text:
Women policy and administration
Minister pushes for more women in top civil positions
Gender / Women in government and politics / Women's rights
Interior Minister Sar Kheng / Political participation
Interior Minister Sar Kheng has urged his subordinates to continue increasing gender equality and advancing women's political participation. ...
 Taing Vida
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50700787/minister-pushes-for-more-women-in-top-civil-positions
Hun Sen celebrates women's rights
Hun Sen / Women leadership role / women's rights day
On the occasion of the 109th International Women's Day, Prime Minister Hun Sen called for more women in leadership positions, better law enforcement to speed up the trials involving them, and improved education for their next generation in the Kingdom. ...
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/hun-sen-celebrates-womens-rights
Disabled women speak of discrimination
Disabled persons / Women / Women's rights
discrimination / Women with Disabilities
A group of disabled women yesterday raised concerns over discrimination faced by girls in getting an education, despite progress being made in the Kingdom to improve their rights. They raised their concerns during a forum jointly organised by Pact Cambodia, Agile, USAID and the government ...
 Sen David
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/665912/disabled-women-speak-of-discrimination/
Domestic violence campaign starts
Women / Women in the family / Women's rights
Activism against Gender-Based Violence / violence against women
Local and international NGOs, universities and government institutions on Monday began the annual international "16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence" campaign demanding the elimination of all forms of violence against women. National Police spokesman Chhay Kim Khoeun said there was no recorded figure in ...
 Niem Chheng
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/domestic-violence-campaign-starts
UN reiterates call to abolish criminalization of surrogates
VOA Khmer
Women / Women's rights
The United Nations has called on Cambodia to repeal its decision criminalizing surrogacy and asked the government to ensure that its draft law will not impose criminal liability on surrogate mothers. ...
 Leonie Kijewski
https://www.voacambodia.com/a/UN-reiterates-call-to-abolish-criminalization-of-surrogates/5164651.html
UN panel notes problems in bid to foster gender equality
gender equality / UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women / UN Women
A UN women's rights committee has praised the government's efforts to promote gender equality and combat violence against women, but noted its concern that there are no provisions in the constitution that define direct or indirect discrimination against women. ...
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50658848/un-panel-notes-problems-in-bid-to-foster-gender-equality/
Civil groups call for clear policies on women's rights
Civil society / Non-governmental organizations / Women / Women's rights
Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR) / Gender and Development for Cambodia / SILAKA
Some 400 youth and women from 12 civil society organisations gathered at a hotel in Phnom Penh's Meanchey district on Sunday to celebrate women's rights, weeks after they were prevented by security forces from marching to mark International Women's Day. At Sunday's gathering, the group ...
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/civil-groups-call-clear-policies-womens-rights
Forces prevent Women's Day march
Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training / Women / Women in development / Women's rights
Cambodian Food and Service Workers Federation / Met Meas Pheakdey / Royal Academy of Cambodia
Some 400 women from various associations, unions and civil society organisation were blocked by Phnom Penh municipal security forces from marching from the Olympic Stadium to the Council of Ministers to deliver a joint petition on International Women's Day which fell on Friday. ...
 Khorn Savi
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/forces-prevent-womens-day-march
NGOs draft petition to improve women's rights
Ministry of Women's Affairs / Non-governmental organizations / SDG 5 Gender equality / Women policy and administration
As International Women's Day approaches, 12 organisations have finished drafting a petition calling on the government to continue to address challenges women are facing, including violence, inequality and poverty. The 12 organisations include the Centre for Alliance of Labour and Human Rights, Coalition of Cambodian ...
https://www.khmertimeskh.com/50583888/ngos-draft-petition-to-improve-womens-rights/
Women lack full rights at Appeal Court
Gender / Legal and judicial system / Ministry of Interior / Ministry of Justice / SDG 5 Gender equality / Women's rights
Appeal Court / Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) / Chin Malin / Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)
The Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) has released an observational report on the rights of woman defendant's at the Appeal Court, claiming that many weren't granted due process. Having monitors attend 453 trials from December 2016 to June this year, CCHR found that there ...
https://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/women-lack-full-rights-appeal-court
Activists reject tv boss's apology for rape remark
Crimes / Women's rights
Hang Meas TV / Meas Rithy
Activists rejected an apology on Monday from a prominent television news host for remarks he made that a rapist and murderer should have kept his victim alive to "keep her for using again," saying he was not genuinely sorry. ...
 Julia-grace Sanders and Ouch Sony
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/activists-reject-tv-bosss-apology-for-rape-remark-133628/
News anchor draws ire for saying women should 'not resist' rape
Crimes / Ministry of Information / Women's rights
Meas Rithy
A local television presenter is facing heavy criticism for an inflammatory on-air suggestion that rape victims should not resist their attackers, and should instead accept sexual assault to avoid being killed – a reference to a brutal rape and murder of an 18-year-old woman in ...
 Kong Meta and Ananth Baliga
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/news-anchor-draws-ire-saying-women-should-not-resist-rape
PM: Stop violence against women
Domestic violence / Women / Women in the family / Women's rights
Cambodian Center for Human Rights / Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) / International Women's Day
The prime minister has urged government ministries and public institutions to speed up work on an action plan to prevent violence against women and children, calling for education on the issue to start from an early age. ...
http://www.khmertimeskh.com/news/36282/pm--stop-violence-against-women/
New push for ILO conventions
Development and assistance for women / Women's development NGOs / Women's rights
Cambodian Alliance of Trade Unions / International Labour Organization (ILO) / Women Union Network (WUN)
Female workers across multiple sectors yesterday urged two ministries to ratify International Labour Organization conventions to ensure protections for expectant mothers and domestic workers, the latter of whom are not even covered under Cambodia's Labour Law. ...
 Sen David and Ananth Baliga
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/new-push-ilo-conventions
CARE: females slog but paid less
Labor / Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training / Women / Women's rights / Worker rights
Adriana Siddle / Building and Wood Workers Trade Union Federation of Cambodia / Care Cambodia / female workers / Kalyan Rath / Ministry of Labour and Vocational Training / Sok Kean
Female workers are still being paid less than their male counterparts on construction sites, while building companies value male construction workers as more skilled than women, according to a CARE Cambodia report released Friday. CARE's research paints a comprehensive picture of the situation of women working ...
http://www.khmertimeskh.com/news/29596/care--females-slog-but-paid-less/
Malaysia abuse claims drive agency to call for urgent fixes
Human rights / Local workers abroad / Women's rights
Cambodian labor rights group Central / Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) / Malaysia's Immigration Department / Moeun Tola / Yaacob Md Sam
The agency tasked with investigating abuse by Malaysia's security forces said that claims of fatal abuse against foreign maids—including Cambodians—at a detention center were untrue, though it said the center where the abuse allegedly occurred was in urgent need of attention. ...
 Colin Meyn
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/malaysia-abuse-claims-drive-agency-call-urgent-fixes-117260/
Controversial domestic abuse law under government review
Development and assistance for women / Ministry of Women's Affairs / Women in the family / Women's rights
CEDAW / Chim Channeang / domestic violence law / Ministry of Women's Affairs / National Plan of Action to Prevent Violence Against Women / Phon Puthborey / Ros Sopheap / Sarah Knibbs / U.N. Women / World Health Organization (WHO)
A domestic violence law long criticized by human rights and gender advocacy NGOs for inadequately protecting abuse victims is being reviewed by the government in a renewed effort to reduce violence against women. ...
 Sonia Kohlbacher
https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/controversial-domestic-abuse-law-government-review-117232/
Alcohol a risk for sex workers, study finds
Women / Women in development / Women policy and administration
Marie-Claude / Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) / University of San Francisco
Both Cambodian women engaging in sex work and their male clients engage in unhealthy alcohol use, according to the findings of a soon-to-be-published study. ...
 Jack Davies and Chhay Channyda
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/alcohol-risk-sex-workers-study-finds
Gender-based pay gap persists: Oxfam study
Labor / Labor policy and administration / Women / Women in development / Women policy and administration / Worker rights
Mustafa Talpur / Oxfam International / Underpaid and Undervalued
Asia's economic success has been carried on the shoulders of poor women, whose higher load of work has been unequally compensated and undervalued, according to an Oxfam report released on Tuesday. ...
 Yesenia Amaro
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/gender-based-pay-gap-persists-oxfam-study
'I am not a sex worker' – women on safety and health
Occupational Safety and Health for Entertainment workers / Sar Mora
I am a massage worker, I am not a sex worker," Seth Sreylorn, 33, an employee at Alaska massage center in Siem Reap province, said to more than 100 entertainment workers who participated yesterday in the National Conference on Occupational Safety and Health for Entertainment ...
http://www.khmertimeskh.com/news/24167/---i-am-not-a-sex-worker--------women-on-safety-and-health/
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 Next »


