____ An update from the City of Providence to the public on Monday, March 31, 2014: The City of Providence is currently responding to the ongoing health outbreak as it is related to the production of contaminated feed. In fact, both of these events are part of a pattern of animal disease outbreaks that is likely extending into the city. In the past, outbreaks of disease have taken place at various facilities throughout the city. Additionally animal welfare and the environment are at constant threat, as no antibiotics are currently available to treat the diseases. For this reason, the City’s Emergency Operations Center is working closely with the Providence Animal Control & Rehabilitative Services Division to assess the situation. Since the announcement on the Department of Health’s webpage, the City has seen an extensive number of animals come under the microscope due to the possible exposure to contamination. It is anticipated that there may be further cases being exposed before the outbreak is resolved. As a result, the Public Health Department will continue to work with these organizations to find potential sources and help ensure there is no further animal danger to the public. The public can visit to find out how you can reach our team. Please continue to monitor our websites for additional updates until we are no longer able to respond to your queries. City of Providence: Office of Emergency Services Phone: 401-715-3700, ext. 507 Ext. 6891 City of Providence Fire & EMS: 561-266-1020 Ext. 2133 Providence Fire Station #6 , Division 2, 24th Street & Center Road, Providence Providence, Rhode Island.

RAW Paste Data

(NaturalNews) The human race has a long history of killing its own livestock to feed its own human population. The practice is so pervasive that it has been classified as a form of “extermination”, or worse, and in America, it is called “dissection” in modern times (that’s right, “dissection” is also a word used nowadays to refer to animal slaughter).It is estimated that tens of millions of animals are killed annually for food by our society - the majority for the meat, dairy, eggs, and poultry markets. Not only that, but as many as 80 percent of all livestock for slaughter are destined for slaughterhouse at some point of time before being made available for consumption in the human diet and by eating them that is to say, we already kill hundreds of millions of animals each year to feed our own meat, dairy, eggs, and poultry.The animal right is being abused daily to feed our massive human appetites and the suffering continues at the expense of millions of innocent animals, which we’ve been told we can all do nothing about.but we can!”I have to do all they do to protect the environment” is the phrase that’s been used by many industry executives to describe the industry’s policy goals. With massive overpopulation (over 7.5 billion animals for every person on Earth), the animal rights movement seems to be using the environmental movement to boost its numbers and raise their profile while simultaneously keeping the media and even the larger public at a complete loss for words. That seems to be their strategy, although it’s also worth noting that animal advocates are the ones that often advocate the “reducing exploitation of animals” line.While it is true that there are various reasons for the slaughterhouse industry’s abuses such as animals living in confined spaces, too few animals, poor conditions, and environmental destruction the “reduction of exploitation” talking point never seems to make any sense because it isn’t even true. The human population is growing rapidly, and in response to the massive increase, it has become apparent to our livestock industry that it can make money off the livestock and on the environment. All of that, in fact, is completely in consonance with its own policy goals, which are to maximize profits and kill the animals the most efficiently it can regardless of the damage to the environment. The animals that are killed are the cheapest and easiest to produce, and the killing only allows the animals to make more money for those at the top of the animal food chain.In fact, as shown in the article, it is clear that at the base of the animal food chain, it is no longer about “feeding” an individual to death; it is about maximizing the profitability of large corporations and the slaughterhouses particularly those that are making a killing from the slaughterhouses of both animals and land.In fact, I’ve been involved in exposing this illegal slaughterhouse business from the very beginning not as an animal activist, but as an investigative reporter and reporter for American Press . That’s because I was working for a very large farm that was involved in using the animals that the American Press was exposing on animals that were living in conditions we could not tolerate at all. It was not what we were looking for and ultimately it was very difficult to obtain confirmation with the animals being used in the show, but it was enough to see what was happening.It

She’d never spoken to the couple that way, however. “Just because we’re from the same continent and I’ve seen people’s faces (in pictures) don’t mean I look at them that way,” she says. “If a person really means that they want to be with me, and doesn’t think I’ll leave them, I’ve always said that. But I know who I’ll be with in this marriage. “That’s probably the most important thing about it. The other people are just there as a good friend. “What a lot of people don’t understand is we’re not going to break up because we’ve liked each other for a long time. That’s not it at all.” In her own way, Kiley has discovered both her love of music and her passion. “I don’t listen to as many now as I used to. Once I stopped listening to the ones I liked, then it became the ones I liked, and that’s not really how I prefer to listen to music.” She remembers being very particular as a teenager, and has been ever since. “I didn’t like some of the stuff that came out for girls then. I think it was because I didn’t have to go to my parents’ house. I knew something was wrong.”

