text:
Arguing Against Democracy
National Review's Kevin D. Williamson advocates for less democracy in America.
Steven L. Taylor · Thursday, April 8, 2021 · 46 comments
Kevin D. Williamson has a piece in National Review which asks in its title, Why Not Fewer Voters?
Much of the discussion about proposed changes to voting laws backed by many Republicans and generally opposed by Democrats begs the question and simply asserts that having more people vote is, ceteris paribus, a good thing.
Why should we believe that?
Why shouldn't we believe the opposite? That the republic would be better served by having fewer — but better — voters?
Many Americans, being devout egalitarians, recoil from the very notion of better voters as a matter of rhetoric, even as they accept qualifications as a matter of fact.
On one level, this isn't especially difficult. If you are going to have a democratic government that respects the idea of popular sovereignty, that the right and power to govern derives from the people (the core tenet of republicanism), then you have to treat citizens equally. It is not a matter of being "devout egalitarians" (which is actually a whole other discussion). It is about a basic level of adhering to the notion that citizens are "created equal" (to quote some old document Williamson might have read at some point in his life).
All of this is pretty basic political theory. The ancients, most notably Aristotle, talked about regime types in terms of whether power was controlled by the one, the few, or the many, as I discussed in a post some years ago.
In that post I also noted:
If we skip to modern political theory, we can pretty much carve regimes into two broad categories: democratic and authoritarian. Democratic governments are (in simple terms) those which derive their power and legitimacy from the population in such a way that allows regular and significant input from the population about who governs. This takes the form of either republics (where popular sovereignty derives directly from the people) or constitutional monarchies wherein their may still be a hereditary figurehead, but where the government is selected by the population through the vote.
In a follow-up to that post, I noted
If, however, we assert that each human being has inherent and equal value, other forms of government become hard to justify. If, the people (the "demos" in Greek) are to have the power ("kratos"), then democracy is the logical, and just, form of government that should be pursued.
This entire discussion boils down to age-old questions of who governs. Once you start stating that some people are "better" than others you start to range away from democracy (government by the people, the demos) to aristocracy (which literally means government by the best, the aristos).
Once you start talking about "better voters" you are saying that some people are more worthy of participation than others. This not only undercuts a foundational principle of basic democratic governance, but it also requires creating tests for who is better than whom.
As I snarked on Twitter yesterday, does Williamson's "better voter" scheme mean that all of us Ph.D.s in Political Science should have bigger, better votes than, say, mere commentators? After all, we have spent a lot more time seriously considering politics than the mere plebes, yes?
Let's go back to Plato and bring on the Philosopher-Kings!
But, of course, as most people who talk about "better" voters, Williamson is certain that he is a member of the right club. To use categories from his column, he isn't a convicted felon, he has a driver's license. He, after all, is not an "average American voter."
One argument for encouraging bigger turnout is that if more eligible voters go to the polls then the outcome will more closely reflect what the average American voter wants. That sounds like a wonderful thing . . . if you haven't met the average American voter.
Voters — individually and in majorities — are as apt to be wrong about things as right about them, often vote from low motives such as bigotry and spite, and very often are contentedly ignorant.
the fact is that voters got us into this mess. Maybe the answer isn't more voters.
Williamson thinks himself clever, but he is eliding that representative democracy is not about the voters directly making decisions, it is about having a) power derive from the people and not some special source (like blood line, wealth, or religion), and b) to create a government wherein the interest of society are reflected.
(And can I make a side-point that since the US government is poorly representative, trying to blame US governmental outcomes on the voters is problematic–see, e.g., almost every post I have written on the flaw of US governing institutions and/or about reform questions).
As Political Scientist Hand Noel noted on Twitter earlier today:
To the extent that they are even made in good faith, the arguments that some voters are not adequately informed enough to be competent mostly rest on a bad folk theory of democracy — that the people, through the aggregation of their wisdom, make policy. 1/
— Hans Noel (@ProfHansNoel) April 8, 2021
Meanwhile representation of different social interests(e.g. Achen and Bartels) doesn't require expertise, but it does require a representative electorate. 3/3
What Williamson is arguing for is a less representative electorate. It is an inherently anti-democratic, authoritarian position that suggests that some voters are worthy of voting while others are not.
Of the myriad problems with the construction "better voters" are 1) who gets to determine who is good enough to vote? (put another way: who gets to decide who is worthy of a basic right of citizenship in a democratic state?); and 2) the historical fact that whenever a society goes down this road of determining worthiness, it has been the case the already disempowered are the ones who are seen as not meeting the standard.
Williamson's follow-up in face of criticism (Fewer Voters, Continued) does not further his argument in any substantial way, but instead just doubles down.
The emotional incontinence of the responses and the accompanying lack of anything that might be considered a genuine argument is further confirmation that what we are dealing with here is not a political idea at all but instead that very American form of idolatry: democracy as a religion — the supernatural belief that "voting is sacred," as Deb Haaland and many others have put it. But we should not allow that kind of figurative hyperbole to lead us astray: Voting is not sacred — it is, at best, useful, a way of organizing government that is, for all of its many faults, more convenient than bonking one another on the head.
All of that rather misses the point as it pretends like the concern about his position is the vote for the sake of the vote. His original argument was in favor of treating citizens unequally. Apart from the fact that he is comfortable with that position, he doesn't actually provide any argument for why any specific American citizen ought to be treated differently from another, save that he clearly feels like he and people he prefers will be considered in the "better voter" category and that he can't really be bothered to care about those who are worse for some reason.
And the genuine argument that he is looking for is made above and it boils down to the following elements.
Basic political equality is an essential characteristic of representative democracy.
The most fundamental manifestation of political equality in such a context is that everyone's vote counts the same.
The goal of representative democracy is to have broader societal interests represented in government.
The best pathway to that representativeness is via voting.
And yes, as I write about frequently, there is more to representation than merely the vote, but you have to start somewhere (and the place to start is full access to the ballot box by all citizens).
Let me underscore #2 above: that everyone's vote counts the same. It really is the most fundamental manifestation of democratic citizenship. A simple illustration: Bill Gates' freedom of speech and mine are not utterly co-equal. His access to broadcast and print media well outstrips mine. And he can spend whatever he wants to get his message out even if media outlets won't invite him on for free. But my freedom of speech is greater than a lot of citizens who don't even have a modest blog readership or the occasional appearance on TV or radio or in print. But my vote counts the same as Bill Gates as a random person's.*
The vote of the rich and the poor are the same. The ballot does not know if you are white, Black, Hispanic, male, female, straight, gay, or anything else. A vote is a vote. And the only way to make that not true is to make it harder for some people to vote than it is for others.
Calling for "better" voters in a way that is linked to rules and laws that make voting harder is simply saying you believe some Americans are not worthy of full citizenship.
It is also incredibly presumptuous to assume that someone convicted of a felony and having served their time or someone unable to acquire a driver's license is necessarily worse than some other citizen, in either knowledge or decision-making capability.
And that doesn't even get into the question of whether some citizens are unjustly more likely to be convicted or to have difficulties in obtaining ID.
Let's not ignore history. Property requirements, gender limitations, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like where about making sure we had "better" voters.
When it comes to fundamental rights you either believe them to truly be fundamental, or you believe that your group is deserving and those "other" people aren't. But once you have decided that those others aren't worthy, you have to admit to yourself that you don't believe in democracy, but at a minimum want some kind of limited (or not so limited) authoritarianism with privileged classes who are allowed access to power and underclasses that aren't.
Let me conclude on a simple point, but one that is a bit of a pet peeve of mine: arguments framed as "we need better X" (regardless of what X is) are lazy and unhelpful. Better is always better–it is tautological. Yes, if I can have better than what I have now, that is an improvement. But the real issue is not "is better a good thing?" (of course it is) it is "what would it take to make things better?" or "is better even possible?" It is also "at what cost do we get to better?"
*Of course, once we start talking about the Electoral College or the Senate, this gets messy–which is one of the reason I am a fan of neither).
