text:
II. THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL
XX. REVISIONISM
THE Second International was the product of two correlated processes, namely, the rise to leadership within the labor movement of the modern skilled workman in large-scale industry, and the shift of the international labor center to the heavily industrialized countries. From this we can see how different the Second International was from the First, and how the Socialists differed from the Anarchists.
We have already noted that, in the middle of the nineteenth century, when the articulate section of labor was mainly the artisan and mechanic, the petty bourgeoisie led the radical and revolutionary movements. Between 1848 and 1870, the mechanic had his fling; he dominated the Communist League and the First International and led the way within revolutionary workers' organizations. The period culminating in the Paris Commune saw the end of his hegemony, as his crafts gave way to large-scale production and the skilled worker took his place.
In the 80's and 90's of the last century, the skilled worker made his views heard. He had not been able yet to win the concessions and the standards to which he felt he was entitled. Disgruntled, therefore, he was capable of taking the lead in widespread strikes to which unskilled laborers were attached. Through the violence and the savagery of the unskilled, the skilled workers finally compelled the employers to arbitrate. Once better conditions were granted for the skilled, this privileged group was ready to abandon the unskilled to their fate.
The unskilled, relatively helpless and inarticulate, could not yet express their own interests or form their own organizations. Wherever the unskilled moved, it was the skilled who led, organized, and dominated them, whether in the Haymarket affairs of the 80's in the United States, in the American railway strike of the 90's, in the dockworkers' strike and "New Unionism" in England, or in the movements of the continent.
It was the modern skilled workmen first understanding their interests who joined the socialist ranks and flocked into the socialist parties. If they talked and acted in a revolutionary manner it was only until the employers were persuaded sufficiently to accede to their demands. This the employers were ready to do since, in the imperialist era, they could well afford to drop a few crumbs from their loaded table to harness the skilled workers to their interests.
Connected with these skilled workers were large layers of the petty bourgeoisie who also felt the weight of trustified capital, who also had been uprooted by the advance of imperialism and who meant to seek security by attaching themselves to a militant workers' movement. The petty bourgeoisie was well aware, especially after 1871, that only the proletariat could lead the way. Large numbers of white-collar workers and employees of all sorts affiliated themselves with the socialist parties. The Socialist parties thus, in the main, were composed of skilled workers interspersed with considerable numbers of the petty bourgeoisie. Of course, unskilled workers could not be kept out entirely from the socialist parties, where they formed a Left Wing, later to split into communist parties. The unskilled workers stood for revolution, for the smashing of the capitalist State.
The socialist movement, therefore, soon found itself with three distinct Wings. The Right Wing, composed of the skilled workers and employees, merely wished an extension of democracy, suffrage, civil liberties, and social security for themselves, although they bound up their immediate program with vague theories of ultimate control. These well-fed workers' sections were content to drift, to conceive of socialism as a means to perfecting individualism, as a peaceful, gradual process of social reform.
The Left Wing expressed the misery and oppression of the poorest layers of the population, the unskilled workers in the factories and general laborers. These elements could not wait. They felt keenly the pressure of capitalism. They wanted action.
Between these stood the vacillating Centrist faction, composed of variegated groups of an entirely ephemeral existence. Capitalism constantly was throwing divers categories of the skilled and petty bourgeoisie groupings into the ranks below. Contrariwise, it sometimes raised the standards of others. Centrism was the reflection of these movements; it adopted a revolutionary philosophy in appearance similar to that of the Left Wing, but in reality closely bound up with the Right Wing that still believed it had a stake in society and did not wish the immediate and direct overthrow of capitalism.
The struggles between these three wings often led to breaks in the ranks of the socialists, the schisms assuming different forms and rates of development according to particular circumstances. At other times the divisions were only latent. On the surface, there was unity and harmony only until severe events tested the party; then the Right and Left Wings faced each other in deadly combat.
In Russia the split occurred very early, in 1903, and was never healed. In Germany no split occurred until the World War. Apparently the orthodox Marxists here dominated the scene and the Right Wing revisionism of Bernstein was supported only by a minority. This was, however, but an illusion. What appeared Left was in reality a Centrist grouping which had not expelled the revisionists because it was too close to Bernstein and the other opportunists. When the critical moment in 1914 came it was found that, in effect, the Socialist Party was controlled through and through by the opportunist elements and not by revolutionary Marxists. In France the split occurred earlier. The Guesdists represented in their own immature way the Left Revolutionary Wing; the Jaur'es group, the extreme Right. However, by 1905 the continued capitalist prosperity induced both sections to fuse. When the war came in 1914 it was found in France, too, that the Right Wing overwhelmingly won the day.
Thus it was throughout the whole Second International. Vaguely and abstractly the skilled workers talked of revolution, but they could not carry it through and at every critical moment their actions were confused and bewildered. They lost countless opportunities and betrayed their cause innumerable times. In truth, the skilled workers could not understand Marxism. They could become opportunist socialists, but they could not reach the level of revolutionary communism.
In the days of the First International, the advanced workers were able to see clearly their cause and to enunciate boldly their general platform for socialism. They had the will to form conspiratorial groups that would attempt to storm the heavens. After the defeat in France, and by the time of the Second International, the will was gone. The skilled worker had improved his lot considerably and had been separated cleverly from the mass of rebellious poor. The vanguard mechanic of the First International, struggling against a relatively new order and infused with the dramatic fervor of the revolutions of the past, could conceive that at one stroke he and his fighting minority could take control of the State and end the capitalist system. The skilled workers later on understood far better the enormous weight of the industrial system pressing on them. They realized that the revolution was a harder job, indeed, than the earlier mechanic had imagined and they paled before the task. If they still talked of revolution and of socialism, the abstract theory was far removed from the day-to-day practical reforms suggested.
The Second International was dominated by the proletarian sections developed in the great industrial countries. Now Germany took the lead of the world movement; the backward agrarian countries had to play a secondary role. The domination of large-scale industry internationally also accounts for the fact that even in backward agrarian countries where the artisan and craftsman still play a considerable part, as in Spain, Italy, etc., the Anarchists can no longer prevail, and they yield to the Socialists. Only in Spain does Anarcho-Syndicalism dominate for any length of time. In Italy, in France and elsewhere, the authoritarians more and more take over the movement. After the middle of the nineteenth century, the petty bourgeoisie in prosperous countries had embraced Liberalism, and in backward agrarian countries discontentedly had turned to Anarchism; by the end of the nineteenth century, both in the industrial and in the backward countries, the small property elements following labor joined the socialist cause in increasing numbers.
Soon after the formation of the Second International, the Right Wing mobilized its forces for an open attack against revolutionary Marxism. Heretofore there had been piecemeal attacks against the body of Marxist opinions, coming chiefly from the ranks of the capitalist class but also from revolutionary elements. Bakunin, for instance, said that in economics he was a Marxist, but not in politics, and this was the opinion of some of the syndicalists. Others maintained that they could not agree with the philosophy of Marx. Still others disputed the economic theories of Marx, although agreeing with the program of the class struggle.
It was left to the German Right Wing, under Eduard Bernstein, who waited until the death of Friedrich Engels before opening fire, to attack revolutionary Marxism from top to bottom, from its philosophy to its organization practices. This German movement to revise Marxism was given the name of Revisionism and soon became an international tendency wherever socialism was a force. While in each country the Revisionists emphasized different aspects of the struggle and formulated their attacks to meet national peculiarities, nevertheless, as a whole, they were united on the basic propositions laid down by Bernstein. (*1)
Bernstein commenced battle with an attack against the theory of dialectical materialism, proposing instead the claims of the Kantian school of agnostics then flourishing in Germany. To Bernstein there was no inevitability or "must" in history. Socialism would come gradually, through education, and as an ethical "ought." The Socialists should therefore appeal to ethics and to concepts of justice to attain their needs. The correct interpretation of history was not historical materialism, but rather the eclecticism which made economic forces only one of a number of equally important efficient causes in procuring events. Ideas and ideals played a role equal to material factors.
Since socialism was not inevitable, it was not correct to stress the final aim of socialism in the propaganda of the Socialist. One should never pretend to know final aims, hut only the current events. And with the slogan, Movement is everything, the final aim of socialism nothing, Bernstein attempted to restrict the Socialists to social reform and to day-to-day demands to improve their lot. They must not struggle for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of an entirely new system of society.
Bernstein then proceeded to attack the economics of Marx. The theory of value as labor was to him misleading and abstract; he preferred the Austrian school of economics which stressed psychology and the subjective factors of consumption rather than employed the objective criteria of the labor school. Here again Bernstein moved away from labor to express the subjective vacillations of the petty bourgeoisie, and tried his best to conceal the creation of surplus value from the exploitation of the workers by the capitalists. The class struggle, therefore, had no economic foundation.
But it had been not merely the statical analysis of political economy as laid down by Marx which Bernstein scorned. Above all, the dynamic laws of motion which Marx had revealed came in for his greatest attack. Marx had predicted that the gap between the capitalists and the workers would widen and that the strain on all social relations would increase to a bursting point culminating in cataclysmic revolution. Bernstein attempted a systematic refutation of this position. He declared, first, that capitalism was getting better and better. The workers were improving their standards. The middle class was not decreasing as Marx had predicted, but increasing. "It is thus quite wrong to assume that the present development of society shows a relative or indeed absolute diminution of the number of the members of the possessing classes. Their number increases both relatively and absolutely." Bernstein denied that agriculture showed a standing still or a direct retrogression in regard to the use of holdings. He further called attention to the widespread distribution of stocks, bonds, and profit-sharing schemes of all sorts, in which sections of the workers were sharing. Thus, as regarding both industry and agriculture, Marx's forecast of the withering away of the older elements of the middle class was incorrect. Here again Bernstein idealized the lower middle classes.
To Bernstein, cartels and monopolies, coupled with the extension of credit, were making crises less and less severe and steadily reducing their effects, Capitalism could be controlled, crises foreseen and mitigated and finally abolished. In a period of rising general prosperity, how ridiculous seemed Marx's prognoses of calamities!
Such views in economics existed side by side with corresponding opinions as to politics. Bernstein would have nothing to do with the idea of revolution or insurrection. The term, "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" was to him an unfortunate phrase which must be dropped. The Socialist movement should not attack the Liberals too severely. Indeed, Socialism was but the legitimate heir of Liberalism and continued the tasks of that great historical movement. Liberalism was no obstacle to Socialism, but a good starting point. "There is actually no real liberal thought which does not also belong to the elements of the ideas of socialism." Socialism could be called "organizing Liberalism" because Socialism, too, freed the individual who must be the basic starting point.
The conquest of power which the workers were to undertake was conceived as being accomplished in two opposing ways, by the path of parliamentary contention, turning the right to vote to good account, or by the path of plots and revolution. Marx and Engels had taken the latter path clearly; Bernstein could only take the former. Democracy was not a type of class State, but was above all classes and was the indication of a social condition wherein political privilege belongs to no one class as opposed to the whole community. "The right to vote in a democracy makes its members virtual partners in the community, and this virtual partnership must in the end lead to real partnership."
Bernstein was willing to admit that in preceding eras violence had been necessary; for example, the rigid feudal organizations of the old regime had to be destroyed by violence. But the flexible Liberal organizations of the nineteenth century did not need violence to effect necessary changes. A revolutionary dictatorship was totally unnecessary. In his espousal of the Commune, Marx had exposed himself as only following the petty bourgeois Proudhon in his attack against the French State. The State was not to be attacked and overthrown. It was to be won over to socialism gradually and peacefully, labor being able to use the State for its own purposes. Like Lassalle, Bernstein did not believe that the State was to wither away or that all government was dictatorship.
Along with his idea that the revolution was far away and must come peacefully, Bernstein expounded a theory that the working class was not a homogeneous group, since many workers had property, and the skilled workers were widely divorced from the unskilled. Neither the skilled nor the unskilled had sufficient training as yet to manage the factories. If socialism meant that the workers were to take over the factories and run them, then it meant, too, that they should learn how to manage them under the period of capitalism. The workers needed a long apprenticeship in economic management. This could be secured through the co-operative and trade union movements. Thus, against the need of insurrection Bernstein put forth the practice of functioning in co-operatives and trade unions. The trade unions were not armies of men to help destroy capitalism. "The trade unions are the democratic element in industry. Their tendency is to destroy the absolutism of capital, and to procure for the worker a direct influence in the management of industry." The trade unions, then, were to co-operate with the employer, gradually to obtain a share in the management of industry.
Above all, Bernstein praised the co-operative for training the worker for the responsibilities of management. He took advantage of the fact that in the First International, Marx, in order to win the divers elements to his side, in the beginning had praised the co-operative movement and had recommended to workmen that they embark upon co-operative production rather than the establishment of co-operative stores, since the latter touched only the surface of the economic system, while the first struck at its foundations. (*2) The co-operatives provided the steps whereby the workers would learn how to manage property; to be, not only little storekeepers, but foremen and technicians in productive schemes to be established. These producers' co-operatives would gradually grow into a Socialist system.
It was not equitable, according to Revisionism, for the Socialists to advocate that the workers take over the factories without paying the employers. Expropriation without compensation was robbery. It was against Kantian ethics. Eschewing all such violent tactics, the Social Democratic Party would increase in power only if it appeared openly what it really was, namely, a democratic Socialist Party. Here Bernstein made an extremely vital criticism of the German Social Democrats, exposing the fact that the leaders of the Party were really in agreement with him, that they really stood for reform and not for revolution, and that they, too, believed that Marx had been far too much a slave to doctrine and to document and was really utopian in essential points. They, too, agreed, at bottom, that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat meant a dictatorship of club orators and writers, and that the evolutionary way was far better than the revolutionary way.
As Bernstein himself put it, the difference between him and the official leadership under Kautsky was that he spoke what he believed openly and did not hide behind an apparent agreement with the orthodox views of Marx. Thus Bernstein could raise his famous slogan, "For Kant against cant!" Time was to show that here, indeed, Bernstein was one hundred per cent correct, and that the very people who defended Marxist revolutionary ideas were only reformists in disguise. Ironically enough, this was to be proven at the very moment when Bernstein had recanted and declared that the events of the World War had thoroughly justified Marx's position.
How correct was Bernstein's estimate of the others was to be seen in certain practical questions that came up before the German Party. Marx had declared that the proletariat had no fatherland. Bernstein argued this might have been true in 1847 when the workers had no vote, but it was not true now. Not only should the German workers defend the Fatherland, but they should strive to obtain colonies such as those in China, in order to protect the Chinese from the lack of culture of other countries. In defense of his position, Bernstein pointed out that the very leadership of the German Social Democracy was in agreement with him. Bebel had openly declared that in case of attack by Russia, German Social Democracy would rally for the defense of Germany. The so-called Marxist, Hyndman, in England had argued in the same way in behalf of the British navy.
Thus Bernstein could prove that, in these policies, the official leaders of the Socialist parties in the Second International were really knifing their own revolutionary program, but, since their practical politics was correct, in self-justification they would have to adopt the theories of Revisionism which alone were inextricably intertwined with their daily opportunism.
The theories of Revisionism dominated the socialist movement in practically all of the important countries of Western Europe and America. In France, the leader of the United Socialist Party was the opportunist, Jean Jaur'es. Understanding well the weight of the revolutionary past of the French, Jaur'es could not deny the value of the theory of insurrection. It was not for him to reject the glorious traditions of Babeouf and Blanqui which were cherished so dearly by the French workingman. Rather, Jaur'es undertook to show that conditions in 1906 were no longer the same as they were in Marx's time. "Today, the definite form under which Marx, Engels, and Blanqui conceived the proletarian revolution has been eliminated by history. In the first place, the proletariat in its increased strength has ceased to count on the favorable chance of a bourgeois revolution. . . . It is not lying in wait for a bourgeois revolution in order to throw the bourgeoisie down from its revolution.... It has its own organization, and its own power.... It is not reduced to being an adventurous and violent parasite on bourgeois revolutions. It is methodically preparing, or better, it is methodically beginning, its own Revolution, by the gradual and legal conquest of the power of production and the power of the State. . . . The revolutionary period of the bourgeoisie is over." (*3)
"Henceforward, middle class revolutionary action being over, all violent means employed by the proletariat would result only in uniting against it all non-proletarian forces. And that is why I have always interpreted a general strike, not as a method of violence, but as one of the most gigantic means of legal pressure that the educated and organized proletariat could bring to bear for great and definite ends." (*4)
Thus, to the flexible Jaur'es, the general strike could not be for a seizure of power, nor for socialism, but only to bring legal pressure upon parliament for immediate reforms. The general strike was merely to be a warning to the ruling class to make concessions; it was powerless as a revolutionary method. Nothing could free socialism from the necessity of winning over the majority of the nation by propaganda and legal methods. Above all, since the days of bourgeois revolution were over, it was unthinkable that the proletariat should conduct one in its own name.
The fears of Jaur'es directly reflected the fact that in France the proletariat did not compose a majority of the population. He believed that the decisive elements were the petty bourgeoisie, especially the peasants. He conjured up before his eyes the terrific defeat that the workers had received in the Paris Commune through the fact that the bourgeoisie early was able to win the petty bourgeoisie to its side and to throw the countryside against the city. Jaur'es wanted to placate the petty bourgeoisie, the middle class public, believing that in this way only could the workers advance their interests. His particular opportunist theory, therefore, had much to do with the specific conditions existing in France.
The German opportunists, on the other hand, were much opposed to the general strike altogether. Jaur'es could conclude that the general strike should be not merely economic for demands against employers, but also political, as a pressure against the State; the German opportunists were against the general strike in any form. In France, the task was to lay down a theory that would control the general strike, limiting it only to pressure against the State and preventing it from either smashing the State or establishing Socialism. In Germany, the opportunists felt that the working class was so powerful that the general strike could not be limited or controlled easily. Once launched, even for economic demands, it would proceed logically to its revolutionary end of overthrowing the State and building a new society. Besides there was not in Germany, as in France, that spontaneity of action leading to the demand for the general strike.
