Bean bags are the perfect choice for those individuals who are searching for any eye-catchy piece which would serve the role of a recliner, chair, or a couch. Now, it is quite opportune that if you do not have any idea about this furniture then definitely you will be curious to recognize what the Bean Bags are?
In the form of bags filled with tablets, it was presented to the world and was used mainly at workplaces for relaxing during coffee breaks, but it was never assumed that it can gather this kind of recognition in the present world. Slowly and gradually the item was rejuvenated, and the design of the bean bag with beans came into being.
The deficiency of obtainability of ergonomic chairs at an affordable price and also to evade physical problems physiologists started recommending the use of bean bags. This dynamic chair can render considerable relief to back pain. Beans bags can take the shape of every human body of all ages that sits on it and offer the needed relaxation.
It can also stand beneficial for the hot topic global warming because it neglects the use of wood and supports the consumption of eco-friendly material for its production; which is why it takes the necessary attempt to inhibit deforestation.
Recently, many individuals have started understanding the efficacy of bean bags and started becoming a rage in India; the furniture world welcomed its appearance. Many renowned brands began manufacturing bean bags among them "styleaf" is the name which has started recognizing the difficulty of some individuals that were having the desire of enjoying the available comfort of bean bags but was unable to afford one. So, they made this modern furniture available at the lowest expenditure of Rs.120. You can now find a bean bag in all places, like lounges, cafes, eateries, salons and also at many people's homes.
At pricedesi.com, anyone can enjoy browsing a wide variety of bean bags online in India. It generally feels great to be spoilt by choice and PriceDesi offers you a range of bean bags to browse, they are the exact pieces which will indeed meet your requirements and taste.
Here you will get bean bag chairs, XXXL beanbag with beans, bean bag refill, and several other varieties of bean bags that are different from each other regarding shape, color, and size. After you choose a bean bag online in India from our online store, you will find the in-details description below the product, and it will help you in discovering which one is better and also let you recognize the need of owning one for yourself. So, without wasting any more time trolling from one shop to another shop buy bean bags online now!
You Might Come-Up with the Problem of Which Bean Bag Should You Buy?
Firstly, we should think about our children's because they are the ones who need the prime attention. You possibly have noticed that your kids droop in their chairs and this repeatedly happens after you propose your best effort by correcting them over and over again. Everyone should worry about their kids because they are the ones who are never conscious of their posture and resting or playing in a lousy position can lead to long-term complications.
Thus, if you do not want to grow these sorts of troubles take the necessary initiative to buy bean bags online in India. PriceDesi has an assortment of bean bags in cute colors for them to pick from. And you should not worry about the durability of these bags because they are manufactured using the best quality material. However, never assume that all the pieces of bean bags available at our store are limited only to be the creation of some of the known brands, but also they can act as an excellent substitute for other expensive furniture online. At your free time login to pricedesi.com, go to the section of "Furniture" and then choose "Bean Bag" use the filter panel provided at the left side and express your requirements. You can be very sure that PriceDesi will give the necessary value to your hard-earned money and you will either get worthy cashbacks, high discounts or enjoy superb deals on every purchase.
You should never assume that lousy posture can only affect the children's because they can indeed assist in growing joint problem in adults. We are breathing in the 21st century, and there are various items available which can prove beneficial for our health, but still, our health gets compromised very often and this because of not being aware of it. External appearance and comfort should always be preceded and fortunately; the bean bags can deliver both effortlessly.
Bean bags can be moved effectively to the garden for a decent casual get-together or cook on a spit with your companions without agonizing over them getting messy for the material doesn't take into account the stains to wait for a really long time, and the surface can be effortlessly cleaned.
The versatility and comfort provided by the bean bag chairs have made this item necessary in every home, café or any other place which is meant for relaxing. You should never assume that these chairs are limited to being eye-catchy; they can also play the role of a recliner, a chair, and a couch. Pricedesi.com is a newly evolved store, and in a very short span of time, it has gained the recognition of India's largest online shopping portal.
Bean bags are considered very popular among people. They are convenient and can be managed without any kind of difficulty. Here at Pricedesi, you will the latest style of bean bags at the best prices in India. Presently, a favorite item which is very high in demand and often gets honored due to its capability to provide versatility and comfort are the bean bags. They are usually stunning in appearance, and their robust physical attributes allow them to play the role of a chair, couch, and a recliner. An array of bean bags and bean bag chairs are made available by one of India's largest online shopping portal pricedesi.com; anyone can make use of it as a piece of furniture or a decorative item in the home. The concept of bean bag online availability might be a new trend but, it is famous since the 70's; from that point of time it was a vital piece for every home. People who are furnishing in the enthusiasm to get something which will help to secure space and will be an inexpensive furniture bean chair online is the best choice. Any place either a bachelor's home or an abode where a family resides to enhance the look and atmosphere you can make use of a beanbag. You might want to make your living room stylish and that too within a limited expense then surely the cheap bean bags will satisfy your desire. Without involving much chaos and cluster, they offer the suave look. You can visit pricedesi.com and browse the extensive collection of the best bean bags available with beans in different colors, shapes, and sizes. Pick one or more items from the cheapest bean bags online displayed at pricedesi.com and proceed towards payment, after that seat relaxed and the product will get delivered to your doorstep within no time. You can also use the website of pricedesi.com for shopping any items like office and home furniture, home décor, kitchenware, dining, hardware and electrical appliances, kid's products, adult garments, and many others.


text:
In Celebration of the 85th Birthday of Mr. Lawrence Wright Jordan, Sr.
Mr. Bishop (GA) – Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to extend my personal congratulations and Happy Birthday wishes to Mr. Lawrence Wright Jordan, Sr., who will turn 85 years of age on July 8, 2012. On this day, he will be honored by his family and friends at a celebration at Crawford County Board of Education Auditorium in Roberta, Georgia at 1:00 p.m.
Mr. Jordan, the second of nine children, was born on July 8, 1927, to Mattie Lee (Barnes) Jordan and Graham Jordan, Sr. in Roberta, Georgia. He started working at a young age and served as the "house boy" for the family whose land his own family lived on.
As he grew up, Mr. Jordan had a great desire to serve his country and wanted to enlist in the United States Army at age 18. However, he was required to wait as his older brother was in the Navy and his mother did not want two sons in the military at the same time. He was finally able to enter the Army at the age of 25.
In the 1950s, Mr. Jordan served two tours of duty in the Korean War before receiving honorable discharges from the Army. He is one of the very few Korean War Veterans still alive today.
On October 11, 1958, Mr. Jordan married Anola Preston, also of Roberta, Georgia. They would go on to have six beautiful and loving children: Barbara Ann (Jordan) Snowden, Lawrence Wright Jordan, Jr., Linda Joyce Jordan, Sam Edward Jordan, Tammy Renee (Jordan) Jones, and John Howard Jordan as well as Shirlene Tennyson, who, sadly, passed away. Additionally, Mr. Jordan has 18 grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren.
George Washington Carver once said, "How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong because someday in your life you will have been all of these." Mr. Jordan has advanced so far in life because he kept these lessons with him throughout his childhood, his service in the Army, and his adult life.
The race of life isn't given to the swift or to the strong, but to those who endure until the end. Mr. Jordan has run the race of life with grace and dignity and God has blessed him over his lifetime.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in paying tribute to Mr. Jordan, a distinguished Veteran and beloved husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
James Madison University Professor to Lecture at W&L on May 4
By Julie Cline
Tracy Lupher, professor of philosophy and religion at James Madison University, will give a lecture at Washington and Lee University on May 4 at 4:30 p.m. in Huntley 327.
The title of Lupher's lecture, which is free and open to the public, is "Is Time Travel Possible?" His talk will consider philosophical views on time travel and its connections with relativity theory.
Lupher's work focuses on the philosophy of physics along with related issues in the philosophy of science and metaphysics. He is also interested in logic, the philosophy of language and analytical philosophy.
He is the co-founder and co-director of the Logic and Reasoning Institute at J.M.U. which promotes the study of logic and reasoning. Lupher was the winner of the Clifton Memorial Prize for 2008 in the philosophy of physics.
Lupher has authored and coauthored articles on the philosophy and history of quantum field theory, causation and the implications of different logical frameworks. Selected publications include "Quantum Theory: Von Neumann vs. Dirac," (2011), in "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy;" "A Logical Choice: The Role of Modal Logics in the Modal Ontological Argument," (2011), in "Southwest Philosophy Review;" and "A Physical Critique of Physical Causation," (2009), in "Humana Mente."
Lupher received his B.A. in philosophy, his B.S. in physics, his B.S. in mathematics and his M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Texas at Austin. He also received his M.A. in history and philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh.
The Philosophy Department is sponsoring the lecture with the support of the Spring Term Course Enhancement Fund.
Related //Philosophy, The College
Tagged //Old Wordpress, Provost, spring term


