The Quantum family has over a quarter-century's worth of experience in the electrical contracting business. Blooming since 1991, we've grown a fully-skilled, professional and experienced team, consisting of a fleet of journeyman and six master electricians that take on all of our projects leads.
We are trusted in both public and private sectors – new construction, renovations, energy efficient lighting retrofits and service/maintenance contracts.
Safety will always be a top priority at Quantum. We are licensed by the Electrical Safety Authority (ECRA/ESA #7012728), bondable, carry $5 million liability insurance and have all employees covered by WSIB. Every member of our team receives the complete health and safety training as mandated by the Ministry of Labour – no exceptions.


text:
Tomkow.com
A philosophical journal.
« Now, Me | Main | Trolley Problems »
If we have any rights, we surely have the right to self-defense. And yet self-defense has proven very puzzling to Rights theorists. To see why, take a simple case:
VILLAINOUS AGGRESSOR
There are two agents, AGGRESSOR and VICTIM: AGGRESSOR resents VICTIM for his sauve good looks and skill on the dance floor and has made it clear that he intends to kill him. One day AGGRESSOR shows up at the dance hall, gun in hand. He takes a shot at VICTIM but misses narrowly. He prepares to fire again, taking more careful aim, but VICTIM too has a gun and his only hope of surviving is to return fire and kill or disable AGGRESSOR.
Is it morally permissible for Victim to shoot aggressor? Of course! But now here's the puzzle. Rights Theorists have wanted to say:
It is permissible for VICTIM to shoot AGGRESSOR because VICTIM has the right to self-defense.
VICTIM has the right to self-defense because he, like everyone, has the right not to be killed or harmed. (That is why, if you are attempting to kill or harm him, you are doing something wrong.)
In defending himself, VICTIM will kill or harm the AGGRESSOR.
If the AGGRESSOR, had a right not to be killed or harmed, then it would be impermissible to kill or harm him.
The puzzle is: what happened to AGGRESSOR's right not to be harmed?
It seems we must say that, by launching his attack, the attacker somehow loses his right not to be harmed. But where does it go?
Note that wherever it goes it doesn't go very far: Suppose that AGGRESSOR takes his second shot and his defective gun explodes rendering it useless and leaving him wounded and helpless on the ground. AGGRESSOR is no longer a threat and now most people (well, anyway, most philosophers) think it would be wrong for VICTIM to draw his gun and execute the now helpless AGGRESSOR. Apparently, AGGRESSORs right against being harmed returns as soon as he is no longer a threat to VICTIM's life.
And yet there must be more to AGGRESSOR's losing his right against harm than his just being a threat. After all as soon as any victim decides to defend himself against any aggressor he becomes a threat to that aggressor but we don't want to say that deprives a defender of any rights.
So maybe we should say that the AGGRESSOR's right not to be harmed doesn't go away at all? Couldn't we say that while AGGRESSOR retains his right not to be killed, VICTIM's right to self-defense is more stringent or weighty than a simple right not to be killed and so it overrides or trumps the AGGRESSOR's right?
But that doesn't seem right either. Even acting in self-defense you have to respect some people's right not to be harmed. Thus it would not be permissible for VICTIM to defend himself by grabbing some innocent bystander and use him as a shield against AGGRESSOR's bullet. The bystander's right not to be harmed is not trumped or overridden by VICTIM's right to defend himself.
So it must be something specific to the AGGRESSOR that removes, diminishes or discounts his right against being harmed; something that distinguishes AGGRESSOR from the bystander. But what can that be?
Isn't the answer obvious? AGGRESSOR, unlike the bystander, is a bad guy. He is trying to do something morally impermissible and for that reason he forfeits his claims against others harming him.
Alas, this collides with the problem of "innocent threats". Two examples from the literature:
FALLING MAN
Out for a walk one day, this man was swept up by a tornado. Now he is plummeting towards earth. When he strikes he will fall directly on VICTIM. With VICTIM's body cushioning his fall the FALLING MAN may survive but VICTIM will certainly be killed. VICTIM cannot get out of the way, but is carrying a ray gun which he can use to vaporize the falling man and save himself. *
HUMAN SHIELD
An enemy has sent an automated tank on its way to kill VICTIM. VICTIM has an anti-tank gun and can destroy the tank. To discourage this, the aggressor has strapped an innocent passerby to the front of the tank to act as a human shield. Victim can save himself only by killing this person. *
In both these cases most people would say that it is morally permissible for VICTIM to defend himself even though, regrettably, this would result in the death of an innocent person. And by "most people", I do not mean just "most philosophers" or "most undergraduates when given questionnaires". I mean that it is the nearly unanimous opinion of all mankind, in virtually every human society of which we are aware, in every legal system ever devised, that this is so. No court-- not now, not ever-- would hold VICTIM guilty of wrongful killing if he defended himself in these situations. No work of literature or drama has or would treat a victim's refusal to defend himself in such circumstances as anything less than heroic; that is, as a sacrifice beyond the call of moral duty.
All of which seems to leave the right theorists with a choice of bullets to bite.
Judith Jarvis Thomson and Frances Kamm conclude that, given that it is permissible to kill innocent threats, we just have to say that that FALLING MAN and HUMAN SHIELD, because they are threatening VICTIM's life, have forfeited their rights not to be harmed no less that the villainous AGGRESSOR, albeit through no fault of their own.
This seems odd and, again, opposed to common sense. No jury-- not now, not ever-- would convict these innocent threats of any crime were the Victim to be killed. The Shield and the Falling Man do not choose to cause death Yes, VICTIM's death would be a bad thing, but it wouldn't be their fault any more than it would be a bystander's fault. How can their actions, if they can even be called that, represent a forfeiture of their rights?
But then what is the alternative?
Michael Otsuka and David Rodin argue that if we follow Thomson and Kamm then we will be left with no arguments against killing innocent bystanders and will lose our grip on the commonsense distinction between innocence and guilt. They conclude that, contrary to general belief, it is impermissible after all to defend yourself against an innocent threat.
As Whitley Kaufman observes, this seems a position so wildly at odds with settled law and common sense morality that it could only seem plausible to a philosopher in the grips of a theory. But then Kauffman's own solution to what he calls "The Paradox of Self-defense" is to invoke the hoary doctrine of Double Effect. On this account, aggressors, innocent or otherwise, do not forfeit their rights not to be harmed. Nevertheless it is still okay for the victim to blow them to smithereens because, in so doing, the victim doesn't really intend to harm them, just to protect himself.
This, we may observe, is something only a philosopher could say with a straight face.
All of this seems an embarrassment to the philosophy of rights. Judith Jarvis Thomson acknowledges as much:
"Many people who do moral philosophy these days appeal to rights to explain why this or that piece of behavior is or is not permissible. For example, it is common to say that the reason why you cannot maximize utility in such and such a case is that fact that the utility -maximizing course of action would involve infringing a right --- indeed, violating a right, since the right in question is a stringent one, and the utility to be got not sufficiently great to override the right. But when we say that, in that case , the utility-maximizing course of action would involve violating a right, are we saying anything more than that, in that case, it is not permissible to take the utility-maximizing course of action? If not, then we can hardly take ourselves to have explained why it is not permissible, in that case, to take the utility-maximizing course of action. It is arguable that if there is any point at all in appealing to rights in such a discussion , there had better be something independent of permissibility's and impermissibility's which fixes their existence and degree of stringency. It is not obvious that this is true. It might be that to attribute a right is only to talk about permissibilities and impermissibilities, but in a way that groups or collects them and brings whole clusters of cases to bear on each other. I do not for a moment think it a novel idea that we stand in need of an account of just how an appeal to a right may be thought to function in ethical discussion. What strikes me as of interest, however, is that the need for such an account shows itself even in a case which might have been thought to be transparent"
I think Thomson is right here. The "Paradox of Self-defense" is really a reductio of a certain conception of rights. It is a conception which treats rights as it they were noumenal entities which hover about persons, somehow endowing some actions but not others with moral impermissibility. It is a view which looks to rights to explain the impermissibility of actions. The problem is, as Thomson says, rights cannot play that role unless there is some way to discover and weigh rights independently of our antecedent judgments about what is or is not permissible, and there is not. We need another account of the role of rights in ethics.
The Retributive Theory of rights offers such an account.
Retributivism begins with the idea that there is really only one kind of action that is morally impermissible: other things being equal, it is morally impermissible to harm others or coerce them with threats of harm. But other things are not always equal: there are situations in which it is morally permissible to harm other people and those are the occasions when rights are relevant. A retributive right is a moral permission (in Hohfeld's terms, a privilege) to do harm to another. Retributive rights differ from one another in respect of the circumstances in make such violence permissible. Retributive Ethics is the view that retributive rights are the only rights there are.
The right to self-defense is a paradigm retributive right: it is a moral permission for a victim to do as much harm to an attacker as may be required to defend himself. Note, the retributivist does not say that there is a thing, called "The Right to Self-defense", which makes defending oneself permissible. On the Retributivist view the right is the permission. The right no more explains the permissibility of the action than saying that an animal is mammal explains why it gives birth to its young alive; though it remains perfectly apposite to say that a certain action is permissible because it exercises the right of self-defense in the same way it can be pointful to say that a particular animal gives birth as it does because it is a mammal. Rights talk plays the same role of organizing and connecting moral permissions in the "realm of rights" as taxonomy does in the animal kingdom.
Retributivist rights, then, are ontologically unproblematic. The most convinced skeptic about rights talk cannot deny that there are Retributive Rights so long as he or she acknowledges that it is sometimes morally permissible for people to hurt or threaten to hurt other people. Those permissions are the retributive rights acknowledged by his or her moral theory.
In other posts I've tried to show how Retributivism can shed light on a variety of philosophical questions—about the moral force of promising, and the foundations of property rights. But our current topic is self-defense and you might wonder how Retributivism can be useful here: If the retributive right to self-defense cannot explain why it is permissible to defend yourself (because the right is the permission) what use is it? The answer is that Retributivism is useful here not because it explains where the right to self-defense comes from but where it doesn't.
Recall that our puzzle about self-defense began with the assumption that VICTIM gets his right to self-defense from a prior right: a right not to be harmed or killed. VICTIM's right to self-defense was supposed to arise from the Aggressor's infringement of this right. "Paradox" threatened to set in when we wondered what happened to the AGGRESSOR's right not to be harmed.
Is there a right not to be harmed? Note that, if there is, it is not a Retributive right. Having it doesn't give you permission to harm someone else. Indeed it does not seem to give its bearer permission to do anything. Even when victim is attacked, this story goes, it is not the right-not-to-be-harmed that makes it permissible for victim to act defensively, but another right-- the right to act in self-defense-- to which the right-not-to-be-harmed's violation somehow gives rise
Even if there is a right not to be harmed, it does not seem necessary for the right to self-defense. Consider the boxer, the cage fighter or the antique duelist. Each gives his opponent-- for the duration of the contest and with the limits prescribed by the rules-- permission to do him harm. And it is a moral permission: a boxer is not doing something morally wrong when he bloodies his opponent's nose. If it's the right not to be harmed that makes it impermissible for others to harm you then it must be that these combatants have given up or limited that right, at least against their opponents. But none of these – not the boxer, or the cage fighter or the dualist -- have given up the right to defend themselves. If the characters in the "Villainous Aggressor" story had been called "Hamilton" and "Burr" instead of Aggressor and Victim you might think the Aggressor less villainous. Burr had given up his right not to be killed by Hamilton when he challenged him to the duel. Even so, Hamilton having fired first and there being every reason to think he would fire again, Burr could still plead that his replying fatal shot was self-defense simpliciter. *