FILED UNDER: Democracy, Democratic Theory, Religion, US Politics, Authoritarianism, Bill Gates, citizenship, electoral college, Freedom of Speech, National Review, Political Science, television, Twitter
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter
Gromitt Gunn says:
Thursday, 8 April 2021 at 14:46
Crazy solution for 'better' voters:
Fully fund public education for all that includes civics, critical thinking, and rhetorical skills rather than rote standardized tests.
I'm sure that will go over great with the 'better' minds at the National Review. 😉
de stijl says:
Best thing I have read in 2021.
Michael Cain says:
I note in passing that essentially every state admitted to the Union since the Civil War has thought it necessary to include some form of state-level direct democracy — referendums, initiatives — in their constitutions. Also, national-level direct democracy in a country as large by population and geography as the US is almost certainly a really bad idea.
DrDaveT says:
@Gromitt Gunn:
You beat me to it.
Anyone who is arguing for "better voters" at the same time that they are fighting against improvements in general education has tipped their hand. Rather like people who claim to be trying to prevent abortions, but oppose cheap and easy access to birth control…
drj says:
Williamson's argument isn't about better voters or better government (or better anything, for that matter).
It's about justifying minority rule. Plain and simple.
It's about making explicit the implications of "Real Americans" vs. anybody else.
The fact that this even gets published means that American democracy is in grave danger (if that wasn't abundantly clear already), because one of the two parties is about ready to abandon its pretense that the US even should be a democracy. The Williamson piece is about testing the waters for the wider acceptance of that idea on the Right.
Get ready for even more vote suppression and gerrymandering in the red states.
Mimai says:
Jason Brennan laid out the case for epistocracy in a book a few years ago titled Against Democracy. It's not a new idea, but I found his presentation worth a read.
When considering epistocracy, people often protest that it is elitist, that society shouldn't be in the business of determining who gets to vote, etc. But there are various forms that epistocracy might take.
One that Brennan discusses involves a random draw from the population. For the sake of example, 1 million people are randomly selected. They then participate in a series of educational activities focused on the pressing issues of the day. Voting occurs after they demonstrate a competent understanding of the issues.
Note, this is a terribly simplified version, and it ignores various value judgments inherent to the process (eg, what are the issues, define competent), but it does show that epistocracy can be more than merely anointing the special people who get to vote.
Note x2, I am not advocating for this approach. Rather I am hoping that people will think more deeply about it than the Williamson posts inspire. For those who are unfamiliar with Brennan's arguments, and who don't want to read his book, you might listen to his podcast with Julia Galef.
mattbernius says:
@drj:
This is what any disenfrasement argument, current and historical, from either side, has ALWAYS been about.
It's always worth seeing when they are enacted and the moral panic that they are responding to. Scratch the surface and it's always about advancing minority control.
Steve, I believe that you are making a mistake at the start. Every single right-winger making this argument is lying. They want to keep the other side from voting.
Please don't engage bad faith people as if they had good faith.
In Missouri now, state legislator Rs are trying to subvert the stated will of the people expressed by referendum on Medicaid expansion.
It would allow ~230,000 people granted eligibility of which the federal govt covers 90% of that cost thanks to the ACA.
The main argument against presented was that it passed because of "urban" voters.
The referendum passed with 53%.
That is shameful behavior. Real life example of some votes count more than others.
Gustopher says:
How about a test all voters must pass before voting. One question, multiple choice:
Voting is:
A) A right
B) A privilege
C) All of the above
C is included for those who don't understand the legal definition of privilege, which seems like an entirely reasonable thing to not understand. Anyone who answers B doesn't get a ballot.
Fine, two questions:
True or False: We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
(Add in a few questions on apostrophes and the Oxford comma, just for funsies, but don't score them.)
MarkedMan says:
This is simply Jim Crow governance. Government is to assist the powerful in keeping the masses under control. Keeping actual power from the masses is a desirable outcome. At least Buckley was honest: It is okay to lie and cheat in order to keep the powerful in their positions:
The South does not want to deprive the Negro of a vote for the sake of depriving him of the vote. Political scientists assert that minorities do not vote as a unit. Women do not vote as a bloc, they contend; nor do Jews, or Catholics, or laborers, or nudists-nor do Negroes ; nor will the enfranchised Negroes of the South. If that is true, the South will not hinder the Negro from voting-why should it, if the Negro vote, like the women's, merely swells the volume, but does not affect the ratio, of the vote? In some parts of the South, the White community merely intends to prevail-that is all. It means to prevail on any issue on which there is corporate disagreement between Negro and White. The White community will take whatever measures are necessary to make certain that it has
its way. hat are such issues? Is school integration one?
The NAACP and others insist that the Negroes as a unit want integrated schools. Others disagree, con- tending that most Negroes approve the social separa- tion of the races. What if the NAACP is correct, and the matter comes to a vote in a community in which Negroes predominate? The Negroes would, according to democratic processes, win the election; but that is the kind of situation the White community will not permit. The White community will not count the marginal Negro vote. The man who didn't count it will be hauled up before a jury, he will plead not guilty, and the jury, upon deliberation, will find him not guilty.
@Barry:
Steve, I believe that you are making a mistake at the start. Every single right-winger making this argument is lying.
Where's the lie? Where are the bad faith arguments?
They are clearly, earnestly and succinctly stating that some people shouldn't vote.
That's not a bad faith argument, it's a bad person rejecting democracy.
@Gustopher:
Where's the lie?
The lie is that "bad" voters shouldn't vote. In truth, this is about Democrats getting fewer votes in the future. That's all.
gVOR08 says:
I felt I should read the subject Williamson piece before commenting. That four minutes wasted, three if it weren't for their pop-up ads. Typical of so much conservative writing he never quite gets to a clear conclusion, because he knows he can't say what he's thinking. He's arguing that the Republican proposed restrictions would be good because they'd favor Republicans. But he can't say that openly. But he got a lot of clicks and a lot of free publicity.
The only qualifications he actually mentions are lack of a felony conviction and possessing a driver's license. I wonder if Williamson has considered that if we imposed some objective requirements to select actual better voters, they might not favor the GOP base.
Whiteocracy just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as more misleading words and phrases like "better voters."
Since we're not likely to get the downvote button back in the foreseeable future, how about a double upvote button instead?
This is all very easy to respond to:
Mr Williamson wants a different country and a different political system than the one that has been designed and that we have. I recommend that he go and find that country and move there.
I shouldn't speak for someone else, but I believe the point @Gustopher was making was that Rs are being honest about their strategy.
A bad-faith argument means you say one thing publicly but intend / wish for the opposite outcome.
In this instance, it is not bad-faith, it is a bald-faced assertion that some votes should count more. Refreshingly honest.
A bad-faith argument would be that voter ID makes elections more fair and safer: you are on the surface arguing for election integrity, but, in fact, you want to discourage and diminish voters who will likely vote against you.
I think you missed @Gustopher's point.
@de stijl:
I believe the point @Gustopher was making was that Rs are being honest about their strategy.
Admittedly, Williamson is getting there. Still, he doesn't quite say what his true aim is.
If convicted felons reliably broke Republican, he sure wouldn't argue for "better" voters. Trust me.
He wants more Republican votes and fewer Democratic ones. It's the word "better" (with its connotations of objectivity) that is the lie.
Scott F. says:
@Barry and @Gustopher: As I noted yesterday in my comment on the specious comparison between the CO and GA voting laws, I'm actually glad read this kind of post from K. Williamson over the pure gaslighting and misdirection that has characterized all other rightist public commentary on this latest round of voting laws coming from the Republicans. Taking a reality based position is a least the beginning of a debate that is impossible when one side insists on lying ("these laws don't suppress the vote"; "fraud is so rampant these laws will lead to a more legitimate result").
As Steven notes, Williamson's position is only marginally better than the liars, because he does so little to define "better" voters. But, since he has proposed this framework, I can now propose my definition to further the discussion. I'd start with his own words:
I'd be happy to try to craft a pre-voting check against low motives and ignorance. I don't expect Williamson would be able to pass it.
I will *humbly* note I highlighted Williamson's post and my disgust at the premise and the logical conclusion two days ago on another thread.
It's worse than presumptuous. It's a confirmation that for many (and in this case right wing folks) our criminal legal system exists only to punish versus rehabilitate* and an entrenched belief that a (potentially) single act in a person's should define them going forward.
