• Las Vegas
    Culinary Workers Union (CWU) and their well-being, the rising cost of living in Las Vegas and the increased profitability of the sector in recent years, began the dispute underscores the tension between labor and corporate interests, at major hotel-casinos on the Strip in Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Culinary Workers Union (CWU) is a powerful force in the city's hospitality industry, representing over 60,000 workers across various hotel-casinos on the Las Vegas Strip. In recent years, the union has been at the forefront of several labor disputes, highlighting the growing tension between workers and major hotel-casino corporations.

    One of the key issues fueling these disputes is the rising cost of living in Las Vegas. Despite the city's booming tourism industry, many workers in the hospitality sector struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and other basic necessities. The union argues that wages have not kept pace with the increasing cost of living.
    Las Vegas Culinary Workers Union (CWU) and their well-being, the rising cost of living in Las Vegas and the increased profitability of the sector in recent years, began the dispute underscores the tension between labor and corporate interests, at major hotel-casinos on the Strip in Las Vegas. The Las Vegas Culinary Workers Union (CWU) is a powerful force in the city's hospitality industry, representing over 60,000 workers across various hotel-casinos on the Las Vegas Strip. In recent years, the union has been at the forefront of several labor disputes, highlighting the growing tension between workers and major hotel-casino corporations. One of the key issues fueling these disputes is the rising cost of living in Las Vegas. Despite the city's booming tourism industry, many workers in the hospitality sector struggle to afford housing, healthcare, and other basic necessities. The union argues that wages have not kept pace with the increasing cost of living.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 873 Просмотры

  • Officer Caught Aiding Criminals for Cash

    Police Officer who took Bribes from Insurance Fraudster Convicted

    Post 4923

    Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/officer-caught-aiding-criminals-cash-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-niboc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.

    Demarkco Johnson (“Johnson”), appealed his convictions and claims the following errors:

    1 The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment.
    2 The trial court erred in failing to admonish and/or instruct the witness to stop answering questions with a legal conclusion after defense counsel had objected.
    3 Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, his convictions are in violation of the Ohio state constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    In State Of Ohio v. Demarkco Johnson, 2024-Ohio-5098, No. 113591, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (October 24, 2024) resolved the issues on appeal.

    FACTS

    Defendants were charged with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of bribery, eight counts of forgery, one count of insurance fraud, one count of identity fraud, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. They engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity charge included a clause alleging that at least one of the incidents of corrupt activity was a felony of the third degree or higher.

    At trial George Michael Riley, Sr. (“Riley”), testified that he became a confidential source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), which was investigating corruption in the East Cleveland Police Department. Special Agent Shaun Roth (“Roth”), an agent with the FBI working with the Cleveland Metropolitan Anti-Corruption Task Force, testified that the FBI executed a search warrant for one of Riley’s properties.

    Harris’s services included running Riley’s name in police databases to check for warrants and blocking off city roads so Riley could move his demolition equipment throughout the city.

    Two of Riley’s trucks were stolen from his business in East Cleveland. Riley told his contacts at the FBI, and FBI officials instructed him to file a police report with the East Cleveland police just as any other victim would do. Riley cooperated with the FBI.

    After hearing the evidence, the jury found Johnson guilty of two counts of bribery, as alleged in Counts 5 and 10 of the indictment. The jury acquitted him of all other charges. The court sentenced Johnson to 12 months in prison on both counts and ordered that the two prison terms be served concurrently. Johnson appealed the trial court’s judgment.

    Law and Analysis - Entrapment Instruction

    In the first assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment.

    Entrapment is a ‘confession and avoidance’ defense in which the defendant admits committing the acts charged but claims that the criminal design arose with the state’s agent. There is no entrapment when government officials merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense to a criminal defendant who was predisposed to commit the offense.

    The video evidence showed Johnson handing Riley reports in exchange for money on multiple occasions. Johnson’s conduct demonstrated a ready acquiescence to the inducements offered by the government’s confidential source and a willingness to become involved in criminal activity in exchange for money.

