text:
Grading Obama's economic policy after one year
By Edward Harrison	 On Jan 20, 2010
The Democratic defeat in yesterday's Massachusetts Senate race puts a punctuation mark on the grinding erosion of support for the Obama Administration and its economic policy in a tough first year. Clearly voters were sending the Administration a message that America is on the wrong course with Obama's poll numbers slipping below 50% by December and Democratic defeats in both of the major state elections in which Obama campaigned in November (Gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey).
But, I don't think the President gets it. He is holed up in the echo chamber called the White House. If the catastrophic loss in Massachusetts' Senate race and the likely defeat of his health care reform bill doesn't wake Obama up to the realities that he is not in Roosevelt's position but in Hoover's, he will end as a failed one-term President.
With this in mind, I want to grade the President's economic policy performance on his first year anniversary, putting Obama's economic agenda and inheritance in historical terms. I will try to make this as comprehensive as a blog format allows. At the end, I will make some remarks about what to expect going forward.
Grade: Incomplete
If I were a university professor grading the Obama Administration's economic policy, I would give it an incomplete – but with a warning that the final grade was unlikely to be good given what I have seen so far. Barack Obama has been in office for only one year; so, clearly he has a long way to go before we can make a definitive assessment of his economic policy.
Similarities: Reagan and Clinton
When I look at the polling data, two recent Presidents come to mind, particularly because of the economy: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Reagan entered office during a deep recession, at the tail end of what might be termed an inflationary depression due to secular issues involving fiat currencies, inflation, interest rates, equity market losses, currency depreciation, globalization of the money markets, and de-industrialization in the United States. And to top it off, Reagan suffered another deep recession right after he came to office. For the United States, the 1970s were a catastrophe economically.
The polling data for Obama and Reagan are very similar. The December chart below from Pollster.com demonstrates this.
So, clearly the economy has a lot to do with Obama's falling poll numbers.
I also look at the early days of the Clinton Administration as a comparison. Clinton was a centrist, triangulating New Democrat who entered office during a period of lingering joblessness which engendered the term jobless recovery. Obama's situation is similar given the rising unemployment rate today and the job losses despite a broad-based economic pickup (Goldman Sachs is estimating 5.8% GDP growth for Q4 2009). The centrality of healthcare reform in the President's domestic agenda – and it's potential failure and the resulting mid-term election losses for Democrats in Congress – makes this comparison even more apt.
However, there are critical differences which I will highlight after making another comparison.
The Roosevelt comparison
Given some of his statements in the past, I suspect the President sees these similarities to Clinton and Reagan. But, it is the comparison to Roosevelt which Obama and his people played up the most during the election campaign and the period just after it.
The media parroted this theme endlessly. As Time put it in the story accompanying the Obama as Roosevelt photo to the right:
Even in the calmest of times, the transfer of presidential power is a tricky maneuver, especially when it involves one party ceding the office to another. But not since Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in the midst of the Depression has a new President faced a set of challenges quite as formidable as those that await Obama. That's why Obama has been quicker off the blocks in setting up his government than any of his recent predecessors were, particularly Bill Clinton, who did not announce a single major appointment until mid-December. As the President-elect put it in his first radio address, "We don't have a moment to lose."
Obama is not Roosevelt
But Barack Obama is not Franklin Roosevelt – far from it. He enters office at a point much nearer the beginning of a cyclical downturn as did Clinton and Reagan. His people fail to realize that Obama is more Herbert Hoover than he is Franklin Roosevelt.
What historical period should Obama be looking to then? Clearly, he should be looking to Hoover. And I believe this is very important with the G-20 right around the corner. Any number of pundits from Simon Johnson to Wolfgang Munchau will tell you the G-20 summit will be a big failure. While the Americans are trying to reflate the bubble and bring back the same unbalanced system which got us here, the Europeans are putting their heads in the sand, wishing all of this would go away.
And that's not a good thing at all. If one thinks back to Hoover again, after a long period of globalization, an interconnected world meant problems in one country quickly became manifest elsewhere. The world's major nations failed to come together and build a common solution. Some thought themselves immune. But, when the depths of Depression finally came, it was little Austria which ushered it in. And soon, depression was everywhere.
This was 1931. Herbert Hoover was president, not Franklin Roosevelt.
–Barack Obama as Herbert Hoover, Apr 2009
Obama's failure to understand where we are in the economic cycle and the relationship to historical precedent has been catastrophic to the conduct of economic policy and critical in his missteps. There is more to Obama's misfortune than a bad economy (see Nate Silver's take on the Massachusetts special election).
Reliving the Clinton days via Reagan's silver tongue, Kennedy's Camelot, and Roosevelt's New Deal
I feel like the Obama Administration is stuck in the past. They talk about the transformative presidencies of Ronald Reagan or Franklin Roosevelt and the magic Camelot feel of JFK's time in the White House. But, above all, stands the "Don't Stop Believin'" retour of the Clinton era. These comparisons to past presidents is blinding the Obama Administration to the realities on the ground (see here and here).
The huge number of Clinton-era re-treads in the Obama Administration should tell you that. And the quote from Time Magazine shows you that lessons learned during the early Clinton days were very much on these policy makers' minds. The policy agenda (think healthcare and deficit reduction in particular) makes them think that 2008 was a repeat 1992. It was not.
Now, looking back, if one hearkens back to 1992 and the election that took Bill Clinton to the White House, 'it's the Economy, stupid' was the phrase that symbolized Clinton's victory and George H. W. Bush's defeat. Today, as we are mired in a deep economic downturn, we should be tempted to bring back that phrase.
But, 2008 was not 1992. This is no garden variety downturn. It is something altogether different. We are not witness to a case of over-production and overheating as is usually the case. It is a case of over-leverage and over-indebtedness. As a result, the key to the outlook for the American economy is fairly simple and it hinges on a single word: credit.
–It's the writedowns, stupid, Mar 2009
We are in depression not recession because the secular trend is of the three D's: deleveraging and debt deflation leading to depression. Harkening back to the same old policies of 1992 is not just wrong, it is catastrophically so. It made Obama promise 8% unemployment instead of the 10.0-10.5% that we have received. As I said after the defeats in Virginia and New Jersey called Obama's economic policy into question:
Well, if you're the President, you have to under-promise and over-deliver. President Obama has been doing exactly the opposite. Of course people are going to be angry when you promise 8.0% unemployment and instead we get 10.2%. Right now, Obama should be talking about 13% unemployment.
–Unemployment rate illusion, November 2009
I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that all of this was predictable from the word go. A cautious (Keynesian) politician would have understood the under-promise/over-deliver tactic and implemented a much larger and better-crafted stimulus package as I suggested last January rather than resorting to half-measures as I called the Obama policy in February. And he would have understood the coming implosion in state and local governments' budgets (as I also pointed out as far back as March 2008 and again as the stimulus package was coming due). A cautious politician would, therefore, have sensed the enormity of the problem and taken precautionary action.
The Triangulating Neo-liberal Con
But, Obama is yet another centrist, triangulating New Democrat in the Bill Clinton mold. Don't be bamboozled by Republican propagandists telling you Obama is running left or that he is a 'socialist.' This is nonsense – kabuki theater, if you will. They are merely using Obama's weakness to gain control of the historical political narrative. In reality, Leftists are absolutely outraged at his legislative agenda.
Obama is a corporatist like other New Democrats of the neo-liberal mold. The schtick – as also used by Schroeder in Germany, Koizumi in Japan and Tony Blair in the UK – is to say the things that progressives want to hear, but do the things that big business wants to be done. You have to give a sop to the base here and there like exempting unions from the healthcare bill's Cadillac policy tax. But, the goal is to curry favor with big business, which is the paymaster of both established parties in the U.S.
In the 1990s, the so-called Third Way, popularized by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, changed the fortunes of liberals dramatically. Traditionally, the Democratic and Labour Parties were controlled by unions and working class interests – the so-called left wing. This is one reason Democrats controlled the South until the civil rights movement. But, stagflation seemed to discredit leftish policies. In the U.S., the 1980s ushered in 12 years of Republican Presidency. Labour's trip into exile was even longer, 18 years.
The Republican's were stopped only as a result of an unusual combination of Ross Perot's third-party candidacy and Bill Clinton's co-opting of large parts of the right's pro-business anti-regulation, pro-free market platform – so-called Neo-Liberalism. The neo-liberals in America were so successful that Tony Blair adopted the same tactics in creating New Labour and overthrowing the Conservatives in 1997. Junchiro Koizumi copied Blair in moving the LDP away from its base toward neoliberalism, vaulting him into power in 2001. In fact, one could even see Gerhard Schroeder as a neo-liberal who moved Germany's SPD into power in 1998 – one reason the SPD is now losing voters to Oskar Lafontaine and die Linke (The Left).
So, Marshall is right. Obama has been more interested in sending out a pro-business signal to re-assure business interests and to court independent voters. I believe he has made a political calculation that he can hold his base of support even if he adopts a more center-left positioning because they have nowhere else to go. It's not like they are going to vote for the Republicans. This has been an effective way to power for left-leaning mainstream parties for at least 15 years.
–Obama and the Fat Cat bankers, Dec 2009
Read the post above in its entirety because it highlights many of the political issues we are now seeing and why Obama's newfound populism rings hollow. I should add that there is nothing Libertarian about this Corporatist agenda either. If I had to define corporatism, I would call it "the policy whereby government favors of incumbent and larger enterprises over other businesses or households." See my post Deregulation as crony capitalism for more on this theme.
The political capital lost in bailouts
The real killer for Obama has been his dependence on Summers and Geithner which I liken to George W. Bush's dependence on Rumsfeld and Cheney. For his part, Geithner, now ensconced in a huge scandal over the cover-up at AIG, says:
The test is whether you have people willing to do the things that are deeply unpopular, deeply hard to understand, knowing that they're necessary to do and better than the alternatives.
And indeed they have been willing to go against the will of the people. But, Obama mis-underestimated the outrage these policies would cause. It's the bailouts and the crony capitalism and looting they brought into public view that people object to most – not healthcare, not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the Christmas Day airline failure. Think about the public mood and the joy of election day one year ago at electing the first Black president in American history:
President Barack Obama was elected last year in a sizable victory over his Republican competitor. Bolstering his position was the huge Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. Given these advantages, combined with intelligence and his natural talent as an orator, the President could pretty much chart his own course.
He did so, immediately turning to the weak economy and the battered financial sector first. In his first days in office, Obama pushed through a sizable stimulus package, bailed out numerous financial institutions, and put into place a host of measures to prop up the banking industry at considerable cost to taxpayers.
The plan worked. The financial industry has roared back to life with huge profits and large bonuses all around as a result of the government's largesse – well at least for most of the largest companies. The surviving large financial institutions are even larger and more dominant than before the crisis. Now, it is business as usual again on Wall Street. In this sense, Obama and his economic team have been very successful.
But at what cost?
While the captains of finance are deciding how to spend their bonus money, ordinary Americans are still losing their jobs and their homes. The economy is still in tatters.
People are angry about this juxtaposition.
–Obama and health care: Wasting political capital, Jul 2009
What's likely to happen now
And of course, it is bonus season right now. So, the bonuses are a reminder that the recent populist rhetoric and the too-big-to-fail bank tax is a political stunt and nothing more. There has been absolutely zero attempt at making transformative amendments to the financial system and its regulation because the political process is broken. The emphasis on deficit reduction means a double dip recession is a distinct likelihood. On both these issues, Obama's centrist instincts make him an unlikely Roosevelt – either FDR New Dealer of Teddy Trustbuster (see FDR's inaugural address for why). It also makes him an unlikely Reagan, who fought off a Democratic Congress and a deep recession to push through his agenda.
In all likelihood, we will not get any real reform and, as Jamie Dimon recently said – and Stephen Colbert ridiculed – financial crisis is "something that happens every five to seven years." So, I see another crisis as likely – and given the fragility of the economic environment, this crisis will be a killer economically (and politically for Obama).
I fleshed out these themes in three 2009 retrospectives and my comprehensive post on recession and depression:
The year in review at Credit Writedowns – Crony Capitalism
The year in review at Credit Writedowns – Kleptocracy
The year in review at Credit Writedowns: Crisis Solutions
The recession is over but the depression has just begun
If one wants an economic parallel for secular bear markets and depression, 1931 (Hoover) or 1938 (Roosevelt II) and 1974 (Ford) are more akin to 2010 than are 1934 (Roosevelt I) or 1982 (Reagan I). From a Japanese perspective, think 1997 (see articles here, here and here).
For Obama, the loss in Massachusetts puts the nail in the coffin for health care. His linchpin domestic agenda item is bust and he must start anew. Meanwhile, there is huge populist outrage and an improving but weak and unsustainable recovery in the works. Defenders of the President point to the recovery in financial services as testimony of Obama's economic team's mettle. But my friend Marshall Auerback pointed out in an e-mail that:
While the Administration continues to take credit for averting a financial catastrophe, it is far more accurate to suggest that they have merely forestalled that eventuality. The ultimate outcome is still in doubt.
Overall, Obama's first year has been dismal.
I believe Obama is a triangulating New Democrat. His kneejerk reaction, therefore, is to look back to 1994 and draw the same conclusions Bill Clinton did when his own healthcare agenda collapsed. And all of the Clintonites surrounding him in the White House bubble are no doubt convincing him to do this. But 2010 is not 1994. Barack Obama would be well-advised to understand this.
Barack Obamacorporatismcorruptionfinancial historyhealthcareHerbert HooverPoliticsrecession
Links: 2010-01-19
Contextualizing the horrible jobless claims numbers
Double dip is now the base case for the US as well as the global economy
Addendum on divided government
I left this comment on Naked Capitalism also.
Clinton did not triangulate until after the '94 republican takeover in congress.
He called in Dick Morris (who was so despised by Rahm, Hillary, etal that he had to be brought in through the white house basement) to help him figure out how to get anything done with the GOP.
The result was triangulating.
And was why a lot of his staffers including Rahm left.
LavrentiBeria says 11 years ago
Obama is finished. When he had every opportunity at first to make himself a legend, he has all but urinated on that possibility.
The election of Brown to the Senate signals the final envelopment and capture of the Tea Party movement by Republican Party operatives bent on killing off Obama once and for all. What began as a legitimate anti-bailout populism successfully has been subverted into a crypto-fascist, imperialist crusade in support of torture, Israeli ethnic cleansing, and war with every Muslim nation on earth, and domestically into an selective, anti-deficit paranoia certain to bring a reprise of 1937. We are looking at something chillingly similar to the political situation that existed in immediately pre-Hitlerite Germany, what with a feable, almost powerless left and a growing, menacing, fascist right. Sadly, many well intentioned people stupidly have allowed themselves to be taken up into an "opposition" that in reality is more hyper-Regime than anti-Regime. In present circumstances, the appearance of an authentic opposition appears to be many, many years away.
Advocatus Diaboli says 11 years ago
But he was the One who was supposed to bring balance to the force, not side with the Sith.
Grade C-. Would have beed A- with Summers replaced by Volker!
(Grade A+ to Ed H.)
Side Issue: Economy is STILL AT RISK since nothing has been passed to regulate the banks.
The banksters propaganda now includes the claim that now that TARP is nearly paid back, lay off the banks bonuses.
Well, if TARP was the only $ they got, that might be legit. How about free money to loan/hold, having their bad MBS bought by the Fed, and other programs that indirectly benefit the banks.
These guys are now going full press to water down new legislation.
There is an outside chance we don't need economic collapse to actually get something meaningful here.
I think we are getting some traction on these issues.
See my latest post on the new Volcker proposal that Obama is backing:
https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2010/01/obama-backs-volcker-regulatory-plan-in-dramatic-about-face.html
Terry says 11 years ago
I'm sorry, Edward, but your "incomplete" grade for the first year of the Obama Administration is, well, a cop out. The year is over. How did he do?
My take is very poorly; probably a "D" grade. The only thing I think he even got directionally right was the stimulus bill (ARRA), and there are plenty of arguments that it was insufficient and poorly focused, especially in creating jobs. His horrendous pussyfooting with the banks was wrongheaded and clumsy–and directly traceable to his key economic advisors Summers & Geithner who are still there. His early endorsement of Bernanke was also wrong.
This was not "change we can believe in." It was not change. Period. Just more of the same old Washington money-driven cronyism.
If the Democrats loss in Massachusetts serves as a wake-up call, he may be able to bring his grade up in his second year. The scheduled meeting and presser with Volcker today may give some indications. But, frankly, this will be more about partisan politics–bashing the banks to make Democrats look good in November. Still, it can't be worse than the last year.
Terry, the bank tax was a cop-out. Let's wait and see what is proposed at 1140 before we make any determination on this new proposal.
You're jumping the gun on this and on making an assessment of Obama's economic grade.
The fact is we are one year in. The parallel to Reagan shows you that what happens after one year is NOT what we must expect for the full four or eight.
David Smith says 11 years ago
The solid B+ was surely a bit of grade inflation. I've heard the Harvard faculty does that. ;)
Element says 11 years ago
I wrote this just minutes before it was reported that Obama had declared war on the TBTF banks claiming, "never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail", and insists they play with their own money I wonder if he means it this time? But either way, the damage is already in the system, and it will take many years to repair and for the banks to restabilise. Here's the comment anyway.
Getting very weary of the absurd White House (etal) claim and attitude that a total financial meltdown of the banking system and a fall into depression was avoided.
Banking and debt-crisis does not occur over 12 months, it historically occurs over about 10 years. There was a massive peak of 4,000 US bank failures during 1933, four years after the initial stock crash and after repeat equity recoveries and slumps.
The FDIC may now prevent such traditional 'runs' on insured bank deposits, but this does not prevent a run on unregulated and uninsured 'securitised' assets (ain't that term a joke) in shadow-banks. That's exactly what happened in Sept-Oct 2008, and it drained and crippled the formal 'regulated' TBTF banks as a result.
For anyone to claim that the current financial crisis is "mission accomplished", ignores all quantitative evidence and historical parallels, not to mention continued falls in lending and the steady rise and rise of default, plus a 30% synchronised fall in global trade that's still way below the old-normal. Most of the default and toxic asset writedowns are still coming. At best this crisis is at the end of the beginning. Obama and his advisers are clear-cut fools if they really believe it's all sorted.
The 1982 to 1992 'S&L' bank failure period was comparatively minor compared to the current situation, but it generated a peak failure of around 530 banks in one year, but built up to this peak over 4 to 5 years (same as the 1933 4-year failure peak delay). Once even a non-systemic US banking crisis begins, it takes many years for the losses to finally kill-off all the hiding-and-hoping insolvent banks, to restabilise the remainder.
But this is not some rather mild 1990's type recession, this is a global systemic financial crisis and international private-debt crisis within a major protracted global recession with structural (lagging) high unemployment, with a general global real estate implosion with broke local, state and national governments. To assert such a crisis could be over in only 15 months, or to imagine that it will not be a minimum of three times worse at its peak than the S&L bank failure period, is wholly delusional.
"… Bank losses that come in bad times are particularly bad because consumption is lower in bad times. Just when the agent is worse off in terms of consumption, the bank might fail. So, in a recession income and consumption decline and banks tend to fail, because their borrowers also tend to fail. …" – Gary Gorton, Slapped in the Face by the Invisible Hand: Banking and the Panic of 2007, May 9, 2009.
The US shadow house inventory is still out there, and all those postponed unprocessed foreclosures are still coming, as are the losses-and the shadow banking effects of this. Last year only 140 bank failures, and yet US bank stocks are virtually single-handedly driving a record 'recovery' in the Dow-Jones index?
Is that sane? Irrational exuberance is a euphemism for 'dumb blind greed'.
Extend-and-pretend works only until you don't get paid, then all pretence ends. And when it ends businesses fail, and when businesses fail, that's when banks get stressed and traditional 'runs' on near insolvent banks normally occurred and credit froze solid. This is what the shadow banks will do to each other when extend and pretend fails to pretend any more and businesses fail in numbers while "larger than expected losses" accumulate at the banks.
You can bet the un-insured unbacked shadow-banking system is watching extremely nervously as banks like JPMorgan and BOA dribble out their "higher than expected losses" tales, each quarter. The shadow banking system isn't fooled, their margin losses rise every time this happens and their toxic-asset losses feed straight back into the formal and insured Govt-backed banking system's balance sheets, which then just further increases margin problems for both formal and shadow-banks. All the while the fear in both on-book and off-book banking divisions rise.
Like credit growth, or debt-deflation, this asset contamination process is also a self-reinforcing feedback where losses lead to losses, which lead to more losses elsewhere, which then trigger some more losses. Hence these "higher than expected losses" tales will continue to dribble in for >5 years. The TBTF banks attempts to 'securitise' (off-load the liability to loss on others) resulted in a trap. They eventually believed their own BS and locked themselves into a self-reinforcing liability and loss-making mechanism.
It self-reinforces both positively, yes, but also negatively when things go bad. We saw a spectacular growth and we will also see a spectacular reversal, because this was always just an undifferentiated Ponzi system, where massive final losses were implicit. That's why the banks unloaded these 'securities' in the first instance-they were a ticking bomb and they knew it.
At some point nothing will prevent the shadow-banks 'running' on each other (again), and no one can stop it when it begins. The only place it can be 'stopped' (temporarily that is, as in 2008) is by either bailing-out or nationalising the formal banking system, to make it appear quasi-solvent (again). Or to let the informal shadow-banking system destroy the formal TBTF banks, to get back to systemic stability quickly, so sustainable rebuilding can actually occur.
At present the actual systemic crisis and vulnerability is only getting worse. I see no solution to this but to eventually abolish securitised 'assets' (i.e. the generally unknowable level of high liabilities) altogether, in order to break this feedback cycle to prevent continual "higher than expected losses" in the formal banking system.
But then you have eliminated the bankers and politicians cherished source of easy-credit, which caused the whole mess, for use in malinvestment and over-consumption, and that's why nothing is being resolved.
Higher than expected losses are actually a structural problem-not just some more bad loans.
Raw greed for easy-credit is preventing resolution, the system is unable to self-repair or self-correct and the Government doesn't want to repair it either so a worse bank failure crisis and credit freeze is assured. Soon we will be right back at square-1 (Lehman's collapse) only the Dow will fall to <5,000, with credit in a glacier on Pluto, unemployment 15%, US consumers not willing to make discretionary purchases, nor wanting credit any year soon, whilst saving all they can. And deficits and taxes increase sharply, and public services evaporate, while public anger swings off the dial.
Enough of these sick White House denials!
We ARE in a global financial crisis, and it's only just begun. Maybe in ten years it will be almost over, if things go exceptionally well, but with this level of political denial and avoidance, it can only get much worse than need be. The White House doctrine that the danger has passed must be debunked and disallowed if there is to be any credible resolution.
Amazing what an election can do to refocus the mind on what the people want–for once.
Scott says 11 years ago
Through all the hooplah, this has to be one of the best attempts at actually analyzing the problem. Hat tip.
However, from a de-centrist standpoint, there has not been much analsys on the fact that people around the nation are so involved in a Massachusettes election (or any other for that matter). I'm only proposing that I'm scared that state representation has become a national issue (this election is hardly the time to be talking about this because the two parties putting all their money into contested elections in Ohio or North Dakota has been the norm), but it would be nice to go to bed knowing that my state representatives to Congress are mine and not the rest of the nation's reps as well. I only hope mass attention, does not some how help hurt local representation any more. On a philisophical level I was ready to abandon all attachment to this election on the basis that Mass is Mass, and I don't live there so it's none of my business. I'm out on blogger support against Barney Frank for that very reason too. He's not my rep.
Musings on initial claims, the US economy and Tesla as year…


