text:
NSA & FBI Spying on Muslims: Old Story, New Target
Bill Chambers
In an article published by The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald and Murtaaza Hussain describe five prominent American Muslims who had long been under surveillance by the NSA and the FBI including Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR, the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country. In all of the reporting of this "revelation" based upon NSA documents from Edward Snowden, it seems strange that no one has made the obvious point that this entire scenario has happened multiple times in the past history of the FBI – most notably in the aggressive surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the entire civil rights movement. Now instead of an entire race of people fighting for equal rights being the target, it's people who belong to one religion and are only trying to exist as American citizens.
The article describes a NSA spreadsheet that "shows 7,485 email addresses listed as monitored between 2002 and 2008". The email addresses were not identified by name, but the authors were able to determine some of the names based on the email addresses. Other than Nihad Awad, the other targets who could be determined were:
Faisal Gill, a longtime Republican Party operative and one-time candidate for public office who held a top-secret security clearance and served in the Department of Homeland Security under President George W. Bush;
Asim Ghafoor, a prominent attorney who has represented clients in terrorism-related cases;
Hooshang Amirahmadi, an Iranian-American professor of international relations at Rutgers University; and
Agha Saeed, a former political science professor at California State University who champions Muslim civil liberties and Palestinian rights.
The NSA gathered the data on these email accounts and the FBI was the "responsible agency for surveillance". It's important to note that these were not just individuals who happened to be on a FBI watch list like an anti-war or environmental activist. As the article describes it:
The individuals appear on an NSA spreadsheet in the Snowden archives called "FISA recap"—short for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under that law, the Justice Department must convince a judge with the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that there is probable cause to believe that American targets are not only agents of an international terrorist organization or other foreign power, but also "are or may be" engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism. The authorizations must be renewed by the court, usually every 90 days for U.S. citizens.
So presumably these individual names had to be taken in front of a judge at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court with evidence that they were "not only agents of an international terrorist organization…but also 'are or may be' engaged in or abetting espionage, sabotage, or terrorism." In other words, they were terrorists possibly involved in planning terrorist acts in the U.S. There has been no indication or evidence that any of these individuals are terrorists so how was this surveillance ever approved?
Anyone who has any knowledge of the FBI's history will recognize this scenario. A group of people who challenge the government or U.S. foreign policy are assigned a label, criminalized by a law or program, and then put under surveillance with the goal of an indictment or at least a disruption of their activism. The label has ranged from "anarchist", "socialist", "communist", "black nationalist", to today's "terrorist". There have been a series of laws, FBI programs, and Supreme Court decisions attached to these labels that justified the surveillance and criminalization of the group. Laws have ranged from the Espionage Act 1917, Alien and Sedition Act 1918, Smith Act 1940, McCarran Act 1950, COINTELPRO (Domestic Counterintelligence Program) 1960's, COMINFIL (Communist Infiltration Program), the Patriot Act 2001, and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project 2010. As the article points out, even the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
was enacted in 1978 in response to disclosures that J. Edgar Hoover and a long line of presidents from both parties had used U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on dissidents and political enemies. Intended to allow authorities to covertly investigate suspected spies or terrorists on U.S. soil, the surveillance is often used simply to gather intelligence, not to build a criminal case.
Even FISA and its Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) implemented to stop FBI abuse in investigating dissidents is being used to continue the exact same practice, i.e. gathering intelligence on American citizens who the NSA and FBI has decided are suspected terrorists. Now that group of "dissidents" appears to be Americans Muslims.
The closest comparison to the targeting of American Muslim leaders and organizations is the FBI's campaign to discredit Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the organizations leading the civil rights movement. Many people remember that the FBI targeted Dr. King, but few remember that the FBI investigation extended to the leading civil rights and black nationalist groups, all considered "black nationalist hate groups", such as Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Revolutionary Action Movement (RAM), Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and the Nation of Islam. (For background on this FBI campaign see "The FBI, COINTELPRO, and Martin Luther King, Jr." the Church Committee Report; "The Last Crusade: Martin Luther King, Jr. the FBI, and the Poor People's Campaign" by Gerald McKnight; and "Agents of Repression" by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall.)
The campaign against Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement started as early as the 1950's when the FBI had a program called "Racial Matters" that required getting information on all proposed or actual activities in the "racial field". So this would be similar to the extensive surveillance of the Muslim community after 9-11. The extensive files begun on American Muslims likely had a more sophisticated name than "Muslim Matters" and would have referred to "counter-terrorism" in some way. But the goal is the same, i.e. gathering information on the Muslim community whether there is any evidence of criminal activity or not.
It's well-known that the FBI targeted Martin Luther King, Jr. his entire life, continually trying to undermine him as a civil rights leader. Often this FBI vendetta is blamed on the influence of J. Edgar Hoover who had a personal dislike of Dr. King and since he had complete control over the FBI, this smear campaign was understandable. But with the full knowledge of the administrations at the time under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, the FBI conducted investigations of Dr. King and the civil rights organizations based upon a FBI manual provision called COMINFIL. This FBI program permitted investigation of non-communist organizations suspected by the FBI of having been infiltrated by the Communist Party and to determine the extent of Communist influence. There was never any evidence of Dr. King or any of the organizations being Communist or under Communist influence. The final report of the US Senate Church Committee in 1975 described the ten year effort by Hoover and the FBI to discredit Dr. King and the civil rights movement as Communist. But that report did not stop the FBI from continuing similar surveillance operations in the future.
By now this pattern should begin to sound familiar. In the guise of fighting "terrorism", the FBI conducts surveillance of prominent American Muslims, especially ones involved in large Muslim organizations. Faisal Gill worked as a consultant for the American Muslim Council, which was founded by activist Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi to encourage participation by American Muslims in the political process. Agha Saeed founded the American Muslim Alliance, which The New York Times described in October 2001 as "the main organization devoted to the political assimilation of the nation's seven million Arab-Americans." (Interesting to note that the NY Times seems unaware that there are Arab-Americans who are not Muslim and the sentence before this one reads "No fewer than five F.B.I. agents gathered around Agha Saeed after he drove from Washington and checked in for one of the first flights allowed to leave Baltimore following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."). Nihad Awad, as Executive Director of CAIR, was a target who belongs to one of the main civil rights groups that challenges the profiling and discrimination that this surveillance represents.
As in the case of the civil rights movement, the very justification of surveillance – investigating potential Communists or terrorists – is enough to smear the reputations of the people you are investigating. Even if the unjustified surveillance is uncovered, you've already damaged the reputations of the people involved. This whole approach is the "unindicted co-conspirator list" of 300 individuals and organizations (including CAIR) used during the Holy Land Foundation prosecution that provided fodder for anti-Islam groups to attack groups like CAIR. None of the individuals or organizations on the list were ever given the opportunity to defend themselves in court. Faisal Gill knew he was probably feeding into this government suggestion of guilt by even discussing the monitoring of his emails.
Maybe people will say, 'Hey he was being surveilled—the government must have some reason for doing it, especially if there's a FISA warrant.' There will be a lot of folks who will say it was justified and there's something there. I'm sure it'll have some sort of negative impact with clients, and who knows what else.
In their article, Glenn Greenwald and Murtaaza Hussain suggest another connection to the surveillance of the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's:
But blatant prejudice against Muslim-Americans is also documented in the Snowden archive. In one 2005 document, intelligence community personnel are instructed how to properly format internal memos to justify FISA surveillance. In the place where the target's real name would go, the memo offers a fake name as a placeholder: "Mohammed Raghead."
There is not only a "prejudice" against Muslims in the NSA and FBI's surveillance, but also an element of racism against Arabs. Although all Muslims are not Arabs, that association seems to continue in the minds of many in the justice community and the general society. There is little question that Hoover and the FBI's focus on Dr. King and the civil rights movement also had a similar racist component that helped drive the relentlessness of their campaign.
Now with the advanced, mass surveillance technology at the disposal of the NSA, the FBI has almost unlimited ability to target all the communications of specific people or a very large group of people with very little effort. The other Snowden revelations have already shown that the NSA did not require much in the way of legal justifications, evidence of criminality, or court approval to gather large amounts of data on any American. How much legal justification, evidence, or approval would the FBI really have needed to convince the judge in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that these five American Muslims were terrorists potentially plotting terrorist acts?
As we hear more and more from NSA documents released by Edward Snowden, we need to continue to be outraged that our government has a very advanced surveillance program to capture personal data on individual Americans as well as on targeted groups of people like Muslims. But we should not be surprised that this unwarranted surveillance has a long history in this country and all the past outrage to stop this unconsitutional attack on free speech and privacy has not been effective. Maybe it is time to ask why the FBI and our Justice Department seem to have a continual need to criminalize an entire group.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Chicago Monitor's editorial policy.
muslim surveillance
Nihad Awad
Previous articleChicago Activists Protest 'Bomb Trains' Carrying Oil through Local Neighborhoods
Next articleThousands of Chicagoans March for Palestine
Bill is the former Editor-in-Chief of the Chicago Monitor. He is a full-time activist with a long history of civil rights, anti-racism, anti-war, Irish Republican, and Palestine solidarity work. He is also a member of the Muslim Anti-Racism Collaborative and has a Masters Degree in Islamic Studies with a focus on Muslim American social justice groups.
Chicago Arab and Black Youth Campaign Against Racial Profiling by the FBI
Orlando Shooting – How the FBI Turned LGBTQ Hate Crime into Terrorism
Boeing Faces Increased Opposition on Weapons Sales to Israel
Islamic Medical Relief Missions to Sudan, Jordan, and Haiti Focus on the Forgotten
Is the UK Mandated Reporter for "Extremists" Program Coming to the US?
I am Not Afraid
Saadia Pervaiz - September 19, 2017 0
VA Audit: Over 120,000 Veterans Experience Delayed Care
Cynthia Martinez - June 12, 2014 1


text: Q: Azure web app not allowing users to login I have created a web application, an SQL Server and an SQL Database for my web app in Microsoft Azure Platform.The SQL server is not running on a VM it is just using the SQL Database Service. When I publish my site as a web application from Visual Studio I can log in to the website but when I try to log in again later from the same PC or another one I can't. It seems like it can't connect properly to the database so I tested the same thing in localhost while i was connected to the Azure Database and everything is working properly, so it shouldn't be a problem in my code or the database. Should I change something on the web application properties at the azure portal so it will work properly or should I change something in my code? My subscription is Academic, I don't know if that makes a difference.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


