text:
Super Bowl 51 – Sunday, February 5, 6:30 PM, NRG Stadium, Houston, Texas
New England Patriots vs Atlanta Falcons
Buy Super Bowl Memorabilia & Autographed Collectibles here…
Patriots vs. Falcons – Super Bowl LI After Game Highlights
The New England Patriots rallied from down 28 points and put together one of the best comebacks ever in a Super Bowl, knocking off the Atlanta Falcons 34-28 in Super Bowl LI.
Stats before the #SuperBowl 51
1. The Patriots have won four Super Bowls, all of them with Tom Brady and Bill Belichick at the helm.
2. This is only Atlanta's second trip to the Super Bowl, and they've never won.
3. The Patriots have been to the Super Bowl nine times, which is an NFL record.
4. They have won four times, which is not a record.
5. That belongs to the Pittsburgh Steelers, who have won six.
6. Tom Brady has been to seven Super Bowls, the most trips by any single player. He has been in the NFL for 17 years, and may actually be immortal.
- The Patriots were penalized this year as a result of "Deflategate," the controversy stemming from the 2015 season that ended with the Patriots winning Super Bowl IL. Please don't make us explain it again, but the upshot was Tom Brady was suspended the first four games of this season.
Buy NFL Collectibles, NFL Memorabilia, NFL Footballs, and NFL Signed
9. In fact, a lot of fans have been comparing this Super Bowl to the plot of "Star Wars," with the Falcons being the upstart "rebels" and the Patriots being the reigning "empire." This is not a favorable comparison for the Patriots, but when you have four rings already, you have to deal with a little flak sometimes.
8. Shockingly, people are pretty tired of seeing the Patriots win. According to one poll, more than half the country is rooting for a Falcons victory.
- It looks like fans are hoping for a close, high-scoring game. On the Wednesday before the Super Bowl, the Patriots were favored to win by 3 points. The over/under for total score was 58.5.
At least one star will be notably absent from the field. Rob Gronkowski, who you may know as that tank top guy in the Dunkin Donuts commercials, is injured and will not be playing for New England; though he will be there in spirit and also in a Tide ad.
Buy Super Bowl Memorabilia & Autographed Collectibless here…
12. Gronkowski has the most Twitter followers (nearly 2 million) of any player on a Super Bowl team this year.
Other people to know
- Some famous Patriots fans are: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Captain America Chris Evans, most if not all of New Kids on the Block, and President Donald Trump.
Some famous Falcons fans are: Samuel L. Jackson, President Jimmy Carter and country star Zac Brown.
Falcons owner Arthur Blank is one of the founders of Home Depot.
Patriots owner Robert Kraft is the CEO of the Kraft Group. He has owned several other Boston-area sports teams, including the Boston Lobsters, a defunct professional tennis team with the most perfect logo ever.
About the music
Lady Gaga is the Super Bowl halftime act. Time to go. It's showtime. And it's the one you've always been dreaming of. #Gaga #GagaSuperBowl
Buy NFL Collectibles, NFL Memorabilia, NFL Footballs, and NFL Signed
- You will recall, she sang the national anthem for Super Bowl L last year.
Country star Luke Bryan will perform the anthem this year.
He is from Leesburg, Georgia (also the hometown of baseball star and fellow perfect-teeth-haver Buster Posey). Naturally, Bryan is a Falcons fan. Here he is:
Wave for America!
Wave for America!
Members of the original "Hamilton" cast will sing "America the Beautiful."
About the commercials
This year, a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl will reportedly cost between $5 million and $5.5 million.
Buy NFL Collectibles, NFL Memorabilia, NFL Footballs, and NFL Signed
- The median annual household income in the United States is about $55,000, which amounts to about .3 seconds of Super Bowl air time.
The surprise is sort of ruined these days, because so many of the commercials are released ahead of time.
So far, people are talking about Budweiser's immigration-themed spot…
and a deeply unholy Mr. Clean ad.
We are all sinners now. SPEAKING OF, let's talk about…
Houston, a den of sin
Houston is the fourth-most populous city in the United States. A fun way to get people to shun you while the game is on is to ask them to name the other most populous cities (1: New York 2: Los Angeles 3: Chicago).
They have a beer can house. Shameful.
And Houston is where the infamous hip hop "beverage" "Purple drank" (aka "lean," "sizzurp," "a horrible idea") originated, which is a mix of cough syrup, soda and Jolly Ranchers.
Last time the Super Bowl was in Houston,
- NIPPLEGATE ask Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson why.
Buy Super Bowl Memorabilia & Autographed Collectibless here…
31. NIPPLEGATE ask Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson why.
- Also, last time the Super Bowl was in Houston, the Patriots won…
Superstitions and weird coincidences
The Patriots will wear white jerseys and the Falcons will wear red.
34. The Falcons actually CHOSE this arrangement, even though white-shirted teams have won 32 of 50 Super Bowls to date, including 11 of the last 12 Super Bowls.
- Five teams other than the Falcons have worn red jerseys, and the overall red jersey record for the Super Bowl is 5-4. The 49ers are especially lucky in the color, having won three of their five championships while wearing it.
We've gone over the fact the Patriots won last time the game was in Houston, but there are even more similarities between that game in 2003 and this one. For instance:
The Patriots have the same record (16-2).
Buy NFL Collectibles, NFL Memorabilia, NFL Footballs, and NFL Signed
- They are playing an NFC South team (in 2003, it was the Panthers).
Unrelated, Falcons QB Matt Ryan went to Boston College, in the heart of Patriots territory
Theme songs and bling
The NFL theme song (baba ba, baba ba, baba ba ba baaaa!) was composed by a guy named Scott Schreer. It was designed to sound like "Batman on Steroids." Apt, because listening to the whole thing at once feels like injecting testosterone directly into your ear holes.
The Super Bowl theme is different, if not a bit more elegant, and was composed by David Robidoux.
Each Super Bowl ring awarded to the Patriots after their 2014 win was worth $36,500 (owner Robert Kraft footed the bill — more than $5 million for 150 rings).
That's like wearing a brand-new Toyota Camry on your finger.
Buy Super Bowl Memorabilia & Autographed Collectibless here…
44. The Vince Lombardi Trophy, given to the winning team, is produced by famed jeweler Tiffany & Co.
- There has never been a Super Bowl that has gone into overtime. Please football gods, spare us once more.
Family matters
Maybe you've heard of the Matthews family? Theyre a big deal in football. Jake Matthews currently plays left tackle for the Falcons. His cousin is Clay Matthews, of Green Bay Packers fame. According to ESPN, the Matthews family has been represented in — wait for it — EVERY NFL SEASON SINCE 1978.
Oh, and for what it's worth, Jake Matthews is from Houston.
This year, Patriots head coach Bill Belichick will be coaching the Super Bowl with his two sons in tow. Steve Belichick is the team's safeties coach, and Steven Belichick is a scouting assistant.
Old dudes
At 41, Atlanta Falcons kicker Matt Bryant will be the third-oldest player to appear in a Super Bowl (the oldest was 42 and also a kicker).
Tom Brady also is long in the tooth at 39, but if he wins, he would still be a few months younger than than the oldest Super Bowl-winning QB who is…
Peyton Manning, who nabbed that honor when the Denver Broncos won Super Bowl L last year. He was 39.
That makes it sound like he died. He didn't, he just retired.
Did you believed that Patriots could WIN Super Bowl 51? I did 😉
Did you believed that Patriots could WIN Super Bowl 51? I did 😉
Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime-show controversy – Wikipedia
FakeNews, inc.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We've come a long way from harmless playground jibes like "your mother wears combat boots," to those of today from the likes of Samantha Bee and other leftist "entertainers" who say things about President Trump and his family that are so vulgar they can't be printed in a newspaper or quoted on television.
Some of President Trump's critics blame his harsh rhetoric for the language they use to attack him. Perhaps he bears some responsibility, but that is poor justification for bad behavior from others who might set a better example. People of a certain age may recall what their mothers told them: "If Johnny's mother told you to jump off a building, would you do it?"
While setting a good example would be a better way to go, some liberals appear to feel so threatened that their failed ideology is being exposed, that all they can do in response to the president is haul out hateful retorts. When you are losing on issues, the last stop is name-calling.
The right is not immune to this horrendous behavior either, as evidenced by the crass, sexist, violent vitriol Trump supporters hurled at Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign. It has to stop.
Does anyone seriously believe any Republican president, including one who used the King's English in ways acceptable to polite company, would be free of harsh rhetoric from the left? Remember "Death of a President," a movie about the imagined assassination of President George W. Bush? Bush endured many pointed slurs during his presidency. Ditto Ronald Reagan.
The double standard applied to entertainers who insult the president and those who support him became glaringly evident in the differing responses to Roseanne Barr's racist tweet about former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett and Bee's vulgarity against Ivanka Trump, for which she was eventually forced to tender an apology. As New York Times reporter John Koblin wrote: "The different consequences for the two politically minded entertainers -- Ms. Barr is an outspoken supporter of the president, while Ms. Bee is a full-throated opponent of the Trump administration -- provided conservatives with a fresh opportunity to accuse the media industry of having a liberal bias."
The president says he is still waiting for an apology from Disney CEO Bob Iger for insults directed at him by people on various ABC programs, insults that mocked Christianity and accused the White House of supporting white supremacists, among other slurs.
Trump shouldn't hold his breath waiting for that apology.
Among other examples of disgusting labeling and rhetoric is one from Google, which listed "Nazism" as the ideology of the California Republican Party. That posting came less than a week before the California primary. Google later told The Daily Caller News Foundation that it happened because sometimes "people vandalize public information sources, like Wikipedia, which can impact the information that appears in search."
Two White House statements summed up the outrage over the increasing number of insults from the left. This from Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, herself the target of recent attacks by supposed feminists about her personal appearance: "The language used by Samantha Bee ... is vile and vicious. The collective silence by the left and its media allies is appalling. Her disgusting comments and show are not fit for broadcast, and executives at Time Warner and TBS must demonstrate that such explicit profanity about female members of this administration will not be condoned on its network."
Stephanie Grisham, spokesperson for First Lady Melania Trump, said: "The double standard is truly astounding. Time and again the Trump family and members of this administration are subjected to false reporting, hateful rhetoric and outrageous lies all in the name of freedom of speech or comedy, yet the mainstream media stays silent."
As talk radio host Chris Plante is fond of saying, "If the left did not have double standards they would have no standards at all."


