text:
Sea change: Exploring the international effort to promote marine protected areas
Noella J Gray
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University Marine Laboratory, Beaufort, NC, USA
Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
Citing multiple threats to marine biodiversity and resources, the international marine conservation community is promoting greater adoption of marine protected areas (MPAs). Like terrestrial protected areas, MPAs are characterised by debates over the appropriate role for scientific input and citizen participation and how to balance concerns for both social equity and ecological effectiveness. This paper explores how such debates are influencing the framing of MPAs as a global policy tool, based on an 'event ethnography' conducted at the 2008 World Conservation Congress in Barcelona. International non-governmental organisations (NGOs) dominated the discussions and agenda setting, although multiple concerns for MPAs were incorporated into the discussions. The framing of MPAs highlighted a global scale and vision, reflected by and reinforcing the dominant role of the big NGOs. However, it did not go unchallenged, nor is it prescriptive.
Keywords: marine conservation, marine protected area, IUCN, non-governmental organisation, event ethnography
Gray NJ. Sea change: Exploring the international effort to promote marine protected areas. Conservat Soc 2010;8:331-8
Gray NJ. Sea change: Exploring the international effort to promote marine protected areas. Conservat Soc [serial online] 2010 [cited 2019 Jul 19];8:331-8. Available from: http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2010/8/4/331/78149
The world's oceans are in a crisis. Recent research suggests that no stretch is unaffected by human influence, and 41% is strongly affected by multiple 'anthropogenic drivers', such as fishing, pollutants, shipping, nutrients, and ocean acidification (Halpern et al. 2008). In 2007, 80% of the world's fish stocks were classified as either overexploited (28%) or fully exploited (52%) (FAO 2009). The world's coral reefs are threatened by rising sea-surface temperatures and acidification as a result of climate change, in addition to the localised impact of sedimentation, sewage discharges, nutrient loading and eutrophication from agro-chemicals, and overfishing. One-third of the coral species have an elevated risk of extinction (Carpenter et al. 2008).
In response to these and other problems, marine conservationists are increasingly promoting marine protected areas (MPAs), particularly 'no-take zones', as a conservation tool (Lubchenco et al. 2003). [1] Successive recommendations from the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and the 2003 World Parks Congress called for the establishment of a global network of MPAs by 2012 (Laffoley et al. 2009), including the specification that the network should include "strictly protected areas that amount to at least 20-30% of each habitat" (IUCN 2003). [2] This call for a global network of MPAs was reiterated at the 2008 World Conservation Congress (WCC), including an expressed concern that only 0.65% of the world's oceans and 1.6% of the area within the nations' exclusive economic zones are currently covered by MPAs (IUCN 2009). In short, international MPA targets are not being met (Wood et al. 2008). The number of MPAs worldwide has increased from 118 in 1970 (Kelleher 1999) to an estimated 4435 as of 2006 (Wood et al. 2008). Although conservationists lament the slow rate at which MPAs are being created and the small fraction of the world's oceans included in such areas, 4435 is not an insignificant number. Social scientists have, in fact, described the rapid spread of MPAs as a 'pandemic' (Jentoft et al. 2007) and one of the most important factors in the ongoing transformation of the international seascape (Nichols 1999).
This series of statistics serves three purposes as an introduction to this paper. First, it highlights the many very real challenges facing the marine environment and the human communities who depend on it for their livelihoods. Second, it illustrates that the manner in which we know and understand these problems is increasingly framed through science, at a global scale. Third, it suggests that the promotion of MPAs warrants close attention, given that this is the primary tool being advanced as a means of conserving and managing the marine environment. The purpose of this paper is to explore how MPAs are being framed as a conservation policy tool through organised international efforts, by considering how they were conceptualised at the 2008 WCC. The paper focuses specifically on how concerns for both conservation and human welfare are incorporated into and accommodated within this international effort to expand MPAs.
In spite of the increasing prevalence and popularity of MPAs, there is still much debate over how they should be designed and managed (Jones 2001). The 'expert knowledge' advocates argue that unless MPAs are designed according to scientific criteria, they cannot possibly meet their conservation objectives (e.g., Crowder et al. 2000; Sala 2002), whereas the 'local participation' advocates argue that conservation objectives cannot be met unless support for MPAs is cultivated through citizen participation in MPA designation and management processes (e.g., Fiske 1992; Christie et al. 2003; Dalton 2005). Debates over conservation and social welfare can often seem to be a 'dialog of the deaf' (Redford et al. 2006), although there is perhaps more room for productive engagement within the marine realm, given that it has only recently received attention on the conservation agenda (Campbell et al. 2009). Unlike terrestrial conservation, which has a history of trying to integrate local participation and human development concerns after the fact (i.e., the shift from 'fences and fines' to 'community-based' conservation), MPAs have arisen in the context of support for participatory, community-based approaches to conservation (Levine 2007). However, marine conservation has also been influenced by the recent resurgent argument against community-based approaches (Wilshusen et al. 2002), particularly in terms of the move towards thinking on transboundary or ecosystem-based scales (Brosius & Russell 2003). [3]
MPAs are thus influenced by broader conservation debates-should policies be driven by expert knowledge or local processes and how do we balance the protection of marine biodiversity and resources with concerns for human welfare? These debates occur in the abstract, among an international network of scientists and conservation professionals, as well as in relation to particular places and MPAs. Recent ethnographic work has examined how MPAs are conceptualised, implemented, and contested in particular places, especially in terms of how knowledge is produced and valued and how participation is enabled and constrained through the interactions of states, international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the private sector and local communities (Aswani & Weiant 2004; Levine 2004; Walley 2004; Fortwangler 2007; Levine 2007; Gray 2009). However, the manner in which these debates are worked out in the international conservation arena has not yet been considered. This paper explores how MPAs were envisioned and promoted at the WCC, to consider how the global terms of debate are being set for them. How is the international marine conservation community mobilising ideas about conservation, expert science, local participation, and social welfare to inform the global proliferation of MPAs?
In addition, this research draws on recent work on the construction of scale, which considers how scales are represented and with what implications for material impacts and practices (see for example Cox 1998; Marston 2000; Herod & Wright 2002; Manson 2008). Environmental NGOs engage in a variety of scalar strategies in order to frame environmental debates and influence decision making (McCarthy 2005). For example, many NGOs draw on a discourse of global ecology that relies not only on scientific justification but also on the scalar construction of a global commons; such global representations empower international NGOs to intervene in particular places in defence of a 'global' good (MacDonald 2005). The construction of scale is ultimately a struggle for control over both ideas and processes (Bulkeley 2005). What were the scalar strategies used by actors at the WCC in order to promote MPAs?
Exploring Marine Protected Area Framing at the WCC
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is an umbrella organisation that includes 87 states, 120 government agencies, 817 national NGOs, 91 international NGOs, and 31 affiliates. [4] The IUCN describes itself as a 'knowledge-based organisation' that provides knowledge and tools for effective policies (MacDonald 2003). The WCC is a quadrennial meeting of all members of the IUCN and is divided into two parts: the 'Forum', which is part conference and part conservation trade show, and the 'Members' Assembly' in which the ~1100 government and NGO members of the IUCN vote on motions which, if adopted as resolutions, guide IUCN activities. The policies and positions of the IUCN are thus representative of dominant global ideas of conservation. In addition to supporting conservation activities, it also works to produce and circulate a definition of what constitutes conservation (MacDonald 2003). The WCC thus presents an excellent opportunity to investigate how MPAs are framed and promoted by the international conservation community. By conducting ethnographic research at the WCC, it is possible to examine how ideas are introduced, discussed, and contested, not just how they are neatly represented in final documents, policy statements, or resolutions.
Just as the WCC presents a novel opportunity to study the making of MPAs, so too does it constrain the ethnographic approach, which typically relies on sustained immersion in a context over a longer period of time in order to observe, listen, ask questions, record detailed fieldnotes, and produce rich, qualitative accounts of processes and meanings (see O'Reilly 2005). Responding to calls for 'ethnographic symmetry', which requires that careful attention be paid to officials at the centre of knowledge and power as well as local resource users (Robbins 2002), several scholars have begun to employ 'institutional ethnography' to study powerful international organisations (e.g., Goldman 2005). There has even been some experimentation with ethnography at 'transnational mega-events' such as the WCC. Based on his study of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, Little (1995) argues that such events offer a new opportunity for ethnographic analysis. Recognising the ethnographic challenge posed by the complex and fragmentary nature of such mega-events (Little 1995), this paper focuses specifically on WCC events and processes related to MPAs. By participating in a 'collaborative event ethnography' (see Brosius & Campbell this issue), it was possible to focus specifically on events and processes related to MPAs while also situating these observations within a broader, collaborative analysis of other WCC activities.
Marine conservation enjoyed "an unprecedented amount of coverage" at the 2008 WCC, including 38 marine workshops, 24 motions devoted to marine issues, and 15 marine roundtable discussions, among other activities (IUCN Global Marine Programme 2008). These activities were outlined in Marine Journey, a glossy pamphlet designed to assist WCC attendees in locating marine-related events. I attended many of the sessions in this category, including most of those related to MPAs (concurrent events precluded the possibility of attending all relevant events). I took detailed notes relating to both formal presentations as well as informal conversations and discussions (see Emerson et al. 1995). I also followed discussions of Motion 067, "Accelerating progress to establish marine protected areas and creating marine protected area networks" (IUCN 2008).
In addition, I conducted 11 in-depth interviews with WCC attendees who work on MPAs, either with government agencies (3 people), international NGOs (3 people), smaller local or national NGOs (3 people) or in private consulting (2 people). Six of the interviewees were identified using purposeful and snowball sampling (the interviewees were either individuals I had previously met or were referred to me by mutual colleagues), while the remaining five interviewees were people I identified as relevant individuals based on their involvement at the WCC. Four interviewees had extensive experience with the IUCN and had attended previous WCC meetings, while others were less familiar with the IUCN and were attending their first WCC. Nine of the interviews were recorded and transcribed, while I took detailed notes on the other two interviews. Although this sample is neither representative nor very large, the common themes that emerge from these interviews, taken in conjunction with participant observation of the WCC events and activities, offer insights into how MPAs are being framed in this international arena.
The Global Marine Protected Area Target
One main focus of the discussions on MPAs at the WCC was the goal of establishing a global network of MPAs by 2012. These discussions framed MPAs as a globally applicable tool, to be used to protect global oceans. Given the international membership of the IUCN, it is not surprising that discussions at the WCC would be framed at a global scale. However, I want to explore the particular way in which the global MPA target was discussed and the implied consequences of such a framing.
To know if this global network is, in fact, being established, there needs to be a way to systematically count, visualise, and track the implementation of MPAs. A new tool was released to aid this effort-the marine layer on Google Earth, which was developed with the cooperation of the IUCN Global Marine Programme and researchers (see Wood et al. 2008 for related work). As one IUCN staff member said during an MPA workshop, "If we can't mark new achievements, we can't produce a compelling picture globally… the Google tool is not a solution in and of itself, but it does give greater visibility". Conference delegates with knowledge of particular MPAs were encouraged to add information to the online tool in order maximise the global visibility of MPAs. By depicting 'progress' as the spatial proliferation of MPAs, such representations serve to legitimise MPAs as a global tool, regardless of what is actually happening in particular locations.
Participants in one session on 'MPA Networks: Lessons Learned' widely agreed that the primary function of the 2012 target for a global network of MPAs (or 'the target') was to "generate political will" and to "put political pressure" on governments to meet the target. One interviewee emphasised this saying, "the point of the global target is psychological. It's really about motivating change". One function of the global target is to frame MPAs as 'the solution' for all countries; this enables NGO members of the IUCN to 'jump scales', putting international pressure on individual governments to implement MPAs. To this end, the WCC was represented as just one in a series of international meetings (e.g., the World Parks Congress, the International Marine Protected Areas Congress) that are "opportunities to catalyse the process," as explained by one presenter at an MPA workshop. Delegates at the WCC are not only conscious of the power of IUCN resolutions, policies, and documents to frame conservation issues; they are strategic in their efforts to use this venue to promote particular agendas. The degree to which such targets actually influence particular governments varies. As one interviewee noted,
"Things like the IUCN resolutions, they tend to have less influence on the United States government than they do on other governments… for other countries, if you talk to their MPA practitioners, they'll very clearly say, I talked to our Secretary, and our Secretary has agreed that we have to move forward because we want to meet our targets".
One interviewee, who works on MPAs as well as other marine conservation issues, reported that his organisation joined the IUCN specifically to access the resolution process in order to influence domestic policy.
