Results 1-20 of 250

Wow. To say that the author has misrepresented this album is being kind!

I have grown up with this band over the last few years. The Sammies have grown during that time as well. I loved the first album– it stayed in my CD player for months on end. I was lucky enough to get my hands on an advanced copy of this second record and, while it did take longer to grow on me, I now love it even more than the first one. All other reviews I've read including those on Pitchfork and Prefix have been positive and spot on, pointing to the depth of Sandwich and all the added nuances it offers.

I have to give Chris the benefit of the doubt and guess that he was under the pressure of a deadline, neglecting to give the album what it deserves– much more than a once over. My favorite track of the whole album Glisten. is one of the ones he dismissed so flippantly. I respect the fact that music taste is personal and subjective and thank goodness for that, since the author cites Luna!

Contrary to the assertion, I believe music can and should have it both ways with Power and Beauty! To me The Sammies are tough to categorize– call them Indie with a hint of folk, garage and even power pop- I see that as a testament to their eclectic feel, or a true Sandwich of sounds.

I have seen many of The Sammies' live shows and that's where it's at if you really want to get a taste of what this band is all about. I wonder if Chris has ever had the chance to catch a live show. I recommend he make the one at Pour House and see firsthand how wrong he got it in this review.

Boo to Chris Parker booooo!

We'll be hosting a former UNC sweatshop activist Marion Traub-Werner (from class of 1999) on Oct 31 at 3:30 pm in Saunders 220 (UNC) who will be speaking about "Sweatshops and Students in the Global Economy". Open to the public. It's high time for UNC to work with the Designated Supply Program and go sweat free!

My point is John that I'm not making a "case" at all. I'm just reporting the news. As for your question, it's been explained to me that local law enforcement agencies don't deport anyone. The folks who operate the 287(g) screening program are law officers who have been trained and deputized as ICE agents. When they check to see if someone who has been detained by local law enforcement has proper documentation, they are doing so as employees of ICE. It's a dim line, but a line nonetheless. Of course it's up to the arresting officer's discretion to bring a person in for what in some cases is a minor infraction, which is where the questions of "profiling" and "targeting" come in. Ultimately, the program allows ICE greater capacity to identify undocumented immigrants, so no, the folks who have been deported via 287 (g) probably would not have been if for no other reason that there would have been no way for anyone at the Alamance County Jail to check their immigration status. If I'm wrong here, someone please correct me.

Hmmm...now I'm actually interested to read the follow up from Mrs. Eshelman. Hey Indy could you run a "What They're Doing Now..." feature? Is she still pro-pot or has she moved over to the "Drugs r bad"?

Well, wait a minute now Vernal. Now I think you're hitting on something that is news. Are you saying that if we didn't have the 287 (g) program then the police wouldn't be able to deport "undocumented" immigrants that they had arrested, regardless of the severity of the crime??

That doesn't seem right. Once again, if that is the case, then I think that you make a good case for having the 287 (g) program.

It's crucial not to over-interpret the "retreat" of several NBAF proponents as being enough to take the Butner site out of consideration. Due to nearby university research and 2006 hyping of inflated economic benefits to elected officials, economic development directors and deans, the NC proposal ranked HIGHEST in the 2007 list of final sites, and several officials aren't letting go. Let's not fool ourselves, Homeland Security can still select the Butner site. Public still needs to send comments by Aug 25th to: nbafprogrammanager@dhs.gov or U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, James V. Johnson, Mail Stop #2100, 245 Murray Lane, SW,Building 410 Washington, DC 2052 Hope Taylor, Clean Water for NC

For three decades I experienced many cooperative living situations on the West Coast. I am "homesick" for what seems to me a "natural" way for humans to live, having been tribal and extended family oriented for unknowable centuries. I search and found this honest, fascinating, well-written article and felt tearful as I am yearning for such sharing. Thanks for including this article and I am now connected to your site. Kathy

Vernal Coleman here; I figured I’d chime in since it’s me some on this board have been casting aspersions on.

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to how this whole journalism process works, so I figured I'd clear something up; I did not give up what would have been a lucrative career representing shit-heel politicians to pander to any one side of the political spectrum. There is no agenda here, though some of you seem quite determined to insert one into piece.

This “drivel” as someone called it is newsworthy—to me at least—because it relays some info that I was not aware of prior to my recent move to this region; that if you are an undocumented immigrant in a municipality that has adopted the 287g program, even a crime as seemingly innocuous as fishing without a license can lead to your arrest, and eventually, your deportation.