text:
Though some of us didn't believe it would happen, all signs point to Apple unveiling a smaller iPad (among other things) at its October 23 event.
We'll know what Cupertino has up its sleeve by late Tuesday, so there's little need for us to prognosticate about the "little more to show" Apple promised on its event invitation.
But we won't let that stop us.
What to expect
Lex: OK, there's a ton we don't yet know about the iPad—up to and including its name. It might be a 7.8-inch iPad mini, or a 7-inch iPad Air. It might have one camera, two, or none. It might start with just 8GB of storage, or it might match the full-size iPad's 16GB minimum. Perhaps it will have optional cellular connectivity; perhaps it won't.
Dan: I'm glad you're finally taking a stand on this important matter.
Lex: The one thing I'm willing to say with certainty is that Apple really will unveil an iOS device that's smaller than an iPad, but bigger than iPod touch.
Dan: Let's call it the iBreadbox.
Lex: We keep our bread in the fridge.
Dan: I'm willing to go on a limb here—based on my spotless prognostication record—and predict that we'll see a 7.85-inch iPad, with a 1024-by-768 pixel display. I'd also wager that it starts at 16GB and goes as high as 32GB.
Lex: I'm still thinking the cheapest entry-level model starts at 8GB, but I agree with the rest of that.
Dan: I can't imagine Apple will release an iPad any smaller—in capacity, anyway—than what is already out there.
Lex: Well, I think that Apple's number one goal in releasing a smaller iPad—let's call it the iPad mini for now—is to compete with devices like the $159 Kindle Fire and the $200 Nexus 7. And I have to believe that to get a price level that low, Apple will cut any corners it can. I wouldn't recommend that anyone buy an 8GB iOS device, because apps are just too darn big these days, But I still think Apple would release such a device if it drove the entry-level price down.
Dan: I agree that Apple's not going to sell the device at a loss, which is what Amazon seems to be doing. But I think more money will be saved by, for example, not including a Retina display. These days, Apple is using flash memory in such prodigious quantities that I don't think it's a major expenditure for the company.
Lex: You may be right. But at least I'm not on the record saying that no iPad mini is coming this month.
Dan: I think there are a few things we can agree on, at least. And that's that the iPad mini will probably have more in common with its iOS device brethren than not: It will have built-in Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, a headphone jack, external volume buttons, and so on. For most purposes, it will greatly resemble all the other iOS devices we've seen before. Not least, I think it'll feature a Lightning port instead of the old 30-pin dock-connector—mainly because Apple is going to solidify its move away from the former standard, but also because the smaller size of that connector will be handy in a 7-inch device.
Lex: I'd agree with that. But I imagine that, under-the-hood, it will be underpowered compared to the iPhone 5 and the third-generation iPad in several ways: Perhaps it will use Apple's slower A5 processor, and maybe it won't support the more advanced Wi-Fi options in the iPhone 5.
Dan: And I'd agree with that. The one point I'm kind of hedging on is the inclusion of fast cellular networking. It seems like a device this portable will be something where you'd want to have Internet access all the time. But so far, it's proved to be an extra expense for the iPad, and non-existent on the iPod touch.
Lex: And if Apple does ship models with cellular connectivity as an option (which I also think it will), I'm willing to wager that it won't offer a subsidized cellular data plan, the way that Amazon does with the Kindle Fire. (You pay $50 for your first year of data, which gets you 250MB of data per month.) That sort of discounted offering is hugely popular with consumers, but I don't think that's the way Apple does business.
Dan: Makes sense to me. Cellular connectivity has proved to be a pricey addition to the iPad—it costs another $129 just to add the cellular option. And Apple's never offered the feature on the iPod touch, much to the dismay of many customers. Speaking of which…
Where a smaller iPad fits
Lex: One question my friends have been asking me—and one I don't always feel well-equipped to answer—is where precisely Apple positions an iPad mini, in terms of its increasingly large and varied iOS lineup. The new iPod touch costs $299; last year's model costs $199. As I mentioned before, I do think one of Apple's motivations for releasing an iPad mini is to compete with the companies that are making smaller, more affordable tablets. The $499 price for the base model third-generation iPad is impressive; $399 for the iPad 2 is, too. But obviously Apple can reach even more customers if it has a smaller tablet that costs a lot less.
Dan: When it comes to the iPod touch, I think John Gruber put it best when he said that it's a "different category" from the iPad. Even if the two are close in price, I don't think that people looking to buy an iPod touch will necessarily think, "Hey, for just a little bit more I can upgrade to an iPad mini." And even if they do, Apple's still getting the sale, which is a win for the company.
Lex: But I still think customers will feel puzzled if they can buy an iPad mini for less than an iPod touch. I think you and Gruber are right: A pocket-sized device is vastly different from a "merely" portable device. But it's hard to shake the feeling that, if I can get this bigger thing for less, why don't I? As you said, Apple sells a product either way. But if that iPod touch price doesn't come down, there will definitely be some confused customers at the Apple Store.
Dan: So, let's lay it on the line: How much will a smaller iPad cost? Here's what I think: If Apple can go as low as $199, the iPad mini would totally blow away any competitors. But I don't think the company has any problem saying, "Hey, this iPad mini is better than what our competitors are offering, so we think it's worth another $50." If the company has to go up to another $50, to $299, there's no question in my mind that people would still buy it. But you're getting awfully close to full-size iPad territory, and leaving a lot of opportunity for competitors. To me, $249 is the sweet spot.
Lex: Apple's never felt compelled to compete on price, and has long been willing to charge what it believes its products are worth. And the company always cares more about profit share than market share. That said, I think this product launch could be a defining moment for iOS and the iPad's future.
Does Apple want to reassert its dominance in the tablet market and push its upstart competitors—don't forget the forthcoming Microsoft Surface—even further behind? If it does, I think a $199 entry-level iPad mini is a sure bet. If Apple instead starts the pricing at $249, it will still sell oodles of the things. But it won't necessarily capture those customers who say, "I want an iPad, or the cheapest approximation thereof." That's not you or me, Dan, and it may not be most Macworld readers. But I think there are plenty of people like that.
Dan: What's the Microsoft Surface?
Lex: Formica.
Who's it for?
Lex: So besides price, why would I want to buy one of these smaller iPads?
Dan: Good question. I think we can expect Apple to pitch us on the iPad mini as a reading device. I hear you have problems reading on the iPad.
Lex: Right. One key advantage of a smaller—and, more importantly, lighter—iPad is the fact that it will hurt less if, say, I fall asleep while reading with it in bed, and it crashes into my face.
Dan: I don't run into this problem as much as you seem to, but I think you're right that it's easier to deal with in scenarios like that, or when you have to hold the iPad for a long period of time. At under 1.5 lbs, the full-size iPad isn't exactly heavy, but after a while, you want to put it down. And Apple never wants you to put your iPad down.
Lex: And a smaller iPad isn't just more portable, it's easier to use in less roomy confines, like an airplane seat—or your apartment. Really, though, I just see two potentially significant tradeoffs you make with a smaller iPad: Typing would be harder than on an iPhone (with your thumbs) or an iPad (with your full hands). And I would expect that some tinier touch targets would be tougher to tap on the smaller screen.
Dan: Fair enough. I've wondered about alternative text input methods since the debut of the original iPad. Maybe Apple has something up its sleeve to help address the problem. But probably not.
Lex: Would that it were true. Then maybe it would write this piece for us.
Siri: Would you two stop goofing around? I'm trying to work here.


text:
The sky above you discloses
a handful of stars and shadows.
As you draw the lines of a new day
screams gather in your throat.
Yet desire is fear's thaw
so you walk over the threshold
and draw lines of desire,
a new path where you paint
a sunshine of hope for freedom,
a rainbow of all colors
for those who suffer and
for those who deserve a better life.
© May 2018 Marta Pombo Sallés


text:
Things We Said Today #201 - Nigel Sinclair and Paul Crowder of the film 'The Beatles: Eight Days a Week: The Touring Years'
This week, Steve, Allan, Al and Ken welcome two very special guests to Things We Said Today -- Nigel Sinclair and Paul Crowder, producer and editor, respectively, of the Beatles' film "The Beatles: Eight Days a Week: The Touring Years." The two men tell some interesting and revealing stories about the making of the film that you'll absolutely love. Be sure and write to us at email@example.com, join our "Things We Said Today Beatles Fans" Facebook page or tweet us at @thingswesadfab or catch us each on Facebook and give us your thoughts. Thanks for listening!! (We're also heard on Fab4radio, WCPR1 and Pure Pop Radio and you can stream us on our very own YouTube page.)
Create your
podcast in
It is Free
Copyright © 2006-2023 Podbean.com