INCLUDES EPISODE 1: IDENTITY, LESSON NOTES, AND ADDITIONAL FACILITATOR GUIDE!
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP PROJECT?
Our young people today are facing difficult questions and situations in their lives, challenged by what society encourages as they face conflicting ideologies from peers, their schools, and the media. There is a disconnect between those con icting ideologies and what the Church teaches as truth.
As we have beta tested this material in many different youth ministry settings, we have been amazed to watch teenagers open up, ask profound questions, nd true peace in the truth, develop real relationships with peers and leaders, and grow deeply connected to the Church. It is amazing how when we simply open up a space to teenagers where they can come as they are and bring all of their questions and struggles, they are open to learning and want to keep coming back. Teens are yearning for truth and faith. When we embrace them, listen to them, love them, laugh with them, encourage them, and then teach them in this context, they feel a part of Christ's Church and are open to receiving it.
WHO IS THE RELATIONSHIP PROJECT FOR?
You're a clergyman, lay leader, youth worker or parent who is struggling to get the youth of the parish involved and engaged in the life of the Church. The product is presented in a fresh, culturally competent way. Beta-tests we've run throughout the country confirm what our team suspected: invite teens in the right way, and they'll show up. Engage them in the right conversations and they'll stay. Embrace them with love and create a space for them to wrestle with all things teen-related, and they'll keep coming back. By the grace of God, somewhere in there, transformation happens. Relationships happen.
You passionately want to provide the Church's teachings, but truthfully, you don't know how to begin the hard conversations and have the hard discussions about all that faces our kids these days. The Relationship Project is somewhat extraordinary because it tackles all the big topics facing our teens today. In the first two episodes released today, we cover issues of identity and intimacy setting the stage for the episodes to come on loneliness, physical desire and attraction, marriage, and in light of all that, dating. Our team has referred to it as the Masters Degree in Relationship for youth. And the cool part is, our team has done ALL the heavy lifting for you. Faithtree enlisted over 20 clergy, therapists, counselor, theologians, youth workers and parents to articulate the theology for you. Then we created a killer film series that is aesthetically beautiful and according to our teens, "not lame". (Phew.) All you have to do is press play and read the words written in your Facilitator Guide. We got the rest.
You're a parent, priest or parishioner who wants to engage the teens in your church but you have limited resources, support, and even, know-how. This part makes me super happy. As a former youth worker for over two decades, I know how isolated I felt sometimes in youth ministry. I know how hard limited funds, limited volunteers, and even, limited time when kids weren't at soccer- made it feel to do the job in a way that glorified God. The Relationship Project helps to fix that. We have brought on a staff member to the Faithtree Team, to help solely with the needs of our churches that purchase this product. In doing this, we essentially give you a direct connection to a youth worker, with a degree in ministry and a Masters of Divinity, who will hold your hand through all of it. No more isolation.
WHAT ARE PEOPLE SAYING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP PROJECT?


text:
A Sky Beyond the Storm
by Sabaa Tahir
Rare Books Only
Signed Copies
Alternate Editions
Browse related Subjects
+ Browse All Subjects
Young Adult Fiction > Fantasy > Historical
Young Adult Fiction > Fantasy > Epic
Historical Fantasy Fiction
YOUNG ADULT FICTION / Historical / Ancient Civilizations
YOUNG ADULT FICTION / Fantasy / Historical
YOUNG ADULT FICTION / Fantasy / Epic
Prepare for the jaw-dropping finale of Sabaa Tahir's beloved New York Times bestselling An Ember in the Ashes fantasy series, and discover: Who will survive the storm? Picking up just a few months after A Reaper at the Gates left off... The long-imprisoned jinn are on the attack, wreaking bloody havoc in villages and cities alike. But for the Nightbringer, vengeance on his human foes is just the beginning. At his side, Commandant Keris Veturia declares herself Empress, and calls for ... Read More
Prepare for the jaw-dropping finale of Sabaa Tahir's beloved New York Times bestselling An Ember in the Ashes fantasy series, and discover: Who will survive the storm? Picking up just a few months after A Reaper at the Gates left off... The long-imprisoned jinn are on the attack, wreaking bloody havoc in villages and cities alike. But for the Nightbringer, vengeance on his human foes is just the beginning. At his side, Commandant Keris Veturia declares herself Empress, and calls for the heads of any and all who defy her rule. At the top of the list? The Blood Shrike and her remaining family. Laia of Serra, now allied with the Blood Shrike, struggles to recover from the loss of the two people most important to her. Determined to stop the approaching apocalypse, she throws herself into the destruction of the Nightbringer. In the process, she awakens an ancient power that could lead her to victory - or to an unimaginable doom. And deep in the Waiting Place, the Soul Catcher seeks only to forget the life - and love - he left behind. Yet doing so means ignoring the trail of murder left by the Nightbringer and his jinn. To uphold his oath and protect the human world from the supernatural, the Soul Catcher must look beyond the borders of his own land. He must take on a mission that could save - or destroy - all that he knows. Read Less
New Books from $5.40
Used Books from $4.39
Rare Books from $33.97
All Copies (83)
Softcover (21)
Choose Edition (5)
Sort Seller Rating Price: Low to High Price: High to Low Condition Condition: Reverse Pub Date Pub Date: Reverse Sellers Near Me
Hardcover, Good
2020, Razorbill
Friends of the Phoenix Library
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes) to cart. $4.39, good condition, Sold by Friends of the Phoenix Library rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Phoenix, AZ, UNITED STATES, published 2020 by Razorbill.
Publisher: Razorbill
Good. This is a former library book with library stickers and stamps. 100% of this purchase will support literacy programs through a nonprofit organization!
Hardcover, Fine/Like New
HPB-Blue
Carrollton, TX, USA
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes) to cart. $5.00, like new condition, Sold by HPB-Blue rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Carrollton, TX, UNITED STATES, published 2020 by Razorbill.
Fine. Connecting readers with great books since 1972! May contain remainder marks. We ship orders daily and Customer Service is our top priority!
Hardcover, Very Good
HPB-Ruby
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes) to cart. $5.00, very good condition, Sold by HPB-Ruby rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Carrollton, TX, UNITED STATES, published 2020 by Razorbill.
Very good. Connecting readers with great books since 1972! Used books may not include companion materials, and may have some shelf wear or limited writing. We ship orders daily and Customer Service is our top priority!
HPB-Diamond
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes) to cart. $5.00, very good condition, Sold by HPB-Diamond rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Carrollton, TX, UNITED STATES, published 2020 by Razorbill.
HPB Inc.
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes) to cart. $5.00, very good condition, Sold by HPB Inc. rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Carrollton, TX, UNITED STATES, published 2020 by Razorbill.
Trade paperback, New
Book Outlet
Jefferson City, TN, USA
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes, Bk. 4) to cart. $5.40, new condition, Sold by Book Outlet rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Jefferson City, TN, UNITED STATES, published 2022 by RazorBill.
Published: 01/2022
New in new dust jacket. New, Publisher overstock, may have small remainder mark. Excellent condition, never read, purchased from publisher as excess inventory.
agoodealofbooks
ypsilanti, MI, USA
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes) to cart. $5.79, like new condition, Sold by agoodealofbooks rated 4.0 out of 5 stars, ships from ypsilanti, MI, UNITED STATES, published 2020 by Razorbill.
Fine. Very good to like new hardcover with jacket. no marks. clean text. solid binding. very light corner wear. ISBN matches listing FAST SHIPPING W/ CONFIRMATION. NO PRIORITY OR INTERNATIONAL ORDERS OVER 4LBs.
HPB-Emerald
Add this copy of A Sky Beyond the Storm (an Ember in the Ashes) to cart. $6.49, very good condition, Sold by HPB-Emerald rated 5.0 out of 5 stars, ships from Carrollton, TX, UNITED STATES, published 2020 by Razorbill.
Page 1 of 11: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next>
2021, HarperVoyager, London
Mass-market paperback
2020, Thorndike Striving Reader
Large type / large print
All Editions of A Sky Beyond the Storm
2021, Trade paperback
2021, Mass-market paperback
2020, Hardcover
Books by Sabaa Tahir
A Torch Against the Night
An Ember in the Ashes
A Reaper at the Gates
by Sarah J Maas
The Queen of Nothing
by Holly Black
by Shelby Mahurin
Copyright in bibliographic data and cover images is held by Nielsen Book Services Limited, Baker & Taylor, Inc., or by their respective licensors, or by the publishers, or by their respective licensors. For personal use only. All rights reserved. All rights in images of books or other publications are reserved by the original copyright holders.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Whether you're new to photography, haven't had a ton of formal training, or were just always the kind of kid who learned best by doing, the terminology and lingo of making pictures can be enough to make your head spin. But knowing the language – like lighting terms and other important descriptors – can help you better communicate with your fellow artists. Setting up shoots, asking about new gear, and even directing your subject can all be aided when you know the colloquialisms.
Portrait photographer and lighting instructor Lindsay Adler is a master at conquering difficult lighting. In her class, Seeing and Shaping Light, she shows you how to see and use light in a whole new way to capture stunning portraits. In preparation for that, here are some of the essential lighting terms all photographers need to know.
Broad light: Quite simply, says Lindsay, this term "means…that the shadow is going away from the camera." In an instance of broad lighting, the shade is cast away from the camera. Your model is "broadly lit," Lindsay explains. This also makes your subject's face look broader.
Want to further perfect your lighting techniques and fully understand environmental portraiture? Learn more from Dan Brouillette now.
Not particularly useful in direction, Lindsay says she "talk(s) about this except for if I'm trying to explain what I'm doing," but that it is super-helpful in trying to work through a potential lighting set-up.
"This has to do with where the shadows are falling," says Lindsay, and "shadows create drama." Use short light for a dramatic photo, or to sculpt the appearance of the person you're photographing.
Flat light: Just because an image isn't high-drama doesn't mean it's not beautiful, says Lindsay, but it does have a very different look. Flat light, which has no or very few shadows, is when the light is a little lower and centered on the subject.
"I use flat light all the time in beauty photos," Lindsay clarifies, noting that just because light is flat doesn't mean it has to be dull.
Dimensional light: Much like flat light doesn't need to be high-key, dimensional light doesn't need to be low-key.
No one style of lighting is right or wrong, Lindsay says, they're just different. Your lighting will depend on what effect you're aiming for or what your subject is hoping to get out of the photo, and knowing your options can help you deliver exactly what's desired.
Are You An Amateur or Professional Photographer?


text:
Jemadia is een geslacht van vlinders van de familie dikkopjes (Hesperiidae), uit de onderfamilie Pyrrhopyginae.

