text:
Author Archives: Marsha J. Indych
S.D. Fla. Court Remands Case to State Court, Finding No Article III Injury
Jurisdiction, Standing
The Southern District of Florida recently remanded a case back to state court because the defendant that removed the case failed to establish that plaintiff suffered an Article III injury. Harris v. Travel Resorts of America, Inc., Civ. No. 2:20-14369-AMC (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2021). Notably, the Court also found that plaintiff should be able to recover its attorneys' fees in seeking remand given the defendant's reversing its prior position on whether the Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.
Supreme Court Adopts Narrow Autodialer Definition
Marsha J. Indych and Anthony F. Jankoski
In a decision issued this morning, the Supreme Court settled a long-running debate over the scope of the TCPA's "automatic telephone dialing system" definition: "whether that definition encompasses equipment that can 'store' and dial telephone numbers, even if the device does not 'us[e] a random or sequential number generator." Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 592 U.S. — (2021).
The Court unequivocally held that devices that merely store numbers from a premade list do not qualify as autodialer systems subject to the TCPA. "To qualify as an [ATDS]," explained Justice Sotomayor, writing for Court, "a device must have the capacity either to store a telephone number using a random or sequential generator or to produce a telephone number" using either form of generation. Id. at 1.
TCPA Plaintiff Argues He Wasn't Injured in Attempt to Dodge Federal Jurisdiction
Marsha J. Indych and Renée M. Dudek
Actual Harm, Jurisdiction, Standing
Usually, it is the plaintiff that argues he or she was injured, not the defendant. But, in an effort to stay in state court, some TCPA plaintiffs have taken the counterintuitive position that they did not suffer an injury in fact under Article III of the U.S. Constitution and, therefore, their claims cannot be heard in federal court.
"[T]o satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an 'injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–181 (2000).
Eastern District of Texas Holds that Professional TCPA Litigant Can Face Counterclaims for Fraud
Abusive Lawsuits, Counterclaim, Professional Plaintiffs
A federal magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas recently addressed a question of first impression for the jurisdiction: Can professional plaintiffs who manufacture TCPA claims face counterclaims for fraud brought by the defendant in an abusive lawsuit? According to the magistrate and the district judge that adopted her recommendation, the answer is yes.
In Cunningham v. USA Auto Protection, LLC, the plaintiff—professional litigant Craig Cunningham—alleged that defendant USA Auto Protection (USA Auto) made over twenty telemarketing calls to Cunningham's cell phone without his consent. Case No. 4:20-cv-142, 2021 WL 434243, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2021).
Professional Plaintiff Who Manufactured Claims Can Sue But Can't Represent Class
Abusive Lawsuits, Class Certification, Professional Plaintiffs, Standing, Telemarketing, Vicarious Liability
A recent denial of a professional plaintiff's motion for class certification shows that, irrespective of whether such plaintiffs have standing to sue on their own behalf, courts are increasingly skeptical that contrived claims are amenable to class treatment. See Hirsch v. USHealth Advisors, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-00245-P, 2020 WL 7186380, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2020).
Texas District Courts Remain Divided on Standing for Single-Text TCPA Plaintiffs
Anthony F. Jankoski and Marsha J. Indych
Actual Harm, Standing, Text Messages
In a pair of recent opinions, two U.S. district courts in different parts of Texas expressed inconsistent views on a topic we have been following closely: whether plaintiffs who receive just a single unwanted text message can establish a concrete injury for Article III standing.
The Sixth Circuit Adopts Expansive Interpretation of ATDS
Marsha J. Indych and Ingrid D. Johnson
In Allan v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on the definition of an ATDS, joining the Second and Ninth Circuits in reading it expansively. The opinion was issued twenty days after the Supreme Court agreed to review this issue, following a growing split among the circuit courts. (Click these links for our previous blogposts about decisions from the Second, Seventh, Eleventh, Ninth, Third, and D.C. Circuits.)
Supreme Court Agrees To Review ATDS Definition
Michael P. Daly and Marsha J. Indych
Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in which Facebook had asked the Court to resolve the growing circuit split regarding the definition of an ATDS. The Court limited its review to the second question presented, namely "whether the definition of ATDS in the TCPA encompasses any device that can 'store' and 'automatically dial' telephone numbers, even if the device does not 'us[e] a random or sequential number generator.'" This comes hot on the heels of the Court's ruling earlier this week on the constitutionality and severability of the government-debt exception to the statute's restrictions on automated telephone equipment.
Supreme Court Strikes Government-Debt Exception But Saves Other Restrictions on Automated Telephone Equipment
Michael P. Daly, Marsha J. Indych, Renée M. Dudek and Deanna J. Hayes
Automatic Telephone Dialing System, Debt Collection, Exemptions, First Amendment, Strict Scrutiny, Supreme Court
On July 6, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated—and highly fractured—ruling in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants. The nine Justices produced four opinions, none of which commanded a majority. But six of the Justices agreed that the TCPA's government-debt exception violated the First Amendment, and seven agreed that it could be severed from the rest of the TCPA. The result, then, is that the exception was stricken but the restrictions on automated telephone equipment were saved.
Writing for the plurality, Justice Kavanaugh made quick work of the government's argument that the exception was content-neutral: "A robocall that says, 'Please pay your government debt' is legal. A robocall that says, 'Please donate to our political campaign' is illegal. That is about as content-based as it gets." Because the exception was content-based, the plurality applied strict scrutiny—a standard that the government had conceded it could not satisfy.


text:
What Does a Chief of Staff to a Congressman Do?
Jacara uses s to provide you with a great user experience. By using Jacara , you accept our
Learn About the Salary, Required Skills, & More
••• Mark Wilson / Staff / Getty Images
The chief of staff acts as the bridge between the congressional members and the rest of the members' employees. If you walked around Capitol Hill while Congress was in session, you would see countless dressed in business formal attire zipping through the halls and around the grounds.
All of these professionals, working to support members of Congress, do not work with the elected officials on a day-to-day basis. Instead, they work under chiefs of staff who are tasked with directing the work of people employed by members of Congress and various committees.
Chief of Staff to a Congressman Duties & Responsibilities
A congressional chief of staff has a variety of duties and responsibilities. They may also be called an administrative assistant, although their job duties carry much more responsibility than those of an administrative assistant that works as support staff in a standard office environment. Duties include the following:
Directly supervise both full-time and part-time employees, including interviewing, hiring, training, assigning work, writing performance reviews and more
Set and oversee the administration of office goals, policies, and procedures
Manage the congress member's long-term legislative plan
Conduct staff meetings
Speak to local groups when the member is not available
Oversee the office budget
Act as the member's main liaison for constituents and various interest groups
Chief of Staff to a Congressman Salary
According to , the average salary for a congressional chief of staff was $148,035 in 2018. Each congressional member pays their chief of staff differently and some members may also have more than one chief of staff.
According to Glassdoor.com, the salaries in 2018 ranged from a low of $145,000 to a high of $182,000.These salaries are significantly higher than those of their usual direct reports; however, those on the next rung down the ladder still make good wages.
Individuals who want to work as a congressional chief of staff must, at a minimum, fulfill the following requirements:
Education: Congressional chiefs of staff tend to have college degrees, preferably in political science.
Work experience: Before landing this position, individuals hold jobs in congressional offices, at federal agencies, in law firms, and in private businesses. Many have diverse employment experiences and significant experience on Capitol Hill can help them adapt to the work environment and responsibilities of the chief of staff position.
Chief of Staff to a Congressman Skills & Competencies
To perform well in the chief of staff position, individuals must possess certain soft skills in addition to education and work experience, such as the following:
Communication skills: People who are hired into chief of staff positions are skilled at networking because landing one of these jobs often involves having very powerful people respect your talent and professionalism.
Performance under pressure: Works well under pressure and has the ability to handle stress well
Work flexibility: Maintains a flexible schedule and meets the member's attendance requirements
Interpersonal skills: Maintains a good working relationship with the member, staff, and constituents
Job Outlook
The number of U.S. congressmen is fixed at 435, due to legislation called the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. Congressional chief of staff jobs may become available based on attrition, non-performance, or other circumstances, but the number of available jobs will not exceed the number of representatives.
A congressional chief of staff's work is performed mainly in an office environment. Candidates should expect to work in a small station such as a cubicle, with moderate noise and no expectation of privacy.
A chief of staff should expect to be flexible about their work hours, and be prepared to put in long hours, nights, and weekends.
How to Get the Job
You won't find these jobs posted publicly very often. These positions are often earned by building a good reputation and an extensive professional network.
Members seek recommendations from their colleagues and their colleagues' chiefs of staff. Politicians need people they can trust to look out for their best interests and to complete work with excellence.
Comparing Similar Jobs
Congressional Office manager: $27,000-$37,000
Congressional Legislative director: $83,020
Source: Glassdoor.com, 2019
Article Table of Contents Skip to section
http://baden-medservice.com/
Был найден мной интересный блог на тематику https://showroom-kiev.com.ua.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Talk:Ireland (disambiguation)
Revision as of 22:14, 1 March 2011 by imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards (→Just be basic)
1 Disambiguation page
2 Naming Irish articles
3 Disambiguation
4 Proposal
4.1 Just be basic
Disambiguation page
I'm currently working on articles for Ireland (the country) and Ireland (the island) (drafts on my sandbox, links from my userpage). I may also get started on Northern Ireland. The general intention, in order to avoid repetition, would be to keep things like geography, geology, climate, flora and fauna, etc., on the Ireland (the island) article - possibly also the ancient history. Then the country article(s) would contain politics, economy, culture, (recent) history, etc.