The voice of Jaur'es was heard by the socialists in Belgium and in Scandinavia. There the opportunist socialists took advantage of the general strike movement of the workers to lead the strike in order to control it. Under their management the general strikes were merely for suffrage, for extension of workers' democratic rights, or for some immediate reform.
It was the general opinion of even the opportunists that, where Liberalism was not allowed to flourish and where despotic absolutism not yet had been overthrown by the bourgeois democratic revolution, there the Socialists could legitimately advocate violent measures of procedure. In Russia, the opportunist socialists were also in favor of revolutionary action against the Czar, the difference between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks consisting not so much in their efforts to overthrow Czarism, as in their relationship to the capitalist class and its Liberal ideologies. Contrary to the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks took the position that it was the role of the Socialists to act as the coolies for the Liberals, to help them usher in capitalism in Russia. The proletariat was entirely too weak to take over power. Once capitalism was established in Russia, then the same peaceful evolutionary methods should be used by the working class as were proposed for other countries by Bernstein and other Socialists.
The struggle between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, however, was not merely a struggle as to what each would do in the future if and when Czarism was overthrown. The differences of perspective and program of the two groups led to entirely opposite tactics and organizational principles. Indeed, the split that occurred in 1903 between the opportunist Mensheviks and the revolutionary Bolsheviks was first of all on questions of organization which developed into questions of tactics, strategy, and program.
The defeat of the Russian revolution after 1905 brought the differences between the two groups to a head; from then on the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, both calling themselves Social Democrats, veered farther apart until, in 1917, they were to be found on the opposite sides of the barricades.
However, the Mensheviks always contained in their ranks a considerable number of Left Socialists who later on were to take an internationalist position. Between this Left group and the Bolsheviks was an intermediary Centrist layer of which the best expression was Leon Trotsky. In the 1905 Revolution this Centrist element played an exceedingly important role, Leon Trotsky becoming the virtual head of the first Soviet, formed in St. Petersburg. That the leading representatives of the Soviet could be Centrist was natural, considering the transition stage of the revolutionary movement at the time. Few were prepared for actual insurrection, all the limitations of a peaceful general strike had become thoroughly exposed. As Rosa Luxemburg wrote at the time from Warsaw: "Everywhere people are hesitant and in a state of expectancy. The reason for all this is the simple circumstance that the mere general strike alone has ceased to play the role it once had. Now nothing but a direct general fight on the street can bring about the decision, but for this the right moment must be prepared more carefully." (*5) Rosa Luxemburg, who, apparently, was closer to the Bolsheviks than to the Trotsky Centrists, declared that precisely in St. Petersburg, where Trotsky was at the head, the direction of revolutionary forces was entirely inadequate. The insurrectionary flare-up occurred not in St. Petersburg, but in Moscow.
During the years of bitter repression, Trotsky's vacillations between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks took a decided trend to the Right. This was revealed in the discussions of 1911 regarding the proposal for a joint conference of Russian Social Democracy. "Our friend Trotzki is revealing himself more and more as a bad actor.... He insults the Bolsheviks and the Poles directly as 'party of splitters' but has not one syllable to utter against Martov's pamphlet against Lenin, which surpasses anything that has ever existed in point of meanness and baseness and which evidently aims at splitting the party." (*6)
In the United States where, by 1912, the Socialist Party had attained a membership of approximately one hundred and eighteen thousand, the controlling element was the machine headed by Morris Hillquit. To Hillquit, the State must never wither away but must take on a socialist character. "The modern state, originally the tool in the hands of the capitalist class for the exploitation of the workers, is gradually coming to be recognized by the latter as a most potent instrument for the modification and ultimate abolition of the capitalist class rule." (*7)
In the more democratic countries the necessary transitional reforms towards socialism were to be carried out gradually. Violence was only an accident of the social revolution; it was by no means its necessary accompaniment and it had no place in the socialist program. In line with this, the Socialist Party was completely silent on the question of whether to compensate the capitalists for their property or to confiscate without compensation. The Socialist Party in 1912 also expelled from its ranks all those who adhered to the precepts of the I. W. W., which included belief in the efficacy of revolution by force through the general strike and through the tactics of sabotage. The opportunist bureaucracy went to extreme lengths to place its finger on militant elements so as to expose them to the police. The I. W. W. to them was composed of scum, slum elements filled with agents provocateurs and police spies, whose sole game was to discredit the regular socialists.
The approach of the Socialist Party was well illustrated in its National Platform of 1904 where it appealed to the American people as the only movement whereby the liberty of the individual could become a fact. In its platform of 1908, it declared: "In this battle for freedom the Socialist Party does not strive to substitute working class rule for capitalist class rule, but by working class victory, to free all humanity from class rule and to realize the international brotherhood of man." (*8) By such formulas the Socialist Party entirely avoided the question of the necessity of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
In its platforms the Socialist Party called for the enactment of a series of immediate demands which included such items as revision of the Constitution to give greater democracy to the people, the public ownership of trusts and utilities, reduction of hours, public works for the unemployed, inventions to be freely used by all, the abolition of patent rights and monopolies, and national labor legislation. Only in 1912 did the Socialist Party begin to include a demand for collective ownership, which to them meant public ownership by the State, and democratic management.
In its immediate demands the Socialist Party by no means separated itself from the Welfare-Liberalism or Radicalism prevalent at the time. For example, in 1912, the National Platform of the Progressive Party, headed by Theodore Roosevelt, came out for almost as many of the immediate reforms as the Socialists, and declared, "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people." (*9)
Similarly, in 1920, the National Platform of the Farmer Labor Party formulated a program as radical as that advanced by the Socialist Party of that year. It affirmed that a condition of economic servitude existed in the United States, where wealth was monopolized by a few; all power must be restored again to the people. It called for a repeal of criminal syndicalist laws and other wartime legislation. It demanded the abolition of imperialism at home and abroad, and the immediate recognition of the elected governments of the republics of Ireland and of Soviet Russia, the embargo on arms against these peoples to be immediately lifted. It urged the self-determination of all nations, and the withdrawal of American armed forces from the colonies controlled by the United States. It advocated democratic control of industry and the right of labor to an increasing share in the responsibilities and management of business, application of this principle to be developed in accordance with the experience of actual operation. It urged public ownership and operation. It demanded justice for the soldiers and a complete bill of rights for labor. (*10)
Compared to this, the tone of the Socialist Party platform of the same year was relatively milder, the platform addressing itself particularly "to all citizens who believe in political liberty and social justice." The Socialist Party platform did not mention the lifting of an embargo against Soviet Russia and Ireland. It did not go to the length of proposing that the workers manage the industries, but called only for workers' administration jointly with that of the government. Such nationalized industries were to be run, not for the benefit of the working class, but merely to give "'Just compensation and humane conditions of unemployment to the workers and efficient and reasonable service to the public." (*11)
This situation was an adequate illustration of the type of Socialist parties that dominated the Second International. In fact, it was not socialism in the Marxian sense that they conceived, but at best, a sort of State socialism, and at worst, a pure and simple State capitalism with some degree of workers' control.
Having fulfilled their duty by stating in their program that they adhered to the view that they desired the end of capitalism, the Socialists then completely divorced their program from their day-to-day activity. There was no connecting link between the daily practice and the ultimate theoretical goal. Thus, the present was cut off entirely from the future, and the working class was given a narrow, provincial, nationalist point of view, whereupon each group fought for its own immediate self-interest rather than for the enduring interests of the international working class as a whole.
In short, the First International was an international of program; the Socialist parties of the Second International were organizations interested mainly in tactics, that is, they were groups concentrating entirely upon the petty current struggle for immediate better conditions, and, in this day-to- day conflict, the Socialists revealed themselves as no better than the Welfare-Liberal Radicals. In fact, the Socialist parties were Welfare-Liberal parties in the ranks of labor to the programs of which was attached a Socialist ideal to distinguish them from the ordinary Liberals.
The value of the Second International consisted in that it attempted to organize large masses of workers and to give them the inspiration of struggling for socialism. The world was not yet ready for the international working class to embrace insurrection in its own right. The bourgeois democratic revolution was over, except in such countries as Russia; the period of proletarian revolution had not yet begun. In the interim, only the skilled workers were articulating their needs; behind them the unskilled workers were confusedly groping their way.
This transition period adequately was reflected in the structure and functioning of the Second International which was entirely limited by the class composition that filled its ranks, and by the material conditions of the time. Militarism had not yet let loose the mighty destructiveness of the World War to compel workers to action. Capitalism had not as yet matured sufficiently to allow the vast masses in the basic industries of the country to express themselves with their own programs and in their own organizations. It was evident that sooner or later a new international grouping would have to be formed, a grouping that would be able to connect theory with practice, to round out the program, to reach genuine communist levels, to develop the tactics into a system of struggle, not for palliatives to lull skilled workers to sleep, but for such concessions as would deepen and broaden the class struggle to its highest point.
Above all, there would have to arise an International that would be able to connect the tactics of the present with the program of the future by means of an adequate strategy. This strategy could appear only in an era when there would be placed before the revolutionary workers of the world the question of revolutionary action as the sole method to solve their immediate problems, when workers would not be able to win reforms except by revolution. Such a period could not. come before the war.
The Second International was formed in 1889. In that year two separate congresses were called in Paris. One was made up of British trade unions and French Possibilists; the other comprised the Guesdists, the German party, the Socialist Labor Party, etc. Shortly, both Congresses were induced to meet together and to fuse into one. They then indorsed the eight-hour day, recognition of May Day as an international holiday, and later, the establishment of an international labor code. Other congresses were held in Paris, 1891, Zurich, 1893, and London, 1896. In the course of this period the Socialist Parties were gradually systematizing their program and practical activities. As the congresses developed, they decided to include not only Socialist parties but trade unions as well; the Anarchists, however, were excluded.
In taking in the trade unions, the Socialists believed that they were following the line of Marx and the First International. This was not the case, however. It will be recalled that the trade unions in the First International had been given officially the standing of "affiliated" bodies only and not of members, unless the local unions were at the same time regular sections of the International. The decision to accept the reformist trade unions into membership was all the more inexcusable when we consider the difference in proletarian development in the 1890's as compared with 1864. In 1864 the working class was but beginning to be aroused; the Marxist had no other line open to him but to form such a body as the First International and patiently work within it. By the end of the nineteenth century the situation was entirely different, powerful Socialist bodies existing in many important European countries.
The inclusion of the trade unions into the International meant that the International was not to be a revolutionary body in fact but a loose organization for immediate better conditions for the workers. This was seen also when the Second International permitted the British Labor Party to join, since prior to the World War the British Labor Party, while looking in the direction of socialism, had never officially committed itself to the socialist position.
Thus the Second International contained, on the one side, such elements as those represented by Lenin, or by Rosa Luxemburg, and on the other side, such groups as the British Labor Party and trade union reformists. Naturally, the Second International could not be a centralized disciplined body with full authority in its central committee. Instead, the Secretariat became a mere international letter-box, and the congresses represented futile discussion centers where resolutions could be adopted but no authority established. These resolutions were relatively unimportant since the national Socialist Parties had complete independence in everything. Thus the congresses could express the sentiment of various parties, but by no means could organize international action.
Here, too, we see a great distinction between the First and the Second International. The First International had erected an authoritative center that had attempted to centralize all groups and to formulate a uniform international policy. The Second International made no such effort. International solidarity was reduced to a minimum so that it was easy at the outbreak of the World War for people who had cheered each other in Socialist Congresses literally the day before to shoot each other down when the war broke out.
The Socialist leaders of the Second International were able to build trade unions of skilled workers everywhere and to unite them in a separate international center. After several attempts, there was established in 1901 through the International Secretariat of Trade Unions a trade union center which convoked a number of congresses: in 1901 in Copenhagen, in 1902 in Stuttgart, and in 1903 in Dublin, where the Secretariat was formally organized. Other congresses were held in 1905 in Amsterdam, 1907 in Christiania, 1909 in Paris, 1911 in Budapest, and 1913 in Zurich. In the last congress, the organization was renamed the International Federation of Trade Unions.
Only in 1910 did the American Federation of Labor join the International Federation. It demonstrated its Americanism by taking an extremely reactionary stand on almost all questions that appeared before the Congress. Its chief role was to denounce the I. W. W., to denounce French Revolutionary Syndicalism, to denounce the general strike, to denounce anti-militarism. It opposed the Socialist International. It fought against the separate admission of Canada, believing that country should be represented through the A. F. of L. Its sole effort was to prevent cheap European labor from attaining the shores of America and reducing the standards which the A. F. of L. had won for itself. The stand of the A. F. of L. during these years was marked by a complete lack of international solidarity. Following its own bourgeoisie, the A. F. of L. officialdom refused to concern itself with European affairs any further than to touch them with the extreme tips of its fingers and to keep them at arms' length.
A considerable number of important questions came up before the Socialist International for discussion at its congresses. These questions revolved around the discussions on war and on Socialist participation in capitalist governments. Millerand was discussed in the Amsterdam Congress of 1904, which had followed the Paris Congress of 1900.
Three positions were put forward. On the one hand, Jaur'es and the Right Wing unequivocally endorsed the position of the Socialists in the government, even as exemplified by Millerand, where Socialists had to sit in the same Cabinet with the very General,who had taken the lead in shooting them down. Certainly, if Socialism was merely a continuation of Liberalism, then it was correct to form such a coalition government on the theory of gradually reforming the State until it became transformed in a Socialist direction.
On the extreme Left was the revolutionary position expressed in the opinion of Engels, who had advised the Italian Party to ally itself with the Radicals for the establishment of a republic or a bourgeois democracy, but under no consideration to take part in the government; as soon as the united forces were victorious, the Socialists were to break with their former allies and to form an opposition at once. Engels wrote: "After the common victory we might perhaps be offered some seats in the new government --- but always in a minority. Here lies the greatest danger. After the February Revolution in 1848 the French socialistic Democrats (the R'eforme people, Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, Flocon, etc.) were incautious enough to accept such positions. As a minority in the Government they involuntarily bore the, responsibility for all the infamy and treachery which the majority, composed of pure Republicans, committed against the working class; at the same time their participation in the government completely paralyzed the revolutionary action of the working class they were supposed to represent." (*12)
Daniel DeLeon of the Socialist Labor Party, as well as Guesde of the French Socialists, took a leading part in complete opposition to the idea of Socialists joining with the capitalists in government.
Between these groups was the opposition of such elements as that represented by Kautsky, who was head of the German Party and in reality was head of the Second International. Kautsky took the position that one cannot give any absolute answer to the question of socialist participation in bourgeois governments; it all depended on concrete circumstances. By means of this vague formulation, therefore, Kautsky evaded the concrete question of the specific circumstances in France which had led to the betrayal of Socialist principles by Millerand. He evaded also the question of whether parties which stood for participation in bourgeois governments in such a manner as to destroy in effect the whole revolutionary essence of the movement could have a place in the Second International. In abstract phrase, it seemed that Kautsky had formulated correctly the revolutionary position. In reality, he concealed his alliance with the Right Wing, permitting the latter to flourish and to dominate the policies of the Second International.
Thus, in 1907, the Socialist Fabian Society could approve of the British government's rough tactics in putting down the British railway strike. Thus, too, former French Socialists could break the general strike of the French railroad workers in 1910 by calling workers to the colors and threatening to shoot them as mutinous soldiers if they refused to work on the trains. The same Socialists who were so eager for peaceful methods proved themselves exceedingly ferocious against the workers once the opportunists were a part of the capitalist machinery. The Second International was democratic enough, evidently, to contain both revolutionists and police agents.
The question of war became increasingly important as the twentieth century advanced and was the chief topic discussed in the Stuttgart Congress of 1907 and the Copenhagen Congress of 1910. The demands upon which all were united included the abolition of standing armies, the limitation of armaments, publication of all treaties, international arbitration, a referendum vote of the people before war be declared or carried on. Socialists agreed also to refuse to vote for any war credits. At this point, however, sharp disagreement began to arise as each nationalist group began to defend its "Fatherland."
In 1907, owing especially to the activity of Lenin and Luxemburg, a militant resolution was adopted declaring that the Socialists must "do all in their power" to prevent war and to wipe out war by abolishing capitalism. At the same Congress, however, the proposal for a general strike in case of war was voted down, as was the proposal for armed insurrection.
Thus, in phrases, the Second International adopted a militant resolution which could retain the loyalty of such communist elements as those represented by Lenin and Luxemburg. In actual concrete application, however, it refused to go even as far as the First International had gone in 1868, that is, to refuse to lay down the specific militant action of general strike or, armed insurrection. The Right Wing, therefore, lost nothing but a debate; in reality it won the day. In the meantime, a specious unity between the two irreconcilable Wings could be maintained, a unity irrevocably shattered by the war mobilizations of 1914.
The Socialists of the Second International declared that they were not bound to oppose a defensive war where a country was defending itself against an aggressor. However, it was entirely unable to define just what is a defensive war, and in practice the slogan: "No opposition to a defensive war," played right into the hands of the imperialist militarists the world over. When the World War came, Socialists found themselves killing each other in the name of national defense and of Socialism. With the World War, the Second International collapsed.
1. All Revisionist opinions and quotations following are from E. Bernstein: Evolutionary Socialism.
2. This was the view of the Geneva Conference of the First International, 1866.
3. Jean Jaur'es: Studies in Socialism, pp. 59-61.
4. The same, pp. 62-63.
5. Luise Kautsky: Letters of Rosa Luxemburg, p. 98.
6. The same, pp. 160-161.
7. M. Hillquit: Socialism in Theory and Practice, p. 98.
8. For a reprint of the Platform see K. H. Porter: National Party Platforms, pp. 313-319.
9. For the platform see K. H. Porter, the same, pp. 334-349.
10. The same, pp. 435-442.
11. The same, p. 470.
12. Marx and Engels: Correspondence, Letter of Engels to Turati, p. 523.


