text:
An exchange between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky: censored by Sam Harris
Preamble: The exchange below is between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky. For some background please see the links provided here: Link 1 and Link 2. For more please see: Link 3 and Harris's "Final thoughts on Chomsky." Noam gave his permission to use the email exchange with Sam Harris but the latter refused us permission to post his responses. However, the words of Sam Harris are available at the links provided. One of the sources for the email exchange is Alternet which Sam Harris says, in an email, did not have his permission to reproduce his exchange and that: "They stole it." Sam Harris was informed that the content of his emails would be paraphrased and quoted from to explain to readers why his responses are not published here.
It is odd that while in his exchange with Noam, Sam Harris calls out the former as seemingly having an uncharitable attitude towards him: that this is the tone he adopted in his email exchange with me as editor of Philosophers for Change. Yet, my email notes to him were polite and respectful as best as I can ascertain. It is also bizarre that Sam Harris published the email exchange with Noam (after he had his permission to do so) claiming that it would benefit readers to see their points of view, but that he now prevents us from reproducing his responses here. We present Noam's words as they stand from the record — nothing has been changed, including typos — and the absence of the response from Sam Harris is testament, among other things, of his censorship of reasoned public discourse (failed or otherwise) though claiming engaging differing views from his was a motive in initiating and publishing this entire exchange with Noam in the first place.
However, something good has emerged from Sam Harris's attitude and thinking in this matter: the singular consistency and clarity of Noam's thought shines through. This should be quite apparent if, for those reading the exchange for the first time, one goes through Noam's responses and then looks at them in the context of Sam Harris's words in the links given. Moreover, it is our view that if the responses below are approached this way readers will not only see better what is at stake in the email exchange but that Noam lives up to the moral responsibility of a public intellectual.
Indeed, for this alone, Sam Harris deserves our thanks for instigating Noam and showing us why we need people to be more discerning in an age wherein anti-public intellectuals try to obfuscate the integrity of others who have stood their ground with clarity, principle and a sense of moral consciousness through the years.
Sanjay Perera
Editor, Philosophers for Change
From: Sam Harris
To: Noam Chomsky
[Sam Harris refuses permission for his responses to be reproduced here, so please see these links for them: Link 1 and Link 2.]
From: Noam Chomsky
To: Sam Harris
Perhaps I have some misconceptions about you. Most of what I've read of yours is material that has been sent to me about my alleged views, which is completely false. I don't see any point in a public debate about misreadings. If there are things you'd like to explore privately, fine. But with sources.
The example that you cite illustrates very well why I do not see any point in a public discussion.
Here's the passage to which you refer:
Or take the destruction of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, one little footnote in the record of state terror, quickly forgotten. What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? We can imagine, though the comparison is unfair, the consequences are vastly more severe in Sudan. That aside, if the U.S. or Israel or England were to be the target of such an atrocity, what would the reaction be? In this case we say, "Oh, well, too bad, minor mistake, let's go on to the next topic, let the victims rot." Other people in the world don't react like that. When bin Laden brings up that bombing, he strikes a resonant chord, even among those who despise and fear him; and the same, unfortunately, is true of much of the rest of his rhetoric.
Though it is merely a footnote, the Sudan case is nonetheless highly instructive. One interesting aspect is the reaction when someone dares to mention it. I have in the past, and did so again in response to queries from journalists shortly after 9-11 atrocities. I mentioned that the toll of the "horrendous crime" of 9-11, committed with "wickedness and awesome cruelty" (quoting Robert Fisk), may be comparable to the consequences of Clinton's bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in August 1998. That plausible conclusion elicited an extraordinary reaction, filling many web sites and journals with feverish and fanciful condemnations, which I'll ignore. The only important aspect is that single sentence—which, on a closer look, appears to be an understatement—was regarded by some commentators as utterly scandalous. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that at some deep level, however they may deny it to themselves, they regard our crimes against the weak to be as normal as the air we breathe. Our crimes, for which we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide massive reparations, for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for allowing the terrible facts to be sunk deep in the memory hole. All of this is of great significance, as it has been in the past.
It goes on to review the only evidence available—we do not investigate our crimes, indeed bar investigation of them—which is from quite credible sources, estimating that casualties might well have been in the tens of thousands.
Your response is interesting both for what it does not say and what it does say. What it does not do is answer the question raised: "What would the reaction have been if the bin Laden network had blown up half the pharmaceutical supplies in the U.S. and the facilities for replenishing them? We can imagine, though the comparison is unfair, the consequences are vastly more severe in Sudan. That aside, if the U.S. or Israel or England were to be the target of such an atrocity, what would the reaction be?"
Anyone who cites this passage has the minimal responsibility to give their reactions. Failure to do so speaks volumes.
Let's turn to what you did say—a disquisition on "moral equivalence." You fail to mention, though, that I did not suggest that they were "morally equivalent" and in fact indicated quite the opposite. I did not describe the Al-Shifa bombing as a "horrendous crime" committed with "wickedness and awesome cruelty." Rather, I pointed out that the toll might be comparable, which turns out on inquiry (which is not undertaken here, and which apologists for our crimes ignore), turns out to be, quite likely, a serious understatement.
You also ignored the fact that I had already responded to your claim about lack of intention—which, frankly, I find quite shocking on elementary moral grounds, as I suspect you would too if you were to respond to the question raised at the beginning of my quoted comment. Hence it is simply false to assert that your "basic question" is one that "Chomsky seems to have neglected to ask himself." Quite the contrary, I asked myself right away, and responded, appropriately I believe, to your subsequent charges. The following is from Radical Priorities, 2003.