Note that the actual article titles haven't been decided upon yet. To forestall the endless circular arguments found elsewhere, my intention would be to have the issue discussed and agreed before actually setting up the articles proper. Anton Sweeney 08:27, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Good thinking, Anton.
I think you should combine the country and island articles (since it's a bit arbitrary to hive off the twiddly bits of the Irish Archipelago like Sceilig Mhichíl, Rathlin, Blasket, Saltee, Aran, etc, islands) and you should be able to get to at least 1731 before serious dissension occurs. Obviously by the third decade of the nineteenth century you will need at least two articles to discuss the various state entities. Despite the recent shortening of the Dublin state entity's official title, I am sure you will be able to distinguish the articles about the whole island country of Ireland (even Dr Paisley replied that he was unambiguously an Irishman when I asked him in 1993) from those articles dealing with the various states.
Do you intend to include the Irish kingdoms across the water (like Strathclyde) in your ancient history? W. Frank 09:56, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
The question here isn't just what the titles should be, but how the whole topic of Ireland should be divided up. I'd like to leave that in the hands of the Irish--preferably, Irish Studies people, but actual Irish people would do in a pinch. I imagine that we might have articles about the geography of Ireland that cover all the Irish islands; a history article called something like history of Ireland to 1731, and then later installments based on political entities; one big history of Ireland article that covers the whole island (why not?); I think Ireland itself should be a brief discussion of what can be found on the island, politically, historically, geographically, and otherwise, but mainly with pointers to Eire or Republic of Ireland, and Northern Ireland. In the latter case, I'm not sure we actually need a disambiguation page at all. There are many questions involved here. We should take them up one at a time. --Larry Sanger 23:41, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Naming Irish articles
Editor in Chief, Larry Sanger just used the edit summary of "(Rendering anticipated names consistent with CZ:Naming Conventions)" when changing the title of "Ireland, Republic of" to "Republic of Ireland" and "Ireland, Island of" to "Ireland (island).
However, I think he is wrong on one reading of the reference he provided: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Naming_Conventions#Typographical_and_stylistic_rules which currently emboldens: "put keywords first"
Since we can safely envision more than three Ireland articles developing over the course of time I would respectfully suggest that this reference encourages a series of articles named after this pattern:
Ireland, Republic of
Ireland, Southern (interim state in 1922)
Ireland, Rugby in
Ireland, prehistory
Ireland, missionaries from
Ireland, writers from
Ireland, traditional sports etc, etc
W. Frank 18:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
The main problem I see there is with the first one - "Ireland, Republic of". The Irish Constitution says "Article 4: The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland."[1] The description of the state, according to the Republic of Ireland Act, 1948, is the "Republic of Ireland" [2]. (Note: W. Frank has mentioned that this has changed, but I didn't manage to find a reference to the change today). Now, on WP, there have been pages and pages of arguments, polls, etc., about where articles should reside - currently, over there,
"Republic of Ireland" is the article on the state, Ireland;
"Ireland" is the article on the island as a whole;
"Ireland (disambiguation)" is (obviously) a disambiguation page linking to both the above, plus "Northern Ireland", plus former political entities on the island, people with Ireland as a surname, etc.
The gist of the argument is that the article on the state should not have to reside at a page named after its description, rather than its proper name. The prevailing consensus is that it would be too much trouble to move pages around and that things work fine as they are. However, every so often, someone kicks off the debate again...
Here at CZ, we have the opportunity to do things right from the start. My initial idea is that we should have:
Ireland - a disambiguation page, linking to:
Ireland - the island;
Ireland - the state;
primarily in order to forestall such interminable recurring arguments.
I'm open as to what the actual names of the articles are, though for the reasons stated, I do think calling the article on the state either "Ireland, Republic of" or "Republic of Ireland" would be a mistake.
At this stage of CZ's life - I'm wondering is this the correct place to have this debate, or should it be in a more "central" location such as the Geography forum, or CZ:Geography Workgroup? Regards, Anton Sweeney 18:57, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
The rule you found was articulated by a new arrival to Citizendium who has made that rule as a proposal. I disagree with it, and I've removed it, pending a discussion by the Editorial Council.
I do agree that a more central location such as the Geography forum would be more appropriate. --Larry Sanger 20:25, 25 April 2007 (CDT)
Discussion started here. Anton Sweeney 04:17, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Wouldn't it be better for this page to be located at Ireland (disambiguation) or something similar and for Ireland (state) to be located at Ireland? After all, most people who type "Ireland" into their web browser are probably looking for the country. William Niday 09:43, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
But many will instead be looking for the island. Possibly this article should be located at Ireland (disambiguation) - but with Ireland redirecting to it. "Ireland" is both the name of one state on the island, and of the island itself. When I set up the pages as I did, it was mainly to avoid the protracted discussions over this issue which take place on Wikipedia, and which never seem to die off for long. Anton Sweeney 10:17, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
I would suggest that we keep this disambiguation page, but re-use the article Ireland as a conatiner name for the island. The name the Republic declared as a description of that country (ie "Ireland") is relatively new (1937). Historically, however, the island has been known by the name "Ireland" for far longer.
As an example of what I mean, I had occasion just now to look at the article on James Tytler (I had never heard of him before), and I noticed that the man had "fled to Ireland". Given that the man was apparently a contemporary of Robert Burns, he wouldn't have fled to the Republic of Ireland, as it was yet to come to be. Whoever edited the article didn't disambiguate however, and anyone clicking on the blue link would be directed to this disambiguation page.
Ireland, for most of Tytler's life, was a kingdom, and at the end of his life was an integral part of the United Kingdom, having been joined in union just prior to his death. It is my suspicion that this will be the most common use of the link Ireland by editors referring to the region, and that the link should therefore contain a description of the island as a whole.
Ireland (island) should therefore, to avoid duplication, redirect to Ireland. --Mal McKee 16:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
While the boundaries obviously are controversial, I've found it useful, as a parallel, to have both Israel and State of Israel. This is something I've done for several other countries. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
So a precedent has already been set then, Howard. Perhaps another couple of views on the matter would be useful before we resolve to make any changes. --Mal McKee 18:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be better to avoid such controversial actions, just keep disambiguation. Just look at all the endless wars on Wikipedia on this subject. Peter Jackson 10:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not interested in wars or even the discussion of wars on other sites, Peter. I'm simply proposing this as being the most logical solution to stop blue links directing to a disambiguation page. I can't see anyone here having any kind of problem with it.
In fact, having just checked Wikipedia, it seems they are doing what I have proposed with regard to their article. They have the article on Ireland, which is about the historic and geographic region, and they have a disambiguation article for the various meanings and contexts of Ireland.--Mal McKee 21:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
That just shows you who's been winning the wars. Remember the old saying: "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done." I think it's desirable for us to avoid even the appearance of bias. Peter Jackson 14:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Peter, I'd love to know what you mean by this. How does "justice" relate in any way to my suggestion? I don't think that the consensus on that particular small part of the ongoing 'war' in Wikipedia is an example of any particular faction having "won" anything. --Mal McKee 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Justice was merely an analogy. Peter Jackson 11:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
[de-indent] Yes Peter, but an analogy for what? For the Wikipedia war? For disambiguation? For controversy? For bias?
On your note on who you think has been winning the Wikipedia war, I genuinely don't know who you think that is. I could take a guess, but I'm not sure that I'd be correct, and I wouldn't like to make assumptions. I would say the following though, and forgive me as the text I've written here, while quite succinct really (given the complexity of the 'war'), is reasonably long:
The last time I checked that place, it seemed pretty clear to me who was winning any 'war'. Take a look at the categories to witness the lack of consistency in Wikipedia due to petty and illogical pseudo-political objections:
Cornish culture
English culture
Culture of Northern Ireland
English society
Society of Northern Ireland
Scottish society
Welsh society
Notice a theme? It continues throughout the categories, with a handful of exceptions, and through many Wikipedia articles too.
Members of terrorist organisations relating to the conflict in Northern Ireland are divided into two main categories in Wikipedia: members applied to Loyalist terrorists, such as members of the Ulster Volunteer Force and volunteers applied to Republican terrorists, such as members of the Provisional IRA. What has been going on in Wikipedia in regard to this subject area has been, quite frankly, creepy.
Take, for example, articles on said terrorists. Let's contrast two people, on opposite sides, catalogued by Wikipedia: Billy Hutchinson (a Loyalist) and Francis Hughes (a Republican).
Francis Hughes was "an Irish volunteer in the Provisional Irish Republican Army". I should note at this point that there had been a move in Wikipedia to make the 'V' of the word volunteer a capital letter. To continue, Francis Hughes according to Wikipedia, died during the "1981 Irish hunger strike". Let's take stock of that: I'm an Irish person, but I don't recall any general Irish Hunger Strike in 1981. <sarcasm>It is most unfortunate that this man happened to die, somehow, during this strike that I was unaware of and had no part in.</sarcasm>
The article on Hughes goes on to explain his rationale or motive behind joining the IRA. In the section describing his "Paramilitary activity", a quote waxes lyrically about how he spent his time on the move and cut a soldierly figure in his nice beret and uniform. The section describes how he took part in "scores of.. operations" and, while it uses the word "bombings", the strongest word besides that is "attacks", and later describes how he "killed.. two officers".
