text:
Evergreen: So Much Stranger than That
Peter Dorman | December 28, 2017 7:55 am
I'm a professor at Evergreen State College, currently on leave. Last year I lived through the events that were captured on videotape and brought the college a lot of unwanted publicity. As a social scientist, long interested in organization theory and social movements, I found the experience grimly fascinating, an extraordinary case study. In my writing on it, I try to focus on understanding how such things could occur, rather than apportioning blame to specific individuals, which, from what I can see, has been the main sport.
Today I read another post mortem by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, published in the right wing Washington Examiner. Disclosure: I know both of them, and I had a positive experience co-teaching for a quarter with Heather several years ago in Evergreen's environmental masters program. I'm not socially connected to either of them, and I haven't had political discussions with them either. I agree with some of what they say in their latest missive, and disagree with other parts. Readers of this blog, who are far from the scene and wonder who and what to believe, might find my reactions interesting.
There is an obvious, fundamental point on which the three of us see eye to eye: Evergreen descended into an atmosphere of intimidation, in which the right to speak, no matter how civilly, was openly attacked. There was a group solidarity logic at work: if you affiliated with one group on campus, you could speak your mind in public and be immune from any scrutiny regarding the tone or logic of your utterances; if you didn't you were expected to remain silent. This pressure was felt by faculty and students alike. It was in this context that disruptive actions by students escalated over many months until they paralyzed the college. It's remarkable that it even needs to be said that this situation is intolerable for an institution of higher education.
Personally, I think it is bizarre that Weinstein and Heying would be sent packing by the college under the same terms—the same monetary settlement—as Naima Lowe, whose verbal attacks on her colleagues caused enormous damage to Evergreen. This is not a verdict of the "which side are you on" sort. It's not about whose political views you agree with or who you like or don't like on a personal level. Weinstein and Heying had a case against the college, and the college had a case against Lowe. There wasn't a shred of symmetry in this situation.
One critical aspect of the Evergreen imbroglio goes unmentioned in the Weinstein-Heying account, the barrage of terrifying, intimately threatening emails that bombarded students and faculty after Bret appeared on Fox News. The wording in these emails reeked of racism and was often graphic, about specific acts of violence, and some students went into hiding because they couldn't be sure the hatred was only verbal. To be clear, I don't blame Bret for that, at least in this sense: I'm pretty sure it never occurred to him that this would result from coverage by conservative media, and no doubt most of it would have taken place even if he had said "no" to Tucker Carlson. Still, it's an important part of the larger story, and if you offer an account of what happened you shouldn't cherry-pick the parts that support your side. Speaking for myself, I was appalled by this tsunami of hate, and I didn't feel it was enough to say, this is just the alt-right being the alt-right. We are all of us responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions, even if we aren't the ones carrying them out.
But there is also an aspect of the Evergreen story, in many ways the most important one of all, that I think Weinstein-Heying got wrong. The way they tell it, a left wing minority made a power play on campus in order to enact a radical, identity-fixated political program, the notorious Equity Plan. This plan, they say, would have destroyed much of what made Evergreen a vital force in education, and the purpose of the intimidation was to push it through. They cite one sentence from the plan document that calls for bringing diversity and equity criteria into decisions of what faculty specializations to hire in. It is the Equity Plan that, in their account, makes the conflict political, a battle over which policies would be adopted by the college.
Now here's the truly extraordinary thing which, in my view, completely upends the conventional understanding of the Evergreen affair: there was no Equity Plan. Yes, there was a document, hyped in a truly bizarre manner during the November 2016 "canoe event", called an Equity Plan. It ran 38 pages, to a large extent a copy-and-paste job, in which rhetoric from a couple of nationally circulated diversity manuals was cobbled together to make it look like a plan existed or might come to exist at a later date. To be blunt, there was a need for a document called an Equity Plan, so, in a few hours, something with this title was assembled, but there was no actionable plan for the college—no set of proposed regulations, no budgetary analysis, virtually nothing to endorse or oppose. (This is a slight exaggeration: the "plan" called for mandatory diversity training, which is a staple of corporate America, and it created a new Vice Presidency for Equity and Inclusion, whose occupant would be tasked with figuring out what her job entailed.)
Moreover, there was no political platform behind the student protests. Listen, for instance, to the student reading a statement at the disruption of the dedication of Purce Hall; it's all about feelings of disrespect and fear, but there's not a single word specifying what the college should do to assuage them. The students who occupied the administrative wing of the library building in the spring issued (belatedly) a list of demands, but they were mostly either about personalities (a list of faculty and administrators to be fired) or too vague to be a subject for implementation. At a college whose priorities are tightly constrained by its budget, there was no call for a reallocation of resources to meet the needs of underserved populations. (This is a call I would have welcomed.)
The weird truth at the heart of what happened at Evergreen is that there was no political content to it. It was all about group solidarities and symbolism. If this can be given a left-right interpretation, it only means that politics in the wider society has been trained of all substance. By continuing to portray the meltdown at the college as political, pinning it on (a portion of) the left, Weinstein-Heying are mischaracterizing it. This in turn has the effect of reinforcing the tendency to take sides; no doubt many readers of their piece will see it as a defense of moderation in the face of radicalism. Near the end, for instance, Weinstein-Heying write, "Both positions [left and right] have merit and, despite the frequent tenor of conversations between factions, they are not mutually exclusive. Wisdom is likely to emerge from the tension between these worldviews, uniting good people around the value of a fair system that fosters self-reliance as it distributes opportunity as broadly as possible." But the Evergreen meltdown was not about left versus right, institutional fairness versus personal responsibility. Bret's challenge, for which he was hounded out of the college, was not to the adoption of a political program that didn't exist, but to the imposition of a coercive ritual symbolism. You can be very radical in your politics and take that stand. In fact, if you're really interested in changing the world and not just how we talk about it, that's exactly what you'll do.
Comments (14) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
BillB says:
"the barrage of terrifying, intimately threatening emails that bombarded students and faculty after Bret appeared on Fox News. The wording in these emails reeked of racism and was often graphic, about specific acts of violence, and some students went into hiding because they couldn't be sure the hatred was only verbal. To be clear, I don't blame Bret for that, at least in this sense: I'm pretty sure it never occurred to him that this would result from coverage by conservative media, and no doubt most of it would have taken place even if he had said "no" to Tucker Carlson."
To excuse Bret's appearance on Fox News Tucker Carlson show as the results "never occurred to him" is to suggest that this person is too incredibly dumb to ever be teaching at a university. Please spare us that ridiculous apology. Everyone knows the hateful, racist tripe that Fox News deals in, in particular rabid Trump defender Tucker Carlson.
Weinstein was deliberately rallying the racist alt-right to come to his support.
Kudos to the author for a great analysis. This fiasco, which has caused great damage to Evergreen, is more Lord of the Rings than politics.
Karl Kolchak says:
@BillB–so who was he supposed to go to when no liberal MSM outlet would have given him the time of day? This is what happens when every "news" organization has its own agenda and the truth no longer matters to those who are supposed to report it.
Longtooth says:
I haven't read the linked piece simply because most such analysis is point of view" rather an academic analysis of social behavior in a limited environment.
The basic issue is that freedom of speech is not limited by law or interpretations of law by the courts unless it is judged after the fact to have directly incited violence, or created stampede conditions, or directly promotes the overthrow of the gov't..
Other than that, freedom of speech is unlimited. This means that one person can raise their voice in opposition or support of any other at any time and in any place. The only restrictions on this are either by
– mutual and voluntary consent to let others speak without over-riding their speech with your own or your own group's speech, or
– some authority or private owner of the location where speech is being performed preventing others from over-riding the "authorized" speaker by use of force .. removing them from the premises or threatening same.
In a public sphere, such as a public university / college, the authority is the administration, but this is authority by political appointment, and doesn't' have the authority of law unless that authority's limits and duties are specially provided by the law which gave them the gov't appointment to administer.
And since normally those limits and duties are couched in "use considered judgment" terms instead of absolute conditions, then the administrator walks a difficult line in the public venue. T
They may or may not decide to enforce, depending on the own judgment and thus also their own views of who is speaking and who is opposing he speaker(s). This also goes directly to job security since if too large a part of the student body or faculty oppose he administrator then they are ineffective and replaced.
With that said, then there is a history of campus speech and behavior preceding the events that started the escalation… groups were formed, ad-hoc groups probably to begin with, informal groups of small numbers of students (or non-students acting as if they were students) using their free speech rights in a public venue.
Were these groups conforming to campus administrator rules, conditions, and policies? Were campus administrators discriminating by allowing some groups more latitude than others? And in either case then isn't' the disorder that eventually was allowed to occur a direct result of the administrations enforcement or lack thereof?
Without enforced rules and behaviors chaos occurs in short order as everybody in any administrative capacity or local authority and certainly ever teacher from kindergarten to graduate school knows well and with certainty.
Free speech therefore is only that which an authority allows.. no more than that. Free speech is a theoretical concept which in practice must be controlled and limited depending on circumstance and conditions.
It is the degree of control that is the real issue. There is no absolute line in the sand.. the limits and conditions change in time and location and who the authority happens to be in a particular situation.
And since degree lies on a continuum, then there is or becomes a "normal range" and increasingly therefore "abnormal ranges" outside the normal But how is "normal range" defined.. who's practices constitute the 'normal' and 'abnormal'?
You get the picture here… there is no absolute allowance for free speech. There is no definition of normal allowances of free speech. They are all arbitrary and thus any arbitrary decision is subject to question and certainly always is and will always.be.
The issue at Evergreen was promoted and caused by an administration that failed to define and enforce the limits of free speech and behaviors related to it perhaps with both the student body and faculty. It was nothing more than that … and whatever the outcome of that failure is effectively known well in advance. .. not the specifics but the adverse effects in publicity, in divisions among students and faculty and even among administrators.. in short the issue became trying abort chaos after it began.
As to Weinstein's appearance on Fox he was exercising his free speech. If you oppose his venue or what he said then you are taking a position on what you believe should have limited Weinstein's speech. which is to say it is your own point of view and opinion.. your own exercise of free speech. Which is perfectly acceptable and expected, even required.
But isn't that precisely what everybody at Evergreen was doing in the first place? and then isn't or wasn't the chaos caused by everybody exercising their free speech without limits, and such limits being decided arbitrarily by each group to be applied to the opposing groups?
So free speech devolved from some form of rationalism to the emotional and irrational and thus chaos.
And though I'm an ardent and vehement opponent of the propaganda machine called Fox News if Weinstein chose to use that venue then wasn't that his right of free speech? And if he knew of Fox's propaganda machine, and it can be easily assumed that he did of course, then wasn't his choice a voluntary choice to create more public opposition via Fox's propaganda machine to whatever it was he was also opposed to?
And what was Weinstein opposed to in the first place? Infringement of his academic freedom by students (or the administration) perhaps? As I recall it was his opposition to an administrative "diversity day" which somehow changed to being a day when all "white" students wee to stay off campus…. supposedly as an illustration of non-diversity. But it doesn't matter does it? Weinstein expressed his free speech by opposing this specific type of "adversity day" exercise as I recall and expressed his beliefs of why he was opposed to it.
People took exception .. so what? People in the classes I attended in history and economics and social sciences expressed their opposition too.. in some cases boycotting the class or trying to get the prof fired… big deal on campus.. lots of rallies, etc. People taking sides and demonstrating, blocking entrances, shouting to drown out classrooms even through closed windows.
Of course this lasted a couple days or so until the administration stopped it.. expelling some students considered leaders (then more protests, more demonstrations) using unarmed campus police to disperse the crowds, apprehend any violent protestors or any having any gas-masks for example… any who wore masks or hoods to prevent their being recognizable, etc.. And the profs stayed and students were allowed to drop the class if they chose or if it was too late in the semester then take F's…. their choice, their consequences.
I considered this all just normal standard stuff.. nothing more than students taking positions on things they didn't like about what was being taught or the methods being used.
The only point being that Weinstein's position was opposed … and so I say so what? What did the administration do about the opposition? Who was disrupting the normal university environment.. the one that is enforced by rules and regulations that must exist to avoid chaos?
And who's bright idea was it to have a diversity day where one race was supposed to remain off campus???? Did they have their head up their ass or something? or were they operating in some ethereal fantasy space? Moreover why was this supported by others that were obviously involved as well? Practicalities have to be considered don't they? .
Barkley Rosser says:
I wish Bret Weinstein had used a more conventional media outlet for his largely legitimate complaints. I disagree with Kolchak that only Fox News was open to him for this.
The origins of Day of Absence at Evergreen College is relevant.
A play "Day of Absence" by a black playwright in 1965 uses a small town's minority black community to absent themselves from the community for a day to demonstrate the community's dependency on it's black minority members.
In 1970 a black faculty member suggested a Day of Absence take place at Evergreen to demonstrate the same hypothetical outcome of the 1965 play to the Evergreen college community.
http://www.evergreen.edu/multicultural/history-day-absence-and-day-presence
This has been the nature of and reasoning behind the Day of Absence for nearly a half a century at Evergreen until 2017.
In early 2017 (prior to March 15) the head of the administration's "diversity" program announced at a meeting to the faculty and admin that the 2017 event would reverse the race of absence to the white majority. As best I can find or from what is reported to date there was no basis or reasoning provided for this change at the announcement, and according to Bret Weinstein's account (which has not been disputed by anybody) there was no discussion or Q&A allowed either.
I have no idea what the idea behind the race reversal was, who proposed it, what foundation was articulated to support it, what historical foundation was behind it or anything else about it. But there's a glaring absence of any reasoning or basis having surfaced or even any discussion of what occurred between what groups or members on why this reversal was decided. I mean glaring absence. No group or spokesman or even the head of the admin's diversity office has provided anything on the reasoning or basis for why the historical foundation was vacated in deciding 2017's Day of Absence. For such a radical change it would seem to me to have had to require a sound reasoning provided to or by the Administration before deciding upon this course.