Most commentary on the Sudan bombing keeps to the question of whether the plant was believed to produce chemical weapons; true or false, that has no bearing on "the magnitude with which the aggression interfered with key values in the society attacked," such as survival. Others point out that the killings were unintended, as are many of the atrocities we rightly denounce. In this case, we can hardly doubt that the likely human consequences were understood by US planners. The acts can be excused, then, only on the Hegelian assumption that Africans are "mere things," whose lives have "no value," an attitude that accords with practice in ways that are not overlooked among the victims, who may draw their own conclusions about the "moral orthodoxy of the West."
Perhaps you can reciprocate by referring me to what I have written citing your published views. If there is anything I've written that is remotely as erroneous as this—putting aside moral judgments—I'll be happy to correct it.
I don't circulate private correspondence without authorization, but I am glad to authorize you to send this correspondence to Krauss and Hari, who you mention.
I am sorry you are unwilling to retract your false claim that I "ignore the moral significance of intentions." Of course I did, as you know. Also, I gave the appropriate answer, which applies accurately to you in the al-Shifa case, the very case in question.
If you had read further before launching your accusations, the usual procedure in work intended to be serious, you would have discovered that I also reviewed the substantial evidence about the very sincere intentions of Japanese fascists while they were devastating China, Hitler in the Sudetenland and Poland, etc. There is at least as much reason to suppose that they were sincere as Clinton was when he bombed al-Shifa. Much more so in fact. Therefore, if you believe what you are saying, you should be justifying their actions as well. I also reviewed other cases, pointing out that professing benign intentions is the norm for those who carry out atrocities and crimes, perhaps sincerely – and surely more plausibly than in this case. And that only the most abject apologists justify the actions on the grounds that perpetrators are adopting the normal stance of criminals.
I am also sorry that you evade the fact that your charge of "moral equivalence" was flatly false, as you know.
And in particular, I am sorry to see your total refusal to respond to the question raised at the outset of the piece you quoted. The scenario you describe here is, I'm afraid, so ludicrous as to be embarrassing. It hasn't even the remotest relation to Clinton's decision to bomb al-Shifa – not because they had suddenly discovered anything remotely like what you fantasize here, or for that matter any credible evidence at all, and by sheer coincidence, immediately after the Embassy bombings for which it was retaliation, as widely acknowledged. That is truly scandalous.
And of course they knew that there would be major casualties. They are not imbeciles, but rather adopt a stance that is arguably even more immoral than purposeful killing, which at least recognizes the human status of the victims, not just killing ants while walking down the street, who cares?
In fact, as you would know if you deigned to read before launching accusations, they were informed at once by Kenneth Roth of HRW about the impending humanitarian catastrophe, already underway. And of course they had far more information available than HRW did.
Your own moral stance is revealed even further by your complete lack of concern about the apparently huge casualties and the refusal even to investigate them.
As for Clinton and associates being "genuine humanitarians," perhaps that explains why they were imposing sanctions on Iraq so murderous that both of the highly respected international diplomats who administered the "Oil for food" program resigned in protest because they regarded them as "genocidal," condemning Clinton for blocking testimony at the UN Security Council. Or why he poured arms into Turkey as it was carrying out a horrendous attack on its Kurdish population, one of the worst crimes of the '90s. Or why he shifted Turkey from leading recipient of arms worldwide (Israel-Egypt excepted) to Colombia, as soon as the Turkish atrocities achieved their goal and while Colombia was leading the hemisphere by far in atrocious human rights violations. Or why he authorized the Texaco Oil Company to provide oil to the murderous Haitian junta in violation of sanctions. And on, and on, as you could learn if you bothered to read before launching accusations and professing to talk about "ethics" and "morality."
I've seen apologetics for atrocities before, but rarely at this level – not to speak of the refusal to withdraw false charges, a minor fault in comparison.
Since you profess to be concerned about "God-intoxicated sociopaths," perhaps you can refer me to your condemnation of the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy.
No point wasting time on your unwillingness to respond to my request that you "reciprocate by referring me to what I have written citing your published views. If there is anything I've written that is remotely as erroneous as this – putting aside moral judgments – I'll be happy to correct it."
Plainly there is no point pretending to have a rational discussion. But I do think you would do your readers a favor if you presented your tale about why Clinton bombed al-Shifa and his grand humanitarianism. That is surely the least you can do, given your refusal to withdraw what you know to be completely false charges and a display of moral and ethical righteousness.
Your effort to respond to the question that you had avoided in your published article is, I'm afraid, indeed embarrassing and ludicrous. The question was about the al-Shifa bombing, and it won't do to evade it by concocting an outlandish tale that has no relation whatsoever to that situation. So you are still evading that question. It takes no telepathy to perceive that.
So let's face it directly. Clinton bombed al-Shifa in reaction to the Embassy bombings, having discovered no credible evidence in the brief interim of course, and knowing full well that there would be enormous casualties. Apologists may appeal to undetectable humanitarian intentions, but the fact is that the bombing was taken in exactly the way I described in the earlier publication which dealt the question of intentions in this case, the question that you claimed falsely that I ignored: to repeat, it just didn't matter if lots of people are killed in a poor African country, just as we don't care if we kill ants when we walk down the street. On moral grounds, that is arguably even worse than murder, which at least recognizes that the victim is human. That is exactly the situation. And we are left with your unwillingness to address the very clear question that opened the passage you cite is, instead offering evasions that are exactly as I described. And your unwillingness to address the crucial ethical question about intentions.
To adopt your terms, the matter of "altruism (however inept), negligence, and malevolence is absolutely clear" in the case of the al-Shifa bombing. There wasn't even a hint of altruism, inept or not, so we can dismiss that. There was clear negligence – the fate of probably tens of thousands of African victims did not matter. As to whether there is malevolence, that depends on the ethical question I raised, which you seem not to want to consider: to repeat, how do we rank murder (which treats the victim as a human) with quite consciously killing a great number of people, but not caring, because we treat them as we do ants when we walk down the street: the al-Shifa case?
