text:
Wallround History, Family Crest & Coats of Arms
Early Origins of the Wallround family
The surname Wallround was first found in Sussex at Waldron, a parish, in the union of Uckfield, hundred of Shiplake, rape of Pevensey. [1]
The place name dates back to the Domesday Book of 1086 where Iohannes filius Waleranni, Galerami was first listed. Richard Walram was listed in the Feet of Fines for Essex in 1262 and Robert Waldrond was listed in the Subsidy Rolls of Worcestershire in 1275. The Hundredorum Rolls of 1273 lists Matilda Walrond in Warwickshire [2] and Walarinus de Cartone. [3]
Early History of the Wallround family
This web page shows only a small excerpt of our Wallround research. Another 96 words (7 lines of text) covering the years 1412, 1422, 1640, 1615, 1689, 1683, 1650, 1730, 1690 and 1730 are included under the topic Early Wallround History in all our PDF Extended History products and printed products wherever possible.
Wallround Spelling Variations
One relatively recent invention that did much to standardize English spelling was the printing press. However, before its invention even the most literate people recorded their names according to sound rather than spelling. The spelling variations under which the name Wallround has appeared include Waldron, Walrond, Walrand, Waldren, Waldrond and others.
Early Notables of the Wallround family (pre 1700)
Distinguished members of the family include Sir John Walrond of Wiltshire; Major Richard Waldron (Waldern, Walderne) (1615-1689), English settler and magistrate to colonial Dover, New Hampshire from Alcester, Warwickshire rising to become Chief Justice for New Hampshire in 1683, later killed viciously in the Cocheco...
Migration of the Wallround family to Ireland
Some of the Wallround family moved to Ireland, but this topic is not covered in this excerpt.
Migration of the Wallround family
At this time, the shores of the New World beckoned many English families that felt that the social climate in England was oppressive and lacked opportunity for change. Thousands left England at great expense in ships that were overcrowded and full of disease. A great portion of these settlers never survived the journey and even a greater number arrived sick, starving, and without a penny. The survivors, however, were often greeted with greater opportunity than they could have experienced back home. These English settlers made significant contributions to those colonies that would eventually become the United States and Canada. An examination of early immigration records and passenger ship lists revealed that people bearing the name Wallround arrived in North America very early: Alexander Waldron, who came to New Hampshire in 1630; Isaac, William and Richard Waldron, who settled in Rhode Island in 1630; Edward Waldron, who arrived in Boston in 1630.


text:
People With Arthritis Shun Exercise — Though It Would Help, Not Hurt
People with knee arthritis are doing a lousy job of getting exercise, according to a new study. That's not a huge surprise. Who wants to run with aching knees? It's human nature to want to coddle aches, not exercise them.
But exercise is actually good medicine for osteoarthritis. It is proven to reduce pain and inflammation, makes it easier to move, and can prevent or delay disability.
Alas, the people with knee arthritis tracked in this new study are not doing themselves any favors on that front. A majority of the women (56.5 percent) and lots of the men (40 percent) were inactive. That means they got no exercise that would count as moderate (like brisk walking) or vigorous (biking or running) for at least 10 minutes anytime in the course of a week.
"Physical activity for people with arthritis is a key to better health, without question," says Dorothy Dunlop, an associate professor of medicine at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. But she knows the reality. "They are dealing with pain and stiffness and barriers to being active."
Her new study, published in the August issue of Arthritis & Rheumatism, tracked 1,111 adults ages 49 to 84 with knee osteoarthritis for a week using accelerometers, which are fancy pedometers. There was no display on the unit, so people didn't know how much, or how little, activity they had logged. Turns out their exercise levels were a lot lower than found in previous studies in which people self-reported on their activities.
A few of the study participants were getting a move on; 13 percent of the men and 7.7 percent of the women met federal physical activity guidelines: at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) a week of moderate-intensity exercise, or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity. But for that big group of arthritis sufferers who weren't doing squat, Dunlop says that just getting off the couch would be good. In other words, any activity is better than none.
"Walking is a wonderful exercise," Dunlop told Shots. "Just finding a neighbor you enjoy [talking with] and going out for a walk instead of talking over the fence would be a great way to weave that into your day."
Aside from asking one's doctor for advice on appropriate exercise, Dunlop recommends checking out local chapters of the Arthritis Foundation, which often sponsor water aerobics classes, as well as the local YMCA. Should getting wet sound unappealing, the foundation's website features exercise videos that can be followed in the comfort of one's TV room, right next to that now-neglected couch.
Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
If Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon with an eighth grade education it is quite a feat. Although the book came out in his 20's, who really knows what he learned or where. A history book issued in his school years when he was 12 obviously had some significant influence. Thanks to the computer age, 100,000 books published in Smith's time extracted one stunning correlation. The Late War Between the United States and Great Britain by Gilbert Hunt, is a king James style history book used as a student reader about the war of 1812. The Book of Mormon contains over 100 4gram matches (please see this and scroll to the top after loading) to the The Late War. 4gram, or unique 4 word sentences typically will match one or two times per thousand books. It also contains many exact phrases and closely related ideas from The Late War, and the Book of Mormon itself is primarily about war, but then again, so are most other religious texts. Joseph Smith was 12 when the Book entered schools. It was a great success, and endorsed by reputable scholars. The same scholars joseph smith approached to validate the Book of Mormon.
But for myself, there are two other reasons I do not believe Joseph Smith Jr. authored the Book of Mormon, but I believe his father did, and with cooperation in the family business, Jr. was the front man. The tree of life vision of the Book of Mormon is an important piece in Mormon culture and the Book of Mormon. Everybody mormon knows the story. It was also a journal entry from Joseph Smith Sr' wife, referring to the story told by her husband 19 years prior to the publishing of the Book of Mormon. He was an educated man and had been working on the story for decades, and is the ghost writer if I am right.
I asked my wife the other day when I stumbled across this journal entry, if one of our kids said they wanted us to join with them in a church, would we do it? It was an emphatic "no!" Jr's parents and all his siblings joined the church and were part of its organizing day. All of them! Then I asked my wife if I wanted the family to join a church, would we all join? Her answer was probably. In fact, that's what happened to us years ago. The entire family joined the LDS because I was LDS. Jr's family were all a part of the scheme, as they were with other shady adventures including divining and other occult activities.
LDS apologetics is stating the vision by Sr. was to prepare him to know his son was a prophet. How surprised he must have been when he read the tree of life vision in the Book of Mormon for the first time. Uh, no, not surprised, because most likely he wrote it. Remember the simplest answer is most likely the best answer. Here is a short Mormon article about the vision. Read the comments too, as you can judge for yourself the depth of LDS faith in fiction.
As a side note, most LDS do not know about Sr's account of the tree of life. Members need to do some digging because this is just another of many failing bilge pumps. The ship would sink pretty fast if anyone does any reading. I would love to hear some thoughts from members on this. What is the current thought on this?


text:
A number of years ago an autograph book belonging to Bertha Adam Froebel Haby was found in a flea market in San Antonio. Fortunately the person who discovered it recognized some of the names, purchased it, and donated it to the Boerne Historical Society Archives. The autograph book was analyzed by a relative, Dorothy Ebert in 1991. Friends and relatives from Boerne, Austin, San Antonio, Clear Spring, and Windsor signed the book. Some of the signers wrote in English but most wrote in German script. The earliest date is 1881. Bertha was 16 years old and perhaps had received the autograph book as a gift. She continued to collect autographs until 1911. Eleven of the autographs are from people living in Austin in 1881. Perhaps she was visiting her sister Emilie who was living in Austin with her husband William Schoenert. Emilie and William married on her parent's 24th wedding anniversary, 16 February 1880.
Austin autographs:
Adam, Emilie, December 1881, sister; Behrens, Lina,1881; Kirschwink, Anna and Lina, 2 December 1881; Meyer, Katie, S. A., Susie, 13 & 16 November 1881; Schoenert, Emilie 27, June 1881, sister; Schoenert, William, 14 December 1881, brother-in-law; Weyermann, ?, 8 December 1881
Autographs from Boerne, San Antonio, Clear Spring and Windsor span thirty years,1881-1911.
Boerne Autographs:
Adam, Emma, sister; Bergmann, Bertha, cousin?; Dietert, B and Rosa; Dienger, Louise; Fabra, L.; Froebel, Hilmar G.; Grady, Mary; Gimbel, E. and Emma, maybe same person; Grossmann, ? and Charles; Harz, B and Bertha, maybe same person; Ransleben, Emilie, Hilmar, Hilmar Fritz; Theis, Anna and Robert; Voges, Therese, sister; Vogt, Emilie and Pauline, Wilhelmine; ?, Anna
Windsor autograph:
Zoeller, Bertha
Clear Spring (near New Braunfels) autograph:
Voges, Wilhelmine
San Antonio Autographs:
Dienger, Joseph; Froebel, Gunther, son; Hannich, Anton; Toepperwein, Ad. and E. A. F., first cousin and uncle
Place not listed:
Bergmann, Minnie; Clemens, Clara; Dietert, Emil, cousin; Froebel, Ralph, son; Froebel, Udo, son; Saner, T. P.
Bertha was the fifth child of Conrad and Adalbertha Bergmann Adam. She born the summer after the Civil War ended on 8 July 1865. At the age of 20, she married Hilmar Guenther Froebel on 24 January 1885. H.G. and Bertha had three children who lived to adulthood, Guenther Hilmar, Udo Julius "Jack", Ralph Alfred Froebel. H.G. died in 1905. In 1907 she married Charles J. Haby.
Ebert, Dorothy, Alphabetical Index to Bertha Adam's Autograph Book of 1881, Boerne Historical Archives, 1991.
City Cemetery No. 6 (San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas), Froebel, Hilmar G. and Bertha Haby, personally read, 1979.