text:
Iowa State to host World Intellectual Property Day on April 26
by News & Events | Mar 30, 2018 | News, News & Events | 0 comments
Iowa State University Campanile. Photo credit: Christopher Gannon/Iowa State University
Celebration to be held on Central Campus
The Iowa State University Research Foundation (ISURF) and the Office of Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (OIPTT) are hosting a World Intellectual Property Day celebration on Thursday April 26.
Established by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), World Intellectual Property Day seeks to raise awareness of how patents, copyright, trademarks and design impact daily life. The Iowa State celebration will be held just north of the Campanile on Central Campus from 11:30 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. The free event highlights important innovations developed by Iowa State researchers and includes a sampling of products developed with Iowa State inventions. Those stopping by will also get a chance to meet Iowa State faculty who are an important part of Iowa State's intellectual property engine.
Learn more about Iowa States's World IP Day at https://lt433-dac1d2.pages.infusionsoft.net/.
Craig Forney, OIPTT, 515-294-9513, ceforney@iastate.edu

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Rabbit has done it again. I don't know how many times we have had to say that but it is a good thing. King Kaka has been one of the most consistent hitmakers in the country and East Africa.
Last week Rabbit dropped a hit dubbed 'Mimi Bado' featuring Eyearno. The two teamed up on a Beat Ya Keggah production, who is also doing big things for the music industry.