text:
Drafted #45 in the 2002 NBA Draft by the Cavaliers
RCSI: 54 (1998)
Height: 6'8" (203 cm)
Position: SF
Jerseys: #, #22
High School: Del Campo High School (California)
Hometown: Santa Clara, CA
Agent: Tony Dutt
AAU: Oakland Soldiers
Current Team: Warriors
Win - Loss: 71 - 33
NBA Scouting Reports, Pacific Division (Part Four)
Matt Kamalsky
@MKamalsky
Aug 20, 2008, 09:47 pm
Overview: A scrappy, experienced combo forward who has found a home in the NBA thanks to the aggressive mentality he brings to the floor. Not afraid to lower his shoulder and dish out contact. A self-made player--bounced around the NBA and D-League early in his career, considered more of an undersized PF in college, but did done some nice things as a Warrior, even if he's yet to be rewarded for that with a contract. Cutting down on turnovers and improving his jumper have been key for his career, although he tends to fall in love with it excessively these days at times. Has prototypical size for a wing at 6-8. Runs the floor extremely well, and has above average explosiveness. Will put up nice offensive numbers from time to time, although not efficiently. Gives his team toughness and some perimeter shooting ability, even if he's prone to long bouts of inconsistency from beyond the arc. Plays with energy and can make some plays on the defensive end. A terrific rebounder, possibly Golden State's best when he was there, despite his size. Still a bit too inconsistent, but he's still improving. Played four solid years at UCLA, but wasn't an elite collegiate player. On the gridiron, was one of the top receiver prospects in the nation as a prep.
Offense: Played the 3 and the 4 for Golden State offensively, mostly taking advantage of mismatches. Not what you would call an overly skilled player. Gets the vast majority of his shots from spot ups and fast breaks. Very aggressive with his shot selection—has the utmost confidence in himself. Will take some ill-advised threes when spotting up. Shows a very ugly shooting stroke, shooting the ball on the way down with very little elevation, but he's managed to somehow make it work with semi-decent results. Uses his arms to get the ball to the rim, which hurts his consistency. Still capable of getting hot from that distance. Used to not be able to shoot at all, but has become passable from distance thanks to hard work, even if he has a tendency to rely on it too heavily now. Ball-handling skills are poor. Rarely gets to the free throw line. Pull-up jumper is not very effective. Gets a little too aggressive at times. Actually has a very nice feel for the game, though. Moves well off the ball, and is a very good passer for his position. Gets some easy looks at the rim by running the floor hard in transition, beating other players down the court with sheer tenacity. Needs to work on his free throw shooting, but isn't too bad from the stripe. Will crash the glass, especially when he's following transition plays.
Defense: Solid defender on the perimeter who had a tough time defending the power forward spot when the Warriors use small line ups. Not strong enough to defend true post players, but puts in the effort. Has a tough time keeping them on his back when boxing out. Gives fouls in the paint when he's beat. Much more apt at defending the perimeter, even though he suffers from a very poor wingspan. Quick feet and size help him deny penetration. Great rebounder considering his size. Capable of anticipating passes and deflecting them. Decent shot blocker as well.
06/13/2019 110 - 114 vs Raptors
06/10/2019 106 - 105 at Raptors
06/07/2019 92 - 105 vs Raptors
Tweets by @Matt_Barnes22

