text:
/*
 * This is not the original file distributed by the Apache Software Foundation
 * It has been modified by the Hipparchus project
 */

package org.hipparchus.ode;

import java.io.ByteArrayInputStream;
import java.io.ByteArrayOutputStream;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.ObjectInputStream;
import java.io.ObjectOutputStream;
import java.util.Random;

import org.hipparchus.exception.MathIllegalArgumentException;
import org.hipparchus.exception.MathIllegalStateException;
import org.hipparchus.ode.nonstiff.DormandPrince54Integrator;
import org.hipparchus.ode.nonstiff.DormandPrince853Integrator;
import org.hipparchus.ode.nonstiff.EulerIntegrator;
import org.hipparchus.ode.sampling.DummyStepInterpolator;
import org.hipparchus.ode.sampling.ODEStateInterpolator;
import org.hipparchus.ode.sampling.ODEStepHandler;
import org.hipparchus.util.FastMath;
import org.junit.After;
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;

public class DenseOutputModelTest {

    TestProblem3 pb;
    ODEIntegrator integ;

    @Test
    public void testBoundaries() throws MathIllegalArgumentException, MathIllegalStateException {
        integ.addStepHandler(new DenseOutputModel());
        integ.integrate(pb, pb.getInitialState(), pb.getFinalTime());
        DenseOutputModel dom = (DenseOutputModel) integ.getStepHandlers().iterator().next();
        double tBefore = 2.0 * pb.getInitialTime() - pb.getFinalTime();
        Assert.assertEquals(tBefore, dom.getInterpolatedState(tBefore).getTime(), 1.0e-10);
        double tAfter = 2.0 * pb.getFinalTime() - pb.getInitialTime();
        Assert.assertEquals(tAfter, dom.getInterpolatedState(tAfter).getTime(), 1.0e-10);
        double tMiddle = 2.0 * pb.getFinalTime() - pb.getInitialTime();
        Assert.assertEquals(tMiddle, dom.getInterpolatedState(tMiddle).getTime(), 1.0e-10);
    }

    @Test
    public void testRandomAccess() throws MathIllegalArgumentException, MathIllegalStateException {

        DenseOutputModel dom = new DenseOutputModel();
        integ.addStepHandler(dom);
        integ.integrate(pb, pb.getInitialState(), pb.getFinalTime());

        Random random = new Random(347588535632l);
        double maxError    = 0.0;
        double maxErrorDot = 0.0;
        for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
            double r = random.nextDouble();
            double time = r * pb.getInitialTime() + (1.0 - r) * pb.getFinalTime();
            ODEStateAndDerivative sd = dom.getInterpolatedState(time);
            double[] interpolatedY    = sd.getPrimaryState();
            double[] interpolatedYDot = sd.getPrimaryDerivative();
            double[] theoreticalY     = pb.computeTheoreticalState(time);
            double[] theoreticalYDot  = pb.doComputeDerivatives(time, theoreticalY);
            double dx = interpolatedY[0] - theoreticalY[0];
            double dy = interpolatedY[1] - theoreticalY[1];
            double error = dx * dx + dy * dy;
            maxError = FastMath.max(maxError, error);
            double dxDot = interpolatedYDot[0] - theoreticalYDot[0];
            double dyDot = interpolatedYDot[1] - theoreticalYDot[1];
            double errorDot = dxDot * dxDot + dyDot * dyDot;
            maxErrorDot = FastMath.max(maxErrorDot, errorDot);
        }

        Assert.assertEquals(0.0, maxError,    1.0e-9);
        Assert.assertEquals(0.0, maxErrorDot, 4.0e-7);

    }

    @Test
    public void testModelsMerging() throws MathIllegalArgumentException, MathIllegalStateException {

        // theoretical solution: y[0] = cos(t), y[1] = sin(t)
        OrdinaryDifferentialEquation problem =
                        new OrdinaryDifferentialEquation() {
            @Override
            public double[] computeDerivatives(double t, double[] y) {
                return new double[] { -y[1], y[0] };
            }
            @Override
            public int getDimension() {
                return 2;
            }
        };

        // integrate backward from π to 0;
        DenseOutputModel dom1 = new DenseOutputModel();
        ODEIntegrator integ1 = new DormandPrince853Integrator(0, 1.0, 1.0e-8, 1.0e-8);
        integ1.addStepHandler(dom1);
        integ1.integrate(problem, new ODEState(FastMath.PI, new double[] { -1.0, 0.0 }), 0);

        // integrate backward from 2π to π
        DenseOutputModel dom2 = new DenseOutputModel();
        ODEIntegrator integ2 = new DormandPrince853Integrator(0, 0.1, 1.0e-12, 1.0e-12);
        integ2.addStepHandler(dom2);
        integ2.integrate(problem, new ODEState(2.0 * FastMath.PI, new double[] { 1.0, 0.0 }), FastMath.PI);

        // merge the two half circles
        DenseOutputModel dom = new DenseOutputModel();
        dom.append(dom2);
        dom.append(new DenseOutputModel());
        dom.append(dom1);

        // check circle
        Assert.assertEquals(2.0 * FastMath.PI, dom.getInitialTime(), 1.0e-12);
        Assert.assertEquals(0, dom.getFinalTime(), 1.0e-12);
        for (double t = 0; t < 2.0 * FastMath.PI; t += 0.1) {
            final double[] y = dom.getInterpolatedState(t).getPrimaryState();
            Assert.assertEquals(FastMath.cos(t), y[0], 1.0e-7);
            Assert.assertEquals(FastMath.sin(t), y[1], 1.0e-7);
        }

    }

    @Test
    public void testErrorConditions() throws MathIllegalArgumentException, MathIllegalStateException {

        DenseOutputModel cm = new DenseOutputModel();
        cm.handleStep(buildInterpolator(0, new double[] { 0.0, 1.0, -2.0 }, 1));

        // dimension mismatch
        Assert.assertTrue(checkAppendError(cm, 1.0, new double[] { 0.0, 1.0 }, 2.0));

        // hole between time ranges
        Assert.assertTrue(checkAppendError(cm, 10.0, new double[] { 0.0, 1.0, -2.0 }, 20.0));

        // propagation direction mismatch
        Assert.assertTrue(checkAppendError(cm, 1.0, new double[] { 0.0, 1.0, -2.0 }, 0.0));

        // no errors
        Assert.assertFalse(checkAppendError(cm, 1.0, new double[] { 0.0, 1.0, -2.0 }, 2.0));

    }

    @Test
    public void testSerialization() {
        try {
            TestProblem1 pb = new TestProblem1();
            double step = (pb.getFinalTime() - pb.getInitialTime()) * 0.001;
            EulerIntegrator integ = new EulerIntegrator(step);
            integ.addStepHandler(new DenseOutputModel());
            integ.integrate(pb, pb.getInitialState(), pb.getFinalTime());

            ByteArrayOutputStream bos = new ByteArrayOutputStream();
            ObjectOutputStream    oos = new ObjectOutputStream(bos);
            for (ODEStepHandler handler : integ.getStepHandlers()) {
                oos.writeObject(handler);
            }

            int expectedSize = 131976;
            Assert.assertTrue("size = " + bos.size(), bos.size () >  9 * expectedSize / 10);
            Assert.assertTrue("size = " + bos.size(), bos.size () < 11 * expectedSize / 10);

            ByteArrayInputStream  bis = new ByteArrayInputStream(bos.toByteArray());
            ObjectInputStream     ois = new ObjectInputStream(bis);
            DenseOutputModel cm  = (DenseOutputModel) ois.readObject();

            Random random = new Random(347588535632l);
            double maxError = 0.0;
            for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
                double r = random.nextDouble();
                double time = r * pb.getInitialTime() + (1.0 - r) * pb.getFinalTime();
                double[] interpolatedY = cm.getInterpolatedState(time).getPrimaryState();
                double[] theoreticalY  = pb.computeTheoreticalState(time);
                double dx = interpolatedY[0] - theoreticalY[0];
                double dy = interpolatedY[1] - theoreticalY[1];
                double error = dx * dx + dy * dy;
                if (error > maxError) {
                    maxError = error;
                }
            }
            Assert.assertEquals(0.0, maxError, 5.5e-7);
        } catch (ClassNotFoundException | IOException e) {
            Assert.fail(e.getLocalizedMessage());
        }

    }
    private boolean checkAppendError(DenseOutputModel cm,
                                     double t0, double[] y0, double t1)
                                                     throws MathIllegalArgumentException, MathIllegalStateException {
        try {
            DenseOutputModel otherCm = new DenseOutputModel();
            otherCm.handleStep(buildInterpolator(t0, y0, t1));
            cm.append(otherCm);
        } catch(MathIllegalArgumentException iae) {
            return true; // there was an allowable error
        }
        return false; // no allowable error
    }

    private ODEStateInterpolator buildInterpolator(double t0, double[] y0, double t1) {
        return new DummyStepInterpolator(t1 >= t0,
                                         new ODEStateAndDerivative(t0, y0,  new double[y0.length]),
                                         new ODEStateAndDerivative(t1, y0,  new double[y0.length]),
                                         new ODEStateAndDerivative(t0, y0,  new double[y0.length]),
                                         new ODEStateAndDerivative(t1, y0,  new double[y0.length]),
                                         new EquationsMapper(null, y0.length));
    }

    public void checkValue(double value, double reference) {
        Assert.assertTrue(FastMath.abs(value - reference) < 1.0e-10);
    }

    @Before
    public void setUp() {
        pb = new TestProblem3(0.9);
        double minStep = 0;
        double maxStep = pb.getFinalTime() - pb.getInitialTime();
        integ = new DormandPrince54Integrator(minStep, maxStep, 1.0e-8, 1.0e-8);
    }

