text:
« The plot thickens in the Fighting First: Jim Hagedorn hires legal help for spending scandal | Main | Conservative Facebook group members think MNGOP absentee ballot mail is DFL Party scam »
EWG's smoking spud: documents prove potato giant behind irrigation scheme in pineland sands
They have the receipts. We reprint this article from the Environmental Working Group's Ag Mag page with permission.
The Smoking Spud: Documents Prove Potato Giant Is Behind Irrigation Scheme in Pineland Sands
by Donald Carr, Senior Advisor
For decades, R.D. Offutt – one of the largest agriculture conglomerates in the U.S. – has proudly evaded meaningful environmental review in Minnesota. Offutt has played a shell game using land swaps with family farmers to hide the true scale of its industrial-scale potato growing and processing operations in the vulnerable Pineland Sands area.
In June, the state Department of Natural Resources denied Pinelands Sands community members' petition for environmental review of an irrigation permit for a small farm believed to be a front for Offutt's expansion plans. Now EWG has unearthed documents that irrefutably confirm the direct and continuing connection between Offutt and the farm.
The Pineland Sands region is particularly vulnerable to pollution because of its shallow depth and the nature of the area's soil. Offutt's operations in the Pineland Sands have resulted in years of harm to the environment – toxic water pollution, pesticide overspray, forest clearing and aquifer depletion.
In a longtime pattern, the company has small landholders whose farms are struggling apply to the Department of Natural Resources, or DNR, for irrigation permits, so proposed irrigation operations are less clearly attached to the company's massive operation and therefore less likely to require environmental review.
In an interview with EWG, Willis Mattison, a retired Minnesota Pollution Control Agency official, scientist and community activist, had this to say about Offutt's decades-long strategy of leveraging desperate small farmers to expand their potato empire:
RDO has driven the Pineland Sands expansion for 30 or 40 years. Many dryland farmers realize they have to do something different or stop farming all together on these sandy soils. RDO has an ear to the ground and finds these farmers and makes them offers. It's either outright leasing offers, offers to help finance irrigation rigs, or guaranteed contracts to buy a farmer's potatoes.
Farmers understand that RDO is their only market for potatoes.
They can make or break you.
In 2017 Offutt sold 303 acres to local farmer Tim Nolte in exchange for Nolte's leasing the land back to the company for potato production and applying for irrigation permits the company had given up on when threatened with state environmental review. The permits list Minnesota Valley Irrigation – a division of RDO Equipment Company – as the project representative on the irrigation permit application.
Faced with yet another attempt at environmental subterfuge, community members filed a citizens' petition with the DNR, asking for an initial environmental assessment analyzing the potential environmental, human health and economic threats posed by the proposed irrigation operation. Community members hoped the DNR would call for a more thorough Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, to evaluate Offutt's ever-growing fertilizer and chemical-intensive potato operation.
The DNR response was yet another disappointment: Despite overwhelming evidence, it decided there was no potential for significant environmental effects from the proposed irrigation project. The agency also declined to order an EIS.
Laying out its flawed and arbitrary justification – a supposed lack of connection to Offutt – the agency explained that the Noltes said:
… they have no agreement to grow potatoes for RDO and … no agreement to lease the land to RDO to grow potatoes on this land. If such an agreement existed the proposed project would have to be analyzed as a phased or connected action. As it stands, without such a connection to RDO or other proposed projects, the DNR has no legal basis to view the project as a phased or connected action. (Emphasis added.)
Given the quid pro quo between Offutt and Nolte in the original contract for the deed and the listing of an Offutt division on the application, the DNR's justification is baseless. When the deluge of written pleas the DNR received from Nolte's neighbors are factored in, the agency's decision defies logic.
The Nolte contract for deed is below.
And here are Nolte's applications for irrigation permits.
Now EWG has unearthed what might called the smoking spud – irrefutable proof of a direct and continuing connection between Offutt and Nolte's newly proposed irrigated potato operation. The documents linked below show that the mortgage holder on Nolte's farm is a little-known financing firm called ACL Company.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission documents show that ACL is part of the Offutt empire. In fact, ACL is controlled by Offutt, and the RDO board approves all transactions with ACL. What's more, the Minnesota Secretary of State's office names R.D. Offutt's son-in-law and current RDO Farms President Keith McGovern as the registered agent for the ACL Company, as shown on the document below. It is clear based on these new documents that Offutt has a strong continuing property and financial interest in the proposed project.
The DNR could have – and should have – discovered and considered this evidence in its decision-making. It proves what neighbors, experts, retired agency officials and others have said all along: Offutt is the major force behind the Nolte irrigated potato project.
The DNR already faced an uphill court battle to defend its decision. Now it looks more like a climb up Mount Everest. To avoid having to conduct a thorough EIS for Offutt's operations in all 770 square miles of the Pineland Sands region, the agency will need to defend its position that Offutt is not a part of Nolte's irrigated potato project, contrary to the abundant evidence showing otherwise.
After 30 years, it's far past time for the one of the largest industrial agriculture operations in America to face responsibility for putting $2.5 billion in annual profits before the health of struggling local communities.
Photo: Spud horticulture.
If you appreciate the EWG's coverage of this issue, consider donating to the organization.
Posted by Sally Jo Sorensen on Aug 21, 2020 at 04:02 PM | Permalink


text:
Q: Сравнение одинаковых значение в БД Как реализовать такое:
Если в БД существует имя пользователя (например user), и при регистрации новый пользователь пытается записать такое же имя (user), как составить запрос, чтобы в таком случае было сообщение, типа "Извините, но пользователь с таким именем уже существует"
Вот например мой запрос:
if (!empty($_POST))
    {
        if (($_POST['url'] != "") and ($_POST['name'] != ""))
            {
                $sql="INSERT INTO woo_pages (url,name,description,keywords,title,active) VALUES ('/".(trim($_POST['url']))."/','".(trim($_POST['name']))."','".(trim($_POST['description']))."','".(trim($_POST['keywords']))."','".(trim($_POST['title']))."','".(trim($_POST['active']))."')";
                if (mysql_query($sql));
                echo "success";
            }
    }

A: Select user from table where user = newuser

Если вернет ответ, значит имя занято
A: Если ты хочешь проверять существование такого пользователя именно на этапе записи в таблицу, тогда поставь уникальность на поле user, тогда при попытке вставить запись с таким user, вернется ошибка, которую тебе надо словить и в соответствии с ней сказать вернуть на страницу сообщение, что такое имя пользователя уже есть.
Но по правильному существование такого пользователя нужно проверять также и на уровне валидации введенных пользователем данных.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


All of the garage doors in Panorama City CA that we carry will look great and perform well. But some of them may suit your specific needs better. Our friendly staff will be happy to help you find a beautiful door that has all the details you've dreamed of, like raised panel designs and curved windows. We can also help you get a door that will work well for years to come. You may also be interested in other aspects of the door's performance, like quiet operation and thick insulation. Since the garage door opener plays a big role in your garage door's performance, we'll make sure that you get an opener that delivers all the features you want.
Even the best garage doors in Panorama City CA can't perform well if they're installed incorrectly. That's why you need expert installation from the pros at Carroll Garage Doors. We even guarantee our work with a warranty. If your existing garage door opener system needs to be rehung in order to accommodate the new doors, we'll do that for free.