And a further question. How do we regard citizens of the country that carried out this atrocity who seek to provide some justification in terms of clearly non-existent altruistic intentions.
As you know (apologies for the accuracy), I described 9/11 as a "horrendous crime" committed with "wickedness and awesome cruelty." In the case of al-Shifa, I said nothing of the sort. I described it as an atrocity, as it clearly is, and merely stated the unquestionable facts. There is no "moral equivalence," the term that has been regularly used, since Jeane Kirkpatrick, to try to undercut critical analysis of the state one defends.
As for intentions, there is nothing at all to say in general. There is a lot to say about specific cases, like the al-Shifa bombing, or Japanese fascists in China (who you should absolve, on your grounds, since there's every reason to suppose that their intention to bring an "earthly paradise" was quite real), and other cases I've discussed, including Hitler and high Stalinist officials. So your puzzlement about my attitude towards intentions generally is quite understandable. There can be no general answer. Accordingly, you give none. Nor do I.
I'm glad that you are interested in looking at the other cases I've discussed for 50 years, addressing exactly the question you claim I ignored. These cases shed great light on the ethical question of how to evaluate "benign intentions". As I've discussed for many years, in fact decades, benign intentions are virtually always professed, even by the worst monsters, and hence carry no information, even in the technical sense of that term. That's quite independent of their "sincerity," however we determine that (pretty easy in the Japanese case, and the question doesn't even arise in the al-Shifa case).
We are left as we were. You made a series of accusations that were quite false, and are unwilling to withdraw them. You refuse to consider, let alone answer, the very simple and straightforward question posed in the passage you cited. And you still refuse to reciprocate as I have properly requested several times.
That means, clearly, that there is no basis for a rational public interchange.
I'll skip the rest.
Easy to know why you're unaware of my having written about your work. I haven't done so. In contrast, you've written about my work, with crucial false accusations that you evidently have no interest in correcting. As to my "misconceptions" about you, I'm interested to see that there is no credible source.
Turning to the more important question of al-Shifa. Why so? For exactly the reasons I mentioned.
The bombing of al-Shifa was an immediate response to the Embassy bombings, which is why it is almost universally assumed to be retaliation. It is inconceivable that in that brief interim period evidence was found that it was a chemical weapons factory, and properly evaluated to justify a bombing. And of course no evidence was ever found. Plainly, if there had been evidence, the bombing would not have (just by accident) taken place immediately after the Embassy bombings (along with bombings in Afghanistan at the same time, also clearly retaliation).
There's no rational way to explain this except by assuming that he intentionally bombed what was known to be Sudan's major pharmaceutical plant, and of course he and his advisers knew that under severe sanctions, this poor African country could not replenish them – so it is a much worse crime than if al-Qaeda had done the same in the US, or Israel, or any other country were people matter.
I do not, again, claim that Clinton intentionally wanted to kill the thousands of victims. Rather, that was probably of no concern, raising the very serious ethical question that I have discussed, again repeatedly in this correspondence. And again, I have often discussed the ethical question about the significance of real or professed intentions, for about 50 years in fact, discussing real cases, where there are possible and meaningful answers. Something clearly worth doing, since the real ethical issues are interesting and important ones.
Let's review this curious non-interchange.
It began with you suggesting a public debate because of "The fact that you have called me "a religious fanatic" who "worships the religion of the state" makes me think that there are a few misconceptions I could clear up. And many readers insist that I am similarly off-the-mark where your views are concerned."
It turns out that you have published version of my views that are completely false, and that the only source you have for "the fact" that you cite is something on Youtube in which, as you wrote, that I "may have been talking about both Christopher Hitchens and [you], given the way the question was posed," or maybe about Hitchens, whose views I know about, whereas in your case I only know about your published falsifications of my views, which readers of yours have sent to me, and which I didn't bother to respond to. Therefore, the only meaningful debate could be about your published falsifications.
These, as we have reviewed, are quite extreme. Your primary charge is that I neglected to ask "very basic questions" about intentions. As we have now established, I asked and responded to exactly those basic questions in this case and in other cases, while you have completely failed to address "the basic questions" about the significance of professed intentions (about actual intentions we can only guess). There are two important questions about these: (1) how seriously do we take them? (2) on moral grounds, how do we rank (a) intention to kill as compared with (b) knowledge that of course you will kill but you don't care, like stepping on ants when you walk.
As for (1), I have been discussing it for 50 years, explaining in detail why, as we all agree, such professed intentions carry little if any weight, and in fact are quite uninformative, since they are almost entirely predictable, even in the case of the worst monsters, and I have also provided evidence that they may be quite sincere, even in the case of these monsters, but we of course dismiss them nonetheless. In contrast, it seems that you have never discussed (1).
As for (2), I posed the question, the one serious moral question that arises in the case at issue, and though I didn't give a definite answer I suggested what I think: that one might argue that on moral grounds, (b) is even more depraved than (a). Again, it seems that you have never even considered (2), let alone discussed it.
To summarize, then, you issue instructions about moral issues that you have never even considered to people who have considered and discussed these issues for many decades, including the very case you cite. And when this is explained to you in detail, you have nothing to say except to repeat your initial stance.
As if that's enough, you evaded the question asked in the passage you cite, and when I asked for a response, you did give a response – or so I assumed.
To be crystal clear, either that response was irrelevant to the question, or you intended it to seriously, that is, to be relevant to Clinton's bombing of al-Shifa. I assumed the latter. In that case, it follows at once, as I wrote, that the claim is ludicrous and embarrassing. You now say that it was only a "thought experiment." That leaves us where we were. Either it is irrelevant, or it is ludicrous and embarrassing, or else you are refusing to answer the question. All of that is straightforward enough so that I need not spell it out any further.