In these cases the defender has voluntarily given up his right not to be harmed. As we have seen, some rights theorists hold that one can lose the right involuntarily. Thomson thinks it permissible for VICTIM to kill the FALLING MAN and the HUMAN SHIELD because they have lost their rights not to be killed. If that were so, and it was really the right not to be harmed that generated a right to self-defense then we would predict that both these innocent threats would have lost the right to defend themselves. But this doesn't seem to be so. Imagine yourself in the situation of FALLING MAN or HUMAN SHIELD. You see VICTIM raising his weapon to blow you away and you realize what he intends. Suppose that you happened to have a weapon of your own which you could use to preempt VICTIMs act of self-defense? It does not seem to me that this would be impermissible. True, VICTIM is not a villain, but neither are you.
The connection, then, between the right not to be harmed and the right to self-defense seems increasingly unclear. Why should we believe in this right in the first place? The answer is that we will be driven to it if we accept a conventional assumption about the way in which rights connect to the moral impermissibility of actions. That assumption-- one shared by most of the rights theorists we have been considering-- is that:
(M) A has a right that B do/not do φ iff It is impermissible for B to not do/ do φ
So, in particular:
(M') A has a right that B not harm A iff It is impermissible for B to harm A.
If (M') were correct then we could not deny the existence of VICTIM's right not to be harmed without also saying that it is permissible for him to be harmed which would be absurd.
(M) would have to be true if the impermissibility of actions were explained by rights. But, as Thompson observed, no such explanation is on offer. Until it is, (M)'s bi-conditional threatens to collapse to a mere definition: so that "A has a right that B not…" becomes just an uninteresting paraphrase of "It is impermissible for B to."
Retributive theory rejects (M) and offers instead:
(R) A has a right that B do/not do φ = it is permissible for A to force B to do/not do φ
Always with the stipulation that it is only permissible for A to use the minimum force required to force or prevent φ. In the case where B threatens to harm A we get.
(R') A has a right that B not harm A = it is permissible for A to force B not to harm A
Thus on the Retributive account, the right not to be harmed just is the right to self-defense.
The retributive right (R') does not entrain the non-retributive (M'). As we saw in the case of our duelists: that it is morally permissible for A to forcibly defend himself against B, does not mean that it is impermissible for B to harm A. Having the retributive right against being harmed does not make it impermissible for others to harm you.
You might ask, then, what right, according to the Retributivist, do people have that makes it impermissible to harm them? The answer is "No right does or could do this". Rights, in the manner of (R), reduce to permissions, they do not create them. It is impermissible to harm other people, other things being equal. This root moral fact is not explained by invoking rights and to suppose that it is leads a fortiori to confusion and paradox.
The "Paradox" of self-defense arose from a bad theory about what makes self-defense permissible. But, when we remove ourselves from this muddle, a more interesting question remains:
If we assert a general Retributive right against harm, we would be saying that it always permissible to forcefully prevent another from harming you. But any potential victim who acts in self-defense aims to harm the person who is threatening him. Does the threatening agent then have the right to self-defense?
It is tempting to think not when one thinks of cases like this:
Baker is angry at Able. So angry he starts throwing punches. Able hits back. Baker blocks the punch hard, breaking Able's arm. At that point others intervene to stop the fight.
Suppose that the broken arm was the only injury in the fight. If Able demanded compensation from Baker for the injury could Baker argue that the injury was inflicted by a permissible act of self-defense? Surely not.
So should we say it is always permissible to defend yourself against another provided they are not defending themselves against you? No, not if we want to say that it would be permissible for FALLING MAN and HUMAN SHIELD to defend themselves against VICTIM's self-defense.
The problem here is a general one and not just for Retributivism but for any rights theory which hopes to explain the moral permissibility of enforcing any of our rights. Suppose I am standing on your property-- or on your foot-- without your permission. You ask me nicely to step away. I refuse. In that event it may be morally permissible for you to push me off. But if it is morally permissible for me to push back, given my general right not to be pushed around, the morally permissible mayhem is likely to get out of hand.
Confronting this problem it may be tempting to reach into the rights theorist's standard bag of tricks. To invoke "degrees" or "degrees of stringency" of rights, to distinguish between "infringing rights" and "violating them"; perhaps we'll need the "doctrine of double effect" or even -- if all else fails-- to introduce considerations of general utility. But I think we can do better than that with the materials already at hand.
Let us do some thought experiments.
At the saloon Baker hears an ugly (and, in fact, false) rumor about Able and Baker's wife. A notorious hot-head, Baker straps on his pistol and tells everyone he intends to kill Able. He marches through town to Able's house and bangs on the door. When Able answers, Baker draws his gun and announces that he is there to kill Able like the dog he is. Fortunately for Able, he is armed and a quick draw. Able shoots. Baker falls dead.
Able's action certainly seems permissible; a paradigm of self-defense. But let me give you more background to the story.
Baker heard the ugly rumor at the saloon early in the day and spent all afternoon working himself up into a liquor fueled frenzy. The Bartender (as it happens an employee of Able's) called Able asking if he wanted Baker cut off. Able told him "No", in fact, he said to let Baker run a tab.
Baker left the saloon waiving his weapon around, telling anyone who would listen that he was on his way to gun Able down. Overhearing this, several friends of Able phoned to warn him. They offered to call the police who would certainly have thrown Baker in jail to sleep it off. But Able tells his friends not to call the cops. He tells them he doesn't want Baker to get into trouble with the law and he is able to defend himself.
And so he is, for Able is very wealthy. His mansion is a virtual fortress with high fences, guard dogs and security guards. Strangely though, while his friends continued to call and report Baker's progress through the town, Able did not phone the police nor did he take any measures to protect himself. Quite the reverse: he threw open his gates, lowered the draw bridge, kenneled his dogs and dismissed his guards. Then he got his pistol and waited patiently for Baker to arrive.
Now, Able's behavior looks less innocent. It is still true that at the moment that Baker stood before him gun drawn Able had no choice but to kill or be killed. But Able could easily have avoided this awful choice and had he acted differently, Baker might have suffered, at worst, only a night in jail.
When the whole story comes out the police will surely have some questions for Able. It is no longer clear that this was a simple case of self-defense. Why so? Because it is part of everyone's conception of the right of self-defense that it only entitles you to use as much force as is required to defend yourself. If an attacker can be disarmed as easily as he can be killed; if setting the phaser to "stun" rather than "kill" will do the job; then it is impermissible to use the excess force. Of course, reasonable people might disagree about how much force is really required in any given case and when the aggressor is malign we prefer to err on the side of the innocent victim. But Able's behavior was at least reckless, not just in putting his life at risk, but also, it turned out, Baker's.
So we might judge Able's behavior over all as impermissible. But what about its culminating action? Was it impermissible at that final moment, for Able to fire? Before you answer, let me give you one more piece of information.
Able never liked Baker. It was Able himself who started the rumor and arranged for Baker to hear it hoping for exactly the course of events that subsequently transpired.
Now Able's fatal shot looks less like an act of self-defense and more like the last step in a premeditated murder. And we do not need to look for new reasons why this is so. Once again: the right of self-defense is only a permission to exercise the least amount of force you can reasonably believe is required to save you. In Able's case, it now appears, that amount was zero. He could have prevented Baker's assault by not starting the rumor in the first place. His shooting of Baker was morally impermissible. Were all the facts to come out Able would certainly be charged with a crime. Perhaps not first degree murder, because Baker's bad behavior made him complicit in his own demise—more likely something like depraved indifference manslaughter. Whatever the legal charge, "self-defense" would be no defense.
Another experiment:
FALLING MAN 2
The situation is much like FALLING MAN, but there is some history. The falling man is known to VICTIM. He is in fact a hated business rival. This falling man wasn't taken up by a great wind, he has fallen off a tall building. In fact, he didn't just fall, he was pushed. He was pushed by a confederate of VICTIM's who was hired to do the killing. Knowing the time and place of the planned assassination, VICTIM has arrived on the scene to enjoy the sight of his rival's brains splattered on the pavement. But VICTIM has miscalculated and now he sees his rival plummeting towards him. Luckily for him, VICTIM has brought a ray gun which…
I hope we agree that it is impermissible for Victim to kill this falling Man. If there is any doubt about this consider
Exactly like FALLING MAN 2, except that VICTIM has not miscalculated. He planned to be in precisely this situation so that he could have the pleasure of blasting his rival out of the sky and then pleading self-defense.
I think it clear that in both FALLING MAN 2 and 3 that it is impermissible for VICTIM to vaporize the falling man even though the physical circumstances at the fatal moment are identical to those in the first FALLING MAN story. And the reason is not that in the later stories that the VICTIM is a bad guy doing a bad thing, though he is surely that. What we must explain is why in the latter cases but not the former ones the retributive right (R') does not make it permissible for VICTIM to save himself. The explanation, once again, is that VICTIM is morally permitted to use only as much force as is necessary to save himself and when we consider how much force that is we take account of VICTIMS options in the whole history of the fatal event, not just at the last second. A victim who uses more force than is reasonably necessary by this standard is culpable for the harm the excess inflicts. In cases 2 and 3 no force at all was necessary and VICTIM is culpable for any harm done the falling men.
And so it is in other cases of enforcing your rights. You were pushing me off your land or your foot. Given it was yours and you had no other remedy, it was morally permissible for you to do so. Likewise, it would have been permissible for me to push back, provided I had no less violent way of preventing your violence against me. But in our story I did have a less violent way: I could have refrained from stepping on your land-- or your foot-- in the first place.
Posted in Retributive Ethics | Permalink
Rights are relational properties that only make sense within a society, as your Hohfeldian approach implies. Thus contractarian constructivism yields a predicate for self-defense, that aggression against oneself that the victim did not bring about through recklessness or negligence, temporarily reverts the parties to the confrontation to the state of nature. Your puzzles then resolve as a matter of determining the scope of bringing about.
Posted by: Michael Zeleny | March 24, 2011 at 02:55 AM
I'm not much of a philosopher, but I was wondering. In the first examples where both are innocent victims, does the fact that both the Falling Man and the Human Shield are likely to die whether or not Victim kills them make any difference? Could it then fall under the idea of "lesser of two evils," since theoretically one dead body is less evil than two?
Posted by: Theotherpete | March 25, 2011 at 11:17 AM
If I understand you, the suggestion is that, once one's life is on the line, we are back in a state of nature and morality goes by the boards. Hobbes seems to have thought this. I don't. If you look at some of the other posts you'll see that I think there are rights (even property rights) in the state of nature.
Theotherpete
I should have made it clearer. The idea in the innocent threats stories is that the innocents will not die if the Victim does not kill them (in the falling man case because Victim's body will break his fall) and that (somehow) all parties know this.
Thanks both!
Posted by: tomkow | March 25, 2011 at 01:05 PM
Most of our moral judgements are made on a basis of ethnic, religious and chauvinist prejudices and percepts. The same HUMAN SHIELD example is condemned when used by Israeli army but accepted in western movie.
BTW HUMAN SHIELD ( and another version called NEIBOUR PROCEDURE when an Arab neighbor is used to announce the person that will arrested instead of a soldier that the suspect may shoot through the door) is a penal military offence under Israeli army code and the culprits may face degradation and years of prison...However HUMAN SHIELD and mostly NEIGHBOR PROCEDURE were used and probably will continue to be used as saving human lives.
