Snip, snip, snip with the scissors; around the base, along the curves and finally the last snip. The dolls, clad in colorful swimsuits, stood near by awaiting the final cut of their wardrobe. The hours invested in their story panned out while little fingers bent tabs to change attire.
Are you old enough to remember the joy of paper dolls? If not - all is not lost, paper dolls are still on the shelves of bookstores and super centers or available via the Internet. Although their numbers are not as great as they were in the pre fashion doll industry era .... They are still around. Many people value them beyond the playfulness associated with childhood but as the most desired collectible on the planet. Paper doll collecting needs very little room for storage only rivaled by stamp collecting for minimal space required. The dolls are an inexpensive pleasure that is not a lost art. Some publishing companies have even undertaken the replication of older dolls from by gone times making it possible to own even some of the most dated dolls affordably.
The two-dimensional figures accompanied by the best wardrobe for the time period was a considerable luxury during the 1700's. Many of the outfitted dolls were designed for adult entertainment with stages included. By the mid 1800's paper dolls were manufactured in Europe and the United States but were still considered a luxury until paper became more readily available and affordable. Magazines would even offer paper dolls within their pages. This practice appeared as recently as the 1990's with Sue Shanahan creating a new, modern version of the beloved and wildly popular Betsy McCall.
The popularity of paper dolls was not lost on the marketing branches of several industries during the 1930's, 1940's and 1950's. Some of the product leaders of the time that took advantage of this phenomenon were Pillsbury, Baker's (chocolate), Singer (sewing machines), Clark's (threads), Lyon's and McLaughlin (both coffee). Later magazine advertisements that would use the dolls would include the sales of children's clothing, fabrics, cars, nail polish and soaps.
These fabulous pieces of paper were not always colorful nor always of people. Some dolls required the addition of coloring which kept many children busy designing their own fashion couture. The dolls included inanimate objects and animals too. Popular dolls that were available over the past two hundred years included royalty, public leaders, movie stars, fantasy fairy tale style characters, family groups, stuffed animals and even cherubs.
During the 1940's and 1950's a new kind of marketing arrived in the comic book industry. Publishers took advantage of the love of the paper dolls and created complimentary dolls for some of the comics. The appeal went beyond drawing in a new customer base - girls. The publishers encouraged people to submit original ideas for the clothing / costume designs for the comic characters. The comic books would display the designer's name with each outfit chosen. This ingenious strategy appears in the books through the 1950's.
The public popularity waned during the 1960's with the rise of the three dimensional fashion doll industry but that has not deterred many from creating and collecting paper dolls. A quick search of an online auction will prove this fact. Dig a little deeper and do a search at http://www.google.com, http://www.yahoo.com or http://www.msn.com and you will find many very talented artists still creating beautiful pieces of art. The search will even provide you with many free resources for starting you paper doll collection.
Narcissa creates curriculum for use with the early childhood level student - Including preschool, kindergarten and special needs. Specializing in accessibility for the home school parents, daycare providers and classroom instructors via a download membership site (Peanut Butter Crunch) located at http://www.Resource4Preschool.com
Matchbox Toy cars have never gone out of style. These diecast collectibles are hotter than ever in Toy collecting world. The Matchbox car Toy series was created in 1952 by Jack Odell when he cast a small metal miniature of a Road Roller and inserted it in a matchbox container so his daughter could take it to school with her. More than 50 years later, the Matchbox brand is still known to collectors and children alike for its high quality, model diversity and affordability. In many retail outlets, Matchbox cars are still sold for around a dollar a car and each year more than 100 million of them are sold to collectors and kids alike.
The first Lesney series of Matchbox Toy cars measured up to eight inches long. It was during the 1950's that the Lesney Company began to focus mostly on miniature sizes of the diecast cars. The No. 1 Diesel Road Roller, No. 2 Dumper, and No. 3 Cement Mixer were first released in 1953. Lesney then decided that the vehicles in this beginning series, known better as the 1-75 series, would be limited to only seventy-five different makes and models. Though new models and makes were made each year, when a new car came out, an older one was removed from the series. This same practice is still in place today with the toy car series.
The Mattel toy company started to compete in the die-cast car market in 1961 when the production of their Hot Wheels brand was introduced. The Lesney company went bankrupt in 1982 and sold the rights of the Matchbox brand name to Universal Toys. In 1992, the the Matchbox brand name was then sold to Tyco Toys whose toy division was ironically bought out by the Mattel toy company in 1997.
Throughout all the years, Matchbox toy cars remained widely collected and traded. With the birth of the internet and the start of eBay in 1995, it opened up a wider outlet for collectors all over the world to buy and sell cars in their collection. On any given day, their are thousands of the toy cars available on eBay and the Wal-Marts of the world too have a very large selection to choose from.
Matchbox toy car collecting is both fun and profitable and a great hobby for both young and old. It is never too late to start collecting both new and rare Matchbox cars.
David Bryan is an avid collector of Matchbox toy cars and blogs about them on his Matchbox Cars For Sale site.
The political red zone
Every football fan in America knows about the "red zone" - the area on the playing field from the twenty-yard line to the goal line, beyond which lies the end zone. It's bad enough when a team doesn't score a touchdown or field goal from somewhere on the remaining eighty yards of the field. But if it fails to score when its offense first gets inside the red zone, its coaches and players get frustrated. When repeated trips to the red zone don't lead to points, fans start to boo and - especially if it's the second half of the game - leave the stands. Meanwhile, the sports announcers start making barely veiled comments suggesting the team could be a bunch of losers. On the opposing sideline, players grin and give each other high fives; while those on the short end of the score sit dazed on the bench, some hanging their towel-covered heads in shame. It ain't pretty. Let's face it: most people can't have confidence in a team that has trouble scoring. But by making adjustments to its game plan, even the most unlikely team can prove fans, commentators, opponents - and anyone else who thought it couldn't win - wrong.
In the National Football League, it can take decades to earn the respect that comes with a winning record. That's the story of the pro football team I've loved since I was a kid - the longtime underdog New England Patriots. Before they became known for winning, the Patriots racked up year after year of losing seasons. They were the Rodney Dangerfield of the NFL - couldn't get no respect. But in 1985, the team cast off its negative image and, after a respectable 11-5-0 season, overpowered three of its American Football Conference nemeses during the playoffs in an on-the-road display of guts and unity. The New York Jets, Oakland Raiders and Miami Dolphins fell to a scrappy, determined Patriots team that included quietly heroic personalities such as veteran quarterback Steve Grogan, offensive lineman John Hannah and coach Raymond Berry. They were AFC champs. Sure, in Super Bowl XX the team was convincingly mashed into the turf of the New Orleans Superdome by Mike Ditka's Chicago Bears. But despite that humiliating loss, the Patriots had overcome an important hurdle: they had shown they could win the "away games" during the playoffs, with their backs against the wall, and actually become Super Bowl contenders. It was the beginning of hope. For a while, it looked like that 1985 season was a flash in the pan. It took the team another decade or so to become regulars in the playoffs and consistent contenders for the Super Bowl's Lombardi Trophy (named after famed Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi). The missing links for the Patriots had been a coach with a brilliant strategic mind - and who would stick around for a while - and a QB who had what it took to help the team win big games on a regular basis. By the time the millennium rolled around, owner Bob Kraft had those missing links: Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. Belichick, who took over the reins of the team from his mentor, Bill Parcells, redefined the concept of teamwork. Despite the high profile of charismatic individuals such as Brady and defensive captain Tedy Bruschi, the coach worked to counter the idea that the Patriots had "stars" whose achievement counted more than anyone else's. Belichick took a creative approach to employing the talent at his disposal, using key players at various positions on offense, defense and special teams. His motto has been to "play everybody." In one memorable moment, he even gave former Boston College Eagles star Doug Flutie - who joined the team as a backup QB toward the end of his pro career - the green light to drop-kick an extra point.
Brady, who wasn't even a top draft pick, eventually took over the QB spot from an inconsistent Drew Bledsoe. He then developed into the driven, pumped-up team leader that is every coach's dream - the kind of guy who helps get the best out of every player on every play. Great QBs infuse their teams with that all-important sense of unity, which is crucial to carry players through losses as well as wins and inspire them to fight another day. The Patriots have had so many great players at all positions over the team's history, it's hard to keep track of them all. Each player along the way helped the Patriots become Super Bowl champions. In the process, the team gained fans far beyond the borders of New England. The Patriots won the Big Game in 2002, 2003 and 2005; and as the 2007 season began, many sports pundits were picking them to go all the way once more. They'd come a long way, baby.