text:
In response to commenter JS (back on homeschooledmedstudent): I think it's slightly suspicious that you go to such lengths to complain about the title of the defense that Discovery Institute published of Leonard, but then don't examine the content of that defense at all. DiSilvestro and Needham explain at length how the committee came to be composed as it was, and the lack of clear procedural standards, which it would be the university's responsibility to promulgate.
Also, it's an exaggeration to compare the relative expertise of the committee members to an ob/gyn holding a cardiac surgery exam. The members of the committee were scientists, and were involved in education. It seems to me their fields were close enough to Leonard's area of study that they could be expected to understand the logic and evidence he needed to present in his dissertation. Finally, let me put the link to Discovery Institute's response to The Panda's Thumb, wherein they address all of the charges.
You state, "Contrary to popular belief (at least among creationists), being a creationist does not disqualify someone from acquiring a PhD in science or education." Let me offer some evidence for our sense of ostracism:
– From the original NYT article: "Dr. Scott, a former professor of physical anthropology at the University of Colorado, said in an interview that graduate admissions committees were entitled to consider the difficulties that would arise from admitting a doctoral candidate with views 'so at variance with what we consider standard science.' She said such students 'would require so much remedial instruction it would not be worth my time.' . . . Dr. Dini, of Texas Tech, agreed. Scientists 'ought to make certain the people they are conferring advanced degrees on understand the philosophy of science and are indeed philosophers of science,' he said." To me that sounds as though they're saying creationists are not capable of being real scientists, and if they were admitted to a graduate degree program would require "remedial education" to cure them of their unacceptable beliefs.
– In March 2006 Dr. Francis Beckwith was nearly denied tenure at Baylor University. As that link explains, his academic credentials are so outstanding that his support for discussion of intelligent design is the most likely reason for the controversy. (Further discussion at World Magazine.) – Also check out this transcript from a 2005 NPR segment on intelligent design, in which they interview several IDers/creationists who feel they have been discriminated against by the establishment. Most notable is Dr. Richard Sternberg, who experienced hostile retaliation from the Smithsonian Institute after allowing the publication of an article favorable to intelligent design in a peer-reviewed biology publication. In the NPR transcript, note where the journalist doing the piece explains that she tried to contact numerous intelligent design supporters, who mostly refused to speak to her, saying it would be as much as their career was worth to be so publicly identified prior to receiving their tenure.
To take up your third section second here: You say, "Patently ridiculous nonsense such as global floods is junk science." Well, that kind of begs the question. We are trying to discuss whether a global flood is a better explanation of the fossil record than Darwin's theory. It would explain how you have trees and giant animals (whales, dinosaurs) crossing multiple layers of sediment, which according to evolutionary geology ought to have been laid down over millions of years. It would explain the frequent occurrence of more "advanced" animals in the same strata as their much earlier "ancestors." It would explain how fossils of sea creatures have been found on the tops of high mountains, as in the Himalayans. And of course, it would explain the observation that fossils were formed with great rapidity during disasters like the Mt. St. Helen's eruption, but all carcasses which have been left lying around or in bogs of mud have been observed to rot to bits, rather than fossilizing. Which kind of messes up the whole evolutionary scenario. If I leave a dead bird in my yard, it doesn't become a fossil. But if there's a dead bird lying on the bank as a river undergoes a tremendous flood, it might fossilize.
It is precisely the refusal of evolutionists to even allow the discussion of other reasonable explanations which leads IDers and creationists to level charges of witch-hunting and modern inquisitions.
And now, global warming. You say, "The models are very, very good." Uh-huh. Models made by the same people who in the '70s were warning of catastrophic global cooling? Models for a planet which is at least thousands (if not, as you say, millions or billions) of years old, based on only a few decades of measurements?
I'm not prepared to tackle global warming in depth; this is one of those issues on which I know I read some good articles and books (can I plug Michael Crichton's State of Fear again?) back when I had more time, and I've seen nothing to change my opinion since then. I'll just throw out some recent links: Editorial handling of the subject by a senior climatologist, who remembers the scares of the '70s. And, an article from CO2 Science arguing that events in the upper atmosphere and space could be responsible for any climate change that is being observed (which is in itself a questionable assumption, since, among other inconvenient facts, some arctic ice floes are increasing in size (multiple scientific journals referenced here), while the heavily publicized ones are cracking; see here for the growth of antarctic ice caps).
Ookay, that should be enough controversy for one day.