"Resolutions are as useful as you make them… So you have to tailor the resolutions to what you want or what you need… [we] showed the politicians, this is what the IUCN congress is calling for… Then we approached the IUCN, and said this is what is going on in Costa Rica, and the IUCN board of directors sent a letter to the Costa Rican government…and this gave us a tremendous amount of support in Costa Rica for the policy [related to shark finning] to prevail".
This 'boomerang strategy', wherein activists seek the support of international allies in order to influence state behaviour, is increasingly common (Keck & Sikkink 1999). In this case, the framing of MPAs as the global policy tool for marine conservation serves the interests of members who seek additional resources to support their own work on MPAs in particular countries.
The global 2012 target was seldom questioned during the workshops and other events. Typically, the target was supported as a means of generating political will and donor support for MPAs. However, in one MPA workshop, a delegate from the Caribbean pointed out that although the target had created political stimulus and generated donor funding for the creation of MPAs, "there is limited capacity and very few MPAs are effectively managed or managed at all… political will and donor interest is just the first step". Another delegate commented that "the global goals are helpful but it takes time [to set up MPAs]". The target was publicly discussed as a helpful, if insufficient, means for promoting and supporting MPAs. Privately, however, several interviewees admitted they had reservations about the target. As one interviewee said,
"those targets are useful from a political standpoint, but… if they represent a driver for change that leads people to make bad decisions or certain types of decisions, then I would actually be against targets… it takes a certain amount of time to have a certain amount of in-depth dialog and planning, but instead you create this political imperative that leads to ill considered decisions, whether it's non-democratic or non-scientific, whatever the case may be, then you undermine your own process".
Another interviewee echoed this sentiment, saying:
"One of the dangers of setting targets like this… is that it can effectively incite a rush to create MPAs where no MPAs are needed or to create MPAs that are too simplistic that won't work. You know 2012 is a heartbeat away, it's so soon, and good MPAs take about ten years to plan and get implemented, that's the reality, if they're really planned with participation from the stakeholders that are really going to be affected, it can take a long time to do… in the rush to 2012, the tendency is to put in MPAs in places where there are few uses and almost no conflict… often they're biodiversity hotspots but functionally they're not as important as some other areas, so ecologically they might not be the best places to set them up".
The emphasis on accelerating progress towards meeting the 2012 target, as expressed both during Forum workshops and in Motion 067, creates an incentive to increase the number of MPAs without necessarily considering whether this will, in fact, lead to better conservation outcomes; both scientifically-informed site selection and participatory processes are compromised by haste. This danger seems apparent to many, but is not part of how MPAs are framed through 'the target'. Conservation progress was represented in terms of the number and percentage of global coverage of MPAs, as underscored by the prominence of efforts to increase the global visibility of MPAs. Although many respondents and workshop discussions highlighted the importance of ensuring that MPAs are effective in meeting their goals, numbers, targets and maps do not represent effectiveness, only prevalence.
Balancing Conservation and Development in the Target
The discussions surrounding Motion 067, "Accelerating progress to establish marine protected areas and creating marine protected area networks", presented a compelling example of the manner in which conservation and development interests were balanced in the framing of MPAs at the WCC. Three motions relating to the 2012 MPA target were submitted to the IUCN for consideration prior to the WCC by three different sets of IUCN members (one group based in the US, including The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund-US, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Natural Resources Defense Council, one group of French NGOs, and one group of Latin American NGOs) (IUCN 2008). These three motions were consolidated into a single motion for consideration by the assembly. The preamble of this consolidated motion, in its initial form, emphasised global statistics related to fishing and overfishing, threatened species, marine dead zones, marine biodiversity, and the current, inadequate increase in the number of MPAs to address these problems (statistics very similar to those which opened this paper). Prior to being introduced to the assembly for voting, the motion was discussed in a 'contact group', a meeting of motion sponsors and any other interested parties. Contributors to the contact group discussion included representatives of government agencies from Canada, Iceland, France, Norway, and the US, representatives of several ocean-focused NGOs from the US, Australia, and Canada, as well as representatives from NGOs who sponsored the original motions.
The two-hour discussion focused on a few key issues: ensuring that the motion represented the best available science and statistics; revising the motion so that it did not obligate governments to consider MPAs in relation to their work on fisheries; and detail-oriented debates over grammar, and the proper protocol for referencing existing treaties and other legal documents. Although participants debated which scientific sources to reference and which statistics to include, no one questioned the framing of MPAs as a scientifically-justified policy tool.
Perhaps the most contentious issue that arose during the discussion of Motion 067 was whether the resolution should refer to MPAs in the context of fisheries management, or limit its scope to MPAs as tools for biodiversity conservation. While there is scientific consensus regarding the ecological benefits of 'no-take' MPAs, particularly within reserve boundaries (Lubchenco et al. 2003; Lester et al. 2009), evidence of their value as fisheries management tools is less conclusive (Sale et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2006). During the discussion, one NGO participant argued that the motion should recognise that "fisheries are the main threat to marine biodiversity", while a representative from Norway demanded that the contact group "take out the reference to fisheries; we're talking about MPAs not fisheries". This debate over how to reference fisheries reflects an underlying tension in MPA policy making-whether and to what extent MPAs should be 'no-take' areas that restrict fishing (and thus restrict economic opportunities) and whether the focus of MPAs should be on biodiversity conservation or fisheries management (or both). No-take areas, by definition, restrict fishing. However, so long as the discussion (and motion) did not include specific reference to fisheries, the question of how to balance conservation with economic interests did not have to be directly addressed. The outcome of the discussion was to reduce the references to fisheries and limit the extent to which the motion implied that states should use MPAs as fisheries management tools (as opposed to environmental conservation tools). This was a concession granted by representatives of environmental NGOs in order to appease the representatives of government agencies responsible for fisheries management, who cannot unreservedly endorse MPAs, given the wide array of political constituencies they represent (in contrast to NGOs).
The motion framed MPAs as a useful tool for "ensuring the conservation and sustainable management of marine and coastal biodiversity" as well as for contributing to "sustainable development and in particular poverty-alleviation efforts". Human welfare concerns were thus acknowledged in the motion, although they were not discussed directly by the contact group. However, the process through which MPAs should be established was not discussed in either the motion or the contact group meeting; the motion focused solely on justifying and encouraging an increase in the implementation of MPAs.
When the motion reached the assembly floor for voting, numerous objections were raised. A key theme in these objections was the lack of consideration in the motion for human rights and participatory processes. A member of the Forest Peoples Programme from the UK commented that lack of concern for the rights of local and indigenous communities had been an issue in discussions of the MPA target at previous meetings (e.g., the Seventh Conference of the Parties for the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004) and asked that this text be added to the motion: "taking into account respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and their full participation in achieving marine conservation". A representative of a Miskito NGO from Honduras agreed, proposing that the motion should "promote participation of local, coastline, and island populations, specifically those indigenous and afro-descendant populations, in the planning and management of marine areas as they are to be used for sustainable livelihoods". The motion was referred back to the sponsors for revision; in the final version, a paragraph was inserted acknowledging the "obligations of parties towards indigenous and local communities" and noting the need for "full and effective participation". This is not only in keeping with the IUCN mission, but also consistent with guidelines for MPAs published by the IUCN (e.g., Kelleher 1999; Pomeroy et al. 2004). The revised motion was approved by 97% of the government and 100% of the NGO representatives and adopted as resolution 4.045 (IUCN 2009). Although the objections to this motion should have been anticipated and pre-emptively addressed, a representative of one of the international NGOs who sponsored the motion seemed surprised by it. Having observed this, one interviewee remarked:
"It shows you maybe something is not on the agenda that should be. You can see a dichotomy between people who work at these BINGOs (Big International NGOs), you have the upper echelon, and you have people on the ground who obviously are more in tune with this kind of stuff, but the communication might not be there".
Indeed, many of the NGO members who put forward and supported Motion 067 were representatives of the 'upper echelon'-programme staff from head offices rather than regional offices. The formation and discussion of Motion 067 was dominated almost entirely by senior staff from large international NGOs and government agencies from developed countries; other voices, such as representatives of NGOs from developing countries or indigenous groups, were conspicuously absent.
Big NGOs and the MPA Agenda
The role of BINGOs in framing the discussion of MPAs was evident both during forum events (workshops and presentations), the resolutions process, and in the comments of interviewees. As one respondent said:
"It seems to me that the ability to get things onto the radar screen of the assembly now is very much a function of how influential a particular NGO is, so the big NGOs, CI [Conservation International], TNC [The Nature Conservancy], WCS [Wildlife Conservation Society] and WWF [World Wide Fund For Nature] for the most part, are the ones that are able to get resolutions in; they develop those resolutions for the most part in isolation of the other members, so they're not really consensus resolutions. Those NGOs are all global, so in a way it's a consensus of their own worldview and their own people saying this is important".
Prior to the assembly (but after the forum events), a group of approximately 20 representatives from the BINGOs as well as from several smaller NGOs concerned with marine issues met to discuss the resolutions process. I was allowed to observe the meeting, but was asked not to take notes and to keep the content of the meeting confidential. However, it is the function of this meeting that is of interest. This group of NGO staff had clearly been coordinating their efforts on various marine issues, including Motion 067 regarding MPAs, for some time. The meeting reflected their interest in offering a cohesive, consistent message and unified support for the various motions that members of the group had sponsored.
This collective NGO effort is not necessarily problematic, nor is it surprising. However, it does represent a shift in how the IUCN forum and resolutions process functions. Several interviewees who had attended previous IUCN congresses and general assemblies (dating to the early 1980s) commented that in the past there had been broader input to discussions and resolutions from a variety of members. One interviewee who has been involved with the IUCN in various capacities described this shift:
"So the purpose of these general assemblies was to have the ability to convene members and to set conservation priorities in two ways, to have sessions where people brainstormed about emerging issues or things that were really important to everybody jointly… and the other way that they helped… was through this resolution process. And in the old days… the IUCN marine program would help members understand the [resolutions] process and have meetings running up to the general assembly, not physical meetings but communicate with the members, say this general assembly is coming up, we have some issues like MPAs, how does the group want to go forward with a resolution on MPAs… that seems to have disappeared from the marine program, I don't see that happening at all".
Another interviewee, a BINGO employee who has worked extensively on MPAs but is less familiar with the IUCN and the WCC, explained the danger of limiting input to a small group:
"The conservation community is... for all the talk about it being this massive enterprise, there are only a handful of actors. There are a handful of actors that set directions and signals, and if those actors are all using the same approaches... you run the risk of going down a path you don't want to, and waking up ten years later and saying 'that was dumb, why were we all doing that?'"
Both of these interviewees were supportive of MPAs, but concerned with how input to resolutions and policy documents related to MPAs is concentrated among a few organisations.
One concern with this concentration of input is that concerns for human welfare, social justice, and indigenous rights will be ignored or forgotten, as illustrated in the process surrounding Motion 067. One interviewee who attended many of the MPA sessions said, "I don't really see a lot of the local side, I've only been seeing it from the BINGO side. And they haven't been talking about it in terms of indigenous rights or anything like that. It's been more where do we stand and how can we do gap analysis and see where we need to go?" However, the importance of considering the impact of MPAs on resource users and coastal communities was acknowledged in several MPA sessions, including by BINGOs. For example, one session entitled "MPAs: Good for Fish, Good for People?" was devoted to brainstorming the social impact of MPAs, both positive and negative. It is not that concerns for human rights, social impact, and participatory processes in MPAs were not considered at the WCC; rather, these conversations were taking place in separate rooms from the discussions of ecological aspects of MPAs and MPA targets. One interviewee from the US agreed that discussions of how to balance ecological and social concerns had been largely absent from the WCC.
"I don't know that I've actually heard a lot of those conversations going on. I've been in, not all, some of the MPA sessions, so if that conversation was happening at a conference level, I'm not sure that I heard it… I heard all kinds of side bar conversations during lectures that point out that this is always hard for folks to do… but I'm not sure I've heard some kind of sustained, multi-use trade-offs conversation going on".