text:
Fact Checking the January Democratic debate
Updated: 7:24 AM PST Jan 15, 2020
By FactCheck.org
As part of our Commitment 2020 coverage, Hearst TV is collaborating with FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, in an effort to identify misinformation and to ensure news consumers get the facts.SummaryIn the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses, there were fewer candidates — only six — but more than a few false, misleading and exaggerated claims:Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the "wealthy are the only ones doing well, period." But weekly paychecks for rank-and-file workers have been rising. In defending his 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, Biden claimed the Bush administration "said they were not going to go to war" and only sought weapons inspections. But days before the vote, President George W. Bush said, "I hope this will not require military action, but it may."Sen. Bernie Sanders overstated statistics on health care spending and medical bankruptcies. For instance, he said "workers" were "paying on average 20% of their incomes for health care," but the figure would be 12.7% based on the spending number his campaign cited.Sanders said that unless the U.S. leads "the world right now" on climate change, "the planet we are leaving our kids will be uninhabitable." While climate change is an urgent and serious issue, many scientists do not think it will render the entire planet uninhabitable.Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she was the only person "on this debate stage" who answered "Iran" in the "very first debate" when asked "what we saw as the biggest threat." True, but there was only one candidate on stage last night — Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who was also in that first debate with Klobuchar.Sanders claimed half a million people are "sleeping out on the streets," but a government count of unsheltered homeless people puts the number at closer to 200,000.Biden repeated a false claim that PolitiFact referred to his early climate change legislation as "a game changer." The fact-checking website did not say that, although it did say he was a "climate change pioneer."Sanders blamed two trade agreements for the loss of 4 million American jobs, but estimates on that vary.The Jan. 14 debate, hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register, was held at Drake University in Iowa.AnalysisBiden Wrong on EconomyBiden was wrong when he said only the wealthy are doing well in the current economy.Biden: he American public is getting clobbered. The wealthy are the only ones doing well, period.Whether workers are doing "well" may be a matter of opinion, but the fact is, rank-and-file workers have been making steady gains in weekly paychecks.Figures released earlier on the day of the debate by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show average weekly earnings of all private-sector workers in "real" terms — that is, after adjusting for inflation — rose 2.5% during President Donald Trump's first 35 months in office. That's actually a more rapid pace than when Biden was vice president, when real weekly earnings rose 4% over eight years.Furthermore, rank-and-file production and nonsupervisory workers (82% of all workers) are doing just a bit better than their bosses during Trump's tenure. Real earnings for them have gone up 2.6%.To be sure, those at the top are gaining faster. A study last year by ISS Analytics for the Harvard Law School's Forum on Corporate Governance found that the median compensation of chief executive officers of S&P 600 corporations rose 95% (before inflation) between 2009 and 2018, while median worker pay rose only 20%.But saying that "only" the wealthy are doing well is just not true.Biden's Position on the Iraq WarBiden continued to spin the history around his vote in 2002 to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, claiming the Bush administration "said they were not going to go to war" and only sought weapons inspections. In a speech days before Biden's vote, Bush made clear that military action was possible.Biden also misleadingly claimed that from the moment the war started, "I was in the position of making the case that it was a big, big mistake." Biden criticized President Bush for getting into the war too soon, with too few allies, and without a clear plan to "win the peace," but he did not initially oppose the war altogether.Here's how Biden described things during the debate:Biden: It was a mistake to trust that they weren't going to go to war. They said they were not going to go to war. They said they were just going to get inspectors in. The world, in fact, voted to send inspectors in, and they still went to war. From that point on I was in the position of making the case that it was a big, big mistake. And from that point on I voted to — I moved to bring those troops home.In a speech on Oct. 7, 2002, just days before Congress would vote on a resolution authorizing military force against Iraq, Bush said that after years of "containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."Bush did call for new, tougher inspections and sanctions — as Biden said during the debate. But contrary to Biden's claim that the Bush administration assured "they were not going to go to war," Bush made clear in that speech that war was possible."I hope this will not require military action, but it may," Bush said.A day after the resolution passed the House on Oct. 10, 2002, it passed the Senate 77-23, with Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voting in favor.In the days and weeks before and after the war started, Biden said that while the hope was that the resolution could be used to leverage further inspections, he also acknowledged it was a vote for the possibility of war."The way the Constitution works is, we voted to give the president the authority to go to war," Biden said in a CNN interview two weeks after the war started. "It's our decision whether or not we go from a state of peace to a state of war. We gave him that authority. You can second guess whether we should have or not. Once we've that then it's his decision to prosecute the war."During the debate, Biden also misleadingly claimed that from the moment the war actually started, "I was in the position of making the case that it was a big, big mistake."As we have written before, Biden was a consistent critic of the way the Bush administration handled the war: its failure to exhaust diplomatic solutions, its failure to enlist a more robust group of allies for the war effort, and the lack of a plan for reconstruction of Iraq. Some of his comments proved to be quite prescient, including his warnings about the likely higher-than-expected cost and length of the war, and the complexity of "winning the peace" once Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled.In other words, Biden argued that it was a mistake the way the Bush administration went to war, but Biden never outright opposed military action in Iraq in the immediate days after the start of the invasion. The day the war commenced, Biden told CNN: "There's a lot of us who voted for giving the president the authority to take down Saddam Hussein if he didn't disarm. And there are those who believe, at the end of the day, even though it wasn't handled all that well, we still have to take him down."In an interview with Charlie Rose on March 20, 2003, the day after the start of the war, Biden said, "I all along, Charlie, believed the right decision is to separate him from his weapons and/or separate him from power.""If the U.N. didn't do it, do it?" Rose interjected."Yes, you've gotta do it," Biden said. "Now, it's not the time to argue it, but I am disturbed at the lost opportunities we had to bring the rest of the world along with us to this point. … And so now the question is … can you make lemonade out of lemons here?"In a Brookings Institution address on July 31, 2003, Biden said the Bush administration was "right to confront the challenge posed by Saddam thumbing his nose at the world and refusing — refusing — to alter his conduct. Contrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner, rather than later. So I commend the president. … For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon. We went to war with too few troops. We went to war without the world, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now."It wasn't until Nov. 27, 2005, that Biden acknowledged on NBC's "Meet the Press" that his 2002 vote authorizing force in Iraq was "a mistake."Sanders' Overstated Health Care ClaimsSanders made several claims about health care that were close to true, but not quite there.Sanders went too far (again) when he claimed: "We're spending twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country." The U.S. spends twice as much as most countries — and twice as much as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries — but not twice as much as "any other country."According to the most recent OECD data, the U.S. per capita spending ($10,586) was twice as much as every country except six others, though the U.S. spending was close to double the amount for several of those nations (Denmark, Austria and Sweden). However, Switzerland's per capita spending was $7,317; Norway's was $6,187, and Germany came in at $5,986.The senator also exaggerated in claiming that "you've got 500,000 people going bankrupt because they cannot pay their medical bills." The research he has cited indicates that medical bills or health problems contributed to — but not solely caused in all cases — a half million bankruptcy filings. We wrote more about the claim after the September debate. Sanders claimed that "workers" were "paying on average 20% of their incomes for health care. That is insane." His campaign pointed us to a figure from the Milliman Medical Index, which said in 2018 the cost for a "typical family of four" with an employer-sponsored health plan was $12,378, which includes employee contributions to premiums and out-of-pocket costs. That figure is nearly 20% of the 2018 median household income of $63,179, according to Census Bureau figures (see Table H-11), the campaign said. But that's not the correct Census statistic to use for a "family of four."The average household size was 2.52 people. Census does have a median income figure for a family of four, and that's $97,631 (see Table F-8). That would make $12,378 in health care spending 12.7% of the median income for a family of four.An 'Uninhabitable' Planet?Near the end of the debate, moderators asked candidates about climate change, drawing out a response from Sanders in which he suggested the planet could become unlivable.Sanders: If we as a nation do not transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, not by 2050, not by 2040, but unless we lead the world right now — not easy stuff — the planet we are leaving our kids will be uninhabitable and unhealthy.It's unclear exactly what timeline Sanders had in mind, or what he meant by "uninhabitable," but many scientists disagree with the notion that the entire planet will soon become uninhabitable because of climate change.As we've noted before when clarifying politicians' comments about climate change being an "existential" threat, NASA scientist Benjamin Cook said that it was plausible that some parts of the world could become unlivable. "In a given locality, if the impacts are so severe," he said in a phone interview, the current way of life could become "no longer tenable."But he did not think that would happen everywhere. The effects, he said, are likely to be uneven, hitting the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest.Scientists who reviewed a 2017 New York magazine story about climate change, "The Uninhabitable Earth," for the website Climate Feedback also repeatedly noted that they found the notion that the planet would be uninhabitable to be unrealistic."While it is clear that ongoing warming of the global climate would eventually have very severe consequences, the concept of the Earth becoming uninhabitable within anywhere near the timescales suggested in the article is pure hyperbole," said Richard Betts, a climate researcher at the U.K.'s Met Office Hadley Centre and a professor at the University of Exeter.University of California, Los Angeles climate scientist Daniel Swain also commented, "The title itself is hyperbolic—there's not really a plausible climate change scenario in which the Earth becomes truly uninhabitable."Klobuchar Misleads on Iran CommentsKlobuchar sought to separate herself from other Democratic candidates on the issue of Iran by claiming that she alone was prescient enough to see that Iran was the "biggest threat to our world."Klobuchar: I'm the one person on this debate stage on the first night of the very first debate when we were asked what we saw as the biggest threat to our world, I said China on the economy but I said Iran because of Donald Trump. Because I feared that exactly what happened would happen: enrichment of uranium, escalation of tensions, leaving frayed relations with our allies.That's technically correct, but misleading.Because of the large Democratic field, the first debate was split into two nights — June 26 and June 27, 2019, and 10 candidates participated in each debate for a total of 20 candidates. Klobuchar is referring to a question that was asked only of 10 of the 20 candidates — the "first night of the very first debate" — and the only candidate on stage last night who was also in that first debate with Klobuchar was Sen. Elizabeth Warren.That night, co-moderator Chuck Todd asked: "What is our — what is the biggest threat — what is — who is the geopolitical threat to the United States? Just give me a one-word answer."Klobuchar gave two answers, and was chided for it by Todd.Klobuchar, June 26: Two threats, economic threat, China, but our major threat right now is what's going in the Mideast with Iran, if we don't get our act together.Todd: OK, try to keep it at one — slimmer than what we've been going here. One or two words.Warren, following the rules, simply replied "climate change." Biden, Sanders, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and businessman Tom Steyer were not in the June 26 debate, so they weren't asked that question.Klobuchar also misled when