Soorten
J. fallax (Mabille, 1878)
J. gnetus (Fabricius, 1781)
J. hewitsonii (Mabille, 1878)
J. hospita (Butler, 1877)
J. menechmus (Mabille, 1878)
J. scomber Druce, 1908
J. sosia (Mabille, 1878)

Pyrrhopyginae

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Here's What Rosalía's Best New Artist Nomination at the Grammys Really Means
Rosalía Nominated For Best New Artist at the Grammys
November 20, 2019 by Ardenis Perez
The wait is over: this morning, the Recording Academy finally announced its nominees for music's biggest award show, the Grammys. Among the artists nominated is fan favorite Rosalía, who has been making waves for a few years now with her flamenco-pop and urban sound. Nominated for best new artist, the singer is the first-ever Spanish act to be recognized in the category — three years after being nominated in the same category at the Latin Grammys. She's also nominated for best Latin rock, urban, or alternative album. But why did it take the Recording Academy this long to acknowledge her, and for that matter, acknowledge Spanish-singing artists altogether?
To say Rosalía is a new artist is up for debate. The 26-year-old has released numerous singles, including "Catalina" and "De Plata" from her 2017 debut album, Los Ángeles. But her latest music, like "Con Altura" with reggaetonero J Balvin and "Yo x Ti, Tu x Mi" with Puerto Rican hitmaker Ozuna, has led her to gain a massive following. Her second album, El Mal Querer, was highly praised, with its "Malamente" single taking home two Latin Grammys in 2018, and the album landing three more Latin Grammys just last week, making it five awards total. Now, finally, she is in the running at the Grammys.
This best new artist nomination is a particularly big deal for the Spain native. The Recording Academy has never nominated an artist in this category for their Spanish-language recordings. It seems that now Latinx and Hispanic artists are beginning to be recognized for their efforts. When I think about Spanish-language artists who have had major success in Latin America, I sometimes forget that they might only be popular within the Latinx community, failing to realize that their success doesn't always translate among mainstream critics.
However, a change is slowly on the rise. Recently, Latinx and Hispanic artists have been receiving notable accolades, bringing them success and opportunities, but most of all visibility. Take, for example, J Balvin, who this year made history as the first Latinx artist to headline music festival Lollapalooza, while Coachella invited popular Latinx talent, including Bad Bunny and Rosalía, to perform. I vividly remember how this past Summer's MTV Video Music Awards introduced more Latinx artists on its nominations list, with Rosalía winning two moonmen. And it seems that the Spanish language is crossing over into airplay throughout non-Spanish music radio stations.
But is this enough? It's almost shocking to hear of all these firsts, to learn that these achievements have never been accomplished by Latinx or Hispanic artists before. Although it's hard to believe that these strides are just happening now, what matters is that they are actually happening. This historic nomination for Rosalía may feel like too little too late, but nonetheless the fact that she is being celebrated for her music will hopefully pave the way for other Spanish-language artists to be praised as well. If music is really meant to be universal, then Latinx artists must be accepted and given the same chance as everyone else.
Image Source: Getty / Gabe Ginsberg
Grammy AwardsMusicRosalía
13 of the Most Anticipated Pop Albums of 2020
by Stacey Nguyen 11 hours ago
James Bond Films Are Known For Iconic Theme Songs, but These Are the 10 Best
by Amanda Prahl 1 day ago
Get Ready to Giddy Up to These 2020 Country Albums
by Stacey Nguyen 1 day ago
I'm Shocked to Admit Chris Martin's Soulful Cover of "Party in the USA" Hit Me Right in the Feels
by Angela Law 16 hours ago


If you are looking for a quick and casual meal, consider visiting our buffet restaurant in Coconut Creek. Not every night can be formal, and sometimes you don't have time to sit and enjoy a candlelit dinner with your family. SanTo's Modern American Buffet & Sushi restaurant offers great food for an affordable price that everyone can enjoy. Our variety of food is large scale, yet we have been able to prepare our food with a twist.
For those who visit us during lunch break, we understand that time is important. Another great factor about our buffet includes the fact that many people are served at once. You don't have to wait on a waitress or server at our buffet. You simply fill up your plate with any combination of appetizers, hot entrees, sushi, salads, and sides. Creating your own meal has never been better!
We already mentioned that buffets are fast, but there are many reasons that go into this factor. You don't have to wait on others for your meal and you don't have to make any hard decisions. Sometimes when you visit a restaurant you must decide between two of your favorites on the menu. At our buffet restaurant in Coconut Creek, we let you have both of your favorites without even blinking twice. You can also try something new without the consequences of not liking it and paying for it. Our buffet is truly for anyone at any time.
Because our buffet restaurant environment is laid back, you can wear anything without feeling over or under dressed. Simply come as you are and eat as you'd like! If you are interested in more about our menu, please call us at (954) 971-6882 and we would be delighted to speak with you!


text:
2019 Kentucky Derby Recap
Written by D.S. Williamson on May 6, 2019
Horse Racing Betting News
With some controversy, the 2019 Kentucky Derby took place this past Saturday on May 4. Check out a recap of what happened in the Run for the Roses! And be sure to check out the latest 2019 Preakness Stakes odds now that the Derby is over.
Maximum Security Takes the Lead from the Get Go
As soon as the gates opened, horse racing fans knew that Florida Derby winner Maximum Security meant business. The New Year's Day sired 3-year-old took the lead from the outset, running the first quarter-mile in 22.5.
Incident Around the Turn
Once on the lead, jockey Luis Saez had him in cruise control. Maximum Security never appeared to be in any danger of not winning, but then something crazy happened around the turn. Saez, sitting chilly aboard his horse, felt Maximum Security suddenly change lanes. He went about 3 lanes to the right and appeared to impede War of Will's momentum.
To evade Maximum Security, War of Will hit Long Range Toddy who hit Bode Express. All three of those horses faded in the stretch.
Maximum Security Wins Easily
In the stretch, Maximum Security pulled away for an easy victory. The second place finisher, Country House, ran unimpeded to the finish line to get up for second while the third place finisher, Code of Honor, ran up the rail to finish third.
Maximum Security's win was so obvious that everyone believed the only question left was whether the 9/2 second choice Derby shot could go on to win the Triple Crown. However, that wasn't the case.
Country House Jockey Flavien Prat Lodges Objection
Country House's jockey, Flavien Prat, lodged an objection. Although he wasn't involved in the incident around the turn, Prat and his mount had finished second. Prat wasn't the only jockey that objected. So did Jon Court who had been aboard Long Range Toddy. Tyler Gaffalione aboard War of Will didn't lodge an objection.
When jockey's lodge objections they ask stewards in the replay booth to take another look at the race. That's what happened in the Kentucky Derby on Saturday. Often, stewards will flash the inquiry sign if they've seen anything in the race that requires a second look.
In this case, the stewards didn't do that. But, because two jockey had lodged objections, they had to look at the race to determine if a change was required.
After 18 Minutes, Maximum Security Goes Down, Country House Goes Up
It took the stewards a while to make a final decision. When they had finally ruled, those who thought they had an easy Derby winner in Maximum Security had to tear up their tickets while those who had put a few bucks on 65/1 shot Country House jumped for joy.
The stewards ruled that Maximum Security had interfered with War of Will, causing a chain reaction that could have led to disaster. Even though disaster hadn't struck, the stewards said that Maximum Security's actions required them to take him down and place him seventeenth, behind Long Range Toddy who ended up eighteenth.
That moved Country House up to the winner's circle, Code of Honor moved up to second, and Tacitus moved up to third. See below for the final results and payouts for the 2019 Kentucky Derby.
Country House Win-$132.40, Place-$56.60, Show-$24.60
Code of Honor Place-$15.20, Show-$9.80
Tacitus Show-$5.60
2021 Top Stakes Races for the Week Jan. 11th Edition
2021 Kentucky Derby Horse Racing Expert Analysis Update
2021 Top Stakes Races for the Week Jan. 4th Edition
2021 Kentucky Derby Horse Racing Analysis – Jerome & Sham
2020 Top Stakes Races for the Week Dec. 28th Edition
2020 Top Stakes Races for the Week Dec. 21st Edition
2020 Top Stakes Races for the Week Dec. 7th Edition
2020 Top Stakes Races for the Week Nov. 30th Edition
2020 Top Stakes Races for the Week Nov. 23rd Edition
2020 Top Stakes Races for the Week Nov. 9th Edition
2020 Breeders' Cup Classic Trifecta, Superfecta & Exacta
2020 Breeders Cup Classic Odds Update Nov. 5th Edition
2020 Breeders Cup Horse Racing Surprises for Nov. 6th