    The evidence showed that Johnson not only had expert knowledge as to how to create the police reports in a way that could go undetected, but he also had access to the blank police forms that made the concealment of the reports possible. The Court of Appeals found that evidence did not support an entrapment defense.

    Testimony Pertaining to Bribery

    In the second assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred by refusing to instruct Roth to refrain from using the word “bribe” or “bribery payment” in response to questions that were not specifically related to bribe payments. Even if Roth had avoided the words “bribe” or “bribery payment,” the outcome of the trial would not have been any different. The overwhelming evidence established that Johnson helped create fake police reports in exchange for money.

    Manifest Weight of the Evidence

    Johnson argued his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

    The Court of Appeals noted that Johnson’s convictions were not dependent on his knowledge of any insurance scheme or Harris’s separate dealings with Riley. His convictions were based solely on his position as a police officer in the East Cleveland Police Department and his acceptance of cash in exchange for police reports. Video evidence showed Johnson accepting cash from Riley in exchange for the reports on at least two occasions. And, despite Johnson’s argument to the contrary, Johnson played along when Harris introduced him to Riley as Nevels.

    CONCLUSION

    The Court of Appeals ordered that a special mandate issue out of the court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence.

    ZALMA OPINION

    There can be no excuse for a police officer to sell information to an insurance criminal to ease the ability of the crime to succeed. Officer Johnson tried multiple arguments to set aside his conviction even though the evidence against him was overwhelming. The Court of Appeals disposed of his arguments quickly and intelligently. Fraud is a crime. Insurance fraud is a crime. Helping the criminal avoid prosecution is also a crime and establishes the officer had given up his honor for cash.