text:
Barbus ercisianus, also known as the Ercis barbel or Van barbel, is a species of ray-finned fish in the genus Barbus from eastern Turkey, it is classified by the IUCN as Data Deficient due, at least in part, to the uncertain taxonomic position of this taxa, it may be synonymous with B. lacerta.

References

E
Fish described in 1971

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Home Entertainment Entertainment News Chill
Battle for FCC rages on
in Chill
The ending of Minister of Information and Civic Education Moses Kunkuyu's choral competition has given birth to a blaring tussle for the somewhat rehabilitated French Cultural Centre (FCC).
Driven by passion for fashion
Walking for tourism
Hip-hop awards will get better
The battle for the on-and off venue, which has survived years of vandalism since its closure in December 2010, has matured into mounting calls for government to surrender it to artists because they claim to be better-placed to run it.
If this prayer is granted, the country will be on course to replicating the story of the one-time rundown Lusaka Playhouse in Zambia which was rescued by a few creative hands at a time businesspeople were baying to turn it into a booze club.
However, Blantyre's entertainment mecca still wears scars of two years of uncurbed looting that was supposed to end when Government staged a K300 million takeover from the French Embassy last year.
The effects of the shambolic change of ownership seemed to be on course to the end with the K2 million (about $6 666) renovations orchestrated by the organisers of Blantyre Arts Festival (BAF) last month—with the Minister of Tourism and Culture Daniel Liwimbi hinting that it would be closed for repairs soon after the three-day fest on October 7.
However, concerned artists, at their meeting last weekend, declared the venue is usable—saying the hosting of Kunkuyu's Shout of Praise choir contest, won by Revival Singers, mirrors double standards and politically-orchestrated favouritism in the running of the partially repaired centre.
Said the concerned artists' rep Max DC (real name Maxwell Chipinga) in an interview: "We visited FCC and noted the place is usable while the routine works take place. If the venue wasn't, BAF wouldn't have used it in the first place.
"We therefore want government to surrender the centre to us, artists, because this issue is in our interest. We will establish a trust to run it and some of proceeds from the events will go towards renovating the place."
But Kunkuyu in his opening remarks on Sunday denied using his political powers and proximity to Liwimbi to earn the keys to the shut down centre. He told the crowd that he only approached the Ministry of Tourism and Culture as a way of ensuring the side does not remain idle while it is awaiting repairs.
This year, government allocated K200 million (about $665 000) for the renovation of the centre. At BAF opening, Liwimbi hinted that that the budgeted works will take off by December because they were still waiting for work plans from the Ministry of Land and Housing.
The Nation has learnt that Nanzikambe Arts, together with other art groups (names withheld), tendered to run the centre while renovating it, but the bid was rejected by the culture ministry. The source, close to the cited groups, said the ground was not level for a similar arrangement by donor-backed BAF earned nods from Liwimbi. The festival was partly bankrolled by the embassies of Germany, Norway, France and US.
In an interview, Liwimbi referred the questions on the battle for the FCC to Katopola. The chosen respondent refused to give answer and consigned the matter to Director of Culture who could not be reached.
Artists credit the venue for affordable prices, purpose-built facilities and art-friendly grounds which hosted a diversity of local heavyweights and international stars. The artists—including dramatists, musicians and poets—are compiling a petition to be presented to President Joyce Banda, disclosed Chipinga.
Chikaonda faults Malawi leadership
When a will is just a piece of paper