The right and wrong of that is not for me to decide, not in my capacity at this newspaper anyway. I’m only interested in facts, which is why if I had found evidence that the arresting officer had acted improperly it would have been included in the article. And be assured that if after continuing to cover 287g I do find some evidence of malfeasance, it will, of course, be included in the accompanying article.

Thanks.

yeah, I can't figure out html tags, lol, you're a fool.

and you're not only a fool, but an ignorant fool since you refuse to see that there are NUMEROUS reasons when and why a tether is the best and most responsible means of containing a pet. who said anything about a dog scratching through chain link? *I* was referring to a wooden fence but a dog can chew through chain link, or injure itself trying, as I repeatedly mention. so maybe judge johnd/jalt you can make an exception for them too? lol or how about people can just use what means works best for them unless there is some reason not to, like they are abusing the dog through what has already been deemed abuse: lack of food, water, shelter, vet care, etc.

besides this particular issue, I don't believe the government should be in my home, backyard and/or dog's house unless there is some overwhelming societal need (not the lunacy of a few vocal animal rights fanatics) and there is no need! how about we keep it like it is and if you see someone who is actually abusing a pet then you report it and the government bears the burden of proving it, rather than innocent, lawful citizens proving we're responsible.

you're position is ridiculous. and I already told you, abandon the idea that you will get the last word, on this thread it will not happen.

Tethering has lately become an Animal RIGHTS' hot button issue and yet man has tethered dogs since the very beginning of our time together with no ill effect. The vast majority of pet owners who use a tether do so in a responsible fashion. Take note that a 15 foot circular tether provides 706.5 square feet for a dog to move around in, whereas a 16x16 pen (which is generally considered a large pen) provides only 256 sq. ft. and of that the corners are rarely used.

This issue is being used as a Trojan Horse for the ARs to continue their push for total animal liberation by citing cruelty matters that are separate and distinct from how one confines their animal(s). They will not stop with anti-tethering either, their next step (as cited on several AR/anti-tethering websites) is to ban kenneling and guard dogs. Then will come mandatory spay/neuter, banning all breeding of purebred dogs and any purpose driven use of animals. They know they'd be unable to push through their entire extremist agenda overtly so they're nipping at it one trumped up topic at a time.

Any means on confinement may be used responsibly and appropriately and any means of confinement may be abused and used irresponsibly. Some people that get drunk and drive do so in Chevrolets. This, just like Breed Specific Legislation, is akin to banning Chevrolets. Peoples' property rights (and my dogs are my property) should not be violated at the extremist whim of a vocal minority without good and just cause with regard to the specific use of, or unreasonable restraint of, particular pet(s).

Yes, some people abuse dogs and do so by tethering them and then not giving them proper food, shelter, water, veterinary care, etc. Failing to provide such basic life necessities is ALREADY against the law though, independent of whether they are being tethered or penned or fenced, etc. No new law is necessary to address those issues, simply enforce existing law! Irresponsible owners will crate their dogs continuously indoors so that they will not be subject to the scrutiny of these intrusive laws and as with many animal laws, those who act responsibly will be the ones most hurt by implementation.

Barring any actual abuse pet owners should be left to choose which method(s) best suit their needs and not be limited in using their own judgment with regard to properly tending their animals. Kennels and fenced yards are not suitable for all pets as some might escape or injure themselves trying. Arguably, one of the most irresponsible acts a dog owner might engage in is letting their dog run loose (to damage property, harass or kill livestock, or to be hit by a car among other unpleasant results) and many times a good tether is the best, most efficient and secure method to keep certain pets.

I am a reasonable and responsible pet lover and most of my dogs are on chains. They are long, appropriately sized chains, under shade trees. They have nice, weather-proof houses and shelters and each has at least one four gallon (stainless steel lined) concrete water bowl that isn't tippable. They're secured with 316 stainless swivels and properly fitted, comfortable (Stillwater) collars. They have toys, are regularly fed good kibble and receive occasional treats. They're ivomeced, wormed, kept free of parasites (both external and internal) and vetted. They are also more easily and frequently handled when I am out doing my chores and yard work and am able to pet them as I just walk by without being hindered by a closed pen door. I rotate the ones that behave inside, although lately it has been my elderly bitch who has received the most inside time.