As a young sergeant in Gaza told us once:
Those are opening fire instructions:summation; summation again; summation with gun;try to arrest; summation and shoot in air;never shoot if the suspect don't shoot at you...However if you are in a situation of (type) YOU OR HIM (to be killed), it is always HIM.
So the moral dilemma is not an equation, but a conditioned answer.
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1519205374 | March 26, 2011 at 06:23 AM
Long time reader, first time commenter.
I'm not expertly grounded in logic or philosophy, so please accept my apologies in advance if my statements sound overly simplistic.
I found this particular entry confusing when it came to stating certain points through examples. For instance:
"If we assert a general Retributive right against harm, we would be saying that it always permissible to forcefully prevent another from harming you. But any potential victim who acts in self-defense aims to harm the person who is threatening him. Does the threatening agent then have the right to self-defense? ... Baker is angry at Able. So angry he starts throwing punches. Able hits back. Baker blocks the punch hard, breaking Able's arm. At that point others intervene to stop the fight.
Suppose that the broken arm was the only injury in the fight. If Able demanded compensation from Baker for the injury could Baker argue that the injury was inflicted by a permissible act of self-defense?"
This is confusing because, to me, the issue is not who is being defended, but what is being defended. Able is defending his right not to be harmed by defending himself. Baker, on the other hand, is defending his right to harm Able by defending himself. This confusion is further enforced by your second example on this topic:
"Suppose I am standing on your property-- or on your foot-- without your permission. You ask me nicely to step away. I refuse. In that event it may be morally permissible for you to push me off. But if it is morally permissible for me to push back, given my general right not to be pushed around, the morally permissible mayhem is likely to get out of hand."
Again, it appears to me that the object of defense (the what) is being confused and as such the issue of moral permissibility is debated on the wrong terms.
In addition, the thought experiments only seemed to make things more confusing rather than less. To that end, let me offer a parallel thought experiment (in the broader sense) to your first:
A woman goes to a bar by herself and gets wildly drunk. She meets a man in the bar and makes out with him for a while, eventually going back to his place. They make out on his couch a bit more and then she goes to his bedroom, gets undressed and gets in his bed. He excitedly gets undressed and gets in bed with her, they make out some more and just as he begins to have intercourse with her, she says "No!" When the man doesn't immediately stop and pull away, she slides her hand down to her purse, grabs her mace and sprays him in the eyes, which leaves him permanently blinded. She escapes.
Would this, too, not be so clear a case of self-defense? She did, after all, deprive herself of virtually all pre-emptive defenses leading up to the ultimate moment. The same could similarly be said of a homeowner who leaves their windows open at night in the summer and ends up having to shoot and kill an armed robber who snuck in through one of them. Were their actions morally impermissible merely because all possible precautions were not taken?
That aside, the first experiment completely ignores the moral agency of the others involved in the situation. Able is not responsible for Baker's drinking, if the bartender is concerned that Baker's drinking may get him into trouble then he is responsible for the decision to cut Baker off. Similarly, if Able's friends are concerned that Baker might try to kill him then they are responsible for calling the police; they do not need Able's permission. And that is all an aside to the fact that Baker, too, is a moral agent. Able did not force Baker into any of his actions; Baker chose to get his gun, Baker chose to go onto Able's property, Baker chose to raise his weapon to try to kill him.
There is nothing about this situation that speaks to premeditated murder, much less manslaughter with depraved indifference. Is Able a truly despicable person for attempting to coerce Baker's actions? Aboslutely, but he is no Jack Wilson.
The Falling Man thought experiments represent a completely different situation, but I feel that they have unnecessarily confused the moral significance of the original. In the original version there are two totally innocent people. In these newer thought experiments there is clearly only one. The "victim" is not a victim at all, but an aggressor. He is not defending his right not to be harmed, whether he intended to be in the path of his falling rival or not; he is defending his right to kill his rival. Morally impermissible, but not because of who, but what.
I hope even some portion of this makes sense. Anyway, compliments on an interesting attempt to tackle the right of self-defense.
Posted by: Myhumangetsme | March 27, 2011 at 08:15 PM
I don't think you are much confused. I think you are just un-persuaded. And I think that I understand where we disagree.
I think that we agree that it is not permissible for villainous threats to defend themselves against their intended victim's acts of self defense. But I think you don't like my explanation of why this is so. I think you want to explain this by saying it has to do with the threats being villains, that is, because they are bad guys with bad intentions.
I don't say that's wrong, but I don't think it gets you very far.
Thus suppose you say, "The reason it's not okay for these guys to defend themselves is because you don't have an *unqualified* right to self defense. You only have a right to defend yourself against morally impermissible attacks."
This gives us a way of saying why the bad guy can't defend himself against the defender: it is because the defender's action is *permissible* (because he is acting in *justified* self defense). I don't say this is wrong or that you shouldn't say it.
The problem is that saying this really doesn't get take us anywhere to explaining *why* the defender's self-defense was permissible and villainous threat's wasn't.
My explanation may be surprising because it explains why villainous threats may not defend themselves without appealing to the fact that they did a bad thing when they started threating the victim. I don't *deny* they did a bad thing, but by not relying on it I avoid the circle we just went round.
I say the bad guy is a bad guy because he uses excessive force and I say the force is excessive if its more than you need to defend yourself. You want to say the force is excessive if done by bad guys, and are left with a problem of explaining why the guys are bad (apart from their using that force).
My strategy in the post was to tell you stories in which you would see that you were measuring agent's villainy by measuring how excessive the force he used was and not the other way round. But, as you say, this didn't work for you.
And maybe you found yourself resisting for good reasons. One of the complications of my stories and yours is that they involve the problem of the permissibility of put putting people at *risk* for harm. Putting people at risk for harm is a bad thing, but is it as bad as actually harming them? Then too, we might wonder if, as in your cases, if it is always permissible to put other people at risk of suffering permissible harms.
More about all this in future posts.
Terry, although I believe that there are duties in the state of nature, the scope of correlative natural rights is nowhere near as extensive as that of the privileges and immunities available in human relations under a social contract. For example, it makes sense to speak of fundamental natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but the right to a speedy trial by jury makes sense only in the social context that sustains the relevant peer-to-peer relationships and judicial institutions. Even in a setting of this sort, it is well established and clearly understood at common law, that necessity abrogates due process in the case of self-defense against aggression that the victim did not bring about through recklessness or negligence. Incidentally, Kant endorses an unqualified right of self-defense (ius inculpatae tutelae) that applies in domestic and foreign relations in equal measure, to the point of approving of warfare against a menacing increase in another state's power, e.g. by its acquisition of territory, q.v. Die Metaphysik der Sitten 235 and 346.
Posted by: Michael Zeleny | March 29, 2011 at 03:32 PM
I strongly disagree with your final conclusions. I do not believe the events described count as a single action but as many different actions each of which should be evaluated separately.
If a person must kill another to save themselves, I see it as acceptable regardless of why they need to do so. If they arranged for that situation to happen, then they are responsible for the consequences. This responsibility is a separate issue. Convincing or forcing a person to do something that is likely to cause them harm (or kill them) is itself impermissible, so there is no need to make the final self-defense impermissible as the "difficult" situations you bring up at the end suggest.
Basically, Able's responsibility for killing Baker is not affected by whether or not Able is the one to pull the trigger. He'd be equally guilty if he'd arranged for it to be someone else that Baker tried (and failed) to kill.
Likewise, the victim in Falling Man 2 and 3 is allowed to kill to defend himself (I consider demanding suicide to be a moral taboo as it creates the idea that it is possible for a person to deserve to die). However, he is responsible for creating the circumstance in the first place, and thus already guilty of attempted or successful murder (depending on whether or not the man dies).
Posted by: Kldran Achran | April 15, 2011 at 03:19 AM
Is there an analysis from Care Ethics? Maybe think about the "needs" of those in your hypotheticals.
Posted by: Quentin Crain | August 23, 2011 at 08:46 AM
VICTIM in the last two scenarios seems to me to be permitted to kill the falling man. I'm not sure how to argue about intuitions like this, though. Perhaps I'm in the grip of a theory and am not aware of it.
Posted by: Kris Rhodes | October 06, 2011 at 07:28 PM
Just because I'm currently getting my head bent by Tolstoys' Law of Love and Law of Violence I feel I ought to disagree with your definition of moral duty. You say,
"No work of literature or drama has or would treat a victim's refusal to defend himself in such circumstances as anything less than heroic; that is, as a sacrifice beyond the call of moral duty."
Do we have a moral duty that stops short of heroism? Is there really a two tiered approach to morality? Or rather, as I don't think of rights and morals as "real" in any concrete sense, what would be so insane about expecting our moral duty to turn us into heroes.
(Luke 6.29,30)
38You know that you have been taught, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." 39But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, [a] turn and let that person slap your other cheek. 40If someone sues you for your shirt, give up your coat as well.
I don't live this (nor am I a Christian) however surely this would count as literature. Tolstoy makes a compelling case that any moral law of love becomes meaningless with the introduction of exceptions such as self-defence.
Posted by: Humblewonderful.blogspot.com | October 22, 2011 at 07:39 AM
Why Time has a Direction
Now, Me
The Temporal Asymmetry of Counterfactuals
Counterfactuals: The Short Course
Dennett Mele Templeton
Computation, Laws and Supervenience
The Computational Theory of the Laws of Nature
Experimental Philosophy (3)
Killing vs. Letting Die (2)
Language & Thought (4)
Metaphysics (10)
Philosophical Pyschology (2)
Retributive Ethics (6)
The Profession (3)
Trolley Problem (4)
Sprachlogik
Early Modern Texts
In Search of Logic
Camels with hammers
YeahOkButStill
Learning203
Paul Raymont
Horseless Telegraph (Lewis Powell)
Vihvelin.com
Ends of Thought
Comments elsewhere
Carroll, Carrier and Moral Realism
Free Will and Experimental Philosophy
Modality and the Consequence Argument
Some comments on what Darwin Got Wrong
Thank you 3 Quarks and Dan Dennett!
Causing others to allow harms
Incompatibilism and intuitions
Incompatibilism and the burden of proof
Philosophy has no more need of intuitions than Physics
Experimental Philosophy and Free Will
Timothy Griffy on A Few Short Steps to the Gallows
Catachresis11 on A Solution to the Trolley Problem
tomkow on Computation, Laws and Supervenience
Paul Torek on Computation, Laws and Supervenience
tomkow on Determinism
Eddy Nahmias on Determinism
Copyright © Terrance Tomkow 2000-2012. All rights reserved.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Victorian Christmas Tree Decorations To Make Vintage Some Of The Hand Made Victorian Pink Ornaments On Tree With Gold is just one of the many collections of home design reference that we have on this website. We have a lot of interior design or design decorating ideas and any other things concerning in this website. We're not just providing info about , but , you can get a lot more reference to create your home decorating as well. So , don't forget to keep visiting ua-pb.com to get the latest update about home design ideas , interior decor, furniture design and more.
Victorian Christmas Tree Decorations To Make Vintage Some Of The Hand Made Victorian Pink Ornaments On Tree With Gold was posted in April 24, 2017 at 8:48 pm. Victorian Christmas Tree Decorations To Make Vintage Some Of The Hand Made Victorian Pink Ornaments On Tree With Gold has viewed by 68 users. Click it and download the Victorian Christmas Tree Decorations To Make Vintage Some Of The Hand Made Victorian Pink Ornaments On Tree With Gold.
Christmas, Victorian Christmas Tree Decorations To Make was posted April 24, 2017 at 8:48 pm by ua-pb.com . More over Victorian Christmas Tree Decorations To Make has viewed by 1766 visitor.