    @After
    public void tearDown() {
        pb    = null;
        integ = null;
    }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Dihlabeng Christian School is situated in Clarens, a small town on South Africa's northern border with Lesotho. The town is about four hours south of Johanesburg and is 6,000 feet up with stunning scenery where the Drakensburg and Maluti mountains meet.
Our school has developed as part of Dihlabeng Christian Church's belief that it is God's plan to use His Church to change individual lives and impact nations. The school was started in 2000 by Margaret Grant with the aim of serving the poor and bringing hope to the hopeless. Beginning with just seven Basotho children, we met in the garage of a private home until a house in the local township was found. The school grew steadily in 2000 and at the end of the year we had 19 children attending full-time. Growth continued and a larger building became necessary. In July 2001 we moved to our current location, a municipal farm, which gave us space for future expansion.
We now have classes from Pre-School up to Grade 7. In 2019 there are approximately 170 children on role from English, Afrikaans and Basotho communities and over 20 staff from both black and white cultures. Some of our local staff have been sponsored to do their training through generous donations from the UK and overseas. Our multicultural staff team working in harmony serves as a positive role model for the children. We believe we are preparing the next generation to love, respect and learn from other cultures as they grow together. The school, together with the church, also provides an environment in which children can meet Jesus Christ and develop a personal relationship with Him.
To serve the poor and bring hope to the hopeless – the school will be... 'like a shelter from the wind and a refuge in a storm . . . like streams of water in the desert and the shadow of a rock in a thirsty land'. Isaiah 32 v. 2
To break down the hold that poverty has over many families - 'As education increases poverty decreases'
To be a school with growing numbers of children and staff from different nations working together in a strong multicultural team
That a personal belief and faith in God can change people's lives and the lives of others around them
Many of our children's families are very poor, some children do not have parents or their parents do not have jobs. Children from the poorest sectors of the community are offered places
Dihlabeng provides a much wider education than is available at other local schools and is overtly Christian
Sponsorship is sought to help pay for the children's school fees thereby giving them the chance to go to a better school and improve their chances in the future

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Miata has always been cute, but in soul-red paint with 17-inch black wheels, the MX-5 RF is especially sharp.
Mazda channeled Porsche with the latest iteration of its hardtop RF, which stands for retractable fastback.
Forty-six degrees is not convertible weather.
Unless the sun is out in March in the Midwest.
Such a bright appearance after such a gray season provokes people to wear shorts, drink early and smile.
Or, to put the top down at 70 m.p.h. with the heat on low and cozy up in the new hardtop Mazda Miata.
The MX-5 RF is more than just cozy; it is an evolution of the world's best-selling roadster that is as welcome as the spring sun.
Since 1989 the beloved two-seater has charmed drivers with its direct feel, peerless handling and perfect balance of fun and affordability.
Prior to the fourth generation launched for model year 2016, the Miata was also noisy, could be rough depending on the road and lacked technological conveniences. It was a seasonal car, not quite refined enough to hang with the dressier, more expensive roadsters.
Until the black-tie affair known as the MX-5 RF.
The Targa-style roof is made of four parts. The rear part, which maintains the roof line sloping down into the trunk, raises up to swallow the first and second parts of the roof, as well as the rear window, which all collapse into the convertible well; then the rear part resumes its position, so that the air flows more smoothly over the windshield and down the tail.
Previous hardtops used to fold into the space between the headrests and trunk, so the rear was flat.
There is less wind noise with the top down, and less road noise with it up. The top goes down in about 13 seconds at speeds under 6 m.p.h.
The low speed is probably a good thing, because we and our passengers were compelled to watch the mechanical shuffling of the deck. Despite the wizardry, the trunk houses the same 4.6 cubic feet as the soft top — enough for two carry-ons for the weekend getaway.
More important, it is the most gorgeous Miata ever, looking far richer than its fully loaded $33,050 tag. Miata has always been cute, but in soul-red paint with 17-inch black wheels, the MX-5 RF is especially sharp.
Most important, performance is not sacrificed by the use of the RF. It's 5 mm taller, but maintains the perfect 50-50 weight balance and low stance that makes the handling so lovely. It's only about 100 pounds heavier than the soft top, staying under that 2,500-pound threshold that makes its small 155 horsepower four-cylinder engine so potent.
Then there is the six-speed manual transmission. With its short throws, smooth notching and balanced clutch pedal, it is the perfect manual to teach the kids and also to rip away from the confines of the office on the return commute home. It's a car that brightens any day, and the RF in colder temps under overcast skies was almost as fun as with the top down.
The Miata is still a tight fit, especially for the passenger; removing the knee-banging cup holder doesn't help much.
The upside of that tight fit for the driver is everything is within reach. A small knob in the center console controls the audio, phone, navigation and vehicle info settings on the clear 7-inch touch screen. There is no need to actually touch the screen. Mazda Connect is one of the best nonpremium infotainment systems for functionality, and the voice commands in the roadster are superlative.
The MX-5 RF has evolved technologically as well. The instrument cluster houses a 4.6-inch display for trip odometer, roof status and a compass.
Down by the driver's left knee are the buttons for blips and blings of advanced safety features such as lane departure warning, blind spot monitoring and other tech that comes standard on the top Grand Touring trim. The MX-5 RF also comes in Club trim.
Oddly, the test model didn't have a backup camera, which will be mandated on all 2018 models.
Other Miatas could be dismissed as crisis cars by those unfamiliar with their charms. Not so with the RF. It expands the Miata's options for driving in three of the four seasons and for feeling great on the road and looking good around town.
The 9-year-old wanted one, the 10-year-old wanted one, I want one, most onlookers want one, and the RF makes that want justifiable.
Parting shot: The world's best roadster just got better.


text:
<?php

namespace Solution10\ORM\ActiveRecord\Field;

use Solution10\ORM\ActiveRecord\Field;

class Text extends Field
{

}


text:
Safe From Harm: Blue Lines Turns 30
Massive Attack – Blue Lines
Released April 8th, 1991 on Wild Bunch Records and Virgin Records
Produced by Massive Attack and Jonny Dollar
Peaked at #13 UK
"Daydreaming" (#81 UK)
"Unfinished Sympathy" (#13 UK)
"Safe From Harm" (#25 UK)
"Hymn Of The Big Wheel / Be Thankful For What You've Got"
1991 was a watershed year for British electronic music. The Orb's The Orb's Adventures Beyond The Ultraworld turned house music on its head, proving that there was viable artistic merit in a form of music that had been imported from America but had been seen largely as dancefloor filler for the hot UK club circuit. Blue Lines did similar things, only the quartet that made up Massive Attack took a more panoramic view of their influences. It was underground club music, to be sure, but it was also heavily influenced by American hip hop, particularly in view of the sample-heavy view of musical construction. It also slowed it down considerably. Simon Reynolds called these 'spliff tempos' and he's dead on. Hip hop, then and now, runs around 90 bpm; house music runs between 115 and 130. Blue Lines runs a lot slower, bottoming out around 65-70 bpm. If it's true that every party has its drug, a party with Massive Attack is not going to be, say, an amphetamine party. The heady combination of breakbeats, reggae sampling, dub bass, and soul vocals lends itself to another vibe entirely, and it proved a place for downtempo and chillout music in the electronic pantheon.
It's impressive especially from the standpoint of how well it brings in its influences and amalgamates them into its own singular vision. It's not as though hip hop was, by 1991, some unknown and obscure genre. This was the era of NWA, Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, De La Soul and (closer to home) Slick Rick. Wu Tang was only two years away from releasing their world-shaking debut. The club crowds that Massive Attack were calling to had at least some basic familiarity with this stuff, so a rote retread of sample-and-vocal wouldn't have wowed the audience much. The trick is how seamlessly they blended things like breaks, samples, and record scratches into the relentless (if slowed) movement of the club scene. It's something that Blue Lines does exceedingly well. It's the beginning of trip hop, although the media wouldn't coin and obsess over the term for a few more years; it would take releases from Tricky and Portishead before the press would start calling the sounds coming out of Bristol "trip hop", but Blue Lines is a clear beginning of where that sound comes from.
It would also be remiss to mention the 30th anniversary of Blue Lines without mentioning the key role that singer Neneh Cherry played in its creation. It would likely not have been made without her support; she collaborated with the group, bankrolled them (and other Bristol players), and let them record in several rooms of her house. She's also performing backing vocals on the closing track, "Hymn Of The Big Wheel." The next time you fire one up and put the headphones on to listen to something slow and cerebral, spin an extra one up for her.
Tags 30th anniversary, blue lines, breakbeats, bristol, electronic, hip hop, neneh cherry, trip hop
Godspeed You! Black Emperor – G_d's Pee AT STATE'S END!
Round-Up, April 2nd – April 8th