Shelburne Farms is excited to announce that our 6-month cheddar received first place in the "Cheddar - Aged Up to 12 Months - Made from Cow's Milk," category at this year's American Cheese Society (ACS) Judging & Competition. Our cheddar was selected as a winner for excellence among nearly 2,000 products from 259 different companies. It was one of 13 Vermont cheesemakers to win medals at this year's conference.
Mild cheddar can be tough to evaluate, so we're very happy that the judges saw the quality of our product over some pretty stiff competition. The award is also welcome because many of our current cheesemakers were responsible for producing and caring for the winning batch!
We'll be celebrating and sharing all of our award-winning cheeses alongside many other Vermont winners at the Vermont Cheesemakers' Festival on Sunday, August 12. If you are on the Farm, please feel free to express your congratulations to members of the Cheese and Dairy Teams!
Wow...can't wait to pick some up...have some "Foodies" from N.Y.C. coming up for a visit!


text:
Q: ActiveRecord.where ineffective in rake task, works in rails console I have this rake task set up to run on a production server through Cloud66 jobs every 3 minutes. It's purpose is to release reservations made for bookings that were abandoned during checkout. The job runs successfully, but is ineffective when run as a rake task.
namespace :order do
  desc "Unreserves bookings that have had no activity for 5 minutes"
  task release_abandoned_bookings: :environment do
    abandoned_bookings = PhysicalBookingBase.where("reserved = true AND state IN (?) AND updated_at < ?", ['personal_data','awaiting_payment'], 5.minutes.ago)
    abandoned_bookings.update_all(reserved:false)
    puts "Released #{abandoned_bookings.count} abandoned bookings" # = Released 0 abandoned bookings
  end

This effect is the same when I ssh into the server and run bundle exec rake order:release_abandoned_bookings
However, if I ssh into the server, copy/paste the two essential lines and run them in rails console there they do what they are supposed to:
pry(main)> abandoned_bookings = PhysicalBookingBase.where("reserved = true AND state IN (?) AND updated_at < ?", ['personal_data','awaiting_payment'], 5.minutes.ago)
  PhysicalBookingBase Load (17.1ms)  SELECT "bookings".* FROM "bookings" WHERE "bookings"."type" IN ($1, $2, $3) AND (reserved = true AND state IN ('personal_data','awaiting_payment') AND updated_at < '2020-10-30 15:41:45.986908')  [["type", "PhysicalBookingBase"], ["type", "OrganizationBooking"], ["type", "Booking"]]
=> [#<OrganizationBooking id: 39578, reserved: true, state: "personal_data", updated_at: "2020-10-30 15:08:19">]

[3] pry(main)> abandoned_bookings.update_all(reserved:false)
  PhysicalBookingBase Update All (18.7ms)  UPDATE "bookings" SET "reserved" = $1 WHERE "bookings"."type" IN ($2, $3, $4) AND (reserved = true AND state IN ('personal_data','awaiting_payment') AND updated_at < '2020-10-30 15:41:45.986908')  [["reserved", false], ["type", "PhysicalBookingBase"], ["type", "OrganizationBooking"], ["type", "Booking"]]
=> 1

[4] pry(main)> PhysicalBookingBase.where("reserved = true AND state IN (?) AND updated_at < ?", ['personal_data','awaiting_payment'], 5.minutes.ago)
  PhysicalBookingBase Load (16.3ms)  SELECT "bookings".* FROM "bookings" WHERE "bookings"."type" IN ($1, $2, $3) AND (reserved = true AND state IN ('personal_data','awaiting_payment') AND updated_at < '2020-10-30 15:41:56.885991')  [["type", "PhysicalBookingBase"], ["type", "OrganizationBooking"], ["type", "Booking"]]
=> []

A: Fixed it. Turns out that it's an STI-related problem. Since PhysicalBookingBase is an intermediary base class when this runs as a rake task it never finds any records. No records in the DB have "PhysicalBookingBase" in the type field.
TL;DR The solution was to use BookingBase with conditions on the type field as the base for the predicate when looking up the bookings.
The STI hierarchy looks like this:

*

*PhysicalBookingBase inherits from BookingBase, which has the reference to the table name.

*Booking and other variants that have representations in the type column in the table inherit from PhysicalBookingBase

*In addition we have DigitalBookingBase that also inherits from BookingBase which follows the same structure

For some reason when running in the Rails app or the Rails Console, using PhysicalBookingBase as base for the predicate works just fine, but not when rake runs the same line of code. I even tried adding the officially suggested STI Preload module, but that didn't help either.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Compromise is usually a part of settling on a new home. In the process of compromising, however, be aware of what you need. If you or your spouse make most of the family income from home, you need a decent office that offers privacy and quiet. This means that you should not settle for a home that offers just a little office space in the master bedroom or in the midst of the family room or other noisy location. If you have five kids, a two-bedroom home is not for you. Not to be repetitious here, but if you can get the space or layout you want in a slightly different neighborhood, consider what is available. Your kids will survive a change of schools, especially if they are young.
If you choose to renovate your home before you move in, plan ahead and if possible, delay possession of your old home until your new one is ready. Along with the costs, the top reason most people do not like renovations are that they are disruptive to normal life. If you either stay in your old home or work with a friend or relative until the house is ready, you will find the process more bearable. This takes planning as it may mean having a month or so of double payments, but it is worth it.
Be aware that when you're renovating an older home, there may be hidden problems that you must attend to, at the expense of something else you'd rather do. Make sure to work with a designer and contractor who will help you to prioritize what needs to be done and who involves you in the process of deciding what needs to be put off when funds are limited.
If you want to get new appliances or new furniture, watch your timing. You can jeopardize your loan if you put these things on your credit card before you close. Lenders check your credit report before closing to make sure that your circumstances have not drastically changed from when they approved the loan.
My resolution every year is to help you buy and sell a home in Louisville. I'm Jessica Gaines Jarboe and I'm ready to help you at Louisville Gaines Real Estate. Contact me today!