text:
The Phils produce enough offense to defeat the Rockies, 2-1, ending a four-game losing streak.
The Phils' offense produce enough runs to finally reward a good pitching performance as they defeat the Rockies, 2-1, ending a four-game losing streak.
The first four and a half innings of the game was a pitchers' duel between Phils' starter Cole Hamels who, in the first five innings, gave up only two hits and a walks to the Rox, while striking out four, while Rockies' starter Jorge De La Rosa would, in his four innings, give up just a hit, while striking out two. The Phils would score first in the bottom of the fifth as, with two men on, and with one man out, Wilson Valdez hits an RBI single, knocking in Raul Ibanez, who had earlier singled, would move up to second base when Carlos Ruiz was hit by a pitch, then stopped at third on a Chris Iannetta passed ball, giving the Phils a 1-0 lead, while sending Ruiz, who had been hit by a pitch, then moved up to second base on Iannetta's passed ball, would stop at third. The Rockies then tied the game up at one-all in the seventh as, with a runner on second, and with two men out, Todd Helton hits an RBI double, knocking in Carlos Gonzalez, who had earlier doubled. The Phils retook the lead in the eighth as, with a runner on third, and with one man out, Jimmy Rollins hits a sacrifice fly, scoring Valdez, who had earlier singled, moved up to second on pinch hitter Shane Victorino's sacrifice bunt, then stopped at third on a De Le Rosa's wild pitch, giving the Phils a 2-1 lead. That would end up being the final score as Ryan Madson collected his seventh save in seven attempts as he pitched a scoreless ninth, striking out the side, in between a single and an intentional walk.
Cole Hamels (5-2, 2.92) gets the win as he pitched eight innings, giving up just one run on five hits and a walk, while striking out eight. Ryan Madson recorded his seventh save of the season as he gave up a hit and a walk, while striking out three. Jorge De La Rosa took the lost (5-2, 3.34) as he pitched eight innings, giving up two runs, only one of which was earned, on five hits, while striking out four.
The Phils had just five hits in the game, with Wilson Valdez leading the team with two hits, both singles, while knocking in a run. Jimmy Rollins (Single, RBI), Raul Ibanez (Single) and Carlos Ruiz (Single), had the other three Phils' hits, as the offense's batting struggles continue. Although they were able to score enough runs to win the game, it was only because of a passed ball and a wild pitch that they were able to win last night's game. That is not going to continue. They need to help themselves to keep winning.
The Phils (26-16, 1st East) will conclude this short series with the Rockies (22-19, 2nd West) with a night game tonight. The game will be played at Citizens Bank Park, and it will begin at 7:05 pm EDT. The Phils will send to the mound Joe Blanton (1-2, 5.50), who is coming off a lost against the Braves on May 14, as he pitched five innings, giving up two runs on five hits and a walk, while striking out five, in the Phils' 5-3 lost. Blanton will be going for his second win of the season, while trying to improve on his previous outing. The Rox will counter with Jhoulys Chacin (4-2, 2.89), who is coming off a no-decision against the Padres on May 14, as he went six innings, giving up three runs on five hits and two walks, while striking out six, in the Rockies' 9-7 lost. He will be trying to improve his record. The Phils will be trying to sweep the short series, while hoping that the bats will finally explode and knock in some runs in support of a bunch of good pitching performances. Show the pitching some love guys!!!


text:
Posted by Editor on 10/18/00
Redden Breaks Record
Mountain biker Olympian Chrissy Redden participated today in a stairclimb for the United Way at the CN Tower - 1766 stairs and 77 landings. She did it in 11:52, which broke the women's record (by 3 seconds). This apparently means that she will be in the Guinness Book of Records. Way to go Chrissy.
Latest Miracle Formula
The latest supplement for endurance athletes is, are you ready? . . . Stomach juice from giant killer hornets.
No, we are not making this up. Apparently the winner of the women's marathon in Sydney drank this stuff before and during her race. The stuff is completely legal also (hey, if you are dumb enough to drink it...). It is now being development into a sports drink - we can hardly wait...
However, we have two questions: 1. were any giant killer hornets killed in the process? 2. How many giant killer hornets does it take the stomach contents of to make one serving?
|Return to Canadian Cyclist homepage | Back to Top


text:
Hello and welcome to Weekend Writing Warriors, the blog hop where a bunch of diverse writers from a wide range of genres share from their work in excerpts of ten sentences or less.
So it's fall now, and it rained a little, and my writer soul says "aaaaaaaahhh". Something about cooler weather, hot tea, not so much yard work, snugglier cats looking for warm laps, all makes for a happier writing environment. Speaking of snuggly cats, Jacqui is having some issues on that front. I'm continuing to share from my WIP, working title Wild, Book 4 in the Jacqui the Cat Mysteries series. Jacqui's doing an awful lot of thinking (might have to change that) but right now, he's torn between the urge to roam and the urge to go back to bed and jump on his boyfriend Wyatt. You can read last week's snippet here if you want to catch up.
Jacqui wanted to stay the night. He really did, and sometimes he managed it. He loved spooning with Wyatt and being disgustingly kissy-face with him, but too much love and tenderness did something to him, triggered a panic attack, made him want to turn on Wyatt and bite him all over.
No, not snuggle-phobic, just…. sensible. I have sensible trust issues. Shifter issues. Cat in a man's world issues.
And then there were the dreams; The Dog Men dreams. When the night terrors took hold and his impossible reality stabbed at him with its sharp-edged persistence, the urge to leap out of bed and shift was nearly unbearable.
Jacqui the Cat Mysteries, the cozy gay shifter romance mystery series the world has been waiting for~
Jacqui Corleone is a fashion designer, a yoga-instructor and a concerned citizen who selflessly helps the police solve crimes. Oh, and he occasionally turns into a small wild cat. Probably due to a wizard's curse or an evil government plot to create super warriors.
Or, he's a cat cursed to turn into a human and only the bite of a sexy alpha lion will allow him to remain in his superior form of Cat.
Jacqui does not have a split personality, but sometimes his cat personality can get rather loud.
Loud? You're loud.
Jacqui Corleone is a cat shifter who doesn't know why or how he turns into a cat. He lives a solitary life in Friday Harbor on San Juan Island. He's not afraid of intimacy (yes, he is) but sensibly refrains from potentially awkward entanglements. Unfortunately, the sexy new deputy sheriff just moved in across the street and Jacqui's vow not to get mixed up with island dudes is sorely challenged.
When the mysterious disappearance of three blue pots draws Jacqui to investigate, he's drawn ever deeper into danger–and into the muscular but not too bulgy or veiny arms of deputy Wyatt West (he wishes).
Join Jacqui (and Cat) in this new exciting and sexy gay shifter romance mystery series from author of fantastical romantic fiction, Alexis Duran.
Here be the Amazon links:
I've had some inquiries if my books are available in formats other than Kindle. At this time, only Gryffon Hall and Matthias (DreamSpinners Press) are out there on B&N, Apple, etc. One reason is because I'm re-releasing all my Loose ID titles and am just flat out overwhelmed. The other reason is that I'm experimenting with Kindle Unlimited to see how that goes., which means if you have a Kindle you can read the books for free! When the KDP select term is up, I'll distribute the books to other retailers. If you'd like to know when that happens, you can sign up for my nifty newsletter here!
Weekend Writing Warriors is a blog hop where writers from a wide variety of genres share from their work in excerpts of ten sentences or less. Click the link to check out the other writers participating today. It's a great way to discover your next favorite book!
Thanks to Robin Ludwig Design, Inc. for the fabulous covers!


