text:
Language Reflects Relationships
Language is the beginning and the end of the human experience. It is perhaps the beginning of our awareness and consciousness. Our language corresponds to the ways we experience and how we express ourselves. Language is expression and is reflective of our experience. Because language is to communicate something to someone else, it implies community and social bonds. Because our language is reflective of our community and our experience, language is a mirror for our identity, for our sense of belonging. To be able to communicate something is to have consciousness and awareness of that thing, and therefore to have power in one's community. Our shared language and the conversations we have through it is our sense of culture.
Sherman: A Case Study in Awareness
In gaining awareness of ever more profound patterns of relating and resolving tensions, we are able to increasingly manipulate them for our ends. Because this ability to affect our will upon the world is tied to inner transformation, the process leading to mastery in engagement with the world is the same process leading to self-knowledge and self-reliance.
Selfishness does not exist, part ii
It's important to note that in the context of an emergent system, selfishness and selflessness is a false dichotomy. Indeed, to think in terms of selfishness and selflessness is to be trapped in dualistic, centralized, either/or thinking. We are all various degrees of selfish and selfless at various times or in various contexts. There is also such a thing as selfish selflessness and selfless selfishness. It all depends on the observer, the relationship, and the context. What we should universally abhor, instead of some arbitrary idea of selfishness, is manipulation and coercion. When we lie, mislead, manipulate, and coerce, we deny the other the opportunity to make a free choice about whether to move towards us or move away from us. True community based on free associations can only be built on honesty. Even a selfishly made invitation, as opposed to a manipulation, is a noble thing, for it speaks to the other person as a Man or a Woman rather than as a thing to be manipulated. To invite is to exercise our freedom to move towards, and to invite the invitee to exercise their freedom as well. Invitations are humanizing, whereas coercion is dehumanizing, even if we flee from it, for in doing so we must move away from relationships and into a state of exile. To invite freedom and connection with self and with others in our communities is to create points of departure, it is to invite others to explore their own roles and selves.
Community as Movement Together Towards Goodness
All language, expression, and movement towards goodness is movement towards community. This springs from our nature as human beings. Our free will must therefore be devoted to rebuilding community and restructuring our institutions to support, rather than impede, our movement.
We are defined by our relationships, as these form a two-way feedback system between us and our context. It stands to reason that our deepest, most long-lasting, and most prevalent relationships are what most define us: our community. But as part of that web of relationships, we also affect others in that web. We contribute to the emergent pattern of that community. Touch a strand and the web vibrates. We evolved to function this way. Yet many of us drift through life with only a simulacrum of community at best. We cannot go back in time, nor should we want to. But we can craft our own, new forms of community, that look forward rather than backwards, yet that are true communities that empower and satisfy us holistically rather than isolating us as modern "community-building" technology tends to do.
The Inherent Value of Consciousness
Why do we pity people who lack consciousness?
Why do we look up to people who are more aware?
Another way to put it: no one cares if I kill an ant. Killing another human being, however, is in most contexts an unforgivable crime in modern society. This seems to be a function of our existence as conscious, aware beings. When someone dies, we mourn the lost opportunities, the life they could have lived, the moments they could have experienced and shared- with us, and with others. These are products of our consciousness, our awareness of our fundamental separation. Consciousness implies the ability to experience beauty and goodness, yes, but also the suffering of separation, loss, anxiety, death. Suffering is one of the few things we can be sure of in life. Why people commit suicide is not the question, but rather why more people don't.
Objectively, we can say that if one consciousness is not respected, then none can be respected. If I destroy the integrity of a consciousness, then I forfeit my right to be safe from having my consciousness violated. This is an argument Sartre makes, that the values implicit in any action are by definition universal value judgments. What is good for me must be good for all.
Another staple of existentialist thought, particularly De Beauvoir, is that we need others to affirm who we are. I can only be as free, for example, as the people around me are. To be aware, or conscious, we need others to be aware and conscious. This also explains the inherent value of consciousness and the revulsion we feel when its integrity is violated. After all, recall that a staple of conflict is a concerted and universal dehumanization of the enemy in the minds of a society or community. They are not just the enemy, they are devils, Huns, monkeys, alien, subhuman.
We pulled ourselves out of the mud by our bootstraps, together as a species. We are our relationships, and our relationships are our vehicle for expanding awareness. Briefly, the capacity for language is a prime example. No other, no language, no corresponding expansion of awareness. Jeremy Rifken wrote the book The Empathic Civilization describing the intricate relationship between expanding human consciousness and ever-more complex forms of relating. When we criticize our society, we would do well to criticize it with this in mind. The world we have built is not only responsible for who we are, it is quite literally all our consciousnesses mutually externalized and shared. Without other awarenesses, we would be nothing. We would be as the beasts, which we both revile and revere. We are stuck in this mess because of the other, and we stay in this mess because of the other. We, and our fates, are quite literally bound together.
The more we can recognize and act complicitly with other consciousnesses, the more our own can grow. We will always be of the mud, and to it we shall return, but together, we can find the beauty in that.
The Search for Unity
Simplistically but accurately, all we are, and indeed all any living thing is, is a complex feedback loop driven by contextually-applied instinct. Our loop may be more complex than that of other organisms we know of, certainly complex enough to have gained a degree of self-consciousness, but it is a simple system at its core. Our sensory functions, both external and internal, create feedback that our organism uses to course-correct as it seeks to pursue its goals. These goals can be broadly divided in two, corresponding to the two types of instincts we have: the instinct to move away from things valued as bad, and to move towards things valued as good.
The basis of Free Will
We know now that trauma is tension stored in the body that the organism has not yet dissipated. Yet we feel tension all the time. Our relationship to this tension is the key to understanding how the body learns and ultimately where the phenomenon of free will comes from.
Take the simple example of when we're feeling tension while we work. The brow is furrowed and creased, our posture in hunched and closed, and we feel frustrated. We're frustrated in comparison to an unobtained end. Having an end is not bad. We have to have an end to be able to move through the world. The gap between where we are and where we want to be creates tension, which is fuel for movement. If there's no tension, there's no impulse, and there's no movement. We would simply have no way of valuing and prioritizing the possibilities before us, and valuing implies ends. Yet by internalizing this tension too much, or holding on to it too tightly, we're actually unable to effectively move towards that end. When we're tense, frustrated, and angry, we often can't see solutions that are right in front of us. Perhaps you've had the experience of being frustrated and unable to solve a problem, and taking a short break. When you come back the solution simply comes together. The tension is always there, but our relationship to it has changed. We've relaxed into the tension rather than embodying or expressing the tension. Feeling the tension rather than relaxing into it traps us in stale energy from however long ago, prohibiting us from updating our model of what is going on or even simply feeling into the moment. It would be like a modern ship trying to sail with 15th century charts. When tension is stored in us, it's because in some way we're trapped outside of the present moment. Trauma, after all, is tension trapped in our bodies that we can't dissipate. And stored tension from our past, that is to say trauma, keeps us trapped in the state we were in at that time, always acting out those patterns rather than reacting with a more contextually-relevant expression. We can be relaxed yet alert, even in tense situations. This is the basis of learning and mastery in any field, moving from instinctual (and less effective responses) to more effective instinctual responses and ultimately the ability to intuit, in the moment, the optimal course of action. When we're relaxed, we're paradoxically not trying to force anything to happen, which frees us to act in the moment. Hence a physiological basis for a practical definition of free will.
From this we can understand that a particular mapping of tension across the canvas of the body associates certain physical responses, the circumstances that cause them, our action, and the consequences of those actions. The tension is how we learn. We know that a large percent of our neuronal matter outside of our brain is dedicated to sensing our internal state, our proprioceptive sense. We also know that our organism is a powerful associative learner. As the saying goes, "neurons that fire together, wire together." So for each experience, particularly powerful ones, some sort of neuronal "groove" is worn in and wired to associate external circumstances, internal states, and the organism's reaction. This explains how we learn from experience. The tension mapping in each moment creates neuronal associations between situations, actions, and outcomes. The stronger the tension, the more deeply it is felt, and the longer it is felt, the stronger the associations created in the neuronal network. When we "feel" that particular tension again as corresponding to a certain mapping, our body automatically knows what to do, without needing to think about it. That is how we're able to react so quickly to complex circumstances, because we're constantly being reminded of the tensions our organism has wired into itself.
An interesting etymological coincidence is found in the origin of the word to remember. I wrote above that our organism is constantly remembering the tension states that have been wired into it by our experience. Remember comes from the Latin membrum (itself from the Proto-Indo-European mems meaning flesh or meat) meaning limb or member of the human body. To re-member then is to put back together our members and quite literally re-create the embodied state we were in at the time of that memory as a function of tension mapped across our body. Certainly you can recall a powerful memory that is so vivid you cannot help but feel the same emotions and tensions all over again.
And in certain situations we want to fall back on old patterns to keep us safe. When we see an object flying at us, our bodies keep us safe by instinctually moving out of the way. Constantly playing out old patterns, however, is not an effective strategy for living. It is stagnation and recession of being. When we are relaxed and not embodying any tension, on the other hand, we are signaling to our organism that we can be open, learn, and react to the unfolding moment, rather than operating on an outdated model from however long ago, thus wiring over (though never completely erasing) old tension and reaction associations.
A common metaphor seen in mystic thought, philosophy, and all the way to self-help literature is the idea of returning to the state of being a child. Awareness and consciousness does not retrograde, at least not without permanent damage to the organism. Innocence lost cannot be regained except through tragedy. No, to be a child is not a metaphor for the state of innocence of non-awareness, but rather for the state of being where no tension was stored, and thus no preprogrammed responses and associations were needed, existed, or used. Instead, the organism was able to react to each unfolding moment, treating each one as a new phenomenon, partners in its unveiling. To be free.
So our subconscious patterns are stored in the neuronal grooves worn in by the distributed associations of tension and experience. In that way, our subconscious is distributed across our entire physiology. And when we relax into tension rather than embodying it gives us choice where previously we had none. We're overriding the programmed responses associated with the tension-detecting and associating neuronal network. Awareness literally is curative. Synchronized awareness, I should say, awareness in the present moment of what is unfolding around us.
It is interesting to consider how amputation or paralysis affects the distributed subconscious. We certainly wouldn't say that an amputee or paralyzed person is less complete psychically than someone who is not. The tension sensing is distributed across the entire body, so any neuronal networks lost are "backed up" in other parts of the body. It is a holographic system. In a hologram, any part contains the plans for the whole. If the whole is compromised, the system can be restored from any remaining part, no matter how small. A simple analogy might be how even if the film studio's archives were burned, the torrent system is a kind of illegal distributed archive that would be much harder to eradicate. Every single computer would have to be wiped, which would be the collapse of the whole system. The system would essentially be dead at that point. We can see this distributed tension and relaxation sensing in certain practices. Foot massages can trigger tension and relaxation in other parts of the body, for example, and in Tantra different parts of the penis and vagina correspond to tension and relaxation in the macroscopic human organism.
The acorn doesn't contain the tree, just the generative instructions for it, from which the tree can unfold. Every part of our organism is a generative microcosm for the macrocosmic whole. Nothing needs to be planned out, like with the acorn. It's unfolding. It's emergence. Dévoilement, unveiling, as De Beauvoir put it. The oak is there all along in the acorn, but it's also not. In the moment of unveiling, there's the ambiguity between the oak that is there and the oak that isn't. This explains why free will exists in the human organism. Consciousness is the witness, the observer. Consciousness isn't there to control. It observes and reframes, it witnesses. Camus wrote that to witness, is the only way we have to rebel against the injustice of death. Death is unjust because we are given consciousness against our will, and with death each of us must fall back into unconsciousness. It is tragic. To witness, his act of rebellion, is to utilize our period of consciousness to its utmost. It is also what frees us in the moment from unconsciousness as acting out old tension reactions. We relax into the tension rather than attempting to control it or fight it. When we directly fight something, we stiffen its resistance. The harder we fight, the harder it becomes. With awareness, we can instead witness and refuse to become the tension that exists. Our relationship to it has changed. We dissipate the tension in our own bodies which frees ourselves from our subconscious tension/reaction associations. In the act of observation of unveiling in the present moment, we have the opportunity to swerve. We relax into choice and freedom. Sartre said that to conceptualize an alternative is to be free. What he doesn't explain is that it's an embodied conceptualization, in the moment of unveiling, of the alternatives our level of awareness (or relaxation into tension) gives us. This is ultimately the mechanism for learning and transformation.