I remind that this reversal DECISION was made by the administration PRIOR to March 15.
Bret Weinstein's e-mail to the administration's head of diversity programs, and copying all other admin and faculty was sent on March 15.
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1259154-evergreen-state-college-racism-protests
There was no response to Bret Weinstein from the administration that I can find on the web (if any they have been removed) or even referenced by dates in any accounts or news reports. The first response doesn't occur until June 1… over a week AFTER the widely publicized video of the students confrontation with Bret Weinstein on Tuesday, May 23
The administration's response was essentially a) it's an Evergreen College historical event for decades, b) its voluntary. The response says in part (the only part I can find published):
"In the decades-long history of this event, it has ALWAYS been and will always be voluntary," she said in a statement. "Furthermore, this is the first year white people have been invited off-campus, as people of color have been asked to participate off campus each year prior. During the antagonizing party's multi-year tenure at Evergreen, he has not once expressed complaint for the invitation extended to people of color leaving campus."
First of all I find the administrator's response to several months late (Mar 15 to Jun 1) and second of all to be highly misleading.. since the 46 year history of the event begins with the request by minority blacks to absent themselves from campus to demonstrate the campus's white community dependence (or recognition) of the minority blacks. The "people of color" were never "invited off campus" as much as they requested the permission to hold off-campus meetings on that day each year. "invited off campus" is a misleading technicality… it is in fact a pure and simple administration CYA statement.
In short the administration is playing catch-up after the fact protecting it's own ass in it's culpability to not address Weinstein's e-mail specifically addressing the race reversal decision back in mid-March. If it was addressed, then I can find no information about it.
Note: there is one url that claims to publish 3 e-mail exchanges between Weinstein and the administrator but the link to those e-mail exchanges is broken (or has been made inaccessible)…or my Windows 8.1, 64 bit computer won't retrieve them from the link (something I've never had occur in 4 years).
http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article153826004.html
Every indicator I can find clearly indicts the administration for failure to clarify it's reasoning or even to discuss the basis for a reversal of race after 46 years of the original and historically founded minority race day of absence, at all or in a timely manner and a failure to take any punitive measures after clear and obvious willful and intentional violation of college rules and regulations.
If the administration wanted to avoid creating a precipitating condition on the precipice between order and chaos it did nothing to demonstrate it.
For my own gut feel I have the impression that some student group (small or large) made the suggestion to the administrators diversity day in an open forum to reverse the race of absence. Rather than confront this suggestion as being outside the purview of the historical basis for the Day of Absence, the administrator chose to let this suggestion become the administration's supported policy for 2017.
It would be my guess that if the administration had opposed or disallowed the suggestion, then it would have been accused of white racism. Thus to avoid that accusation and the probable outcome of having no Day of Absence in 2017, or one that would probably be a mess of student protests, pitting whites against minorities, they chose to appease the group that made the suggested race reversal for Day of Absence.
This was a rock and hard place decision… in either event there was going to be a backlash but they obviously felt the could deal with or manage the white backlash better than they could manage the minority backlash.
It also occurs to me that whatever group or groups suggested the reversal their intent was not to reduce racial issues but to escalate them and that the administration went along with this is probably the primary and major mistake and failure to administer at all. When a group of students decides on a radical change in an historical college event it is normally one to escalate an issue rather than mitigate it….. and it cannot be construed by any means that a reversal of race to absent the campus on Day of Absence was not a radical change.
My own pure guess is that this radical change was a mirror into the radical political change which occurred in November with Trump's election on a campaign largely supporting white supremacy by inference and innuendo. This heightened awareness of the black minority that the U.S. was still as racist as it ever was .. and this realization would be even more pronounced by the college age minority youth.
Hence Business as Usual was not something the activists would want to support. When somebody pisses in your face the response is not going to be turn the other cheek.
So everything points to the administration's failure to make rules and policies clear and understood before the fact. This was due to an inept administration (my opinion).
Peter Dorman says:
It's difficult for me to reply to this last post without going into a long discursus on Evergreen history and politics that few readers would follow past the first paragraph. The problem is that the narrative for the 99.99% who are the outside the Evergreen box is minimally related to what actually happened on the inside. In particular, Bret Weinstein has centered the story around his own concerns and experiences (which is understandable), and in the absence of any competing narrative, it all seems to come down to whether or not you take his side on the "radical" assault on liberal values and his opposition to it.
(1) The process that resulted in the spring 2017 meltdown at Evergreen was well underway a year earlier. (2) It was not centered on plans for the Day of Absence or any other plan for that matter. It was not about policy. (Although it was put into overdrive by faculty resistance to mandatory diversity training during Spring 2016.) (3) Bret's email campaign was directed at a proposed "Equity Plan" and then the change in the DoA. Both were symbolic, with minimal practical consequence. But the conflict at the college was almost entirely over symbolism. (4) The problem with controversies over symbolism is that there isn't a "normal" political process for changing language and thought patterns. If my goal is to have everyone think in a certain way, anyone who thinks differently and expresses it out loud has to be opposed.
Here are a few more particulars about the DoA: (1) The "official" part of the program for 2017 called for an event at an off-campus church. This church had 200 seats; very few white students or faculty would be able to attend. (2) DoA has always been voluntary, and many faculty have ignored it and continue to ignore it altogether. (3) A number of faculty held classes that day outside the classroom, myself included. (My class was on campus, however.) For many of us, the important thing about that day is not the symbolism of location but simply taking the time to stop and think about the importance of racism in American life. (4) However: the tone of emails on the all-campus network could only be described as apocalyptic, with supporters of the cultural offensive (whites as well as nonwhites) describing the move as a historic reversal of power and privilege. (5) In other words, while the reality of DoA was fairly humdrum and benign, the rhetoric surrounding it was deranged. Bret's emails took the rhetoric at face value and argued against the modest arrangements for DoA as if they represented an institutional rupture. (6) A faction of students, who shared the view that political action means demanding changes in thought and expression, read these emails and decided to make the expulsion of racist—or nonconforming—faculty and staff (including Bret) a centerpiece of their protest.
As someone who thinks there is a real political economy out there (including a political economy of racism), I see little value in taking sides in these symbolic controversies. The whole displacement of politics by rhetoric is the problem.
Thank you for taking the time to respond on AB. I have not had a chance to read your words beyond that of a post.
Peter, I also thank you for your response.
I will only make a couple of short points.
1. Symbolism counts and usually counts more than any real effect in the short term. Symbolism is often grossly under appreciated and usually is until after the fact. The symbolism of reversing the race to shift off campus relative to the historic basis at Evergreen for Day of Absence is a huge change in symbolism of racial causes, the practical effects as you say being near zilch.
I'm sure that symbolism reversal didn't escape anybody's attention, especially the administration's, especially the admin's "diversity" dept head, especially the whites, and especially the minorities. In short the symbolism was the intended effect.
You may think it shouldn't have been the symbol it was in fact, but then you're relegating symbols to a lower status than they have in fact, which I classify as a lack of awareness, or complete insensitivity to the relevance of symbols in societies, large or small.
When I watched Tommy Smith from my college which I still attended raise his clenched fist at the Olympic games on the podium I cheered wildly in front of our TV and my wife His raised arm clench fist was a symbol of the civil rights protests and movement …. his actual clench fists had no practical effect at all on anything BUT as a Symbol.
2. Bret's e-mail to the diversity administrator on March 15 was copied to all other admin and faculty… he didn't publish it in the College news paper or shout it from a campus microphone. He expressed a considered point of view and requested the administrator to think about what the symbolism of the reversal after 46 years actually meant.
In any institution, especially a university, it is imperative to express one's opinion to the leadership when opposed to a leadership's position, policy, or decisions. That's why we have free speech (or so we're told). I say imperative because without it there's no chance to change or influence anything without resorting to physical force.
After Bret's e-mail of March 15 I can only surmise it had some effect on other faculty (for or against) and administrators (for or against) but there is scant or no documentation of what effect it had on either faculty or admin, or what meetings ensued or what the reasoning was, or anything I can find relevant to the issue Bret raised.
Moreover, I can't imagine that Bret was the only one in the faculty or administration that raised the same issue.. either in other e-mails or in meetings before or after March 15.
I can only surmise based on my experiences in similar controversies in various institutions over the decades that the issue didn't die but was heightened, The end effect however was that the administration's leaders backed the reversal of race decision decided by the admin's adversity administrator.
Brett's email became public to the students or at least a group of students and so Brett became a symbol of the opposition to that group's interests.
But what in fact were that group or those group's real interests? On the surface of things, it appears that their interests were to make a radical change to Day of Absence for purposes of making a radical statement… as a symbol. What was the symbol supposed to represent? I've never heard or read a rational answer by the administration's diversity administrator or by any student group. Don't you find that to be a glaring omission?
While student protests are standard operating procedure at almost any university, Evergreen being no different, the reversal of race on Day of Absenceit is none-the-less a radical statement ..and that is the symbol you refer to. What was this radical symbol supposed to do? What was the considered intent? Was the intent considered at all?
Was the intent to create more racial adversity? or reduce it? And that is what the administration failed to address beginning at least as early as March 15 if not sooner.
It's not Bret's e-mail that is or was the problem or issue at all.. it wasn't even Bret who was the issue.. he and his e-mail were just symbols of the issue which by all accounts was not a minor one even before March 15 as you also confirm;.
Order or chaos? That is the administration's business and reason d'etre. They failed, perhaps even deliberately, and that is what the Evergreen controversy is really all about.
Students will protest that is a given, often in a manner that isn't conducive to any beneficial outcome in the near term and that was the case when I attended college … the era of racial and violent civil rights protests, followed by VN protests also often violent, and the "flower children's" rejections of contemporary societal norms.
Peter, as a sociologist professor, I can't imagine you not acknowledging the power of symbols on societies.
The Swastika was a powerful political symbol for the National Socialist party and during that period a symbol of anti-Semitism and Aryan racial superiority
The same symbol is used today with the same meaning.
The white-sheet hooded KKK became a symbol for white superiority ad black race suppression after the Civil war. It carries the same symbolism today.
Burning christian crosses on the front lawns of black residents was and remains the same symbol of white supremacy and black repression then as now.
The phrases "Cadillac queens" and "I'm for States Rights" were just as much symbols of white supremacy and anti-federal power to enforce civil rights in the 1980's as they are today.
The rainbow colors of the LGBT is a symbol of the gay & lesbian rights movement.
Kneeling during the national anthem instead of standing with hand over heart or saluting the flag are symbols of resistance to black suppression.
In and of themselves none of these symbols do anything and have no practical effect of the actions themselves:.. waving or exhibiting flags, wearing hoods, burning crosses on lawns, uttering innocuous phrases in public, or kneeling instead of standing.
Just as you say 200 seats off campus or have no practical effect either.
But as symbols they have huge effects on society .. they can invoke or induce genocides and wars, civil and international, they can create revolutions, they can alter the course of history.
And they are all in the end a political symbol.. since of course their intent as symbols is to affect the political environment. You cannot downplay symbols as being something without effect by saying they are not of any practical significance in their actual acts
Being that you're a sociologist I find in incredible for you to say that just because the "official event" was 200 seats somewhere off campus, and many faculty don't participate or whatever, and thus there's no practical effect indicates to me that you believe symbols are of impractical significance or that you didn't realize the significance of the symbol created by reversing the race for Day of Absence long before it had real consequence of adverse publicity for Evergreen. .
babaganusz says:
Thanks for the commentary, Peter. (I was briefly under your wing for P.E.S.C. at TESC last century.) I tried to follow the events near the end of a trip to Japan in early June, especially at the urging of a former middle school classmate and not-at-the-same-time Greener who has recently vehemently taken up the "left eating itself", "regressive left" and "ctrl-left" angles. Remarks such as you have provided here, above and below, were what I thought sorely missing.
Bret's thoughts were mostly easy to absorb but I could absolutely nowhere find evidence that there was genuine, free-floating, sinister pressure behind the new DoA concept. His email exchange with Rashida Love, posted within a week of the debacle, looked to me like he was overreacting to a mere suggestion that had a paltry practical edge – a venue reserved for 200, with how many thousand white students enrolled? … nowhere except among people living far (in time and space) from Evergreen could I detect anyone taking seriously the idea that anyone anywhere actually *expected* anywhere near even a slight majority to absent themselves.
Being personally constitutionally opposed to essentially everything Fox News (particularly its founder) has ever stood/posed for, I couldn't really help but be skeptical regarding the notion that there was nothing disingenuous about the decision to air this particular laundry via that particular platform. However, I've also seen no evidence that makes accusations like BillB's, of "rallying the racist alt-right [for] support" look anything but absurd. At best it was naive "I have to get this out there somehow", at worst it was 'dirty pool' born of anger towards those platforms who we might expect to give a fairer hearing, as far as I can tell nearly a year later. Maybe a little from columns A and B combined?
As a certain sort of Greener (let's just say my time in Olympia profoundly de-prioritized academic pursuits – my late-onset 4-year degree took 8 years to complete), I have been content (with minimal reluctance) to get most of "Bret's side" of the story filtered through Joe Rogan's not-exactly-polished interviewing style. I only just found the Examiner article and your response today, after about five months of not looking into the thing.
After Pete Bohmer's tepid hand-waving (I trusted that he was posting a substantive email thread, and defensively misspoke in support of someone I remember trusting before finding out there wasn't anything like an expos'e in it), I was sadly not surprised that nobody was openly admitting what I almost thought i misremembered, but which you here confirmed: "many faculty have ignored it and continue to ignore it altogether." As a student I would regularly regret not following it closely, cumulatively almost as much as I regretted declining to attend "the Battle in Seattle" with several roommates, former roommates and neighbors who had – well, a hell of a time to say the least … I would remind myself that Things Were Happening but would never commit to observing them closely. *Day* of Absence? A drop in the bucket compared with my worst habits.
Welcome to Angry Bear. First comments go to moderation to weed out spammers and advertising.


