Adele Donnelly- The sweet, motherly one
Emer Donnelly- The blunt, violent one
Amelie Dupont- The cold, beautiful one
Pepper “Red” Jones- The boyish, energetic one
Esmerelda Vega- The dishonest, seductive one
Nicola Moretti- The dark, secretive one
After the world fought itself in a giant, all-encompassing war, only a few survive. Those who do don't do it honestly, or not in the modern-day sense of the word. Six girls- all very different, yet very much the same- have banded together as a means of survival. They steal what they need, and are willing to kill for each other- and in the streets on New York, that might happen more than normal. Then, one day, a new group comes to town. They force their way into the girl's life, and threaten to change everything But they all must learn to work together when a new threat arises- larger and more powerful than anything any of them have seen before.|||It sounds quite interesting! Your last line where you introduced a new and dangerous problem was what reeled me in, your vagueness was good :)
It just sounds really really violent and as long as there is not too much blood and gore, i would definitely give it a try!
And if there was a hint of romance as well, thats a definite plus!
Kudos to you for thinking of such an interesting idea!|||yeah, i'd read it. dystopians usually aren't my cup of tea, but i've read a few good ones recently, i'd give this a try. also, your hatred of mary-sues is quite assuring. good luck.|||OOOO, haha! This sounds like me and my friends in school! :P I'm Pepper "Red" Jones! I even have red hair! I wopuld totally read it, boo-yah chica!!!|||Check out this page for character creation. Make sure to view the link for the Mary Sue Litmus test. http://sites.google.com/site/allusionsan…|||YES YES YES YES YES YES THIS IS AMAZING, YOU ASK QUESTIONS AND ARE DRAGED INTO THE STORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!…
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Has anyone ever heard of a saleen S-427 mustang?
i saw this in a dupont registry a few years ago and have emailed saleen and cant get them to respond, the car looked to be about a 1997-2001 i haven't seen the pic in about a year but want to know if this was a saleen production car or someone put a 427 with a saleen supercharger in a mustang. the car was selling for about $275,000. Prototype? one of a kind? it looked to have numbers on the bumper like it should and they were in the correct location on the car. please help this is making me nuts! ive been reserching this for the last 8 months and have nothing!!!|||that's probably the serial number and nothing to do with the engine size.....but someone could have made something up with a stroked smallblock 427...a lot of those running around..|||if the car company denies all knowledge its a one off
MASSIVE NEW THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT PLEASE READ AND POST SOLUTIONS?
No conservatives allowed(I'm conservative my self but not a But%26amp;^% dumb$%^).
Laughing Gas: The Latest Threat to the Ozone Layer
Humankind doesn't have a great track record when it comes to cleaning up environmental messes, but there was one time we really outdid ourselves. That was back in 1989, when over 190 nations signed the Montreal Protocol, phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The decade before, scientists had discovered that CFCs were blowing a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, exposing us to dangerous ultraviolet radiation and boosting the risk of skin cancer. Today, CFCs are no longer in widespread use, and the ozone layer appears to be on the mend.
But even with that battle all but won, scientists are finding a new man-made threat to the ozone layer: nitrous oxide (N2O), otherwise known as laughing gas. A study published in the Aug. 28 Science found that N2O - a by-product of agricultural fertilizer and a number of other industrial processes - is now the biggest ozone-depleting gas in the air, and could present a real threat to the ozone layer in coming decades. And worse, unlike CFCs, N2O - which also adds to global warming - is not regulated by the Montreal Protocol, meaning there is no global effort to try to reduce emissions. (Read "Can Steven Chu Win the Fight Over Global Warming?")
"Pretty soon human-caused N2O emissions will be greater than all other ozone-depleting substances combined," says John Daniel, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a co-author of the Science study. "It will be the dominant gas in the future."
The idea that N2O poses a threat to the ozone layer is not new, but the Science study is the first comprehensive look at the exact concentrations and consequences of the gas. The investigators found that although N2O is only one-sixtieth as dangerous to the ozone layer as CFCs on a gram-by-gram basis, the sheer amount of N2O - each year nearly 1 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent are released globally - means that it now poses a more significant threat to the atmosphere. (N2O emissions are calculated in terms of their impact on global warming, and CO2 is used as a kind of base level.) (See Q%26amp;A: "Regional Nuclear War and the Environment.")
The news isn't all bad: the fact that scientists can now turn so much of their attention to the dangers of N2O is in part because CFC levels have dropped so low, thanks to the Montreal Protocol. But N2O is likely to prove much more difficult than CFCs to phase out. While CFCs had a relatively narrow range of uses - and chemical companies like DuPont were able to come up with replacements quickly - N2O is all around us, tied intimately to our industrial way of life. The millions of tons of soil fertilizer used in U.S. agriculture alone add N2O into the atmosphere, as do livestock manure, sewage treatment and automobiles. And it's not just our doing: two-thirds of global N2O emissions come from the planet itself, as bacteria in soil and the oceans break down nitrogen. Though N2O is regulated by the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 as a greenhouse gas - and one that is nearly 300 times more potent for global warming than CO2 - that treaty doesn't cover all nations, and will expire in 2012. "The question is how are we going to reduce these gases," says Daniel. "We need to bridge that gap between science and policy."
