text:
war is peace...
After the 'America First' foreign policy of Donald Trump - the first elected US president since Dwight Eisenhower not to start a major war - Joe Biden's election portends a re-run of the Obama years, when the promise of peace was betrayed.
Joe Biden says his cabinet appointments show "America is back" on the world stage - but is that really a good thing?
With former vice-president Biden looking increasingly secure in his claim on the White House despite ongoing legal challenges to the election process, how will his choices for his governing team shape foreign and domestic policy?
But Biden's presidency is already looking like an unofficial third term for Barack Obama, with a host of familiar faces packing the White House. And with many of the architects of the last Democratic president's foreign policy back in charge, will the world see a return to the 'Pax Obama' of 'humanitarian bombing' and regime-change after four years of President Donald Trump's America First policy?
Foreign Intervention
Antony Blinken, Biden's designate for secretary of state, was deeply involved in Obama's string of overseas proxy wars as deputy national security advisor and deputy secretary of state.
Blinken supported the US-led NATO bombing campaign on Libya in support of the overthrow of the Green Revolution and the murder of its leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.
He also publicly justified the transfer of arms from Libya to sectarian militants attempting to overthrow the Syrian government, and was described by the Washington Post as "one of the government's key players in drafting Syria policy" - which he frequently defended to Congress and the media, even as money weapons and recruits ended up in the arms of al-Qaeda and Daesh.
— Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) November 24, 2020
Blinken was also a point-man for Obama's material support for the Saudi-led bombing and invasion of Yemen, which aid agencies say has caused a nationwide famine. His appointment belies Biden's campaign-trail opposition to the Saudi war on its southern neighbour.
Speaking in the Saudi capital Riyadh in 2015, he said the bombing campaign sent a "strong message to the Houthis and their allies that they cannot overrun Yemen by force" - in reference to the sitting Yemeni government. "As part of that effort, we have expedited weapons deliveries, we have increased our intelligence sharing, and we have established a joint coordination planning cell in the Saudi operation centre."— Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) November 24, 2020
Blinken supported Israel's 2014 bombing of the Gaza Strip and has also signalled that Biden will maintain Israeli military dominance in the Middle East. Recently he said the new administration would reverse Trump's decision to allow the sale of Lockheed F-35 Lightning II stealth attack jets to the United Arab Emirates in a "quid pro quo" for normalising relations with Tel Aviv.
Blinken has also taken a hard line on whistle-blowers, both domestic and foreign. He has previously said that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden should return to the US from Russia and face trial, and that he wished the Obama administration could have found a way to charge Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
— Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) November 24, 2020— Kevin Gosztola (@kgosztola) November 24, 2020
Like Obama, Biden has promised to end the "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Trump administration signed a peace accord with the Taliban and is withdrawing troops.
But Blinken said this week that could simply mean major trop deployments would be replaced by "discrete, small-scale, sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces to support local actors" - precisely the model used in Syria against the will of its government. He also repeated unfounded claims that Russia had put bounties on the heads of US troops in Afghanistan.
Spy Mistress
Biden's appointment of Avril Haines, a lawyer like himself and running-mate Kamala Harris, as the first female Director of National Intelligence is not a good omen for human rights. As deputy director the Central Intelligence Agency under Obama, she worked with director John Brennan on the policy of "targeted killings" in drone strikes in nations with which the US was not at war.
The American Civil Liberties Union was highly critical of that policy, and cast doubt on the Obama administration's 2015 claim that it had only killed between 64 and 116 "non-combatants" - as a euphemism for innocent civilians - since Obama took office in 2009. The ACLU quoted figures from journalists and human rights groups of between 200 and 1,000 civilian killing.
Haines also overruled the CIA's inspector-general to drop charges against agents who snooped on Senate staffers working on the congressional report into the spy agency's use of torture. She later backed Trump's 2018 appointment of current CIA Director Gina Haspel, who had herself been accused of involvement in torture.
"This is a pretty ominous signal about what is to come" a Senate staffer told the Daily Beast. "To have the deputy CIA director touted for her record in advancing human rights and respect for the rule of law I don't think can be adequately squared with not only her record but her deliberate choices of advocacy." Immigration Tsar
Biden's homeland security secretary will be Alejandro Mayorkas, who has been described as a "refugee" as his Jewish parents emigrated from socialist Cuba to the USA in 1960 when he was just a year old - which does not bode well for US relations with Latin America's many left-wing governments.
Pro-migrant activists were quick to welcome his appointment after Trump's four-year crackdown on illegal immigration across the southern border with Mexico that saw the fees charged by "coyotes" - human traffickers - double.
"He will not only bring critical leadership but a set of life experiences that will animate the department's work ahead," American Immigration Lawyers Association executive director Benjamin Johnson.
Others hoped it meant an end to detentions of illegal immigrants at the border and a strengthening of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programme created by Obama in a 2012 executive order.
DACA allows those brought to the US illegally as children to apply every two years for right to remain, but does not grant citizenship. Trump sought to end the programme, saying he wanted Congress to legislate a permanent replacement, but was blocked by legal action from civil rights groups.
"We look forward to the immediate expansion of the DACA program and the dismantling of the detention and deportation machine that was created under Obama and expanded by Trump," said immigrant legal aid charity RAICES chief advocacy officer Erika Andiola. "Leading this department will be no easy task, but we hope that as the first Latino and someone who has advocated for immigrant rights, he will change the direction of DHS once and for all."
https://sputniknews.com/us/202011251081271697-will-a-biden-presidency-mean-return-to-humanitarian-bombing-of-pax-obama/
By Gus Leonisky at 26 Nov 2020 - 12:53pm
yeeeecks...
I get annoyed at people who tell me that Donald Trump waged as much war-stuff as Obama, making Obama a saint in comparison... This is of course bullshit from the MainStream media (and Stephen Colbert who loves Obama's butt) that are still in love with the Barak, as if he was Jesus.
Let's get this right:
Trump launched a feeble attack on Syria after it supposed to have crossed a "red line" in regard to a "gas attack on his (Assad's) people. On the hundred or so missiles despatched, about two reached a target, say a warehouse in Syria. Of the supposed gas attack by Assad, it can be demonstrated with 99 per cent exactitude that this was a set up by the White Helmets. This war against Syria was started by Obama...
On the footsteps of a war STARTED BY OBAMA, Trump continued to provide weapons to Saudi Arabia to pound Yemen.
Like Obama, Trump indulged in assassination of one prominent leader... Obama assassinated Bin Laden (we still don't know his full role in US politics) while Donald (under the bad influence of Bolton) went for an Iranian General. The Iranians responded with missiles on a US camp somewhere, but Trump refrained from escalating the "exchange" as the Iranian missiles where frightfully accurate to hit only warehouses and not kill any US personnel. This was a warning.
Obama "declared" war (he did not "declare" — he just bombed) on Libya, Syria, Yemen, and a few other countries which are some of the poorest on earth. As well, Obama continued the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, while using "moderate rebels" (ranging from Al Nusra, Al Qaeda to even Daesh by default of weapon-line supplies) to upset the Syrian status quo.
Meanwhile, Trump has tried to bring the US troops back home to the great horror of the Democrats who love occupying other countries with "good intentions" (oil and other resources) which means highway robbery like the US troops plundering the oil fields of Syria presently. Trump had enough of this caper and wanted to stop all this.
Now Biden is about to stop troop withdrawals and carry on with the "occupation" — while increasing the threat of conflicts with Russia, China and other countries that do not bend the knees.
This is the Obama legacy: the Imperium Amercanus that has killed a lot of of people... You are entitled to say that Obama NEVER DESERVED his Nobel Peace Prize — and he admits to it.
obama's police...
OBAMA SLAMS 'DEFUND THE POLICE,' BUT HIS FAILED REFORMS FUELED THE MOVEMENT
Activists fired back at former President Obama's claim that 'Defund the Police' is politically ineffectual, noting that his reforms failed to stop police violence or address the root causes of it.
BY JAISAL NOOR
Activists are firing back at former President Barack Obama for his comments in a recent interview promoting his new memoir, "A Promised Land," in which he called activist demands to "defund the police" ineffectual and said they should push for reforms, instead.
"If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund The Police,'" Obama said. "But, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done."
The concept of defunding the police has roots in the decades-old prison abolitionist movement, but it went mainstream this summer during Black Lives Matter protests following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. According to The New York Times, the protests constituted, by sheer number of participants, the "largest movement in U.S. history."
The movement's energy was in part the result of long-brewing dissatisfaction with the police reforms advanced by the Obama administration.
Representative-elect Cori Bush, a Black Lives Matter leader who helped organize protests after the 2014 police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, responded to Obama on Twitter: "With all due respect, Mr. President—let's talk about losing people. We lost Michael Brown Jr. We lost Breonna Taylor. We're losing our loved ones to police violence. It's not a slogan. It's a mandate for keeping our people alive. Defund the police."
Read more:https://therealnews.com/obama-slams-defund-the-police-but-his-failed-reforms-fueled-the-movement
a meritorious but not sufficient act to prevent the psychos...
Now in force: the UN Treaty banning atomic weapons
by Manlio Dinucci
The UN Treaty banning nuclear weapons entered into force despite opposition from all nuclear powers and their allies.
Today, January 22, 2021, is the day that can go down in history as the turning point in liberating humanity from weapons that, for the first time, have the capacity to wipe the human species and virtually all other forms of life from the face of the earth. The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) enters into force today. But it could also be the day on which a treaty destined, like the many previous ones, to remain a dead letter enters into force. The possibility of eliminating nuclear weapons depends on all of us.
What is Italy's situation and what should we do to contribute to the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons? Italy, a formally non-nuclear country, has for decades conceded its own territory for the deployment of US nuclear weapons: currently B61 bombs, which will soon be replaced by the deadliest B61-12. It is also one of the countries that - according to the NATO document - "provide the Alliance with aircraft equipped to carry nuclear bombs, over which the United States retains absolute control, and with personnel trained for that purpose". Moreover, it is quite possible that the intermediate-range nuclear missiles (similar to the Euromissiles of the 1980s) that the United States is building after having withdrawn from the INF Treaty, which prohibited them, will be installed on our territory.
Italy is thus violating the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, ratified in 1975, which stipulates: "Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to accept any transfer whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices, directly or indirectly". At the same time, in 2017 Italy rejected the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons - supported by the 30 NATO countries and the 27 European Union countries - which states: "Each State Party which has nuclear weapons on its territory, owned, possessed or controlled by another State shall ensure the prompt withdrawal of such weapons at the earliest possible time".
Italy, following in the footsteps of the United States and NATO, opposed the Treaty as soon as negotiations were opened, as decided by the General Assembly in 2016. The United States and the two other NATO nuclear powers (France and Great Britain), the other Alliance countries and its main partners - Israel (the only nuclear power in the Middle East), Japan, Australia and Ukraine - voted against. The other nuclear powers also expressed a contrary opinion: Russia and China (which abstained), India, Pakistan and North Korea. Echoing Washington, the Gentiloni government had defined the future Treaty as "a highly divisive element that risks undermining our efforts towards nuclear disarmament".
The Italian Government and Parliament are therefore jointly responsible for the fact that the Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons - approved by a large majority by the United Nations General Assembly in 2017 and having entered into force after reaching 50 ratifications - has so far only been ratified in Europe by Austria, Ireland, the Holy See, Malta and San Marino: a meritorious but not sufficient act to give force to the Treaty.
In 2017, while Italy rejected the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, more than 240 Italian parliamentarians - mostly from the Pd and the M5S, with the current Minister of Foreign Affairs Luigi Di Maio at the forefront - solemnly undertook, by signing the Ican Appeal, to promote Italy's accession to the UN Treaty. In three years they have not moved a finger in this direction. Whether behind demagogic postures or openly, the UN Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is boycotted in parliament, with a few rare exceptions, by the entire political spectrum, which agrees to alienate Italy from the increasingly dangerous policy of NATO, officially known as the "Nuclear Alliance".
All this should be recalled today, in the Global Day of Action for the entry into force of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, celebrated by Ican activists and other anti-nuclear movements with 160 events mostly in Europe and North America. The Day must be transformed into a permanent and growing mobilization of a broad front capable, in each country and at the international level, of imposing the political choices necessary to achieve the vital objective of the Treaty.
Roger Lagassé
Il Manifesto (Italy)
https://www.voltairenet.org/article212052.html
Meanwhile in Psycho-World:
American Political & Military Leaders are Criminally Insane
Opinion » Columnists
We can begin with an article by Jim Kouri citing an FBI study which stated:
"... character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena. They share the traits of psychopaths who are not sensitive to altruistic appeals, such as sympathy for their victims or remorse or guilt over their crimes. Is it any wonder that America is failing at home and world-wide?"
American Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Secretaries of State, Defense Secretaries, White House staff, and many Senators and Congressmen display many or most of the traits of criminal psychopaths and mass murderers. Evidence of US government atrocities is not difficult to find. The government of the United States of America has always been a criminal enterprise, ruled most often by thugs and genocidal psychopathic killers. I doubt there is much dispute in the world today about the intrinsic evil that seems to permeate the US government and the Deep State that controls it, nor about the insane criminality inherent in most of its foreign policies. But these are startling accusations nevertheless, so let's examine the substantiation.
American presidents as a class constitute some of the most shameless myths of US history, always presented in glowing terms of wisdom, humanity and greatness when they were mostly racist genocidal thugs, engaged from the earliest days of the Republic in a never-ending series of genocide. For many years, killing native Indians was one of the best-paying jobs in America. It was the great George Washington who instructed his troops to skin the bodies of natives "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings", and Theodore Roosevelt, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, was worse, claiming the lives of aboriginal natives were "as meaningless, squalid, and ferocious as the wild beasts", and that the extermination of them and the theft of their land "was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable". The landing of Columbus in the New World set in motion a program of genocide that covered all the Americas, exterminating more than 125 million people including the entire Maya, Inca and Aztec civilisations, as well as the Carib Indians and 98% of American aboriginal peoples.
The sacrifice of American lives has always been part of the US war agenda. President McKinley ordered the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor, killing about 400 American sailors, as an excuse to begin a war with Spain, as Woodrow Wilson ordered the Lusitania sacrificed, along with more than 1,000 lives, as an excuse to enter the European war. Also now beyond dispute is that Roosevelt knew the location of the Japanese fleet and the expected time of the attack on Pearl Harbor, engineered as an excuse to enter the European war, sacrificing thousands of American lives by not informing Pearl Harbor. It is now proven the US abandoned more than 1,000 POWs in Vietnam whose release was conditional on the payment of $2 billion in reparations the Americans had no intention of honoring.
Wars of aggression are one of the defining characteristics of the United States of America, the country having been at war for about 235 of its 245 years as a nation. Extreme diplomatic and economic interference run a close second. During the past 200 years, there remains only a small handful of largely insignificant nations that the US has not invaded, destroyed, sanctioned, bankrupted, interfered grotesquely with in elections, launched massive terrorist or biological attacks against, or otherwise brutalised. Here is a link to one article outlining the more egregious attacks the US has made on Canada, two relating to China and one to Iraq.
Former US President Jimmy Carter said