text:
GALLICK v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO.(1963)
While working on a railroad near a stagnant, vermin-infested pool of water, petitioner suffered an insect bite which became infected and ultimately resulted in the loss of both of his legs. He sued the railroad in a state court under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, alleging that the railroad was negligent in maintaining a stagnant pool that attracted vermin and insects. Upon a special verdict of the jury, the trial court entered judgment awarding damages to petitioner. The state appellate court reversed on the ground that proof of a causal connection between the negligence and damage fell short of that required for the consideration of a jury. Held: The state appellate court improperly invaded the function and province of the jury, and its judgment is reversed. Pp. 109-122.
Marshall I. Nurenberg argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were A. H. Dudnik and Meyer A. Cook.
Alexander H. Hadden argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Raymond T. Jackson and Russell E. Leasure. [372 U.S. 108, 109]
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Upon a special verdict of the jury, the Common Pleas Court of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, entered judgment awarding damages to petitioner in this Federal Employers' Liability Act 1 suit. The Court of Appeals reversed, 173 N. E. 2d 382, and the Ohio Supreme Court refused further appellate review, 172 Ohio St. 488, 178 N. E. 2d 597, making the decision of the intermediate appellate court the final judgment rendered by the state courts. This Court granted certiorari, 369 U.S. 848 , to consider the question whether the decision below improperly invaded the jury's function. We have concluded that the decision below is erroneous and must be reversed.
Petitioner was a spotting crew foreman working on or about August 10, 1954, along the respondent railroad's right of way in the Cuyahoga River "flats" section of Cleveland, Ohio. At the particular stretch of roadbed where petitioner was working on that afternoon, there had been for many years a pool of stagnant water, in and about which were dead and decayed rats and pigeons, or portions thereof. Insects had been seen on, over, and about this stagnant pool, and the evidence showed, as the Court of Appeals stated, that respondent had long been aware of the fetid condition of this pool. 173 N. E. 2d, at 383. While he was temporarily working near the pool, petitioner experienced a bite on his left leg just above the knee. He grasped the spot with his hand and felt an object under his trousers which seemed to be a large insect and which, when he crushed it, dropped out of his trouser leg. The wound subsequently became infected. The infection failed to respond to medical treatment, and worsened progressively until it spread throughout petitioner's body, creating pus-forming lesions and eventually necessitating the amputation of both his legs. None of the [372 U.S. 108, 110] doctors who treated and studied petitioner's case could explain the etiology of his present condition, although some of them diagnosed or characterized it as "pyodermagangrenosa, secondary to insect bite." See id., at 384.
The Federal Employers' Liability Act makes railroads liable in damages to any employee suffering "injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of . . . [the] carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its . . . roadbed . . . or other equipment." 45 U.S.C. 51. In his complaint petitioner alleged respondent's negligence both in permitting the stagnant pool to accumulate dead vermin and attract insects, and in its furnishing a defective and unsafe place for petitioner's work. The respondent denied any negligence and contended that if petitioner's serious injuries resulted from an insect bite sustained while working on railroad property, such consequences "were beyond the realm of reasonable probability or foreseeability, with the result that no duty arose" to exercise due care to protect petitioner "from any such risk." 173 N. E. 2d, at 384.
After a lengthy trial, the court, pursuant to the State's special verdict statute, Ohio Rev. Code, 2315.15, under which no general verdict is rendered by the jury, submitted some two dozen interrogatories to the jury and charged them as to what it deemed the applicable law of negligence. The special verdict of the jury, to the extent that it is relevant here, follows (answers italicized):
We think that the Court of Appeals improperly invaded the function and province of the jury in this Federal Employers' Liability Act case. According to the Court of Appeals, the break in the causal chain that turned it into a mere "series of guesses and speculations" was the want of evidence from which the jury could properly conclude that respondent's fetid pool had had something to do with the insect that bit petitioner. The only question was whether or not the insect was from or had been attracted by the pool. We hold that the record shows sufficient evidence to warrant the jury's conclusion that petitioner's injuries were caused by the acts or omissions of respondent.
As the Court of Appeals stated, "insects were seen on, over and about this stagnant pool." According to petitioner's undisputed testimony, he stood near the pool for about a half a minute; then he started to walk away and was bitten on the leg after he took a few steps, perhaps one or two seconds later. Petitioner also testified, on cross-examination, that he had at times seen insects of about the same size as that which bit him crawling over the dead rats and pigeons in the stagnant pool. And on cross-examination by respondent two medical witnesses testified that stagnant, rat-infested pools breed and attract insects. 3 Moreover, the jury specifically found that the pool accumulated and attracted bugs and vermin. [372 U.S. 108, 114]
The Court of Appeals erred in demanding either "direct evidence that the existence of the unidentified bug at the time and place had any connection with the stagnant and infested pool" or else more substantial circumstantial evidence than that adduced here "that the pool created conditions and influences which helped to incubate or furnish an environment for the bug . . . or that the insect, having traveled from other areas, became contaminated or infected by the pool." 173 N. E. 2d, at 388. Under the ruling cases in this Court the evidence present was sufficient to raise an issue for the jury's determination as to whether the insect emanated from the pool.
In Tennant v. Peoria & P. U. R. Co., 321 U.S. 29 , one of the leading cases, the Court granted certiorari "because of important problems as to petitioner's right to a jury determination of the issue of causation." There was no direct evidence of how the decedent was killed. There was evidence that the respondent railroad had been negligent or careless in failing to ring a warning bell before moving an engine, and evidence that the victim was killed by being run over by a train. The question of how the victim met his death was susceptible to various answers, all somewhat conjectural because of the want of direct evidence, some of which supported petitioner's claims and others respondent's. The Court of Appeals set aside a jury verdict for petitioner for failure of the evidence to make out proximate cause, but this Court reversed:
These cases, as does the instant case, all involved the question of whether there was evidence that any employer negligence caused the harm, or, more precisely, enough to justify a jury's determination that employer negligence had played any role in producing the harm. In the more recent case, Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 , one of the questions was whether, given the antecedent negligence or carelessness of the employer in maintaining a roadside surface with loose, slippery gravel instead of a firm, flat footing, the causal impact of such neglectfulness was negatived by the subsequent or concurrent negligence of the employee in failing to pay attention to what he was supposed to be doing. Although the context is thus somewhat dissimilar to the present one, the language used in the opinion is most apposite:
Although we have concluded that the jury could properly find that there was a causal relationship between the railroad's negligence and petitioner's injuries, that does not end the case. 4 Respondent makes the further argument that the judgment under review may be sustained on the alternative ground, not accepted by the Court of Appeals, that the injury was not reasonably foreseeable, and that therefore there was no negligence.
We agree with respondent that reasonable foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers' Liability Act negligence. Inman v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 361 U.S. 138, 140 ; see Brady v. Southern R. Co., 320 U.S. 476, 483 -484; Tiller v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 318 U.S. 54, 67 ; Ringhiser v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 354 U.S. 901, 903 , 905 (dissenting opinions); Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 503 ; cf. Morales v. City of Galveston, 370 U.S. 165, 171 ; Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 42 . 5 But this requirement has been satisfied in the [372 U.S. 108, 118] present case by the jury's findings (Nos. 10, 14-19, 21) of negligence in maintaining the filthy pool of water. The jury had been instructed that negligence is the failure to observe that degree of care which people of ordinary prudence and sagacity would use under the same or similar circumstances; 6 and that defendant's duty was measured by what a reasonably prudent person would anticipate as resulting from a particular condition - "defendant's duties are measured by what is reasonably foreseeable under like circumstances" - by what "in the light of the facts then known, should or could reasonably have been anticipated." 7 Thus when the jury found these facts: petitioner was bitten by an insect; the insect bite caused illness or disease and led to petitioner's present physical condition; the stagnant pool attracted bugs and vermin and was responsible for the insect bite and the injuries to petitioner; and respondent knew that the accumulation of the pool of water would attract bugs and [372 U.S. 108, 119] vermin to the area - it is clear that the jury concluded that respondent should have realized the increased likelihood of an insect's biting petitioner while he was working in the vicinity of the pool.
Respondent places reliance, however, upon two special interrogatories returned by the jury. In one, No. 22, the jury found that respondent could not foresee that the stagnant pool would set into being a chain of events that would culminate in petitioner's present physical condition - loss of two limbs, widespread ulcerations, and permanent disability. In the other, No. 20, the jury found that respondent did not have reason to anticipate that its maintenance of the pool "would or might probably result in a mishap or an injury." It is said that interrogatories Nos. 20 and 22 are findings of no foreseeability, and that there is therefore a fatal inconsistency among the jury's findings and that they cancel one another out, necessitating a judgment for the defendant, or at least a new trial. See Freightways, Inc., v. Stafford, 217 F.2d 831, 835 (C. A. 8th Cir.); Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 49 (b). See also Larrissey v. Norwalk Lines, 155 Ohio St. 207, 214-215, 98 N. E. 2d 419, 423-424; Klever v. Reid Bros., 151 Ohio St. 467, 476, 86 N. E. 2d 608, 612. But it is the duty of the courts to attempt to harmonize the answers, if it is possible under a fair reading of them: "Where there is a view of the case that makes the jury's answers to special interrogatories consistent, they must be resolved that way." Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355, 364 . We therefore must attempt to reconcile the jury's findings, by exegesis if necessary, as in Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U.S. 360 ; McVey v. Phillips Co., 288 F.2d 53 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Morris v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 187 F.2d 837 (C. A. 2d Cir.) (collecting authorities), before we are free to disregard the jury's special verdict and remand the case for a new trial. [372 U.S. 108, 120]
We do not believe that the conclusion of fatal inconsistency is compelled by these findings. In the first place, the jury might not have equated a foreseeable insect bite with a mishap or injury. The trial judge more than once in his instructions separated an "insect bite" from "injury," "infection," "illness" or "disease." The answer to Question 20 thus might mean simply that while an insect bite was foreseeable, there was no reason to anticipate a "mishap" or "injury" from such a bite. This answer therefore falls in the same category as the jury's response to Question 22, where the jury found that there was no reasonably foreseeable causal relationship between the insect bite and the present physical condition of the plaintiff. It is widely held that for a defendant to be liable for consequential damages he need not foresee the particular consequences of his negligent acts: assuming the existence of a threshold tort against the person, then whatever damages flow from it are recoverable. See, e. g., Boal v. Electric Battery Co., 98 F.2d 815, 819 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Koehler v. Waukesha Milk Co., 190 Wis. 52, 57-63, 208 N. W. 901, 903-905 (collecting authorities); Restatement, Torts, 435; 2 Harper and James, Torts, 1139-1140; Prosser, Torts, 260 (2d ed.); Seavey, Mr. Justice Cardozo and the Law of Torts, 48 Yale L. J. 390, 402-403. 8 And we have no doubt that under a statute where the tortfeasor is liable for death or injuries in producing which his [372 U.S. 108, 121] "negligence played any part, even the slightest" (Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 506 ) such a tortfeasor must compensate his victim for even the improbable or unexpectedly severe consequences of his wrongful act. Cf. Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 ; Coray v. Southern Pac. Co., 335 U.S. 520 ; Lillie v. Thompson, 332 U.S. 459 . The answers to these two interrogatories are therefore not controlling for Federal Employers' Liability Act purposes.
In the second place, in deciding whether respondent had reason to anticipate and foresee any harm to petitioner, the trial court instructed the jury to take into account "the past experience respecting the location and conditions in question" and the fact "that no occurrence of the kind here alleged either occurred, or was known by defendant to have occurred, at or near this place before August of 1954." 9 The jury thus might have determined that, since there had been no similar incidents at this pool in the past, the respondent had no specific "reason" for anticipating a mishap or injury to petitioner - a far too narrow a concept of foreseeable harm to negative negligence under the Federal Employers' Liability Act. Thus there is a second and independent ground for the court to have put aside No. 20 as immaterial. Looking at No. 20 in the context of the charge and the total context of the special verdict, see McVey v. Phillips Co., 288 F.2d 53, 59 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Halprin v. Mora, 231 F.2d 197, 201 [372 U.S. 108, 122] (C. A. 3d Cir.), we cannot assign it sufficient weight to warrant overturning the judgment of the trial court entered pursuant to the jury's special verdict.
We have examined respondent's other contentions and found them without merit, including the contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of negligence. The Court of Appeals erred in depriving petitioner of the judgment entered upon the special verdict of the jury. Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U.S. 360 . The judgment of the Ohio Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 2 ] For the same reason the Court of Appeals found error in the trial court's refusal to enter a judgment n. o. v. See Journal Entry, R. 629.
[ Footnote 3 ] The Court of Appeals emphasized the fact that no similar bite was ever complained about, as a factor in gauging the probability that the actual causal chain corresponded to petitioner's theory of the case, 173 N. E. 2d, at 387; it accepted as supported by "sufficient credible evidence" the finding that an insect bit petitioner, but it disagreed [372 U.S. 108, 114] with the finding that pool and insect bite were related. Although the record does not show that any complaint was ever made to respondent about insect bites, petitioner testified that he had complained to the section foreman about the vermin-infested pool several times and another witness testified that he was bitten by an insect near it in or about September 1954.
[ Footnote 4 ] See B. F. Goodrich Co. v. United States, 321 U.S. 126, 127 ; United States v. American R. Exp. Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435 ; Frey & Son, Inc., v. Cudahy Packing Co., 256 U.S. 208, 210 .
[ Footnote 5 ] Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 , was concerned with the breach of a statutory or regulatory duty and does not control or purport to define the content of nonstatutory or nonregulatory duties amounting to negligence for the purposes of the Federal Employers' Liability Act.
[ Footnote 6 ] "Negligence is sometimes said to be a failure to observe for the protection of the rights of others that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, and sometimes, in other words, it is said that negligence is the failure to observe ordinary care, and ordinary care is that degree of care which people of ordinary prudence and sagacity use under the same or similar circumstances. What would ordinarily prudent persons have done under like circumstances?"
[ Footnote 7 ] "The B & O in this case was not required to guard against that which a reasonably prudent person, under the circumstances, would not anticipate as likely to happen. If a person has no reasonable ground to anticipate that a particular condition . . . would or might result in a mishap and injury, then the party is not required to do anything to correct such a condition. You must apply this rule to this case. . . . Defendant's duties are measured by what is reasonably foreseeable under like circumstances. . . . In measuring the B & O's conduct here, the point of view to be taken should be the view before the mishap occurred, to see what, in the light of the facts then known, should or could reasonably have been anticipated. And you must follow this rule in this case."
[ Footnote 8 ] "If the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about harm to another, the fact that the actor neither foresaw nor should have foreseen the extent of the harm or the manner in which it occurred does not prevent him from being liable." Restatement, Torts, 435. "In these and like cases of what well may be called direct consequences, the courts generally hold defendant liable for the full extent of the injury without regard to foreseeability." 2 Harper and James, Torts, p. 1140. "There is almost universal agreement upon . . . liability for unforeseeable consequences when they follow an impact upon the person of the plaintiff." Prosser, Torts, 260.
[ Footnote 9 ] "In measuring the B & O's duty to anticipate - that is, in considering how much and how far the defendant ought to have gone in foreseeing and guarding against possible mishaps and dangers - the past experience respecting the location and conditions in question may properly be drawn upon. It is entirely proper in this case to take into account the fact . . . that no occurrence of the kind here alleged either occurred, or was known by defendant to have occurred, at or near this place before August of 1954, as . . . indicating what the defendant here should reasonably have foreseen for the future."
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.
Heartrending as the petitioner's accident has turned out to be, I think this case should not have been brought here. It involves no unsettled questions of federal law calling for decision by this Court, nor, in any acceptable sense, a departure by the state courts from legal principles already decided requiring this Court's intervention. The case thus does not qualify for review under Rule 19. * See the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 500, 524 , and the separate opinion of this writer, p. 559. The case has [372 U.S. 108, 123] necessarily required an inordinate amount of time, which the Court can ill afford in the present state of its docket.
Reaching the merits, however, id., pp. 559-562, I would affirm the judgment below. I agree with my Brothers STEWART and GOLDBERG as to the inconsistency of the jury's verdict. But in addition, I cannot say that the view of the record taken by the state courts, in holding that the evidence on the issue of causation was insufficient to make a case for the jury, was an arbitrary or unreasonable one. The opinion of the Ohio Court of Appeals evinces a conscientious effort to follow this Court's decisions under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and more particularly the broad pronouncements made in the Rogers case, supra. On this score the Court's reversal seems to me no more than an exercise in second-guessing the state court's estimate of the record.
From another standpoint this case does have significance. It affords a particularly dramatic example of the inadequacy of ordinary negligence law to meet the social obligations of modern industrial society. The cure for that, however, lies with the legislature and not with the courts.
[ Footnote * ] In pertinent part, Rule 19 provides:
We cannot agree with the Court's disposition of this case, in view of the jury's explicit finding that injury to the petitioner was not reasonably foreseeable. As the Court correctly states, "foreseeability of harm is an essential ingredient of Federal Employers' Liability Act negligence." Interrogatory No. 20 was unambiguous: "[W]as there any reason for the defendant B & O to anticipate that such [maintenance of a stagnant, infested pool] would or might probably result in a mishap or an injury?" In our view the jury's answer to this interrogatory, finding [372 U.S. 108, 124] that the railroad had no reason here to anticipate mishap or injury, was irreconcilably inconsistent with its finding of negligence in answer to Interrogatory No. 16, and a new trial should have been ordered.
The Court agrees that the answer to Interrogatory No. 20 was inconsistent with the jury's answer to Interrogatory No. 16. But instead of concluding that this inconsistency cancels out the several findings involved and thus voids the entire verdict, the Court undertakes to search for an alternative meaning to be given to Interrogatory No. 20 in order to bring it into line with the special finding which favors the petitioner. The Court seeks support for this Procrustean exercise in the often-repeated admonition that courts should make every effort "to reconcile the jury's findings, by exegesis if necessary, . . . before we are free to disregard the jury's special verdict and remand the case for a new trial." We think this generally sound guideline is misapplied in the present case.
The duty of courts to attempt to reconcile inconsistent jury findings has emerged from cases in which the jury answered special interrogatories and also returned a general verdict. See, e. g., Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., 353 U.S. 360 . 1
The inconsistencies which the courts have dealt with in these cases were inconsistencies between a general verdict for one of the parties and seemingly conflicting special findings in answer to added interrogatories. The purpose of such an effort has been to preserve, if possible, [372 U.S. 108, 125] the integrity of the jury's general verdict. As one leading commentator has explained, in the context of Federal Rule 49 (b),
We agree with the Court, and hence disagree with our Brother HARLAN, about the sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of causation to make a case for the jury under the standards laid down by this Court, e. g., Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 . We also agree with the Court that no inconsistency with a finding of negligence arises from the jury's answer to Interrogatory No. 22, wherein it found that the railroad had no reason to anticipate the extent of the petitioner's injuries. In our view the answer to Interrogatory No. 22 was simply immaterial, because the interrogatory asked, in effect, whether the extent of the petitioner's injuries was foreseeable - an issue irrelevant to the merits of the case, as the Court's opinion aptly points out.
Our disagreement with the Court arises, therefore, only from its treatment of the jury's answer to Interrogatory No. 20. Since, as the Court recognizes, foreseeability of harm (as distinguished from foreseeability of the extent of injury covered by Interrogatory No. 22) is the test of liability in FELA cases, the jury's answer to Interrogatory No. 20 is plainly and irreconcilably inconsistent with its answer to Interrogatory No. 16. 3 Because the jury in [372 U.S. 108, 127] answer to No. 16 found that the railroad was negligent, and yet at the same time specifically found in answer to No. 20 that the mishap was unforeseeable, it is, in our view, impossible to enter a judgment for either party based on these findings. By undertaking to reconcile irretrievably conflicting findings of the jury, the Court, we think, has made the same error that it correctly attributes to the Ohio Court of Appeals - it has invaded the province of the jury under this federal statute. We would avoid such an intrusion by ordering that the cause be put to another jury.
For these reasons we would set aside the judgment and remand this case for a new trial.
[ Footnote 1 ] Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd., 369 U.S. 355 , is not to the contrary. In that case it was held that the Court of Appeals had erroneously synthesized a conflict between answers to special interrogatories, when no conflict appeared on the face of the several answers, and none was compelled by the theories underlying the several questions.
[ Footnote 2 ] Indeed, were it proper to indulge in a process of speculation to derive meaning for one answer from the content of others - as the majority does to support its conclusion that the answer to Interrogatory No. 16 is the overriding one - support for preferring the answer to Interrogatory No. 20 and entering judgment for respondent could be gained from the jury's response to Interrogatory No. 13, wherein it could not agree on whether petitioner had been furnished an unsafe place to work, thereby further contradicting the existence of negligence which was found in answer to Interrogatory No. 16.
[ Footnote 3 ] Reference to the court's oral instructions to the jury concerning Interrogatories Nos. 16 and 20 additionally negatives the Court's attempted reconciliation of the jury's answers to these questions. The [372 U.S. 108, 127] description of negligence in No. 16 was merely a statement cast in terms of a "failure to observe ordinary care," without any suggestion that the "failure to observe for the protection of the rights of others that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand" had to be a failure in relation to this plaintiff. In contrast to the negligence in the abstract which the jury can be said to have found in answer to Interrogatory No. 16, the judge instructed with reference to Interrogatory No. 20 that "In answering this question you are instructed that it is a matter of law [that] the defendant B & O is only to be held to a reasonable degree of care, and not to the performance of practicable impossibilities, but that where the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that the employer's negligence played any part, even the slightest, introducing [sic - in producing?] the injury, then the employer has a duty to anticipate that such injury would or might probably result." This instruction dealt with the defendant railroad's duties as an employer in relation to the petitioner in a manner which the instruction concerning Interrogatory No. 16 had not. Moreover, it was, if anything, unduly favorable to petitioner in its equation of foreseeability with causation in fact, and yet the jury answered Interrogatory No. 20 in the negative. [372 U.S. 108, 128]


