how to get a bundled file that is in jar.
public class Main {

public static void main (String[] args) throws IOException {
    InputStream is = Main.class.getResourceAsStream("sub/notes.txt");
    InputStreamReader isr = new InputStreamReader(is);
    BufferedReader br = new BufferedReader(isr);
    String s = br.readLine();
    while (s != null) {
        System.out.println (s);
        s = br.readLine();
    }
    is.close();
}
}

I add more information about this, by referring to this post


text:
Oritoniscus vandeli är en kräftdjursart som beskrevs av Legrand 1942. Oritoniscus vandeli ingår i släktet Oritoniscus och familjen Trichoniscidae.

Underarter

Arten delas in i följande underarter:

 O. v. vandeli
 O. v. vivarii

Källor

Gråsuggor och tånglöss
vandeli


text:
Trichocera colei är en tvåvingeart som beskrevs av Alexander 1919. Trichocera colei ingår i släktet Trichocera och familjen vintermyggor. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Källor

Vintermyggor
colei


text:
Lifetime's Johanna Leia "Sexy & Single Mom"
amphillips0630
Last night was everything! Thank you @johannaleia @_masterm1nd #bringingupballers @lifetimetv
A post shared by Dre (@andrereports) on Mar 2, 2017 at 10:53am PST
//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js
Chicago is turning up the heat!
Lifetime unveiled it's newest reality show Bringing Up Ballers on March 1 and one of the newest cast members is ready to make her dreams and ambition a reality for her and her son.
Johanna Leia, is mom to Amari, one of the nations top elite players in basketball that will be featured on the show. The vivacious former model and entrepreneur joins four other women, Nikki Burnett, Peytyn Wilbourne, Heather Williams and Tiffany Lynn as they navigate the cut-throat world of high school basketball along with managing everyday life as career women.
The latest chapter in the Networks reality series "follows these feisty moms who will stop at nothing to ensure that their businesses are successful and their boys are on track to make it to the NBA," Lifetime said in a statement.
Although the entrepreneur didn't have any preconceived notions as far as what to expect, she made sure to use her background in modeling as a way of discipline in somewhat volatile situations.
"I modeled for fifteen years and that background has made me really comfortable in my own skin," Leia said.
Leia credits her hard work and discipline that was passed down to her son Amari who is passionate and driven about his craft. "I don't have to do much of anything, he's pretty driven, every once in a while I get on him about school work but other than that he's great," Said Leia.
You can Johanna Leia "single and sexy" on Bringing Up Ballers" Wednesdays on Lifetime.
Watch Full Interview Below:
Related Topics:Bringing Up Ballers, Chicago, Lifetime
Chance the Rapper donates Over $1 Million, enhances CPS Fund
Jordan Peele's "Get Out" Defines Odds By Grossing 100 Million; It Took 5 Million to Make


