Check out Brian Dilg Photography's photo retouching display. The changes are spectacular! The work done on the people is eye-opening, in that they are just normal people made to look better than anyone really can. The clothes on the little girl being changed and made to fit better - how telling! I knew models' photos are retouched, but this is the first time I've seen it so very well represented.
Dear Senator Dorsett,
Please remove your illegally posted campaign signs from the median of East Wendover Avenue/Burlington Road.
Per a memo sent by the City of Greensboro to Political Candidates and Campaign Workers, dated February 21, 2006:Political signs may NOT be placed:I saw and continue to see many of your signs (and those of other candidates) that violated these and other parts of City Ordinance. We've enough signs for housing developments and business opportunities already illegally blighting our streets. Political campaign signs, especially after the election, should not add to the problem. In fact, the people whose names are upon those signs should be helping to eliminate the existing problem.
1. Within the street-right-of-way (which usually includes the grassed area ten feet behind the curb.)
2. In median strips on divided street.
Regards,
S.A. "Sam" Moore
30-5-5.4. Signs that do not require a permit.(C) Certain temporary signs conforming to the provisions of Table 30-5-5-1. Other types of temporary signs may be allowed by permit based on the provisions of Tables 30-5-5-2 and 30-5-5-3. Allowed without a permit are:30-4-14.1. Use of street right-of-way.3) Temporary political signs located on private property with the property owner's permission; provided the signs are removed within seven (7) days after the election and there shall be no commercial message displayed in residential, office and Public-Institutional districts.(C) Prohibited Uses: The following shall not be placed within public or private street right-of-way:(1) Signs, other than those permitted in subsections (A) and (B) above;
§ 14‑156. Injuring fixtures and other property of electric‑power companies.
It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and wantonly, and without the consent of the owner, to take down, remove, injure, obstruct, displace or destroy any line erected or constructed for the transmission of electrical current, or any poles, towers, wires, conduits, cables, insulators or any support upon which wires or cables may be suspended, or any part of any such line or appurtenances or apparatus connected therewith, or to sever any wire or cable thereof, or in any manner to interrupt the transmission of electrical current over and along any such line, or to take down, remove, injure or destroy any house, shop, building or other structure or machinery connected with or necessary to the use of any line erected or constructed for the transmission of electrical current, or to wantonly or willfully cause injury to any of the property mentioned in this section by means of fire. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. (1907, c. 919; C.S., s. 4328; 1993, c. 539, s. 94; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
§ 136‑32. Other than official signs prohibited.
No unauthorized person shall erect or maintain upon any highway any warning or direction sign, marker, signal or light or imitation of any official sign, marker, signal or light erected under the provisions of G.S. 136‑30, except in cases of emergency. No person shall erect or maintain upon any highway any traffic or highway sign or signal bearing thereon any commercial advertising: Provided, nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the erection or maintenance of signs, markers, or signals bearing thereon the name of an organization authorized to erect the same by the Department of Transportation or by any local authority referred to in G.S. 136‑31. Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. The Department of Transportation may remove any signs erected without authority. (1921, c. 2, s. 9(b); C.S., s. 3846(r); 1927, c. 148, ss. 56, 58; 1933, c. 172, s. 17; 1957, c. 65, s. 11; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; 1977, c. 464, s. 7.1; 1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 1030, s. 39; 1993, c. 539, s. 981; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)
19A NCAC 02E .0415 ADVERTISING SIGNS WITHIN RIGHT OF WAY
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect or place any advertising or other sign, except regulation traffic and warning signs approved by the Department of Transportation, on any highway or the right of way thereof, or so as to overhang the right of way, or to permit the erection or placing of any advertising or other sign, as herein prohibited, on any highway right of way which is situated over any land owned, rented, leased or claimed by such person, firm or corporation. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or other corporation that has erected, or placed, or permitted to be erected or placed, any advertising or other sign, as herein prohibited, or for any person, firm or corporation owning, renting, leasing or claiming any land over which a highway or highway right of way is situated, and on which highway or highway right of way any advertising or other sign has been erected or placed, to allow such advertising or other signs to remain on state highway or right of way thereof.
History Note: Authority G.S. 136‑18(10); 136‑30;
Eff. July 1, 1978.
These are real (i.e. not p'shopped) pictures of lasers operating at the Starfire Optical Range, part of Kirtland Airforce Base in New Mexico. These images are from the eyeball series site of Cryptome. (This makes me want a Wicked Lasers green laser even more!) The use of the lasers here is supposedly for astronomical research and, according to Federal budget records, laser weapons, possibly for use against enemy satellites. Star Wars is happening in the desert. New Mexico = New Tatooine?