text:
Tag: insanity
Games of 2011: Saints Row The Third
No Comments on Games of 2011: Saints Row The Third
I've spent a lot of time in 2011 playing games, but not a lot of time writing about them. Instead of my usual end-of-year game recommendations, I'd like to tell some stories or share some thoughts about the ones that meant the most to me this year. I'll be posting one a day until Christmas. See all Games 2011 posts.
Saints Row 2 was one of my favorite sleeper hits of 2008 – an energetic blast of a sandbox game. When I first caught wind that a sequel would be emerging this year, I celebrated quietly, knowing that I would be raising hell again soon. When the game appeared on Steam, I preordered it without hesitation, even though that is taboo among those who believe in finding the best deal or waiting until there's a pre-order incentive. When the game came out, I pulled it open, crafted a blue-haired asian business woman with a male cockney voice, and began tearing through the game without hesitation.
Twenty hours of play over a week later, I found myself on the other side:
All missions completed. All activities completed. All neighborhoods taken over. All 80 collectables found. Maximum respect level. It was the first game I could recall 100%ing in years, and the first crime sandbox game I ever believe I have completed to that degree.
Yet, I felt unsatisfied, even a little empty. Why? (And no, it wasn't the endless levels of violence.) I think it comes down to three things that worked against the game.
The first is that the land of Steelport doesn't become a character the way Stillwater did. This isn't to say there aren't pedestrians everywhere waiting for your abuse, but more that the neighborhoods of town feels less distinct than they did in the previous game. So much of the town feels run down, you don't get a sense of location. For most of the islands of the game, I didn't get a sense for which gang was where until I started scouring the map during my quest to complete every last thing.
It's not just the decor, though. SR3 feature the ability to buy stores or properties, which help generates a revenue which goes directly into your pocket. (This isn't a new concept, but I appreciated that SR3 didn't force you back into your hideout to collect – it's just a button on the game's cellphone menu.) But the locations you could buy were underwhelming. There's functional stores – weapon stores and car modification garages. There's decorative stores – plastic surgery to change your appearance, tattoo parlors for ink, and about five different clothing store chains to play dress-up with. But that is shockingly it when it comes to interactive locations – no restaurants, no music stores, no arcades full of mini-games. And the "properties" you can buy aren't interactive, save for a small handful of cribs. They sit on the map, reminding you that they're there but providing you no function.
Without that ephemera to connect you to a city, a sandbox can become just a place where carnage happens, rather than a city you want to take over.
The second issue is that THQ made a point of pre-announcing that the game will have a tremendous amount of downloadable content. Now, don't get me wrong – I am a fan of DLC. I appreciate that games can be enhanced and continue to provide gameplay long after release. But pre-announcing it – and selling it at a discount if you buy it all early – triggers the thought that there could have been more in the core game. There have been whispers that THQ is putting so much effort into this Saints Row release because if it tanks, there's a strong chance they may go bankrupt. So it's doubly sad that it has come to this – damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
The final issue I had is that when you sell a game on a campaign of insanity, the game better be insane. There's a risk versus reward as you edge your ad campaigns out farther, and I feel like there are some areas of the game that are actually playing it safe.
Take for example, the in-game concept of Professor Genki's Super Ethical Reality Climax. The base concept seemed ripe enough: there's some guy in an odd cat-suit and he has some sort of bizarre, deadly game show. But then, the game's marketing team hired much beloved comedians Tim & Eric to produce a 12 minute episode of PGSERC, and it gave us a glimpse of truly insane possibilities:
When I first saw a Genki icon appear on my map, I raced to it, ready to have my mind blown. But what I got inside was a pretty standard arena setting. I had to shoot mascots, avoid fire traps, and occasionally shoot signs that popped up to get bonuses. There was some amusing commentary, but I strolled calmly through the level picking off people shooting at me. I waited for something bizarre to happen, but instead I entered a room full of prizes, the audience shouted something, and I got the ACTIVITY COMPLETE screen. For something that could have been completely insane, it felt surprisingly safe, and not dissimilar from Sega's The Club from a few years back. (Some of the pre-announced DLC deals with Professor Genki, so perhaps the insanity is forthcoming.)
None of this is to say that Saints Row: The Third is a bad game. It's quite good. I had fun playing it, I enjoyed many of the jokes, and it was a tremendous way to blow off steam. I will probably jump back into it as my friends pick it up and want to co-op through the storyline.
But for a game that could've easily blown me away and become an instant classic, I feel only slightly blasted.
Saints Row: The Third is available for PS3, Xbox 360, and PC.
Tags games2011, insanity, saintsrow, sandbox, violence

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Queensferry, Looking across the Firth of Forth to North Queensferry
Scotch Lakes Sketchbook
Turner Bequest LVI 12
townscapes / man-made features(21,601)
townscape, distant(8,109)
UK cities, towns and villages(12,725)
North Queensferry(10)
Queensferry - non-specific(5)
Edinburgh(386)
Fife(51)
Scotland(2,976)
Joseph Mallord William Turner North Queensferry from the Firth of Forth
Joseph Mallord William Turner Looking across the Firth of Forth from South Queensferry to Rosyth Castle
Joseph Mallord William Turner Looking across the Firth of Forth at South Queensferry
Joseph Mallord William Turner Looking across the Firth of Forth, ?from Leith
Joseph Mallord William Turner Views of the Firth of Forth around Queensferry
Joseph Mallord William Turner On the North Side of the Firth of Forth
Joseph Mallord William Turner Inchgarvie and North Queensferry
Joseph Mallord William Turner Looking East from Corstorphine Hill over Edinburgh and the Firth of Forth, with St Bernard's Well in the Middle Distance
Joseph Mallord William Turner Firth of Forth Looking Towards ?Blackness Castle
Joseph Mallord William Turner Continuation of a View Looking Down Leith Walk to the Firth of Forth
Joseph Mallord William Turner The Firth of Forth
Joseph Mallord William Turner Landscape near Edinburgh, ?with the Firth of Forth in the Distance
Joseph Mallord William Turner Aberystwyth, Looking North to Constitution Hill


text:
DROP-IN TOURS GROUP TOURS SCHOOL TOURS AUDIO TOURFRANK LLOYD WRIGHT TOURSCOMMUNITY YOUTH TOURS
Audio Tour
Drop-In Tours
Frank Lloyd Wright Tours
Community Youth Tours
Crystal Bridges' tour program offers a range of options for individuals and groups of various types. Our School Tours are available for students in K-12 schools (public or private) from anywhere in the US. Guided Group Tours can be arranged for groups of 10 to 60 guests, and may include box lunches or a seated lunch in Eleven, the museum's restaurant.
Audio Tours of the museum's permanent collection galleries and select temporary exhibitions are available through the museum's free app, which can be downloaded to your Apple or Android device; or you may check out a device with the app pre-loaded from Guest Services in the main lobby at no cost. In addition, a selection of themed, self-guided tour brochures is available in the main lobby.
Drop-in Tours are one-hour guided tours offered daily and led by a trained volunteer Tour Guide. Drop-in Tours are free and no registration is required to participate, just meet your Tour Guide at the designated location about 5 minutes prior to the scheduled start time. Several different themed tours are available to choose from, ranging from highlights of Crystal Bridges' permanent collection to temporary exhibition tours, architectural tours, and seasonal outdoor Trail Experiences.
American Sign Language interpretation is included on the Collection Highlights tour on the third Saturday of every month.
Please contact [email protected] or call the museum at 479-657-2335 for more information.
Art Cart
Cart Guides offers touchable art materials, activities, and interesting information to share with guests of all ages about the art, sculpture, and architecture of Crystal Bridges.
Architecture Tour: Crystal Bridges MON + THUR >> 1pm, SAT + SUN » 3:30pm
Location - Lower Lobby
Learn more about the architecture of Crystal Bridges. This hour-long Architecture Tour will introduce you to the unique architectural features of Moshe Safdie's design, and provide insights into some of the special challenges the museum's site posed to engineers. Note: This is an indoor/outdoor tour, weather permitting. An alternate indoor route is offered in case of inclement weather. Tour begins in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
Sponsored by Ken and Liz Allen, Chip and Susan Chambers, The Harrison and Rhonda French Family, and Tartaglino Richards Family Foundation in memory of Maurice Jennings
Big Picture Tour: Art, Architecture, and Nature WED + FRI + SAT » 11:30am
This tour provides a fun overview of the art, nature, and architecture of Crystal Bridges. Guides will share highlights of the architectural design, one of the Museum's most iconic artworks and some highlights from the museum grounds. Tour begins in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
Collection Highlights MON + THUR » 11:30am SAT + SUN » 2:00pm
Enjoy a stroll through the permanent collection with a Gallery Guide. Explore works by some of the best-known names in American art. Tour begins in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
The Collection Highlights Tours on the third Saturday of each month features American Sign Language interpretation.
Frames Tour FRI » 1:00pm
Every painting tells a story, and so do the frames that surround them. Join this tour to explore the changing tastes and design of selected American frames in Crystal Bridges' permanent collection. Each group will discuss the techniques of framing, as well as the history of frames in America from Colonial to Early 20th Century. Tour begins in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
Is It Art? Tour FRI » 2:00pm
Accompany one of our amazing Gallery Guides to explore works from the museum's Contemporary gallery. These artworks lead some to wonder, what makes this special? From Abstract Expressionism to minimalism and conceptual art, artists express their ideas in lots of ways, and this tour will dive into what those artists were thinking. Tour begins in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
Landscape Tour WED » 2:00pm
Discover the history of landscape paintings in the museum's permanent collection with a Gallery Guide. Tour begins in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
Sculpture Tour WED » 1:00pm
Learn more about the fascinating works of sculpture in the Crystal Bridges' collection, as well as the artists who created them. The experience highlights five to six works. Depending on the weather, this tour can take place either indoors or outdoors. If held outdoors, the tour follows a paved path, Tour beings in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
Women in Art THUR » 2:00pm
Learn more about some of the fascinating female artists in Crystal Bridges' collection. A Gallery Guide will introduce you to some works by artists you might not be familiar with and some well-known favorites. Tour begins in the Lower Lobby. Free, no registration required.
Let our audio tour guide you through the galleries. Numerous tours are available, including the permanent collection, installations, conservation, and architecture, as well as temporary exhibitions. Stops on the tours include a high-resolution image, full label copy, and audio or video clips featuring curators, preparators, or conservators. The Crystal Bridges app is sponsored by Cox Communication.
Don't have a compatible device of your own? Check one out from Guest Services while you're at the museum for free!
Outdoor Audio Tour
This free app for Apple and Android devices offers interactive trail maps, art and plant guides, and audio-tour information about many of the fascinating features of Crystal Bridges' grounds. Users may select favorite features to create a personalized tour, and upload and share photos of their own discoveries on the Crystal Bridges trails!
Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art is pleased to offer opportunities for your group to tour our museum and its wonderful trails and grounds.
Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art offers a variety of tours to engage your students and connect to classroom practice; select the tour that works best for your classroom needs.