The way I see it, the Democratic Party has faced the same uphill battle in the game of politics the Patriots did for years in the NFL. I think most of the Democrats' problems have to do with their inability to control how the Party and its constituencies are perceived by key voting blocs. Dems have lost too many big elections by failing to score points in the political red zone - the area on the field where the thorniest social issues are in play. Related primarily to morality and race, those issues tend to generate the greatest division within the American electorate. It is in debates over social issues that voters' perceptions of each other are most apparent, and where prejudices can be the most easily manipulated. Yet judging by which battles they choose to fight and how they choose to fight them, Democrats always seem to think more voters agree with them on social issues than actually do. What I have to say might sound radical, but I don't think most voters cast ballots based on solid information about issues; I think most of us cast ballots based largely on how we view other people. For example, using rhetoric that appeals to voters' racial prejudices has worked well for the Republican Party, which has a more homogenous - mostly white and mostly social conservative - base. To neutralize the Republican edge with white voters, Democrats must emphasize values that unify their party with mainstream, "traditionalist" values and stop giving the impression that they're always signing onto quixotic quests for perfect justice, which has become a hallmark of their disparate constituencies.
Winning ways
Like winning football teams, winning political entities combine solid performance with heroic personalities to keep voters excited, tuned in and invested in the outcome of an election. Democrats can learn a lot about how competition works from Belichick's creative thinking on the sidelines and Brady's leadership on the field. But they can also learn from the Patriots about grace under pressure and how to turn adversity into a competitive advantage. The Patriots have had plenty of experience turning challenges into opportunities. That invaluable trait has contributed to their winning attitude, which is the mark of all true competitors - what sports aficionados call "heart." Apart from sheer talent and determination within the team structure, other factors contribute to success on the football field. First, it's a general rule in sports that when a team has home-field advantage - hosting the game on its own turf, surrounded by its own fans - it has a psychological edge over its opponent. Home teams are also better rested at game time, because their players don't have to spend time traveling into enemy territory. The home team might not always win, but the odds are in its favor. Then there are the fans. Over the course of the NFL season, fans fill stadiums, those stadiums fill with cheers and the noise of the crowd helps drown out the opposing QB's play calls. Football teams are comprised of eleven players, but the fans are collectively known as "the twelfth man" because of the impact they can have on team morale, and therefore on the outcome of a game. Every team needs fans to show up at home games and root for its players. But fans become demoralized by underperforming teams, which can lead to empty seats. Advertising, ticket and merchandise sales suffer, giving the team fewer resources to work with. Some fans may even switch their loyalty, at least temporarily, to another team.
In the game of political perception, the goal is to inspire the voting majority and gain greater electoral market share. This means Democrats must inspire not only their largely liberal fan base, but millions of voters who are not so liberal. Just as many fans of other NFL teams admire the Patriots, I have no problem rooting for teams and individual players that demonstrate character and put in great performances (except, of course, when they're playing the Pats). If you love the game, you admire great players no matter who they play for. For the Democratic Party, the lesson is to make sure they have as many candidates as possible who appeal to voters who don't necessarily consider themselves Democrats, not to mention conservative-leaning Democrats disenchanted with the Party. After all, voters who don't agree with the entire Republican Party platform may vote for Republican candidates they like individually. I don't generally vote for Republicans because their party's agenda is just too scary. But I've admired individual Republicans who aren't ideologues; who know to make common sense, people who favor policies to protect the environment and preserve individuals' right to privacy, especially in matters of health and family planning. I consider such people "traditionalists," because they tend to hold certain basic values that include making practical decisions in the interest of the greater good and respecting the principle of individual choice as long as those choices do not harm other people. The Democratic Party is my political home team because I've spent most of my life rooting for Democrats. But because of my frustration over the Party's lack of a coherent winning strategy and its candidates' inability to present an appealing portrait of themselves to voters, I became an Independent after the 2000 election. It didn't have to be this way.
I want Democrats to reflect on what football represents in American culture. Why? Because the values that bond football fans together offer Dems an antidote to their own tired delusions of liberal grandeur and clues on how to address social issues in a more voter-friendly way.
The goal for Democrats must be to a) make better decisions about which issues to focus on and b) devise more effective ways of promoting their views to key voting blocs.
Take the hot topic of religion, where Democrats have had such trouble gaining the confidence of the voting public: in the NFL, some players wear their faith on their sleeve, and that's just fine with many of us. Sportswriters have informed me that it became customary for some players to pray at midfield around 1982, right after the NFL players' strike, as an expression of solidarity. While NFL management may not have liked such fraternization between opposing teams, over time it seems to have become an accepted ritual.
So what do pro football players pray for? "They give thanks for getting through the game, they pray for continuing to be able to play the game [and] they also pray that the visiting team makes it back safely," Boston sportswriter Karen Guregian told me. Most fans have seen players from both sides kneel together and pray when a player is seriously hurt during a game. "The players who join in are essentially saying that while they take part in a violent game, they still have their beliefs and their desire to give thanks," Guregian explained. Friends who play football in semi-pro leagues have confirmed this. To me, the way NFL players express their personal religious faith on the public forum of the playing field is no threat to the principle of separation of church and state; rather, it's an appropriate expression of individual liberty. Just as NFL players do, many voters pray as a matter of spiritual practice whether they are adherents of an established religion or not. That commonality offers Dems a guide on how to make peace with religion as a topic of political conversation.
Living dangerously - a tale of turnovers
What usually makes the difference in whether a team wins or loses, despite the number of rushing and passing yards it amasses, is turnovers. When a team hands the ball over to its opponent through either a fumble or an interception, it gives that opponent momentum. Whether or not the opposing team converts that turnover into points, the biggest impact on the team that loses the ball is usually psychological. Turnovers can deflate players' confidence and cause them to make more mistakes, sealing the team's fate. Teams prone to turnovers don't win Super Bowls - unless they're very, very lucky. And no team worth its salt relies on luck. Democrats have committed far too many perception turnovers in the political red zone over the past several decades. Those turnovers have come in the form of poor word choices, bad photo ops and even bad hair (or, in the case of John Edwards, hair that's too good). Every presidential election season, a new slate of usual and unusual Democratic suspects emerges. Each new group commits a range of perception blunders that provide negative reinforcement of the Party's image.
For example, it's hard to take candidates seriously when their hair carries its own comical message. In this respect, 2004 primary contenders Al Sharpton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) were clearly hair challenged. The two candidates were already in popularity deficit with the voting majority thanks to their left-of-center platforms. Sharpton's below-the-ears perm with white sideburns was an apparent style nod to soul singer James Brown, but it didn't translate into a presidential image. Meanwhile, Kucinich's side-parted do looked nerdy, to say the least. (Kucinich threw his hat in the ring again for the 2008 race, apparently using his long-shot status to act as the Democratic Party's voice of conscience. But he couldn't escape his own image. Bill Maher gave a blunt assessment of Kucinich's situation in August 2007, when he told Larry King that the candidate "looks like an elf.") Democrats generally commit more perception turnovers than Republicans. But in 2006, they got a rare break when Republican lawmakers and loyalists were caught flagrantly exposing their own moral hypocrisy. First, there was Florida Congressman Mark Foley, a self-appointed protector of children and member of the anti-gay marriage brigade who turned out to have a penchant for male congressional pages.
Then, one of the Republicans' conservative lieutenants in the "culture war," evangelical church leader Ted Haggard, was outed by his boy-Toy for living a closet, methamphetamine-fueled homo-sex life. The Republicans sustained additional collateral damage in 2007, when Louisiana Congressman David Vitter's phone number appeared in the records of a Washington madam and Idaho Senator Larry Craig was caught in a gay sex solicitation sting in an airport bathroom. (Craig initially resigned over the incident. He later reversed his decision and decided to serve out his term, despite a judge's ruling that he could not withdraw his guilty plea in the case.) But despite that slew of morality mess-ups, Democrats can't expect Republicans and their cultural allies to make those kinds of mistakes on any kind of regular basis. They should expect them not to, and proceed accordingly.