text:
The APSA
Well, Paul demands a report on what happened in Chicago. The worst news: Instead of centering on the beautiful and historic Palmer House, most convention activity was found in hotels that are very generic, ugly, full of clip joints, and endlessly confusing--a Hyatt and a Sheraton. The book room--the social center, obviously--really was a cave beneath the cave.
The best news, from an NLT perspective, is that most of the best and most hugely attended panels were Claremont roundtables. Many APSA panels had more participants than audience in a big room. The Claremont people were often overflow crowds packed into small rooms. I reject all paranoid theories about marginalization and blame bureaucratic incompetence for this ridiculous injustice.
Because everything is finally all about me, let me say a few words about the roundtable I was on, which concerned whether social conservatism is good for conservatism. The panelists agreed that nobody knew what social conservatism was, and the phrase was vulgar and trivialized genuine political concerns shared by lots of Americans.
Hadley Arkes insisted that politics and law couldn't be separated from the truth about morality human beings share in common, and that even the Bush administration must be criticized for doing so little to protect unborn life. Hadley was particularly hard on the libertarians, while admitting that he agreed with them about 85% of the time. His most memorable comment was something like it is better to lose honorably with Romney that sacrifice our souls for success with Giuliani.
The nice-guy head of the libertarian Cato Institute--David Boaz--said something like the problem with Republicans today is that they're no longer led by freedom- loving men from the West like Goldwater but moralistic religious extremists from the South. They want to use big government to impose their moral views on every individual in the country, and they don't even care that government under Republican leadership continues to bloat in all sorts of ways. He also said that same-sex marriage will soon become as uncontroversial as interracial marriage, and implicitly that those who opposed it will rightly be placed in the same boat as the racists. He admitted that the abortion controversy might be particularly tough--given the conflicting rights claims.
On the basis of that understanding of the abortion controversy, I got Mr. Boaz to admit that ROE v. WADE was probably judicial imperialism. (He should call Giuliani and explain why.) Because so many have made the point that the injustice of ROE is what brought the so-called social conservatism movement into being, we might be tempted to call even our libertarian friend a social conservative. The problem with that conclusion is that he clearly would have no trouble at all with the Court declaring a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
More generally, Mr. Boaz contended that a genuine conservative would accept the social/cultural revolution of the Sixties and the economic/market revolution of the Eighties as part of our heritage that can't and shouldn't be rolled back. So a genuine conservative is a "Do your own thing" individual in every area of life.
Natural-law man Chris Wolfe, from the floor, made clear that his difference with Boaz had to do with the naturalness of marriage as an institution. A free society should be understood as much as a nation of families as a nation of individuals. Boaz made it clear enough that for all public purposes marriage could be captured by the individualistic principles of contract and consent, or is fundamentally no different from any other social relationship in his libertarian eyes.
I haven't talked about the presentations by Heritage's Matt Spalding and myself, but that's because I'm out of time for now.
12:15 PM / September 3, 2007
Trackbacks | Discuss (58) | Share | RSS
Discussions - 58 Comments
Patrick Deneen
I was in the audience at the panel summarized here by Peter, and it is on the mark in its essentials, except that Peter leaves out that his own talk showed how anti-Darwinian "social conservatives" (whatever that is) are better "Darwinians" than libertarian Darwinians. That is, it is our evangelical and religious conservatives who act as if they act as if they believe the truth of Darwin's species theory - they have children and teach them, generally, that life isn't all about self-seeking. I don't think all that many people in the room really "got" what Peter was saying, but his was the deeper refutation of Boaz's ideological defense of unlimited individual choice. And, it was funnier too.
Also, no one really pointed out the complete absurdity of the panel title, "Is Social Conservatism Good for Conservatism?" The title was an effort by its organizers to make their concern appear more intellectual than it may be. The real title should have been, "Are Religious Conservatives Good for the Republican Party?" Boaz basically argued that the Republicans could - and should - try to win elections without religious conservatives. There is also now a thesis by Democratic party operatives that the Democrats could and should win without carrying any states in the South. If we do end up with a HRC v. Giuliani election, could we be seeing the start of a re-alignment, or possibly de-alignment? It's hard to imagine that a third party candidate wouldn't attempt to appeal to this part of the electorate, and more importantly, that such a candidacy could have the effect of moving these voters away from allegiance to the Republican Party (though, of course, not to the Democrats).
One can't help but suspect that a Giuliani candidacy might have the effect of "proving" the Thomas Frank thesis, i.e., that social conservatism was never really at the heart of the Republican party's beliefs (a possibility that my friends here at NLT are loath to recognize, and why everyone is holding their breath for Fred). A Giuliani candidacy would prove that what the Republicans always cared more about was winning, and not issues like abortion. Other than a few judicial appointments, no Republican Presidents have had much to say or do about the broader culture that fosters the kinds of beliefs held by Boaz and Hillary and Giuliani. Anyway, should such an election come to pass, more people should have attended the roundtable I organized, on the legacy of William Jennings Bryan. Its themes could turn out to be of more than mere historical interest.
Posted 1:46 PM / September 3, 2007 | Reply
Dr. Pat, as usual, makes some penetrating points, including the important one I left out about the libertarian view of what should be the new Republican electoral strategy and how it could conceivably be "proven" right by a Giuliani victory. I also agree that there has to be a populist, in addition to a constitutionalist, element in conservatism today, and so there's something to be learned from Bryan. (And it's my populism, among other things, that actually separates from certain conservative leanings in the direction of Canadian Red Tories and Kirkian Tory Bohemianism and so forth. I did praise, in a way, a moderately bohemian relative indifference to the bottom line in my talk though.) Although I'm not a breath-holder for Fred, I have noticed the phenomenon on our pages, among other places. And I accept the judgment that I was amusing (got more laughs than all the other speakers together) but incomprehensible (except to those already sympathetic to my views). I will get around to summarizing them, but I will say for now that they were just as critical of the Heritage as they were of the Cato positions, and that may be why the think-tanks and candidates aren't calling me for my sage advice. My position is stuck-with-virtue conservatism, and it's in a long-winded and so accessible version as a chapter in my HOMELESS AND AT HOME IN AMERICA.
paul seaton
Thanks, Peter,and thanks, Patrick, for the initial summary and the further-the report comment. In absentia I declare the panel a resounding success.
And how 'bout the books on Strauss-and-Straussianism-and Straussians panel?
Paul, Someone who was actually at said panel should comment. All I have is hearsay evidence, because there was no way latecomers could get in the room or even hear for ourselves perched well outside the room.
In general, I declare the season open for commenting on any and all conference panels, lectures, and other activities. Sample general observation: The APSA is the most intellectually diverse academic conference in the world. A thousand flowers really do bloom--including some too strange and fragile to flourish in any other intellectual environment. Why is that? The transgendered and the Voegelinians and perhaps the transgendered Voegelinians are all there, although it can't be said they really bond with each other. The APSA, as the say, is a huge high school cafeteria where everyone feels safe and loved only at his or her own table.
It's rank hyperbole to suggest we're on the verge of "losing our souls" if we win with Giuliani.
We went with Bush pere, Dole then Bush fils, three Rockefeller Republicans, one of whom Gingrich said was the "tax collector for the welfare state."
Let's get a few things straight here. Who was it that named Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy to the high court? Who was it that appointed Blackmun? Was it Rudy Giuliani who placed Warren and Brennan up there? Did Giuliani name Souter? It wasn't Rudy who suggested Harriet Meirs, now was it? Did Giuliani name a demonstrable incompetent to the AG position, to the post of White House Counsel?
It wasn't Giuliani who went native on Capitol Hill, embracing one spending spree after another, making peace with corporate agri-subsidies. It wasn't Giuliani who allowed the foreign policy establishment to call the play once more, after their clear failure evidenced on September 11th, now was it?
Is there anyone out there who can make the case that what Giuliani did for New York City, on the whole, in an aggregate sense, was liberal, was progressive, was socialistic, and NOT Conservative, not capitalistic and not distinctly American.
Lastly, after the long Clinton tenure, after all of the political correctness that was mainstreamed, not to mention the social pathology, it's somewhat bizarre that any Conservative could still utter that line about "selling our souls" if we vote for so-and-so.
There are those whose take of politics is that it's akin to strutting the social catwalk, displaying the radiant spotlessness of their positions. Whereas in reality, politics is the realm where absolute values grapple with the grim and grimy business of hammer and anvil electioneering.
Mr. Boaz contended that a genuine conservative would accept the social/cultural revolution of the Sixties and the economic/market revolution of the Eighties as part of our heritage that can't and shouldn't be rolled back. So a genuine conservative is a "Do your own thing" individual in every area of life.
So the difference between Mr. Boaz and a modern liberal is what?
The striking thing about the modern libertarian movement is that it no longer cares much about the size of government. It has made its peace with Leviathan. An obsessive dislike of Christianity as the source of all ills has taken the place of big government as the source of all problems.
they're no longer led by freedom- loving men from the West like Goldwater but moralistic religious extremists from the South.
According to CATO's own rankings, the Southern states are led by far more libertarian governors than those in the supposedly freedom loving West. Likewise for Southern Senators. But Boaz can't allow details like that to get in the way of his preferred narrative.
OK, here's another report from the APSA. (I was only there Thu night- Sat afternoon, which proved enough.)
First: the second funniest thing at the APSA (after Peter's already reported witticisms). This one has no intellectual content: Just after I took my leave from Peter and the convention and entered the elevator at the Hyatt to get my bag and leave, a 30-ish woman, very tall and slim but not so pretty, got on with me. There were just the two of us. She was cheerful and a little chatty, so I ventured the light remark that, given her notable height (she said she was 6'), she hardly needed her 4" heels. True, she said, but I like them ... and then, as the door opened and she exited, she added, as matter-of-factly as could be: "anyway, they're supposed to be good for business." There was no time to answer, which was fine, because I was speechless. I've been in Provo too long (thank Heaven).
Gary Seaton
On the narrow (but very important!) point Peter described, looks to me like it was Chris Wolf, 1; David Boaz, -1. (Not merely "0", but "negative 1", because Boaz doesn't want us {yahoos} to merely tolerate, but embrace, same sex marriage.)
Difference between Mr. Boaz and a modern liberal? Fiscal policy (taxes and spending). Isn't that all that's left to their ilk?
Bravo, as usual, for Prof. Arkes. How *does* he survive.......in Amherst???
I don't know. What is it that you think Giuliani did for New York City? It was, and remains, one of the most liberal spots in the country.
The Cato Governors report card for 2006.
The top four spots go to the GOP governors of those horrible moralistic religious extremists from the South, in Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The freedom loving states of the Mountain West do rather poorly. Mountana, Arizona, and Nevada all score an F. Wyoming, California, and Colorado get D's.
The next time you encounter Boaz, run these scores by him.
Now a bit of real intellectual reporting: The panel on new books on Strauss (panelists: the Zuckerts, T. Pangle, J. Yarbrough, D. Mahoney), was completely packed, and every Straussian or post-Straussian who is anyone was either in the room or in the overflow in the hallway. The Zuckerts gave a fair, appropriately undefensive account of how their book was intended more to address the public "noise" about Strauss and thus rhetorically different from Pangle's. There was a very funny moment when, after Michael had spoken and exhibited his high regard for Locke, Catherine was sure to mention in passing that she "is not a Lockean." "Now you tell me!" was Michael's instantaneous reply. Beyond that, both Daniel and Jean pointed up Pangle's tin ear re. a Christian understanding of transcendence. (Responding to Mahoney, he accused him of being more scholastic than the scholastics -- blurring the line between revelation and reason more than they.) In the Q&A, C. Orwin quite poignantly remarked that after 25 years he still had no idea of Pangle's position on the theological question. Pangle was, as usual, very articulate but not necessarily very helpful in responding. Hadley Arkes and I (and others, no doubt), tried to press the question further from the peanut gallery. I remember best my approach (unsurprisingly): I asked Pangle directly: "Is philosophy noble?" He answered, disarmingly, with one word: "Yes." (OK, that was too easy. But if you look at my exegesis of Pangle in PSR you will see that I don't believe his answer here is candid.) I gathered myself and pursued: can philosophy fully grasp and master it's own nobility? If it can't, I tried to explain, then the philosophic life's claims to self-sufficiency are not credible, and the openness of the revelation-reason question complicates, even undermines the claims of the philosophic life more than Pangle admits. Or, addressing the Zuckerts: the philosopher's serene confidence in the goodness of his own activity is not really compatible, after the claims of biblical revelation, with the recognition of the irredeemably "zetetic" character of philosophy. I find in both books (Pangle's and Zuckerts') an attempt to combine a certain absolutism and a certain zetecism that strikes me as incoherent.
I think time elapsed at about this point, so at least I had had my say. The High-Straussian position may be most fruitfully questioned, I think, not by insisting on the reasonable content of revelation (as important as this is), but by pointing up the self-transcendence of philosophy, and therefore its insuperable dependence on moral and religious intimations it shares with non-philosohers.
Ralph: Sounds to me that you've written the first line to a VERY promising country-western song: "I've been in Provo too long (thank Heaven). Career change?
Difference between Mr. Boaz and a modern liberal? Fiscal policy (taxes and spending).
The modern libertarian movement seems rather disinterested in things like fiscal policy and taxes and spending. What gets their motor running is talk of drug legalization and same sex marriage.
I Interpret, Therefore I Am
Esoteric interpreters of the blog medium will notice the seemingly innocuous encounter with the High Heeler placed prior to the encounter with the High Straussian.
Carl Scott
But seriously, Ralph and co., thanks for the report and thoughts for those of us who preferred not to listen from the hallway. Whether or not high heels are noble, which I believe I once maintained on this site, it does matters a great deal to the intra(?) Straussian debates whether or not philosophy is.