text:
Q: SearchView expand throws null pointer exception I am testing application in Samsung Galaxy Tab (P7500) (android 4.0.4) and I am get this error on trying expand default SearchView widget in action bar. Before 4.0.4 update my application works very well.
Error log:
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814): java.lang.NullPointerException
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.widget.SearchView.adjustDropDownSizeAndPosition(SearchView.java:1244)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.widget.SearchView.access$300(SearchView.java:92)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.widget.SearchView$5.onLayoutChange(SearchView.java:336)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.view.View.layout(View.java:11486)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.view.ViewGroup.layout(ViewGroup.java:4232)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.widget.LinearLayout.setChildFrame(LinearLayout.java:1644)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.widget.LinearLayout.layoutHorizontal(LinearLayout.java:1633)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.widget.LinearLayout.onLayout(LinearLayout.java:1417)
09-29 14:18:28.460: E/AndroidRuntime(2814):     at android.view.View.layout(View.java:11477)
....

I tried to hunt this error. I checked 4.0.3 an d 4.0.4 source (API 15), and android.widget.SearchView file's line 1244 method end: http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/ext/com.google.android/android/4.0.4_r2.1/android/widget/SearchView.java?av=f
I think samsung modified this source file.
After that I tried to determine where is null pointer by using original 4.0.4 source and debug info. I found problem can be here:
mQueryTextView.getDropDownBackground().getPadding(dropDownPadding);

mQueryTextView.getDropDownBackground() returns null, because SearchView.this.mQueryTextView.mPopup.mPopup.mBackground is null.
I am not sure this is exactly error, because samsung has been modified source code. And I don't know what I can do next.
This is my ActionBar menu XML:
<menu xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android">
    <item android:id="@+id/menu_settings"
        android:title="@string/menu_settings"
        android:orderInCategory="100" />

    <item android:id="@+id/search"
        android:title="Search"
        android:showAsAction="ifRoom"
        android:actionViewClass="android.widget.SearchView" />
    <item
        android:id="@+id/favorites"
        android:title="Favourites"
        android:icon="@drawable/favorites">

    </item>
    <item
        android:id="@+id/recent"
        android:title="Recent"
        android:icon="@drawable/recent">

    </item>
    <item
        android:id="@+id/downloaded"
        android:title="Downloaded"
        android:icon="@drawable/downloaded">

    </item>
</menu>

A: This problem seems to be related to styles being applied to the EditText in the action bar SearchView.
You can fix this by removing any style you have applied to EditText such as:
res/values/styles.xml
<item name="android:editTextStyle">@style/editor</item>

Then go to each EditText view in your layout XML and apply the style directly:
<EditText style="@style/editor" />

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
N&F Training Solutions
2019 Officer Down
Sheriff Michael Neal and Jason Fitzwater first met in early 2014 through the Southeast Missouri SWAT Challenge where Jason was the coordinator of the event. Jason invited Sheriff Neal to the competition to be a guest speaker at the event kick-off dinner on his incident in West Memphis Over the next three years Mike and Jason formed a friendship and every April Sheriff Neal would attend the SEMO SWAT Challenge where he would teach "Critical Mindset" during the training sessions of the competition. In July/August 2016 Jason put together a training class "Counter Ambush on Law Enforcement" with the assistance of Mineral Area College Law Enforcement Director Rich Flotron, and was able to obtain continuing education hours for the class. In July 2017 Sheriff Neal invited Jason down to Monroe County to teach the ambush class for his deputies and surrounding departments. During the training in Arkansas Mike invited Jason to attend the A.P.C.A. (American Police Canine Association) National Conference in Vincennes Indiana in September, with him and teach the Ambush class at the conference together. During the two day conference in Indiana the response and feedback from administration of the A.P.C.A and officers attending the conference was overwhelming on the ambush class. Mike and Jason decided to join up together and begin N&F Training Solutions with the intentions to educate and train law enforcement, with the ultimate goal of saving lives. Below are Mike and Jason's biographies on their careers.
Sheriff Michael Neal:
Michael Kent Neal is currently the Sheriff of Monroe County was a former Corporal for Arkansas Game & Fish and was assigned to Lee County. Michael began his career in law enforcement in 1998 as a part time officer for the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. As a member of the Brinkley Fire and Rescue team he served as fire Instructor and after ten years of service retired in 2009 in the rank of Captain. On May 20, 2010 Office Neal was instrumental in ending a brutal gun battle in West Memphis that resulted in the death of two West Memphis police officers and the wounding of the Crittenden County Sheriff and his chief deputy. Michael became instrumental in ending the gunfire by ramming his Game & Fish vehicle into a minivan carrying two shooters. While under direct fire, he engaged them in a fierce gun battle, eliminated their threat and saved many lives. In his presentation of the Medal of Valor to Officer Neal, Governor Mike Beebe stated "His training kicked in and further tragedy was averted and avoided by his trained, heroic, selfless actions."Officer Neal has received over numerous different awards for his heroic actions which included: 3 Medals of Valor, Citations from The Arkansas House of Representatives, The Arkansas State Senate, The United State Senate, the 2010 Arkansas Game and Fish Wildlife Officer of the Year Award, the Southeast Regional Wildlife Office of the Year and Arkansas Law Enforcement Officer of the Year the 2011 International officer of the year. On February 20, 2012 Officer Neal was awarded the congressional Medal of Valor for Vice President Joe Biden. Due to his excellent training, he is the one of the most decorated Wildlife Officer in the history of Arkansas Game and Fish.
Jason Fitzwater
Jason Fitzwater is currently an adjunct instructor with the Mineral Area College Law Enforcement Academy in Park Hills, Missouri. Jason began his career in 2001 with the Manatee County Sheriff's Office and Alachua County Sheriff's Office in Florida. Jason spent a total of 11 years in law enforcement in Florida working as a patrol deputy, FTO, criminal Investigator (Homicide 3 years) and had 3 years on a tactical team as an operator. Jason has been a firearm Instructor since 2006 and currently is a firearm instructor for the law enforcement academy. Jason moved to Missouri in 2012 where he began working as an officer for the Fredericktown Police Department in Southeast Missouri. During his tenure with the police department he was an officer, detective, sergeant, and SWAT team operator. Jason is the founder and was the coordinator of the Southeast Missouri SWAT Challenge. In 2014 Jason became a team leader on the SWAT team and in 2015 became the commander of the team. Jason started the Southeast Missouri Tactical team in 2014 which consisted of operators from within the region to compete in the International SWAT Round Up in Orlando, Florida. Jason was a competitor for 2 years (2014, 2015) and team captain 1 year (2016). In 2016 Jason wrote curriculum for "Counter Ambush on Law Enforcement" which was made into a continuing education course for law enforcement in the state of Missouri. Jason left the Fredericktown Police Department in May of 2017 to join the Mineral Area College police academy staff as an instructor. Jason teaches firearms, tactical courses, continuing education, and new recruits at the academy. The summer of 2017 Jason joined with Sheriff Michael Neal to start a training class" Critical Mindset for Counter Ambush on Law Enforcement" This training class has obtained support and sponsorship from Safariland, 5.11, Armor Express, and Triumph Systems.