A dog yard also has its own social hierarchy. Despite arguments by the AR activists dogs can be perfectly well socialized on a chain and they develop a distinct social structure when part of a yard of chained and/or kenneled dogs. The term 'yard boss' is easily apparent when looking at that particular dog and how he carries himself and how the others look to him for determining the tone of a situation. Just as I know their different barks (and status), so do they.

One size does not fit all! Ban illegal acts by individuals, not legitimate action by law abiding citizens because of the (already illegal!) irresponsible acts of a few.

speedra says "Please ask the authorities in question to provide some more clarification regarding when it is appropriate and customary to arrest an individual for fishing without a license or identification."

Asked and answered. It's in the article. Brown told the Indy. "If a person has no I.D. on them, and you feel that they may not appear in court on you, or that they may not pay the ticket off ... yeah, we do arrest them."

Ok - seriously - Can we request that officer Brown come to Siler City to citate all the HUNDREDS of ILLEGAL "brown people" who continuiously break the law by stealing others identities. This is just one case where the North Carolina Division of Wildlife Enforcement - North Carolina Law enforcement is doing their job. It's exactly as written by another reader, If I am in Mexico or whatever county these people come from, I am going to be charged and prosecuted according to their laws - well honeslty - welcome to America - hey sure you can take my identity and then proceed to perform illegal actions while living in "my country" illegally. They didn't even bother - They didn't have a valid/fake ID. I'm subject to these laws only because I am a legal US citizen but hey, if your here illegally, feel free to screw over us tax payers, after all, if no one knows your here - your not really responsible for anything, are you??? Where do I sign up for that fake Visa? Ohh and I'm just curious, did they sign up for the US governmental insurance before they expidited thier own deportation? - Hey - why not get it all while you can - The US could probally have their health insurance benefits transferred to make sure they "received the proper medical attention needed". Brown, why didnt you hand them a governmental insurance request form along with a fake ID. Thats the only other thing you could have done to please the so called "I'm here take your identity group". Please - Deport them all - I've been to foreign countries and I have followed all their rules. I'm very proud to see that our Law Enforcement Agencies still feels the need to do so here in America. We should give them a big box of doughnuts! Honestly, job, well done, Brown!

You are a prime example of the 'give me' generation. Lucky your parents are rich enough to buy you two red peds. If you truly cared about the laws you would recognise that they are not hurting rich white girls with parents that can make every thing better with their money. The laws are hurting poor people, but instead you only focused on how inconvenient it was for you......

I think people like her are the problem with the black community. Always screaming the victim. At some point the only way to move forward is to be accountable for your community and the actions of it not saying we got screwed and problems on our community are due to some one else.

Well, ykw just because you can't figure out simple html tags doesn't mean that those of us out there who use them properly are all the same person.

And sure, I'll agree there's a handful of dogs out there who can scale a fence. (I'm not willing to concede that there are any out there who can scratch through a chain link fence however.) And so, for a handful of cases I could see making an exemption to allow tethering. But, by and large, the people who are tethering dogs are doing so because they don't want to pay for the expense and hassle of building of fence. People like you who would rather tether a dog and convince themselves that it's not wrong than do the right thing and just build a damn fence. Jesus, how lazy do you have to be that you won't even build a simple fence?

hey "john" I notice you use the exact same style of bolding one word in the middle of a reply just like "jalt" does. lol

tethering is NOT abusing. you can keep trying to spin it that way because your little house of H$U$ propaganda cards has fallen under the weight of truth and fact.

if you actually had an attention span and REAL concern you would notice that many dogs can scale incredibly large fences and even chew or scratch through them. the most dangerous and "abused" dog is one that is let to run loose to face or cause injury. if you really cared about the dogs and not just wanting to be a meddlesome busy body you might consider those facts. in the meantime you should abandon the idea that you are going to get in one last, little, sideways snipe. :)

==========================================================

Tethering has lately become an Animal RIGHTS' hot button issue and yet man has tethered dogs since the very beginning of our time together with no ill effect. Tethering is a perfectly acceptable and humane way to keep an animal when done properly and responsibly. As with so many things in life, that which can be done, can be done improperly, but the vast majority of pet owners behave in a responsible fashion.

Yes, some people abuse dogs and do so by tethering them and then not giving them proper food, shelter, water, veterinary care, etc. Failing to provide such basic life necessities is ALREADY against the law though, independent of whether they are being tethered or penned or fenced, etc. No new law is necessary to address those issues, simply enforce existing law! Some irresponsible owners will crate their dogs continuously indoors so that they will not be subject to the scrutiny of these intrusive laws and as with many animal laws, those who act responsibly will be the ones most hurt by implementation.