"We sent Marines into Lebanon, and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers - women and children and farmers and housewives - in those villages around Beirut. As a result of that, we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful".
He also stated the US was the most warlike nation in the history of the world. This is one reason the US has for so long been listed as the most hated nation in the world.
Americans (and others) may be surprised to learn that the US has never installed a democratic government in any country, ever. Instead, in more than 50 instances, the US has forcibly overthrown a peaceful and legitimate government and installed a brutal psychopathic killer-dictator.
Assassinations are also one of the defining characteristics of the US. In more than 150 instances the US has killed the Chief of State or leading executives of other nations, including a Secretary-General of the UN, in retribution for their resistance to American bullying and plundering. This does not include the failures, notably three attempts at China's Premier Zhou En-lai or the 638 attempts against Fidel Castro. In the past, these 'black ops' were done in intense secrecy and vehemently denied, but today they are done openly and freely admitted as occurred recently with Solemani in Iran, assassination now apparently included in the American definition of 'democracy'.
Terrorism is also a fixed characteristic of the US as an integral element of the nation's foreign policy. It isn't much in dispute anywhere that the violent terrorist uprising in Tibet in 2008 was America's gift to China for the Olympics, as was the terrorist attack in Sochi in 2014 the equivalent gift to Russia's Olympics. Nor is it in dispute that the primary terrorist organisations in the world today were formed, financed and trained by the US.
The United States government has always employed torture against citizens of other nations. I have photos of US soldiers waterboarding civilians in the Philippines in the early 1900s. The US Operation Phoenix in Vietnam tortured to death more than 45,000 Vietnamese, mostly poor farmers. American soldiers were unanimous that no one who entered Project Phoenix emerged alive. More recently, the US was discovered to have created the largest network of torture prisons and prison ships in the history of the world, centered on places like Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and Baghram, and Diego Garcia. Amnesty International described Abu Ghraib as "a center of torture and executions", as were they all.
In subjugating nations to American supremacy, the US has for a century specialised in what the military calls "civilian pacification", which is the indiscriminate slaughter of unlimited numbers of civilians, as the preferred method to instill permanent fear and obedience in a people. One of the worst was the CIA coup in Indonesia to replace Suharno with Sukarto in the 1960s, where more than three million civilians were killed openly and publicly in the largest single slaughter of humans in the history of the world, non-stop for weeks on end until the nation's rivers were all running red with blood. Smaller examples exist in dozens of other nations, most recently in Iraq and Libya. The United States is the only nation in the world with a "university" established specifically for the purpose of teaching the techniques of torture and civilian pacification to all the world's thuggish dictators - the infamous School of the Americas, in Ft. Benning, Georgia.
Biological Warfare is another fixed characteristic of the United States of America. Igor Nikulin, a former member of the UN Commission on Biological and Chemical Weapons, states that the US military has 400 biological weapons labs spread around the world, mostly surrounding Russia and China, conveniently outside the purview of Congress and also outside the control of the hapless local nation. It is no longer in dispute the US was behind the biological war unleashed on China during the Korean war, and it is widely accepted in much of the world that SARS was unleashed by the US as an attack on China, as were the seven other biological attacks during the past several years. Also, it appears almost a certainty that Beijing's Xinfadi Market was re-seeded with COVID-20 in June by the same people. At the same time you might care to read about the US intense interest in biological warfare development. The latter reference describes the development of American GM food as the almost ideal biological weapon.
Читайте больше на https://english.pravda.ru/opinion/147160-american_criminal/
Yes I know this is "Russian" propaganda, but read from top... See also:
the beginning of a new reality: teaching others the lessons we never learnt...
open slate...
American-Style War 'til the End of Time?
A Lifetime "at War"
BY TOM ENGELHARDT
Here's the strange thing in an ever-stranger world: I was born in July 1944 in the midst of a devastating world war. That war ended in August 1945 with the atomic obliteration of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the most devastating bombs in history up to that moment, given the sweet code names "Little Boy" and "Fat Man."
I was the littlest of boys at the time. More than three-quarters of a century has passed since, on September 2, 1945, Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and General Yoshijiro Umezu signed the Instrument of Surrender on the battleship U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, officially ending World War II. That was V-J (for Victory over Japan) Day, but in a sense for me, my whole generation, and this country, war never really ended.
The United States has been at war, or at least in armed conflicts of various sorts, often in distant lands, for more or less my entire life. Yes, for some of those years, that war was "cold" (which often meant that such carnage, regularly sponsored by the CIA, happened largely off-screen and out of sight), but war as a way of life never really ended, not to this very moment.
In fact, as the decades went by, it would become the "infrastructure" in which Americans increasingly invested their tax dollars via aircraft carriers, trillion-dollar jet fighters, drones armed with Hellfire missiles, and the creation and maintenance of hundreds of military garrisons around the globe, rather than roads, bridges, or rail lines (no less the high-speed version of the same) here at home. During those same years, the Pentagon budget would grab an ever-larger percentage of federal discretionary spending and the full-scale annual investment in what has come to be known as the national security state would rise to a staggering $1.2 trillion or more.
In a sense, future V-J Days became inconceivable. There were no longer moments, even as wars ended, when some version of peace might descend and America's vast military contingents could, as at the end of World War II, be significantly demobilized. The closest equivalent was undoubtedly the moment when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, the Cold War officially ended, and the Washington establishment declared itself globally triumphant. But of course, the promised "peace dividend" would never be paid out as the first Gulf War with Iraq occurred that very year and the serious downsizing of the U.S. military (and the CIA) never happened.
Never-Ending War
Consider it typical that, when President Biden recently announced the official ending of the nearly 20-year-old American conflict in Afghanistan with the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from that country by 9/11/21, it would functionally be paired with the news that the Pentagon budget was about to rise yet again from its record heights in the Trump years. "Only in America," as retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and historian William Astore wrote recently, "do wars end and war budgets go up."
Of course, even the ending of that never-ending Afghan War may prove exaggerated. In fact, let's consider Afghanistan apart from the rest of this country's war-making history for a moment. After all, if I had told you in 1978 that, of the 42 years to follow, the U.S. would be involved in war in a single country for 30 of them and asked you to identify it, I can guarantee that Afghanistan wouldn't have been your pick. And yet so it's been. From 1979 to 1989, there was the CIA-backed Islamist extremist war against the Soviet army there (to the tune of billions and billions of dollars). And yet the obvious lesson the Russians learned from that adventure, as their military limped home in defeat and the Soviet Union imploded not long after — that Afghanistan is indeed the "graveyard of empires" — clearly had no impact in Washington.
Or how do you explain the 19-plus years of warfare there that followed the 9/11 attacks, themselves committed by a small Islamist outfit, al-Qaeda, born as an American ally in that first Afghan War? Only recently, the invaluable Costs of War Project estimated that America's second Afghan War has cost this country almost $2.3 trillion (not including the price of lifetime care for its vets) and has left at least 241,000 people dead, including 2,442 American service members. In 1978, after the disaster of the Vietnam War, had I assured you that such a never-ending failure of a conflict was in our future, you would undoubtedly have laughed in my face.
And yet, three decades later, the U.S. military high command still seems not faintly to have grasped the lesson that we "taught" the Russians and then experienced ourselves. As a result, according to recent reports, they have uniformly opposed President Biden's decision to withdraw all American troops from that country by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. In fact, it's not even clear that, by September 11, 2021, if the president's proposal goes according to plan, that war will have truly ended. After all, the same military commanders and intelligence chiefs seem intent on organizing long-distance versions of that conflict or, as the New York Times put it, are determined to "fight from afar" there. They are evidently even considering establishing new bases in neighboring lands to do so.
America's "forever wars" — once known as the Global War on Terror and, when the administration of George W. Bush launched it, proudly aimed at 60 countries — do seem to be slowly winding down. Unfortunately, other kinds of potential wars, especially new cold wars with China and Russia (involving new kinds of high-tech weaponry) only seem to be gearing up.
War in Our Time
In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began winding down in 1973, the draft was ended and war itself became a "voluntary" activity for Americans. In other words, it became ever easier not only to not protest American war-making, but to pay no attention to it or to the changing military that went with it. And that military was indeed altering and growing in remarkable ways.
In the years that followed, for instance, the elite Green Berets of the Vietnam era would be incorporated into an ever more expansive set of Special Operations forces, up to 70,000 of them (larger, that is, than the armed forces of many countries). Those special operators would functionally become a second, more secretive American military embedded inside the larger force and largely freed from citizen oversight of any sort. In 2020, as Nick Turse reported, they would be stationed in a staggering 154 countries around the planet, often involved in semi-secret conflicts "in the shadows" that Americans would pay remarkably little attention to.
Since the Vietnam War, which roiled the politics of this nation and was protested in the streets of this country by an antiwar movement that came to include significant numbers of active-duty soldiers and veterans, war has played a remarkably recessive role in American life. Yes, there have been the endless thank-yous offered by citizens and corporations to "the troops." But that's where the attentiveness stops, while both political parties, year after endless year, remain remarkably supportive of a growing Pentagon budget and the industrial (that is, weapons-making) part of the military-industrial complex. War, American-style, may be forever, but — despite, for instance, the militarization of this country's police and the way in which those wars came hometo the Capitol last January 6th — it remains a remarkably distant reality for most Americans.
One explanation: though the U.S. has, as I've said, been functionally at war since 1941, there were just two times when this country felt war directly — on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and on September 11, 2001, when 19 mostly Saudi hijackers in commercial jets struck New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
And yet, in another sense, war has been and remains us. Let's just consider some of that war-making for a moment. If you're of a certain age, you can certainly call to mind the big wars: Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1954-1975) — and don't forget the brutal bloodlettings in neighboring Laos and Cambodia as well — that first Gulf War of 1991, and the disastrous second one, the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then, of course, there was that Global War on Terror that began soon after September 11, 2001, with the invasion of Afghanistan, only to spread to much of the rest of the Greater Middle East, and to significant parts of Africa. In March, for instance, the first 12 American special-ops trainers arrived in embattled Mozambique, just one more small extension of an already widespread American anti-Islamist terror role (now failing) across much of that continent.
And then, of course, there were the smaller conflicts (though not necessarily so to the people in the countries involved) that we've now generally forgotten about, the ones that I had to search my fading brain to recall. I mean, who today thinks much about President John F. Kennedy's April 1961 CIA disaster at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba; or President Lyndon Johnson's sending of 22,000 U.S. troops to the Dominican Republic in 1965 to "restore order"; or President Ronald Reagan's version of "aggressive self-defense" by U.S. Marines sent to Lebanon who, in October 1983, were attacked in their barracks by a suicide bomber, killing 241 of them; or the anti-Cuban invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada that same month in which 19 Americans were killed and 116 wounded?
And then, define and categorize them as you will, there were the CIA's endless militarized attempts (sometimes with the help of the U.S. military) to intervene in the affairs of other countries, ranging from taking the nationalist side against Mao Zedong's communist forces in China from 1945 to 1949 to stoking a small ongoing conflict in Tibet in the 1950s and early 1960s, and overthrowing the governments of Guatemala and Iran, among other places. There were an estimated 72 such interventions from 1947 to 1989, many warlike in nature. There were, for instance, the proxy conflicts in Central America, first in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas and then in El Salvador, bloody events even if few U.S. soldiers or CIA agents died in them. No, these were hardly "wars," as traditionally defined, not all of them, though they did sometimes involve military coups and the like, but they were generally carnage-producing in the countries they were in. And that only begins to suggest the range of this country's militarized interventions in the post-1945 era, as journalist William Blum's "A Brief History of Interventions" makes all too clear.
Whenever you look for the equivalent of a warless American moment, some reality trips you up. For instance, perhaps you had in mind the brief period between when the Red Army limped home in defeat from Afghanistan in 1989 and the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, that moment when Washington politicians, initially shocked that the Cold War had ended so unexpectedly, declared themselves triumphant on Planet Earth. That brief period might almost have passed for "peace," American-style, if the U.S. military under President George H. W. Bush hadn't, in fact, invaded Panama ("Operation Just Cause") as 1989 ended to get rid of its autocratic leader Manuel Noriega (a former CIA asset, by the way). Up to 3,000 Panamanians (including many civilians) died along with 23 American troops in that episode.
And then, of course, in January 1991 the First Gulf War began. It would result in perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqi deaths and "only" a few hundred deaths among the U.S.-led coalition of forces. Air strikes against Iraq would follow in the years to come. And let's not forget that even Europe wasn't exempt since, in 1999, during the presidency of Bill Clinton, the U.S. Air Force launched a destructive 10-week bombing campaign against the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.
And all of this remains a distinctly incomplete list, especially in this century when something like 200,000 U.S. troops have regularly been stationed abroad and U.S. Special Operations forces have deployed to staggering numbers of countries, while American drones regularly attacked "terrorists" in nation after nation and American presidents quite literally became assassins-in-chief. To this day, what scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson called an American "empire of bases" — a historically unprecedented 800 or more of them — across much of the planet remains untouched and, at any moment, there could be more to come from the country whose military budget at least equals those of the next 10 (yes, that's 10!) countries combined, including China and Russia.
A Timeline of Carnage
The last three-quarters of this somewhat truncated post-World War II American Century have, in effect, been a timeline of carnage, though few in this country would notice or acknowledge that. After all, since 1945, Americans have only once been "at war" at home, when almost 3,000 civilians died in an attack meant to provoke — well, something like the war on terror that also become a war of terror and a spreader of terror movements in our world.
As journalist William Arkin recently argued, the U.S. has created a permanent war state meant to facilitate "endless war." As he writes, at this very moment, our nation "is killing or bombing in perhaps 10 different countries," possibly more, and there's nothing remarkably out of the ordinary about that in our recent past.
The question that Americans seldom even think to ask is this: What if the U.S. were to begin to dismantle its empire of bases, repurpose so many of those militarized taxpayer dollars to our domestic needs, abandon this country's focus on permanent war, and forsake the Pentagon as our holy church? What if, even briefly, the wars, conflicts, plots, killings, drone assassinations, all of it stopped?
What would our world actually be like if you simply declared peace and came home?
Copyright 2021 Tom Engelhardt
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer's new dystopian novel Frostlands (the second in the Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story, and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power and John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II.
Tom Engelhardt created and runs the website TomDispatch.com. He is also a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of a highly praised history of American triumphalism in the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. A fellow of the Type Media Center, his sixth and latest book is A Nation Unmade by War.
https://tomdispatch.com/american-style-war-til-the-end-of-time/
See also: dangerous pentagon...
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&%!!!
By Gus Leonisky at 26 May 2021 - 2:23pm