The Dems' QB problem
I grew up thinking Democrats were the good guys, because they were the political descendants of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who helped rescue America from the Great Depression and the world from the Nazis during World War II; and John F. Kennedy, the handsome prince of politics who asked us to consider what we could do for our country more than what our country could do for us. But as I've watched Democrats in more recent years, those good guys have looked more and more like 90-lb. weaklings. The first presidential campaign I remember was in 1972, when Democratic contender George McGovern challenged Republican incumbent Richard M. Nixon. I was in the fifth grade, but even then I understood how perception influenced politics. McGovern seemed pale and timid, even physically weak. Nixon's five o'clock shadow gave an impression of swarthy mean-spiritedness, but he also seemed more vigorous than McGovern. Nixon's temperament also suggested an unwillingness to back down, a typical winning stance for a wartime president. In the end, McGovern won only Massachusetts and D.C. - the worst presidential election defeat in modern history.
I think Jimmy Carter's victory in 1976 was something of a fluke, the result of a temporary backlash against the corruption of the Nixon regime. I say this because Carter's demeanor was so gentle it verged on effeminate, and I don't think American voters equate gentle men with the role of president. When Carter's backbone was dramatically tested, voters were all too willing to cut him loose. Just prior to his reelection bid, in November 1979, 66 people were taken hostage in the American embassy in Iran's capital, Tehran, by militant Islamic students. The crisis lasted 444 days, with the U.S. initiating a failed rescue effort that resulted in the deaths of five Air Force airmen and three marines. The ordeal contributed to Carter's image - and by association the Democratic Party's - as weak in the face of America's enemies. When Republican challenger Ronald Reagan came strutting along with his California cowboy decisiveness, determined to free the Iranian hostages and bring the Cold War to an America-friendly conclusion, he blew Carter off the beach. In the 1980 election, Carter won just six states and D.C., a defeat mirroring the Patriots' 46-10 demise at the hands of the Bears in the 1986 Super Bowl.
Let's examine the Democrats' actual draft choices for presidential QB over the past six election cycles:
1984: In a game that depends on personality, the Democrats nominate the plodding, bureaucratic-looking Walter Mondale, Carter's former vice president. With his gray pallor and dark eye pouches, Mondale is perhaps the least inspiring team captain Dems could have asked for to challenge the over-popular Reagan. Even Mondale's spunky vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro can't liven up the ticket, which emulates McGovern's 1972 tally by winning only Mondale's home state of Minnesota and D.C.
1988: Second-stringer Michael Dukakis allows himself to be caught in a goofy photo op, sitting in a military tank sporting what looks like an oversized headset. Political cartoonists have a field day. And, of course, there's that "Willie Horton" thing1 and some comment about endive, a vegetable too many of us haven't heard of that also sounds foreign (not good). Dukakis loses a huge lead in the polls on his way to conceding the election to Vice President George H.W. Bush. He at least hits double digits, carrying ten states and D.C.
1992: Bill Clinton is an unknown quantity from training camp with a reputation for off-the-field sexcapades. He impresses Democratic coaches, who hold their breath hoping they aren't taking a huge gamble. Clinton wows Democratic fans in the primaries with his ability to get right up after taking some big political hits. He carries the Dems to their first presidency in a generation with the help of a "giant sucking sound" - the candidacy of Ross Perot - that is incumbent George H.W. Bush's game plan headed South.
1996: After winning a second presidential term, superstar QB Clinton is called for a personal foul after messing around with practice cheerleader Monica Lewinsky. Nearly yanked from the Oval Office by Republican opponents on an impeachment crusade, he limps into the sunset of his presidency with a groin injury.
2000: They say a superstar is a tough act to follow. Clinton VP Al Gore makes a valiant attempt to take the helm of the Party, but voters find it hard to get excited. Everyone later agrees Gore should have let a rookie step in because he never learned to run "out of the pocket" and avoid pressure from the Republican defense. Gore would have done better to join management and stay off the field altogether, pundits suggest. As the presidential contest runs into triple sudden-death overtime, the Dems are destined to lose on a series of official calls courtesy a Supreme Court whose 5-4 vote in favor of George W. Bush mirrors the partisan loyalties of its conservative Republican appointees.
2004: Veteran benchwarmer John Kerry is called in to try and win one for the Dems. Fans hope he'll take back the presidential trophy from a Republican team millions of voters believe won ugly in 2000 thanks to biased Supreme Court referees. But Kerry has a tendency to freeze in the pocket and is repeatedly sacked by a Republican defense bent on diminishing his status as a war hero. Some wonder why sunny WR John Edwards isn't put in more often to help the Dems make big plays. Kerry gets the team to the four-yard line, but blows the drive on downs.
It really annoyed me that Kerry was the only guy the Democratic Party could come up with in 2004 to challenge the underhanded politics, deception and nearly visionary stupidity of the Bush White House. Kerry's public persona - the "flip-flopping," the vagueness, the apparent lack of conviction and his gentleman-stuck-in-the-wrong-century aura - had all been part of his demeanor as a senator. Democrats knew what kind of image Kerry would project, so it should have come as no surprise when that image spelled failure for the Party in its bid to regain the presidency.
In contrast to Kerry, Howard Dean initially looked like a worthy contender. The former Vermont governor came with conservative-friendly positions such as fiscal restraint and an established respect for the concerns of gun owners. He supported civil unions for gay couples, a position that could have neutralized attacks from Republicans on gay marriage. He was also capable of delivering a sentence in plain English. I thought Dean was the Democrats' best chance to pull in Republican crossover votes. But while Dean's campaign team raked in cash from small donors over the Internet, it didn't prepare readymade rebuttals to critics who were sure to point out Dean's long career trail of awkward and counterproductive comments. (He had earned a reputation for "shooting from the lip.") Not surprisingly, by the time the Iowa caucuses rolled around, Dean had found a way to blow his chances for the nomination. Cautious Iowa Democrats decided Kerry's record as a war hero was their best chance to counter Bush's macho pro-war role playing; and few could have foreseen the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" looming on the horizon (see Chapter 4). With Kerry as the primary victor in Iowa, I knew Democrats would have a tough go of it that November because U.S. senators - especially those who have been in the Senate for a while - generally don't make good presidential candidates (see Chapter 17). The perception of public figures is also influenced by how those figures perceive themselves. Kerry seemed to take himself so seriously that he came across as aloof; he just couldn't connect with average citizens. Candidates with more potential appeal such as General Wesley Clark might have led to Democrats to victory - if only Clark's campaign hadn't been torpedoed in embryo thanks to allies such as Michael Moore (see Chapter 6). Iowa caucus voters in 2004 were obviously trying to do the best they could with what they had.
Wanted: Big Picture thinkers
So how do you pick a winning QB? One role in football that doesn't get a lot of airplay is that of general manager - the guy who works with coaches to find and sign the best players available.
Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), who was elected to chair the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2005, filled that function with some success in 2006 by ensuring the Party drafted candidates that could win in more conservative districts. One thing is clear: in the unruly, undisciplined and short-sighted exercise that is the presidential primary season, too many cooks keep spoiling the Democrats' soup. First, Democrats need to convince more candidates not to run. Secondly, the Party's base needs to be disciplined into accepting candidates who can actually win in a red state - or five. Much has changed since the consciousness-raising events of the 1960s from which the contemporary Democratic Party has drawn much of its presumed moral authority on social issues. You can't win elections if you're playing with outdated rules. If Democrats keep giving Republicans the opportunity to make them look bad, they will keep botching their chances to attain the presidency.
The Dems always seem to be playing defense and that performance has been mediocre, at best. Their offense, more often than not, has been an outright disaster. The Party needs a great head coach who will devise a master plan and put in place a focused and effective staff of coordinators to execute it. The goal must be to inspire the Party's players - from local school board officials, to members of Congress, to governors, to presidential candidates - to carry that plan out as a team. As a result of the 2006 midterm elections, Democrats achieved majorities in the House and Senate - but those majorities, especially in the Senate, were not significant enough for them to effectively challenge President Bush on his continued campaign in Iraq, among other things. This left voters who elected Democrats based largely on antiwar sentiment frustrated, and it didn't take long after the Dems' victory celebration for polls to reflect a level of voter dissatisfaction with the Democratic Congress on par with Bush's low numbers. If achieving the support of a greater number of voters is the Democrats' biggest problem, why aren't they doing something truly in their own best interest and that of the nation - something they should have done decades ago as the majority party, something truly democratic: pushing for the enactment of legislation that will make the day American citizens exercise their most sacred constitutional duty - voting - a national holiday?