text:
New Books Obelisk: A History
By Brian A. Curran *97, Benjamin Weiss *94
(The MIT Press) Obelisks — giant standing stones, invented in Ancient Egypt as sacred objects — serve no practical purpose. Yet nearly every empire worthy of the name — from ancient Rome to the United States — has sought an Egyptian obelisk to place in the center of a ceremonial space. This book traces the fate and many meanings of obelisks across nearly 40 centuries — what they meant to the Egyptians, and how other cultures have borrowed, interpreted, understood, and misunderstood them through the years. Brian A. Curran is an associate professor of art history at Pennsylvania State University. Anthony Grafton is the Henry Putnam University Professor of History at Princeton University. Pamela O. Long is an independent historian. Benjamin Weiss is manager of Adult Learning Resources at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.


text:
Introducing Gunung Leuser National Park
Posted by admin | Dec 21, 2014 | Introducing Gunung Leuser National Park, National Park Tours | 0 |
Gunung Leuser National Park
The Aceh section of Gunung Leuser National Park has slipped under the tourist radar for years, seeing only a trickle of visitors as the masses head to the more-hyped Bukit Lawang. Its jungle is basically the same minus the well-worn paths and tourists clambering about trying to spot semiwild orangutans. Here is the place for the real jungle experience. In the past it's been largely off limits due to the conflict, but now that there's peace in the region it's starting to receive the recognition it deserves.
The World Heritage–listed Gunung Leuser National Park is one of the world's most important and biologically diverse conservation areas. It is often described as a complete ecosystem laboratory because of the range of forest and species types.
Within the park's boundaries live some of the planet's most endangered and exotic species: tigers, rhinoceros, elephants and orangutans. Although your chances of seeing these celebrity animals are remote, you've got a reasonable chance of seeing orangutans, and you can be sure of encountering plenty of other primates. The most common is the white-breasted Thomas leaf monkey, which sports a brilliant, crested punk hairdo.
Habitats range from the swamp forests of the west coast to the dense lowland rainforests of the interior. Much of the area around Ketambe is virgin forest. Above 1500m, the permanent mist has created moss forests rich in epiphytes and orchids. Rare flora includes two members of the rafflesia family, Rafflesia acehensis and Rafflesia zippelnii, which are found along Sungai Alas.
More than 300 bird species have been recorded in the park, including the bizarre rhinoceros hornbill, the helmeted hornbill and woodpeckers.
The park faces a great number of challenges. Poachers have virtually wiped out the crocodile population and have severely reduced the number of tigers and rhinoceros. According to the Indonesian Forum for the Environment, a fifth of the park has been adversely affected by illegal logging and road construction. A highly controversial road project called Ladia Galaska runs through the park, linking the eastern and western coasts of the province.
This park receives a lot of rain throughout the year, but rain showers tend to lessen in frequency and duration between December and March.
Bukit Lawang Tour and The OrangUtans Sumatra Sanctuary
Previous5 Days 4 Nights Lake Toba Brastagi Highland Medan Tour Package (Asian Market)
NextThe Orang Utans Sumatran Sanctuary & Bukit Lawang Tour
The Orang Utans Sumatran Sanctuary & Bukit Lawang Tour
Tour Tangkahan Sumatran Elephants


text:
if (typeof($j) === "undefined" && typeof(jQuery) !== "undefined") {
  var $j = jQuery.noConflict();
}

$j(document).ready(function($){

  // On the list page, the checkbox in th table's header toggles all the checkboxes underneath it.
  $("table.table input.checkbox.toggle").click(function() {
    var checked_status = $(this).is(":checked");
    $("td.action.select input.checkbox[name='bulk_ids[]']").each(function() {
      $(this).attr('checked', checked_status);

      if (checked_status) {
        $(this).parent().addClass("checked");
      } else {
        $(this).parent().removeClass("checked");
      }

    });
  });

  $("table.table tr.link").click(function(e) {
    // trs and tds are things that we want to link to the edit page
    // if the click's target is a button for instance, we don't want to move the user.
    if ($(e.target).is('tr') || $(e.target).is('td')) {
      window.location.href = $(this).attr("data-link");
    };
  });
});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
GSI HOME > Update History > Announcement of 2015 planimetric reports on the land area by prefectures and municipalities in Japan Last Updated : February 24, 2016
Announcement of 2015 planimetric reports on the land area by prefectures and municipalities in Japan
- The nation's area proved to be 377,970.75km2-
The Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI) compiled and announced planimetric reports on the land area of Japan as of October 1st, 2015 in order to continuously grasp the state of the nation's land.
As a result, the nation's area as of October 1st, 2015 is 377,970.75km2
History and Usage
The announcement of planimetric reports on Japan's land area was first implemented by the Grand Council of State (Dajokan)'s Division of Statistics (Tokeiin) in 1882, and shares a history as long as that of population statistics. Since 1960, the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan has been releasing the information annually as planimetric reports on the land area by prefectures and municipalities in Japan. The area values, which become basic data for population density calculations in the national census report and local allocation tax calculations, are used in a variety of fields.
Cause of change in land area value
Japan's land area in 2015 changed to 377,970.75km2 from 377,972.28km2 in 2014. The main factors for the change in area are believed to be due to changes in the land such as filled-up land, and modifications using larger scale map data for area calculations.
Attachment 1: Prefectural area and ranking [PDF:27KB]
Attachment 2: Municipalities area and ranking: the 20 largest and smallest municipalities [PDF:29KB]
Attachment 3: Effects due to modifications using larger scale map data for area calculations[PDF:237KB]
The gathered results for 2015's planimetric reports on the land area by prefectures and municipalities in Japan were released in the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan's Web page below.
http://www.gsi.go.jp/KOKUJYOHO/MENCHO-title.htm (in Japanese)
The announcement of planimetric reports on the land area is implemented every year according to Long-Term Plan for Basic Survey, based on Article 12 of the Survey Act (Act No. 188, 1949).
Some files are available in PDF format. To view PDF files, Adobe System's free "Adobe Reader" software must be installed. Please visit the following link to download the free software.
Adobe Reader download page (external link)


text:
Lake Powell Chronicle
Subscribe Login View E-Edition
Already a subscriber? LOGIN »
By: Bob Hembree - Updated: 3 weeks ago
By Bob Hembree
PAGE – Recent news of teens taking their own lives in Page is unsettling. More unsettling is people rarely see it coming, especially with young people.
It's not uncommon to hear, after a death that a single circumstance led to the final decision: a broken relationship, bullying, financial troubles. These kinds of troubles may contribute, but there's usually more bubbling under the surface. Like the complexities of climate change, the spread of disease, and the creation of the universe, it's systemic. It's a boiling soup of social, cultural, occupational, interpersonal, family relationships and mental health. Cause is mostly speculation, but the warning signs are there, and knowing them could save lives.
After the most recent death by suicide, Page High School held a special assembly. Encompass Health Services crisis counselor Brent Cases told the Chronicle, "The last two adolescent suicides have had a tremendous impact on the community."
Jessie Parker from Encompass gave a presentation to the victim's classmates. Case said, "One of the things he really emphasized was that peers tend to talk mostly to their peers about things of a personal nature, including mental health. They usually want to keep those things a secret."
Case, continued, "One of the things that we focused on was it's OK, and it's really important to tell a trusted adult when your friend says, 'I want to kill myself.'"
Case stressed that it may be other kinds of comments, such as, "Well, you're not going to see me here at school anymore." He says it's important to follow up with another question, "Why not?" Find out more. Sometimes it's the "off-the-wall statements that your feelings tell you something's wrong." Case advises to "probe a little bit." Find out. Tell a responsible adult. Don't' keep it a secret. That's too big to carry.
Case said, "A lot of my calls, especially recently, have been calls about someone who has made a statement about wanting to kill themselves. And so, at that time it becomes my focus to go in try and find out how serious it is. It's always serious, but is it so serious that the person needs to be hospitalized right away? I make that determination through an assessment."
For years, psychologists and researchers have warned about suicide contagion, copycat suicides. David Shaffer, a professor of child psychiatry at Columbia University and the head of the Suicide Research Unit at the New York State Psychiatric Institute said in 1987, ''Hearing about a suicide moves those teenagers at risk closer to doing it themselves. The news coverage of teenage suicides can portray the victims as martyrs of sorts."
Shaffer said in an interview with The New York Times, ''The more sentimentalized it is, the more legitimate - even heroic - it may seem to some teenagers."
Talking about wanting to die
Looking for a way to kill oneself
Talking about feeling hopeless or having no purpose
Talking about feeling trapped or in unbearable pain
Talking about being a burden to others
Increasing the use of alcohol or drugs
Acting anxious, agitated or recklessly
Sleeping too little or too much
Withdrawing or feeling isolated
Showing rage or talking about seeking revenge
Displaying extreme mood swings
The more of these signs a person shows, the greater the risk. Warning signs are associated with suicide but may not be what causes a suicide.
If someone you know exhibits warning signs of suicide:
Do not leave the person alone
Remove any firearms, alcohol, drugs or sharp objects that could be used in a suicide attempt
Call the U.S. National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255)
Take the person to an emergency room or seek help from a medical or mental health professional.
Local student named to Graceland University Fall 2019 President's List
Sand Devils become No. 1
Holiday violence
Lady Sand Devils win Holiday Classic
We see you are enjoying our articles!
If you wish view the full all article, watch this short video or subscribe now for full access.
Subscribe Watch Video No, thanks! I will stick to the free stuff
Recent news of teens taking their own lives in Page is unsettling. More unsettling is people rarely see it coming, especially with young people.
Warning! Invalid username or password.
A password reset email has been sent containing a link to reset your password.
635 Elm St. Suite 7, P.O. Box 1716 Page AZ 86040
© 2020 News Media Corporation. All Rights Reserved