There are a couple points worth clarifying here. It is easy to think we can ignore certain tensions in our lives. Ultimately, we can't skip over or ignore tension. The tension is painful for the organism precisely because there's a message to us there from our bodies: that the pain must be resolved in some way. To disconnect from it would be like emergency services disconnecting their phone lines and pretending that everything is okay simply because they're not getting any calls. It might seem like it from their end , but outside the world still burns. Of course, the resolution to the tension could very well be removing yourself from that situation. This could be a first step. But at the same time, this movement away from remains incomplete until there is also something to move towards. At any rate, there is typically a definite sense of peeling back specific layers of tension and in a specific order. Regardless, feeling tension is our bodies' way of knowing what is most pressing to solve. It is a call to rewrite our engrained tension-mappings and ultimately update ourselves in the face of new information and move towards a more relevant mode of being through personal transformation. If the situation were easy, we would feel no tension but also have no meaningful choice to make. We would be on autopilot, grow bored, and ultimately slide into disconnection.
Relaxation in and of itself is also not specifically the aim. We can easily relax while disconnecting from tension, essentially ignoring it. It may feel like it disappears, but it still lies beneath the surface. Perhaps this explains the popularity of mindless television or movie watching. It allows us to relax while effectively ignoring the issues and tensions we've embodied during the day. But it also provides no effective resolution to those tensions. Take the colloquial phrase "to unplug" in front of the television or computer, even. Why do we feel the need to do that? What are we escaping from? To gain any real momentum in our homeostatic movement, we must seek to relax into the tension, in connection with it. The difference perhaps lies in a sense of surrendering to it, reconciling your organism to it, a sense of wanting to coexist with it. The harder we want it to go away at any cost, the deeper it becomes buried. And ultimately what we lack and what we need is more time in the saddle with that tension. Time sitting in the tension in our lives is the main component we lack to fuel transformation in our lives.
That said, there exists a class of what I'll call beacon experiences, from how a friend of mine described them. They may be related to so-called peak experiences, but whereas calling them a peak experience implies a sense of completeness and "this is as good as it gets," a beacon experience is very clearly pointing the way to a future stage of growth. In fact, these are experiences that give you an embodied feeling of what it would be like to step into a whole new realm of being, completely bypassing the normal tension associations in the body. You'll inevitably slide back towards your former state of being, but with an embodied taste of what you are moving towards, of what lies over the next mountain range. If properly integrated, because you've been there once, getting there again is easier. It feels doable because you've lived it. Ayahuasca journeys and perhaps some other psychedelics are famous for this. Certain therapies and practices that focus on liberating personal expression can also provide beacon experiences. And perhaps this is responsible for the famous phenomenon of workshop attendees who are exceedingly motivated for two weeks, only to later slide back into old habits.
We know that 99% of what we do is governed by completely subconscious patterns of behavior. Despite our typical way of thinking about our free will, we simply cannot micromanage our actions and behaviors in the way that we think we can when we think of ourselves as free agents, as supreme commanders of our bodies. Free will is quite obviously a function of awareness. If we are not aware of something, we cannot act in relationship to it. The more we pay attention to the little things, the more we lose awareness of the bigger situation and context. So to bring laser-awareness to one increasingly smaller phenomenon and be able to manipulate it with precise control is to miss out on all the rest of the phenomena unfolding around us, and the will we could exert upon it. Sometimes that is useful. While I am writing this, I do not want to be overly aware of everything around me. Yet too fine a focus as well and I cannot write. For example, if I think about the actual mechanics of typing, I impede my own ability to type. I cannot synchronize my awareness with this unfolding page, which is the level of awareness I want to stay at. But I cannot force that to happen. I can only create the right circumstances for it to unfold. I sit in front of the computer, staring at the page, in a quiet or safe corner and as I synchronize with this manuscript the words emerge, almost of their own accord. What comes out is a function of the work that went into my experience previously, not what I am doing per se in the moment. This is actually quite liberating. It removes the pressure of performance in the moment, facilitating relaxation and counterintuitively giving us greater choice and efficacy in the moment- because we're not acting from tension. If I am playing in a concert, no amount of micromanaging my fingers on the instrument can compensate for a lack of practice. It is the practice that allows us to sink to the level of the performance, piece, creation, or experience rather than occupying the level of mechanics. When we mistake micromanagement of our actions with efficacy, we become rigid. We get tunnel vision, losing focus of the larger phenomenon we need to sit in. We get in our own way. By impeding on the domain of expertise of our own bodies, which is the mechanics of doing, we wind up in conflict with ourselves. There is a negative value judgement towards ourselves implied there, that we do not trust ourselves to do what we know how to do, and correspondingly we block our own flow of life force into the world. The more we are in conflict with ourselves, the less effectively we can show up in the world, whether that is through general malaise and lack of motivation or emergent secondary drives that deteriorate the value of our relationships: unnecessary violence, disregard for others, and narcissism, among other traits.
If finer control as exerted by free will in the form of undue micromanagement of our body mechanics is inversely proportional to the efficacy of our total ability to interact with the world, then we can draw our next vital conclusion. Free will only makes sense in the broad stroke of affirmation or renunciation. Do we affirm a given context or situation, or do we renounce it? Do we affirm an internal impulsion through contextually-relevant expression, or do we renounce it and close ourselves off? What values do we affirm in the expression of that life-force? At any level of awareness, when we focus on the mechanics we lose our ability to be in rapport with the phenomenon interacting with us. Yet even in small or everyday phenomena or situations, like what to say in a conversation, our options at the level of that relationship are rather limited because our choices are always circumscribed by our relationship unfolding in the moment with it. We only have a gut sense, for example, of the general sense of what we are going to say, not the words themselves. An impulsion arises from within. This impulsion, an energy that wants to be expressed in a certain way based on the context, is the only meaningful application of free will we will ever have. All we can really do is decide to affirm or renounce that expression, and shape how it comes into the world. The more awareness we have in the moment, the more we can fine tune that expression and ensure contextual relevance because we are operating at a deeper level of relating. In the case of writing, it would be that I am operating at the level of the manuscript itself, which is the emergent pattern of the situation, rather than operating at the level of the typing or even the level of a sentence or paragraph. Lack of awareness in the moment is the equivalent of "lag" or latency in a videogame, rendering us always out of sync with the moment. Attempting to micromanage only disconnects us further from that awareness, trapping us in our heads and outside of the here and now.
There emerges a clear hierarchy in the expression of free will. The broadest and most basic stroke is, what phenomena do we move towards or away from? These expressions correspond to the two basic defining characteristics of any living thing, human beings included: instincts towards what we value as good, and away from what we value as bad. Remember, our consciousness has no a-priori values. Our valuation system comes from some personal mix of internal embodied disposition, shaped by experience of the world around us through interpersonal relating. How we then express that value system through our free will, itself constantly updating through feedback in the form of experience, is one of the most fundamental and difficult tasks we face. The broadest stroke of free will, what phenomena to move towards or away from, is the single biggest choice affecting our lives, because it implies change of context and therefore transformation of self. That itself, due to the ambiguity of the change, can be difficult to face. We simply cannot know who we will be on the other side, and what that possible person's experience of life will be. But at the same time, renunciation or affirmation of context through decision and action is the first and oftentimes the only difficult task to confront. Small changes do not amount to anything if they are done in a context that we cannot affirm. It is why so many people struggle with implementing the change they seek in their lives. Caught between who they are now and who they want to become, they cannot affirm one or the other. Half-measures are implemented that compared to the influencing power of their current relationships (which in the end are what define us as people and organisms) are like a drop of water in the ocean. For transformation to occur, one context must be renounced and the other affirmed. Without physical movement towards or away from, actual action taken to either rule out possibilities or change contexts, the renunciation and affirmation is false and unrealized.
The bigger of the two had just left to take a piss. I didn't like him and smelled trouble . I didn't like his friend, either, but he at least seemed more harmless.
I told my girlfriend at the time, "Let's go home. I'm tired of these guys already." It was about 2:15 in the morning, and we'd been out drinking with a girlfriend of hers.
"Yeah, I don't like them either."
"Does your friend want them here?"
"No, she doesn't want them here."
Finally, a clear fucking answer from one of the two of them. I went up to her friend, whose home we were at, and whispered in her ear, "Do you want them here?"
We'd met the two guys at one of the bars, and they essentially invited themselves along with us. When my girlfriend's friend let them in her apartment, she'd been the model host. Suddenly, she looked at me with alarm in her eyes.
"No," she whispered back.
Trying not to think too much about it, I went up to the guy that was still in the living room. Politely, I explained that we were tired and wanted to be alone, but I also made it clear: "The two of you should go." I was suddenly very aware that my heart was pumping blood at a mile a minute, and my system was flooding with adrenaline.
He was apologetic and suddenly aware that he had trespassed some invisible boundary. He excused himself and started to get ready to leave. I turned around. His friend had come in from the bathroom, and either he had overheard or our host had explained to him the situation. He was sneering at me, sizing me up. But he backed down. He was a smartass about leaving, but the two of them left without incident.
I locked the door behind them.
How in the hell did two guys we didn't like wind up hanging out in one of our homes with us?
My girlfriend, who I am no longer seeing, had just finished her exams for the semester.
She is from Toulouse, France, and was in the first year of her Master's program. I'd been living with her for two and a half months. After studying for a month straight for her exams, extremely stressed, she was looking forward to a night out having fun with her friend from her program.
We went to her friend's place, whose boyfriend was out at a work event, and drank. My girlfriend and I were already tipsy from the three or so glasses of wine we'd had at dinner. At her friends place, we polished off a round of beers, a bottle of wine, and a sizeable amount of vodka during a drinking game. Trying to save money, I didn't particularly want to go out, and we were having a hell of a good time anyway. They did want to go out, however, so we went to a nearby bar. We hadn't even finished one round before my girlfriend shouted into my ear over the loud music, "We're going somewhere else!" Not particularly caring, I nodded along and started putting on my coat. The two girls walked out the front door without me.
When I joined them outside, they were talking to three men. To put it politely, they were scruffy and rowdy. It seems the friend of my girlfriend wanted to go sing karaoke. I liked karaoke, so that was fine by me. I did not, however, understand why we continued to engage in a conversation with these men we didn't know. I'm all for being friendly, don't get me wrong, and I'll strike up a conversation with most anyone. But these three gave me a bad feeling from the beginning.
I don't know whether the friend invited them along to karaoke, or if they invited themselves, but when we left one of the three was tagging along with us. He was friendly if a bit weird. I made small talk with him for a while as the two girls led the way to the karaoke bar, but eventually grew bored and hoped he would go away. He kept looking back and lingering, waiting for his two friends to catch up. I hoped he would join them and we wouldn't see any of the three again. Call me churlish, but I wasn't in the mood to make new friends, at least not with him and his crew.
The karaoke place was shit. The DJ told me they weren't taking new song signups. What's the point of a karaoke place where you can't sing? I asked my girlfriend and her friend if they wanted to stay. They were noncommittal. I waited outside for them.
They eventually came outside with the guy still hanging on like a bad case of lice. All the bars were closing, my friends said, closing time being 2am. The guy invited us back to his place. My girlfriend asked me what I wanted to do. I did not want to go to this guy's home. Instead, I said, we're still near her friend's place, why don't we go back there and have a drink before heading home. The guy seemed to invite himself, or assume he was invited by default. I didn't want him to come. I thought he was weird, and I had that nagging bad feeling about him that is all too easy to ignore. I didn't say anything because I hadn't had a chance to talk with my girlfriend and her friend about him, and her friend seemed to enjoy talking with him. Looking back, I wonder if I should have spoken up at this point. Probably. I didn't, though.
While walking back to the friend's place, I talked with my girlfriend about the situation and expressed my concerns that he was tagging along, saying I didn't like him and didn't want him to come back with us. My girlfriend was apathetic and resigned. "That is the way things are in France," she said, "You meet people and they come partying with you."
I was flabbergasted. That happened anywhere, but not if you didn't like the people you met. She claimed she hadn't had a chance to talk with them enough to have a sense for whether she liked him and his friends or not. Despite her being there and talking to them before I even showed up outside the first bar, I took her at her word. It was the easiest thing to do.
The guy went off to find his friends, coordinating with my girlfriend's friend to meet us at her place. I was wary, and as soon as he left I expressed my doubts.
"He was a bit weird, and frankly I don't feel like meeting up with him or his friends."