Let's turn finally to your interpretation of al-Shifa: Clinton "did not want or intend to kill anyone at all, necessarily. He simply wanted to destroy what he believed to be a chemical weapons factory. But he did wind up killing innocent people, and we don't really know how he felt about it."
I'm sure you are right that Clinton did not want or intend to kill anyone at all. That was exactly my point. Rather, assuming that he was minimally sane, he certainly knew that he would kill a great many people but he simply didn't care: case (2) above, the one serious moral issue, which I had discussed (contrary to your charge) and you never have.
As for the rest, you may, if you like, believe that when Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan in immediate reaction to the Embassy bombings (and in retaliation, it is naturally assumed), he had credible information that he was bombing a chemical factory – which also was, as publicly known, the major pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (which, of course, could not replenish supplies), and he judged that the evidence was strong enough to overlook the human consequences. But, oddly, he was never able to produce a particle of credible evidence, as was widely reported. And when informed immediately (by HRW) that a humanitarian catastrophe was already beginning he ignored it, as he ignored the subsequent evidence about the scale of the casualties (as you incidentally did too).
On your assumptions, he's quite clearly a moral monster, and there's no need to comment further on people who seek to justify these crimes – your crimes and mine, as citizens of a free society where we can influence policy.
It seems to me clear what your response should be on elementary moral grounds. I'm not holding my breath.
Very glad to see that we are terminating this interesting non-interchange with a large measure of agreement. I agree with you completely that we cannot have a rational discussion of these matters, and that it is too tedious to pretend otherwise. And I agree that I am litigating all points (all real, as far as we have so far determined) in a "plodding and accusatory way." That is, of course, a necessity in responding to quite serious published accusations that are all demonstrably false, and as I have reviewed, false in a most interesting way: namely, you issue lectures condemning others for ignoring "basic questions" that they have discussed for years, in my case decades, whereas you have refused to address them and apparently do not even allow yourself to understand them. That's impressive.
There's also no other way to pursue your various evasions of the "basic question" that arises right at the outset of the passage of mine that you quoted. No need to run through this again, but the plodding review makes it clear that you simply refuse to answer the question, perhaps not surprisingly.
I'll put aside your apologetics for the crimes for which you and I share responsibility, which, frankly, I find quite shocking, particularly on the part of someone who feels entitled to deliver moral lectures.
And I'll also put aside your interesting feeling that you see no challenge when your accusations are refuted point by point, along with a demonstration that you are the one who refuses to address the "basic questions" that you charge me with ignoring, even after you have learned that I had dealt with them quite specifically before you wrote, and in fact for decades.
It would also be interesting if, someday, you decide actually to become concerned with "God-intoxicated sociopaths," most notably, the perpetrator of by far the worst crime of this millennium who did so, he explained, because God had instructed him that he must smite the enemy.
The idea of publishing personal correspondence is pretty weird, a strange form of exhibitionism – whatever the content. Personally, I can't imagine doing it. However, if you want to do it, I won't object.
[Notes: Thank you Noam for permission to publish this. This exchange also appears at samharris.org and Alternet. Noam Chomsky is an activist and an emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sam Harris is an author, neuroscientist, and co-founder and chief executive of a non-profit organization that promotes science and secularism.]
May 19, 2015 May 19, 2015 sanjay pereraAmerican domination, anti-public intellectuals, culture of violence, neocolonialism, neoliberalism, Noam Chomsky, public intellectuals, Sam Harris, US military aggression, western imperialism
2 thoughts on "An exchange between Sam Harris and Noam Chomsky: censored by Sam Harris"
ej23267 says:
the entire exchange was (is?) available at the Znet website, home to Chomskyists. Harris is a great example of how atheism does not lead to enlightenment. [Link: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/exchange-with-chomsky]
Mali says:
Reblogged this on Mali's Place.
Previous Previous post: Noam Chomsky: The emerging New World Order, its roots, our legacy
Next Next post: The intentional road to hell


text:
word = 4
halfword = word // 2
byte = halfword // 2

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


[The past few weeks, months, have been so full of things. Good things, bad things, scary things, fun things, gut-wrenching things, feeling-overload things. I have written probably ten posts, scrapped at least ten more, and have more snippets of posts than I care to admit. It would seem I have too much to say, yet nothing at all.
This entry was posted in glimpse inside my noggin, Married D/s and tagged always submissive, rambling, words by shygirl. Bookmark the permalink.
Well it's a great dip!
I so love that poster! I often have no words for the feelings. Perfect.
As you release them, those words will grow. I've been there.


text:
separative
Présentation l'entreprise SEPARATIVE
Industries des molécules
The story of an innovative start-up
An innovative start-up, based in Chemistry Valley, on the IFPen site in Solaize, SEPARATIVE was created on 14th April 2014 by François Parmentier and Financière Florentine. It started out in the Crealys business incubator in Lyon, and then moved to the AxelOne Innovative Processes collaborative platform, within the framework of the AXELERA competitive cluster.
With the Novacité seal of approval and as an award-winner from the Entreprendre Rhone network, SEPARATIVE is a pure product of Lyon entrepreneurship. SEPARATIVE was distinguished at the Emergence competition 2014, and is accompanied by Bpifrance through support to innovation and entrepreneurship.
The first year was devoted to proof of concept and protection of industrial property. In April 2016, an exclusive pilot line led to the production of an initial prototype. In parallel, the company united a solid group of beta-testers chosen from opinion leaders in the pharmaceutical industry and its equipment suppliers.