Scholars across disciplines have long probed the relationship between politics and art in the public sphere in the long eighteenth century—the tumultuous, seminal historical period that saw the rise of the Enlightenment, modern systems of representative democracy, and, eventually, the Industrial Revolution. Yet, to date, scholarship of this period has largely failed to notice female artists and patrons, despite their omnipresence in public shows and frequent initiation of substantial commissions. Similarly, political history has overlooked non-royal women, despite their strong influence as the wives, mothers, and sisters of politicians.
This interdisciplinary panel explores ways in which elite women wielded power through the active fusion of politics and art. Domestic and other private spaces often provided fertile ground for the cultivation of wide-ranging artistic production. In these spaces, women made decisions that both mirrored and diverged from the (often public) actions of their male contemporaries. They exercised their own, distinct agency to establish relationships with male and female artists and designers, to initiate commissions, and to oversee these projects, most of which were undeniably infused with cultural, social, national, and even international politics.
We seek papers that work to reveal women's central role as patrons and artists at this key moment in time, when the nature of politics itself was changing—and, with it, the production of art. Contributors might consider a wide range of female patrons and artists, and the historical context of their activities. Topics might include: the ways in which female sitters fashioned political personae through portraiture; the commissioning of original artworks or the production of copies for domestic interiors; gendered dynamics of the art market; or elite women's growing engagement with methods of print artistry. We see this topic as a transnational story, and encourage approaches that upend prevailing narratives regarding individual works of art.
Proposals for 20-minute papers, consisting of an abstract of 250–300 words and a brief bio of the presenter, should be submitted by January 10, 2018, to laurel.peterson@yale.edu and spies@princeton.edu.