text:
« Sailing The Cruel Sea Again, in a Left-Wing Way | Main | Even Stalin didn't dare kill off Sundays – but the Tories will »
17 August 2012 10:46 AM
A Quick Thought on Self-Defence, and one or two other matters
Mr Bob Aldridge writes to ask: 'If self defence is the sole justification for war, does that mean that both Britain and the USA should have stayed out of the First and Second World Wars? Should the USA not have helped Britain over the Falklands? Where does self defence begin?'
As I think I have said before, I remain quite baffled by Britain's 1914 declaration of war on Germany, based on a very generous interpretation of our treaty obligations to Belgium, and not in our national interests. It had been clear since 1870 that Germany was now the dominant power in central Europe, for solid reasons of population, economic strength, military skill and general inventiveness and energy. British foreign policy, based upon maintaining our global position as a trading empire and naval superpower, should have been aimed at taking advantage of this inevitable development, not trying to frustrate it.
And, as I have also said many times, our decision to declare war in 1939, for a cause we didn't care about, for a goal we could not actually attain and had no intention of gaining, on the basis of a promise we had made when we had no intention of keeping it and no forces with which to keep it, with an army we didn't have, at a time which didn't suit us and which we allowed to be chosen by others, must rank as one of the most stupid diplomatic decisions ever taken by a major nation.
Both wars left us socially, morally and economically devastated, and neither achieved their objective. The myth created to justify the 1914 war retrospectively - the 'War to end War' - has long been exploded, not least by the rather blatant fact that it was no such thing. The myth to justify the 1939 war - that it was a war of principle fought for freedom and to save the Jews from Nazi murder - remains as yet unexploded, though the mere facts that its main European effect to was hugely to expand the murderous tyranny of the USSR, and that it didn't directly save, or even try to save, a single Jew from Nazi murder, directly contradict these claims. Jews were of course saved by the eventual collapse and defeat of the Hitler state. But the Allies discounted courageously gathered reports of what was going on in the death camps, and declined to bomb the railways leading to them.
The entry of the United States into the 1914 war seems to have been manipulated by propaganda suggesting a German threat to the USA, providing at least a pretext of self-defence, and there was also the complex issue of German submarine warfare and its effect on American citizens and shipping. Personally I think Britain would have been far better off if we'd listened to Lord Lansdowne and signed a compromise peace, thus avoiding the Bolshevik revolution, the great German inflation, the Washington Naval Treaty and many other reverses and disasters. In 1941, Germany declared war on the USA, which had sensibly waited before entering the European war.
I shall be accused of all kinds of horrors for saying this. My motivation is, however, quite simple and unadorned – the interests of my own country and its people.
Mr Henry Noel asks, similarly 'I hope that by "self defence" one does not mean waiting for the aggressor's knife to be in one's gut before responding.'
Well, my policy remains the sensible one of maintaining strong and effective armed forces, on the assumption that you never know from which direction danger may come. As Switzerland has shown more than once, this is quite effective.
I am not quite sure what the Falklands are doing in this question. Didn't Argentina invade the islands? And sending material help to an ally who's been attacked seems to me to be covered by 'self-defence'.
A reader who complained to the BBC about the handling of my 'debate' with Russell Brand has received a reply which contains the following immortal words 'As impartiality is the cornerstone of our entire programme making process there is certainly no bias against Peter Hitchens'
I am having this sentence stuffed and mounted in a glass case.
August 17, 2012 Comments (66) Categories: 'Democracy' , BBC , BBC bias , Churchill Cult , Falklands , First World War , World War Two | Permalink
There is also a moving account in Canon Scott's Great War memoir of how he braved German snipers at Regina Trench in order to find the body of his soldier son in during the Battle of the Somme. It may be correct to say that a country should only fight a war that is directly in self-defence and so all that suffering was probably unnecessary; however, it should not be easy to say.
Posted by: Brooks Davis | 22 August 2012 at 08:44 AM
Posted by: John Aspinall | 20 August 2012 at 09:49 PM
You will have noticed in my response to you, some uncertainty about what you meant and an acknowledgement that I may have misunderstood. It appears that I have misunderstood some of your post at least, so apologies for that. I stand by my view that there's nothing tricky about the concept of self-defence. It stands to reason that if attacked, defence is justifiable. The tricky part is what constitutes self-defence and when does that become excessive force? It's rather similar to the law of the land you are allowed to use reasonable force in self-defence, but not excessive force. Where this line is drawn is often a matter of debate. It's the same with actions taken in defence of the realm. It appears to me now that this was the thrust of much of your original post. For what it's worth, I do not think that a country, or an individual is justified in doing absolutely anything to another country or individual, even after having been attacked. I also think that if a country defends itself reasonably, any civilian deaths caused to the aggressor's side can be attributed to the actions of the aggressor. That then begs the question "what is reasonable self-defence?" I'm afraid I do not have a definitive answer for this but I'd repeat my point that the concept of defending one's self or one's country is a fairly simple one, i.e actions can be taken in the face of aggression. The rather large grey area, or if you like philisophically tricky bit, is what these actions should be.
Posted by: Andrew Coltart | 21 August 2012 at 05:32 PM
Thank you for your contribution, Brian Hughes. I just wanted those of us who agree with Peter Hitchens that Britain should have stayed out of the world wars until directly attacked to remember how the men who actually did the fighting saw the conflicts. (Mr. Hitchens himself does this, of course.) It's easy for me who has not had an experience of war to do the mental calculations. However, hundreds of thousands of British subjects, perhaps, demonstrated their convictions with amazing sacrifice and valour instead of words to a newspaper (their blog equivalent). I'm sure that some of them at the time agreed or would have agreed with our position now, but we should be careful to not be glib about about our little theories.
I also note that, after 20 years of consideration of what it had cost to respond to the call of King and Empire to stop German aggression, they had raised the next generation of Canadians to do it again in a seemingly identical scenario in the sequel with the same level of volunteer enlistment. I don't doubt that the Aussies or the Brits did the same.
Posted by: Brooks Davis | 21 August 2012 at 05:30 PM
Mr. Hitchens responded thus....
'Paul P' writes: 'The Soviet horror was a relatively straightforward brutal horror. A tyrant ran a tyrannical regime. The Nazi horror had an evil dimension underlying its military brutality, the removal of which could admit of no further delay beyond 1939.'
"I wonder what he means?"
I mean this in essence: Stalin was a brutal psychopath at the head of a brutally dystopian regime, a regime that he had fashioned in the image of his own brutal psychopathy . His principal successor, however, was not a psychopath, although the head of a still-dystopian regime. Subsequent leaders were milder still, and eventually the dystopian regime collapsed, never having realised the utopian vision of the future that its creators had had in mind. The reasons why this was never possible have been argued authoritatively elsewhere - by Bertrand Russell for example, of all people. The processes at play in the turning of utopias into dystopias have been well dramatised and satirised by such as Orwell and others.
Hitler displayed a similar psychopathy to that of Stalin, but Hitler was something else besides. Hitler was psychotic. Hitler was the architect of a vision of the future that was dystopian from the beginning, evil at its root. There was no utopia gone bad in the Nazi case, it was dystopia gone worse. Hitler's racially hierarchical vision of the future, with of course the Nazis at the top, could never be suffered to succeed or left to chance to fail. It would have to be taken down, at almost any cost. The placing of fellow human beings in a sliding scale of inferior racial sub-sets could lead in one direction only: the de-humanising of non-Nazi humanity and the indifferent enslavement of a majority of them. This, to my mind, is evil rather than merely brutal.
From Mr. Hitchens....
"Is he suggesting, yet again, the tired old fiction that we declared war on Germany because of the persecution of Germany's Jews?
No, I am not. Not until it dawns on Chamberlain that Hitler's ambitions for German hegemony cannot be reined in other than by force do we arrange with Poland a defence pact which Hitler obligingly triggers – after a short delay suggesting a cautious re-think, and then a re-re-think - caution set aside. Hitler invades anyway.
In 'The Gathering Storm' Churchill leaves us with the impression that he'd read Mein Kampf soon after its publication. There is no record of Chamberlain having read it. It was the Koran of the Nazi faith, Churchill styled it. It explains, perhaps, Churchill's curiously single-minded campaign of warning in the 1930s about the Nazi threat and the need to re-arm. It was as if Churchill suddenly knew something others had missed.
German hegemony, then, might have been on Chamberlain's and the government's mind in 1939, but combating evil was in the mind of Churchill. Very fortunate was it, then, that Churchill took the helm in 1940. German hegemony – brutally executed that it was planned to be, and indeed was in brutal progress – might have been 're-negotiated' had Chamberlain remained in power. But not with Churchill in charge. Churchill understood that Britain was fighting evil, and there is no negotiating with evil. Brutality, including our own – who cared about Stalin's (he also had invaded Poland) - would take moral second place to fighting Hitler's evil.
Posted by: Paul P | 21 August 2012 at 01:32 AM
To complement Brooks Davis' post (20 August 2012 at 05:04 AM), the following quote is taken from William Philpott's 'Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme' (published by Abacus 2009) where (p. 590-591) he goes on to quote from the memoir of an Australian infantryman (from the notes: entitled 'Observations of No. 5886)':
'Reflecting on his [experience of the 1914-18] war in the 1970s, [Australian infantryman] Gunner Monteith [reflected]:
"In all our countless debates on the war during my subsequent years in the army, I can recall no argument or doubt as to the aggressive guilt of German militarism. Fundamentally this is why men enlisted in such great numbers…. Although accused by some of being a youthful victim of the then prevailing war-propaganda, I still contend that the Germans as a nation were guilty of ruthless aggression, largely based on blatant and oligarchic militarism, bent on conquest."
'But on a visit to the Scottish War Memorial at Edinburgh Castle he was asked if it had all been worthwhile and was forced to reflect:
"It is a baffling question; too tremendous in its implications to invite an easy 'yes' or 'no', but rather to warrant a counter-question – 'was there any alternative?' Along the road of time, events soon recede; even the stark cruelty of a terrible war fades into obscurity, particularly when pushed further back into history by a second world-conflict, and lesser wars. The once seemingly clear-cut issues of the Great War have become blurred in the minds of many. Time and circumstance have wrought their change. In the counter-communism strategy Germany… was urgently promoted to the side of the 'goodies'.
"Notwithstanding all that I am one who adheres to the belief, that grim would have been the lives of many, if Germany and her allies had gained final victory in the 1914-18 war."'
Posted by: Brian Hughes | 20 August 2012 at 10:51 PM
To Andrew Coltart:
"Do you mean to say that if a country attacks another country, then the country being attacked should do nothing?"
If that is what I had meant to say, then that is what my comment would have said. I didn't, so it didn't.
"I don't disagree that many innocents would still die but I do not see what other option the country under attack has."
What options are you talking about? You do not mention what the options are.
"Nor do I know what the government of a country under attack would tell the mother of a dead child killed by the bombs of an aggressive country because they did nothing in defence of her child."
Nor do I. But that wasn't quite my point.
If a case for war is made, using the self-defence argument, and that argument stands up to scrutiny and the war is, therefore, "justified", can the country in question, for reasons of self-defence, do anything it wants to the other side?
Nowhere did I say that a country under attack should do nothing.
My underlying point is one about the value of human life.
Is it okay to kill the other side's civilians if the other side started it?
Is it okay to kill them on purpose?
Is it okay to kill them by accident?
As I tried to point out using (but not limited to) the Dresden example:
Yes/on purpose = anything is allowed so long as good reasons are offered.
No/ on purpose = certain actions/outcomes are always wrong.
Yes/by accident = innocent human life can be written off.
No/by accident = certain actions/outcomes are always wrong.
That I put an "equals" sign is not meant to imply that the matter is closed, quite the opposite.
You might not think the self-defence argument is philosophically tricky, but I happen to think it is.
Posted by: Paddy Owen | 20 August 2012 at 04:37 AM
I might suggest that Hitler wouldnt have needed to destroy Christianity had he won its my guess that it would have bent over backwards to accommodate his agenda.
Certainly rabid anti-Semitism would have been nothing new to any Christian denominations?
It seems to me that often Christians appear to have a a highly selective view of history and the part their religion has played in it. Certainly its civilising effect on the world has at best been wildly overrated I would argue.
And far from being a blight I could easily argue that without it Christianity's, already by the 15th century, pretty thread bare civilising credentials would have simply degraded further as it slipped deeper into the self obsessed, navel gazing corruption, and abuses of power & authority that essentially fuelled the Reformation itself.
It may be stating the bleeding obvious but folk appear to forget that without the Reformation there would have been no Counter Reformation, and the changes this wrought to the Catholic Church e.g. Its highly unlikely the Jesuits would have emerged as a powerful force for change.
Posted by: Ian Vallance | 20 August 2012 at 05:07 PM
peter hitchens you are a national treasure and don'tlet them tell you
anything different. Jeremy Campbell.
Posted by: jeremy campbell | 20 August 2012 at 11:58 AM
We've been writing about the British decisions to enter the world wars at the high level of policy, but I'd like to share from the memoir of a Canadian chaplain during WWI, The Great War As I Saw It by Canon Scott. It reminds how much the war must have been a just crusade in defence of civilization rather than just national self-interest for very many of the British subjects who fought it. This morality was rooted in the Christian worldview of their time. I doubt that multiculturalism and Human Rights can so generally imbue this fighting, altruistic conviction into a nation.
This is about the German shelling of towns at 2nd Battle of Ypres in 1915.
The people along this road were leaving their homes as fast as they could. One little procession will always stand out in my mind. In front one small boy of about six years old was pulling a toy cart in which two younger children were packed. Behind followed the mother with a large bundle on her back. Then came the father with a still bigger one. There they were trudging along, leaving their home behind with its happy memories, to go forth as penniless refugees, compelled to live on the charity of others. It was through no fault of their own, but only through the monstrous greed and ambition of a despot crazed with feudal dreams of a by-gone age. As I looked at that little procession, and at many other similar ones, the words of the Gospel kept ringing in my ears, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me." These words I felt sounded the doom of the Kaiser. Many and many a time when the war from our point of view has been going badly, and men would ask me, "How about the war, Sir?" or, "Are we winning the war, Sir?" I would reply, "Boys, unless the devil has got into heaven we are going to win. If he has, the German Emperor will have a good friend there. But he hasn't, and any nation which tramples on the rights and liberties of humanity, glories in it, makes it a matter of national boasting, and casts medals to commemorate the sinking of unprotected ships – any nation which does that is bound to lose the war, no matter how badly things may look at the present time." It was nothing but that unflinching faith in the power of right which kept our men so steadfast. Right is after all only another name for the will of God. Men who knew no theology, who professed no creed, who even pretended to great indifference about the venture of eternity, were unalterably fixed in their faith in the power of right. It gives one a great opportunity of building the higher edifice of religion when one discovers the rock foundation in a man's convictions.