Given the size of the WCC, it is possible to accommodate and include many different perspectives somewhere within the myriad workshops and discussions. However, these diverse perspectives are not necessarily brought into conversation with one another, nor are they equally influential.
Marine conservation has joined the growing list of environmental problems deemed 'global' through the collective efforts of scientists and political actors such as NGOs (see Taylor & Buttel 1992). Building on efforts of past international meetings, delegates at the WCC promoted the increased implementation of MPAs in order to establish a global network. A key element of this global scaling was the unveiling of new tools to increase the global visibility of MPAs, such as Google maps that depict MPAs across the world's oceans. What are the effects of this global framing? In the past, states asserted control through such scientific and technical processes, by surveying, zoning, and mapping the biological resources within their territory (Scott 1998; Neumann 2005). Similarly, now, it is largely the international NGOs who are empowered through this global construction, because they are able to produce knowledge at this scale, thereby defining the goals of conservation (Brosius 2006); in this case the goal is to increase the number of MPAs. Given the increasing role of NGOs, private donors and organisations in the actual implementation and management of MPAs (Fortwangler 2007; Levine 2007), this global visualisation is directly tied to material practices such as the flow of funding and changing rules for resource access. For small NGOs whose objective is to promote MPAs in particular places, IUCN offers the possibility for them to 'jump scales', indirectly influencing domestic policy by supporting an international mandate for MPAs (see Keck & Sikkink 1999). However, the dominant role of BINGOs in setting the international MPA agenda deserves greater scrutiny, not for the purpose of critiquing these NGOs' international policy efforts, but because there are many voices not being included in these discussions, as evidenced by the discussion of Motion 067. Given that the IUCN is a 'knowledge-based organisation' tasked with serving the needs of all of its members, it is pertinent to ask whose knowledge is being highlighted, whose knowledge is being sidelined, and what opportunities there are for input to the process (as opposed to simply receiving a pre-defined message).
Another consequence of the global framing of MPAs at the WCC is that difficult questions of effectiveness, conservation and development trade-offs, and impacts can be avoided. Are MPAs in fact meeting conservation goals? If so, what is the impact on resource users and others who live near them? Are MPAs the best conservation strategy? Both ecological priorities and social concerns related to MPAs were acknowledged at the WCC, but at different venues. When Motion 067 was challenged because of its failure to account for local rights and participation, text was simply added to address this concern; the question of how to handle potential incompatibilities between local rights and conservation was never raised. It becomes essential to tackle such problems at particular sites and MPAs, but a global discourse that asks only for more MPAs can afford to ignore such concerns. This is not to say that individual delegates at the WCC do not understand or grapple with these issues, only that an abstract, global discussion does not require them to do so in the public international arena of the WCC. The simultaneous promotion of MPAs and sidestepping of questions of effectiveness and trade-offs that occurred at the WCC suggests that the international framing of MPAs offers both opportunities and constraints for establishing MPAs in particular places. By promoting MPAs in a general sense, the target and global framing leave room for MPAs to be worked out in a variety of ways in practice. This is as it should be; IUCN does not push a 'cookie cutter' approach, aiming only to provide tools and support to practitioners to use in locally appropriate ways (e.g., Pomeroy et al. 2004). However, the promotion of MPA targets also directs international efforts and resources toward increasing the number of MPAs, whether advisable or not. As a result, communities around the world must engage with the MPA juggernaut, regardless of their desire to do so.
The author is grateful to Lisa Campbell for feedback and support as well as to other members of the Event Ethnography team put together by Pete Brosius. Financial support to attend the WCC was provided by the Oak Foundation and through the Advancing Conservation in a Social Context project, funded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The suggestions provided by two anonymous reviewers are appreciated.[50]
The most recent IUCN definition of a protected area refers to marine as well as terrestrial protected areas. A MPA is "a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values" (Dudley 2008: 8).
The goal of establishing a 'global network of MPAs' is consistently invoked at various conferences and meetings, although the specific target varies. For example, the Fifth World Parks Congress called for strict protection of 20-30% of each habitat by 2012 (IUCN 2003), while the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity set a target of protecting at least 10% of each of the world's ecological regions, including marine (CBD 2006).
For an early review of the evolution of MPAs as a conservation tool, see Bjorklund (1974). The establishment of MPAs has lagged behind terrestrial efforts, in part because it was only with the advent of snorkelling and SCUBA diving in the mid-twentieth century that underwater environments became familiar (Jones 2001). As of 1994, there were 1,306 MPAs compared with 37,000 terrestrial protected areas (Jones 2001).
See http://iucn.org/about/union/members/for details on IUCN membership.
1. Aswani, S. and P. Weiant. 2004. Scientific evaluation in women′s participatory management: Monitoring marine invertebrate refugia in the Solomon Islands. Human Organization 63(3): 301-319.
2. Bjorklund, M.I. 1974. Achievements in marine conservation, I. Marine parks. Environmental Conservation 1(3): 205-223.
3. Brosius, J.P. 2006. Seeing communities: Technologies of visualization in conservation. In: The seductions of community: Emancipations, oppressions, quandaries (ed. Creed, G.W.). Pp. 227-254. Santa Fe: School of American Research.
4. Brosius, J.P. and D. Russell. 2003. Conservation from above: An anthropological perspective on transboundary protected areas and ecoregional planning. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17(1/2): 35-60.
5. Bulkeley, H. 2005. Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and networks. Political Geography 24(8): 875-902.
6. Campbell, L.M., N.J. Gray, E.L. Hazen and J.M. Shackeroff. 2009. Beyond baselines: Rethinking priorities for ocean conservation. Ecology and Society 14(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss11/art14/ .
7. Carpenter, K.E., M. Abrar, G. Aeby, R.B. Aronson, S. Banks, A. Bruckner, A. Chiriboga, et al. 2008. One-third of reef-building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321(5888): 560-563.
8. CBD. 2006. Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Eighth Meeting (Decision VII/15, Annex IV). Convention on Biological Diversity, Curitiba, Brazil.
9. Christie, P., B.J. McCay, M.L. Miller, C. Lowe, A.T. White, R. Stoffle, D.L. Fluharty, et al. 2003. Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries 28(12): 22-26.
10. Cox, K.R. 1998. Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: Looking for local politics. Political Geography 17(1): 1-23.
11. Crowder, L.B., S.J. Lyman, W.F. Figueira and J. Priddy. 2000. Source-sink population dynamics and the problem of siting marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3): 799-820.
12. Dalton, T.M. 2005. Beyond biogeography: A framework for involving the public in planning of US marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 19(5): 1392-1401.
13. Dudley, N. (ed.). 2008. Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN.
14. Emerson, R.M., R.I. Fretz and L.L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. FAO. 2009. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture 2008. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
16. Fiske, S.J. 1992. Sociocultural aspects of establishing marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 17(1): 25-46.
17. Fortwangler, C. 2007. Friends with money: Private support for a national park in the US Virgin Islands. Conservation and Society 5(4): 504-533.
18. Goldman, M. 2005. Imperial nature: The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19. Gray, N.J. 2009. Waves of change? Politics of knowledge and participation in marine protected areas. Ph.D. thesis. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
20. Halpern, B.S., S. Walbridge, K.A. Selkoe, C.V. Kappel, F. Micheli, C. D′Agrosa, J.F. Bruno, et al. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319 (5865): 948-952.
21. Herod, A. and M.W. Wright. (eds.). 2002. Geographies of power: Placing scale. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
22. IUCN. 2003. Recommendations of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress. Gland: IUCN.
23. IUCN. 2008. Motions. World Conservation Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 5-14 October 2008.
24. IUCN. 2009. Resolutions and recommendations of the World Conservation Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 5-14 October 2008.
25. IUCN Global Marine Programme. 2008. Looking forward to the 2008 IUCN Congress. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/wcc_insert_marine.pdf. Accessed on September 5, 2008.
26. Jentoft, S., T.C. van Son and M. Bjorkan. 2007. Marine protected areas: A governance system analysis. Human Ecology 35(5): 611-622.
27. Jones, P.J.S. 2001. Marine protected area strategies: Issues, divergences and the search for middle ground. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 11(3): 197-216.
28. Keck, M.E. and K. Sikkink. 1999. Transnational advocacy networks in international and regional politics. International Social Science Journal 51(159): 89-101.
29. Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland: IUCN.
30. Laffoley, D., K. Gjerde and L. Wood. 2009. Progress with marine protected areas since Durban, and future directions. Parks 17(2): 13-22.
31. Lester, S.E., B.S. Halpern, K. Grorud-Colvert, J. Lubchenco, B.I. Ruttenberg, S.D. Gaines, S. Airame, et al. 2009. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: A global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384: 33-46.
32. Levine, A. 2004. Local responses to marine conservation in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 7(3-4): 183-202.
33. Levine, A. 2007. Staying afloat: State agencies, local communities, and international involvement in marine protected area management in Zanzibar, Tanzania. Conservation and Society 5(4): 562-585.
34. Little, P.E. 1995. Ritual, power and ethnography at the Rio Earth Summit. Critique of Anthropology 15(3): 265-288.
35. Lubchenco, J., S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines and S. Andelman. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: The emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13(1): S3-S7.
36. MacDonald, K.I. 2003. IUCN - The World Conservation Union: A history of constraint. Address given to the Permanent Workshop of the Centre for Philosophy of Law, Higher Institute for Philosophy of the Catholic University of Louvain (UCL), Louvain-la-neuve, Belgium, Feb. 6, 2003. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/9921/1/aian%20Macdonlad-%20IUCN.pdf. Accessed on September 4, 2008.
37. MacDonald, K.I. 2005. Global hunting grounds: Power, scale and ecology in the negotiation of conservation. Cultural Geographies 12(3): 259-291.
38. Manson, S.M. 2008. Does scale exist? An epistemological scale continuum for complex human-environment systems. Geoforum 39(2): 776-788.
39. Marston, S.A. 2000. The social construction of scale. Progress in Human Geography 24(2): 219-242.
40. McCarthy, J. 2005. Scale, sovereignty, and strategy in environmental governance. Antipode 37(4): 731-753.
41. Neumann, R.P. 2005. Making political ecology. London: Hodder Arnold.
42. Nichols, K. 1999. Coming to terms with "Integrated coastal management": Problems of meaning and method in a new arena of resource regulation. Professional Geographer 51(3): 388-399.
43. O′Reilly, K. 2005. Ethnographic methods. London: Routledge.
44. Pomeroy, R.S., J.E. Parks and L.M. Watson. (eds.). 2004. How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness. Gland: IUCN.
45. Redford, K.H., J.G. Robinson and W.M. Adams. 2006. Parks as shibboleths. Conservation Biology 20(1): 1-2.
46. Robbins, P. 2002. Obstacles to a First World political ecology? Looking near without looking up. Environment and Planning A 34(8): 1509-1513.
47. Sala, E., O. Aburto-Oropeza, G. Paredes, I. Parra, J.C. Barrera and P.K. Dayton. 2002. A general model for designing networks of marine reserves. Science 298(5600): 1991-1993.
48. Sale, P.F., R.K. Cowen, B.S. Danilowicz, G.P. Jones, J.P. Kritzer, K.C. Lindeman, S. Planes, et al. 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(2): 74-80.
49. Scott, J.C. 1998. Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
50. Smith, M.D., J. Zhang and F.C. Coleman. 2006. Effectiveness of marine reserves for large-scale fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63(1): 153-164.
1 The development and unraveling of marine resource co-management in the Pemba Channel, Zanzibar: institutions, governance, and the politics of scale
Arielle Levine
Regional Environmental Change. 2015;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Conservation Narratives and Their Implications in the Coral Triangle Initiative
Samantha Berdej,Mark Andrachuk,Derek Armitage
Conservation and Society. 2015; 13(2): 212
3 Toward a Social Science Research Agenda for Large Marine Protected Areas
Rebecca L. Gruby,Noella J. Gray,Lisa M. Campbell,Leslie Acton
Conservation Letters. 2015; : n/a
4 Orchestrating Consent: Post-politics and Intensification of NatureTMInc. at the 2012 World Conservation Congress
Robert Fletcher
5 Studying Global Environmental Meetings to Understand Global Environmental Governance: Collaborative Event Ethnography at the Tenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
Lisa M. Campbell,Catherine Corson,Noella J. Gray,Kenneth I. MacDonald,J. Peter Brosius
Global Environmental Politics. 2014; : 1
6 Capturing the Personal in Politics: Ethnographies of Global Environmental Governance
Catherine Corson,Lisa M. Campbell,Kenneth I. MacDonald
Global Environmental Politics. 2014; : 21
7 Boundary Objects and Global Consensus: Scalar Narratives of Marine Conservation in the Convention on Biological Diversity
Noella J. Gray,Rebecca L. Gruby,Lisa M. Campbell
8 From disunited sectors to disjointed segments? Questioning the functional zoning of the sea
Stephen Jay
Planning Theory & Practice. 2013; : 1
9 Multi-level governance for large marine commons: Politics and polycentricity in Palauæs protected area network
Rebecca L. Gruby,Xavier Basurto
Environmental Science & Policy. 2013; 33: 260
10 Multi-level governance for large marine commons: Politics and polycentricity in Palauæs protected area network
Environmental Science & Policy. 2013;
11 Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice
Elizabeth M. De Santo
12 Fixing marine governance in Fiji? The new scalar narrative of ecosystem-based management
Leila Sievanen,Rebecca L. Gruby,Lisa M. Campbell
Global Environmental Change. 2013; 23(1): 206
13 Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: Is public participation enough?
Michelle Voyer,William Gladstone,Heather Goodall
Marine Policy. 2012; 36(2): 432
14 Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea
C Mora,PF Sale
Marine Ecology Progress Series. 2011; 434: 251
Gray NJ
marine protected area
non-governmental organisation
event ethnography
Exploring Marine...
The Global Marin...
Balancing Conser...
Big NGOs and the...
Cited by others 14