she said that in her answer to the question about the biggest threat she said Iran "because of Donald Trump, because I feared that exactly what happened would happen: enrichment of uranium, escalation of tensions, leaving frayed relations with our allies." We provide her entire answer above.Klobuchar is referring to another question asked during the same debate — but that question was not asked of Warren or any of the other candidates in last night's debate.Lester Holt, who was also a moderator of the June 26 debate, asked Klobuchar if the nuclear agreement was a "good deal" for the United States. She said it was "imperfect" but a "good deal for that moment." She went on to express concern about Iran exceeding the limits on enriching uranium and the possibility of war.But Klobuchar is not the only Democratic candidate who sees Iran as a threat or fears Trump will lead the U.S. to war with Iran.In the first night of the second debate, Warren said the world is getting "closer and closer to nuclear warfare" because Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran.Warren, July 30: At a time when Donald Trump is pulling out of our nuclear negotiations, expanding the opportunities for nuclear proliferation around the world, has pulled us out of the deal in Iran, and Iran is now working on its nuclear weapon, the world gets closer and closer to nuclear warfare.Sanders Hypes HomelessnessSanders exaggerated when he said repeatedly that 500,000 people are "sleeping out on the streets."Sanders: How does it happen that … half a million people are sleeping out on the streets tonight?Sanders: We got 500,000 people sleeping out on the streets tonight.That's wrong. The most recent annual assessment of the homeless population, released Jan. 13 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, estimated that 211,293 people were homeless and without shelter on the night the census was taken in 2019.Sanders was referring to the total population of homeless people, which HUD estimated at 567,715. As HUD's report to Congress stated, "Just under two-thirds (63%) of people experiencing homelessness were staying in sheltered locations, and just over one-third (37%) were found in unsheltered locations."By that measure, Sanders' talking point is not even half true.Still Not a 'Game Changer'After Sanders' uninhabitable comment, Biden was given the floor to talk about climate change — and he used the opportunity to remind viewers of his historical role in taking action on the issue. "My response is, back in 1986, I introduced the first climate change bill," he said, adding, "and check , they said it was a game changer."We did check PolitiFact, and as in the November debate, when Biden made the same claim, it doesn't pan out. PolitiFact wrote in May about Biden's role in legislation that was introduced in 1986 and passed in 1987, after the former vice president claimed to be "one of the first" people to introduce a climate change bill.While the headline referred to Biden as a "climate change pioneer," the article never used the words "game changer." The article also specifically noted that the bill, which directed the president to establish a global warming task force, essentially was a plan to make a plan — and should not be confused for a substantive bill that tackled greenhouse gas emissions.Sanders on Trade Agreements and JobsSanders blamed two trade agreements — the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade relations with China — for the loss of 4 million American jobs.But it's not clear exactly how many jobs have been affected by the deals.Here's what the senator said in an exchange with Biden:Sanders: he end result of those two, just PNTR with China, Joe, and NAFTA, cost us some 4 million jobs, as part of the race to the bottom.Sanders' figure is backed up by the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute. The EPI estimated that the U.S. has lost 3.4 million jobs since the U.S. granted permanent normal trade relations with China in 2001. The institute also estimated that NAFTA cost the U.S. 682,900 jobs, as of 2013.The Congressional Research Service, however, found that NAFTA didn't have a big impact on jobs. In a 2017 report, it said, "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP."And the impact of PNTR with China since it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 is similarly unsettled. A 2017 working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the job losses in manufacturing have been partly offset by job gains in other parts of the economy.This isn't the first time that Sanders has trotted out a reference to job losses due to trade deals, we wrote about a similar claim he made during a primary debate in 2016.SourcesKiely, Eugene et. al. "FactChecking July's Round Two Debate." FactCheck.org. 1 Aug 2019.Kiely, Eugene et. al. "FactChecking the October Democratic Debate." FactCheck.org. 16 Oct 2019.Cook, Benjamin. Climate scientist, NASA. Interview with FactCheck.org. 26 Jul 2019.ClimateFeedback.org. "Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on 'The Uninhabitable Earth' gets wrong." 12 Jul 2017.Kruzel, John. "Was Joe Biden a climate change pioneer in Congress? History says yes." PolitiFact. 8 May 2019.Kiely, Eugene et. al. "FactChecking the November Democratic Debate." FactCheck.org. 21 Nov 2019.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health spending (indicator). Accessed on 14 Jan 2020.Robertson, Lori, et. al. "FactChecking the September Democratic Debate." FactCheck.org. 13 Sep 2019.Girod, Chris, et. al. "2018 Milliman Medical Index." Milliman. May 2018.U.S. Census Bureau. Table H-11. Size of Household by Median and Mean Income. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.U.S. Census Bureau. Table F-8. Size of Family — Families by Median and Mean Income. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress." 13 Jan 2020.Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees, 1982-1984 Dollars." Data extracted 15 Jan 2020.Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees, 1982-1984 Dollars." Data extracted 15 Jan 2020.Roe, John and Kosmas Papadopoulos. "2019 U.S. Executive Compensation Trends." Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. 16 Apr 2019."Democratic candidates on the biggest geopolitical threat facing the US." CNBC. 26 June 2019."The first Democratic debate night transcript, annotated." Washington Post. 27 June 2019."Transcript: Night 2 of the first Democratic debate." Washington Post. 28 June 2019."Transcript: The first night of the second Democratic debate." Washington Post. 30 Jul 2019."The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Congressional Research Service. 24 May 2017.Asquith, Brian, et al. "U.S. Job Flows And The China Shock." National Bureau of Economic Research. Nov 2017.Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, Jessica McDonald, Saranac Hale Spencer, D'Angelo Gore and Angelo Fichera contributed to this fact check.
As part of our Commitment 2020 coverage, Hearst TV is collaborating with FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, in an effort to identify misinformation and to ensure news consumers get the facts.
In the final Democratic debate before the Iowa caucuses, there were fewer candidates — only six — but more than a few false, misleading and exaggerated claims:
Former Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the "wealthy are the only ones doing well, period." But weekly paychecks for rank-and-file workers have been rising.
In defending his 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, Biden claimed the Bush administration "said they were not going to go to war" and only sought weapons inspections. But days before the vote, President George W. Bush said, "I hope this will not require military action, but it may."
Sen. Bernie Sanders overstated statistics on health care spending and medical bankruptcies. For instance, he said "workers" were "paying on average 20% of their incomes for health care," but the figure would be 12.7% based on the spending number his campaign cited.
Sanders said that unless the U.S. leads "the world right now" on climate change, "the planet we are leaving our kids will be uninhabitable." While climate change is an urgent and serious issue, many scientists do not think it will render the entire planet uninhabitable.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar said she was the only person "on this debate stage" who answered "Iran" in the "very first debate" when asked "what we saw as the biggest threat." True, but there was only one candidate on stage last night — Sen. Elizabeth Warren — who was also in that first debate with Klobuchar.
Sanders claimed half a million people are "sleeping out on the streets," but a government count of unsheltered homeless people puts the number at closer to 200,000.
Biden repeated a false claim that PolitiFact referred to his early climate change legislation as "a game changer." The fact-checking website did not say that, although it did say he was a "climate change pioneer."
Sanders blamed two trade agreements for the loss of 4 million American jobs, but estimates on that vary.
The Jan. 14 debate, hosted by CNN and the Des Moines Register, was held at Drake University in Iowa.
Biden Wrong on Economy
Biden was wrong when he said only the wealthy are doing well in the current economy.
Biden: [T]he American public is getting clobbered. The wealthy are the only ones doing well, period.
Whether workers are doing "well" may be a matter of opinion, but the fact is, rank-and-file workers have been making steady gains in weekly paychecks.
Figures released earlier on the day of the debate by the Bureau of Labor Statistics show average weekly earnings of all private-sector workers in "real" terms — that is, after adjusting for inflation — rose 2.5% during President Donald Trump's first 35 months in office. That's actually a more rapid pace than when Biden was vice president, when real weekly earnings rose 4% over eight years.
Furthermore, rank-and-file production and nonsupervisory workers (82% of all workers) are doing just a bit better than their bosses during Trump's tenure. Real earnings for them have gone up 2.6%.
To be sure, those at the top are gaining faster. A study last year by ISS Analytics for the Harvard Law School's Forum on Corporate Governance found that the median compensation of chief executive officers of S&P 600 corporations rose 95% (before inflation) between 2009 and 2018, while median worker pay rose only 20%.
But saying that "only" the wealthy are doing well is just not true.
Biden's Position on the Iraq War
Biden continued to spin the history around his vote in 2002 to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, claiming the Bush administration "said they were not going to go to war" and only sought weapons inspections. In a speech days before Biden's vote, Bush made clear that military action was possible.
Biden also misleadingly claimed that from the moment the war started, "I was in the position of making the case that it was a big, big mistake." Biden criticized President Bush for getting into the war too soon, with too few allies, and without a clear plan to "win the peace," but he did not initially oppose the war altogether.
Here's how Biden described things during the debate:
Biden: It was a mistake to trust that they weren't going to go to war. They said they were not going to go to war. They said they were just going to get inspectors in. The world, in fact, voted to send inspectors in, and they still went to war. From that point on I was in the position of making the case that it was a big, big mistake. And from that point on I voted to — I moved to bring those troops home.
In a speech on Oct. 7, 2002, just days before Congress would vote on a resolution authorizing military force against Iraq, Bush said that after years of "containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon."
Bush did call for new, tougher inspections and sanctions — as Biden said during the debate. But contrary to Biden's claim that the Bush administration assured "they were not going to go to war," Bush made clear in that speech that war was possible.
"I hope this will not require military action, but it may," Bush said.
A day after the resolution passed the House on Oct. 10, 2002, it passed the Senate 77-23, with Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voting in favor.
In the days and weeks before and after the war started, Biden said that while the hope was that the resolution could be used to leverage further inspections, he also acknowledged it was a vote for the possibility of war.
"The way the Constitution works is, we voted to give the president the authority to go to war," Biden said in a CNN interview two weeks after the war started. "It's our decision whether or not we go from a state of peace to a state of war. We gave him that authority. You can second guess whether we should have or not. Once we've [done] that then it's his decision to prosecute the war."
During the debate, Biden also misleadingly claimed that from the moment the war actually started, "I was in the position of making the case that it was a big, big mistake."
As we have written before, Biden was a consistent critic of the way the Bush administration handled the war: its failure to exhaust diplomatic solutions, its failure to enlist a more robust group of allies for the war effort, and the lack of a plan for reconstruction of Iraq. Some of his comments proved to be quite prescient, including his warnings about the likely higher-than-expected cost and length of the war, and the complexity of "winning the peace" once Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled.
In other words, Biden argued that it was a mistake the way the Bush administration went to war, but Biden never outright opposed military action in Iraq in the immediate days after the start of the invasion. The day the war commenced, Biden told CNN: "There's a lot of us who voted for giving the president the authority to take down Saddam Hussein if he didn't disarm. And there are those who believe, at the end of the day, even though it wasn't handled all that well, we still have to take him down."
In an interview with Charlie Rose on March 20, 2003, the day after the start of the war, Biden said, "I all along, Charlie, believed the right decision is to separate him from his weapons and/or separate him from power."