text:
And good Sunday morning. I can tell you from some of my reporting this week that the president has realized that if he's going to get something done in Washington, he's got to create some different kind of consensus among Republicans in the Senate and maybe even in the House to achieve that still elusive grand bargain on the budget. He's going to head up to Capitol Hill this week.
A couple major areas to watch from my point of view. Is there any ratio of spending cuts to tax increases that the Republicans can actually accept? Particular if number two, the president persuades Democrats to go along with a big reform of entitlement programs, social security, and Medicare. All of this leads to a special discussion this morning. Can't we all just get along?
Joining me, the always outspoken the former Republican Congressman from Florida, host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough; former governor now Democratic Senator from Virginia, Tim Kaine; Republican Senator from Oklahoma Tom Coburn, he was one of the 11 Republican Senators that President Obama had dinner with earlier this week; and two younger members of Congress, two fresh voices, freshman Democrat and one of the first female combat veterans in Congress Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii; and Republican Congressman Cory Gardner of Colorado. Welcome to all of you.
Thank you--
Great to have you here and a lot to talk about. Senators--
Thank you.
--Kaine and Coburn, let me start with you.
Uh-huh (AFFIRM).
Because we talk tactics, let's talk about the news, that we've got the potential for a budget deal by July, Senator Coburn? That's what the president would like. How real do you think that is as a prospect?
Well, I think if something's going to get done-- before the political-- political ramifications of 2014 start playing, you've got other have somewhat of an agreement or an outline before that. The-- but-- David, one of the points I'd make is the fact that this is news, it is news in itself because it shouldn't be news that the president is reaching out in a bipartisan fashion to try to solve problems for the country. And it just shows you-- that he is moving in the right direction. I'm proud of him for doing it and I think it's a great thing. But it shouldn't be news.
What about the substance of it though, Senator Coburn? What did you hear this week? What are s-- where are some of the discussions going that give you an actually path for a real solution that's been elusive on a big budget deal?
Well, I think-- the-- the one thing I heard is-- the first indication is the president's going to start talking to the American public about the problem. I mean, we all know that you-- you use-- put in $1 for Medicare and get out $3.30. We understand that. But nobody's ever talked to the American public about that.
Nobody's led on this issue as-- as far as the president wanting to change it. So-- it-- it-- I am welcoming with open arms, I think the president's tremendously sincere. I don't think this is just a political change in tactic. I think he actually would like to solve the problems of the country and it would be to his benefit and certainly every American's benefit if he did that.
So-- it's time to start leading. And the way you do that is quit pr-- poking your finger in people's eyes and start building relationships and I think he's got a great chance to accomplish a big deal.
Senator Kaine, I do-- I don't want to just focus on tactics. I want to focus on-- on news, on developments--
You bet.
Where in the budget deal is there room for compromise?
David, first I think it is important to-- to look at the steps that all the sides are taking toward one another. So at your end-- you know, much not to like about the Bush tax cut deal, but it was compromised. The House-- early in the year decided they weren't going to use the debt c-- the threat of repudiating debt as leverage anymore.
That was positive. The Senate said, "We'll write a budget again," for the first time in ordinary course since 2009. I think this week you're going to find us working out-- an FY 13 budget. You know, we've been working up C.R. because we couldn't reach an agreement. You're going to see both sides work that out.
And you're going to start to see both Houses put out their budgets-- laying out visions for how to keep the economy strong and also deal with the deficit. The two House budgets will be different. We put our paychecks on the line. If we don't pass budgets off the House floors by mid April, we'll all stop getting paid.
And then we'll have a conference where we can put the two visions on the table. But I-- but I do agree with what-- you know, with what Tom said at the end of the day, we're going to have to find a balanced solution, and it will involve all elements. It will involve talking about revenues, talking about expenses, talking about entitlements, we have to do that.
So Joe Scarborough is-- a elder statesman in your party in many ways--
--before. (LAUGH)
I know, I can't believe I just said that. No, but if somebody (LAUGH) who's trying to think differently about the party and where it goes. Why did it change? Here was the president earlier this year being asked about socializing with Congress, but about reaching across the aisle, about trying to form different kinds of-- coalitions. This is what he said then?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I like Speaker Boehner personally. And, you know, when we went out and played golf, we had a great time. But that didn't get a deal done in 2011.
(End videotape)
And so-- but now it changed. Now he's trying something different. Why do you think he's changing it up?
He's been here long enough.
To figure it out. To figure out that actually the things that he brushed aside schmoozing or golfing or that special sauce that he was talking about derisively, he understands that governors like Tim Kaine and governors like Chris Christie have to do that every day. He's known Tom Coburn for a very long time, he's starting to talk to Tom again. I think that's very important.
But it matters. You know, I always go back to the 1990s and talk about the fact-- I-- I-- I remember the first time I met Erskine Bowles. I said, "Man, I can't stand your boss," he was Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. He said, "That's all right, Congressman. He hates you too." But, you know, look what we did together, Tom, myself.
We didn't care for the president. The president didn't care for us. We didn't understand each other. Yet, we balanced the budget for the first time in a generation, four years in a row for the first time since the '20s, welfare reform, tax reform, I mean, you've-- you've got to do that. And I remember talking to Bill Clinton this past year, because David Axelrod-- this always made David Axelrod angry when we'd talk about how Bill Clinton and Congress. He'd always go, "But you impeached him."
And Bill Clinton said, "Yeah, but even on that day, I was talking to Newt Gingrich on the phone about Iraq and protecting the American people." That's what we have to do today, even if the president doesn't like Congress and vice versa, they can get along and put the country's interest ahead of their own party--
So let's talk to, you know-- a couple members of Congress, a little bit newer-- to Washington, Congresswoman, again, if there's a negotiation that's going on in a slightly cooler atmosphere where we're not in the middle of fiscal crisis, do you sense more inclination to get something done?
Absolutely. I-- I really see great opportunity here-- for a few reasons. One is because you don't have these kind of created crises that are constantly happening. It creates an opportunity for those of us who have come here with a very clear mandate from people in our districts, both Republicans and Democrats that we want to see action. We want to see you guys sit down, spend some time together, and talk through things.
And in order for that to happen, there has to be a basic level of respect, sincere-- discussion, listening, and consideration. And there will be things of course we disagree on, but there will be things that we can agree on. And that's really where the opportunity I see that lies ahead.
But Congressman, I would gather on some of this budget talk, particularly it-- well, let me ask it this way. Is there any-- any ratio of spending cuts to tax increases that you could accept or vote for?
Well, the president got over $600 billion worth of taxes at the beginning of this year. We know that this town has a spending problem. We're going to have record revenues in 2013 as the-- the ec-- economics have already shown, the economists have already shown. And so the bottom line is this: what can we do to bring spending under control? We've spent it, we have record revenue this year, it's already been taxed, now it's time to reduce spending and get this country growing economically again.
And-- and Senator Coburn, this-- this question of spending and even the impact of this sequester is something that you've taken on-- with-- on Twitter and elsewhere where we're talking about sequester, you've identified lots of areas where spending can be cut. And this is where you disagree with the president who thinks that ultimately the sequester is going to have economic-- harm, that there's no way around it.
Well-- you know, that's just-- a difference of opinion. We need to give the president and his administration some flexibility with the sequester. But I-- I've spent eight years looking at every spending item in the federal government. And we waste easily $200 billion a year in totally ineffective of duplicative programs.
So-- to say-- and I-- look, I'm not going to stop peppering them. I've got an ammo drawer full of things to complain about when they're going to say, "We're not going to have enough people in the F.A.A. towers." Or they can't-- get a ship back refueled, I can-- I can show them all the things-- the stupid things they've done over the last two years that we can stop doing that we can do everything that we need to do in this country.
So-- the-- look, the real problem, David, is-- Washington's dysfunctional, but it's dysfunctional in a dysfunctional way. Members of Congress and the administration agree on too much. We agree on spending money we don't have, we agree on not oversighting the programs that should be oversight. We agree on continuing to spend money on programs that don't work or are ineffective.
I mean, we-- basically, we agree on too much. We need to-- move back and start agreeing about how-- what's the long-term plan and how do we oversight this government to get real value of the things that are legitimate roles for the government for the American people--
You know, I think Tom Coburn and I both wrote a book in 2004 separately without knowing about, complaining about in 2004 how Republicans were spending too much. We've gotten to where we've gotten, because as Tom said, both sides have agreed for too long over the past decade on the same things. Spending a lot of money without paying for it.
You know, Barack Obama, I-- I've got to say, and I-- I agree with Tom again, I think a great sign is that the president is now talking privately about Medicare and the crisis that we face in Medicare. Because remember during the State of the-- Union, he said, "Oh, well, we can make some modest adjustments to Medicare."
Go back and see what he said in 2006, 2007, 2008. When he said Medicare was the real crisis. Social security was the real crisis. He said we were stealing from future generations. If the president will talk about that, if we will get-- a grand bargain that's going to take care of the generational theft that's going on, Republicans will-- will agree--
--Congresswoman, that the-- the president hasn't talked about it. I mean, the president has been talking about it, he's been talking about it with Republican leadership, but ultimately has not been committing to anything that-- that even his own party could-- could agree to and in some ways has committed to some things that the party disagrees with on--
Right-- and--
--reducing benefits.
Exactly. And I think that's why it's important that the-- first of all, these conversations are happening. I think frustration by the American people and frustration by members of Congress of-- as well have stemmed from the fact that a lot of these debates have taken place on TV or on the House floor and not had-- very meaningful discussion so we can figure out areas we can agree on.
Areas that Senator Coburn has identified, waste within Medicare that we can agree needs to be cut. Issues like prescription drug negotiations from Medicare to bring the cost down. I think everyone agrees that the-- the rising cost of healthcare is the driver, one of the main--
But how do you--
But how do you react to your own colleague here who is saying as many conservatives do, "We're done. We're done on revenue." And that's why I keep asking this question, I mean, there's really no ratio, no matter how much there is-- you know, of spending cuts, that Republicans in your chamber will agree to in any new revenues, even if it comes from tax reform. How do you try to bridge that divide?
Well, I think that's where we really have to be creative and talk through what are the options that are out there. When we talk about-- making it so that Medicare nego-- can negotiate with these pe-- prescription drug companies. That right there is on average around $14 billion a year. We look at some of the major tax loopholes that exist. Again, I-- I appreciate the work that Senator Coburn has done and-- and read a lot of it to see where are these areas that we can agree that we can cut back.
But Da-- but--
--working on a budget right now, just, you know, if they're going to talk about spending, and we need to, and as a governor, I had to cut a lot of spending, we ought to look at the spending through the tax code as well. And that does offer us an opportunity. Senator Coburn has done some really good work to point out we are giving away in the tax code about $1.3 trillion a year in a series of loopholes, deductions, credits, exceptions. I mean, if you just reduce that loophole amount by a modest percentage, then you can find a balanced way to start to deal with the deficits--
But, if you--
And-- and many Republicans in the Senate are open to that strategy.
David, if you're a House Republican though, or even a Senate Republican, and you go home this spring to town hall meetings, and you're already talking about raising taxes again, your-- your people are going to say to you, "Wait, well hold on a second. You already raised taxes once this year. And then you cut defense spending." And the president's still saying, "We don't have to do anything about Medicare, about Medicaid, about social security? I'm sorry, it's the president's move. He needs to stay publicly and give--
--congressmen and congresswomen, getting -- got to give them some cover. And the president won't do that publicly. When he does, then anything's possible.
And for the past-- two months, we've been going through-- the fights over the sequester, across-the-board spending cuts. The American people saw their taxes increase by 2%. Eighty percent of households, nearly 80% of households across this country saw their taxes increase by 2%, some by far more than that. And now government's just asking itself to reduce its spending by a little over 2%.
And yet that has been a paralyzing fight in this town. I think what-- what time will tell whether this overture, whether the president's attempt to rebuild relationships, or to in many cases build relationships with Congress for the first time, is truly genuine. I hope they are. But the last time that-- we witnessed-- Paul Ryan be invited to-- a speech that the amer-- the-- the president was giving before-- the American public, he then turned around and chastised him. The last time we went over to the White House, the president lectured us. And so I hope that he's genuine, but I don't think we're going to be doing the Harlem Shake any time soon thing. I think we can actually--
--use this chance to see what's going to happen.
I think the big issue though, you know, we can-- we can ask the president to do more, but the only fix of Congress is Congress's to fix. And most Americans, they don't look at the president-- cy and say, "It's broken," or, "The judicial branch is broken." But they do look at Congress and say that it's broken. And so that means it's up to Cory and Tulsi and Tom and me and our colleagues to finally get off the gimmicks, the-- you know, the sequesters, the C.R.'s, the super committees, and get back to formal--
Senator Coburn, I want to go back to you. You know-- we-- I'm-- I'm struck by your line that-- that-- that Washington can't even get dysfunction right, which is really a sad state of affairs. But, you know, there was also a tendency to-- to hand-wring in Washington, talk about how bad it is. And I remember at one of the-- more contentious things I covered back in the Senate, and that was-- in 1856 in the Kansas-Nebraska Act--
Yeah, yeah.
--when there was an actual caning. And you have the image of a caning on the Senate floor, and of this contentious debate and-- Sumner involved, of course, and there was a speech that was-- critical of someone's cousin. And there was a caning on the Senate floor. You fast forward and what gets attention these days is the use of the filibuster. Here was Rand Paul-- this week on the drone policy, here's a piece of what he did.
I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan's nomination for the C.I.A. I will speak until I can no s-- no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes.
(End videotape)
And it was 13 plus hours. He got pretty high marks actually--
He's a rookie.
--thirteen hours? Come on.
And there was some bipartisan support, if not substantively, at least for the use of the filibuster. Are we really as bad as we say we are, Senator?
No, but-- but the-- the first thing you heard was because he filibustered, and he actually did it the way they want him to do it, they actually go out there and spent the time and speak-- complaining about the filibuster again. The-- look-- Adams talked about and Madison talked about the tyranny of the majority. The reason the Senate is designed the way it is is to make sure that minority rights are always protected.
And, you know, quite frankly, is we've gone from a little bit of being spoiled when you have 60-plus Senators to not get in your way every time, and then when the rules are used to actually create an issue that is important to senator like Rand Paul and spend time on it, I think was very-- regardless what you think about the issue, it's very important American people see the human side and the issues and the debates about important-- whether it's a civil liberty, or whether-- an issue on spending, that we actually spend the time to do it.
You know, the-- the-- the Senate spends 70% of its time in-- in-- a quorum call, which is nothing positive. So, you know, I th-- I think this was a great opportunity for some-- a young, new-- two-year-- two-- a sophomore senator to make his point. And he got a lot of support for it, whether you agree with him or not. That's what the Senate was designed to do.
Let me ask--
--to actually come out there--
That-- no longer--
--to-- to two members of Congress who were not actually around after the attacks of 9/11, you weren't in Congress yet. And this whole debate about drones and presidential power, would you as members of Congress like to see Congress have a real debate about whether the president still should have the same level of authority he has in this realm of executive power, national security, to fight this War on Terror, as President Bush got from Congress? Should Congress have the guts to step up and have that debate?
Well, I'd like to see a real debate on many things in Congress, especially this issue.
I think the issue over drones, authority of the president when it comes to war powers, executive powers-- actions in Iraq, Iran, what's happening in the United States with drones and-- and the failure of this administration to answer-- Senator Paul's questions in a timely fashion. And so I would like to see that debate. And I think Congress needs to reinsert itself into its constitutional role.
As a veteran, Congresswoman, do you think the president should have all the authority that President Bush first received after 9/11?
Well, and-- and see, this-- this is-- an area where Cory and I agree. We have a great responsibility in Congress. And-- and-- from my background and my experience, I obviously come in-- with-- with a first-hand perspective on the value of these counterterrorism tactics and strategies-- during a time of war overseas in enemy territory.
And that being the appropriate place for them, not here on American soil. And-- and it is our responsibility to hold hearings, because it's an important discussion that the American people are very concerned about, as are we. And we have to set the parameters for what the-- what the measures will be.
I actually thought that was one of the highlights of what I've seen coming out of the Senate in quite some time, where you had somebody going on the floor, and it wasn't about tactics, it was about an issue that matters a lot to a lot of us. You know, I've been concerned for some time that the president has been able to-- to have drone attacks, again, with very little supervision. The New York Times reported he's got a kill list.
He decides who he's going to-- to target and who he's not. You not only had an American citizen killed overseas, you then had an American citizen's son killed overseas while-- who's at a restaurant. The response as to why he was killed was be-- from-- from a White House official was "Because he should've had a better father," this is problematic.
And when Rand Paul asks, "Does the United St--" and asks-- "Is-- is-- Eric Holder, does the United States have the right to kill an American citizen on American soil with a drone?" And the White House drags their feet, that's really problematic--
--I think Rand Paul did a great service.
Let me get in, I have about a minute left here, and I want to-- I just-- bring in another thing that has to do with tone, my conversation with Jeb Bush. And-- and we talked about-- the-- the tone that a president can set, but it also speaks to whether and how-- the minority party should compromise at this particular juncture. Let me show you a piece of that interview.
Isn't it interesting though, you're sitting at the Reagan Library as we talk-- today, and yet the president you speak of and so many conservatives do, raised taxes, was for immigration reform, that a lot of modern-day conservatives would-- would find quite distasteful. Could he exist? Could he get elected in today's Republican party? Or would he be seen as a liberal?
He also stopped the-- the advancement of the federal government's overreach, he cut taxes-- in a dramatic way, he had-- he found common ground to extend the-- the life of social security. He did all this in a way that didn't violate his principles, but he was-- he also didn't try to demonize his opponent-- he embraced them. He embraced his opponents and-- and because of that, found a lot more common ground. So the-- the-- the climate was different then than it is today, but we could restore that climate. And I think that'd be very positive for our country.
(End videotape)
The rest of that interview coming up in a few minutes. Senator Kaine, I think it's an appropriate note to end on.
Has President Obama learned from that?
I th-- I think he does. And look, I think this has been a good discussion, and I'm seeing it in the Senate now. Don't demonize your opponents, stand up for your principles. But Virginians tell me everywhere I go around sequester or anything else, "Just go to Washington and make a deal." You know, w-- however the deal is cut, if you can compromise and work together with the other side, I had to do it with two Republican House w-- when I was governor, and that's what we all ought to be doing together. And, you know, hey, spring is in the air. So maybe--
So Senator Coburn, is there something different? I know you've been critical of the president for demonizing Republicans. Do you sense anything is different? I'm not just talking about one dinner. But I'm talking about different portals for discussion and-- and compromise?
Well, I think-- you know, I think-- if you sit back and look at where we are and-- and the problems in front of us and whether or not this president, my friend, is going to lead the country in solving problems that will make a major difference in everybody's life ten years from now, and for him not to do everything to try to solve that-- is ridiculous. So I, you know, I think he gets it.
And I think he's genuinely reaching out. But-- you know, you got a lot of-- you got a lot to scabs and sores on people that it's going to take some li-- a while for that to heal. And-- if-- if we're consistently reaching out and consistently working, people in the Senate-- the Senate's not near as dysfunctional as it's made out to be, because there's great relationships in the Senate. Our problem in the Senate is the leadership of the Senate-- not the members of the Senate.
All right, I'm going to have to make that the last word. Thank you all very much, to be--
09:23:59:00 Thank you.
09:23:59:00 --continued. And-- I appreciate your comments this morning.
09:24:02:00 Can you believe it could only go 13 hours? DAVID GREGORY:
I'm still shocked by that--
I'm still shocked. We could go--
We have take-- training for that--
--endlessly. Coming up here, the debate started by Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg, about women and success at work, why is she a target instead of a role model? Joining me, former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers, Republican Congresswoman from Tennessee Marsha Blackburn, Senior Strategist for the McCain/Palin campaign back in 2008 Steve Schmidt, and columnist for The Washington Post, Ruth Marcus. And in a few minutes, my conversation with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as well. We're coming back after this break.
From politics to a new pope, around here when we talk about covering an election, we're using referring to primaries and caucuses. But next week, it's all about the conclave. Late last week, the Vatican announced that the process to elect the next pope will start Tuesday. It won't be the electoral college, per se, but the college of cardinals.
After celebrating mass at Saint Peter's Basilica, the 117 cardinals that are eligible to vote will process to the Sistine Chapel where they will sit and pray before casting their ballot. The magic number here is 77, which is a two-thirds plus one majority. The voting can stretch over several days, including a pause for prayer after every third day. For Pope Benedict, it took four ballots over two days.
The first sign that new pope has been selected, white smoke from the chimney. Coming here up, my interview with Jeb Bush and the debate with Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg sparked about women and the workplace that have so many people talking.
Yeah, that's the book right there, Lean In by Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook, that's gotten a lot of people talking, you're talking about it, we're talking about it. And I'm going to do it with former White House House Press Secretary for President Clinton, Democratic strategist, and author of Why Women Should Rule the World, Dee Dee Myers, former advisor to the 2008 McCain presidential campaign Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, columnist for The Washington Post Ruth Marcus, and Congresswoman from Tennessee and author of the book Life Equity: Realize Your True Value and Pursue Your Passions at Any Stage in Life, Marsha Blackburn, welcome to all of you.
I've gotten great advice on leading this discussion this morning from my wife Beth, who says, "Just keep quiet and let others speak." So I-- I-- I-- I-- I want to raise this, and I think the thing that struck me as I really followed this this weekend, look at Time Magazine where Sheryl Sandberg is on the cover. And what's the headline, "Don't hate her because she's successful. Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg and her mission to reboot feminism." And Ruth Marcus, isn't it amazing that her blueprint for how women getting successful at work is greeted with the word "hate."
"Don't hate her."
Right. And as we were saying, "Don't hate--" nobody would ever say about a man, "Don't hate him because he's successful." Look, if nature abhors a vacuum, it loves a good cat fight. And she is attractive, she is smart, she is young, she's impossibly rich and impossibly successful.
What's not to get the claws out? And-- and I blame actually for a change, us women, because she said something provocative. She said something worth debating, that why is it that we need to debate it by sort of acting as if we've passed around a note in junior high school saying, "Hey, everybody, let's be mean to Sheryl today."
Why is the instinct, Congresswoman-- for women to be resentful of this sort of advice? Is it a sense that it's incomplete? She doesn't get it? She comes from, you know, different circumstances? What? How do you describe that?
I-- I think that women are constantly pushing to get the recognition that they so rightly deserve. And so we have talked, you've always got to be twice as prepared as any man, as you go into a room and participate in a debate. And-- I'm a huge cheerleader, I'm so thrilled Sheryl wrote her book.
And I am pleased that Dee Dee has-- done her documentary and done her book. And I like that Ruth is out there talking about it and stay supporting us. And, you know, I-- I-- I think that what women have to do is realize it takes all of us pushing and being that trailblazer, pushing through that ceiling, in order for others to come along on that path. Somebody's got to go first.
Let me define it as simply as I can what I think the major thrust of this advice is from Sheryl Sandberg. What does "leaning in" mean? She talks about it with Norah O'Donnell on 60 Minutes over at CBS this evening. Here's a piece of that.
they start leaning back, they say, "Oh I'm busy. I want to have a child one day. I couldn't possibly, you know, take on anymore. Well, I'm still learning on my current job." I've never had a man say that stuff to me.
\You're suggesting women aren't ambitious.
I'm not suggesting women aren't ambitious. Plenty of women are as ambitious as men. But I am saying, and I want to say it unequivocally and unapologetically, that the data is clear that when it comes to ambition to lead, to be the leader of whatever you're doing, men, boys, outnumber girls and women.
(End videotape)
So the-- the-- the point is that women, she argues, lean back too often too early, they don't lean in. They don't demand that seat at the table. So my understanding of it is to say, look, she's saying ignore male colleagues, or those messages they're sending you, ignore a lot of the societal messages about leaning back as a woman, and really lean in here at work, in your career, whatever you want to do.
Yeah, I think one of the things that she does-- we're all very familiar with the external obstacles to women's success. We-- Marsha was just talking about one of them, which is that you're expected to be twice as good. But what she really focuses on, because she-- and she acknowledges every single one of those and says she's bumped up against every single one of them.
But what she's really focusing on is what are the internal obstacles that hold women back? What do we do to ourself? And we all know those are true too. Women don't raise their hands for promotion, they don't raise their hand to run for office. I don't know why you ran, but so many women think, "Well, I'll just wait a couple more years, if I just become a little bit more of an expert on this policy issue, I'll be ready to run."
When they're really ready, and the men who are less prepared are already out there in the campaign. Women who are executives see all the time in women who they think are talented and qualified are not promoting themselves, they're not doing what the men are doing in order to try to get that next big job. So--
Well, and women-- yeah, women kind of wait to be invited.
And-- men just push their way through. And I think that that's kind of the difference.
And-- and I think this is her big contribution to the debate, which is helping make us more aware of how we do this to ourselves, granted the external obstacles that we're worried about looking rude at a roundtable if we interrupt somebody. And-- and-- and in the sort of longer term, we-- may be thinking about, "Well, what if I'm-- a associate at a law firm and I might get married some day and I might have children. So do I then--" and she talks about leading before you lead.
I think it's really important. But I also think it answers the question, David, of why it's so controversial, which is this is something that hits all of us close to home. If we're deciding to stay home with our children, we could feel criticized by this. So that is not her intention. If we don't have the flexibility-- or the-- the luxury of choosing to stay home, which most women don't, they're working because they need the paycheck, we could feel criticized and resentful of her. And so because she's talking about something that really hits at the core of our being, I think is why the hate word comes out--
You know, in the realm of positive, I can just bring Steve in on this, I mean, here, you-- you're--
Poor Steve.
--you were instrumental.
--a voice in this, maybe some pers-- perspective on it, and look, in a political realm, you worked closely with Sarah Palin. One of the things that strikes me about Sarah Palin, here was a conservative women who was a, you know, relatively new governor, and she-- she jumps into this huge new level of presidential politics. And she was living a life that really Sheryl Sandberg is advocating.
Her husband Todd was in-- by her side, a true partner in what they were doing, and totally supportive in a way that Sheryl Sandberg says you have got to have in a partner if you're going to be able to lean in and be successful in the way that she was.
Absolutely. And-- and Todd Palin was a full partner and he's a great partner. He was in-- in a lot of ways in my view, a person who made her career possible as a gubernatorial candidate, a governor, ultimately as a vice presidential candidate. But I think that's true in any successful marriage, whether it is the fully-supportive female partner or the fully-supportive male partner.
The reality is, is no one knows what goes on in anyone else's marriage. But for there to be success, for there to be happiness on this one lap around the track we all get, you want to have full partnership. And I think in any organization-- where women are not at the table-- where it is skewed male, in today's day and age, that's an organization that's deficient. That's an organization that's going to have problems.
It's one of the problems we have structurally in the Republican party. We don't have enough women at the table. But any company, any organization in today's day and age that doesn't give equal opportunity to women, that doesn't advance-- women to the table, is going to be an organization that has differently competing.
And isn't that interesting, Congresswoman? You talk about-- I mean, there-- there is the-- the culture in the Republican party about the next in line. Well, women aren't always the next in line.
Well, that's exactly right. And what women have to do is jump the queue. And sometimes that causes resentment from men and other women also because if you are too aggressive or if you are outspoken in a manner that a man would be, then you are looked at as being too much so for a woman. But you do have to jump that queue because we have not had enough women stepping up to move to that national forefront and being on a national ticket.
And you have to kind of make your way. You can't wait to be invited. You have to go back and build on the skill set that you have. And the-- as Ruth is talking about, and then you have to have not only a supportive husband, but a supportive family.
One of the points that-- that-- that Sheryl Sandberg makes is that success correlates negatively with likeability. The more--
Successful you are--
Right, yeah.
--the less likeable you are.
For a woman.
For a woman. Not for a man. There's-- there's no problem being successful man. And that women just have to bite the bullet on that cultural-- reality.
But does that mean--
--more like a man?
But also--
--that was the article points out that you-- she's saying that you sh-- that women should act more like a man in the workplace?
Well, no--
I don't think that's what she says. I--
I don't think she's saying that either.
--suspect she's saying is--
I don't either.
--you need to be aware of that negative correlation--
--between success and likeability and--
--or own way to navigate it. You don't need to--
And you're interrupting me and and that is really unattractive in a woman Go for it, lean in.
Once you point out that q-- fact, that people correlate likeability, success, and say, "Hey, you're penalizing this successful person because she's a woman." But it changes that dynamic. And so by talking about it, by elevating the issue, by pointing it out to people, you can begin to address it.
Well, and part of it is that some men are not comfortable, even in this day and age, they're not comfortable with having a woman as a decision maker. And so-- you-- that-- that kind of clouds the issue.
How do men respond to this? I mean, I think there's an aspect in-- in any workplace where, you know, men if they're in-- in-- in truly equal partnerships with their wives are-- are, you know, thinking about their own schedules or sort of putting this on the agenda in some way. And then the other question I talk about with my wife is, you know, what is it that we want for our daughters?
Do we want Sheryl Sandberg to be part-- of the spectrum of choices? I mean, this is-- absolutely hope that this is somebody that you can become? You may choose to do something else, you may choose to stay at home and raise kids. And that's great too. But this is certainly someone that you should emulate.
I have two daughters. I don't want there to be any limits on their horizons. I want them to achieve at the highest level of their abilities, to do whatever they want to do. My wife made the decision to give up her career to stay home with our children. I think that's admirable work. I think it's to be admired.
And in our marriage and our partnership, that's what works for us. But-- but we don't want women to have any low horizons, that-- that they are forced to make decisions because there are limits out there that have been imposed. And I think certainly for people of my generation, I'm 42 years old, we've been accustomed-- over my entire work life to working with women.
And in-- in the firm that I work for-- women represent what we have for the senior leadership of the company. They're vital to the success of-- of the firm. And so I do think that when you look at-- you look at women in politics, you look at women in business, you look forward to the day when we will have a woman president and the glass ceiling is-- is finally shattered, that-- that there will just be more and more opportunities as-- as the years unfold--
Can you-- we were talking about-- do you feel like this has started something? And what is the it that it has started?
Well, it-- it has continued what I think of as the endless national discussion about women and gender and the workplace and family. It started 50 years ago, Betty Friedan, and I suspect that, not us, but somebody's going to be sitting here 50 years from now having the same conversation.
Interestingly, I asked my daughter who's a senior in high school, I told her I was writing about this book. I said, "Do you think about balancing work and family when you think about life?" And she said, "Absolutely, yes I do." And I said, "And do the boys in your grade?" And before I could get the words out of my mouth, she said, "No way."
They don't think about it at all.
This is really interesting. I want to say one thing about Sarah Palin. I-- I thought-- you talked about jumping the queue. You need-- we-- yes, queue jumping is important, it's really important that when women jump the queue, they're ready to jump the queue and they come with the background and expertise.
Right, well--
Otherwise, it sets everybody back.
Yeah, final point here, Marsha, then I've got to take a quick--
Yeah, women bring a diversity of experience. They travel a very circuitous route in their career. And they bring all of this wealth of information working the-- with their children, working in schools, all these to the table. And that is why I think they are more effective public policy makers many times than their male colleagues--
And you write about that in your book, and a good point to end on. We're going to continue our roundtable discussion in just a minute. We'll talk some politics, we'll talk about it with Jeb Bush when I talk to him in a moment and get reaction from our group right after this.
We are back and we're still talking about Sheryl Sandberg's book, but we're going to move on. We're going to have to get this conversation going again because there's a lot more to do. Earlier this week I spoke with former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who's out with a new book, aimed at tackling the controversial issue of immigration and of course we talked about his political future as well. Here's part of that conversation.
(Begin videotape)
You write in your book and it's a fairly hard line, "A grant of citizenship--" and that's the important word, "A grant of citizenship is an undeserving reward for conduct that we cannot afford to encourage." You got some tough press treatment in all of this this week as you talked about your book. The Miami Herald: "Jeb Bush reverses stance on immigration: No citizenship path for undocumented." The National Journal: "Jeb Bush's poorly timed flip-flop on immigration." Politico: "Bush takes a U-turn on pathway to citizenship." I reviewed some of the things you said before. Why did you change your view on this?
First of all, my view has been that, in order to get comprehensive reform, we could take either path; either a path to citizenship or a path to legalization. The important point is that illegal immigrants should not get better benefits at a lower cost than people that have been waiting patiently. So assume we pass the law this year -- and I hope that's the case -- five years from now we should look back, and there should be fewer people coming illegally because we have an open legal system. Both of those paths could create that, as long as you change the rest of the system as well. So what's going on in the Senate and in the House right now is very positive. I support what Senators Graham and Rubio and McCain and Flake are doing with their Democratic counterparts. And if they can find a way to get to a path to citizenship over the long haul, then I would support that. But this book was written to try to get people that were against reform to be for it. And it is a place where I think a lot of conservatives should feel comfortable, that there's a way to do this and not violate their principles.
You know, it's interesting: There's obviously a political component to this, about who wants what kind of deal and what does it mean as we move forward. After Romney lost, a lot of focus on the Hispanic vote in this country and the Republican Party's problem with Hispanics. It's interesting; one of the things that Romney says, right, to his donors after he loses is 'What the president's campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote.' That was with a campaign call with donors. Do you think there's a view -- and do you share it -- among Republicans that to allow illegal immigrants who are now in this country to become citizens would, in effect, be able to create all new Democratic voters that would deeply hurt the Republican Party's chances of winning national elections?
No, I don't believe that. I mean, if you look at Asian Americans, for example, In general, they have higher income than the median of our country, more intact families, more entrepreneurship, higher levels of education. And they supported President Obama 75-24; higher margins than with Hispanics. I think there's a problem that's a little bit bigger, and it goes back to my belief that we need to be offering a compelling alternative, an alternative that says that the lack of social mobility needs to be addressed, not by higher taxes and more government, but giving people the tools to rise up and to be successful; that an opportunity society is the path that we should be on. And that aspirational message could convince a lot of people that right now are supporting a more stasis kind of approach. But we have to have the alternative. We have to actually advance the cause of freedom and of entrepreneurship and of building capacity so people can freely pursue their dreams as they see fit ---
Should it be disqualifying for a candidate in the future if they've hired an illegal immigrant? Should that disqualify their run for office?
I don't know. That's – that's above my pay grade. I would hope that people try hard to make sure that they hire legal workers. It's the law.
In 1998 your father wrote a letter where he talked about your winning as governor of Florida made it quite clear that you were, without any doubt, gonna become a major political figure in the country. I, of course, know the family by covering your brother in the White House for eight years. And the joke -- I don't know if it's true -- was always that your mom always thought it was gonna be you before it would be him who'd be president. Do you think about not disappointing mom as you think about a run for higher office?
I don't know what my mom's view on this. I'm not gonna ask her either because I don't wanna begin the process to think about it until it's the proper time to do so. I'm proud of my family. My son is running for statewide office in Texas; now I know what my dad feels like when he wrote those letters about George and I.
How about the legacy of the Bush presidency? You'll be part of his library that's opening. It's hard to imagine that he's already at the point of having a presidential library -- but here he is. How do you think views are emerging about the Bush presidency, the second Bush presidency?
Well, I mean, it's hard to -- hard to see. I can only attest to how people view my dad now. A lot of his accomplishments were overshadowed by the '92 election. And over time, people began to view my dad in a different light than they did shortly after his tenure as president. Now, I think, everywhere I go at least, he's a beloved guy. And for good reason, because he's a spectacular human being. In his four years as president a lot of amazing accomplishments took place. So my guess is that history will be kind to my brother, the further out you get from this and the more people compare his tenure to what's going on now. I think -- I think history will be kind to George W. Bush.
Governor, before I let you go, who's the hottest Florida politician right now; is it you or Marco Rubio? Who are we more likely to see in the White House?
Man, you guys are crack addicts. You really are obsessed with all this politics. Marco Rubio's a great guy --
You know, I've been called a lotta things --
Okay, heroin addict. Is that better? I mean, put aside the politics for a moment. We've got big challenges, and Marco Rubio, to his credit, is working on those. And he deserves a lot of credit for it, and I'm very proud of him.
All right, well, more questions for a different day. Governor Bush, thank you.
Take care.
(End videotape)
We can't put aside the politics. It's just not possible. We're back with our roundtable. Steve Schmidt-- an interesting week for 2016 potential candidates. We put them on our corkboard here, everyone from Rand Paul and then Jeb Bush-- a lot of activity. How did Jeb Bush come out of the gate, if this was-- if that's what this was?
Well, he had a rough week politically because he reversed his position on immigration. But it won't matter in the long run. It's not the first politician to do a flip flop-- you know, get him ready for a presidential run. But it's important to remember, he's always been a voice of reason on this immigration issue. He's always been a voice of reform. He's one of the deep policy thinkers in the Republican party. He was an extraordinarily effective governor of the state of Florida. And if he decides to run for president, he will be a very, very formidable candidate.
What about Rand Paul? I mean-- so much praise really-- bipartisan praise for Rand Paul as really beginning something, of a more youthful, grass-roots conservative movement that could run-- end up being a run 2016.
Well, it was fun to watch the filibuster. I thought he was filibustering about the wrong question. That he was filibustering about the notion that we could be sitting here and drones could rain down us-- on us from the sky. That's not the real question about drones. The real question about drones is what's happening overseas, what are-- how much, where, what authorization, what legal basis.
But it is nice to see a real filibuster and it is nice to-- and-- and it-- it just illustrates some of the divisions in the Republican party, social conservatives, liberal conservatives, isolationist, neocons. And-- strong executive branch conservatives like George W. Bush versus, "Get the government out of my business" conservatives like Rand Paul.
We're talk-- I really disagree. He-- he did ask an important question, and that is, are there limits to executive power under our current war footing situation domestically? He got the wrong answer, an equivocal answer from the White House, as a matter of principle--
He got a no. And he wouldn't take the no--
--he went off of-- he got-- he got a firm answer after he did this. But for sure, I think Rand Paul arrived as a national figure.
Let me get-- co--
--Congresswoman, I just-- I-- I want to change it slightly before I let you-- all of us go here, which is Ashley Judd is--
This morning that she wants to run in Kentucky to challenge Mitch McConnell. She's of course, actually has residency in Tennessee. How do you--
One of--
--as a prospect?
She is one of my constituents. She is--
--is a friend of mine and on election day on November, Ashley and I stood at the polls and snapped a picture and tweeted it out.
Could she win?
It shows that-- people who have differences of opinion, if she runs, she will run hard. And knowing that family, they are very tenacious and spirited.
Wow. How 'bout-- that's a fabulous non-answer. We're going to leave it there, a bit of a break, we'll be back in a moment.