text:
Ihor Potieria explains post-fight dance after retiring Shogun Rua at UFC 283
By MMA Fighting Newswire Jan 22, 2023, 1:00pm EST
For UFC light heavyweight Ihor Potieria, the best way to explain his post-fight celebration after retiring Shogun Rua was to do it again.
Potieria got some heat after sending the ex-champ packing on a TKO loss, with one UFC vet declaring "OK now I hate this guy" after the Ukrainian fighter appeared to gloat with a dance.
'OK I hate this guy now': Fighters react to Ihor Potieria's win, post-fight dance after stopping Shogun Rua at UFC 283
That's one problem when your celebration doesn't come with a disclaimer, so Potieria gave one as he demonstrated the moves he did in the octagon after stopping Shogun in the octagon. As it turns out, he was showing the champ nothing but respect.
"My nickname is Duelist, and that was a duel, and I took out my gun but I did not fire," said Potieria via translator as he mimicked the motion of a gunfighter shooting his weapon into the air. "I fired into the air, because I respect my opponent, so I told him, 'Respect.'"
The crowd in Rio de Janeiro hoped Rua would go out and probably expected Potieria to be nothing more than a blank canvas for the Brazilian legend to complete his final violent piece. With a loss in his debut, Potieria certainly gave them some ammunition. But the Ukranian said his first UFC fight didn't tell the whole story, and he was meant to be more than just a stepping stone.
"If I'm here, they probably see something in me," he said. "If you don't know, I'm from Ukraine, and for us from Ukraine, it's a one in a million chance to get into an organization like the UFC. So the fact that I'm here, I do my work. I improve, and that's why I'm able to come out against a legend like Shogun."
With the win over Rua, Potieria gets back in the win column after seeing an impressive 15-fight winning streak snapped by Nicolae Negumereanu in his UFC debut at UFC 277. He also puts the biggest name yet on his resume and, hopefully, gets the benefit of the doubt next time he steps in the cage.
Check out Potieria's full interview above.


Canadian Cups, Spoons, Straws including custom printed cups. Free Shipping via Purolator Ground Across Canada on all orders over $199 ($15 for orders less than $199). Generally, you receive your order in only one to two days for Ontario, Quebec and three to four days for the rest of Canada.