text:
The government says 51 people have suffered fiery deaths in Jeep Grand Cherokees and Libertys that were hit from behind. Regulators claim that the position of the gas tank, behind the rear axle, makes the Jeeps more susceptible to a fiery crash than similar models.
Chrysler is expected to stick to its contention that the SUVs are as safe as other vehicles on the road from that era. The Jeeps, it says, met all federal safety standards when they were built, some more than two decades ago. Regulators are unfairly holding the vehicles to a new standard for fuel tank strength, Chrysler claims.
Chrysler has successfully used that argument in the past to resist a recall. But that stance carries some substantial financial and public-relations risks.
Car companies rarely spar publicly with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the agency that monitors auto safety. Both sides in the Jeep case say they prefer negotiations, but neither is backing down. Once Chrysler formally rejects the recall, the next step would be for NHTSA to find that the Jeeps are defective and schedule a hearing. Ultimately, though, NHTSA would need a federal court order to impose the recall.
In the meantime, owners of the Jeeps are left in limbo and have to decide themselves if the SUVs are safe enough to transport their families.
The last time an automaker defied a NHTSA recall request was early in 2011, when Ford said that calling back 1.2 million pickup trucks for defective air bags wasn't justified. Ford later agreed to the recall after NHTSA threatened to hold a rare public hearing on the issue.
NHTSA began investigating the SUVs three years ago at the behest of Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety, an advocacy group.
Earlier this month, the agency sent a letter to Chrysler asking it to voluntarily recall Grand Cherokees from 1993 through 2004 and Libertys from 2002 through 2007. The plastic gas tanks, the government said, can rupture when hit from behind, spilling fuel and causing deadly fires.
Chrysler responded publicly, saying in a statement that it "does not intend to recall the vehicles." The car company's formal response is due Tuesday.
Chrysler Group LLC, which is majority-owned by Italy's Fiat SpA, said the Jeeps are among the safest vehicles of their era.
Chrysler did move the gas tank on the Grand Cherokee in front of the rear axle in 2005, and did the same thing with the Liberty in 2007.
Strengthening the structure around the gas tanks of the older Jeeps, likely the lowest-cost option, would be costly. Relocating them ahead of the axle would cost even more.
Ditlow says the problem could be solved for $100 per vehicle by bolting a metal gas tank shield to the frame, adding a fuel tank check valve to stop leaks and making the tank's hose longer so it won't be pulled from the tank in a crash.
Even that solution would cost Chrysler $270 million, assuming all eligible car owners get the shield, about one-sixth of the company's profit last year.
David Kelly, former acting NHTSA administrator under President George W. Bush, says he expects the matter to be settled before a public hearing takes place.
"Chrysler doesn't want to have a hearing with a bunch of people who have been in crashes and have lost family members," he says.
Kelly expects a lot of posturing before any settlement is reached. Such a settlement could include limiting which vehicles are recalled, he said. "There's a lot of different alternatives," says Kelly.
Chrysler says its review of nearly 30 years of data shows a low number of rear-impact crashes involving fire or a fuel leak in the affected Jeeps. "The rate is similar to comparable vehicles produced and sold during the time in question," the company said in its statement on June 4. It also said NHTSA left some similar vehicles out of its investigation.
But NHTSA found at least 32 rear-impact crashes and fires in Grand Cherokees that caused 44 deaths. It also found at least five rear crashes in Libertys, causing seven deaths. The agency calculated that the older Grand Cherokees and Libertys have fatal crash rates that are about double those of similar vehicles. It compared the Jeeps with the Chevrolet S10 Blazer, Ford Explorer, Toyota 4Runner, Isuzu Rodeo, Isuzu Trooper, Mitsubishi Montero, Suzuki Sidekick and Suzuki XL-7.
The agency said the older Jeeps performed poorly when compared with all but one similar vehicle from the 1993 to 2007 model years, "particularly in terms of fatalities, fires without fatalities, and fuel leaks in rear-end impacts and crashes."
Among the 51 deaths in the SUVs is Remington "Remi" Walden, a 4-year-old boy from Bainbridge, Ga. Walden was killed when his aunt's 1999 Grand Cherokee was hit from behind by a pickup truck on March 6, 2012. The child was on his way to a tennis lesson when the aunt, Emily Newsome, signaled and stopped to make a left turn, according to lawsuit filed against Chrysler by the boy's parents.
The driver of the pickup, Bryan Harrell, who also is a defendant, was following the Jeep too closely and failed to keep proper lookout, the lawsuit alleges. His 1997 Dodge Dakota rear-ended the Jeep, causing the fuel tank to rupture and spill gasoline, which ignited, according to the lawsuit. Remi, seated behind the driver in a booster seat, was engulfed in flames and later died.
"Numerous witnesses saw Remi struggling to escape and heard him screaming for help," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit alleges that Chrysler placed the gas tank in a "crush zone" behind the rear axle and knew the location was dangerous, and that the company failed to protect the gas tank against rupturing.
In court papers, Chrysler denied the allegations and said that Harrell's negligence was the sole cause of Remi's injuries.
A lawyer for the Walden family says Chrysler is liable only for actual damage such as pain and suffering, not punitive damages. Still the family has the ability to get verdicts in the millions of dollars, the lawyer said.
Chrysler has fended off a recall request in the past, using the unfair standards argument. Chrysler refused a NHTSA request in 1996 to recall 91,000 Dodge Stratus and Chrysler Cirrus cars for an alleged seat belt defect. NHTSA sued the company and won in federal court. But in 1998, an appeals court reversed the decision, saying NHTSA had unfairly held Chrysler to a new standard.
NHTSA concedes that the Jeeps met federal safety standards when they were built, but says the standards are minimum requirements for automakers. "The existence of a minimum standard does not require NHTSA to ignore deadly problems," the agency said in a letter to Chrysler.