text:
NYC Top Comedy Choices for Thursday 6/20/13
For more, please visit HyReviews.com.
Myq Kaplan has a new comedy album; check it out here
Tom Shillue performs at Lasers in the Jungle…
…then hosts genius storytellers Chris Gethard & Elna Baker at Funny Story
Tonight's recommendations for the best in New York City comedy (in chronological order, with top picks noted and shows over $10 marked with $) include:
[TOP PICK] 7:30 pm ($5): Star storyteller Tom Shillue (Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Fallon, The Daily Show, Comedy Central Presents, 2011 ECNY Award for Best Storyteller, host of Funny Story, albums Better Stronger Faster and Big Room; currently releasing a new storytelling album each month), Aparna Nancherla (delightfully wry stand-up; writer for FX's Totally Biased), Adam Newman (Comedy Central, MTV, College Humor, host of Big Long Sets), Adam Conover (VH1's Best Week Ever, Olde English, College Humor, host of Fresh Out), and Joe Zimmerman (Comedy Central) performing stand-up at UCB East hosted by Sean Crespo, Dan Wilbur, and Katina Corrao: Lasers in the Jungle
[TOP PICK] [$] 7:30 pm & 9:30 pm (call 212.757.4100 for cover charge; plus 2-drink min.): The co-star of NBC's Whitney and star of a Comedy Central Presents special, and who's also performed on Showtime and TBS, headlining tonight through Saturday at the Carolines Comedy Club: Chris D'Elia
[MEGA-TOP PICK] 8:00 pm ($10; includes a free beer): Three of the finest storytellers alive—Chris Gethard, Elna Baker, and host Tom Shillue (Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Fallon, The Daily Show, Comedy Central Presents, 2011 ECNY Award for Best Storyteller, albums Better Stronger Faster and Big Room; currently releasing a new storytelling album each month)—plus Baron Ambrosia, Clay McLeod Chapman, and Nat Towsen gather to tell funny stories at the Brooklyn Brewery (79 North 11th Street) for this super-charged show: Tom Shillue's Funny Story
[TOP PICK] 8:00 pm-MIdnight ($7 for the entire evening): The Magnet house improv groups Junior Varsity and Hello Laser performing improv for an hour, followed at 9:00 pm by Round Trip (long form improv—directed by Armando Diaz—which tells the story of group of characters over the course of three separate monoscenes), and at 10:00 pm by veteran improvisors making up scenes based on improvised monologues from ace storyteller Adam Wade (two-time Moth GrandSlam Storytelling Champion (2006 & 2009) and record-breaking 18-time StorySlam Champion; for a sampling of Adam's award-winning tales, please click here) at The Armando Diaz Experience, and finally at 11:00 improv competition Inspirado (like UCBT's Cage Match, but with a game-like challenge component) featuring All American vs. The Music Industry: The Magnet's Night Out
[TOP PICK] 8:00 pm ($5): The Emmy-winning writers of The Colbert Report gather on the UCB Chelsea stage to perform an all-improvised show at Seize the Mustard
[TOP PICK] [$] 8:00 pm ($14 plus 2-item food/drink min.): Colin Quinn (SNL, Comedy Central's Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn, HBO, NBC, Broadway), John Mulaney (one of the finest stand-ups in the country; writer/performer for Saturday Night Live; Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Fallon, Comedy Central Presents, one hour special & CD/DVD New in Town, VH1's Best Week Ever; for John's great bit on Weekend Update, please click here), Tom Papa (host of Jerry Seinfeld-produced NBC comedy The Marriage Ref; numerous appearances on David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno; three Comedy Central specials), Gary Gulman (David Letterman, Jay Leno, Last Comic Standing, Tourgasm, Comedy Central hour-long special), Gregg Rogell (Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, Louie, Comedy Central), and Jeff Lamp (Jay Leno, Comedy Central) performing stand-up at Comedy Cellar (117 MacDougal Street, between 3rd Street & Minetta Lane) hosted by William Stephenson (FX's Louie, The Chris Rock Show): Colin Quinn, John Mulaney, Tom Papa, Gary Gulman, and More
[TOP PICK] [$] 8:00 pm ($20): A former roommate & drinking buddy of such comedy giants as David Cross and Marc Maron performs a one-man show that was such a hit at August's FringeNYC it's been extended indefinitely. Please read my review by clicking here, and Jason Zinoman's New York Times review by clicking here; and then come share an intimate hour with Matt Graham at the Soho Playhouse's downstairs Huron Club so he can explain life and meaning and why This Too Shall Suck
8:00 pm ($8): An energetic 8-member sketch group at The PIT upstairs lounge: Nerds on Fire
[TOP PICK] [FREE] 9:00ish pm: Terrific NYC stand-ups (the lineup is typically announced around 3:00 pm; for an update, please click here) performing on this free weekly show at the Kabin Bar and Lounge hosted by Chesley Calloway and comedy genius Sean Patton: Comedy as a Second Language
[TOP PICK] 9:30 pm ($5): This UCB Chelsea double-bill kicks off with a one-man show by Arthur Meyer (writer for Jimmy Fallon and The Onion; sketch troupes Pangea 3000, Fambly, and Two Fun Men): Arthur Meyer: Rock and Roll…
…and then "a sketch show about men who stay out of the fray. Because the fray is chock full of death, basketball, and lions. Come and sit this one out with us," written by and starring Jordan Klepper (The Stepfathers, MTV's I Just Want My Pants Back) and Russ Armstrong (30 Rock, MTV's Failosophy): Guilty Bystanders
[TOP PICK] 9:30 pm ($5): Improvisors make up three one-act plays on the spot at The PIT downstairs lounge, produced by brilliant comics Dan Hodapp & Micah Sherman: The Scene
[TOP PICK] [$] 10:00 pm ($14 plus 2-item food/drink min.): Dave Attell (one of the most respected stand-ups in the biz; star of Showtime's Dave's Old Porn and Comedy Central's Insomniac; HBO, David Letterman, Conan O'Brien, Jay Leno, The Daily Show, Comedy Central Presents), Neal Brennan (razor-sharp, edgy comedy veteran; HBO, Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Fallon, co-creator of Chappelle's Show), Nick Griffin (David Letterman, Jay Leno, Comedy Central Presents), Trevor Noah (South African comic; Jay Leno, Chelsea Lately, one-man show Born a Crime), Sherrod Small (writer/performer on TBS' Are We There Yet?, Comedy Central, VH1), and Dan Soder (Comedy Central Half Hour, VH1; for set about being a hypochondriatic drug user, please click here) performing stand-up at Comedy Cellar (117 MacDougal Street, between 3rd Street & Minetta Lane) hosted by William Stephenson (FX's Louie, The Chris Rock Show): Dave Attell, Neal Brennan, Nick Griffin, Trevor Noah, and More
[TOP PICK] 11:00 pm ($5): Improv team Scrambled Legs was a surprise juggernaut, winning 7 matches in a row. Last week it faced one of the finest groups in the history of improv, Death by Roo Roo, and finally lost…but by a thin margin of 85-76. Kudos to SL, which will be back for the annual championship competition. Meanwhile, Death by Roo Roo is in place to stomp out a slew of challengers, starting tonight with The Regulars. Come watch these groups at UCB Chelsea compete for your laughs and votes at the raucous Cage Match
Thursday Open Mics & Jams
[FREE] 5:30 pm: All-gal open-mic at UCB East in the bar area ("Hot Chicks Room") hosted by the spectacular Anna Drezen & Sue Smith: Open Michelle: Ladies Open Mic
[TOP PICK] [FREE] 6:00 pm: The lovely and supportive Julia Wiedeman (host of UCB East's Monday storytelling open mic show) subs tonight for John Flynn, hosting this terrific weekly open-mic storytelling show at UCB East, with each performer given a whopping eight minutes to captivate & impress: Oh, Hey Guys!
[FREE] 6:00 pm: Open-mic stand-up with comics' names drawn from a bucket and each chosen receiving two minutes—and if that goes well, maybe a hug (but not actual puppies)—at The Creek's upstairs theatre in Queens' Long Island City hosted by Ross Parsons & Trey Galyon: Free Puppies
6:00 pm (no cover, 1 drink min. for both comics and audience members): Open mic stand-up providing 5-7 minutes per comic, running 2 1/2 hours. Arrive 30 minutes before the show to get on the signup sheet. This is a fine opportunity to perform at the only comedy club in the East Village: Eastville Comedy Club Open Mic
[FREE] 7:00 pm: In this free Magnet show, audience members (signing in at 6:00) can join in with improv troupe Junior Varsity to make up scenes on the spot: Magnet Mixer
[FREE] 11:00 pm: An open-mic show that's first come, first serve, with each comic getting 3-5 minutes on stage at The Creek downstairs lounge in Queens' Long Island City hosted by Josh Alba: Mic and Cheese
[ALMOST FREE] 11:00 pm ($1): An open stage for indie improv groups—and if you're not in a group, that's also fine, you'll simply be added to one—at The PIT downstairs lounge hosted by Darcy Burke & Donna Lobello: New Team Lunacy
(307 West 26th Street; 150-seater; shows free-$10; one of the most respected comedy theatres in the world)
(153 East 3rd Street; 99-seat main theatre, bar area for open mics; shows free-$10)
(123 East 24th Street; 99-seat upstairs theatre, 40-seat downstairs theatre; shows free-$15)
(254 West 29th Street; 60-seat theatre; shows $5-$10)
(208 West 23rd Street; headliners on weekends, Comedy Juice on Tuesdays, and more; 2-drink min.)
From legendary NYC comedy site Brooklyn Vegan: If you want to know what is happening in NYC comedy on a particular day, you gotta get hip to this dude Hy Bender and his site Best New York Comedy. The site is updated daily and features a super exhaustive look at what is happening in the NYC comedy world that particular day. The site is updated religiously…It is your daily comedy itinerary and it scares me how on top of his shit this guy is.
Leave a Comment »	| Best New York Live Comedy Shows	| Tagged: Chris Gethard, Comedy, Improv, New York Comedy, Sketch, Stand-Up, Storytelling, Tom Shillue's Funny Story	| Permalink
You are currently browsing the Best New York Comedy blog archives for the day Thursday, June 20th, 2013.


text:
Wednesday, Jun 15 2022
Drugmakers Set Self-Standards To Curb Antibiotic Waste Discharge
Amid concerns about growing antibiotic resistance among the general population, a coalition of pharmaceutical companies set new guidelines to better control the release of antibiotic waste into the environment.
CIDRAP: New Industry Guidelines Aim To Limit Antibiotic Manufacturing Waste
A coalition of companies representing the pharmaceutical, biotech, and diagnostics industries today released new guidelines to help antibiotic manufacturers limit the release of antibiotic manufacturing waste into the environment. ... The guidelines were developed because of growing concerns that the release of antibiotic-laced wastewater into the environment from manufacturing sites is contributing to the emergence of AMR in environmental bacteria. (Dall, 6/14)
Bloomberg: Drugmakers Aim To Curb Antibiotic Waste Discharge Into Environment
Although pharma companies are increasingly taking action by setting and enforcing limits on wastewater released from manufacturing, a huge gap remains in applying those standards to suppliers, the Access to Medicine Foundation found in a report. (Paton, 6/14)
In other news about antibiotics —
Stat: Major Drugmaker Licenses Antibiotic Production For Poor Countries
In a first-of-its-kind arrangement, Shionogi has reached an agreement with the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership to license an antibiotic to dozens of mostly low- and middle-income countries in a bid to combat antimicrobial resistance. The deal involves cefiderocol, which is used to treat gram-negative bacteria, a type of superbug that is increasingly resistant to most antibiotics. The bacteria, which can cause such infections as cholera, pose a particular threat for people with weak or undeveloped immune systems, including newborns, aging populations, people undergoing surgery, and patients being treated for cancer. (Silverman, 6/14)
CIDRAP: Study Ties Rotavirus Vaccination To Fewer Antibiotics For Gastroenteritis
A study of data from insured US children found that rotavirus vaccination was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for acute gastroenteritis, researchers reported last week in Open Forum Infectious Diseases. (6/13)
Indianapolis Star: FDA Accused Of Approving Aduhelm For Alzheimer's Treatment Prematurely
The makers of Aduhelm hoped their new drug would make history as the first effective treatment to slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. Instead, the monoclonal antibody has headed down a more controversial path: While one government agency approved it for use, another declined to cover it, putting the future of the drug in limbo. Drug critics say the Food and Drug Administration approved Aduhelm prematurely. Supporters counter that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services unprecedented refusal to pay puts it outside the reach of most people who could potentially benefit. (Rudavsky, 6/15)
Modern Healthcare: Federal PBM Probe Culminates Decades Of M&A
The federal investigation into pharmacy benefit managers' dealings comes at a time when the industry is more consolidated than ever. The Federal Trade Commission inquiry could lead to more restrictive policies and to sanctions against PBMs, along with other players in the pharmaceutical marketplace, legal experts predicted. But the industry has tools at its disposal to delay or weaken the probe. Combined, UnitedHealth Group's OptumRx, Cigna's Express Scripts and CVS Health's Caremark control nearly 80% of the prescription drug market and heavily influence the prices for and access to medications. (Tepper and Goldman, 6/14)
Modern Healthcare: Centene Settles Medicaid Fraud Allegations In New Mexico
Centene Corp. will pay $13.7 million to New Mexico to settle allegations that its former pharmacy benefit manager overcharged the state's Medicaid department for drugs, the state attorney general said Monday. New Mexico is the sixth state to settle with Centene. The nation's largest Medicaid insurer is exiting the PBM space after reserving $1.25 billion to settle allegations from at least nine states that its pharmacy benefits arm, Envolve, inflated charges. (Tepper, 6/14)