David Frisk
Social conservatism can't be defined? Huh?
The panelists agreed that nobody knew what social conservatism was
That does not speak well of the panelists. The words "social" and "conservatism" have well understood meanings. Is it the two combined which threw them for a loop?
The opposite of social conservative is wallflower conservative, which, of course, I am. If there ever was a dignified philosopher, it would be Ralph. In a manly way, I would reject even speaking of the dignity of philosphy and only focus on the dignity of the philosopher, the real guy.
Dan Mahoney
Ralph is undoubtedly right that it is best to point out the limitations of High Straussianism(i.e. the position that insists on the radical "autonomy" of philosophic reason) by highlighting the philosopher's "dependence on moral and religious intimations" that he "shares with non-philosophers." I tried to make that same point in my own way. But I was struck by Pangle's inability and unwillingness to engage an "idiom" other than his own and by his hostility to any suggestion that those intimations might provide some evidence for the truth--or possible truth-- of "revelation." His instinct is to 'circle the wagons' even when faced by friendly criticism. This radical defensiness does not augur well for the future of the Straussian project. In any case, I gave as well as I got and articulated the multiple grounds for thinking that "reason" and not just blind faith or decision is integral to religious faith. More fundamentally, the philosopher is never truly autonomous becuse he too must defer to what Aurel Kolnai suggestively called the "sovereignty of the object." There is something higher than the human will and that fact is knowable in principle by both reason and revelation.
John, you made my point. New York City was and is a Liberal metropolis.
Giuliani took over that liberal Mecca, took over a city most had written off and saved it. Saved it from itself. That's Conservatism. He cut the welfare rolls. He solved the huge city debt problem. He streamlined governance. He purged the sex trade from Lower Manhattan and marginalized strip joints. He cracked down on the "squeegee men" as well as other crime. Whereas before New York City residents lived in fear, Giuliani once more made it a city fit to live in. And New York City residents know it. Listen To Dennis Miller, he'll often spout off on what New York City was like before Giuliani's tenure. Not to mention he broke the back of the Mafia Commission. That too hadn't been done before. And that case was brought by him, on his insistence, and it easily could have gone against him.
Within his 8 year tenure he didn't manage to completely unravel decades of ingrained liberalism. But what of that? Was that his task? Do we now ask ourselves if a politician performed the impossible in the face of impossible odds?
Well even if we did, Giuliani passed the test, for what he did for New York City was nothing short of miraculous. Not all that we would like to see, but miraculous nonetheless
But this all begs a question: Since when have "conservatives" become so unworldly? Since when have "conservatives" lost touch with political and cultural reality?
We didn't hold Reagan to such a standard, before his nomination or even now, long after his Presidency. So why extend such a threshold determination to Giuliani?
Giuliani did the best he could with the situation he had. Giuliani is a Conservative success story. Some prefer to deny it, because they've made a fetish of political purity. But prudence is a virtue, a CARDINAL virtue. And in the election coming up, we would all do well to be mindful of that. We forgot that in '92, some went off on some weird frenzy for Perot, or just stayed home. And the damage of that fit of pique hasn't fully played itself out yet. For Hillary's candidacy is impossible to foresee in the absence of her husband's Presidency. Thus the fruit of '92 continues to this day.
We should fall down and thank our lucky stars if we somehow manage to win '08. With Giuliani or not!
Joe Knippenberg
Thanks for the after-action reports. I almost feel like I'm in a bar somewhere near the convention hotels.
Giuliani took over that liberal Mecca, took over a city most had written off and saved it. Saved it from itself.
Sodom on the Hudson has not been saved.
He purged the sex trade from Lower Manhattan and marginalized strip joints.
I take it that you don't live in Manhattan. I can take you to a large number of strip joints there.
The demographics of NYC changed significantly during the ninties as the entire city was gentrified. Crime declined rapidly as the poor exited for cheaper locales, such as Albany, Philly, or New Jersey.
We didn't hold Reagan to such a standard, before his nomination or even now, long after his Presidency.
In order for this to be true, Reagan would have had to run for office while proclaiming his pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gay, anti-borders, anti-welfare reform agenda. We both know he did no such thing. The analogy would also be helped if Reagan had endorsed Jerry Brown for California governor, as Rudy endorsed Mario Coumo.
Dan: You make a convincing case for Rudy to be re-elected Mayor of New York.
Your question about "...conservatives....losing touch with political and cultural reality" is so full of circular presumption that even a non-academic (moi!) hardly knows where to begin to unpack it.
Rudy has donated money to enable the destruction of innocent human life. NARAL itself has whispered that he's "better on abortion than Hillary." He's reneged on two marriage vows. He's hired, and harbored in his employ, a defrocked priest who negotiated "hush-hush" settlements with victims of priestly pedophilia. In short, he's shown repeatedly, in matters that deeply reveal his character, that he's unfit to be President of these United States. But let's give the man his due: He cleaned up the squeegee mess in Manhattan.
"Unfit to be President?" Right now, the only man out there who has demonstrated by accomplishment that he's worthy of the office is Giuliani. Rudy's earned it DESPITE the many problems that you listed.
Was Rudy cheek by jowl with the defrocked priest while he was negotiating settlements? No. There were civil actions, it's common during such suits that settlement offers be made and entertained. That's not unusual. It's also customary that the privacy of the victim and his family be protected by placing such settlements under seal. Again, that's not unusual. Now the particulars of this defrocked priest I don't know. You say "he" hired this priest. How do you know that? Do you think that Giuliani made every personnel decision he's been remotely involved in of late? I don't. Romney distanced himself from Craig pretty quick recently, if you haven't noticed. But which of us would suggest that Romney knew of Craig's creepy penchant for signal sending in restrooms?
I never implied that Rudy completely banished strip joints out of the city. He didn't have the authority to do that. He wasn't a rogue agent purging such institutions from the confines of his jurisdiction. But he closed many down, and so say New Yorkers who noticed. And many of those clubs you decry today were closed during his tenure, but have reopened under Bloomberg. Bloomberg is letting lapse many of the advances made by Giuliani. But regardless, he got them out of view, he moved 'em, he marginalized them. By doing so, he RESTIGMATIZED them, which again, is a "CONSERVATIVE" action. He, alone, on his initiative, his grit, he made Lower Manhattan a different place from what he found it. Nobody denies that. And if somebody does, then that person is playing fast and loose with the facts. When Rudy took over that city, crime and the sex trade were rampant throughout Lower Manhattan, driving business out. You can mock his purge of the ""squeegee men," but it wasn't a thing for mockery to New Yorkers who were getting shaken down two, three times a day. It was another form of taxation, this time imposed by a criminal element. Who was it that started cracking down on parole violations? Who was it that removed many violent criminals from the streets of the Big Apple. Who would mock the accomplishments of a man who made New York City, formerly a crime mecca, the safest large city on the planet? How can that be mocked? That can only be trivialized by those who refuse to examine his record in good faith.
Is New York City perfect? Of course not. He was an elected official. He wasn't Jonah preaching to Nineveh. But then again, was it ever within his ability to make it completely perfect? Again, NO! Your damnation of Giuliani flows from a world where the impossible is possible. Giuliani is mortal, he's not a demigod. Rudy was straitjacketed by a body of laws that made what he accomplished miraculous. That's a fact.
Rudy may have contributed money to NARAL. I don't know that. So what if he did. Do you really think GHWB was all that pro-life? Do you really think that GW is all that pro-life? Father and son went with people like Souter, Gonzales and Meirs. That was their game. They wanted the issue of abortion, but they never intended to do much about it? Rudy NEVER played us for fools. But both Bush men did, and what's more, GW continues to do so. Rudy NEVER would have been able to save New York City had he not adopted a pro-choice position. Rudy of a time was pro-life. But New York City was not hospitable to any politician that was pro-life. So Rudy tacked in accordance with the prevailing winds of his city. A city he had to save. And he knew that he could do it, and what's more, if it wasn't him, it would never have gotten done.
I prefer the open Giuliani to the faux sincerity of a Thompson and a Romney.
But again, did Rudy alone create the permissive sexual environment that we now live in? Did Rudy rule in concurrence with the majority in Roe? Did Rudy publish Playboy? Did Rudy have a Playboy mansion? Has Rudy been a voice for a sexuality no longer tethered to intimacy and morality? Is that what he's been stumping for of late?
Rudy was a member of the Reagan Justice Department, he didn't get there by being a closeted liberal. He was a law and order Conservative and he still is. When he told the petrosheik what he could do with his ten million, did he demonstrate "unfitness" for the Presidency? When he kept out Arafat from a public function, despite official pressure that Arafat get in, again, did he demonstrate "unfitness" for office? When he broke the hold of the Mafia Commission, was that just another moment in time where he clearly demonstrated his "unfitness" for office? When was the last time a Republican was elected Mayor of New York City? Rudy became Mayor by promising to be a law and order official, again, did he then demonstrate his "unfitness" for office by winning?
Reagan was divorced. Did we hold that against him? If Reagan was divorced twice, would we have held that against him? Rudy isn't running to be a force for strict observance of marital vows. We're in the midst of a shooting war. If you're looking for examples of marital bliss, look elsewhere. We don't need Ozzy and Harriet, we need a kick-ass, take charge, competent, articulate, law and order Conservative. Who else fits the bill? Which other candidate has demonstrated the ability to manage, as had Rudy. Who else fought tooth and nail against a liberal establishment, against a Democrat controlled city council, against a liberal media eager to portray him as Hitler incarnate. Day in and day out, that was the battle he waged. We all live in a society where divorce is rampant. Why pretend otherwise? What good is there in maintaining the pretense of a shattered marriage in a society where divorce is prevalent? What we see with his divorces is a man who never aspired to the Presidency. I don't know about you, but after Clinton, Gore and Kerry, AND ESPECIALLY HILLARY, I PREFER someone who went out and racked up an impressive string of accomplishments, over someone who maintained a fraudulent marriage, just to preserve his chance for a nomination. Again, it's not something that overly troubles the electorate. So why make a fetish of it? Most people know of divorces within their own family. This isn't' the '30s. Just about every American is acquainted with divorce. My only problem is that he selected Donna Hanover, a woman so classless as to star in The Vagina Monologues, a woman so classless as to insert herself in the press coverage of the funeral of John Cardinal O'Connor, late Cardinal of New York City. His marital status doesn't bother me. I'd much prefer him with his open divorces and open remarriages, then Hillary and Bill, with their longstanding fraudulent arrangement.
And that's the choice we've got. We've a SINGLE candidate with the star appeal to contest with Hillary for The White House. We've as much chance with a creepy Brownback as we would with a Romney, or a Thompson, whose shtick is already getting stale, FAST! It's Rudy or nobody.
I want to win. I'm not interested in losing gracefully. The Hell with that!
Posted 12:17 AM / September 4, 2007 | Reply
John, the issue isn't whether he personally is what you described. Giuliani isn't going to waste political capital pushing homosexualism. He's not brain dead. Come on. He won't waste an hour pushing gun control. He'll have other issues to handle, rest assured. And as for the borders, he's already said we've got to get control of the borders. Over the last few years, his position has moved, as has mine on that issue. And many another American. He's more in sync with the views of the ordinary voter. He hasn't demonstrated himself to be a hammerhead about it, as has McCain and Brownback.
Since McCain blew himself up, the GOP has three choices. Thompson, Romney and Giuliani. Thompson has never run anything. Certainly nothing like a single federal department, let alone the entirety of the federal government. Moreover, Thompson has NEVER had to weather the hailstorm of criticism as Giuliani has. The office DEMANDS tested resolve. We can't have someone like Bush who folds fast. Romney has managerial experience, extensive experience. Romney is competent, smooth, affable. But Romney has a track record of flip-flopping a country mile wide. There's hardly a single issue under the sun that Romney hasn't been on both sides of.
Selecting Romney would enable Hillary's little minions to leak endless stories of the intricacies of Mormonism. If we pick Romney, we'll end up learning more about Mormonism than we ever cared to. The election would rapidly devolve into Romney defending the esoterica of Mormonism, instead of pushing his agenda and exposing Hillary's. I want the race to be about national security, the judiciary and the Republican platform. Not Mormonism. Moreover Hillary would be able to run the same campaign against Romney as we ran against Kerry, all because of the flip-flopping. Romney is a chance we needn't take; he's a reckless throw of the dice. Not to mention, Romney brings NOTHING to the table. There isn't a SINGLE blue state that Romney could carry. NOT ONE! Lastly, he enjoyed the support of what some term "the Bushies." Right now, if a Bush is for you, or was for you, I'm against you. Romney is tainted. Giuliani isn't. Giuliani is an American hero. Giuliani can win.
Posted 1:23 AM / September 4, 2007 | Reply
Dan, does somebody pay you to write these endless off-topic rants?
More on the myth of the libertarian West.
Most of the dwindled contingent of Republican governors have abandoned conservative principles to embrace the Democratic-sponsored extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program to people who are neither children nor poor. Only three -- Indiana's Mitch Daniels, Mississippi's Haley Barbour and South Carolina's Mark Sanford -- resist the lure of federal dollars.
Darn those religious Southerners and their love of big government!
Posted 12:08 PM / September 4, 2007 | Reply
Here's a comment I got on my socially conservative presentation: Your comment that darwinists should become Mormons was a big hit. People were talking about it all night.
Dan Mahoney is definitely right that Mr. Pangle is notably lacking in any ability or inclination to attend to idioms other than his familiar "classical rationalist" tongue.
Now, to extend the reportage on the APSA just a bit (at the risk of interrupting the Giuliani/anti-Giuliani fesitivities):
The Voegelinian sponsored panel on Voegelin-Strauss-Arendt was very good, and notably irenic between Straussians and Voegelinians (probably no Arendtians were there). Michael Zuckert's discussion of Plato and Aristotle in Strauss was very acute, venturesome -- this man has some range, for a Lockean! Tim Fuller offered a wide-ranging and seasoned meditation on the three authors. Jim Stoner presented a most judicious parcing of the disparities and convergences between Catholicism and Strauss, emphasizing, most prudently, the grounds of an ongoing alliance. Thus an excellent panel - all three presentations full of insight and even some wisdom.