"If the U.N. didn't do it, do it?" Rose interjected.
"Yes, you've gotta do it," Biden said. "Now, it's not the time to argue it, but I am disturbed at the lost opportunities we had to bring the rest of the world along with us to this point. … And so now the question is … can you make lemonade out of lemons here?"
In a Brookings Institution address on July 31, 2003, Biden said the Bush administration was "right to confront the challenge posed by Saddam thumbing his nose at the world and refusing — refusing — to alter his conduct. Contrary to what some in my party might think, Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with sooner, rather than later. So I commend the president. … For me, the issue was never whether we had to deal with Saddam, but when and how we dealt with Saddam. And it's precisely the when and how that I think this administration got wrong. We went to war too soon. We went to war with too few troops. We went to war without the world, when we could have had many with us, and we're paying the price for it now."
It wasn't until Nov. 27, 2005, that Biden acknowledged on NBC's "Meet the Press" that his 2002 vote authorizing force in Iraq was "a mistake."
Sanders' Overstated Health Care Claims
Sanders made several claims about health care that were close to true, but not quite there.
Sanders went too far (again) when he claimed: "We're spending twice as much per capita on health care as do the people of any other country." The U.S. spends twice as much as most countries — and twice as much as the average for Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries — but not twice as much as "any other country."
According to the most recent OECD data, the U.S. per capita spending ($10,586) was twice as much as every country except six others, though the U.S. spending was close to double the amount for several of those nations (Denmark, Austria and Sweden). However, Switzerland's per capita spending was $7,317; Norway's was $6,187, and Germany came in at $5,986.
The senator also exaggerated in claiming that "you've got 500,000 people going bankrupt because they cannot pay their medical bills." The research he has cited indicates that medical bills or health problems contributed to — but not solely caused in all cases — a half million bankruptcy filings. We wrote more about the claim after the September debate.
Sanders claimed that "workers" were "paying on average 20% of their incomes for health care. That is insane." His campaign pointed us to a figure from the Milliman Medical Index, which said in 2018 the cost for a "typical family of four" with an employer-sponsored health plan was $12,378, which includes employee contributions to premiums and out-of-pocket costs. That figure is nearly 20% of the 2018 median household income of $63,179, according to Census Bureau figures (see Table H-11), the campaign said. But that's not the correct Census statistic to use for a "family of four."
The average household size was 2.52 people. Census does have a median income figure for a family of four, and that's $97,631 (see Table F-8). That would make $12,378 in health care spending 12.7% of the median income for a family of four.
An 'Uninhabitable' Planet?
Near the end of the debate, moderators asked candidates about climate change, drawing out a response from Sanders in which he suggested the planet could become unlivable.
Sanders: If we as a nation do not transform our energy system away from fossil fuel, not by 2050, not by 2040, but unless we lead the world right now — not easy stuff — the planet we are leaving our kids will be uninhabitable and unhealthy.
It's unclear exactly what timeline Sanders had in mind, or what he meant by "uninhabitable," but many scientists disagree with the notion that the entire planet will soon become uninhabitable because of climate change.
As we've noted before when clarifying politicians' comments about climate change being an "existential" threat, NASA scientist Benjamin Cook said that it was plausible that some parts of the world could become unlivable. "In a given locality, if the impacts are so severe," he said in a phone interview, the current way of life could become "no longer tenable."
But he did not think that would happen everywhere. The effects, he said, are likely to be uneven, hitting the poorest and most vulnerable the hardest.
Scientists who reviewed a 2017 New York magazine story about climate change, "The Uninhabitable Earth," for the website Climate Feedback also repeatedly noted that they found the notion that the planet would be uninhabitable to be unrealistic.
"While it is clear that ongoing warming of the global climate would eventually have very severe consequences, the concept of the Earth becoming uninhabitable within anywhere near the timescales suggested in the article [by 2100] is pure hyperbole," said Richard Betts, a climate researcher at the U.K.'s Met Office Hadley Centre and a professor at the University of Exeter.
University of California, Los Angeles climate scientist Daniel Swain also commented, "The title itself is hyperbolic—there's not really a plausible climate change scenario in which the Earth becomes truly uninhabitable."
Klobuchar Misleads on Iran Comments
Klobuchar sought to separate herself from other Democratic candidates on the issue of Iran by claiming that she alone was prescient enough to see that Iran was the "biggest threat to our world."
Klobuchar: I'm the one person on this debate stage on the first night of the very first debate when we were asked what we saw as the biggest threat to our world, I said China on the economy but I said Iran because of Donald Trump. Because I feared that exactly what happened would happen: enrichment of uranium, escalation of tensions, leaving frayed relations with our allies.
That's technically correct, but misleading.
Because of the large Democratic field, the first debate was split into two nights — June 26 and June 27, 2019, and 10 candidates participated in each debate for a total of 20 candidates. Klobuchar is referring to a question that was asked only of 10 of the 20 candidates — the "first night of the very first debate" — and the only candidate on stage last night who was also in that first debate with Klobuchar was Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
That night, co-moderator Chuck Todd asked: "What is our — what is the biggest threat — what is — who is the geopolitical threat to the United States? Just give me a one-word answer."
Klobuchar gave two answers, and was chided for it by Todd.
Klobuchar, June 26: Two threats, economic threat, China, but our major threat right now is what's going in the Mideast with Iran, if we don't get our act together.
Todd: OK, try to keep it at one — slimmer than what we've been going here. One or two words.
Warren, following the rules, simply replied "climate change." Biden, Sanders, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and businessman Tom Steyer were not in the June 26 debate, so they weren't asked that question.
Klobuchar also misled when she said that in her answer to the question about the biggest threat she said Iran "because of Donald Trump, because I feared that exactly what happened would happen: enrichment of uranium, escalation of tensions, leaving frayed relations with our allies." We provide her entire answer above.
Klobuchar is referring to another question asked during the same debate — but that question was not asked of Warren or any of the other candidates in last night's debate.
Lester Holt, who was also a moderator of the June 26 debate, asked Klobuchar if the nuclear agreement was a "good deal" for the United States. She said it was "imperfect" but a "good deal for that moment." She went on to express concern about Iran exceeding the limits on enriching uranium and the possibility of war.
But Klobuchar is not the only Democratic candidate who sees Iran as a threat or fears Trump will lead the U.S. to war with Iran.
In the first night of the second debate, Warren said the world is getting "closer and closer to nuclear warfare" because Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement with Iran.
Warren, July 30: At a time when Donald Trump is pulling out of our nuclear negotiations, expanding the opportunities for nuclear proliferation around the world, has pulled us out of the deal in Iran, and Iran is now working on its nuclear weapon, the world gets closer and closer to nuclear warfare.
Sanders Hypes Homelessness
Sanders exaggerated when he said repeatedly that 500,000 people are "sleeping out on the streets."
Sanders: How does it happen that … half a million people are sleeping out on the streets tonight?
Sanders: We got 500,000 people sleeping out on the streets tonight.
That's wrong. The most recent annual assessment of the homeless population, released Jan. 13 by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, estimated that 211,293 people were homeless and without shelter on the night the census was taken in 2019.
Sanders was referring to the total population of homeless people, which HUD estimated at 567,715. As HUD's report to Congress stated, "Just under two-thirds (63%) of people experiencing homelessness were staying in sheltered locations, and just over one-third (37%) were found in unsheltered locations."
By that measure, Sanders' talking point is not even half true.
Still Not a 'Game Changer'
After Sanders' uninhabitable comment, Biden was given the floor to talk about climate change — and he used the opportunity to remind viewers of his historical role in taking action on the issue.
"My response is, back in 1986, I introduced the first climate change bill," he said, adding, "and check [PolitiFact], they said it was a game changer."
We did check PolitiFact, and as in the November debate, when Biden made the same claim, it doesn't pan out.
PolitiFact wrote in May about Biden's role in legislation that was introduced in 1986 and passed in 1987, after the former vice president claimed to be "one of the first" people to introduce a climate change bill.
While the headline referred to Biden as a "climate change pioneer," the article never used the words "game changer." The article also specifically noted that the bill, which directed the president to establish a global warming task force, essentially was a plan to make a plan — and should not be confused for a substantive bill that tackled greenhouse gas emissions.
Sanders on Trade Agreements and Jobs
Sanders blamed two trade agreements — the North American Free Trade Agreement and permanent normal trade relations with China — for the loss of 4 million American jobs.
But it's not clear exactly how many jobs have been affected by the deals.
Here's what the senator said in an exchange with Biden:
Sanders: [T]he end result of those two, just PNTR with China, Joe, and NAFTA, cost us some 4 million jobs, as part of the race to the bottom.
Sanders' figure is backed up by the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute. The EPI estimated that the U.S. has lost 3.4 million jobs since the U.S. granted permanent normal trade relations with China in 2001. The institute also estimated that NAFTA cost the U.S. 682,900 jobs, as of 2013.
The Congressional Research Service, however, found that NAFTA didn't have a big impact on jobs. In a 2017 report, it said, "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP."
And the impact of PNTR with China since it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001 is similarly unsettled. A 2017 working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the job losses in manufacturing have been partly offset by job gains in other parts of the economy.
This isn't the first time that Sanders has trotted out a reference to job losses due to trade deals, we wrote about a similar claim he made during a primary debate in 2016.
Kiely, Eugene et. al. "FactChecking July's Round Two Debate." FactCheck.org. 1 Aug 2019.
Kiely, Eugene et. al. "FactChecking the October Democratic Debate." FactCheck.org. 16 Oct 2019.
Cook, Benjamin. Climate scientist, NASA. Interview with FactCheck.org. 26 Jul 2019.
ClimateFeedback.org. "Scientists explain what New York Magazine article on 'The Uninhabitable Earth' gets wrong." 12 Jul 2017.
Kruzel, John. "Was Joe Biden a climate change pioneer in Congress? History says yes." PolitiFact. 8 May 2019.
Kiely, Eugene et. al. "FactChecking the November Democratic Debate." FactCheck.org. 21 Nov 2019.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health spending (indicator). Accessed on 14 Jan 2020.
Robertson, Lori, et. al. "FactChecking the September Democratic Debate." FactCheck.org. 13 Sep 2019.
Girod, Chris, et. al. "2018 Milliman Medical Index." Milliman. May 2018.
U.S. Census Bureau. Table H-11. Size of Household by Median and Mean Income. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.
U.S. Census Bureau. Table F-8. Size of Family — Families by Median and Mean Income. Accessed 14 Jan 2020.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "The 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress." 13 Jan 2020.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of All Employees, 1982-1984 Dollars." Data extracted 15 Jan 2020.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National); Average Weekly Earnings of production and nonsupervisory employees, 1982-1984 Dollars." Data extracted 15 Jan 2020.
Roe, John and Kosmas Papadopoulos. "2019 U.S. Executive Compensation Trends." Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance. 16 Apr 2019.
"Democratic candidates on the biggest geopolitical threat facing the US." CNBC. 26 June 2019.
"The first Democratic debate night transcript, annotated." Washington Post. 27 June 2019.
"Transcript: Night 2 of the first Democratic debate." Washington Post. 28 June 2019.
"Transcript: The first night of the second Democratic debate." Washington Post. 30 Jul 2019.
"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Congressional Research Service. 24 May 2017.
Asquith, Brian, et al. "U.S. Job Flows And The China Shock." National Bureau of Economic Research. Nov 2017.
Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, Jessica McDonald, Saranac Hale Spencer, D'Angelo Gore and Angelo Fichera contributed to this fact check.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