This entry was posted on February 25, 2010 at 10:15 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Conservative Issues, Democrats, Economy, Politics.	You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Fact: it took longer for this recovery to take hold, and for job losses to end, than is historically normal.
Opinion: The stimulus bill was the REASON it took longer to take hold. An alternative explanation is that this recession was much more severe in the first place.
I would not argue that the stimulus helped. But I would reject this analysis as ideology-driven.
Okay. But implicit in your own analysis is that the claim that the stimulus CREATED jobs is itself ideology-driven. And the President of the United States and the Democrat Party are the supreme ideologues in constantly pushing that ideological propaganda. You weren't upset at the million articles reporting all the jobs the stimulus created, but now you're bothered over this one piece as ideologically-driven??? I mean, really?
And of course the fact that only 6% of Americans believe that the stimulus has created ANY jobs means that the people have pretty much spoken on the "success" of the stimulus.
Now, you make a claim to a particularly awful recession.
Some elements of the Obama recession were far worse than the Reagan recession. But then, some elements of the Reagan recession were dramatically worse than the Obama recession.
Inflation, interest rates, and the overall misery index were far higher for Reagan than anything Obama has seen (though many conservatives are pointing out that he's going to bring them back with his policies).
And Jimmy Carter not only acknowledged that he didn't know what to do to solve the problems facing the country, but said he didn't even know if there WAS a solution.
Let's be clear here: the liberal model was completely unable to deal with these economy killers. And Carter acknowledged that inability.
Reagan was mocked and scorned up one side and down the other by liberal economists, but he had a solution that worked.
People tend to forget just how bad – and how structurally, systemically bad at that, things were when Reagan took office. Uncontrollable inflation and interest rates were like a cancer, and unemployment was very nearly as high when Reagan took office as it was when Obama took office.
The Obama administration fearmongered the economy as being the worst since the Great Depression to sell the stimulus. And at the same time they confidently asserted that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8%.
So when the White House claimed the recession "was much more severe" than they thought, what they were saying – based on their own previous claims – was that the recession was actually worse than the Great Depression. Which is absolutely absurd.
Now, in addition to the Investors article and my own comments on it, there's some other reasons to argue that the stimulus actually increased unemployment: just look at how our unemployment rate fared against other countries that refused to undergo a massive stimulus.
You can't ONLY blame the continuing unemployment on the stimulus, of course: Obama has imposed so many regulations and so much uncertainty that businesses are paralyzed, as this article shows.
As a last point, if you want to contemplate "ideologically-driven analysis," consider the mainstream media which is constantly surprised by bad economic news under this president. They are using their favorite adverb – "unexpected" – every single day in myriad ways. There is this unrelenting mindset that things must be doing terrible because Republicans are running things, and another unrelenting mindset that things must be doing better because Democrats are running things.
Here's an article on how the media reported on Reagan vs. Obama when the economic numbers were basically identical.
Bank lending is at its lowest point since 1942, and a terrifying 702 banks are in danger of failing. Unfortunately, that massive Obama stimulus didn't do a dang thing about this situation – which is precisely why Meredith Whitney predicted that unemployment would rise to 13% or HIGHER.
Another bit of "unexpected" news is that new home sales plummeted. And again, the stimulus wasted money that could have been used to help deal with the real estate situation. Now we've blown our wad with the stimulus. The stimulus didn't solve anything, but now we don't have any money to fix the REAL problems.
Then there's the "unexpected news" that consumer confidence is at its lowest point in 27 years. Where's all that Obama hope and change? Where's that confidence in the stimulus???
Re-reading your original post, I realize this: I agree with most of it. I object primarily to your title, "Obama Stimulus Actually Raised Unemployment." That is what is unsupportable.
Our economy has experienced a remarkably swift and strong recovery in the past year. The equity markets are up by 60%, more than $5 trillion. Job losses have gone from 700,000+ per month to even. GDP has gone from severe contraction to significant expansion.
I agree with you that the economy would have started heading in this direction on its own, although most likely more tepidly. I'm not here as a proponent of the stimulus package. If anything, I believe that the TARP and financial system rescue had more to do with the rebound than the stimulus.
Maybe the stimulus did not help. Maybe the money could have been spent better. But to swing the needle all the way to the opposite conclusion — that the stimulus actually RAISED unemployment — seems unsupportable to me. I don't see anything in your post to support it, actually.
I did think of one other thing on my way to work this morning, Mike. "Reagan was mocked and scorned up one side and down the other by liberal economists, but he had a solution that worked." True. But let's recall carefully exactly what was Reagan's solution was.
Federal debt on Reagan's watch went from $907.7 billion (9/30/1980) to $2602.3 billion when he left office (9/30/1988). Yes, part of President Reagan solution was to nearly TRIPLE the US public debt. See it here, direct from the US Treasury: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm.
So, what's the difference between Reagan and Obama? Both are raising spending, both have cut taxes, both are presiding over huge deficits and explosive increases in the federal debt. The question isn't why was Reagan "mocked and scorned up one side and down the other by liberal economists." The question is why wasn't he mocked and scorned by conservative economists.
Tax cutting is not conservative if it is merely replaced with debt. In fact, it is the height of irresponsibility and puts us on a most profoundly destabilizing path. That is the lesson to be learned in these times. We are on the brink of disaster because we have spent and spent and spent, and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed, for 25 years. STARTING WITH REAGAN. Obama is just the quarterback we threw in the game, down by five touchdowns entering the fourth quarter.
You say nothing whatsoever about the fact that "Obama Stimulus Actually Lowered Unemployment" is every bit as unsupportable as you say its opposite is. And yet that has been the Democrat narrative – repeated thousands of times on broadcast and in print – for the last year.
Where were you??? Why aren't you all over the internet attacking those who falsely claimed that not only did the stimulus create jobs, but that it created 2 MILLION jobs???
You have repeatedly tried to present yourself as someone who is above the liberal vs. conservative fray, as one who is only interested in the truth. But you are anything but. Why won't you just acknowledge what you are and be done with the facade?
An increase in GDP is generally a good thing. But it isn't when it is created entirely out of nearly $30 trillion in government debt-spending (the TARP plus what Obama is doing).
Your claim that "Job losses have gone from 700,000+ per month to even" is simply false. Initial jobless claims rose by 22,000 just last week. And there is no indication that unemployment is going to go down.
Even the Obama administration's own numbers acknowledge that unemployment will STILL be higher when Obama leaves office in 2012 than it was when he came in. And even that is with a great many rosy assumptions.
I cited Meredith Whitney as predicting unemployment rising to 13% or higher due to all the problems Obama failed to solve. Problems that he should have solved rather than wasting $862 billion (plus interest) on a stimulus that did nothing but create a liberal slush fund.
I cited some other very troubling facts in my last response.
At best this is a jobless "recovery," which is really, really bad. At worst we are heading for a double dip recession, which would be a nightmare.
And when you take a look at our disastrous consumer confidence, and when you take a look at how close we are to sharing Greece's fate, you realize that maybe you should be reading up on Great Depression history – because it is very likely that we will soon be in Great Depression, Part Deux.
So please don't start patting Obama on the back.
As for your final paragraph, I suppose I'll just have to cry myself to sleep and console myself with the realization that Jesus wasn't able to convince every sinner, and I'll probably not be able to convince every liberal, either.
What you're really saying is that you fail the quiz. You don't have a clue how government works.
Article One of the Constitution of the United States refutes your argument.
Ronald Reagan increased federal spending by exactly zero. Furthermore, Reagan never had control of the House, and he had only intermittent marginal control (and loss of control) of a Senate that changed hands more than once during his presidency.
Reagan could never cut spending the way he wanted, because the Democrats who ran Congress would never have allowed it. Reagan wanted to eliminate whole departments of entrenched bureaucracy (such as the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Energy). The Democrats who held the purse strings wouldn't let him.
This also gets us to the utterly false notion that "Bill Clinton ran a deficit surplus, while George Bush took us deep in the red. Baloney. Rather, the Republican Revolution that swept into power under the Contract with America after only two terrible years of Clinton misrule gave Bill Clinton a deficit-gutting budget to sign for 3/4ths of the Clinton presidency. As an example, Clinton vetoed welfare reform something like three times before he was finally forced to sign it. And then Slick Willy took credit for it as though it were his idea all along! On top of that, Clinton got to cut defense spending because Republicans had just won two wars for him (the Cold War and the first Iraq War). Clinton keeps getting the credit because the mainstream media consists of a bunch of propagandists.
You want to blame someone for all the debt accumulated during the Reagan years, why not blame the Democrat Congress? Why not blame Tip O'Neal? He was the Democrat Speaker of the Democrat House Majority from 1977 until he retired near the very end of the Reagan era. He controlled the purse-strings FAR more than Reagan did. You know, because of that Constitution-thingy.
Reagan didn't spend a penny that old Tippy didn't authorize him to spend.
That said, I took a look at another page in your historical debt section and found the FDR years. Franklin Delanor Roosevelt raised the debt from $22,538,672,560.15 to $258,682,187,409.93.
Mr. Center Square, that is an increase of 1,048%.
And unlike Ronald Reagan, who had to negotiate and compromise (I'll sign your X if you give me my Y), FDR had a total Democrat majority throughout his entire presidency.
Well, Reagan fought a war, too. The biggest, most expensive war ever fought. Ronald Wilson Reagan fought and won the Cold War, a war in which he defeated the mightiest nation that America ever confronted, an enemy that utterly DWARFED Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in size and power.
So if you want to say Reagan was a terrible president because of the deficit, acknowledge that FDR was a minimum of three times worse of a president.
And it's not just Reagan vs. FDR. Here's an article demonstrating that Democrats have increased the national debt to a tune of two-and-a-half-times more than Republicans.
And from the above, you see how disingenuous the Democrats have been about the Bush spending. Because when the spending was at its worst during the years 2006-2008, it was the DEMOCRATS who had both the House and the Senate who were spending it.
FDR's spending blows your theory that we can solve our debt problems by jacking up taxes sky high. How did that work out for him?
1) It is simply a fact that cutting taxes increases tax revenues.
The Bush tax cuts stimulated 52 consecutive months of economic growth.
I should also point out that the states with the highest tax rates currently are the states with the largest revenue shortfalls, whereas good old Texas – which doesn't even HAVE income tax, is one of the healthiest states in the nation.
Even John F. Kennedy recognized that cutting taxes increased tax revenues. So I guess he's a "hypocrite" too.
Cutting taxes raises federal revenues. It's been doing so forever. On the other end, raising taxes cuts federal revenues. It's been doing so forever.
Tax cuts don't create deficits; in fact, they would alleviate deficits if Congress would just cut their spending rather than continuously increase it.
Please don't compare Obama to Reagan. Reagan succeeded wildly, and created a stable economy that lasted through Bush 1, Clinton, and into Bush II.
When Barack Obama creates a trend of prosperity that lasts for nearly twenty years, then you can compare him to Ronald Reagan.
I'm not making the claim that the stimulus reduced unemployment.
Cutting tax rates increases tax revenues. Okay. Then what is your theory why we had massive deficits and a tripling of debt under Reagan?
I understand that. I was pleased and surprised to read it when you said it the first time.
But you HAVE to be aware that the argument that the Obama stimulus was a huge job creator has been THE central claim of the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress. It has been made over, and over, and over again, at the highest levels, and repeated over, and over, and over again by the media.
And my point is that if you want to be "above" the political fray, you should be spending FAR more of your time confronting the Democrats' false claim than you are spending confronting mine – due to the sheer magnitude of the bogus liberal/Democrat claim.
for the sake of argument, let us say that we have "the perfect tax rate," whatever that is (whether it be high like the liberals love, or low like conservatives love).
Now let us say that the Congress spends three times as much as it takes in.
And voila: you have a debt that is three times higher than what you collected in tax revenue. Notice that it doesn't even MATTER how much you collect in taxes: it only matters how much you spend IN RELATION to how much you collect in taxes.
I notice again that you fixate on Regan's "tripling of debt." And I notice you omit mention of FDR's quadrupling of his debt after he tripled it.
The Democrats who Controlled both the House (for all of Reagan's presidency) and the Senate (for much of Reagan's presidency) for had their budget priorities; and Reagan very much wanted those priorities reduced. At the same time, Reagan had HIS priorities (to defeat the Soviet Union and win the Cold War). They both had to give the other what the other wanted to get what they wanted.
I did mention that the U.S.S.R. was the largest, most powerful, and most terrifying of any enemy we have ever faced, didn't I?
Reagan's successful strategy was simple: we could not have a nuclear war. In the nuclear age, that was unthinkable. At the same time, the stalemate was similarly unthinkable to great presidents such as John F. Kennedy. Reagan therefore engaged in a military buildup that broke the Soviet's economically trying to match. We defeated the most powerful military power in the history of the world without firing a shot as their economy imploded.
(4) JFK took the Cold War seriously, but in the right way, and over the right issues. Berlin was important (because it did involve serious issues of not appeasing a superpower bully, whose appetite might then only be whetted for more); Vietnam (which was increasingly apparent to be a local civil war and not truly a vital superpower issue) was not. JFK wanted to defeat communism, but NOT on the battlefield…he wanted to defeat them in the Space Race, the ultimate superpower propaganda contest in which national greatness and the validity of two competing systems were going to be measured by technological prowess and economic strength, not by a destructive war. JFK wanted to promote the positive values of the West and the USA through volunteer service…through the Peace Corps.
Reagan's "Star Wars" is nothing if not a "Space Race." And for what it is worth, it was Reagan who inspired me to volunteer to serve in the United States Army.
Such a race/buildup is not cheap. Far from it. But the greatest Republican president of modern history, and the greatest Democrat president in modern history, both agreed that it had to be done.
It's not enough to say that Reagan and Kennedy were merely the greatest presidents in modern history, either. According to the Gallup poll, Reagan was the greatest president ever, and Kennedy is right behind him, tied with Lincoln. It would seem to me that these men, and their policies, merit the upmost of respect.
And, as I have pointed out before, JFK also stood for cutting taxes in order to increase federal tax revenues.
Thus, the two greatest presidents, certainly in modern history at least, across party lines, agreed on this principle that lowering taxes increased tax revenues.
The Laffer Curve isn't merely a theory: it is an illustration of a simple fact (here is a pretty good and yet pretty short article on it). If you tax people at 100% of their income, how much will you collect in revenue? Very quickly, it will be zero. Why? Would YOU continue to work and labor and produce when you aren't allowed to keep ANYTHING? Of course not. You'd stop working and the economy would cease to exist. At the same time, if the tax rate was 0%, we'd have all kinds of economic production, but the government would starve. What you are looking for is the "sweet spot" in which taxes maximize revenues. At this level, the government collects the most in revenue, and the workers/investors get to keep the most in earnings.
There are two "sweet spots" presented in the curve where you collect about the same revenues. But in the first, lower rate, compliance is fairly easy, and more people pay their taxes. At the second, higher rate, people don't want to pay, and shelter their money and do things to avoid paying.
I can go to liberals such as John and Teresa Kerry (see here and here), Oprah Winfrey, and Michael Moore, to demonstrate that even liberals will do everything they can to protect their money from taxes. Which amounts to a beautiful illustration of the accuracy and wisdom of the Laffer curve.
I'm not sure what your Reagan analysis is supposed to mean. That he would have been fiscally responsible, except he had good reasons not to be (the Soviet threat)? Or that he would have been fiscally responsible, except for the other political party?
You think people 30 years from now won't say that Obama had good reasons to run huge deficits and inflate the debt? What's the difference?
I'm surprised that you have so much difficulty understanding something that is actually rather quite simple.