Off to APSA's Proceedings website to print up those papers Ralph recommends, but before I go, I'd wonder if Gary Seaton could tip us to the source of that NARAL quote on Giuliani being better than HRC.
And John, count me as one who enjoys intelligent rants. As far as rants go, Dan's are pretty politically astute, even if I confess to major skimming and often to disagreement(for example, he's WAY too hard on Romney here). It is a pleasantly bizarre experience to read him between comments by philosophic titans like Ralph and Dan Mahoney. NLT keepin' one eye on the presidency, the other on the long-term Straussian project.
Ivan Kenneally
I was one of those who heard talk about Peter's advice to libertarians to become Mormons--almost everyone (excluding some libertarians) found that happily repeatable. Also, Peter's presenatation at the social conservative panel was one of the highlights for me (as was Arkes' presentation).
I think Mahoney is right to point out that Pangle stubbornly refuses to abandon his peculiar idiom--that stubborness seems to be born out of a not entirely dogmatic committment to the view that the rational alternative is superior to the revelatory one. On some level it struck me as odd that Pangle ever wrote that book given that he famously argues elsewhere that the Jewish question for Strauss is not a special case of the tension between reason and revelation; in other words, he argues that the Hebrew Scriptures are just one instantiation of the central tension and one could understand the tension without particular reference to it. While all of Pangle's book is impressive and much of it is very insightful, a lot of the interpretation suffers from his characteristic rationalism, meaning that he begins with a conclusion somewhat forgone given the overly rationalistic interpretation of the biblical experience of revelation.
Good advice indeed - but not only for libertarians!
Voegelin is interesting in "From Enlightenment to Revolution." August de Comte and Banukin are overcome with the desire to become Lawgivers...and they are smart enough(or stupid enough) to know that if they are to do this they will need to change the ontological structure...to rework from the very foundations all that should hence-forth be praised or blamed. As Hume says "commit them then to the flames for they can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."(which is the birth of logical positivism!)
You come down from Mount Sinai...make the people drink the golden calf...and then deliver the 10 commandments.
The APSA=Law givers fighting for dominion over the minds and hearts of men, what else is universal?
If Machiavelli is right I suppose nothing else could be universal.
It's Rudy or nobody.
Shoot, I vote for Lincoln before I vote for Rudy....;)
Christopher, if you want to talk like this, be a man and admit that a Hillary Clinton presidency is OK with you. If you can't, don't hide behind a mindless, nihilistic, "screw them all" dodge. There will be a president whether you want one or not. If you don't find Shrillary acceptable, it is your duty to support the alternative, meaning the Repubolican -- and ask others to support him. It's that simple. And how you feel about Lincoln has absolutely nothing to do with this election.
It's asinine to suggest that the alternative to Hillary is Rudy, and vice versa. We have not seen a single ballot cast in the primaries yet.
If you don't find Shrillary acceptable, it is your duty to support the alternative, meaning the Repubolican
What if you don't find the Republican acceptable either? None of these candidates are at all popular. It's a reflection of how bad our system is that we get stuck with these wretched choices.
I have a friend who is a Dem activist. She threw a party recently to raise money for Hillary. She told me she can't stand Hillary, or the Clintons. Everyone is working hard to elect people they hate because they hate the other guy even more.
The Europeans handle this far better than we do. They have a sort of "instant runoff" process.
Give me Hillary over Rudy any day. This idea that Republican's are ALWAYS better than Dem's, simply is not true (from a conservative perspective). I am a Conservative first, a Republican second. Give me an honest liberal (i.e. Hillary) over a dishonest one (i.e. Rudy) any time, any place, any year.
Perhaps the Republican failure of the last years (going back to 94 at least) will prompt Conservatives to stop being the sheep of these (country club) Republicans (Bush 1&2, Newt - yes Newt, Rudy, etc.). As someone here mentioned, maybe we are in the beginning of a serious realignment. I can live with voting for some no-name-no-chance-on-earth party for 20 or 30 years if it means a REAL conservative party in the end. I consider THAT my duty, not voting for whoever the Republicans throw up because of the big, bad, scary Hillary...;)
And how you feel about Lincoln has absolutely nothing to do with this election.
Have you not noticed, this is Ashbrook, where one's Lincoln fetish goes a long, long ways...:) :) ;)
There are other candidates on the GOP ballot than Rudy. But none has the stature or the name recognition to compete.
McCain could have, but he went over the top on amnesty. Who in the party would be content with him? And as for Thompson, he has NO executive experience. And the last place we want on the job training is The White House. Romney has a track record of saying anything to get elected. That's a fact.
Which leaves us the savior of New York City. Rudy Giuliani. Who also happens to be the Italian American who places New Jersey and Pennsylvania in play, big time.
There are some who rail against that hard electoral calculus. That's unfortunate for them. But it doesn't change the bleak assessment.
If we want to win, we'll choose Rudy.
If we want to embark on some political fantasy, we'll go for someone else, who will lose, and deliver over The White House, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to the Democrats, to Leahy at the Judiciary, to Biden at Foreign Affairs, and overseeing them all, the unreconstructed radical from the '60s, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And John, there isn't some Sergeant at Arms enforcing thread discipline. Nor is there some threshold determination of relevance and materiality to the original post.
My first comment to the thread was triggered by the statement that one of the panelists said defeat was better than to "lose our souls" with Giuliani. Which I deemed "rank hyperbole." Which it is.
And Carl, thanks for that backhanded compliment. I must confess I'm not keen on going off about the Straussian project, or the Civil War for that matter. Though if a thread takes a decided military turn on the Civil War, I might be prevailed upon to offer a thought, or two, ......... or three or four, depending on my mood.
Of the bunch running for president I have decided that Hillary is the better Machiavellian Princess.
And yet...Ron Paul is running a campaign that is the most unconservative of all...or rather I should say that it is the most blantant about the need to overturn and reshape the dominant manners mores and perspectives that have infected Washington and the establishment. Ron Paul is appealing to the Christophers...Ron Paul is speaking passionately along very Misesian grounds. In the current climate his fiscal conservatism is radical. In order to win Ron Paul is actively refocusing the discussion upon the grounds of praise and blame. For an old man he is quite impetuous willing to dare all. Ron Paul is actually winning on UTube! Ron Paul is running a campaign on winning over hearts and minds to a different vision...so in this regard Ron Paul in presenting his presidency as an answer to "the exhortation to Liberate America(Italy) from the Barbarians"(welfare state politicians/foreign policy hawks).
So in a slightly different sense Ron Paul is also Machiavellian, and if there is such a thing as a Libertarian center, that is if the present conditions are ripe for his messsage...he has a great shot.
Of course, can you trust Ron Paul any more than Romney on the holocaust of the unborn? I do not even want to find out - I am tired of waiting to see if a "conservative" will do the slightest thing that might be conservative. Ron's links to libertarians are obviously too strong for a conservative to trust him, even in 'realistic calculus'. I will throw my vote away on the Constitution Party before I vote for a libertarian (even if he displays a few conservative instincts).
GOP supporters will are going to HAVE to come to grips with the fact that the GOP has been a failure when it comes to conservative governance. The "It's worse with the Dem's" just does not cut it anymore (the central reason for 06 is the conservatives staying home, NOT Iraq or libertarian dissatisfaction or all the other reasons proffered). I will take worse over "better" GOP no problem, at least the Dem's are honest about who and what they are. A "conservative revolution" going along with Bush 2's Prescription Drug Giveaway (led by Newt behind the scenes)??? With "conservatives" like these, who needs liberals?
Christopher, I take your point about the possibility that the GOP MIGHT eventually become more conservative if we insist on it and withhold our votes. But it's highly theoretical, and therefore a most irrsponsible bet you are making. In the first place, the causes of ideological weakness in the GOP run extremely deep. This weakness won't be fixed by losing a few elections. In the second place, John Maynard Keynes' observation applies: "In the long run, we are all dead." Think of the tremendous damage Shrillary can do, especially with a Democratic Congress, but even without one. You say Shrillary is an "honest" liberal and that this is better than a phony conservative who doesn't mean it. Nonsense. Radical misgovernment is no better just because the subjective character of the governors, in this case the possible president, seems "honest." And that's even without getting into the scenario you actually propose: A whole generation of Democratic rule, if that's what is needed to eventually bring about a conservative party. Your whole approach to this is unreal. It is irresponsible to speak so casually of "20 or 30 years" of Republican defeat, which means 20 or 30 years of Democratic government. The country would be unrecognizable.
37: John, your Democratic friend is politically serious and should be commended for this if nothing else. Willingness to support people you personally dislike, even personally detest, because you prefer what they would do in office or detest the other candidate even more is of the essence of adult democratic politics. People who expect happiness and fulfillment from politics are, frankly, childish. Your friend who is backing Shrillary despite her dislike for the Clintons is misguided in the sense that all support for the Democratic candidate is misguided. But she's right to go with what she mistakenly considers the lesser of two evils, keeping her personal emotions out of it. That's how you win. The kind of narcissism and stubborn price that so many people indulge in at NLT when presidential politics comes up is how you lose.
46, amended: not "stubborn price," but "stubborn pride," which goeth before a fall.
Your whole approach to this is unreal. It is irresponsible to speak so casually of "20 or 30 years" of Republican defeat,
Again, your premise is that the GOP is significantly better. I don't measure it that way, thus I am not wasting my time with either. The GOP has lost my "support" in that I support them now only if the conservative happens to be GOP, where as before (before 06) I supported them for exactly the reasons you describe, because I believed they were "better" than Dem. Now I know that not to be true. 20 or 30 years of GOP governance will not be significantly better.
For example, the coming socialization of medicine will be led by the GOP, NOT the Dem's, because the GOP has the clout (still a significant # of folks who think they are more fiscally responsible than the Dem's, such as yourself) and have something "real" as you would say, something more than ideology, namely the business interests who want to move medical insurance costs off their books and onto their employees through taxes.
No, the future does not look all that different with either, thus now I support (vote for) conservatives, NOT GOP...
Let's see if you're singing this tune two years into a Shrillary administration.
Willingness to support people you personally dislike, even personally detest, because you prefer what they would do in office or detest the other candidate even more is of the essence of adult democratic politics.
Well, no. It is an indication of a broken electoral system and of compulsive factionalism.
In a proper electoral system, nobody would have to vote for somebody they detest simply to spite somebody they detest more. That's the way it works in grown-up, adult countries. And the level of factionalism in the US today is starting to sound like the battles between the greens and the blues in Rome.
You sound, in describing HRC, like certain other people do in describing George Bush. What unspeakable horror do you imagine she will visit on the Republic if elected?
"Compulsive factionalism"? No, resisting to the left's agenda. If you don't want to be part of that, by all means, live in your fantasy world. You're only one vote and you won't be missed.
As for your contention that Hillary won't do any serious damage, maybe you should read get your news from something other than the morning TV shows.
You're right that the American political system is broken. You're wrong to think that wishing for a better system is more productive than fighting those who have broken the system. And no, both parties are NOT equally to blame. Not even close, bud.
Oleaginous Screed
Yeah, that's exactly what the Founders intended.
What do you think "the left's agenda" is? How do you think it differs from the agenda of the people running the GOP?
That you are even asking this dimwitted question means it would take quite a while to educate you. I wouldn't bother -- even if I had time. As I said before, why don't you read more than you apparently do? If you managed to do this, you might eventually qualify to discuss politics intelligently.
Carl: I'm just back from a business trip. I'll try to find the link to the NARAL comment. It was linked to in a combox comment here at NLT. Village Voice article.....
I too used to be very confident that there was not a sort of moral or political equivalency between the GOP and the Dem's. After all, look at men like Brownback and Toomey and all the others who are conservative. But when you look the facts of governance, you see there is not so much to seperate them. Really, only certain "bones" (important they may be) like the supremes have even fallen our way. Mr. Frisk boldly asserts it is "dimwitted" to ask, so he has not really asked himself apparently. When you do ask, you can't but help to see the failure of the GOP when it concerns conservativism. I understand his loyalty, I just wish he was loyal to the proper thing (conservativism) and not the GOP. The facts are, they are not synonymous...
56: No, they're not synonymous and I never said they were. However, there is little conservatism among Democratic elected officials. There is a great deal more of it among
Republican elected officials. In addition, the latter group (though not, I hope it goes without saying, every last one) is subject to a great deal more conservative pressure than are the Democrats, due to enormous differences in the views of each party's voters. Damn it, why does this even need to be explained on a website for alleged political sophisticates?
It feels good to find such an interesting topic on the internet like this one nowadays.
I was greatly interested with what you have shared and posted with us. Thanks for this anyway.
I agree with your point, please share with us more good articles.
Thanks for taking this opportunity to discuss this, I feel fervently about this and I like learning about this subject.
Today take a small step in life. Oh yeah!.
I'm pleased I found this weblog, I couldnt discover any info on this subject matter earlier to. I also operate a site and if you want to ever severe in a little bit of guest writing for me if possible really feel free to let me know, i am usually look for people to check out my site.
Hey, appreciate it for taking the effort to do this. I like your webpage, although it took a sluggish reader like me some time to via throughout entire page and the many comments.
This topic was really educational and nicely written. I approach to do some additional exploration on this. Gives thanks for sharing this timely data. We require additional like this.
welcome to https://www.louboutinshoes.cc/blog/ for sale
Posted 11:36 PM / April 15, 2011 | Reply
Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2007/09/the-apsa.php on line 2025
Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2007/09/the-apsa.php on line 2025