WM Hotel Group, LLC v. Pride Construction, Inc.
WM Hotel, owner of the Hampton Inn & Suites, located in Middletown, R.I. initiated a lawsuit against Pride Construction, the general contractor for the construction of its hotel, Antcil Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors, Inc., the plumbing subcontractor that installed the hotel bathtubs and Travelers, Antcil's insurer under a CGL policy.
Antcil installed the tubs, tested them for leaks, placed "tub protectors" in each and transferred control of them to Pride. The tubs began evidencing cracking, rust, and sagging. WM Hotel asserted that 93 of the 95 tubs were defective as manufactured and/or installed and that it was Antcil's faulty installation that resulted in the damage to the tubs. Forensic testing and analysis indicated that a styrofoam sound deadening pad was missing from beneath the tubs, and that the omission could have contributed to deflection of the bathing surface. Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the CGL policy issued on behalf of Antcil did not provide coverage for the damage incurred. Travelers asserted that the damages were not the result of an "occurrence" as defined in the policy and that exclusionary language in the policy precluded coverage.
Travelers argued WM Hotel's damages did not result from an "occurrence" as defined by the policy. The policy stated that it applied to "property damage" only if it was caused by an "occurrence." "Occurrence" was defined as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition." Travelers maintained that WM Hotel sought recovery for Antcil's allegedly defective workmanship and that "faulty workmanship" does not constitute an "occurrence" under the policy.
WM Hotel acknowledged that the faulty workmanship of Antcil was not an "occurrence", but contended that its claim was for "after the fact" damages covered by the CGL policy. WM Hotel stated that Antcil's "work" was the installation of the tubs, and that the damage did not occur until three to four months after the completion of the installation and that was not directly inflicted by Antcil employees. WM Hotel asserted that "after the fact" damage to the bathtubs was the kind of fortuitous event that us covered by the CGL policy. The Court, however, noted noted the definition of "work" as expressed in the policy included material, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. Because the bathtubs were clearly materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations, the bathtubs themselves must be considered part of Antcil's "work", so that Travelers could not be held liable for any damage to the bathtubs themselves.
This entry was posted in Negligence, Subcontract and tagged Inc., LLC v. Pride Construction, negligence, Subcontract, WM Hotel Group. Bookmark the permalink.