Such a multifaceted problem will require a multifront solution, and some good ideas might come up at the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December. Reducing the quantity of fertilizer used in farming, switching to a less meat-heavy diet and lowering the number of cars on the road while boosting fuel economy will all help. The planet itself will continue churning out its own N2O, of course, but the planet did that for eons. It was our N2O production that pushed the gas past the tipping point - requiring that we now push it back. "It can be a win-win phasing out these gases, both for climate and the ozone," says Robert Portman, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and a co-author of the study. If we fail, we won't be laughing about nitrous oxide.
Guys this appears to be pretty darn scary but ALSO a great opportunity to quickly change peoples minds about policy. I think if we introduce this to the public there will be more awareness and a quicker need to take down the problems.
Please post your soluttion and/or thoughts.|||I must agree that the threat from dihydrogen monoxide is far more severe than n2o could ever be. 99% of all n2o produced is for use by dentists and so can never be a true environmental threat like h2o already is.|||My solution:
Stop pretending to be something your not.|||Woooo.... was there a fear-monger convention recently?
Everyone who's a scientist knows that laughing gas goes up to the Bozone layer.|||Why doesn't somebody just come out and say why they want to control energy.|||that question is way too long|||Does this mean we have to limit the use of Viagra? Viagra works by increasing nitrous oxide levels in the bloodstream...
Seriously, this is the problem of any manmade edict. As soon as you create a rule, people start looking for ways to circumvent it instead of showing some social responsibility by honoring the intent of the regulation.
In my first job, I tended to monitor the mainframe logs surrediptiously to sort out what my computer operators were doing at night and would investigate and take action to correct any misbehaviour such as sleeping on the job without revealing how I knew of the transgressions. Of course, there were limited metrics to monitor such as operator response time to tape mount requests from which to infer the overnight events. After I transferred stateside, my replacement, against my advice, decided to make the log analysis public and simply have the rule that whomever had the lowest average mount times would get a free lunch every week at a decent restaurant. One fella always got the free lunch and eventually my replacement started to wonder why and when the issue was investigated, it turned out that the particular employee was simply suspending all jobs so that nothing would be running hence his response time to any requests was zero during his shift.
If you remember, during the recent economic disheavals, one of the criticisms against Obama's interventions was that the economy would recover faster once the investors were confident that Obama would not intercede. Obama was reserving the right to adjust his intervention to account for issues that he had not foreseen and the investors were waiting till when they could be certain that whatever loophole they discovered would not be plugged before they got their return on investment.
We've never really progressed from playing soccer in the school yard when we would shout out "No Changees" whenever too many rules were being made on the fly.
It isn't possible to predict every possible factor both known and unknown when preparing legislation so ultimately something will not be covered despite the best intentions.|||That is nothing new. Liberals calling themselves conservative because it gives them credibility. Why is that?
There is nothing new in this. It is typical hysterical non scientific fear mongering and paranoia from the left.
The concentration is 293 ppbv now and it was measured at 276 ppbv in the 1800's. It is only an assumption that the massive increase of 6% must be from humans and it has to be catastrophic. I know that I am going to find it difficult to sleep tonight.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95鈥?/a>|||I have a solution, let the world die a slow agonizing death. It would be better to burn up from global warming or drown under the raising seas of melting glaciers than have to listen to anymore Eco-nuts come up with 200 more things that are going to hurt the environment. So far we have Freon, CO2, Acid Rain, Aerosol Cans, Plastic Packaging, Styrofoam, Gasoline Vapors, Fertilizers, Diesel Emissions, Coal Emissions, too many People, and Cows Farting. Those are just the ones that come to mind, that are killing our planet. The planet needs to just burst into flames and get it over with. As long as the Eco-Nuts catch fire a little bit before I do, I'll die a happy man.|||I think the biggest threat to the polar ice caps are ppl peeing in the oceans that can really cuase it to warm it.
i am giulty of it and i am trying to get a bailout from the us governemt to stop the situation and global warming. So far all my request have been rejected but i will keep on trying!|||From what I understand this is one of the gases that is measured by parts per trillion. Also, most Industrialized nations have banned CFC's for around 40 years. It was the early to mid 1970's that the notion that CFC's cause the ozone hole.
Also, your additional details about Republicans bring about a trillion dollar war when the Republicans did not hold a large enough majority to pass any bills without Democrat help.|||sry guys nothing we can do about it :(
Even if we change China and India are going to pass us fast in pollutants and do u think they are going to slow their economy to help the environment. Unless something absolutely drastic happens from our leaders were doomed.
well hey its not that bad, if wont effect your lifetime its just your children's children's children that are going to die from our mistakes.|||Point of information, the U.S. has a marvelous record of cleaning up after ourselves. By 1900 the forest was gone from lake Erie to the Ohio river and south. The streams were choked with mud from thousands of tiny hillside farms throughout Appalachia. The deer, bear, beaver, otter, turkey, piliated woodpecker and a host of other wildlife was extirpated. Raw sewage flowed unfiltered from the cities and industry into our streams. Our sky was black from the burning of coal in industry and homes.