(That's before we get to topics like overcriminalization and the growth of what counts as felonies.)
* – Also, there is an argument that if you want to prevent recidivism, the best way to do that is to encourage easy reintegration into the community after release. If you see voting as a fundamental action connecting one back to the community, then felony disenfranchisement** is a prime example of what not to do.
** – Also, to Steven's point about taking a historical perspective into account, let's not pretend that felony disenfranchisement wasn't always already a tool to suppress black and POC votes.
@mattbernius: Excellent points, as usual. Essentialist thinking about legal matters is pervasive and consequential. It predicts people's views on a host of things related to crime and punishment. And that's before you even take into account essentialist thinking about social groups.
@Scott F.:
As Steven notes, Williamson's position is only marginally better than the liars, because he does so little to define "better" voters.
He clearly means that we should not vote, and leave such matters to our betters.
We all know who our betters are — it's the wealthy job creators.
It's not a race thing. He suffers the poor white male Republican voters as only a means to an end, to balance out the even worse brown Democrat voters and the deluded Socialists.
I don't know how he could have made it clearer, short of advocating a return the the roots of western democracy, the House of Lords.
Universal suffrage is a very recent phenomenon, pretty much of the XX Century, and in America I would dare say from the last fifth of the century, given how late the voting rights act got passed.
Look at the nascent democracies in Europe and the Americas which followed the example of the US. Most of them restricted suffrage to a relative few. Even universal manhood suffrage was considered extreme for several decades.
This tracks with the trend of extending or recognizing universal rights as time went on, a process that's not finished anywhere in the world.
@Mimai:
and it ignores various value judgments inherent to the process (eg, what are the issues, define competent)
Yes, well that's a rather big component of this scheme isn't it? If your scheme relies on educational curricula followed by an evaluation, it's really the only component that matters.
, but it does show that epistocracy can be more than merely anointing the special people who get to vote.
@Neil Hudelson: To clarify, I am to blame for the terribly simplified version of his presentation. He does go into more detail…..though you may still find it unsatisfying.
Also, because I didn't make this point in my original comment, I will note that despite the title, he is not staunchly advocating for a specific system to replace democracy. Rather, he highlights the problems with democracy as practiced, presents possible alternatives, and then encourages experimentation at the local level.
No, that's not right. That's just hypocrisy, or perhaps concern trolling.
A bad-faith argument is when your reasons for supporting the position are not the reasons you publicly state for that conclusion, and you know it. If you oppose abortion because you think recreational sex should be punished, but argue publicly that fetuses are people and abortion is murder, that is bad-faith argument.
@DrDaveT:
I seriously do not get the difference between mine and yours.
Just nutha ignint cracker says:
@Gustopher: I pretty much agree with MarkedMan's assessment of Williamson's argument. Essentially, he's making the argument Buckley made in the 50s, only leaving out the word "negroes"–although I'm confident that POC play pretty much the same role now in Williamson's thinking as they did back then in Buckley's.
ETA: Though, I will agree that Buckley's original argument might well have had the aristocratic underpinnings that you see in Williamson's if he had not intended the National Review as a mass market magazine. Can't afford to alienate potential working/lower middle class subscribers.
It's the difference between arguing for the outcome you want (but lying about your reasons) versus claiming to support an outcome you don't actually want.
Okay. I see the distinction.
Aren't both bad faith, though?
Kurtz says:
These ideas are directly connected to the suffrage debates of the 18th century. I posted about this recently. The concern, even among the reformers in England, was manipulation via monetary compensation or coercion.
Among people concerned about undue influence of the rich, extending suffrage to those with dependencies created an avenue for the rich to manipulate votes.
I will look into Brennan's particular argument. But from what I've read of it, he makes a similar manipulation argument about ideology. (Rich coming from a Libertarian.)
Because I haven't read a detailed explanation, at this time I don't wish to comment much more on the mechanics of his ideas. I will look into it, because it I'll admit a curiosity here.
@DrDaveT: @Gromitt Gunn:
Several RW outlets have published lists of the most harmful/dangerous books from the 19th and 20th centuries. Dewey's Democracy and Education usually slots in right below Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto.
Hal_10000 says:
The thing makes democracy a preferable form of government is not the idea that the people get what they want. The people would burn the Bill of Rights in a heartbeat. It's that the government is *accountable* to the people. When you say we should restrict the franchise, you're saying we should restrict who the government is accountable to.
@Kurtz:
Because I haven't read a detailed explanation, at this time I don't wish to comment much more on the mechanics of his ideas.
I am so confused right now. I thought we were conversing on the internet. Up is down, down is up.
More seriously, I appreciate you engaging on this and am keen to hear your thoughts.
Actually, reading it a second time, I think it's being unfairly maligned. I disagree with his conclusion he make some very good points:
1) the majority is not always right; this is why we have a Constitution.
2) voting is only part of our civic responsibility
3) expanding the vote is not a panacea that's going to cure what's wrong with our political class.
I agree with his points. And I think those should be engaged.
OzarkHillbilly says:
Friday, 9 April 2021 at 05:25
I'm gonna be contrary here and agree with Williamson that some people should never be allowed to vote. Let's start with banning that asshole from the polling booth.
@Michael Cain: Also, national-level direct democracy in a country as large by population and geography as the US is almost certainly a really bad idea.
I'm not so sure. Voting on specific issues might have the salutary effect of improving voter turn out.
@Mimai: One that Brennan discusses involves a random draw from the population. For the sake of example, 1 million people are randomly selected. They then participate in a series of educational activities focused on the pressing issues of the day. Voting occurs after they demonstrate a competent understanding of the issues.
But it's not like 1 million people are easier to manipulate than 150 million, right? It's not like "educating" them on "pressing issues" of the day could ever be used to manipulate anyone, right? And it's not like people can't be persuaded to "demonstrate a competent understanding," right?
You may have oversimplified his arguments but all I see is Brennan is a fascist POS.
SC_Birdflyte says:
Speaking tongue in cheek, fewer voters might be a good thing, if the pro-Trump ignoramuses (a respectable number of whom had no history of voting for president) were kept out of the polls. Purely a hypothetical, alas. Having taught American history and government in college, I could write a 100-question multiple choice exam most of our legislators couldn't pass.
@OzarkHillbilly: Come on, that's unfair. You're better than that. I gave an overly simplified example and labeled it as such. I did this to highlight that there are alternatives to democracy that go beyond merely saying "you special people can vote, you not special people can sit and spin." And to hopefully engage people in a more productive discussion on the broader topic as opposed to the Williamson article per se.
Of course, no one is obligated to engage in that discussion (indeed, the data indicate clearly that I was an outlier on this day….not an uncommon occurrence in my world). But to use my simplified example to label Brennan a "fascist POS" is unfair to Brennan, unfair to me (I now feel a twinge of responsibility), and unfair to our hosts.
Steven L. Taylor says:
@de stijl: Thanks!
@Hal_10000: I haven't read the book, but this point is raised enough in these conversations (here and everywhere) that I wanted to comment:
The issue is not whether majorities are right or not (and they can certainly be wrong) but the question is whether there is a better way to choose government.
And there is no national government on Earth where pure majority rule is in place. Every country has some level of restrictions on how majorities exercise power and constitutional restrictions on what governemnt can do.
I am not saying you are saying otherwise, but I think it is worth stating: advocating for democratic governance is not advocating for pure, simplistic majority rule.
@OzarkHillbilly: I think that in practice it is highly problematic to reduce specific, yet complex policy issues to a singular vote.
It is an idea that I think sounds better in theory than in practice.
The best example of this truth off the top of my head: Brexit.
DeD says:
The Williamson piece is about testing the waters for the wider acceptance of that idea on the Right.
And if you read through the ensuing comments, it won't take long to see that the rank & file Right are all in on the concept.
@Scott:
Funny, because all this time, I've been thinking I have to leave the country to escape an anti-democratic White supremacist regime. It never occurred to me that THEY should leave if they don't like the current governing structure. That must be some serious psychological baggage I'm carrying around. Geezus.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Sure. What democracy confers, however, is not the wisdom of crowds. What it confers is accountability and legitimacy.
Kevin Williamson and the Limits of Polite Discourse
Kevin Williamson Doesn't Want Women Murdered and Doesn't Belong at The Atlantic
Video Clerk With Blog Harrasses Tucker Carlson, Gets Fired
Political Advice For Romney: Act Like A Misogynistic, Plutocratic Jerk And You'll Win The Election
Naked Coffee Guy Truth Exposed