My girlfriend and her friend were again noncommittal, and my girlfriend once again reiterated that that was simply how things were in France. "Bullshit", I thought, but I bit my tongue. Secretly I was hoping they wouldn't show up.
On the way back to her place, just the three of us, the friend was nearly hit by a drunk driver who slammed on his brakes right as I was reaching to pull her out of the way. I mention this because if I wasn't already worked up from the thought of these guys joining us, then that certainly did it. I cussed and yelled at the car as it sped off.
We got back to the friend's place, and sat singing Karaoke songs somewhat halfheartedly for fifteen minutes until the friend's phone rang. She answered it without thinking, apparently believing it was her boyfriend on his way back from his event. It was the guy we'd met, and he'd brought a friend. Panicking, my girlfriend's friend invited them up, not knowing how to say no. At this point, her body language was pretty clear that she did not want the two of them there. She seemed surprised and dismayed that they'd actually shown up.
As the friend went to open the door for them, I looked at my girlfriend with a look of disbelief. She said something to the effect of, "I don't know why she's letting them up. She thought it was her boyfriend calling her." She seemed apprehensive but not overwhelmingly so.
They came up. The friend of the guy who had tagged along with us was tall, big, and frankly, a douchebag. Admittedly, I was rather dismissive towards them. I didn't want them there, and still had adrenaline running from the drunk driver incident. I made no effort to be friendly.
My girlfriend's friend found a Michael Jackson karaoke song and put it on. Halfheartedly sung lyrics came out from the group. The big guy asked why I wasn't singing along.
To be honest, I hadn't ever really listened to Michael Jackson and didn't care for his music. I shrugged and dismissed him. Any respectful, decent person would have left me alone. He insisted, and I shrugged him off again.
Then he asked me where the toilet in the apartment was. I told him. He pointed in the opposite direction and asked if it was there. I asked what was wrong with him. This went back and forth like this for a full minute or so, the guy trying to bait a response from me. I simply refused to play ball, ignored his games, and treated him like the idiot he was. "I just told you where the bathroom was. Why don't you go?"
It was clear to me: this guy was trying to fuck with me. He was trying to intimidate me in some way to take control of the situation. Intuitively, on an energetic level, I felt how aggressive he was and how little he cared about other people to come into someone else's home and fuck with the people there.
It felt like a high stakes game of poker, seeing who would fold first. It wasn't about the bathroom at all. It felt positively medieval.
That's when I had asked my girlfriend if she wanted to leave.
Amazingly, my girlfriend didn't even notice that a power play had occurred between me and the big guy, despite being seated right next to me- and in between me and him- the entire time. I thought maybe I was crazy for acting the way I did. Then I remembered the objective facts: both women had told me they were uncomfortable with the two strangers and did not want them there.
At the same time, there seemed to be some sort of willful ignorance from my girlfriend and her friend, and not just about this, but about who those guys were, what they wanted, and them even coming along with us in the first place- until they were already in the apartment.
Singing karaoke for a few songs, just the three of us, distracted me from what was going on inside me. I felt like Dr. Frankenstein had just replaced all the blood in my veins with pure electricity. Distractedly, I downed Coke mixed with a splash of vodka. But we had to leave to catch the last metro back to our place, so we said goodbye. The friend thanked me for helping her. My girlfriend and I walked in silence to the metro.
"Are you mad?" My girlfriend asked. I couldn't believe she could even be asking me that.
"I'm not mad, certainly not at you, but I am worked up as hell. It will take me a while to calm down. Are you not upset at what happened?"
All she could say was, Good thing you were there, over and over again. But from the nonchalant, flippant tone of her voice, I could tell it was simply words with no feeling behind it. She was saying it to appease me.
Jesus Christ. Again with the willful ignorance.
We walked from the last metro station to our apartment. I didn't press the issue as I was too busy feeling the electricity flowing through my veins, marveling at the fact that nothing around me seemed to escape my awareness. Every fiber of my body felt awake, energized, ready to leap into action. Rather than being in my head, daydreaming or being self-absorbed, I found myself attuned to everything around me, and everyone who passed. I had the sense that I could read their intentions in some way. For example, things were energetically dead among the passengers on the metro, but on the way home, my awareness spiked as two specific young men went walking past. It only happened with them, and no one else on the way home. Maybe it was my own nerves after what had just happened, or maybe it was me picking up on some vague, barely expressed impulse on their part. Maybe both.
Without thinking, I tugged my girlfriend gently by the jacket back onto the curb as she almost stepped out in front of a car that had the right of way. It had happened automatically, my instincts far ahead of my conscious mind.
We advanced towards the apartment. She continued to say, "you're still mad."
I reflected as we marched up the long hill towards home, still scanning 360 degrees automatically, as if this behavior had been programmed into my genes all along, waiting to be expressed. It sure as hell felt that way.
I'd been in a melancholic slump for the past several weeks, unproductive at work and barely able or willing to leave the apartment. I burned through books until I got so bored I couldn't bear reading anymore. I'd spent most of that day before going out watching stupid YouTube videos.
But goddamn, I felt so fucking alive and purposeful and honest right then. I felt I was right where I was supposed to be, doing what I was supposed to be doing. Don't get me wrong. I don't think that what I did was heroic and special. In the end, all I did was tell (politely) two unwanted guests to leave. People do that all the time with no fanfare.
I'd done something similar a few months before, before joining my girlfriend in Toulouse. I was visiting a friend from my childhood in Columbus, Georgia. He invited me out with his friends. We were having a nice time, and had struck up a conversation with a guy who claimed to be an Army soldier stationed at Fort Benning. I'd had the sense he was a weird guy, but a bit lonely. I chatted with him for a bit, then went and talked with some others in the group.
I didn't see it happen, but a girl from the group came up to me and my friend and complained that the soldier had smacked her ass. She was clearly not comfortable being around him and was seeking safety with the larger group. Stunned, I looked over. The guy was still chatting with some in the group, clearly oblivious to this woman's distress.
I thought about it for a second, then marched over. I explained to him, quite politely, that we were friends trying to catch up, he'd made us uncomfortable, and that he should leave. He apologized, but claimed he had done nothing wrong. I was insistent that he leave. He tried explaining himself, and I walked away from him. He got the hint and left.
I had my fifteen minutes of fame in the little group. The brother of the offended woman admitted he wished he'd have had the guts to go up and do what I did. I didn't say what I was thinking: that I had spent all of my life up till that moment wishing the same thing, loathing myself for my own perceived cowardice.
My conscience is complicated by the fact that I've done stupid, insensitive things to women myself. Hell, I'd smacked a girl on the ass myself, earlier that year. Me and my friends were drunk, one especially brazen friend suggested I do it, and without thinking I found myself swinging.
And I've been smacked on the ass myself, numerous times, by both men and women. The one time it happened to me truly maliciously, from another man, I felt humiliated. I still feel my blood boil when I think about it. I still wish I'd have turned right around and socked him.
I still wish I thought about how that experience made me feel before I smacked that women on her ass in that bar in Budapest.
"You're still mad."
I thought about my girlfriend's words. "Yes, I'm still mad. I think maybe it's hard for you to understand, but there's still adrenaline coursing through my veins. I don't think it's sunk in for you what happened back there. Two guys invited themselves into your friend's apartment. No one wanted them there. And yet they were still with us in your friends apartment. So, yes, I'm still mad. I'm not mad at you, or at your friend. But this event has profoundly shaken me."
And it had. How did it come to that? And yes, what if I had not been there? What might have happened?
We see each day a new story of women who didn't feel capable saying no to men who were in a position of power over them. And we need women to feel capable saying no.
At the same time, the willful ignorance displayed by my girlfriend and her friend distressed me. How could they not see what was going on? There's only one reason a guy goes back to a girl's place at 2:30 in the morning. It is to have sex. Women know this too. And yet, this willful ignorance still persists. I say this, hard as it is to believe, without excusing any behavior from the men. You can see the same willful ignorance in the moment in many of the high profile abuse and harassment cases that came out over the past couple of years.
These two women- my girlfriend and her friend- did not feel comfortable saying no, and more distressingly, did not even feel the need to say no until the men were already in an apartment with them, when it was precisely the hardest for them to say no.
What might have happened, indeed, had I not been there? My girlfriend and her friend clearly had no intention of drawing boundaries with those men- else they would have never made it into the apartment. Once you allow someone to cross your boundaries once, it gets progressively harder to stop them the next time.
Most guys have good hearts and want to treat women respectfully. And despite the story I've told, I have no way of knowing for sure what the two guys would have done, what their intentions were, and whether or not they would respect a "no" or even be attuned enough to the women to know whether or not to even try anything. But the point here is that the continued silence of the two women made it a moot point. All they had to do was continue to be willfully ignorant and pretend that what was happening around them was not happening.
And, I admit it, there was a part of me that wondered if my girlfriend (and her friend) actually wanted something to happen with them. That would be one explanation for their behavior.
"But I can tell you're mad at me."
I thought about it some more. I typically would have assured her I was not mad to avoid an argument. We'd been arguing too much recently. But as on fire as I was feeling, I literally felt no desire or capacity for deceit, no matter how insignificant it might seem. I felt truly myself. And it started with speaking up in a difficult situation.
"Yes, I am mad at you to a certain extent. I am angry that you do not seem to realize what a difficult situation that was. I am angry that you did not pick up on what was going on, heed my warnings about these guys, and take what was going on seriously until they were already in your friend's flat. They were in her flat. You two had already shown you weren't willing to say no up to that point. When were you going to start saying no?"
Walking up the steep, abandoned street at 3am, my girlfriend protested. "But I had told you she didn't want them there!"
"Yes, after they were already up!"
"No, I told you when they called!"
At that point, all the bottled-up anger came spilling out of me. Icily, calculatingly, I seethed:
"Bullshit. Bullshit. I blame myself for not taking action sooner, but do not lie to me and tell me you said something you did not. That is a fucking cowardly thing to do. Yes, I am venting some of my anger at the situation and at these two guys at you, and I am sorry for that. But do not lie to me about what you said. I told you over and over again I did not like these guys and was not comfortable with them, and you said nothing until they were already in your friend's place."
"But I couldn't have known they were weird! I didn't talk with them!"
Ah, this excuse again. "You were there and you went through the same interactions with them as I did. You cannot pretend you did not pick up on anything. And if you didn't, then that is even more fucking worrisome."
We got home. I checked the door behind us and locked both locks. I took off my jacket, powered into the bathroom, and sat down to have a moment to myself. I wanted to smash something and I wanted to cry. Compared with tonight, everything up to this point felt like a frivolous game. This was the first time I was standing up for someone I really knew and loved, where the stakes seemed real. I felt anger and raw energy building up in me in a way I hadn't felt consistently since I was a child, when I was taught that feeling this way was wrong. That I shouldn't feel this.
That feeling it made me a bad man.
I walked out onto the balcony of the apartment, still trying to make sense of what happened, still trying to understand the events of the night and the reaction of my girlfriend. I felt deeply troubled by what had happened that night. But the overwhelming sense I couldn't escape was just how goddamned alive and purposeful I felt. And it only came from speaking up, in the moment, in a situation that would have been easiest to run from. It's a lesson I won't forget. By not speaking up, I am complicit in what is unfolding around me. When I speak up, I have at least discharged the responsibility I have in the moment. I have imbibed an antidote to future remorse. I do not want to babysit other people's experience, I have a hard enough time with my own. Perhaps next time I'll speak up sooner. Perhaps it will be easier with practice. But if it were easy, it wouldn't be a meaningful thing to do.
For whatever reason, my friends that night did not want to speak up.
I couldn't sleep, and only felt the desire to do something, to create, to testify, to mark time. And so I find myself writing this, trying to make sense of what happened, trying to understand my reaction to it.
Selfishness is not bad. Manipulation is.
Does selfishness get a bad rap? How much do intentions really matter?
At a bar a few nights ago I got into a conversation with a stranger on precisely this topic (among others). He pointed out how a friend of his mentioned giving money to a homeless guy, and how he felt good after doing so, so he liked doing it. He saw this as selfish, and by extension a bad thing, because the intention wasn't to help the man but to feel good. Ideally, the intention would be completely pure.
I disagree. I think the selfish/selfless debate we constantly hear about is malarkey, and a clear case of a false dichotomy. The problem is we've come to associate selfishness with manipulation and taking advantage of others, and we've equated selflessness with good deeds.
Connecting in Anger
On Wednesday some friends and I were talking about the role anger plays in being a balanced man, but how hard it is to express it nowadays. It is taboo to get angry. We take it personally, even when the anger is used only to express and not to attack. The angry person is considered to be unreasonable, aggressive. Anger has associations of violence and brute force.
The book Radical Honesty by Brad Blanton changed my mind about anger. We all experience anger when our boundaries are crossed or our expectations are not met. It is a normal human emotion that, like any other, can be expressed positively or negatively. It can be used to destroy or to create. The problem arises when we don't express the anger we feel in the moment. It builds up inside of us and poisons us. If we are angry at a friend or loved one and we don't express it, it can ruin the relationship. If we don't express our anger, it makes it impossible to move on and continue enjoying the moment. We're yanked out of our bodies and into our heads, disconnected from the flow of what is constantly unfolding.