This dashboard was developed in-house by Traverse Area District Library. Originally launched in February 2013, the TADL statistics dashboard has been a convenient tool for library fans, patrons and staff alike to quickly access key information about the collection and resource utilization. This 2018 update brings improved usability (mobile first design) and a more maintainable platform.
All the data represented on this dashboard is gathered by performing SQL queries against several different data sources. Circulation and collection statistics are retrieved from the Evergreen ILS, public computing data is stored by Envisionware PC Reservation, and wireless statistics are logged to syslog servers, which are then processed and inserted into a postgresql database to allow queries about specific locations or networks. All this data is then exported to CSV format, which is retrieved and cached periodically by the app to provide a smooth user experience.
Chart.js, used to create charts and graphs.
AdminLTE, a Bootstrap-based admin theme template that provides widgets and additional styles.
Ruby on Rails, a common application framework.
This web application is always a work in progress. Our intent is to regularly add more interesting bits of information as patrons and staff request them.
The TADL Technology department does everything it can to share code so others can benefit when possible and this is no exception. You can find the code used to run this application on GitHub. If you have questions about this (or other) TADL Tech projects, please feel free to contact us and we will try to answer them. Thanks!


text:
Auditions in Moorestown!
About Auditions
The Philadelphia Boys Choir is looking for boys who have musical and vocal potential, not necessarily a polished performance. Auditions are for boys in grades 1 through 3 for the training programs. Once accepted into the training programs, boys can potentially remain in the group through 12th grade. Auditions will take place at Mary Roberts Elementary School (290 Crescent Avenue) on Thursday, May 16th, from 4:00pm to 4:30pm. Please do not arrive before 3:45pm, as visitors will not be permitted until after 3:45pm.
This initial audition process is very low-key. No musical training or preparation is necessary. The boys may be asked to sing a simple song that he knows and some intuitive singing exercises. Within two weeks after the audition, we will contact each parent by e-mail to let you know if your son can proceed to a callback audition at our facility in Philadelphia.
For more information about summer callback auditions, click here: https://phillyboyschoir.org/auditioning/
There is a fee for boys who enter the program, and financial aid is available to everyone who qualifies.
The musical opportunities that the boys experience are unmatched by any other group around. In this year alone, the Choir has performed with the Pennsylvania Ballet, the Philly POPS, Opera Philadelphia, and the Philadelphia Orchestra. Trailblazers in international touring, the Philadelphia Boys Choir has traveled to more than 45 countries, most recently in Vietnam and Singapore this past summer.
Our rehearsal spaces, voice studios, and offices are located on the northern Avenue of the Arts corridor (Broad & Spring Garden). The location is highly visible and easily accessible by car and public transportation.
Please fill out the audition form below, and bring it with you to the audition.
PBCC audition form
Organizational Background
Renowned for their commanding musicianship, intelligence and interpretive abilities, the Emmy Award winning and Grammy Award nominated Philadelphia Boys Choir & Chorale has cultivated a devoted following worldwide for their highly-acclaimed concerts and recitals. PBCC continues to breakthrough the most rigid social, political and cultural barriers as "America's Ambassadors of Song".
Performance highlights from recent years include Mayor Kenney's Inauguration, the opening of the Barnes Foundation, the opening game of the Phillies season, a performance at Carnegie Hall, and a performance with Hugh Jackman and the Philadelphia Orchestra. Recent international tours include Ecuador and the Galapagos Islands, Cuba, China and England.
Artistic Director Jeffrey R. Smith is a 1999 summa cum laude graduate of Ithaca College with a Bachelor of Music in Composition. As a pianist in much demand, Smith has played with the Philadelphia Orchestra, New Jersey Symphony, Philly POPS, and for several shows on and Off-Broadway. He is also assistant conductor for the Philly POPS. He resides in Haddon Township with his two sons, Elijah and Isaac.