text:
Posted on April 20, 2015 Written by MaudComments Off on Tim Blake Nelson On 'Anesthesia', Indie Funding & Landing Kristen Stewart
Tim Blake Nelson On 'Anesthesia', Indie Funding & Landing Kristen Stewart
Deadline : Tim Blake Nelson is one of the hardest working character actors in show biz with a near 20-year resume. He raised his profile in 2000 when he starred as one of the three leads in the Coen Brothers' O Brother, Where Art Thou? opposite George Clooney and John Turturro. And his phone hasn't stopped ringing since with credits that include Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, Terrence Malick's Thin Red Line, The Incredible Hulk and a turn on Tina Fey and Robert Carlock's Netflix series Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt. But, Nelson for several years has had a serious side gig as a filmmaker at the center of New York's indie scene. When on location, Nelson writes screenplays and even edits too, having spliced together his directorial debut Eye of God in between acting sides on the O Brother. To date, along with Eye of God, he's made six features including O, The Grey Zone, Leaves of Grass, the NBC 2006 TV movie Haskett's Choice, and Anesthesia which is premiering at the Tribeca Film Festival on Wednesday, April 22 at 9PM at the Borough of Manhattan Community College.
While studio executives often gripe about the gamble in mounting dramas, Nelson has a knack for getting his feature ambitions off the ground, topped off with a number of notable prestigious actors. Some indie filmmakers have to wait years to get their films funded, or have to grin and bear an actor's unavailability before rolling, however, Nelson admits, "I have not found it incredibly difficult to get my movies financed with one exception, my project Seasons of Dust. At a certain point it seemed to be financed, but then fell apart, but I intend to make it. I have a sense of how to get my indie projects off the ground."
Nelson doesn't wince at the industry's whining about dramas. For Nelson, no indie drama is stigmatized when it come to financing. "I think at the right budget with the right cast, and the right vision you can make a movie. It's not necessarily going to make a lot of money, but none of us are making money as we work for scale. But when we get our movies made, we all end up subsidizing because the market is so squeezed."
His latest film Anesthesia was funded from all private equity, "a combination of somewhat sophisticated movie financing and first-time investors" says Nelson giving a shout out to his producers Julie Buck and Josh Hetzler who handled the money-end. Anesthesia was funded before Nelson secured his cast which doesn't happen that often in the indie finance world . "My financiers knew because of my track record that I would deliver a good ensemble, and that made them feel safe about their investment," says the director/actor.
In general, Nelson makes his films for seven figures. His first film Eye of God was made below seven. "My attitude is you have to make the movie for a price where investors have a good shot at making a little bit of money. All of us working on the film are subsidizing it. I'm not asking investors to do that. I feel very responsible, grateful and beholden to the people who invest in my movies."
Anesthesia takes place over a 24-hour period and follows a Columbia University professor, Walter Zarrow (Sam Waterson) who is mugged on his apartment doorsteps. The film follows the chain of events that triggered the attack, while bringing together a number of people in Walter's life including his son (played by Nelson), his daughter-in-law (Jessica Hect), a troubled student (Kristen Stewart), a cheating spouse (Corey Stoll) and a drug addict (K. Todd Freeman). Glenn Close, Michael Kenneth Williams and Gretchen Mol round out the cast. Even though Manhattan has been a safer place since the Mayor Rudy Giuliani era, Nelson says that muggings "happen near the Columbia University area. I live on 104th Street and this film is about my neighborhood. While you can walk around New York and feel safer than than you did during the '70s and '80s there are still areas where you can get mugged in the city, like any city in the world."
Casting is also a painless process for Nelson, thanks to the actors, as well as their reps, that he has gotten to know over the years. Not to mention, Nelson isn't above cold-calling a manager or two to get who he wants. His golden rule is "I don't go out with a script unless I know the roles are going to appeal to the sorts of actors that will attract financing." When it came to landing Twilight actress Stewart in his film, "it wasn't challenging at all. I just texted her and sent her the script. She read it and texted me back 'Yes'", says Nelson who is an acquaintance of Stewart's. The cast for Anesthesia was assembled in two and half months, with casting director Avy Kaufman leading the charge, particularly with the younger actors. Nelson didn't know Waterson, rather met him over lunch after being pursued by the actor's manager Keith Addis.
In the past, Nelson has landed such top-shelf talent as Edward Norton, Susan Sarandon, Kerri Russell and Richard Dreyfus for his 2009 directorial Leaves of Grass about an Ivy League professor who returns to his Oklahoma hometown, only to contend with his pot-growing twin brother. For his 2001 Holocaust film Grey Zone, Nelson landed Harvey Keital, Steve Buscemi, Natasha Lyonne and Mira Sorvino. It grossed $518K at domestic B.O. for Lionsgate. Nelson's highest grossing directorial is his millennial version of William Shakespeare's Othello, entitled O which made $16M stateside for Lionsgate in 2001 and starred Josh Hartnett, Mekhi Phifer and Julia Stiles.
However, Nelson emphasizes again, "I will not send out a script that is going to get passed on. I'll sit on it and write for months and months. I know when it's not ready. I know when a script is not working. I'm very patient. You only have one chance for actors and their reps to read your material, and I let folks know that if I'm sending out a script, it's well worth reading. Even lesser known actors can be quite choosy."
As a filmmaker though, one thing Nelson is picky about is that "I still want my movies to be seen in movie theaters". While Nelson understands indie distributors' needs to make their release models work with theatrical-VOD day and date; it's not an auteur's ideal deal.
Says Nelson, "When we are all making the movie, the production designer, the DP — we're all thinking of our film for the big screen where a lot of strangers have gathered for a collective experience with great sound and beautiful, immersive colors. That's what I'm still after. I'm less interested in home viewing experience when it comes to film."
In addition to its premiere, Anesthesia is also showing at the Regal Battery Park Stadium on Thursday, April 23; Friday, April 24; and Saturday, April 25. UTA and Gray, Krauss, Stratford, Sandler Des Rochers are handling sales.
Filed under: media: articles movie: anesthesia people talking about kristen Share on Twitter on Facebook on Tumblr by email
Charlie's Angels : Entertainment Weekly First Look
New Interview w/ USA Today + New Portrait
Everything You Want To Know About Woody Allen's 2016 Film
Previous Post'Camp X-Ray' Making Of
Next PostIn praise of Kristen Stewart: an essay on Kristen & #CloudsofSilsMaria


Health literacy is more than just being able to read and understand information about health or health services. It is about understanding what services are available and how they can help if something is wrong.
Recently Richard Osborne and Alison Beauchamp visited Wales from Victoria, Australia, to talk about their experience of developing methods to improve the understanding, access to and utilisation of health information and health services by everyone, especially those who are most vulnerable.


Having done a couple of drives now to reach hills that are sometimes a long way from main roads I can confirm that a) many of our roads are tiny and b) many of our drivers are maniacs.
Rounding corners on these boreens is nothing short of an act of faith, yet countless times it seems that the drivers that come hurtling around the bend don't even consider breaking when they see me approaching in the opposite direction. If I want to slow down that's fine, but these folks are happy to stick at 70 kms and sure there's a couple of milimeters between us.
Anyway, I have airbags so I'll press on with the task at hand.
After finishing Brandon Hill I set my course to the nearby Mount Leinster, which at 795 meters is the highest point in both Carlow and Wexford.
The ensuing tour of the back roads of Carlow and Kilkenny took me past the ruins a 12th century church in Ullard. It looked good so I stopped for a look around.
There were lots of very old and weathered gravestones in the ground, and interestingly, some recent ones as well. As I went inside the church and reached the chancel?? at the back I noticed a crucifix placed in an alcove and bent over to take a picture. It was then that I felt a crunch under foot and looked down to see that the entire floor was covered in crosses, made from twigs, lollypop sticks and reeds. I suppose the site is a feature of local pilgrimage, but the effect was just a little creepy.
I carried on cross-country until I reached the access road for Mount Leinster, where I parked up, stuck on the hat and started up into the rainy clouds that obscured the hill.
Yeah, walking the access road is not exactly Bears Grylls material but it's a steep road, the clouds were about ten feet above my head and let's face it, I didn't see YOU up there now did I 🙂 It really is a steep hill and without being able to see anything due to the clouds it was a fair slog up to the summit, taking an hour and ten there and back.
Looking down the access road - bring your skates.
Face her for the mountain !
Wondering how your progressing now ?
I have 20 of 26 hills completed as of mid-August 2010. I hope to get to Benbaun in Galway perhaps next week and expect to be finished by mid-November.
Thanks for your comment, your house for sale at mountleinster.com looks fantastic!
Up to 23 hills now, with Galtymore, Knockboy (in Cork) and Carauntoohil to complete over the next few weeks.
Thanks for letting me know…I'll return it to its rightful owners!
Easy mistake to make though. Once you crossed over the river Barrow into the town of Graiguenamanagh, you were in county Kilkenny.
Ullard Church is one of my fave spots around here.
One thing you failed to mention about it though is the handball court that is made on the back of the church.