Hutchinson's short article describes him as "a former member of the Ulster Volunteer Force" (<sarcasm>the 'M' isn't capitalised</sarcasm>) who was imprisoned for the killing of "two Catholic men" (the word "Catholic" is wikilinked to a description of what an Irish Catholic apparently is). Although the article points out that Hutchinson is an atheist, he also points out how he was arrested "in connection with the murder of [a] Catholic teenager".
Hughes is categorised in 'Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism' and 'Shooting survivors'. Hutchinson is categorised in 'Ulster loyalists imprisoned on charges of terrorism and 'People convicted of murder by Northern Ireland'.
These are just a couple of examples. Others, just while we're on the subject, include the fact that Ross McWhirter was "assassinated by" the IRA, that Mark Haddock has apparently been "named by various sources in connection with more than twenty-one murders", and that Martina Anderson "is a nationalist politician.. and is a former volunteer of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)", always linking the word volunteer to the discussion article about what an IRA volunteer is.
So Wikipedia is biased, yeah. It suffers from systemic bias which is unfortunately compounded by facts as specifically noted in website, such as that Francis Hughes is commemorated: "The American city of Boston renamed the street the British consulate is on to Francis Hughes Street. He is commemorated on the Irish Martyrs Memorial at Waverley Cemetery in Sydney, Australia."
Now I'm not arguing about the morality of martyring the Hunger Strikers (streets in other parts of the world have been named after Bobby Sands also). I have my opinion, which we need not go into here. What I believe it does illustrate though, is a certain populist sentiment which leads to systemic bias. The same is probably true for many other subjects besides this one, but when working on a project such as this, I think it is important to stick to logic and a certain amount of consistency rather than sentiment.
The problem with this particular subject (and it may be the same for other subjects also) is that there is often only one 'side' or the other, and sometimes no suitable compromise between viewpoints. I try to divorce myself from my own sentiment and bias, and work on the idea of logic and common sense. I think that working this way, we can avoid some of the arguments that have grown in Wikipedia, and the factionalist methods used there in conflict resolution (which leads to stalemates or the introduction of systemic bias). Sometimes working this way may result in an outcome which favours my own bias, and sometimes it may work against it. Hopefully that will result in keeping a certain amount of balance and consistency within this encyclopaedia which is missing from Wikipedia.
So, given what I had noticed with the article I mentioned (we shouldn't have a blue link which redirects to a disambiguation page unless we specifically mean browsers to go to such a page), would you agree that the logical thing to do would be to give the page ownership for a general article on Ireland to the page Ireland? --Mal McKee 12:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether we have some rule about such things. My own instinct would be that the article Ireland should be a sort of stub/disambiguation, just telling people basic points like
until the 20th century, "Ireland" always referred to the whole island of Ireland, with or without numerous much smaller islands around it
it often still does
but it also often refers to Southern Ireland/Irish Free State/Eire/Republic of Ireland/Irish Republic
Then you can have some suitably named articles for the two (or three) meanings. Peter Jackson 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's the status quo at the minute. But I'm proposing we change that. I'm making the proposition because most people, and I include myself here, when they think of Ireland they think of the whole island - it's geography and history. Everything before 1937 or 1949, despite the name that the southern state on the island has chosen to be known by, which excludes most of the province of Ulster. So instead of a blue link redirecting to a disambiguation page, when new articles are created, I think it would be best that the link goes to a generic article about the island, with a note ('See also' section or something) that explains and points to articles about other usages of the name. Your bullet point text above is nearly perfect for an intro to the Ireland article, in my opinion.
Newer editors (and by that, I mean authors and editors), and some who are already here, won't necessarily bother looking up to see exactly which link we should be piping through the text, and considering whether or not they have the correct context or not. But if people feel linking to a disambiguation page is perfectly fine, then so be it. :) I suggested other people opine here because I wanted to gather a general consensus (I know... that word probably has dirty connotations for people who have been involved in any way with Wikipedia!).
Personally, if anyone can show a logical reason to keep Ireland as a redirection to a disambiguation page, then I'm willing to explore and possibly accept it. Ireland hasn't changed though, in more then 2,000 years. The new state was created; the people have changed; the landscape has been developed etc, but it's still roughly in the same position it has been, drifting slowly away from its neighbouring island at something like 1 cm per year, and pretty much the same shape and with the same history it has had in that period. Ireland refers to some 9,000 years of habitation, or around 2,300 years of recorded history. Not to belittle the state that was basically formed in 1920 and separated in 1949, whose people accepted a constitution which, optimistically, opted for the name of the island as the name of the state, but that has some sixty or seventy years of claim to the name by comparison. When I think of Ireland, I think of the Ireland that my ancestors lived in thousands of years ago - not necessarily the politics of the last couple of hundred years.
I know of one, otherwise intelligent and successful man who, in the 21st century, wasn't even aware of the existence of Northern Ireland. This man was, however, aware of Ireland, along with its stereotyping and myths etc. So when people think of Ireland, especially before 1920, they think of the whole island - not about the nation state.
I hope you don't mind that I've rambled a bit here! I just wanted to make it clear that, although I come from Northern Ireland specifically, I come from Ireland, and that my motive for proposing this change isn't borne out of mere political ideology or bias, I guess. --Mal McKee 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We're not discussing your motivations here. My quotation about justice was trying to suggest we should avoid even the appearance of bias. Alternative quotation: "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion." The WP wars illustrate that people are liable to see bias in such things. Peter Jackson 11:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I have made an effort to explain how this proposal is unbiased, Peter - that is the point of my discussing my motivation. Once again, I cannot see that anyone would see this proposal, if implemented, as being biased in any way. I think, after having given a full explaination of it, it is now up to you (as you seem to be the only person with any objection so far) to show how this might "appear" biased. After that, we can then possibly move the debate on. --Mal McKee 17:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Haven't I already said that the mere fact that there are endless wars on Wikipedia about this and similar matters proves that many people would regard it as biased to use one meaning as primary? What more can I say? Have you done any research to find out the relative frequencies of the meanings? Peter Jackson 12:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I would tend to disagree with you in regard to Wikipedia. All Wikipedia proves is that there are a few vigilant extremists who make more noise than their numbers would make one think they were capable of. The squeaky wheel tends to get the grease!
Relative frequencies of meanings? You mean with regard to the name of the island? The island is almost invariably referred to as "Ireland" (unless a more informal or poetic tone is used, then it may be called "Éire", "The Emerald Isle", "Erin" etc). But there is absolutely no question, doubt or controversy about the name of the island. If there was any doubt in this regard, I probably wouldn't be making this proposal. --Mal McKee 12:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I mean the two (or three) meanings of the word "Ireland". In physical geography it clearly has one meaning. In politics, law and economics it has a different meaning. History and human geography not so obvious. Peter Jackson 11:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be a highly complex thing to research the various contexts of what you describe, for frequency. We'd also have a problem of popularity versus accuracy, I suspect. I appreciate that the context of human geography is complex (probably no more or less so than most other regions of the world though). However, the island is known as, and has been known as, Ireland or a variation thereof for at least 2,000 years. In times where there may be confusion in the human geography, that should be explained by the text in a given article. As for the political, legal and economic contexts, we already have an unambiguous article for the Republic of Ireland, and for Northern Ireland, for that period. --Mal McKee 17:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Just be basic
Look, folks,
People who search for 'Australia', 'India', 'Uganda', and yes, 'Ireland' are usually just searching for a country. They're not going to type in The Commonwealth of Australia or The Federal Republic of Germany or The People's Superior and Most Auspicious of Northsoutheastwesterland.
We don't need to demonstrate our superiority, we just need to make things clear. We also need to be consistent.
So far, we have consistently upheld that countries have precedence over the simple name, and that the simple form of the name should be the one at which the country lives.
I see no reason to change this in the case of Ireland, even though it's a complicated case and sensitivities will run high.
In my view, 'Ireland' should be taken to mean Republic of Ireland, and should point to the article now at Ireland (State). Northern Ireland should point to Northern Ireland. Ireland (disambiguation) should stay. Ireland (island) should stay, presuming anyone actually wants to work on an article so named. 'Southern Ireland' does not exist and makes no sense to me at all. To have Republic of Ireland redirect to Ireland (state) makes no sense to me.
Aleta Curry 23:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Aleta, people who search for Australia may well just type Australia. The thing is, so far as I know, there's only one Australia - it's unique. Other countries, such as Uganda, France, Germany - they are all also unique. There had, of course, been two Germanys. Historically, there has been the old Germany, and East and West Germany, and modern Germany, which assimilated East Germany.
I don't know about demonstrating "superiority" over anything. Perhaps you could explain that point. But I do know that when I want to search on Google, for example, on the subject of Ireland as a whole, I use the name "Ireland". If I want to search for something regarding the Republic of Ireland specifically, I use the name "Republic of Ireland". If I want to search for something on Northern Ireland, I use the name "Northern Ireland". It's quite simple.
Consistency was also my point, which I mentioned twice in this discussion.
CZ does seem to be relatively consistent - except when it comes to Ireland. Take, for example, Korea (ie. Ireland). There are two countries in Korea (Ireland): North Korea (Northern Ireland) and South Korea (Republic of Ireland). Now, so far as I'm aware, it is often the case that people referring to "Korea" (in the West anyway) are actually referring to South Korea specifically. But, when there is a need for clarity, then people tend to write "South Korea". Thus, the articles in CZ are North Korea and South Korea, and one for Korea as a whole (I presume somebody actually wanted to work on an article so named).
Incidentally, people have already wanted to work on that article, as you can see.