My "Reagan analysis" means that Reagan didn't spend us into massive deficits – as you incorrectly claimed. He didn't spend anything. The Congress – which was controlled by Democrats – spent us into massive deficits. That is simply a fact of our Constitutional system, and if you don't understand that, you ought to learn. Start by reading Article 1 of the Constitution. As a corollary to that, it wasn't Clinton that gave us a budget surplus, it was the Republican Congress that took over and imposed the Contract with America; and I should now mention that Barack Obama has had – unlike Reagan – nothing but an overwhelming Democrat majority in both the House and Senate such that Democrats and ONLY Democrats are to blame for the current shockingly massive deficit spending. I ALSO pointed out that if you're going to damn Reagan as a bad president for "tripling" the deficit, would you at least have the courtesy for damning FDR for multiplying the deficit he inherited by a dozenfold? I'd appreciate the integrity.
Don't you dare demonize Reagan for tripling the deficit, and lionize FDR who tripled the deficit, and then tripled it again nearly FOUR TIMES.
Well, Reagan fought a war, too.
I gave the "Soviet threat" stuff and the Cold War spending merely to counter any potential charge that FDR multiplied the debt by a dozenfold only because he was a president at war. When the fact of the matter is that Reagan was a president at war, too. Quite a few argue that the Cold War was World War III. It's largely a matter of semantics, but there's no question that the Cold War dominated every president's foreign policy for 45 years. Every president had fought the Cold War; Reagan came up with the strategy that WON it. And without the billions of casualties most people expected.
Not every administration has to fight wars. Clinton didn't have to fight wars, because Reagan and Bush I won them for him. So, no, it's NOT every administration.
Somehow Bush got all the blame, but it was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who did all the actual spending. And when Republicans have been in charge of Congress – regardless of which party was in the White House – spending has been far lower. When Democrats have been in charge of Congress – regardless of which party was in power – spending has been FAR, FAR higher.
The truth is that Mr. Bush's deficits were the product of spending, not tax cuts. In fact, Mr. Obama could learn an important lesson for his own economic plan by studying Mr. Bush's two very different attempts at tax-cutting.
As the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore illuminates in his 2008 book "The End of Prosperity" (Threshold Editions), Mr. Bush's 2001 tax cuts failed to revive an economy still staggering from the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Mr. Bush's strategy had been to adopt a demand-side, Keynesian stimulus, hoping that putting a few extra dollars in Americans' pockets would jump-start the economy through increased consumption. This approach faltered, not just because Americans opted to save their rebates, but because it neglected the importance of business investment to overall growth. Predictably, the economy lagged and government revenues stagnated. What the United States needed then (and needs now) was to stimulate investment, not consumption.
By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush allowed Congress to spend away those additional tax revenues. The fact is that the increase in tax revenues that flowed from the '03 tax cuts could have paid for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and then some but for rampant discretionary domestic spending.
Ironically, Mr. Obama is in danger of repeating Mr. Bush's early economic missteps, albeit on a grander scale. Like Mr. Bush in 2001, Mr. Obama based much of his ill-fated stimulus package on tax rebates but compounded this error by sending checks to Americans with no tax liability and by adding in costly government make-work projects. He also increased discretionary spending in his first year in office faster than Mr. Bush, all the while proposing a trillion-dollar health care plan and a financially ruinous cap-and-trade bill. He is now calling for a "jobs bill," which is the White House's new lingo for a second Keynesian-style stimulus (or third, counting Mr. Bush's 2008 stimulus), pushing the 2010 deficit to an all-time record level.
Worse still, Mr. Obama's $3.8 trillion budget for 2011 would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, imposing new prosperity-killing taxes on businesses, investors and individuals. The president would do better to follow his predecessor and embrace the winning strategy of supply-side tax cuts. He even might find that Americans would welcome this new story line. After all, liberal economic fairy tales are growing tiresome, even for Massachusians.
In any event, let's set aside who was responsible for the massive deficits and skyrocketing debt we saw beginning in the mid-1980s. Factually, it happened. It seems like we should either be willing to accept persistent deficits and the accumulation of debt in both the Reagan and Obama eras, or we should decry them in both. Personally, I decry them both.
Increased federal spending? Reagan-era: check; Obama-era: check.
Decreased taxes? Reagan-era: check; Obama-era: check.
Substantially increased federal deficits? Reagan-era: check; Obama-era: check.
So why do you draw different conclusions between the two cases?
Typo: I meant the last one to be: Substantially increased federal DEBT? Reagan-era: check; Obama-era: check.
P.S.: Perhaps your post here should be re-titled. Not "Obama Stimulus Actually Raised Unemployment," but rather "Congressional Stimulus Actually Raised Unemployment." Article I of the Constitution, and all that.
P.P.S: This is a fascinating bit of federal fiscal history. You mentioned Clinton and Gingrich. Did you know that, of the four Congresses with which Clinton worked, federal spending rose the most slowly during the first? Yep. Gingrich got there, and spending accelerated.
There is blinding orthodoxy that the Reaganites, Gingrich included, were great constrainers of government. Hardly. They were tax cutters, not spending cutters.
Here's the deal: Technically, Congress should both get credit for the tax cuts, and "credit" for the spending. It was in their power to authorize both. The President cannot impose either. The only thing he CAN do is veto something Congress sends him that he doesn't like.
That said, Reagan wanted the tax cuts, pushed for them, negotiated for them, and compromised to get them. At the same time, he wanted to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, for example. And the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted more spending. And they gave Reagan what he wanted in exchange for Reagan giving them some of what they wanted.
Still surprised why this is so hard for you to understand.
Reagan wanted tax cuts, and the same sort of defense/Star Wars spending JFK wanted (as per my earlier comment). The Democrat Congress wanted a bunch of social spending. Reagan negotiated with a hostile Congress to try to achieve the best deal he could get at the lowest cost.
Did Obama have to negotiate and compromise with a hostile Senate? Is Obama the arch, uber-conservative, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid the stark raving liberals? Or are Pelosi and Reid the arch, uber-conservatives and Obama the stark raving liberal?
Neither. Obama is in total ideological agreement with his fellow Democrats.
And that's what separates him, and the deficits created by this Congress, from Ronald Reagan.
You never bothered to explain to me 1) why you attacked the idea that the Obama stimulus cost jobs but never attacked the constantly propagated view that the Obama stimulus created jobs – even though you acknowledged that it DIDN'T create jobs.
You never bothered to explain why you are at home with being an ideologue yourself, a guy who attacks only one side, but never the other. Where are your articles on the "Obama's stimulus created 2 million jobs" lies? Where are your articles stating that Obama and the Democrats have been lying to the American people??? Which frankly is why I should reject your "analysis" as ideology-driven by your own reasoning.
And 2) you never bothered to address the fact that if Reagan's tripling of the deficit was so bad, then why wasn't it a literal crime against humanity that Franklin Delanor Roosevelt multiplied the deficit by 11.5 times (basically, he tripled the deficit, and then quadrupled what he'd tripled).
By your own analysis, FDR is the worst president in American history, and should be excoriated, and his New Deal reviled. No president EVER raised the deficit as much as FDR – although the turkey we have now is on pace to break the FDR deficit record.
And 3) you've never bothered to deal with the fact that both JFK and Ronald Reagan – our two greatest presidents according to Gallup polling – were both tax cutters, and both believed that cutting taxes increased federal revenue.
But you haven't been intellectually honest. I've raised all three of these points several times, and you just pretend they don't exist.
Which is why I'm frankly done arguing with you. I've dealt with every point you've raised, and you've ignored most every point I've raised. I'm bored with you. I've given you plenty of opportunity to make your points. I'm not going to keep arguing with you forever. Which is why I'm not going to allow any more comments from you on this issue.
As per your first P.S., technically, there's no question you're right. The only qualifier (but it's an awfully BIG qualifier), is that Obama wanted every single penny of the massive spending that his current Democrat Congress imposed over staunch Republican objections. And for that matter, as Senator Obama he voted for most of the giant spending of the last Congress under Bush before being elected president, with the capstone being TARP.
In other words, it was Congress that voted to spend the trillions of dollars of debt, but Obama not only cheered for it – he BEGGED for it. He pushed HARD for his stimulus. He pushed HARD for his omnibus bill. Etc.
Big difference from Reagan. Don't know why you can't understand that.
As for the P.P.S., when Bill Clinton was elected,the country was just emerging from a severe recession.
The fact of the matter – and this is a FACT – is that the Bush I recession was COMPLETELY OVER even before the 1992 election. Not that the mainstream media did anything to help Bush out by broadcasting that message.
Bill Clinton began his presidency with an economy recovered from recession and beginning to hum along.
When you have a recession, you have a downturn in productivity and the GDP. When you begin a recovery, you are 1) starting from a much lower base, and 2) therefore have a far higher percentage growth even though the recovery might be lower in absolute dollar terms.
An obvious example: say I have 1 penny, and after work and investment, I get a second penny. That is a phenomenal 100% increase in growth. Boy did I do great!
Now suppose I already had two pennies (representing a stronger economy), and get that same additional penny. I got the same absolute gain, but that only represents an extremely disappointing (by comparison) 50% increase in the rate of growth.
That's what your surface-impressive growth rate leaves out.
Low starting point + recovery = a much higher growth rate than a higher starting point + a recovery.
Kind of obvious, I would think.
It's also interesting that you think it right to pat Bill Clinton on the back for his wonderful first two years in office, when the American people were so furious with him that they voted out Democrats in the largest political landslide in American history after those "wonderful" two years.
For the record, here is a study demonstrating which Party's Congress have been more fiscally responsible over the last 30 years.
I don't address those issues because those aren't the point I am making. The point I am making is that our spending and our deficits have grown, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats have been in control of either Congress or the White House. Everything I have posted is consistent with that, and all the facts support that contention.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that Repubicans produce spending cuts and balanced budgets, and Democrats produce spending growth and deficits. Nothing in our modern history supports that.
I'm not here to defend Democrats. I don't have any opposite-leaning blog posts, because no one is out there claiming Democrats are cutting spending and balancing budgets. If I ever see such a post, I will critique it as surely as I have critiqued yours.
I'm going to allow your comment just because it illustrates how truly hopeless a discussion with you is.
You seem to think that I should have to answer all your questions and challenges, but you shouldn't be in any way required bother with any of mine. You seem to think that you should be able to come to my blog and engage me in a debate which you get to shape entirely on your own terms.
Challenge 1) There was a smoking gun in your hand.
Challenge 2) There was a corpse on the floor at your feet.
Challenge 3) The bullet was fired from the gun in your hand, and the victim's blood was found splattered on your clothes.
That tactic wouldn't work in a courtroom, and it won't work here.
In a reasonable discussion, both sides get to make points. And both sides have to respond to the other's points. But you aren't interested in a reasonable discussion. You aren't interested in give and take. You ask the questions and demand the answers, and ignore my questions altogether. I don't get to ask questions or cross-examine you. Only your "point" counts.
You say (yet again), "I'm not here to defend Democrats." And yet that is ALL you've been doing. And in point of fact, it is all you have EVER done in every single discussion you've ever had with me on this blog.
It's that whole, "Are you going to believe me, or are you going to believe your lying eyes" thing. I believe what I've seen you do over and over again, rather than in your self-righteous denials.
Heck, how about if I say "I'm not here to defend Republicans?" I'd be just as "honest" as you.
The difference between you and I is that we both have a very clear perspective, but only I am honest enough to actually acknowledge it.
You aren't any different from Obama. You depict yourself as majestically transcending the petty political divides that are just so far beneath you, when in reality you are every bit the ideologue. At the health care summit, Obama deceitfully presented himself as the moderator of the event, when in reality he was a doctrinaire liberal who couldn't have been more completely on the Democrats' side. That's what you constantly try to do.
I'll end with this: Re-read your comment, Far Left Square. You tell me all about your "point," namely, "that our spending and our deficits have grown, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats have been in control." Now go back to your first comment that started our argument: that wasn't the damn point you were making. And in point of fact, in your self-righteous post here, you don't even ALLUDE to the actual point you were making!!!
I'm sorry. Did I miss something in there? Where's that point "that our spending and our deficits have grown, regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats have been in control of either Congress or the White House" that you claim to have been making all along???
In my response to that first post I legitimately pointed out out the hypocrisy underlying your argument: that it was FINE with you when the Democrats and Obama spend the last YEAR falsely claiming that the stimulus created 2 million jobs; but that a conservative making the argument that the stimulus actually created MORE unemployment than jobs was unacceptable and had to be confronted.
So what you are doing here is erecting a total straw man, to artificially present yourself as being all hoity-toity transcendentally bipartisan that "neither side is perfect," with me defending some idiot's point (as though I actually ever said, "Republicans always produce spending cuts and balanced budgets"). What I said to that regard – and in fact what I documented in my comments – is that Republicans have done a much better job of at least TRYING to do that than Democrats.
Now I'm done with you, and have good reason to be.
You have flat-out told me here that you see no reason whatsoever to respond to any point that you don't like. You won't deal with any objections that might confront or even contradict your ideology. You claimed that Reagan was a proof of your "point" because he tripled the deficit, but you refused to deal with the fact that FDR tripled the deficit and then quadrupled the deficit he had tripled. Why not? Because it tears your Reagan "point" apart, that's why. And you're just not capable of dealing with being refuted. Easier to just ignore it and go on talking like it never happened.
There's no point whatsoever in having a discussion with somebody who pointedly ignores any point or argument or fact you make that he doesn't want to deal with.
So buh-bye, Far Left Square.
Well, I guess I feel the same way. I don't see how "FDR tripled the debt" rebuts the fact that Reagan did. And I don't understand why explosive deficits under Democratic presidents are catastrophic, but the same thing under Republican presidents is laudable. I don't understand why I can't be against bad fiscal policies from both parties. Maybe you're right that we can't have this discussion.
Again, this guy does a wonderful job of proving my point for me.
Center Square went after Reagan's deficit – and anyone can go back to his comments to verify this for themselves – NOT to merely suggest that Republicans aren't perfect either, as he falsely claims; but rather to present the liberal talking point that Reagan's Republican policies were to blame for ballooning the deficit. Center Square tried to maintain that Reagan's tax cuts created the deficit – which is doctrinaire liberal ideology.
I brought up the example of FDR from the SAME website Center Square used to demonstrate that FDR not only "tripled" the deficit, as he had accused Reagan of doing, but multiplying the deficit by 11.5 TIMES. Which is to say that FDR not only "tripled" the deficit, but tripled it, and then quadrupled it AFTER he'd tripled it.
But Center Square – who continuously falsely presents himself as being neither liberal nor conservative – can't be fair with facts. So after I repeatedly pointed out that FDR had multiplied the deficit so much worse than ANYONE EVER DID – which stands as a direct refutation of DEMOCRAT policies – suddenly that point didn't matter.
Center Square refused to even acknowledge it. And now when he does, he cites it as though FDR merely "tripled" the debt to put him at parity with Reagan.
That gets me to the second thing: Center Square loves his straw men.
So Center Square presents the beauty that he's merely saying, "I don't understand why I can't be against bad fiscal policies from both parties," whereas I'm allegedly somehow arguing that only Democrats have ever been guilty of bad fiscal policies and Republicans are perfect.
Again, that is just a transparent lie.
There's no question that Republicans could have been a lot better in the past. And there's no question that they won't be perfect in the future. There's also no question that the only thing worse than Republican control is Democrat control – and the American people are starting to understand that fact in larger and larger numbers.
Does that sound like someone doesn't think there are "bad fiscal policies from both parties"??? That's not the thesis that was being debated – and Center Square is entirely dishonest for suggesting that it is.
Rather, the issue was which party was more responsible for the staggering deficits and debts that face us. And I documented that it was Democrats far and away.
Center Square is not merely a liberal; he is a dishonest liberal who tries to masquerade as something that he is not (some kind of transcendent moderate who only cares about reason and fairness). And even as he disingenuously presents himself as someone who transcends political ideology even as he routinely embraces leftist political positions, he also disingenuously tries to caricature his opponent's position in the form of stupid and extremist Republican straw men.
Which is why I don't want to have anything more to do with him.