text:
Yoga Records proudly presents
"The Crippled Dog Band"
The year was 1983, and Bobb Trimble had two then-unrecognized masterpieces to his credit and a lot of confusion and indifference from his fellow travelers in the Worcester, MA "Wormtown" scene. Never one to worry much about appearances, Bobb accepted an invitation to join a group of teenage boys who called themselves The Crippled Dog Band, named after Boopsie, a three-legged canine local. Bobb donned the title of Chief Crippled Dog and led the Band on enthusiastically received gigs throughout the region. Unbeknownst to almost anyone, they completed a raucous album full of addictive hooks, feedback, teen chatter and video game noises. But soon the Band splintered and Bobb decided to forget about the whole thing, disposing of the entire 500-count LP pressing in an office park dumpster. All of which would be nothing more than a typically weird footnote to the Bobb Trimble legend, except for the fact that The Crippled Dog Band is very different from, but every bit as remarkable and brilliant as Iron Curtain Innocence and Harvest Of Dreams. Having proved himself, if only to himself, this is where Bobb stops chasing glass menagerie fantasies of perfection, tempers the dread of his first two records, and reconnects with his DIY roots. This unique collaboration between "the greatest psychedelic musician of the 80s" and his scrappy acolytes yields pure rock and roll and the result is raw, crazy, and infectiously exciting. Yoga Records (Ted Lucas, Robert Lester Folsom, Dwarr) is proud to present, at last, The Crippled Dog Band as it was originally intended.
For those wondering, a few songs this album appear on the second side of the 2002 Life Beyond The Doghouse compilation (see discography below), and 'Galilean Boy' appears as a bonus on the recent Harvest Of Dreams CD (and on youtube). But this album also features previously unreleased songs like the incredible 'You Should See My Girl,' and never before heard superior takes of little-known classics like 'Fight Or Fall / Screw It.' All of it has been remasted under Bobb's direct supervision for the first time, and the difference is undeniable. Most importantly, The Crippled Dog Band is, like Iron Curtain Innocence and Harvest Of Dreams, a highly idiosyncratic, conceptually-sequenced album greater than the sum of its parts. In other words, you need this.
Who is Bobb Trimble? "He's for real. Or should I say surreal?" -- excellent profile from the Guardian (UK)
Kris Thompson on Bobb Trimble at Terrascope Online.
"There is no one quite like Bobb Trimble in the world of rock and roll" -- review at Aquarium Drunkard.
The World Catches Up With Bobb Trimble -- article in Worcester Magazine.
Biography and reviews at Allmusic.
For up to date information about Bobb, concert dates, and more photos, please visit his facebook, myspace and twitter pages.
The Crippled Dog Band
1 Intro (0:23)
Two Sides Of...
1 One Mile From Heaven (short version) (4:07)
Harvest of Dreams
1 Premonitions -- The Fantasy
Iron Curtain Innocence
Life Beyond the Doghouse
|Jupiter Transmission
Paralell World, 1995
CD reissue compiles parts of the first two albums; no new material
1 Glass Menagerie Fantasies (5:52)
2 Night at the Asylum (4:55)
3 When the Raven Calls (6:38)
4 Your Little Pawn (4:02)
5 Premonitions (6:04)
6 If Words Were All I Had (4:26)
7 Armour of the Shroud (7:42)
8 You're in My Dreams (6:02)
9 Take Me Home Vienna (3:35)
10 Selling Me Short (4:24)
11 Paralyzed (6:18)
12 Another Lonely Angel (5:04)
13 One Mile from Heaven (4:07)
Harvest of Dreams
Iron Curtain Innocence
Also, check out the November 14, 2003 edition of WZBC's Test Pattern. This hour long radio special about Bobb's music was hosted by Bobb's friend Kris Thompson (pictured). All tracks are original album versions unless otherwise noted:
1 Glass Menagerie Fantasies
Here's a video of 'Galilean Boy' performed by The Crippled Dog Band in Massachusetts, 1983.
Writings about Bobb
Aaron Milenski, co-author (along with Patrick the Lama and Ron Moore) of The Acid Archives, the definitve
book on American psychedelic music, writes, "There is no album I
own that has as much emotional complexity and depth as HARVEST OF DREAMS."
Psychedelic Music Database entry on Bobb.
Transmissions to...