Today, Ohio is over 30% of Ohio is forested. Our streams and Lake Erie are comparatively, beautifully clean. Wildlife is so abundantly back that we can enjoy seeing deer, beaver and otters even in our suburbs and urban parks. Our air is, comparatively, marvelous.
We have much work to do with our environment, but let us always enjoy and be encouraged by our successes.|||The biggest threat to the environment and people is Dihydrogen Monoxide. It will kill people or animals if they inhale it. It's everywhere. It's even in our schools and in our homes, and no one cares. Children are exposed to it every day. Everyone needs to write to their representatives about it.|||1) There is no question.
2) You give no references.
('Take my word for it' is not good science.)
3) The so-called question is longer than most blog posts.
Unclear what you are looking for - this site usually deals in short answers.
Perhaps you are looking for answers in the wrong venue?
Or perhaps you just wanted someone to listen?
Point of information to Jim: our record of cleaning up after ourselves is abysmal. See the two sites listed below. That is but one example of many.
Laughing Gas: The Latest Threat to the Ozone Layer
Humankind doesn't have a great track record when it comes to cleaning up environmental messes, but there was one time we really outdid ourselves. That was back in 1989, when over 190 nations signed the Montreal Protocol, phasing out the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The decade before, scientists had discovered that CFCs were blowing a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica, exposing us to dangerous ultraviolet radiation and boosting the risk of skin cancer. Today, CFCs are no longer in widespread use, and the ozone layer appears to be on the mend.
But even with that battle all but won, scientists are finding a new man-made threat to the ozone layer: nitrous oxide (N2O), otherwise known as laughing gas. A study published in the Aug. 28 Science found that N2O - a by-product of agricultural fertilizer and a number of other industrial processes - is now the biggest ozone-depleting gas in the air, and could present a real threat to the ozone layer in coming decades. And worse, unlike CFCs, N2O - which also adds to global warming - is not regulated by the Montreal Protocol, meaning there is no global effort to try to reduce emissions. (Read "Can Steven Chu Win the Fight Over Global Warming?")
"Pretty soon human-caused N2O emissions will be greater than all other ozone-depleting substances combined," says John Daniel, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and a co-author of the Science study. "It will be the dominant gas in the future."
The idea that N2O poses a threat to the ozone layer is not new, but the Science study is the first comprehensive look at the exact concentrations and consequences of the gas. The investigators found that although N2O is only one-sixtieth as dangerous to the ozone layer as CFCs on a gram-by-gram basis, the sheer amount of N2O - each year nearly 1 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent are released globally - means that it now poses a more significant threat to the atmosphere. (N2O emissions are calculated in terms of their impact on global warming, and CO2 is used as a kind of base level.) (See Q%26amp;A: "Regional Nuclear War and the Environment.")
The news isn't all bad: the fact that scientists can now turn so much of their attention to the dangers of N2O is in part because CFC levels have dropped so low, thanks to the Montreal Protocol. But N2O is likely to prove much more difficult than CFCs to phase out. While CFCs had a relatively narrow range of uses - and chemical companies like DuPont were able to come up with replacements quickly - N2O is all around us, tied intimately to our industrial way of life. The millions of tons of soil fertilizer used in U.S. agriculture alone add N2O into the atmosphere, as do livestock manure, sewage treatment and automobiles. And it's not just our doing: two-thirds of global N2O emissions come from the planet itself, as bacteria in soil and the oceans break down nitrogen. Though N2O is regulated by the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 as a greenhouse gas - and one that is nearly 300 times more potent for global warming than CO2 - that treaty doesn't cover all nations, and will expire in 2012. "The question is how are we going to reduce these gases," says Daniel. "We need to bridge that gap between science and policy."
Such a multifaceted problem will require a multifront solution, and some good ideas might come up at the U.N. Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December. Reducing the quantity of fertilizer used in farming, switching to a less meat-heavy diet and lowering the number of cars on the road while boosting fuel economy will all help. The planet itself will continue churning out its own N2O, of course, but the planet did that for eons. It was our N2O production that pushed the gas past the tipping point - requiring that we now push it back. "It can be a win-win phasing out these gases, both for climate and the ozone," says Robert Portman, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and a co-author of the study. If we fail, we won't be laughing about nitrous oxide.
Guys this appears to be pretty darn scary but ALSO a great opportunity to quickly change peoples minds about policy. I think if we introduce this to the public there will be more awareness and a quicker need to take down the problems.
Please post your soluttion and/or thoughts.|||I must agree that the threat from dihydrogen monoxide is far more severe than n2o could ever be. 99% of all n2o produced is for use by dentists and so can never be a true environmental threat like h2o already is.|||My solution:
Stop pretending to be something your not.|||Woooo.... was there a fear-monger convention recently?