The Democratic Party as a whole needs to submit itself to a very different strategy: button down, get in sync and - to use a term that defined congressional Republicans in the post-Gingrich era - march (more) in lockstep. They need to get their priorities straight, and in order. All of this in service to one goal: winning. My purpose is to connect the dots of perception as a way to encourage Democrats to look at the game of politics from more of a cultural than academic perspective. In the stadium of American politics, the field is comprised of cultural events. How voters perceive those events affects voter beliefs. Voter beliefs drive voting patterns. Voting patterns determine which party will prevail. Studying the game of football - its culture, its intelligence and its language - should help Democrats appeal to more voters beyond their base. That "football logic" goes beyond mere intellect. It comes in various modes, from management to coaching to playing. Each mode requires particular skills and reflexes, insights and actions, all of which are crucial to a team's chances of success.
To become winners on the political playing field, Democrats should consider that multi-layered approach to strategy as they work to control and protect the ball of perception.
The bottom line? Who controls perception controls the game.
*We all know how that 2007 season worked out for the Pats. In a terrible example of "What goes around, comes around," after an undefeated regular season of 16-0 (the first such regular-season record in history) they were beaten by the underdog New York Giants in Super Bowl XLII by a measly three points; a reverse mirror image (or whatever you want to call it) of the Patriots' own upset of the St. Louis Rams in 2002. I am not recommending that the Democratic Party presidential contender, Barack Obama, emulate that spectacular fall from grace by the Pats last year, although America's lingering cultural disease of racism may hurt his game. Let's hope the American citizenry has more sense than to allow a rare opportunity of electing a truly viable candidate who HAPPENS TO BE BLACK to pass in November.
[This article has been edited from the original book chapter, by the author, for length.] "When you're playing for the national championship, it's not a matter of life and death. It's more important than that." - Duffy Daugherty
In any sport, playing past the age of 40 is a pretty impressive feat. The body of an athlete may-for the most party, at least-be in better shape than that of someone who is less active, but the wear and tear of sports increases the age/feel of bones and joints by at least 5-10 years. Football, hockey, soccer, tennis, and basketball are most notable for retiring at, what we would consider, an early age. Baseball, on the other hand, can be (aside from catching and pitching) a little easier on the body, and provide the athlete with a longer playing span.
I have compiled a list-in no particular order-of thirteen athletes who have played past the expected age of retirement. There will be quite a few baseball players on here, because: A.) I have played baseball all my life, and I remember more names, and B.) because of what I mentioned up above about baseball not taking as big of a toll on the body.
Remember, these are athletes that I know, and unfortunately some who should be on this list, won't be. If there is someone you feel I forgot, mention it in the comments, and maybe, just maybe, I will include your suggestion/request.
1. Omar Vizquel - He is 43 years of age, and is still playing like he is 25. He has played pivotal roles on numerous teams, and has always been a great teammate.
2. Nolan Ryan - Lasting more than 15 years as a power pitcher is impressive. Nolan was a power pitcher who threw for 27 seasons-and could probably still touch 90 in this current day. We can't forget his 7 no hitters throughout his career either.
3. Shaquille O'Neal - Like a power pitcher lasting more than 15 years, a big man (at least 7'0″) in the NBA may only last for 8-13 seasons. Shaq-although he has had some injuries-is still going strong in his eighteenth season.
4. Jack "The Golden Bear" Nicklaus - He is the oldest to ever win a Master's Tournament (46), and continued to play on the Senior Tour through 2005. Tiger has nothing on old Jack.
5. Julio Franco - Unless you know baseball, you may have never heard of Julio. He made his MLB debut back in 1982, and continued to play until 2007. He had some of his best statistical years while in his 40′s, and has always been a classy person/player.
6. Satchel Paige - He pitched in the Negro leagues from about 1926-1947. He became an MLB rookie at the age of 42 (1948) and played for about another 17 years, making his last appearances in 1965.
7. Martina Navratilova - She is probably the greatest woman's tennis player in the history of the sport. She made her professional debut in 1975 and won 18 grand slam singles titles throughout her career. After 1994 she retired from full-time competition, but continued to play doubles, and periodic singles matches.
8. Jamie Moyer - He was never overpowering, but was always intelligent with his pitch selection and location. He made his MLB back in 1986 and is still pitching to this very day. It just goes to show you that velocity is not everything, instead it's: location, location, location.
9. Gary Roberts - Hockey-in my mind-is one of, if not, the toughest sport to play. Gary made his NHL debut in 1986 and retired in 2009. He played in more than 1,000 games, won a Stanley Cup, and was a great role player throughout his career.
10. George Blanda - He made his NFL debut in 1949 with Bears. He had a lot of ups and downs with the team through 1958 and retired. He came back (this time to the AFL) in 1960 and rejuvenated his career. Go to his Wiki page to see how much shit he went through.
11. Lindsey Hunter - Coming out of Jackson State, Lindsey joined the NBA in 1993. He has always been and average, but reliable, point guard throughout his career. He "retired" (I use quotations because I secretly believe he is still on someone's roster) in 2010.
12. Doug Flutie - He played in the NFL, Canadian Football League, and United States Football League. He is about 5 feet nothing, but has the freaking heart of a lion. He finished up his career in 2005 for the Patriots, but will always be remembered for his Hail Mary pass against Miami (FL) while play for Boston College.
13. Brett Favre - You didn't think I was going to leave Brett off the list, did you? He debuted in the NFL with the Atlanta Falcons, but made his career with Green Bay Packers. He was always my favorite quarterback to watch growing up (Peyton Manning has taken that mantle over now), and still has a soft spot in my heart-even with his recent antics. He has retired, and come out of retirement, at least 10 times in the last 3 years (is that possible?); so I have given up on figuring out when his final game will be.
Check out the rest of my blog Talk no Walk for reviews, random thoughts, news, and anything else I feel like talking about.
The comedic actor known the world over as Will Ferrell was actually born John William Ferrell and has gone by his middle name for much of his life. Before initially establishing his comedic personality in front of a national audience on Saturday Night Live (SNL) in the late 1990s Ferrell was born in Irvine, California where he would go on to grow up in Orange County, CA.
The son of an elementary school teacher mother and a guitarist father Will grew up in a somewhat unique environment as his father played guitar for the popular classic rock band The Righteous Brothers and the family lived in Orange County, California before the area between Los Angeles and San Diego became nearly as populated as it is today. Despite not growing up in a classic American setting Will had a mostly normal upbringing while attending elementary, middle, and high school all in Irvine, the city he was born in. A little known trivia fact about Will Ferrell is that the now high profile USC football fan was once the kicker on his high school varsity football team in his youth.
After graduating from University High School in Irvine Ferrell moved up the five freeway to Los Angeles where he began his freshmen year of college at the University of Southern California (USC). At the conclusion of his time as a USC Trojan undergraduate student Will Ferrell was given a diploma for his degree in Sports Information. While studying sports broadcasting in college Will found time to enjoy the social aspects of college when he pledged and eventually became initiated into the Delta Tau Delta fraternity, a frat whose name is commonly shortened to just Delta Tau.
Upon graduating from USC in 1990 at the age of 22 Will wasted no time getting his comedy career in gear as he transitioned from college student to student of comedy improve. As a young USC Trojans alum Will joined a Southern California group of improvisation comics called The Groundlings. The LA based group founded back in 1974 focuses on improv comedy and creates improvised scenes and sketches. Notable alumni of the competitive program include a number of accomplished performers that in addition to Will Ferrell include: Adam Carolla, Jimmy Fallon, Will Forte, Kathy Griffin, Phil Hartman, Lisa Kudrow, Jon Lovitz, Mike Myers, and Conan O'Brien among others.
Will Ferrell would of course move on to become one of the most accomplished comedians of his generation and prove himself to be a box office draw as an actor (garnering $20 million salaries per film) as well as a proven voice actor, producer, and writer.
Sam, the author of this piece, spends a lot of time in Southern California near where Will now lives with his wife and three sons in LA where they're able to enjoy attending Southern Cal football games and practices. When he's not running marathons around the world (including in New York City and Stockholm, Sweden) Will has occasionally been spotted on golf courses around LA with a USC golf bag. Will has been such a high profile supporter of Southern Cal that it would not be surprising if his vocal school spirit has helped sell a USC Trojans golf bag or two to fellow alumni who just needed a little nudge to publicly get on the bandwagon.