text:
Supporters of Proposition 8 may already suspect the outcome of today"s ruling in the case challenging California"s ban on same-sex marriage.
In court papers filed Tuesday night, lawyers for the Proposition 8 defense team asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for a stay of his ruling if the outcome is to declare the law unconstitutional. The motion indicates that the Proposition 8 lawyers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling if Walker rules against them.
"A stay is essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California," they wrote.
The San Francisco judge"s ruling is expected to be released between 1 and 3 p.m. today.
Walker is ruling in the unprecedented trial of a lawsuit challenging Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples. The case marks the first federal court test of a state law banning gay marriage.
Walker has already refused to allow same-sex couples to marry while the legal challenge is pending, finding that it would create too much uncertainty in the state. Legal experts do not believe same-sex marriages will be permitted immediately, even if the judge overturns Proposition 8, because of the lengthy appeals ahead.
The case will not impact the roughly 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in 2008, before Proposition 8 went into effect and after a state Supreme Court ruling that briefly legalized same-sex nuptials.
Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236.


text:
Prize at the IMI 10th Anniversary Scientific Symposium
Congratulations to Eva Loth and Stefan Holiga!
Eva Loth from Kings College London and Stefan Holiga from Roche won the first prize for the best oral presentation at the IMI 10th Anniversary Scientific Symposium in Brussels on October 22.
At the symposium young scientists from IMI projects showcased the stellar science that IMI projects have been doing. Eva Loth and Stefan Holiga presentation was selected out of 72 posters and 28 oral presentations.
They presented the LEAP Study that was part of the project EU-AIMS.
The entire presentation can be found here: The EU-AIMS Longitudinal European Autism Project: Examples of novel approaches to biomarker discovery.