... "National Uniform Law" authorized by the Iranian parliament a few days ago, which is aimed at getting “Western” style clothing off the streets and advancing more traditional “Islamic” attire, also includes a clause obligating Iranian Jews to wear a yellow ribbon.(h/t: Celestial Blue)
Members of the country’s Christian minority will be forces to wear a red ribbon, while those practicing the ancient Persian religion will be obligated to place a blue ribbon on their clothes.
The new law is expected to go into effect within the next few months after it is authorized by Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
...
Rabbi Marvin Heir, who heads the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said that Iran is getting "closer and closer to the Nazi ideology," adding that only an international outcry can prevent the law from going into effect.
...
Efraim Zuroff, the director of the Wiesenthal Center in Israel, said in response, “This is simply a catastrophe; it automatically brings one back to the Holocaust, and we do not need to remind the Israeli public that the yellow badges came just before the expulsion and extermination.
Dear Senator Frist:TWENTY BILLION DOLLARS??? Imagine what that money would do if it were in the hands of American citizens and legal residents, spending it here in America.
There is a huge amount of propaganda and myths circulating about illegal aliens, particularly illegal Mexican, Salvadorian, Guatemalan and Honduran aliens.
1. Illegal aliens generally do NOT want U.S. citizenship. Americans are very vain thinking that everybody in the world wants to be a U.S. citizen. Mexicans, and other nationalities want to remain citizens of their home countries while obtaining the benefits offered by the United States such as employment, medical care, in-state tuition, government subsidized housing and free education for their offspring. Their main attraction is employment and their loyalty usually remains at home. They want benefits earned and subsidized by middle class Americans. What illegal aliens want are benefits of American residence without paying the price.
2. There are no jobs that Americans won't do. Illegal aliens are doing jobs that Americans can't take and still support their families. Illegal aliens take low wage jobs, live dozens in a single residence home, share expenses and send money to their home country. There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a decent wage.
3. Every person who illegally entered this nation left a home. They are NOT homeless and they are NOT Americans. Some left jobs in their home countries. They come to send money to their real home as evidenced by the more than 20 billion dollars sent out of the country each year by illegal aliens. These illegal aliens knowingly and willfully entered this nation in violation of the law and therefore assumed the risk of detection and deportation. Those who brought their alien children assumed the responsibility and risk on behalf of their children.
4. Illegal aliens are NOT critical to the economy. Illegal aliens constitute less than 5% of the workforce. However, they reduce wages and benefits for lawful U.S. residents.What is it about the racism card? The fact that the problem is composed of primarily one race is fact. Acting on the facts is not racism.
5. This is NOT an immigrant nation. There are 280 million native born Americans. While it is true that this nation was settled and founded by immigrants (legal immigrants), it is also true that there is not a nation on this planet that was not settled by immigrants at one time or another.
6. The United States is welcoming to legal immigrants. Illegal aliens are not immigrants by definition. The U.S. accepts more lawful immigrants every year than the rest of the world combined.
7. There is no such thing as the "Hispanic vote". Hispanics are white, brown, black and every shade in between. Hispanics are Repu blicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Communists, Marxists and Independents. The so-called "Hispanic vote" is a myth. Pandering to illegal aliens to get the Hispanic vote is a dead end.
8. Mexico is NOT a friend of the United States. Since 1848 Mexicans have resented the United States. During World War I Mexico allowed German Spies to operate freely in Mexico to spy on the U.S. During World War II Mexico allowed the Axis powers to spy on the U.S. from Mexico. During the Cold War Mexico allowed spies hostile to the U.S. to operate freely. The attack on the Twin Towers in 2001 was cheered and applauded all across Mexico. Today Mexican school children are taught that the U.S. stole California, Arizona, new Mexico and Texas. If you don't believe it, check out some Mexican textbooks written for their schoolchildren.
9. Although some illegal aliens enter this country for a better life, there are 6 billion people on this planet. At least 1 billion of those live on less than one dollar a day. If wanting a better life is a valid excuse to break the law and sneak into America, then let's allow those one billion to come to America and we'll turn the USA into a Third World nation overnight. Besides, there are 280 million native born Americans who want a better life. I'll bet Bill Gates and Donald Trump want a better life. When will the USA lifeboat be full? Since when is wanting a better life a good reason to trash another nation?
10. There is a labor shortage in this country. This is a lie. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage.
11. It is racist to want secure borders. What is racist about wanting secure borders and a secure America? What is racist about not wanting people to sneak into America and steal benefits we have set aside for legal aliens, senior citizens, children and other legal residents? What is it about race that entitles people to violate our laws, steal identities, and take the American Dream without paying the price?