This issue is being used as a Trojan Horse for the ARs to continue their push for total animal liberation by citing cruelty matters that are separate and distinct from how one confines their animal(s). Some make analogies to slavery and women's suffrage; this proves they're overly humanizing dogs and the issue. They will not stop with anti-tethering either, their next step (as cited on several AR/anti-tethering websites) is to ban kenneling and guard dogs. Then will come banning breeding purebred dogs and any purpose driven use of animals. They know they'd be unable to push through their entire extremist agenda overtly so they're nipping at it one trumped up topic at a time.

Tethering in and of itself is no more cruel than any method of containment. Any means on confinement may be used responsibly and appropriately and any means of confinement may be abused and used irresponsibly. Some people that get drunk and drive do so in Chevrolets. This, just like Breed Specific Legislation, is akin to banning Chevrolets. Peoples' property rights (and my dogs are my property) should not be violated at the extremist whim of a vocal minority without good and just cause with regard to the specific use of, or unreasonable restraint of, particular pet(s).

Barring any actual abuse pet owners should be left to choose which method(s) best suit their needs and not be limited in using their own judgment with regard to properly tending their animals. Kennels and fenced yards are not suitable for all pets as some might escape or injure themselves trying. Arguably, one of the most irresponsible acts a dog owner might engage in is letting their dog run loose (to damage property, harass or kill livestock, or to be hit by a car among other unpleasant results) and many times a good tether is the best, most efficient and secure method to keep certain pets.

I am a reasonable and responsible pet lover and most of my dogs are on chains. They are long, appropriately sized chains, under shade trees. They have nice, weather-proof houses and shelters and each has at least one four gallon (stainless steel lined) concrete water bowl that isn't tippable. They're secured with 316 stainless swivels and properly fitted, comfortable (Stillwater) collars. They have toys, are regularly fed good kibble and receive occasional treats. They're ivomeced, wormed, kept free of parasites (both external and internal) and vetted. They are also more easily and frequently handled when I am out doing my chores and yard work and am able to just pet them as I walk by without being hindered by a closed pen door. I rotate the ones that behave inside, although lately it has been my elderly bitch who has received the most inside time.

A dog yard also has its own social hierarchy. Despite arguments by the AR activists dogs can be perfectly well socialized on a chain and they develop a distinct social structure when part of a yard of chained and/or kenneled dogs. The term 'yard boss' is easily apparent when looking at that particular dog and how he carries himself and how the others look to him for determining the tone of a situation. Just as I know their different barks (and status), so do they.

Since my dogs are healthy and anything but abused none of this is really anyone else's business, but those are the facts. It's absurd that law abiding citizens have been forced to defend and explain themselves like this because some meddling busy bodies have chosen to intrusively and blanketly insert themselves into the lives of decent, responsible pet owners based on extremist fanaticism and overly broad assumptions rather than facts.

One size does not fit all! Ban illegal acts by individuals, not legitimate action by law abiding citizens because of the (already illegal!) irresponsible acts of a few.

Waaaaah.

Look just stop abusing/tethering your dogs, build'em a nice yard, with a nice high fence, and then you'll be in compliance with the law. Problem solved.

Just because you don't see anything wrong with what you're doing doesn't mean its ok. I'm sure Michael Vick didn't see anything wrong with what he was doing either.

Tethering has lately become an Animal RIGHTS' hot button issue and yet man has tethered dogs since the very beginning of our time together with no ill effect. Tethering is a perfectly acceptable and humane way to keep an animal when done properly and responsibly. As with so many things in life, that which can be done, can be done improperly, but the vast majority of pet owners behave in a responsible fashion.

Yes, some people abuse dogs and do so by tethering them and then not giving them proper food, shelter, water, veterinary care, etc. Failing to provide such basic life necessities is ALREADY against the law though, independent of whether they are being tethered or penned or fenced, etc. No new law is necessary to address those issues, simply enforce existing law! Some irresponsible owners will crate their dogs continuously indoors so that they will not be subject to the scrutiny of these intrusive laws and as with many animal laws, those who act responsibly will be the ones most hurt by implementation.