text:
Q: HSQLDB equivalent of H2 automatic mixed mode Is there one? Apparently not. The H2 automatic mixed mode is described
here.

A: Revival for further reference.
As stated by @fredt, as far as I know, there is no official magic parameter to achieve mixed mode.
Still, you can always start a server programmatically using a Server object so that other process are able to connect to your database.
I discovery a trick to accomplish something pretty close to mixed mode. In order to do that you will need to set the remote_open property to true and connect using this form of URL.
The idea here is doing something like this:

*

*Try connecting to the server using the kind of URL stated above.

*If you can't connect it means the server haven't been started, so go ahead and start the server programmatically.

*When you connect again, one of three things will happen.

*

*If no database file exists, one will be created in the specified file path and the server will start serving it from the URL alias.

*If the database file exists and it isn't being served, the server will open the file from the specified path and start serving it.

*If the database file exists and it is being served, the server will simply return a connection.

I'm not sure if it is safe to use that kind of pattern when you plan to spawn a lot of short lived processes (particularly I haven't dive into HSQLDB code to check how it handles database / creation / opening for multiple simultaneous requests when remote_open is set). Still, I've been using this kind of pattern to share development databases between Web Applications for a while and never ran into a single database corruption problem.
The main limitation here is that when the application acting as a server is closed, open connections will stop working and throw Exceptions... Which is not an Issue for my development environment, here this will generally only means one or two broken requests until another server is started and the connection pool detects and renews its connections.