text:
brusselseisenhowerelectionhistoryIsisPoliticsPresidentworld war II
Longing and Hope
Dwight Eisenhower usually didn't vote. When he did, he never told anyone about what or who he voted for. For years, people speculated about his political leanings. He was old school Army. His didn't lean- he served. In 1947, Harry Truman, a Democrat, offered him a crack at the vice presidency. Ike declined. In 1952, 18,000 people filled Madison Square Garden for a rally organized by a citizen's committee for Ike. The event included messages from Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall and Clark Gable, all urging him to run for office. It ended in Irving Berlin leading a rendition of God Bless America. In his book Ike's Bluff, author Evan Thomas detailed his response. To a friend, he wrote "I can't tell you what an emotional upset it is for one to realize suddenly that he himself may be the symbol of that longing and hope."
The next day, General Dwight D. Eisenhower (retired), tentatively accepted the invitation to run for the office of president-as a Republican.
Less than a decade after he led the largest invasion in the history of mankind to defeat the most dangerous enemy in the history of mankind, Ike was sworn in as our 34th president. He assumed office during the war with Korea and ended it within a hundred days.
Ike hated politicians-Democrats and Republicans alike. He disliked the military brass at the Pentagon too. "I know better than any of you fellows about waste at the Pentagon and about how much fat there is to be cut-because I've seen those boys operate for a long time" he told an adviser. He hated grand-standers and "desk pounders"-having once worked for General Douglas MacArthur, the great grand-stander and desk pounder of American military history. He knew them when he saw them and he had no patience for it.
Ironically, Ike hated war. Not the way someone who didn't know war hates war-out of fear or misunderstanding. He hated it because of his familiarity with it. As president, he avoided small military conflicts because he understood that whether or not a small conflict became a big one was really just a matter of chance. In the new world of nuclear power, our greatest adversary was taking territory and building ballistic missiles, launching polished satellites that flew over America, reflecting the sun's light down for naked American eyes to see as they passed over head. Peace wasn't just a goal. It was survival.
In his farewell speech, he warned of our industrial military complex, growing at an unsustainable rate-yet sadly, he understood why. "I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight. Happily, I can say that war has been avoided." he finished. He suffered the burden of the insurmountable stress of keeping the peace during the first time in the history of mankind when a failure to do so would have resulted in the end of civilization. It took it's toll. He suffered a heart attack in 1955. And a stroke in 1957. He labored through constant, severe gastrointestinal pain. By the end, when he left office, escorted by a lone secret service car back to his home in Gettysburg, he was a shadow of the man he once was. He had given more to his country than anyone really knew. He was duty bound to hide it-the servant leader and soldier to the end.
Not since George Washington, had a president been demanded into office by the American people the way Ike was. And not since Washington, was a president's greatest accomplishment navigating the catastrophically delicate waters of global piece the way Ike had. Ike's resolve to maintain peace was the fulcrum that lifted the world from the edge of destruction. And he knew it.
Today, a day after another terrorist attack has successfully evoked a response from those seeking to fill the office Ike once filled, it's fair to ask, which of them is worthy of his role. Is it the one that urges us to use religion as a means to identify areas for proactive policing? Is it the one that tells us that we need to wall America off from the outside and torture our enemies to keep us safe. Is it any of them that didn't serve-not one day collectively-in uniform. When we look back through history at our truly great presidential behavior, it's fair to be disappointed with our options. Because we've lost something in our search for our next leader-the notion of service.
There's a generation just over the horizon with different values formed by different burdens though. One, like Ike's, defined by war and conflict-less sensitive to the populous demagoguery common to those not grounded by the selfless principles of service. One that understands that the pursuit of power should be tempered by its purpose to aid our fellow man. One that has seen up close and personal the toll that torture, authoritarianism and reckless hate have on the human soul. Something happens to you when you see it. The way Ike did. The way we did.
This too will pass. And quietly if we're smart. We're struggling through the death spasms of a tired time where people who haven't experienced the problems of today's world are arguing the principles of a political debate that's been dead for a generation. But change will come. Until then, heed Ike's warning. "We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications….The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Wherever this goes, be wary and watchful of where we place our power. If you can't get it right, it's best not to get it too wrong.
Comment March 22, 2016 March 23, 2016 Sean Patrick Hughes
donald trumpelectionPoliticsTop Readstrump
The Cult of Personality
It finally happened. While I sat in my car during one of my soul crushing Southern California commutes, jammed into the I-15 freeway, paying my morning penance for living in the suburbs, it happened. On the radio, pundits were worked into a lather, clambering about the latest runaway victory of candidate Trump. Their tone was acceptance. Gone was the harsh warnings of the danger of nominee Trump or President Trump, dare we say. Gone was the disbelief or predictions of failure. Acceptance had seeped into their consciousness. And for the first time, I felt myself starting to normalize a Trump general election candidate-then a President Trump. I could feel myself preparing for what that might be like. Because that's what we do.
We humans are capable of normalizing amazing things. We can put up with a lot, if we choose to. Years ago, deployed as a Naval Officer to Africa, my team built a camp in a remote location. Within days, a massive hive of killer bees infested the showers and stung us to death whenever we wanted to get clean. I remember one time in particular after I'd showered and endured a half dozen bee stings to the face, mumbling to a buddy heading the other direction, "At least I'm clean". I was willing to deal with quite a bit of downside-repeated bee stings to the face, because I was so dirty. I felt it was a fair trade off. Get clean, or don't get stung by bees. I had no third option. Now I was normalizing President Trump, because I felt like I had not other choice.
So there I was, sitting in my car, stuck in traffic, suffering through the bee stings to the face that was candidate Trump's victory speech in Nevada. I started thinking, "maybe it wouldn't be too bad to have that ass hole stick it to the Chinese…maybe he might finally strike a deal between Israel and Palestine…maybe he could bully congress into doing something for once" and then I caught myself. I was surrendering. And I'm not the only one. We have entered into dangerous territory.
Here's some background. I grew up in Atlantic City. Donald Trump has been a part of my life for my entire life. My family has worked in his casinos. I used to watch his helicopter land on the pier on the beach that I worked on as an ocean rescue lifeguard in high school. He ran those businesses into the ground and got out, in the nick of time, Trump style. Atlantic City is for losers is likely what he would say. I don't know him. I've never been in the same room as him. But I know plenty who have. And they all say mostly the same thing about their personal encounters with him. He seems like a nice guy. He makes you feel important. And he's very gracious with his attention. That's about all I really know about him aside from the cartoon character he's been playing in the media the last few decades. As a guy, he sounds lovely. Of course, that's also what people said about Saddam Hussein. About Joseph Stalin…about Hitler. Which brings us to the problem.
Trump isn't Hitler. He's not Stalin. He's probably not even Putin. But people haven't really figured out how to articulate why he shouldn't be president. They scream louder and louder that he can't or won't win and like a cosmic sci-fi movie villain, he absorbs the negative energy and grows stronger with each word of malice. I'm done predicting that he won't win. I'm done predicting anything because I'm sick of being wrong. I won't tell you why he can't be president. Because he certainly can be president. And if we're not careful, he will. Instead, I'll try another approach. I'll tell you why he shouldn't be president. But I'm going to do it in a way besides pointing to the fact that he's Donald Trump. That's clearly not working.
Here's how we've tried so far.
He's a chauvinist bigot.
He might be. He might not be. I don't believe anything he says is sincere so it could all be an act-hold that thought. He's a 70 year old white guy from New York who was born with a lot of money so he's probably got a little of the old white guy thing going on that we white folks know many of our dad's generation struggle with-prejudice and sexism. Sorry folks, that may be a little uncomfortable truth for some of us. The people who like Trump-angry white people-don't care.
He's a dishonest demagogue that will say anything to make you support him.
Congratulations, welcome to politics.
He's a bully.
See last item.
He's a manipulator.
See last two items.
He is a lousy businessman who has filed for bankruptcy four times.
That's actually a lot of bankruptcies. But it's a pretty normal practice and it was chapter 11, the type where you do it so the business lives to see another day. It's not a smoking gun.
He's a rich kid who got all his money from his father.
Ever hear of the Roosevelts? JFK?