Sometimes I have the hubris to think I can write and on certain topics I sometimes seem do a reasonably fair job, that is, unless my friends and readers are patronizing me. But when it comes to my life's true love, boxing, I seem to have all kinds of problems expressing myself. I hope that's not the case here, for this essay is just too special and too spiritual for that to happen. It's about Bobby Chacon and if anyone deserves special treatment, it's Bobby.
Bobby "Schoolboy" Chacon was inducted into the Boxing Hall of Fame last year and that made me extremely happy. You see, Bobby was my favorite fighter, and since I have watched literally thousands of fights during my 68 years of life and consider myself something of an aficionado, I hope that accolade carries at least a modicum of weight. Hell, I have seen them all; the "bums of a month," the excitement that was Bob Satterfield, the fights between Charles, Louis and Walcott. LaMotta-Robinson, Ward-Gatti, Ward-Green, Ward-Augustus, Zale-Graziano, Correlas-Castillo, Ali-Frazier, Patterson-Johansson, Barrera-Morales. I saw Sugar Ray send Dave Boy Green into dreamland with the perfect left hook......and witnessed the illogic of Hearns putting Duran away with a lethal straight right, and then Duran brutalize Barkley and then Barkley knock out Hearns. I watched Leotis Martin starch Sonny Liston. Bruce Curry and Monroe Brooks go to the precipice, and Kid Paret, Laverne Roach, Duk Koo Kim, Johnny Owens and Leavander Johnson leave everything in the ring. I witnessed the mind numbing suddenness of the Mesa-Garza fight and the shoot outs between Moorer-Cooper and Lyle-Foreman. The slow slide of Jerry Quarry and too many others. I can sense the early signs......the slurring......the nasal monotone. I saw the epiphany of Foreman. The disappointment that was Tyson. I have been dazzled by the magic, heard the music and seen the dance. I pray for Michael Watson, Gerald McClellan and Greg Page and remember the courage of Robert Wangila, Pedro Alcazar, and Beethoven Scottland. I have seen very good things, some not so good, and some downright ugly, but nothing comes close to what I saw and felt during a period between 1978 and 1982 involving three warriors by the names of Chacon, Limon and Boza-Edwards.
Bobby Chacon was born on November 28, 1951 in Sylmar, CA. He was a tough kid of Mexican-American descent and soon found himself in the gym. He became an amateur Diamond belt champion and fought in National Golden Glove Tournaments in both 1971 and 1972. He turned pro in Los Angeles in 1972 while attending California State University at Northridge thereby acquiring the nickname "Schoolboy."
With a fearless, savage and widely exciting style, he became an immediate fan favorite. While the word "brawler" might best describe him, he was also a crafty slugger who could slip punches off the ropes. Though short, he had a deceptively long reach advantage. He was often willing to absorb heavy punishment in order to mete it out and this likely contributed to his later difficulties. He knocked out 23 of his first 25 opponents, including a TKO over Chucho Castillo and an electrifying, career enhancing 9th round TKO victory over future Hall of Famer Danny "Little Red" Lopez. His only loss at that point was a 9th round stoppage to the very tough Ruben Olivares in 1973. The next year, he stopped Alfredo Marcano in 9 rounds to capture the WBC featherweight crown. He defended successfully against Jesus Estrada but lost the title to rival Olivares in 1975 (whom he finally beat by decision in their third match in 1977).
But the genesis for this story started in 1975 when he took on Rafael "Bazooka"Limon in Mexacali, Mexico. Bobby lost a ten round decision, but it began a four-bout rivalry that compares with the very best in boxing history. Neither boxer liked the other and the word "grudge" was frequently mentioned. The two would fight to a technical draw in 1979. Chacon then stepped up in class and lost to the great Alexis Arguello by knock out in the seventh round. Then, in what would become still another great rivalry, he lost in dramatic fashion by knockout to Ugandan Cornelius Boza-Edwards in the 14th round. Bobby could not come out for the 14th round, His left eye was almost closed and his nose hideously cut. This loss was considered by many as Bobby's swan song, and he was encouraged to take a hard look at getting out, but he would have none of that.
He pulled himself up, put together a string of wins, and began making his way up the rankings again. But during this time, that other story that others so often write about.....the personal and self-destructive side of Bobby's life.....was in upheaval. But unlike others, I will not deal with that, for I truly believe it diminishes that side of Bobby Chacon who was the fighter. Suffice to say his personal life was pure and real tragedy, and I just don't have the inclination (nor perhaps the literary skills) to give it its melodramtic due. If Bobby was no angel in his personal life, he certainly was a lion in the ring and that's where my focus and recollections remain.
Now then, after his loss to Boza-Edwards, his fourth and final bout with Limon was scheduled and fought. According to Ring and KO Magazines and the Ring En Espanol, the fourth Chacon-Limon fight became one of the fights of the year and the decade. First one would get rocked; then the other. Both would be floored. Bobby, was cut, bleeding profusely, pummeled, and ready to go only to come back score his own knockdown. Chacon got up bleeding after knockdowns suffered in rounds 3 and 10 to drop Limon in the closing seconds of round 15, and cinch a close bu undisputed decision. Surely, had Limon not gone down, Bobby would not have won. I lived in Boston at the time and recall leaping up from my chair, spilling beer and food all over the place and on my friends and screaming unabashedly at the top of my voice, "Get him Bobby, get him, knock him out." And get him he did. The scoring was: Judge Angel L. Guzman 142-141, Judge Carlos Padilla 143-141 and Judge Tamotsu Tomihara 141-140.
This was the fight that turned me from dedicated boxing fan to full fledged addict and I make no apologies for that. This fight, the essence of which was toe to toe, ebb and flow, back and forth action, was breathtaking and I mean that quite lietrally. It was as close as two fearless men can get to death, to the edge, if you will, and still survive. Limon actually had a strange smile on his face as he was knocked down for the last time and was getting up; I swear on a stack of bibles that he smiled at the crowd. It was almost mystical, surreal, whatever label you could put on it. All I know is I will never forget the 15th round of that fight. "I broke down after the Limon fight," he says. "I didn't like that guy to begin with and with everything that happened......I couldn't sleep, couldn't eat........."
Incredibly, Bobby would then go on to defend against Boza-Edwards at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas and retain his crown in still another "fight of the year" that had me up and screaming once again. Trading vicious hooks throughout, this one almost equaled the Limon fight for its ebb and flow action and pure savagery. Ring Magazine called this one 1983's fight of the year, the second consecutive one involving Bobby. Once again Chacon rose from a knockdown (this time in the first round) and, despite a deep and dangerous cut, dropped Boza Edwards in round twelve as the crowd roared approval and as Bobby avenged his earlier defeat and retain his WBC junior-lightweight crown. One fight was unreal, but my God, another? How much could you take? Like the Limon fight, the unanimous decision he won against Boza-Edwards was surreal in its spectacularity......but unfortunately that would be the last of Bobby's ring glory.
Stripped of his title in June 1983 for refusing to fight Hector Camacho in his home country of Puerto Rico, Chacon then attempted to win a third world title, but was stopped by lightweight champion Ray "Boom Boom" Mancini in 3 one-sided rounds in 1984 (and as boxing fortune would have it, Greg Haugen would do the same to Mancini in 1992 and then he, himself, woud have the favor returned by Thomas Damgaard in 03). I last saw Bobby fight in 1985 when he exposed and bruatalized up-and-coming Davey Montana in Reno. He won seven consecutive fights against solid competition, including Freddie Roach and Arturo Frias, to close out his career in 1988 with a 59-7-1 (47 KOs) record and a legacy as one of boxing's most exciting and popular fighters.
But his personal life would once again be marred by tragedy when his son was murdered in 1991. Later, Bobby was spotted at a public appearance in 1996 to see the Pay Per View fight between De La Hoya and Chavez. By 2000 he had lost all of his material posesions including his mansion, farm and numerous cars. But far more tragically, he was now, by all accounts, suffering from pugistica demenetia, a condition that sometimes occurs among ex-fighters who take too many blows to the head. Bobby's speech is slurred and thick-tongued, his memory poor and he is now unsteady on his feet. In 2002, USA Today ran a story detaiing his residence in a Los Angeles transient way station, where local non-profit groups buy rooms for the homeless. He was 47 and living on a social security disability pension, and has been seen looking for aluminium cans on the streets and in junk yards to help support himself.