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


When it comes the time of gifting your beloved one or someone special then you can opt for diamond jewelry. All the ladies crave to have one for them. Regardless of being expensive people go crazy behind the designs and spark which appears in the accessory. Diamonds are actually the most precious stone among all.
Enormous types of diamond jewelry are available in the store which can tremble you. Loads of designs and patterns are available in diamond earrings, diamond rings, diamond bracelet, and diamond engagement rings. Women are always fond of accessories no matter whatever the price is, the ultimate thing is you need to be particular about your choice.
When you are visiting any store or online jewelry store; firstly set your budget and go. You can inform the retailer about your budget so that he can present you the most affordable jewelry. The cost factor is very important because you going to pay the hefty amount for your piece. Check out each quality with minute details.
Fill up your brains with 4C's characteristics of the diamond to help you out for genuine piece. They denote color, carat, cut and clarity of the diamond. Color of the diamond is available in different colors such as blue sapphire, yellow sapphire, green, pink etc. Carat is always determines the weight of the stone.
Clarity always determines the illusions of the stone in the form of bubbles. When it's present in excess then you can avoid buying it because it will be of low quality. Then the last factor is cut which is available in different types such as princess cut, radiant cut, cushion cut, emerald cut that can suit well in your outfit and your personality.
When all these factors are satisfied then you can get the best diamond jewelry for yourself. GIA certificated diamonds gives you assurance of having genuine piece. It is valuable and most classic piece among all. Thus these all factors are important when you get this for you.
Browse our site B2CJewels.com for the most classic diamond jewelry. You will be mesmerized when you look after all the products. There is independent appraisal report in each item when you buy above $1000. There is free shipping at your door when you place the order. So get soon for yourself.


text:
Q: How would you write this sentence I'm writing a short document about an integer programming (IP) problem instance.
I've mentioned that IP is known to be NP-Hard, but that being NP-Hard doesn't automatically qualify this particular problem instance to be "hard", as a polynomial algorithm with $O(n^{100^{100}})$ and $n = 10$ is likely to be harder than an NP-Hard problem, also with $n = 10$.
The NP-Hardness is only relevant when comparing problem classes of arbitrary (asymptotic, really) size.
So I've written:

Note that a problem being NP-Hard does not automatically qualify it to be harder than a P problem, for given instances, if the size of the instances are sufficiently small; [here I want a short sentence to say something like how the complexity class is only really relevant when looking at arbitrarily large instances, or something like how the complexity is asymptotic, etc]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Someone to make me smile. We usually meet in hot tubs or sometimes hotels. Gringo seeking Runnells for road trip together I guess I should say what I don't want. I am seeking an ongoing relationship with the right lady I will always treat, and cover baby sitter and taxi if needed etc. Stallion seeking to provide good genes m4w Hello girl candidates,Im seeking to share my genes with best Adult dates in Portsmouth candidates, I am only seeking for women whom are financially wealthy to take care of my seed.
Open for almost anything and I love to be explored and explore with my hands and tongue. Need Some Friends.
Foot massage available if you want it. Thanks for watching and Happy Holidays. I am 5'7, with a medium build, brown skinned, brown eyes, brown hair.


* pk as an alias for peek.  One of them should be enough, IMO.
* -1+ as an alias for 1-.  I think everybody would use 1- anyway.
* return-it as an alias for noop.  Does anybody use this at all?
* and=>.  Not used, and the name is not obvious, so who would use it?
* string-character-length is just an alias for string-length.
Further, some of the bindings of the module system appear not to be used.
when it comes to switching to the new system.
they are of any further use.
code agains a guile which holds no deprecated scheme level definitions.


Treat your guests with these free printable sunflower seed sachets. Fill with your favourite plantable sunflower seeds for fun organic gifts, for your party guests to plant after your event!
Treat yourself to a Fresh Floral Scented Cupboard with these Lovely Scented Sachets that you can Print & Make Yourself ~ Classic Rose & Lavender, so Spring is always in the air!


Gilbert & Sullivan's topsy-turvy story focuses on the unfolding love between Nanki-Poo and Yum-Yum and the absurdity of laws and law-makers.
Nanki-Poo loves Yum-Yum but she's betrothed to Ko-Ko, the new Lord High Executioner. When the Mikado orders a beheading, Nanki-Poo and Ko-Ko try to come to an arrangement that doesn't involve anyone losing their head!
Packed full of memorable melodies, the most celebrated moment of all is the Lord High Executioner Ko-Ko's 'little list' song, which is always a topical highlight of Jonathan Miller's dazzlingly inventive production.
Returning to the role he has made his own, star G&S performer Richard Suart is the scheming Ko-Ko. He is joined by Andrew Shore as Pooh-Bah. As the oversized Mikado, we welcome distinguished bass Sir John Tomlinson.
The romantic leads are played by two ENO Harewood Artists, Soraya Mafi and Elgan Llŷr Thomas.
The opening night of The Mikado is also our Annual Gala performance – this year in aid of the Sir John Tomlinson Fellowship to support ENO Harewood Artists, our flagship training programme for British born or trained singers with the potential for an international career.
Tickets include a donation and a glass of bubbly on arrival. You may be asked for your little list – so be prepared.