text:
package com.airbnb.scheduler.mesos

import java.util.logging.Logger

import com.airbnb.scheduler.jobs._
import com.airbnb.scheduler.config.SchedulerConfiguration
import com.google.inject.Inject
import org.apache.mesos.{Protos, SchedulerDriver, Scheduler}
import org.apache.mesos.Protos._
import org.joda.time.DateTime

import scala.collection.Iterator
import scala.collection.mutable.{HashMap, HashSet, Buffer}
import scala.collection.JavaConverters._
import mesosphere.mesos.util.FrameworkIdUtil
import com.airbnb.utils.JobDeserializer
import scala.math.Ordering.Implicits._
import mesosphere.util.BackToTheFuture

/**
 * Provides the interface to mesos. Receives callbacks from mesos when resources are offered, declined etc.
 * @author Florian Leibert (flo@leibert.de)
 */
class MesosJobFramework @Inject()(
    val mesosDriver: MesosDriverFactory,
    val scheduler: JobScheduler,
    val taskManager: TaskManager,
    val config: SchedulerConfiguration,
    val frameworkIdUtil: FrameworkIdUtil,
    val taskBuilder: MesosTaskBuilder)
  extends Scheduler {

  private[this] val log = Logger.getLogger(getClass.getName)

  private class ChronosTask(val slaveId: String,
                            var taskStatus: Option[TaskStatus] = None) {
    override def toString: String = {
      s"slaveId=$slaveId, taskStatus=${taskStatus.getOrElse("none").toString}"
    }
  }

  class Resources(var cpus: Double,
                  var mem: Double,
                  var disk: Double) {
    def this(job: BaseJob) {
      this(
        if (job.cpus > 0) job.cpus else config.mesosTaskCpu(),
        if (job.mem > 0) job.mem else config.mesosTaskMem(),
        if (job.disk > 0) job.disk else config.mesosTaskDisk()
      )
    }

    def canSatisfy(needed: Resources): Boolean = {
      return (this.cpus >= needed.cpus) &&
             (this.mem >= needed.mem) &&
             (this.disk >= needed.disk)
    }

    def -=(that: Resources) {
      this.cpus -= that.cpus
      this.mem -= that.mem
      this.disk -= that.disk
    }

    override def toString: String = {
      "cpus: " + this.cpus + " mem: " + this.mem + " disk: " + this.disk
    }
  }

  object Resources {
    def apply(offer: Offer): Resources = {
      val resources = offer.getResourcesList.asScala.filter(r => !r.hasRole || r.getRole == config.mesosRole())
      new Resources(
        getScalarValueOrElse(resources.find(_.getName == "cpus"), 0),
        getScalarValueOrElse(resources.find(_.getName == "mem"), 0),
        getScalarValueOrElse(resources.find(_.getName == "disk"), 0)
      )
    }
  }

  private var lastReconciliation = DateTime.now.plusSeconds(config.reconciliationInterval())

  private var runningTasks = new HashMap[String, ChronosTask]
  JobDeserializer.config = config

  val frameworkName = "chronos"

  /* Overridden methods from MesosScheduler */
  @Override
  def registered(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, frameworkID: FrameworkID, masterInfo: MasterInfo) {
    import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
    import BackToTheFuture.Implicits.defaultTimeout

    log.info("Registered")
    log.info("Master info:" + masterInfo.toString)
    frameworkIdUtil.store(frameworkID)
  }

  /* Overridden methods from MesosScheduler */
  @Override
  def reregistered(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, masterInfo: MasterInfo) {
    log.warning("Reregistered")
  }

  @Override
  def disconnected(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver) {
    log.warning("Disconnected")
  }

  def getScalarValueOrElse(opt: Option[Resource], value: Double): Double = {
    opt.map(x => x.getScalar.getValue).getOrElse(value)
  }

  def getReservedResources(offer: Offer): (Double, Double) = {
    val resources = offer.getResourcesList.asScala
    val reservedResources = resources.filter({x => x.hasRole && x.getRole != "*"})
    (
      getScalarValueOrElse(reservedResources.find(x => x.getName == "cpus"), 0),
      getScalarValueOrElse(reservedResources.find(x => x.getName == "mem"), 0)
    )
  }

  def generateLaunchableTasks(offerResources: HashMap[Offer, Resources]): Buffer[(String, BaseJob, Offer)] = {
    val tasks = Buffer[(String, BaseJob, Offer)]()

    def generate {
      taskManager.getTask match {
        case None => log.info("No tasks scheduled or next task has been disabled.\n")
        case Some((taskId, job)) => {
          if (runningTasks.contains(job.name)) {
            val deleted = taskManager.removeTask(taskId)
            log.warning("The head of the task queue appears to already be running: " + job.name + "\n")
            generate
          } else {
            tasks.find(_._2.name == job.name) match {
              case Some((taskId, job, offer)) => {
                val deleted = taskManager.removeTask(taskId)
                log.warning("Found job in queue that is already scheduled for launch with this offer set: " + job.name + "\n")
                generate
              }
              case None => {
                val neededResources = new Resources(job)
                offerResources.toIterator.find(_._2.canSatisfy(neededResources)) match {
                  case Some((offer, resources)) => {
                    // Subtract this job's resource requirements from the remaining available resources in this offer.
                    resources -= neededResources
                    tasks.append((taskId, job, offer))
                    generate
                  }
                  case None => {
                    log.warning("Insufficient resources remaining for task '%s', will append to queue\n.".format(taskId))
                    taskManager.enqueue(taskId, job.highPriority)
                  }
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
    generate
    tasks
  }

  //TODO(FL): Persist the UPDATED task or job into ZK such that on failover / reload, we don't have to step through the
  //          entire task stream.
  @Override
  def resourceOffers(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, receivedOffers: java.util.List[Offer]) {
    log.info("Received resource offers\n")
    import scala.collection.JavaConverters._

    val offers = receivedOffers.asScala.toList
    val offerResources = HashMap(offers.map(o => (o, Resources(o))).toSeq: _*)
    val tasksToLaunch = generateLaunchableTasks(offerResources)

    log.info("Declining unused offers.\n")
    val usedOffers = HashSet(tasksToLaunch.map(_._3.getId.getValue): _*)
    val filters: Filters = Filters.newBuilder().setRefuseSeconds(0.1).build()
    offers.foreach(o => {
      if (!usedOffers.contains(o.getId.getValue))
        mesosDriver.get().declineOffer(o.getId, filters)
    })

    launchTasks(tasksToLaunch)

    // Perform a reconciliation, if needed.
    reconcile(schedulerDriver)
  }

  @Override
  def offerRescinded(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, offerID: OfferID) {
    //TODO(FL): Handle this case! In practice this isn't a problem as we have retries.
    log.warning("Offer rescinded for offer:" + offerID.getValue)
  }

  def reconcile(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver): Unit = {
    if (DateTime.now().isAfter(lastReconciliation.plusSeconds(config.reconciliationInterval()))) {
      lastReconciliation = DateTime.now()

      val taskStatuses = runningTasks.keys.flatMap(id => runningTasks.get(id))

      log.info("Performing task reconciliation with the Mesos master")
      schedulerDriver.reconcileTasks(taskStatuses.flatMap(task => task.taskStatus).asJavaCollection)
    }
 }

  def updateRunningTask(jobName: String, taskStatus: TaskStatus): Unit = {
    runningTasks.get(jobName) match {
      case Some(chronosTask) =>
        chronosTask.taskStatus = Some(taskStatus)
      case _ =>
        runningTasks.put(jobName, new ChronosTask(taskStatus.getSlaveId.getValue, Some(taskStatus)))
        log.warning(s"Received status update for untracked jobName=$jobName")
    }
  }

  @Override
  def statusUpdate(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, taskStatus: TaskStatus) {
     taskManager.taskCache.put(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue, taskStatus.getState)

    val (jobName, _, _, _) = TaskUtils.parseTaskId(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue)
    taskStatus.getState match {
      case TaskState.TASK_RUNNING =>
        scheduler.handleStartedTask(taskStatus)
        updateRunningTask(jobName, taskStatus)
      case TaskState.TASK_STAGING =>
        scheduler.handleStartedTask(taskStatus)
        updateRunningTask(jobName, taskStatus)
      case _ =>
        runningTasks.remove(jobName)
    }

    //TOOD(FL): Add statistics for jobs
    taskStatus.getState match {
      case TaskState.TASK_FINISHED =>
        log.info("Task with id '%s' FINISHED".format(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue))
        //This is a workaround to support async jobs without having to keep yet more state.
        if (scheduler.isTaskAsync(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue)) {
          log.info("Asynchronous task: '%s', not updating job-graph.".format(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue))
        } else {
          scheduler.handleFinishedTask(taskStatus)
        }
      case TaskState.TASK_FAILED =>
        log.info("Task with id '%s' FAILED".format(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue))
        scheduler.handleFailedTask(taskStatus)
      case TaskState.TASK_LOST =>
        log.info("Task with id '%s' LOST".format(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue))
        scheduler.handleFailedTask(taskStatus)
      case TaskState.TASK_RUNNING =>
        log.info("Task with id '%s' RUNNING.".format(taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue))
      case _ =>
        log.warning("Unknown TaskState:" + taskStatus.getState + " for task: " + taskStatus.getTaskId.getValue)
    }

    // Perform a reconciliation, if needed.
    reconcile(schedulerDriver)
  }

  @Override
  def frameworkMessage(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, executorID: ExecutorID, slaveID: SlaveID, bytes: Array[Byte]) {
    log.info("Framework message received")
  }

  @Override
  def slaveLost(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, slaveID: SlaveID) {
    log.warning("Slave lost")

    // Remove any running jobs from this slave
    val jobs = runningTasks.filter {
      case (k, v) =>
        slaveID.getValue == v.slaveId
    }
    runningTasks --= jobs.keys
  }

  @Override
  def executorLost(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, executorID: ExecutorID, slaveID: SlaveID, status: Int) {
    log.info("Executor lost")
  }

  @Override
  def error(schedulerDriver: SchedulerDriver, message: String) {
    log.info("Error: " + message)
    scheduler.shutDown()
  }

  def launchTasks(tasks: Buffer[(String, BaseJob, Offer)]) {
    import scala.collection.JavaConverters._

    val filters: Filters = Filters.newBuilder().setRefuseSeconds(0.1).build()

    tasks.groupBy(_._3).toIterable.foreach({case (offer, tasks) => {
      val mesosTasks = tasks.map(task => {
        taskBuilder.getMesosTaskInfoBuilder(task._1, task._2, task._3).setSlaveId(task._3.getSlaveId).build()
      })
      log.info("Launching tasks from offer: " + offer + " with tasks: " + mesosTasks)
      val status: Protos.Status = mesosDriver.get().launchTasks(
        List(offer.getId).asJava,
        mesosTasks.asJava,
        filters
      )
      if (status == Protos.Status.DRIVER_RUNNING) {
        for (task <- tasks) {
          val deleted = taskManager.removeTask(task._1)
          log.fine("Successfully launched task '%s' via mesos, task records successfully deleted: '%b'"
            .format(task._1, deleted))
          runningTasks.put(task._2.name, new ChronosTask(task._3.getSlaveId.getValue))