'Let me finish mother off, and I will do for you'; a desperate attempt on a defenceless woman.
Celia Harrison was having tea with her aunt and her grandmother, Emma Harrison, on 22 July 1895 when there was a knock at the door. It was 6 o'clock the 10 year old recalled and when her grandmother answered the door it was father who stood in the doorway. The visitor (William Harrison) demanded to know if his brother Jack was at home. He wasn't and the elderly woman seemed nervous and wasn't inclined to let her son in.
William seemed angry and perhaps a little under the influence of alcohol. Celia heard him say: 'I mean doing for him when he does come home' and she saw that he was holding a knife. Celia, in fear, ran out into the garden.
Charles Rattison was a tram driver who lived upstairs from the Harrisons at 6 Salisbury Road, Highgate. Just after 6 o'clock he heard raised voices coming from below. When he heard a cry of 'murder!' he leapt up from his chair and rushed downstairs. To his horror he saw Emma Harrison flat on her back on the floor with her son William sitting cross-legged on top of her, slashing at her throat with a knife.
'Let me finish mother off, and I will do for you'.
'Where is my bleeding knife; I wish I had a sharp-shooter, I would put some of your lights out'.
On the 23 July Harrison was in court before the North London Police magistrate. Detective Sergeant Godley testified that the victim was too ill to attend but that she was thankfully recovering well in the Great Northern Central Hospital. He added that Emma was the widow of a policeman who had been pensioned off in 1876 after 'many years service' to the force. I imagine Y Division viewed this attack as if it was perpetrated against 'one of their own'.
William Harrison stood impassively as others, including his daughter, gave their evidence. The magistrate remanded him for a week so that his victim had more time to mend in hospital before giving her version of events. This took some time, she was, after all, 68 years of age and so the case didn't come before a jury until September that year where William Harrison was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm. The jury rejected his plea that he was drunk at the time, not that it was an excuse anyway. Harrison had form as well, having previously been prosecuted for wounding his wife. On that occasion he'd gone down for 11 months. This time the judge sent him away for 7 years of penal servitude.
William Harrison, who was simply described as a labourer, served five years and three months of his sentence, much of it at Portand Prison. He was released on 1 December 1900 at the age of 44. Thereafter he seems to have escaped trouble with the law but whether his wife and family were happy to have him back is less clear.
From about the middle of the nineteenth century mental weakness was used to explain some forms of petty offending, usually by women. The idea that female shoplifters were impelled to steal as a result of their 'inferior' or 'weak' minds helped explain, if not entirely excuse, those 'respectable' women caught stealing small items from London's new department stores.
I've nearly always heard kleptomania associated with women but in this case the suggestion was that an elderly man could also be susceptible to this form of 'brain fever'. This fits the underlying narrative however: women, children and the elderly were all 'weak' in the eyes of Victorian society. All required some level of protection, and sometimes from themselves.
Robert Lacey was working in his yard on Hertford Road in Kingsland one evening in July 1892 when an old man entered. The visitor offered Lacey a whip socket for sale but he wasn't interested and the man went away. As he was leaving however Lacey saw him take a waterproof knee-length apron from the 'rail of a pleasure van'. The old man calmly folded the apron up, ticked it under his jacket, and walked away.
Lacey followed after and caught him, waiting until a policeman came into view before handing him over. When he was searched at the station the police found the apron (worth just 6s) and the whip socket plus 'four carriage-handles, three knives, a billiard-ball case, eight pawn-tickets, and two bottles of oil'. Quite how he carried all these is a mystery!
In court before the North London Police Magistrates the man gave his name as John Clark, 60 years of age and said he was very sorry. He'd only recently been released from Banstead Lunatic Asylum 'where he had been detained as a kleptomaniac'. The magistrate – Mr Bros – called for enquiries to be made by the surgeon at the gaol to determine 'the state of his mind'. He remanded him in custody in the meantime.
Judging by the eclectic list of things that Clark had in his possession he certainly seems to have been someone 'collecting' things by impulse rather than a determined thief but one wonders if the unforgiving justice system of the time was able to appreciate that.
Police Magistrates had to deal with all sorts of things on a daily basis. As well as often being the first stage in most serious criminal prosecutions police court magistrates had the power to lock up drunks, vagrants, wife beaters and a host of other petty offenders who opted to have their cases dealt with summarily. In addition the magistrate was also assumed to know everything about the law, and so people came to him to ask advice on all manner of issues.
In early July 1898 a man turned up at the North London Police court to ask for Mr D'Eyncourt's counsel. The man, whose name wasn't reported by the The Standard newspaper, told the experienced magistrate that he'd only been married for fours months and he'd just discovered that his wife 'was a wrong 'un'.
'In what way?" D'Eyncourt enquired.
'When we was courting', the man began, 'we agreed that she was to get up and boil the kettle and I was to fry the bacon. But she won't do either', he complained.
This glimpse in to the mundane provoked laughter in the courtroom.
'She lies in bed whilst I get my own breakfast, and when I ask her to get up she threatens to do all sorts of things'.
Asked to elaborate the poor young husband continued.
'The other night she started breaking up the home, and threatened to knife me. She then went to bed with the landlady…last night she went to Sadler's Wells with a woman, and came home at half-past twelve. I was in bed and asleep, and she and the woman came home and pushed their fists into my face, and swore they would chuck me out'.
Mr D'Eyncourt was sympathetic but also puzzled that the young man had married 'a woman about who you know very little'. He advised him to move out, take rooms elsewhere and ask his wife to join him (without her friends of course). If she didn't comply 'within a reasonable time', he should have no more to do with her.
The poor lad mumbled 'she says she don't want me'.
'I can tell you know more' said the justice, dismissing him.
We are staying in 1891 today to see if any there were any Police Court developments in the wake of Frances Coles' murder on the 13 February of that year. Lloyd's Weekly carried reports from seven of the capital's courts but there was no mention here of Coles, the 'Ripper' or the man who became associated with this killing, James Sadler.
Instead the paper covered a complaint about the mis-labelling of Turkish cigarettes, theft from a theatre district club, two different frauds (one by a nine year-old boy), a gold robbery, a so-called 'fair fight' that turned nasty, and the case I'd like to focus on today, which was described as 'a murderous outrage' .
The case had come up before at North London Police Court and the accused, a 35 year-old bricklayer named Daniel Shannon, had been remanded for further enquiries. He was charged with assaulting Jessie Bazely with whom he cohabited in Chapel Road, Holloway. Jessie had been too poorly to attend on the first occasion Shannon had appeared and the court was told she remained in that state, if not a worse one.
'he said that 'the woman took up the poker to strike him, and in struggling they fell on the floor, the woman's head coming in contact with the fender'.
The police investigated the assault and Inspector Charles Bradley of Y Division was present in court to report on their findings so far, and in particular the condition of Jessie. Her evidence would be crucial in determining what happened to Shannon next.
The inspector told the magistrate that the poor woman was being held in the workhouse infirmary and had gone quite mad as a result of her injuries and her previous addiction to drink. When asked what evidence he had for this the policeman declared that he had seen her there 'being held down by five nurses'. Moreover, she had attempted her own life and had bitten several of the staff there. Dr George Wright, the divisional police surgeon, then confirmed the inspector's report.
From the dock of the court the prisoner asked for the fender to be produced. He said he wanted to demonstrate what had happened so he could clear his name. Inspector Bradley said that he had asked for this previously, but had been denied. The magistrate also refused his request and remanded him in custody once more.
We shall see if the case is picked up later in the week, or if the attention of the press became fixated on events in the East End instead.
Yesterday we celebrated 100 years of women over 30 having the vote in England. Britain wasn't the first nation to give women the vote however, that was New Zealand in 1893. In 1893 in England women were still firmly viewed as second-class citizens.
Many young working-class women found work in London as domestic servants. One such woman was Harriett Sabin, a 17 year-old who found herself before the North London Police court in February 1893, charged with theft.
Harriett had been hired in December 1891 to work at a house in Clissold Road. She had got the position through the Metropolitan Association for Befriending Young Servants (MABYS) which had been formed in 1874 by Henrietta Barnet and Jane Nassau Senior. MABYS helped young women who had grown up in workhouses to find work in the homes of the better off and by 1890 the charity had over 1,000 volunteers throughout the capital.
It soon became evident that Harriett wasn't suited to the position she been found however. She had arrived with 'an indifferent character' but 'had pleaded for a chance'. Sadly her opportunity didn't last very long though and she was given notice to quit at the end of a month. While employment hadn't worked out Harriett was determined she would get something out of the experience.
'a silver teapot, a gold bracelet, two gold brooches, a gold ring, a case of dessert knives and forks, and an umbrella'.
Another servant also reported that she had lost some items and suspicion inevitably fell on the girl from the workhouse. A warrant was issued to arrest her but she was nowhere to be found. Harriett had disappeared and nothing was heard about her until she surfaced in December 1893 in Northampton where 'she was in custody for a similar offence'.
The police investigation, led by Detective-sergeant Bowers, had traced several of the stolen items to a pawnbrokers in Wood Green. In court the magistrate was at pains to point out that the pawnbroker was also at fault here. In the eighteenth century pawnbrokers were heavily criticised by commentators like Henry Fielding (the novelist and Bow Street magistrate) for allowing thieves a mechanism for laundering stolen goods. In this case a silver watch had been accepted even though it was engraved with the name of the owner – Mr Attree, Harriet's former employer.
Many of the goods were produced in court for members of household (the Attrees and their staff) to swear to. The pawnbroker's assistant, John Smith, was also there (n doubt shuffling uncomfortably under the magistrate's glare).
DS Bowers had traveled the 60 miles north to question Harriett and reported that she had been convicted of theft there, and sent to prison for two months (which helps to explain why she had seemingly 'disappeared'). Since she was now before Mr Ware and Mr Lane (the two sitting justices at North London) that sentence must have been completed. They decided that since she was clearly 'a bad girl' she would to prison for a further three months.
The system was harsh. Harriett, a workhouse girl from a pauper background, had been given an opportunity to carve out a better life for herself, albeit as someone else's drudge. She didn't take it, or couldn't adapt to it, and we don't entirely know why. As a result she ended up exchanging one closed institution (the poor house) for another (the prison).
She was just 17 when she appeared before the magistrates at North London Police Court, and would be nearly 20 by the time she would be released from gaol. In effect her life was already ruined. I can only imagine what the future held for her but with a set of previous convictions and no character references to support her, that future must have seemed bleak to her.