text:
Q: RecyclerView клик при смене позиции Без интерфейса все работало. Переделываю OnItemClickListener через интерфейс, и все работает до тех пор , пока не сбивается порядок айтемов при сортировке, например при поиске 20 я позиция становится первой и обрабатывается как первая.. 5 позиция становится на 1 место но обрабатывается как 1. Как правильно привязать ID в данном случае?
вот интерфейс:
public interface OnItemClickListener {
    void onItemClick(View view, int position);
}

вот адаптер:
    @Override
    public void onClick(View v) {
        clickListener.onItemClick(v,getAdapterPosition());
    }
}

void SetOnItemClickListener(final OnItemClickListener itemClickListener) {
    this.clickListener = itemClickListener;
}

вот сам фрагмент:

public class Fragment_1extends Fragment implements SearchView.OnQueryTextListener,OnItemClickListener

adapter.SetOnItemClickListener(this);

@Override
    public void onItemClick(View view, int position) {
        Context context = view.getContext();
        Intent i;
        i = new Intent(context, Detai.class);
        i.putExtra("pos2", StationList.get(position).getDetails_new());
        context.startActivity(i);
    }

и вот класс
public class ItemBusStation implements Serializable {

    private String details1;

    public ItemBusStation(
                   String details1) {
        this.details1 = details1;
    }

    public String getDetails1() {
        return details1;
    }

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Can you please cue us in here?
Home › Forums › Rehearsal and Performance Management › Can you please cue us in here?
I'm new (or returning) to the forum and have a question about singers with attitude. What do you handle a singer that constantly asks you to show cues to their section or who constantly points out the "errors" in your instructions to the choir? Tim Seelig calls them "nagivators". I'm well aware that a properly prepared score will eliminate most of this but there is always the one singer that finds the holes in your rehearsal.
My best singers recognize that aksing quesitons has to be not only respectful of the conductor, but of their collegues as well. They don't say, "Someone's not cutting off right" but, as Adam said, "WE are not together," or even more humbly, "I'm not sure I'm cutting off correctly." I love it when a singer says "I'm not sure of the pitch here," when I know full well it's one of my best singers, and that singer knows full well that the question is phrased to blunt the criticism of others in his section. And he knows I know it, and that I appreciate the way he's phrasing it, taking the repsonsibility on himself.
My daughter, as a young-ish chorister who has inherited some musical skills from her parents, was having a hard time finding a way to address errors in rehearsals that frustrated her. She didn't want to become a know-it-all (at age 17 – how awful that would be). I explained she can wait to see if if the conductor addresses it, tell the conductor privately, or, if necessary, say "Can I hear the pitch here?" rather than "We have a disagreement," and I had to assure her that the conductor would understand that she wasn't unprepared, but was being helpful and gentle, and most of all, respectful.
And now I wonder what I did decades ago in her situation!