          //TODO(FL): Handle case if mesos can't launch the task.
          log.info("Task '%s' launched, status: '%s'".format(task._1, status.toString))
        }
      } else {
        log.warning("Other status returned.")
      }
    }})
  }

  private def logOffer(offer : Offer) {
    import collection.JavaConversions._
    val s = new StringBuilder
    offer.getResourcesList.foreach({
      x => s.append(f"Name: ${x.getName}")
      if (x.hasScalar && x.getScalar.hasValue) {
        s.append(f"Scalar: ${x.getScalar.getValue}")
      }
    })

  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
When Frederick Douglass Met John Brown
Theodore Hamm
What role did Frederick Douglass play in John Brown's Harpers Ferry raid?
Frederick Douglass in April 1870. Library of Congress
Frederick Douglass was many things: a gifted writer, a brilliant orator, a shrewd political strategist. But he was most certainly not a pacifist. He welcomed the Civil War as the best means to end slavery and helped two of his sons enlist in the Union army.
Douglass was also a longtime confidant and admirer of John Brown, and well after the lethal Harpers Ferry Raid in October 1859, Douglass continued to pay tribute to the man that he (along with other devotees) called Captain Brown.
None of this is in dispute. Yet what's largely forgotten — and considerably more controversial — is Douglass's murky role in the Harpers Ferry assault. A key member of Brown's army allegedly told authorities that Douglass had broken his promise to join the insurrection. And well into the twentieth century, several of Brown's immediate descendants, along with a friend from Boston who visited him as he faced execution, echoed this claim.
The prevailing historical interpretation is that Douglass rejected Brown's plan as a suicide mission. That view, however, is based almost entirely on Douglass's own accounts of the uprising.
In late October 1859, two weeks after the assault on Harpers Ferry sparked a nationwide frenzy (and a manhunt for him), Douglass wrote a widely reprinted letter to the Rochester Democrat denying his involvement. Two decades later, in his third autobiography, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, the author fully spelled out his case — and provided the basis for most subsequent accounts of his connection (or lack thereof) to the Harpers Ferry raid.
The pivotal moment came in late August 1859, when Douglass met Brown in a quarry near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania (sixty miles north of Harpers Ferry, then in Virginia). According to Douglass, his radical friend called for "the taking of Harpers Ferry, of which Captain Brown had merely hinted before." Douglass says he balked at the change of plans, because he viewed the arsenal town as a "steel-trap." He claims to have instead favored an earlier blueprint that called for establishing a network of small encampments in the Alleghenies and encouraging slaves from the surrounding areas to flee.
But there's reason to question Douglass's account.
En route to the weekend summit in Chambersburg, Douglass had spent a night in Brooklyn at the home of two of the city's leading black abolitionists, Reverend James Gloucester and his wife Elizabeth, a very successful businesswoman. Of Brown's black correspondents, historian Benjamin Quarles later wrote, "none spoke in more militant tones than James Gloucester."
After Douglass's stay, Elizabeth Gloucester gave him a short letter to deliver to Brown. Her note highlighted the famous abolitionist's excitement about Brown's work. "The visit of our mutual friend Douglass," she said, "has somewhat revived my rather drooping spirits in the cause, but seeing such ambition & enterprise in him I am again encouraged." She enclosed ten dollars in the letter, which Douglass passed along to Brown a few days later.
Whether the Gloucesters would have shown such enthusiasm for the plan Douglass claimed to support is not clear.
In a March 1858 letter, penned after Brown's recent week-long stay at his home in Downtown Brooklyn, Rev. Gloucester told his houseguest that "in the language of that noble patriot of his country (Patrick Henry) [we shall] now use the means that God and nature ha[ve] placed within our power." He then pledged twenty-five dollars in support of Brown's developing plans, which Douglass subsequently delivered.
When Elizabeth died in 1883, James told the Brooklyn Daily Eagle that en route to Harpers Ferry, Brown had remarked to her, "I wish you were a man, for I'd like to have you invade the South with my little band."
Douglass mentions his stay in Brooklyn in his own account, citing it as a key reason why he wouldn't have been able to defeat the criminal charges he faced in Virginia. "They could prove I brought money" to Brown, he writes — making made him an accomplice to an act of treason.
In the aftermath of the Harpers Ferry uprising, John E. Cook, Brown's advance man for the raid, ratted out Douglass, reportedly telling authorities that Douglass did not carry out his end of the mission. According to the Richmond Daily Dispatch, Cook informed his captors that Douglass was supposed to arrive with a "large band" of fellow raiders at a schoolhouse near Harpers Ferry, which Cook had seized on the Monday morning after the Sunday night assault. "I conveyed the arms there for him and waited until nearly night, but the coward did not come," Cook was quoted as saying.
That detail didn't make it into Cook's lengthy confession, read before the court. But Cook did state that Douglass was fully aware of the planned raid. The teacher whose school was seized also told the court that Cook had spoken of Douglass's involvement in plotting the attack, which was supposed to have grown exponentially larger that Monday. (He didn't specifically state that Douglass was slated to show up, however.)
As Brown awaited the gallows, two of his longtime white abolitionist allies from Boston, Judge Thomas and Nellie Russell, paid him a visit. A half-century later, Nellie told the New York Evening Post that the condemned figurehead had bemoaned the "great opportunity lost" at Harpers Ferry, and claimed, "That we owe to the famous Mr. Frederick Douglass." And historian Louis A. DeCaro Jr reports that Brown's family was similarly sour about Douglass's actions. Beginning with his children Anne Brown Adams and John Brown Jr, and continuing for several subsequent generations, the martyred abolitionist's family felt betrayed by Douglass.
For the Northern pro-slavery press in the fall of 1859, there was little doubt about Douglass's involvement. The New York Herald, the nation's leading newspaper and a Democratic Party organ, called him a "poor, pitiful coward," while the kindred Brooklyn Daily Eagle contrasted "the Roman firmness" Brown displayed in court with "the flight of the skulking and cowardly negro, Douglass, who promised to stand by him." (Brown's bravery earned him many admirers among the pro-slavery crowd, most notably John Wilkes Booth, who attended his execution.)
But it wasn't just Democratic voices that commented on Douglass's ties to the Harpers Ferry action.
The Weekly Anglo-African, a newspaper published by black abolitionists from Brooklyn, also added a distinct perspective. During its short run (1859–1865), the paper's leading figures included Douglass allies like James Gloucester, James McCune Smith, and the radical white abolitionist journalist James Redpath. Douglass was close enough to the paper's staff that, during his August 1859 stay-over at the Gloucesters' home, he paid a visit to the Anglo-African office.
After the failed uprising at Harpers Ferry, the Anglo-African wrote of the incursion: "It seems to have been at the outset, an attempt to procure a large stampede of slaves, and to have grown, by force of circumstances, into an invasion of these United States and of the commonwealth of Virginia." The paper had nothing but praise for Brown, during his trial noting that his "determination to implicate no others even to save himself, is another proof of the moral grandeur of the man."
In its November 11, 1859 issue, the paper reprinted Douglass's lengthy October 31 letter to the Rochester Democrat, in which he stridently rejected Cook's allegations but did not criticize Brown.
It followed up the statement from Douglass with two (of the 102) letters found in Brown's carpetbag upon capture. The first was the note from Elizabeth Gloucester that highlighted Douglass's enthusiasm about "the cause." The second was from Brown's friend James H. Harris, who had been trying, unsuccessfully, to recruit support for the attack among black abolitionists in Cleveland.
The editorial decision demonstrated the support Brown commanded in the Anglo-African's Brooklyn circle. But it also clearly illustrated Douglass's central role in rallying support for the raid.
Alas, there's no definitive proof that Douglass did or didn't intend to participate in the "first battle" of the Civil War. But soon afterward, Douglass told a notable joke to a friendly audience in Edinburgh. As reported in the Scottish press, the nineteenth century's foremost black abolitionist said of the Harpers Ferry action: "It was not for him to say whether he was justly implicated in the matter or just not there."
Theodore Hamm is chair of journalism and new media studies at St Joseph's College in Clinton Hill, Brooklyn. His book, Bernie's Brooklyn: How Growing Up in the New Deal City Shaped Bernie Sanders' Politics is now available from O/R Books.
home-featured
Harpers Ferry
What role did Frederick Douglass play in John Brown's Harpers Ferry raid?

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Cut flowers is an important part of our activities.
We supply to wholesale companies in –and outside The Netherlands. We know preferences of different market segments from cheap one to the top and exclusive however our main focus stays on the middle market segment where good quality at an affordable price is appreciated.
Our buyers constantly look for the best possible solutions for you under all market conditions.
Our own import of cut flowers from Ecuador and Kenya offers exclusive and wide assortment of wonderful roses for any taste and price.
If you have never seen how the flower auction works, you have now an exeptional opportunuty to watch the whole auction process via the link below. These are only 3 of the mutial auction klocks but really amasing.
Live stream flower klock Flora Holland.
Avalable only from 6 a.m. Dutch time till the end of the auction process, approximately 9 a.m.
Blog with us about new varieties on the market, tell us know what you are interested in or what you would like to learn about. Our Blog is for you, our customer or a newcomer, we hope you enjoy it.