We're Hello Raw, a Kiwi company on a mission to bring the healthiest Certified Organic snacks to the pantries, lunch boxes and handbags of families across NZ.
Being raw, sprouted, vegan and gluten free, we're a little bit fancy, but we think organic food from the earth, shouldn't cost the earth.
That's why we're committed to making organic (aka real food) the norm again by offering our products at the same prices as conventional, non-certified organic products.
Proving that cost savings don't need to come at the expense of our health, the environment or other people's well being.
We believe everyone has the opportunity to live full, vibrant lives, nourished by the food we eat. But the power lies with us, to say 'yes please' to organic and 'na I'm good' to the chemically laden foods that are causing much of the health problems we are experiencing today.
We're standing up for the health that is rightly ours, will you join us?
We're certified organic by BioGro, meaning we follow a strict organic protocol from grower to customer, so you can snack happy knowing you're free from chemical pesticides, preservatives and additives. Plus you get to keep a clear conscience knowing no living things were hurt in the making.
We believe nature holds the secrets to optimal health which is why we go through a 48 hour process to sprout and activate the ingredients, replicating the plant's natural growth cycle. This brings out the most nutrients and ensures they're easy to digest.
We then gently dehydrate our foods below 47 degrees celsius to ensure that the enzymes aren't destroyed, meaning that you're able to get more raw goodness from each bite.
Once the ingredients are carefully dehydrated, our raw food chefs transform them into tasty goods that are designed for maximum nutrition and taste!
With snacks ranging from granola and bites to bars and crackers, there is something for the whole family that won't hurt your wallet, or your health.
We operate from a 17 acre ex-orchard in the rural area of Kumeu, Auckland. We believe in working with the environment which is why we utilise the natural rain water when sprouting and activating our foods and then return it back to the earth at the end of our process.