In July 2016, Separative is awarded at the 18th edition of the I-Lab challenge for its project of commercialization of some high performance Flash chromatography cartridges.
A vocation with technological, innovative and ecological value.
We believe that Chemistry has a mission: improving people's lives in balanced and protective harmony with Nature.
SEPARATIVE has a vocation to provide chemists with innovative technologies to broaden the scope of their investigations and innovation.
We are convinced that technological innovation can make the molecule industries eco-friendly.
François Parmentier
Founder, CEO, and Technical Director
François has more than 25 years' experience in the chemicals industry as a chemist and process engineer (Rhône Poulenc, IFPEN). Half of this time was spent in operational roles, and the other half in processes and computer simulation. He holds 12 patents, half of which are for inventions he created on his own initiative. Five of those patents were developed by SEPARATIVE.
Pierre Frécon
Founder, Financial Director
Pierre is a Civil Engineering Graduate from the « Mines » School in Paris and holds an MBA from INSEAD. He worked at Shell for five years in the downstream oil sector (France, USA, Sri Lanka). He holds five patents. In 2007 he created Financière Florentine, a company specialising in starting (TRL 3-7) green technology companies in the Rhône-Alpes area (13 investments to date).
Souad Rafik-Clément
Technology R&D expert
Souad worked at IFPEN for 15 years, where she developed very broad expertise from both a scientific and a technical point of view on the analysis and improvement of materials. She is on detachment at SEPARATIVE in the framework of a Management course at IFPEN.
Cyril Burkovic
Cyril worked in Business Development for nearly four years as a Business Engineer and Strategic Marketing Consultant, before successfully handling the recovery of a struggling SME for three years. He joined our team in March 2015. Cyril is an engineering graduate from UTT and holds a Specialist Master's diploma from EM Lyon.
PLATE-FORME AXEL'ONE
IFPEN SOLAIZE 69360
contact@separative.net

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Parallel to the growth of computer usage in society is the growth of programming instruction in schools. This informative volume unites a wide range of perspectives on the study of novice programmers that will not only inform readers of empirical findings, but will also provide insights into how novices reason and solve problems within complex domains. The large variety of methodologies found in these studies helps to improve programming instruction and makes this an invaluable reference for researchers planning studies of their own. Topics discussed include historical perspectives, transfer, learning, bugs, and programming environments.


When dealing with Pauline literature, never underestimate the importance of occasion. I think a lot of people approach the "Pastoral Epistles" as instruction books for Pastors and for running local churches. I know that's the boat I was in before this semester.
A closer reading in recent weeks has opened my eyes to the pervasive reach of the false teachers and their doctrine in the church. The false teaching had led some of widows astray (1 Tim 5:15), thus the qualifications for being added to the church roster. It seems likely that the reason for appointing leaders in the church is that some of the previous leaders had been lead astray, just like Paul prophesied in Acts 20:30. That gives Paul good reason to remind Timothy to make sure that even the deacons, not to mention those who would teach (see 1 Tim 4:16) were orthodox (1 Tim 3:9). The narrow-minded Judaizing teaching (1 Tim 1:7) is probably the occasion for Paul's statements about God wanting everyone to come to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4) and about God as "Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe" (1 Tim 4:10).
The entire letter is directed at rebuilding and reclaiming a war-torn church. False teaching had taken its toll, but Paul is convinced that hope remains as long as Timothy will devote himself "to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching" (1 Tim 4:13). For in giving due attention to his life and doctrine, Timothy will save both himself and his hearers (1 Tim 4:16).


Audiology A disturbance in equilibrium due to a disruption of the labryrinth. See Equilibrium.
Any condition that affects a person's ability to feel steady while walking, sitting, standing, resting, working, or turning. Some common examples include disease of the labyrinth of the ear, cerebellar strokes, and seasickness.
It's unclear how many people have it, although it seems to predominantly affect women, according to the MdDS Balance Disorder Foundation.
TSX: HSM) (OTCQB: HSDT) has added MedStar National Rehabilitation Hospital in Washington DC as the sixth site to provide services supporting Helius' ongoing pivotal trial investigating PoNS Therapy for the treatment of subjects with balance disorder resulting from mild to moderate Traumatic Brain Injury, the company said.
Among the health conditions Enrile's camp cited in court pleadings were chronic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, irregular heartbeat, Asthma-COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) overlap syndrome, eyesight problems, and historical diagnoses of high blood sugar, high cholesterol, gait or balance disorder, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and an enlarged prostate.
The inner ear infections lead to a variety of symptoms, including sudden dizziness, hearing problems, or even hearing loss, balance disorder, and tinnitus.
The most common adverse reactions across all LYRICA clinical trials are dizziness, somnolence, dry mouth, edema, blurred vision, weight gain, constipation, euphoric mood, balance disorder, increased appetite, and thinking abnormal (primarily difficulty with concentration/attention).
One or more of these components can be affected by aging, injury or various diseases therefore resulting a balance disorder in which the individual feels unsteady or dizzy even in static conditions.
Our aim in this presentation is to review the occurance of the balance disorder on elderly osteoporotic individuals and fall down conclusion.
Research has shown that water can be used for therapy and rehabilitation for such disorders as myopathy, balance disorder, reduced range of motion, delayed motor development, and even some psychological symptoms.
Other most common adverse reactions include weight gain, constipation, euphoric mood, balance disorder, increased appetite and thinking abnormal (primarily difficulty with concentration/attention).
I work closely with the American (non-profit) MdDS Balance Disorder Foundation.
In clinical trials, the most common adverse reactions in patients taking dalfampridine included urinary tract infections, insomnia, dizziness, headache, nausea, weakness, back pain, balance disorder, swelling in the nose or throat, constipation, diarrhea, indigestion, throat pain, and skin sensations including burning, tingling, and itching.