Click here to fill out the Counselor Check In Form. You must be logged in with your (studentID)@jeffcoschools.us Google ID.
Our comprehensive counseling program strives to serve all students through collaboration, nurturing relationships by putting students first. We recognize, respect, and trust in our students' ability to succeed through valuing our students' journeys. We strategize with students individually in planning for graduation goals through our accelerated program that responds to their unique needs. We empower our students to explore post-secondary options and believe in their potential to grow into responsible citizens as well as innovative leaders to guide the 21st century.
We believe students deserve respect and compassion.
We believe we are advocates for our students, learning from their journey and supporting them through the next steps.
We believe all students can succeed at Brady and beyond.


Port Gamble S'Kallam artist Jeffery Veregge's exhibit will hang at the National Museum of the American Indian in New York City through October.
A walk through the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian in New York City now takes you past a striking battle scene, played out on two 50-foot walls: Aliens have invaded New York City and superheroes like Captain America, Spider-man, Hulk, Miss Marvel, Iron Man, Thor and Black Widow charge into battle.
The exhibit, meticulously illustrated by the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe's Jeffrey Veregge, is a crowning achievement, a testament to how widely Veregge's artistic talents are now recognized. Veregge's name will hang alongside "Of Gods and Heroes" on the walls of the New York museum through October.
"As a kid you draw these epic battle scenes in class – your lined paper, you're drawing – never would I have thought I'd be doing it on a 50-foot wall," he said.
And at the Smithsonian no less?
As his career progressed, Veregge had reached out to the Smithsonian at one point and told them point blank, "Someday I want to have my art there in your museum," he said. Officials there were familiar with his artwork and contributions drawing for Marvel Comics and eventually they asked him, "What would you do with these walls?" he said.
It was clear he should draw the Marvel characters that have become such a big part of his life. Marvel agreed and gave him permission to use all the characters he requested, and Veregge worked with the two groups to come up with two elongated pieces that imitate comic book panels.
One features a cover with S'Klallam characters that translate to "Stories of Suspense" alongside story boxes. The other panel, a splash page, shows the heroes charging into battle.
The two pieces show the familiar Marvel characters drawn with Veregge's own flair and elements of Salish art, according to Kathleen Ash-Milby, an associate curator with the Smithsonian who helped to bring Veregge's art to the museum.
Where does the exhibit rank in Veregge's list of career accomplishments, which includes drawing for comics houses like Marvel, IDW and Valiant, and creating DemiCon, his own comic series?
"This is the top right now," he said.