    (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

    Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

    Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

    Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

    Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    Officer Caught Aiding Criminals for Cash Police Officer who took Bribes from Insurance Fraudster Convicted Post 4923 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/officer-caught-aiding-criminals-cash-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-niboc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. Demarkco Johnson (“Johnson”), appealed his convictions and claims the following errors: 1 The trial court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s request for a jury instruction on entrapment. 2 The trial court erred in failing to admonish and/or instruct the witness to stop answering questions with a legal conclusion after defense counsel had objected. 3 Appellant’s convictions are against the manifest weight of the evidence; therefore, his convictions are in violation of the Ohio state constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In State Of Ohio v. Demarkco Johnson, 2024-Ohio-5098, No. 113591, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga (October 24, 2024) resolved the issues on appeal. FACTS Defendants were charged with two counts of conspiracy, three counts of bribery, eight counts of forgery, one count of insurance fraud, one count of identity fraud, and one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. They engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity charge included a clause alleging that at least one of the incidents of corrupt activity was a felony of the third degree or higher. At trial George Michael Riley, Sr. (“Riley”), testified that he became a confidential source for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), which was investigating corruption in the East Cleveland Police Department. Special Agent Shaun Roth (“Roth”), an agent with the FBI working with the Cleveland Metropolitan Anti-Corruption Task Force, testified that the FBI executed a search warrant for one of Riley’s properties. Harris’s services included running Riley’s name in police databases to check for warrants and blocking off city roads so Riley could move his demolition equipment throughout the city. Two of Riley’s trucks were stolen from his business in East Cleveland. Riley told his contacts at the FBI, and FBI officials instructed him to file a police report with the East Cleveland police just as any other victim would do. Riley cooperated with the FBI. After hearing the evidence, the jury found Johnson guilty of two counts of bribery, as alleged in Counts 5 and 10 of the indictment. The jury acquitted him of all other charges. The court sentenced Johnson to 12 months in prison on both counts and ordered that the two prison terms be served concurrently. Johnson appealed the trial court’s judgment. Law and Analysis - Entrapment Instruction In the first assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. Entrapment is a ‘confession and avoidance’ defense in which the defendant admits committing the acts charged but claims that the criminal design arose with the state’s agent. There is no entrapment when government officials merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense to a criminal defendant who was predisposed to commit the offense. The video evidence showed Johnson handing Riley reports in exchange for money on multiple occasions. Johnson’s conduct demonstrated a ready acquiescence to the inducements offered by the government’s confidential source and a willingness to become involved in criminal activity in exchange for money. The evidence showed that Johnson not only had expert knowledge as to how to create the police reports in a way that could go undetected, but he also had access to the blank police forms that made the concealment of the reports possible. The Court of Appeals found that evidence did not support an entrapment defense. Testimony Pertaining to Bribery In the second assignment of error, Johnson argues the trial court erred by refusing to instruct Roth to refrain from using the word “bribe” or “bribery payment” in response to questions that were not specifically related to bribe payments. Even if Roth had avoided the words “bribe” or “bribery payment,” the outcome of the trial would not have been any different. The overwhelming evidence established that Johnson helped create fake police reports in exchange for money. Manifest Weight of the Evidence Johnson argued his convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals noted that Johnson’s convictions were not dependent on his knowledge of any insurance scheme or Harris’s separate dealings with Riley. His convictions were based solely on his position as a police officer in the East Cleveland Police Department and his acceptance of cash in exchange for police reports. Video evidence showed Johnson accepting cash from Riley in exchange for the reports on at least two occasions. And, despite Johnson’s argument to the contrary, Johnson played along when Harris introduced him to Riley as Nevels. CONCLUSION The Court of Appeals ordered that a special mandate issue out of the court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. The defendant’s conviction having been affirmed, any bail pending appeal is terminated. Case remanded to the trial court for execution of sentence. ZALMA OPINION There can be no excuse for a police officer to sell information to an insurance criminal to ease the ability of the crime to succeed. Officer Johnson tried multiple arguments to set aside his conviction even though the evidence against him was overwhelming. The Court of Appeals disposed of his arguments quickly and intelligently. Fraud is a crime. Insurance fraud is a crime. Helping the criminal avoid prosecution is also a crime and establishes the officer had given up his honor for cash. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    WWW.LINKEDIN.COM
    Discover thousands of collaborative articles on 2500+ skills
    Discover 100 collaborative articles on domains such as Marketing, Public Administration, and Healthcare. Our expertly curated collection combines AI-generated content with insights and advice from industry experts, providing you with unique perspectives and up-to-date information on many skills and their applications.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 2Кб Просмотры

  • Who’s on First & in What Percentage

    Application of Diverse “Other Insurance” Clauses
    Insurers Protected Insured and Litigated Their Differences

    Post 4920

    Two insurance companies- Gemini and Zurich- asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal to determine what share of a $2 million settlement each is required to pay. The district court entered judgment for Gemini, ordering that Zurich pay $500,000 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed, with Gemini seeking another $500,000 and Zurich challenging the award of prejudgment interest.

    In Gemini Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 22-13495, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 23, 2024) the competing “other insurance clauses” were resolved.
    FACTS

    After the death of Josue Vallejo, who was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of FSR Trucking, Inc two of three insurers disputed what proportion of the settlement each should pay. Zurich insured FSR, through its coverage of Commercial, for $1 million. Gemini also insured FSR for $3 million.

    The Vallejo claim settled for $3 million, of which Gemini contributed $2 million. Ryder’s insurance company, which is not a party to this appeal, contributed the other $1 million. Gemini and Zurich agree that they each owe a share of the $2 million, but dispute how much each one must pay. Under Gemini’s theory, they each owe $1 million. Under Zurich’s theory, they each owe their pro rata share, which is $500,000 for Zurich and $1.5 million for Gemini.

    The different theories of coverage turn on the application of the two policies’ “other insurance” clauses, which generally function to apportion coverage when there is overlapping insurance. Gemini argues that its policy is excess to Zurich’s, while Zurich argues that the policies attach at the same level and thus trigger pro rata contribution.

    Gemini sued Zurich for a declaratory judgment in its favor and an award of $1 million plus interest under claims of contractual subrogation or equitable subrogation/contribution. Zurich tendered $500,000 to Gemini to satisfy its pro rata share. Gemini, however, continued to litigate for the other $500,000 plus interest on the entire amount.