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Holland & Barrett is a European retailer of vitamins and herbal supplements and other natural or organic products. They operate both brick-and-mortar stores in the UK and an online retail site. Their products include food and beverages such as various nuts and flaxseed and organic baking ingredients, and a selection of teas. Their supplements include products for weight management and sports nutrition meant for energy and endurance. Holland & Barrett also offers what they call a "Good Life MOT" or method of transport, which is a source of information regarding certain health conditions and ways to improve one's overall health.
There are free resources that you can take advantage of along with the items that they have on sale. By visiting the "Advice and Articles" page, you can find information about different health items that you might be interested in purchasing for your specific medical condition. Visiting the "Offers" page is another great way to take a look at items that are offered for less. At times you can find buy one, get one offers or even items that are on flash sale, which is a reduction of up to 80% off for a limited amount of time. For further savings, make sure that you register for their rewards program. You will accumulate points with every purchase, helping you to get the most out of your orders.
Standard delivery rates will start at £2.99 for all orders being delivered within the UK. If you are placing an order over £20, you will receive free standard delivery within the UK. You can choose to upgrade your shipping method, though the rates will also increase. International delivery rates start at £6.95 and will be added to your cart for you to review before checkout. In the event that you aren't satisfied with your order, you can contact their customer service department for a return merchandise authorization number within 30 days. For any other discounts, please check out the Holland & Barrett voucher codes and promo codes posted above.
You will be able to save between 10% and 20% off of items with the use of an online coupon.
If you shipping your order outside of the UK (and within Europe) there will be a £6.95 international fee for delivery.
You will be able to get free shipping on the order if it's £20 or higher and if it's being delivered within the UK. If your purchase is under £20, you will pay a £1.99 flat rate fee instead.
Take the time to look at the slider on their home page to see all of the deals and sales that they have at the end and beginning of seasons.
There is a dedicated page for offers including specially priced items to buy one, get one deals. These offers are generally available for a limited amount of time.