text:
My strongest memory is not a memory. It is something I imagined, then came to remember as if it had… - Tara Westover, Educated: A Memoir.
Creating a Narrative Arc for a Fictional Character
Written by Editorial Staff
by Rochelle Jewel Shapiro
To create a strong narrative arc, the character must begin one way and end another, eg. in George Elliot's Silas Marner, (did anyone besides me have to read it in high school?) Marner, a lonely weaver who had been accused of theft in his former town, moves away and works all the time, putting away his money. Then his money is stolen, but an orphan girl, Eppie, becomes his true gold when he adopts her. (I'd like to reread this book to see if I can get anything out of it this time around.)
"The best way to create a narrative arc is to know your character."
The best way to create a narrative arc is to know your character. What is he like? Moody, hostile, simpering, daring? You have to have a definite idea of his traits so that they can change by the end of the story when a bad guy becomes a good guy or a good guy becomes a bad guy, this option being the less likely.
The plot of the story is involves the exact events and challenges that the character faces in order to make this transformation. By the end of the story, the character becomes the opposite of what he started out to be. For example, Peter Rabbit is about to be eaten for dinner by Farmer Mac Gregor's family as a result of his daring to disobey his mother and scamper off through the fence. In the end, Peter Rabbit becomes a well-behaved bunny who will obey the laws of his warren. (I liked him better at the beginning, frankly.)
In Casablanca, Rick Blaine is a cynical club owner during WW ll. His one-time love, Ilsa, who betrayed him, needs help to get her husband, a member of the resistance, out of Casablanca before the Nazis arrive. Rick doesn't want to get involved in world affairs and he certainly doesn't want to help a woman who hurt him. But by the end of the movie, he grows in his point of view. He helps Ilsa not to regain her love, but because he recognizes that there are bigger things at stake than his ego. He goes from a cynical, detached person to an involved one who puts his own needs behind the needs of others. His character change–his arc–grows out of his helping Ilsa, which is the plot.
"You have to force your character out of his comfort zone to create an arc."
You have to force your character out of his comfort zone to create an arc. Think of the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz who, along with his vulnerable companions: the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, and Dorothy and Toto, has to face all the dangers to get to the Wizard of Oz to ask him for some nerve. Had he remained trembling in the forest, there would be no arc. The character must have gone through enough action to merit the change. If he's the same way on page 200 as he was on page 20, you don't have an arc. You have a snore fest.
You have to make the change in the person believable in order to have a strong narrative arc. For example, in Eugene O'Neill's Mourning Becomes Electra, modeled after the Aeschylus' trilogy, The Orestia, Orin Mannon (note the similarity between the names Orin and Orestes) begins as a mama's boy who was forced off to war by his father to make him become a man. He comes home from the war to find out that his mother is having an affair with the son of an estranged uncle. Together they conspire and succeed in poisoning Ezra Mannon, Orin's father. Orin's sister, Lavinia, who has a giant Electra complex, tells Orin and this mama's boy ends up murdering the mother's lover. How could a mama's boy end up a murderer? O'Neill seeds in what Orin went through during the war, how murder had become commonplace to him. So shooting down his mother's lover became easy for him. Without the war memories, the play would have been preposterous.
". . .you also need to show the character's response to his change."
To achieve a strong narrative arc, you also need to show the character's response to his change. Rocky Balboa goes from a has-been to champ. Who can forget him dashing up the steps of the Philadelphia public library to beat his chest and proclaim it? Check out this video to experience it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NubH5BDOaD8
Think of Scarlett O'Hara's final scene in Gone with the Wind when she goes from the spoiled, rich, beautiful, vain woman to the woman who survives. This is the video of the famous "As God is my witness" scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixx66T-FPYM
How is this for a character's declaration of the change he/she has gone through?
Find your character's arcs and you've found your novel.
Rochelle Jewel Shapiro is author of Miriam the Medium (Simon & Schuster) and has published essays in NYT (Lives), Newsweek (My Turn), et. al. Her essay, ESS, ESS, is just out in FEED ME: WRITERS DISH ABOUT FOOD, EATING, WEIGHT, AND BODY IMAGE, ed. by Harriet Brown (Random House, 2009). She has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize in poetry. She teaches Writing the Personal Essay at UCLA extension.
Categorised in: Writing Insights
This post was written by Editorial Staff
Recent Writing Insights
How to Write a Dialogue in Essay
Why Does Your E-book Look a Mess After Converting From PDF?
What Is Point of View in Literature?
Do Literary Agents Really Read All Author Submissions?
Structuring Your Memoir: Naming the Premise
All Writing Insights