    Gemini appealed the District Court’s ruling in favor of Zurich and sought to obtain the other $500,000.

    ANALYSIS

    In Florida, where more than one insurer’s policy provides coverage for a loss, as the parties agree is the case here, it is appropriate to review the insurance contracts to see if the documents address the ‘ranking’ or contribution of other insurers.
    The Other Insurance Clauses

    Gemini’s “other insurance” clause provides: “This insurance is excess over and shall not contribute with any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. This condition will not apply to insurance specifically written as excess over this policy.”

    Zurich’s “other insurance” clause is slightly different. “When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our Coverage Form bears to the total of the limits of all the Coverage Forms and policies covering on the same basis.

    Interpretation of the “Other Insurance” Clauses

    Where two insurance policies contain excess insurance clauses the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant and both insurers become primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their policy limits. Zurich argued, and the district court agreed, that both policies contain excess clauses such as pro rata contribution results.

    The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Gemini because when two policies containing conflicting “other insurance” or excess [uninsured/underinsured motorist] clauses.

    In sum an “other insurance” clause containing the phrase “we will pay the proportion of damages payable as excess” means that the clause was pro rata, even though it also characterized itself as an excess clause. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit concluded both policies were primary.

    The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to the amount of contribution and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Gemini for the principal amount of $1,000,000, with the understanding that Zurich has already paid half of that sum. Upon entry of the amended final judgment on remand, Gemini will be the prevailing party. When a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss.

    The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded for the court to enter judgment in favor of Gemini in the principal amount of $1,000,000 understanding that Zurich has already paid $500,000. It also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the first $500,000 and direct the court to award Gemini prejudgment interest on the second $500,000 from February 7, 2019, until the date of the amended final judgment.

    ZALMA OPINION

    The three insurers of the defendant did the right thing by protecting the insured and then resolving their dispute over the share owed in court. Although insurance companies, generally, should not sue each other. “Other Insurance” clauses invariably raise disputes between insurers and often cause hardship to the insured. In this case Gemini, Zurich and an unnamed insurer put up the $3 million to settle and then Gemini and Zurich sued to clarify who owed what. The Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court was wrong because interpreting the competing “other insurance” clauses should have resulted in a finding that both Gemini and Zurich were primary insurers and each owed $1 million of the settlement and Zurich owed Gemini $500,000 plus interest.

