The stuff on which we write is either parchment or vellum, which are sometimes interchangeable. However, the evidence for the etymology of the word seems conclusive in that we look to different languages for fine writing material. In Latin we have Vitellus, in Italian, Vitello. In Frech it is Veau. In the last two citations, we can find the words on menus. It would seem logical to read vellum as calf skin. As for parchment, Oxford scholars feel the name was derived from the settlement of Pergamum, found in Magna Grecia along the southwest coast of Italy. Alas, languages get "dumbed down" to indiscriminate word usage and it would seem that now both writing materials are often interchangeably.
i work for CDS the day the doors opened. sold like crazy and they got rid of me and keep a punch of 70-80 year old making 12-14 dollars and hr. and not even a smile on their face. go home and give other people the job who really need it. COSTCO OPEN YOUR EYES AND GET ALL OF THEM OUT OF THERE.If you didnt have samples things would still sell.The demos are just in the way hard to shop
Great Article on the Manglitsa Breed! My son is very interested in this breed as well and talks about them and their benefits often. That's why I thought I would google the Royal Mangalitsa!
Hello! Thank you for your article. I’d like to try to compare it to my previous experience of learning easy Italian lessons through Skype on online classes for free. I did around 10 conversations over Skype with a native speaker from http://preply.com/en/italian-by-skype. And I was pretty satisfied with their Quality. I think they have a strong teaching quality.Following their course curriculum now I can speak Italian like a native,you don't need to go any school. but I Want to try another option.
Myself and most of my neighbors in Petaluma all have catchment tanks and grey water systems, mostly because we want to keep are water bills down.
Mainly, the reason municipalities are reluctant to encourage residential water saving, is because it's a source of revenue. (e.g. Petaluma has a $165 million bond to pay off)
Residential water use is such an insignificant part of the equation. If so called "pioneering activists" like Trathen Heckman and Daily Acts are sincerely concerned about these water resource issues, he and his org should've been more actively involved when the City of Petaluma approved two giant shopping centers, one having a large health club. Yet, I don't recall seeing him at any of the public meetings. For instance, the new Target shopping center is using 3 million+ gallons/year, (it's all documented in the hydrology report, if anyone from DA cared to read.
Commercial industry and AG is where the systemic problem sits. Rohnert Park just built a Casino with 15 restaurants with a hotel planned soon. RP also just finished building 244 condos behind the Casino. Has anybody heard of the recently approved Coliseum City on Oakland water front? New sports arena, retail/offices and 6,000 homes. SF Mayor Lee's ballot measure to build 30,000 new apartments by 2020? Policy makers need to make serious changes to building/planning requirements, when it comes to grey water/catch systems and water conservation. Just saying...
Rain barrels work. I have five and haven't pulled out the hose in the front yard yet this winter! Besides, our plants like rain barrel water runoff because it's not got any of the chloramines or salt in it! It's really worth it and fun as well! We in SoCal have rebates via Metropolitan Water District. It's time for our local districts to promote this worthwhile investment of basically $10 each!
The quote, "As for rain barrels at [the] home level, they are not very cost-efficient. It is much better and cheaper to direct your storm runoff onto your lawn or flower beds and let it soak in." is why rain harvesting has an uphill struggle for legitimacy. Let me put this very succinctly; that's rubbish.
In drought conditions, stormwater does not infiltrate but sheet flows off lawns and gardens until they are already slightly saturated enough for the water to infiltrate.
Yes, tiny 50 gallon rain barrels are useless. But up that to say 200USG per downspout or about 600-1000USG per home and you'll notice a significant reduction in both runoff impacts and potable water demand. Volume is king but so is having capacity available to catch and hold that storm when it arrives.
I'll leave this thread with one suggestion, RainGrid lot level stormwater utilities distribute automated cisterns to householders free of charge on the basis that catching stormwater at the lot level actually pays for itself in saved infrastructure damage and insurance risk reduction. And that's before even bringing potable water conservation into the discussion.
The war on peaceful cannabis consumers has been raging for more than 80 years. How much more blood needs to be spilled before the prohibitionists finally give up the fight or the more sensible public demands immediate change?
Cannabis prohibition has never been about public safety, its always been about money and lots of it.
Please demand full legalization and nothing less! Let's end this war as soon as possible!
Is there anything you did, once, 40 years ago that you believe still defines who you are now and is used to introduce you? More accurately, did one of your ancestors do something that you'd include on your CV. This is ridiculous; the Light's recent melodramatic history and internecine warfare is far more entertaining. Keep the sideshow going, its worth the small price of admission.
Bohemian - I expect a higher standard from journalism than I read in this article. The article claims the USDA’s organic standards are “far below” those used in Marin County. The article later claims there are local organic certifications that are beyond the USDA standards. Marin Organic Certified Agriculture program (MOCA) is accredited by the USDA. Organic certification bodies operating under that label in this country and internationally are certifying to the same standards, it is the law.