text:
Elaine Avinoam
Instructional Technology Coach
Christopher Clesca
Nicholas Spiegler
Adam Merten
Stephanie Phekoo
Instructional Technology Coach & Manager of Programming
Robert Flanigan
Stacey Schultz
Sharon Johnsen
Senior Instructional Technology Coach
Nick Zaveri
Director of Coaching & Development
Michael Kovitz
Kyle Liao
Instructional Technology Coach & Director of Community Growth
Emily Kirsch
Instructional Technology Coach & Manager of Community Outreach
Anna Katsnelson-Fuks
Marie Medina
Frank Hardart
Elaine Avinoam has worked as an educator for over thirty years in public schools, universities and museums on three continents. Certified in both social studies and art, Elaine spent the past thirteen years teaching social studies and digital art in Hastings on Hudson, New York. Prior to that she was a founding teacher at the High School of Contemporary Arts in the Evander Childs complex in the Bronx, where she taught for three years. Her work in both schools focused on the use of digital media in the classroom to catalyze literacy and content comprehension. Elaine has also been engaged in professional development for many years. She has coached teachers and led numerous K12 workshops in the USA, Brazil and Europe. Originally trained as an art historian, Elaine's US experience also includes work as a museum professional at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Elaine lived abroad for fifteen years, during which time she held the position of Cultural Programmer at the Carl Schuz Haus Deutsch Americanisches Institut in Freiburg, Germany, taught at universities and published, and even worked as an architectural historian in Sao Paulo State, Brazil.
Elaine also enjoys writing and occasionally publishes an article or presents at a conference about art, history, or both. A strong believer in experiential learning, Elaine has also written site-specific curriculum and led countless field trips and tours to museums and historical sites in the USA and Europe. In her spare time she can often be found in NY museums talking about art to small groups or cooking for family and friends. She is a proud graduate of Oberlin College and the Courtauld Institute of the University of London.
She loves children, art, history, music, New York City and a good laugh. She once saw a sign that said: "Use the light in your soul to illuminate the dim places on earth" and thought that it made a good motto for her!
In her free time she often visits museums, galleries, or artists' studios. Travel and exploration have always been a big part of her life, and she hosts a lot of international visitors — showing them around, giving her a chance to practice her various languages, and always results in a good meal. She also enjoys cooking, hiking, reading, and doing yoga. Mostly, she is happiest spending time with her family and friends. She has three wonderful boys, and they all share her love of history and travel!
Chris is motivated by his desire to bring good into the world and truly believes in the power of education to do so. He uses his years of teaching experience to support other educators who are working to provide a quality education to all students. Chris understands the importance of honoring all forms of intelligence and believes that technology can be a powerful support when integrated effectively into instruction.
Chris looks back on his own school days in Union County, NJ fondly, where he learned the importance of diversity and grew to be the person he is his today. He often remembers his favorite teacher and continues to be inspired by his unique ability to make learning personal. Chris' teacher also taught his students to embrace failure as an opportunity to learn. This belief, along with his ability to adapt to all situations follow Chris into his professional life.
When not coaching in schools, Chris enjoys spending time with his wife, Megan, who is also an educator, and their small "zoo" of pets. Chris also has a special place in his heart for soccer, having coached multiple seasons over the past ten years.
Nick is motivated by making teachers comfortable with embracing new methods of delivery through technology. He continues to develop innovative learning strategies and enjoys sharing best practices with colleagues and those professionals he works alongside.
Throughout his years as an educator and now as an instructional technology coach, Nick's enthusiasm for learning, coupled with his desire to make the classroom a productive and enjoyable environment motivates him to support educators to individualize instruction to meet the needs of every student. He feels that a teacher must find ways to connect to students in order to open them up to innovations in learning.
Nick enjoys spending time with his wife Nicole, his daughter Angelina and their dog Kassie. He plays baseball and is a huge Mets fan. His other interests include football, trivia, golf, hiking, working out and photography.
Fairfax County Public Schools, Herndon, VA – 5th Grade – 2015-2018
Lawrence School District, Long Island, NY- Middle School Social Studies – 2014-2015
Harlem Children's Zone, Harlem, NY – 6th Grade – 2013-2014
Vincent Smith School, Long Island, NY – High School Social Studies – 2010-2012
Long Island University – M.S. Elementary Education & Childhood Special Education
SUNY Old Westbury – B.A. Adolescent Education in Social Studies
Adam grew up in a small town in central New Jersey. He doesn't remember many of his teachers as especially interesting or helpful, but his 6th-grade teacher made a lasting impact. She taught him about everything from tofu to manners to getting through dense crowds of people. Many of her sayings still ring in his head today. Knock yourself right out.
Adam is motivated to help teachers work more effectively and efficiently through the innovative use of technology. He believes that 21st century teaching and learning should be fun, and it's his goal to make them that way.
He believes also that the best learning happens in the context of rich projects, real problems, and deep thinking. In some ways, a great class is so immersed in learning that it is surprised by the bell.
Outside of coaching, Adam enjoys spending time with his wife and son. His strangest talent is being able to play songs by flicking his throat. He also plays drums and loves to write.
2009 Teach for America Corps Member (NYC)
8 years teaching experience (including founding two third-grade cohorts and leading a grade team)
Program Manager at Practice Makes Perfect
B.A., English, University of Connecticut
M.S.Ed., Hunter College
As an Instructional Technology Coach, Stephanie helps talented teachers master digital tools to deepen their teaching repertoire. With a rich career as an instructional specialist, educational coordinator, and as a teacher herself, she encourages educators to inspire a love of learning in those they teach. Also an active student, Stephanie is currently writing her dissertation at Hofstra University. Her research explores how teachers can support student development of executive function in the classroom.
Digital tools revolutionized Stephanie's approach to teaching–inspiring her to advocate for more technology in the classroom. She values edtech for its ability to enhance collaboration, provide immediate feedback, and allow students to drive their own progress as independent learners. Stephanie grew up outside of Philadelphia; she now lives in Queens, NY, with her husband and two dogs. When not exploring New York City or visiting family in Philly, she loves taking road trips, hiking, and visiting wineries in upstate New York.
Instructional Strategies Specialist, IDE Corp (2015-2016)
Middle School Coordinator, Growing Up Green Charter School (2014-2015)
Curriculum Implementation Specialist, Mosaica Education Incorporated (2011-2014)
Teacher and Instructional Specialist, The School District of Philadelphia (2005-2011)
EdD in Learning and Teaching, Hofstra University (2014-2018)
MA in Educational Administration and Supervision, Chestnut Hill College (2008-2010)
BA in Early Childhood/Education, Temple University (2000-2005)
Bob founded Educate with Frank Hardart because they shared a vision and saw a problem. The vision: every child in every school deserves a chance to succeed. The problem: teachers were equipped with technology, but lacked the support to use it and transform education. Digital tools are more affordable than ever—but schools need guidance to realize their potential. As one of two partners at Educate, Bob works with school leaders to realize these goals and define the process of tech coaching, while supporting coaches and managing the company's internal organization.
Coming from the corporate finance worlds of Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan, Bob knows that teamwork is essential to accomplishing anything meaningful. As a father of four freewheeling children, he knows that every single student is someone's beloved child. Raised in Westchester County, Bob lives there today with his wife and kids, where he enjoys hiking, fishing, camping, and exploring the outdoors.
Founded advisory boards for several South Bronx parochial schools
Chairman of The Curran Principal Academy
M.M., Finance and Marketing, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
B.A., History, Dartmouth College
A seasoned and accomplished educator, Stacey combines a rich set of teaching skills with a contagious enthusiasm for learning. She believes in fostering equity in the classroom; Stacey recognizes that each student has different needs, feels more engaged when the curriculum reflects their culture, and deserves to be challenged in their learning. She promotes this mindset among other educators in her role as an ITC.
As Manager of Curriculum Design, Stacey develops courses to help teachers and coaches integrate technology into teaching in meaningful ways. She loves guiding teachers to reach their personal goals and motivating students to engage deeply in their own learning. Stacey grew up in Philadelphia and now lives in Brooklyn with her husband, their three kids, and their border collie.
Co-Founder, Focus Educational Coaching, Brooklyn, NY (2014-Present)
Teachers College, Columbia University, Inclusive Education Coach (2012-2016)
Teachers College, Columbia University, Adjunct Professor in Curriculum and Teaching (2012-2015)
Middle and High School Special Education Teacher, Inclusion Coordinator and Director of Special Education, NYC DOE (2002-2012)
M.S. Ed Childhood Education, College of Staten Island, NY (2005)
M.S. Ed Special Education, College of Staten Island, NY (2005)
Growing up in New York and moving often, Sharon Johnsen's early school years were a blur. One memory sticks out: her high school guitar teacher patiently encouraging her, emphasizing self-guided learning, and letting each student progress at his or her own pace. That approach left an indelible impact on Sharon, as she saw the power of differentiated, individualized instruction to meet the needs of every student.
Now, in her role at Educate, Sharon is a champion of instructional technology, always searching out new tools and strategies to share with her schools. She relishes those moments when the faces of the principals, teachers, and students she works with light up—all because the technology helped something click and made a difference in their lives. A New York City native and former public school teacher, Sharon also manages the Staten Island team, coordinating with the regional superintendent and instructional leaders. Married to the love of her life, Sharon spends her spare time reading novels, watching TV and movies, and playing trivia games in preparation of her lifelong dream of being a contestant on Jeopardy.
Teacher, Sylvan Learning Center (2002-2009)
Teacher, New York Public Schools (2003-2008)
B.S. Education, New York University
M.S. Instructional Technology, New York Institute of Technology
For Nick, education is about empowerment. In his management role at Educate, he creates internal training programs that encourage educators to direct their own learning. Nick champions strong instructional practices, where teachers learn in the same environment as their students. He knows experts flourish when allowed freedom; while he sets clear expectations of his team, he urges them to adopt the best learning approach for their individual style.
Nick feels blessed to have had many amazing mentors—people who taught him to look beyond the textbook. However, his parents remain his greatest teachers. His father taught him self-discipline; his mother taught him to stay optimistic under even the hardest circumstances. Nick lives in New Jersey with his wife and daughter. He loves to read, take long walks, and discover new places.
Instructional Technology Coach, Educate LLC (2008-present)
Assistant Director (Education), Huntington Learning Center (2005-2008)
B.A. Journalism & Mass Media, Rutgers University (1997-2001)
Michael understands that one size does not fit all: there's no one way to teach students—or coach teachers. In that spirit, he adapts his approach to every teacher, classroom, and school in his role as an instructional technology coach. Championing every child's right to a great education, Michael helps administrators set instructional priorities and coaches teachers to enhance student engagement through technology.
Before joining Educate as an ITC in 2008, Michael worked as a technology integration specialist for Locust Valley School District in his native Long Island. A trained gymnast with Olympic aspirations in his youth, Michael is an active musician with several albums recorded under a secret pseudonym. Today, he lives in Putnam County with his wife, two teenage sons, and their English Bulldog, Talulah Belle.
Technology Teacher & Tech Integration Specialist, Locust Valley Central School District (2003-2008)
A.A.S. Business Administration, SUNY Farmingdale
B.S. Television and Radio Communications, SUNY Oneonta
Kyle believes teachers are facilitators of learning, not oracles of knowledge. As an Instructional Technology Coach, he equips teachers to help students become masters of their own education. Having seen how edtech make a real difference, Kyle skillfully harnesses that drive to help teachers reach transformational career growth. He knows how to inject technology into excellent teaching frameworks. G Suite for Education is his go-to edtech toolkit—Kyle values the way it facilitates student achievement through personalized and small-group learning.
Kyle sees education as a community of networks—a community we can galvanize through collaboration. While participating in Startup Weekend EDU, he helped create Bloop! News, a news app that inspires kids to engage with current events. Kyle is now an avid supporter of education startups. He advocates for stronger partnerships between edtech companies—perfectly positioning him to drive Educate's growth as Manager of Strategic Partnerships. A lifelong New Yorker, Kyle lives in Queens with his fiancé. In his downtime he loves to cycle, rock climb, or simply get lost in a good book.
Co-organizer of Startup Weekend EDU, NYC (June 2016)
Founder, Bloop! News for Kids, NYC (2013-2014)
ELA Teacher, Harlem Children's Zone, NYC (2011-2013)
M.A. Instructional Technology, Columbia University Teachers College
B.A. Secondary Education and English Literature, SUNY Geneseo
Certifications: Google Certified Trainer, Initial Teaching Certification, NYC License
Drawing from her diverse background as an educator, Emily Kirsch approaches her role as an instructional technology coach with flexibility, patience, and creative thinking. As a teacher, Emily witnessed firsthand the impact that well-integrated technology had on the achievement of her students—promoting engagement and improving performance. She's particularly passionate about the ways in which technological tools can level the playing field for all students, allowing them to participate fully despite adversity.
Proficient in a wide range of tools, Emily believes in the importance of developing positive, one-on-one relationships with each student, then finding opportunities to let their creativity shine. Emily is a proud aunt to two adorable nephews and an intrepid explorer of the great outdoors. A former music educator, she continues to foster her creative side through singing, piano, and guitar.
Teacher for Harrison Central School District
Private Kindergarten Teacher for KinderCare Learning Center
K-6 General Music and Instrumental Instructor at Marion Central School District
Band Director and Instrumental Instructor for Canandaigua City Schools
M.A. Elementary Education, Warner School of Education, University of Rochester
B.Mus. Music Education, Mansfield University
Growing up as an English Language Learner, Anna experienced first hand the impact differentiated instruction can have on a student's learning experience. She will be the first to tell you that her memories of her public school education are filled with teachers who set high expectations for her and genuinely believed that given the right tools she could reach them.This belief has been at the core of all that Anna does. Throughout her years as an ELA teacher and now as an instructional technology coach, Anna's practices stem from knowing that students and educators alike can achieve anything given the proper supports.
Anna's love of learning lead her to join the Educate team. As technology is forever changing, there are always new tools and strategies for Anna to explore and add to her toolkit so that she can share best practices with her fellow educators. She hopes that by finding the right tools to engage students, she can help inspire that same love of learning in future generations. Anna lives on Staten Island with her husband Charles and their dog Abel. When not spending time with her family and friends, Anna enjoys exploring New York City, hiking, and traveling to new places.
English Language Arts SHSAT Teacher , Mini Ivy Tutoring Center in New York, NY (2014-2016)
English Language Arts Teacher grades 3-8, Big Apple Academy in Brooklyn, NY (2012-2016)
Early Childhood Lead Teacher, Jewish Community Center in Staten Island, NY (2011-2012)
M.S. in Ed, Childhood General and Special Education, Bankstreet College of Education
B.A. Psychology, Binghamton University
Marie feels fortunate to have been supported by passionate educators who sparked in her a love of learning that continues to guide her today. Her experiences as a student led her to pursue a career in education so that she could cultivate this love of learning in future generations. She brings more than seven years of experience as a classroom teacher, new teacher mentor and clinical faculty member to the Educate team.
As an experienced educator, Marie has seen first-hand how technology can help students take ownership of their learning and empower teachers to better meet the needs of their students. In her role as an instructional technology coach, Marie draws on her experiences in the classroom to help teachers reach their goals and develop instructional practices that nurture independence, curiosity and creativity in their students. Marie is particularly interested in exploring ways technology can be used to support learners with diverse needs and strengths.
Marie lives in the Bronx and enjoys spending time with her husband and two cats, traveling, cooking different dishes from around the world and running.
Teacher, Evanston/Skokie District 65, Evanston, Illinois
Teacher, NYC DOE, New York, New York
New Teacher Mentor, NYC DOE, New York, New York
Clinical Faculty, Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Teachers College Columbia University
M.A. Curriculum and Teaching, Teachers College Columbia University
B.A. French and Political Science, University of Florida
New York State Professional Teacher Certification, Birth-6th
New York State Professional Teacher Certification, Students with Disabilities Birth-6th
Illinois State Professional Educator Endorsement, Middle Grades K-9
Frank drives Educate's team toward the cutting-edge of educational innovation, while never losing sight of the only goal that matters: improving education for schools, teachers, and students. As a partner, he helps hire Educate's all-star team and works to inspire coaches to consistently perform at their best—believing that taking an active role in the team trumps individual skill.
Frank is inspired by a passion for learning—a passion he spreads to those around him. He takes an progressive view of the educator's job: first, establish a foundation of sound instructional practice, and then get out of the way of the students' learning.
His rich and varied business career has taught him never to become complacent—without commitment to excellence, today's industry leaders end up as tomorrow's old news. He applies his business acumen to directing Educate's growth and spreading its message to new schools. Frank lives in New York City with his family; his wife keeps him together, his young daughter keeps him energetic, and his siblings keep him honest. He loves to ski, sing, and, on occasion, salsa dance.
Vice President of Business Development, MaMaMedia (1998-2001)
Director of Business Development, NBC (1997-1998)
Manager, Business Development, Viacom Interactive, (1995-1997)
Account Manager, Compuserve (1988-1993)
MBA, JL Kellogg School of Business, Northwestern University (1995)
BS in Engineering, University of Notre Dame (1985)
BA in English, University of Notre Dame (1985)