COME ENJOY OUR DAY OF MERRIMENT AS WE HOLD A FESTIVE FUNDRAISER ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 9, FROM 2-5. WE WILL HAVE A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY COOKIE SALE, BOOK SALE AND THEME BASKET AUCTION. THERE WILL BE LIVE MUSIC TO ADD TO THE FUN. BRING FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND SHARE AN AFTERNOON OF FUN.


In Life Science Research and Scientific Sales, "Narrative Matters"
Human beings like stories. We think narratively. If there isn't a beginning, middle, and end, we try and create them from the information we have at hand, because things happen in time and, we like to think, with purpose and significance. Life science research takes as its subject living things, and all living things have a life cycle, at the end of which they die, just like in a story. There is no stasis, and nothing in real life happens in a clean room: living things interact with other living things and physical processes in what we sometimes call ecosystems, which are messy, elegant places of contingency and interdependence.
Waste is an inevitable bi-product of human life, industry, and agriculture. One of the scientific challenges we face as a society is managing that waste and minimizing its deleterious effects on the environment that we depend upon for current and future sustenance. This ecosystem management increasingly involves the utilization of life science processes whereby good bacteria eat the unwanted effluent and render it neutral or even beneficial through an organically bioactive treatment system. This process is called bioremediation, in contrast to chemical sterilization systems (e.g. chlorination) that can cause problems downstream.


Welcome to the Crewe Arms Hotel in Cheshire!
A Victorian-era railway hotel, bursting to the brim with character and comfort.
Nestled in the centre of Crewe - The Crewe Arms Hotel is the perfect place for your weekend away, business conference or your wedding day!
Built in 1830, this red-brick building is crested by carved stone reliefs. Being the world's first constructed railway hotel means if you are into history there is plenty of it for you.
If you choose to stay at the hotel – You are in the company of Royalty! Queen Victoria, The Royal Family and her entourage were guests at the hotel. Staying on route to her annual summer holidays in Scotland. Supposedly there is a secret tunnel that the Queen used to avoid causing a commotion.
Being a railway hotel means that the building is sat next to the Crewe Railway Station. Connections to Manchester are within 50 minutes. Liverpool is 40 minutes by rail and Birmingham is a 90-minute train journey.
Need to host a conference or commute to a nearby city? The Crewe Arms Hotel is ready for you. Click here to book in!
Click here to book now. Limited availabilty!
The traditional red-brick building of the hotel has been faithfully retained. Inside offers modern comforts. This means that you get the best of the past and present!
The Crewe Arms Hotel is within easy reach of the city of Chester, Chester Zoo, Bridgemere Garden World, Dagfields Antique Centre, Trentham Gardens & Monkey Forest. The city centres of Manchester and Liverpool are only 30 minutes away by train.
Come stay in lovely Cheshire!
Make your next stay in Cheshire one to remember. Book now to experience the Crewe Arms Hotel for yourself!
Other facilities include a comfortable bar, lounge and restaurant, 24 hour room service and free WiFi. Also included is car parking for up to 120 cars.