I am offended by the implication that the entirety of China as a nation is incapable of upholding a standard. The National Organic Program (NOP) reviewed the performance of Chinese certifiers in 2010. Anyone can dial it up on the WWW and read the assessment on their performance. This is the power and the importance of the USDA Organic Program. We can all observe and steward the process of upholding the organic standards; this is something we don’t get in conventional food systems. The Organic movement asked the federal government to oversee organics. In the Organic Food Production Act of 1990, Congress gave the USDA the responsibility of oversight.
The article references a time when 15 years ago farmers said USDA organic was not good enough. A bigger picture is needed to understand this historical reference. The USDA issued a first draft of organic standards that infuriated the organic community because they included allowances for sewage sludge, GMOs and irradiation. The USDA received a flood of comments from the entire community of organic constituents, insisting on the exclusion of the aforementioned methods. The USDA redrafted the standards. This is the power of organics.
We get to know everything that goes on with organic food from seed to table. The article states that the “organic label certifies the method of farming; it is not a verification of the final product”. I’m totally confused by that statement. When a product is labeled organic, a consumer can understand every input or processing allowed in the farming or manufacturing. A farmer’s organic system plan and a manufacturer’s processing and inputs must comply with the organic system. That’s why we have certifiers. I find the transparency of the organic system far superior to what I cannot know in the conventional food system. When the National Organic Standard Board reviews materials allowed in organic systems, I can make a comment to them directly at the meeting. Organics is self auditing, correcting and interactive with constituents. Which food system do you want to support?
Update: No go for Michael's case at the Supreme Court. Dangit. Check our Open Mic this week for an editorial from him on the experience.
People on boats are subject to maritime law. Whenever someone on a boat claims their civil rights have been violated, it's important to ask how? Usually, the complaint is they've experienced 'a boarding', and in some cases a search of the boat. Law enforcement agents, whether a sheriff, port police officer or Coast Guardsman are authorized by law to board, inspect or search boats. These police powers derive from laws meant to control smuggling, the transport of illegal drugs, illegal immigrants and more.
There is plenty of controversy surrounding the subject of anchorage 'rights'. As long as a boat is not anchored in a channel impeding the flow of traffic, or anchored where warnings indicate doing so is prohibited due to underground pipes, cables or other obstructions, it is considered to be in the right. But, unfortunately law enforcement agents, municiple and State governments have in recent years begun to dilute what we perceive as our right to anchor. For example, although anchoring in the Oakland Alameda estuary does not impede traffic because there simply isn't any. But, this fact has not prevented law enforcement officers from telling you to haul anchor "because you can't anchor here." If you refuse, it will most likely lead to a boarding and search. There are all sorts of deficiencies - like expired flares, worn life vests, oil in the bilge, drug posession, an outstanding traffic warrant you forgot about and more - that can lead at minimum ciitations and even arrest. So, trying to assert your perceived right can create more trouble for you than it's worth. State and municipal governments, whether legally entitled or not are passing ordinances meant to control anchoring in waters adjacent to or within it's physical jurisdiction. Challenging these laws is expensive, time consuming and may prove fruitless if the federal government gives away it's authority over navigable waterways. Politics is playing an increasing significant role, and what kinds of changes may be in store with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and possibility the next President will be Republican, are unknown.
Having said all of this, the root cause of building momentum to exert control over anchorages is there are a increasing numbers of boats in various stages of disrepair, whether occupied or not. The worst case is the 'derelict', abandoned and threatening to sink. It is a simple fact that people taking refuge on boats do not usually have the financial means to 'fix up' a boat already in disrepair when obtained. So, they continue to deteriorate. Mr. Kiffer says "If you show up in Sausalito, with or without a boat, you won't be in need for long. You'll get a bunk or a whole boat! A foothold." A boat? Richardson Bay is heavily populated by so-called 'dollar boats'. Right, boats purchased for one dollar because control over them was assumed at some point by a marina or law enforcement agency because they were recovered by the marina or agency after dragging, or warnings mailed to owners of an apparently abandoned boat went unanswered. These boats are usually small, unsuited for living aboard and in many cases poorly maintained. Many of them drag or sink in winter storms, placing a burden upon the Richardson Bay Regional Agency for the cost of salvage and in some cases destruction.
Finally. I am not going to impugne the character of members of the 'anchor outs' by broadly classifying them into groups. I will say however, I have observed anarchical, anti-establishment, anti-government, in your face, "I'll kill anyone who gets in my way" attitudes that do not serve their best interests and garner effective support from anyone. In his post above, Mr. Kiffer serves as a good example of this. Some in Sausalito apparently believe their special needs and disadvantages places "anchor outs" in a special class of people who's responsibilities as citizens are waived and they are entitled to special dispensations and protection from the authorities. Perhaps. But at what cost to others who depend upon effective governance to protect, mediate, and resolve disputes between those who are affected in one way or another by the situation in Richardson Bay? Do people who own boats in Richardson Bay have a right to take possession of a public waterway - like squatters anywhere else - to the detriment of all other boaters who have equal right to use the same? What difference does it make that a hand full of "anchor outs" are creative? Allegedly artists and at least one film maker? I've read a novel penned by an anchor out, and by my estimation he's a pretty good writer. But there is a world full of artists, writers, film makers and very creative people who take their responsibilities as citizens seriously, obey local and State laws, and actually work to make a living. How many of the 'creative' anchor outs endeavour to work for a living with their art, films and what have you? And, if they are not able to earn "a living wage" by virtue of their creativity what effort are they making to support themselves by securing a job? There is not much incentive to find a job when you can rely on local charity to clothe and feed you.