I don't know exactly where he is today, maybe living with his mother. He apparently was seen with Mike Weaver and a group of other former California boxers in 2005 at an autograph signing event in Los Angeles, but I'm not sure I really want to know much more than that. The memories I want are the breathtaking ones of those late afternoons in my den Boston when I watched his life and death struggles with Bazooka Limon and Conrelius Boza-Edwards, struggles in which he stood alone in the middle of the ring more as an apparition than as a boxer and seem to say "come on, let's make this special, I'm willing to pay the price." There stood a warrior resolute and unbowed, there stood a fighter.
Quite simply, Bobby Chacon had the greatest fighting hearts of any boxer I have ever seen. Win or lose, he would give it everything he had. And wherever he is, I know he will wearing his trademark ingratiating smile as he did when he was inducted into the Hall last year.
"As much as I love boxing, I hate it. And as much as I hate it, I love it." Budd Schulberg
Ted Sares, PhD, is a private investor and syndicated writer who lives in the White Mountain area of Northern New Hampshire with his wife Holly and Min Pin Jackdog. He writes a bi-weekly column for a local newspaper, is a regular contributor to the NH Business Review, and many of his other pieces are widely published.
His works focus on issues and themes dealing with socio-political topics, business and (economics in which he advocates a free market approach to capitalism), patriotism, and matters dealing with individual freedom.They are frequently inspirational in nature and sometimes reflect the Objectivist philosophy of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand.
There are two general types of crib mattresses: foam and innerspring. Both tend to keep their shape well. There are differences, of course. For one, foam is lighter. The densest foam mattress is usually no more than 10 pounds, compared with 20 to 25 pounds for some innerspring mattresses. So changing your baby's sheets may be easier with a foam unit. Foam is also less springy and therefore less apt to encourage your baby to use the mattress as a trampoline. Still, innerspring crib mattresses remain the most popular.
If you're considering a foam mattress, keep in mind that low-priced models tend to be mushy and flimsy, with a thin vinyl covering and vinyl edging. They may also be unsafe. Putting a baby to sleep on a soft mattress increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Higher-priced models tend to be firmer (and therefore safer), with thicker, reinforced vinyl or cotton coverings.
To assess foam density (which has a direct relation to firmness), compare the weight of different foam models. That's not always easy to do in a store, but if you're able to lift several different mattresses, do it. In general, the heavier the foam mattress, the denser the foam. You can also give the mattress a squeeze test in the center by pressing your palms into both sides of it at once. A dense mattress won't allow you to press very far. A denser foam mattress is also likely to have firmer edges, which is another important performance factor.
To judge the quality of an innerspring mattress, don't go by the sales gimmick of "coil count." While the cheapest innerspring baby mattresses have about 80 coils and the most expensive can have 600 coils, a high coil count doesn't always mean a firmer mattress. In fact, a model with 150 coils can be firmer than one with 600. You can judge by picking up mattresses to compare their weight and by squeezing them to test for firmness. Innerspring models generally have firmer edges than foam mattresses, but squeeze the edges to do a comparison. You may also feel border rods at the top and bottom perimeter, which provide extra edge support for safety and durability.
The number of layers of padding, what that padding is made of, and the quality of the covering add to the price and increase comfort. The cheapest innersprings, like low-end foam mattresses, have thin vinyl coverings and edgings, which can tear, crack, and dry out over time. As prices go up, coverings become thick, puncture-resistant reinforced double or triple laminates, and edgings have fabric binding, which is a sign of quality. Beyond that, reversibility, the presence of ventilators, and thickness are factors that differentiate one model from another.
The mattress you select should also be in compliance with a new flammability law that went into effect on Jan. 1, 2004. Though this is a state law applying only to California, crib mattresses sold in other states are expected to comply with it.
SHOPPING SECRETS
Compare mattresses in the store. Do this by squeezing them.
Confirm store return policies. And keep your receipt. A store's return policy is more important than a mattress maker's warranty. The store should be willing to exchange a mattress that doesn't fit properly, which is a major safety concern.
WHAT'S AVAILABLE
The major brands of foam and innerspring mattresses are, in alphabetical order: Child Craft, Colgate, Evenflo, Kolcraft, Sealy, and Simmons. Prices range from $30 to about $230.
RECOMMENDATIONS
You don't have to spend the most to get a good quality mattress, but don't skimp, either. A budget somewhere between $90 and $150 will generally serve your baby well. A good, firm mattress may also promote proper posture and is more likely to be durable, which is important if your baby will be using the same mattress as a toddler bed or you'll be passing it down to future siblings.
In the case of innerspring models, look for a firm mattress with good support from border rods. Border rods provide extra firmness, durability, and edge support. A mattress with reinforced or embossed vinyl is leakproof; it is also less likely to tear on the metal edge of a mattress foundation and should hold up better over time. Also look for air vents along the sides of the mattress, which not only help keep the mattress ventilated but may prevent seams from splitting when your tot inevitably starts jumping.
When selecting a foam mattress, go for one with high-density foam. Do the squeeze test for firmness in the center and at the edge. Pinch the mattress covering or ticking; it should feel thick, not flimsy.
Make sure any mattress you buy passes the two-finger test for fit in the crib. That is, if you can place more than two fingers between the mattress and the crib, the fit isn't snug enough. Check that fitted sheets fit snugly and securely, overlapping the corners so that you can't easily pull them up at the corners. Ill-fitting crib mattress sheets are a strangulation and suffocation hazard. And never use an adult sheet as a crib sheet, not even in a pinch.
Copyright © 2002-2006 Consumers Union of U.S., Inc.
For the latest information on this and many other products and services, visit http://www.ConsumerReports.org
Find More
Crib Mattresses [http://www.shopndeal.com/consumer-reports/crib-mattresses.html] with Easy Deal at ShopNdeal.com
In recent years, scientists have begun to challenge the popular K-T extinction event theory advanced by Nobel laureate physicist, Luis Alvarez. In 1990, he found evidence of a large impact resulting in an Extinction Level Event (E.L.E) in what is now Chicxulub, Mexico. His theory that this E.L.E. wiped out the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago was soon adopted. However, an increasing number of modern scientists are now casting doubts on his theory. Furthermore, a newly released 3600-year old wisdom text called The Kolbrin Bible supports these challenges to Alvarez's theory with a prescient human account.
At the core of this E.L.E. debate is a thin global layer of iridium that capped the living presence of dinosaurs on this planet. It is called the KT boundary. Iridium is rarely found on the surface of the Earth, but it is common to asteroids, and there is a sharply defined global layer of Iridium that dates back to the Chicxulub impact event.
Doubts about Alvarez's theory are founded in equally credible explanations of the KT boundary. One notable theory is the "KT-Deccan Traps volcanism-induced carbon cycle perturbation extinction theory" of Dewey McLean, Professor Emeritus of Geology in the Department of Geological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, VA. Besides the science, what makes McLean's theory attractive is the amount of effort Alvarez has invested to suppress it.
While precise dating of deep time events is difficult at best, ample evidence exists to suggest that at about the same time Alvarez's asteroid cratered the Yucatan peninsula, a hotspot volcano produced the Deccan Traps eruption with equally devastating results. Unlike an explosive supervolcano event such as the last Yellowstone eruption, the miles-thick Deccan Traps eruption flowed out over thousands of square miles, and released massive amounts of iridium into the atmosphere. Sizable remnants of this lava pile still exist on a volcanically active Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean.
Enter The Kolbrin Bible. The first part of this 11-book secular anthology was authored by Egyptian academics after the Jewish Exodus and is referred to as the Egyptian Texts. The last part was authored by Celtic priests shortly after the death of Jesus. Within the Book of Gleanings is one passage that clearly supports the K-T Deccan Traps of Dewey McLean:
"GLN:3:5 In olden times, there were spawned great monsters and beasts in fearful form, with frightful gnashing teeth and long ripping claws; an elephant was but a rat in comparison with them. Then, because of heavenly rebellion and turmoil, and the terror overwhelming the hearts of men, The Great One hardened the face of the land, which had become unstable, and the beasts were changed to stone. This was beforetimes, when the Destroyer still slumbered in the upper vaults of Heaven."