    (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

    Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

    Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

    Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

    Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    Who’s on First & in What Percentage Application of Diverse “Other Insurance” Clauses Insurers Protected Insured and Litigated Their Differences Post 4920 Two insurance companies- Gemini and Zurich- asked the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal to determine what share of a $2 million settlement each is required to pay. The district court entered judgment for Gemini, ordering that Zurich pay $500,000 plus prejudgment interest. Both parties appealed, with Gemini seeking another $500,000 and Zurich challenging the award of prejudgment interest. In Gemini Insurance Company v. Zurich American Insurance Company, No. 22-13495, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (October 23, 2024) the competing “other insurance clauses” were resolved. FACTS After the death of Josue Vallejo, who was struck by a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of FSR Trucking, Inc two of three insurers disputed what proportion of the settlement each should pay. Zurich insured FSR, through its coverage of Commercial, for $1 million. Gemini also insured FSR for $3 million. The Vallejo claim settled for $3 million, of which Gemini contributed $2 million. Ryder’s insurance company, which is not a party to this appeal, contributed the other $1 million. Gemini and Zurich agree that they each owe a share of the $2 million, but dispute how much each one must pay. Under Gemini’s theory, they each owe $1 million. Under Zurich’s theory, they each owe their pro rata share, which is $500,000 for Zurich and $1.5 million for Gemini. The different theories of coverage turn on the application of the two policies’ “other insurance” clauses, which generally function to apportion coverage when there is overlapping insurance. Gemini argues that its policy is excess to Zurich’s, while Zurich argues that the policies attach at the same level and thus trigger pro rata contribution. Gemini sued Zurich for a declaratory judgment in its favor and an award of $1 million plus interest under claims of contractual subrogation or equitable subrogation/contribution. Zurich tendered $500,000 to Gemini to satisfy its pro rata share. Gemini, however, continued to litigate for the other $500,000 plus interest on the entire amount. Gemini appealed the District Court’s ruling in favor of Zurich and sought to obtain the other $500,000. ANALYSIS In Florida, where more than one insurer’s policy provides coverage for a loss, as the parties agree is the case here, it is appropriate to review the insurance contracts to see if the documents address the ‘ranking’ or contribution of other insurers. The Other Insurance Clauses Gemini’s “other insurance” clause provides: “This insurance is excess over and shall not contribute with any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis. This condition will not apply to insurance specifically written as excess over this policy.” Zurich’s “other insurance” clause is slightly different. “When this Coverage Form and any other Coverage Form or policy covers on the same basis, either excess or primary, we will pay only our share. Our share is the proportion that the Limit of Insurance of our Coverage Form bears to the total of the limits of all the Coverage Forms and policies covering on the same basis. Interpretation of the “Other Insurance” Clauses Where two insurance policies contain excess insurance clauses the clauses are deemed mutually repugnant and both insurers become primary and share the loss on a pro rata basis in accordance with their policy limits. Zurich argued, and the district court agreed, that both policies contain excess clauses such as pro rata contribution results. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Gemini because when two policies containing conflicting “other insurance” or excess [uninsured/underinsured motorist] clauses. In sum an “other insurance” clause containing the phrase “we will pay the proportion of damages payable as excess” means that the clause was pro rata, even though it also characterized itself as an excess clause. Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit concluded both policies were primary. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment with regard to the amount of contribution and remanded the case for entry of judgment in favor of Gemini for the principal amount of $1,000,000, with the understanding that Zurich has already paid half of that sum. Upon entry of the amended final judgment on remand, Gemini will be the prevailing party. When a verdict liquidates damages on a plaintiff’s out-of-pocket, pecuniary losses, plaintiff is entitled, as a matter of law, to prejudgment interest at the statutory rate from the date of that loss. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s resolution of the cross-motions for summary judgment and remanded for the court to enter judgment in favor of Gemini in the principal amount of $1,000,000 understanding that Zurich has already paid $500,000. It also affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the first $500,000 and direct the court to award Gemini prejudgment interest on the second $500,000 from February 7, 2019, until the date of the amended final judgment. ZALMA OPINION The three insurers of the defendant did the right thing by protecting the insured and then resolving their dispute over the share owed in court. Although insurance companies, generally, should not sue each other. “Other Insurance” clauses invariably raise disputes between insurers and often cause hardship to the insured. In this case Gemini, Zurich and an unnamed insurer put up the $3 million to settle and then Gemini and Zurich sued to clarify who owed what. The Eleventh Circuit found that the District Court was wrong because interpreting the competing “other insurance” clauses should have resulted in a finding that both Gemini and Zurich were primary insurers and each owed $1 million of the settlement and Zurich owed Gemini $500,000 plus interest. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    BARRYZALMA.SUBSTACK.COM
    Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling
    A series of writings and/or videos to help understand insurance, insurance claims, and becoming an insurance claims professional and who need to provide or receive competent and Excellence in Claims Handling. Click to read Excellence in Claims Handling, by Barry Zalma, a Substack publication with thousands of subscribers.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 1Кб Просмотры
  • https://t.me/davidavocadowolfe/140650
    This woman argues that understanding what is going on with Hollyweird is more important than the political theatre unfolding right now.
    https://t.me/davidavocadowolfe/140650 This woman argues that understanding what is going on with Hollyweird is more important than the political theatre unfolding right now.
    0 Комментарии 1 Поделились 430 Просмотры 2
  • Japan failed to pass the post-Fukushima 2011 Fukushima nuclear after Japan Atomic Power first applied in 2015, screening with the hope of restarting the reactor. The Tsuruga atomic plant is a two-unit complex, with the No. 1 reactor set to be scrapped after opening on 14 March 1970.
    This paper argues for the importance of transnational memories in framing .
    The No. 2 reactor, which started commercial affairs in 17 February 1987, went offline in May 2011.
    Japan failed to pass the post-Fukushima 2011 Fukushima nuclear after Japan Atomic Power first applied in 2015, screening with the hope of restarting the reactor. The Tsuruga atomic plant is a two-unit complex, with the No. 1 reactor set to be scrapped after opening on 14 March 1970. This paper argues for the importance of transnational memories in framing . The No. 2 reactor, which started commercial affairs in 17 February 1987, went offline in May 2011.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 532 Просмотры
  • She knows...