He's a draft dodger.
We've had one president in the last 50 years serve in combat. Thank you George H.W. Bush for your service.
You get the point. You can play this game all day long. It doesn't work. Trump's most brilliant talent is staying relevant in our ever shifting culture. He started with real estate and then moved into our consciousness as someone synonymous with simply being rich in the 80's and 90's. Then he morphed into a reality TV star and invaded social media and now he's impregnated our political machine with the Trump brand.
When someone becomes that ubiquitous, they become a walking talking, tweeting, insulting, bullying, Rorschac test. People start to see in him what they want. For those feeling left behind by a changing economy, he's a business man who will solve it. For those feeling marginalized by our changing culture, he's going to kick out all the foreigners. For those scared of terrorists, he's going to bomb the hell out of ISIS. For those of us who want to shout down inequality and bigotry, he's someone to hate. He is different things to different people. Like scripture, if you stare at candidate Trump for long enough, he will tell you whatever you want. And there's one thing you can't argue about with someone. It's their religion.
But that doesn't mean we should get baptized by him. Here's why.
There are three critically important dimensions to useful political thought. Effective political thinkers need be equally principled, empathetic and pragmatic. Looking back at candidate Trump's public and private life experiences, he fails this test in an extremely dangerous and troubling way. More so than any person seeking the office of President of the United States in a long time, maybe ever. After 40 years in the public eye, it's almost impossible to point to areas where he has been a part of something bigger than himself, built on a guiding principle that made other people's lives-people he didn't know or wouldn't be in a position to receive something in return from-better.
He appears to be entirely devoid of anything that mimics empathy. Heads of government need to be able to feel the pain of the people they govern as if it were their own. That doesn't mean that they have to be selfless or even charitable. It means that they have to have the capacity to care about the outcomes of other people. Candidate Trump fails.
He does have one thing in abundance-pragmatism. Unfortunately, pragmatism without empathy towards those you govern and not grounded in principle other than self promotion is powerfully dangerous. It's that thing that the truly dark rulers of history seem to have in common- the ability to get things done without the troublesome headwinds of principle and care for others. It's the recipe for how the governing of man has gone horribly wrong for thousands of years.
This is usually where supporters of one candidate start to throw out the flaws of the other candidates in response. But here is where that doesn't really work for candidate Trump. Every other candidate, on some level, does better at the standards explained above. Here's how you can tell. Take a look at how they've spent their life and then look at candidate Trump. Candidate Trump was named the president of his father's $200M real estate firm in 1974, when he was 28, six years after he graduated from Wharton. What he's done since, is on display for the public to see. At no point has he even appeared to serve someone else. And that's hard to find, even for someone not running for president.
If you run the other candidates and recent presidents through that test, the difference is staggering. Hillary Clinton was one of 27 women in her graduating class from Yale Law School. She had a wealth of opportunity and chose the Children's Defense Fund as her first professional role. Ted Cruz is the son of a Cuban immigrant who graduated from Harvard, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and then served as a clerk for several federal judges including Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist. He's horribly unlikable but he appears to actually believe in something other then himself. Bernie Sanders chooses to call himself a democratic socialist, something that has limited him his entire career until recently, because he believes in it. John Kasich has answered to the people of his state as the Governor of Ohio. Some are supporters. Some are not. But at a minimum, he appears to have governed with benevolent intent. President Obama, same a Cruz, son of an immigrant, Harvard graduate, became a community organizer. Reagan was the president of the Screen Actors Guild and then governor of California. JFK was a decorated war hero as the commander of PT-109. You can go down the list and point to times, whether you agree with them or not, that other candidates have served someone other than themselves.
But you can't for Trump.
And this is what that means. If candidate Trump were to be President Trump, the first group of people that he will be responsible for serving, above his own interests, will be the entirety of the American people and by virtue of our standing as a global power, mankind. And that is as strong a case as anyone can make against anyone doing anything. There's a lot at stake here. It's not the time to get comfortable with candidate Trump. And if he is nominated by the Republican Party to run for office in the 2016 Presidential Election, it's not because he's right. It's the death spasm of a scared, angry ideology that has poisoned the conservative mind of our country. And we should think that it's as ridiculous now as we ever have. Because it is. It's just a lot more dangerous.
2 Comments February 25, 2016 March 23, 2017 Sean Patrick Hughes
electionhistoryPoliticsPresident
The American political debate predates the political parties that have gone on to organize the centuries of scripted opposition that we have been conditioned to believe are required for successful government. It wasn't always that way-almost, but not always. For part of one brief administration, we stood united as one political party, aligned in the celebration of our new found self governing zeal. Our days of unity were numbered though. The forces of division had already begun. The embryo of political opposition had embedded itself within the cabinet of our first president by way of two men whose collective ideas would chart the course for the first 50 years of our nation's government. Tempered, they were critical to responsible governing. Un-tempered, they would have destroyed us.
The first Secretaries of State and the Treasury, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton respectively found themselves at irreconcilable odds. They weren't at odds because their political parties required them to be or their special interest groups funded them to be. They were at odds because they believed very different things about government at a time when the pavement of the walk that was our government was still wet. And the thoughts that would guide the path that would leave their footprints for all time to follow were important. Jefferson believed fiercely in the democratic republic who's ideals he so clearly outlined in the Declaration of Independence. He was the voice of our Revolution and the voice of the enlightened government it gave birth to. Hamilton, on the other hand, advocated for a government much more similar to the British form we had just cast off. We were in uncharted territory at the time. And many, like Hamilton believed that our new form would not work. They viewed Jefferson as an ideologue who's vision and philosophy lacked practical application. We were new Americans at the time. Some believed in Hamilton's view. Others, Jefferson. But those on both sides believed something else though. Something much more tangible than a philosophy of government. They believed in a man. They believed in George Washington.
George Washington was better than everyone at everything he did. At least it seemed that way. At 6'2 he was a giant for colonial America. He was the best horseman anyone who ever rode with him had ever seen, which for the day was the most important thing that a man could do well in the eyes of other men. He survived smallpox in his youth-forever inoculating him from the disease. He walked fearlessly among the sick, giving him an air of immortality. There were stories of his invincibility in battle as well, having had four holes shot in his red coat and several horses shot out from under him as a captain fighting as a Brit in the French and Indian War.
His daring conquests against the British Army had made him the most famous man in the new world. After being beaten out of New York and across New Jersey, losing half of his Army against the same British he once served, he launched one last resolute attack across the icy Delaware River from Philadelphia into Trenton, giving the colonials a daring victory to feed the spirit of our revolution for the winter of 1776 into 1777. He had every reason to retreat and regroup. He did not. He had bested the most powerful army the world had ever seen and won our freedom. He had rode out as president, the only president to ever do so, with an Army to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. He was the human embodiment of our executive branch. And though he allowed his cabinet to explore the left and right limits of progress as a nation, mostly in the form of Hamilton and Jefferson's bickering, Washington ensured that the footprints in the pavement that dried behind them would, at all times, be traveling forward. Writing to Jefferson in 1792, Washington rebuked,
"How unfortunate and how much is it to be regretted then, that whilst we are encompassed on all sides with a avowed enemies and insidious friends that internal dissensions should be harrowing and tearing our vitals. I believe it will be difficult if not impracticable to manage the reins of government or to keep the parts of it together for if instead of laying our shoulders to the machine in which measures are decided on. One pulls this way and the other pulls that, before the utility of the thing is fairly tried it must inevitably be torn asunder and in my opinion the fairest prospect of happiness and prosperity that ever was presented to man will be lost, perhaps forever. "