text:
Home THE CANADIAN ROCKIES
THE CANADIAN ROCKIES
Tour: 8900 VANCOUVER VANCOUVER
Canada's national parks and scenic drives highlight this wonderful Canadian Rockies tour that overnights in Vancouver, Kelowna, Banff National Park, Jasper National Park, Sun Peaks, Whistler, and Victoria. You'll spend time in Banff National Park—Canada's first national park—with its valleys, mountains, glaciers, forests, rivers, and meadows, and Jasper National Park, with its majestic mountains and abundant wildlife. Other Canadian national parks on this tour include Glacier National Park, with its rugged mountains, glaciers, and waterfalls, and Yoho National Park, with its vertical rockwalls, waterfalls, and beautiful peaks.
In addition to national parks, you'll also visit some of Canada's most popular resort towns on this Canadian Rockies tour. In the resort city of Kelowna, attractively set on the shores of Lake Okanagan and surrounded by orchards and vineyards, enjoy a winery tour. In the mountain resort of Sun Peaks, you'll overnight after a beautiful drive that includes passing Mount Robson, the Canadian Rockies' highest mountain at 12,972 feet. Spend two nights in Whistler, host of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Here you can hike, explore the village, or take an optional excursion, including flightseeing by floatplane over the lakes and glaciated peaks.
A tour highlight is a stop at the Columbia Icefield, the largest expanse of ice in the Canadian Rockies. Here, you'll ride the Ice Explorer that travels on ice that is 1,200 feet thick. You'll also travel to the Pacific Coast, where you'll sail across the Strait of Georgia to Victoria for a sightseeing tour, two overnights, free time to discover some of Victoria's most popular attractions, and a visit to Butchart Gardens, rated as one of the most beautiful gardens in the world.
For the value-minded traveller, this tour exploring the Canadian Rockies is an unforgettable holiday not to be missed!
*Price per person, based on double occupancy for 25 April 2022 departure
BOSTON BOSTON
Known for its historic sites and stunning fall foliage, New England in the fall delights all of the senses. On this fall foliage tour, experience the spectacular beauty of autumn displays in...
NEW YORK, NIAGARA FALLS & WASHINGTON DC
NEW YORK WASHINGTON D.C.
8 days,2 Countries
Historic sites, thrilling cities, and awe-inspiring scenery…these are the perfect words to describe this East Coast tour featuring New York City, Niagara Falls, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. You'll...
THE LONE STAR STATE TO THE FRENCH QUARTER
DALLAS NEW ORLEANS
With its large size and diversity, Texas locals say, "Texas, it's like a whole other country." On this tour through the Lone Star State, you'll discover its major cities—Dallas, Austin, San Antonio,...
CANADIAN & ALASKAN MASTERPIECE
VANCOUVER VANCOUVER
19 days,2 Countries
Experience the ultimate holiday to Canada & Alaska on this truly unforgettable 19-day tour. Travel through British Columbia and Alberta to see breath-taking scenery. Visit Canada's well renowned...