A: No HSQLDB does not support such a mode.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Indiana native once seen as possible Tim Cook successor now out at Apple
Ahrendts grew up in New Palestine and attended Ball State University, and was formerly CEO of Burberry.
Indiana native once seen as possible Tim Cook successor now out at Apple Ahrendts grew up in New Palestine and attended Ball State University, and was formerly CEO of Burberry. Check out this story on IndyStar.com: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/02/06/indiana-native-angela-ahrendts-out-head-retail-apple/2787879002/
Kellie Hwang, Indianapolis Star Published 10:41 a.m. ET Feb. 6, 2019 | Updated 11:02 a.m. ET Feb. 7, 2019
A file picture taken in London on Nov. 9, 2010, shows Angela Ahrendts addressing delegates at the Heritage Luxury conference. (Photo: LEON NEAL)
After five years, Indiana native Angela Ahrendts is leaving Apple.
The company's senior vice president of retail will depart in April for "new personal and professional pursuits," according to the announcement made on Tuesday.
Ahrendts, 58, was one of two female senior executives at the tech giant. Deirdre O'Brien, vice president of people, will replace Ahrendts in an expanded role as senior vice president of retail + people.
Katherine Adams, general counsel and senior vice president of legal and global security, remains at Apple.
Some industry insiders saw Ahrendts as a potential successor for Apple CEO Tim Cook. She previously served as CEO for Burberry, leaving the company in 2015 for her post at Apple.
She attended New Palestine High School where she was a cheerleader, and graduated from Ball State University in 1981 with a degree in merchandising and marketing.
Indiana business: Lilly lowers 2019 forecast due to drug failure, pending deal
Cold beer sales: Indiana lawmaker's liquor store ties raise conflict-of-interest fears
In a 2013 IndyStar article, Ahrendts talks about how growing up in Indiana helped shape her career and leadership style.
"I am hugely proud of my Midwestern roots," Ahrendts told the IndyStar. "Growing up in Indiana, I learned that everything truly begins and ends with people, and the compassion, trust and respect for others that define this part of the world have given me a tremendous professional foundation."
Last year, Ahrendts landed in the number 13 spot on Forbes' World's 100 Most Powerful Women list, and number 12 on Fortune's Most Powerful Women rankings.
Kellie Hwang is a reporter at IndyStar. You can email her at kellie.hwang@indystar.com. Follow her on Twitter: @KellieHwang.
Angela Ahrendts shares updates at Apple Store locations around the world in October 2018 (Photo: Provided by Apple)
Read or Share this story: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/02/06/indiana-native-angela-ahrendts-out-head-retail-apple/2787879002/
Fitness club to move into Fishers Marsh
New nonstop flight out of Indy announced
Pundits rate Pete Buttigieg's debate performance
Franklin College president fired after Wisconsin arrest
Ex-Franklin College president arrested in undercover op, lawyer says
Docs: Ex-Franklin College president tried to meet 15-year-old

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


A bold and entertaining concept, expertly executed with style and flair — Zulu Gems is a very special game.
Fly downhill on your broom and collect power-ups to use to do cool tricks in mid-air! See in game.


Tuesdays are renowned for short-term trend reversals. I discussed this in the 1/13/09 Blog and I've shown it a number of times since using different filters.
So Monday afternoon I took a look at 2-day drops above the 200ma on a Monday. Results were choppy and unremarkable. I then added one more filter in that the SPY had to close at a 5-day low. I was surprised by the results.
It appears that under these conditions, Tuesdays do NOT provide an upside edge. In fact, there appear to be bearish implications with the setup.
While I am seeing other evidence that the market may bounce here shortly, Tuesday seasonality does not seem to be providing the upside reversal edge it often does.


Hot on the heels of longtime Creative Director Jenna Lyons leaving J.Crew in April, Mickey Drexler will step down as CEO after over a decade with the retail brand.
He will be succeeded by Jim Brett, formerly president of West Elm, who will take the reins in July.
In an exclusive interview with WWD, Drexler says he is "relaxed-ish" about handing over the company to Brett.
Drexler, however, is not leaving completely. He will stay on at J.Crew as chairman of the company. He said to Business of Fashion in a statement, "I look forward to moving into my new role and assist Jim and the team in every way possible to help ensure a smooth and successful transition."
In all the time that Drexler and Jenna Lyons spent working together at J.Crew, they transformed not only the brand, but the way that Americans dress. It will be fascinating to see what's next for the label without the two people who have driven the brand's aesthetic forward for so many years.
"I'm honoured to work with J.Crew's talented team of leaders, board of directors and Mickey, who have built an iconic American brand. J.Crew has tremendous opportunity to play a more meaningful role in our lives, and I look forward to leading it through its next phase of growth."


text:
Impacts of television advertising perceived by
Population control in southeast asia essay
International resource management of mcdonald
The harmony of faith and science in biology through the eyes of faith by r t wright
They propose that God is nothing more than chemical reactions in your brain. In other words, no God exists outside of the brain, no God that is trying to communicate exists outside of the brain.
Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolutionary Theism, and affirms that the last is most in line with his own beliefs. Other people hear their favorite programs every now and again, maybe some of you all, like me, who have had brief transcendent moments.
Today, nearly three hundred years later, most people still unquestioningly accept this intellectual framework and assume there is no alternative to these two scenarios. In fact, 40 percent of us feel quite differently. But at any rate, for the past 20 years, a headless man kept haunting her dreams, and she wanted forgiveness.
Secondly, Wright discusses performing science as a "methodological naturalist," without going into much detail of what this looks like or what challenges it poses to the Christian scientist not to be confused with the Christian Scientist. Again, many children going to see this are probably walking away thinking, yeah, that makes sense.
I was at a Navajo peyote ceremony in Lukachukai, Ariz. He found himself weeping at the drop of a hat when he saw pain in other people. In scripture, God is everywhere and always present, always knowing and always acting. I remember thinking right there: I grew up in a home where faith was not practiced.
The Battle of Beginnings: Trypsin, it turns out also, if you mutate it just a little bit here and there, can be an antifreeze, and these fish have copied that gene over and over again. So what have you done for us lately?
But in each instance we think there are some possible ways of resolving conflicts that people are worried about. So more than a hundred of these discoveries, each one of which shines a bright light on the possible mechanisms by which diseases come about.
The surgeons then went into her skull, snipped the aneurysm, sewed it up, warmed the blood back up, reintroduced it back into her body, raised her body temperature and brought her back to consciousness.
But in a few rare cases, people have ecstatic seizures, and they believe that they are having a religious experience. Bird and anteater embryos show tooth buds that are later absorbed and never erupt.
Go and look at the Canadian outcroppings where this amazing organism now called Tiktaalik was discovered, which clearly would represent a very good example of that, with the kinds of forelimbs that could both support weight on land and could be used also for locomotion in water, and with a breathing apparatus that might also be successful in both environments.
In that instance 90 percent chose the last option. I think we need only go back before Darwin and see what theologians thought about Genesis to have a better conversation about this.
He did not know the age of the earth, but further research has shown that the earth is 4. During the molecular biology revolution that began with the discovery of the structure of DNA by Franklin, Watson and Crick inthe explosion of new data could have shown contemporary evolutionary theory to be wrong.
Living species are descendants of other species that lived in the past. When they like a story, they call it case history. An objective act of God might involve a medical healing, being saved from a near disaster, or a sudden inspiration that leads one to decisive an unanticipated action.
Can God actually be both outside of time and in time? Well, Barrow said, for the same reason that someone might not want to. The ability of a theory to withstand such intense scrutiny is a clear sign it is robust and enduring.
If life results from a natural process such as biological evolution, then we should observe a progression of fossil organisms that proceed from relatively simple, single-celled organisms in the oldest rocks to more complex, multicellular organisms in younger rocks.
Wright understands these in a way that perhaps only comes from years of teaching at an evangelical college and helping students grapple with the various objections to and "evidences against" evolution that fill the anti-evolution literature.
I think the temporal lobe may in fact be the place that mediates spiritual experience.
Peyote is like other psychedelic drugs, including LSD and magic mushrooms — magic mushrooms and psilocybin are kind of the same thing.Biology Through the Eyes of Faith: Biology Through the Eyes of Faith (Christian College Coalition Series) 1st Edition. wright creation science god evolution view scientific stewards christians answers attempt matter discussion perspective edition learning.
See more. Top customer reviews.4/5(16). Abuse or harassment from patients or their relatives the The harmony of faith and science in biology through the eyes of faith by r t wright punishment for apostasy a essay of some philosophers and their teachings from islam by silas introduction the quran an introduction to the issue of justification of violence the hadith the sira and historical records jurisprudence the tomes other.
Richard Wright wrote one of the most engaging and thoughtful books in this genre when the first edition of Biology: Through the Eyes of Faith appeared. I recommended this book to readers of Creation/Evolution in (Petto ).
Kenneth R.
Samples is the resident philosopher and theologian at Reasons To Believe, a Christian think-tank primarily devoted to science apologetics. Samples' latest book, 7 Truths that Changed the World, is an apologetic for the Christian faith's central beliefs and values.
Biology, and environmental science, have important ways to inform faith about what is going on in the world. And faith has an important place at the table discussing the ethical dilemmas that s A useful read; was lent to me by a professor/5. Newly Revised The Council of Christian Colleges and Universities Series.
Stressing the biblical message of stewardship, biologist Richard T. Wright celebrates the study of God's creation and examines the interaction of the life sciences with society in medicine, genetics, and the environment.
The philosophy of moral accountability applied to the foreign policies of the united states
Daily hassles of an auto tech
An overview of the life of outlaws during the 19th century in the united states of america
Job analysis assignment essay
Essay schreiben hilfe
Legal drinking age should be 18
Julius caesar protagonist essay
Ruby file io write a prisoner
L ecole de demain essay writer
Panduan penulisan tesis itb 2012
Recrystallization of panacetin
Fable writing assignment


text:
package com.sleepycat.je.rep;

import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;

import com.sleepycat.je.OperationFailureException;
import com.sleepycat.je.ReplicaConsistencyPolicy;