This issue is being used as a Trojan Horse for the ARs to continue their push for total animal liberation by citing cruelty matters that are separate and distinct from how one confines their animal(s). Some make analogies to slavery and women's suffrage; this proves they're overly humanizing dogs and the issue. They will not stop with anti-tethering either, their next step (as cited on several AR/anti-tethering websites) is to ban kenneling and guard dogs. Then will come banning breeding purebred dogs and any purpose driven use of animals. They know they'd be unable to push through their entire extremist agenda overtly so they're nipping at it one trumped up topic at a time.

Tethering in and of itself is no more cruel than any method of containment. Any means on confinement may be used responsibly and appropriately and any means of confinement may be abused and used irresponsibly. Some people that get drunk and drive do so in Chevrolets. This, just like Breed Specific Legislation, is akin to banning Chevrolets. Peoples' property rights (and my dogs are my property) should not be violated at the extremist whim of a vocal minority without good and just cause with regard to the specific use of, or unreasonable restraint of, particular pet(s).

Barring any actual abuse pet owners should be left to choose which method(s) best suit their needs and not be limited in using their own judgment with regard to properly tending their animals. Kennels and fenced yards are not suitable for all pets as some might escape or injure themselves trying. Arguably, one of the most irresponsible acts a dog owner might engage in is letting their dog run loose (to damage property, harass or kill livestock, or to be hit by a car among other unpleasant results) and many times a good tether is the best, most efficient and secure method to keep certain pets.

I am a reasonable and responsible pet lover and most of my dogs are on chains. They are long, appropriately sized chains, under shade trees. They have nice, weather-proof houses and shelters and each has at least one four gallon (stainless steel lined) concrete water bowl that isn't tippable. They're secured with 316 stainless swivels and properly fitted, comfortable (Stillwater) collars. They have toys, are regularly fed good kibble and receive occasional treats. They're ivomeced, wormed, kept free of parasites (both external and internal) and vetted. They are also more easily and frequently handled when I am out doing my chores and yard work and am able to just pet them as I walk by without being hindered by a closed pen door. I rotate the ones that behave inside, although lately it has been my elderly bitch who has received the most inside time.

A dog yard also has its own social hierarchy. Despite arguments by the AR activists dogs can be perfectly well socialized on a chain and they develop a distinct social structure when part of a yard of chained and/or kenneled dogs. The term 'yard boss' is easily apparent when looking at that particular dog and how he carries himself and how the others look to him for determining the tone of a situation. Just as I know their different barks (and status), so do they.

Since my dogs are healthy and anything but abused none of this is really anyone else's business, but those are the facts. It's absurd that law abiding citizens have been forced to defend and explain themselves like this because some meddling busy bodies have chosen to intrusively and blanketly insert themselves into the lives of decent, responsible pet owners based on extremist fanaticism and overly broad assumptions rather than facts.

One size does not fit all! Ban illegal acts by individuals, not legitimate action by law abiding citizens because of the (already illegal!) irresponsible acts of a few.

_______________________________________

http://www.deercreeksleddogs.com/chaining.html

http://caveat.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2007/4/1/2850425.html

http://www.mushwithpride.org/TetheringPolicy.htm

http://www.cooldoghalloffame.com/dogs/pa-hb-1065-would-take-dogs-from-poor-in-philly/1340

John D -- You're confusing electicity demand (MW) with consumption (kWh). Electricity generation is built to meet peak demand, which is instantaneous, i.e. it's the amount of electricity needed at those times when everybody is running the A/C and the computers and the lights and the production lines. So if, through conservation and efficiency, you can reduce that demand by 900MW, you can avoid building power plants.

i like the food a lot in la tienda tres amigos . its so good , and the girl in there is so pretty also

something you must understand is that some people can't become a citizen right away. and most do want to become legal but for one reason or another cant or arent allowed...usually you cant make your own decisions as a young child, so if your parents decide to move like mine did its not like you can just say "wait a minute i think ill stay here...just go on without me" im doing pretty good in high school and frankly its too easy so if i want to further my education who are you to say otherwise...even if the ban is held tightly in place ill buy books, hire a tutor...hell w/e it takes to suceed. my parents arent working day in and day out so that i fail to get ahead of them in life. just like i will want my children to eventually surpass me, i can only do so much as i am however my children wont have the restrictions place upon me for my nationality. im currently heading to the 11th grade meaning the policy will be decided while im in 12th so i guess ill have to mold my future then. oh and NEA you should be striving to help those who need helping instead of hoping they fail miserably.