text:
Susan Patton, better known as the "Princeton Mom", has been making the rounds of the talk and news shows promoting her Marry Smart: Advice for Finding THE ONE book. This book presents the 18th century view that a woman should focus primarily on finding a husband and do so quickly—fertility diminishes with time.
Patton attracted more attention with her March 11, 2014 interview with the Daily Princetonian. In a letter to the editor written about a year before the interview, she had make a rather provocative remark: "Please spare me your 'blaming the victim' outrage" and claimed that a woman who is drunk and provocatively dressed "must bear accountability for what may happen." When asked why the woman is responsible in the case of rape or sexual assault, she had the following to say:
The reason is, she is the one most likely to be harmed, so she is the one that needs to take control of the situation. She is that one that needs to take responsibility for herself and for her own safety, and simply not allow herself to come to a point where she is no longer capable of protecting her physical self. The analogy that I would give you is: If you cross the street without looking both ways and a car jumps the light or isn't paying attention, and you get hit by a car — as a woman or as anybody — and you say, 'Well I had a green light,' well yes you did have a green light but that wasn't enough. So in the same way, a woman who is going to say, 'Well the man should have recognized that I was drunk and not pushed me beyond the level at which I was happy to engage with him,' well, you didn't look both ways. I mean yes, you're right, a man should act better, men should be more respectful of women, but in the absence of that, and regardless of whether they are or are not, women must take care of themselves.
As might be imagined, this view has generated some backlash from faculty at Princeton and other people. Given the old saying that there is no such thing as bad publicity and such controversy can help sell books, it is not clear that the view expressed is one that Patton truly holds. However, when discussing the ethics of the content of her claims, her actual belief does not matter. As such, I will take her expressed view at face value.
Patton's first claim is that since the woman is most likely to be harmed, she needs to be responsible for her safety. There are at least two ways to view this claim. One is the very reasonable claim that a person needs to be responsible for her own safety—that is, a person has an obligation to herself to make sure that she is not needlessly in danger. This view that self-preservation is rational and obligatory is nicely defended by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke. Another way to view the claim, which is that apparently taken by her critics, is that the burden falls completely on the woman. While this is certainly a prudent view, it does run afoul of the notion that the person who wrongfully inflicts harm on another should bear the majority of the responsibility for the harm inflicted (if not all of it).
Patton's second claim is that a woman has an obligation to not allow herself to be incapable of self-defense. Presumably Patton means that a woman has an obligation to not become some drunk that she cannot defend herself from a man who means to assault or rape her. In defense of this claim, Patton offers her analogy: a woman who gets assaulted or raped when she is too drunk to defend herself is like someone who gets hit by a car because they did not look both ways before crossing the street—even though she had the light.
The analogy does have some merit—while drivers are obligated to take care not to hit people, a person should take due precautions to avoid being hit. To do otherwise is clearly foolish. However, there is a distinction between what is prudent and what is morally obligatory. While it makes perfect sense that a woman should not impair herself when she has reason to believe that she will be vulnerable to assault or rape, this is a different matter than her having a moral obligation to herself to avoid being vulnerable in this way. There is also a third matter, namely who is responsible when a drunk woman is raped or assaulted.
In regards to the second matter, this is essentially a question of whether there is a moral obligation for self-defense. It is generally accepted that people have a moral right to self-defense and for the sake of the discussion that will be assumed. This right gives a person the liberty to protect herself. If it is only a liberty, then the person has the right to not act in self-defense and thus be an easy victim. However, if there is an obligation of self-defense, then failing to act on this obligation would seem to be a moral failing. The obvious challenge is to show that there is such an obligation.
On the face of it, it would seem that self-defense is merely a liberty. However, some consideration of the matter will suggest that this is not so obvious. In the Leviathan, Hobbes presents what he takes to be the Law of Nature (lex naturalis): "a precept or general rule, found by reason, that forbids a man to do what is destructive of his life or takes away the means of preserving it and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best preserved." Hobbes goes on to note that "right consists in liberty to do or to forbear" and "law determines and binds." If Hobbes is correct, then people would seem to have both a right and an obligation to self-defense.
John Locke and Thomas Aquinas also contend that life is to be preserved and if they are right, then this would seem to impose an obligation of self-defense. Of course, this notion could be countered by contending that all it requires is for a person to seek protection from possible threats and doing so could involve relying on the protection or restraint of others rather than one's self. However, there are arguments against this.
I will start with a practical argument. While the modern Western state projects its coercive force and spying eyes into society, the state's agents cannot (yet) observe all that occurs nor can they always be close at hand in times of danger. As such, relying solely on the state would seem to put a person at risk—after all, he would be helpless in the face of danger. If a person relies on other individuals, then unless she is guarded at all times, then she also faces the real risk of being a helpless victim. This would, at the very least, seem imprudent.
This argument can be used as the basis for a moral argument. If a person is morally obligated to preserve life (including his own) and others cannot be reliably depended on, then it would seem that she would have an obligation of self-defense and this would include not intentionally making herself vulnerable to well-known threats. These threats would, sadly, include those presented by bad men. As such, a woman would have a moral obligation to avoid being vulnerable. This seems reasonable.
The third matter is the question of moral responsibility when a drunk woman is assaulted or raped by a man who takes advantage of her vulnerability. In the abstract, it could be argued that the woman does bear some of the responsibility—if a woman has an obligation to defend herself, she would have failed in her obligation by becoming vulnerable in this way. As with her analogy, someone who crosses the road without looking and gets hit has failed in a clear duty to herself. However, even if this point is granted, there is still the matter of who bears the majority of the responsibility.
On the face of it, it seems evident that the man who assaulted or raped the woman bears the overwhelming moral responsibility. After all, even if the woman should have avoided being vulnerable, the man has a far greater moral obligation to not harm her. There is also the matter of reasonable expectations. To be specific, while a person is obligated to protect herself, this does not obligate her to be hyper-vigilant against all possible dangers. To use an analogy, if woman does not buy body armor to wear on campus (after all, there have been campus shooting) and she is shot by a gunman, it would be absurd to blame her for her injury or death. The blame rests on the shooter—his obligation to not shoot her vastly outweighs the extent of her obligation to be prepared.
In the case of rape and sexual assault, while a woman should be prudent for the sake of self-protection, the overwhelming moral responsibility is on the man. That the woman makes herself vulnerable to rape or assault no more lessens the rapist's responsibility than the fact that the woman was not wearing body armor lessens the responsibility of the shooter. The principle here is that vulnerability does not mitigate moral responsibility. This is intuitively plausible: just because a victimizer has an easier time with his victim, it hardly makes his misdeeds less bad.
Patton does acknowledge that men should act better, but she does insist that a woman must take care of herself. This could be seen as sensible advice: a woman should not count on the goodwill of others, but be on guard against reasonably foreseeable harm. This advice is, of course, consistent with the view that the rapist is the one truly responsible for the rape.


text:
Volare Leather 17mm / Pink
Free Shipping Worldwide
- Description
Combining rich colorations and high-quality leather, each leather strap adds a light-hearted touch to make your outfit extra flashy.
Our luxurious leather straps featureanatural and soft feel thatspleasing to the touch.Its both stylish and comfortable as the leather learns the shape of your wrist overtime.
This collection features a pointed leather strap that comes in an eclectic range, from playful to serious colors. Perfect to be worn casually or in formal events where youll dress to impress whichever way. It comes in sizes that are compatible with our Volare 36mm watches.
Material: Leather Strap, Stainless Steel Buckle
Width: 17mm
View Video - Single - Click Leather strap exchange
View Video - Single -Click Meshband Exchange
View Video - Meshband Adjustment
Free Leather Embossing
Customize Your Unique Leather Strap