The puppy mascot clipart set features more than 60 illustrations of a cartoon puppy doing a variety of school and sports related activities. Some of the poses are also pet related, making this clipart set useful for promoting a pet related business. Purchase and download the puppy mascot clipart set at Toons4Biz.com.


text:
Archives For Merger Guidelines Symposium
Merger Guidelines Symposium Conclusion
Geoffrey Manne — 27 October 2009
Thanks to all of our participants in the Merger Guidelines Symposium. We hope many of you, as well as our readers, will look back over the collected posts and engage in an ongoing dialogue in the comments over the many interesting ideas raised here. You will find all of the posts from the symposium by clicking on the "merger guidelines symposium" link to the right, under the "blog symposia" heading. For you reference, we have also collected all of the posts below.
For our friends in the agencies, we hope this symposium gives you some food for thought and a sense of where an informed subset of the antitrust community see issues meriting attention. It is interesting to note (we received all of the submissions before any were posted) the extent to which so many of these comments focused on the problems of the structural presumption (including market definition and market share calculations), HHI thresholds and unilateral effects–all obviously related matters, most informed by a concern for aligning the Guidelines with agency practice.
Although there was not a lot of discussion of the related matter of the recent Farrell/Shapiro proposal on unilateral effects analysis without market definition, many of the posts provide a backdrop against which discussion of the proposal is sure to arise. For my own parting thought on the issue, I would note this: Whatever the problems with market definition in unilateral effects analysis, I hope we will not be too quick to jettison the exercise in exchange for the Farrell/Shapiro proposal (or similar). Although imperfect, the market definition exercise exerts some check on merger enforcement that is absent from the Farrell/Shapiro proposal. And in the absence of extremely good empirical data (as in Staples), I fear that the UPP analysis may permit enforcers to find competitive effects in a much wider range of cases than would be desirable. As essential background to assessing this trade-off in the modern economy, I refer our readers to the Sidak/Teece submission to the symposium and to their forthcoming paper.
Joe Farrell, Welcome from the Agencies
Dennis Carlton, Revising the Guidelines
Luke Froeb, Merger Enforcement without Market Definition
Robert Gertner, Revising the Guidelines
Steve Salop, Comments on Updating the Merger Guidelines
David Teece and J. Gregory Sidak, Dynamic Competition and Antitrust Law
Einer Elhauge, Do the Merger Guidelines Need Revision?
Joshua Wright, The Guidelines Should be Revised to Reject the PNB Presumption
Andrew Gavil, Andrew Gavil on Revising the Merger Guidelines
Daniel Crane, Let Sleeping Dogs . . .
Herbert Hovenkamp, Herbert Hovenkamp on Revising the Merger Guidelines
Thom Lambert, "Standardizing" The Horizontal Merger Guidelines
Geoffrey Manne, Fix the Supply Side
Danny Sokol, Small Changes
Joseph Simons, Revisions to the Merger Guidelines: Above All, Do No Harm
In Antitrust & Competition, Law & Economics, Market Definition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions	effects analysis
Revisions to the Merger Guidelines: Above All, Do No Harm
Joseph Simons — 27 October 2009
My sense is that there is no need to revise the DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines, with one exception. As Greg Werden points out, "a thorough revision would take up to three years and occupy some of the agencies' best people for a total of more than two thousand hours." The current guidelines lay out the general framework quite well and any change in language relative to that framework are likely to create more confusion rather than less. Based on my own experience, the business community has had a good sense of how the agencies conduct merger analysis. The only exception is the Guideline's concentration thresholds, which have been obsolete in practice since at least the mid 1990s. Those thresholds should probably be changed to reflect actual practice. If, however, the current administration intends to materially change the way merger analysis is conducted at the agencies, then perhaps greater revision makes more sense. But even then, perhaps the best approach is to try out some of the contemplated changes (i.e. in actual investigations) and publicize them in speeches and the like before memorializing them in a document that is likely to have some substantial permanence to it.
In Antitrust & Competition, Justice Department, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions
Danny Sokol — 27 October 2009
Chairman Leibowitz in his Fordham speech last month stated "From my perspective, the current Guidelines do not explain clearly enough to businesses how the agencies review transactions." Won't that always be the case? In a specialized area of complex regulatory law, there is whatever guidelines an agency (or in our case agencies) will promulgate and then small group of insider lawyers who will have enough repeat business to really understand the meaning of the guidelines via their agency contacts. For others, the guidelines will remain unclear unless you create a 600 page set of merger guidelines – not a good idea.
Maybe the lack of clarity is a problem, particularly with judges. After all, judges play a role in enforcing the law. The Guidelines cover this aspect fairly early on in Section .01. However, who is the end user of the Guidelines? Is it the firms practicing before the agencies or for judges to use? If the Guidelines have a purpose for judges, there is an important institutional issue at play as we have not had a merger case before the Supreme Court for many years. This leads to a meta-question — Is the law Section 7 or is it the Guidelines as defined by the agencies at any given time?
I do have three points as to the substance of the Guidelines:
1. The Guidelines have only a brief mention of R&D (Section 4), in which they state that even if synergies are substantial, they "are generally less susceptible to verification and may be the result of anticompetitive output reductions." This treatment seems incomplete. After all, the rise of the new economy and of a greater role for IP suggests that there should be more guidance with regard to R&D efficiencies.
2. Let us start using HHIs that have some remote relationship to actual enforcement decisions. Although HHIs are only rough preliminary screens, and other factors make the real difference, the agencies ignore the HHI thresholds in the Guidelines in making enforcement decisions. The rub is that the agencies then cite the HHIs in district court to show how bad the violation is.
3. The treatment of unilateral effects needs to be revisited. The concept as used in practice needs to be better reflected in the Guidelines.
In Antitrust & Competition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions
Fix the Supply Side
Do the Merger Guidelines need revision? No. Thanks for having me.
OK. Yes–and market definition/market shares, and in particular the effective incorporation of supply-side effects, seem to me like the most pressing issues in need of attention.
Judge Posner, in the first edition of his justly celebrated Antitrust Law, noted that market definition was an unfortunate means to an end, a necessity given the inability of our analytical tools effectively to assess the effects of mergers beyond a circumscribed boundary. As Posner noted,
The importance attached to defining a market in which to appraise the competitive effects of a challenged merger is on more example of the law's failure to have developed a genuinely economic approach to the problem of monopoly. If we knew the elasticity of demand facing a group of sellers, it would be redundant to ask whether the group constituted an economically meaningful market. . . . It is only because we lack confidence in our ability to measure elasticities, or perhaps because we do not think of adopting so explicitly economic an approach, that we have to define markets instead.
I doubt we would shun the approach for being too explicitly economic today, but I think a very small number of cases permit us to identify competitive effects with sufficient confidence—Staples being the paradigmatic case. We may be stuck with market definition, but the outdated conception enshrined in the Guidelines–of measuring concentration in a static market defined essentially by demand-side elasticities–can surely be improved upon.
In the first instance, we should remove any hint of a concentration/price presumption so intimately tied to measuring market definition and HHIs. Although the Guidelines attempt to cabin the market definition and market share analyses as "starting points," in practice they are the beginning and end of most merger cases. The Merger Guidelines (and, importantly, agency practice) should be revised to limit reliance on market definition and market share, at a minimum by stating explicitly that the definition of the market and the calculation of market shares are not sufficient to indicate adverse competitive effects, and perhaps also by removing HHI threshold discussions which seem to imply the same. Even if the agencies and the Guidelines don't mean these tools to be used in this way, courts haven't really gotten the message.
At the same time, the Guidelines should explicitly incorporate supply side elasticity into the market definition inquiry. There is little defense of the Guideline's statement that "Market definition focuses solely on demand substitution factors—i.e., possible consumer responses." While the Guidelines and actual practice do attempt to make some allowance for supply-side effects, these allowances seem like afterthoughts, and I think it is rare that HHIs are calculated to incorporate production capacity not currently devoted to the narrowly-demand-defined product market, especially outside of the commodity realm. Meanwhile, even a small bias against supply substitution, entry and unforeseen competitors (and/or new products) is a particular problem in fast-shifting, innovative industries where this is precisely whence the most significant competitive threat will come.
To the extent (and it is a large extent) that market definition and market share are far-removed from competitive effects, they should be more carefully circumscribed by the Guidelines. The economic irrelevance of much of the evidence used to define markets and the general disregard for supply-side response help to ensure that market definition, while incredibly important in litigation, is not actually all that helpful. At the same time, the general lack of correlation between concentration and unilateral effects makes reliance on the calculation of market shares (of crabbed markets, often disregarding supply-side effects) similarly misleading and prejudicial.
In Antitrust & Competition, Law & Economics, Market Definition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions
"Standardizing" the Horizontal Merger Guidelines
Thom Lambert — 27 October 2009
I'm confident that my esteemed colleagues, who have far more expertise about the merger guidelines than I, will offer all sorts of terrific ideas for revising the substance of the guidelines. While I would certainly advocate a few specific changes (i.e., revise the HHI thresholds to reflect actual agency practice), I'll leave the devilish details to the experts and concentrate on one "modest" (quite literally!) revision:
I would encourage the antitrust agencies to clarify, within the actual text of the guidelines (i.e., not in mere commentary like that issued in 2006), that the guidelines are not the law, should not be treated as such by the courts, do not exhaustively specify when a merger will or will not be anticompetitive, and should be flexibly implemented to account for case-specific factors that cannot be specified ex ante. In short, the guidelines should explicitly acknowledge that the ultimate question in any horizontal merger case requires the application of a standard, not a rule.
A rule is a legal mandate that entails an advance determination of what conduct is permissible and leaves only factual issues for the adjudicator (e.g., "Do not drive faster than 65 m.p.h."). A standard, by contrast, is a mandate that leaves to the adjudicator both factual issues and some judgment about what conduct is permissible (e.g., "Do not drive at an excessive speed."). Rules provide superior guidance to the governed and the adjudicator, but they can misfire if over- or underinclusive, and they therefore require ex ante specification of all factors that might be relevant to a sound decision. Standards provide less guidance, but they are more likely to generate a correct adjudication in any particular case, for the adjudicator is free to account for unforeseen, case-specific quirks.
The legal question at issue in a horizontal merger case — "might the business combination substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly?" — requires the ultimate adjudicator to apply a standard, not a rule. It is simply impossible to specify ex ante all the considerations relevant to answering this question. Accordingly, to the extent the merger guidelines are viewed by courts as rules for separating pro- from anticompetitive mergers, they are bound to generate incorrect adjudications when they inevitably misfire.
Now I realize the merger guidelines, as currently drafted, do not purport to bind courts and do state that their "mechanical application . . . may provide misleading answers" and that they should be applied "reasonably and flexibly to the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed merger." I don't believe this is enough. The fact is, generalist judges asked to resolve the complicated economic disputes in a horizontal merger case are reluctant to veer beyond the guidelines' prescribed analysis and, as a practical matter, treat the guidelines as though they are, in fact, the law. In the D.C. Circuit's Whole Foods decision, for example, the majority chided the dissent for having incorrectly applied the merger guidelines. Given that the merger guidelines simply cannot exhaustively specify all the considerations relevant to evaluating a proposed merger, courts' treatment of them as the final word implies that relevant considerations will get left out.
Take Whole Foods for example. A key fact in that case was that the vast majority of shoppers who buy from so-called "premium natural and organic supermarkets" (PNOS) also shop regularly at conventional grocers. Thus, if a combined Whole Foods/Wild Oats were to raise prices on items available at conventional supermarkets, buyers would likely just start buying those items on their conventional grocer outings rather than on their PNOS outings. Unfortunately, nothing in the merger guidelines calls for a consideration of "cross-shopping," and this important argument therefore got short shrift. Had the guidelines explicitly stated: "This is not the law. We can't state up front all relevant considerations. Courts should credit plausible arguments based on factors not stated herein," this important argument might have gotten the attention it deserved.
Or take considerations relevant to dynamic (Schumpeterian) competition. While I am sympathetic to the Sidak/Teece arguments that the merger guidelines should account for dynamic competition concerns, I simply can't figure out how one would write a rule that would do that. How can we specify ex ante all the considerations that are relevant to whether a business merger will enhance dynamic, though not necessarily static, competition? There may be an answer to that question — and I much look forward to hearing from Sidak and Teece on this issue — but I don't know what it is. An alternative approach would be to free up the ultimate adjudicators — the courts — to account for dynamic competition considerations by disabusing them of the notion that they must treat the merger guidelines as law. Parties could then articulate their dynamic competition arguments on a case-by-case basis, and the courts could credit those that appear to have merit.
The main objectives of the merger guidelines, I assume, are (1) to deter combination attempts that would harm competition (i.e., those that would clearly be subject to challenge); (2) to avoid deterring combinations that would not harm competition (i.e., those within a safe harbor); and (3) to assure some consistency across the regulatory agencies and across administrations. These objectives could still be attained — and greater accuracy in outcome could be achieved — if the merger guidelines specified that the ultimate inquiry involves application of a standard rather than a rule.