/**
 * This exception is thrown by a Replica to indicate it could not meet the
 * consistency requirements as defined by the
 * ReplicaConsistencyPolicy in effect for the transaction, within
 * the allowed timeout period.
 *

 * A Replica will typically keep current with its Master. However, network
 * problems, excessive load on the Master, or Replica, may prevent the Replica
 * from keeping up and the Replica may fall further behind than is permitted by
 * its consistency policy. If the Replica cannot catch up in the time defined
 * by its ReplicaConsistencyPolicy, it will throw this exception
 * from the {@link com.sleepycat.je.Environment#beginTransaction
 * Environment.beginTransaction} method, thus preventing the transaction from
 * accessing data that does not meet its consistency requirements.
 *

 * If this exception is encountered frequently, it indicates that the
 * consistency policy requirements are too strict and cannot be met routinely
 * given the load being placed on the system and the hardware resources that
 * are available to service the load. The exception may also indicate that
 * there is a network related issue that is preventing the Replica from
 * communicating with the master and keeping up with the replication stream.
 *

 * The application can choose to retry the transaction, until the underlying
 * system problem has been resolved. Or it can try relaxing the consistency
 * constraints, or choose the {@link NoConsistencyRequiredPolicy} so that the
 * constraints can be satisfied more easily.
 * For example, in a {@link  two node
 * replication group}, if the primary goes down, the application may want
 * the secondary node to continue to service read requests, and will lower the
 * consistency requirement on that node in order to maintain read availability.
 *
 * @see ReplicaConsistencyPolicy
 * @see Managing Consistency
 */
@SuppressWarnings("serial")
public class ReplicaConsistencyException extends OperationFailureException {

    final ReplicaConsistencyPolicy consistencyPolicy;

    /**
     * @hidden
     * For internal use only.
     */
    public ReplicaConsistencyException(ReplicaConsistencyPolicy
                                       consistencyPolicy,
                                       boolean unknownMaster) {
        /* No need to set abortOnly, beginTransaction will fail. */
        super(null /*locker*/, false /*abortOnly*/,
              "Unable to achieve consistency despite waiting for " +
              consistencyPolicy.getTimeout(TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS) + " ms." +
              (unknownMaster ?
               " The node is not currently in contact with a master." :
               ""),
              null /*cause*/);
        this.consistencyPolicy = consistencyPolicy;
    }

    public ReplicaConsistencyException(String message,
                                       ReplicaConsistencyPolicy
                                       consistencyPolicy) {
        /* No need to set abortOnly, beginTransaction will fail. */
        super(null /*locker*/, false /*abortOnly*/,
              message,
              null /*cause*/);
        this.consistencyPolicy = consistencyPolicy;
    }

    /**
     * For internal use only.
     * @hidden
     */
    private ReplicaConsistencyException(String message,
                                        ReplicaConsistencyException cause) {
        super(message, cause);
        this.consistencyPolicy = cause.consistencyPolicy;
    }

    /**
     * For internal use only.
     * @hidden
     */
    @Override
    public OperationFailureException wrapSelf(String msg) {
        return new ReplicaConsistencyException(msg, this);
    }

    /**
     * Returns the Replica consistency policy that could not be satisfied.
     *
     * @return the Replica consistency policy
     */
    public ReplicaConsistencyPolicy getConsistencyPolicy() {
        return  consistencyPolicy;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Genocide of a Generation
"Genocide of a generation"
Transcript: Kofi Annan's BBC interview
Kofi Annan: "I feel angry, I feel distressed, I feel helpless"
United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was interviewed by Carrie Gracie in his New York office for the World Service's The Interview programme.
CG: Over the past two weeks the BBC World Service has been running an Aids season, and we've heard many aspects of the illness. But today, we want to get a sense of your personal contribution and whether you think that you're winning the battle. So I want to start by asking you about the enemy. When did you first realise what a serious enemy you were up against with Aids?
KA: I think it was when I discussed the issue with the World Health Organisation... and looked at the figures and the statistics and the devastation it was causing in many African countries, and the attitude of the leaders. We needed leadership, we needed leadership at all levels, but it was most important to get the presidents and the prime ministers speaking up, and that was not happening. And I thought we should do whatever we can to raise awareness and to get them involved.
CG: And has your sense of the problem, is it all from talking to leaders and talking to officials, or have you been out there on the ground, talking to sufferers?
KA: I've been out there on the ground talking to sufferers. In fact my wife and I were in Lima just last week, and we had a rather painful experience with a group of women who had set themselves up to help Aids sufferers. They had with them a nine-year-old. The mother and the father had died of Aids. She was left with her grandmother, who was illiterate and didn't know what to do. When we met them she was getting no assistance at all, so I called my UNAids (Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids) colleague, the resident co-ordinator, and I said, "Can't we do something for this girl?" And of course, he's going to try and see if PAHO, the World Health Organization's regional organisation, can help her, but we were both quite struck. We knew this was happening, but we hadn't expected it. And I have seen the situation in other parts of Africa where I visited Aids patients, in villages where you see grandmother and lots of grandchildren, no mother, no father. And yet you go to a place like Mozambique, a small clinic which is doing a lot, which is following pregnant women and ensuring that their children are born free of Aids, and following the mother to try and protect her so that they can have their mother as well, and they do not become one of the 14 million-plus orphans. And I've also lost some very close friends and even people who worked here in the UN, and that also hits you.
CG: So you've watched individuals struggle through the course of the illness.
KA: Exactly. For me it's not just statistics. It's not statistics. I've seen the human suffering and the pain, and what is even more difficult is when you see somebody lying there dying who knows that there is medication and medicine somewhere else in the world that can save her. But she can't have it, because she is poor and lives in a poor country. Where is our common humanity? How do you explain it to her, that in certain parts of the world Aids is a disease that can be treated and one can live with and function? But in her particular situation, it's a death sentence. It's a tough one.
CG: And how do you explain it?
KA: You try to explain to them about what you are trying to do and what you are trying to get the governments to do to increase assistance, not only in areas of treatment, prevention and education, and getting the youth and the women's organisation involved. It may not necessarily help her particular situation, but at least it's good for her to know that action is contemplated, action is under way. If it will not save her, it will save others. That in itself is consoling, but it's not good enough. This is why I am rather pleased with Dr Lee's approach of trying to get the Aids medication to three million people in five years. Today we have 300,000 people on the medication.
CG: This is the World Health Organization initiative. It's called "Three by Five" - three million by the year 2005.
KA: Yes.
CG: We'll talk about that in a moment, but first I want to get a sense of how you feel when you're faced with these people asking you, "Why can't I have the drug?"
KA: You know, it is extremely difficult and I can tell you, I have really tried very hard. You may know that I have had several meetings with the chairmen of the seven top pharmaceutical companies to press for reduction in the prices of these medications, to get across to them that whilst I respect and support their intellectual property, it is extremely difficult not to make the medication accessible to the poor and that we need to be able to balance it. And they have reduced some of the prices. And in some cases, like Nevirapine in some countries, they are giving them away for free.
CG: This is the drug for mother-to-child transmission, given to pregnant mothers.
KA: Exactly, which I consider the cruellest of all transmissions. And so you press and push and try and get as much as you can, and governments are becoming engaged. But for the person who is lying there, in some cases like the child I mentioned in Lima, you are able to give them some assistance. But it doesn't always happen that way. With others, you cannot immediately get them assistance.
CG: And does that make you feel angry, or does it make you feel distressed?
KA: Both. I feel angry, I feel distressed, I feel helpless and I also feel that, to live in a world where we have the means, we have the resources to be able to help all these patients, what is lacking is the political will. How do you generate that political will to ensure that assistance reaches them? And of course, with somebody like myself, who try to speak for the poor and the voiceless, you sort of feel you are failing, you are not getting enough done. And it is, you walk away a bit depleted and upset - really upset, if not depressed.
CG: What more can you do though? When you ask yourself: "What more can I do?", what answers to you come up with?
KA: I think we should continue our efforts to mobilise the societies to play a role. We should get the leaders to speak out against discrimination, the stigma that is attached to it. We need resources. We need resources to assist these people. We are operating at a relatively low level. We estimate that, by 2005, we will need $10bn worldwide per annum to fight the disease. Today I'm trying to see if we can get $3bn a year for the next five years going into the Global Fund. I would want to see $1bn from the European Union per year for the next five years, $1bn from the United States government and $1bn from other sources. But multi-year commitment over the next five years, and of course the rest of the resources will have to come from elsewhere.
CG: But that money is not forthcoming, is it? I mean, people started off with great protestations about how much they were going to contribute two years ago, but it's not coming.
KA: It's not. I am disappointed. We've got the $7bn. I'm grateful for that, but that is not enough. We need much, much more.
CG: Because you said, when you launched the Global Fund, you said you needed $7-10bn a year. At the moment, over two years the Global Fund has been able to hand out $2bn over two years.
KA: That's correct.
CG: You're miles short... You talked about a sense of personally failing. Does that make you feel there's some failure on your part?
KA: Failure on my part, and insensitivity on the part of those with the power and the resources. Insensitivity on the part of those who should develop the political will to do it. And I'm badgering them, I'm talking to them, I'm pushing.
CG: And how do you do it? I mean, say I'm sitting across from you now. I'm George Bush. I've just announced that I'm going to provide $15bn for Aids over five years, but I'm only going to give a small part of that to the United Nations and the rest I'm going to hand out piecemeal myself. How do you persuade me?
KA: I have explained that, if you want to start from scratch and develop it yourselves and build the necessary administrative structures and mechanism, obviously you're not going to be able to spend the $3bn or so in a year. But if you were to use assistant structures, which the Global Fund and the UN family has established, you should be able to use as much of that money to reach the needy who need it today and not tomorrow. And that I'm also encouraging them to put as much of the money as possible into the Global Fund. Initially, they have said $1bn to the fund, and I said, well... this $1bn initial is not too bad, but then I discovered it was $1bn in five years. But I think we haven't given them. I've talked to senators, I've talked to others, I've spoken to President Bush himself, who's very sensitive to this issue of Aids, for us to raise the level of contribution to the Global Fund, which has today given grants to over 93 countries, and wherever I go they tell me how helpful this has been and of course, they are all looking for additional support. And if we do not replenish the funds and the Global Fund were to fail, I think it would be a very serious indictment of the leadership in the world today.
CG: And is it an indictment of them on a humanitarian basis, or is there an argument from self-interest that you can use to persuade them?
KA: Both. You have it from a humanitarian, from a moral grounds and a self-interest basis. It is a security problem. I mean, in some of these countries, if you take some of the African countries in southern Africa, Aids has taken away not just the present but the future. It's taken away some of the most productive men and women. Schools are losing teachers, hospitals are losing doctors, the civil service is depleted. In the past we talked of training people and the civil service here. In some of these countries, we may have to talk of replenishment, or perhaps even bringing in people from outside. Aids is decimating the security forces and the police. It is a really serious problem and it's not just in Africa. It's spreading very fast in Asia, in Eastern Europe and in the Caribbean and even in this country it's on the way up. So those who think Aids is over are dreaming. It is one of the most serious epidemics the world has ever faced, and we need to really really get serious about it.
CG: We talked about what you want from the developed world. Now let's talk about the leadership in those countries faced with epidemics emerging. What's the problem with leadership, why isn't it coming?
KA:Some refuse to talk about this because of cultural reasons. We had a situation where one African leader was going to give a speech - I don't want to embarrass him by naming him - and a speech was prepared for him where he was urged to encourage the young people and the population to use condoms to protect themselves. He said: "I can't utter the word condoms. I'm the father of the nation. You can't ask me to encourage the youth to be promiscuous." But this is saving lives.
CG: And is that what you said to him?
KA:Yes, I've said that to him. I said: "This is saving lives." I spoke to another African leader who was also entirely against the use of condoms and said: "Mr secretary general, we don't want to associate you with the word condoms. You shouldn't even be using that word while speaking about it." I said: "Mr President, I've even written to the Pope about it, to see how we can work with the Catholic Church on prevention, on education, on treatment and care." And he looked at me and said: "Mr secretary general, when it comes to condoms, the Pope and I are one." I said: "Mr president, but your people are dying. We are talking about saving lives. And this is a very serious business. And God will understand."
CG: And did you change his mind?
KA: I didn't. And this is a frustration. This is the painful experiences you sometimes have to go through. And then if I walk away to see one of the dying patients, and they were to look and say: "Help me. Get our president and the leaders to help us," you can't tell them the attitude the president has. You say: "We are pressing the president, we are going to push." Sometimes you have to speak out to put them on the spot. At the same time, you want to be able to work with them and encourage them to do what is right and what they have to do, and not to turn them off. And it is really, really very, very painful.
CG: So you can't shout at them in public. You have to apply this pressure privately.
KA: I do both. I apply it privately, very bluntly. In public I speak out, and push them, push the leaders to act, push them to lead, push them to think of their people, push them to save lives, but without naming them individually.
CG: It's very hard, isn't it, because a lot of the groups most affected by Aids are very marginalised groups anyway. I was just reading The Epidemic Update, published by UNAids, and the stories are horrific of the rise in the problem - injecting drug-users, the male-to-male transmission, homosexuality, the sex workers and of course, all over Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, the stigmatisation of people who have Aids. If you have a people who are marginalised, they can't speak up for themselves and if their governments aren't going to speak up for them, then who is?
KA: This is the real test. This is why I speak out as often as I can. That's why I became engaged in the fight and made it my personal priority and I fought very hard to make it the priority of the UN family of agencies. But I think we need to also get civil society. NGOs have been very effective partners and they've been active and sometimes embarrassing and pushing the governments to do the right thing. We've seen women's organisations at the grass-roots level, and this is very important, because today, in Africa, Aids has a woman's face. Over 50% of the infected are women and often they are the innocent victims. And we really need to also empower the women to take care of themselves and get the young people involved. And I have seen, in countries where the campaign is mounted by the head of state and it goes down all the way to the village level. In Senegal for example, where they're even using Creo - Creo is an oral historian - to tell the story, to talk to the people about it. We visited them a couple of years ago and my wife asked this woman Creo, she said: "Are you embarrassed to talk about sex, and all this so frankly to the people in the village?" She said: "This is death. There's no embarrassment in death. There's no embarrassment in trying to save lives." And she has that kind of spirit that I want to see in the African leaders and the leaders around the world whose populations are threatened. I want to see them adopt that attitude of this Creo in Senegal that we met. She was very inspirational.
CG: So Mr Annan, are you winning the war?
KA: Well, I would wish to think so, but I'm not. I'm really not winning the war. I'm not winning the war because I don't think the leaders of the world are engaged enough. I also appeal to communities and societies everywhere to become engaged in the struggle. They cannot leave it to their leaders alone.
CG: So in a way, you're talking to people over the heads of their governments.
KA: I'm talking to people over the heads of the governments. They should take on this fight. They should not be afraid to speak up, and they should not be afraid to challenge their governments to do something about the epidemic. It is their lives. It is the lives of their children, and their sisters, their mothers and their brothers and fathers. And they have the right to demand support, they have the right to demand action from leaders whose main and major responsibility after all is to ensure the safety and welfare of their people.
CG: Because obviously that has happened in the Developed World, people with HIV, with Aids-related illnesses are getting anti-retroviral drugs. There are prevention measures in place. Is that in your view then, because they have political rights, because they are vocal, or is it because these societies are rich?
KA: I think you have both here. We shouldn't forget the history of the disease. At the beginning, the community that was hardest hit by HIV/Aids, whether here or in Europe, organised themselves very effectively to get attention from their governments. They had a voice, they organised, and they also knew how to use the media and the press. When you go to the developing countries, you don't necessarily have that capacity. You described them as the voiceless and the poor. And they need others to speak up for them. But given a bit of help, a bit of encouragement and a bit of organisation, they can surprise all of us.
Meeting of the of Lake Success Planning Board
How Much Water Recovery Is Being Looked At?
Township/City
Nodal Transition Plan Task Force Meeting
How to Find New Ph.D, Masters, Proyekt Students
Final Report Checklist
Subject:Concerns Regarding Final Report of the Commission on the 21St Century Economy
Ankieta Kazda Ofiara Ma Swoje Imie
Chairman KSPCB
PI-1099 Equivalency Review Application for Alternative Models of Practice
Rat Model of Low Flow
Winter 2000 Business Administration 301