Learning the ins and outs of vehicle repair can seem overwhelming when you don't even understand the basics. However, the article below has some quick and simple tips to make auto repair easier for you. By reading this, you can start learning more about fixing cars and saving money.
Mechanics should have ASE certification before you hire them. This type of certification means two years experience and also a passed written test. When a mechanic has this certification, you are ensured that a qualified individual is repairing your car.
If you have issues with your car, you can fix it yourself. There are a few things that you can fix easily yourself. If you'd like, you could always conduct some research online to see if you can determine the problem. If it is a simple fix, you can usually do it yourself.
You can easily find an auto mechanic that is good if you get referred to them. You can ask anyone you trust, from your hairdresser to your family. This will let you figure out what kind of price you're dealing with and if you'll be satisfied with the work that is done. You can find out about the experience with a mechanic and if they can be trusted or not.
Read as much of your auto manual as you can, marking anything that is important. This can help prevent a trip to the auto shop if you can fix the issue yourself. The issue may be very simple to fix, saving you time and money.
Have you noticed that your headlights aren't shining very brightly? If so, ensure you are cleaning them regularly. Sometimes, dirt from the road transfers over to your lights dim them. You will be able to see well when using a reliable glass cleaner.
Make sure that you always keep a spare tire and jack in your vehicle. Nearly every car has them equipped standard. The cost of a tow for a flat isn't worth it! It is simpler and cheaper to handle it on your own.
Take off your keychains from your car keys to reduce the weight on your ignition. The ignition cannot hold the weight of a big key chain. If your keys starts sticking, you need the tumblers replaced.
Always shop around and get a second opinion before paying for an expensive repair. A lot of places will put rates in the fine print and so you need to read over any paperwork carefully. You need to understand how and why you are being billed for your car repairs. Some mechanics bill you for estimated labor times established by the manufacturers they work with. Other shops may charge an inflated rate for a minor repair that should be done within a shorter period of time.
Instead of going to a mechanic multiple times for problems with an older car, learn what to look out for. This, along with the other tips in this article, should help you learn simple auto repair. Keep these tips in mind as you move forward.