Herbert Hovenkamp on Revising the Merger Guidelines
Herbert Hovenkamp — 27 October 2009
Yes, the Merger Guidelines should be revised; in particular:
a. The discussion of concentration thresholds for collusion facilitating mergers must be aligned more closely with both recent case law and actual enforcement practices; otherwise they fail to provide guidance. The current Guidelines indicate that concentrations greater than 1800 HHI and a post-merger increase exceeding 100HHI presumptively indicates a challenge. In fact, mergers with post-merger HHIs in excess of both these numbers are routinely permitted. While the standards in the current Guidelines are too aggressive, the George W. Bush administration policy was too lenient. More fundamentally, the HHI creates an illusion of precision in coordinated effects analysis that is simply not warranted, particularly not when market definitions are ambiguous or when the merger market is subject to product differentiation. Further, the "other factors" portion of the Guidelines tends to dominate the analysis. A better approach is reduced reliance on the HHI and more on simpler observations about who the 3 or 4 largest firms in the market are, the effects of eliminating the acquired firm as an independent market entity, and the likely responses of rivals to an output reduction by the post-merger firm.
b. The unilateral effects analysis requires elaboration that brings it into line with actual agency analysis. Some of the economists would like to jettison a market definition approach and attempt to measure price increase potential more directly. While I am sympathetic with that, there is too much water over the bridge; it could lead to courts' simply rejecting the Guidelines. A better approach is to write market definition criteria that permit narrower market definitions in situations where a unilateral price increase is likely. This requires that some thought be given to situations where the merger is between one firm and its second closest rather than its closest rival. Right now it is simply too easy for defendants to argue that the closer rival will steal sales and competition will not be affected. So the government is currently losing cases that it should not be losing. Finally,the Guidelines should quell discontent in lawyers' perception about unilateral effects analysis that it is more speculative or less rigorous than traditional coordinated effects analysis. The fact is that both types of analysis rely on many assumptions, some of which are no more than conjectures about future firm behavior. If anything, the robustness edge belongs to the unilateral effects approach.
In Antitrust & Competition, Market Definition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions	effects analysis
Let Sleeping Dogs…
Dan Crane — 27 October 2009
I feel no great urgency to revise the Guidelines. True enough, they're more of an analytical thought experiment than an accurate description of how merger review takes place in the agencies, but who's really fooled? Perhaps some business people think that the Guidelines are a computer program waiting for the introduction of the relevant data to spit out the answer, but most sophisticated executives contemplating a merger will understand that the Guidelines are just a beginning point for conversation.
Could the beginning point be clearer or conform more closely to agency practice? Sure, but that doesn't mean that revision of the Guidelines is justified. With hindsight, the First Amendment could be a little better worded, but no one wants to tinker with it now–who knows what would result? I'm sufficiently satisfied with current merger practice in the agencies that I don't care that much what's in the Guidelines and I am worried about the unpredictable results that could obtain if we started tinkering. Let sleeping dogs . . .
But if we are going to revise, then my pet issue is the asymmetrical treatment of the probabilities on anticompetitive effects and offsetting efficiencies–a point on which Joe Simons and I are planning a fuller analysis. The Guidelines seem to suggest that if the probability of anticompetitive effects of magnitude 100 is 50% and the probability of offsetting efficiencies of magnitude 100 is 50%, then the merger should be challenged, since a greater quantum of proof is required for efficiencies than for anticompetitive effects. This makes no sense to me–everything else being equal, efficiencies that would be passed on to consumers and market power increases should be given equal weight and not assigned separate probability standards.
In Antitrust & Competition, Constitutional Law, First Amendment, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions
Andrew Gavil on Revising the Merger Guidelines
Andy Gavil — 27 October 2009
1. Do the Merger Guidelines Need Revision?
Yes. Conceptually, the current Guidelines incorporate multiple strands of intellectual and legal history with respect to merger analysis that have been layered one upon the other over time, but never effectively integrated. This now encumbers the application of the Guidelines and may be inhibiting the government's capacity to effectively and efficiently initiate merger challenges.
The current Guidelines remain strongly tethered to the "structural" school, with roots in the 1950s. The influence of the structural school was evident in both the Philadelphia National Bank presumption and the 1968 Guidelines, and the 1982-97 Guidelines have retained the essential features of that tradition — reliance on market definition, market share calculation, and inferences about market power drawn from those shares.
The 1982 Guidelines also began the process of layering on top of that tradition, injecting elements of the "new learning," which focused largely on expanding upon General Dynamics and the various bases for rebutting a structural case, and oligopoly theory. As the Guidelines further evolved through 1997, various dimensions of oligopoly theory were added, especially in the sections on anticompetitive effects, reflecting the work of Stigler, Nash, Cournot, and Bertrand. Yet additional economic thinking was inserted in the revised and expanded discussions of entry and efficiencies. Today's Guidelines, therefore, are an intellectual collage of various traditions in law and economics.
2. If yes, what is the most important revision that you would recommend and why?
Although it is a tall order, the agencies could undertake to clarify the overall conceptual framework of the Guidelines. Currently, even though it does not describe actual agency practice, the Guidelines are perceived by courts as outlining a linear process, in which its five steps are mechanically undertaken in sequence, each proceeding only after the previous step is completed. This in effect makes structural analysis a prerequisite to the evaluation of every merger and it impairs reliance on any other approach to evaluating likely anticompetitive effects or efficiencies more directly. This approach wrongly elevates the status of market definition above competitive effects, which is the core concern of merger analysis – indeed of all antitrust analysis.
A related goal would be to harmonize the intellectual underpinnings of merger analysis with other areas of antitrust law. This is especially important with respect to courts' willingness to rely on direct effects evidence since the Supreme Court's decisions in NCAA and Indiana Fed'n of Dentists. Depending on the kind of evidence available, unilateral effects theory can be understood as an application of the direct effects approach to mergers. In cases like Staples, for example, where natural experiments provided a basis for predicting the likely future effects of the merger, it is a sort of "predicted actual effects" doctrine. As with NCAA and Indiana Fed'n of Dentists, in such cases defining markets and inferring market power indirectly should be understood as a surrogate that is unnecessary when more direct and more reliable indications of future market power are available.
A third and also related goal might be to more openly acknowledge that the Guidelines influence how courts assign burdens of production and proof. It has become tradition for all government Guidelines to pronounce that they are not intended to specify burdens of proof or production; that instead, they simply outline the government's internal processes for exercising prosecutorial discretion. But these assertions are at odds with actual practice once the government enters the courthouse. The Merger Guidelines have been read to specify burdens: Steps 1 and 2 (market definition and anticompetitive effect) shift the burden to the defendant, who can then seek to rebut the prima facie case based on entry, efficiencies, or a failing firm defense. And courts such as the D.C. Circuit in Baker Hughes and Heinz, have promoted the use a "sliding scale" to establish variable-strength presumptions and to evaluate burdens, often relying heavily on structural evidence as a burden shifter, a tradition rooted in Philadelphia Nat'l Bank. Given that the Guidelines are applied this way, the agencies should consider saying a bit more about what should be sufficient to shift a burden of production in either direction and whether certain kinds and quantities of evidence shift a burden more emphatically than others.
The specification of burdens also has implications for the welfare standard being used to assess mergers. This is most obvious in the efficiencies discussion, which currently tries to nuance the issue. The text strongly suggests a commitment to a consumer welfare standard defined as giving greater weight to consumer surplus. But there is a hint of equivocation in footnote 37, which contains some support for the argument that aggregate welfare may be a relevant consideration. More clearly specifying the relative burdens of production could eliminate any remaining ambiguity regarding the welfare standard. Although it is unlikely that very many cases would be influenced by the choice of a consumer welfare or aggregate welfare standard, the courts have generally applied the consumer welfare approach now dominant in the Guidelines and this should be more clearly acknowledged.
Finally, post-consummation merger challenges have become more common and yet the Guidelines are focused entirely on making predictions about likely future effects. The agencies might consider either adding a section on post-consummation mergers or generating a separate guidance document that would do so. The goal would be to explain how the post-consummation analysis of a merger might differ from those done pre-merger. This again highlights the need to integrate thinking about the role of actual effects evidence, which becomes more central in post-consummation challenges. Such a discussion also could include consideration of limited reliance on abbreviated or "quick look" types of analysis to shift burdens in appropriate post-consummation cases and reduce the costs of merger review.
In Antitrust & Competition, Market Definition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions	NCAA
The Guidelines Should Be Revised to Reject the PNB Structural Presumption
Josh Wright — 26 October 2009
Yes, the Merger Guidelines should be revised.
The Guidelines primary purpose is to "articulate the analytical framework the Agency applies in determining whether a merger is likely substantially to lessen competition." While the Guidelines have been very successful in articulating a useful economic framework for analyzing mergers, their performance in terms of satisfying that goal has been largely mediocre. If the goal articulated by the Guidelines is an important one, and I do believe that providing some modicum of legal certainty to businesses contemplating merger decisions is valuable goal, then the Merger Guidelines do need revising in order to fulfill their purpose.
The mere fact that agency practice is much more predictable now than it used to be does not warrant inaction when one considers the Guidelines in light of their primary purpose. Indeed, that the agencies consistently apply different standards to the Clayton Act 7 standard than what appears in the Guidelines is no more a defense of the Guidelines than the fact that nobody cites Vons Grocery or Pabst is an argument for keeping those decisions on the books.
So in my view, the Guidelines ought to be revised with an eye toward changes that will bring the Guidelines in line with actual agency practice and update the Guidelines to reflect modern economic thinking and empirical evidence.
What is the first revision I'd make and why?
Following these principles, I think revision discussions should focus on low hanging fruit that satisfies these criteria. There are a number of areas that arguably qualify, but let me start with one simple one: The Agencies should revise the Guidelines to affirmatively abandon use of the structural presumption to demonstrate a substantial lessening of competition. Of course, the Guidelines tell us that they are not designed to inform parties "how the Agency will conduct the litigation of cases that it decides to bring," use of the structural presumption is fundamentally about economics and not litigation strategy.
Indeed, in its formulation in Philadelphia National Bank,the Supreme Court held that:
A merger which produces a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market, and results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market is so inherently likely to lessen competition substantially that it must be enjoined in the absence of evidence clearly showing that the merger is not likely to have such anticompetitive effects.
While the structural presumption has been eroded from the days of Philadelphia National Bank when it was invoked in the context of a merger creating a firm with 30% share of the market, it also has not disappeared. And it is important to note that the justification for the presumption was its economic content. Indeed, the Court noted that the size of mergers above the presumptive level of concentration made them "inherently suspect" and that the test was "fully consistent with economic theory," and forged "common ground among most economists."
There are two important reasons why the Agencies should formally reject the structural presumption.
The first is that it is an an explicitly economic test that is no longer justified by modern economics. Modern economic learning and empirical evidence does not support the notion that mergers that generate post-merger firm with greater than 30 percent share substantially lessen competition. It is a convenient litigation tool to shift the burden to defendants when courts are not persuaded by a competitive effects story. But that is no excuse. If the Agencies believe the best available evidence does not support the economic foundation of the structural presumption, they should abandon it.
Note that I'm not saying that the Agencies could not discuss alternative presumptions based on sound economics. Perhaps economic theory and empirical evidence provide the basis of alternative bright line standards which can appropriately be made the basis of a presumption that a particular merger will substantially lessen competition and harm consumers. But the presumption as it currently exists no longer comports with modern economics or Agency thinking about merger analysis and should be abandoned.
The second reason to explicitly abandon the presumption is that it is far too sensitive to the market definition exercise. I think its important to note the tension between the movement toward and sometimes celebration of unilateral and coordinated effects analysis at the Agencies and away from market definition (even if not completely) and use of the structural presumption which depends so heavily on the identification of the relevant market. The market definition exercise may well have its virtues in constraining agencies from bringing cases with overly narrow markets. However, when the critical lesson of the modern economic approaches to mergers is that post-merger change in pricing incentives and competitive effects are what matters, it is difficult to justify the structural approach either with reference to the Guidelines articulate purpose or modern economics.
When it comes to the structural presumption, the Agencies should not get to have it both ways. If we're going to take the modern economics of mergers seriously, and reduce the importance of market definition in favor of competitive effects, we should also do away with the structural presumption. The Supreme Court is not likely to take a merger case any time soon and do away with the presumption themselves. It is up to the Agencies to eliminate the presumption as it currently exists in order to restore consistency with economic learning and empirical evidence.
In Antitrust & Competition, Economic Theory, Justice Department, Market Definition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions	Clayton Act