Home / Fashion / 4 Perfect Looks to go with…Mules!
Do you remember the photo I shared a few weeks ago, where I talked about mules? Remember, good! The day has come! Today I give you some tips on how to use mules. I will share 4 looks, some more informal (shopping days, family outings etc) and other more formal for those days that do not want to go to work on high heels (even more this summer that is already the door).
First: What are mules? You're probably thinking "but Irina mules are also supposed to be worn like normal shoes? Are they work appropriate? "… I know, I know … I was like this too, I was not understanding the fever. Mules are practically slippers, they look like flip flops, obviously they are much more than flip flops. They are very practical and give an edge to your look or as I like to say, the bring the Swagg.
Although I only use one pair of Mules in this post, there are many varieties, and if you love high heels, don't worry there Mule styles that have heels. Some are more worked on, others are simpler, some are transparent others are metallic there is everything!
Second: Where to find it? My dear reader I'm low cost, why go so far? In addition to our beloved tcharamm brands, we also have lots of variety in our favourite pocket friendly stores.
Well bellow are the looks I created, to give you a basic idea of how to match them.
Look 1 – Informal and the simplest, jeans and tshirt. The two pieces complement each other, it's always good to use a graphic thirt for a more fun mood (in my case, I like the simpsons), where are you going? You can go shopping, you can go to the park, or the café next door, the mules here are chic slippers.
Look 2 – A bit more formal in this look I combined flare pants with a crop top, this look is great when you don't want to be overly formal but also don't want to be completely informal somewhere balanced.
Look 4 – This look is a twist on the classic "suit". Guys you already know that with me, we take the classic a little further, more to the modern. I combined classic pants, a plain tshirt and a boyfriend blazer (wide style), I decided to wear a tshirt instead of a classic shirt to balance with blazer, due to the wide cut that it has. The mules close of the look with a touch of gold.
And this is it fam I hope you have enjoyed every look and hope you can get inspired by each of them. One thing is for sure this trend is one that you should take advantage of it this summer. Not only it is comfortable but it's also super trendy!
Okok go for a pair of mules and create looks … start!
Next ArticleMore self-love | Are you practicing enough of it?


What Really Does Acquire Soundcloud Followers Mean?
If you wish to have followers in SoundCloud a person ought to take good treatment of the next. Whenever you obtain SoundCloud followers coming from we you're constructing any credible image through the use regarding SoundCloud which usually will not be neglected. Anyone could also obtain new SoundCloud followers.
If you need to possess followers about SoundCloud you have stumbled upon your perfect organization to cope with. There really are a lot of what to be cautious about once you buy SoundCloud followers, regarding example you may find the number of companies available that are delivering fake followers which may have your account banned. A Person could also obtain several SoundCloud followers. Also, whenever you buy real SoundCloud followers, it'll likewise aid help an individual stay before your competition effectively.
BuyRealMarkting may create Soundcloud followers for you so which you can easily concentrate on your music. all these followers are heading to become in the nation you have made the decision on. So, the particular followers are usually somewhat more important compared to a person could think. It's easier to gain 50 new followers in the huge event you own any base involving 500 laptop or even computer can be should you commence with 0. Because a concern regarding fact, it's no longer tough nevertheless you'll must convey more followers. That just isn't straightforward to always be able to secure a lot more soundcloud followers.
After you've got your initial thousand followers, the actual organic targeted traffic will start rolling in. As quickly as you've your followers at the particular rear of you, there's the greatest rotation of music. You will find a lot much more than a few reasons why anyone want to obtain permanent twitter followers. Whenever you purchase permanent twitter followers via us, a person might pick from our wide assortment involving packages ideal regarding small along with large companies as well as for individuals which have an fascination in further social occurrence.
You're able to purchase soundcloud followers cheap. Anyone might become ready to purchase soundcloud followers with inexpensive charge and discover a good deal associated with supply regarding purchase. SoundCloud followers certainly tend to be a really good approach to market your music. Then create a list of outstanding soundcloud providers whom will offer superior soundcloud followers within limited time.
There tend to be 2 kinds of followers you'll be capable of utilize to boost the Soundcloud Followers. Bear inside mind once you obtain Followers through us an individual should be active in that turnaround time. When you're still attempting to get SoundCloud followers by burning the actual midnight oil, constantly sharing your articles in a variety of platforms, anyone cannot imagine simply how much potential you're losing each and every day. There's a lot much more than one approach in order to improve SoundCloud followers to your account however we've confirmed the absolute many efficacious implies for you to improve SoundCloud followers from folks that are interested within your audio will be to obtain them. Whenever you improve SoundCloud followers along with we you're creating the option to acquire real SoundCloud followers from folks that are generally interested with what you get got to supply you. A Person tend to be going to be assured to locate superior soundcloud follower for your music.
When an individual buy Followers through us, we help to make specific that you get the the majority of suitable spectators that will not actually un-follow plays you. you could conveniently create instantaneous followers using not really just as much initiative as well as time. It will be imperative to get real soundcloud followers if you'll like to observe the way in which it works.


Flexible duct connectors isolate vibration in duct systems in both commercial and residential installations.
All are available in the following fabrics.
PVC Durolastic for rugged low cost connections.
Neoprene fabric for general purpose applications.
Insulated flexible duct connector; reducing enegy loss and minimizing condensation.
Vane Rails for turning vane construction. Available in two sizes, for 2'' and 4'' applications.