text:
Term break means a time to relax, a time to reflect, and a time to regroup! It is also inescapably time to stop and reflect on professionalism. My head has to stop spinning and my mind has to stop being excited on the one hand, or screaming with frustration on the other.
Like many others in my personal learning network, I am passionate about the changes in the learning environments of our students – at least the possibilities if not always the actualities. I've been blogging about this and the information frameworks, tools, concepts, and activities since May 2006. Yes, I know that's not long, but it's longer than some and long enough now to know when I am hearing or reading rubbish!!
Doug Johnson in Continuum's End said
It seems to me that that the continuum between reactionary educators who still find overhead projectors a cutting edge tool and progressive educators who seem to master each tool and philosophy du jour is stretching ever longer every year. As a classroom teacher in the 70s and 80s, we all taught pretty much the same way, with the same sets of tools.
The question of importance to me is not the mastery of tools, but the underlying processes that are important. This is the rub – there are those who, rightly or wrongly, are amongst the elite in terms of commentary or influence on directions in education, who it seems to me have become what my own family constantly remind me not to be…..they are 'clique-bags'.
"Those" clique-bags are the smart ones – not me, not you – but people who make decisions on our behalf.
Finally I have had enough of the clique and rhetoric!
I'm churning my way through a ton of books on digital schooling, digital kids, 21st century society etc etc.
And its always the same – rattle out the cliches, dismiss everything about the past, bang on about the digital generation and bingo you have 21st century learning frameworks.
Don't get me wrong – it's not that I don't agree with some of the key elements – I wouldn't be a blogger if I didn't have my headspace in the 21st century – but please slap me with a cold fish if I ever start saying the following:
In many ways, schools as we have all experienced them, are offspring of the industrial age. So powerfully influential were industrial processes and their effects on all aspects of society, that schooling was actually modeled on these processes, designed to meet the needs of a particular society in a particular point in history……..G. Whitby in "Leading a Digital School: Principles and Practice" ed Mal Lee and Michael Gaffney
What has happened with cliques is that educationalists have been ranting about 'industrial age' schooling, related to the economic and communication environments that shaped society in the 19th and 20th centuries. So with the globalisation of world economies and the emergence of the flat classroom concepts, the thought leaders have adopted the 'industrial schooling' argument as the reason for wholesale deconstruction of education structures across schools or systems.
I would suggest that we not forget the history of education in society. Unique combination of technological, cultural and economic factors led to the Industrial Revolution and a spinnoff in this era was the eventual emergence of the right to education for all. The much criticized 'industrial age' of schooling of the 20th century was in fact the endpoint of an age of great achievement where education was sought after and available for every child in western society. It was an age of great sacrifice, of economic battles for the right to either secular or religious education, it was an era that carried forward the ideals of knowledge first cemented by the Greek philosophers, and valued throughout history and the transitions wrought by the age of the printing press and beyond.
The 'industrial age' of schooling was the pinnacle of many achievements. My children's grandfather rode a horse to school, had no electricity or running water at his home, yet without basic technology or the accouterments so urgently demanded for all our students, was able to learn so much that made him the thinking man he is today, who can hold his own and challenge the ideals and deep knowledge of his geeky young grand kids.
It was a major achievement to be able to educate all young members of our society. In third world countries, this right is still being won! It is not technology or web 2.0 or fancy new ways of arranging staff and learning spaces that makes the real difference. It is what we say, how we say it, and how we support deep knowledge that makes it possible for our students become good social, ethical and moral citizens of the world.
No more cliques please. Rather, acknowledge the value of past efforts, and build on them to create future opportunities – which incorporate the demands that our 21st century makes on us. If I go back to John's post The Continuum's End – I'd venture that the continuum between reactionary and progressive education spans many centuries.
Unfortunately there are some amongst us that are so poorly read themselves that they can't see how silly it is to tout 20th century 'industrial age schooling' as the reason for educational change. Oh but they are probably the same people who run your education system, or institution and are good at verbose cliques to justify their actions.
Yes, there's a lot that needs to change about schooling. Let's focus on the facts to get there. Cliches are born of ignorance – that's all. Focus on the revolution not the rhetoric!


text:
I use
xmodmap to alter my keyboard layout during session startup.
However, each time the GNOME screensaver/lock screen is activated, it
resets the keyboard to its default layout, and I have to run
again to get my keybindings back.
I understand that resetting the keyboard layout is the right thing to do before presenting a password prompt, but Is there a way to stop the GNOME screensaver from doing it? Or a way to tell GNOME to use a custom keyboard layout all the time?


text:
Your Brussels Midi South to London St Pancras International train travel starts here
BOOKING IN 3 MINUTES. No Train Tickets Booking Fees. Cheapest Rates
Get The Best Train Travel Offers
Order A Train Ticket, Fast And Easy
Choose How You Want To Pay
Cheap Train Travel From Brussels Midi South To London St Pancras International
See how your train trip from Brussels Midi South to London St Pancras International will look like
More Important Information About Your Travel to London St Pancras International
London is the capital and largest city of England and the United Kingdom. Standing on the River Thames in the south-east of England, at the head of its 50-mile (80 km) estuary leading to the North Sea, London has been a major settlement for two millennia. Londinium was founded by the Romans. The City of London, London's ancient core − an area of just 1.12 square miles (2.9 km2) and colloquially known as the Square Mile − retains boundaries that closely follow its medieval limits. The City of Westminster is also an Inner London borough holding city status.
Additional Information About Brussels Midi South
Brussels (French: Bruxelles [bʁysɛl] or [bʁyksɛl]; Dutch: Brussel [ˈbrʏsəl]), officially the Brussels-Capital Region (French: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale; Dutch: Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest), is a region of Belgium comprising 19 municipalities, including the City of Brussels, which is the capital of Belgium. The Brussels-Capital Region is located in the central portion of the country and is a part of both the French Community of Belgium and the Flemish Community, but is separate from the Flemish Region (within which it forms an enclave) and the Walloon Region. Brussels is the most densely populated and the richest region in Belgium in terms of GDP per capita. It covers 162 km2 (63 sq mi), a relatively small area compared to the two other regions, and has a population of over 1.2 million. The five times larger metropolitan area of Brussels comprises over 2.5 million people, which makes it the largest in Belgium.
Images of The United Kingdome trains
We Operate Train Ticket Services In France, Italy, Netherlands, Luxemburg, Austria, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland , Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Hungary
Other Train Trips From Brussels Midi South:
Why you should travel by train?
Popular Train Routes For Traveling:
These Are The Train Operators We Work With:
|SNCB Belgium
|Intercity Trains
|SJ Sweden
|NS International Netherlands
SNCF TGV Lyria
SNCF Ouigo
NSB Vy Norway
SBB Switzerland
CFL Luxembourg
Deutsche Bahn ICE Germany
Night Trains
Deutsche Bahn Germany
Mav Czech