This was Washington telling Jefferson to quit his partisan bickering and keep his eyes on the prize. It was not given nor received as a request. It was an order.
It was this resolve that the American people assigned their fates to. And in all things, it was Washington who they trusted. He begrudgingly signed on for a second term to see the thing through lest all that they work for be "torn asunder". But even for him the politics and outcries of our national discourse would grow, and his second term, found him more open to criticism, yet stoic and resolved as ever to lead his people to stability, all be it miserable and exhausted. Jefferson would resign as Secretary of State the following year and run for president unsuccessfully at the end of Washington's term and then successfully four years later. Hamilton would be killed in an 1804 a duel with then Vice President Aaron Burr at the age 49. Within two decades, the Federalist party he founded, which advocated for a strong executive and a national bank, would be gone. The debate moved on to other issues.
Throughout our history, America has had great variance in our experience with the heads of our government. The one's we remember well, tend to come in two flavors. Some serve, by chance, at a time of great significance and their character, intellect and executive savvy serve as the fulcrum for which the American people lift themselves from crisis or pivot towards social change. This is Lincoln. This is FDR. This is JFK. These are men defined by crisis and change whose will and guidance have preserved our nation when perhaps our future was not so certain. Others we remember are the great leaders, above the political fray, whose astute judgement moved us forward, away from crisis and on to a stronger future. This is Jefferson, Jackson, Eisenhower and of course Washington. Though many of these men lived through crisis prior to taking office, something about their experience enabled them to wield power effortlessly with an unquestioning obedience from the American people and in turn from their government. What they had is what we so desperately crave now-the unwavering trust and allegiance of the American people.
As we assemble to pick our new head of state this next year, we must measure our options wisely, though I fear we've already lost this contest to the same forces of dissent present in Washington's cabinet 230 years ago. The great leaders of crisis mean hard times, death and war. Those are the leaders you can't and hope never to choose. So in our hearts we long for the transcendent leader who can stay above the fray and unite us in our march forward towards continued peace and prosperity. The leader who, though forces at work move to pull the very fabric of our discourse apart, stands silently above it, holding watch over our government and our people, as Washington did when Jefferson and Hamilton had their earthly squabbles. This is what we long for. And for those of us not imprisoned by the dangerous vigor of blind ideology, this is what we vote for.
There's a problem though. And it's not going to fix itself over the next 12 months. The fray today is too big. Our political factions are more polarized than we have been since the Civil War, arguing with great passion, things that simply don't matter any more. Our all powerful media knows no other way than to fan the flames of outrage and discontent, providing heat and oxygen to a flame that, if it were up to the people alone, would have long died out. And those who might rise above it, the great men and women of our day, understandably, aren't interested.
Things look dim. We are hungering for someone, anyone, who isn't poisoned by the sickness of our political discourse. We want it so badly that we're clinging to candidates, the "anti-establishment" ones on both sides, that are comically unsuited for the title of leader of the free world just to stave off accepting that we are exactly where we are. We are stuck.
Though I commend our current administration for driving needed progress in narrow, long overdue areas, I also regret that the division in our nation has grown. Our executives over the past 30 years have operated within the fray, not above it. Which leaves us where we are. For four more years at least, bumping along the seabed of our potential through the irrelevant debate of the last 50 years. For the last ten elections, there has been a Bush or a Clinton on the general or primary election ticket for President of the United States in nine of them. We are stuck in not just an ideological loop, but a literal one. One that, because of its incessant focus on "shrink vs grow government" leaves us paralyzed and incapable of addressing the critical problems of our government insolvency, entitlement reform and urban decay. We are incapable of addressing the impact our transition from manufacturing to services and technology has had on our workforce-a change that started 40 years ago. We've been flatfooted for decades. Now the sickness has seeped into our foreign policy, an impassable barrier that once stood to ensure we faced our external problems as a united front of American will. Head's of state now address our congress without the consent of the president. Things are dim. But fear not. There's a light on the horizon of our long, dark political night. Change is on its way.
The 2012 Presidential election was the first one, by law, that my generation would have been able to participate in, as a running member. My generation, the one that had internet in college. The one that was too young to care about the color of people's skin or their sexual orientation. The one that spent all of our 20's and most of our 30's fighting the longest war our country has ever seen, only to likely have to fight it again in our 40's. The generation whose social security checks won't be there when we retire at the trajectory we're going. My generation who will live to watch our children grow up in the global climate impacted by three hundred years of industrial growth. My generation who has participated in a workforce whose wages haven't increased since we've been in it. My generation is coming. It may be a bit. But our votes count. And soon we will be there with more than our votes. Not those of us who rushed into the political life because we were drawn to it as a vocation. They're already there, driving the churn of the irrelevant debate. But those of us tried by something else. Tried by the crisis and failure of those that came before us. Tried by decades of war and economic struggle. We are coming. And real change will come with us.
2 Comments November 8, 2015 February 15, 2016 Sean Patrick Hughes
campaign financecitizen's unitedDeep DiveelectionmediaPolitics
The American Discourse and the Impact of Citizen's United
A few weeks ago I read a tweet with a link from author Doris Kearns Goodwin's appearance on the Daily Show. In it she said, "I think if I were young now, the thing I would do more than anything is to fight for an amendment to undo citizens united."
Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize winning historian who has written on FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys and others. About 13 of the 900 or so pages of her book Team of Rivals was turned into the movie Lincoln by Steven Spielberg. She is unquestionably considered one of the foremost American historians of our time. Which means when she talks about great American causes I tend to listen. But what about the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling from 2010 has drawn the attention of Kearns and many others as the great risk to democracy of our time? To answer that, you have to do some digging on how we got here and understand where "here" actually is.
Campaign financing regulation actually predates our country. There's a funny story of how George Washington won an election in the 1750's to the house of Burgess because he handed out alcohol and food at the poles. It was actually pretty normal at the time. Virginia passed a law shortly after outlawing the practice. By the middle of the 19th Century, America began to pass laws that prohibited politicians from demanding contributions from civil service workers and then appointing them to positions based on the heartiness of their contribution. Hard to imagine it took 75 years or so to figure that out but you have to remember, we were 1st market movers when it comes to world powers and democracy. We had some things to figure out. Around the turn of the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt drove legislation that curbed corporate and private participation in the same type of patronage actions. By the middle of the 20thcentury we got around to getting organized unions out of mobilizing their workers to fund campaigns as a prerequisite for membership. So by the 1970's we had mostly eliminated the affronts to democracy that lesser developed nations still suffer from. From there, it got a little more complicated.
The Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 (FECA) formed the basis for much of the current federal campaign laws. It included limits on contributions to federal candidates and political parties, a system for disclosure and voluntary public financing for presidential candidates. The Act tried to impose campaign spending limits but the Supreme Court threw it out 2 years later. It also created a governing body, the Federal Election Committee. So by the 70's, there were limits on contributions, transparency on those contributions and a governing body to enforce the rules. There were still no limits on campaign spending either by a candidate or corporation for support of a candidate's party or cause though.
In 2002, the McCain-Feingold Act was signed into law. This act materially accomplished two things. It eliminated "soft money" from party finance. Soft money is a term used for political party general purposes like party building "activities" that weren't subject to regulation. The second thing that McCain-Feingold did, and this is actually what Citizens United overturned, was eliminate corporate funding of issue advocacy ads; those ads which name an actual candidate within 30 or 60 days of an election. Corporations could still fund ads that advocated for conservative or progressive causes all they wanted through third party groups like the Koch Bros, American's for Prosperity. But as a corporation or union, you couldn't "pick your guy" and bank roll him. And though the spirit wasn't to advocate for a specific group, you could fund groups that said or even called themselves "Hillary is destroying America". Which happened, regularly and legally. Which means that prior to 2010, corporations and private organizations could and did already contribute massive amounts of money to finance political actions.