text:
Elements of the NEC
NEC Courses
UHF Council
Council Overview
Council Website
Listening in Nature Explorations
NEC Newsletters
Clark's History
Film Screening and Panel Discussion
September 15th, 2022 Helen Rosko
NEC hosted a fun film screening and panel discussion Sept. 7th! In the Arctic's Last Ice Area, 500 nautical miles from the North Pole, a scientific team is on a rare mission to measure the world's oldest ice floes. Tiny specks in a vast ocean wilderness, they are alone. And they're in trouble. Jumbled slabs…
Listening In Nature Event
November 5th, 2021 Helen Rosko
The Ecology of Genocide
November 3rd, 2021 Helen Rosko
Environmental Defenders Panel
October 29th, 2021 Helen Rosko
Graduate Students Symposium '21
May 19th, 2021 Michelle Sayles
FRIDAY, MAY 21 | In-person and remote JOIN REMOTELY HERE IN-PERSON ASEC 303 REGISTER HERE PANEL 1: 09:00 AM - 11:00 AM FOREST LOSS AND GOVERNANCE Deforestation in the Selva Maya - Kass Green Instituting illegal mining: bypasses, political settlements and coercive conservation in the Community of Andean Nations - Giselle Vila Benites Tradescapes in…
Reflecting on the Climate Crisis Through Art
FRIDAY, MAY 14 at 4:15 pm | Meet at Red Square Meet at Red Square to walk over to University Park for a relaxed art exploration of connection to place. Painting and drawing supplies will be provided for each participant. We will be creating art based on some guided open interpretation prompts related to climate…
Explore the East-West Trail
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12 at 2:00 pm | Meet at Alden Quad, beside Dana Commons Enjoy a hike along the East-West Trail, just a short walk from Clark's campus! Led by the Worcester Intercollegiate Outdoor Initiative, we will leave from the Alden Quad to explore a 2-3 mile section of the trail. Learn more about the…
Hadwen Arboretum Tour
May 7th, 2021 Michelle Sayles
FRIDAY, MAY 7 at 9:00 am | Meet at Red Square This Listening in Nature Week, join the Hadwen Arboretum restoration team to learn more about their ongoing projects concerning tree inventory, temperature monitoring and trail construction. Please meet us at Red Square at 9:00am to walk to the Arboretum. Email Michelle Sayles at msayles@clarku.edu…
East-West Trail Kiosk Unveiling & Hike
THURSDAY, MAY 6 at 5:00 pm | Meet at Red Square Join Park Spirit of Worcester and Clark University's Listening In Nature program as we celebrate the completion of twenty-two newly installed directional and informational signs and kiosks along Worcester's 14-mile East-West Trail. They feature maps of the trail and colorful narratives highlighting the past…
What happened to the bees?
Documentary screening and Panel WEDNESDAY, MAY 5 at 4:30 pm | In-person screening: Jefferson 320 Zoom link: HERE This documentary, ¿Qué les pasó a las abejas? unmasks the privileges of transnational corporations and shows the effects of capitalism on the social and ecological structures of indigenous communities in Mexico. The struggle of Mayan communities reveals…
Community Campfire
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5 at 6:00 pm | Goddard Grove This Listening in Nature Week, Goddard Library's Head of Public Services, Rachael Shea, invites you to this sacred fire gathering in the Goddard Grove. This event is organized as part of Listening in Nature Week. Please be sure to pre-register for our events here so that…
Nature Meditation & Reflective Drawing
TUESDAY, MAY 4 at 5:00 pm | University Park This Listening in Nature Week, join Erica, director of wellness education, and Isabelle, Wellness Ambassador, in University Park to set aside some time to be present, connected, and creative in nature. You will be led through a guided meditation and then we'll hold space to deepen…
Bat Observation at Coes Pond
May 3rd, 2021 Michelle Sayles
MONDAY, MAY 3 at 7:00 pm | Meet at Red Square Join Professor Morgan Ruelle and Evan Collins for a sunset bat detection outing at Coes Pond. This event is organized as part of Listening in Nature Week. Please be sure to pre-register for our events here so that we can ensure COVID safety.
Ethical Sourcing in Jewelry
April 29th, 2021 Michelle Sayles
Metals, Diamonds and Gemstones THURSDAY, APRIL 29 at 12:00 pm | Zoom A talk and conversation with Anna Bario, Co-Founder and Designer, BarioNeal A look at traceable, responsible materials from small-scale mining and recycled goods in the jewelry sector, and areas for greatest impact from a jeweler's perspective. Join us on Zoom here. Co-sponsored by…
Making place-based sustainability initiatives visible in the Brazilian Amazon
A special lecture and conversation with Dr. Eduardo Brondizio MONDAY, APRIL 12 at 10:00 am | Zoom Dr. Eduardo Brondizio is Distinguished Professor of anthropology in the Department of Anthropology at Indiana University Bloomington, where he directs the Center for the Analysis of Social-Ecological Landscapes. He has served on numerous international scientific bodies, including as…
T'áá hwó ají t'éego and the end of the Navajo coal industry
March 19th, 2021 Michelle Sayles
FRIDAY, MARCH 26 at 4:00 pm Dr. Andrew Curley joins us for a discussion of coal, power, and contestation in the Navajo Nation. In 2021 the Navajo Generating Station, a long-standing symbol of coal energy in the southwest, was demolished. The power plant ended operations the previous year, which signaled the end of coal mining…
November 19th, 2020 Michelle Sayles
Film screening and panel discussion THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19 at 7:30 pm | Jeff 320 and Zoom Gather follows the stories of Indigenous Americans on the frontlines of a growing movement to re connect with spiritual and cultural identities that were devastated by genocide. An indigenous chef embarks on a ambitious project to reclaim ancient food…
A Syndemic 400 Years in the Making
Toxic Racism, Pollution, Climate, and Viruses with Dr. Sacoby Wilson THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12 at 12:00 pm | Zoom In the United States, Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) have been impacted by systemic racism and structured inequalities since the founding of this country. Communities of color do not have just access to good quality…
The Climate Crisis and the 2020 Election
October 29th, 2020 Michelle Sayles
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 29 at 7:00 pm | Zoom American voters are more concerned about the effects of climate change today than ever before, and a majority of Americans believe that the federal government is doing too little to address it. Extreme weather events over the past year – including tornadoes and rain in the Midwest,…
Vulnerability and resilience: what is our role?
A student-faculty dialogue on the intersections between racial, climate, and food justice WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28 at 3:00 pm | Zoom Join us in this student-led event to explore the intersections between racial justice, climate justice, and food justice! We will discuss how these topics connect to the realities of our university and community, and what…
Jamaica and the Global Aluminum Industry. How the Periphery Makes the Center Possible FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16 at 4 p.m. | Zoom As part of the so called Third World, The Developing World, a place like Jamaica is considered peripheral to the centers of wealth, power and modern civilization. In this talk, Figueroa will argue that…
Farming While Black
African Diasporic Wisdom for Farming and Food Justice WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14 at 4:00 pm Leah Penniman of Soul Fire Farm joins us for a public talk on her work to end racism in the food system. This talk will be followed by a panel discussion with Steve Fischer and Stacie Brimmage from the Regional Environmental…
Resource Radicals
October 2nd, 2020 Michelle Sayles
From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador FRIDAY, OCTOBER 2 at 4:00 pm | Zoom Resource Radicals unpacks the conflict between two leftisms: the administration's resource nationalism and the antiextractivism of grassroots activists. In this archival and ethnographic study, Riofrancos demonstrates how Ecuador's commodity-dependent economy and history of indigenous uprisings offer a unique opportunity to understand…
Extractives and GIS
September 25th, 2020 Michelle Sayles
Solar Panel Fields and Forest Loss in Massachusetts/ Uganda-Tanga Crude Oil Pipeline Potential Impact FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25 at 4:00 pm | Zoom Join Professor John Rogan in this presentation about the application of GIS and remote sensing to assess the actual and potential impacts of extractive industries on habitat and human livelihoods. Join here via…
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 25 at 9:00 am | Meet at Red Square Join the Hadwen Arboretum restoration team to learn more about their ongoing projects concerning tree inventory, temperature monitoring and trail construction. Please meet us at Red Square at 9:00am to walk to the Arboretum. Email Michelle Sayles at msayles@clarku.edu to register. Learn more about the…
Soundscape Tours of Main South
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24 at 4:30pm | Meet at Red Square How can we proceed as activists, artists, social scientists, researchers, naturalists, chroniclers, environmentalists, and engaged citizens to better understand and respond actively to the sounds of our environment? Following on Norman Long's lecture on this topic (How Soundwalks Engage Communities on Monday, September 21 @…
Thoreau and the Environment
September 23rd, 2020 Michelle Sayles
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23 at 1:00 pm | Zoom Hosted by the Walden Woods Project As part of Listening in Nature Week, Jeffrey Cramer joins us to share Thoreau's legacy as citizen scientist, naturalist, and environmentalist. He will introduce some mindful listening practices, inspired by Thoreau, to help us live more deliberately, compassionately, and peacefully. The…
Listening in Nature Week
September 21st, 2020 Michelle Sayles
SEPTEMBER 21 to 25 | around campus, with offerings online At the heart of A new Earth conversation, the Listening in Nature program embodies our understanding that practices of slowing down, listening, becoming observant and available, and awakening to the magic of living ecosystems are vitally important as we navigate the realities of a warming world. We…
How do soundwalks engage communities?
What is a soundwalk? How can we ( as artists, social scientists, researchers, naturalists, chroniclers, environmentalists, and critical citizens) actively respond to our soundscape, connecting it with global concerns for a better world? In this talk, composer and scholar Norman Long will prepare participants for an actual soundwalk through the Main South neighborhood as part…
Collaborative Launch
August 26th, 2020 Michelle Sayles
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26th at 4:00pm & THURSDAY, AUGUST 27th at 12:00pm | Zoom Incoming NEC Collaborative course students and faculty are invited to our fall orientation to A new Earth conversation. This is an opportunity to meet other Collaborative students, learn more about what makes a Collaborative course distinct and become introduced to the process…
Ecopoetics with Elizabeth Lindsey Rogers
February 24th, 2020 Michelle Sayles
MONDAY, February 24th Workshop | 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, Anderson House, Leir 1 *RSVP required. Email Mandy Gutmann-Gonzalez at mgutmanngonzalez@clarku.edu to register. Poetry Reading | 4:30pm, Fireside Lounge, Dana Commons In her newest release, The Tilt Torn Away From the Seasons, Elizabeth Lindsey Rogers imagines a human mission to Mars, a consequence of our…
Sacred Instructions
Indigenous Wisdom for Living Spirit-Based Change THURS February 13 | Higgins Lounge Drawing from the ancestral knowledge of her Indigenous roots, and her experience as an attorney and activist, Sherri Mitchell addresses some of the most critical issues of our day. Mitchell's teachings provide a road map for the spirit and a compass of compassion…
Decolonizing our Hearts, Minds, and Movements
WED February 12 | Traina Center for the Arts This one-day workshop with Sherri Mitchell offers a glimpse into the work required to decolonize our hearts and minds. Participants will gain an understanding of how colonization has impacted our thinking and the ways that we engage one another and the world around us. We will…
The Uncertain Human Future
A participatory exhibit | Traina Center for the Arts, Second Floor Gallery OPENING | TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11th at 5:00pm EXHIBIT | FEBRUARY 10th to MARCH 27th In the Council on the Uncertain Human Future, we look deeply into the climate and ecological breakdown underway. This exhibition showcases material from the Council archives and invites a…
January 15th, 2020 Michelle Sayles
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15th at 4:00pm | Higgins Lounge A new Earth conversation welcomes in our new cohort of Collaborative students at our Collaborative Launch event on Wednesday, January 15th from 4:00 - 5:30pm in the Higgins Lounge. For the 180 new Collaborative students this spring, this is an opportunity to learn about NEC and the…
The Big Thaw
November 6th, 2019 NEC Admin
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6 at 7:00pm | Grace Conference Room, Higgins University Center Permafrost—permanently frozen ground that lies under tundra and boreal forests across the Arctic--covers more than 12 percent of the earth's land. In The Big Thaw, readers meet scientists and students who have been studying the permafrost and what it contains: a vast store of…
Genocide. Ecocide. Climate Catastrophe.
October 23rd, 2019 NEC Admin
A conversation with Christian Parenti and Roy Scranton WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 23 at 4:30 pm | Jefferson Hall 320 Speakers: Christian Parenti (author, journalist and Associate Professor of Economics, John Jay College) and Roy Scranton (author and Assistant Professor of English, University of Notre Dame) A powerful shift in American collective awareness of the climate crisis has occurred thanks to scientific reports released…
Voices from the Mine
October 21st, 2019 NEC Admin
MONDAY, OCTOBER 21 at 6:00pm | Fireside Lounge, Dana Commons Diamond mining is Sierra Leone's most lucrative export industry, with an annual production of up to $US 250 million. Due to the challenges associated with the informal and unregulated nature of the artisanal mining sector, only a fraction of this wealth returns to the areas where…
Listening in Nature Day
October 3rd, 2019 Michelle Sayles
Wednesday, October 16th, all day | Campus-wide Join us for a day of Listening in Nature, a program of A new Earth conversation (NEC). On Wednesday, October 16th we invite the campus community to slow down, listen, observe and awaken to the magic of living ecosystems. Throughout the day there will be opportunities for exploring…
Climate Emergency Teach-In
September 27th, 2019 NEC Admin
RSVP on Facebook As part of the Global Climate Emergency Action Week, this day-long event is open to the community as a space of discussion on the climate crisis and reflection on the steps we can take to act for climate justice. Here is the schedule for the day: Main Sessions (Higgins Lounge, Dana Commons)…
Worcester Youth Climate Strike
Join us on September 20th in Worcester, MA for Youth Climate Strike's call to action to fight against the #climatecrisis. Following the lead of Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, thousands of young people and adult allies will gather in Worcester this September to kick off a week of climate action! More information on our Facebook event.…
Listening in Nature
April 17th, 2019 NEC Admin
Wednesday, April 17th, all day | Campus-wide Join us for the launch of Listening in Nature, a program of A new Earth conversation (NEC). On Wednesday, April 17th we invite the campus community to slow down, listen, observe and awaken to the magic of living ecosystems. Throughout the day there will be opportunities for exploring…
Tim DeChristopher and Susi Moser in Conversation
April 4th, 2019 NEC Admin
Given what we know, how do we live now? Tim DeChristopher and Susi Moser in Conversation Climate activist and NEC Visiting Fellow Tim DeChristopher and leading climate communications expert Susi Moser (Clark Geography PhD 1997) will continue exploring the question of how we live with what we know about the climate crisis, and open the…
Tim DeChristopher and Terry Tempest Williams in conversation
March 28th, 2019 NEC Admin
Given what we know, how do we live now? Tim DeChristopher and Terry Tempest Williams in conversation Climate activist and NEC Visiting Fellow Tim DeChristopher and renowned writer, conservationist and activist Terry Tempest Williams will ask how we live with what we know about the climate crisis, and open the conversation to the audience as…
On Infertile Ground
February 28th, 2019 NEC Admin
Population Control and Women's Rights in the Era of Climate Change Jade Sasser, Associate Professor, University of California, Riverside Jade Sasser explores how a small network of international development actors, including private donors, NGO program managers, scientists, and youth advocates, is bringing population back to the center of public environmental debate. Tuesday March 26 at…
Cohabiting with the devil
Extractive industries, climate change and the struggle to live well A conversation with Tony Bebbington, Denise Humphreys Bebbington, John Rogan and Laura Sauls How do people cohabit with extractive industries, especially in Latin America and Indonesia? We will discuss the pressures that resource extraction is placing on forests and community rights as well as some of the ways in…
Listening for Signal / The World We Wish To See
November 29th, 2018 NEC Admin
FILM & CONVERSATION SERIES Listening for Signal (2016) This short documentary, filmed in northern New Mexico, immerses us in conversation with members of theCouncil on the Uncertain Human Future on how we wish to conduct ourselves in the face of climate change. The World We Wish To See (2018) The launch of a new short film on a Council held…
A Call to Life | Variations on a Theme of Extinction
November 2nd, 2018 NEC Admin
A Call to Life Variations on a Theme of Extinction Kathleen Dean Moore and Rachelle McCabe A powerful call to action on global warming and mass extinction, A Call to Life is a collaboration between concert pianist Rachell McCabe and writer/philosopher Kathleen Dean Moore. McCabe performs Sergei Rachmaninoff's Variations on a Theme from Corelli while Moore weaves words between the variations, giving voice to humanity's…
How to let go of the world
October 25th, 2018 NEC Admin
How to let go of the world and love all the things climate can't change Filmmaker Josh Fox visits twelve countries as he investigates climate change, and acknowledges that it may be too late to stop some of the worst consequences; if so, what is it that climate change can't destroy? Tim DeChristopher, climate activist…
September 29, 2018 at Clark University politics, economy, social justice and the climate on Earth A day of conversations between all members of the community on questions related to our current challenges (including those of politics, the economy, white supremacy, and climate change), how they fit together and how we can address them holistically. alltogethernow.newearthconversation.org…
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 28th at 7pm | Fireside Lounge EVENT LAUNCH FILM I Am Not Your Negro A searing indictment of prejudice and hatred in America, guided by the words of the late, great James Baldwin. We will hold small dialogue circles following the film.
Erica Mackie on Building an Equitable Solar Economy
On Tuesday, November 14th at 7pm, GRID Alternatives CEO Erica Mackie gave a talk entitled "One Rooftop at a Time: Building an Equitable Solar Economy." Erica Mackie co-founded GRID Alternatives in 2001 and as CEO has helped develop it into a major national nonprofit that makes solar technology and job training accessible to underserved communities.…
Jacqueline Patterson on Upholding the Beloved Community
On Tuesday, October 24th, Jacqueline Patterson spoke about her work advancing environmental and climate justice in a talk entitled "Upholding the Beloved Community: Advancing a Just Transition to a Sustainable Planet." Jacqueline Patterson is the Director of the NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program. As a researcher, program manager, coordinator, advocate and activist, she has…
Forget Paris? The Climate Accord After U.S. Withdrawal
On Wednesday, September 13th, a Clark faculty panel shared their perspectives on the state of the Paris Climate Accord following the withdrawal of the United States. The panel included Ed Carr (IDCE), Chris Williams (Georgraphy), and Chuck Agosta (Physics), and was facilitated by Deb Roberston (Biology).
Camille Seaman Speaks on Standing Rock
March 22nd, 2017 NEC Admin
https://youtu.be/4h90tb8Ujeg On Wednesday, March 22, photographer and national Council member Camille Seaman shared thoughts from her time at Standing Rock, North Dakota as a part of the indigenous resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. A full recording of her presentation can be viewed above. The event was held at Clark University and was sponsored by…
Climate Change Teach-In 2016
March 23rd, 2016 NEC Admin
The second Climate Change Teach-in at Clark was held on March 23, 2016. Over five hundred members of the community participated in 45 sessions organized in three sessions around the questions: What is changing and why? How do we choose to respond? What's next? A keynote talk by Naomi Klein in late February led off…
Naomi Klein gives Teach-in Keynote
This Changes Everything Capitalism v. the Climate Naomi Klein, author, journalist and activist February 26, 2016 A Presidential Lecture For Naomi Klein, the climate crisis challenges us to abandon the free market ideology of our time, restructure the global economy, and remake our political systems. Either we embrace radical change ourselves or radical changes will…
Climate chaos is and will increasingly alter our world. The changes taking place in the Earth's biosphere are re-defining the human future in ways we are only beginning to fathom; business as usual is no longer possible. How might we at Clark respond in our educational commitments and as a community? The Teach-in is an opportunity to better understand this crisis collectively,…
Follow NEC on Facebook
Follow NEC on Instagram
>> Subscribe to our newsletter
Worcester MA 01610
A new Earth conversation is funded through the generous support of the Christopher Reynolds Foundation.