text:
<< Back to General Forum Search
Posts 1 - 30 of 71 1 2 3 Next >>
Treaties/truces in FFA = cheating, why and what can be don about it: 12/31/2011 03:37:11
Sweet Little Puppy
Some people would agree to the title, some won't. I will write why do I consider treaties in FFA as cheating and what can be done in Warlight to have fair play.
Warlight is a game, it can be considered e-sport, cause as athletes do compete physically, here we compete intelectually. And in all sport worldwide it's popular to have same size teams or individual competitions. Personally I don't know the sport where 2 or more guys compete against one or few individuals and in Warlight it often happens in FFA (which stands for free-for-all) that some people make treaties and that way make it harder for others, lower chances of others.
Some would call it diplomacy, especially those who team-up together ;)
But in the eyes of those who loses cause of somebody else teaming up, it's not fair, it's cheating.
U don't agree?
Then think of a game, FFA with 6 players. Let it be that all of them join the game, knowing it's FFA but somehow 5 of them team up and anihilate the sixth one together. He had no chance and was eaten by the rest. Is it nice, is it ok, is it fair? Would U like to be the sixth one? It's not fair, cause the game suppose to be free-for-all, and not 5vs1.
So the same would be if only two guys team up and it would be 2vs1vs1vs1vs1. The difference is only in the number of guys in the team.
So is the diplomacy bad?
No, if people joining would know that diplomacy/treaties/truces are not prohibited in this game, that it's ok, it's allowed and it's part of the game. Then they agree for that if from 6 people FFA would happen 2vs2vs1vs1 or 3vs2vs1 or whatever other way.
But if he join 6 people FFA and two or three of his neighbours do treaties on private messages and eat him, is that fair? Maybe he even don't know English so well to talk with others and do the treaties? So is the game equal then for him? No! Of course not!
So what do I propose?
Real FFA's could be taged as FFA. When it's ffa without private messages.
FFA's with diplomacy allowed could be taged with "FFA with diplomacy". when it's ffa with private messages.
Then: 1) there would be no argues or naming cheaters if somebody do treaty in diplomacy game 2) people would feel that it's fair playing 3) we would see which games are FFA's and which are team games, cause sometimes it's not written in title, and not always we check in setting so it happen that there are random teams, suprisingly, and since all FFA's (with PM's or without) would be taged, then it would be seen which games are team games, cause those would not have tags
I mean that such a sign of "FFA" or "FFA with diplomacy" would be on the screen where we can choose the games to join.
That would solve the problem of unfair treaties (teams) in games which suppose to be FFA.
it's the player's responsibility to check if private messaging is enabled or disabled. when private messaging is enabled on an ffa, you know what to expect. the majority have private messaging enabled so i think its an uncommon opinion that truces = cheating.
DagenDaDragon (ReTIRED OF WARLIGHT)
Well then since you want to talk fairness.
I'm in a game 2v2v2v2v2v2 or around that on quad earth with multi attack.
Now all but 4 people started in northeast asia, thats like 6 people or more in one asia, so now the people who started in Asia HAVE A CHANCE, if, and only if they agree to split the Bonus stop squabbling, and gang up on the people with Superior starting spots.
Which didn't happen by the way, were in the process of everyone dieing ATM.
But now lets take that scenario and put it in a fictional game.
Double earth, light fog, 4 player free for all 2 starting spot.
So player 1-3 pick places in the southern worlds Africa.
Player 4 is in the northern worlds Africa.
So two ways this can pan out, either players 1 - 3 fight until player 4 expands into them, or they can a have a truce expand in different directions and splitting up Africa, until the player 4 threat is gone.
There is no way this game can be fair, it's not fair for it to be a 1V3 but it's not fair the starting spots, either way it's not fair.
Now mostly what I'm ranting about is your use of the word fair, which is not going to happen without 0% luck on preset symmetrical maps. <-- I realize you probably didn't mean it in this extreme.
I do agree that more obvious settings could help.
Maybe have a some basic things you can see without looking at the settings.
random teams and how many
custom distribution yes or no
Bonus changes yes or no (this wouldn't list the changed bonuses just if there were changed bonuses)
PM on or off
Now please Seroslav.PL do not take this as me attacking you, I think you make a good point in some areas, like understanding English or this helping there be less arguments.
But your use of fair, was a bad choice of words and your calling diplomacy in FFA cheating I disagree with strongly.
Perrin3088
Diplomacy is a part of the game, I am obviously of that mindset..
the kind of people that will use diplomacy in a way intending to cheat, *will do so whether you have PM's enabled or not*. by marking a game as FFA will not prevent teams..
and as many other posts have shown, and my previous statements in other games has shown.. Failing to execute MAD, is not teaming, but will appear like it in history...
5 player FFA, M.earth, start W.Af Mex Indo Scand S.Am..
in a complete lack of diplmacy game, W.af Mex and S.Am have already lost.. Scand and Indo have time to expand and W.af Mex and S.am, no matter who wins their little feud, will be too depleted to take on Scand/Indo when they arrive.. this is a game that simulates wars.. Diplomacy is of Paramount important in war.. WWII-Germany Assaulting Poland and telling everyone they wouldn't go any further.. an Act of Diplomacy.. and FYI, not all communications are global in war..
Imho, cheating = full game truces..
treaties are temporary.. two enemies not fighting because if they do they are both going to most assuredly die..
full game truces are cowardly.. when your ally is worth more as extra armies under your control, then he is as an ally, then you eliminate him.. because only one person can win..
when I was more of a newb, I would talk alot more in treaties, but it really isn't worth the time, except in special circumstances, I find.. \*or perhaps I just don't join as many good ffa matches anymore..* I instead prefer to make my actions show that I have no intention of assault, and hope my enemy who is not my current enemy notices and accepts
uhm.. I got sidetracked with something and forgot where I was going.. so /rant:off
[WM] Dazed & Insane
All of my ffa games come with a description dictating the rules of the game. It can be fun having games where PMing/treaties are allowed, which can make a game very interesting. When you don't want treaties, turn off the pming, and hope 2 friends don't join and decide to team up anyway. This is war people will often do anything they can to win, and to hell with the rules. I find most on WL are good at following the rules(provided they actually read them,) laid down by the host. We have a pretty good community here :) Always a few bad apples though.
'The'BobHatter
I just got screwed by [DJ_MAYO](http://warlight.net/Profile.aspx?p=828327490) on a truce. I don't think it should be illegal, but it is indeed a dick move. I will remember him for the rest of my time playing and I will gladly tell anyone about it
It's ffa, you make treaties at your own risk. Always keep an eye on people you are working with, this is why you have spy cards. Always play smart, if he won then he played it smart, sometimes being an asshole is how you win.
{rp} General Mac
This is a game of war! in war leaders team up against other leaders. thats a fact! is teaming up fair... YES! because at the start all players have the same oportunity to make teams if you dont make a team when your probably should have then you didnt lose because of cheats you lost because of a poor strategy.
if i lose a game when im on my own fighting againt 3 or 4 (which by the way only really happens when 1 player gets very powerful) then i dont think i was cheated i think the others out played me and deserved to win
the bottom line is if you dont like people teaming up then only join games without PM
It really is as simple as that!
I'm now in a game with a lot of players, and when I met someone the second turn, I immediately asked for peace. Is that so bad? Would it be fair to be annihilated in the 3rd turn by someone who has had a better starting position than you?
In that game, it went on, and I first asked all players I meet for a truce, and when they accept, we can't really promise not to attack, but at least we tell if we're going to attack, so the other player has time to prepare. And now I'm having a really long border with someone and we don't want to fight yet, so we agreed to keep 10 armies on both sides of the border. That way, we can focus on attacking one player, which is way more fun than dealing with attacks from 3 players at the same time.
"And what about the poor player standing alone?!?"
Well, that poor player shouldn't have attacked everyone they see, like a barbarian. He should have made a deal with someone sooner, just as you can't complain about low income because you should have completed a bonus sooner. Diplomacy is part of the game, and if dramatically you want to avoid it, check the settings before you play, instead of yelling on the forum and telling people how they should name their games.
|> Is making truces cheating?
No. It would be cheating if there were a rule against truces, which there isn't.
Allowing PM'ing implies truces are endorsed. If you don't want truces, don't play PM Games.
|> Why do people make truces?
Because when you're fighting in a 24-player game, it makes no sense to bash each other's brains in right from the start. That would be suicide. Making a truce grants at least one of the negotiators a chance of winning.
|> What can we do about it?
Play games without Private Messaging, play games where the allainces have been predetermined, i.e. team games, or play 1v1 games. I hardly ever get backstabbed by allies in a 1v1... ;)
emgzapper
Hooray! This argument again!
Look, you may hate the 3 point shot line in basketball, but it's there. People use it. If you don't that's fine but don't sit there and bitch because someone used something that was meant to be part of the game.
Why do you think that private messaging is even an option if this is not the case?
Play fisticuffs on the Harvard quad all you want. The rest of us are playing a wargame.
Treaties/truces in FFA = cheating, why and what can be don about it: 1/1/2012 22:59:37
Ironheart
Truces can be very risky u can get backstabbed so if someone truced against u then just wish they back stab each other i hav played many games in which i hav been back stabbed.But still play truce.Maybe fizzer should put a button in which we can truce without any worries when both players hav agreed and people will be awared of who is truced.
That could be interesting ironheart, a truce that everyone knows about and the duration of it would be set, or a truce through private messaging that would be secret, but you could get backstabbed.
that idea is one of the highest-rated ones on uservoice.
Guiguzi
i think 50%+ of all players don't know the meaning of the word truce.
truce = agreement to stop attacking each other (ie, you have already attacked each other)
non-aggression pact = agreement (likely before any attacking has taken place) to not attack each other
alliance = agreement to cooperate (to some extent)
if you meet somebody for the first time, it is impossible for you to ask him for a truce, unless he is using the computer next to you and punching you while you play...
MilitaryManiac
^^ Lol
truces must have conditions too (eg, duration). if you bump into someone for the first time and say in a private message "yo, truce?" and the enemy responds "peace, yeah," then you do two things:
- you ask for a truce without first attacking the enemy. i'd say such a truce is null and void, since you can't have a truce until you attack or are attacked.
- if you overlook the first problem: then you are entering into an open-ended truce. this means either of you can attack the other guy whenever you want, since an open-ended truce's duration is up in the air, it is open to both sides to interpret when the truce expires and war recommences.
alot of people ask for NAT's early on
the problem with FFA w/o diplomacy, is that the majority of the game is decided by your starting locations.. which is partially strategy, but mostly luck.. since say 10 people, if 5 start in the same bonus range, then they have already lost.. could be a good bonus range for many reasons, but they lost because they were unlucky in to not be the only ones having chosen on it.. early game NAT's reduces the amount that luck will affect the game, and returns the ability of players to win by skill..
What is true, out of discussion is that "FFA with diplomacy" is very different game from "FFA", in one writting and making treaties is almost needed to win, in other it's not so needed, cause only way to do so is to write on general chat, what everybody sees.
I guess those changes in games, which changes much, could have some small icons IN GAMES VIEW, so fastly we could see if:
- it's multi-attack
- FFA with diplomacy/FFA/team game
- changed army settings
- cards/no cards
- type of territory distribution
If an icon is intuitive and takes not much space, there would be a space for them.
So if I see that some settings are not standard I would be more motivated to check the settings, cause sometimes when it's last place You just don't check everything but don't want the game to run away, so just click to join and then check, it's commong, and such icons would make faster to know if it's standard game or what's changed. Details would be without change, as now, and icons just give additional information.
This topic isn't only to talk about it, but to work out an idea, which might be implemented.
I personally prefer to play in games, when my decisions mostly make me win or lose. I don't like to play with stupid teammates, which make me lose or play in team games where there are reinforcement cards and the fastes take them, not the one who needs them the most. Same I prefer to play in FFA's without diplomacy, cause it's of of my decisions and if 3 of my neighbours team up, I have small chances to win. Such info if there are PM's would be great for me personally. I know that many people don't like multi-attack as well, so they would see if it's multi or not. Some don't like cards in teamgames, so they would see it. Some prefer manual distribution.
And author of the game write, what he choice in topic. It's bad seen what it's multi and not written in topic. So why not to put simple and intuitive icons for such "making difference" settings if there's a space for it?
Only reasons not to do it, I see is:
- more server transfer
- making game look more complicated for newbies
I don't know how much more transfer would it usu, but seems to be a marginal problem.
About newbies, such a setting to see the icons or not, could be a choice in personal account settings and could be automaticly disabled, so if somebody want, he can enable it.
In future in advanced settings it could be possible to decide in settings, what kind of icons would be showed. If somebody don't car if it's FFA or FFA with PM, then he could check to see such icons or not. If he don't like multi, then he can see and icon in multi-attack games :)
I just had a game, when it was multi-attack game, with the text "multi-attack" in the game title and after few turns of playing (with light fog - U see moves of opponent) the guy I played with, noticed that it's multi-attack :) when he already lost. So it's not exceptions when people don't read settings and then just are suprised, I think it's common and happen often.
Here is the game http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=1921212
@ Gui --> Alright, then let's call the agreements treaties. Generally, if treaties are for an indefinite amount of time, you agree to warn each other before attacking.
But that's hardly the point. Seroslav's point is that these treaties are a form of cheating. The fact that you point out treaties need specifications has nothing to do with that.
@ Seroslav --> You know, people like you should just be playing the 1v1 Auto Game. Then you needn't read the settings and have no teammates. Or make your own non-PM games so you know your settings.
Not reading the settings is not an excuse for hating settings:
|> ***Joining a game without reading the settings is like applying for a job without knowing what job you're applying for.***
a wise man once said: when a question is not worth answering, answer the question you wish had been asked instead. the answer to the original question (a) had already been answered and (b) is obvious to anybody who understands the nature of FFAs.
i think war is, to some degree, a window into one's psyche. each move on the board expresses something about the player. likewise, how one talks on the forum can imply how someone might play in a game.
on wl, the only things that matter: moves, words, stats. from your response and your ffa stats, i have a pretty good idea how you'd play in an ffa, domenico.
Seroslav
"So if I see that some settings are not standard I would be more motivated to check the settings"
define non-standard settings..
what is non-standard for you, is standard for me..
this discussion has happened before..
Gui, nothing in that paragraph addresses the point he made. Domenico's point remains valid.
Also, not for nothing, but no one has pulled out their stats and epeens in this discussion but you. We know you're really really good, dude. That doesn't make you right.
i really dont see the problem in just checking the settings before you join a game. its just common sense. pretty icons are not going to make enough of a difference to warrent the change. if icons were to be implimented then where do you stop? different icons for different cards. how about the settings of the cards. boot times are important how about them? its just endless. icons or no icons i would still look at the settings before deciding to join or not.
The Duke of Ben
I recall a four player FFA where my neighbor attacked me repeatedly and a third player became very powerful. Without treaties, that third person would have won the game with no skill required. As long as he was able to expand at a reasonable pace, he would have become unstoppable while the two of us beat our heads together for enough of an advantage to pull out a win.
We changed our plan, and were able to beat the third player, which was clearly in both of our interests to do.
On some level, we just replaced one winner with another, and that's not necessarily better. What was solved, though, was the fact that the third player's win would have only happened because he didn't start next to anyone else. The person who happens to have the biggest area to expand into should not always win.
If I wanted to watch semi-scripted games where everyone goes straight outward, then I would set the AI to fight itself. There'd be some variation, but really, starting positions would matter as much as skill, and that's never fun.
Perrin in reply to Your question "define non-standard settings.."
Non-standard are those, which have been changed, when creating game. When U create game, default settings is that turn income is 5. If it's not 5, then it's "non-standard", cause changed from standar (default) ones. This is what I meant.
Seroslav, what about templates?
that would mean that a fair percentage of the 1v1 strat template would be considered *non standard settings* and would have to show up as such, making your information relatively worthless.. if it doesn't show up as non-standard because it is a template, then you're information is effectively worthless
the problem with highlighting non-standard settings, or with icons for non-standard settings or anything.. is that there is so much that could be considered as non-standard in just about every game played, that there would be enough information conveyed to make it just about as convenient as clicking settings and scanning the page..
this thread had ceased to have any reason to have more arguments related to the original question once dazed, perrin, and you offered your replies.
dominic: "Seroslav's point is that these treaties are a form of cheating. The fact that you point out treaties need specifications has nothing to do with that."
me: "the answer to the original question [about cheating] (a) had already been answered [see dazed and confused's and perrin's replies] and (b) is obvious to anybody who understands the nature of FFAs [ie, the original question should be disregarded to begin with]."
there is really no need to talk about the question posed [see your first reply, emg]. so i branched off, based on the first thing that came to my mind. i read domenic's reply and thought "why does domenic want me to beat a dead horse?" i checked his profile to see if he was a good FFA player (ie, does he have any reason to want me to talk about a dead argument?). he has no experience in FFAs. and the few he has played he lost. so this begs the question: "why does a guy who doesn't understand FFAs and didn't seem to read dazed's, perrin's or emg's replies really want me to keep talking about this matter?" this made me think: "moves, words, and stats are intimately related." that's all.
emg, i didn't pull out my stats. i never said anything about myself. the only person to direct anybody's attention to my stats, emg, was you. i only mentioned dominic's.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