So if it didn't create corporate participation in politics, what did the Supreme Court actually do in 2010? Well it can get complicated but, materially, it did two specific things. It removed the ban on independently funded adds 30-60 days before an election and opened up direct funding for corporations and unions for express advocacy ads. It had some second order effects on the characteristics of the groups that could organize to raise funds for an election but the important part is that it streamlined the process for corporate and union participation in funding. Which has triggered the outcry. But there's a lot of noise in the outrage, and as a result, there's a chance to miss the signal in the noise. Because when you look at the data, something doesn't match up here.
Federal Campaign Spending
There has been, without question a massive increase in campaign spending since Citizens United in 2010. But if you look closer at the data behind campaign finance, we see it actually predates 2010, substantially. In 1996, we spent about $21 million on federal elections, through regulated channels. By 2004, that amount rose to $340M. That's a 1500% increase within the cycle of two presidential elections. But that actually doesn't tell the full story. If you count the "soft money" explosion that led to McCain-Feingold, spending in the 96 election rose to almost $300M, several times more than any other year. Though McCain Feingold eliminated that "flavor" of spending, it appears that we couldn't un-ring that dinner bell. By the following presidential election in 2004, outside spending for federal elections had increased 900 percent. That's 900 percent in four years, six years before Citizens United.
So when you actually look at the path of historical spending above, and also take into consideration that the "soft money" from the mid 90's isn't accounted for in that data, we see something very clearly. And it didn't happen in 2010. Something very different happened about 20 years ago, and the impact has been an explosion in spending on elections. And as big as the increase has been since Citizens United, it's actually nowhere near the jump we saw between 1996 and 2004. So what happened in 1996? Quite a bit actually.
The day I enrolled at the United States Naval Academy in the summer of 1995, I was issued a computer. That computer was different than all the computers that the Naval Academy had issued in the previous decades to its thousands of students in one very important way. It connected to the internet. At the same time, the digital cable revolution was crossing America increasing the average channels of cable offering from dozens to hundreds. Fox News and MSNBC launched the next summer. So about the time when our campaign spending began to explode, something else was exploding too; the amount and methods for which we began to consume information.
Here's some data. In 1996, the average American spent about 500 hours watching cable TV a year. By 2010, that number had more than doubled to about 1100 hours a year. We also watched network TV, where "mature" information lives, about 300 hours less. You can also add in 200 hours a year on the internet that didn't exist at all prior to 1996. And here's the kicker, according to a study by the mobile measurements and platform company Flurry, you can add another 800 hours a year on smartphones. Which means that we spend more than twice the time consuming information today then we did 20 years ago. Which means one thing. There's a lot more money to be made off of the American attention span than there used to be. And there's a lot more competition to get it.
Taking a breath, a calm step backward and an objective look at the data, and we start to see what's at work here: economics. In order for a market to exist, there has to be demand. Prior to 1996, the demand for information, political or otherwise was relatively small. We had newspapers, magazines and a handful of television channels. Over the past 30 years though, technology has changed that opportunity. And as a result, investment in the media world has also changed. Prior to 1985, corporate investment in media kept pace with the general economy. After 1985, that changed. By 1995, communications industry spending grew at 150% of the pace of the economy. By 2014, growth in media spending had nearly doubled our economic growth rate. And we were off to the races.
If you look at the type of spending that has blown up, it's what is referred to as independent expenditures. In lay terms, it's money that comes from somewhere other than the candidates or parties directly like wealthy individuals, corporations or Political Action Committees (PACs). Independent expenditures actually account for over 90% of the increase in spending. And again, it started almost a decade before Citizens United with a 1000% increase from 2000 to 2004. If you pair that finding with the advent of the information consumption age it leads you to one very strong conclusion. Massive amounts of money have flowed into the federal campaign system over the last twenty years for one very good reason. There's actually something to spend it on that works.
Ask yourself, what in the world would you have been able to spend $1 billion of advertising money on in 1980? How many network TV ads or mailers could you send? How many people could you compel to go knock on doors? Not that many. Which brings us to as close to a smoking gun as you're going to get for the cause of our massive increase in campaign spending. Which leads us back to the question of Citizens United and what to do about it.
The exercise with McCain Feingold has taught us a fairly valuable lesson. Now that there's a mature market for profiting off of political expression, efforts to close it down through finance reform serve mostly to change the flavor of money flowing in. We can squeeze the balloon, but unless you pop it, it's still going to hang around. Which leads us to the next logical question. How do we pop the balloon? Well, we actually can't. If there is demand, and it is legal, there will be money to invest. Even further, the billion dollars we spent on the election directly in 2012, is merely a fraction of the total media market that is, in some part being fueled by the content of political discourse. Which means that even if we found a way to completely abolish political spending altogether, it wouldn't put out the fire. The 24-hour news cycle, social media markets and talk radio are a hell of a lot bigger than the $1 billion industry. The six biggest media companies in the country, GE, Viacom, Disney, Newscorp, CBS and Time Warner had just under $280 billion in revenue in 2010. The money being raised for campaign financing isn't driving our media and how they choose to market and display content. Because it's not the campaign money that they're after. It's our attention. And as long as we humans are susceptible to focusing on things that affirm our beliefs or outrage us, then the current dialogue isn't going anywhere and neither is the media market it fuels.
So if it's not the money, what is the great evil that we're trying to shout down right now? What is the Doris Kearns Goodwin advocating for in the form of a Constitutional Amendment? Remember, Constitutional Amendments are big deals. They do things like outlaw slavery, grant citizenship, allow women to vote, ban drinking, allow drinking, let us speak freely, have due process, carry assault rifles. When we amend the Constitution, it needs to yield an outcome. Which is why it's not easy to do. As for the issue of campaign finance, I think we can all agree that there's something that feels unclean about the combination of large sums of money and the democratic process. But it's still fairly regulated and we're not actually accusing anyone of outright fraud of corruption here. So what is the problem? It's actually a pretty big one and it's been happening for a few decades.
The problem isn't that we're buying our candidates. The problem is that we're subjugating them, and not with the will of the people as they ought to be. And the result is the polarization of our two political parties. Over the last 40 years, democrats and republicans have increasingly voted only democratic and only republican more and more. In 1970 if you were in the United States Senate, the majority of a party voted the same way on legislation 27% of the time. Which was good, because when you wanted to get things passed, you had the opportunity to convince reasonable people in both sides of the party to agree. In 2014, the majority of a party voted the same way 70% of the time. Which means, quantitatively we're 250% more polarized now than we were 40 years ago. Which is a problem. Because it means our politicians used to put a lot more thought and a lot more consideration into their positions
If it's not campaign financing that they're afraid of, then what exactly is it that's driving our politicians to take so few risks? That one's pretty clear. It's fear. Fear of a media market that has long since outgrown the need for campaign spending and has since moved on to the more fruitful harvest of outrage, conflict and dissent. If you think that's an overstatement, consider this. The first Republican Presidential Primary debate in the 2016 election was the highest viewed cable program in the history of cable television. There's blood in the water now and if you step out of line against the base, someone is going to market the outrage immediately and on an inescapable scale. So you don't, because you want to keep your job, which unfortunately isn't the goal of our government. A politician wanting to keep his job isn't a new phenomenon though. It's as old as the institution of democracy. What is new, is the scope and scale of the information engine capable of taking it from them.