text:
<?php
/* @var $this SemenOrdersController */
/* @var $model SemenOrders */

$this->breadcrumbs=array(
	'Semen Orders'=>array('index'),
	'Manage',
);

$this->menu=array(
	array('label'=>'List SemenOrders', 'url'=>array('index')),
	array('label'=>'Create SemenOrders', 'url'=>array('create')),
);

Yii::app()->clientScript->registerScript('search', "
$('.search-button').click(function(){
	$('.search-form').toggle();
	return false;
});
$('.search-form form').submit(function(){
	$('#semen-orders-grid').yiiGridView('update', {
		data: $(this).serialize()
	});
	return false;
});
");
?>

Manage Semen Orders

You may optionally enter a comparison operator (<, <=, >, >=, <>
or =) at the beginning of each of your search values to specify how the comparison should be done.

<?php echo CHtml::link('Advanced Search','#',array('class'=>'search-button')); ?>

<?php $this->renderPartial('_search',array(
	'model'=>$model,
)); ?>

<?php $this->widget('zii.widgets.grid.CGridView', array(
	'id'=>'semen-orders-grid',
	'dataProvider'=>$model->search(),
	'filter'=>$model,
	'columns'=>array(
		'semen_orders_id',
		'customer_id',
		'sow_boar_id',
		'ordered_date',
		'ship_date',
		'doses',
		/*
		'price_dose',
		'shipping_cost',
		'misc',
		'comments',
		'onstandby',
		'invoice',
		'semen_type',
		'cod_charges',
		'payment_type',
		'modified_date',
		*/
		array(
			'class'=>'CButtonColumn',
		),
	),
)); ?>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Sierra Club BC's winter break podcast list
As we wrap up a very unusual year, we're looking back at our favourite podcasts from 2020 (and a couple from previous years that we still enjoy). We hope you enjoy them on your own or with your household!
New and ongoing podcast series:
Scales of Change
The climate crisis is the defining challenge of our lifetimes. But even those of us who accept the science and urgency of climate change can struggle to act on our own knowledge and values. Why? Our minds are subject to the 'Dragons of Climate Inaction': 36 different species of rationalizations – stories we tell ourselves consciously and subconsciously. Produced by Future Ecologies, with support from the University of Victoria, this podcast explores the psychology of climate inaction and proves that another story is possible.
Bonus: kQwa'st'not (Charlene George), Cultural Voice for Sierra Club BC, is a guest on two episodes.
Listen here or wherever you get your podcasts.
Timber Wars
Mostly set in the 1990s in the Pacific Northwest. A time when a logging boom was turning the USA's last remaining ancient forests into clearcuts, and environmental activists were burying themselves in front of bulldozers or spending months sitting in the tallest trees in the world. Oregon Public Broadcasting's seven-episode podcast Timber Wars tells the story of how the Northern Spotted Owl and a small group of activists and scientists reshaped the way we think about ancient forests and the ecosystems they support.
Hosted by former Irish president Mary Robinson, comedian-writer Maeve Higgins, and series producer Thimali Kodikara, Mothers of Invention is a podcast about feminist climate change solutions from (mostly) women around the world. Every episode celebrates inspiring climate leaders around the world carving a path to climate justice for all.
How to Save a Planet
This Gimlet produced podcast asks the big questions: What do we need to do to solve the climate crisis, and how do we get it done? Journalist Alex Blumberg and scientist and policy nerd Dr. Ayana Elizabeth Johnson, scour the Earth for solutions, talk to people who are making a difference, ask hard questions, crack dumb jokes and — episode by episode — figure out how to build a better future.
Recommended episode: Trying to Talk to Family about Climate Change? Here's How
Drilled is a narrative podcast that puts the story of climate change, and climate denial, into a true-crime framework. Season 1 (2018) focuses on the climate research conducted by oil companies and when and how they shifted from studying the problem to denying it. Season 2 (2019) follows a community of crab fishermen as they become the first industry to sue Big Oil. Season 3 (2020) chronicles the 100-year history of fossil fuel P.R. campaigns and ties them to the propaganda we still see today.
One-off episodes we enjoyed:
The Daily's Sunday Read: 'The Social Life of Forests'
Before Canadian ecologist Suzanne Simard discovered that underground fungal threads link nearly every tree in a forest, foresters typically regarded trees as solitary individuals that competed for space and resources and that were otherwise indifferent to one another. On the contrary, Simard demonstrated that an old-growth forest is a vast, ancient and intricate society where seedlings severed from this network are more likely to die; chemical alarm signals to warn of danger can be passed between trees; and a dying tree can sometimes pass on a share of its carbon to neighbors.
CBC Ideas: 'The Brilliance of the Beaver: Learning from an Anishnaabe World'
Widely recognized as one of the most compelling Indigenous voices of her generation, Leanne Betasamosake Simpson is a member of Alderville First Nation and teaches at the Dechinta Centre for Research and Learning in Denedeh. Her 2020 Kreisel lecture featured in this CBC Ideas episode focuses on four stories about the Beaver — Amik — and its place in Anishnaabe worlds. Simpson demonstrates how the figure of the Beaver offers lessons in how to live connected to the world around us — through knowledge, wisdom and industriousness.
The Secret Life of Canada: 'Water'
Co-hosted by Mohawk and Tuscarora from Six Nations playwright and performer Falen Johnson and first-generation Canadian writer, performer and producer Leah-Simone Bowen, this CBC podcast highlights the people, places and stories that probably didn't make it into your high school textbook. This episode dives into the complex history of water, and how it's been managed throughout time.
Mission Transition: Clean Energy and Beyond
Nearly every day, we hear of new innovations moving the world toward clean energy. But this transition raises many questions. What actually counts as clean energy? Who should make decisions about how it's produced — and how do these projects impact communities? In which ways do we need to rethink land use in a clean energy economy?
Co-hosted by former CBC journalist Susan Elrington and Caitlyn Vernon, Campaigns Director with Sierra Club BC, Mission Transition: Clean Energy and Beyond dives into these questions and more with interviews from thinkers and doers who are all passionate about making the transition happen.
Season's greetings from the team at Sierra Club BC!
Stand up for old-growth now!
Mya Van Woudenberg/Sierra Club BC
Celebrate Winter Solstice ~ a gift through Sierra Club BC