text:
8 Gallon Two Stage Combination- AG2-SK14-08M1
Increase your productivity by merging two vital pieces of equipment into one versatile machine. Ideal for every industrial application requiring both air and electrical power, you'll save space and save money with one machine.
Compressor Pump: Quality cast iron two stage compressor · Durable stainless-steel braided discharge hose for longer life · Splash lubricated cast iron crankcase to extend the hours of performance · Cast iron head for heat dissipation · Large canister intake filter · Oil level sight indicator
Generator: Brushless alternator · Industrial 4000-watt generator with (2) 120V, 20A and (1) 240V, 20A receptacles ·Total harmonic distortion (THD) less than 5% ·100% copper windings
Engine: Industrial Kohler CH440 OHV engine
Frame: Powder coated 8-gallon twin tank receivers · 3/16-inch base plate to reduce vibration · 16-gauge powder coated two-piece belt guard with 1/4-turn release for quick access to belts
Components: Regulator and two gauges for tank and outlet pressure · Manual drain valves for proper maintenance · 16.5-inch flywheel for extra cooling and longer life · Quality pilot valve unloader · Belt tightening system pulls engine straight to ensure constant belt alignment


text:
Anyone who knows me at all knows my life is pretty much an open book. Ask me a question and chances are pretty good I'll answer it, no matter how personal or private the subject. (Note I said, "… chances are pretty good." There are some things I still hold sacred.)
Social media has made it even easier to share things – or harder to keep things to myself, however you want to look at it. Follow me on Facebook for just a few days and you're going to know more about me than you may have ever wanted to know. I went to a cousin's birthday party a few years ago and, at separate times, her mother, brother and father all commented about how all of Facebook would know what was happening at the party because I was there.
Facebook has made it easier to share.
For all it's benefits, though, there are some downsides to social media, too. While I personally think it's great to share some things – including an endless supply of snark and sarcasm – with my friends and family, there are some things that have always been private, and always will be. If I have a personal disagreement with someone I care about, you won't know about it by reading my Facebook timeline. I won't make vague posts about my unhappiness with someone close to me, or use Facebook as my personal aresenal to call names to or belittle any of my friends.
There are some things, however, where the line is kind of blurred – more specifically, health issues. Don't get me wrong, I have no trouble posting when I do something stupid that results in a doctor's appointment or a splint or a rehab boot – like breaking my pinky toe while putting on my pajamas, or hurting my knee when Mia the Newfoundland head-butted me to sway me in her direction. I post about my migraines, the flu, stupid head colds and achy bones.
But the big stuff? How do you handle that? The kind of stuff where you know it's serious, you know there are people who should know what's going on, but you don't want to post it on Facebook and look like you're trying to get attention. The I-went-to-the-hospital kind of stuff? It's not that I wouldn't post it – God knows I would – but when do you put it up for public consumption?
I faced this very issue earlier this week when I went to the emergency room following a "minor cardiac event." We're still not sure what it ended up being, but emergency room doctors told me I had all the indications of a minor attack, but a CT scan of my heart showed no damage and no clogged arteries.
The "event" happened while I was at work – and luck would have it that I work in the best hospital in the area. I was sitting at my desk working – nothing stressful, just writing, because that's what I do, I write. Suddenly I had this searing pain under my left breast, kind of like that side ache we used to get as kids when we'd run too much or too fast or for too long – kind of like that, but worse, and higher. It lasted for a good 8-10 minutes before it even started to subside. I tried doubling over, bending to the side, even standing up to make the pain go away and nothing worked. Once it finally did stop I was left with a pain in the back of my neck and in my left jaw.
The jaw pain was what stopped the 24-hour nurse from asking questions. Once I got to that, she told me to head to the ER immediately. So I did. When you go to the ER with complaints of chest pain, you get to go to the front of the line. No waiting in the waiting room, you get an EKG and then sent to a room. Not long into my stay they told me I'd be staying overnight for observation (that changed with the clean CT scan, but not until right at the last minute).
My first thoughts were to wait and see how everything came out before I told anyone, but I was already texting Mark about regular "stuff" when I got sent to a room, so I shot him an, "Oh, by the way, I'm in the ER getting my heart checked out" text. Classy, I know.
The more I chatted with Mark, the more I knew there were some people who had to know where I was. My kids. My parents. My list grew, but then the doubt started setting in: Do I tell others now, while I'm still here, or wait until I go home? Or at least until I get out of the ER and up to the room I thought I was going to be in? Do I post it on Facebook? No, I know I'd catch holy hell from quite a few people if that's where they first heard about it. If I tell people now, will it seem odd, like I'm an attention-seeker, or do I tell them now because they'll want to know? Who do I tell immediately, and who finds out on social media?
I don't know that I know the right answer even now. There were a handful of people who knew I was in the hospital on Monday, but most everyone found out later. Today, in fact, in an email I sent to some letting them know what happened so they'd hear it from me before reading about it in this blog or on Facebook.
So if you're offended because you're just hearing about this now, and this way, I'm sorry. I guess I'm still learning.
(The heart issue came out OK, no overnight stay – just orders to follow up and reduce stress. Ha! Yeah, right …)


text:
At first glance, Yao Lu's digital collages look like watercolor paintings of misty Chinese mountains. But upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the real subjects of these photographs aren't plant-covered hills but landfills, and the initial beauty of the images takes on an entirely different meaning.
Lu takes photographs of Chinese landfills covered in green protective netting and then digitally adds the sort of imagery we'd expect to see in a classic watercolor landscape: mist, trees, waterfalls, and the occasional building dotting the hills of trash. It's a clever way to use photo manipulation to convey his message about the natural world and how it is in danger of being displaced by the castoffs of urbanization.
You can see many more of the images from Lu's New Landscapes series at the Bruce Silverstein gallery.
Yao Lu [Bruce Silverstein via Ian Brooks]


text:
Superdome memos show power system recently upgraded, NFL reports power supply fluctuations during Beyoncé rehearsals.
Post by: Anderson Cooper, Brian Todd
Filed under: Super Bowl
Anderson Cooper goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from many points of view, so you can make up your own mind about the news. Tune in weeknights at 8 and 10 ET on CNN.
Questions or comments? Send an email
Want to know more? Go behind the scenes with AC361°


text:
- Home
- Bath & Body
- Hair Care
- Makeup
- Men's Cologne
- Skin Care
Women's Perfume
- Gift Sets
- Oils
You have no items in your shopping cart.
There are no products associated with this brand.
Business Hours:
Mon - Fri / 9:00AM - 5:00PM EST
* MSRP: Manufacture Suggested retail Price listed is provided by the manufacture of each brand. MSRP is a reference point we use to discount products sold online. There may not be substantial sales at MSRP.