Diagnosing a balance disorder and its causes can be complicated because there are all sorts of problems that may result in altered balance.


text:
Car and combine collide in Bowlus, passenger has minor injuries
Philip Rudolph of Royalton was driving the combine when he entered the intersection and was hit by the car.
Car and combine collide in Bowlus, passenger has minor injuries Philip Rudolph of Royalton was driving the combine when he entered the intersection and was hit by the car. Check out this story on sctimes.com: https://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2018/10/08/car-and-combine-collide-bowlus-injuries-farm-harvest-implement-crash-traffic-intersection/1569813002/
From Staff Reports Published 3:00 p.m. CT Oct. 8, 2018
Morrison County Sheriff's Office.(Photo: Morrison County Sheriff's Office)
BOWLUS — The collision of a car and a combine Saturday afternoon has left one passenger with possible injuries.
According to the Morrison County Sheriff's Office, the accident on 120th Avenue in Bowlus was reported about 2:20 p.m. Saturday.
Police say Scott Welle, 48, of Pierz was travelling south on 120th Avenue in a Chevrolet Impala. Philip Rudolph, 41, of Royalton was going west on 40th Street driving a John Deere combine.
According to the sheriff, Rudolph then "entered the intersection with the combine and was struck by Welle's vehicle."
Tracy Moga, 45, of Royalton who was riding with Welle, had minor injuries but declined any medical attention at the scene.
Read or Share this story: https://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2018/10/08/car-and-combine-collide-bowlus-injuries-farm-harvest-implement-crash-traffic-intersection/1569813002/
19-year-old Sauk Rapids man charged with assault
Minnesota trooper charged with sexually assaulting girl
Hansmeier co-defendant sentenced in porn scheme
Waite Park revokes massage license, second in a month
Rain-drenched year for Minnesota continues
Construction underway on SCSU's Husky Plaza


text:
Trump Making 'Nativist' Group's Wish List a Reality
Trump's immigration policy appears to be guided by a wish list produced last year by a far-right group that has spent most of its existence on the fringe.
Betsy Swan
Political Reporter
Updated Apr. 10, 2017 2:01PM ET / Published Mar. 13, 2017 1:03AM ET
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast
On April 11, 2016, a tiny think tank with a bland name published a 79-point wish list. The list garnered virtually no media coverage, and in the 11 months since its publication has been largely ignored—except, apparently, by the White House.
Today, Donald Trump seems to be working through it as he rolls out his immigration policy. A number of the 79 items on the list composed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), have either been implemented or shown up in leaked draft proposals from the administration. It's a course of events that has that think tank cautiously exultant and has immigrants' rights activists anxious and disturbed.
CIS is one of the most vocal groups supporting increased detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants. It played a key role in torpedoing the 2013 Gang of 8 comprehensive immigration reform bill, and is a long-time favorite of Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller.
Its newfound influence isn't just on paper and in policy.
Mark Krikorian, CIS's executive director, told The Daily Beast that last month, for the first time, his group scored an invite to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement stakeholder meeting, a gathering that happens a few times a year where ICE leaders talk policy and procedure with immigration lawyers and activists. And he said that since Trump's inauguration, he's been in touch with new appointees at the Department of Homeland Security. It's a new level of access and influence that helps explain the quick, dramatic changes Trump has made in immigration policy—changes that will impact millions of people.
"We're a think tank," Krikorian said. "Our job is to put stuff out there. Our job is to put a message in a bottle and hope somebody finds it."
It's been found.
Just 50 days into his presidency, and Trump's team has already discussed, proposed, or implemented upwards of a dozen of CIS's ideas.
For instance, the 29th item on CIS's list calls for detention of people coming to the U.S. seeking asylum.
"Doing so will restore integrity to an out-of-control system that encourages both border surges and asylum fraud," the memo reads.
A Feb. 21 memo from the Department of Homeland Security laid out how the department is working to quickly expand detention of undocumented immigrants, including asylum seekers.
The 40th item on CIS's list calls for the prosecution of people who pay smugglers to bring children to the United States illegally. Though the journey from Central American countries through Mexico and to the U.S. is incredibly dangerous, many parents opt to hire smugglers to bring their children here because they think it is safer than leaving their kids in incredibly violent countries like Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. McClatchy reported on Feb. 18 that the DHS was considering prosecuting these parents—a move that a former USCIS official told NPR would be unprecedented.
Items 47 through 52 on CIS's list detailed ideas for limiting federal support to sanctuary jurisdictions. Trump and his top staff consistently say this is a top priority for their immigration enforcement, and his Jan. 25 executive order on enforcement of immigration laws directed the attorney general and secretary of homeland security to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that don't comply.
CIS's 52nd item in particular shows up as a central Trump goal. It calls for the administration to "breathe new life into the moribund 287(g) cross-designation program"—a program that deputizes local law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws. The program is controversial among law enforcement officers, and some municipal governments say they don't have the resources to detain undocumented immigrants until the feds pick them up to deport them.
Despite that, Trump's Jan. 25 executive order announced the administration would look to have state and local law enforcement officers "perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law."
Item 60 calls for reducing "the number of welfare-dependent foreigners living in the United States." Trump telegraphed support for this sentiment in his address to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 28.
"It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially," he said in the speech. "Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon."
In some cases, the president's executive orders all but lift language from CIS's list. For instance, this is the 65th item on the CIS list:
"Rescind all outstanding 'prosecutorial discretion' policies; eliminate the 'Priority Enforcement Program', and reinstitute Secure Communities."
And this appeared in Trump's Jan. 25 executive order:
"The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the Secretary on November 20, 2014, and to reinstitute the immigration program known as 'Secure Communities' referenced in that memorandum."