Iva Peša is Research Associate in Environmental History on the 'Comparing the Copperbelt' project.
Many researchers have attempted to record processes of social change among mining communities on the Copperbelt. Through the efforts of the Rhodes Livingstone Institute and CEPSI in the 1950s, and the work of anthropologists such as Ferguson (1999), Rubbers (2013) and Mususa (2014) more recently, we now have rich portrayals of kinship, political thought, gender and work on the Copperbelt. What is, perhaps, distinctive about 'Comparing the Copperbelt' is that our project seeks to historicise and compare the social life of mining communities (following Dibwe dia Mwembu (2001)) on both sides of the border. In addition to newly unearthed archival documents, we use oral history to hear those voices that rarely find expression in written sources.
An artist in Likasi, Ferdinand Kakompe, explaining his artwork. Photo, Iva Pesa (2018).
From May until August 2018, we conducted 100 life history interviews in two mining towns, Likasi in the D.R. Congo and Mufulira in Zambia. We targeted people who have been living in these towns since at least the 1970s, but in many cases we were able to interview people who had been resident there from the 1950s onwards. By visiting different neighbourhoods, we sought interviews reflecting the diversity of these communities in terms of gender, education, social status and occupation (mineworkers of course, but also traders, teachers, nurses and farmers). After the initial interviews, for which we used an open-ended questionnaire, we conducted a smaller number of in-depth interviews on specific emerging themes. For example, with a senior mineworker we discussed what Gécamines culture meant to him; a particularly eloquent woman explained proverbs, theatre and changing dress styles to us; whilst an artist explained how he had been trained by missionaries.
The interviews followed a roughly biographical path, starting with a person's upbringing and education, their migration to Likasi or Mufulira, followed by their work history (including 'informal' economic activities such as trading tomatoes), family, leisure (music, dance and sports) and associational life (trade unions and churches). These initial questions brought up a host of revealing themes about which people talked at length: How did workers view the mining company as an employer? How did charcoal burners and urban agriculturalists make a living in the city? How did the fall of copper prices affect everyday lives? How did people make sense of political and economic change through religious practice? The interviews ended with opinion questions, for example about the cleanliness of the town, how the presence of the mine affected people's lives or the impact of political changes. We adapted the questions asked to the particular life trajectories of our interviewees. I conducted these interviews together with Benoît Henriet (in Likasi) and Miles Larmer (in Mufulira), but we could never have done this work without Pierrot Monzi Kalonga in Likasi and Grant Chisapa in Mufulira. They not only identified suitable people, but they attended every interview, sometimes to translate from Swahili, Sanga or Bemba, but always to make people feel comfortable, to introduce us as researchers and to ask original questions of their own.
Houses in Panda, Likasi. Photo, Iva Pesa (2018).
These interviews sometimes raised uncomfortable or difficult issues: many people discussed the loss of jobs, death, poverty, or economic and political insecurity. What stands out, however, is the remarkable resilience of Copperbelt residents. People found ways to carry on and to build a dignified life for themselves, no matter how difficult the conditions were. The impact of economic and political change, for example the privatisation of the mining companies or presidential change, were not singled out but interviewees compared their significance to the birth of a child, a change in employment or the discovery of a new church. To me, this was a reminder that we need to decentre academic conceptualisations of Copperbelt history that foreground economic and political factors over social and personal ones.
Some highlights include one remarkably youthful man who attributed his good health to his organic vegetables, even though he grew these on what are probably the most polluted soils of Likasi. Several people recalled a sketch by the theatre group Mufwankolo, in which a greedy husband hides his wallet from his wife and then drops it in the pit latrine, forcing him to ask his wife's help to get it out. Informants interpreted the moral of this story in slightly different ways, even if the general theme of reciprocity vs. greed stood out clearly. In Zambia, one of Mufulira's musicians played his guitar for me and pointed out which bits of the song attracted female attention. There was also a female independence fighter, who trained to become a nurse at the age of 16 and showed remarkable strength in campaigning for the nationalist party UNIP on her bicycle. These personal anecdotes enriched and gave depth to my understanding of Copperbelt history.
I learnt a great deal from these interviews, which will profoundly influence my writings about environmental and social history on the Copperbelt. However, they also revealed something painful about the unequal conditions of academic knowledge production. There is no way to do full justice to our interviewees and assistants in our own production of knowledge. No matter how significant their indebtedness to local respondents and assistants, academic publications list as their 'authors' only the names of researchers. The only thing I can do is to write something that does justice to the creativity, strength and dignity of the Copperbelt's residents. This blog post is a first step in putting people's experiences centre stage in my work.
Donatien Dibwe dia Mwembu, Bana Shaba abandonnés par leur père : structures de l'autorité et histoire sociale de la famille ouvrière au Katanga, 1910-1997 (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2001).
James Ferguson, Expectations of modernity: Myths and meanings of urban life on the Zambian Copperbelt (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1999).
Patience N. Mususa, 'There used to be order: Life on the Copperbelt after the privatisation of the Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines' (Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cape Town, 2014).
Benjamin Rubbers, Le paternalisme en question: Les anciens ouvriers de la Gécamines face à la liberalisation du secteur minier katangais (RD Congo) (Paris: L'Harmattan, 2013).