It isn't actually that complex, really. There are three distinct topics:
# Ireland - the island, geographically, and the history of its inhabitants.
# The Republic of Ireland - the relatively new nation state, having developed from the previous incarnations dating to 1920.
# Northern Ireland - the remnant of a state or sub-state which remained a part of the United Kingdom in 1920/21.
Therefore, three main articles. We currently have Ireland, Ireland (state) and Ireland (island). So we have this already. However, the problem, as I see it, is that when a new editor comes along and references Ireland in an article or edit s/he makes, the blue link will take a reader to a disambiguation page - Ireland (disambiguation). There is no real reason to do so - the link should simply stop at Ireland. And the article on Ireland should include references to both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, as well as historic and geographic articles etc. We also have the related articles pages. Keeping the page Ireland (disambiguation) is a good idea though, as it may prove useful. I am not advocating a deletion of that article.
I personally disagree that Ireland should be taken to mean Republic of Ireland, as it can be confusing - ambiguous: Ireland still exists, whether it is divided politically or not.
I should say also, that 'Southern Ireland' does exist, in history. I never mentioned Southern Ireland however, and I wouldn't suggest we necessarily start an article on it - that information can be included in the article about the state that developed from it - the Republic of Ireland.
I'm not sure why it makes no sense to you that "Republic of Ireland" should redirect to "Ireland (state)". That is the name that has been chosen for the article on that topic. Again, I think the article would probably be better served being renamed as Republic of Ireland (imagine a situation where a reader notes that an article states, "Ireland is a country in Ireland, in the north-west of Europe"!), but now we are departing slightly from my proposal.
To get back on topic though, say I were to write an article on the mythical Irish hero Setanta (Cuchulainn). If I were to explain, in the article, where he was from and I were not particularly aware of the current names used for articles on CZ, I would most likely write that he came from Ireland and wikilink it. I wouldn't necessarily expect the link to direct to a disambiguation page, because it would be assumed that Cuchulainn didn't come from either the Republic of Ireland nor from Northern Ireland, but from Ireland, as neither of the two political entities existed at the supposed era of Cuchulainn.
I invite you to read or re-read the second paragraph of my proposal at the beginning of this section. "Basic" is the very goal I am trying to attain. Basic, unambiguous, logical and simple. --Mal McKee 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget Ireland (Meg), for heaven's sake! If you do, we'll *really* be in trouble! And, of course, John Ireland (actor). Hayford Peirce 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hayford, you seem to have a penchant for sarcasm! I guess the safest thing to do would be to ignore it. If you don't understand the subject, or haven't the patience to try, there is no reason to make a comment about it. --Mal McKee 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Mal, you should join the Constabulary and go around whapping the Citizens on the head for lèse-majesté and other high offenses. Sorry I don't meet your rarefied standards for the comprehension of countries' names.... Hayford Peirce 01:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The country name of Ireland is unique, recognised by the UN and the EU, and is specfic to the Republic of Ireland. You may argue that the geographical entity is politically divided, and we can agree on that point. However, there is no need for Ireland (state), since the entire world knows (or thinks it knows) what Ireland is. There is a need for Ireland (island) and Northern Ireland. If authors in other articles make sloppy links going to Ireland when really they mean Ireland (island), then correct them. It is not appropriate to foist what is really a political viewpoint onto CZ -- even though we may have sympathy with it.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
ADDENDUM. The Irish Constitution states, in Article 4, the following: "The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland. " Since this is the constitutional decision of a recognised democratic country, you may not challenge that name. However, I note that all British and Northern Ireland (and many US) publications do challenge it, and redesignate the country name as "Republic of Ireland". They appear not to be bothered by minor details such as international law, the UN, democratic principles etc etc. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hayford, all I am saying is that you seem to be quite forward in expressing your distaste for certain subjects, and that it may be seen as objectionable, offensive and intolerant of others' views or arguments.
Martin, I don't see any need for "Ireland (island)", when the entire world knows that it refers to the island, its history and its inhabitants, its flora and fauna and its geography. There is a need, however, for "Northern Ireland", as it is an intrinsic and specific part of Ireland. There is also a need for "Ireland (state)" as it is also an intrinsic and specific part of Ireland. I don't see that there is any foisting of political viewpoints on anyone with this proposal, if that is what you are suggesting. I am discussing the name of the article for Ireland - not either of the states within it.
{Edit conflict] I will say this though: there is only one entity which is forcing its political viewpoint on anyone, and that is the southern Irish state. This is recorded in history as being a specific propaganda move and it's certainly working very well, as you point out. However, none of that is my concern with regard to my proposal - we already have an article for that particular state. The article name itself validates the constitution of that particular country. I am simply questioning the sense of having an extraneous step when it isn't needed. Bram Stoker didn't live in "Ireland (disambiguation)" - he lived in Ireland.
In response to your Addendum - again, I am not proposing a change to the name of the article on the state. We already have a name for that article: Ireland (state). Since you seem determined to discuss it though, I should probably remind you that law has very little to do with anything. We could (collectively or as individuals), after all, call either state in Ireland "Zilxious VI" if we so chose. Also, as there are other democratic countries in the world, there is nothing to stop one of them also calling their country "Ireland". You would not be able to challenge that either. In fact, that was a fear that some politicians in the Free State had - that Northern Ireland would choose the name "Ireland" for itself. FIFA made a ruling some 60 years or so ago, that there couldn't be two football teams both named Ireland. So both teams had to rename (Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, oddly enough!).
As for being bothered by democratic principles, that doesn't seem to have worried the politicians of the Republic back in 1937, when they opted for a name they knew would be ambiguous. I would disagree with you that "all British publications challenge" this. I would suggest that most don't, but some, for the purposes of disambiguation oddly enough, do choose to use the other name. The other name - "Republic of Ireland" - was, at least, provided for by that country's Republic of Ireland Act of 1949. It is accepted by, and indeed sometimes used by, that state's government itself. It is also a legal document.
As an interesting footnote, the idea of renaming Northern Ireland as Ulster was considered on two occasions in its parliament. However, the Northern Irish government decided to continue with the name that it had been allocated originally. Nor did it take on the name of the island. Republicans seem quite happy to accept the idea that the name of the southern state, ostensibly, includes all of the territory of the island (contrary to the spirit of the Belfast Agreement of 1998, by the way), yet they baulk at the suggestion of calling Northern Ireland "Ulster", which includes some of the territory of the Republic! The difference, of course, is that those in the Republic put it down in writing and insisted that everyone called them by the name they wanted, knowing full well what effect it would have.
But all this is a complete digression from the point. I believe it would be infinitely more handy to use the article Ireland as a description of the island and its history as a whole, so that articles written don't point to a mere disambiguation page. --Mal McKee 02:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't really want to get into an argument over this (in case you don't know, I was at Queen's Univ. of Belfast for 3 years). However, there are some universal guidelines that can help. The first is from the Naming Conventions (which I helped to write): this requires us to use the most common name in English. The second is that I had intended to prepare a specific country namimg guideline, for all cases. This would require the use of the UN name, as a matter of international law and the fact that it is very difficult to get a country recognised, so the name is definitive as far as the world is concerned. Both apply here: in particular, I do not know what people think Ireland means across the globe. I doubt that they understand about Northern Ireland, and so they assume that it is all one country, and expect to see an article about a country. My preference would be to rename Ireland (state) to Ireland. This would be analogous to Cyprus, whose constitution also states that people in the North are considered to be Citizens of the South. We don't have Cyprus (state) to distinguish it from Cyprus, but it would make sense to have Cyprus (island) as a geographical or historical identity. Northern Ireland needs its own name, as we all agree. I think we need Ireland (island). This then would not need disambiguation, other than in the leads of the articles (pointing to the other relevant articles).
So, in response to your point: I don't think links should go to a disambig page; nor is there an obvious to take them to the island of Ireland. Links to Eire should go to Ireland, to the island generally to Ireland (island), and to Northern ireland to that name. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well Martin, I went to the poor man's alternative to Queen's! I was once confronted by a drunken Englishman at the UU who said to me, "Tiocfaidh ár lá" while he was waiting at the bus stop on campus with his local-born friend. 'Nuff said, I guess! ;)
With regard to your Naming Convention requirement that we use the most common name in English, then my proposal apparently has the upper hand: there is no other more common name for Ireland, in English, even including poetic names like "Emerald Isle".
Second, while the UN may be an authority to some degree, it still wouldn't necessarily clear up the ambiguity which exists. If it is difficult to get a country recognised, how hard is it to get the name of an island, which has already been established, de facto, for thousands of years?!
You have hit the nail on the head with what you have said about the understanding of peoples throughout the world. I think I may have said this before, but I know one person in the USA who wasn't even aware of the existence of Northern Ireland. The USA!!! A learned and well-developed country, surely, and this person was a professional.
We can't always go by what people might expect. People, as a collective, are often proven to be wrong. Now I'm not saying that either Ireland is 'wrong'. The problem is in fact that they are both 'right', in their way. But this is a compendium of information - an encyclopaedia. It is surely the job of such a thing to inform people of the facts. The fact is that Ireland has existed, and been known by that name, for thousands of years. That the state that now exists on the island has also chosen that name is not a fault of our own, but we must make allowances for that.
And so we come to the problem that your preference (of renaming Ireland (state) as Ireland) would be likely to create: Oscar Wilde wasn't born in Ireland. He was born in Ireland. To say that he was born in the state would be misleading, considering the state wasn't created until after he had died. Roddy Doyle, on the other hand, was born in Ireland, but to say he was born in Ireland would also be correct, and not misleading whatsoever.