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Posted on 15th May 2017 at 11:34 pm.
Here at Hi-Line, we are experts at woodland management. From carrying out surveys to felling trees, we do it all, but what is woodland management actually for?
The management of our woodlands helps to maintain them so that future generations can enjoy them as much as we do. Today, it is about making sure that they continue to thrive and provide habitats for all of our wildlife and also be somewhere we can go to surround ourselves in nature, away from the hustle and bustle of the city.
Walking is a great way to explore your local woodlands. If you are unsure of where you can go for a walk then check out the Woodland Trust's page which has a map of all of their woodlands, which are free to visit, all you have to do is enter your postcode and it will find all the local woodlands to you. Just remember to wear suitable shoes and take waterproof coats!
This can be a great family activity, teaching your children all about wild foods and where to find them. It is always advisable to check whether you are allowed to forage as not every woodland owner allows it. There are lots of different wild foods which grow around Britain. You could find wild strawberries, blackberries and elderberries, all of which can be used to create delicious jams. Just make sure that you don't over-forage, remember that these fruits and berries could also be eaten by wildlife and are very important!
This is another fun activity to do with your children. Encourage them to look around and point out as many different wildlife species that they can find, perhaps they could make a list. There are many different species of mammals, birds, butterflies and more that live in our woodlands that they are sure to be kept busy for hours exploring and discovering.
Get creative whilst out and about by collecting small and available things which you can later compile into a scrapbook. Items such as leaves, flowers, bark, twigs and even your photographs of the woodland can be put together in a scrapbook and will be a constant reminder of your favourite woodland or the day that you spent there together. However, always remember to collect responsibly! Don't take too much, disturb or damage the woodland, this can have bad consequences for the wildlife and plants that live there.
If you would like to talk about any woodland management issues, or get advice on a particular problem, then please get in touch with the Hi-Line team today and we will be happy to help.


A city snowplow passes on Chemin Sainte-Foy, in front of Jeffery Hale Hospital during a recent heavy snowfall.
What has an annual budget of $43 million, includes 2,373 km of road and 1,248 km of sidewalk, and can involve 1,700 people and 1,300 vehicles, in a single operation?
Quebec City's snow clearing and removal operations, say the city's web pages devoted to the subject.


text:
Davis Cup: Norrie and Evans lead Great Britain past France in empty arena
Added by prem on 28/11/2021
The abject silence of sporting contests held behind closed doors during Austria's return to lockdown may not be the ideal atmosphere for any Davis Cup tie, but in their first appearance at the 2021 Davis Cup Finals, Great Britain made their own atmosphere and handled their business well. As their singles superiority on paper translated to reality, tGB secured an essential 2-0 win over France in Innsbruck to clinch their first victory of Group F.
In the opening rubber between the two second-ranked players, Dan Evans overcame some tough resistance from Adrian Mannarino, the world No 71, to win 7-5, 6-4. Cameron Norrie, the British No 1, followed shortly after, securing the win by saving two set points in a breathless, extended tiebreak before edging past Arthur Rinderknech 6-2, 7-6 (8).
While France have historically boasted one of the deepest Davis Cup teams, reaching back-to-back Davis Cup finals in the previous format as recently as in 2017 and 2018, they arrived in Innsbruck with a depleted group headed by Rinderknech, the fast-improving world No 58 and French No 4.
Although Mannarino has endured a tough season, he was a nuisance to Evans early on with his spotless hand-eye coordination and sweet, compact backhand. However, Evans struck his more potent forehand well and his backhand slice robbed Mannarino of the pace he loves to feed off.
Despite ample pressure from the Frenchman, Evans sealed the opening set at his second attempt and then he took an essential break at 4-4 in the second set before closing out the win without issue.
"It's not easy to come out playing first," Evans said. "I've thought about the match all week and it's difficult to come out and get your game on the court, try to stay calm.
"I was very nervous beforehand. It was great to play for my country, come out and get a point on the board. There's only a few better No 1s in the world right now than the guy [Norrie] coming out here so I wanted to set it up for him out there."
After spending most of his career far out of the spotlight, even within British tennis circles, this tournament marks an interesting step for Norrie as he adjusts to his new status within the sport. Norrie was not selected for the 2019 Davis Cup Finals squad despite being a top 100 player but now, as underlined by Evans, he is the leading singles player of the team.
His first assignment was the tall, powerful Rinderknech who has risen 120 ranking spots this year. Norrie swiftly established himself in his typical manner, making ample returns, eking out errors from his opponent with his consistency and depth while exposing Rinderknech's movement by dictating with his forehand when the opportunity presented.
But the Frenchman grew into the match and as he began to hold with authority, he reached the tiebreak and established a 4-1 lead. After fighting back from 1-4, Norrie spectacularly recovered from bleak positions to save both of Rinderknech's set points. At 6-7 he was completely vulnerable at the net, but he anticipated Rinderknech's cross-court passing shot correctly and punched his forehand volley into the open court. At 7-8, on Rinderknech's serve, he pulled off a sweet, angled backhand passing shot winner from deep behind the baseline. Soon after, he landed his first Davis Cup win in three years.
In the doubles, Joe Salisbury and Neal Skupski were beaten 6-1, 6-4 by Nicolas Mahut and Rinderknech in a dead rubber. Great Britain will face the Czech Republic on Sunday morning. With three nations in each group, Britain would confirm their place in the quarter-final with a win.
Arena, BritainFranceempty, DavisNorrieEvansGreat
Memorial to victims of Manchester Arena attack opens to public
prem	 1週間 ago
The mother of one of the victims of the Manchester Arena terror attack has welcomed a new memorial in the city and said the bombing should never be forgotten. Figen Murray, the mother of 29-year-old Martyn Hett, said ...
Manchester Arena bombing: MI5 officer accepts 'different actions would have stopped plot'
prem	 2か月 ago
A senior MI5 officer has accepted that stopping and questioning the Manchester Arena terrorist, Salman Abedi, when he returned to the UK from Libya could have led police to the bomb. The inquiry being held into the at...
MI5 downgraded intelligence on Manchester Arena bomber, inquiry hears
A senior MI5 officer has told the Manchester Arena inquiry that the intelligence agency downgraded what turned out to be "highly relevant" evidence about the suicide bomber Salman Abedi. Speaking from behind wooden sc...
Man arrested by police investigating Manchester Arena terrorist attack
Detectives investigating the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017 have arrested a 24-year-old man. The suspect was detained on Friday at Manchester airport on suspicion of engaging in the preparation of acts of t...
Manchester Arena bomber's brother no longer in UK, inquiry told
The older brother of the Manchester Arena suicide bomber is no longer in the UK and the bomber's childhood friend was arrested on Monday trying to leave the country, the public inquiry into the terror attack has heard...
Woman who survived Manchester Arena bombing found dead in bedroom
An Ariana Grande fan who attended the Manchester Arena concert in 2017 has been found dead in her bedroom after experiencing depression and PTSD following the bombing. The parents of Eve Aston, 20, are fundraising for...
Jess Fox a fitting victor in Olympics arena she has dominated for so long
In London it was silver. In Rio it was bronze. In Tokyo it was bronze. For so long, Olympic gold has eluded Australia's slalom queen Jess Fox. But after waiting four years between London 2012 and Rio 2016, and five ye...
Teenage girl made 'miracle' recovery after Manchester Arena bombing
A teenage girl who was presumed dead and covered with T-shirts in the aftermath of the Manchester Arena bombing made a "miracle" recovery despite her devastating injuries, an inquiry has heard. Martin Hibbert, 44, was...
about after against attack Australia Biden black Boris British cases climate could court Covid crisis David Editorial England finds First Football government Guardian health Johnson Labour League Letters lockdown Manchester pandemic people police Premier report review rules shows study their under vaccine video world years
Copyright 2022 © prem All rights reserved.