The reference to an object the Egyptians called the "Destroyer" is repeated often. The Kolbrin Bible and the Egyptian academics explain that it was a long-period orbiting object, which during its last two flyby events caused the Great Deluge (Noah's Flood) and the Ten Plagues of Exodus. Unlike the Torah (Old Testament) this ancient work explains these events as natural disasters -- not the punishments of an angry deity.
This account in The Kolbrin Bible is part of what remains of the Great Book as the Egyptians first called it. First penned in ancient hieratic, the Great Book was approximately 4 times the size of the King James Bible. The impetus for the work was the defeat the Egyptians suffered at the hands of Moses. Convinced their own gods had been proven to be impotent, they initiated the first regional anthropological study in the history of humankind.
Throughout the breadth of their trading sphere, their academics and scribes would do their business as usual, but in their off hours began interviewing local wise men. The aim was to record historical accounts and folklore in the hopes of uncovering any clue that might lead the Egyptians to the one true God of Abraham. The field notes of these interviews were then sent back to Egypt and incorporated into the Great Book.
One civilization that received special attention from the Egyptians was the seafaring Phoenicians. Enamored by the Great Book, the Phoenicians translated it to their own 22-leter alphabet and took a copy of the work to Britain during the late Bronze Age, which at that time was a major exporter of tin. The Celtic priests of Britain embraced the work, which was mostly destroyed during the 1184 arson of the Glastonbury Abbey. What remained was combined with other Celtic texts and translated into Old English and collectively published as The Kolbrin Bible. After WWI, the work was updated to Continental English and the first copies were released in the early 1990's.
For interested researchers, this 3600-year old work offers vital corroboration of Dewey McLean's KT-Deccan Traps eruption theory, plus an abundant source of prescient historical accounts of ancient global disasters. The details in these accounts are as crisp as the man-on-the-street interviews one sees in modern televised news broadcasts. Copies of the work are available online and can be purchased in book stores in the English speaking world.
Marshall Masters: Author, Publisher, Lecturer Former CNN Science Feature producer and Talk Radio Guest http://dx.doi.org/10.1572/marshall.masters The Kolbrin Bible: 21st Century Master Edition ISBN-10: 1-59772-005-4 -- ISBN-13: 978-1-59772-005-2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1572/kolbrin http://kolbrin.com
The Great Selection Heresy
The purpose of staff selection is to choose a person. Wrong! The purpose of staff selection is to get a job done. The person is the "vehicle" if you like, you use to achieve the job results. Unless you know exactly "what" you want, you'll have trouble deciding "who" is to do it for you.
"Doing" Is More Important Than Talking About Doing
You can't tell what a person can do merely by talking about it. I can describe how to play the guitar, how it should sound and the correct placing and moving of fingers. I'm a lousy guitarist. An interview allows applicants to talk about what they can do. That's no guarantee that they can do what they say.
Interviews Favour The Articulate and Amiable
The candidate who speaks cogently, clearly and sensibly has a great advantage at interview. If the same candidate is also pleasant, friendly, socially at ease and knows how to make you feel good, the advantage multiples. Many interviewers mistake "interview performance" for "on job competence". They're often miles apart.
The True Purpose Of The Interview
You conduct selection interviews for only two reasons
If you run a flagpole painting business, you don't want people who are colour blind and suffer from vertigo. This is especially so if they also believe that painting flagpoles is environmentally unsound. Discovering these characteristics after they start is disastrous for both of you.
Importance Of Testing
If you want to know whether and how well an applicant can do something, the method is simple. Get them to do it. Never grant an interview unless you're absolutely confident that the candidate can do what they say they can do. Test, test, test, test!
Job Analysis
Every staff selection process starts with a thorough job analysis. The analysis should state what's to be achieved, the goals of the job. It must also describe what's to be done to achieve these goals. I like to ask" "If a trained seal were doing this job perfectly, how would you know?" Then, and only then, should you concern yourself with the "sort of pardon" you need, their background and experience.
Use The telephone
Have candidates phone you. Check to see whether they have the background and experience you require to do the work and achieve the goals of the job. Be tough. Near enough isn't good enough. If you believe they have the skills, invite them in and test their competence. If they prove their competence arrange a face to face interview.
Conclusion
When you're satisfied that a candidate's competent, your interview can concentrate on culture fit and comfort. That's what a staff selection interview should be about.
If you've enjoyed this article, you might like to read my FREE, 42 page Special Report, "5 Proven Methods For Improving Employee Performance On The Job". It's yours to keep. And you'll get a free bonus eBook about setting Performance Standards for employees too. Just go to http://www.leonnoone.com and they're yours ... with my compliments.
Two of my favorite holidays come in June - Flag Day on June 14, and Father's Day, this year on June 18.
What I particularly love about Flag Day is that it gives us an opportunity to be patriotic without all the red-white-and-blue hoopla of the Fourth of July. You never see blonde bimbos draped over Ford trucks in Flag Day ads. Instead we should think about the flag and its history and what it represents to our nation, because it really is a symbol that tells a story. Conceptually, it echoes the British Union Jack, whose crossed bars represent the joining of England and Scotland into Great Britain. And unlike traditional banners, there's no coat of arms suggesting a royal family or powerful aristocracy that run things.
Every flag represents its nation to some extent, but ours combines, in its 13 stripes, the origin of the American Revolution - the 13 original colonies that said "No" to King George - with the concept of a federalist system of equal states that make up a united group in the individual stars, clumped together in a pattern that has changed over the centuries but in which each is treated equally. There are many who believe that the red represents the blood of patriots and the white the purity of the American cause, and that the blue represents the heavenly sky under which the states united.
There are also lots of protocols in place about displaying the flag, most of which can easily be found by a quick Google search. Every citizen should learn them to show respect for the flag itself, what it represents - our liberty and our union - and the founding fathers and mothers who made those realities possible.
What I like about Father's Day is that it reminds us to think about the men who raised us, who are so often ignored. Fathers have a big role to play in our lives, as children and after we've grow up. It's unfortunate - it's appalling - how many fathers are absent from their children's lives, but that just points up how important they can and should be. They can be stern and strict, nurturing and loving, proud and overbearing, insensitive and embarrassing, and sometimes all the above, sometimes all at once. They often take undue pride in the family name - making them proud of their children when we live up to it, and mad as hell when we besmirch it through some idiotic decision. They usually want their sons to be just like them, and their daughters to marry someone just like them (and sometimes they have to settle for having a gay son fall in love with someone just like them!). But somehow, for me at least, a father is the guy who's never in the limelight like a mother, but who gets all sorts of things done.
In my house, while my mom was "busy" with stuff - work, cleaning, cooking, disciplining, and all the other stuff that makes a home operate - my dad was slipping off down to the basement workshop building a doghouse for my brother's Dachshund or painting a bedroom suite for my sister or making a little ring holder that my mom could use to put her wedding ring in for safekeeping while she washed dishes. Things that he made or fixed just magically appeared in the house, just as vacation trips magically got organized and family campouts got planned and executed.
I was lucky that way - my family was intact, both my parents loved all of us, and my dad was present (when he wasn't traveling for business) but not too overbearing. A lot of people I know weren't as fortunate, and it's hard for them to make up for what they missed, whether their father was absent or abusive of just plain not good.
Every year, though, around mid-June, I want to thank my dad and every dad for being who they were. And I'm always determined NOT to buy him a tie or a sweater. What I look for instead is something mechanical, something that echoes the role he held in our household of keeping us safe.
This year it might be a new security system for the house, one that he can program to his heart's content so that every time he locks up the house is guarded and safe. One that gives him endless options for timers and choosing the other systems that will be connected to it - basically a big boy's Toy that has real practical applications. Or maybe just a new, high-quality deadbolt for the basement door that my mom always worries about. Whatever I get him, I'm going to wrap it in paper with a stars-and-stripes theme, to remind him (and me) that the flag represents both the freedom and the security that are our legacy from him and our forefathers.
Andrew Reed grew up in Asheville, North Carolina. He moved to New York in 1970, and following his undergraduate studies at Columbia University he became a marketing specialist with National Broadcasting and other companies. He returned to the WNC mountains in 1993, where he works as an editor, freelance writer, and marketing consultant. He operates a web-based editing and marketing company, http://www.myowneditor.com, and specializes in writing for web sites.