Everyone who's a scientist knows that laughing gas goes up to the Bozone layer.|||Why doesn't somebody just come out and say why they want to control energy.|||that question is way too long|||Does this mean we have to limit the use of Viagra? Viagra works by increasing nitrous oxide levels in the bloodstream...
Seriously, this is the problem of any manmade edict. As soon as you create a rule, people start looking for ways to circumvent it instead of showing some social responsibility by honoring the intent of the regulation.
In my first job, I tended to monitor the mainframe logs surrediptiously to sort out what my computer operators were doing at night and would investigate and take action to correct any misbehaviour such as sleeping on the job without revealing how I knew of the transgressions. Of course, there were limited metrics to monitor such as operator response time to tape mount requests from which to infer the overnight events. After I transferred stateside, my replacement, against my advice, decided to make the log analysis public and simply have the rule that whomever had the lowest average mount times would get a free lunch every week at a decent restaurant. One fella always got the free lunch and eventually my replacement started to wonder why and when the issue was investigated, it turned out that the particular employee was simply suspending all jobs so that nothing would be running hence his response time to any requests was zero during his shift.
If you remember, during the recent economic disheavals, one of the criticisms against Obama's interventions was that the economy would recover faster once the investors were confident that Obama would not intercede. Obama was reserving the right to adjust his intervention to account for issues that he had not foreseen and the investors were waiting till when they could be certain that whatever loophole they discovered would not be plugged before they got their return on investment.
We've never really progressed from playing soccer in the school yard when we would shout out "No Changees" whenever too many rules were being made on the fly.
It isn't possible to predict every possible factor both known and unknown when preparing legislation so ultimately something will not be covered despite the best intentions.|||That is nothing new. Liberals calling themselves conservative because it gives them credibility. Why is that?
There is nothing new in this. It is typical hysterical non scientific fear mongering and paranoia from the left.
The concentration is 293 ppbv now and it was measured at 276 ppbv in the 1800's. It is only an assumption that the massive increase of 6% must be from humans and it has to be catastrophic. I know that I am going to find it difficult to sleep tonight.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/95鈥?/a>|||I have a solution, let the world die a slow agonizing death. It would be better to burn up from global warming or drown under the raising seas of melting glaciers than have to listen to anymore Eco-nuts come up with 200 more things that are going to hurt the environment. So far we have Freon, CO2, Acid Rain, Aerosol Cans, Plastic Packaging, Styrofoam, Gasoline Vapors, Fertilizers, Diesel Emissions, Coal Emissions, too many People, and Cows Farting. Those are just the ones that come to mind, that are killing our planet. The planet needs to just burst into flames and get it over with. As long as the Eco-Nuts catch fire a little bit before I do, I'll die a happy man.|||I think the biggest threat to the polar ice caps are ppl peeing in the oceans that can really cuase it to warm it.
i am giulty of it and i am trying to get a bailout from the us governemt to stop the situation and global warming. So far all my request have been rejected but i will keep on trying!|||From what I understand this is one of the gases that is measured by parts per trillion. Also, most Industrialized nations have banned CFC's for around 40 years. It was the early to mid 1970's that the notion that CFC's cause the ozone hole.
Also, your additional details about Republicans bring about a trillion dollar war when the Republicans did not hold a large enough majority to pass any bills without Democrat help.|||sry guys nothing we can do about it :(
Even if we change China and India are going to pass us fast in pollutants and do u think they are going to slow their economy to help the environment. Unless something absolutely drastic happens from our leaders were doomed.
well hey its not that bad, if wont effect your lifetime its just your children's children's children that are going to die from our mistakes.|||Point of information, the U.S. has a marvelous record of cleaning up after ourselves. By 1900 the forest was gone from lake Erie to the Ohio river and south. The streams were choked with mud from thousands of tiny hillside farms throughout Appalachia. The deer, bear, beaver, otter, turkey, piliated woodpecker and a host of other wildlife was extirpated. Raw sewage flowed unfiltered from the cities and industry into our streams. Our sky was black from the burning of coal in industry and homes.
Today, Ohio is over 30% of Ohio is forested. Our streams and Lake Erie are comparatively, beautifully clean. Wildlife is so abundantly back that we can enjoy seeing deer, beaver and otters even in our suburbs and urban parks. Our air is, comparatively, marvelous.
We have much work to do with our environment, but let us always enjoy and be encouraged by our successes.|||The biggest threat to the environment and people is Dihydrogen Monoxide. It will kill people or animals if they inhale it. It's everywhere. It's even in our schools and in our homes, and no one cares. Children are exposed to it every day. Everyone needs to write to their representatives about it.|||1) There is no question.
2) You give no references.
('Take my word for it' is not good science.)
3) The so-called question is longer than most blog posts.
Unclear what you are looking for - this site usually deals in short answers.
Perhaps you are looking for answers in the wrong venue?
Or perhaps you just wanted someone to listen?
Point of information to Jim: our record of cleaning up after ourselves is abysmal. See the two sites listed below. That is but one example of many.
Recommendation of a good fountain pen?
I'd like to buy a good fountain pen.
But I'm not in a high position in my company, so it won't be for signing a contract, etc.
Fountain pens with thick writing are not recommendable to me, I guess.