Americans suffer from 1 billion colds a year, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. There are also nearly 32 million cases of chronic sinusitis reported by health care providers to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention every year.
Simple and inexpensive nasal irrigation may help relieve painful sinus congestion for millions of Americans.
Millions more suffer from allergies that also can wreak havoc on your sinuses, leading to facial pain, clogged nasal passages and headaches.
If you're one of the billions suffering from these stuffed up sinuses, congestion, headaches and difficulty breathing through your nose, you know the toll it can take on your health. For starters, sleeping becomes more difficult, which makes you fatigued during the day and less able to fight off the underlying illness.
The pain and pressure of congestion and headaches can also make it difficult to concentrate and focus on work, your kids and anything other than the pain in your head and sinuses. This can easily make you behind at work or at home, which, coupled with the fatigue, is a recipe for stress and burnout.
Sinus congestion can be so unbearable that you reach for over-the-counter medications an option for relief such as antihistamines and decongestants. Antihistamines, which are used to dry up excess mucus, can actually cause mucus to become thicker, inhibiting sinus drainage and potentially leading to an infection.
Decongestants, meanwhile, can leave your jittery and may make it difficult for you to fall asleep at night. Further, if you use over-the-counter decongestant nasal sprays too often, your nose may become tolerant to the medication, leading to "rebound congestion." When this happens you will need more and more of the medication to get relief.
According to the FDA, "Although DXM, when formulated properly and used in small amounts, can be safely used in cough suppressant medicines, abuse of the drug can cause death as well as other serious adverse events such as brain damage, seizure, loss of consciousness, and irregular heart beat."
Teens have been known to take the drug, sometimes downing two boxes of cough pills at a time, for the mild euphoric and hallucinogenic effects.
"The effects vary with dose, and dextromethorphan users describe a set of distinct dose-dependent "plateaus" ranging from a mild stimulant effect with distorted visual perceptions at low doses to a sense of complete dissociation from one's body at [high] doses," says the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Furthermore, when DXM is taken in medications that also contain antihistamines or decongestant ingredients, the effects become increasingly dangerous.
Regular use of a neti pot is a soothing way to keep your sinuses clear and breathe freely.
Over-the-counter cough and cold remedies do not cure your sinus pressure, they simply provide symptom relief. Note that, you can get similar results using natural options without risking any negative side effects.
Get losts of rest and drink plenty of fluids to keep your throat moist and avoid dehydration.
Applying warm packs to your face can help relieve pain, and be sure you don't bend over with your head down, as this can increase pain.
Inhaling steam from a kettle or pot of boiling water to open up clogged sinuses and lessen dripping from your nose. Be careful not to get burned.
Use a humidifier in your bedroom to put more moisture into the air.
Blow your nose often and gently to get rid of the germ-carrying mucus.
However, one of the best options for sinus relief has been around since ancient times and still holds true as one of the most effective, safe, and soothing options for sinus health.
Nasal cleansing, also known as nasal irrigation, involves using a neti pot to pour a lukewarm saline solution (pure water mixed with natural salt) inside one side of your nostril while tilting your head sideways so the water runs out of your other nostril.
This simple, inexpensive and soothing technique is actually one of the six purification techniques traditionally done by many prior to doing yoga and many Muslims do it before prayers.
This practice is quickly gaining many modern-day followers across the globe, simply because it feels so soothing. Some even keep their neti pot next to their toothbrush and cleanse their sinuses twice a day, just like brushing their teeth.
How Does the Neti Pot Work?
"Nasal irrigation, also called nasal lavage, is a safe, inexpensive and easy way to relieve symptoms of nasal and sinus congestion, such as stuffiness, dry nose and thick mucus. It works in children and adults, and you can do it yourself.
It's an incredibly simple process. The first step is to make your saline solution, which should be made with pure (distilled or purified) water that's as close to the temperature of your body as you can get. Mix with 1/4 teaspoon of a natural, non-iodized Nasal Cleansing Salt.
Many people prefer to practice nasal cleansing once a day in the morning, as part of their regular hygiene routine (like brushing your teeth and washing your face). However, if you feel an infection coming on, struggle with allergies, or you know the flu and colds are going around, you can cleanse your sinuses with a neti pot up to four times day.
There are many neti pots on the market, find one that is made from sturdy, lead-free ceramic and coated with a food-grade sealant.
Neti pots are completely safe and incredibly easy to use, making them not only useful for relieving stuffy sinuses and congestion, but also helping to prevent it in the first place.


In Today's Post, I am going to show you Quick Example codes that how you can use python textwrap module?
Before our Practical Illustration let's Understand Some Basic Queries.
Q 1. What is textwrap?
Ans. Textwrap is a Standard Python Module That Provides Us Special Facilities For Text Wrapping And Filling. In Simple Words, This Module Help Us To Manage Every Line Of Text String In Special Format with the use of tabs, spaces for adjusting the width of lines in specific numbers of characters long.
Q 2. Where it can be useful?
Ans. It can be used Anywhere In any python project to print and formatting text strings quickly.
Q 3. Need to Install it?
Ans. No, Because of Its Comes With Python Pre-Installed.
# Here, I am Going To Demonstrate textwrap.fill() function.
# manage all text in a Specific Character Width.
--obvious way to do it.
let's do more of those!
unless you're Dutch. Now is better than never.
honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
than complicated. Flat is better than nested. Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts. Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity. Errors should never pass silently.
one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters  Beautiful is better than ugly. Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex. Complex is better than complicated. Flat is better than nested.
be a good idea. Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!
# remove extra space characters from string.


text:
The Favorite Books, Plays, Music, And More of CA's New Arts Director
Renee Rockford September 1, 2015 ArtsOn CAmpus Newsletter12 views
Vera Brittain as a Voluntary Aid Detachment nurse, 1915. Photograph: courtesy of VB Estate/McMaster University Library, Hamilton, Canada
Colorado Academy welcomes Dr. Jan De Sal as the new Director of Fine and Performing Arts. De Sal comes to CA from her position as Director of Arts at the Viewpoint School in Calabasas, CA, where she worked for 15 years. She held a similar position at Mayfield Senior School in Pasadena and also taught at the University of Wisconsin in Green Bay and at California State University in Los Angeles. She holds a Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Rhode Island, a Master of Arts in Theater from Catholic University in America, with specialization in American Theater, and a Bachelor of Arts with a double major in English and Theater Art, also from Catholic University. We wanted to go beyond the resume to get to know this experienced arts educator with these questions:
Q:If you were to turn on your cell phone right now, what are the last five artists or songs you listened to?
Jan De Sal: You give me too much credit assuming I listen to all music on my iPhone. I am most likely playing a CD or XM at home, or frantically switching stations from classical to jazz to pop to country while driving to work. My five might be George Winston's Forest, some jazz by Keiko Matsui and Esperanza Spalding, anything by Bach, Vivaldi or Archangel Corelli (must love anyone with a first name like that), some Garth Brooks or Lady Antebellum, the vocal genius of the Libera Boys' Choir and Chanticleer, and definitely Walk the Moon's Shut Up and Dance. Okay so that's more than five. Sorry!
Q:If you see any stage performance in any theatre in the world, what would the production be, and where would you be watching it?
Jan De Sal: I would be watching Irish Theater—perhaps Yeats or Brian Friel—at The Abbey in Dublin followed by a cup of proper tea.
Q: What books are on your nightstand right now?
Jan De Sal: There are an embarrassing number so I will list a few. I am re-reading Middlemarch now with far greater insight than had at age 16 when I first read it. There is also Vera Brittain's Testament of Youth, Elena Ferrante's The Story of a New Name, Antoine Laurain's The Red Notebook, W.G. Sebald's A Place in the Country, Sebastian Barry's The Temporary Gentleman, Fredrik Backman's A Man Called Ove, and I will admit, I purchased the newly released Harper Lee novel—had to do it. I'll stop there.
Q: What are some of the things you are most looking forward to at CA?
Jan De Sal: I am looking forward to the collaboration of life, art and education and having CA be recognized as the national model for how the arts should be taught in a balanced liberal arts education.
Q: Denver has an exciting art and music scene. What is the first place you want to go for cultural entertainment?
Jan De Sal: I am already a member of the Denver Art Museum and Botanic Gardens and have visited both. I am hoping to tap into the Denver spoken word poetry scene.
Q: What is your favorite moment in teaching?
Jan De Sal: My favorite moments in teaching are often the ones that go unnoticed— the exalted discussion led by students far more impressive than any lecture I could muster, opening night of a production when I talk about the theater being a sacred place, and the end of every class when I go through the ritual of having us bow to each other and I say, "Thank you for your work today," and they answer, "Thank you for this class." Education is, at its best, a few precious moments in time and it is always a two way street of respect and appreciation.
Q:When you are not teaching/directing/producing, what's your favorite thing to do?
Jan De Sal: When I am not teaching I write, read, hike, run, swim and socialize with family and the great people around me—generally over good food and scintillating conversation.
Q:Do you have a favorite quotation, story, or anecdote about the arts or art education?
Jan De Sal: When I was a little girl growing up in a mill town on the east coast, winters at our worn-out elementary school were fairly dismal, except for Tuesday afternoons at 2:00 p.m. That was music day when wonderful Mr. Prentice, a diminutive man to be sure, came on his rounds to Willis School to enchant us children for one solid hour with nothing but music. I loved every part of that 60 minutes, especially his contraption which held five pieces of chalk and enabled him to draw a staff on the blackboard with one smooth sweep. We learned the value of each note, mastered some fairly sophisticated sight reading, and discovered that Jake G., who annoyed every girl in the class, actually had a voice like an angel. Who knew?
Most important of all, Mr. Prentice transformed that room of ragamuffins of which I was a part into a humble chorus, and together, one glorious day a week, we made music. We ended every class with a simple song that he taught us which continues to live in my mind's eye as a metaphor for the way I feel about all the arts. It goes like this—
All things shall perish
from under the sky.
Music alone shall live;
music alone shall live,
never to die.
Such a snatch of grace beyond the realm of art. I shall never forget him.
On CAmpus September 2015
Previous ArticleMiddle School Girls Win Regional Award for Water Filter Design
Next ArticleCA Students To Attend "America's Nobel" Ceremonies
Rebecca Risch January 17, 2020
Categories Select Category Academics Admission All School News Alumni Alumni Newsletter Arts Arts Director Athletic Director Athletics College Counseling College Counseling Director Editor's Picks Experiential Education Faculty/Staff Featured Head of School Horizons Horizons Director Inclusivity Director Libraries Director Lower School Lower School Principal Middle School Middle School Principal News On CAmpus Newsletter Parent Association Upper School Upper School Principal