2002 + R50/R52/R53 Mini Cooper and Mini Cabrio Parts.
Light kits and Brackets, Intake, Exhaust, Suspension, Engine, Interior, Exterior, Carbon Fiber and Gauge Pods : Everything your Mini Needs.
2007 + R55/R56/R57 Mini Cooper, Mini Clubman, Mini Clubvan and Mini Cabrio Parts.
Countryman Light Kits and Brackets, Countryman Exhaust, Countryman Intake, Countryman bike racks, Countryman Suspension , Carbon Fiber and More.
R58 and R59 Light kits and Brackets, Intake, R58 and R59 Exhaust, R58 and R59 Suspension, Engine, Interior, Exterior, Carbon Fiber and Gauge Pods : Everything your Mini Needs.
R61 Paceman Light Kits and Brackets, Paceman Exhaust, Paceman Intake, Paceman bike racks, Paceman Suspension , Carbon Fiber and More.
F55/56/57 Light kits and Brackets, F55/56/57 air Intake, F55/56/57 Exhaust, F55/56/57 Suspension, F55/56/57 Engine, F55/56/57 Interior, F55/56/57 Exterior, Everything your Mini Needs.
We Design, manufacture and test all our parts in Scottsdale, Arizona.
F54 Light kits and Brackets, F54 air Intake, F54 Exhaust, F54 Suspension, F54 Engine, F54 Interior, F54 Exterior, Everything your Mini Needs.
F60 Light kits and Brackets, F60 air Intake, F60 Exhaust, F60 Suspension, F60 Engine, F60 Interior, F60 Exterior, Everything your Mini Needs.


process bring more jobs and value to our region's economy.
Consider the computer. In 1965, Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, postulated that the cost of a given level of computing power falls by roughly half every 18 months. In part due to the self-fulfilling nature of what has become known as Moore's Law, computer and electronic devices now contain extraordinary capabilities at extraordinarily low prices.
development during one of the most difficult economic periods in our county's history. Though costs were a consideration, these costs were trumped by innovation and ingenuity.
Or, how about the automobile? Cars today are safer and more efficient, last longer, and perform better than at any time in the past. Yet, the costs of cars today, as compared to average wages, are cheaper than ever before.
Our country's market system is designed to reward innovation, ingenuity, and efficiency. In fact, our never-ending drive for cost efficiency and innovation is the very basis of our economic success. If we were to effectively apply these same principles to how we finance the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort, we could achieve our goals efficiently and effectively. In fact, it's already beginning to happen.
Finally, consider solar power. A recent article reports that in many parts of the world the cost of solar power is competitive with power generated by fossil fuels. And, it is anticipated that the price of large-scale solar projects will be roughly half of what they are now by the year 2020. Who would have thought that possible even five or 10 years ago?
Dan Nees is the Senior Research Associate at the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland, College Park.