The Priority Enforcement Program directed ICE agents to focus their enforcement on undocumented immigrants who had convicted crimes. Now that PEP is toast, most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are targets for deportation.
The 66th item calls for speeding up deportation proceedings for people who have been in the U.S. for two years. Under the Obama administration, those quicker proceedings only happened for people who had been in the country for two weeks or less. But Trump's Department of Homeland Security—implementing another idea from the CIS playbook—is making the change, meaning undocumented immigrants have to prove they have been in the U.S. for two years without leaving if they want to have a better shot in court of staying here.
And the controversial VOICE office Trump announced at his speech to Congress—which would provide special advocacy and support to Americans hurt by crimes committed by undocumented immigrants—may have had its genesis with CIS. Item number 72 on their list calls for the creation of a "victims advocacy unit" responsible for "providing services to those who have been victimized by illegal alien criminals."
Krikorian predicted an imminent step from the Trump administration could be worksite raids targeting places of employment for undocumented immigrants. That hasn't happened yet on a widespread level, he added, but the president could direct it.
"It's still early, so I expect stuff like that's going to happen," he said. "In a sense, that's the next thing that I'd be looking for."
And Krikorian's group has more access than ever to the people who make immigration policy decisions. He said that in February, a representative from the group attended one of the stakeholder meetings that ICE has with immigration advocates several times per year. For CIS, it was a big first: Obama's DHS had shown zero appetite to have CIS at the table for those meetings, which address wonky procedural issues like how immigrants are transported between detention facilities, how much access attorneys have to them, and how bond gets handled. Meeting participants include the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the American Bar Association's immigration project, and immigrants' rights advocates. And, now, CIS—a leading proponent of increased detention and deportation.
CIS isn't the only restrictionist group to find newly open ears at DHS. Dan Stein, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told The Daily Beast his group was also invited to the meeting as well (though he added it received meeting invites from the Obama administration too). Stein said his group has found the Trump administration to be very open to their ideas.
"As you might imagine, the communication is much better now, and people are asking us to attend all kinds of different meetings," he said. "FAIR is a very important organization for explaining to people the purposes and strategies behind various administration strategies, and quite naturally the administration would have an interest in making sure we understood the information and properly explain it to people if we're asked. When I go on CNN to explain the trump travel ban, I expect to have somebody explain it to me in a way I understand."
And Roy Beck, who heads NumbersUSA—a restrictionist group that boasts a 1.5 million-member email list—said his organization was invited to the ICE stakeholder meeting as well, and has found open ears in the Trump administration, particularly DHS.
"What they're trying to do meshes with what our organization has always tried to do," he told The Daily Beast.
These three groups share a co-founder: John Tanton, a population control activist who flirted with racist pseudo-science, supported Planned Parenthood, and argued that immigration and population growth were bad for the environment. Immigrants' rights advocates argue that the groups are covertly white supremacist and motivated by animus towards people of color. These groups, meanwhile, argue that activists who support immigrants' rights are secretly in the pocket of corporate interests looking to drive down wages by bringing in immigrants willing to work for less than native-born Americans.
David Leopold, who formerly headed AILA, told The Daily Beast he found CIS's invitation unsettling.
"I don't know what the Center for Immigration Studies would be doing there honestly," he said. "I don't know why they would be there. What business do they have there? Do they represent people in proceedings? What business does Mark Krikorian have at the ICE liaison committee meeting?"
And Frank Sharry, who heads the activist group America's Voice, said he shared those concerns and found CIS's invitation "very disturbing."
"You have this nativist cabal that has been on the outside looking in for 25 years and now they're on the inside looking out, and they're going to have outsized influence," he said. "In fact, you could say that these groups—CIS and their fellow travelers—are going to own what the Trump administration does on immigration and refugee policy. I'm sure that makes them very happy. I think it should make the country alarmed."


On March 20-22, 2013 the annual conference of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine was held at the Illustrious Official College of Physicians in Madrid, Spain. This was an extraordinary venue, with mosaics and frescoes covering the walls and ceiling of the lecture theater. Safe Food, Fair Food was represented by Tamsin Dewé, consultant with the International Livestock Research Institute, who presented a poster summarizing the results of the Rapid Integrated Assessment of food safety and nutrition in Ethiopia. The poster generated much interest, both for the participatory approach of the work, and its findings on the food safety and nutrition risks within the small ruminant value chains in Ethiopia.


A complete meal, eaten with fork and spoon and accompanied with Jasmine rice, the key to this delicious soup lies in the use of fresh ingredients and balance of flavours.
Cooking time ~ 2hrs 10mins includes preparation time ~ 2hrs.
Bring ~3 litres of water to the boil in a large saucepan. Add pork bones and boil for 2 hours or until meat is tender.
Meanwhile, roast the galangal, red onions, garlic, chilli and coriander roots. Use an oven or 'brown' slowly over hot coals, a gas flame, or in a cast iron skillet.
When cool, remove charred onion/garlic skin(s). Slice the galangal finely. Pound the roasted chilli to a coarse powder using a mortar/pestle. Bruise coriander roots with back of a knife.
Remove old dry brown and dark green leaves from lemongrass, bruise the stems severely so that flavour will release during cooking, and slice 3 stems, leaving the other 3 halved. They may be tied together for easy removal before serving if desired).
When pork bones are cooked, the meat tender, add the next 7 ingredients marked (*) and continue to simmer for 10 minutes. Remove saucepan from heat.
Cooking for any more than 10 minutes will NOT enhance flavour.
Add kaffir lime leaf, fish sauce, palm sugar, chilli paste and half of the lemon juice. Stir and taste … add salt, lemon juice or more fish sauce to achieve a balance.