text:
Champion Reactor for Tuapse Refinery
Our magazine already described the unique operation on delivery of hydrocracking reactors batch for Tuapse Oil Refinery (OAO Rosneft). Today we are publishing new details of this transport operation which is a real milestone event for our country.
Transportation of these reactors from Izhorsky Zavod shop to the jetties in Ust-Slavyanka settlement with further Ro-Ro loading on barges was managed by Keen-Mark Group as two batches. Shipment included a total of two hydrocracking reactors weighing almost 1,400 tons, more than 40 meters long and more than 7 meters in diameter each, as well as four 600-ton reactors and two measuring over 29 meters long, two – over 25 meters and all four – more than 7 meters in diameter. Total weight of carried equipment exceeded 5,000 tons.
According to A.K. Lindstrem, Keen-Mark Group Project Department Manager, this operation was challenging, as it was required to transport three extra heavy reactors at a time. Therefore, Keen-Mark Group used three own module combinations.
Overall, 96 axle lines SCHEUERLE and GOLDHOFER and two ballast rigs Mercedes Benz Titan were involved in this transport. A combination of SCHEUERLE SPMT was used to haul the reactor with cradles weighing 1,386 tons: 48 twin axle lines which, due to its width of 5,330 mm, ensured stability to avoid tipping of the load with a very high center of gravity. Two 350-kW power packs created the required tractive force and uninterrupted operation of steering system. Total weight of the haul combination made over 1,500 tons.
Two haul rigs GOLDHOFER THP SL/PST with 16 axle lines and a 1+1/2 combination (the so-called "split" combination) were used to transport the 600-ton reactors. The first rig is self-propelled, with a 155-kW power pack, the second one – a conventional trailer with trailer hitches from both sides and two 4×4 prime movers Mercedez Benz Titan developing 550 h.p. each. Also involved: a backup tractor unit, support vehicle, two escort vehicles.
Distinguishing about modular vehicles is the possibility to change moving direction keeping all the technical features. This allowed to change the number of directions enroute whenever needed and get the load on the barge in the required position.
The transport was preceded by long preparations, when Keen-Mark Group took significant efforts to modify the road along the route, remove overhead power lines, communication lines, eliminate existing obstacles (fences, poles), prepare the transport design and have it approved by all monitoring bodies.
Difficulty of the haul was caused by the fact that the route also passed through narrow roads on the territory of Izhorsky plant, dirt process road, as well as public city roads with high traffic density and turning constraints.
The most complicated and key moment of this transport was passing the temporary railway crossing for high-speed Sapsan trains which happened at night. The time window for the 3-vehicle convoy driving through the crossing after its arrangement was just 20 minutes. Even a slight delay of passage could result in a train schedule breakdown which was absolutely unacceptable. Eventually, the convoy of three rigs with a total length of 200 meters smoothly passed the crossing in due time.
"All this machinery wouldn't have demonstrated its potential without skilled drivers and operators of Keen-Mark Group," noted A.K. Lindstrem. Each rig was attended by a team of 4-6 people, including operators and drivers. Most of personnel were repeatedly trained at manufacturers' locations, the specialists have appropriate qualification which is backed up by certificates.
The transport route extension was 14 kilometers. As per the schedule of passing railway crossings and shipping technology, in accordance with which the travelling speed did not exceed 2 km/h, it took 5 days to deliver each batch. A road traffic safety project was developed implying installation of temporary road signs, imposing restrictions and change of traffic plan, and involving up to eight Road Patrol Service cars.
Rolling of the 1,000-ton equipment onto the barges of North-Western Shipping Company provided by ZAO Infotech Baltika was ongoing for two days. The way the equipment shall drive onto the barge was designed by ZAO CNIIMF. The barge was fixed on specially prepared bedding, and stage by stage, the haul rig was making moves progressively as the barge ballast was pumped out and taken in. The item was taken off the rig using its hydraulic system by means of lowering the reactor with cradles onto dedicated prepared stools.
The transport of the reactors from St. Petersburg to Tuapse was in progress from August 10 till November 16 in two stages and became a significant event for the Russian project freight market: never before had the equipment with such weights and dimensions been shipped along the RF inland waterways. The shipping involved four tugs and two barges of OAO SZP which made four trips. Chartering management was led by a company's subsidiary – OOO Volgo-Baltic Logistic.
Thanks to well-coordinated teamwork of Keen-Mark Group specialists and OAO SZF ships crews, the cargo was delivered to unloading point in the city of Tuapse before the closure of navigation period on inland waterways.
"It is worth mentioning that in parallel to this project, Keen-Mark Group was busy with several more projects in various regions of Russia," says Lead Manager of Project Department – D.G. Galkin. – Owing to increasing number of orders and extension of geography of company's activities, we have decided to purchase 40 Scheuerle SPMT axle lines. This will allow the fleet of company's self-propelled axles to be increased to 88 pcs by the summer of 2013, which, in its turn, will enable shipping of non-divisible loads weighing up to 3,500 tons."


Place a 14-inch, non-stick sauté pan over high heat.
Add the chicken and dry-sear to brown the chicken.
Add the remaining ingredients and bring to a simmer.
Cook, covered for about 5 minutes.
Uncover, and simmer until pan is almost "dry", tossing frequently to coat wings.
Skim off fat if you like, and serve, garnishing with scallion shavings and sesame seeds.