I agree with many things you say Peter but your opinion in regard to Britain and WWII is difficult to comprehend.
I can only suspect you have put your allegiance to Britain above your responsibility as a Christian. It is unfortunately the blight of the Reformation that this narrowness of view and retreat to self interest is commonly put forward.
Hitler was a rabid dog. He wished primarily to destroy Judiasm, but can anyone seriously doubt Christianity would have been next?
What use to the world let alone Great Britain if Hitler's power waxed while Britain consoled itself with fantasies of self interest? Britain had to act and thank God for the world that it did.
Interesting points you make here. If Britain had adopted the Swiss policy of neutrality, where would she be now? In a much better state methinks. No longer forced to pay and pay to Europe, to allow the dilution of culture, the open entry (and upkeep) of anyone and everyone ( many hostile to the country), the interference with law and order, and the general decline of national pride and a cohesive society. And not to stop the folly at WW11 - the politicians keep on meddling and picking up the cudgels of others. The cost of Afghanistan in men morale! And the cost in money of all of it? Money Britain does not have except by robbing future generations. And who benefits? The countries first involved in the two big wars seem to be doing pretty well, thank you very much!
Posted by: Joy | 19 August 2012 at 09:59 PM
I think it has beeen agreed that if we were to enter the war we should have waited for at least a year but why we really acted nobody will ever know because the history has not been written
to ascertain the true thoughts of those who took the decision.Sure,books are books but you would have to be mad to believe everything in auto biographies and everybody else is dead.
As for the BBC,of course it is partial,how many examples do you want?.You are lucky to even get a reply and that is only because you are of the same world.You have said the war on drugs is lost,you are right(at the moment)but when these clowns see what a mess they have made of
the next few generations there will have to be a rethink.
I am all for evolution and a sense that "we are all in this together",this cannot be argued,
what I am against is the deliberated laws to change the face of society.
Posted by: michael savell | 19 August 2012 at 02:12 PM
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this post. Do you mean to say that if a country attacks another country, then the country being attacked should do nothing? I don't disagree that many innocents would still die but I do not see what other option the country under attack has. I don't see what's so philosophically tricky about it. Nor do I know what the government of a country under attack would tell the mother of a dead child killed by the bombs of an aggressive country because they did nothing in defence of her child.
It seems perfectly simple to me in that war should be avoided whenever possible, but there are times when it cannot be avoided. Maybe I've picked you up wrong.
Posted by: Ken | 17 August 2012 at 07:50 PM
"The presenter gave Brand free reign to heap verbal insults on you without at any stage demanding he stay within the bounds of civil debate. And then when you became rightly irate at this she seemed to chide you for dominating the debate. Brand is genuinely malevolent though and I am not sure further debates with him are the way forward."
You mention the word "debate" twice, and "debates" once when referring to Peter Hitchens appearance on Newsnight with Russell Brand. At least, I assume this is what you're referring to. Having watched this programme, I would contend this. I saw no debate. I saw Peter Hitchens trying to debate, but Russell Brand refusing, either through unwillingness or inability. Or both.
Peter Hitchens wrote, "Germany's domination of Europe, and Britain's imperial decline were both, in my view, more or less inevitable, but could have been managed much less destructively."
If I am correct in supposing that Britain's recklessness in the world wars and subsequent dysfunctional submission to the EU was essentially due to the hubris that she had to be the absolute greatest or best power in the world or near the centre of world power, then it is a shame that she could not make a slight adjustment on the attitude. By 1914, she was well positioned to continue to be one of the leading powers in the world for another century even if she could no longer be the primary lead. There is plenty to be proud of in being a solid second, third or fourth if one is getting the most excellence that one can out of a small island nation and her even smaller (by population) dominions.
"War is a racket" Maj Gen Smedley Butler, 1933.
Posted by: jim | 18 August 2012 at 06:33 PM
Mr Falconer misunderstands me. I have little doubt that the Schlieffen Plan would have worked , had France fought alone. It very nearly did when we helped them.
What I am asking him is why Germany should have regarded Britain as a foe, if Britain had stayed out of the war and not formed an alliance with France. As for the Kaiser marching to Moscow, what would have been the point of that, if he could get the territory he wanted by defeating the Russians in Poland? In 1914, nobody believed in total war or unconditional surrender. A defeated France would have continued to exist. So would a defeated Russia. The new German Empire would have required enormous amounts of effort to guard and consolidate. They also remembered 1812. Whenever anyone says something is 'inevitable' they are saying 'I refuse to consider the possibility that I may be wrong'. Everything is evitable, apart from death and taxes.
Nor do I see why the 'significance of the Channel' would have shrunk if there had been a Wilhelmine Europe. It's still very hard to cross in force, even now. Why would you bother?
Quite why a peace in 1916 or 1917 (after an appalling loss of men and treasure) would have been better than not fighting in the first place, I cannot grasp. Mr falconer seems to think that there is some law of nature which dictates that Britain and Germany must be enemies. Far from t. this idea is a 20th century aberration. Our traditional enemy, and our imperial rival, was France.
I've dealt in the past with the fantasy that some 'toughness' before 1939 would have halted Hitler. It's a theory without any facts ( see Pat Buchanan's description in 'Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War' of what actually happened when Hitler reoccupied the Rhineland. It's Fairy Godmother History, utterly impossible. Hitler wasn't halted because nobody really wanted to halt him, and because many of his territorial policies were not National Socialist frenzy but mainstream German demands, with which many civilised people sympathised.
I just don't see why a peace in 1916 (which would have involved humiliating concessions) would have been better than staying out in 1914 (which would have involved none, since we would never have entered the war and wouldn't have needed to beg to end it).
I wonder what he means? My russian friedns wouldn't agree with him about Stalin, who was much, much worse than he implies. Is he suggesting, yet again, theb tired olf fiction that we declared war on Germany because the persecution of Germany's Jews? One more time. We didn't. And once we went to war, all efforts to help those Jews ended (the Kinderstransports halted as soon as war began) , and we did nothing to aid them or to stop their persecution and murder. What's more, the policy of systematic mass murder had not begun, and so far as I know had not been decided upon in 1939. That would come in 1941-2. We did not foresee it.
What's more, our 1939 intervention did not in any way halt the advance of Hitler. On the contrary, it was fllowed by Hiter's greatest military successes, precisely because we hadn't the means to enforce our demands.
That's one reason why it was a bad time. Quite a big one. Had it not been for the Channel, we wouldn't just have lost. We would have been occupied, subjugated and plundered, like France.
Posted by: Peter Hitchens | 18 August 2012 at 05:50 PM
Because of numerical advantage, better equipment and a more martial spirit, I do not think it is unrealistic to say that the Schliffen plan would have worked, and France would have capitulated without the help of Britains's "contemptible little army" at Mons and the Marne. From the performance of the Kaiser's army in Russia in a two front war, it is not unreasonable to suppose that if able to use the total body of her forces against Russia, the Tsar would soon have been defeated.
You suggest that Germany would have been content to carve out an Imperial state comprising Ukraine, Belarus and the Balkans. I suggest to you, that a belligerent power only allows an undefeated foe to remain on her borders in very specific circumstances. These are if either it is an undefeated remnant, with no economic or territorial value, or if defeating this enemy will bring about chaotic conditions which will tie up far more of your resources keeping down, than warily observing that original enemy. No more perfect example of this was the halting of the Coalition before Baghdad in 1990; the reasons for not taking down Saddam Hussein then were explained with extraordinary clarity by Donald Rumsfeld in a television interview shortly thereafter, and were precisely the circumstances that befell Iraq when the Bush II & Blair did overthrow Saddam: a horrendous civil war, the strengthening of Iran into a regional power, and an endless drain on American treasure to finance a situation not at all in their interests, [and were precisely the reasons the CIA aided Saddam's ascension in the first place]. Rumsfeld's original interview can be found on YouTube.
So, I do not suggest it at all unrealistic to claim that the Kaiser's army would have continued to Moscow and beyond, and Britain could well have faced a Germany in control of the entire European landmass, much of Asia, and allied to the Ottomans. We would have been completely at the whim of such a power, and the significance of the Channel would have shrunk considerably. Given all that, I believe that Britain's entry into the, then Franco-German war of 1914 was inevitable. What however, was unforgivably stupid on our behalf, was the failure to explore the possibility of peace in 1916, a move which would have restored the pre-war balance of power, and prevented all of the horrors that followed on from that foolish decision.
With the Second World War, our decision to go to war over Poland was, I believe, inevitable when Hitler invaded Poland, given Chamberlain's actions at the Munich crisis, and even more significantly, the collective failure of will by the Allied powers to react to Hitler's bluff when he entered the Rhineland. The German army divisions were then not even carrying ammunition, and the generals were under strict orders to retreat if there was the slightest resistance from the Occupying Powers.
Why did we allow Hitler's strength to grow so great, and refuse the entreaties of Stalin to revamp the Triple Entente? Because the prevailing mood at that time was that Versailles was an unjust peace, Hitler was a stabilising element in Europe, and the Bolsheviks were recognised for the bloodthirsty monsters they most certainly were. It must be remembered that at that point the Nazis, though brutal, were not exterminators, and anti-Semitism was then an accepted part of European life.
It is my contention that the crucial failure of statesmanship, which cost this nation everything it had built up over the previous four hundred years, was the stupid continuation of the Franco-German war beyond 1916. Once we took that decision, we set not only lost the best of an entire generation in the killing fields of Flanders, but brought about a peace, [aptly used by David Fromkin as the title to his book], which has turned out to be "The Peace to End All Peace", and set in train circumstances which threaten global security today..
Posted by: William Falconer | 18 August 2012 at 04:41 PM
Posted by: William Falconer 18 August 2012 at 01:23 AM.
"Our mistake was not so much that we declared war on Germany in 1914, which was inevitable, given that without British intervention the Schliffen plan would have worked".
But the Germans didn't follow the original Schliffen plan in WWI it was modified in 1906 removing the simultaneous attack on the Netherlands as well as France. In WWII they used the Manstein Plan which was similar to the original Schliffen plan and it proved very effective despite our intervention.
I don't see that there was anyting inevitable about the first war at all. It was largely caused by the Austro-Hungarian Empire's attempt to hold on to the Balkans as they knew their loss would destroy the Empire. The Germans were bound by treaty to assist them, but it is clear they had no enthusiasm for it and mostly avoided getting directly involved. Then the Russians started mobilising and it all got out of hand. We, of course, were still under the illusion that we had the greatest army in the world after our victory at Waterloo and conveniently forgot about the Crimean and Boer wars which proved we weren't as invincible as we thought to everyone but the generals. We spent the next four years slaughtering the youth of this country as we sent them off to charge machine gun nests with fixd bayonets.
Posted by: Michael Williamson | 18 August 2012 at 03:41 PM
The BBC said " 'As impartiality is the cornerstone of our entire programme"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Posted by: Darren W | 18 August 2012 at 03:23 PM
Mike Barnes observes:
"@ Henry Noel .
you say Hitler invaded Poland thus obviating. Paul Taylors argument . Then go on to say after Hitlers successes,.owning Europe .He would have set his sites on us .
He didn't get to own Europe, thus obviating Henry Noels's argument .
Consistence is virtuous sir."
You are quite correct, and in the name of virtue I retract my jibe, but not the point that follows it.
Posted by: Henry Noel | 18 August 2012 at 02:28 PM
While I have great sympathy with Peter's views on two world wars, they (the wars) are now history. Can we look to the future please whilst learning from history.. What concerns me is that we are still at it! The Balkans, Lybia, Afghanistan - you name it. (The Falklands are British territory and we have every right to oust invaders.) I nearly fell through the floorboards and hit the ceiling last night when I heard the OUR government had criticized the sentencing decision in Moscow of three foolish ladies who had offended many millions throughout the Christian world by their stupid antics. I ask you, what business is it of ours what level of punishment is administered.
There are old military maxims - never march on Moscow, never meddle in the Balkans to which should be added, leave things alone in the Middle East and never try to tame the Afghans. The threat of meddling only makes the situations worse. But in any case, the rulers our government and others are trying to ditch operate goverments under which Christian minorities can worship freely.
Posted by: Chris Cordingley | 18 August 2012 at 02:27 PM
How come when America do it it's self-defence? But when Britain get involved because our allies are threatened, it's bad?
Posted by: Real Man of Genius. | 18 August 2012 at 01:28 PM
Nick Agnew inquires: "But why did we have this daft treaty with Poland?"
I'll go out on a limb and speculate that it was because, after realizing the insanity of its peace-at-any-price philosophy, the peace-at-any-price crowd believed that Hitler could be frightened away from invading Poland by the existence of yet another worthless piece of paper. Since we're all about second-guessing the actions of people who lived seven decades ago and hadn't the advantage of our foresight, I'll join the crowd and say that if the Western powers had confronted Hitler when the time was opportune, it would never have come to that. But then, war is such a hellish thing; too horrible to contemplate.
Mr Falconer writes :'...without British intervention the Schlieffen plan would have worked, France would have been defeated and very possibly Imperial Russia afterward, leaving Britain facing a hostile enemy controlling territory from the Atlantic to Murmansk.'
Inevitabilists, who say that such and such a thing was bound to happen, are fond of picking a rather advanced moment in the process, a moment that suits their argument. But before I deal with that, perhaps I could ask why, if we had stayed out of the 1914 war, Germany would have been especially 'hostile' to Britain once she had defeated France and Russia.
For what reason? She would have been exhausted by war, and in no need of another hard-to-attack enemy. In a war which did not involve Britain, Germany would have found little use for her enormous, costly surface Navy (much as was the case in Hitler's war) and would probably have quietly begun to run it down, mounted its guns on armoured trains and sent its idle sailors into land battle.
Germany's true colonial aspirations always lay within Europe, and in parts of it which in 1914 were mostly imperial possessions of Russia, not independent nations (see the 1917 Peace of Brest-Litovsk for an indication of what she most sought).
Britain's existence on the edge of Europe really wasn't much of an obstacle to Germany, and even a weakened Russia ( and who knows if such a defeat would not have brought to power a modernising government on the Stolypin model?) would have remained a permanent balance to her East. And we would have been spared the disaster that followed the break-up of the Turkish Empire too.
But the real question is what would have happened if Britain had clearly avoided an entanglement with France. Would France have pursued the policies she pursued? Would we have arrived inevitably at 1914? Would Princip's bullets have necessarily plunged Europe into war? I am not sure. But I think it quite possible that they would not have done. The earlier Agadir crisis came to nothing. Germany's domination of Europe, and Britain's imperial decline were both, in my view, more or less inevitable, but could have been managed much less destructively.
The Channel also remained in place throughout, and this, far more than any Balance of Power gamesmanship, is what has kept Britain free of European continental interference. The EU is the first foreign invasion to successfully cross the Channel since Wlliam of Normandy.