I'd like to practise hand-writing, keep a diary, write letters, etc.
Not for decorating the pocket of my shirt with expensive fountain pens like some snobbish colleagues around me.
And I don't know a lot about fountain pens.
Some people say that fountain pens have some charm that ball-point pens don't have.
What kind of fountain pen would be suitable for me?
I know that there are many well-known manufacturers of fountain pens such as Mont Blanc, S.T. Dupont, Waterman, Parker, etc.|||I love writing with a fountain pen and like Mont Blanc and Waterman. However, it isn't a one-size fit all as we have different hand sizes, pressure, etc. In the old days you could walk into a store that office supplies, etc. and they would have several for you to try so that you could get a feel for what felt best. I don't know that today's Staples, Office Max, or maybe even a Hallmark would allow if you don't have one of those really old fashioned stores around but you could check out pens on-line and see what their return policy is. If it is a good pen they should allow you to return it if it doesn't work for you. I think writing with a fountain pen makes you slow down and think more about what you are writing and improves your penmanship - especially in a journal. Enjoy whatever you get as nothing writes better than a wonderful fountain pen! (I also think it says a lot about the person using it!)
But I'm not in a high position in my company, so it won't be for signing a contract, etc.
Fountain pens with thick writing are not recommendable to me, I guess.
I'd like to practise hand-writing, keep a diary, write letters, etc.
Not for decorating the pocket of my shirt with expensive fountain pens like some snobbish colleagues around me.
And I don't know a lot about fountain pens.
Some people say that fountain pens have some charm that ball-point pens don't have.
What kind of fountain pen would be suitable for me?
I know that there are many well-known manufacturers of fountain pens such as Mont Blanc, S.T. Dupont, Waterman, Parker, etc.|||I love writing with a fountain pen and like Mont Blanc and Waterman. However, it isn't a one-size fit all as we have different hand sizes, pressure, etc. In the old days you could walk into a store that office supplies, etc. and they would have several for you to try so that you could get a feel for what felt best. I don't know that today's Staples, Office Max, or maybe even a Hallmark would allow if you don't have one of those really old fashioned stores around but you could check out pens on-line and see what their return policy is. If it is a good pen they should allow you to return it if it doesn't work for you. I think writing with a fountain pen makes you slow down and think more about what you are writing and improves your penmanship - especially in a journal. Enjoy whatever you get as nothing writes better than a wonderful fountain pen! (I also think it says a lot about the person using it!)
Did you see that mishill 0bama for each tomato she purchased had a carbon footprint of several tons?
Hi-Ho, the Derry-O
Video
Downtown Farmers Market Draws D.C. Crowd
First lady Michelle Obama was on hand to support the opening of a farmers market that closed Vermont Avenue between H and Eye Streets NW to traffic Thursday afternoon.
By Dana Milbank
Friday, September 18, 2009
Let's say you're preparing dinner and you realize with dismay that you don't have any certified organic Tuscan kale. What to do?
Here's how Michelle Obama handled this very predicament Thursday afternoon:
The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.
Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens. "Now it's time to buy some food," she told several hundred people who came to watch. "Let's shop!"
Cowbells were rung. Somebody put a lei of marigolds around Obama's neck. The first lady picked up a straw basket and headed for the "Farm at Sunnyside" tent, where she loaded up with organic Asian pears, cherry tomatoes, multicolored potatoes, free-range eggs and, yes, two bunches of Tuscan kale. She left the produce with an aide, who paid the cashier as Obama made her way back to the limousine.
There's nothing like the simple pleasures of a farm stand to return us to our agrarian roots.
The first lady had encouraged Freshfarm Markets, the group that runs popular farmers markets in Dupont Circle and elsewhere, to set up near the White House, and she helped get the approvals to shut down Vermont Avenue during rush hour on Thursdays. But the result was quite the opposite of a quaint farmers market. Considering all the logistics, each tomato she purchased had a carbon footprint of several tons.
The promotion of organic and locally grown food, though an admirable cause, is a risky one for the Obamas, because there's a fine line between promoting healthful eating and sounding like a snob. The president, when he was a candidate in 2007, got in trouble in Iowa when he asked a crowd, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Iowans didn't have a Whole Foods.
For that reason, it's probably just as well that the first lady didn't stop by the Endless Summer Harvest tent yesterday. The Virginia farm had a sign offering "tender baby arugula" -- hydroponically grown, pesticide free -- and $5 for four ounces, which is $20 a pound.
Obama, in her brief speech to the vendors and patrons, handled the affordability issue by pointing out that people who pay with food stamps would get double the coupon value at the market. Even then, though, it's hard to imagine somebody using food stamps to buy what the market offered: $19 bison steak from Gunpowder Bison, organic dandelion greens for $12 per pound from Blueberry Hill Vegetables, the Piedmont Reserve cheese from Everson Dairy at $29 a pound. Rounding out the potential shopping cart: $4 for a piece of "walnut dacquoise" from the Praline Bakery, $9 for a jumbo crab cake at Chris's Marketplace, $8 for a loaf of cranberry-walnut bread and $32 for a bolt of yarn.