When an auction starts with three bids in different suits, it is highly unlikely that the fourth suit will be the right strain to play in. If you accept that hypothesis, you can improve the language of constructive bidding considerably by using the fourth suit in such auctions as a cipher. Fourth-suit forcing means that the bid of the fourth suit (normally by responder) simply asks opener to define his hand more accurately. The options for opener are to rebid his suit with extra length, to support partner or to bid notrump with a stopper in the fourth suit. Bidding the fourth suit shows extra values, and in the U.S. it is customary to play it as game-forcing. Some pairs play the auction 1♣ – 1♦ – 1♥ – 1♠ as natural, reserving 2♠ as the fourth suit.
The advantages of playing this method are two- or threefold. In the first instance it allows you to clearly differentiate between invitational and forcing sequences. So, for example, all of responder's secondary jumps (in clubs, hearts or spades) after 1♣ – 1♥; 1♠ are invitational. To create a force, responder uses Fourth Suit then bids one of those suits.
The second big advantage is the ability to find out scientifically whether it is right to play in notrump. After an auction starting 1♥ – 1♠; 2♣, a jump to 3NT implies no interest in playing elsewhere; a delayed sequence to 2NT or 3NT through the fourth suit is a much more consultative route. Similarly, in the same auction, an immediate 2NT bid shows you have the fourth suit under control. A delayed route implies some concern about the final strain.
By a passed hand, fourth suit is forcing, but not to game.


text:
Home People First Independence Bank Reports Record Profits
First Independence Bank Reports Record Profits
Hour Detroit
DETROIT — First Independence Bank, a commercial bank chartered in Michigan and the only bank headquartered in Detroit, reported today a highly profitable 2012 – the highest in its 43-year history. The locally owned bank recorded a $2.3 million net profit in 2012; a $3.5 million turn-around from the $1.2 million loss suffered in 2011. The bank also reported that its tangible capital ratio was 10.8% at on Dec. 31, 2012.
"We've aggressively implemented several strategic initiatives including those that address the housing needs of our community," Donald Davis, First Independence Bank CEO and chairman, said. "We're committed to providing innovative financial products while improving economic conditions within the diverse communities we serve. We're committed to the inner-city communities. For us, it's a priority."
First Independence Bank, which opened its doors in 1970, is Michigan's only African-American owned bank and one of 26 such banks in the country.
"We're proud to deliver quality financial resources to underserved communities," Davis said. "Our customers trust us because of our loyalty and longevity. We understand the cultural dynamics. We work with our customers from the cradle to the grave – kids to retirees."
To perpetuate the upswing in profits, First Independence Bank has laid plans for over $300 million in residential mortgages, $20 million in commercial business loans, and a progressive initiative for conventional home loans tailored to the specific financial resources of lower and moderate-income families.
"We're investing in Detroit," Davis said. "And looking forward to another successful year."
Previous articleMopar Announces Ram 1500 as its Most Accessorized Vehicle
Next articleChrysler Executive Honored As Female Leader
Clark Hill's Roy Sexton Elected to Legal Marketing Association
Beverly Watts Appointed to Michigan Infrastructure Council
Varnum Announces Four Partners in Birmingham, Grand Rapids, Novi


text:
Каракемер () — село в Уилском районе Актюбинской области Казахстана. Входит в состав Уилского сельского округа. Код КАТО — 155230400.

Население
В 1999 году население села составляло 212 человек (104 мужчины и 108 женщин). По данным переписи 2009 года, в селе проживал 631 человек (317 мужчин и 314 женщин).

Примечания

Населённые пункты Уилского района

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (8:8-10) If you have a living body, you can't please God and Christ isn't in you.
(8:8) "They that are in the flesh cannot please God."
(8:10) "If Christ be in you, the body is dead."
(8:11) "The Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead"
(8:14) "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God."
(8:24) "We are saved by hope."
(8:26) "We know not what we should pray for as we ought."
(8:27) "The Spirit ... maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God."
God intercedes with God by talking to, and sometimes even arguing with, himself.
(8:28) "All things work together for good to them that love God."
One of the greatest and most absurd lies in all of scripture.
(8:29-30) "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate."
Everyone is predestined by God to be either saved or damned.
(8:29) "His son ... the firstborn"
(8:31) "If God be for us, who can be against us?"
No one can oppose Christians since God is on their side.
"He ... spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all."
"He that spared not his own Son" shouldn't be trusted by anyone.
(8:33) "Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect?"
A Christian cannot be accused of any wrongdoing.
(8:38-39) Is it possible to fall from grace?
(8:38) "Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,"
(8:39) "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."