Alternatively, James Cousins was born in Belfast. But he wasn't born in Northern Ireland. Nor was he born in Ireland. But he was born in Ireland. You see? If an editor writes in an article that so-and-so was born in Ireland (assuming CZ adopted your current preference), and just puts square brackets around the word Ireland to wikilink it, then that editor is being incorrect. Wikilinking to the island will always be correct, even if it is slightly less specific. Take racing driver Eddie Irvine. He was born in Ireland, but he wasn't born in the Republic.
This is why there needs to be disambiguation, and I believe my proposal is the most logical way to go about it. In Wikipedia, the article for the southernmost state is 'Republic of Ireland'. CZ's way would be, shall we say 'fairer' to that state by the fact that it recognises the state's wish to be known as 'Ireland', but simply includes a disambiguating word in brackets after it.
Finally, I apologise if all this wikilink piping is slightly confusing, but if you bear with my argument, I feel sure you'll see the logic in it. --Mal McKee 06:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I had thought, in using Ireland (state), Ireland (island), and Ireland (disambiguation)]] that the perennial "consensus wars" on Wikipedia could be completely avoided. It seems not. A couple of points:
if an author is using Ireland in articles without checking where it leads to, they're being somewhat lazy. Unfortunate, but not something we should be creating systems to cater for. Such links can, in fact, be easily caught and corrected;
people are not generally described as being born in/on or coming from geographical features - usually they're described as being from states and countries;
Mal has stated that "most people, and I include myself here, when they think of Ireland they think of the whole island - it's geography and history." Well - I don't. And while I doubt the veracity of the statement, I simply don't know if there's any way to tell if its is true or not. As for people who aren't aware of a distinction between the state and the Ireland - whether that's because they're from a hugely insular country where less than 30% of people have passports, or lack of education - then the purpose of an encyclopedic project, surely, is to educate? So if they type "Ireland" into the search bar and arrive at a disambiguation page, they're immediately alerted to the fact of the distinctions that exist.
In summary, I would prefer the status quo to remain. If there is to be a change, though, then the article on the state should obviously take precedence over that on the geographical feature, and the article on the state should move to Ireland. Anton Sweeney 10:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)
To return to the topic. We now have people arguing for both possibilities as primary topic, and Anton and me agreeing with disambiguation. Peter Jackson 11:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is far from easy. Happily, we all seem to be disagreeing politely. My position is one of trying to establish general rules that can be applied across the board, for most countries of the world. So, to take the example of historical locality (which Mal uses): most countries' boundaries have changed in some ways, leaving historical confusion about (for example) what used to be India and is now Pakistan. Going back further in history, there are even bigger problems. Those problems are not solved simply: I advocate individual historical articles, where necessary, and geographical inclusion where appropriate (as in this case). Generally, though, an article on India should be able to explain to the reader in the lead that historically it covered territory that is now other countries. The same approach can be taken with the article "Ireland".
On the matter of disambiguation. My opinion is that disambig pages should be avoided; this in in contrast to WP. I also oppose the WP policy of telling a country what its official name is (such as Rep. of Ireland). There is logic in the WP policies, but they are not appropriate. Disambiguation should be a last resort: the article on Ireland should state very clearly in the lead what it is about, what other articles exist that might be relevant to the reader's needs, etc. So, someone goes to the article Ireland (in my scenario) and perhaps didn't know that the island of Ireland is politically divided; the intro will explain that this is the case, and if the interest is in the country named Ireland then s/he should continue with this article; if the interest is in the geographical entity of ireland, to go to the article Ireland (island); to Northern Ireland for the northern state; etc. I think Peter is right that Americans have no grasp of these things at all (despite funding the IRA for decades), but I do not see that a disambiguation page is neeeded. This can be done within the articles. If they cannot, then obviously the disambig page can be created to solve the problems. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The Editorial Council, has, for that matter, an informal discussion about country names already established at:http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/Country_names. My recollection is/was that we agreed to discuss this with no time limits -- when it appears that we have more or less decided what we want to do about this matter, one of us will then make a formal motion about what the Guidelines/Rules should be. Hayford Peirce 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Apropos of the discussion there, I suggest that the best starting point is the ISO -- whose sole remit is to standardize names/things across the world. They list short forms of country names, that are accepted by each country and the UN, but are not always identical (i.e. excluding long complex names used in UN formal documents). The file is available here: http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/english/geoinfo/geoname.pdf Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I fear, however, that this is a basically intractable problem whose solution that will *never* satisfy everyone. For instance, everyone today now says "Iran" without thinking twice about it. But if CZ had existed 60 years ago, would we have been having bitter arguments about "Iran" vs. "Persia"? Probably. I have a feeling that eventually everyone who still says "Burma" will have died off also.... Hayford Peirce 19:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is also about disambiguation pages. The EC should make some policy on them: I think this one is not needed, and most of the stuff on it is not disambiguation anyway. It is like a catalogue of things connected with Ireland. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 04:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Ireland_(disambiguation)&oldid=25387"
This page was last modified 22:14, 1 March 2011.


text:
Moonlight Mesa Associates, Inc
Preserving the West, Whales and Oceans!
Home of Westerns, Whales & Oceans
Westerns, Whales and Oceans Blog
How to Order Books
Saving Our Oceans
JUST ONE THING Alliance
"Water Books"
Action-Packed Westerns
Young Reader Titles
Suspense & Mystery
Tag: whales
Another First Place for Moonlight Mesa Author
Lee Anderson on his rescued thoroughbred Concho
Congratulations go to C.L. "Lee" Anderson whose book, The View from My Old Saddle, has been awarded first place in the 2020 New Mexico-Arizona Book Awards Contest.
The View from My Old Saddle was entered in the Pets and Animals category by Becky Coffield, publisher at Moonlight Mesa Associates, Inc. The cover design is by Moonlight Mesa's long-time graphic artist, Vin Libassi.
This is Anderson's second time competing in this contest. He was a finalist two years ago with his first book, Developing the Art of Equine Communication," which has been an extremely popular title. Another equine book, A Beginner's Guide to Owning a Mule, has also been a finalist in this contest and currently is Moonlight Mesa's top-selling book for 2020.
Originally Moonlight Mesa Associates started as a western book publisher – but after seven successful years and the retirement of the company's highly popular author of the Jake Silver Series, Jere D. James, against all advice Coffield began making the transition to nonfiction, and it has proven to be an excellent decision. The company's top-selling books are now all nonfiction:
Casey Tibbs – Born to Ride, by Rusty Richards
Some Gave All – Lawmen Who Died with their Boots On, by J.R. Sanders
A Beginner's Guide to Owning a Mule, by Becky Coffield
We managed to survive 7 years and 25,000 miles aboard a 34′ Cal 2-34
Developing the Art of Equine Communication, by C.L. Lee Anderson, paperback and ebook
Life Was A Cabaret – A Tale of Two Fools, A Boat, and a Big-A** Ocean, by Becky Coffield
Getting a Handle on Herpes, by P.A. Arnold (ebook only)
Saving Our Oceans, by R.L. Coffield
The Old Folks in the Boat, Becky Coffield (currently not available online – email publisher for copy)
"Book sales overall have not been spectacular in this Covid/Election year, but we certainly could have done worse," Coffield said. "Our move to a new location took longer and had more setbacks than we ever imagined, so that didn't help either."
Author Moonlight Mesa AssociatesPosted on September 28, 2020 September 30, 2020 Categories Book Awards, Book Sales, moonlight mesa associates, Nonfiction titles, Saving Our Oceans, western booksTags westerns, whales
What's Wrong with These People?
There are many Japanese citizens who disapprove of Japan's whaling industry and the brutal slaying and sale of dolphins that is sanctioned by their government, but when it comes to oceanic mammal slaughter and abuse, few countries can outdo Japan. Their inhumane, barbaric slaughtering and treatment of whales and dolphins is a stunning, murderous orgy. It's bad enough that this nation continued whale hunts for years after signing the International Whaling Commission's agreement not to do so. They killed thousands of whales under the guise of "scientific research." Australians frequently accused the Japanese of hunting in whale preserves in Antarctica. Of course, the "scientifically researched" slaughtered whales appeared on restaurant menus in Japan.
In December of 2018, the Japanese announced they would no longer remain members of the IWC (were they ever?) and would resume commercial whaling in July 2019. The London based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) estimates that the Japanese have killed over 1,000,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises in the last 70 years. One million.
The dolphin hunts in Taigi Bay are equally as disgraceful, cruel, and vicious as harpooning whales. The Japanese fishermen conduct huge roundups of schools of dolphin, driving them into Taigi Bay where they are brutally and painfully slaughtered or set aside for sale to aquariums. The bay literally turns red with blood. This behavior is simply aberrant and abnormal. According to the EIA, "The hunts in Japan's coastal waters specifically target nine small cetacean species, eight of them with government-set catch limits which are clearly unsustainable."
Most ocean advocates know that dolphins (and likely orcas) are the most intelligent mammals in the world – second only to humans, but obviously well beyond the intelligence of the people who hunt, murder, and sell them.
Despite international disapproval, I suspect that Japanese pride and ego keep them from bowing to world condemnation and pressure to desist in these moribund activities.