April 25, 2013. London, United Kingdom.
Yet another horrific incident has occurred in Bangladesh. On April 24th a factory collapse killed more than 1000 people, injured more than 2,500 and forced a 24 hour rescue operation that rescued more than 2,400 people including many children. The building housed a number of garment factories that have become sadly typical of industry in Bangladesh. Sadly typical because the workers are extremely low paid and often work in extremely poor and unsafe conditions. So why haven't the previous disasters, like the Tazreen factory fire last November that killed 112 people and injured a further 200, had any effect on industry and safety standards?
Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world, with more than a quarter of its population living in extreme poverty on less than $1 a day. In an effort to pull itself out of poverty, Bangladesh has made great efforts to attract western retailers to submit manufacturing orders with local suppliers instead of with their competitors in China, Vietnam and Latin America. Bangladesh is now the second largest exporter of apparel in the world. Despite having some of the longest lead times for orders and complex bureaucracy, retailers continue to come back to suppliers in Bangladesh because of one little thing – cost. Little being the operative word as the continued drive for cheaper items like clothes, drives down the retail price which in turn drives down even harder on the suppliers and workers who make the items. Workers in Bangladesh work for as little as 14₵ (US) an hour compared with workers making similar items in China who would receive around $1 (US) an hour.
It is this kind of commercial lure that attracts companies like budget clothing company Primark to source from Bangladesh. Primark confirmed that one of the factories in today's building collapse, supplied garments to their UK stores. Global retailer Wal-Mart said it was investigating whether the factories were currently producing any items for their stores.
So where does the blame lie for a preventable catastrophe like this?
In this situation and the similar incidents before it seems the unethical reality is unfortunately quite simple. Life is cheap. Or at least it is to some unethical retailers. In the race to win every consumer pound, retailers will drive their prices down. There are clear limits to how far profitability will be impacted, so in turn the pressure is placed on the manufacturer. Combined with highly pressured lead times, costs are driven to a point where everything and everyone at the bottom of the supply chain is hard-pressed to make any kind of significant profit – with the ultimate losers being the people that actually provide the labour. But cheap labour in Bangladesh, clearly equates to cheap lives too. Why else would retailers continue to force manufacturers into an economic position that means they have little incentive to improve working conditions, or for that matter, a position where they can actually afford to invest in the safety and well-being of their workforce? The only conclusion can be that unethical retailers consider the risk of loss of life to be worth the commercial return they can get if they take their chances.
Primark said "it was 'shocked and deeply saddened by the appalling incident', adding that it has been working with other retailers to review the country's approach to factory standards and will push for this review to include building integrity." But will this momentary compassion, result in any real change? After all, it is not the first time that retailers like Primark have been caught using exploitative labour.
Retailers must take responsibility for their purchasing power and the effect that it has on poorer countries and desperate manufacturers. The answer is not simply to withdraw orders and force the collapse of businesses and the end of livelihoods for thousands. A better response is to genuinely look at the whole supply chain and ordering systems and see how at a very base level, minimum safety standards and pay can be achieved and then continue to build from there.
Consumers must also take responsibility too. If you are buying a t-shirt for a £1, logic would tell you that someone has got much, much less than that for making it for you. We all need to save money in hard economic times, but should our savings be at the expense of human life?
Companies need to be heavily involved in assurance and sustainability throughout their entire operation and supply chain. On a business level, the risk to brand is massive. On an even more important level – the risk to lives and livelihood, both here and abroad is even greater.
This entry was posted in Blog and tagged apparel, assurance, bangladesh, china, csr, ethical, ethical goods, factory collapse, factory fire, garment, garment industry, labour, manufacturing, news, poor, primark, slave, supply chain, sustainability, victims, walmart. Bookmark the permalink.


Wood construction professor Fink feels that timber is not getting fair treatment by construction industry.
Gerhard Fink, the upcoming wood construction professor for Aalto University, sees no obstacles for Finland's ambitions of becoming a "wood construction powerhouse".
"The starting point for success is a good one. There is vast potential in the forests here", says the 33-year-old Fink who is briefly on a visit to Kouvola, a city brimming with timber construction plans. According to the young Austrian, many of his continental colleagues are of the same opinion: Finland definitely has a chance to make its mark in the international arenas.
"Still, the fact that potential exists does not mean anything by itself," Fink comments. As a scientist, Fink does not go much for hype – and when he starts his Aalto professorship in January, he's determined to let the work do the talking.
Plenty of straight talk is heard during the visit, however. No, the professor-to-be does not know much about Finnish architecture or construction and he doesn't arrive to Finland – his first time – with a readymade agenda.
In Kouvola, the start of this academic venture is observed with a keen eye, since the City is paying a part of the professorship – and expects good value for investment. In a little get-together at the City Hall in September, Fink learned all about local timber construction plans – and liked what he was hearing.
Having received his PhD from ETH Zürich (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule) only a year ago, Fink was a project leader at the Swiss EMPA institute for six months before going for the opportunity up north. The young academic does not hide the fact that a Professor's chair from his favorite field is a dream come true. Fink talks about "once in a lifetime" chance to put together his own research team and zero in on interesting research topics.
"All this is highly motivating," he says.
"In a way, the only challenge in designing wooden buildings is how to make them as efficient and reliable as possible. But the question is, how do you reach this goal," he says, adding that there is a tremendous number of issues to be addressed, before the objective is met.
According to Fink, every engineer should be able to approach the issue objectively: he believes that it is short-sighted – and more than a tad bit unprofessional – to go out and limit the field of alternatives right from the start.
Previously, Fink has studied the application of quantitative methods in existing wooden structures – i.e. how one could utilize the data from, say, a wood renovation project more effectively.
"Presently, you can only say whether the renovation is needed or not," Fink says, calling the present methods "useless".
And then there's that feeling that only wood can deliver. Fink muses – and this is coming from a scientist – that whenever you step into a room that is wood through-and-through, there is something very special about that moment.
As a material, wood has a powerful aura which resonates intensely with people's wellbeing. The professor-to-be – who likes to spend his free time in nature – is convinced that "the soul of wood" is strong enough for the challenges ahead.