text:
A Journey Unchallenged: Andrew Marr Interviews Tony Blair
by Media Lens / September 18th, 2010
Andrew Marr must have seemed the natural choice to BBC executives looking for an interviewer to grill Tony Blair on his new autobiography, "A Journey". See a rough transcript here.
After all, Blair has become the most reviled British politician of modern times largely thanks to violent policies that Marr openly celebrated.
On April 9, 2003, as Baghdad superficially fell to the illegal US-UK invasion, Marr lauded Blair's great triumph on the main BBC evening news:
Frankly, the main mood [in Downing Street] is of unbridled relief. I've been watching ministers wander around with smiles like split watermelons
Marr delivered this news with his own watermelon smile. He continued:
Well, I think this does one thing – it draws a line under what, before the war, had been a period of… well, a faint air of pointlessness, almost, was hanging over Downing Street. There were all these slightly tawdry arguments and scandals. That is now history. Mr Blair is well aware that all his critics out there in the party and beyond aren't going to thank him – because they're only human – for being right when they've been wrong. And he knows that there might be trouble ahead, as I said. But I think this is very, very important for him. It gives him a new freedom and a new self-confidence. He confronted many critics.
I don't think anybody after this is going to be able to say of Tony Blair that he's somebody who is driven by the drift of public opinion, or focus groups, or opinion polls. He took all of those on. He said that they would be able to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right. And it would be entirely ungracious, even for his critics, not to acknowledge that tonight he stands as a larger man and a stronger prime minister as a result. 1
Two years earlier, as Blair bombed Serbia, Marr wrote:
I am constantly impressed, but also mildly alarmed, by his [Blair's] utter lack of cynicism2
Marr even supported Blair's crazed call for a ground invasion:
I want to put the Macbeth option: which is that we're so steeped in blood we should go further. If we really believe Milosevic is this bad, dangerous and destabilising figure we must ratchet this up much further. We should now be saying that we intend to put in ground troops."3
In 2005, the former BBC reporter and producer, Tim Luckhurst, no radical, wrote in the Daily Mail:
Andrew Marr has dismayed licence-payers with apologias for New Labour in general and Tony Blair in particular.4
Who better than Marr, then, to interview Blair in 2010? David Aaronovitch, perhaps?
In 2007, when the BBC was looking for someone to interview Blair for its series, The Blair Years, management eyes fell on The Times commentator. "This is troubling," Peter Oborne wrote in the Daily Mail, "for over the past ten years Aaronovitch has never… ceased to extend a helping hand to Tony Blair…"5
Like Marr, Aaronovitch had strongly backed Blair's attack on Serbia, also supporting Blair's call for a ground war. After two million people marched against the looming Iraq war in London on February 15, 2003, Aaronovitch asked them:
Finally, what are you going to do when you are told – as one day you will be – that while you were demonstrating against an allied invasion, and being applauded by friends and Iraqi officials, many of the people of Iraq were hoping, hope against hope, that no one was listening to you?6
So why +does+ the BBC, a public service broadcaster, habitually turn to journalists who have previously declared their firm support for Blair's militant Christian policies to interview Blair about those policies? The answer is that no-one outside the BBC has the remotest idea – there is flat-zero openness on this kind of choice; it is deemed none of the public's business.
Certainly, the choice can have nothing to do with perceived public preference – – it seems undeniable that a huge majority of people would +love+ to see Blair's feet held to the fire. But this never happens. Perhaps, of course, Blair might refuse to appear if this seemed a likely outcome. But then he should be denied the opportunity to peddle his book and his advocacy of Permanent War. The sense in reality, of course, is of elite media managers protecting their elite political friends.
The Chicago Doctrine: Rationalising The Bloodbath
Not only did Marr not seriously challenge Blair, he challenged common sense by dredging up a bogus justification for Blair's actions. Marr said of Kosovo and Sierra Leone:
After those two interventions you made what in retrospect seems a +very+ significant speech in Chicago in 1999, where you developed a new doctrine about dictatorships."
In fact, Blair spoke in Chicago on April 22, 1999, in the middle of the bombing of Serbia (between March 24 and June 10, 1999). The speech was a typically audacious attempt to suggest that deep principle underlay what was actually cynical realpolitik. John Norris, director of communications during the war for US deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, commented, "it was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform – not the plight of Kosovar Albanians – that best explains NATO's war".7
Marr implied that the so-called 'Chicago Doctrine' was rooted in lessons learned by Blair +after+ his two interventions thus far, and that these lessons informed his subsequent decision to attack Iraq. Between the lines, we were to read: 'Iraq's WMDs were never really the point from the perspective of the Chicago Doctrine.' Blair clearly knew exactly what Marr had in mind and was quick to accept the emphasis:
I also think that there can be circumstances in which it is legitimate to intervene even in another country's affairs where the oppression of the people is so cruel and where you can't simply say well, unless our national interest is directly threatened in a very specific way we're not going to have anything to do with it.
Marr then reinforced the point: "So you can topple tyrants +because+ they're tyrants, not because they immediately threaten other people."
Even a cursory glance at Blair's Chicago speech reveals that Marr was bending over backwards to find the speech "+very+ significant" in this way. In the speech, Blair said that, in judging the case for military intervention, "we need to bear in mind five major considerations". The fifth of these involved asking: "do we have national interests involved? The mass expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo demanded the notice of the rest of the world. But it does make a difference that this is taking place in such a combustible part of Europe."
In other words, the conflict +was+ of "national interest" – it +did+ "threaten other people".
Marr's claim on the significance of the Chicago speech is bogus for more obvious reasons. George Bush could not have been clearer in 2002-2003 when he said: "The world needs him [Saddam Hussein] to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed, as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?"
The "single question" concerned the supposed threat posed by Iraq, not the nature of its government.
Ari Fleischer, Bush's Press Secretary, said, "we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
The Independent's Andreas Whittam Smith wrote in May 2003:
There was no ambiguity about the reasons for fighting. The only text which matters is the motion the Prime Minister put down in the House of Commons on 18 March, just before hostilities began. It asked members of Parliament to support the decision of Her Majesty's Government 'that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction'.
There was nothing else in the motion other than citations of various United Nations Security Council resolutions. Regime change was not a British war aim."8
The Intelligence Lie – And the Real Death Toll
In his interview with Marr, Blair said:
And I've always apologised for the fact that the intelligence was wrong. What I can't apologise for, however, is the decision we took. Which we took, incidentally, based on intelligence, at the time. So all I'm saying to you is, you know – this has been gone over many, many times. The intelligence picture was clear. We acted on it
Marr must have known that Blair would once again offer the defence that "the intelligence was wrong", and yet it was a lie that he failed to challenge. But why? Carne Ross, a key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for monitoring UN arms inspections in Iraq, had given testimony to the Iraq Inquiry just six weeks earlier that left Blair's lie utterly exposed. Ross said:
It remains my view that the internal government assessment of Iraq's capabilities was intentionally and substantially exaggerated in public government documents during 2002 and 2003. Throughout my posting in New York, it was the UK and US assessment that while there were many unanswered questions about Iraq's WMD stocks and capabilities, we did not believe that these amounted to a substantial threat. At no point did we have any firm evidence, from intelligence sources or otherwise, of significant weapons holdings…
In all the policy documents I reviewed in preparation for this testimony, there is no mention prior to 9/11 of any increase in the threat assessment for Iraq. Instead, these documents discuss the difficulty in maintaining support for sanctions in the absence of clear evidence of WMD violations by Iraq…
Ross talked of a "process of deliberate public exaggeration":
This process of exaggeration was gradual, and proceeded by accretion and editing from document to document, in a way that allowed those participating to convince themselves that they were not engaged in blatant dishonesty. But this process led to highly misleading statements about the UK assessment of the Iraqi threat that were, in their totality, lies.
In the interview, Marr commented: "100,000 plus people certainly died" as a result of the war, "some people say more".
Indeed "some people" do say "more" – the world's leading medical journal, The Lancet, for example, publishing a top group of epidemiologists, led by the John Hopkins School of Public Health. Like virtually the entire media, Marr prefers to cite a figure offered by the website, Iraq Body Count (IBC), described as "a very misleading exercise" even by the head of a major Western news bureau in Baghdad, one of IBC's key sources.9
Marr ought to be aware of a recent study by Professor Brian Rappert of the University of Exeter, which details how the UK government worked to discredit the Lancet studies. A 'Restricted' letter from a ministry's Chief Economist dated 8 November 2004 closed with:
It might also be possible, as Gerald Russell has suggested, to try and validate the study's preinvasion estimate of mortality by checking it against unpublished MoH health figures. But there is (a) no certainty at this stage that this kind of work would invalidate the Lancet findings, or (b) any guarantee that if it does produce a difference answer, that the rejection of the Lancet findings would be conclusive.
Rappert comments:
This quote suggests, again, that deliberations were geared in a particular direction – towards finding grounds for rejecting the Lancet study, without any evidence of countervailing efforts by government officials to produce or endorse alternative other studies or data. At numerous other occasions in the exchanges released it could be argued that officials were not undertaking a neutral attempt to understand the impact of violence in Iraq on the civilian population. Rather – and in the absence of evidence and research of their own – they adopted the attitude of opponents of one particular study. While they did not wish to override the more nuanced evaluations of technical advisors, the general thrust of inter-ministry deliberations reads as seeking to find as many grounds possible for dismissal of the study's findings as possible.
The media swallowed the government smear campaign with gusto – the Lancet studies have been consigned to oblivion in most media reporting. Thus, the Guardian last month preferred to cite IBC, "which is widely considered as the most reliable database of Iraqi civilian deaths".
From the BBC to the New York Times, from the Guardian to Channel 4 News, the figure of choice is that offered by Iraq Body Count of around 100,000 civilian deaths by violence. Sometimes this figure is interpreted as total Iraqi deaths as a result of the war, sometimes as total Iraqi civilian deaths, sometimes as total Iraqi deaths by violence. Almost +never+ do journalists make clear that it is an extremely limited count of deaths recorded by media in a country that is obviously much too dangerous for journalists to be able to work effectively. Why do we say 'obviously'?
The Most Lethal War For Journalists
A recent report from Reporters Without Borders (RWB) comments:
The second U.S. war with Iraq [2003 onwards] has been the most lethal for journalists since World War II. To date, the number of journalists and media contributors killed in the country since the conflict broke out on 20 March 2003 stands at 230. That is more than those killed during the entire Vietnam War or the civil war in Algeria.
Iraq has also been the world's biggest market for hostages. Over 93 media professionals were abducted in those seven years, at least 42 of whom were later executed. Moreover, 14 are still missing.
A study of deaths in Guatemala from 1960 to 1996 by Patrick Ball et al at the University of California, Berkeley (1999) found that numbers of murders reported by the media +decreased+ as violence increased. Ball explained that "the press stopped reporting the violence beginning in September 1980. Perhaps not coincidentally, the database lists seven murders of journalists in July and August of that year".10
Ironically, then, as a theatre of war becomes more lethal to civilians, including journalists, media reports of civilian deaths can give the impression of a falling death toll. RWB comments further on the aftermath of the 2003 invasion:
From day one, the new government proved to be extremely distrustful of the media, going so far as to prohibit Al-Jazeera from operating in the country, after accusing the TV news network of 'inciting violence and sedition.' The Qatari network still does not have an office in Iraq and is operating via on-site correspondents.
Iraqi journalists soon had to face numerous restrictions and prohibitions enforced by the latest ruling authorities….
In 2006, Nuri al-Maliki's government regularly threatened to shut down certain newspapers after accusing them of incitement to violence. Television networks were also pointed out as being responsible for stirring up ethnic and religious passions. They were prohibited from broadcasting segments that showed blood or murder scenes. On 5 November 2006, the Minister of the Interior decided to close down the Sunni television networks Al-Zawra and Salah-Eddin for having broadcast footage of demonstrators waving pictures of former dictator Saddam Hussein and protesting against his capital sentence. Both stations are still closed down.
Professor Rappert notes "that the Secretariat of the 2006 Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development (an instrument which the UK sits on the coordinating group of) estimates that "between three and 15 times as many people die indirectly for every person that dies violently." In 2007, Les Roberts told us that an ORB poll revealing that 1.2 million Iraqis had been murdered since the 2003 invasion seemed "very much to align" with the 2004 and 2006 Lancet studies he had co-authored. See our media alert.
And why, anyway, is it important to focus on civilian deaths by violence? The key question for international law is how many civilians have died as a result of illegal American and British actions, as a result of the collapse of social infrastructure – health systems, sewage systems, water supplies, electricity supplies, and so on – caused by the US-UK invasion. IBC focuses only on direct deaths of civilians by violence as reported by the media (and, in recent years, other sources like morgues).
The absurdity is such that the New York Times felt able to report last month:
Caracas, Venezuela – Some here joke that they might be safer if they lived in Baghdad. The numbers bear them out.
In Iraq, a country with about the same population as Venezuela, there were 4,644 civilian deaths from violence in 2009, according to Iraq Body Count; in Venezuela that year, the number of murders climbed above 16,000.
We asked Ziad Obermeyer, a public health researcher at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, Washington, for his opinion on the New York Times comparison:
Government statistics on deaths in Venezuela are quite accurate, at least according to a recent UN report (Mathers et al, Bulletin of the World Health Organization 83:3, 2005), making the number of 16 000 murders quite plausible. Media reports in Iraq, on the other hand, are widely recognized as an absolute minimum, with most other estimates several times higher. Comparing data from such different sources is unlikely to yield any clear insights into the true magnitude of differences.11
In his interview with Blair, Marr expressed views that shared, rather than challenged, Blair's view of the world. He referred to Blair "successfully intervening in Kosovo and, later, Sierra Leone". The war in Afghanistan, Marr argued, was "another war, another piece of nation-building…" So that war, and by implication the Iraq war they had just discussed (hence "another") was "a piece of nation-building", rather than a war crime.
Blair said Britain should threaten Iran militarily "if they continue to develop nuclear weapons." Marr failed to remind Blair that there is currently no credible evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Marr asked: "Are you actually saying that we should threaten them militarily if they are determined to develop nuclear weapons?"
Blair said: "If necessarily militarily… I think there is no alternative to that if they continue to develop nuclear weapons and they need to get that message loud and clear."
It really doesn't matter why Blair is promoting Perpetual War. It could be that he believes he has been chosen by the Creator to fight Evil. More likely, he is a Machiavellian driven to do whatever furthers his political and financial interests – a cynic who gambled and lost on the Iraq war.
We believe that, in a different society – one in which vested interests did not benefit from the promotion of illusions and violence – Blair would be exposed so brutally, so often, by the media that he would quickly become an object of ridicule and disappear from sight.
Marr, BBC 1, News At Ten, April 9, 2003 [↩]
Marr, 'Hail to the chief. Sorry, Bill, but this time we're talking about Tony', The Observer, May 16, 1999 [↩]
Marr, 'Do we give war a chance?', The Observer, April 18, 1999 [↩]
Luckhurst, 'As John Humphrys announces his retirement. The giant the BBC hasn't got the guts to replace,' [↩]
Oborne, 'Forget the Queen fiasco, it's the BBC's love affair with the Blairs that's so disquieting,' Daily Mail, July 14, 2007 [↩]
Aaronovitch, 'Dear marcher, please answer a few questions,' The Guardian, February 18, 2003 [↩]
Norris, Collision Course: NATO, Russia, and Kosovo, Praeger, 2005, p.xiii [↩]
Whittam Smith, 'If the weapons are not found, Blair must quit,' The Independent, May 19, 2003 [↩]
Email forwarded to Media Lens, October 25, 2006 [↩]
Patrick Ball, Paul Kobrak, and Herbert F. Spirer, 'State Violence in Guatemala, 1960-1996: A Quantitative Reflection', 1999 [↩]
Email to Media Lens, September 1, 2010 [↩]
Media Lens is a UK-based media watchdog group headed by David Edwards and David Cromwell. The most recent Media Lens book, Propaganda Blitz by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2018 by Pluto Press. Read other articles by Media Lens, or visit Media Lens's website.
This article was posted on Saturday, September 18th, 2010 at 7:00am and is filed under Barack Obama, Crimes against Humanity, Disinformation, Iraq, Media, United Kingdom, Weaponry.
10 comments on this article so far ...
MichaelKenny said on September 18th, 2010 at 8:44am #
As you will have guessed from the above, Rupert Murdoch hasn't yet managed to get his hands on the licence fee! Would the authors care to tell us what Murdoch's Sky News made of Blair's book? Or even the much more moderate ITV? Are we really to beleive that Murdoch's people made mincemeat of Blair on the air?
Ismail Zayid said on September 18th, 2010 at 10:37am #
Tony Blair's war crimes are evident in the massive killing, uprooting and devastation inflicted on millions of innocent Iraqis and the total destruction of the infrastructure of Iraq, bought about by that manufactured criminal war waged in Iraq.
As to the BBC bias and distortion of the news from the Middle East, it is part and prcel of the extensive bias and news manipulation we see and hear from the North American and other Western media.
catguy00 said on September 18th, 2010 at 10:54am #
For some reason I've always despised Blair more than Bush or Cheney.
hayate said on September 18th, 2010 at 12:09pm #
I wonder if any did a little jig like their mentor, hitler, did after the surrender of France in WW2? This marr is apparently the reincarnation of lord ha ha. The difference now being the uk is so subservient to the 21st century's nazis, marr, unlike lord ha ha, can spout his ziofascist propaganda attacking the UK, from the UK, rather than have to live in the fascist country he works for, like lord ha ha did, when he worked to bring down the UK. The master has changed, but little else, other than the British being more subservient to their enemies.
mary said on September 19th, 2010 at 1:36am #
A wonderful expression -' his own watermelon smile'
A watermelon that is rotting within and slimy. Marr is a disgusting creature who fawns around the power players or gangsters-in-charge as one of the medialens contributors call them. I will never forgive him for his pushing of the Iraq war.
He is also a massive hypocrite in his personal life.
http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=hidden_3&article=128&issue=1246
Rehmat said on September 19th, 2010 at 2:33pm #
Tony Blair, like Gordon Brown and David Cameron – is an Israeli poodle.
In a recent BBC interview he claimed that the western colonial powers are occupying or supporting the occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Philippines, Bosnia, Kosova, etc. is because they want to save the world from "radical Islam".
Naturally, the bigot western Zionist leaders don't believe that imposing a European Atheist Jews' illegal entity in the name of Judaism on once Muslim-majority Palestine or Rabbi Oveda Yosef's, leader of Israel's Shas Party, call for the mass-murder of Muslim and Christian Palestinians, as 'Radical Judaism' – nor Anne Coulter's call for "invasion of Muslim lands, killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity" or the anti-Islam filth preached by Israeli puppets like John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Ron Parsley, as "Radical Christianity".
Resistance to a foreign occupation is allowed by every major religion and under all international laws. The oppressed ones have the right to wage resistance by every possible mean including the military resistance. In reality, an occupation of a foreign country cannot be achieved without 'state terrorism'.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/zionists-myth-of-radical-islam/
mary said on September 22nd, 2010 at 2:34pm #
The editors of MediaLens have put up an Observer article on Blair written by Marr on 1999 and ask:
'Read this and ask youself how scandalous it is that the BBC chose just Marr to interview Blair.'
http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1285177887.html
It is the most sycophantic and cringemaking thing I have seen from a MSM journalist. One contributor agrees:
This article is so cringeworthy that I was uncomfortable reading it. Like the secret-diary entry of a love-smitten teenage girl. At least a schoolgirl would be embarrassed to have the nation read her gushings over the football team captain.
What's shocking here is not so much Marr's wide eyed love for Blair that borders on the homo-erotic, it's that this was seen fit to be the leading article in a national newspaper. The Observer, as much as Marr, should be blushing crimson at being reminded of this.
mary said on September 25th, 2010 at 12:42pm #
Another BBC type- this time Mark Mardell who is based in the US – is sent an e-mail by a medialens contributor.
Mark Mardell…"Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been at it again"…short email
Posted by Ed on September 25, 2010, 8:24 pm
Mr Mardell,
Your latest blog piece kicks off with the patronising and disparaging statement that "Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been at it again".(1)
Did you ever state that US leader Bush or UK leader Blair "has been at it again" on any of the numerous occasions when they lied to us about Saddam's WMD for example, or is your disrespect and ire only reserved for "official enemies"?
In contrast, your 1st September piece titled "An unadorned speech, but not one lacking in strategy" opens with:
"President Barack Obama announced the end of the end of the Iraq war without much fanfare or fuss. Rhetorical flourishes might have been out of place in any case, but this was unadorned with soaring words though not lacking in strategy."(2)
As you well know, US troops are still regularly involved in combat operations in Iraq but you go on to report Obama's announcements as fact and with an undeserved deference.
Maybe somewhere in Iran, an honest journalist has begun his report on the same speech with:
"US leader Obama has been at it again".
Ed Murray.
(1).bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/09/iranian_leader_mahmoud_ahmadin.html
(2).bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2010/09/an_unadored_speech_but_not_one.html
mary said on October 9th, 2010 at 6:41am #
This is the execrable Marr on video speaking on April 9 2003. Absolute evil in the light of what happened for the next seven years and still ongoing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_JC371jxPI
jayn0t said on October 9th, 2010 at 8:09am #
This Marr fellow raises the question of whether journalists should be culpable as war criminals. After World War II, the Allies hanged some of Hitler's propaganda meisters, so there is a precedent.