In recent years, both the use of soy wax and the practice of aromatherapy have grown by leaps and bounds. So why not unite the two? Welcome to the world of aromatherapy soy candles. Before the invention of soy wax in 1992, there was really no all-natural and practical way of creating an aromatherapy candle. Since then, and especially in the last few years, the use of aromatherapy soy candles has become almost commonplace.
You may ask, why use soy wax for aromatherapy candles? Why not just use paraffin?
First let's define aromatherapy. In this case, it is the use of essential oils to aid in physical, psychological and emotional well being. More specifically, it is the use of the aroma of these oils. When you combine these powerful aromas with non-natural chemicals, you are no longer inhaling the pure aroma of the essential oils.
When you use paraffin as a medium to disperse these essential oils into the air, you are also dispersing the chemicals contained in the paraffin itself, which many consider to be harmful. The petro-carbon soot produced from paraffin and the carcinogens that are released into the air disrupt the healing properties of these delicate essential oils, in effect, contaminating the aroma.
When you burn aromatherapy soy candles, petro-carbon soot is not released into the air. Soy wax burns cleaner and also much cooler than paraffin wax, so when the essential oils are released into the air, they are not contaminated or overheated, thus disrupting the chemical properties that give essential oils their healing power.
One of the main advantages of burning an aromatherapy soy candle as opposed to a paraffin candle infused with essential oils is the scent throw of soy wax. Scent throw is basically how a candle releases fragrance into the air, its effectiveness in releasing that fragrance, how much fragrance is released and how long it stays in the air. If a candle is said to have a strong scent throw that simply means a lot of scent is released into the air. But there are other factors to take into account.
Soy wax burns cooler, which has a dramatic effect on the way in which an aromatherapy soy candle throws the scent. Because the melted wax is much cooler than paraffin, the release of essential oils is steadier and more long lasting. A soy candle may take a bit longer to release its fragrance into the air, but the result is a cleaner and longer lasting smell.
So why burn aromatherapy soy candles?
Aromatherapy soy candles continue to become more and more popular, but we at Promethean Candle Boutique leave the decision in your capable hands and continue to offer paraffin, soy and palm wax candles for both casual use and use in aromatherapy. Get the full story at http://www.prometheancandle.com
New and more ambitious indoor sport complexes are being planned all the time and even some of the world's newest and largest sports stadia are being built with the option of turning them into indoor facilities.
The new Wembley Stadium in London, the most expensive ever built, does have a sliding roof which, although it cannot completely close, does afford protection from the weather for fans while still being able to retract and provide the conditions for the pitch to grow. Wimbledon famously added a roof to its centre court, after several tournaments were interrupted by rain and now there is hardly a major stadium design process that doesn't at least consider including a roof.
In the US the redevelopment of the Dallas Cowboys NFL stadium will be the most expensive NFL stadium ever built when it is completed in 2009. It will have a 660,000 square foot retractable roof and will have a capacity of 100,000. In Japan, the Oita Stadium was nick-named the Big Eye, after its closing roof section which resembled an eyelid as it was being closed.
In the UK the popularity of sport as a pastime has allowed the investment need to build facilities to bring ever more sports indoors and away from the vagaries of the British weather. Indoor ice rinks date back to well before the first world war when Richmond in Surrey already had a rink that was taken over during the war effort to make hand grenades. The rink was used by some of Britain's most famous skaters including john Curry and Robin Cousins, both Olympic gold medallists who used to train there. For a time it was the world's biggest indoor ice rink until Vienna Stadthalle opened in 1950.
Streatham Ice rink in London has also been around, having existed as an indoor skating venue for over 75 years. Back in the 1960's and 70's there was even more interest and several new indoor ice rinks opened around the UK including the popular Silver Blades rink in Sheffield that opened in the late sixties.
The next sport to receive the indoor treatment was the wave of interest in water theme parks. These types of venues had already been built in warmer holiday resort areas such as the Costa del Sol, but again Britain's cooler, wetter weather made outdoor complexes unsuitable. So, indoor water parks were built. Again Richmond in Surrey was one of the first towns to build an indoor facility in the 1980's. Canada claims to have built the world's first indoor water park with West Edmonton Mall in 1985. Now there are several of these waterparks in the UK including Coral Reef in Bracknell, The Dome in Doncaster and WaterWorld in Stoke.
In the 1990's motorsport was the next sport to find itself transformed for indoor venues. Indoor gokarting tracks were opening up all over the country, from small tight tracks built in empty warehouses to long custom-built tracks that included bridges, pit areas.
One of the largest is the Speedkarting complex in Warrington that claims to have a main track of over 1 kilometre in length on three different levels and even boasts a Monaco-style tunnel!
Back to the present day and it seems adventure sports are no receiving an indoor focus. Mountain climbing now doesn't require any mountains. Climbing walls are often included as a special area in many general sports centres around the UK and there are now several dedicated indoor climbing centres. Facilities like the Craggy Island centre in Guildford Surrey have over 1000 square metres of wall, providing 100's of different routes, while the Awesome Walls Climbing Centre in Stockport has 23.5 meter tall wall area. Skiing is the latest mountain sport to come in out of the cold, into the cold as it happens. That's because indoor skiing is no longer restricted to artificial slopes. Technology has allowed indoor skiing centres to offer real snow slopes, with snow cannons capable of generating snow that provides slopes as long as 160m, such as those at the new Snow Centre just outside London. This impressive venue provides indoor facilities for both skiers and snowboarders on two wide slopes.
Of course the 2012 Olympics that will be held in London are sure to enhance what is already an impressive list of indoor sports venues in the UK. These include a 6000 seater velodrome, a basketball arena and an impressive aquatics centre which will house two 50 meter pools and a 25 metre competition diving pool. A separate temporary building next door will house two pools for the water polo competitions.
Sports writer Mark Bartley reports on the latest indoor snow sport centres. Indoor ski slopes are appearing all over the world now with the UK being one of the leading countries.
Macintosh video games are becoming more frequent in the marketplace. Whether its action, adventure, role-playing, sports, kid's games, or any other category you seek, Mac offers an incredibly diverse and rich gaming experience. The newest Macs also offer an easy to install application which allows users to run Windows games from their Mac. Though earlier Mac versions weren't as gaming friendly, the current ones have eased porting of many games. Whether running on a Mac or through the use of a Windows running system, the Mac will provide performance roughly equivalent to a similarly equipped Windows PC.
The ideal situation for the creation of Macintosh video games is to have them developed simultaneously with the Windows version. This way the original programmers are available for any questions or troubleshooting that comes up while creating the game. This also usually allows a simultaneous roll out of both Windows and Mac versions to the marketplace. While ideal, this rarely happens. There are only a few companies that develop games for both the Mac and Windows systems simultaneously.
What usually happens is that the high dollar games that come to Mac are actually created for Microsoft Windows. They are then later ported to the Mac system via one of the relatively small number of porting house companies. Two of the early video games that were converted to Mac were Microsoft Flight Simulator (1986) and SimCity (1988). One notable exception was Myst (1993), which was actually developed on the Mac and then imported to Windows a year later.
Since the majority of games are not developed with the initial Windows version, the roll out tends to lag behind the Windows version, usually by several months. This is the typical scenario for most high budget games that require an extensive amount of time to play and are graphically intense. However, there are many companies today that create original Macintosh video games that are of the more casual variety. These are games that consist of simple graphics and easy to play in short bursts.
One thing to consider when looking for Macintosh video games is that there is not enough shelf space in brick and mortar stores to justify carrying a full line of Macintosh games. With Macintosh's small share of the market, it just doesn't make sense to stock up on these types of items. Therefore, to get the best selection, an online retailer like Amazon.com will be your best bet, for both selection and price.
Another option for Mac users is to play PC games using a Windows based operating system on their Mac. This can be accomplished a few different ways. Since the Intel processor was introduced into the Mac platform, users have been able to simultaneously run the Mac operating system alongside the Windows, without having to reboot their computer. There are free applications available online for Mac users to set this up on their system
Whether playing a game through a Windows operating system, or an exclusive Macintosh video game on the OS, the experience on the Mac is as rich and compelling as the one found on any PC.
Discover a new world of adventures designed especially for Macintosh users. These macintosh video games were designed to give you the full gaming experience as you accept challenges, find hidden treasures, discover what's lurking in hidden caves and more.
When you begin to play your macintosh video game you will experience hours of enjoyment and can test your gaming skills on a wide variety of exciting games.