How to attempt Blood Relation Questions in SBI PO Prelims: In the month of April, The State Bank of India will begin SBI PO Recruitment process by conducting SBI PO Prelims 2017. Candidates who make it through will be called for SBI PO Mains 2017.
Blood relations is a very important topic of any Aptitude Test. Such questions may be asked directly or may be given in the form of coded blood relations or data sufficiency questions. That is why today we are presenting you some tips and tricks to solve Blood Relation Problems Quickly.
Blood relation is an important topic keeping in view the competitive exams. Blood relation shows the different relations among the members of a family.
Let's have a look at our recommended SBI PO Mock Test Series study material for English Language section.
Below mentioned are the tips & tricks to attempt blood relation questions.
The is the best way to solve blood relation questions is to apply the questions on your own family.
Step 1: The first and foremost step is to choose the two persons among whom the relationship is to be established.
Step 2: Now once you have chosen the two persons, pin-point the intermediate relationship between two persons, i.e. such relationship through which long drawn relationship can be established between the required persons.
Step 3: In the end, conclude the relationship between two required persons.
Try to resolve the relation step by step. Always solve statement in generation.
Grandmother's daughter-in-law is his mother. Mother's only son is he himself. So the the person in the picture is his wife.
The important aspect is that the diagram should always clearly depict the 'Generation' and reflect the 'Gender'. Hence, 'Horizontal lines' are drawn to indicate marriage; vertical lines indicate children, broken lines for sibling relationship and for the gender, we can use 'm' for male and 'f' for 'female' and 'x' for unknown.
f = female, F = father.
Note: You can use what ever notations you think easy for you but stick to them and practice so that you can do it fast during exams.
Here are a few crucial points to remember while preparing for blood relation questions as it requires presence of mind.
So, follow the below mentioned points while preparing for your exam.
Try to focus on the points which give maximum definite information.
While concluding about the relationship between the two persons, be careful about the gender of the persons involved as there is a possibility of committing a mistake by assuming the gender of the person which is not given in the data or which cannot be derived from the data.
Above mentioned are the tips & tricks to attempt blood relation questions for SBI PO 2017. Go through the above tips to ace in the upcoming exam. Now, we will provide you the summary of common blood relation which might help you in your upcoming exam.
Here we conclude our article on How to How to attempt Blood Relation Questions in SBI PO Prelims 2017. Click on the above links to buy the products and ace in upcoming banking exams.
Till then, Stay connected for more information regarding SBI PO Recruitment 2016. To excel in Bank Examinations, download the Best SBI PO Exam Preparation App for free.
Previous articleIAS Mains General Studies Paper 2: Question Challenge!!


text:
Home » Singer » Scotty McCreery Wiki, Bio, Girlfriend, Dating and Tour
Scotty McCreery Wiki, Bio, Girlfriend, Dating and Tour
Date: 05 Aug, 2016 Report This
Wife/Spouse
Girlfriend/Dating
5 feet 10 inches
Scotty McCreery was born in the year 1993 on 9th of October and this makes him 21 years old at this moment. At this early age he has already made a name for himself and his concerts and tours can advertise and sell thousands of tickets as that big he has become after American Idol. He was born in a place called Raleigh, which lies in United States of America and this makes his nationality American and ethnicity white. He talked about his upcoming tour in an interview and he was pretty excited about it.
He is a very good country singer and his amazing songs and performances have made him a great fan base. He has been very successful already and he has a net worth of 3 million dollars. His work in America Idol LIVE! Tour of the year 2011 was simply mesmerizing and his fan base increased after that. He is very popular and very much engaged in social networking sites like Twitter and Instagram. He uploads his recent pictures in Instagram to share them with his fans and loved ones. He has 191 thousand followers in Instagram and this proves his stardom. Information about him and his interesting biography can be grabbed from wiki sites like Wikipedia and IMDb. He has 898 thousand followers in Twitter and he has already tweeted more than 8500 times.
He is not very tall though as he has an average height of 1.78 meters but he is extremely good looking and girls are crazy for him. According to some sources he is currently dating his girlfriend Gabi Dugal and their affair has been one of the hottest topics of the town. He is not gay as he is dating a girl. The couple is too young right now and in near future when they will get matured they will surely take their relationship to a new level if they stay strong and committed. After being so popular and successful he is still very down to earth and this is a star quality.
Annie Villeneuve Wiki, Bio, Married, Husband or Boyfriend
Tulisa Contostavlos Wiki, Boyfriend, Dating and Net Worth
Abigail Breslin Wiki, Boyfriend, Dating and Net Worth
Sean Combs Wiki, Married, Wife or Girlfriend and Net Worth
Young Lyric Wiki, Bio, Age, Parents and Songs
Ryan Adams Wiki, Wife, Divorce, Girlfriend and Net Worth
Bun B Wiki, Wife, Divorce or Girlfriend and Net Worth
Michael Franti Wiki, Wife, Divorce, Girlfriend and Net Worth
Bill Withers Wiki, Bio, Wife, Health, Dead or Alive and Net Worth
Adam Gontier Wiki, Married, Wife, Divorce and Girlfriend
Michael Bivins Wiki, Married, Wife or Girlfriend, Gay and Net Worth


text:
Best-Selling Sandbox Game Minecraft Heads to Nintendo's Wii U Console
December 7, 2015, 5:10 am PST
REDMOND, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Mojang's video game phenomenon Minecraft launches worldwide on Nintendo's Wii U home console on Dec. 17. Minecraft: Wii U Edition comes with multiple add-on content packs, and will be available in the Nintendo eShop on Wii U in North America for $29.99. Nintendo and Mojang are also collaborating on new content for Nintendo fans to be released at a future date. More details about this content will be released at a later time.
"With so many included add-on content packs, Minecraft: Wii U Edition brings an exciting collection of Minecraft content and experiences to Nintendo fans" Tweet this
The game will feature off-TV play, so players can keep their games going on the screen of the Wii U GamePad controller if another family member wants to watch something else on TV. The game also comes with some of the most popular current Minecraft add-on content packs:
Battle & Beasts Skin Pack Battle & Beasts 2 Skin Pack Natural Texture Pack City Texture Pack Fantasy Texture Pack Festive Mash-up Pack
"With so many included add-on content packs, Minecraft: Wii U Edition brings an exciting collection of Minecraft content and experiences to Nintendo fans," said Reggie Fils-Aime, Nintendo of America's President and COO. "Wii U players will have plenty of reasons to keep coming back to this iconic gaming experience."
In addition to the content that comes with the game, players will also be able to expand their experience with 16 additional add-on packs available for purchase within the Nintendo eShop at launch: 1. Festive Skin Pack 2. The Simpsons Skin Pack 3. Doctor Who Skins Volume 1 4. Doctor Who Skins Volume 2 5. Star Wars Classic Skin Pack 6. Star Wars Rebels Skin Pack 7. Star Wars Prequel Skin Pack 8. Mass Effect Mash-up Pack 9. Skyrim Mash-up Pack 10. Plastic Texture Pack 11. Candy Texture Pack 12. Cartoon Texture Pack 13. Steampunk Texture Pack 14. Pattern Texture Pack 15. Greek Mythology Mash-up Pack 16. Halloween 2015 Mash-up Pack
More add-on packs will also be available for the game in the future.
For more information about Minecraft: Wii U Edition, please visit http://www.nintendo.com/games/detail/minecraft-wii-u-edition.
Share + Bookmark


Enjoy a wintery stroll around the stunning Stourhead House and gardens, whose breath-taking views feature in classic English films such as Pride and Prejudice.
Take a bracing coastal walk or hop into a fishing boat with a local fisherman to explore the picturesque Lyme Bay on the Dorset coastline.
Sample other Somerset country pursuits with a day at the races, or game shooting. Take a short break in London with a Michelin-starred supper, an opera or the ballet.
This is just a taster of some of our favourite things to do out of the saddle. Get in touch today to start tailoring your ideal sporting tour.


(Columbus) -- Madison-Plains Local School District could save nearly $1.8 million and eliminate a projected 2022 deficit of $7.4 million by adopting the recommendations of a performance audit released today by Ohio Auditor of State Dave Yost.
Recommendations for the Madison County school district include reducing staff, trimming the bus fleet, reducing the subsidy for extracurricular activities, and lowering the employer premium for dental and vision insurance.
The largest savings - a little more than $1 million - could come from the reduction of the equivalent of 17 staff positions, including administrators, teachers, clerical, bookkeeping, and other professional and support positions, the audit found.
Reducing the subsidy of extracurricular activities to the level of peer school districts could save another $180,200, according to the audit.
· Maximize use of the Permanent Improvement Fund to free $63,400 in the General Fund.
· Reduce the cost of the employer premium for dental and vision coverage to the county average to save $47,900.
· Develop an energy management plan that reduces energy costs to the levels of peer districts to save $35,400.
· Eliminate three spare buses to reduce expenses by $32,300 while generating $5,200 from the sale of the buses.
· Reduce teaching staff by another 6.5 fulltime positions.
· Adopt an across-the-board 8 percent reduction in staffing.
· Adopt a freeze on base and step pay increases for three years.
· Eliminate the entire General Fund subsidy of extracurricular activities.
The audit highlighted three noteworthy accomplishments by the district.
The first lauds the district's transparency with financial and administrative information, which it provides via the school district website, social media and newsletters, as well as advisory committee meetings held throughout the district.
The second applauds the district's 10-year financial plan, which helps guide decision-making and which is available on the district website and periodically is outlined at school board meetings.
The third notes that the district contracted for groundskeeping and snow removal for $41,912, and was able to eliminate two maintenance positions through attrition. This contract is $62,789 less than it would cost to hire two entry-level maintenance employees to perform this work.
Auditors also noted an issue for further study, suggesting that the district consider selling equipment it has deemed underused or inoperable to generate one-time revenue.
A full copy of this audit is available online.


Our driver I Wayan Suartana was absolutely amazing...My friend and I enjoyed our day with him..If your in Ubud please look him up, he is fantastic!!
I have booked 2 days private driver in Bali, and I would like to emphesize my satisfaction. I want to mention specially, Driver Kadek and Gama, very good drivers, good english skills and safe driving. I strongly recommend your team for private drivers and tours.
it is kinds of crazy man on the screen,he made a lot of bad reviews on the attraction. whats wrong with you brother???
Get quick answers from Private Drivers and Guide in Bali - Private Tours staff and past visitors.


text:
Q: Reading large hdfs file from a python script I have a python script that needs to process a large file. The code works fine if I reduce the original file and run the script but when I  run the script on the original data my script takes forever to execute. I am considering using HDFS to store the file and read it from the python script. But in order to use HDFS do I have to convert my python script into a map reduce program or can I use the same code.

A: You'll like needly to tweak your Python code and then use Hadoop Streaming to process it.  This is exactly the type of situation for which streaming was intended.