So do we mobilize and advocate for a Constitutional Amendment as Goodwin said? While it's likely that eliminating some level of the spending in campaigns won't hurt, I think it's also fair to say it won't solve the problem. There's a wild fire burning and though the Supreme Court poured gas on it in 2010, it didn't light the fire. And it's only a matter of time before that fire doesn't need the fuel of campaign finance at all and provides us with candidates who draw eyeballs instead of money.
Donald Trump anyone?
Comment August 20, 2015 April 25, 2017 Sean Patrick Hughes
electionmilitaryPoliticspresidentswar
The Prospect of Service
Of the 20 Americans that have officially announced their candidacy for President of the United States for the 2016 election, three have served on active duty in the United States armed forces. One, Lindsey Graham (R) was a JAG (military for lawyer) in the Air Force. One, Rick Perry (R), was a cargo pilot in the post Vietnam era Air Force. One, Jim Webb (D), is a real life honest to goodness bona fide war hero, having been awarded the Navy Cross (one step down from the Medal of Honor) Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart for his service in Vietnam. Which means that of those who have raised their hand to participate in the pursuit of our country's highest office of public service, 15% of them have served in our armed forces; 5% in war. Though that may seem low, and it certainly is relative to previous presidential races, it's actually more than representative of our overall population base with respect to military service. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, presently, about 7% of Americans have ever served on active duty in the military. And so we should be somewhat satisfied by our turnout of candidates. Somehow it doesn't feel that way though. Perhaps because we hold the office to a higher standard. Perhaps because we value military service differently than other vocations when it comes to presidentiality. As usual though, if we take a look at the history behind it, we can gain some perspective on how much this really matters.
Does military service matter? At the highest level, there's an interesting pattern that makes logical sense when you take some time to think about it. We've had three presidents who have served in the highest ranks during a time of war and have therefore met what we would consider to be the most relevant prior experience to being commander in chief. Washington, Grant and Eisenhower all were, in whatever historically appropriate capacity possible, the highest ranking officer engaged in the highest level of combat during our three most consequential armed conflicts. Of the 24 years those three men served as president, a total of 6 months was spent at war, the sole contribution to our war history being the 186 days it took for Ike to pull the plug on Korea. Now, there's a case to be made that those men had seen war and therefore had no stomach for more of it. Which we know from their memoir's is at least a little true. What probably played more of a factor was simple chronology though. Being "General of the Army" is not a young man's game. So if you were doing it at the time of war, and you went on to become president, you did so in a very short period of time, within the scope of a decade in each case. We tend to steer clear of large scale war within the scope of the same generation if we can help it. And so the requirement for lofty military command to qualify a presidential candidate for the job is not one that history supports.
If we flip the question around and ask what was the prior military experience of our most effective commanders in chief, we get a somewhat surprising answer. For one, we actually didn't have a president during our first important war, the American Revolution. So when we look at those who played critically tactical roles as President, the list is quite short. It includes two men with exactly zero days of active duty service in the military. Lincoln and FDR were, head and shoulders above the rest, the most important and successful commanders in chief to ever hold the office of President. When you think about the scope and scale of their burden, it's remarkable all that they were able to accomplish. Lincoln waged war a stone's throw from the White House personally transmitting orders to generals in the field from the War Department Telegraph room. FDR engaged daily with a joint allied staff on strategy in Europe and the Pacific until the day he died. The decisions these men both made, regularly, are unequaled in their complexity and their impact on the nation and the world. Neither ever wore a uniform.
History makes a pretty strong case. Military service is a poor predictor of performance as commander in chief. So does it matter at all? If not as a qualification to lead the military, then what does it tell us? Does it tell us a candidate is dedicated to a life of service? Perhaps, but to be honest, agree with their politics or not, the list of 20 or so names on this candidate list includes hundreds of years of public service not specific to the military. So, it's not really about service either. But it is about something. To be clear its actually about two things.
First, it's a validation that at some point in their life, a candidate has done something that took some grit. Of the three war-time deployments that I had, two were with what we'll call elite units. The third, the one that I'm least likely to tell war stories about at parties, was with what we would call a "conventional" unit. That deployment, by a country mile, was the one that absolutely beat me down the most. It was brutal relentless and absolutely representative of what most of our men and women in uniform experience when they deploy. So when we see someone who has served, we can say with confidence, that at some point in their lives, they lived through a truly trying experience. Which is something to benchmark them with when so much of everything else that we see out of them feels less genuine and more contrived. Military service is real. And there's no way to hide from the "suck". When you look at this field of 20, it definitely feels light on grit. But maybe that's just from where I'm sitting.
The other thing that prior military service does, and this is more relevant for war time service, is that it validates resiliency. Which is actually entirely different than being a hero. There's something to the notion that heroism is less important than recovery. My experience during the 14 years of war that we've been engaged in is a fairly common one for those that served. I saw less "action" than those who served in the worst of it, yet more than those that managed to serve in more peripheral roles. Of the 20 or so months I spent in active war zones, I can clearly count two instances where I legitimately thought that I was going to die. Some level of danger and vigilance were constants but those moments where I actually thought that I wasn't getting out of it were rare. And frankly, the reason I did was because of luck and other people, not heroism or skill. The fall out of those events was not necessarily contributory to a life well lived either. That which does not kill us…sometimes leaves us with nightmares, anxiety and a propensity to self medicate. There's something important that follows though. We're beginning to talk about this more these days but we used to ignore it entirely. It's the recovery that matters. The richest part of the human experience is the walk back to the path our life was on when something knocks us off of it. And so for men like James Webb, it's less about the citation from his Navy Cross, which I encourage you to read, and more about what he no doubt went through in the years after he returned from war to live the worthy and full life that he has. It's not that you can't get those experiences without serving. War simply tends to provide those that experience it with more acute opportunities to survive.
With all this in mind, what should we be considering when it comes to military service and our presidential candidates? I think it's the following question. What did a candidate do with the prospect of military service? For some, because of the time in which they lived and the paths that their lives have taken, the opportunity to serve simply never materialized as a serious consideration. And that's ok. Lincoln and FDR show that. But for others, the prospect of service was a question that couldn't be avoided, like those of the "Greatest Generation". Of the eight presidents that held office after WWII, all of them actively served in some capacity in the military during the war. A little closer to home for this election, there's the question of Vietnam service. What did a candidate do with prospect of serving in Vietnam? Did they pursue it? Did they leave it to fate? Or did they run from it? I think it's fair to put the last of those three choices into the "not suitable" bucket. But that's just my opinion. And it's an opinion informed by asking that one critical question of what a candidate did with the prospect of service. The snapshot in time that will be the 2016 election is as such that we ought to be slightly fine with the lean yield of the answer to that question. But the future will likely hold a very different outcome. Here's why.
My generation of service member has been at war a long time. For many of us, we spent our whole professional careers at war. I was deployed when the war started and finished my active duty career months before the end of combat operations in Iraq. Our chance to participate in a new life of service is coming. And when it does, the question of the prospect of service will become much more important. My generation has been knocked far off of life's path and for those of us fortunate to make the long journey back to it, there will be a calling to serve again. We've seen much, sacrificed more and fear little. And our time is coming. So when 2024 rolls around or maybe even 2020, ask yourself that question with regard to your candidate of choice. What did they do with the prospect of service? Because what it tells of my generation is important. And we're getting closer to the door every day.
1 Comment July 29, 2015 August 8, 2015 Sean Patrick Hughes