text:
Brad Rollins
San Marcos CISD channel
Zombie book author brings literature to life for PRIDE students
From the San Marcos school district
Shortly before all the Halloween shivers arrived, PRIDE High School students heard a lecture from a noted author of zombie books, Bowie Ibarra.
The horror author brought his second book in the Down the Road series with him, a volume entitled On the Last Day. It continued the chronicles of a Central Texas teacher named George Zaragoza who only wanted to live a quiet life, work, and teach—but he's caught up in a zombie uprising and all the ensuing chaos.
When he is not writing horror stories, Ibarra is a Central Texan who lives a quiet life, works, and teaches theatre-arts for a neighboring school district. He admits to loving the drama of life, even if he has to make it up.
Ibarra told PRIDE students how he came to be published and what it takes to be a writer. Several aspiring authors in the audience asked questions and received advice from the author. Ibarra admitted to being a horror movie fan (particularly classic zombie movies), and he and the students conducted a lively exchange of ideas.
He has a third book started in the zombie series and another one that takes place in a martial-arts setting that will be released soon by Permuted Press. His parting remark to the student writers was "to write about what interests you." That's what he has done, and it's served him well. His zombie-army books are rising in popularity, marching off the bookshelves, and being devoured by readers.
01/12/2012 San Marcos sales tax revenue up 4.28 percent
05/05/2008 Police Blotter: 05/04/08
09/26/2015 Rare supermoon eclipse in Central Texas skies on Sunday
08/31/2012 Narvaiz plans Labor Day tour in congressional bid
12/10/2008 United Way of Hays County helps families cover prescription costs


text:
You Are At > Quotes > Audi > A4 > 2004 > 2004 Audi A4 Avant 3.2 FSI Station Wagon
Auto Insurance Premium Report
2004 Audi A4 Avant 3.2 FSI Station Wagon
An average American pays $889.56 a year on auto insurance for 2004 Audi A4 Avant 3.2 FSI Station Wagon. Insurance Calculator Inc. has helped many owners save over $226.53 a year on this vehicle.
Model: A4
Trim: Avant 3.2 FSI
Engine Position: Front
Numer of Cylinders: 6
Engine Type: V
Horse Power: 255 (RPM: 6500)
Torque (nm): 330 (RPM: 3250)
Engine Bore (mm): 84.5
Engine Stroke (mm): 92.8
Engine Compression Ratio: 12.5:1
Fuel Tank (Litres): 70
Top Speed (KPH): 245
Acceleration (0-100KPH): 7 seconds
Drive: Front
Vehicle Weight (kg): 1550
Height (mm): 1430
Wheelbase Size (mm): 2470
Fuel Efficiency per 100km (highway): 7
Fuel Efficiency per 100km (city): 13.6
Fuel Efficiency per 100km (highway & city): 9.4
By referencing the chart below, you can compare the average insurance rates for different age groups, number of drivers, and drivers with at-fault accidents in the past 5 years. Please note that the numbers are national averages and will differ from state to state.
Insurance Rates Reference Chart
Age Group At-Fault Accidents Within 5 Years
None 1 accident 2 accidents 3 accidents 4+ accidents
Please note that there are many other factors that may have an impact on the cost of auto insurance coverage for this vehicle.
Average Auto Insurance Premium Per State For:
State State Average Our Average Average Saving Free Quotes
Alabama $880.54 $739.82 $140.72 (15.98%)
Alaska $1,363.67 $1,093.46 $270.21 (19.82%)
Arizona $1,025.05 $820.37 $204.69 (19.97%)
Arkansas $1,025.05 $841.94 $183.11 (17.86%)
California $930.13 $745.02 $185.11 (19.90%)
Colorado $1,002.39 $825.91 $176.48 (17.61%)
Connecticut $1,454.35 $1,104.49 $349.86 (24.06%)
Delaware $1,576.19 $1,176.04 $400.15 (25.39%)
District of Columbia $1,649.86 $1,205.17 $444.69 (26.95%)
Florida $1,184.44 $950.79 $233.66 (19.73%)
Georgia $988.93 $715.17 $273.76 (27.68%)
Hawaii $780.66 $646.22 $134.43 (17.22%)
Idaho $832.37 $694.78 $137.59 (16.53%)
Illinois $942.88 $784.40 $158.48 (16.81%)
Indiana $923.05 $753.14 $169.91 (18.41%)
Iowa $736.74 $626.13 $110.61 (15.01%)
Kansas $1,097.31 $863.45 $233.86 (21.31%)
Kentucky $1,206.41 $913.48 $292.92 (24.28%)
Louisiana $1,489.06 $1,127.57 $361.49 (24.28%)
Maine $818.91 $717.86 $101.05 (12.34%)
Maryland $1,536.52 $1,175.36 $361.16 (23.51%)
Massachusetts $788.45 $664.78 $123.67 (15.68%)
Michigan $1,439.47 $1,096.89 $342.58 (23.80%)
Minnesota $1,104.40 $891.97 $212.43 (19.23%)
Mississippi $870.62 $731.17 $139.46 (16.02%)
Missouri $1,052.68 $877.81 $174.87 (16.61%)
Montana $1,038.51 $869.28 $169.23 (16.30%)
Nebraska $1,002.39 $807.82 $194.57 (19.41%)
Nevada $1,307.00 $1,033.21 $273.79 (20.95%)
New Hampshire $934.38 $763.71 $170.67 (18.27%)
New Jersey $1,772.42 $1,278.22 $494.20 (27.88%)
New Mexico $1,178.07 $909.51 $268.56 (22.80%)
New York $1,634.28 $1,248.05 $386.23 (23.63%)
North Carolina $993.89 $819.53 $174.35 (17.54%)
North Dakota $906.75 $758.07 $148.68 (16.40%)
Ohio $882.67 $727.68 $154.98 (17.56%)
Oklahoma $1,313.37 $1,031.69 $281.69 (21.45%)
Oregon $1,093.06 $879.52 $213.54 (19.54%)
Pennsylvania $1,242.53 $988.24 $254.29 (20.47%)
Rhode Island $1,627.90 $1,219.89 $408.01 (25.06%)
South Carolina $1,105.81 $900.60 $205.22 (18.56%)
South Dakota $862.83 $729.07 $133.76 (15.50%)
Tennessee $969.09 $796.85 $172.24 (17.77%)
Texas $1,112.90 $891.10 $221.79 (19.93%)
Utah $1,039.93 $840.59 $199.34 (19.17%)
Vermont $897.54 $772.98 $124.57 (13.88%)
Virginia $966.26 $808.38 $157.87 (16.34%)
Washington $1,160.36 $904.07 $256.28 (22.09%)
West Virginia $1,319.75 $1,035.73 $284.02 (21.52%)
Wisconsin $842.29 $730.40 $111.88 (13.28%)
Wyoming $1,016.55 $840.03 $176.52 (17.36%)
2005 Volvo S40 Manual Sedan
2000 Ferrari 550 Spider Manual Convertible
2012 Citroen C3 Picasso HDi 110 FAP Manual Hatchback
1986 Plymouth Sundance
1956 Maserati 450 S Manual Convertible
2012 Chevrolet Corvette GS Convertible 4LT 6-speed manual Convertible
2008 BMW 335 i Coupe Manual Coupe
1984 Toyota Model F Automatic Automatic
2004 Citroen C5 1.8 Style Manual Station Wagon
2009 BMW 318 i Touring Manual Station Wagon