They slaughter whales because it's a "cultural heritage" activity, so they say. (Photo by Blue Planet Society)
The Japanese are not the only ones with a penchant for murdering non-aggressive mammals. This year the Faroe Islanders have also been on a rampage. 2019 is proving to be a bloody year. The Faroe Islanders have killed over 688 whales, with 50 whales being slaughtered yesterday alone. The reason? They claim it's part of their history and culture. When will this madness end?
So what can be done about this? Boycotting products from those countries is a good start. Support the efforts of groups working to combat these atrocities. Stop visiting and supporting aquariums, especially those (like SeaWorld) who hold orcas and dolphins in swimming pools for people's entertainment and owners' profit. Their abusive training methods have finally been exposed, so they should absolutely not be allowed to keep ANY whale or dolphin in captivity. Yet they do. Demand that orcas, dolphins and porpoises be set free. Swimming pools are not an appropriate place for these ocean traveling mammals.
Saving Our Oceans covers in detail the topic discussed here. Get free shipping with your order, and know that the proceeds from the sale of Saving Our Oceans is earmarked for the Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition and the Friday Harbor Whale Museum. Click here to contact us to place your order.
Author Moonlight Mesa AssociatesPosted on September 13, 2019 September 13, 2019 Categories orcas, Saving Our Oceans, whale captivity, whales, whalingTags dophins, Saving Our Oceans, whale slaughter, whales
Saving Our Oceans to be Released May 15
Just in the nick of time for summer reading, Saving Our Oceans will be released May 15. It will likely appear on Amazon a short time after that, or the book can be ordered from Moonlight Mesa Associates. You can email us here to get your signed copy.
How is it possible that the most intellectual creature to ever walk the earth is destroying its only home?
Introduction: Transformation
What began as a simple idea for a book about ocean and plastic pollution grew seriously sidetracked. In the process of researching this issue, it became very clear that ocean pollution is intricately connected to the rivers, land, and air that generously shed their pollutants into the ocean. It's estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the ocean's plastic pollution comes from fresh water sources. And a mountain of evidence indicates that freshwater pollution, including drinking water that originates from rivers and aquifers, is stored in reservoirs, or is even captured as rainfall, is a much more acute problem than most people realize. It appears that there may not be any bodies of water at all that do not have plastic/toxic pollution issues, some obviously worse than others. This then accounts for the inclusion of a chapter on fresh water pollution which expanded to a chapter on potential water shortages and water wars. While some of this country is drowning in water, other parts are parched. This is true worldwide also.
Plastic pollution, both land and ocean, offered an invitation to take a closer look at the promise and disappointment of recycling. What can we do with the plastic we're drowning in? Several possibilities are presented, but nothing yet seems to be a sure thing, although there is hope despite endless controversy on the subject.
And how can one write about ocean plastic pollution without including many people's favorite mammal – the whale. In late 2018 a dead whale washed ashore. One can pretty much name any country where this happened, as whales have been turning up dead in what seems record numbers around the world. The necropsy revealed the whale had ingested 114 plastic bags along with flip flops, plastic cups, and other plastic debris. This shocking occurrence should have been enough to rouse the public's ire and the plastic producers' repentance for their prolific adulteration of the earth with their product, but it didn't. It's horrifying to consider the possibility that this whale represents the norm, not the exception. This, of course, brings up the dismaying situation of Washington State's beloved Southern Resident Pod of orcas who, in addition to suffering from malnutrition, like orcas worldwide are also filled with toxins generated by PCBs and other products dumped years ago (and some fairly recently).
The whale issue is also complicated by the nations that continue to slaughter mammals who have been scientifically proven to be extraordinarily intelligent – who live in matriarchal pods for decades, who communicate and navigate with advanced sonar and oral abilities, and who, in fact, can feel pain and are self-aware. Did I mention the criminal captivity of whales? Did I mention the millions of seabirds who die every year because of plastic ingestion? What about those turtles? And the ocean inhabitants trapped in discarded nets?
By now we know that plastic does not "go away." But it doesn't stop with plastic. Biological waste, fertilizer runoff, and even animal excrement travel through river systems to the ocean. The items you may unthinkingly be dumping down your drain flow into a sewer system and can eventually make their way to the sea.
Finally, the "Rights of Nature" briefly found its way into this book. The Rights of Nature seems to be a movement that is not well known in this country yet. The United States, now seemingly run by lobbyists and corporations, has been resistant to adopting the philosophy that nature has rights just as much as people. Animals in general have been granted some rights, but nature itself is on its own and subject to demolition, pillage, and destruction by owners and developers. There are countries, however, like Ecuador, Bolivia, New Zealand, India and some European countries that agree with this right. Ecuador adopted the Right of Nature into their constitution in 2008: first nation to do so.
I am not a scientist, a marine biologist, or any other highly skilled, scientifically oriented person. I have two degrees but am not particularly smarter for it. I ride a mule. I hike. I row. I like to paint. I also own a micro-sized publishing house that up until now has specialized in western publications, both fiction and nonfiction (western as in cowboy up). I have published award-winning titles, and sometimes I self-publish a book, like this one.
Born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, a former sailor, I am one acquainted with blue water sailing, having traveled around 25,000 miles on a 34' Cal 2-34 back in the day when people navigated using a sextant and dead-reckoning. I've been acquainted with the ocean's moods and have a respect that at times feels much more like fear. I've traveled the Inside Passage to Alaska, and I've seen a plethora of whales in my journeys. But like many others, I've felt stymied in trying to help remedy the dire situation facing the ocean, whales, and other sea life. I've fretted about these issues, chagrined at my lack of involvement. Although I've donated money to worthy causes, hoping my meager funds could help better these challenges, donating does not bring the same satisfaction as doing.
Then one day, when I was on my little tugboat in the Northwest enjoying my summer escape from Arizona's heat, the death of a baby orca and the protracted grief and anguish of its mother struck a sense of sorrow I couldn't escape. Rather than silently mourn and carry depression around, I resolved to take action of some sort – and this book is one piece of the action plan I devised. My plan is still evolving, and I've also included a bit of this in Saving Our Oceans, as well as simple, likely already well-known ideas for those who'd like to do something about the calamity unfolding on the planet. I still haven't decided if my evolving ideas are audacious or just genuinely bone-headed, but for two years I've been wanting to move forward on a new path with my small publishing company, but I just didn't know what or where or how. Until now.
Should you regret having purchased this book, try to mollify yourself with the thought that the net proceeds from the sale of this title will be donated to a worthy cause, such as The Orca Conservancy, The Ocean Foundation, and the Save Our Wild Salmon organization.
I know these organizations will be very grateful for your support, and I sincerely thank you.
R.L. (Becky) Coffield
Author Moonlight Mesa AssociatesPosted on April 27, 2019 April 27, 2019 Categories Pollution, Saving Our OceansTags plastic pollution, rights of nature, Saving Our Oceans, water pollution, whales
It Shouldn't Take a Rocket Scientist…
"In response to its criticism of its treatment of killer whales, Sea World said it will build them a larger habitat. When asked for comment, killer whales said, "Hey, you know what's a larger habitat? The ocean." Conan O'Brien.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why orcas die in captivity at a relatively young age. It only takes people suffering from money-addiction to ignore the facts and not care one whit for the mammal they are tormenting and degrading.
According to National Geographic's "Orcas don't do well in captivity. Here's why," of the 70 orcas born in captivity around the world since 1977, 37 of them are dead. This number does not include the 30 that were stillborn or died in utero. Tragically, only a small handful of wild-caught orcas live past 30-years-of age. Not one captive born orca yet has lived that long. In the wild these mammals sometimes can live to 80 and beyond.
But this fact seems to escape the jailers – that they are cutting the animals' lives short by about 50 years. It's all about the money.
There's plenty of evidence, and proof, that whales, dolphins, and porpoises are highly intelligent, social animals. Orcas are meant to swim great distances – often up to 40 miles a day – where they frequently dive to great depths to feed several times a day, every day. A super-sized swimming pool just doesn't cut it. And even though some orcas are born into captivity, they are still genetically driven to do the same things that wild orcas do.
According to Naomi Rose, marine mammal scientist at the Animal Welfare Institute, "a primary indicator for whether a mammal will do well in captivity is how wide their range is in the wild. The broader their natural range, the less likely they are to thrive in confinement. This is the same reason some zoos have been phasing out elephant exhibits."
An orca's life in captivity could not have been devised to be more horrific. Orcas' brains are highly developed when it comes to social intelligence, language (yes, language) and self-awareness. In the wild, they live most of their lives in tight-knit groups (pods). Often the males stay with their mothers for their entire lives. In captivity this social bond is ripped apart. In captivity they don't have the opportunity to escape conflict with others or to engage in natural swimming behaviors. The animals are kept in captivity simply for people's entertainment and other people's bank accounts. This is wrong on so many fronts.
There's hope that things are beginning to change, but certainly not fast enough. In 2017 California made it illegal to breed orcas. Shortly after this, Sea World announced it would be ending its captive orca breeding program. Unfortunately, a number of these animals are still kept for entertainment and continue to be treated like their personal lives have no value.
"At the federal level, Congressman Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, has repeatedly introduced a bill to phase out captive orca displays across the U.S." I urge people to support this effort, whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Socialist or Independent.
Hopefully, and it's a wild hope, the whales remaining in captivity will be released (before they die prematurely) to a whale sanctuary project. Of course, Sea World opposes this effort, and considers the sanctuaries to be nothing but "sea cages," as if their over-sized swimming pools were preferential. If the whales do not survive or make it in a whale sanctuary, at least they'll have had a chance – more than Sea World can offer them.