GPTL file extension | How can I open or convert this file?
Many people share .gptl files without attaching instructions on how to use it. Yet it isn't evident for everyone which program a .gptl file can be edited, converted or printed with. On this page, we try to provide assistance for handling .gptl files.
The GPTL other files are related to GPTEngine. GPTL file is a GPTEngine Plugin. GPTEngine (Get Paid To Engine) is a ready-to-go self-hosted GPT (Get Paid To) program with integrated CMS.
Naturally, other applications may also use the .gptl file extension. Even harmful programs can create .gptl files. Be especially cautious with .gptl files coming from an unknown source!
Can't open a .gptl file?
The .gptl file extension is often given incorrectly!
If you have useful information about the .gptl file format, then write to us!


Olubadan of Ibadanland, Oba Saliu Adetunji, played hosts to family and friends as he marked his 90th birthday on Sunday.
L-R: A former Governor of Oyo State, High Chief Rashidi Ladoja; and Governor Abiola Ajimobi, during the 90th birthday reception for the Olubadan of Ibadanland, at the International Conference Centre, University of Ibadan, Ibadan… on Sunday. Photo: Governor's Office.


Digital technology is transforming how we live and work.
Yet some things remain better the old way – like the simple act of mixing paint on a palette.
There are so many exciting digital experiments underway around the world, but this one – coming from Adobe – is especially exciting as it has the potential to reach mass audiences if released commercially.