The first lady said the market would particularly appeal to federal employees in nearby buildings to "pick up some good stuff for dinner." Yet even they might think twice about spending $3 for a pint of potatoes when potatoes are on sale for 40 cents a pound at Giant. They could get nearly five dozen eggs at Giant for the $5 Obama spent for her dozen.
But whatever the socioeconomics, there can be no doubt that Obama brought some serious attention to her cause. Hundreds of people crowded the market entrance on I Street as police directed pedestrians to alternative subway entrances. Hundreds braved a light rain and gave a hearty cheer when Obama and her entourage took the stage. "I can't imagine there's been a day in the history of our country when people have been more excited about farmers markets," Mayor Adrian Fenty, Obama's warm-up act, told the crowd.
The first lady, in gray slacks and blue sweater, marveled that the people were "so pumped up" despite the rain. "I have never seen so many people so excited about fruits and vegetables!" she said. (Must be the tender baby arugula.)
She spoke of the global reach of her cause: "The first thing world leaders, prime ministers, kings, queens ask me about is the White House garden. And then they ask about Bo."
She spoke of the fuel fed to the world's most powerful man: "I've learned that when my family eats fresh food, healthy food, that it really aff|||It's asinine isn't it??? Makes me ill.|||I heard it about today. The stupidity and arrogance of America's new aristocracy completely overwhelms me. All hail Lord Obama!
Video
Downtown Farmers Market Draws D.C. Crowd
First lady Michelle Obama was on hand to support the opening of a farmers market that closed Vermont Avenue between H and Eye Streets NW to traffic Thursday afternoon.
By Dana Milbank
Friday, September 18, 2009
Let's say you're preparing dinner and you realize with dismay that you don't have any certified organic Tuscan kale. What to do?
Here's how Michelle Obama handled this very predicament Thursday afternoon:
The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.
Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens. "Now it's time to buy some food," she told several hundred people who came to watch. "Let's shop!"
Cowbells were rung. Somebody put a lei of marigolds around Obama's neck. The first lady picked up a straw basket and headed for the "Farm at Sunnyside" tent, where she loaded up with organic Asian pears, cherry tomatoes, multicolored potatoes, free-range eggs and, yes, two bunches of Tuscan kale. She left the produce with an aide, who paid the cashier as Obama made her way back to the limousine.
There's nothing like the simple pleasures of a farm stand to return us to our agrarian roots.
The first lady had encouraged Freshfarm Markets, the group that runs popular farmers markets in Dupont Circle and elsewhere, to set up near the White House, and she helped get the approvals to shut down Vermont Avenue during rush hour on Thursdays. But the result was quite the opposite of a quaint farmers market. Considering all the logistics, each tomato she purchased had a carbon footprint of several tons.
The promotion of organic and locally grown food, though an admirable cause, is a risky one for the Obamas, because there's a fine line between promoting healthful eating and sounding like a snob. The president, when he was a candidate in 2007, got in trouble in Iowa when he asked a crowd, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Iowans didn't have a Whole Foods.
For that reason, it's probably just as well that the first lady didn't stop by the Endless Summer Harvest tent yesterday. The Virginia farm had a sign offering "tender baby arugula" -- hydroponically grown, pesticide free -- and $5 for four ounces, which is $20 a pound.
Obama, in her brief speech to the vendors and patrons, handled the affordability issue by pointing out that people who pay with food stamps would get double the coupon value at the market. Even then, though, it's hard to imagine somebody using food stamps to buy what the market offered: $19 bison steak from Gunpowder Bison, organic dandelion greens for $12 per pound from Blueberry Hill Vegetables, the Piedmont Reserve cheese from Everson Dairy at $29 a pound. Rounding out the potential shopping cart: $4 for a piece of "walnut dacquoise" from the Praline Bakery, $9 for a jumbo crab cake at Chris's Marketplace, $8 for a loaf of cranberry-walnut bread and $32 for a bolt of yarn.
The first lady said the market would particularly appeal to federal employees in nearby buildings to "pick up some good stuff for dinner." Yet even they might think twice about spending $3 for a pint of potatoes when potatoes are on sale for 40 cents a pound at Giant. They could get nearly five dozen eggs at Giant for the $5 Obama spent for her dozen.
But whatever the socioeconomics, there can be no doubt that Obama brought some serious attention to her cause. Hundreds of people crowded the market entrance on I Street as police directed pedestrians to alternative subway entrances. Hundreds braved a light rain and gave a hearty cheer when Obama and her entourage took the stage. "I can't imagine there's been a day in the history of our country when people have been more excited about farmers markets," Mayor Adrian Fenty, Obama's warm-up act, told the crowd.
The first lady, in gray slacks and blue sweater, marveled that the people were "so pumped up" despite the rain. "I have never seen so many people so excited about fruits and vegetables!" she said. (Must be the tender baby arugula.)
She spoke of the global reach of her cause: "The first thing world leaders, prime ministers, kings, queens ask me about is the White House garden. And then they ask about Bo."