Do the Merger Guidelines Need Revision?
Einer Elhauge — 26 October 2009
The merger guidelines should be revised, not only to provide clearer guidance, but because the current version makes it harder for the agencies to win cases when they do challenge a merger. The reason is that the guidelines often don't fit actual agency practice or modern economic theory. For example, part of the reason the DOJ lost the Oracle/Peoplesoft merger case was that its guidelines on unilateral effects do not match modern practice or theory. Such a mismatch makes it harder to convince judges that merger enforcement satisfies traditional rule of law concerns about providing advance notice of legal standards that are clear enough to guide private conduct and meaningfully constrain legal discretion. Here are the areas on which I would focus.
Unilateral Effects. The unilateral effects portion of the merger guidelines should be rewritten because the economics on unilateral effects have no connection to the HHI or 35% market share thresholds used in the guidelines. For example, given that unilateral price effects were established in Staples, it really shouldn't have mattered whether the court concluded Staples and Office Depot operated in an office superstore market or were simply close to each other in a differentiated office supply market. Their market share was only 5.5% under the latter market definition, but market labels don't alter the price effects, and why should a merger that significantly increases consumer prices be tolerated just because we can define a large market?
Market Definition. The guidelines thus should not suggest that market definition is required in unilateral effects cases, but should instead provide an alternative methodology for proving such effects. The guidelines could rely directly on diversion ratios, as suggested by Professors Farrell and Shapiro in their prior academic roles. Or, to use an alternative that would look more familiar to courts used to market definitions, the agencies could posit a product space around the merging parties and directly measure the relevant demand elasticities from that space to other spaces, and the supply elasticities within and into that space, and predict price effects directly.
Indeed, this approach seems better than market definition even in oligopoly effect cases because market definitions rest on all or nothing assessments that distort the economic analysis. For example, market definition equates substitutes that could constrain prices increases of 6% with having no substitute at all, and equates substitutes that could constrain price increases of 4% with having a complete substitute, when neither is really accurate. In practice, courts and agencies adjust the weight given to HHI or market share calculations based on judgments about the extent to which buyers could switch to outside the market and the extent to which rivals could enter or expand. But those judgments are simply subjective assessments about demand and supply elasticities that would be better to make openly, and once we make them we don't really need market definition to predict price effects.
Oligopoly Effects. The guidelines now provide a lot of guidance on when a market is likely to engage in oligopolistic coordination, but little guidance on when a merger is likely to worsen coordination, other than for mergers that involve the acquisition of a maverick. Thus, the guidelines lend themselves to Catch-22 effect. If the guidelines indicate coordination is unlikely, then courts conclude the merger cannot produce oligopoly effects. But if the guidelines indicate coordination is likely, then courts sensibly ask why coordination isn't equally likely before the merger, in which case the merger won't worsen anything. The guidelines need to be clearer about defining the incremental increase in coordination caused by mergers.
Partial ownership. Although the agencies sometimes challenge acquisitions of partial stock ownership, we don't have any clear guidelines about when partial ownership will count as sufficiently active to be assessed as a merger. Further, some enforcement actions have made noises about challenging partial stock acquisitions on the theory that they might lessen firm incentives to compete with each other. This later theory could apply even when the investment is entirely passive, but so far has not been, and we don't have any guidelines clearly indicating whether this theory would ever be applied in a case where the investment is entirely passive or what the criteria would be for distinguishing how much passive ownership is too much. Without such advance guidelines, it is hard to imagine winning an enforcement case based on such a theory.
In Antitrust & Competition, Economic Theory, Justice Department, Market Definition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions
Dynamic Competition in Antitrust Law
Daniel Teece and Gregory Sidak — 26 October 2009
The Horizontal Merger Guidelines are the intellectual cornerstone of modern antitrust law, yet they contain little discussion of innovation or dynamic competition. Although the Merger Guidelines do not constitute law merely by virtue of their promulgation by the agencies, the courts previously have accepted the revised principles that the agencies have advocated. By embracing the reasoning in the Merger Guidelines promulgated several decades ago by the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission, the federal courts have caused antitrust case law to ossify around a decidedly static view of antitrust. Put differently, in the years since 1980 the Division and the FTC have successfully persuaded the courts to adopt a more explicitly economic approach to merger analysis, yet one that has a static view of competition. The result is not a mere policy preference. It is law. To change that law to have a more dynamic view of competition will therefore require a sustained intellectual effort by the enforcement
agencies (as well as by scholars and practitioners) that, once more, engages the courts to reexamine antitrust law as they did in the late 1970s during the ascendancy of the Chicago School, when antitrust law became infused with its current, static understanding of competition. It appears that, before the Obama Administration took office, the Antitrust Division was attempting to incorporate more dynamic analysis, but the result was inconsistent across different mergers and different doctrinal areas of antitrust law.
Put succinctly, competition policy rooted in static economic analysis sees the policy goal as minimizing the Harberger (deadweight loss) triangles from monopoly. A new competition policy, recognizing the special power of dynamic competition, would advance the availability of new products and the co-creation of new markets that allows latent demand (and hence new amounts of consumer surplus associated with new demand curves) to be realized by consumers. It would also recognize cost savings flowing from innovation as an indicator of likely future consumer welfare gains. Put differently, the focus of a revised competition policy and merger-guideline framework would still very much be on the consumer, but it would be future-oriented and would recognize that certain business practices might lead to market creation (or at least co-creation) that would yield new demand curves with large gains in consumer surplus (because demand for new products could be satisfied). The minimization of Harberger deadweight loss triangles would be a secondary focus. Where minimizing Harberger triangles today stands in the way of creating new and significant future demand curves, a new competition policy would likely favor the future and recognize the welfare benefits associated with creating or co-creating new markets.
To develop policy prescriptions that do more good than harm, economists and antitrust scholars and practitioners need to inquire into the determinants of innovation and the impact of antitrust activity (including merger policy) on innovation. Rapid technological change advances dynamic competition. The problem is that the analytical framework that economists most commonly embrace adheres stubbornly to the view that market structure-and little else-determines the rate of technological change. We develop these ideas in much greater detail, with specific proposals to amend the Merger Guidelines, in "Dyanamic Competition in Antitrust Law," forthcoming in the Journal of Competition Law & Economics.
In Antitrust & Competition, Antitrust Division, Federal Trade Commission, Justice Department, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions
Comments on Updating the Merger Guidelines
Steve Salop — 26 October 2009
Of course, the Merger Guidelines need to be updated. Except for efficiencies, they haven't been updated in 17 years. Lawyers and economists with a regular antitrust practice may not require an update in light of their knowledge of the 2006 Commentary, speeches and agency experience. But, the rest of the antitrust world does. The most obvious audience is the courts, who should know what the agencies believe is best practice. Moreover, as FTC Commissioner Kovacic has stressed, the world marketplace for antitrust ideas needs to have the guidance of the US enforcement agencies. They should not have to ferret it out from commentaries and speeches. The Merger Guidelines have been the most emulated feature of US antitrust enforcement worldwide. It would be shame to squander the leadership role.
The "most important" revision is harder to identify. I am caught here between market definition and unilateral effects – and, clearly, revisions to either issue will have important implications for how the agencies and practitioners approach the other issue. Of course, coordinated effects and entry could use some work too. But, let me stick just with the first two and just a sampling of issues there.
The hypothetical monopolist SSNIP test is an elegant but complicated and imperfect methodology. I think it should be explicitly conceded in the Guidelines that market definition is a very imperfect exercise in practice in which the "appropriate" market definition is often controversial and there may not convincing evidence for a single "most appropriate" market. That concession would continue the process of downgrading the perceived importance of market definition in antitrust and focusing the courts more on the bottom line issue of competitive effects. After all, market definition is mainly valued for helping to analyze competitive effects. The imperfections of market definition and the implications for merger analysis have been made by Katz & Shelanski and should be made explicit in the update. In fact, I'd like the Guidelines to start with a "first principles" overview of competitive effects and fit market definition into that framework, not the reverse.
The SSNIP test definitely needs some renovation after all these years. There is considerable controversy today over the proper way to implement the test. For example, standard critical loss analysis often used by economic experts in testimony generally focuses just on the profitability of a SSNIP, whereas the Guidelines focus on whether a SSNIP is profit-maximizing. It also may ignore relevant information. Articles by Katz & Shapiro and O'Brien & Wickelgren ("KSOW") have proposed a methodology that takes into account the information about demand elasticity contained in the price/cost margins of profit-maximizing Bertrand competitors. This is a step in the right direction.
This KSOW methodology does tend to lead to narrower markets than often are found now. So, the agencies need to decide whether this is the desired outcome or whether they should raise the SSNIP level, or downgrade the importance of market shares and concentration, to compensate.
The "smallest market principle" should be erased. First, the SMP erroneously suggests that a careful application of the ssnip test will identify one and only one relevant market. That outcome is not the case in practice. Depending on the starting point (and there is no unique starting point), the algorithm does not lead to a unique "smallest" market. And, once price discrimination is taken into account (in a negotiated price market, for example) the smallest market may well be a single customer.
The principle also makes no sense as a matter of policy. Suppose there were a narrow market for premium baby food comprised of just Gerber, Beechnut, and organic brands. That finding should not imply that a merger between Gerber and Heinz necessarily would be free of significant competitive issues.
Moving on to unilateral effects, it is clear that the Unilateral Effects section also needs work. One need go no further than the garbled description of the impact of a 35% combined market share. After this part is revised and clarified, I will mourn the lost opportunity of reading it to my students. What a fabulous example of drafting by a committee in conflict! But, the offsetting benefit is that my students, the courts and others may actually understand the enforcement intentions of the agencies, including the issue of whether or not there is a safe harbor.
The Unilateral Effects section also needs to clarify the role of the repositioning. The 2006 Merger Commentary suggests that repositioning is seldom, if ever, sufficient to eliminate concerns. Coupled with tight agency standards towards cognizable efficiency benefits, this has led to a longstanding concern among commentators that virtually every differentiated products merger could be said to raise a significant danger of adverse unilateral effects. I think that this is mainly an evidence issue. If there has been repositioning in the pre-merger market, claims of a post-merger repositioning constraint are more credible. Otherwise it needs to be explained why repositioning would not been observed as the market has been evolving over time.
More attention also must be paid to gauging the magnitude of the predicted unilateral effects, both at the screening stage and in the ultimate inquiry. Greg Werden, O'Brien & Salop, and Farrell & Shapiro each have proposed variants of "upward price pressure indices" ("UPPIs"). These UPPIs rely on information about diversion ratios, margins and efficiency benefits. They could be made an explicit part of the analysis. They also could form the basis for an initial screen that would make more economic sense for unilateral effects than the HHI, which at best is related to coordinated effects. I have heard criticism that the UPPIs cannot be derived rigorously from a general oligopoly model without making certain additional limiting assumptions. True enough, but neither can the HHI!
Formulating an initial screen or safe harbor UPPI will take some work. Should there be an explicit "efficiency credit?" Or, should the agencies simply set a critical level for the UPPI, based on expertise, experience and policy preferences? (In this regard, the HHI thresholds of 1000 and 1800, and the Delta-HHI threshold of 100 were never really justified.) If there is a formal credit, how should it be formulated – as a fraction of cost or price or both? Should the efficiency credit be a "standard deduction" or a "personal exemption?" That is, should cognizable efficiencies proven by the parties be added to the credit (as with a personal exemption), or replace the credit (as itemized deductions replace the standard deduction)?
And, how should the efficiency credit take into account optimal deterrence, including the goal of allowing well-functioning markets for the sale of property and corporate control, two general efficiencies noted in the previous versions of the Guidelines? In addition, what does "incipiency" mean in today's world — does it mean that the agencies and courts should set standards tilted more towards a concern with false negatives? In my view, optimal deterrence is the most important issue of all, but clearly one of the hardest and most controversial.
The UPPIs also need to be connected up to market definition. The UPPI is a close cousin of the KSOW form of critical loss analysis. Indeed, this connection serves as a reminder that market definition generally has reduced importance in unilateral effects. This does not mean that market definition is irrelevant. Market definition analysis provides a focus on closeness of substitutes, which is central to unilateral effects analysis. The importance of the cross-elasticity of demand was even noted by the Court in its notorious DuPont decision. Market definition also is relevant for coordinated effects – to define a possible coordinating group of firms. And, of course, Section 7 makes it clear that a market must be defined. So, it is clear that market definition cannot be dispensed with, but only downgraded in importance.
In Antitrust & Competition, Market Definition, Merger Guidelines, Merger Guidelines Symposium, Mergers & Acquisitions, Price Discrimination