text:
The Muscle as an Endocrine Organ, by Professor Bente Klarlund Pedersen
Diabetes - a Global Challenge
Diabetes and obesity are growing health problems in rich and poor countries alike. With this course you will get updated on cutting-edge diabetes and obesity research including biological, genetic and clinical aspects as well as prevention and epidemiology of diabetes and obesity. All lectures are provided by high-profile scientists from one the world's leading universities in diabetes research. This course is part of the EIT Health Campus programme. We hope you will enjoy our course. Best Wishes Jens Juul Holst, Signe Sørensen Torekov and Nicolai Wewer Albrechtsen Department of Biomedical Sciences Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences University of Copenhagen
It is really a very nice course. It gives overall important information in brief about diabetes. Very good for those who want to do something specifically in Diabetes.!!
It was really informative and I learnt a lot about Diabetes as a disease. Thanks so much such wonderful lectures. I would definitely recommend this course to my friends.
Exercise – How Does it Work?
Exercise has many beneficial effects - but how does it actually work? Professor Bente Klarlund will take you through the latest scientific research on how the exercise of skeletal muscles affect our organs and entire body.
Physical Inactivity – a Major Risk Factor for Diabetes, by Professor Bente Klarlund Pedersen16:46
The Muscle as an Endocrine Organ, by Professor Bente Klarlund Pedersen13:08
The Role of Inflammation in Type 2 Diabetes, by Professor Bente Klarlund Pedersen14:12
Jens Juul Holst
Professor, MD, DMSc
Signe Sørensen Torekov
Associate Professor, MSc, PhD
Nicolai Jacob Wewer Albrechtsen
Associate Professor, MD, GCSRT, PhD
[MUSIC] My name is Bente Klarlund Pedersen, I'm a medical doctor specialized in infectious diseases. And a Professor of Integrative Medicine at the University of Copenhagen. I'm also the Director of the Center for Physical Activity Research. In this lecture, I gave you a new perspective on the muscle, the largest organ in the body. Skeletal muscles are primarily identified by the mechanical activity required for posture, movement, and breathing. Which depends on muscle fiber contractions. However, skeletal muscle is not just a component in our locomotor system. It's also important for our glucose and fat regulation, and thereby of importance for both obesity and diabetes. The discovery that contracting skeletal muscle secretes proteins, so-called myokines, sets a novel paradigm. Skeletal muscle is a secretary organ producing and releasing myokines in response to contraction. Which can influence metabolism and function of both muscle tissue and other tissues and organs. For nearly half a century, researchers hypothesized that skeletal muscle cells posses a humoral factor that was released in response to increased glucose demand during contraction. Due to lack of more precise knowledge, the unidentified contraction induced factor was named the work stimulus, the work factor, or the exercise factor. It was known that electrical stimulation of paralyzed muscle in spinal cord injured patients with no afferent or efferent impulses, induces many of the same physiological changes as in intact human beings. Therefore, it was clear the contracting skeletal muscles were able to communicate to other organs via humoral factors. Which are released into the circulation during physical activity. Such factors might directly or indirectly influence the functions of other organs. Such as the adipose tissue, the liver, the cardiovascular system, and the brain. In more recent time, it has been suggested that skeletal muscle might secrete proteins that could counteract the harmful effects of the proinflammatory adipokines secreted by adipose tissue in the obese state in a yin-yang fashion. During the past 20 to 30 years it has become evident that exercise induces considerable changes in the immune system. Especially with regard to the innate immune system, also known as the non-specific immune system and first line of defense. The so-called natural killer cells are part of the innate immune system. And they are very sensitive to stress, including an exercise stimulus. It was while looking for a mechanism to explain exercise-induced changes in the distribution and concentration of lymphocyte subpopulations that we came across IL-6. IL-6 increases in an exponential fashion proportional to the length of exercise and the amount of muscle mass engaged in the exercise. Thus, plasma IL-6 may increase up to 100 fold, although less dramatic increases are more frequent. Of note, the increase of IL-6 in the circulation occurs during exercise without any sign of muscle damage. The IL-6 increase is followed by the appearance of the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-1ra and IL-10. Importantly, the cytokine response to exercise differs from sepsis with regard to TNF. Thus, the cytokine response to exercise is not preceded by an increase in plasma TNF. Until the beginning of this millennium, it was thought that the increase in IL-6 during the exercise was a consequence of an immune response due to local damage in the working muscle. And it was hypothesized that macrophages were responsible for this increase. However, it soon became clear that immune cells do not contribute to produce IL-6 in relation to exercise. By inserting catheters into the femoral vein and artery, we could measure AV differences over both an exercising leg and a resting leg. It appeared that exercising muscle was responsible for the production and release of IL-6 during exercise. Measurement of AV IL-6 concentrations and blood flow across the leg has demonstrated that IL-6 is released in relatively high quantities into the circulation from the exercising leg. This finding soon led to a discovery that muscle-derived cytokines may play a role in mediating some of the exercise-associated metabolic changes. IL-6 works as an energy sensor. Exercise is an IL-6 trigger, but low muscle glycogen is also a trigger for the production and release of high concentrations of IL-6. It soon became clear that muscle-derived IL-6 has major impact on metabolism. Muscle-derived IL-6 has many biological effects, just to mention some. It is is involved in mediating increased hepatic glucose production during exercise. IL-6 has also a strong impact on lipid metabolism. It enhances both lipolysis and fat oxidation. And IL-6 is involved in mediating exercise-induced glucose uptake in healthy people. In continuation, we suggested that cytokines or other peptides that are produced, expressed, and released by muscle fibers. And exert either autocrine, paracrine or endocrine effects, should be classified as myokines. While the word adipokine refers to factors secreted from adipose tissue. The term myokine refers to a protein that is secreted from myocytes. It has been clearly demonstrated that both the upstream and downstream signalling pathways for IL-6 differ markedly between myocytes and macrophages. Unlike IL-6 signalling in macrophages, which is dependent upon NF-kB signalling. It appears that it's a muscular IL-6 expression. It's regulated by a network of signalling cascades that, among other pathways, is likely to involve a crosstalk between nFAT and MAP kinase pathways. Therefore, when IL-6 is signaling a myocyte or macrophages, it creates a pro-inflammatory response. Whereas IL-6 activation and signaling in muscle is totally independent of a preceding CNF response, or NF-kB. The muscle secretome has been identified using various forms of proteomic analysis. Today we know that there are several hundred myokines. However, so far, the biological effects have been mapped for only some of the identified myokines. Some myokines may be involved in communicating to other organs, such as adipose tissue, liver, pancreas, bones, and brain. However, some myokines exert their effects within the muscle itself. Thus, LIF, IL-4, IL-6, IL-7, and IL-15 promote muscle hypertrophy. Myostatin inhibits muscle hypertrophy, and exercise provokes the release of a myostatin inhibitor, follistatin, from the liver. BDNF and IL-6 are involved in AMPK-mediated fat oxidation. IL-6 stimulates lipolysis and IL-15 stimulates lipolysis, especially of visceral fat. IL-6 enhances insulin-stimulated glucose uptake and stimulates glucose output from the liver, but only during exercise. IL-6 also increases insulin secretion via up-regulation of GLP-1 in the L cells of the intestine. IL-6 has also anti-inflammatory effects, as it inhibits TNF production. But stimulate the occurrence of the anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-1Ra and IL-10. Furthermore, IL-6 stimulates cortisol production, and hence, neutrocytosis and lymphopenia. Other myokines, like IL-8 and CXCL-1, may promote angiogenesis. IGF-1, FGF-2, and TNF beta are involved in bone formation. And follistatin-related protein 1 improved endothelial function and revascularization of ischemic muscles. The myokine irisin has been shown to increase in plasma during exercise. Irisin is an interesting protein that has a role in browning of white adipose tissue. Also, the myokine meteorin-like, have a role in browning. The finding that the muscle secretome appears to consist of several hundred secreted peptides provides a conceptual basis. And a whole new paradigm for understanding how muscles communicate with other organs such as adipose tissue, liver, pancreas, bones and brain. The possibility exists that myokines are involved in mediating the preventive effects of exercise with regard to chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes. Physical activity decreases the risk of a whole network of chronic diseases. People with diabetes have a two to three fold increased risk of diseases within this network. Recent research suggests that myokines may also be involved in mediating the protective effects of exercise on tumor growth. In a murine model of malignant melanoma, voluntary wheel running had a major impact on tumor growth. Here we see the malignant melanoma in murine lungs who did not have access to wheel running. And in mice who had access to wheel running, infiltration of natural killer cells was markedly increased in tumors from the running mice. A mechanistic analysis showed that NK cells were mobilized by epinephrine. And that the myokine IL-6 was involved in NK cell mobilization and weight distribution of these cells to the tumor site, thereby controlling tumor growth. Two millennia ago, Hippocrates observed that walking is man's best medicine. Already, then, the benefits of physical activity to health were recognized. Since then, the benefits of physical activity in lowering the risk of death from any cause, and improving longevity, have been well documented. In the past few years, exercise research has contributed tremendously to our understanding of the benefits of exercise on a molecular level. And recently also to the concept of considering skeletal muscle as a secretory organ. The identification of the muscle secretome provides a new platform for understanding how muscles communicate with other organs. And to explain how a healthy muscle tissue is developed and maintained. Thank you for your attention. [MUSIC]