text:
Richard William Marsh, Baron Marsh PC (* 14. März 1928 in London; † 29. Juli 2011 in Wiltshire oder in London) war ein britischer Politiker (ehemals Labour Party), Life Peer und Geschäftsmann.

Leben

Marsh wurde am 14. März 1928 in einem Arbeitsviertel im Ortsteil Belvedere des Londoner Stadtbezirks London Borough of Bexley, Grafschaft Kent, geboren. Sein Vater William Marsh war Arbeiter in einer Stahlgießerei. Er wuchs zeitweise, aufgrund des Zweiten Weltkriegs aus London evakuiert, bei seiner Großmutter in Swindon auf. Dort besuchte er die Jennings School; die Schule verließ er im Alter von fünfzehn Jahren. Er belegte im Anschluss wöchentliche Abendkurse am Woolwich Technical College im Fach Ingenieurwesen.

Aufgrund seines Interesses für Politik schloss er sich in dieser Zeit der Labour Party an, für die er auch arbeitete. Nach seinem Militärdienst erlangte er über die Labour Party ein Stipendium und studierte Wirtschaftswissenschaften am Ruskin College der University of Oxford.

Von 1951 bis 1959 war er als Gewerkschaftssekretär bei der National Union of Public Employees tätig. Er übte dort die Funktion eines Health Service Officer aus. Von 1953 bis 1959 war er als Vertreter der National Union of Public Employees Mitglied im Whitley Council, einer Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts, welche Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer in Fragen der Gesundheitsvorsorge für den National Health Service zusammenbrachte.

Mitgliedschaft im House of Commons

Bei der Unterhauswahl 1959 wurde er für die Labour Party ins House of Commons für den Wahlkreis Greenwich als Nachfolger von Joseph Reeves gewählt, nachdem er zuvor 1951 erfolglos für den Wahlkreis Hertford angetreten war.

Marsh erregte die Aufmerksamkeit von Harold Wilson mit einer Rede, in der er die Verstaatlichung verteidigte. Er wurde daraufhin von Wilson für die Ausstrahlung von Parteiveranstaltungen vor der Unterhauswahl 1964 eingesetzt.
Von 1964 bis 1965 war Marsh Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär im Arbeitsministerium (Ministry of Labour). Von 1965 bis 1966 war er einer von mehreren Staatssekretären (Joint Parliamentary Secretary) im Technologieministerium (Ministry of Technology).

1966 wurde er Mitglied des Privy Council. In der zweiten Wilson-Regierung war er Energieminister (Minister of Power) von 1966 bis 1968. Zu seinen wichtigsten Aufgaben in diesem Amt gehörte die Umsetzung der Wieder-Verstaatlichung der Stahlindustrie. Die Umsetzung der Gesetzesvorlage dauerte ein Jahr und erfolgte gegen massiven Widerstand der konservativen Opposition. Marsh berief während seiner Amtszeit den konservativen Banker Julian Mond, 3. Baron Melchett zum Vorsitzender von British Steel; diese Auswahl sorgte bei Gewerkschaftern und Labourabgeordneten für Unmut. Im Alter von 38 Jahren wurde Marsh Mitglied des Kabinetts. Im Kabinettsrang war er von 1968 bis Oktober 1969, als Nachfolger von Barbara Castle, Verkehrsminister. Seine Versetzung in das Verkehrsministerium (Ministry of Transport) im April 1968 sah er kritisch und äußerte sich dazu auch in seiner Autobiografie Off The Rails. Er war gegen die Einführung einer Gurtpflicht und regelte den Verlauf der Autobahnen M23 und M25 durch Surrey. Er galt bis zu seiner Entlassung als potenzieller nächster Premierminister.