Lilly (with her mother and stepfather) and Kiley with their fathers, Peter and Jim at their former family home in Sydney, Australia. When they were young, Kiley’s parents had very strong views about music. Peter told her that because her parents were of a different religion, she could never listen to the same songs as her peers. Lilly had a different reaction to that. “I think that’s what’s so weird about life,” she says of her parents’ views on music. “I just loved to listen. I was fascinated by it. I’d listen to all the stuff that I liked.” Kiley and Lilly’s parents also had a very hard time accepting Lily’s interests in ballet, which put a strain on their parenting style. The younger Kiley’s parents went along with Lilly’s decision to use her feminine figure and dance style, and as a result, it was much easier to make the transition to dance. “But, as a female, my mum still thought I could never dance,” says Lily. “I think it was a big mistake for them in their own individual ways. “But I grew up in my own way. My mum would often complain about those who wanted to change the way I was. My dad did the same because he wanted me to be a boy. I’d get stuck into things, and I wouldn’t know how to take it because I had no idea what was the purpose of them. But for the most part, I’d get along fine. At one point, I didn’t have a choice.”

Kiley in the music video for “Love is in the Air.” She now has a choice: either her parents will accept it, or continue to keep a low profile about it. “One of my mum’s fears is how this will affect my future career,” said the younger Kiley. She has decided to not reveal exactly what exactly he was afraid.

Lilly in her childhood bedroom at her father’s home in New South Wales. “I never told her what it was for. It’s not like I couldn’t have told her.” But perhaps that’s why it’s important for people about her situation not just to support her music, but also her activism. “If she ever really wants to be heard it has come to the point where I really believe it’s time for her to go into public life again,” she tells me. She is just waiting for the moment when she can join a major festival like Coachella with full orchestra and all.

Just like our young friends at the festival, Lilly has had this strange struggle with identity. She still likes to play a lot of music, but she has grown up in a modern lifestyle where she sees herself not having to listen so much to just about all the music that is out there. “I have no problem with people who like different stuff. There’s got to be more of a choice in music than just it’s a certain genre. This isn’t just for me to sing about.” She would still like to start a new band, but “you really only get that option once and then it just seems like that sort of thing, I guess.” She does, however, expect the big festival festivals to soon move to a “streamlining” approach. “I think there’s always room for the big name acts, but festivals are now for the people,” she says.

In 2003 when Simone earned two gold medals at the Athens Olympics, Simone’s mother, the first woman to win gold in three Olympic Games, died unexpectedly of a brain tumor. Simone’s father was devastated after Simone’s mother passed on in December 2003.

"I was there, but it's been difficult on my family," Simone Biles told TheWrap after her victory over China last year.  "I was so shocked when Simone's father died, and right after [the news], I started crying. I felt such a burden on my family, and I don't want to put that burden on any athlete. I want to keep it on myself, too."

When asked about how she felt about her brother and grandmother’s deaths, Simone replied, “They were very close, they were in the same industry. It’s a loss for all of us, but I have more faith in my brother and his whole family, and they’re going to carry on without me even though we’re getting older.”

"We would never let anybody in our family, especially my mother or my sisters, go through something like that," Simone's older brother Josh also told TheWrap about his parents' struggle. "We had to work hard. I was nine by the time I was 9 and my dad said, 'Come on, be yourself, be the guy, you can go on to be a famous person.' You're young and impressionable. We didn't want it to be that way. 

"I went through a rough time, and I think my dad was kind of upset about it, but on the other hand I think he wasn't sure how to have a conversation with him, and he started pushing my mom more. To be honest, I'm not sure why. My mom was a little bit more sensitive and more emotionally damaged." 

"My mom would be on the phone all the time. She would be at the doctor's and do all the paperwork, and he never talked to her in person and didn't see her. It was always about all her paperwork and what the doctor said. He would always say, 'Don't be angry, it's going to be better.' 

“My dad never really allowed himself to be the bigger person because he felt that he was supposed to be more of a leader,” Josh said. “He actually felt, like a lot of older men, he didn’t have any real authority on the family, and that’s really what put him in a place where he was so frustrated. I think my dad really put himself in a position of frustration, and he was very sensitive to it.”

"My dad felt like he was putting everybody in an impossible position. Obviously, at that point my mom had a tumor that was never going to get worse, so it was probably a blessing in disguise because it was going to keep her alive. 

"It was definitely a big surprise to my family  I wasn't going through a lot of problems  I felt like dad was kind of a 'burden' and kind of a figurehead who we were all dealing with, but it was probably a blessing, just for me  because right after the Olympics the whole world was focused on Simone's victory," Josh continued. "But it was also very unexpected, and I am very grateful to God for everything. It was the beginning of a lot of closure."

Murders are up, the federal crime stats haven’t decreased and violence can be found across the nation. There is a direct connection between those federal crimes, and the state of Texas. What Texans want or need in an organization should be a result of the people we work with and their opinions. When a majority of people on each side of the issue want the same thing, then the group should be able to focus on what has to be done to achieve it. The majority isn’t representative of all, and people on both sides aren’t that much different.. It’s really hard to change things overnight, and that’s why it’s important to have a healthy debate, so people can make their point. It is something we can actually all agree on, and can work toward. When there is no change, you look for the “weak” arguments to deflect attention away from the majority being right. When people talk about something, and it doesn’t work, they’ve just proven their point. The solution to the problem isn’t the solution, the problem is how to make the solution work.

1) Find a real and representative group of Texans who share your beliefs. Let’s be real though, the NRA won’t represent us, since it was set up to protect the wealthy rich men in suits. This is how you find out that such a group isn’t representative. If you find it’s not, then what group was it set up to represent?

2) Acknowledge that you’re not 100% correct. If you’re not 100% right, then acknowledge that. I realize the rest of the world may not agree with you, but you’re always the one who needs to speak on behalf of your perspective. Stop acting like this is some kind of contest, you’ve just proven your point, and you have the right to speak to it.

3) Be specific with your positions. If you want to talk about guns, be specific and say what you mean. You may be the largest gun owner in your community (and I’ll bet you’ve never shot a gun in your life), but if you want someone to understand how it works? Be specific about what it means to make effective use of a firearm. One might claim that because the laws are against them, it is their responsibility to enforce them. Another might say that if you want to own firearms, be specific and say what you mean by it. Being blunt isn’t bad, it means that I’m not doing or saying anything the NRA doesn’t know already to speak for ALL gun owners in Texas. It is your responsibility that these guidelines are respected.

4) The NRA, by its nature is not a representative body. It’s an organization built by people that are either too large or too small. There will be some things or people that say, “we would never allow that out of place”. No, you’re being too inclusive, you’re doing a disservice to your members. This is important so we don’t have a problem in the first place, but it’s not just about saying that, which is why we’ve given our NRA a voice in the constitution.

5) The NRA must be a member of the National Rifle Association of America, or you can’t call yourself a member. You are allowed to join multiple organizations, but all gun owners should be affiliated with the NRA as a result.

6) We must hold meetings on a weekly basis, where we are working to get to where we’re at. The NRA doesn’t even have to show up to the meetings, but I would encourage you to attend, because no one wants to be on the wrong side of your “Amen” message when things are going badly for you and your own people.

7) There are many other steps you can take to better your position in relation to the NRA. It’s more important for us to talk with each other, find the right people, and learn from other pro-gun groups that have risen to become national leaders.

Here is a list of the top 10, which included some major banks, with the recession coming next. And, this is just one stock, not a portfolio of stocks. And, it’s not even a portfolio of companies, but of the largest firms in the U.S., and why that’s bad news for investors. Notice nothing in the bottom left column. The whole bottom right shows a blue line indicating recession. I’m sure some stock investors, even the small-cap fund guys, don’t see things the same way. Also notice the bottom right of the chart is labeled “a number of recession signals.” I’m sure some stock market professionals want to give you a bunch of signs that what’s going on is going to be recession-like. You’ll notice that they keep adding up recession warnings and you’re going to see that too. But, there are no signs there, you see, because there were no recession warnings. So, that one stock was a bust. Again, the fact is that the vast majority of the stocks are on track to be failures. That’s not just the bottom, it’s the bottom, a bunch of failures. I think that the top two charts below, for example, are going to be even more problematic. The top one is a chart of the top U.S. companies, their value, as measured by the Dow Jones Industrial Average over the last two years. That’s clearly a recession signal, for sure. The bottom left chart, the S&P 500 over that same time periods, shows no recession signal, for sure. My point is, the top chart is showing the recession and the market going down as the Dow is overvalued and the S&P 500 is undervalued. I think it’s one thing to worry about stocks going flat, or falling off, but it’s another thing to be saying that the market is overvalued at a time when stocks haven’t gone down. Again, remember the big recession was in the late 1990s.

So, as you can see, there are at least three major possible signs of potential depression. The first of these is that, as it slows down, the Federal Reserve is going to start raising rates faster than it seems. This should have a massive negative impact on the stock market.

For this second sign, consider that the U.S. GDP is running at 2.3% and unemployment is 4.7% while the dollar is at an all-time high. The U.S. stock market has, after three years of stagnation, taken a major fall, and is now almost certainly headed for its annual plunge.

Finally take heart in the fact that the Federal Reserve has a target of just 2%. Yet, there are signs that the Fed is going to end up having to boost the rate of interest even more. (If that were not enough, the dollar is also at an all-time high.)

It would be a real disaster if the U.S. Stock Market fails as it otherwise could, or ends up with a significant crash. It seems the Fed has chosen to run the risk of an oil shock. That means a sharp drop in oil prices another real shock to the economy, because it is another factor that can destabilize our financial system.

I would say the more realistic conclusion seems to be, simply, that stocks are overvalued and have reached a point where they need to be rescued one way or another. And, that it is going to either be with money that comes from those who are already sitting on their money or that money will come on the down side. There are a few things that investors should recognize about the current economic conditions. It is possible that these conditions could continue to worsen, and if that happens we need to look toward more than just quantitative easing, which would be an interesting idea though I don’t think Fed’s are that interested in an QE experiment now. Also, it seems likely that they will try to do more quantitative easing in the near term. And, one of the more interesting parts of their proposal would be to increase leverage ratios and even reverse the deleveraging in the financial sector. The question is, is it possible that the Fed is prepared to do that? That’s the question that investors need to be asking. If the Fed wants to do whatever it needs to do to save the American stock market, it should move with a high degree of transparency with that plan. That doesn’t mean more than quarterly interest rate increases, but it does mean more transparency, as opposed to the current policy of opacity and letting Wall Street price in the risk of a future recession by pricing in the risks that the Fed could take to save

At first, the Department of Veterans Affairs simply sent local media a lengthy set of documents and a statement that the hospital was “in the best of hands” and that nobody was responsible for the deaths… (forgive the pun) But then it announced that it would conduct a “ complete review of the department’s care of veterans who died or were at risk” at its facility in West Virginia a review it had already begun investigating…. (I assume the review was to find out what sort of shenanigans occurred, specifically whether it was an “inside job”, i.e. the actions of people who actually deserve a lot of attention like a state senator who won his election through “trying people out” , or the wife of a Congressman who was a lobbyist for the American Legion. Is this the sort of thing you would be comfortable with when asked to investigate the death of a little girl in Ohio?) In an effort to deflect from that, the VA issued two statements that did not mention the West Virginia issue, but in neither did it make much of any claim in regard to the circumstances surrounding a young woman’s death at the Kentucky medical facility which is to imply that it wasn’t as bad a job it was. And a quick-strike-down of the story at the Huffington Post reveals that some of us noticed right away that the VA’s press release wasn’t very compelling (but I digress), and that the first couple of pages of the statements didn’t seem to mention the West Virginia deaths. After all, that happened two years later, and the details were very different from what happens in the cases at VA medical facilities that the agency investigated in Kentucky and West Virginia. It turns out that the West Virginia VA conducted a thorough investigation, with more than two dozen personnel and multiple witnesses, and found that “most” of the deaths at the facility were “not cause for alarm”. No “cause for alarm” means that the death was the result of a problem that the veteran wasn’t necessarily going to be able to deal with alone, but that he or she was likely to have problems with family and friends later. Here are the first few pages of the final press release that was released by the VA:

I’ve asked VA officials not to identify VA employees. They could, under a state state right to information request law. The company also released a statement that did not mention the West Virginia deaths, but did acknowledge that some employees were “inappropriately” recorded as having died. It’s not clear whether the VA is simply protecting senior leadership from criticism for an “error”, or whether the VA is intentionally making public statements that paint employees in a certain light for political gain…. To give you a sense of the scope of WVVA’s findings, the company found that while there should be no problem for the VA to accept additional compensation from its hospitals. The statement also offered the suggestion though in a terse way to be sure that no one gets confused that “it wasn’t a total disaster” at one VA hospital. But “not a total disaster” doesn’t seem like much of an indictment of either. I’m sure the same is true of the company’s recommendations for VA hospitals elsewhere.

It’s not that these stories aren’t interesting. It’s just that we don’t have many of the details that are important to the story on who was to blame for how many people died.

As someone who is very troubled by a series of health care scandals and who considers it important to shine the light on the causes, I would like for the VA to say more about what was done and the circumstances of how the deaths occurred. This won’t happen unless we start digging. I’d like for the VA to say if it knew that deaths occurred because somebody was getting paid to work inside the VA hospitals, then we can expect many, many more stories like this that continue to break our eyes over the next several years and get little attention. I’d like for the VA to take some immediate steps to prevent these sorts of failures from happening in the future, and to make sure that the mistakes it makes are a huge embarrassment to the agency. And I’m also interested to know how much of the truth about the West Virginia incidents was known during the government investigations, and what it was like to deal with those investigations. We know that our healthcare system and the VA are both flawed, but it’s important to look at the evidence we have to see if we’re wrong.

This is the most recent version of this post, with some updates from when I wrote the original post.

A report on the situation in the airport said, “Police and paramilitary personnel resorted to firing and tear gas on protesters today due to which at least 6 protesters were injured and one killed in the police firing on protesters outside.”

(Courtesy Reuters.) The report went on to say, “In spite of the ongoing shutdown by the protesters, people continued to protest outside the airport in a defiant gesture.” One person shot in the leg, while another was shot with rubber bullets as protesters resorted to stones and firecrackers. According to a police briefing, five protesters have been killed and 16 others injured after being injured by police firing and tear gas in the last couple of days. The police spokesperson told NDTV that protests were still on and further escalation was unlikely.

( Courtesy Newsnight. A protester was hit in the leg with a rubber bullet after protesters tried to get him arrested) The protesters had earlier called for a “die-in” and were demanding a “complete change of leadership in Myanmar.” The protestors are demanding the resignation of the government of Aung San Suu Kyi, who came to power in 2011. A day ago, demonstrators began a sit-in near the main police and army office located near the airport. Protests were also taking place at a school being used as a refugee camp in the city of Rakhine.

(Photo Courtesy Video of the protesters being forced to leave the area around the airport:

(Courtesy The protesters were forced to leave the area when they protested the military’s refusal to respond to calls for help from local people while at the same time being denied to go rescue the injured civilian. The police’s violence had been justified by the authorities, as it had to protect the protesters from the terrorists. The protesters said the government’s use of police force against them was not only illegal, but also a racist action as most of the people who had come to support the students had come from Rohingya origin, and the people from the Rakhine state did not dare to have their young children in the country. The protesters said they were trying to raise awareness of the human toll in this ongoing violence, and demanded action be taken against the authorities. The protesters said their main demands are the resignation of the current government and an investigation into the attack on the students as well as the arrest of alleged ringleader, Aung San Suu Kyi. They also claimed that they were not demanding political freedom, but the end of Myanmar’s “slavery.”

(Photo Courtesy NDTV)

( Courtesy Last fall, the people of Myanmar sent the protesters a message by declaring a “humanitarian intervention” to clear the way for the students to travel to U.S. universities, where they are studying. The Students for Justice in India later announced a major protest against the continued mistreatment of Rohingya people in the country. While the demonstrators at the airport were demanding a “complete change of leadership in Myanmar” and the resignation of the current government, the protesters had also called on the military regime in Myanmar to end its crackdown on the region after an alleged military attack was carried out on a Rohingya village in the region. The Rohingya face ongoing abuses by the Burmese Army, which is now blamed for a series of alleged attacks on civilian villages in Rakhine State. In response to an appeal from student activists, the State Assembly passed a bill in May that imposes tough new penalties on anyone found responsible for an attack or attempted attack on Muslims and Rohingya. The bill has not yet been voted on by the house. Following the attack by the military and the police in the airport, the Myanmar Education Ministry said it was working closely with the authorities to ensure that proper protections were made for the students. A spokesperson for the Ministry told reporters the government was planning to release all the students soon, and was hoping that their families are safe after they came to India. (Photo Courtesy:

In these next 3 weeks, you will go home, throw your towel and scream. After the final whistle in the aforementioned games, your entire home, team, and home town will go completely mad. For the uninitiated, each week, we will have a team that we think was awful and write a detailed report on them. This week: Missouri. The worst team in the country. They had a 4-8 record, 6-10 SEC record, and were expected to lose. They only won by two. I think. Can’t believe there aren’t more Missouri fans in the world. The reason I thought Missouri was awful this year is because a lot of them were very excited about the season that they had. Not because the team was terrible. The reason they were ecstatic about the season was because they thought there would be some sort of a national title, like you have at any team that has at least won 6 games this year. Which, by the way, I don’t think we will ever see, nor do I really care about. A big part of their excitement was a lack of quality on defense because they were so slow and inexperienced on D. The reason they were happy was that they had been playing very well away from home. And that’s when the fun started. Now that they’d played a couple different teams in conference, they started to show some real good plays. First was what I’ll call their “Mizzou Wig” defense that all the media made fun of. You can see for yourself because they have this one, which was the fastest on the field by a foot…

This has pretty much no bearing on the game, as long as you focus on their offense. Since we’ve already established that Missouri hasn’t been good, I thought it would be the only time this defense actually looked good. I’ll let others decide whether they’re actually good or not, as we’ll see. The second was the Mizzou running game…

Oh. Sorry. They were actually good.

But look at how bad they are moving. I’ll let you read, not me. I’m the one that had one of those stupid little screens. Oh.

What do you guys think of it? I’m actually glad they were slow. Mizzou’s ground game actually looked pretty good, to me.

The thing is that Missouri was still good down the stretch. They were still putting points on the board. I say this because it seems like the coaches aren’t particularly good at it. But they still scored 17 points at home and 10 on the road, so if they played to their potential, it couldn’t have been that bad of a win. In their last 3 home games against ranked teams (1-1) they scored a combined 42 points. In their first game against a ranked Arkansas team they scored 28. And all of the rest of their opponents scored 9 and 7. Now I know that’s not the usual winning percentage for power, but it’s not a great start for a 2-4 Missouri team who is still trying to make a bowl game this year.

This is a thing that I notice in the media and in some of my own thoughts about other teams, but I haven’t really seen it in this game. What about Kansas State? It had a 4-8 record, 3-7 SEC record, and had played a ton of top teams this year…

Their passing game was very solid, as their quarterback was a sophomore , they played good defense, and they were really good on the ground. They were only going to lose on the scoreboard and their offense, so their loss may have not been much of a shock to them.

We’re dealing with a Mizzou team with a 4-8 record, that was expected to lose, and they played their very best game of the year, in a place they were not supposed to lose. So, I think I’m okay with the Missouri football team not making a bowl, but we have to make the most of these 3 weeks, and I just hate to see the SEC bleed.

Here’s the thing, though. There is a lot that a lot of people who don’t know how good they are have wrong with them. They weren’t bad at home, they were good in the SEC, they have a quarterback who’s not been bad in their last 3 games, and the defense played well. They have the right amount of experience and experience on their defense but lack the quarterback. The thing is that’s kind of what made them such a good football team to start with.

No such luck. And, in the meantime, Pope Francis was walking to a gathering of world leaders, accompanied by a group of young men in the audience. That was the closest we came to the Pope. We heard a series of sound-effect announcements of some sort that led to the sound of the Pope walking towards the area. There were numerous shots of him walking towards the crowd.I guess we may soon find out who might have a shot at being the next Pope that much was certain in the end. But the moment Pope Francis stepped on stage on Sunday, the camera zoomed out and stopped in the middle of the square. But we will always have the footage of the footage. Which was kind of odd given that in the previous video you see him walking up the aisle in front of the altar behind the altar, carrying an altar cloth on his foot. It takes some getting used to, but you can see he appears to be carrying his own altar cloth at one point. It’s a neat detail. Even if you’ve never seen him on stagewell.

The new Pope is really a boy

So, after this first encounter, I walked the rest of the way over to the Vatican to take some shots of the Pope being photographed in the Pope’s own garden - after the picture was taken, no less. The last time I’d seen him in a green garden like this was the Vatican garden. He’s wearing a blue t-shirt for some reasonwhich brings me to my next point I’d like to make. Of course, that didn’t stop papal photographers from trying to get him out of that t-shirt and into something else but I was the guy to ask them to move it at some point.

And, after I did that, we’re talking about that blue t-shirt again - it gets me every time, but I gotta wonder what he thinks of it, is it the Pope at all, or is it the Papal t-shirts? Let’s face it, those purple ones look better than the blue ones wellI mean, they look better anyway, at least those kind of black t-shirtswhich, hey, they aren’t bad t-shirts. They are the kind of t-shirts everyone will wear, probably, when he comes out of the Vatican, on one of his international visits. They’re good t-shirts. They have some substance and design - but they only look like they do on the Pope’s blog. Unless they are, in fact, black t-shirts. And then, suddenly, that t-shirt comes with a huge logo - a black and gold star. And it’s not even a large logoit’s the actual logo of the Holy See, on the white cloth. Hang on nowdid we just have the Pope on the internet for seven seconds, and there was no real content of significance to it at all? No…nonolet me thinkyeahmaybe not. In any case, the Vatican announced the Pope’s name as “Ecce Homo”, the Name of God. As if I’ve known the Pope for more than seven secondshe’s so much younger than Francis.

It’s the same line that the Vatican did with Christ when they announced him: Jesus S.P.H. : Just as Peter received the crown, Christ the same: to put on his royal robes. In other words, the Catholic Church’s new pope should have his coronation ceremony in a palace, just like the pope in the modern world. That is the first time that the entire thing has been shown on TV, at any rate. I was a bit surprised that the papal family announced the name of the new pontiff before the papal office was opened up to the public. Well. But it was certainly a bit shocking and very much in line with the “he’s a boy” image he now has a bit down the back of his head.

The Church will pay me for my time

So, the big question was, was it the Pope at all? And it isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. His role so far has been much like the Pope of Rome: to receive the news and present a new Pope to the world. The fact that I got a first-hand perspective on his work by meeting him doesn’t change this. And if that doesn’t impress youjust think what it will do to your faith and your opinions if you follow the Vatican or have any sort of relationship with it.

If the Church pays me? You’re going to be doing me a huge disservice, don’t you think?

But I suppose that, like many things in

An Israeli military spokesman confirmed the tank had been destroyed, but did not say where the projectile came from or what type. Israeli aircraft had fired missiles into the area in recent days, hitting three sites, but there were no casualties.

Israeli forces said they were conducting security measures and the military was not releasing photographs or videos, in order to avoid damage to sensitive assets. While that may be true, given the sensitivity of the military’s photographs and video, they surely don’t show tanks destroying the Israeli tank which was carrying a large shipment of weapons to Hezbollah.

A spokesperson for the Lebanese Armed Forces - which runs the border with Israel - said at the Tuesday’s press conference that this year, Israel and Hezbollah “have killed at least 672 soldiers over the past 13 months”. It is not known if those figures include fatalities in air strikes or the fighting. The Israeli military is also responsible for at least 1,800 civilian deaths a year, including 3,000 from the Gaza conflict alone.

While Hezbollah would not confirm the incident involving their tank, this would be the first time in recent months that Hezbollah’s fighters appear to have destroyed anything from an Israeli tank. It would also be a significant blow to a military struggling to maintain control in southern Lebanon with fighting over most of its territory.

So what’s behind the alleged tank cannonings? Israel does not publicly release information regarding this type of activity, but what might be worth noting is the Israeli military has been using F-16 fighter jets to protect its bases. As one recent report said, “The use of the F-16 to protect the airspace of Israel’s outposts seems to underscore yet again the critical role that it plays in maintaining stability on the ground”. This makes the F-16 much more capable in protecting its military assets but, depending the aircraft flying over, it could well leave them open to a retaliatory Hezbollah strike. Of course, there is also the possibility that these tanks are some sort of experimental weapon that the military has not been properly training for nor has the doctrine been properly updated. As the Israelis themselves said, it was “new to the IDF”, but with that being said, if you think about it, it’s not so hard to start to tell where these tanks fall.

So, what would cause such a display of firepower? There are obviously multiple possibilities. But let’s take a look at a handful: The tank can be launched as an air-to-surface munitions attack aimed at Israel’s coastal defense system (though the effectiveness of the barrage may be questioned). (It is the F-16s using the F-15 Eagle which is capable of such strikes; the F-15 has a radar which can detect the tank as it approaches, while older-generation fighters can’t use such technology.) When used in this fashion, Hezbollah’s strategy would be to target the Israeli F-15s with an Israeli rocket launcher aimed at the F-16s. Or, as we have seen, that could be the intention.

The more likely reason is that the tank has been trained to be fired by a small Israeli team armed with machine guns, all positioned on a fixed wing, which can be in a position at all times from which to fire. The F-16 has a more modern weaponry base which allows it to conduct the task of air-to-surface warfare much earlier in a war. More important, as the F-15 Eagle is unable to provide such protection against that mission, which could result in the targeting of the F-16 while, from the air, firing on the tank, the smaller F-15 cannot counter it.

In all, we could be seeing the beginnings of a future war between the two strongest armies on the planet.

On the other side, the Israelis hope to hold out (and they really will, so long as they can maintain an offensive) while Hezbollah decides how to use these tank artillery pieces - with the first shots being aimed at the Israeli naval and land fortifications, but perhaps also at Hezbollah’s facilities and installations which Hezbollah takes. The Israelis could certainly use these tank artillery pieces to take out those installations and facilities as they cannot attack them on a wide scale. To do so, they would need to place F-16s within range of the targets, but it seems highly unlikely that they will try that unless they have clearly demonstrated their capability. Even if a few F-16s are used over southern Lebanon, the likely target would be airfields, as well as some other installations which Hezbollah has been threatening for a number of years.

It is interesting to note that the same Israel who claims to have no air defense in the area has taken multiple, successful airstrikes at the Lebanese army which use fighter jets and even surface to air missiles to defend their military assets. So if the Israeli tanks that fired on Gaza this year are being used, not just to threaten Hezbollah’s naval vessels, but also to attack their ground targets, would it not be reasonable to expect that the IDF would engage them in some sort of air

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now