(An even worse thought is these poor creatures being sold by Russia, who is currently holding 100 orcas and beluga whales in a "whale jail" for sale to the Chinese for their aquariums. Likely the freezing temperatures in Siberia will end up killing the mammals who are kept in tanks so small they can hardly move. It had been hoped that Vladimir Putin would have the mammals released, but this has not yet happened. It may be too late.)
Material from:
Coffield, R.L. Saving Our Oceans. Wickenburg: Moonlight Mesa Associates, Inc. May 2019. Print
Daly, Natasha. "Orcas don't do well in captivity. Here's why." National Geographic, 25, March, 2019, https://www.natgeo.com/animals/2019/03/orcas-captivity-welfare/
Author Moonlight Mesa AssociatesPosted on March 27, 2019 Categories whalesTags captivity, orcas, Saving Our Oceans, whales
Inhumane Whale Slaughter Increases
Immoral. Inhumane. Inexcusable. These may be the best words to describe the Japanese, Danes (Faroe Islands), Norwegians and Icelanders who persist in slaughtering whales despite the IWC ban on such activity.
Even though whale meat is in sharp decline, and world opinion finds whale harpooning an act carried out by demonic, barbaric nations, Icelandic authorities, like Japanese authorities, are flexing their muscles and thumbing their noses at world opinion and the IWC's ban on whaling.
Numerous scientific studies leave no doubt that whales are intelligent mammals who communicate with each other, navigate in ways modern military is unable to master, feel pain and anguish, and care for their young (far better than many people).
Icelandic whalers plans to kill 2000 whales over the next five-year-period, justifying such slaughter by insisting that the number of whales has increased to support a yearly kill of 209 fin whales and 217 minke whales every year until 2023.
This almost matches the gut-wrenching 900 orca whales slaughtered by Russia in a one-year period.
It's difficult to say what drives the blood-lust of nations to allow the merciless slaughter of these gentle giants to continue. World opinion is souring on these nations and this act of cruelty. Even many citizens of the offending nations find the killing of whales to be immoral and reprehensible.
Whaling countries face warranted international condemnation. Literally tens of thousands of whales have been killed since the whaling ban was put into effect.
(This topic is covered in more detail in the forth coming Saving Our Oceans.)
Author Moonlight Mesa AssociatesPosted on February 24, 2019 Categories whalesTags whale slaughter, whales, whaling
Captivity Kills
Our attention to animal cruelty is often limited. We primarily focus on dogs and horses – maybe cats. We might stress over elephants being mercilessly slaughtered for their tusks, but that's happening in Africa, too far away to really ensnare our deepest feelings.
PETA keeps us informed of vicious farm workers who brutalize cows, pigs, and chickens, causing some to become vegetarians for humanitarian reasons. But basically, in this country we are probably moved the most by the wrong done to dogs and horses. However, the number of people worldwide who are concerned about the brutality done to whales and dolphins is escalating dramatically.
Not everyone realizes that the killer whale (orca) is actually a very, very large dolphin. So when we fume over the slaughter of whales by the Japanese, the Icelanders, the Faroe Island whale hunters, we tend to forget about the merciless slaughter, sale, and captivity of dolphins primarily by the Japanese.
Shockingly, the Japanese look to be the most brutal killers of whales and dolphins. Regularly the fishermen go on roundups of dolphins, forcing them into Taiji Bay, the notorious killing pen featured in the film The Cove. Often youngsters are separated from their mothers. Some die from shock. Many are killed by the fishermen driving a metal pin into their necks. They slaughter so many the bay runs red with their blood. This is barbarism and animal cruelty at its worst. The dolphins who are not killed are sold – the going price is around $32,000. The world is horrified, and even many Japanese citizens strongly object to this roundup and slaughter.
Who entitled these people to capture an intelligent mammal and sell it? Where is that mammal's right to exist in its environment, free from enslavement?
Phoenix, Arizona, is the home to Dolphinaris. This desert aquarium featuring dolphins opened several years ago, despite avid protest about the stupidity and cruelty of not only imprisoning dolphins, but in keeping them in the desert. Who could possibly be surprised that four of the dolphins have already died in captivity? Only the operators of Dolphinaris are bewildered.
The last two weeks have seen the death of a young orca held captive in Orlando's Sea World and the death of another dolphin held captive in an aquarium in Phoenix, Arizona. But don't worry: the Sea World organization still has 20 orcas to keep them in business for a spell. Recent word is that the company that leases dolphins have taken the remaining live dolphins back from Phoenix's Dolphinaris. Likely they'll just send these hapless, intelligent, friendly, caring mammals to be held captive in another tank in another city. And besides, the Japanese will capture many more if these die.
Our attention to animal cruelty is often limited. We primarily focus on dogs and horses – maybe cats. We might stress over elephants being mercilessly slaughtered for their tusks, but that's happening in Africa, too far away to really ensnare our deepest feelings. PETA keeps us informed of vicious farm workers who brutalize cows, pigs, and chickens causing some to become vegetarians for humanitarian reasons. But basically, in this country we are probably moved the most by the wrong done to dogs and horses. However, the number of people worldwide who are concerned about whales and dolphins is escalating dramatically.
The Japanese look to be the most brutal killers of whales and dolphins. Regularly the fishermen go on roundups of dolphins, forcing them into Taiji Bay, the notorious killing pen featured in the film The Cove. Often youngsters are separated from their mothers. Some die from shock. Many are killed by the fishermen driving a metal pin into their necks. They slaughter so many the bay runs red with their blood. This is barbarism and animal cruelty at its worst. The dolphins who are not killed are sold – the going price is around $32,000.
Phoenix, Arizona, is the home to Dolphinaris. This desert aquarium featuring dolphins opened several years ago, despite avid protest about the stupidity and cruelty of not only imprisoning dolphins in a tank, but in keeping them in the desert. Who could possibly be surprised that four of the dolphins have already died in captivity? Only the operators of Dolphinaris are bewildered.
The last two weeks have seen the death of a young orca held captive in a tank in Orlando's Sea World and the death of another dolphin held captive in an aquarium in Phoenix, Arizona. But don't worry: the Sea World organization still has 20 orcas to keep them in business for a spell. Recent word is that the company that leases dolphins have taken the remaining live dolphins back from Phoenix's Dolphinaris. Likely they'll just send these hapless, intelligent, friendly, caring mammals to be held captive in another tank in another city. And besides, the Japanese will capture many more if these die.
Author Moonlight Mesa AssociatesPosted on February 7, 2019 Categories UncategorizedTags animal rights, captivity of dolphins, death of dolphins in captivity, dophins, slaughter of dolphins, whales
It's Time to Enact the Rights of Nature
Recent headlines forewarned that two more Southern Resident orcas appear to be dying of malnutrition. That will leave the pod ever closer to extinction with only 72 whales remaining. It's way past time for this government, for every government in the world, to enact the "Rights of Nature."
"Rights of Nature is the recognition and honoring that Nature has rights. It is the recognition that our ecosystems – including trees, oceans, animals, mountains – have rights just as human beings have rights. Rights of Nature is about balancing what is good for human beings against what is good for other species, what is good for the planet as a world. It is the holistic recognition that all life, all ecosystems on our planet are deeply intertwined" (therightsofnature.org/what-is-rights-of-nature/.)
"It's Likely There Aren't More Than 411 Right Whales Left, New Estimate Finds." Headlines like this are dismaying. According to WBUR News, "The calculation is based on a trove of statistical data, observations of individual animals and a wave of observed mortalities, with no newborn whales observed in the most recent calving season." The cause of this decline appears to be the gear used by Maine lobstermen that entangles the whales.
Let's not overlook the whale that washed ashore in eastern Indonesia with approximately 115 plastic cups, flip flops and plastic bags in its stomach.
The number of dead whales is increasing in most areas of the world. Even Scotland and Ireland had an "Unprecedented Number of Dead Whales" (Cuvier's beaked whales) wash up on their shores. Scientists say that the 80 dead whales might actually indicate that up to 1,000 of the Cuvier's beaked whales actually died.
The Cuvier beaked whale is a deep diver, going as low as 9500 feet for up to two hours to hunt for food. This particular whale is very sensitive to loud sounds, and it's speculated that anti-submarine sonar caused such intense pain to the whales that they surfaced too quickly. "Anti-submarine sonar isn't used by Irish warships, but it is used by the U.S. Navy and by Britain's navy," Simon Berrow, a marine biologist said. Not surprisingly, neither group admits to being in the area using anti-submarine sonar.
For some reason, nearly 200 pilot whales died after stranding on a New Zealand beach. 149 died one day with another 50 the following day. Strandings apparently are a common phenomenon on New Zealand shores, according to "Up to 145 Pilot Whales Dead After Mass stranding on New Zealand Beach." What causes these strandings? Pollution? Military sonar? Submarine activity? Warmer water?
"Torture of Russian whale jail as 100 Orcas and Belugas captured in Pacific Bay," a dismaying article in The Telegraph by Alex Luhn felt like a slap in the face. I thought the crime of capturing whales for aquariums was over. Apparently not when the Chinese are in the market.
In 2018, 100 orca and beluga whales were (and possibly still are) being illegally held in a bay near Nakhodka in Russia and were/are to be sold to the Chinese for their booming ocean theme park industry in China. There are already over 60 marine parks in China, according to Alec Luhn of Moscow for The Telegraph (British paper). The Chinese plan for at least a dozen more ocean parks.
Supposedly Russia is investigating this, but Russia is also believed to be the only country that exports orcas captured in the wild, according to Luhn.