Im Oktober 1969 wurde Marsh als Minister entlassen. Marsh hatte durch seine Ablehnung der im Weißbuch In Place of Strife niedergelegten Reformpläne von Barbara Castle (mittlerweile Arbeitsministerin) zur Reduzierung des Einflusses der Gewerkschaften zur Aufgabe der von Wilson unterstützten Pläne beigetragen; dies spielte im Vorfeld seiner Entlassung eine Rolle. Auch war er wegen der Offenheit seiner Affäre mit einer BBC-Mitarbeiterin, die später seine zweite Frau wurde, in die Kritik geraten. Über Wilsons Kabinett sagte Marsh rückblickend: "Ich habe niemals mit einer Gruppe von Menschen gearbeitet, die sich so wenig mochten und so sehr misstrauten."

Nach der Niederlage der Labour Party bei der Unterhauswahl 1970 wurde Marsh Schattenminister für Wohnungsbau. Die schlechten Perspektiven für künftige Ämter führten zu zunehmender Unzufriedenheit bei ihm.

British Railways

Er verließ das Unterhaus 1971, um Vorsitzender (Chairman) des British Railways Board zu werden, was er bis 1976 blieb. Marsh gab seine Absicht bekannt, British Railways wie ein Unternehmen führen zu wollen, geriet aber wiederholt in Konflikt mit Eingriffen der Regierung von Edward Heath. Im April 1972 kam es zu einem ersten Arbeitskampf. Das ausgehandelte Ergebnis sah Marsh kritisch; es gefährdete seiner Ansicht nach Arbeitsplätze.

Marsh reorganisierte das Management, setzte sich für mit Diesel betriebene Hochgeschwindigkeitszüge ein und initiierte den Bau von Bahnstationen am Rande von Städten. Nach einem Treffen mit dem damaligen Verkehrsminister John Peyton infolge von steigenden Verlusten bei British Railways, stimmte dieser einer Verdopplung der Investitionen zu; Marsh hatte Peyton einen Liniennetzplan vorgelegt, der aufzeigte, welche Linien in konservativen Wahlkreisen eingestellt würden. Marsh gelang es auf diese Weise, das bestehende Liniennetz zunächst zu erhalten. Jedoch kam es zu weiteren Krisen, darunter die Ölkrise 1973 und die steigende Inflation. Nach der Rückkehr der Labour Party in die Regierung nahmen auch die staatlichen Eingriffe zu. Zu Verärgerung bei Marsh führte auch Wilsons Entscheidung, das Projekt des Kanaltunnels nicht weiterzuverfolgen.

Zu Marshs Entscheidung keine Verlängerung seiner Amtszeit anzustreben, trug schließlich ein Brief des damaligen Transportministers John Gilbert, Baron Gilbert bei, in dem dieser anfragte, warum British Railways Züge für Brieftauben streiche. Marsh übergab sein Amt an Peter Parker, während er selbst Nachfolger von Arnold Goodman, Baron Goodman bei der Newspaper Publishers' Association wurde.

Mitgliedschaft im House of Lords

Marsh wurde am 15. Juli 1981 zum Life Peer als Baron Marsh of Mannington in the County of Wiltshire ernannt. Seine Ernennung erfolgte auf Veranlassung von Margaret Thatcher. Im House of Lords saß er als Crossbencher. Seine Antrittsrede hielt er am 12. November 1981. In seiner Antrittsrede betonte Marsh, dass er seine Ansichten über Politik mittlerweile geändert habe. 1978 hatte er bereits angekündigt, bei der nächsten Wahl konservativ zu wählen.

Als Themen von politischem Interesse nannte er auf der Webseite des Oberhauses die Industrie, Wirtschaftspolitik und Finanzdienstleistungen. Als Staaten von Interesse nannte er die Staaten des Fernen Ostens.

Marsh meldete sich selten zu Wort; seine Wortbeiträge hatten jedoch stets Gewicht. Im Zeitraum ab 2001 war er zunächst regelmäßig an Sitzungstagen anwesend. Ab der Sitzungsperiode 2008 bis 2009 ging die Anwesenheit stark zurück. Nach der Unterhauswahl 2010 war er nicht mehr anwesend.

Weitere Ämter und Tätigkeiten

Von 1976 bis 1990 war er Vorsitzender (Chairman) der Newspaper Publishers' Association und von 1977 bis 1983 beim British Iron and Steel Consumers' Council. Er war von 1982 bis 1988 Vorsitzender (Chairman) von Lee Cooper plc, von 1983 bis 1984 bei dem Fernsehsender TV-AM, Großbritanniens erstem kommerziellen Frühstücksfernsehen, und von 1987 bis 1999 beim China and Eastern Investment Trust in Hongkong. Seit 1989 war er Vorsitzender der Mannington Management Services Ltd und der Laurentian Financial Group plc sowie ab 1994 beim Gartmore British Income & Growth Trust. Von 1990 bis 1997 war er Vorsitzender von Lopex plc.

Marsh war Direktor bei Imperial Life of Canada (Toronto) von 1984 bis 1987, sowie Vorsitzender (Chairman) der Special Trustees des Guy's Hospital von 1983 bis 1997.

Marsh gehörte außerdem dem National Executive Committee der Fabian Society an.

Ehrungen

Marsh war Fellow des Institute of Marketing, beim Chartered Institute of Transport, beim Institute of Directors und dem Institute of Management. Er wurde 1976 zum Knight Bachelor ernannt.

Im November 2002 wurde ihm der Ehrendoktortitel der University of Greenwich verliehen.

Familie und Tod

Marsh heiratete 1950 (nach anderen Quellen: 1953) Evelyn Mary Andrews († 1979). Zusammen hatten sie zwei Söhne. Die Scheidung erfolgte 1973.

Seine zweite Ehefrau Caroline Dutton, mit der er seit 1973 verheiratet war, starb 1975 bei einem Autounfall, bei dem auch die Frau des Fernsehsprechers David Jacobs ums Leben kam. Sowohl Jacobs als auch Marsh überlebten. Marsh heiratete 1979 Felicity McFadzean, die Tochter von William McFadzean, Baron McFadzean.

Marsh starb am 29. Juli 2011 im Alter von 83 Jahren in London oder in Wiltshire.

Veröffentlichungen
 Off the Rails: An Autobiography, Littlehampton Book Services Ltd, 1978, ISBN 978-0297773870

Weblinks

 Richard Marsh, Baron Marsh bei theyworkforyou
 Richard Marsh, Baron Marsh bei The Public Whip
 Lord Marsh Nachruf in: The Daily Telegraph; 2. August 2011
 Lord Marsh obituary Nachruf in: The Guardian; 2. August 2011
 Richard Marsh, Baron Marsh Nachruf in: The Independent; 13. August 2011
 Obituary: Rt Hon the Lord Marsh, politician and businessman Nachruf in: The Scotsman; 2. August 2011

Einzelnachweise

Politiker (20. Jahrhundert)
Politiker (21. Jahrhundert)
Labour-Mitglied
Life Peer
Mitglied des House of Lords
Abgeordneter des House of Commons (Vereinigtes Königreich)
Mitglied des Privy Council (Vereinigtes Königreich)
Knight Bachelor
Ehrendoktor der University of Greenwich
Brite
Geboren 1928
Gestorben 2011
Mann

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Sign your team up now for Gore League!
If you want to become an admin, post on Gore League forum.
We will decide when the League is going to start when we are going to have enough teams and more admins.
Siema po grzyba pisać tu po ang. ?


It was only a matter of time until leftists attempted to obtain political mileage from the unhappiness of football fans over the lockout of NFL referees. Today, Brad Plumer of the Washington Post set out to accomplish this.
In an article called (in the print edition) "Wisconsin governor fumbles on Twitter," Plumer criticized Scott Walker for calling for the return of the "real referees." Walker is a Green Bay Packer fan, and the Packers were victimized by a bad call from a crew of replacement referees on Monday.
Plumer found Walker's position "ironic" because Walker took a hard line stance in dealing with Wisconsin's unionized public employees. Plumer claimed that "in many ways the NFL referee feud is entirely representative of modern battles playing out in Wisconsin and elsewhere." (A later version of this article on the internet backed off a little, employing weasel words to describe the NFL dispute "fairly representative" of the dispute in Wisconsin).
But there is almost no meaningful relationship between the two disputes. Gov. Walker pushed for requiring public employees to contribute to their healthcare costs and pensions (as other employees do) in order to overcome a $3.6 billion deficit and balance the budget, without raising taxes. Moreover, Walker won an election in which he promised to pursue this course. After keeping his promise, he won a recall election.
The NFL does not face fiscal difficulties comparable to those confronting state governments, and referee pension costs do not threaten the NFL's long-term financial viability. Thus, the NFL's hard line stance towards the referees on pensions — which is only one part of this labor dispute — is far less justifiable than Walker's stance towards public employee pensions. And, unlike in Wisconsin, the NFL's stance arose wholly outside of any political process in which the public had the opportunity to vote.
Finally, the NFL referees are not a powerful special interest group, and they do not help select those who make collective bargaining decisions that affect them. Public employee unions, by contrast, have significant political clout. And they have taken advantage of it by helping to elect the people who, through collective bargaining, confer benefits upon their members which taxpayers must fund. Thus, the need Walker perceived to limit public employee collective bargaining rights finds no analogue in the football context.
Scott Walker, therefore, did not "fumble." The fumble — which is probably too kind a word for it — consists of Brad Plumer's absurd, politically motivated claim that the NFL referee feud is "entirely representative" (or even "fairly representative") of the battle that played out by in Wisconsin.