Over more than 80 years ago, Colruyt saw its first light as a family business in Lembeek, Flemish Brabant. Today, the initial small company has grown into a family of companies: Colruyt Group. A flourishing player with numerous retail formulas and active in 4 countries.Originally, the supermarket Colruyt served as the parent company for every new store formulas (DreamLand, OKay, Bio-Planet...) until these had developed into mature companies with the need to stand on their own two feet. Colruyt no longer is the supporting cradle, but a sister alongside her other sisters. So, today, Colruyt Group is a family of equal sister companies.From the start, efficiency has always been one of Colruyt's major topics. One of the important conditions for example, was to keep costs to a minimum and hence to guarantee the lowest prices. Gradually, this efficiency evolved into simplicity. In a high-quality way, the group wants to offer added value to its customers, staff, suppliers... Offering simplicity in a complex society is a commitment we enter into every day.The customers trust is the key for every Colruyt Group staff member. Everything we do is executed in a sustainable manner to meet our customers needs. If their needs change, we immediately investigate how to respond best in a responsible way. We do so as simply as possible. We wish to offer solutions to the customers by means of various store formulas tuned to their environment, city, family situation...Not only on the economic level, but also in the field of ecology and society, we wish to make a significant contribution. Sustainability is in Colruyt Group's DNA. For instance, by maintaining a sustainable personnel policy, creating renewable energy and by making our product range more sustainable, we hope to make the difference.
Als demand & supply planner zorg je voor een optimaal voorraadbeheer van de Colruyt-, OKay- en Bio-Planet-winkels in een bepaalde regio. Je stemt vraag en aanbod perfect op elkaar af zodat onze klanten op ieder moment hun favoriete producten terugvinden in de winkel.
Colruyt Group livre quotidiennement des milliers de produits dans ses diverses enseignes. Pour évaluer et gérer le stock de façon optimale, nous recherchons un analyste en chaîne logistique qui comprend comme personne l'importance de cette fonction pour un grand acteur de la distribution.