text:
There are some foods to avoid or take care with when you're pregnant as they might make you ill or harm your baby.
There are some foods to avoid or take care with when you're pregnant as they might make you ill or harm your baby.
Make sure you know the important facts about which foods you should avoid or take precautions with when you're pregnant.
Don't eat mould-ripened soft cheese (cheeses with a white rind) such as brie and camembert. This includes mould-ripened soft goats' cheese, such as chèvre. These cheeses are only safe to eat in pregnancy if they've been cooked.
You should also avoid soft blue-veined cheeses such as danish blue, gorgonzola and roquefort. Soft blue cheeses are only safe to eat in pregnancy if they've been cooked.
It's advised pregnant women avoid some soft cheeses because they're less acidic than hard cheeses and contain more moisture, which means they can be an ideal environment for harmful bacteria, such as listeria, to grow in.
Although infection with listeria (listeriosis) is rare, it's important to take special precautions in pregnancy – even a mild form of the illness in a pregnant woman can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth or severe illness in a newborn baby.
If you're pregnant and showing signs of listeria infection, seek medical help straight away.
All hard cheeses are safe in pregnancy. You can eat hard cheeses, such as cheddar, parmesan and stilton, even if they're made with unpasteurised milk. Hard cheeses don't contain as much water as soft cheeses, so bacteria are less likely to grow in them. It's possible for hard cheese to contain listeria, but the risk is considered to be low.
Other than mould-ripened soft cheeses, all other soft types of cheese are OK to eat, provided they're made from pasteurised milk.
These include:
Thorough cooking should kill any bacteria in cheese, so it should be safe to eat cooked mould-ripened soft cheese, such as brie, camembert and chèvre, and cooked soft blue cheese, such as roquefort or gorgonzola, or dishes that contain them.
It's important to make sure the cheese is thoroughly cooked until it's steaming hot all the way through.
Avoid all types of pâté, including vegetable pâtés, as they can contain listeria.
Avoid some raw or partially cooked eggs if you're pregnant. Non-hen eggs such as duck, goose and quail eggs should always be cooked thoroughly.
Raw or undercooked meat is risky in pregnancy
Do not eat raw or undercooked meat, including meat joints and steaks cooked rare, because of the potential risk of toxoplasmosis.
Cook all meat and poultry thoroughly so it's steaming hot and there's no trace of pink or blood – especially with poultry, pork, sausages and minced meat, including burgers.
Wash all surfaces and utensils thoroughly after preparing raw meat to avoid the spread of harmful bugs. Wash and dry your hands after touching or handling raw meat.
Toxoplasmosis is an infection caused by a parasite found in raw and undercooked meat, unpasteurised goats' milk, soil, cat poo, and untreated water.
If you're pregnant, the infection can damage your baby, but it's important to remember toxoplasmosis in pregnancy is very rare.
Toxoplasmosis often has no symptoms, but if you feel you may have been at risk, discuss it with your doctor, midwife or obstetrician. If you're infected while you're pregnant, treatment for toxoplasmosis is available.
Many cold meats, such as salami, prosciutto, chorizo and pepperoni, are not cooked, they're just cured and fermented. This means there's a risk they contain toxoplasmosis-causing parasites.
It's best to check the instructions on the pack to see whether the product is ready to eat or needs cooking first.
For ready-to-eat meats, you can reduce any risk from parasites by freezing cured or fermented meats for four days at home before you eat them. Freezing kills most parasites and makes the meat safer to eat.
If you're planning to cook the meat – for instance, pepperoni on pizza – you don't need to freeze it first.
If you're eating out in a restaurant that sells cold cured or fermented meats, they may not have been frozen. If you're concerned, ask the staff or avoid eating it.
Pre-packed meat is safe to eat if you're pregnant
Pre-packed meats such as ham and corned beef are safe to eat in pregnancy. Some websites based in other countries may suggest that you avoid pre-packed meats when pregnant, but this is not the advice in the UK.
Don't eat liver or products containing liver, such as liver pâté, liver sausage or haggis, as they may contain a lot of vitamin A. Too much vitamin A can harm your baby.
It's best to avoid eating game that has been shot with lead pellets while you're pregnant, as it may contain higher levels of lead. Venison and other large game sold in supermarkets is usually farmed and contains no or very low levels of lead. If you're not sure whether a product may contain lead shot, ask a retailer.
Don't take high-dose multivitamin supplements, fish liver oil supplements, or any supplements containing vitamin A.
You can eat most types of fish when you're pregnant. Eating fish is good for your health and the development of your baby, but you should avoid some types of fish and limit the amount you eat of some others.
Fish to avoid:
When you're pregnant or planning to get pregnant, you shouldn't eat shark, swordfish or marlin.
Fish to restrict:
You should also limit the amount of tuna you eat to:
This is because tuna contains more mercury than other types of fish. The amount of mercury we get from food isn't harmful for most people, but could affect your baby's developing nervous system if you take in high levels of mercury when you're pregnant.
When you're pregnant, you should also avoid having more than two portions of oily fish a week, such as salmon, trout, mackerel and herring, as it can contain pollutants like dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Remember, fresh tuna is an oily fish, so if you eat two fresh tuna steaks in one week, you shouldn't eat any other oily fish that week.
Tinned tuna doesn't count as oily fish, so you can eat this on top of the maximum amount of two portions of oily fish (as long as it's not fresh tuna).
But remember not to eat more than four medium-sized cans of tinned tuna a week when you're pregnant or trying to get pregnant.
Fish that's safe to eat:
There's no need to limit the amount of white fish and cooked shellfish you eat when you're pregnant or breastfeeding.
Always eat cooked, rather than raw, shellfish – including mussels, lobster, crab, prawns, scallops and clams – when you're pregnant, as they can contain harmful bacteria and viruses that can cause food poisoning. Cold pre-cooked prawns are fine.
Smoked fish in pregnancy is safe
Smoked fish, which includes smoked salmon and smoked trout, is considered safe to eat in pregnancy.
It's fine to eat raw or lightly cooked fish in dishes like sushi when you're pregnant, as long as any raw wild fish used to make it has been frozen first.
This is because, occasionally, wild fish contains small parasitic worms that could make you ill. Freezing kills the worms and makes raw fish safe to eat. Cooking will also kill them.
Certain farmed fish destined to be eaten raw in dishes like sushi, such as farmed salmon, no longer need to be frozen beforehand.
This is because farmed fish are very unlikely to contain parasitic worms as a result of the rearing methods used.
Lots of the sushi sold in shops is not made at the shop. This type of sushi should be fine to eat – if a shop or restaurant buys in ready-made sushi, the raw fish used to make it will have been subject to an appropriate freezing treatment.
If you're in any doubt, you might want to avoid eating the kinds of sushi that contain raw fish, such as tuna.
The safest way to enjoy sushi is to choose the fully cooked or vegetarian varieties, which can include:
If a shop or restaurant makes its own sushi on the premises, it must still be frozen first before being served. If you're concerned, ask the staff.
If you make your own sushi at home, freeze the fish for at least four days before using it.
You can eat peanuts or food containing peanuts, such as peanut butter, during pregnancy, unless you're allergic to them or a health professional advises you not to.
You may have heard peanuts should be avoided during pregnancy. This is because the government previously advised women to avoid eating peanuts if there was a history of allergy – such as asthma, eczema, hay fever and food allergy – in their child's immediate family.
This advice has now changed because the latest research has shown no clear evidence that eating peanuts during pregnancy affects the chances of your baby developing a peanut allergy.
Stick to pasteurised or ultra-heat treated (UHT) milk, which is sometimes called long-life milk.
If only raw (unpasteurised) milk is available, boil it first. Don't drink unpasteurised goats' or sheep's milk, or eat foods made from them, such as soft goats' cheese.
All types of yoghurt, including bio, live and low fat, are fine. Just check that any homemade yoghurt is made with pasteurised milk, and, if not, avoid it.
Soft ice creams should be fine to eat when you're pregnant, as they are processed products made with pasteurised milk and eggs, so any risk of salmonella food poisoning has been eliminated.
For homemade ice cream, use a pasteurised egg substitute or follow an egg-free recipe.
Wash fruit, vegetables and salads to remove all traces of soil and visible dirt.
High levels of caffeine can result in babies having a low birthweight, which can increase the risk of health problems in later life. Too much caffeine can also cause miscarriage.
Caffeine is naturally found in lots of foods, such as coffee, tea (including green tea) and chocolate, and is added to some soft drinks and energy drinks.
Some cold and flu remedies also contain caffeine. Talk to your midwife, doctor or pharmacist before taking these remedies.
You don't need to cut out caffeine completely, but don't have more than 200mg a day.
The approximate amount of caffeine found in food and drinks is:
So, if you have one can of cola and one mug of filter coffee, for example, you have reached almost 200mg of caffeine. Don't worry if you occasionally have more than this amount – the risks are small.
To cut down on caffeine, try decaffeinated tea and coffee, fruit juice or mineral water instead of regular tea, coffee, cola and energy drinks.
There's little information on the safety of herbal and green teas in pregnancy, so it's best to drink them in moderation.
The FSA recommends drinking no more than around four cups of herbal or green tea a day during pregnancy, and to seek advice from your doctor or midwife if you're unsure about which herbal products are safe to consume.
Bear in mind that green tea contains caffeine.
You can have moderate amounts of liquorice sweets or liquorice teas in pregnancy – there's no recommendation to avoid them. However, you should avoid the herbal remedy liquorice root.
Important: Our website provides useful information but is not a substitute for medical advice. You should always seek the advice of your doctor when making decisions about your health.


text:
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) – The Louisville Cardinals are about to be the ultimate one-and-done.
The defending national champions will help the American Athletic Conference make a name for itself as a basketball power conference before bolting to the Atlantic Coast Conference.
Tha's OK with the AAC commissioner, who plans to squeeze all he can from their brief stay.
'It's great having them this year,' Commissioner Mike Aresco said Wednesday. 'Having them in our conference will give every other school the chance to play to that level, the chance to get that exposure that's generated because of Louisville.
'When they leave, I think we have people that can pick up the slack that maybe a year ago people didn't think we did.'
The American – the league's preferred name over AAC to help people tell it apart from the ACC – held its inaugural men's basketball media day.
Aresco has had his hands full with the American's reinvention.
This league was pulled together after the split of the Big East, leading Big East teams Louisville, Connecticut, Rutgers, Temple, Cincinnati and South Florida to join with Memphis, Central Florida, Houston and SMU. Louisville gives this league its best calling card for now.
'Whoever has the defending champs, it's simple,' Rutgers coach Eddie Jordan said. 'People are going to watch.'
But they'll only be watching the Scarlet Knights in the American for one year also. Rutgers will be heading to the Big Ten next year. But Jordan said that's next year.
'We need to take care of our current situation,' Jordan said.
Louisville was picked as the preseason favorite to win the inaugural AAC title. The Cardinals, with three starters back, received nine of 10 votes in the coaches' poll. Louisville coach Rick Pitino said football is driving the bus for conference realignment and was very diplomatic as he talked of focusing on this season.
Being a lame duck didn't stop Pitino from promoting the league he's in for now.
'You look at Memphis will be a top 10 team, Cincinnati a top 20 team, Temple a top 30 team. SMU's on the rise. We're probably a top 5 team preseason,' Pitino said. 'So you have highly ranked basketball teams, outstanding coaches, great fan support, and there's places for me I have not coached at and I'm looking forward to.'
Louisville senior guard Russ Smith said the Cardinals want to make their only season in the American memorable.
'If it's a good one, they'll remember us as the team that won the last two years of the Big East, had a great year in the American league and now is going to start a new legacy in the ACC,' Smith said. 'If we take care of business as we're supposed to, we're definitely going to be a dynasty to be reckoned with.'
Connecticut received the other first-place vote and is picked to finish second behind the Cardinals. Memphis, which will host the league's tournament in March, was picked third ahead of Cincinnati, Temple, SMU, Houston, South Florida, UCF and Rutgers.
This league features former NBA coaches in Larry Brown trying to build SMU, Jordan taking over Rutgers and Pitino at Louisville. UConn and Louisville have won two of the last three national championships. Brown said right now fans have no clue about the quality of this league but said TV exposure will fix that.
'They're going to figure out pretty early we're in an elite conference, and they won't be looking to the future,' Brown said.
Aresco also said his league is willing to consider providing player stipends to offset the rising cost of attending college, explore flexibility in how schools spend their money and look at using stipends to compensate athletes for the full cost of attending college. It's a topic that athletic directors across all three NCAA divisions have been discussing.
The commissioner wants the relationship between schools and players strengthened and not abandoned.
'But we will not pay players,' Aresco said. 'We will not establish an employer-employee relationship. That's not what college sports is about, and it is the road to ruin. The amateur model may be strained. There's no question there's issues. But with intelligent work and revisions, it can continue to work. It has to work.'


text:
Say CHEESE!
Tum Yeto friend, Russ Pope has an show at Nine Star LA on April 8th. Ray Barbee is going to play music at the event. If you are around go check it out.
Corey Duffel b/s crooks
The Nuge big spin heel.
more pics and content check www.skatehere.com
Billy Marks interview on skateboarding.com!!
Joey P. lucked out and won the Foundation Orbit board in black.
Marc Tanner won the red one.


text:
Wedding Photos from around the world
< back to thumbnails >Tea-length Duchess dress w/ square neck and wide sash w/ bow at back The Dessy Group: http://www.dessy.com/dresses/bridesmaid/d408/
Requires Login
Save this photo in your wedding notebook.
Requires Login
You must log in before you can save anything to your wedding notebook Log in here.
If you do not have an account, you can register a new account here.
The Dessy GroupWedding Party Attire, Jewelry/Accessories, Tuxedos
Featured Photo