Want to work at an exciting and growing company? Find your role below.
Custom Role For Just You!
We are a global high-tech sales and marketing company operating in the electronic manufacturing sector. We are comprised of talented, ambitious and enthusiastic people who love to get things done.
Feel you're the missing piece?
Thank you for considering employment with Component Sense. If you are an upbeat and friendly team player interested in working with us then please submit your CV below.


text:
Q: How can I get a list of AD user groups along with AD user with Microsoft Graph SDK The code:
            var users = await graphClient.Users
            .Request()
            .Filter("startswith(userPrincipalName, '" + userPrincipalName + "')")
            .Select(u => new { u.Id, u.OtherMails, u.DisplayName, u.UserPrincipalName, u.MemberOf })
            .GetAsync();

returns a null for MemberOf. I know I can do a subsequent:
var groups = await graphClient.Users[user.Id].MemberOf.Request().GetAsync();

but I'd rather return a Microsoft.Graph.User class type with all the info.

A: The memberOf is not a property but a relationship and you can get the relationship's data by using expand query parameter. See the below API call and its result.
https://graph.microsoft.com/v1.0/users?$filter=startswith(userPrincipalName,'Shiva@nishantsingh.live')&$select=id, displayName, memberOf&$expand=memberOf

So, use the code something like this.
var users = await graphClient.Users
            .Request()
            .Filter("startswith(userPrincipalName, '" + userPrincipalName + "')")
            .Select(u => new { u.Id, u.OtherMails, u.DisplayName, u.UserPrincipalName, u.MemberOf })
            .Expand(d => d.memberOf)
            .GetAsync();


Thanks for stopping by the Disney Parks Moms Panel with this question about planning a 2017 vacation to Walt Disney World Resort. I'm anxious to plan a 2017 vacation, too!
The rates for Walt Disney World Resort vacation packages are typically released in the summer for the following year. For example, the package rates for 2016 were released on June 22, 2015. The 2015 package rates were released on July 30, 2014. The 2014 package rates were released on July 10, 2013. If the release continues as it has in the past, we can expect the 2017 package rates to be released mid-summer! You would be able to book your vacation at that time.
I have a tip for you. As you are planning your vacation, be sure to also keep an eye on the Special Offers page on the Walt Disney World Resort website.
I hope this helps answer your question, David. Please stop back and let me know if you have any additional questions.


The Spatsizi map sheet, containing 37 recorded mineral occurrences, lies within the Stikinia Terrane of the Intermontane Belt. The regional geology is dominated by the east-west trending Stikine arch along the northern quarter of the map sheet and by the Bowser and Sustut basins over the remainder of the sheet.
Paleozoic sediments, metasediments, metavolcanics and intrusives and Middle Triassic to Middle Jurassic eugeosynclinal volcanics and sediments are exposed along the arch. These rocks form the basement of the Bowser basin into which the Middle Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous Bowser Lake Group clastic sediments were deposited. Sediments of the Lower to Middle Cretaceous Sustut Group unconformably overly the eastern margin of the Bowser Lake Group. Extensive plutonism during the Early Triassic, Late Triassic and Late Jurassic emplaced several phases of the Hotailuh Batholith.
The main types of mineralization consist of vein and porphyry-style copper (gold, molybdenum) deposits, limestone bodies found along the southern flank of the Stikine arch and coal found in the Groundhog coalfield of the Bowser basin. There are no current or past producers in the mapsheet, however, there are several advanced prospects of note. Porphyry-style copper-gold mineralization at the East and Main zones of the Red-Chris (104H 005) deposit is hosted by Tsaybahe Group volcanics which have been intruded by a hornblende-feldspar porphyry of monzonite composition. Indicated reserves of the combined zones are 39.6 million tonnes grading 0.28 grams per tonne gold and 0.56 per cent copper. At Mount Klappan (104H 020-022), inferred reserves of approximately 900 million tonnes of coal have been defined within three zones. Seams occur dominantly within the Currier Formation of the Bowser Lake Group and upwards of 25 individual seams have been defined in the Groundhog coalfield.
Targets for exploration would be prophyry copper (gold, molybdenum) deposits associated with the Rose and Edon plutons in the vicinity of Ealue Lake (MFJ (104H 001), West (104H 002), Edon (104H 004) and Coyote (104H 012) occurrences) and the widespread disseminated, vein and porphyry copper mineralization encountered in the region of Mount Sister Mary where andesitic volcanics are regionally intruded by the McBride River Pluton.