    Most common sense Americans know he is not running this country.

    https://redstatenation.com/video-woman-argues-with-biden-at-the-waffle-house-her-facial-expression-is-all-of-us/
    She knows... Most common sense Americans know he is not running this country. https://redstatenation.com/video-woman-argues-with-biden-at-the-waffle-house-her-facial-expression-is-all-of-us/
    REDSTATENATION.COM
    Video: Woman Argues with Biden at the Waffle House - Her Facial Expression Is All of Us - Red State Nation
    Joe Biden and his wife Jill stopped at a Waffle House in the Atlanta area early on Friday morning (28 June) and told customers “I think we did well” in the presidential debate. The unexpected visit came shortly after the president’s heated clash with rival Donald Trump on CNN. Walking into the restaurant, the pair […]
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 501 Просмотры
  • Watch: CBS Host Brennan Argues With Voter Over Joe Biden’s Lack of Vetting on Open Border https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-cbs-host-brennan-argues-with-voter-over-joe-bidens-lack-of-vetting-on-open-border/
    Watch: CBS Host Brennan Argues With Voter Over Joe Biden’s Lack of Vetting on Open Border https://www.infowars.com/posts/watch-cbs-host-brennan-argues-with-voter-over-joe-bidens-lack-of-vetting-on-open-border/
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 668 Просмотры
  • Nihilism is a philosophical perspective that argues life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists often assert that:

    1. Moral Nihilism**: There are no objective moral truths. Moral values are seen as subjective constructs without universal applicability.
    2. Existential Nihilism**: Life has no intrinsic meaning or value. Human existence is insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe.
    3. Epistemological Nihilism**: Knowledge is impossible; doubt is cast on the ability to know anything with certainty.
    4. Metaphysical Nihilism**: There may be no objective reality, or that reality itself lacks any substantial structure or meaning.

    Prominent figures associated with nihilism include Friedrich Nietzsche, who explored the implications of a world without God or inherent meaning, and Ivan Turgenev, whose novel "Fathers and Sons" introduced the term "nihilist" in its modern sense.

    Nihilism can be seen as a response to the disillusionment with traditional values, religion, and the perceived failures of modern society to provide meaning. It often leads to a deep sense of skepticism and can be a starting point for exploring new ways of finding or creating meaning in life.
    Nihilism is a philosophical perspective that argues life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists often assert that: 1. Moral Nihilism**: There are no objective moral truths. Moral values are seen as subjective constructs without universal applicability. 2. Existential Nihilism**: Life has no intrinsic meaning or value. Human existence is insignificant in the grand scheme of the universe. 3. Epistemological Nihilism**: Knowledge is impossible; doubt is cast on the ability to know anything with certainty. 4. Metaphysical Nihilism**: There may be no objective reality, or that reality itself lacks any substantial structure or meaning. Prominent figures associated with nihilism include Friedrich Nietzsche, who explored the implications of a world without God or inherent meaning, and Ivan Turgenev, whose novel "Fathers and Sons" introduced the term "nihilist" in its modern sense. Nihilism can be seen as a response to the disillusionment with traditional values, religion, and the perceived failures of modern society to provide meaning. It often leads to a deep sense of skepticism and can be a starting point for exploring new ways of finding or creating meaning in life.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 1Кб Просмотры
  • Extraterrestrial Life and the Search for Aliens
    Search for extraterrestrial life,new paper suggests Aliens Already have engeignerez others planet beyond our solar system.