text:
Top Cat: The Movie (known in Spanish as Don Gato y su Pandilla, "Top Cat and His Gang") is a 2011 animated action comedy film based on the Hanna-Barbera cartoon series Top Cat, which originally ran from 1961 to 1962 on ABC in the United States.

Produced by Ánima Estudios and Illusion Studios, the film was first released to theaters in Mexico on September 16, 2011, in 2D and 3D formats, distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. The film was later released in the United Kingdom on 1 June 2012, distributed by Vertigo Films, where it grossed £2.8 million, making it the highest-grossing Mexican film in the region. The film later received a limited release in the United States on 2 August 2013 by Viva Pictures, with the voices of Rob Schneider and Danny Trejo as Lou Strickland and Griswald respectively.

The film was a major commercial success, earning $43.5 million pesos on its opening weekend at the domestic box office and held the record as one of the biggest box-office openings in the Mexican cinema history. The film grossed a total of $112.25 million pesos domestically and $14.7 million worldwide.

A computer-animated prequel to the film and the series, titled Top Cat Begins, was released on October 30, 2015.

Plot
During lunch with Benny, Top Cat spots a female cat walking by them. Excusing himself, Top Cat quickly runs after the female cat, interrupted by Griswald, but soon gets him out of the way and meets up with the female cat, who introduces herself as Trixie. While she finds him amusing, an alley cat isn't her type.

At the alley, Top Cat catches news of the Maharajah of Peekajoo, known for his generosity and his rubies are just what Top Cat needs to impress Trixie. Top Cat and his gang head to the Connity Hall to meet the Maharajah, running into an obnoxious man named Lou Strickland. The gang steal his tickets and get him sent away. While the gang distracts Officer Dibble who is the Maharaja's escort, Top Cat makes a bet with the Maharaja and gets out of him a Maharaja Talk 5000 device with many functions, as the Maharaja hasn't any rubies.

The next morning, Officer Dibble is summoned to the police station to work for the Chief's son-in-law Strickland, who is taking over for the retired Chief. Strickland has replaced the staff with robots which he believes are more competent. Top Cat thwarts Strickland's attempt to evict him, preventing Strickland from getting the Mayor's funding for a robot police army. Upon discovering that they met, Strickland uses Trixie to keep Top Cat away from the alley while he carries out his revenge plan. Top Cat returns to the alley getting shunned by his gang, arrested by police and after a very brief trial (due to the judge having seen the false evidence before), convicted to the Dog Jail on a charge of stealing money from an orphanage.

With the arrest of Top Cat, Strickland is granted the Mayor's funding and establishes a robot police army and a major scale surveillance camera system that restricts privacy for the city. Meanwhile, Top Cat tries to keep a low profile in dog jail but later becomes popular having turned the jail into a paradise for the convicts. As for Top Cat's gang, they are struggling and begin to express their disbelief in him, which Top Cat notices from one of the security cameras.