GERTRUDE PAULSEN was born to Cornelius and Jennie (Ver Mulm) VerSluys on December 12, 1926 on a farm near Rock Valley, Iowa. At the age of 10, she moved with her family to a farm near Holland, Minnesota where she attended country school District #30 and later attended Central School District #72. Upon completion of her education, she began doing domestic work in the Holland and Pipestone, Minnesota area. On August 21, 1946, she was united in marriage to Alfred Paulsen in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Following their marriage, they lived and farmed near Airlie, Minnesota for a short time. In the fall of 1947, they moved to Alfred's mother's farm west of Ihlen, Minnesota. In 1960, they purchased a farm west of Ihlen and moved there in 1962. After her divorce in 1977, Gertrude became employed at the Good Samaritan Village in Pipestone where she worked for three years. She also cleaned at the American Legion and later started cleaning at the Pipestone Dental Clinic where she worked for 16 years until retiring in 1994. Gertrude and Al remarried on February 26, 1995 in Hanley Falls, Minnesota. On July 5, 1997, Al preceded her in death. After his death, she continued to live on the farm until June, 1998, when she moved to Jasper, Minnesota. Gertrude moved to Dells Nursing and Rehab Center in Dell Rapids, South Dakota in December of 2016. Due to her declining health, Gertrude moved to the Pipestone County Hospice house in December of 2018. She remained there until her passing on Sunday, April 7, 2019 at the age of 92 years, three months, and 26 days.
She was a member of the First Presbyterian Church in Pipestone where she had served as a deacon and on the hospitality group, and had taught Sunday School. She was also a member of the Holland Presbyterian Church while living near Holland. She enjoyed crocheting and made several large table cloths, as well as a large "Last Supper". She also enjoyed having a large flower garden. For many years, she was known for the cakes she baked and decorated for weddings, confirmations, and graduations.
Grateful for having shared her life with her are her daughter, Jean Anderson of Jasper, Minnesota; two grandchildren, David John of Jasper, Minnesota, and Jennifer Jo Ahrendt of Trent, South Dakota; two great-grandchildren, Taylor Shellum of Trent, South Dakota, and Paige Ahrendt of Jasper, Minnesota; two sisters, Matilda, Mrs. Louis Lange of Adrian, Minnesota, and Genneive, Mrs. Wilmer Kiecksee of Sherburn, Minnesota; and her special nephew, Bruce Watts of Taipei-Taiwan. She was preceded in death by her husband; her parents; one brother, William VerSluys; and a son-in-law, Lynn Anderson.
To send flowers or a remembrance gift to the family of Gertrude Paulsen, please visit our Tribute Store.
"Email Address" would like to share the life celebration of Gertrude Paulsen. Click on the "link" to go to share a favorite memory or leave a condolence message for the family.


Sunroof, Onboard Communications System, WiFi Hotspot, Satellite Radio, ENGINE, 1.4L DOHC 4-CYLINDER MFI, SUNROOF, POWER, SLIDING. EPA 38 MPG Hwy/30 MPG City! LT trim, RED HOT exterior and BLACK W/ SILVER METALLIC CLOTH interior SEE MORE!
This new Red Hot 2019 Chevrolet Spark Hatch 1LT (Automatic) with a 1.4L 4 Cylinder Engine engine and AUTOMATIC transmission is for sale at All American Chevrolet of Odessa.


Email Address* Password* Forgotten your Password?
Title Title Dr Miss Mr Mrs Ms Invalid Title. Please select one from the list.
A valid password is at least 8 characters long and no more than 99 characters, and must contain uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers and special characters.
Yes, please send me exclusive discounts and special offers by email from BreakFree Holidays.
Yes, please send me exclusive discounts and special offers by email from my participating newspaper.
Yes, please send me SMS alerts when new offers become available.
For holidays on some of England's most dramatic coastline, choose our caravan parks in Dorset and Somerset.
Once the stomping ground of prehistoric beasties, the Jurassic coastlines of Dorset and Somerset are fascinating. As the cliffs slowly erode new fossils are delivered to the beaches, so keep your eyes peeled for fossilised treasures.
The Somerset coast has something of everything, with sandy beaches for bucket-and-spade family fun ...head to Weston-Super-Mare, Burnham-on-Sea and Minehead..., harbours and picture-box pretty seaside villages, and a Jurassic coastline for adventurers and explorers.
Dorset was named England's first natural World Heritage Site - to see why make a beeline to Chesil Beach, Ringstead Bay, Lulworth Cove and Durdle Door, a hulking stone arch that rises from the sea.
Dorset is home to two of England's best seaside towns. Bournemouth has miles of award-winning beaches and plenty of buzz. Weymouth has an impressive Georgian seafront with views of Jurassic coastline - hire a deckchair and enjoy. The vibrant Old Harbour is one of the most picturesque in Europe - look for the alfresco restaurants serving freshly caught crabs, lobsters and sea fish.
Some of England's prettiest villages can be found along the Dorset coast, with Lyme Regis, Abbotsbury, West Lulworth, Milton Abbas and Cranborne Chase among our favourites. For a spiritual experience head to Glastonbury Tor which rises from the Somerset Levels. At its base are the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey, which is said to be the resting place of King Arthur and his Queen, Guinevere.
Somerset's two main cities offer a contrasting choice for day trips. Bristol is an ancient city with a very modern feel and vibrant atmosphere, while pretty Bath is a World Heritage site with historic buildings including the incredibly well preserved Roman Baths that sit on top of a natural hot spring.
For walkers in Somerset, there are fantastic routes including the Quantock Hills, Exmoor National Park and the limestone Mendip Hills. If you enjoy the taste of Britain's most popular cheese, head to Cheddar Gorge at the northern edge of the Mendips and discover the traditional manufacturing process, with cheese still being matured in the gorge's spectacular caves.
Sign up & get money saving deals to your inbox!
Sign up with us & checkout faster!
Would highly recommend this service.
This is the easiest, quickest website ever for booking holidays.
Booking procedure could not be simpler. Excellent discount on normal price.
Stress free way of booking competitively priced holidays in great locations.
BreakFree Holidays are registered in England No. 05753643 | Copyright © BreakFree Holidays. All rights reserved.


text:
Labour and Lib Dems at odds over Boris Johnson no-confidence vote
Jo Swinson accuses Jeremy Corbyn of "aiding" the government, but Labour claim Lib Dems are "childish and irresponsible".
By Alan McGuinness, political reporter
Thursday 25 July 2019 17:26, UK
Image: Labour has decided not to call an immediate no-confidence vote in Boris Johnson
A row has broken out between Labour and the Liberal Democrats over the timing of a no-confidence motion in new Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson has accused Jeremy Corbyn of "aiding and abetting" a Conservative Brexit by refusing to immediately push for such a vote.
Labour has hit back, accusing the party of "childish and irresponsible game-playing".
Johnson declares 'new Brexit approach' as he sets out no-deal plans
The new PM tells MPs that failing to leave the EU on 31 October will cause a 'catastrophic loss of confidence' among the public
As leader of the opposition, Mr Corbyn is the only person who can trigger a vote that would cause the collapse of the government under the provisions of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.
But the Labour leader has made clear that he is against an immediate parliamentary showdown.
Mr Corbyn said on Tuesday - when Mr Johnson's victory in the Conservative leadership contest was confirmed - that he would put down a motion of no-confidence "when appropriate to do so".
This position was reiterated by a Labour spokesman on Thursday, who described such a vote as a "nuclear option".
They added that the party would only move when they were sure that enough rebel Tory MPs would support the motion to allow it to pass.
"As Jo Swinson knows, a no-confidence vote now will only strengthen Boris Johnson's hand and further his march towards no deal," the spokesman said.
"This is childish and irresponsible game-playing by the Lib Dems who are more interested in attacking Labour than stopping no deal."
:: LIVE: 'Unacceptable' - EU rejects Johnson's plan to scrap Irish backstop to reach Brexit deal
Image: Jo Swinson said the PM 'does not hold a mandate from parliament or the general public'
Parliament breaks up for the summer recess today, with MPs returning in early September.
This means that Mr Johnson is safe from a no-confidence vote until then.
There have been calls from opposition MPs for a vote, because of the new PM's willingness to pursue a no-deal Brexit if necessary.
Jeremy Corbyn: Labour will push for vote 'when appropriate to do so'
Ms Swinson said Mr Johnson "does not hold a mandate from parliament or the general public to be prime minister".
In a letter to Mr Corbyn, she said: "His [Mr Johnson's] reckless refusal to rule out proroguing parliament in order to crash the UK out of the EU without a deal demonstrates that he is not fit to lead this country.
"As the Leader of the Official Opposition you are the only person in the position to call a vote of no confidence in the new prime minister.
"We therefore urge you to do so immediately.
"You must not sit back and allow this government to crash our country out of the EU.
Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn argue over backstop
"We implore you to take action and call for a vote of no confidence.
"It is vital that we work together to secure a people's vote with the option to stay in the EU."
Listen to "What Boris Johnson's cabinet tells us" on Spreaker.
:: Listen to Sky News Daily on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
Ms Swinson has also tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM), signed by her Lib Dem colleagues in parliament, expressing no confidence in Mr Johnson.
It says: "This House has no confidence in the prime minister; rejects the option of the UK crashing out of the EU; and rejects the option of parliament being prorogued before Friday November 8 2019."
However the move is purely symbolic, given EDMs are traditionally used to highlight issues and are not voted on by MPs.