She spoke of the fuel fed to the world's most powerful man: "I've learned that when my family eats fresh food, healthy food, that it really aff|||It's asinine isn't it??? Makes me ill.|||I heard it about today. The stupidity and arrogance of America's new aristocracy completely overwhelms me. All hail Lord Obama!
Should marijuana be legal?
Well, I don't think it should be, and this is why.
By making it legal. Many less trees would have to be cut down due to its a much better product for making paper. Which is why Dupont spent millions to make it illegal. Also would be very good for making clothing. For a pain killer, its very effective. And also is much less addicting then the current legal pain killers and has far less side affects. Examples of this is marijuana has killed 0 people. And pain killers have killed countless others through overdosing and destruction of the body. Saying this, is there really any good reason why it should be illegal?
P.S. Saying because its bad is not a valid reason. Also because of its effects. It does next to nothing. And doesn't impair judgment much. I know this because I was under the influence of the substance and passed a field sobriety test with no problems. And another time to while being stopped by cops. They accused me of being high(which I was) because my eyes were red. I consented to a field sobriety test to prove otherwise, but they didn't take me up on this. That's because the cops know that it doesn't impair judgment at lower doses. If you do answer in saying it should be illegal. Please look back to the question so I can destroy your argument. I know I will be able to because anyone thinking it should be illegal is clearly not more intelligent then my self. And yes, this question is extremely biased.|||There is absolutely no good reason for marijuana to be illegal. I think that as long as you can use marijuana responsibly (not going to work stoned, not driving or operating heavy eqipment stoned, etc), there is nothing wrong with it. The worst side effect from it is that it makes you hungry.
Penn %26amp; Teller have a show on Showtime called "Penn %26amp; Teller: Bulls**t," where they expose ideas that they perceive to be BS. In their episode about illegal drugs, they interviewed a retired medical doctor who told a story about his 12 year old son who died of cancer. The doctor had formerly been against any marijuana use until he gave some to his son before a chemo treatment. Normally, the boy would leave the treatment center feeling very sick. One day, his parents had him smoke marijuana before the treatment, and he left the center feeling no ill effects. In fact, he asked his mom if they could stop on the way home, and get a sub sandwich.
They also talked about a group of chronically ill people to whom the Federal government provides marijuana. The program didn't last long, but the patients who were admitted to the program will continue to receive free (that's right, I said free) marijuana from Uncle Sam for the rest of their lives. One of the patients was interviewed while smoking a joint on the sidewalk in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (for those who don't know, that's the White House).|||Yeah but too many people would have trouble remembering that their alarms mean they should wake up and go to work.|||You provided more reasons why it should be legal than you did provide reasons why it should not.
edit; if you rephrased the question, why did you put that as your opening statement in the first place?|||I like it just the way you worded it, sarcasm is a great tool.|||It should be decriminalized.
People should be able to grow their own weed for their own use.
It should remain a violation to sell it or grow in quantity.|||Like alcohol prohibition, "trying" to make marijuana illegal has failed completely in the US! Legal or not, many people are using it! The only people benefiting are criminals, artificially raising prices, and making for an unsafe situation as criminals are becoming wealthier and more empowered. Our prisons are full with people who have committed marginal offenses (MJ, prostitution, etc.) because "Conservatives" believe they can legislate morality.
Alcohol causes many more deaths per year than MJ; if MJ is illegal, alcohol should also be illegal
(you can't have it both ways, Cons!)
Legalizing (and TAXING) MJ, just like alcohol, would give much-needed revenue to governments who are in dire need of funds, reduce drug-related criminal activity, and free our prison and court systems for serious criminals.
If you agree, WRITE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. If you don't know who they are, use http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home and enter your ZIP.|||Here is an idea. make it legal.....except one thing
Have one warehouse out in the middle of nowhere filled with every kind of drug there is.
Only thing is it has a one way door. You can go in free of charge, do as many drugs as you want until you die.
solves
1. population control
2. removes all users and sellers(which are users), removes gangs, murders, etc.|||It shouldn't be legal. A lot of people act like it's no big deal. It damages your body and produces dangerous behaviour. (I know, I know, alcohol, but that's not what this is about). Legalising it would make it much more accessible, so more people than just the standard spaced out pot smokers and students, would use it. I think it should remain illegal, except for medicinal purposes (and in this case it should be tightly monitored).
By making it legal. Many less trees would have to be cut down due to its a much better product for making paper. Which is why Dupont spent millions to make it illegal. Also would be very good for making clothing. For a pain killer, its very effective. And also is much less addicting then the current legal pain killers and has far less side affects. Examples of this is marijuana has killed 0 people. And pain killers have killed countless others through overdosing and destruction of the body. Saying this, is there really any good reason why it should be illegal?