For about four decades American politicians have refused to secure our borders and look after the welfare of middle class Americans. These politicians have been of both parties. A huge debt to American society has resulted. This debt will be satisfied and the interest will be high. There has already been riots in the streets by illegal aliens and their supporters. There will be more. You, as a politician, have a choice to offend the illegal aliens who have stolen into this country and demanded the rights afforded to U.S. citizens or to offend those of us who are stakeholders in this country. The interest will be steep either way. There will be civil unrest. There will be a reckoning. Do you have the courage to do what is right for America? Or, will you bow to the wants and needs of those who don't even have the right to remain here?Again this boils down to politicians have forgotten (if they ever even knew) that they are public servants. They are in office to serve to good of the citizens. We are not their servants. They have not "hit the big time" be being elected to office. Their benefitting from office is of extremely low priority. Our benefitting from their being in office is of highest priority. I still believe filling public offices similarly to jury duty is the key. Establish minimum requirements for the various offices, fill and maintain rolls of people who are qualified, draw names by lottery, they serve for a term and are paid a set reasonable amount for their service. When their term is over, they return to society and their previous employment. As evidenced so well by Cincinnatus, anyone seeking public office is not qualified to hold it.
There will be a reckoning. It will come in November of this year, again in 2008 and yet again in 2010.
We will not allow America to be stolen by third world agitators and thieves.
David J. Stoddard
U.S. Border Patrol (RET)
Hereford, Arizona
I don't got no mad p'shop skilz, but I made a try at it. At left is an edited copy of an image of Daddy Bob and me I took in March of 2004. The original post is here. I like this picture of Daddy Bob much better than the one used for his obituary. Perhaps I'm just biased, but in this photo, he looks a lot more like the man I knew.
GRAHAM- R. A. "Bob" Moore, 85, of 1116 East Harden Street, Graham died at Duke University Medical Center on Friday, May 12, 2006 at 12:25 a.m. following a brief illness.
A native of Alamance County, he was the husband of the late Muriel Glosson Moore and husband of Sherrie Wallin Moore who survives and son of W. Arnold Moore and Josie Lee Cook Moore, both deceased. He was a veteran of the U.S. Army serving during World War II. He was owner of R. A. "Bob" Moore Grocery for over 55 years and Chairman of the City of Graham Planning and Zoning Board. He was a lifelong member of Bethany Presbyterian Church where he was a deacon, elder, and Sunday School superintendent.
In addition to his wife Sherrie Wallin Moore of the home, survivors include one daughter, Jean Moore Garvin of Bassett, Va.; four sons, William R. "Bill" Moore of Greensboro, Steven D. Moore of Mebane, Vic Aldridge of Lynchburg, Va. and Andy Aldridge of Greensboro; four sisters, Ollie Ruth Boswell of Graham, Vivian Perry of Graham, Adelle M. Qualls of Burlington and Hazel Hargis of Burlington; one brother, B. Walker Moore of Burlington; nine grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.
He was preceded in death by two sisters, Beatrice M. Cook and Annie Maie Webster and three brothers, J. Lexie Moore, W. Lee Moore, and Jack E. Moore.
The family will receive friends at Bethany Presbyterian Church on Sunday from 4 to 6 p.m.
The body will remain at the Rich & Thompson Funeral Home in Graham until time to be taken to the church for the visitation.
In lieu of flowers, memorials may be made to Bethany Presbyterian Church, 1500 South Main Street, Graham, NC 27253.
Condolences may be sent to info@richandthompson.com or news-record.com/nr/obits/
Published in the News Record on 5/14/2006.
I visited this church again this evening and recorded the information on the print. It's a print published by Concordia Publishing House in 1965. The artist's signature is R. Hook. The title of the work is Head of Christ. Upon Googling for more information, I found it for sale on half a dozen sites in various sizes and on various media. There is even a site that sells a yellow version and a "suntanned" version. I found no blue versions like the one at the church for sale nor did I find any images of it in blue. I think the blue is part of what I find so striking about this work. The full color version is shown to the left and is for sale here from Concordia Publishing House. Here is a small biographical blurb about the artist from their site:Richard Hook (1914-1975) was a well established illustrator for such magazines as The Saturday Evening Post and Colliers before Lillian Brune, the first art director of CPH, "discovered" him on a visit while working with his wife, Francis, also a talented artist in her own right. He created major religious works for many publishers over the years, including Concordia Publishing House.
I saw this painting in Centenary United Methodist Church in Greensboro, NC, this evening and it is truly the most striking piece of portraiture I've ever seen. I must look at it again and note the artist. It's a shame I only had my camera-phone with me, for the detail of the painting is simply beautiful. I was hoping the artist's name would show in this image, but the resolution is too low. I think it was H. Roth or H. Ross, but Googling for various permutations of H Ross Roth Jesus painting turned up nothing useful. Still, I'm certainly happy that I had my camera-phone to even acquire a low-quality image of it. It's simply striking... This image falls very short of beginning to do it justice.