We are located in Norris Point, Neddies Harbour, just a 5 minutes drive south of Rocky Harbour.
Please note: During summer 2015 there will be traffic obstruction by road work on route 430 between Deer Lake and Gros Morne.
Take exit no. 16 from the Trans Canada Highway in Deer Lake. Follow hwy 430 (Viking Trail) towards Bonne Bay – Rocky Harbour. Don't turn left onto hwy 431 in Wiltondale. Keep on going on hwy 430 over the Southeast Hills and along the Eastern Arm of Bonne Bay. Follow the road signs to Norris Point. In Norris Point, turn left at the gas station and follow the signs to Neddies Harbour Inn (1.5 km from the gas station). Total driving time from Deer Lake to Norris Point is about one hour.
On highway 430 by-pass Rocky Harbour and follow the H-signs (Hospital). Don't turn left to the Bonne Bay Hospital; stay on the same road until you reach the gas station. Turn left towards Neddies Harbour and follow the signs to Neddies Harbour Inn.
Important note for car rentals.
Most major car rental companies have rental stations in St. John' and Deer Lake. During peak season (July and August) fleets are often not sufficient to satisfy the demand. Early reservation is highly recommended.
Driving conditions on Newfoundland's roads and live highway cameras.
Make a sea cruise part of your travels when you visit Newfoundland and Labrador. Then you'll know why they say half the fun is getting there.
Marine Atlantic's ferries accommodate all vehicles year round from North Sydney, Nova Scotia to Port aux Basques in southwestern Newfoundland. The ferry to Port aux Basques brings you to the south west coast of Newfoundland and within a few hours of driving distance from Norris Point and Neddies Harbour Inn.
Throughout the summer, a second ferry sails from North Sydney to Argentia, bringing you to within an hour or two of St. John's. This offers a great opportunity for a round trip.
Marine Atlantic ferries offer a wide variety of on board accommodations and features, including deluxe cabins, dormitory sleepers, full meal and beverage service, live entertainment, movies, and children's activity programs.
Whenever you're on the water, be prepared to be entertained and amazed by wonderful natural spectacles like Humpback and Minke Whales that appear in season, or the many varieties of seabirds that roost in huge coastal colonies. Ferries are floating observation platforms. Along the eastern coastline, look for icebergs bigger than you ever imagined. Those who live by the sea swear that the best way to see Newfoundland and Labrador is from the water. Come see for yourself.
From mid-June to mid-September, an additional ferry operates between North Sydney and Argentia in eastern Newfoundland, which is 45 kilometres from Route 1 and 131 kilometres from the provincial capital of St. John's. Crossing time is 12-14 hours.
When you choose to travel to Newfoundland and Labrador by air, you can be certain you can reach all areas of the province and immediately get close to the wonderful sights and happenings that you're coming for. Convenient schedules and flight times help you make your travel plans to suit your purpose.
Wherever you're departing from, there's a wide variety of international and connector airlines at your service. From anywhere in Canada, from all across North America, from major gateways and cities, in the USA, and from Northern Europe, modern jet travel is available to bring you here. Start your vacation-of-a-lifetime on a high note. Get in touch with your travel agent to get your trip off the ground.
Air Canada, Air Canada Tango, and Air Canada Jazz operate regular air service to Newfoundland and Labrador, with connections available from all major centres in the United States and Canada. WestJet offers regular 'discount' service to Newfoundland.WestJet offers service throughout Canada. Air Canada Jazz, Provincial Airlines, and Air Labrador provide regular service within Newfoundland and Labrador. Air Labrador also offers service through St. Anthony to many points in Labrador. Provincial Airlines also offers service to the French island of St. Pierre.


text:
Home Funny Easter: People nailed to crosses while others beat themselves in blood-soaked religious ceremonies
FunnyReligionWeirdWTF!
Easter: People nailed to crosses while others beat themselves in blood-soaked religious ceremonies
by Mysterious Times April 19, 2019
by Mysterious Times April 19, 2019 0 comment
Thousands of people watch annual spectacle, which is frowned on by Catholic Church
Catholic worshippers have been nailed to wooden crosses in a gory Easter ritual in the Philippines.
Four men and a woman, some wearing crowns of twigs, were escorted by villagers dressed as Roman centurions and nailed to crosses on a dusty hill to mark Good Friday.
Other Christian devotees flogged themselves or took part in religious plays in San Petro Cutud village to re-enact the suffering of Jesus. Similar reenactments played out in nearby farming towns in the northern Philippines.
Thousands of people, including many tourists, watched the spectacle, which is frowned upon by the Catholic Church.
"We're from Poland, so it's also a Catholic country but there is nothing like that. It's much more peaceful and quiet," said visitor Magdalena Tyburcy.
Prior to the reenacted crucifixions, dozens of barefoot penitents beat their bare backs with sharp bamboo sticks and wood. Some had their backs with razors cut to keep them bloody.
Sterilised nails are used in the rituals and, after they are lowered from the crosses, the devotees are checked by medical workers to make sure they are no complications from their injuries.
Painter Ruben Enaje, 59, was nailed to the cross for the 33rd time as part of giving thanks to God after surviving a fall from a building.
"Next year, I'm going to be a senior. Our bones are a bit different, you start to get hurt. I'll just pass down [this tradition] to someone younger than me," he said.
Another regular, Mary Jane Sazon, marked her 16th time on the cross.
"When I do this devotion, my prayers come true," Ms Sazon said. "Then I stopped. I started having health problems again, so I joined the crucifixion again. I felt that through my devotion, whatever illness I feel goes away."
The Philippines is Asia's largest Catholic nation.
Other Lent traditions include street plays with devotees reenacting the Way of the Cross and a marathon chanting of the Pasyon, a Philippine narrative of the suffering of Christ.
The Catholic Church discourages rituals and instead calls for the faithful to mark Lent with prayers and acts of charity.
ON 8 MARCH, 84 YEARS AGO, THE HACHIKO DOG DIED
Thanks to an artistic recreation, we now know Roman emperor Nero was a literal neckbeard
Oklahoma Fears Collapse As Supreme Court Decides Whether To Return Half Its Land To The Cherokee 11shares
Online poll shows: People still see fairies and elves today 9shares
Iranian women – before and after the Islamic Revolution 6shares
Iran revolution: 'I wore a hijab and head-banged to Nirvana' 5shares
Florida Teacher Diane Tirado Was Fired For Giving Zeros To Students That Failed To Hand In Their Work 4shares


Effective Oct. 1, 2016, Holy Spirit employee plan members may choose Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center providers for their healthcare needs. Click here to find a Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center provider. All providers are part of the Tier 2 benefit level for Home Network PPO members, and In-Network for Expanded Network PPO members.
Attention Holy Spirit employees and dependents: Please click here to see information about your tiered benefit plan. If you or your dependents live outside the Geisinger Health Plan service area and use the PHCS network please click here to search that network.
For Mental Health or Substance Abuse providers, please click here for the Optum network.
Important change for July 1, 2016: GHP will switch from Optum Behavioral Health to Magellan Healthcare to manage our members' behavioral health benefits. If you need to verify the participation of a provider in Magellan's network, please click here. Magellan continues to add new providers to their network, so you may want to check the list periodically.
Please contact the Customer Service team at 800-504-0443 for additional assistance in finding a provider.


Little Miss Mag will be closed for staff in-service training and intense cleaning.
Little Miss Mag nurtures the preschool child of working parents at an affordable cost.
OUR MISSION...Empowering families by providing affordable early childhood education for our changing community. Little Miss Mag Child Care Center is a private, non-profit downtown United Way Agency and is licensed by the Tennessee Department of Human Services..