text:
Microsoft has finally decided to kill off Soapbox, its relatively unknown YouTube competitor that never made it out of beta. Just last month, Microsoft said it would put the MSN user-generated video portal on the backburner. The software giant was looking for a way to find focus for the product: a way to sell content for ads as strategically as possible. The company has changed its mind, however, deciding instead to let the service burn away completely into obscurity.
"Today, we notified customers that on August 31, 2009, MSN will no longer offer MSN Soapbox," a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. "Beginning on July 29, customers will no longer be able to upload videos to Soapbox and we encourage any Soapbox user that wants to keep their videos to download them off of Soapbox prior to August 31. We will be communicating to our valued Soapbox community using several different methods to ensure that people are able to keep any video that is important to them."
Microsoft emphasized that the decision would only affect user-generated video: "Online video will remain a key part of the MSN offering," a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed to Ars. "MSN Video has 88 million unique users around the world, who watch 480 million video streams each month. We remain committed to delivering amazing experiences for consumers while keeping a keen eye on our business objectives during this tough economic climate."
The truth is that Soapbox never stood a chance. YouTube was always the place to go for user-generated videos, and while Soapbox did offer slight improvements in some areas, Google has been making sure to keep improving YouTube as well. With user-generated content, the winner is almost always the one with the largest userbase. YouTube had the edge in that department long before Google bought it, and definitely before Soapbox came into the picture.
Just by looking at its history and timing, Soapbox was more of a desperate attempt than a serious competitor. YouTube arrived on the scene in February 2005. Microsoft announced Soapbox in September 2006, and then Google purchased YouTube in October 2006. Soapbox only went public in February 2007, but a month later, Microsoft locked the service down for cleaning of copyrighted videos, finally reopening it in June 2007.


text:
The city had to import and install the Christmas tree in advance.
The Christmas tree is on Friday's main square in Bratislava. It is a 30-year-tall tall 14 m tall spruce and the town was handled by the town of Rača. For TASR, spokesman of Zuzana Onufer of Bratislava said that he would decorate the tree before opening the Christmas market, which begins on 23 November and ends on December 22.
The city had to move and plant the Christmas tree in advance, because this year the Christmas Market in the Old Town begins in the neighboring Hviezdoslav Square in front of the city on November 16th. So the city could no longer carry the tree to Main Square at a later date.
Source link


text:
Sociological Images has posted some interesting postcards that were campaigning against women's suffrage.
I find it fascinating that the implicit argument in these images is something like, "We can't give women the same rights and privileges that we have, because then they might try to do to us what we have been doing to them, and that is just INHUMANE."
I know the last bit doesn't follow unless you have an essentialized view of gender where somehow it is natural and proper for women to wash clothes and babysit, but it is improper and dehumanizing for men to do it.
I just find it funny, especially with the postcard of the three women sitting around a table play cards, smoking and complaining about their lazy husbands. There is an admission here of, "Yes, we men sit on our asses while our wives do all the work, but that is our RIGHT as men and husbands. When THEY do it, it's NOT FAIR and UNNATURAL."
It's amusing (in a sad way) to realize that the whole "equality for everyone!" slogan is so easily amended by the exception: "well, not for those people whose natural place is somewhere lower on the hierarchy." Or nowadays, it's more "Equality for everyone–except for those who haven't really earned it."


text:
Stupendous Sandcastles
Stupendous Sandcastles
An Imagination Station Activity
Materials needed:
- Sand
- Water
- Patience
- Pail or bucket
- Shovel or spade (optional)
- Plastic knife, and spoon (optional)
A Family Project
Sandcastle building is the ultimate family activity. As a rule, I've found that adults and elementary school-aged kids seem to get the most enjoyment out of the experience. Toddlers are too interested in eating the beach to be much help and older kids are too interested in the opposite sex to spend the day playing in the sand.
There is no wrong way to build a sandcastle. However, if you want to build a truly memorable sand structure, there are a few tricks of the trade that are worth knowing.
Next to fine sand and imagination, the essential ingredient of every good sandcastle is water. And lots of it. Dry sand is impossible to work with. Water acts as a glue to bind together individual grains and allow sculpted and molded sand to hold its shape.
Getting Started
Scout the shore for a level sandy area not too far from the water. But not so close that the incoming tide wipes away your work before it's finished.
Prepare your location by dousing it with several buckets of water. Next, over the wet spot, create a sand pile a few feet high and soak it with several buckets of water. Pack firmly. You've now created the platform for your castle.
The King's Tower
Once the base has been established, most folks work on constructing a central tower -- the higher the better. I like to call this the king's tower. Forget about using sand molds. They don't work. For a high tower to be strong enough to support its weight -- the sand needs to be very wet.
I like to use the "pile of pancakes" method of tower building. Using my hands, I create a patty of very wet sand, several inches thick. After the patty has been gently leveled and patted into shape, I make a new, slightly smaller patty on top of the one I just finished. Repeat the process until you've reached the desired height. The idea is to create a tall tapering tower with a wide base and narrow top.
Basic Shapes
Just about every sandcastle ever built is a combination or modification of two basic structures: towers and walls.
Towers can be clustered around the central tower in random or geometric patterns, such as a star design. Towers become the anchor points for your walls.
Walls are used to connect towers and they provide your castle with its classic appearance. I like to build my walls one handful of wet sand at a time. The method is simple: using both hands, scoop up as much wet sand as you can hold, gently press your hands together to squeeze out excess water and place the resulting sand clump where it's needed to create your wall. Walls grow higher as you stack one sand clump atop another. High walls need to be thick at the base and should narrow as they rise higher.
Arches are modified walls with large openings tunneled through them. After your wall is built, gently tunnel your way through at the base. Then enlarge and shape the opening into the form of an arch by shaving off thin layers of excess sand. Plastic knives, butter knives, or putty knives all make ideal shaping tools.
Ramps are also modified walls. Steep ramps can be shaped into staircases and gently sloping ramps become walkways. Steps are easily "carved" into a ramp's surface by using a straight edge tool to remove excess sand.
Tips Dribble towers are created by using very wet, almost liquid, sand and dribbling it out between your fingers.
Shaping tools for sandcastles are our hands for rough shapes and anything with a hard edge for finish work. Sandcastles are delicate! Remember that a gentle shaving method works better than gouging out huge chunks of sand. Also, a plastic knife and spoon are ideal tools to give texture and detail to your finished castle.
Sunblock is a must when building a sand structure (for you and the kids -- not the castle.) It's easy to spend hours playing in the sand and it's also easy to ignore the effects of the sun. I've gotten some of my worst sunburns building sandcastles.
Spray bottles can be employed to gently mist the castle walls and fine details. A few timely squirts with a spray bottle can keep your work from drying out and crumbling to dust in the hot sun.
Sandcastle Philosophy
Sandcastles are natural people magnets. The more complex and interesting your structure, the more folks will be attracted to your spot on the beach. Inevitably, the kids and I are asked the question, "Why spend so much time building something that's just going to be washed away by the tide?"
I answer by saying that sandcastles are very much like life. The joy comes from the process of living and building and not in the act of completion.
Was this article helpful?
This writer is a part of the FamilyEducation editorial team. Our team is comprised of parents, experts, and content professionals dedicated to bringing you the most accurate and relevant information in the parenting space.


text:
Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics is a global leader in in vitro diagnostics, providing healthcare professionals in hospital, reference, and physician office laboratories and point-of-care settings with the vital information required to accurately diagnose, treat, and monitor patients.
We offer systems and solutions across a broad spectrum of disciplines—immunoassay, chemistry, automation, hemostasis and hematology, blodd gas and electrolytes, diabetes, urinalysis, microbiology, and molecular. Our innovative portfolio of performance-driven solutions, unmatched test menu of more than 900 different tests, and personalized customer care streamlines workflow and enhances operational efficiency.
With more than 30,000 customers in 170 countries, we are focused on meeting and exceeding their clinical and business needs. Our systematic, customer-centered approach to product development is constantly shaped and strengthened by listening to customers and understanding their needs. Working closely with laboratories, clinicians, and hospital administrators, we create forward-thinking products and solutions that are shaping and transforming diagnostics—improving clinical outcomes and, ultimately, helping to improve patient care.


text:
Send Results to This Email:
Street Address:
Street Address:
You must be a subscriber to see the full results of your search.
Please log in or subscribe below if you are not already a subscriber.
The Daily News subscribers get full access to more than
million names and addresses along with powerful search and download features.
Get the business leads you need with powerful searches of public records and notices.
Download listings into your spreadsheet or database.
Learn more about our services
| Search again
A partnership of two Utah-based companies has acquired a medical office building on Union Avenue near Overton Square.
Trivalis LLC and Novalis LLC, both based in Utah, acquired the medical office building built in 1967 at 2076 Union Ave., next door to the IHOP restaurant, for $2.6 million. The property, at the corner of Union Avenue and Florence Street, was appraised at $1.3 million in 2013, according to the Shelby County Assessor of Property's office. The sellers, Missouri-based Roundabout Real Estate LLC and Visual Projects LLC, acquired the property in 2008 for $2 million.
Copyright 1995 -
by The Daily News Publishing Co. Inc. - All Rights Reserved


text:
Kelly Osbourne in "Food Rehab" After Split
Kelly Osbourne is going through a rough time after her split from her ex-fiance, Matthew Mosshart. The 'Fashion Police Star' has reportedly put herself in "food rehab" after gaining weight as a result of the breakup four months ago.
UK's Now Magazine reports that Osbourne had gained almost 20 pounds since she split with Mosshart. Mosshart, a vegan chef, reportedly encouraged Osbourne during their time together to adopt healthy eating habits. As part of her rehab, Osbourne will be undergoing a strict weight loss regime. In addition to better eating, the 29-year-old has also signed up for yoga and Pilates with a private instructor for five days a week.
Osbourne has reportedly been seeing Braydon Szafranski but tells the Daily Mail that she doesn't plan on jumping into a serious relationship just yet. "I plan on being single for a very, very long time. No, I don't think it's possible for someone to sweep me off my feet right now. I'm really enjoying my life."
We wish Kelly the very best and hope she reaches her goals for a happy and healthy life.