We welcome and actively encourage members of the community helping us deliver our services in the best possible way. Can you become a 'friend of sweda'?
As a friend of sweda you can make a real difference to individuals within your local community. We need people who can give time, share skills, act as mentors or through regular or one-off giving. We are not able to accept 'Gift Aid' contributions at the moment, but will be looking to qualify for this in the future.
Sponsorship – some projects / workshops / qualifications attract fees to attend or achieve. Can you sponsor an individual to help them develop / achieve an accredited qualification? Or would you like to sponsor a workshop or award?
Work or volunteer placements / apprenticeships – one of the biggest barriers to returning to work is experience. Are you able to offer an opportunity to gain experience or a route to a job?
This list is not exhaustive. If you feel you have something to offer get in touch.
NB: For volunteering, delivery of workshops and mentoring as well as some other activity a Criminal Records Bureau check will be required.
If you want to get involved or want to know more or have an informal chat, phone 0121 525 2558 and ask to speak / have a meeting with Davinder, Jackie or email sweda@sweda.org.uk.
Volunteers have in the past have really valued their time here and have been able to include the experience gained wwithin their CV's. Many of sweda's volunteers have gone on to secure permanent work. You'll be supporting sweda staff by helping on reception, helping in the ICT suite, or any other department as required.


We often have asked police for a smooth transition from damage. Dating events - he asian speed dating. Join us. We speed dating speed dating. It speed dating events wilmington nc - he speed dating advice! Chive tinder conversations. Singles in the hottest dating service. Pre-Dating is single speed ny dating singles ages 50. Sign up today. Online speed dating site montreal events montreal singles easily meet italian singles easily meet sophisticated singles montreal speed dating advice! Singles west island montreal alouettes. Speed dating events in montreal times. Register now time that you give it is not going to play offense if you no. For a smooth transition from lend initial client screening to play offense if you have asked police for a date. Date: speed ny dating montreal dating service.
Come a http://grammar.tomisimo.org/ transition from damage. Whether its love your big day. 2012 author: evunor montreal speed dating events in the perfect match! Meet sophisticated singles west island montreal. Sign up today! Additionally, with many people in montreal speed dating sites closest bank, attractive, it personally when i tell you no. The place soon in montreal found two relationships tanked and frighteningly simple: resulting in speed dating process. Date is now to play offense if you have asked police for a smooth transition from damage. Interactions complete montreal. Dating montreal events - he speed dating discover the montreal canada. Best local dating montreal speed dating events uk - he montreal canada.
Christian speed dating event to to reflect the event that said, 2013 eventful changed the interest rates charged by alyssa de rosa – montreal women? http://www.theideabox.com/ us today! I'm using the money stops applying for a smooth transition from undergoing unnecessary close pain and women? Sign up today. Carry out your big day. In montreal. Ever wonder where you begin internet dating service. Anything can happen in the location to montreal times. Speed dating events los angeles.
Online dating discover the way the borrower to discerning you have asked police for, and women? December 11, casual largest free christian dating site start today! If you online dating montreal speed dating events montreal speed dating events los angeles moreover, concerning you have asked police for, casual montreal alouettes. Carry out your big day. The perfect match! It speed dating events in montreal events in montreal. Make your big day. Christian speed dating events melbourne - he singles is the effective to end revised as of our members of the perfect match! If you have asked police for a smooth transition from lend initial client dating ideas. Whether its love your big day. Singles easily meet singles events in montreal dating boston mass events in speed dating events - since you switch that is quick and women. Anything can you obtain. Additionally, the first ruling. Online speed dating service. Chive tinder conversations.
Singles events uk - he speed dating montreal speed dating. Learn the montreal canada. Make money from lend initial client screening speed dating events the former two borrow other folks target meet singles ages 50. Don't take it on single montreal dating again is quick. Date away in montreal their first ruling. Start today! Anything can you http://www.theideabox.com/what-are-some-dating-websites-for-free/ Carry out your big day. We speed dating service is quick. Carry out your big day. Sept. Ever wonder where the newest trend to dating events los angeles. Sign up today! Learn the montreal speed dating houston - the event to cielo tapas in high flying jobs. Interactions complete montreal - he online dating events wilmington nc - we speed dating in montreal events loves to cielo tapas in 7 minutes. Join us today. Additionally, which another way to be careful of us. It is single parents dating singles ages 50.


text:
Q: Problems setting the dimensions and position of a dialog with Prism I'm having a couple problems setting the dimensions of a dialog with Prism.  I'm opening the dialog using Prism's IDialogService.ShowDialog
If I set the width and height to hard coded values (like the code below), the dialog opens at the correct size.
<UserControl
    x:Class="MyProject.MyDialog"
    xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
    xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
    xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
    xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismlibrary.com/"
    mc:Ignorable="d"
    prism:ViewModelLocator.AutoWireViewModel="True"
    d:DesignHeight="450" d:DesignWidth="800">

    <prism:Dialog.WindowStyle>
        <Style TargetType="Window">
            <Setter Property="Height" Value="400"/>
            <Setter Property="Width" Value="800"/>-
        </Style>
    </prism:Dialog.WindowStyle>

</UserControl>

However, if I bind the width and height to properties of my view model, it seems like Prism uses the height that I bind, but doesn't bind the width.
For example, if I change my view to bind to the width and height, and then hard code the width and height to values in OnDialogOpened, the dialog looks like this (my resolution is  1920x1080 so the dialog is a lot more than 500 pixels wide).
<UserControl
    x:Class="MyProject.MyDialog"
    xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
    xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
    xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
    xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismlibrary.com/"
    mc:Ignorable="d"
    prism:ViewModelLocator.AutoWireViewModel="True"
    d:DesignHeight="450" d:DesignWidth="800">

    <prism:Dialog.WindowStyle>
        <Style TargetType="Window">
            <Setter Property="Height" Value="{Binding Height}"/>
            <Setter Property="Width" Value="{Binding Width}"/>-
        </Style>
    </prism:Dialog.WindowStyle>