Anchor outs are referred to by some as a "community" posessing a unique culture. Where are the features that qualify disconnected individuals on boats as a community? There is a group of individuals who meet in Dumphy park, picnic together and plot how to respond to efforts by the authorities to address issues related to Richardson Bay. There is even a plan to start a "paper" to inform locals and attract support. But, over all participation by all anchor outs is limited to a handful of people. Hardly a community. A special interest group consisting of a small number of people engaged in lobbying to pursue their ends? Yes. Culture? Again, if any thing, the disparate interests, backgrounds and individualism characteristic of the anchor outs defies the suggestion there is commonality in the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of the anchor outs. The Dumphy Park group? Hardly representative of the total number of anchor outs.
Since I've been doing so upwards of 24 years I know what it means to live aboard a small boat. But, unlike those who identify as Sausalito's 'anchor outs', I've remained on the move; completing the greater part of 2 global circumnavigations mostly alone. 'Cruisers' like myself and local sailors in the S.F. Bay area used to be able to find room to anchor in Sausalito, whether for a weekend or longer. No more, because the entire area - both sides of the main channel - are clogged with illegally moored boats that rarely if ever move. Illegal because permits for the moorings required by ordinance, have never been applied for or received. It is one thing to empathize for people down on their luck. Quite another to relieve them of responsibilities as citizens, which includes respecting and obeying federal, state, and local laws. You do not need to be well fed, employed or have a clean record to comply with the laws of the land. It is unfathomable to believe law enforcement officers should be expected to overlook violations of local ordinances and State laws simply because people on boats in Richardson Bay are somehow disadvantaged.
All I ask for is order and an open area free of illegally moored boats where I and others who wish to anchor can. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to occur without a comprehensive change in how the Bay is used and managed. Presently - whether abandoned, stored, unnoccupied or lived upon - roughly 200 boats are on moorings or 'permanently at anchor' (until they drag in a storm) in Richardson Bay. The effect is the remainder of the boating community that would like to use the bay, a public waterway, can't. There are three possible outcomes in the debate about Richardson Bay. 1.) Things will remain unchanged which is untenable for many reasons. 2.) The anchorage wil be closed, or 3.) RBRA will install, maintain and manage a mooring field in addition to defining a managed anchorage for anchoring only. In order to eliminate any possibility illegal, serrupticiously installed illegal moorings will appear in the anchorage boats must be required to re-anchor every 15 days or so, and harbour police provided to monitor and enforce this and compliance with permit requirements. All boaters wanting to use a port mooring or anchor in the newly designated anchorage must submit their boat for inspection by either the Coast Guard or RBRA if the plan on staying longer than 72 hours.
This isn't only about the people. It's about fair play, equal opportunity for all boaters to use Richardson Bay, resource management and good citizenship.
As lethal as cheney Halliburton? Have you see any charges ever brought against Cheney on this?
A responsible article on a difficult subject with no simple answers. A refreshing change from the hyperbole reported by local newspapers as fact. At one extreme are those who want to evict the ranchers from the Park's pastoral zone and at the others those who want to evict the elk from the Park's pastoral zone. But some of us believe there is room in for both ranchers and elk, but it will take some work by the Park, willing collaboration by interested parties, and a tone down of the hyperbole.
Save the elk, the mission of a "National Park" trumps provincial interests. Elk long have been an emblem of what's wild, as the drought continues more and more hay must be imported to continue "farming", there is land designated for farming and some...very small on the scale in pecking order for National Park, I take exception with predators, poachers take numbers of elk every year, and cougar take calves, an old adults, on my own ranch caught 3 young men killing animals just to celebrate their new rifles...It is a miracle of sorts they are coming back...some, I gave up hunting years ago as could no longer pull the trigger, what will future generations find here? I hope they encounter elk as it never fails to straighten neck hair and lift your hat, the regal beauty and a connection to the primordial past...which is why we seek out National Parks...Save the Elk.
I've come to the conclusion that the new Boho editors are soft on environmental issues and lazy about doing their homework. Fluoride in drinking water has been proven to be detrimental to our health. The local gov't should not be forcing it on us. End of story.
At present, 97% of the western European population drinks non-fluoridated water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain. Think they're onto something?
2015 Metro Newspapers. All rights reserved.
Website powered by Foundation