text:
The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one. ~ J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye
Growing up is hard, love. Otherwise everyone would do it. ~ Kim Harrison, Pale Demon
It is our responsibility as nations and citizens to take care of each other and this planet we inhabit. But all too often it seems we forget that we have any say or power or control over our lives and environment as we go along in our daily routines — Mother Nature has her way with us; radical terrorists and out-of-control law enforcement use violence in extreme ways to threaten us physically and psychologically here and abroad; our government legislates what we should eat, think, and do with our bodies; and corporations use advertising, lobbying and Hollywood tell us who we are, what we should buy, believe in, and vote for, and what we should or should not be doing with our time, money and energy.
And in our private lives, we tend to rely on others — whether your parents, spouses and partners, friends, doctors, teachers, boss, news outlets and conventional wisdom — more than we should, and are more overwhelmed and distracted than ever with the consumption of digital media via accompanying gadgets/appendages. As a result, we forget we can have a unique opinion, make more conscious decisions that go against the grain, and above all think for ourselves rather than just absorb and digest (literally and metaphorically) what is being offered, served, or shoved down our throats.
When you're a child, you generally have no choice or don't know better and have to accept the status quo of whatever the adults around you say goes, but as you get older it's time to check in and ask yourself, Who's Your Daddy now?
Relationships are the glue that hold the world together and gives meaning to our lives; they include our relationship to ourselves, each other, our country, the Earth, and the Universe/God/Higher Power/ Nature. But when we allow a relationship to anyone or anything outside ourselves to be the ultimate authority over us — whether with a parent, child, friend, the government, social media or zeitgeist — we are giving up our individual power to control our destiny and prevent ourselves from emotionally maturing. These are the types of unhealthy dependent relationships, rather than healthy interdependent ones, that are causing our planet to fall apart.
Growing up means taking responsibility for every aspect of your life. Many of us prefer to remain in a half-baked adulthood that never really evolves to its full potential because we are too busy or distracted to see who is really in control — and because it's easier to pop a pill or let someone else take care of it. But it requires courage, elbow grease, and internal effort every step of the way to be who we are truly meant to be.
We all have to do our part to take ownership of our environment, health, and happiness in mind, body and spirit. No one else can do this for us. By becoming stronger in who you are you can then use our full power and potential to help those who cannot yet help themselves, and create structures and systems from microcosm to macrocosm that will support a sustainable and peaceful life no matter who you are or where you are from.
Still feeling like a Toys 'R Us kid? Give me a buzz and I'll help you mature into a full-fledged self-mama or self-papa (without losing that essential childlike sense of play!) so that we can create a global village of audacious authentic adults.
Originally published on kristinaleonardi.com on September 25, 2014
Click here for the PGG with photo
Get this delivered to your mailbox as my PGG newsletter.
Click here to learn more about Kristina Leonardi
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Follow me on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter for up to date posts, helpful articles and inspirational thoughts. Slowly building my YouTube channel so you check that out and subscribe too!
Text CLEARLYKRISTINA to 22828 to be added to my mailing list and be in the loop with my coaching and workshops as well as have these essays delivered to your inbox!
Check out this very-roughly-edited-not-the-best-quality video of uninterrupted remarks wrapping up the workshop "Lead Yourself to Success (in Work & Life!)" In this excerpt covering the final ten minutes, I summarize my thoughts about confidence, being a leader in your own life, maintaining your individuality and humanity in the times we live in, and why the world is relying on you to be successful.
Click here to watch video
Self Reflection
Chandrika Bhattacharya
Why We All Need To Know Stephen Hawking's Message For The Disabled
Syed Ghouse Ahmed
3 Questions for 2022
Jen Wilking
Elevate the Everyday Magic
Charles Black M.D.
BeingWell
Good Enough is Good Enough, in Surgery and in Life.
Scott Bromander
The single biggest trait that contributes to your growth.
Juliano Alves
Creativity for exhausted programmers
Colonel Prashant Rawal(Veteran)
Jodie Eckleberry-Hunt, Ph.D., A.B.P.P.
Did You Know That Cussing Is Good For You? The Science Behind Swearing #MOMF


This special event takes place Monday, April 14, 2014 in Anderson Auditorium. The evening begins with a reception at 7:00 pm, followed by the lecture at 7:30 pm.
Dr. Oliver is the Conway-Bascom Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin – Madison.
This event is free and open to the public. The third annual Sr. Esther Heffernan Distinguished Lecture is co-sponsored by the Criminal Justice Association at Edgewood College, the Department of Social Science in the School of Arts and Sciences, and the School of Integrative Studies.


text:
How Bunny Wailer brought innovation and Rastology to the Jamaican music renaissance
Les Johnson, Birmingham City University
Visiting Research Fellow, Birmingham School of Media, Birmingham City University
Les Johnson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Birmingham City University provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.
Bunny Wailer performing in Las Vegas in 2016. MediaPunch Inc/Alamy
The recent death of Bunny Wailer, the last surviving founding member of the Wailers has seen outpourings of grief and appreciation all over the world. But in the wake of the triple Grammy award-winner's passing at 73, the pioneer's contributions to reggae are being revisited by those who understand the full scope of his impact on reggae – and many more genres besides.
I met Bunny during the Wailers' 1973 UK tour in Manchester, when members included Bob Marley, Peter Tosh and Bunny himself. My student band wanted to replicate the reggae sound we heard in songs like Stir it Up, when Bunny and Peter sang harmonious backing vocals for Bob.
Bunny was deep and considered when talking about his music, checking to see if we understood the central messages of resistance, Rastafarianism and black liberation. The Wailers were about to change the face of popular music then. But to grasp how they shaped their iconic sound, you should understand the surroundings that moulded them as musicians.
The birth of the Wailers
Bunny was born Neville O'Riley Livingston in Kingston, Jamaica, on April 10 1947. He moved to the district of Nine Mile, a rural region in the St Ann parish of Jamaica, as a child. It was there that he met Bob years before either of them made their stamp on the world.
St Ann's strong history of producing other luminaries, such as pan African leader Marcus Garvey, would've provided fertile ground for Bunny's budding interest in black power and independence politics. Moving from the tranquil, "easy-living" countryside of Nine Mile to the harshness of downtown Kingston would've had a similar effect on Bunny's views and music, strengthening those interests into something more concrete through the city's proliferation of sound systems and recording studios.
By 1957, Bunny and Bob began to learn their craft through Joe Higgs, an influential musician and producer who worked with famous sound system innovator and record producer Coxsone Dodd. While developing, mentoring and recording new music talent in the 1960s, Higgs introduced the pair to Peter Tosh, who became the third original Wailers' member.
Jamaica's music renaissance
The three teenagers were stimulated by the fast-paced 1960s Kingston music scene, where enterprising musicians and budding entrepreneurs developed new styles like ska, rocksteady, roots reggae and dub, setting trends that became popular and eventually influenced global music. Suddenly, after years of relative obscurity, Jamaican musicians, producers and songwriters had opportunities to promote and distribute their records into the UK and then around the world.
This mindset of innovation was the backbone of Jamaican sound systems. As well as the wider Jamaican music industry, the Kingston scene also shaped the early Wailers' ska sound. By 1964, Bob, Bunny and Peter had their first number one hit in Jamaica, "Simmer Down", a message to gangs in Kingston to "cool down" crime and political-related violence.
The Wailers, 1972 (left to right - Bunny Wailer, Bob Marley, Carlton Barrett, Peter Tosh, Aston Barrett) Everett Collection Inc/Alamy
By the time the Barrett brothers joined the band to play drum and bass, the Wailers' sound had evolved from ska to an intoxicating mix of political lyricism, strong rhythms, rock guitar riffs and synthesisers. This formed the basis of roots reggae (as heard on the Wailers' fifth album, Catch a Fire).
Rastology (a term used by scholars and Rastas to represent Rastafarian philosophy, spirituality, lifestyle and cultural practices) has remained a constant throughout the genre. As reggae and its sub-genres like dub and dancehall have evolved, Rastology has been appropriated and expressed through what I term "sonic livity".
In Rastology, "livity" denotes the Rastafarian way of living and being. It's the consciousness that flows from the belief, experience and expression of Jah (God) in oneself. This is often voiced in Rasta vernacular as "I and I". The first "I" describes Jah (God) connecting to the second "I", the individual.
The "I and I" relationship is believed to be intensified through sonics (sound frequency vibrations). Whether expressed through Nyabinghi drumming, worship, singing, rhythms, dub or sound systems, sonic livity aims to be upful (positive) and intentional music created to promote "one love" in humanity.
When Bunny left the Wailers in 1973 following a creative clash of ideas with the group, he grounded himself even further in these concepts, rooting himself in Jamaica, where he continued to live his semi-rural Rastafarian lifestyle. His first album, Blackheart Man (1976), shows the extent of that influence, with songs like Fighting Against Conviction (Battering Down Sentence) reinforcing his ideas and experiences about Rastafarianism, black identity and politics.
Bunny's peers (some of whom also died recently) were also integral to Jamaica's musical renaissance following the country's 1962 independence from the UK. The likes of Desmond Dekker, Alton Ellis, Marcia Griffiths, Toots and the Maytals, U Roy, Lee "Scratch" Perry, Milly Small and others created catalogues of musical hits that anchored Jamaica's place in global pop culture. Through the work of musicians like these, reggae has been recognised by UNESCO as an "intangible cultural heritage of humanity" worthy of protection and preservation.
In the past decade, a new generation of young Jamaican musicians like Protoje, Jah9, Chronixx, Jessie Royal, Koffee, Kelissa and Kabaka Pyramid have emerged, inspired by roots reggae musicians like Bunny Wailer. There's a resurgence of "conscious reggae" – reggae music with life-affirming, positive and political lyrics.
With lines like "Africa inna we soul but a Jah inna we heart", Protoje's hit song Who Knows is a perfect example. Songs like "I Can" by Chronixx and "In The Midst" by Jah9 also echo sentiments of Jah, love, self-development and liberation, all of which appeared throughout Bunny's discography.
By embracing social and new technology emerging reggae artists are pushing the boundaries of the genre, reaching wider audiences and continuing in the tradition of spreading spirituality and positivity through song. With few of the pioneers of the genres that inspired this new cohort left, it seems their messages about resistance, equality, black power, and social justice have endured.