The appropriate word in the name - "YUM"
Youd reduce the cooking time substantially by using goong or aharn talay Rob?
Suggested cooking time for them?
Awesome KR !!! I'm going try that one ! Thanks for the post !
If you or I made the change for a farangs-only meal, we'd get away with it.
Jo's Tom Yum Goong is superb, less phet phet than most recipes but oh so tasty! We cook it with prawn heads for flavour and colour and the meat goes in last, just before serving.... full recipe sometime soon.
Tom Sap Mu is a variation on Tom Yum Mu, using far more lemon and is less labour intensive. Bit like Som Tam ... many, many variations.
With Tom Yum Goong definitely add the prawn flesh last - 2-3 minutes is enough as they'll keep cooking after served.
A trick I learnt from a TG with Tom Yum was if you have guests who have varying tastes in heat, make the basic soup and then place the required number of chillis plus lime juice in the bowl before adding the soup.
I have never bbq my base stuff like that; I use smoked paprika powder- my own idea- seeing you do this, makes it seem like what I am doing, isn't so "original" an idea after all (Thai's don't give out recipes easily!).
EDIT: Ingredients vary as to their growing history, time of harvest, freshness and preparation.
That's before the sequential cooking process.
Any top chef would never insist on rigid rules for a dish - that's far too A-rententive.
Get an idea of the process, season and spice to taste, learn the difference between fresh and dried herbs and go for it.
Last edited by Zablive; 20th January 2013 at 18:26.
This is the same process for starting a beef/pork/game stock - but browned in an oven rather than a BBQ to catch the marrow and juices.
Jo goes to great lengths to perfect flavours and balance. If one enjoys eating say, roast onions/garlic etc., it's easy understand the EXTRA dimension that sequence adds to flavour.
Small things like selecting the best quality lemons, smooth skin, firm, green, etc. is also important. I realised this when we had to use old yellowish lemons and the flavour wasn't same as normal. Just over-squeezing, releases too much oil from lemon skin and pith, and alters taste.
Noi was in total agree-ence with your comments here- Issan doesn't have seafood, Moo is the recipe.
I will try this out- now to find a charcoal grill at Yuens Markets in the valley in brisso or the thai place next to the chinese medicine place.
I remember ask jonty to buy some pork belly from the shop on the way home from working. We have a big fight because I could not say pork belly.
I said to him buy me pork with all the calorie on the out side good taste.
I like that explanation but is it not easier to rub your tummy (stomach/belly) while saying "Mu"?
Everything animals do is in a constant state of evolution.............next stop the stars! 5 star cooking!
What was that song in kindergarden??? "bend and stretch reach for the stars!"
Last edited by OzzyDamo; 20th January 2013 at 19:39.
Totally agree. Recipes I publish here, (like the popular Women's Weekly series in Au) are designed for anyone with basic skills. Adhering to a recipe is desirable initially, and tweaking is what turns a simple meal into a memorable dinner.
Which chef are you referring to and what recipe or cuisine?
Pavlova, scones, som tam, pizza, ratatouille, chicken parmigiana, pork pie ....?
All - and all of the above.
Dishes taste according to palates - no-one has "the best for everyone."
Keeping posting your versions of local dishes (which have as many variations as the word "EEERRR") 555!
Last edited by Zablive; 20th January 2013 at 20:32.


This research project offers you, as a stakeholder, the opportunity to give your input on what you think that are relevant indicators for professionally competent behaviors for a specialist in gifted education. Research amongst a broad group of stakeholders will contribute to the professionalisation of the specialist in gifted education and can improve the quality of gifted education programs.
Phase 1 takes about 30 minutes. Phase 2 will take approximately 30 minutes to as much as 1 hour. In this phase, you can take a break as long as you do not close the webpage with the questionnaire or log off of the website. So, as long as you leave the webpage open, you can go for a coffee break and come back at a later time.
Participating is easy. Follow the link "I want to participate" in the purple button. Read the instructions and then start with phase 1 by watching the videos.
This research takes place without any governmental funding or financial support of third parties.
The research developing competencies and the designing of professional standards for specialist in gifted education for the Netherlands and Flanders is a doctoral research study conducted by Drs. E.W.J.M. van Gerven under supervision of Prof. Dr. T. Kieboom and Prof. Dr. Ing. K. Venderickx (University of Hasselt). Both, the competency matrix and the list of matching indicators are based upon an international literature study done by Drs E.W.J.M. van Gerven. The original design for the empirical part of the research was developed by Drs. Van Gerven, and is being utilized in the current study. The original research took place in the Netherlands and Flanders between November 2018-March 2019.
Based upon this earlier work, Drs. E.W.J.M. van Gerven and Dr. C. Matthew Fugate have designed a joint project to compare gifted education stakeholder attitudes in the Netherlands and Flanders, other European countries and the United States. This comparative research is an extension of the original research design and has to be seen as a separate research project.
Privacy statement research project "Competencies of the specialist in gifted education"


text:
UK electronics chain Maplin in administration, too
2500 jobs at risk.
News by Tom Phillips Deputy Editor
Updated on 28 Feb 2018
Electronics retailer Maplin is the second UK chain to fall into administration today, following the earlier announcement of Toys R Us failing.
Talks with potential buyers for Maplin collapsed this morning, BBC News reported.
The company has 217 UK stores and more than 2500 staff - all of whom are now at risk. It's not known if any of the chain will survive.
For now, shops will remain open through the administration period.
Maplin was founded in 1976.
Tom is Eurogamer's deputy editor. He writes lots of news, some of the puns and makes sure we put the accent on Pokémon.
Keeley Hawes returns as Lara Croft in Tomb Raider Reloaded