text:
Glass Action: A Burlington Startup Aims to…
The Hot Seat: Critics Are Cool to…
Second Amendment Sanctuary Movement Takes Hold in Vermont Politics 0
The New Climate Action Film Festival Focuses on Solutions Film 0
A Vermonter and Her Pup Compete on 'America's Top Dog' 802 Much 0
Theater Review: 'King Lear,' Northern Stage
Art Review: Axel Stohlberg's 'Structures,' Axel's Gallery…
Theater Review: 'Relativity,' Vermont Stage
City Market, Onion River Co-op (Downtown Burlington)
Sammy Rae & the Friends Want to…
Soundbites: Too Much Live Music?
tip/toe, '//astral//'
Ida Mae Specker, 'Billy in the Heartland'
'Clemency' Commits Crimes of Melodrama in Its…
Muddled 'The Turning' Could Turn You Off…
Elizabeth Thompson, Eric Sorenson & Robert Zaino
May 10, 2017 Life Lines » Obituaries
Obituary: Theron Harold "Tinker" Durkee
Theron Harold "Tinker" Durkee
Theron Harold "Tinker" Durkee, age 84 years, died early Sunday morning, May 7, 2017, at his First Street residence with loving family at his side.
Born in Websterville, Vt on, July 4, 1932, he graduated from Spaulding High School and was later married to Mary Frances Williams who predeceased him.
Theron faithfully served his country in the United States Navy and was honorably discharged as a 2nd Class Petty Officer. He was a member of the American Legion, Green Mountain Post #1 in St. Albans.
He was a longtime employee of the former Union Carbide Corporation and will be remembered for his love of gardening.
He leaves three sons, Kevin of California, Keith of Burlington and Kenneth of Utah; step-children, Nancy Burns and Paul Tremblay of Swanton, Lawrence Sanborn and Pamela of Swanton, David Sanborn of Berkshire, John Sanborn and Christa of Swanton, Phyllis Sanborn of Swanton, Gerald Sanborn of Swanton and Michelle Sanborn also of Swanton; a brother, William and his wife Pat of Colchester and a sister, Maxine of Worcester, Mass as well as many nieces and nephews.
A Funeral Service will be held Monday, May 15, 2017, at 11 a.m. from The Kidder Memorial Home, 89 Grand Ave., Swanton. The Reverend Kerry T. Cameron will officiate. Interment with full military honors will follow at the Durkee family lot in Riverside Cemetery.
Friends may call at the funeral home on Monday from 9 a.m. to the hour of the funeral.
Gifts in Theron's memory may be made to Missisquoi Valley Rescue, P.O. Box 22, Swanton 05488.
To offer private online condolences please visit: www.kiddermemorialhome.com
Pam Cronin: Karen was one of the best friends I ever had in my life also. I met her in…
Re: Obituary: Karen Franco Juknis, 1951-2020


text:
United States Mint Announces New Artistic Infusion Program Artists
WASHINGTON — The United States Mint today announced that seven new artists have been selected to participate in the Artistic Infusion Program (AIP) as Associate Designers. The AIP began in 2003 to help enrich and invigorate the design of U.S. coins and medals.
A call for artists was issued August 28, 2009, seeking up to 10 associate designers to supplement the current pool of artists under contract in the AIP. Applications were accepted on a rolling basis with three deadlines. The United States Mint received more than 150 applications from professional visual artists nationwide.
After the first two deadlines of November 9, 2009, and March 8, 2010, an official panel convened at United States Mint headquarters to review the qualifying applications. The panel was composed of representatives from the National Endowment of the Arts, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of the American Indian and National Gallery of Art, the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
After its review and evaluation, the panel recommended four artists after the November 9 deadline and three after the March 8 deadline. The new associate designers are:
* Paul Cainto Balan of Round Lake Heights, Illinois
* Chris Costello of Arlington, Massachusetts
* Barbara Fox of Little Valley, New York
* Thomas Hipschen of Arlington, Virginia
* Frank Morris of Memphis, Tennessee
* David Westwood of Lakewood, California
* Gary Whitley of Kelso, Washington
The final deadline for the 2009–2010 call for artists was July 6. There are three remaining AIP associate designer positions to be filled by the panel.
In the past, AIP artists have submitted successful designs for the 50 State Quarters Program, American Eagle Platinum Coin Program, Presidential $1 Coin Program, First Spouse Gold Coin and Medal Program, America the Beautiful Quarters™ Program and others.
The AIP was specifically designed to develop and train a pool of talented external artists ready to work with the United States Mint's in–house staff of sculptor–engravers to create new coin and medal designs. United States Mint Sculptor–Engravers model the designs submitted by the AIP artists.
There are two levels of artists who may participate in the AIP – Master Designers and Associate Designers. Associate Designers are eligible for direct promotion to the Master Designer level after two years in the program. Under AIP provisions, Master Designers receive $2,500 for each design submitted for consideration, and associate designers receive $2,000. Each artist receives an additional $5,000 per design selected for a coin or medal. All AIP artists are invited to create and submit at least one design candidate annually for a coin or medal program.
The United States Mint, created by Congress in 1792, is the Nation's sole manufacturer of legal tender coinage. Its primary mission is to produce an adequate volume of circulating coinage for the Nation to conduct its trade and commerce. The United States Mint also produces proof, uncirculated and commemorative coins; Congressional Gold Medals; and silver, gold and platinum bullion coins.