globeandmail.com : The Birkenstock of the 21st century? That's no crocThus it came to pass of a mid-morning this week that a pair of blue-rinse, once-a-week blowout grannies -- 70 is the new 60! -- came styling out of a yoga studio, leather Birkin bags and purple yoga mats in hand. But the thing that really jumped out was the feet: Both with-it gals had Crocs on. The $35 plastic, no-slip gardening, surf and deck sandals that have become this year's biggest lifestyle gimmick.I first heard of Crocs two or three weeks ago. Last week, I was chatting with John the other day and we got to talking of Crocs. Once we got going, the game was afoot! (ahem... sorry) Whilst chatting, I tripped on over to the Crocs website. My eyes!!! There are so many colors! I considered purchasing a pair right then and there. However, having good experiences with Zappos, I tip-toed over to their site for a looksee. There I read many customer reviews of the ugly shoes and determined that I might better try them on before purchasing. I called several local stores, none of which had a great selection of colors in my gargantuan size, 13. Still, Blue Ridge Mountain Sports had them in orange... Yeah, I figure if I'm gonna have ugly shoes, I'll be sure that they are seen! I trundled on over there that evening, tried them on and loved 'em. I bought a pair and didn't have to pay for shipping! I wore them the next day and I got all kinds of comments! I think they were compliments, but with shoes this ugly, who can be sure? I've worn them several times now (sockless) and must agree with the general consensus, they are majorly comfortable. I don't know if I'll let myself get caught up in the "gotta have every color" craze, but I'm pretty sure a black pair will wind up in my stash, too.
Crocs, which retail for $30 to $60 nationally, are slip-resistant, anti-microbial and odour-free. They have Swiss-cheese holes to keep the air circulating. They also massage your feet. Thus they have been popular with nurses, and with chefs, for some time. The appeal of these shoes, what one fashionista calls 'a cross between Birks and jellies,' runs across genders, generations, professions and income levels.
Hipsters of all ages already have their Crocs -- in pink or black or green or orange -- while the rest of the population is still adjusting their eyes to the encroaching footgear travesty.
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.Be sure to read about his abuse of signing statements on pages 2, 3 and 4. Many examples of his hubris are cited there. This man thinks he is a king. "We The People" are losing this country, folks. If you've not already, read this whole article and then view the civics film about despotism. Bush is out of control.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
...
... he has signed every bill that reached his desk, often inviting the legislation's sponsors to signing ceremonies at which he lavishes praise upon their work.
Then, after the media and the lawmakers have left the White House, Bush quietly files ''signing statements" -- official documents in which a president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow when implementing the new law. The statements are recorded in the federal register.
In his signing statements, Bush has repeatedly asserted that the Constitution gives him the right to ignore numerous sections of the bills -- sometimes including provisions that were the subject of negotiations with Congress in order to get lawmakers to pass the bill. He has appended such statements to more than one of every 10 bills he has signed.
''He agrees to a compromise with members of Congress, and all of them are there for a public bill-signing ceremony, but then he takes back those compromises -- and more often than not, without the Congress or the press or the public knowing what has happened," said Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political science professor who studies executive power.
...
A president who ignores the [Supreme] court, backed by a Congress that is unwilling to challenge him, Golove said, can make the Constitution simply ''disappear."
...
... it was not until the mid-1980s, midway through the tenure of President Reagan, that it became common for the president to issue signing statements. The change came about after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese decided that signing statements could be used to increase the power of the president.
...
... George H.W. Bush challenged 232 statutes over four years in office, and Bill Clinton objected to 140 laws over his eight years...
...
Still, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton used the presidential veto instead of the signing statement if they had a serious problem with a bill, giving Congress a chance to override their decisions.
But the current President Bush has abandoned the veto entirely, as well as any semblance of the political caution that Alito counseled back in 1986. In just five years, Bush has challenged more than 750 new laws, by far a record for any president, while becoming the first president since Thomas Jefferson to stay so long in office without issuing a veto.
...
... the documents are being read closely by one key group of people: the bureaucrats who are charged with implementing new laws.
Lower-level officials will follow the president's instructions even when his understanding of a law conflicts with the clear intent of Congress, crafting policies that may endure long after Bush leaves office...
...
Without court involvement, only Congress can check a president who goes too far. But Bush's fellow Republicans control both chambers, and they have shown limited interest in launching the kind of oversight that could damage their party.
...
''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."
Emailed to all KMMU employees and posted on the breakroom TVs:WHEREAS, Nearly 40 percent of California's foreign-born residents are United States citizensIt would seem then, that they are stating, in a legal document, that over 60 percent of California's foreign-born residents are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Read the bill; it's short. Nowhere in it does it address the issue that Americans are finally getting pissed off about - ILLEGAL ALIENS. "Immigrants" this and "immigrants" that, but nowhere does it mention the issue it's intended to relieve via education - ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Modified from a template by Falconer Designs.
All content of this site © copyright 2002-present by S.A. Moore, unless otherwise attributed or blatantly obvious. All rights reserved.