Download pediatric critical care nursing or read online here in PDF or EPUB. Please click button to get pediatric critical care nursing book now. All books are in clear copy here, and all files are secure so don't worry about it.... 12/02/2011 · From the experts at the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), comes the definitive resource on administering quality nursing care to critically ill pediatric patients.
AACN Essentials of Critical Care Nursing includes essential content found in ECCO (Essentials of Critical Care Orientation, an online program offered by AACN), key information necessary to successfully prepare for CCRN certification in critical care nursing, and much more. AACN Essentials of Critical Care Nursing is divided into four sections:... Now updated to reflect the current state of pediatric critical care nursing practice, this guide from the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) explores the anatomic, physiologic, and cognitive/psychosocial changes that occur across the lifespan of a child.
We hope our book will also be useful to other health pro-fessionals who care for children, especially our col-leagues in advanced nursing roles. In this new edition we have advanced the use of information boxes indicating key points, practice points, treatment guides, learning logs, and web-based support material. Each chapter begins with a chapter map and suggests practical ways of gaining how to capture high resolution images from pdf Now updated to reflect the current state of pediatric critical care nursing practice, this guide from the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) explores the anatomic, physiologic, and cognitive/psychosocial changes that occur across the lifespan of a child.
the critical care pharmacists in their practice and help in the expansion of quality critical care pharmacy services throughout Ministry of Health (MOH) facilities. the help book kathryn stockett pdf Now updated to reflect the current state of pediatric critical care nursing practice, this guide from the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) explores the anatomic, physiologic, and cognitive/psychosocial changes that occur across the lifespan of a child.
Abstract. This publication of the second edition of Critical Care Nursing of Infants and Children is another important milestone in the evolving development of pediatric critical care nursing.
12/02/2011 · From the experts at the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), comes the definitive resource on administering quality nursing care to critically ill pediatric patients.
the critical care pharmacists in their practice and help in the expansion of quality critical care pharmacy services throughout Ministry of Health (MOH) facilities.


text:
NPR's Marilyn Geewax to be Industry Fellow at Grady's Cox Institute
Marilyn Geewax, senior economics editor for NPR, shared her perspective and observations about business journalism and how economic issues will influence the presidential election.
(Photo/Sarah E. Freeman, freemans@uga.edu in Athens, Georgia, on Thursday, April 14, 2016)
Marilyn Geewax, a senior business editor at NPR, will serve as an Industry Fellow with the James M. Cox Jr. Institute for Journalism Innovation, Management and Leadership during the spring 2018 semester at the University of Georgia.
Geewax, who has worked for NPR since 2008, will present six open lectures during the semester and will serve as a training resource for students taking a business journalism course at the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Geewax's appointment was announced today in New York during the Fall Conference of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW). She is a SABEW board member and co-chairs its First Amendment Committee.
"Thank you for giving me an opportunity to share my passion for business journalism," Geewax said. "We can maintain a healthy economy and reliable U.S. Treasury only if journalists pursue and present facts and context to help taxpayers, workers and business owners make wise choices. Helping to prepare a new generation for that challenge is an honor. I look forward to working with UGA students."
Geewax's Industry Fellow lectures for 2018 will be held in Studio 100 of the Grady College at 11:15 a.m. on January 22, February 5, 19, 26, March 26 and April 9.
Keith Herndon, director of the Cox Institute, said Geewax's experience will be invaluable to the student journalists as they study how business, economics and politics are interconnected.
"Marilyn has covered news from around the U.S. as well as China, Japan, South Africa and Europe and will share her global perspective," Herndon said. "She will demonstrate how complex stories can be told with clarity so that audiences aren't left wondering what's important."
In addition to assigning and editing business radio stories, Geewax often writes for the NPR web site, and regularly discusses economic issues on NPR shows, including Here & Now and the weekend edition of All Things Considered. Her editing work contributed to both an Edward R. Murrow Award and a Heywood Broun Award for NPR's coverage of the foreclosure crisis.
Geewax has been a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University, where she studied economics and international relations. She earned a master's degree at Georgetown University in international economic affairs, and has a bachelor's degree in journalism from The Ohio State University.
Before joining NPR, Geewax served as the national economics correspondent for Cox Newspapers' Washington Bureau and had worked at its flagship paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She started as a business reporter for the Akron Beacon Journal.


text:
Newly Elected Board Members Take Oath of Office; Board Approves Officer Reorganization
Dec 2, 2022 | News & Announcements
At the special Leander ISD Board meeting Dec. 1, three newly elected Trustees – Sade Fashokun in Place 5, Francesca Romans in Place 6 and Paul Gauthier in Place 7 – took the oath of office.
Trustees also approved a reorganization of their officer positions. Trustees Trish Bode and Gloria Gonzales-Dholakia, Ph.D, will continue in their roles as president and vice president, respectively, with Trustee Anna Smith now filling the role of secretary.
Outgoing Members
To start the meeting, Superintendent Bruce Gearing shared remarks recognizing the service of the two outgoing Board members: Elexis Grimes and Aaron Johnson.
Grimes, who held the role of secretary, was elected in 2018 and provided insight on the following committees during her term: Legislative Priorities, Community Curriculum Advisory, School Safety and Security, and Long Range Planning.
Johnson joined the Board in 2011, serving on several committees, including Policy Review, Community Based Accountability System, School Health Advisory, School Safety and Security, Long Range Planning and Strategic Planning.
We thank them for their countless hours of hard work and dedication in service to our #1LISD community.
Previous#1LISD Super Kid: Dec. 1, 2022
NextFine Arts Student of the Week: Dec. 2, 2022


Palestinian haggadist. He is cited only once under this name, and then as author of an interpretation which elsewhere is attributed to another (Lam. R. i. 5; comp. Sanh. 104b). He is identical with Alai or Ilaa b. Berechiah, "Hillel" being a variant of this name (comp. Ela). Under this name he appears several times (see Ta'an. 10a; Sanh. 94b; comp. Rabbinovicz, "Diḳduḳe Soferim," ad loc.). Among several of his homiletic interpretations, grouped together for students, there is one which declares that when two students travel together and do not discuss the Law they deserve to be consumedby fire. He deduces this from II Kings ii. 11: had Elijah and Elisha not talked of the things of the Law the fiery chariot and horses would have consumed and not merely have parted them (Soṭah 49a).
Heilprin, Seder ha-Dorot, ii. 27a, Warsaw, 1897.


text:
26 Yr Marriage | Wife's Workers Compensation Money is Marital Property
In Property Classification
Tennessee law case summary on marital property law and classification in Tennessee divorce and family law from the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Linda Haun Scarbrough v Gary Lynn Scarbrough – Tennessee Property Division Law – Classification as Marital or Separate Property
Gary Scarbroagh, Husband, and Linda Scarbrough, Wife, marred in 1985 in Tennessee prior to moving to Florida where the Husband eventually became a police officer. Five to six years after this, the Wife became employed as a police officer. In 1996, the Wife was involved in a work-related accident leaving her physically and psychologically unable to work. The Wife began receiving a pension and workers compensation at that time. The Husband retired in order to care for the Wife.
They returned to Tennessee in 1998. In June of 2010, the 59-year old Wife filed for divorce from the 61-year old Husband. The Husband answered and counter complained seeking spousal support based on the disparity between the parties' income. The divorce occurred in June of 2011, ending their 26-year marriage.
The Trial court noted that both receive comparable pensions and Social Security. The Wife also receives $1,830 in workers compensation and $3,640 to be used for attendant care. Both parties made the choice for the Husband to leave employment to care for the Wife, which reduced his ability to have a larger pension and Social Security benefits. It awarded $335 in separate property and $45,080 in marital property to the Husband. It awarded $1,010 in separate property and $7,010 marital property. It awarded the Husband transitional spousal support of $1000 per month for 60 months as well noting the Husband's demonstrated need and the Wife's ability to pay.
The Wife filed a motion to amend the judgment and sought relief. On July of 2011, the trial court entered an Order overruling the Wife's motion for a new trial but did reduce the spousal support to $700 per month. The Wife appealed.
The Wife argued that the trial court erred in classifying the $60,180 she received during the parties' separation from workers compensation as marital property. This included workers compensation benefits, attendant care benefits, pension payments and Social Security. Rather, she believed that only the amount she had not spent, about $7,000, was marital property.
Under Tennessee law, any property received by one of the spouses during a marriage is considered marital property. The Wife claimed the attendant care benefits received during this time were not marital property because they were to be used to care for her rather than a form of lost income. However, the Husband retired from his position to provide that care.
The Wife argued that if the court considered these funds income, it should also consider paying for 24-hour care as an expense to the Wife. While the court agreed, it also noted that the Wife did not demonstrate how much she actually spends towards this care. She stated she lives with her son who provides this care to her. She pays her son. The Wife is able to care for herself including to groom, fix light meals, walk, drive for short periods and garden and paint. The son, who has no medical training, has not left his employment to care for the Wife. The appeals ruled that, as such, it affirmed the decision of the lower court in considering the funds as marital property.
In the division of property, the Wife believes the Husband's income was less but his expenses were less than hers were. The Husband's total income is $1,675 and his expenses were $2,229. The Husband's spousal support of $700 was added and gave him a surplus of $146. The Wife's monthly income totals $6,656.85 and her expenses, including the spousal support total $3,047.75 leaving her a surplus of $3,609.10. The appeals court ruled there is no support for the Wife's argument that the trial court erred.
No. E2011-01854-COA-R3-CV-FILED-JUNE 4, 2012.
See original opinion for exact language. Legal citations omitted.
Memphis divorce lawyer, Miles Mason, Sr., JD, CPA practices family law exclusively and is founder of the Miles Mason Family Law Group, PLC, which handles Tennessee family law matters including divorce, child support, alimony, prenuptial agreements, child custody, parental relocation, child support modification, alimony modification, and divorces including business valuation and forensic accounting issues.