Diversity in the tech industry has been an issue of increasing prominance in recent years, with laudable efforts being made to improve transparency, opportunity and accessibility in all fields. More and more initiatives are emerging every year to help improve the range of people and talents in software, with employers and staff alike beginning to realise the untapped benefits that such changes can bring to success in business and society as a whole.
As our community continues to make progressive strides forward, we have many reasons to be optimistic; however, there is one demographic whose daily challenges remains largely unrecognised. People on the Autistic Spectrum constitute roughly 1% of the UK population, yet are generally accepted to play a significantly greater role in some of the world's most successful and dynamic software companies. This is occurs at every level, from the shop-floor all the way to the boardroom. Clearly, it is now time for all aspies, autistics and ASDers to bite-the-bullet, grasp-the-nettle, and perform various other metaphorically inaccurate gestures to help us acknowledge the under-representation of "neurotypicals" in the workplace, and what we can do about it.
In this irreverent take on the issue of neuro-diversity we will examine some of the more tried-and-tested techniques for making the office a welcoming place for "normies", and how we can work towards being more inclusive and accommodating to our easily-distracted, detail-averse and excessively-social colleagues.
Developer; architect; hat aficionado; geek; aspie; tech. lead; (mediocre) harmonica player; and generally over opinionated.


text:
В одиночному розряді тенісного турніру WTA Swiss Open 1994, який проходив в рамках Туру WTA 1994, Ліндсі Девенпорт здобула титул, у фіналі перемігши Лізу Реймонд 7–6(3), 6–4.

Сіяні гравчині

  Ліндсі Девенпорт (переможниця)
  Магдалена Малеєва (чвертьфінал)
  Гелена Сукова (чвертьфінал)
  Емі Фрейзер (півфінал)

 Наталія Медведєва (1-ше коло)
 Чанда Рубін (півфінал)
 Мередіт Макґрат (чвертьфінал)
 Лінда Феррандо (2-ге коло)

Основна сітка

Фінал

Верхня половина

Нижня половина

Посилання

WTA Swiss Open

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia