-
Herşey Dahil Sadece 350 Tl'ye Web Site Sahibi Ol
Hızlı ve kolay bir şekilde sende web site sahibi olmak istiyorsan tek yapman gereken sitenin aşağısında bulunan iletişim formu üzerinden gerekli bilgileri girmen. Hepsi bu kadar.
-
Web Siteye Reklam Ver
Sende web sitemize reklam vermek veya ilan vermek istiyorsan. Tek yapman gereken sitenin en altında bulunan yere iletişim bilgilerini girmen yeterli olacaktır. Ekip arkadaşlarımız siziznle iletişime gececektir.
-
Web Sitemizin Yazarı Editörü OL
Sende kalemine güveniyorsan web sitemizde bir şeyler paylaşmak yazmak istiyorsan siteinin en aşağısında bulunan iletişim formunu kullanarak bizimle iletişime gecebilirisni
Fitness Pant with Stretch Yoga Fitness Pant
Fitness Pant with Stretch Yoga Fitness Pant Review
Feature
- Preshrunk Curve Hugging Nice Weight Soft Cotton Lycra Tight Pant
- Comfortable Stretchy Pant with Contoured legs create a slightly flared leg opening
- Flattering Elastic Two-piece waistband help to minimize the back view
- Preshrunk 87% cotton 13% spandex for the Perfect Stretch
- Small Waist: 24-26″, Medium 26-29″ Large 29-32″ XL 32-33″, XX 33-37″ Inseam 31-33″
Overview
Bella Preshrunk Fitness Pant, Curve Hugging Nice Weight Soft Cotton Lycra Pant with Contoured legs create a slightly flared leg opening and a two-piece waistband help to minimize the back view. Preshrunk and laundered 87% cotton 13% spandex for the Perfect Stretch. Reg. Retail .00, Now on Sale Only .99 Size Chart:Small: Bust 30″-34″; Cup A-B; Hips 34″-36″; Waist 24-26″; Inseam 27″-30″Medium: Bust 34″ – 36″; Cup B – C; Hips 36″ – 39″; Waist 27-19″; Inseam 31″-33″ Large: Bust 36″ – 38″; Cup C – D; Hips 39″ – 41″; Waist 30-32″; Inseam 34″-36″XL Waist 32-34″
Specifications
Dec 02, 2009 20:30:06
"Happy New Year 2010 Wallpaper, Poster, Image, Picture"
Here are just a few of many, many sites where you can find New Years 2010 wallpaper, pictures and graphics for your computer.
New Years Wallpaper 2010:
Wallpaperoriginals.com
There is a great selection here of fireworks and more inspirational New Years wallpaper
Theholidayspot.com
This site is cluttered and messy but they had a few cute wallpapers for New Years 2010 that I liked, particularly the sassy girly ones.
New Years Clip Art Pictures and Graphics 2010:
Hubpages.com: Has a really great selection of clip art for New Years 2010. I loved the Champagne bottle if you are okay with using something more subtle. Or, if you want something with a message, I think the fireworks 2010 is really cool.
Happy Early 2010 to everyone!
Suzane
New Years Wallpaper 2010:
Wallpaperoriginals.comThere is a great selection here of fireworks and more inspirational New Years wallpaper
Theholidayspot.comThis site is cluttered and messy but they had a few cute wallpapers for New Years 2010 that I liked, particularly the sassy girly ones.
New Years Clip Art Pictures and Graphics 2010:
Hubpages.com: Has a really great selection of clip art for New Years 2010. I loved the Champagne bottle if you are okay with using something more subtle. Or, if you want something with a message, I think the fireworks 2010 is really cool.Happy Early 2010 to everyone!Suzane
Happy New Year 2010 Wallpaper:
"Happy New Year 2010 Wallpaper, Poster, Image, Picture"
Here are just a few of many, many sites where you can find New Years 2010 wallpaper, pictures and graphics for your computer.
New Years Wallpaper 2010:
Wallpaperoriginals.com
There is a great selection here of fireworks and more inspirational New Years wallpaper
Theholidayspot.com
This site is cluttered and messy but they had a few cute wallpapers for New Years 2010 that I liked, particularly the sassy girly ones.
New Years Clip Art Pictures and Graphics 2010:
Hubpages.com: Has a really great selection of clip art for New Years 2010. I loved the Champagne bottle if you are okay with using something more subtle. Or, if you want something with a message, I think the fireworks 2010 is really cool.
Happy Early 2010 to everyone!
Suzane
New Years Wallpaper 2010:
Wallpaperoriginals.comThere is a great selection here of fireworks and more inspirational New Years wallpaper
Theholidayspot.comThis site is cluttered and messy but they had a few cute wallpapers for New Years 2010 that I liked, particularly the sassy girly ones.
New Years Clip Art Pictures and Graphics 2010:
Hubpages.com: Has a really great selection of clip art for New Years 2010. I loved the Champagne bottle if you are okay with using something more subtle. Or, if you want something with a message, I think the fireworks 2010 is really cool.Happy Early 2010 to everyone!Suzane
Happy New Year 2010 Wallpaper:
"Lunar eclipse partial on December 31 2009" - Australia, Asia, Europe, Africa
The partial lunar eclipse will occur over many parts of Asia, Australasia, Europe and Africa. The moon will be found in the constellation Gemini on December 31, 2009. This is the last eclipse in 2009. Here is the animation of this partial lunar eclipse in December 2009. Technical specifications of this lunar eclipse is available from NASA as well.
When Will the Eclipse Occur?
The first penumbral contact occurs at 17:17:08 Universal Time (UT). The ecliptic conjunction occurs at about 19:12:45 UT and greatest eclipse takes place at 19:22:39 UT when the eclipse magnitude will reach 0.0763. The eclipse ends at about 21:28:11 UT.Will the Eclipse be Visible?
This minor partial lunar eclipse will be difficult to see with the naked eye as the umbral magnitude will only be 0.0763. The penumbral magnitude will be 1.0556. The moon’s southern limb barely tickles the earth’s central shadow."Lunar eclipse partial on December 31 2009" - Australia, Asia, Europe, Africa
The partial lunar eclipse will occur over many parts of Asia, Australasia, Europe and Africa. The moon will be found in the constellation Gemini on December 31, 2009. This is the last eclipse in 2009. Here is the animation of this partial lunar eclipse in December 2009. Technical specifications of this lunar eclipse is available from NASA as well.
When Will the Eclipse Occur?
The first penumbral contact occurs at 17:17:08 Universal Time (UT). The ecliptic conjunction occurs at about 19:12:45 UT and greatest eclipse takes place at 19:22:39 UT when the eclipse magnitude will reach 0.0763. The eclipse ends at about 21:28:11 UT.Will the Eclipse be Visible?
This minor partial lunar eclipse will be difficult to see with the naked eye as the umbral magnitude will only be 0.0763. The penumbral magnitude will be 1.0556. The moon’s southern limb barely tickles the earth’s central shadow.Historically Interesting Films – Metropolis
For those who have not heard of it, Fritz Lang’s 1927 film Metropolis is an incredibly powerful silent era work of science-fiction that has a powerful resonance even today in our inherited cultural backpack. Metropolis story-wise tells a rather heavy-handed story about what happens if a society divides into two halves, one a mass of unskilled workers and the other leaders/capitalists who rule society and profit from its surpluses. Metropolis is a heavy-handed film because Lang resorts at several points uses direct analogies to stories out of the Old Testament and to Christian imagery to drive home to the viewing audience the dangers of allowing such social division to reach endemic proportions. Metropolis is usually considered a work of science-fiction because it presents a dystopian society and addresses issues of dehumanization, mechanization and its impact on human life and the human experience, and, of course, the impact of non-human mechanical humanoids upon society. In particular Metropolis is among the first films to explore the question of what happens when something created by humanity that is non-organic expresses a will and mind of its own. (In Metropolis apparently said non-organic entity is blessed with a lovely human appearance and decides to go into the lucrative field of naked dancing.)
So why see this film today? First off because it was made in 1927, a year of high stability for the Weimar Republic (ruling interwar government of Germany and worthy of an introductory post of its own in the future) but also a year in which the ideological challenge and questions raised by Communism created an interesting resonance in the minds of people in Western Europe and the United States. For people at all class levels an interesting question was raised, what was society to do with its unskilled laborers? They produced much of the growing material prosperity of the 1920s but it was a prosperity that these same laboring classes were not as easily able to partake of as the expanding managerial classes. What makes Metropolis particularly interesting is that at the same time the unskilled laboring classes are increasing in number the professional managerial classes overseeing the new engines of production were also increasing in number, it was this second group to which the film was addressed and was the most common viewing audience. Yet, at the same time, that class does not appear much in Metropolis, if at all, and by its absence raises questions about the impact of that class in society and its long-term viability. Issues which a newly minted professional class was itself struggling with in the 1920s, enjoying the benefits of increased leisure time and wealth but also the worries of how real said freedom was and what it meant to society that it existed.
Which is all well and good for the cultural value of Metropolis but that is not why you should see the film, although it is a valuable side aspect of the film. No everyone should see the film because Metropolis provided us with the cultural image kit that we associate today with the idea of “dystopian Gothic city-scape.” The feel of every Batman film made from the 1990s onwards, the feel of dystopian films such as Dark City, Dark Man, Blade Runner – all of these draw upon the images first pioneered by Metropolis. The image of a the android to the modern mind, a humanoid figure made of shiny metal, that also owes a debt to Metropolis to the point that seeing such a figure today in cinema we immediately associate it with a mechanical humanoid entity. Think of the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, without that cultural back ground of information already present in society the idea of a mechanical man made of tin is just an odd one. The idea said mechanical figure could aspire to human emotions is even more unsettling, but the cultural groundwork for the idea rests with Metropolis. Today the idea of mechanical creations of our own hand rising up to overthrow us or aspiring to capture the human aspects of our own personality is a theme so common in popular culture many joke about the “robot apocalypse” or nervously believe it real and likely once the popular construct of true “artificial intelligence” is achieved, whatever that might mean.
But the main reason people should see Metropolis is to properly understand the parentage of the imagery in Madonna’s music video “Express Yourself” comes from, apparently the modern mindset believes that imagery comes from the 1990s Batman franchise of films and not this silent film classic.
Sources:
Wikipedia Entry on Metropolis
So why see this film today? First off because it was made in 1927, a year of high stability for the Weimar Republic (ruling interwar government of Germany and worthy of an introductory post of its own in the future) but also a year in which the ideological challenge and questions raised by Communism created an interesting resonance in the minds of people in Western Europe and the United States. For people at all class levels an interesting question was raised, what was society to do with its unskilled laborers? They produced much of the growing material prosperity of the 1920s but it was a prosperity that these same laboring classes were not as easily able to partake of as the expanding managerial classes. What makes Metropolis particularly interesting is that at the same time the unskilled laboring classes are increasing in number the professional managerial classes overseeing the new engines of production were also increasing in number, it was this second group to which the film was addressed and was the most common viewing audience. Yet, at the same time, that class does not appear much in Metropolis, if at all, and by its absence raises questions about the impact of that class in society and its long-term viability. Issues which a newly minted professional class was itself struggling with in the 1920s, enjoying the benefits of increased leisure time and wealth but also the worries of how real said freedom was and what it meant to society that it existed.
Which is all well and good for the cultural value of Metropolis but that is not why you should see the film, although it is a valuable side aspect of the film. No everyone should see the film because Metropolis provided us with the cultural image kit that we associate today with the idea of “dystopian Gothic city-scape.” The feel of every Batman film made from the 1990s onwards, the feel of dystopian films such as Dark City, Dark Man, Blade Runner – all of these draw upon the images first pioneered by Metropolis. The image of a the android to the modern mind, a humanoid figure made of shiny metal, that also owes a debt to Metropolis to the point that seeing such a figure today in cinema we immediately associate it with a mechanical humanoid entity. Think of the Tin Man in the Wizard of Oz, without that cultural back ground of information already present in society the idea of a mechanical man made of tin is just an odd one. The idea said mechanical figure could aspire to human emotions is even more unsettling, but the cultural groundwork for the idea rests with Metropolis. Today the idea of mechanical creations of our own hand rising up to overthrow us or aspiring to capture the human aspects of our own personality is a theme so common in popular culture many joke about the “robot apocalypse” or nervously believe it real and likely once the popular construct of true “artificial intelligence” is achieved, whatever that might mean.
But the main reason people should see Metropolis is to properly understand the parentage of the imagery in Madonna’s music video “Express Yourself” comes from, apparently the modern mindset believes that imagery comes from the 1990s Batman franchise of films and not this silent film classic.
Sources:
Wikipedia Entry on Metropolis
The Fist – President Obama’s speech on Afghanistan – 1 December 2009
The fist must be deployed no matter how much one might personally like the person giving a comment that is based on questionable (or downright bad) history, even in the case of President Barack Obama. In his speech at West Point outlining the changes in policy Obama intends to implement regarding the United States and its military presence in Afghanistan Obama included the following comment:
“For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.”
I am afraid that the history of the United States simply does not bear up to this comment when our actions are compared to our peer nations at any point that I know of in our history as a nation, sadly I am no expert but from what I do know of United States history and the history of the various Great Powers in existence and operation during our own history, the breakdown is roughly as follows:
1781 – 1880s: The United States expands territory under its direct political, economic and cultural control through a policy of continued expansion in a western direction. These territories are acquired through a combination of diplomatic efforts and the use of military force, during this period as a matter of policy the United States government assumes semi-complete control over the affairs of the various Native American/American Indian groups residing on territory later claimed by the United States government. Key acquisitions include the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon I of France in 1803. Acquisition of Florida from Spain in exchange for the cancellation of debts owed by Spain to the United States government/United States government assuming debt owed by Spain to United States nationals, 1819. United States gaining one half (roughly) of disputed Oregon Territory from Great Britain, 1846. United States gaining southwestern territories including California, New Mexico, Arizona, and part of Colorado as war concessions from the Republic of Mexico, 1848.
In each of the above cases the United States either used military force or threatened to use military force to gain territory from established, and diplomatically recognized, nations of equal sovereignty. (In the case of Florida the United States had already in the past sent military forces into the territory and in regards to Louisiana the United States had already engaged in limited schemes to try and spark revolt in the territory from earlier Spanish control.) In addition to this the United States government through diplomatic pressure and brute military force either subjugated or expelled native tribal groups from their long-standing association with certain territories. Granted the United States would sign treaties with tribal chiefs or leaders, in some cases making said leaders up from whole-cloth to validate its actions, but this is not that different from the techniques used by European Great Powers in their own territorial gains in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.
As well the policy of the United States federal government, as well as that of many state governments during this period was decidedly opposed to the idea of allowing native tribal religions or social structures to survive, it was the policy of many levels of government in the United States to “civilize” native peoples, a war on cultural and religion if ever there was one.
1880s – 1930s: The United States government engages in direct colonial/imperial acquisitions of territory including the annexation of Hawaii in 1900, a sovereign kingdom nation previously recognized by the United States government as well as other national governments, as well as the seizure of former colonial possessions held by Spain after the Spanish-American war of 1898. These newly gained territories included Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba and the Philippines. Of these territories the United States still holds Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The Philippines was not granted full independence until after World War II and were not granted Commonwealth status until the 1930s. In fact the United States was gaining these territories at the same time that the various Great Powers of the world President Obama is probably speaking of, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, and the United States was gaining these territories using the same methods employed by other Great Powers. The United States also directly intervened in the internal affairs of many nations in the Caribbean during this same period, using military force to modify or suppress local rebellions in many Caribbean republics or dictatorships. As well the United States engaged in one of its most brutal and prolonged military campaigns from 1900 through 1904 in the Philippines, suppressing a local uprising that attempted to militarily defeat the United States through irregular warfare and establish an independent Philippine republic.
It was not until the 1930s that the United States, under President Roosevelt, undertook a new direction in its relations with its neighbors in the Caribbean, the Good Neighbor policy, and renounced the use of force to defend United States interests in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. However at the same time Great Britain and France had also begun to reduce their use of military force to intervene in colonial affairs. Which makes our policy not exceptional but instead more of a reflection of the general shift in diplomacy in the 1930s, the recognition by many of the Great Powers of a need to shift their focus from gaining territory through military force to working with local populations and leaders to maintain the empires held, a policy also followed by the United States with our, admittedly, smaller imperial territorial holdings.
1930s – 1940s: The period of the infamous land grabs by Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and Japan in a bid to redefine the global balance of power militarily, economically, and culturally. The United States did not engage in such antics but, at the same time the various Great Powers in operation at the time did not recognize territorial changes through the use of arms. It may be a fine point but the territorial shifts of the 1930s were achieved through diplomacy and consent, the actual seizure of territory by force was, broadly stated, rejected diplomatically and resisted militarily. Land seized by the Soviet Union is an interesting case, it was not actually seized but instead ideologically loyal puppet states were installed to rule over the territories in compliance with the policies of the Soviet Union.
1950s – 1990s: the United States and the Soviet Union engage in a mutual dance for dominance stretching across a span of forty years roughly and the globe, known collectively as the Cold War.
So overall President Obama your statement does not appear, after analysis, to truly be accurate against the lens of history. Unless you are speaking of quite ancient empires in which case you are correct but one could also argue the United States had not engaged in such behaviors of rape, conquest, and devastation such as Rome, the Persians, or the Huns engaged in because, in large part, we were not on the scene yet as a nation.
“For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.”
I am afraid that the history of the United States simply does not bear up to this comment when our actions are compared to our peer nations at any point that I know of in our history as a nation, sadly I am no expert but from what I do know of United States history and the history of the various Great Powers in existence and operation during our own history, the breakdown is roughly as follows:
1781 – 1880s: The United States expands territory under its direct political, economic and cultural control through a policy of continued expansion in a western direction. These territories are acquired through a combination of diplomatic efforts and the use of military force, during this period as a matter of policy the United States government assumes semi-complete control over the affairs of the various Native American/American Indian groups residing on territory later claimed by the United States government. Key acquisitions include the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon I of France in 1803. Acquisition of Florida from Spain in exchange for the cancellation of debts owed by Spain to the United States government/United States government assuming debt owed by Spain to United States nationals, 1819. United States gaining one half (roughly) of disputed Oregon Territory from Great Britain, 1846. United States gaining southwestern territories including California, New Mexico, Arizona, and part of Colorado as war concessions from the Republic of Mexico, 1848.
In each of the above cases the United States either used military force or threatened to use military force to gain territory from established, and diplomatically recognized, nations of equal sovereignty. (In the case of Florida the United States had already in the past sent military forces into the territory and in regards to Louisiana the United States had already engaged in limited schemes to try and spark revolt in the territory from earlier Spanish control.) In addition to this the United States government through diplomatic pressure and brute military force either subjugated or expelled native tribal groups from their long-standing association with certain territories. Granted the United States would sign treaties with tribal chiefs or leaders, in some cases making said leaders up from whole-cloth to validate its actions, but this is not that different from the techniques used by European Great Powers in their own territorial gains in Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and Africa.
As well the policy of the United States federal government, as well as that of many state governments during this period was decidedly opposed to the idea of allowing native tribal religions or social structures to survive, it was the policy of many levels of government in the United States to “civilize” native peoples, a war on cultural and religion if ever there was one.
1880s – 1930s: The United States government engages in direct colonial/imperial acquisitions of territory including the annexation of Hawaii in 1900, a sovereign kingdom nation previously recognized by the United States government as well as other national governments, as well as the seizure of former colonial possessions held by Spain after the Spanish-American war of 1898. These newly gained territories included Puerto Rico, Guam, Cuba and the Philippines. Of these territories the United States still holds Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The Philippines was not granted full independence until after World War II and were not granted Commonwealth status until the 1930s. In fact the United States was gaining these territories at the same time that the various Great Powers of the world President Obama is probably speaking of, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan, and the United States was gaining these territories using the same methods employed by other Great Powers. The United States also directly intervened in the internal affairs of many nations in the Caribbean during this same period, using military force to modify or suppress local rebellions in many Caribbean republics or dictatorships. As well the United States engaged in one of its most brutal and prolonged military campaigns from 1900 through 1904 in the Philippines, suppressing a local uprising that attempted to militarily defeat the United States through irregular warfare and establish an independent Philippine republic.
It was not until the 1930s that the United States, under President Roosevelt, undertook a new direction in its relations with its neighbors in the Caribbean, the Good Neighbor policy, and renounced the use of force to defend United States interests in the Caribbean, Central America, and South America. However at the same time Great Britain and France had also begun to reduce their use of military force to intervene in colonial affairs. Which makes our policy not exceptional but instead more of a reflection of the general shift in diplomacy in the 1930s, the recognition by many of the Great Powers of a need to shift their focus from gaining territory through military force to working with local populations and leaders to maintain the empires held, a policy also followed by the United States with our, admittedly, smaller imperial territorial holdings.
1930s – 1940s: The period of the infamous land grabs by Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and Japan in a bid to redefine the global balance of power militarily, economically, and culturally. The United States did not engage in such antics but, at the same time the various Great Powers in operation at the time did not recognize territorial changes through the use of arms. It may be a fine point but the territorial shifts of the 1930s were achieved through diplomacy and consent, the actual seizure of territory by force was, broadly stated, rejected diplomatically and resisted militarily. Land seized by the Soviet Union is an interesting case, it was not actually seized but instead ideologically loyal puppet states were installed to rule over the territories in compliance with the policies of the Soviet Union.
1950s – 1990s: the United States and the Soviet Union engage in a mutual dance for dominance stretching across a span of forty years roughly and the globe, known collectively as the Cold War.
So overall President Obama your statement does not appear, after analysis, to truly be accurate against the lens of history. Unless you are speaking of quite ancient empires in which case you are correct but one could also argue the United States had not engaged in such behaviors of rape, conquest, and devastation such as Rome, the Persians, or the Huns engaged in because, in large part, we were not on the scene yet as a nation.
Hung-over-husband
Hmmmm. I have been really enjoying my weekly 5k challenge at the Finsbury Parkrun, but it wasn’t to be this weekend as the big fella had had a little too much to drink on Friday night and was certainly not up to entertaining a lively toddler while I pootled around the park. Grrrrr. I did go out though, and did a 5k around my local park, cheerfully shouting a jolly ‘hello’ to all the bundled up runners I passed along the way, but did any of them reply? No, not a sausage, grumpy lot. I pushed myself, imagining I might be able to manage a little PB, with it not including that big hill and all. I did manage to improve on last week’s time a little.
Time: 27 minutes 22 seconds
Distance: 5 km
Average Pace: 5.28
Calories: 308
On Sunday I wanted to do five miles to bring me up to my week’s target of 20 miles, but the rain kept saying: ‘No, stay there! It’s nice and warm…and dry’. I did get over myself though, and headed out into the winter wonderland. I’m so glad I did. I ran down to the canal and the sun was glorious, with rain cutting through it. All along the path I had to leap from side to side, avoiding the huge muddy puddles as I watched determined rowers ease through the water.
Time: 49 minutes
Distance: 8.10 km
Average Pace: 6.03
Calories: 500
When I got home Edward said he wanted to go out for a run too. I was a bit shocked because it must be about a year since he last ran – he cycles to work and back every weekday and plays football once a week, but never runs. Of course, he went out and beat my 5k time to a pulp. Damn it.
Kayıtlar