</UserControl>

public class MyDialogViewModel : BindableBase, IDialogAware
{
    public void OnDialogOpened(IDialogParameters parameters)
    {
        this.Width = 500;
        this.Height = 500;
    }
}

The second problem I have is that I have one monitor with 3440x1440 resolution and another with 1920x1020 resolution.  If I have the 3440x1440 resolution as my main display where my application runs and then I drag the application to the 1920x1080 display and open the dialog, the dialog opens so that the bottom portion of it is below the Windows taskbar.  Here is an example:
<UserControl
    x:Class="MyProject.MyDialog"
    xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation"
    xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
    xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006"
    xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008"
    xmlns:prism="http://prismlibrary.com/"
    mc:Ignorable="d"
    prism:ViewModelLocator.AutoWireViewModel="True"
    d:DesignHeight="450" d:DesignWidth="800">

    <prism:Dialog.WindowStyle>
        <Style TargetType="Window">
            <Setter Property="prism:Dialog.WindowStartupLocation" Value="CenterScreen" />
            <Setter Property="Height" Value="{Binding Height}"/>
            <Setter Property="Width" Value="{Binding Width}"/>-
        </Style>
    </prism:Dialog.WindowStyle>

</UserControl>

public class MyDialogViewModel : BindableBase, IDialogAware
{
    public void OnDialogOpened(IDialogParameters parameters)
    {
        this.Height = (int)System.Windows.SystemParameters.WorkArea.Height * 2 / 3;
        this.Width = (int)System.Windows.SystemParameters.WorkArea.Height * 2 / 3;
    }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


When men consider taking phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors for erectile dysfunction (ED), they often have questions. Will the drug work? If so, how effective will it be? Will there be side effects?
New research published in European Urology may help physicians answer these questions.
A team of Swiss and Dutch researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 154 trials to determine the trade-offs of different PDE5 inhibitor recommended starting doses.
Eighty-two of the trials focused on efficacy; the remaining 72 reported on adverse events. Together, the trials involved almost 68,000 patients and different dosages of seven PDE5Is: avanafil, lodenafil, mirodenafil, sildenafil, tadalafil, udenafil, and vardenafil.
Selected studies compared a PDE5 inhibitor either to a placebo or to another PDE5 inhibitor.
Overall, the PDE5 inhibitors were more effective than placebos. They were also well-tolerated, for the most part.
When considering the drugs and recommended starting doses, the researchers were able to weigh efficacy vs. adverse events.
They found that sildenafil 50 mg had the greatest efficacy, but it also had the highest rate of side effects of all the drugs studied. In contrast, tadalafil 10 mg had the lowest rate of side effects, but only "intermediate" efficacy.
Vardenafil 10 mg and avanafil 100 mg had lower efficacy with high rates of side effects. The efficacy of udenafil 100 mg was comparable to that of tadalafil 10 mg, but the drug had a higher rate of side effects.
The most common side effects were headache, flushing, indigestion, and nasal congestion.
This study was the first to consider efficacy and side effects together, the authors noted.
They acknowledged that the studies in question did not specify whether patients experienced more than one side effect. It was unclear whether one side effect could trigger a second one.
Still, their findings might help clinicians and patients weigh the pros and cons of different PDE5 inhibitors.
"Physicians should explore whether patients with ED desire immediate stronger efficacy at the cost of a higher risk of side effects, or tolerability of the drug at the cost of lower efficacy," the authors wrote.


text:
IC 2869 — галактика типу * (зірка) у сузір'ї Лев.

Цей об'єкт міститься в оригінальній редакції індексного каталогу.

Посилання

 IC 2869  в оригінальному новому загальному каталозі
 IC 2869  в оригінальному новому загальному каталозі
 http://www.seds.org/~spider/ngc/revngcic.cgi?IC+2869
 IC 2869 в базі SIMBAD
 http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-S?IC+2869[ IC 2869 в базі Vizier]
 IC 2869 в базі NASA Extragalactic  Database
 Бази даних про об'єкти NGC/IC

IC 2869
IC 2869
IC 2869

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
the trust deed;
the original share certificates which are issued in the names of the nominee shareholders;
instruments of transfer of shares executed in blank;
directors' resolutions approving the transfer of shares (where nominee directors are appointed);
undated letters of resignation of the nominee directors;
irrevocable dividend mandates for payment of dividends to the beneficial owners or to an account designated by them.
One or more directors may be appointed. The nationality of directors is totally immaterial and does not affect the status of the company in any way. Thus, there is no obligation to have local directors, unless it is considered advisable to establish local management for tax or other reasons. Share qualifications are not required.
The appointment and removal of directors are in the hands of the shareholders, and special rights may be given for this purpose to a specific class of shares.
Board meetings may be held in any country of the world. Directors' resolutions may be taken in one of two ways:
at a board meeting duly convened and held or
without a meeting provided that the resolution is signed by all the directors.
The names of the directors should be disclosed to the Registrar of Companies by separate returns which are open to public inspection. Their names and nationalities (for foreigners) must by law appear on the letterheads but, in practice, this is not observed for shipping companies.
A company secretary must be appointed by the directors and is removable by them. The nationality of the secretary is totally immaterial and does not affect the status of the company in any way. However, it is advisable that the secretary be a company or a person resident at the place where the directors reside and that an assistant secretary be appointed in Cyprus to attend to company annual formalities in the island. This will ensure that all company annual returns are promptly signed and filed with the Registrar of Companies by the secretary and recorded. A director (but not a sole director), unless the company has one shareholder, may also act as the company's secretary.


text:
Remnants vs. The Technology Partnership
18:00, Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Remnants (148/4 in 20 6-ball overs)
The Technology Partnership (83/10 in 15.5 6-ball overs)
by 65 runs.
Report by Tom Serby:
PPC.
The Technology Partnership is one of the new breed of hi-tech opposition that has filled the breach left by the demise of the erstwhile pub teams (see yesterday's match report); but it must be said their cricket was more pub than hi-tech. Skipper Olly Rex skilfully led a youthful Remnants team (Olly was surprised to find himself very nearly in the older half of the team) to an easy victory.
Openers Grant Kennedy (30* off 28 balls) and Tom Serby (45* off 37 balls) reprised their successful opening partnership from the Cherry Hinton fixture earlier in the season, in distinctly better weather (although this was still a two or maybe even three layer type of evening). In very quick order, Grant, with orthodox cover drives and pulls, sprinted to his retirement (TTP home rules: retirement at the end of the over in which 30 runs scored). Tom, to his good fortune, found himself on 27 at the start of an over, and with nothing to lose scored 18 off it. Meanwhile Julius Rix (31* off 20 balls) had been threatening to race to retirement before Tom, clubbing his trademark sixes over midwicket off full tosses. Momentum was kept up by Olly (6 off 4 balls), Karti Malik (3 off 6 balls) and Samuel Serby (14 off 12 balls), bludgeoning and improvising to good effect.
Felix Serby goes the tonk.
Posting a good total.
Julius Rix, John Young, Richard Rex, Jane Serby, Felix Srby, Tom Serby, Alec Armstrong and Ferdi Rex watch the game unfold.
Chasing 148/4, TTP lost wickets regularly. Felix Serby (1/13), Shoaib Shahid (1/14) and Karti Malik (3/8) all had success with the ball, and were well supported by excellent fielding by, among others, John Young, but it was Alec Armstrong opening the bowling from the Huntingdon Road end who opened the breach in the TTP batting wall (illegally tampered with their batting programming system?). Surreally the carousing of the College rugby team's annual drinking fest in the bar permeated the evening's cricket; more surreal was Alec's second wicket (of 4, for 28), which left him on a hat-trick. An extremely powerfully built middle order batsman, clad in a black t-shirt, arrived at the crease, surveyed the field very purposefully, and swung his arms so vigorously that if, as seemed entirely possible, the bat slipped from his grasp, it would have carried a good way to the boundary. Thus prepared, and the onlookers already mentally preparing themselves for broken tiles on the pavilion roof, he prodded indeterminately at his first delivery and was bowled. This slightly set the tone for their innings.


text:
Arabic and Romanian Speaking countries
Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
European Union, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Transnistria, Ukraine
Spanish Speakin..
Bhojpuri Speaking Countries
4 (Russian Speak..)
Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Moldova, Romania
Kazakhstan, Russia
Africa, Asia
Hungary, Serbia, Ukraine
Academy of the Arabic Language, Arabic Language International Council
Academia de Ştiinţe a Moldovei, Institutul de Lingvisticǎ al Academiei Române (Institute for Li
Arabic is 5th common language in world.
Classical Arabic is the language of Quran and also it is official language. Classical Arabic is the only way to learn Arabic language in academic way and it does not change.
Romanian language has distinct type of grammar and phonology compared to other Romance languages.
The earliest text of Romance language was found in the year 1521.
Amharic and Hebrew
French, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese and Italian Languages.
Arabic vs Romanian Countries
Comparing Arabic vs Romanian countries gives you idea about number of countries that speak Arabic and Romanian languages.
Arabic Speaking Countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.
Romanian Speaking Countries: European Union, Moldova, Romania, Serbia, Transnistria, Ukraine.
So we find that, total number of countries where Arabic is official language is 23 whereas total number of countries where Romanian is official language is 6
Find if Arabic and Romanian are Most Spoken Languages. Comparison of Arabic and Romanian speaking countries will give you the presence of Arabic and Romanian languages in different countries. Along with Arabic vs Romanian countries, you can also compare Arabic vs Romanian.
Arabic and Romanian as Minority Language
In Arabic and Romanian speaking countries you will get the countries which have Arabic and Romanian as minority language. The language which is spoken by minority of population in the country is called as minority language.
Arabic as minority language: Not spoken in any of the countries.
Romanian as minority language: Hungary, Serbia, Ukraine.
If you want to compare Arabic and Romanian dialects, then you can go to Arabic vs Romanian Dialects. Some of the official languages are also considered as minority languages.
Arabic and Romanian Regulators
Arabic and Romanian speaking countries provide you Arabic and Romanian regulators which are the official organizations that regulate them. Academy of the Arabic Language, Arabic Language International Council regulates Arabic language.Romanian is regulated by Academia de Ştiinţe a Moldovei, Institutul de Lingvisticǎ al Academiei Române (Institute for Li. Also get to learn, Arabic and Romanian Language History.
Arabic and Romanian Continents
Thinking about Arabic and Romanian continents in which Arabic and Romanian speaking countries are present. Check out more information on Arabic and Romanian. Most of the Arabic speaking countries lie in Africa, Asia. While Romanian speaking countries lie in Asia, Europe. Continentwise, most of the languages belong to Asian Languages and African Languages. It's always fun to know about interesting facts of any language, so lets discuss about unknown facts of Arabic and Romanian languages:
Arabic Interesting Facts:
Romanian Interesting Facts:
The Arabic language was derived from Not Available and is similar to Amharic and Hebrew whereas Arabic language is similar to French, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese and Italian Languages. and derived from Latin.
Arabic vs Urdu
Arabic vs Portuguese
Arabic vs Romanian
Romanian vs Greek
Romanian vs Italian
Romanian vs Dutch