Strickland abuses his authority and starts coming up with ridiculous laws to take absurd amounts of money off people for everything they do, intending to spend it on making himself even more 'handsome'. Tired of Strickland's tyranny, Trixie quits her job and turns to Officer Dibble, showing him evidence that a robot Top Cat was sent by Strickland robbed the orphanage, proving Top Cat's innocence. However, Strickland arrives and reveals his true intentions to Dibble, and that he's not the old chief's son-in-law. Dibble escapes to pass this to Top Cat's gang, but Trixie is captured by the police robots.

After Dibble tells the gang what really happened, they all head for Big Gus to help them break Top Cat out of prison, as he owes Top Cat. Big Gus leads them through an underground passage to the dog jail and leaves. The gang apologizes for their doubts about Top Cat. With their cover blown by the dogs knowing they've got cats with them, the gang and Dibble escape through a sewer hole arriving at Strickland's HQ.

The gang infiltrates the building in robot guises finding Strickland has imprisoned everyone in the city and stolen the city's cash. While Dibble distracts Strickland, the gang under the guise of robots make their way to Strickland's control center, but Top Cat's gang are locked in Strickland's vault having tripped a silent alarm, with Top Cat remaining outside. When Strickland arrives, he orders Top Cat to be annihilated by the robots. As a single robot enters, Top Cat realizes the whole security system was manufactured by the Maharajah of Peekajoo. Top Cat takes out the Maharajah Talk 5000 which presumably controls all robots to get Strickland. In a panic, Strickland self-destructs the robot army except for the single one, revealed to be Fancy-Fancy still in his robot guise. Everyone imprisoned and Top Cat's gang are released in the self-destruction process. Strickland is rendered helpless and Dibble arrests him and (on Top Cat's suggestion) sentences him to the Dog Jail.

Top Cat and Trixie renew their relationship, Officer Dibble is promoted as the new Chief of Police, the gang enjoys themselves, and finally, Griswald asks for a place in Top Cat's gang, which Top Cat accepts.

Voice cast

Spanish cast

English cast

The English-language version was also included in the special features in the Mexican DVD release.

Production

Development
On February 26, 2011, Warner Bros. Pictures Mexico, Ánima Estudios, Illusion Studios announced that the film would be in production, to celebrate the show's 50th anniversary. The film took a total of 34 months to develop.

Writing
While the production of the film mainly took place in Mexico, Warner Bros. suggested that the film was written by Americans, when Timothy McKeon and Kevin Seccia wanted to write a familiar story to match the spirit of the original TV series. Before writing the screenplay, they reviewed the show's set of the 1960s. They wrote several versions of the script until they finished the final draft the script. It took them six months to write. Jesús Guzmán, a Mexican comedian and actor who provides the Spanish voice of Demostenes (Brain), adapted and translated the script in Spanish.

Animation
It was originally rumored to be a live-action/CGI hybrid, but it was later confirmed to be a 2D/CG animated feature. Animated in Adobe Flash with computer animated backgrounds, the animation was done by Ánima Estudios in Mexico, while post-production (including the CGI backgrounds) and stereoscopic 3D services were done at Illusion Studios in Argentina.

Background development and setting
Alberto Mar, the film's director, did a scouting in New York City in 2011 and took pictures of the city's buildings, alleys, and drains. He also used locations that were not featured in the TV series, such as Times Square.

Character development
During character development, all of the film's characters had to be approved by Warner Bros. Animation. The goal was for the characters to look like they were drawn in style of other Hanna-Barbera works. Ánima Estudios created new characters that were not featured in the series, such as Trixie, Lucas Buenrostro (Lou Strickland), the army of robots, and over 100 incidental characters.

Cast
While the film features a voice cast different from the original series, Jorge Arvizu reprises his role as Benny and Choo Choo from the Spanish version of the show The U.S. version casts actors, Rob Schneider and Danny Trejo, dubbing over Jason Harris  voice roles as Lou Strickland and Griswald, respectively, from the international English versions of the film.

Music
The film's original score was composed by Leoncio Lara. The TV show's theme song was featured in the film. The song, "New York Groove" by Ace Frehley, was also featured in the film's trailer and end credits.

Release
This film was released theatrically in Mexico and parts of South America on September 16, 2011 in Digital 3D and regular 2D format. The film's teaser premiered on April 15, 2011 and was shown during the Mexican screenings of Hop. On January 23, 2012, Vertigo Films announced that the film would be released in the United Kingdom on June 1, 2012 (formerly August 20, 2012) in 2D, Digital 3D, and RealD 3D theaters. A UK teaser trailer was released on April 5, 2012. The film was released in select theaters and VOD in the United States from Viva Pictures on August 2, 2013. The U.S. trailer was released on May 7, 2013. The MPAA gave this film a PG rating for "some mild rude content".

Home media
The original Latin American version was released on Blu-ray and DVD on December 2, 2011 from Warner Home Video International as well on Blu-ray 3D in Brazil, distributed by PlayArte Home Entertainment, while the UK version was released on Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D on October 15, 2012, distributed by Entertainment One. It was the first film from Ánima Estudios to be released on Blu-ray. The film was released in the United States on DVD on September 3, 2013. A Blu-ray and Blu-ray 3D release in the United States has not been announced yet.

Reception

Critical response
Though the original Spanish version of the film was received favorably in Mexico and Latin America, the English dub of the film was universally hated in both the UK and the US. The film currently scores a 14% "Rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, based on 14 reviews, with an average score of 3.20/10.

Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian gave the English film 1 out of 5 stars, saying "It's the bottom of the heap, and it frankly looks cheap, the disaster of the year is – Top Cat". Derek Adams of Time Out London also gave the English film 1 out of five stars, writing, "a pity, then, that the key elements – storyline, dialogue, comedy value – are so woefully ineffectual. An air of boredom permeated the screening I attended and laughs were universally non-existent." Colin Kennedy of Metro criticized the English film, calling it "a dog's dinner of a film which will bore new viewers and disappoint old ones" and "post-Pixar kids will be bored rigid." Rob of The Shiznit gave this 1 out of 5 stars and wrote, "It looks like Top Cat, sounds like Top Cat, but it doesn't feel like Top Cat. It's as if a Mexican film company (Ánima Estudios) has taken an iconic American cartoon and slapped together a budget version... oh, wait, that's exactly what's happened."

Bethany Rutter of Little White Lies criticized the English film saying that "it's heroically unfunny, the lame script is one of many sticking points. Awkward, clunky and predictable, it propels the film forward at a pace that manages to be both deathly slow and annoyingly jumpy." Geoffrey Macnab of The Independent gave the English film 2 out of 5 stars and said that "neither the voice work (much of it done by Jason Harris) nor the animation is distinctive. Officer Dibble has only a marginal role. The use of 3D seems entirely tokenistic (an excuse to hike up ticket prices rather than an artistic decision.)" On the positive side, Matthew Turner of ViewLondon enjoyed the English film, saying that " This movie provides a handful of decent laughs, though some of the jokes are a bit dodgy, the 3D effects are entirely superfluous and younger children might be a little bored." Eddie Harrison of The List also gave the English film a positive reaction, saying that "adults looking for undemanding fare for their kids may find Top Cat's brand of sass, irreverence and cheeky charm offer a persuasive alternative to today's crasser children's entertainments."

Box office

Mexico and Argentina
This film has earned $40.7 million in Mexico and grossed a total of $112.25 million pesos. It has also become one of the biggest box office openings in Mexican cinema history. In Argentina, it opened #5 on its opening weekend, earning $0.7 million and grossed a total of $3.3 million.

Brazil
In Brazil, this film opened at #7 behind, earning R$0.9 million. It grossed a total of R$2.2 million.

United Kingdom and Spain
The UK release of this film opened at #7 at the weekend box office with £0.4 million from 452 theaters throughout the country, and grossed a total of £2.8 million. In Spain, this film earned €34,085 on its opening weekend and grossed a total of €96,848.

Internationally
This film grossed $0.3 million in Uruguay, 0.28 million in Turkey, and $2.4 million in Peru.

United States
There is currently no box office data for the film, but it is one of the highest-grossing independent animated films released in the United States.

Accolades
In 2012 it was nominated at the 13th Golden Trailer Awards
as Best Foreign Animation/Family Trailer
for  and .

On the same year the movie won into the 9th edition of Canacine Awards as Best Animated Feature Film and Best Advertising Campaign for a Mexican Film.

Prequel

A computer animated prequel to both the film and the original series was released on 30 October 2015 in Mexico, with Ánima Estudios once again producing.

See also
 List of films based on Hanna-Barbera cartoons

References

External links

  (Latin America/Spain)

Top Cat films
2011 films
2011 3D films
3D animated films
2011 animated films
Animated films based on animated series
Argentine animated films
2010s children's comedy films
2010s children's fantasy films
Films directed by Alberto Mar
Flash animated films
Mexican animated films
2010s Spanish-language films
2010s American animated films
Spanish sequel films
Ánima Estudios films
Hanna-Barbera animated films
Warner Bros. animated films
2010s children's animated films
Films set in New York City
2011 comedy films
2010s English-language films
2010s Mexican films
2010s Argentine films
Animated films about cats

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Get Behind the Wheel of LEGO® City Great Vehicles!
From harvesters to construction vehicles to the familiar garbage truck that cleans up the neighborhood, kids grow up surrounded by big impressive vehicles. Activate their imagination and play with LEGO City Great Vehicles! With amazing features like stud shooters, vehicle suspension and realistic hydraulic lifts and loaders, every car enthusiast will find the perfect build for them in this theme!
The 60220 LEGO City Garbage Truck is the perfect beginner build for kids ages 4+. This set features a cool tilting container and is built using a Starter Brick base. The Starter Brick allows beginner builders to quickly put together a fun set they can immediately begin playing with. Young builders will increase their building confidence and soon be ready for more advanced builds.
Hardworking farmers have huge vehicles and equipment to do their job, like the Harvester! Children can unhook the transport trailer from the truck, lower the ramp and help the farmer before loading up the harvester onto the transport trailer again and heading to the next job. 60223 LEGO City Harvester Transporter is full of moving features and cool play potential!
Before kids hit the brick-built slopes, they need the 60222 LEGO City Snow Groomer to get the mountains ready for skiers and snowboarders! Children can use the snow cannon to fill the hills with white snow element bricks, by turning the knob to fire snow studs and swiveling the cannon for even coverage. Then, using the front loader, kids can sweep up the snow!
The 60221 LEGO City Diving Yacht is awash with adventures! Kids can dive underwater for sunken treasure, use the video camera to record a swimming swordfish, or enjoy the sun on board the yacht. Roleplay awesome aquatic play scenarios with this fun, detailed set!
Kids will love and easily recognize this quick to build 60219 LEGO City Construction Loader. With a bustling LEGO city they add bricks to every day, they'll need some construction equipment to keep things running smoothly. Raise the front arm of the front-end loader and tilt the bucket to release the bricks while the construction minifigure operates from safely inside the roll cage. What big building project will this vehicle inspire?
Where Will the River Take Them?
When your child loads up the off-road truck and heads into the wilderness where will their journey take them? The 60240 LEGO City Kayak Adventure features a neat kayak, fun details like a frog element and a camera to inspire creative nature-themed adventures for kids who love the outdoors!
Introducing a Few of the Minifigure Drivers!
Kids who like cars will LOVE this huge, impressive set! Build the 60180 LEGO City Monster Truck featuring massive wheels, real working suspension, a brave stunt driver, and a thrilling fire-flanked ramp! Watch your builder wow the crowd with fantastic feats of auto-awesomeness with this cool set!


WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today U.S. Congressmen Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Randy Hultgren (R-IL), co-chairs of the bipartisan Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, and Representatives Michael Capuano (D-MA), Tom Rooney (R-FL), and Barbara Lee (D-CA) led a bipartisan letter calling on President Trump and the State Department to develop and implement a U.S. policy that holds Sudan accountable for their corruption and human rights abuses. Click here to view the letter online.
Last October, President Donald Trump signed an executive order removing many trade and economic sanctions against Sudan. The Administration is currently designing a framework to evaluate Sudan's domestic and international conduct. The purpose of the framework will determine the future course of bilateral relations. According to media reports and human rights groups, in 2018, the Sudanese government is carrying out a crackdown against independent media, religious minorities, and political and civil society opposition voices. There are also credible reports of increased violence against ethnic minorities, refugees and displaced communities, including inside Darfur, who are overwhelmingly non-Arab African ethnicity.
Joining U.S. Representatives McGovern, Hultgren, Lee, Rooney, and Capuano on the letter were U.S. Representatives Barbara Comstock, Eliot L. Engel, Gus M. Bilirakis, Nita M. Lowey, Barry Loudermilk, Joseph Crowley, Chris Stewart, John Lewis, Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Frank Pallone, Jr., John A. Yarmuth, Raúl M. Grijalva, Peter A. DeFazio, David N. Cicilline, Earl Blumenauer, José E. Serrano, Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Jan Schakowsky, Zoe Lofgren, Rosa L. DeLauro, Albio Sires, Bobby L. Rush, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr., Pramila Jayapal, Anna G. Eshoo, Mark Pocan, Chellie Pingree, Michael F. Doyle, Yvette D. Clarke, Steve Cohen, Alan S. Lowenthal, Ann McLane Kuster, Donald M. Payne, Jr., Peter Welch, Ro Khanna, Katherine M. Clark, Julia Brownley, Hakeem S. Jeffries, Joseph P. Kennedy III, Suzanne Bonamici, Carol Shea-Porter, Gwen Moore, Val B. Demings, Gregory W. Meeks, Emanuel Cleaver, II, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Mark DeSaulnier, Jamie Raskin, Alcee L. Hastings, Kyrsten Sinema, and David Scott.
As you know, the Government of Sudan has a long and well-documented history of violence and repression against its population in order to maintain wealth and power for a small number of elites. We are gravely concerned about any U.S. policy that might result in further normalizing relations with a regime that routinely violates its citizens' basic human rights, continues to support extremists and extremist groups, represses religious minorities, and steals the nation's wealth while most of its people live in poverty.
We encourage you to develop and advance a U.S. policy that recognizes these realities, addresses the Sudanese regime's failures of good governance, and supports the opening of political space. We believe the Administration and Congress must work together to advance a policy that promotes a just society and human rights for all Sudanese.
We urge the State Department and other appropriate agencies to develop transformational human rights and social and political benchmarks. These should be tied to real incentives, combined with meaningful new financial pressures, such as network sanctions and anti-money laundering measures that target those most responsible for violence and corruption in Sudan. Further, we suggest that the provisions outlining corruption and human rights abuse in Executive Order 13818 related to the Global Magnitsky Act might serve as a useful model to develop concrete benchmarks with regard to targeting individuals and entities engaged in continuing corruption and human rights abuses in Sudan.
Corruption and mismanagement by the Sudanese regime has impoverished Sudan, with only a few wealthy and connected insiders amassing immense wealth. The regime relies on extractive industries and natural resource wealth, along with the weapons manufacturing sector, to facilitate personal enrichment. It has a history of blaming U.S. and international sanctions for its own failure to invest in its people and for serious macroeconomic problems. Yet recent demonstrations across Sudan tied to the rising cost of bread and other economic hardships expose the fallacy of these accusations. Corruption and the violent repression of the Sudanese people are the real culprits, as approximately 75% of Sudan's budget is estimated to be spent on security and defense.
For decades, Sudanese activists have risked their lives attempting to change their government from one that bulldozes churches, jails political prisoners and uses food as a weapon to one that respects religious minorities, treats all ethnic groups fairly and provides for the general well-being of its citizenry. The regime's oppression of church communities and other minorities continued even while the regime was under intense scrutiny during the U.S. review on the removal of sanctions. In fact, the regime is implementing a policy of church demolitions and has had a formal policy in place since 2013 stipulating that no new churches can be built. U.S. policy should support the democratic aspirations of these courageous Sudanese and refuse to provide further relief from sanctions and a path to normalized relations unless core issues like religious freedom and ending the repression of its citizenry are addressed.
While it is our understanding that the Sudanese regime has provided some assistance related to U.S. counter-terrorism efforts, this should be evaluated in the context of the regime's historical support for extremist groups and terrorism, as well as its current tolerance of extremist groups and clerics that promote hate, both internationally and against religious minorities in Sudan. For example, jihadi groups are allowed to own and operate their own FM radio and satellite television channels and have been given prominent roles in higher education. Their speech and outreach efforts are protected. Meanwhile independent press and media are routinely shut down, and civil society and religious groups that promote peace and tolerance are violently dispersed and detained by security agents.
For over a decade, Congress and the American people have supported the democratic aspirations of the people of Sudan. Pursuing a vision of Sudan that respects its diversity and protects the human rights of all Sudanese has been a bipartisan objective of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives alike.
Mr. Secretary, we respectfully urge you to pursue a policy that is informed by the history and context of Sudan, insists on foundational change, and is backed by strong financial pressure and real incentives. We firmly believe that such an agenda would have strong bipartisan support in Congress.


British troops are being encouraged by the Ministry of Defence to use Twitter and Facebook to keep in touch with family and friends.
In a "liberalisation" of its social networking policy, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) said that British troops are no longer required to seek permission to use the sites but asks personnel to use common sense over the amount of detail revealed.
The MoD said it would actively sponsor soldiers who are willing to tweet or blog about life in the military, with tips for engaging an online audience.
The new 13 page 'Online Engagement Guidelines are part of the MoD's ongoing digital engagement work, which recently saw an Armed Forces Day Facebook page attracting over 170,000 fans.
An MoD spokesman said: "This about troops having a little more freedom, a little more autonomy. The MoD's new common sense guidance allows service personnel to talk about themselves and their work online, within limits and with advice to protect their security, reputation and privacy".
The guidelines have been issued in the same week that the US Marine Corps banned its soldiers from any type of social networking as a security measure.
In an unclassified memo, the Marine Corps said social networks are a "proven haven for malicious actors and content" with a high risk for information exposure. The ban is expected to last at least a year.


text:
Armenian Americans in San Diego Unite To Support Congressional Candidate Katcho Achadjian
ANCA friends and supporters gathered on March 19, 2016 at the home of John and Cynthia Andonian in Rancho Santa Fe, California to support Katcho Achadjian's congressional campaign
San Diego, CA – A diverse and enthusiastic group of Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) supporters gathered at the home of longtime community benefactors John and Cynthia Andonian on March 19, 2016 in Rancho Santa Fe, California to support the congressional campaign of California State Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian. Katcho is currently the frontrunner in the race to represent the Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo area in the U.S. House of Representatives. Leaders of the National Organization of Republican Armenians (NORA) were also on hand at the Andonian residence to express their strong and consistent support for Katcho Achadjian.
"My wife Cynthia and I were honored to host an event at our home for Republican congressional candidate Katcho Achadjian," shared longtime ANCA supporter John Andonian. "Katcho is a remarkable individual. His values, his intellect and his honesty are needed, now more than ever, in the U.S. Congress," Andonian added.
The event at the Andonian residence in support of Katcho Achadjian is one of many events his friends and supporters are holding in his State Assembly District and across the State of California to back his congressional aspirations.
California State Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian is respected by his legislative colleagues in Sacramento – both Democrats and Republicans – as a thoughtful consensus builder and a highly effective legislator. He is admired – throughout California and across America – as a powerful advocate for the views and values of Americans of Armenian heritage. If elected, he will represent California's 24th Congressional District, joining two other federal legislators from the Golden State of Armenian background – Anna Eshoo (18th Congressional District) and Jackie Kanchelian Speier (14th Congressional District).
California's 24th Congressional District, currently represented by retiring Democrat Lois Capps, stretches across Santa Barbara County and San LuisObispo County, as well the Los Padres National Forest in Ventura County. Congresswoman Capps narrowly won her last two races, most recently defeating Republican Christopher Mitchum by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1% in November of 2014.
John and Cynthia Andonian are pictured with Katcho Achadjian and his wife Araxie, along with ANCA National Chairman Raffi Hamparian
Since joining the California State Assembly, Achadjian has been a pro-active leader on each and every pro-Armenian state-level initiative. He helped lead the historic California State Legislative Delegation visit in 2013 to both the Republics of Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh, and served as host for the Nagorno Karabagh Parliamentary Speaker's visit to the State Capitol. He played a vital role in Calfornia's recognition of the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, and was the lead sponsor, in 2012, of Assembly Joint Resolution 34 (AJR 34), which called on the Republic of Turkey to respect religious freedom by returning stolen Armenian Churches and other church properties.
Katcho Achadjian holds degree in Business Administration from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Prior to holding office, Katcho founded a successful local business, where he gained a strong appreciation for the need to streamline government regulations. Prior to joining the State Legislature, he served three terms as an elected member of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. Notably, Katcho was also appointed by the Governor of the State of California in 2006 to the powerful California Coastal Commission before joining the State Assembly. Katcho has been married to his wife Araxie since 1984 and they have a son, Hratch, and daughter, Nyri.
Media Contact: Elen Asatryan
anca@anca.org | anca.org/facebook | @anca_dc


text:
Hans Karg (eigentlich Johannes Karg; genannt Parsimonius aus Augsburg; * 1551 in Leipheim; † ca. 1610) war ein schwäbischer Maler, der im Zusammenhang mit den Arbeiten am neuen Lusthauses nach Stuttgart herangeholt wurde. Er ist der Vater des Malers Gabriel Karg.