Master Educator Rd Edition Exam Review Milady Master Educator Bundle is good choice for you that looking for nice reading experience. We hope you glad to visit our website. Please read our description and our privacy and policy page.
Finally I get this ebook, thanks for all these Master Educator Rd Edition Exam Review Milady Master Educator Bundle can get now!


text:
advices-stories Edit post
The Ultimate Guide Amazon Audible
With Audible's new arrangement, you can access more than 60,000 hours of book recordings and webcasts for not exactly the expense of Netflix.
What exactly is Audible Plus?
A subscription to Audible Plus gives you access to a selection of titles from the Audible Originals library, which includes exclusive audiobooks and podcasts written and recorded by well-known authors and personalities. Popular titles include the new James Taylor memoir Break Shot, Barack Obama's The Audacity of Hope (read by the former president himself), and Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking (performed by Vanessa Redgrave).
Common's Bluebird Memories, Andy Richter and Yvette Nicole Brown's new podcast, Vroom Vroom, Kate McKinnon's Heads Will Roll, and Rolling Stone reporter Erik Hedegaard's new Charles Manson series, Meeting Manson, are among the most recent podcast releases.
For new subscribers, Audible is currently offering a 30-day free trial, allowing you to test drive the new service.
✔ Start your free 30 days
The most important thing to understand about Audible Plus is that it does not give you access to the entire Audible library. But that doesn't mean you'll be stuck with a stack of bad books. Audible Plus's library includes newer titles such as St. Vincent's Words + Music, Neil Young's To Feel the Music, and Leonard Cohen's Stranger Music, in addition to classics such as George Orwell's 1984 and Aldous Huxley's Doors of Perception.
You can find a complete list of all titles available as part of Audible Plus here, and you can narrow your search by genre, running time, new arrivals, or average customer review.
Audible stated that it intends to expand the catalogue of Audible Plus over time, making it an even better value the longer you subscribe. Audible Originals are released once a month, so you'll always have something new to listen to on a regular basis. At $7.95 per month, Audible Plus is the best value the company has ever provided, and it's an excellent resource if you want to see if audiobooks are right for you.
Can you read any book with Audible plus?
You can get an Audible Plus subscription for $7.95 a month, which allows you to listen to anything in the Audible Plus collection (which presently has over 11,000 titles)... You also get access to Audible member-only sales and 30% off any additional audiobooks you purchase in addition to your credits.
What is in the audible plus library?
The Plus Catalog, which is included with membership, features Audible Originals, audiobooks, and podcasts, as well as unique series. This incredible repertoire provides members with access to an unrivalled assortment of audio entertainment. The Plus Catalog has a growing assortment that is continuously updated.
Is it true that Audible is free with Amazon Prime?
While an Audible membership does not come free with Amazon Prime, Prime members do benefit from lower membership rates. A selection of Audible books is available for free with your Prime membership, albeit the selection is limited in comparison to the whole Audible catalogue.
Do Audible members get free audiobooks?
Audible is currently offering a free collection of children's stories that you may instantly stream on your preferred device. Members can also listen to free audiobooks from Audible on a variety of themes. The options are updated on a regular basis and include Audible Originals.
Audible Premium Plus vs. Audible Plus
Unlimited listening is available with an Audible Plus subscription, but only to the Audible Plus catalogue. The most notable distinction is that Audible Premium Plus gives one credit per month for an audiobook of the member's choosing from the full Audible catalogue.
How much does Audible Plus cost?
The monthly fee for Audible Plus is $7.95. (cancel anytime).
For a limited time, you can try Audible Plus for free
How much does Audible Premium Plus cost?
The monthly fee for Audible Premium Plus is $14.95. (cancel anytime).
Try Audible Premium Plus for free and get up to two audiobooks
Is Audible Plus worth it?
If you listen to more than one audiobook each month and are satisfied with the selections in the Audible Plus catalogue, I feel Audible Plus is worthwhile. It's a fair deal, comparable to similar services, providing you don't mind not being able to choose a book from the whole Audible collection each month.
Is it worthwhile to pay for Audible Premium Plus?
If you want to listen to at least one audiobook of your choice at a discounted price each month, I feel Audible Premium Plus is worth it. This is what Audible has always provided to customers, in addition to the unique pricing, and it is comparable to similar services. Access to the Audible Plus repertoire for limitless listening is a new perk that distinguishes Audible from its competitors and may persuade you to select Audible over another similar service.
What's the point of Audible membership?
Every month, an Audible subscription entitles you to one credit and two Audible originals. Credit is just the ability to buy one audiobook for free, regardless of its price. There are additional benefits to purchasing an audible subscription. Aside from that, you'll get a 30% discount on any subsequent books you buy.
Do you keep your Audible Plus books if you cancel?
After cancelling your Audible Plus or Audible Premium Plus membership, you will lose access to the Plus Catalog at the conclusion of your billing period. Plus, any Catalog titles you've added to your collection will have a lock icon next to them, and you won't be able to listen to them after you cancel.
If you've never used Audible before, you can get a 30-day free trial of Audible Premium Plus, which includes one credit.
I've been an Audible subscriber on and off for a few years now, and I'm always finding something new or interesting to listen to. The performances (books are frequently read aloud by the author) are also excellent, allowing you to hear how the writer intended their words to be interpreted. I've downloaded the Audible version of books I'd previously read and had a completely different experience.
Listen to all you want Listen all you want Audible Plus
30-day free trial:$0.00 trial
Latest articles from : advices-stories


text:
At WGS we are committed to our duty to safeguard and promote the welfare and wellbeing of children, young people in our care, those who work in the school and visitors. Through our work we aim to ensure a safe learning and working environment for students, staff, parents and visitors alike. We take our responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and child protection very seriously. Where there are safeguarding and security concerns, the staff communicate this to the school's designated security team immediately.
At WGS we go the extra mile to welcome parents, families and visitors to our school at all possible times. However, access to the school site is closely monitored, with a 24 hour security presence and over 20 cameras streaming at all times. Our signing in system and ID cards ensure that we can easily identify adults on site. All adults who work with our students, including visiting professionals, are appropriately checked and / or supervised. This also supports our emergency evacuation processes which are in place.


The Woodbury Police Department has arrested two individuals from College Grove, Tennessee for delivering drugs to the Town of Woodbury.
Robert T. Lee, age 25, and Tonya Greer, age 28, were indicted by the Cannon County Grand Jury in January for Sale of a Controlled Substance and Maintaining a Dwelling or Vehicle to keep use or sell drugs.
These arrests are a result of an investigation that started in September 2010 after information was received about individuals who may be delivering drugs to the Town of Woodbury.
"Almost all of the officers of this department were involved in this investigation at some point," Woodbury Police Chief Tony Burnett said. "I would also like to thank the Rutherford County Sheriff's Department for their assistance in the location and apprehension of Lee and Greer."
Both of these individuals were placed on $15,000.00 bond to appear in Circuit Court here in Cannon County.
I am sure who ever "Triple Steele Inc" is appreciated the advertisement in the mug shot!!
Too bad people don't serve "hard time" anymore or this might be their last offense.
bh123424 I agree it is often the judges that let them slip.


Discussion in 'Software Support' started by CoLuxe, 18 April 2018.
my Hyperion is not starting, when I put the RPI Zero on.
I have to do that manually over Hypercon (First Stop, the Start) or over SSH ("service hyperion restart").
I want to bump this thread... I am having the exact same issue, also running on a pi zero.
Same problem here. Have you already found a solution?
Today i tried using Raspbien Jessie Lite instead of Stretch Lite. On Jessie it works just fine!
This solved my problem. Running a Raspberry Pi Zero W, Hyperion now starts on boot/power up.
This seems to work but it stops working again after I update the system with apt-get update/upgrade. It only works with a non up-to-date install of Jessie.
When running stretch the hyperion service is running after startup but the LEDs don't turn on until the service is restarted.
I ended up just using raspbian jessie, which works great for me.


text:
S. 2816: Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act
A bill to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and adoption assistance programs and to allow the adoption credit to be claimed in the year expenses are incurred, regardless of when the adoption becomes final.
Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act - Exempts provisions expanding the adoption tax credit and adoption assistance programs enacted by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 from the general terminating (sunset) provisions of that Act.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow the tax credit for adoption expenses in the taxable year in which such expenses are paid or incurred.
S 2816 IS
111th CONGRESS1st SessionS. 2816
To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the adoption credit and adoption assistance programs and to allow the adoption credit to be claimed in the year expenses are incurred, regardless of when the adoption becomes final.
Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. BURR, Mr. CASEY, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. ENZI, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. VITTER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act'.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO ADOPTION CREDIT AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(c) Exception- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the amendments made by section 202 (relating to expansion of adoption credit and adoption assistance programs).'.
SEC. 3. ALLOWANCE OF ADOPTION CREDIT IN YEAR OF EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Paragraph (2) of section 23(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to allowance of credit) is amended to read as follows:
`(2) YEAR CREDIT ALLOWED- The credit under paragraph (1) with respect to any expense shall be allowed for the taxable year in which such expense is paid or incurred.'.
(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by this section shall apply to expenses paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.
Founded: 2009-11-21
Related persons
People working for or related to this organization
Amy Klobuchar Cosponsor 2010-02-23
Ben Nelson Cosponsor 2009-11-21
David Vitter Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Evan Bayh Cosponsor 2009-12-10
James Inhofe Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Jim Bunning Introduced 2009-11-21
Jim DeMint Cosponsor 2010-03-10
John Thune Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Johnny Isakson Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Kay Bailey Hutchison Cosponsor 2010-06-29
Kirsten Gillibrand Cosponsor 2010-02-09
Michael Enzi Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Mike Johanns Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Pat Roberts Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Richard Burr Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Robert P. Casey, Jr. Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Sam Brownback Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Saxby Chambliss Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Susan Collins Cosponsor 2009-11-21
Thad Cochran Cosponsor 2010-04-12
Tim Johnson Cosponsor 2009-11-21