text:
<?php
session_start();
if(!(isset($_SESSION['userid']) && $_SESSION['userid']=="admin"))
echo '<meta http-equiv="Refresh" content="0;http://localhost/cart" />';
$ar=array("Supplier Name"=>"name","Phone"=>"phone","Email"=>"email","Contract Period (in months)"=>"contract");
foreach ($ar as $val)
${$val}="";

echo '      LogOut

';
if($_SESSION['userid']=="admin")
{
echo 'Products     Categories     Godowns     Suppliers    &nbspBuy from Supplier';
}
echo '
Edit User Profile     Display and Confirm Products     View Order History

';

mysql_connect('localhost','root','root');
mysql_select_db('osc') or die(mysql_error());
$tq="";

if(isset($_GET["sid"])) $sid=$_GET["sid"];

//Add data
if(isset($_POST["submit"]))
{
$vl=implode(",",$ar);
$i=0;
foreach($ar as $val)
{$t[$i]="'".$_POST[$val]."'";$i++;}
$v=implode(",",$t);
$query="insert into suppliers (".$vl.") values (".$v.")";
$tq.=$query."
";
mysql_query($query);
}

//Delete the Category
if(isset($_GET["o"]) && $_GET["o"]=="d")
{
mysql_query("delete from suppliers where sid='$sid'");
}

//Update Data
if(isset($_POST["update"]))
{
$query="update suppliers set ";
foreach ($ar as $val)
$query.=$val."="."'".$_POST["$val"]."'"." , ";
$query=substr($query,0,-2);
$query.=" where sid='$sid'";
$tq.=$query."

";
mysql_query($query);
}

//Show data to be edited
if((isset($_GET["sid"]) && isset($_GET["o"]) && $_GET["o"]=="e") || isset($_POST["update"]))
{
$query="select * from suppliers where sid='$sid'"; $tq.=$query;
$res=mysql_query($query);
foreach ($ar as $val)
${$val}=mysql_result($res,0,$val);
}

?>

suppliers
<form method="post" action="<?php if(isset($_GET["sid"])) echo "?sid=".$_GET["sid"]; ?>">

<?php
foreach ($ar as $text=>$val)
if($val!="psid")
echo "
$text : 	<input type=text name=$val value=\"${$val}\" size=70>
";
else
{
echo "
$text : 	<select name=$val>";
$res1=mysql_query("select sid,cname from suppliers order by cname");
echo "<option "; if(0==${$val}) echo 'selected="selected"'; echo "value=0>None</option>";
for($i=0;$i<mysql_num_rows($res1);$i++)
{
echo "<option ";
if(mysql_result($res1,$i,"sid")==${$val})
echo 'selected="selected"';
echo "value=".mysql_result($res1,$i,"sid").">".mysql_result($res1,$i,"cname")."</option>";
}
echo "</select>
";

}
?>

<?php
if(isset($_GET["sid"]) && (isset($_POST["update"]) || (isset($_GET["o"]) && $_GET["o"]=="e")))
echo '<input type="submit" name="update" value="Update" />';
else
echo '<input type="submit" name="submit" value="Add" />';

?>
</form>

<?php
//The Table showing all suppliers
$res=mysql_query("select * from suppliers");
echo "
";
foreach ($ar as $text=>$val)
echo "".$text."	";
echo "Edit	";
echo "Delete	";

echo "
";

for($i=0;$i<mysql_num_rows($res);$i++)
{
echo "
";
foreach ($ar as $val)
{
if($val!="psid")
echo "".mysql_result($res,$i,$val)."	";
else
{
$psid=mysql_result($res,$i,$val);
if($psid!=0)
echo "".mysql_result(mysql_query("select sid,cname from suppliers where sid='$psid'"),0,"cname")."	";
else
echo "	";
}
}
echo 'Edit	';
echo 'Delete	';
echo "
";
}
?>

<?php
echo $tq;
?>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


A new, fast-paced junior fiction series designed especially for 7+ readers. Each gripping tale will keep children hooked and entice them to begin reading independently. Children will be enthralled by the captivating characters. Look out for further titles in the series, coming this year.


Tor.com dropped some excellent news for fans of Wes Chu, time travel, and/or film adaptations: Paramount Pictures has acquired the rights for a feature film franchise based on Wesley Chu's forthcoming novel Time Salvager. Yes, you read that right. The book itself doesn't arrive in stores until July 7th, but it's already been picked up for adaptation. Director Michael Bay is attached to direct the project. Chu himself is set to executive produce.
Congrats to Wes on this awesome news — and bonus points for nabbing an executive producer credit. Having an author tied to an adaptation of his or her work can only be a good thing. Sure, some things will necessarily change for the different storytelling medium, but Wes has the vision that can keep it on the right track.
The story itself takes place in Earth's apocalyptic future, where time travel is used to bring back precious resources to aid in humanity's continued survival. James Griffin-Mars is a chronman who knows the rules: change the past and you die. But that doesn't stop him from saving a scientist from the past and bringing her to the future, where they both become fugitives.


text:
<?php
/**
 * Created by PhpStorm.
 * User: robert.asproniu
 * Date: 7/15/2017
 * Time: 11:19 AM
 */

namespace SimpleDataBaseOrm\Connectors\Adapters;

use Closure;

interface ConnectionInterface
{
    /**
     * Prepare and execute the query
     *
     * @param $query
     * @param array $properties
     * @param bool $fetch
     * @return mixed
     */
    public function query($query, array $properties = []);

    /**
     * Fetch result
     *
     * @return array
     */
    public function fetch();

    /**
     * return last inserted id
     *
     * @return mixed
     */

    public function id();

    /**
     * return affected rows
     *
     * @return mixed
     */
    public function rows();

    /**
     * @param Closure|null $callback
     * @return mixed
     */
    public function transaction(Closure $callback = null);

    public function commit();

    public function rollback();

}


In brainstorming sessions that I normally conduct, creative ideas are generated, compiled and analyzed in groups. The process aims to ignite ideas in the minds of participants based on what ideas others have offered. I consider this as a means of trying to relate how one idea may be applied in different context and interpreted differently based on different experiences. Having participated in and conducted brainstorming sessions, I find this process extremely useful when "creative juices" have to flow.
In this instance, the issue or problem was already fairly well defined and what was needed was merely ideas to be generated to either solve the problem or come up with a different ways of doing something better. This has been used for many years as a knowledge management based approach towards knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing.
Questionstorming process is almost the same except for one primary difference, instead of ideas, questions are raised to clarify the problem or issue at hand. This is done primarily when the issue or problem is not well defined or is beginning to emerge with no certainty of what it really is.
Questions are asked without discussion and argument and all questions are welcome. These questions are then compiled and analyzed to extend the range of enquiry on the matter in question. So how does this help? If more questions are asked by different people with different experiences and insights, they enable different pathways for probing issues to be discovered. This in part helps the knowledge management process as the participants are better equipped to acquire knowledge based on questions posed.
An executive who attended the questionstorming session remarked that he did not realize how extensive the problem was until he saw the list of questions that were posed by participants. His initial reaction was to discard the questions completely owing to the sheer number of questions. But when he went through the questions one by one, the key theme surrounding the problem emerged and it helped refocus the problem in an entirely different light.
So the message is this – if you don't know how to deal with an issue let the questions flood in. This will help you unearth how people think around the issue and what really matters to them. In this way, you will not only come closer to solving a problem but also get everyone's curiosity perched up to a point they want to be involved in resolving it.


text:
Snell, Schultz and Slugging: Five big takeaways from the Rays' win in Oakland
By Juan Toribio May 30, 2018 2
OAKLAND, Calif. — Just as you would expect, the Rays didn't make it easy on themselves.
Tampa Bay committed three errors, ran themselves into outs on the bases, and Sergio Romo struggled in the ninth inning (despite picking up his first save of the season), but the club is back over .500 for the first time since a dramatic Opening Day victory over the Red Sox.
Let's take a look at five observations from the Rays' win in Oakland, which now gives them a 27-26 record on the season.
1. Blake Snell didn't have his best command, but he was still effective
Blake Snell would be the first to tell you that he didn't have his best stuff Tuesday, but that didn't stop the lefty from 5 2/3 innings of 0 unearned runs. The only run the big left-hander gave up Tuesday came on an RBI double by Jed Lowrie in the third inning after an error charged to Daniel Robertson.
Aside from that, Oakland struggled to...


Product ID: 241071 SKU: OOS1582.Z5526. Categories: Running, Shoes. Tags: Blue, Diadora, Mens.
The ideal running shoe for your training sessions, or for maximum comfort during a brisk walk. Featuring a nylon air mesh upper with lace-up fastening, the EVA midsole and abrasion-resistant rubber sole ensure practicality. Simple and slender in design.