text:
About Songfacts
Suggestions for Current Quote Box
By Carl
September 1, 2005 in About Songfacts
I found something about Fantasy -- Earth, Wind & Fire :
- released November 1977 on All 'N All
- the single went to #32 USA, and # 14 in the UK
- written by Maurice White, Eduardo del Barrio, Verdine Adams White
- covered by Black Box in 1990 and Paul Shaffer & the Party Boys of Rock 'n' Roll in 1993
it's not much...
Farin 45 posts
_Laurie_ 32 posts
edna 27 posts
Tenacious_Peaches 24 posts
"From out of Nowhere"
It´s the first Faith No More's single featuring Mike Patton on vocals. The band has been quoted saying about the video "We didn't know what we were doing."
The song was also in the game Madden NFL 2005
The music video was purposely tongue-in-cheek. It seems to be a subtle parody of hair metal bands at the time.
(from wikipedia)
"Mexican Radio"
Wall of Voodoo
"Mexican Radio" is a song written and performed by the band Wall of Voodoo, and produced by Richard Mazda. The track was initially made commercially available on their 1982 album Call of the West.
The song gained notoriety (and is best remembered) for its line sung and written by lead vocalist Stan Ridgway , "I wish I was in Tijuana / eating barbecued iguana." A video on MTV in 1982-83 helped as well.
Wall of Voodoo vocalist Stan Ridgway and guitarist Marc Moreland traced the inspiration for the song to listening to high-wattage unregulated AM border-blaster Mexican radio stations (among them XERF, XEG, and XERB) which, starting circa the 1930's, were received practically around the globe ("I turn the switch and check the number / I leave it on when in bed I slumber"). Some of the stations boasted a million watts, which was considerably higher than allowed in the US.
Sitting just south of the Rio Grande ("I feel a hot wind on my shoulder / I dial it in from south of the border"), these stations avoided American broadcast and trade regulations, and became the medium of favor for countless quacks spouting political rants ("I dial it in and tune the station / They talk about the U.S. inflation"), selling homemade pharmaceuticals pre-FDA ("... I buy the product and never use it"), self-published manifestos, and may have even been the starting point for the televangelist as we know it ("I understand just a little / no comprende - it's a riddle"). Wolfman Jack started his career in that market ("I hear the talking of the dj / Can't understand, just what does he say?"), spinning a schizophrenic mix of genres.
Wall of Voodoo vocalist Stan Ridgway co-wrote with Moreland to finish the song, and added all the verse's lyrics to Moreland's enigmatic chourus and guitar lick, as well as the catchy "mariachi" harmonica melody in the song's middle breakdown.
Also from wikipedia.
"Maggot Brain"
Funkadelic
According to legend, George Clinton, out of his mind on LSD, told Eddie Hazel to play the first half of the song like his mother had just died, and still other version say that he told Hazel to play the second half as if he had found out she was alive. The result was the 10-minute guitar solo for which Hazel is most fondly remembered by many music critics and fans. Though several other musicians began the track playing, Clinton soon realized the power of Hazel's solo and faded them out so that the focus would be on Hazel's guitar. The entire track was recorded in one take.
This song has very few lyrics, spoken only at the beginning of the song before Hazel's solo takes off. The concept of "Maggot Brain" is, however, very important in understanding P Funk mythology. The original source of the song is commonly thought to have been inspired by the grief and confusion of George Clinton, after having discovered his older brother's body (after a lethal drug overdose) when decomposition had already set in. On another level, "maggot brain" could refer to Eddie Hazel's drug-riddled brain. In the grand scheme of things, Maggot Brain is a mode of being, thinking and existing, in which one transcends the troubles of Earthly existence by revelling in the freedom of funk. The brief spoken word introduction to the song tells us that "Mother Earth is pregnant for the third time, for y'all have knocked her up. I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe - I was not offended, for I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own sh*t."
Wikipedia again...
A few facts for
"Man in black"
Jonnhy Cash ...fom wikipedia.
In 1971, Cash wrote the song "Man in Black" to help explain his dress code: "I wear the black for the poor and the beaten down, / Livin' in the hopeless, hungry side of town, / I wear it for the prisoner who has long paid for his crime, / But is there because he's a victim of the times."
He and his band had initially worn black shirts because that was the only matching color they had among their various outfits. He wore other colors on stage early in his career, but he claimed to like wearing black both on and off stage. He stated that, political reasons aside, he simply liked black as his on-stage color.
"Fort Worth Blues"
Guy Clark
From his album "Cold Dog Soup", 1999. A cover of Steve Earle´s song he wrote as an elegy for their late friend, songwriter Townes Van Zandt. Backing vocals by Emmylou Harris.
I know, it´s very little. Couldn´t find more info.
"More than this"
Composed by Bryan Ferry. Released in their album "Avalon" in 1982.
It was released as a single with "India" as side B. It reached the charts in
Britain (#6), Australia (#6) and most European countries. Although a chart failure in the US, the song was popular on the college radio circuit. It is unusual for a pop song in that Ferry's vocal ends at 2.45 minutes, leaving the last 1.45 minutes as a synth-driven instrumental. It has since become regarded as a classic Roxy Music song; in Sofia Coppola's 2003 film Lost in Translation, actor Bill Murray sings "More Than This" in a Tokyo karaoke bar.
Performers: Bryan Ferry (vocals & keyboards), Andy Mackay(saxophone) and Phil Manzanera (guitar); plus: Neil Hubbard (guitar), Jimmy Maelen (percussion), Andy Newmark (drums), Alan Spenner (bass) and Fonzi Thornton (vocals).
I spent a little time on the mountain
Spent a little time on the hill
I saw things getting out of hand
I guess they always will
"New Speedway Boogie" ~ Grateful Dead
More research later, I promise
This one already has a few Songfacts:
http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=2039
"I can't tell you how proud I am,
I'm writing down things that I don't understand"
Black Math ~ The White Stripes
"What are you running from?
Taking pills to get along,
Creating walls to call your own
So no one catches you drifting off and
Doing all the things that... we all do"
All Those Yesterdays ~ Pearl Jam
"Daddy didn't give attention
To the fact that mommy didn't care,
King Jeremy the Wicked
Ruled his world"
Jeremy ~ Pearl Jam
"Are you woman enough to be my man?"
Hail Hail ~ Pearl Jam
"She seems to be stronger
But what they want her to be is weak
She could just pretend,
She could join the game,
She could be another clone"
Why Go ~ Pearl Jam
TheLizard
No one's gonna take me alive
The time has come to make things right
You and I must fight for our rights
You and I must fight to survive
~Knights of Cydonia by Muse
A little bit for Tattva:
From the liner notes off Kollected
Tattva The simultaneous, inconceivable, oneness and separatedness of the Supreme Absolute Truth.
apart from that:
Tattva was Kula Shaker's debut single off their album 'K'. The album was released in October 2006 and became the fastest selling debut album since Oasis' Definitely Maybe.
And where would we be without Wikipedia?
Tattva is a Sanskrit word meaning 'thatness', 'principle', 'reality' or 'truth'.[1] According to various Indian schools of philosophy, a tattva is an element or aspect of reality conceived as an aspect of deity. Although the number of tattvas varies depending on the philosopical school, together they are thought to form the basis of all our experience.
Out of curiosity, do all the quotes suggested make it to the box?
Tenacious_Peaches
Yes, they do. Even though it seems some of the quotes are shown over and over again, they are supposed to be selected at random.
I Shall Not Walk Alone ~ Ben Harper
Fort Worth Blues ~ Guy Clark
The Metal ~ Tenacious D
Long Distance Winner ~ Stevie Nicks
'Til I Gain Control Again ~ Rodney Crowell
Never Thought ~ Roger Clyne
Sleep Like a Baby ~ Roger Clyne
Bloody Mary Morning ~ Willie Nelson
Still is Still Moving to Me ~ Willie Nelson
West Texas Moon ~ Roger Clyne
Slice of Heaven ~ Dave Dobbyns
The Worst Hangover Ever ~ The Offspring
Maggot Brain ~ Funkadelic
Man in Black ~ Johnny Cash
Blue Spanish Sky ~ Chris Isaak
Jeepster - T-Rex
More Than This ~ Roxy Music
Loco to Stay Sane ~ Roger Clyne & the Peacemakers
Don't Let Me Get Me ~ Pink
Life's an Elevator ~ T-Rex
Gone Fishing ~ Chris Rea
Telegram Sam ~ T-Rex
Bad Liver and a Broken Heart ~ Tom Waits
I Can't Stop Dancing ~ Archie Bell & the Drells
Hold On ~ Triumph
Changes In Latitudes, Changes In Attitudes ~ Jimmy Buffett
Fantasy ~ Earth, Wind & Fire
One Particular Harbor ~ Jimmy Buffett
From Out of Nowhere ~ Faith No More
Mexican Radio ~ Wall of Voodoo
Better Beautiful Than Perfect ~ Roger Clyne
Rotterdam ~ The Beautiful South
She's Only Happy In the Sun ~Ben Harper
Tattva ~ Kula Shaker
The Message ~ Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five
" And the hangovers hurt more than they used to do
And cornbread and ice tea's took the place of pills and ninety proof
And it seems like none of us do things quite like we used to do
But nobody wants to get high on the town
And all my rowdy friends have settled down "
Hank Williams Jr.
_Laurie_
Shawna....You have some Roger Clyne homework to do!
Something's wrong 'cause my mind is fading
And everywhere I look there's a dead end waiting
Devil's Haircut ~ Beck
Am I a part of the cure,
or am I part of the disease?
Clocks ~ Coldplay
The time is gone, the song is over
Thought I'd something more to say
- Time -- Pink Floyd
"You lock the door and throw away the key,
there´s someone in my head but it´s not me"
Brain Damage - Pink Floyd
"If I go insane please don´t put your wires in my brain"
If - Pink Floyd
"Doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you"
Old Man - Neil Young
If there's no one beside you
When your soul embarks
Then I'll follow you into the dark
-I'll Follow You Into the Dark, Death Cab for Cutie
Crazy Don
Location: Charlie West
Today's music ain't got the same soul
I like that old time rock and roll
"Old Time Rock & Roll," Bob Seger
(I don't know if anyone's given that yet!)


The astounding kids bedroom :kids bedroom Design picture above, is an atribute kids dog bedding ideas post, which specifically grouped inside kids bedroom category.
Before decor kid's bedroom is very essential because you make the layout of your planning, making concept is the first step. Observes your kids equally like and most liked are simply because that is certainly impact your design. It would effortless when you can illustrate their personality and mount their like and most liked to their room design. You need place some home furniture depend on their desire but you must compare along with your design thus it can support your design each other. Then, do not overlook to have room and they also will need do activities in the room.


City of Evart voters made various decisions on key candidates and issues in Tuesday's election.
For Evart mayor, John Joyce won with 254 votes over Karen Higgins (117) and Kevinn Beemer (105). For city clerk, incumbent Heather Pattee received 297 votes compared to 186 for Kathryn Bradley. Sandra Szeliga (316) and Dan Elliott (276) were running for two open spots on the council.
The Evart school district had five candidates running for two spots. Incumbent Alan Bengry (1,382) took first, followed by Kelly H. Whitman (799). Brad VanBuren (781), Jeffrey Jackson (503) and Mark W. Sochocki (435).
Evart voters decided on four proposals, including three other amendments.
The first proposal was to change the Evart city clerk from an elected position by city electors to an appointed position appointed by the council and to take effect November 2020 or when a vacancy for that office occurs, whichever occurs first.
The second proposal was to amend the charter to change the number of regular meetings per month from a least twice to a least once. It failed 255-239.
Evart voters were asked for a charter amendment proposal to change the date for the final payment of city taxes prior to late penalty from Aug. 10 to Sept. 15 of each year. It passed 352-144.
There was also a proposal to levy 1.8 mills from 2019 to 2022 for defraying, in part, the cost of current operations of the Evart Police Department. The proposal said the estimated revenue to be collected in the first year, Dec. 2019 is estimated to be $53,178.24 based on the 2018 taxable valuation. It was noted the millage is not a renewal but replaces the current approved public safety millage, which levies 1.8 mills and which expires Dec. 31.