Leben
Hans Karg war ein Sohn des evangelischen Theologen und zukünftigen Hirsauer Abtes Johannes Parsimonius und seiner ersten Frau Maria. Er wuchs in Augsburg, der Heimatstadt seines Vaters, auf und war bereits 1559 ein Lernknabe bei einem Maler, 1572 wurde er in Augsburg Malermeister. 1573 kopierte er kleinformatig im Auftrag seines Vaters ein Wandgemälde aus der Zeit 1524–34 als Ergänzung zu dessen Geschichte des Klosters Hirsau. Hans Karg arbeitete eine Zeit lang in Ulm, bevor er 1586 nach Stuttgart ging, nachdem man ihm eine Beschäftigung am Hofe versprochen hatte. Er musste zuvor offenbar aus Augsburg geflohen sein, denn sein Aufenthalt in Ulm wurde als "underschloef" [Unterschlupf] bezeichnet.

Seit 1588 bekam er vom Herzog Ludwig von Württemberg Aufträge, Wappen, Weidwerke und Stammbäume zu malen. Karg wurde von dem Herzog auch wie ein Bildberichterstatter eingesetzt. Er wurde zu Hochzeiten geschickt, um nach dort angefertigten Zeichnungen später Gemälde zu malen. So war er 1591 bei einer Fugger'schen Hochzeit in Augsburg und im folgenden Jahr bei der Hochzeit des Markgrafen Georg Friedrich von Baden in Durlach. 1590/91 malte er ferner Historien für Herzogin Ursula.

Ab 1591 gehörte Hans Karg zu der Gruppe von Malern, die unter der Leitung von Hans Steiner an der Ausmalung des neuen Lusthauses beteiligt waren. Die größte Aufgabe dort war die Ausmalung des 1196 m² großen und 14 m hohen Festsaals. Auf der Decke wurden mehrere Jagdszenen dargestellt, wovon Hans Karg den Schorndorfer Forst und den Reichenberger Forst mit einer Wolfsjagd übernahm. Anschließend entwarf er zusammen mit Andreas Herneisen den Uracher Forst und führte ihn zusammen mit Hans Steiner aus. Hans Karg holte für diese Arbeiten seine Söhne, von denen namentlich nur Gabriel bekannt ist, sowie einen sehr geschickten Gesellen aus Nürnberg hinzu.

Nach dem Abschluss der Arbeiten am neuen Lusthaus bekam er wieder Aufträge, Bilder von Feierlichkeiten (z. B. einer Feierlichkeit im Tiergarten 1599) zu machen. Dazu kamen noch Porträts von Tieren: z. B. 1595/96 Darstellungen eines ganz besonderen, grünen Hechts, die an elf Fürsten geschickt wurden, damit die darüber ihre Meinung sagen, sowie 1600/01 Darstellung der Pferde. Er lehnte aber auch einfache Anstreicherarbeiten nicht ab: 1591/92 strich er die Fensterläden der städtischen Ziegelhütte an.

Hans Karg war Witwer oder war gerade während seines Aufenthaltes in Stuttgart Witwer geworden, denn er heiratete 1591/92 zum zweiten Mal und bekam aus diesem Anlass aus der herzoglichen Kasse 4 fl als Geschenk. Er arbeitete in Stuttgart bis 1601/02. Danach verließ es vielleicht in Richtung Augsburg.

Nach Steiners Meinung kannte sich Karg mit den biblischen Geschichten bestens aus, aber verstand "sich nichts umb das Waidwerckh", malte auch nicht viel daran, sondern überließ dies seinen Gesellen.
Die einzige von ihm erhaltengebliebene Arbeit ist eine schwache Stammbuch-Miniatur von 1572, die über seinen Zeichenstil kaum etwas aussagt.

Erhaltene Arbeiten
 1572 eine Stammbuchminiatur

Anmerkungen und Einzelnachweise

Literatur
 Werner Fleischhauer: Renaissance im Herzogtum Württemberg, Stuttgart : Kohlhammer 1971
 Werner Fleischhauer: Die Anfänge der Tübinger Universitätsbildnissammlung – ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Malerei der Spätrenaissance im Herzogtum Württemberg. In: Werner Fleischhauer u. a.: Neue Beiträge zur südwestdeutschen Landesgeschichte. Festschrift für Max Miller, Stuttgart : Kohlhammer 1962, S. 197–216
 Heinrich Geissler: Zeichner am Württembergischen Hof um 1600. In: "Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen in Baden-Württemberg", München : Deutscher Kunstverlag 1969, S. 79–126
 Hans Rott: Quellen und Forschungen zur südwestdeutschen und schweizerischen Kunstgeschichte im XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert. II, Alt-Schwaben und Reichsstädte, Stuttgart : Strecker und Schröder 1934
 Hans Buchheit: Aus dem Stammbuch des Abel Prasch. In: Hubert Wilm (Hrsg.): Alte Kunstschätze aus Bayern. Festschrift zum 70-jährigen Jubiläum des Münchner Altertumsvereins. München 1934,
 Werner Fleischhauer: Die Malereien im Stuttgarter Lusthaus. In: Württembergische Vergangenheit, Festschrift des Württembergischen Geschichts- und Altertumsvereins zur Stuttgarter Tagung des Gesamtvereins der deutschen Geschichts- und Altertumsvereine im September 1932, Stuttgart : Kohlhammer 1932, S. 305–333

Maler der Renaissance
Porträtmaler
Wappenmaler
Maler (Stuttgart)
Maler (Augsburg)
Hofmaler (Württemberg)
Künstler (Württemberg)
Person (Württemberg bis 1803)
Deutscher
Geboren 1551
Gestorben im 17. Jahrhundert
Mann


text:
About MCL
Department Officers
Email All Dept. Officers
Detachments
Find A Detachment
Bylaws and Procedures
MCLPA Department Bylaws
MCLPA Admin Procedures
MCLPA Admin Enclosures
MCLPA Uniform Manual
MCLPA Ribbon Chart
USMC Ribbon Chart
MCL Auxiliary of PA, Inc.
MCL of PA Foundation, Inc.
MODD, Inc., PA Pack
MODD Fleas, Inc., PA Hide
Forms Repository
PR Releases
Dept Programs
Americanism
Dept. MOY Society
Marine-4-Life
Funeral Honors
Commandant's Messages
District Vice Commandants
Staff Officers / Committees
Department of Pennsylvania
Department of Pennsylvania, Marine Corps League and Marine Corps League Auxiliary, Members, Member Spouses, Children and Grandchildren and children of U.S. Marines, FMF Corpsmen and FMF Navy Chaplains (serving with a Marine unit) who were killed in combat are eligible for a scholarship award.
All applicants must meeting the following requirements:
The Applicant or Sponsor (spouse, parent, grandparent or guardian) must be a member in good standing of the Department of Pennsylvania, Marine Corps League or Auxiliary for one year prior to applying. (Waived if applicant's parent was a Marine, Corpsmen or Chaplain killed in combat.) Good standing means that the member's membership dues are paid in full at the time the application is submitted and at the time the scholarship funds are disbursed. Failure to remain in good standing may jeopardize scholarship applications for subsequent years.
The Applicant must be a high school graduate or have received a GED and be accepted or enrolled at an institution of higher learning. Institutions of higher learning include accredited community colleges, colleges, universities and technical (trade) schools. A letter of acceptance is required for first year applicants.
Eligibility is limited to completion of four years of study or a bachelor's degree, whichever comes first. A scholarship will only be awarded to First, Second, Third, and Fourth year undergraduate students. The renewing Applicants must successfully maintain academic standards for undergraduate studies and must reapply for a scholarship each year the student is eligible. Graduate students are not eligible to receive a scholarship.
The Applicant must enroll at an institution of higher learning on a full-time (minimum 12 credits/semester) basis. If the Applicant a member of the Department of Pennsylvania, Marine Corps League and is a veteran of the armed forces of the United States, the applicant must be enrolled on a part-time (minimum 6 credits/semester) basis.
In order to apply for a scholarship, an eligible applicant must complete and submit an application each year. Forms and instructions can be downloaded using the link below.
Please contact the Scholarship Committee with questions.
APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS DEPARTMENT AWARDS
EMAIL SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEE
The Marine Corps League of Pennsylvania is always in need of additional funds to support its annual academic scholarship program. Please give your favorable consideration to making a donation to this program through the Marine Corps League of Pennsylvania Foundation, Inc.
"Once a Marine, Always a Marine"
75 plus Detachments serving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We're a "Band of Brothers and Sisters!" Check our Detachment listings and contact information - join one near you!
This WEB page was first published June 21, 1997 by LtCol. Donald Miller, USMC (Retired)
"Neither the United States Marine Corps, the Marine Corps League nor any component of the Department of Defense has approved, endorsed or authorized the contents of this Web Page."
MCL National
MCL Library
MCLA National
National NE Division
Military Order Of Devil Dogs
MCL Foundation
U. S. Marines Youth Foundation
Incorporated as the Marine Corps League of Pennsylvania, Inc.
Commandant Email
Bldg 3-95,
Copyright 2021 by Department Of Pennsylvania Marine Corps League