This is the most current details on the Kitchen Design Cherry Wood Kitchen Cabinets are the most recent information and it can be your component when you are confused to choose the proper style of your dwelling. With their rich wood tones, cherry wood is generally made use of in furnishings and cabinets. Ordinarily cherry wood cabinets can enhance fees more than standard birch cabinets by 20-25% or additional. The outcome is a bright and light-hunting kitchen, despite utilizing solid cherry wood cabinets topped with black granite. Considering that the wood readily accepts a finish there are numerous different cherry wood colors employed with cabinetry.
With their wealthy wood tones, cherry wood is typically used in furniture and cabinets. Normally cherry wood cabinets can raise fees more than standard birch cabinets by 20-25% or far more. The result is a bright and light-hunting kitchen, despite employing strong cherry wood cabinets topped with black granite. Since the wood readily accepts a finish there are several unique cherry wood colors applied with cabinetry.
With their wealthy wood tones, cherry wood is usually employed in furnishings and cabinets. Commonly cherry wood cabinets can boost expenses more than common birch cabinets by 20-25% or additional. The outcome is a vibrant and light-looking kitchen, regardless of employing strong cherry wood cabinets topped with black granite. Because the wood readily accepts a finish there are quite a few distinctive cherry wood colors made use of with cabinetry.
Related Post "Fruitesborras.com one hundred Cherry Wood Kitchen Cabinets Photos"