P.S. Saying because its bad is not a valid reason. Also because of its effects. It does next to nothing. And doesn't impair judgment much. I know this because I was under the influence of the substance and passed a field sobriety test with no problems. And another time to while being stopped by cops. They accused me of being high(which I was) because my eyes were red. I consented to a field sobriety test to prove otherwise, but they didn't take me up on this. That's because the cops know that it doesn't impair judgment at lower doses. If you do answer in saying it should be illegal. Please look back to the question so I can destroy your argument. I know I will be able to because anyone thinking it should be illegal is clearly not more intelligent then my self. And yes, this question is extremely biased.|||There is absolutely no good reason for marijuana to be illegal. I think that as long as you can use marijuana responsibly (not going to work stoned, not driving or operating heavy eqipment stoned, etc), there is nothing wrong with it. The worst side effect from it is that it makes you hungry.
Penn %26amp; Teller have a show on Showtime called "Penn %26amp; Teller: Bulls**t," where they expose ideas that they perceive to be BS. In their episode about illegal drugs, they interviewed a retired medical doctor who told a story about his 12 year old son who died of cancer. The doctor had formerly been against any marijuana use until he gave some to his son before a chemo treatment. Normally, the boy would leave the treatment center feeling very sick. One day, his parents had him smoke marijuana before the treatment, and he left the center feeling no ill effects. In fact, he asked his mom if they could stop on the way home, and get a sub sandwich.
They also talked about a group of chronically ill people to whom the Federal government provides marijuana. The program didn't last long, but the patients who were admitted to the program will continue to receive free (that's right, I said free) marijuana from Uncle Sam for the rest of their lives. One of the patients was interviewed while smoking a joint on the sidewalk in front of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (for those who don't know, that's the White House).|||Yeah but too many people would have trouble remembering that their alarms mean they should wake up and go to work.|||You provided more reasons why it should be legal than you did provide reasons why it should not.
edit; if you rephrased the question, why did you put that as your opening statement in the first place?|||I like it just the way you worded it, sarcasm is a great tool.|||It should be decriminalized.
People should be able to grow their own weed for their own use.
It should remain a violation to sell it or grow in quantity.|||Like alcohol prohibition, "trying" to make marijuana illegal has failed completely in the US! Legal or not, many people are using it! The only people benefiting are criminals, artificially raising prices, and making for an unsafe situation as criminals are becoming wealthier and more empowered. Our prisons are full with people who have committed marginal offenses (MJ, prostitution, etc.) because "Conservatives" believe they can legislate morality.
Alcohol causes many more deaths per year than MJ; if MJ is illegal, alcohol should also be illegal
(you can't have it both ways, Cons!)
Legalizing (and TAXING) MJ, just like alcohol, would give much-needed revenue to governments who are in dire need of funds, reduce drug-related criminal activity, and free our prison and court systems for serious criminals.
If you agree, WRITE YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS. If you don't know who they are, use http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home and enter your ZIP.|||Here is an idea. make it legal.....except one thing
Have one warehouse out in the middle of nowhere filled with every kind of drug there is.
Only thing is it has a one way door. You can go in free of charge, do as many drugs as you want until you die.
solves
1. population control
2. removes all users and sellers(which are users), removes gangs, murders, etc.|||It shouldn't be legal. A lot of people act like it's no big deal. It damages your body and produces dangerous behaviour. (I know, I know, alcohol, but that's not what this is about). Legalising it would make it much more accessible, so more people than just the standard spaced out pot smokers and students, would use it. I think it should remain illegal, except for medicinal purposes (and in this case it should be tightly monitored).
Chainsaw Safety Pants - which ones are best? Will any actually prevent blade contact?
I saw someone cut into his leg with a chainsaw yesterday, all the way to the bone. Today I am looking at chainsaw safety pants online. Some have DuPont Cordura, Some have Ambush, some have Engtex, and one (Work Safe Chainsaw pants, online at Bailey's) have KEVLAR. I found some info that the material is designed to rip apart and clog the chainsaw sprocket so it stops running, but you could still get cut, just maybe not as long. I can't find info on the KEVLAR to find out if it is like the bullet stopping kind of KEVLAR, and thus would fully eliminate contact from the chainsaw blade, or is it like the fabric KEVLAR that is protective, but not much more effective than the other materials. Does anyone know anyhting about this? What is the best material to have, the best brand, the cheapest place to buy, and any other info that you think would be useful. Thanks for responding. Seeing that really freaked me out!|||Dupont Cordura is the covering. It is there to keep the insides clean. All chaps and pants I've see have this as a cover or at least a middle layer. Kevlar is the same basic material as the bullet stopping kind but used in a different fashion(we used it to make sails). All pants I have seen use the same principle:clog the saw. As far as I can tell any good quality pants or chaps will work well.|||well it all depends on if your going into a psycho rage and killing pedestrians..............or if you are trying to make another chainsaw massacre....... i would suggest kevlar for the killing and a fake chainsaw for the rest|||How often are you using a chainsaw? The best way to prevent cutting yourself isnt pants. It is using the chainsaw correctly. Chances are the person you saw did something he wasnt suposed to. If you are operating under the guidelines than the cut wouldnt be to the bone and any pair of CSP will work perfectly.|||The best way to prevent cuts from a chainsaw is a sharp blade, and knowledge to use is correctly and safely. Unless you are wearing an armour suit like in the middle ages, I know of no pants that will prevent cuts from one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)