Since the "jail" is quite small, this suggests that many of the captured orcas are babies. Other reports say the whales are being tortured. For every orca captured, however, at least another is killed in the process. Jailers don't seem to care since an orca can fetch up to $6 million dollars. This activity flies in the face of the 1982 moratorium against whaling: the only whaling allowed is for scientific purposes (that sounds quite lame) or for those with aboriginal "cultural" needs (another fairly lame sounding excuse taken advantage of by the Japanese who have killed over 1,000,000 whales and dolphins).
"Catching them at this tempo, we risk losing our entire orca population," according to Oganes Targulyan, a Greenpeace Russia research coordinator.
And now the Japanese are on the hunt again. Their past history of whaling does not inspire trust or confidence. But the Japanese are certainly not the only ones to decimate aquatic populations. Unsustainable fishing practices are now the bane of the oceans. Just this week a blue fine tuna, a threatened species, sold for $3,000,000 for sushi! As the population grows, the population of fish diminishes.
In September of 2008 Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognize rights for nature in its constitution. Bolivia is in the process of implementing laws that also recognize certain rights for nature. More than two dozen communities in the U.S. have adopted laws that recognize the rights of nature. The first major municipality to do so was the City of Pittsburgh in 2010.
It's time.
(Material in this blog is from Saving Our Oceans. Release date is May 2019.)
Author Moonlight Mesa AssociatesPosted on January 7, 2019 January 10, 2019 Categories UncategorizedTags animal rights, captured whales, dead whales, nature rights, rights of nature, whales
Moonlight Mesa Associates, Inc Blog at WordPress.com.


My husband and I had a fantastic time on our 10 day Caribbean cruise in February. Our cabin was perfect, and our balcony view was spectacular. The crew were friendly and extremely helpful. Everything about the ship was as advertised. Because of the long day excursions, we chose late dining which worked out perfect. The food was exceptional, and we didn't feel rushed to leave. Our concierge was the best. She assisted us many, many times during the trip. Everything went without a snag from the beginning of the journey to the debarkation. The only negative part of our journey had nothing to do with the cruise, but with the hotel prior to beginning the cruise. We flew into Ft. Lauderdale the night before and rented a hotel room near the cruise terminal. We paid over $200 for a disgusting room with two full size beds, sticky carpet, broken light shades, running toilet, dripping sink, taped up chairs, and a horrible smell throughout the room. The next time I travel to Ft. Lauderdale, I will conduct better research on hotels in the area. As far as the cruise, we'd definitely go again!
My husband and I had a fantastic time on our 10 day Caribbean cruise in February. Our cabin was perfect, and our balcony view was spectacular. The crew were friendly and extremely helpful. Everything about the ship was as advertised. Because of the long day excursions, we chose late dining which worked out perfect. The food was exceptional, and we didn't feel rushed to leave. Our concierge was the best. She assisted us many, many times during the trip. Everything went without a snag from the beginning of the journey to the debarkation. The only negative part of our journey had nothing to do with the cruise, but with the hotel prior to beginning the cruise. We flew into Ft. Lauderdale the night before and rented a hotel room near the cruise terminal. We paid over $200 for a disgusting room with two full size beds, sticky carpet, broken light shades, running toilet, dripping sink, taped up chairs, and a horrible smell throughout the room. The next time I travel to Ft. Lauderdale, I will conduct better research on hotels in the area.
As far as the cruise, we'd definitely go again!
We kayaked, snorkeled, hiked, and swam. It was a great excursion.
The WORST excursion ever. The train operators crammed the people on the train, kept saying - move over, move over. We were packed in SO tight I felt extremely uncomfortable having my body pressed against the stranger sitting next to me for a 3 hour ride. The train operators didn't care. We were pushed so close to each other we couldn't turn around to take pictures. THREE HOURS OF HELL!!! I HATED THIS EXCURSION!!!
Great tour. We saw a whale and many dolphins.
My husband and I were on a 10 day cruise, stopping at 5 islands, and booked this tour for our adventure on St. Maartens. Out of the five islands and five excursions, this was by far the BEST. We had a great time snorkeling and cruising around the island. Captain Bob's son, Brett, captained our boat and was fantastic. He and his first mate, Dylan, were very knowledgeable of the island, the people, boating, plus threw in humor. We will definitely book another excursion with Captain Brett when we return to St. Maarten. Again, this was an incredible excursion. I'd give it more than 5 stars!


Unfortunately, since our skin is so exposed, it can easily fall prey to the numerous aggressions it faces every day and suffer from lesions such as scars and stretch marks. Additionally, the hairs on the body can be a burden for many people, men and women alike, causing them to feel insecure and unconfident.
On the bright side, these various skin problems are not a fixed sentence anymore. There is an easy, safe and fast method to get rid of them; which is exactly what we are offering you.
Palomar technologies have been established as the most effective and versatile hair removal system. They use wavelengths with large spot sizes to execute the procedure, which also gives your skin a healthy look right after the treatment.
The Palomar Laser helps you get rid of the scars you might have on your body. Our technology helps fade the appearance of the scar thus making it less noticeable and giving you confidence and a better-looking skin.
One of the main functions of the skin is to protect the body from external aggressions. It forms a barrier against direct trauma (shock, friction) and against the action of chemical agents. In addition, the skin prevents deep tissues from being in contact with an ambient atmosphere that would dry them up very quickly.
Here, at the Oxybeautyclinic, we offer you a unique treatment for your skin imperfections using the Palomar laser. Our high-end technology and experienced staff ensure you receive the most effective of treatments and the most detail-oriented and personalized customer care.
The Palomar laser treatment can help you get rid of many unwanted skin problems and imperfections. Laser treatments are a great option for unwanted hair removal, stretch marks removal, scars removal, as well as many other skin conditions.
Are safe and non invasive, don't involve cutting, sutures or anesthesia.
Are suitable for all skin colors/types.
Are effective and results show quickly.
Require no recovery period or downtime.
Are offered at a reasonable price.


Equal (CURRENCY:EQL) traded 26.9% lower against the US dollar during the 1 day period ending at 14:00 PM ET on March 24th. Equal has a total market cap of $413,369.00 and $0.00 worth of Equal was traded on exchanges in the last day. During the last week, Equal has traded up 19.5% against the US dollar. One Equal token can currently be purchased for about $0.0010 or 0.00000025 BTC on cryptocurrency exchanges including IDEX, Mercatox, CoinExchange and EtherDelta (ForkDelta).
VeChain (VET) traded down 3.1% against the dollar and now trades at $0.0057 or 0.00000143 BTC.
Equal launched on December 19th, 2017. Equal's total supply is 797,120,661 tokens and its circulating supply is 411,469,071 tokens. Equal's official Twitter account is @equaltoken. Equal's official message board is medium.com/@EqualToken. The Reddit community for Equal is /r/equaltoken_io. Equal's official website is www.equaltoken.io.
Equal can be traded on the following cryptocurrency exchanges: IDEX, EtherDelta (ForkDelta), DDEX, Mercatox and CoinExchange. It is usually not possible to buy alternative cryptocurrencies such as Equal directly using U.S. dollars. Investors seeking to acquire Equal should first buy Bitcoin or Ethereum using an exchange that deals in U.S. dollars such as Gemini, Changelly or GDAX. Investors can then use their newly-acquired Bitcoin or Ethereum to buy Equal using one of the exchanges listed above.
Receive News & Updates for Equal Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and updates for Equal and related cryptocurrencies with MarketBeat.com's FREE CryptoBeat newsletter.


How crypto responds to legitimate green critiques defines how regulators will respond to crypto.
We've been meaning to write this story for a while, but many other things have been on the proverbial front burner.
And then, as is often the case with #CryptoTwitter, a twitter thread starts unfurling that just captures the essence of the argument you've been trying to articulate for months. In the case of crypto environmentalism, here is that thread.
The thread is active at the moment, and we raised a few points that we hope generate critiques, so we'll return in a few days to take stock.
Here's the gist of our intervention.
Our in-thread argument is little bit more nuanced than this bludgeon, and we'd love to hear your views on this — on-thread, off-thread, as you like.


Integral Leadership & Coaching provides coaching and leadership development, one-to-one programmes and other services that are individually tailored per client requirements to work in tandem with existing in-house activities, or as stand alone initiatives.
Integral can provide you with coaching and leadership services throughout Europe, the Americas, the Australasian region and the emerging markets.
Unprecedented times call for new thinking in the way we treat and offer support to those leaving companies. We have developed a coaching process based on the principles of "Right Livelihood", which help people uncover their true calling and what service they offer to the world, as opposed to just what is their next "job".
This process along with helping people uncover their hidden social networks offers a powerful and transformative process. Provide us with any classic "outplacement" offer and we will match or beat it.


Gotta show off the Baby, even though she hasn't been born yet!! These are pics of the 3d/4d Sonogram. We are at 28 weeks, and counting down. Hurry up September!
Ya, me too. Congratulations and September babies ROCK!
Good News Bones! Named her yet?
Super Congratulations Bones! Your going to be a great father!
Thanks everyone! Yeah its quite amazing to say the least, hehe. Still working on a name though. After today I am ready to burst with excitement, LOL.
And I am gonna go with Sept. 21st for the big day!
Contratulations Bones!!! She is beautiful; and I agree she is your best work and always will be.
Congrats and happys times to you and yours Bones!
Is that what they're calling it now?
Congrats Bones! Good to see ya still got it in ya!