utensili da cucina indispensabili. You almost certainly already know that utensili da cucina indispensabili is among the trendiest issues on the net today. Depending on the details we got from google adwords, utensili da cucina indispensabili has a lot of search online search engine. We feel that utensili da cucina indispensabili offer fresh ideas or references for readers.
Weve learned numerous sources about utensili da cucina indispensabili but we feel this is best. I hope you would also agree with our opinion. This picture has been posted by admin and is in category tags segment. You can get this picture by clicking on the save link or right click on the image and choose save.
We sincerely hope that whatever we share with you may be useful. If you wish, you are able to distribute this content to your friend, family, neighborhood, or you can also bookmark this page.


Jewish educators are well-acquainted with the notion that everyone who has some Jewish knowledge is obligated to share it with others. The renowned scholar Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz has made that obligation the mission of his life's work. In his book A Dear Son to Me, he implores all of us to share what we can of our Jewish inheritance, with other Jews.
The threefold bond is also a national and social definition. It underscores the fact that the Torah is "the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob." The Torah is not the property of a certain group or brotherhood. In the Jewish people, there is no sect of "knowers" to whom alone the Torah was given. Rather, the Torah is for the entire Jewish people. Furthermore, the Torah, which is also called an "inheritance," is an ongoing legacy. No Jew is free to consider whether he wants it or not, nor is it for any of us to decide whether to take it or leave it. Rather, the Torah is the inheritance (morasha) of the entire people as a legacy (yerusha), as heredity (torasha).
On the other hand, no one can hold the Torah in his lap and claim that it is his own private property, or that it belongs only to his specific circle or group. For the Torah is the patrimony of the Jewish people as a whole, which includes each and every one of its members.
How was this inheritance taken from us? It got lost in the exiles, in the "desert of the nations," sometimes even in our own land. And it is my duty to return what was stolen from us to its owners, to all those entitled to it. This calls for a great deal of work, on both ends.
On one end are the recipients, who do not always know that they have such an inheritance. To use an ancient parable: a prince, born far away from his homeland, may not know that he is of royal descent, and is surely unaware that he has a great legacy in another country. What should this child do? He must learn about his estate; he must discover that there is a treasure awaiting him.
On the other end are the givers, or those capable of giving. The Torah is not something secret, or somebody's monopoly; on the contrary, we are commanded to make sure that it reaches the hands of every potential inheritor, all those who belong to "the congregation of Jacob." We must not deprive them of their legacy. Whoever tries to veil the Torah, or hide it, or build fences around it, separates his people from their heirloom, which is, and remains, theirs at all times.
This, then, is a twofold effort: of the child who grew up ignorant of his patrimony, and of he who holds any part of that inheritance and is capable of transmitting it. Both parties together must exert themselves to make the ends meet. Our great task is not to convert gentiles, but to proselytize Jews.
This heritage must therefore be transmitted and distributed, even to those who do not know it exists. One who holds in his hand even a tiny portion of this treasure has no right to keep it to himself. This is a direct, personal calling; it is not the responsibility of lawyers or of special institutions or organizations. It is the simple, humane duty incumbent upon me, who sees princes roaming the streets naked while I hold their plundered property in my hand.
To put things in proportion: the land of Israel is the Holy Land, the only land that is holy. Jerusalem is more sanctified than all the land of Israel, and beyond the sanctity of Jerusalem is the sanctity of the Temple Mount.
But above and beyond all this is the sanctity of the relationship between the Almighty and the Jewish people. This silver cord, this life-line which links every Jew to his Creator, carries the sanctity from which all other sanctities derive. When one keeps this life-line intact, when one enables this flow of life to continue — this is where God is. Beyond that, He cannot be revealed.
The task of returning what has been lost to its owner is a very dramatic one. Sometimes one can only do a small part of it. Sometimes a person may begin, but not get to see the end. This is especially true because so many of the recipients are suspicious of the inheritance they are being offered. At other times, the paupers may have become accustomed to their poverty; they may have decided they do not want to be entangled with a great legacy. But whenever one has the privilege of returning that legacy, it is a powerful experience indeed.
There are still so many who need this, who cry out for this. And all of us, each and every one of us, can do something in order to weave this silver cord anew, to once again extend this thread of life.
Rabbi Steinsaltz, who lives in Jerusalem, is a teacher, philosopher and author who has translated the Talmud into Hebrew and English. His complete commentary on Tanakh will be available in English in 2019.
One immediate, exciting way to "extend this thread of life" is to make Jewish learning something to gather communities around. Rabbi Steinsaltz and the Aleph Society created the Global Day of Jewish Learning, an annual worldwide celebration that takes place wherever Jews gather to study Jewish texts together. Text study in 2019 will center around the theme of Speaking Volumes, exploring how and why words matter. This is especially important for educators to consider, as it is our words that reach people, and the words of Jewish texts that contain the essential nature of what it means to be Jewish. This year's Global Day is November 17, 2019.
Rabbi Steinsaltz is a teacher, philosopher and prolific author. Amongst his most significant works are his translation of and commentary to the Talmud into both Hebrew and English. His complete commentary on Tanakh will be available in English in 2019.


might help? It would be much appreciated.
P.S. I am not doing this to try to sell it and make a profit.
was made (in 1978/79) by the Italian company ELEX (ELettronica EXcelsior) for Hohner Internationai Belgium/UK.
This was the same company that built the Hohner International piano I & II (K-1), Stringvox/String-orchestra (K-2), Jazz-rock organ/piano (K-3) and Stringer/String thing (K-4) as well as the Cordovox CDX-P425 electronic piano and Cordovox CRD-0610 portable organ.


text:
Q: Write MiniCssExtractPlugin in webpack-chain way How to write the following in webpack-chain
const MiniCssExtractPlugin = require('mini-css-extract-plugin');
module.exports = {
  plugins: [
    new MiniCssExtractPlugin({
      // Options similar to the same options in webpackOptions.output
      // both options are optional
      filename: '[name].css',
      chunkFilename: '[id].css',
    }),
  ],
  module: {
    rules: [
      {
        test: /\.css$/,
        use: [
          {
            loader: MiniCssExtractPlugin.loader,
            options: {
              // you can specify a publicPath here
              // by default it uses publicPath in webpackOptions.output
              publicPath: '../',
              hmr: process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development',
            },
          },
          'css-loader',
        ],
      },
    ],
  },
};

It will be great if there is a little explination I think that will help many people

A: config.plugin('css').use(MiniCssExtractPlugin, [{
       filename: '[name].css',
       chunkFilename: '[id].css',
}])
config.module.rule('css')
      .test(/\.css$/)
      .use('mini-css')
      .loader(MiniCssExtractPlugin.loader)
      .options({
           publicPath: '../',
           hmr: process.env.NODE_ENV === 'development',
       })
       .end()
       .use('css-loader')
       .loader('css-loader')

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Shinrone GAA have been presented with their Leinster GAA Beko Club Bua award at Croke Park.
Sponsored by Beko, the awards aim to promote best practice on and off the field in the 800 clubs across the twelve counties.
The club attended Croke Park last Sunday where they were presented with €1,500 of equipment and a memento by representatives of Leinster GAA.
Representing the awards initiative were were Ian Collins (left) Commercial Director, Beko UK and Ireland, Jim Bolger, Chairman, Leinster GAA and Donald Sheppard, Marketing Director, Beko UK and Ireland, while Shinrone GAA club was represented by Caroline Crean.