    The paper argues that searching for these types of techno signatures could be more promising than just looking for direct communication signals from alien civilizations. The authors note that even an advanced alien civilization may not be actively trying to contact us, but they may still inadvertently leave behind detectable evidence of their presence and technological capabilities.

    Overall, the paper proposes an intriguing new approach to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) that focuses on identifying potential signs of alien-engineered planetary systems rather than just radio signals. The authors hope this will open up new avenues for discovering advanced life elsewhere in the universe.

    The search for extraterrestrial life is not limited to our own solar system. Scientists have been studying exoplanets, which are planets that orbit stars outside of our solar system. The discovery of exoplanets has expanded our understanding of the potential for life beyond Earth. However, it is important to note that our knowledge of exoplanets is still limited, and we are only beginning to explore their potential habitability.

    Critically évaluation the sources and evidence to ensure their reliability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Worldwide research community carefully scrutinizes such claims to ensure the integrity of the new History and Civilization about this Planet.
    Extraterrestrial Life and the Search for Aliens Search for extraterrestrial life,new paper suggests Aliens Already have engeignerez others planet beyond our solar system. The paper argues that searching for these types of techno signatures could be more promising than just looking for direct communication signals from alien civilizations. The authors note that even an advanced alien civilization may not be actively trying to contact us, but they may still inadvertently leave behind detectable evidence of their presence and technological capabilities. Overall, the paper proposes an intriguing new approach to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) that focuses on identifying potential signs of alien-engineered planetary systems rather than just radio signals. The authors hope this will open up new avenues for discovering advanced life elsewhere in the universe. The search for extraterrestrial life is not limited to our own solar system. Scientists have been studying exoplanets, which are planets that orbit stars outside of our solar system. The discovery of exoplanets has expanded our understanding of the potential for life beyond Earth. However, it is important to note that our knowledge of exoplanets is still limited, and we are only beginning to explore their potential habitability. Critically évaluation the sources and evidence to ensure their reliability. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the Worldwide research community carefully scrutinizes such claims to ensure the integrity of the new History and Civilization about this Planet.
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 3Кб Просмотры
  • Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (Also available in Kindle)

    Who’s on the wrong side of history? Liberals, argues Mona Charen in this New York Times bestseller. And they've been on the wrong side for far too long. A former speechwriter for the Reagan White House, Charen describes how the left has continually attempted to rewrite history, all the while refusing to learn from it. She fearlessly calls out the prominent liberal media figures, professors, and opinion makers who flocked to Castro’s Cuba and called it paradise, visited the Soviet Union and proclaimed its glorious future, and who, only a generation ago, proclaimed communism to be a "force of good" in the world. She won't let them get away with their snide disdain for America when the lessons of the past should have humbled them long ago. From D.C. elites Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy, to Hollywood celebs like Woody Allen and Jane Fonda, to academic snobs like Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag, Charen’s devastating critique of the left's philosophical incompetence is a must-read for Americans on both sides of the aisle.
    https://a.co/d/1lyw8Eb
    Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (Also available in Kindle) Who’s on the wrong side of history? Liberals, argues Mona Charen in this New York Times bestseller. And they've been on the wrong side for far too long. A former speechwriter for the Reagan White House, Charen describes how the left has continually attempted to rewrite history, all the while refusing to learn from it. She fearlessly calls out the prominent liberal media figures, professors, and opinion makers who flocked to Castro’s Cuba and called it paradise, visited the Soviet Union and proclaimed its glorious future, and who, only a generation ago, proclaimed communism to be a "force of good" in the world. She won't let them get away with their snide disdain for America when the lessons of the past should have humbled them long ago. From D.C. elites Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy, to Hollywood celebs like Woody Allen and Jane Fonda, to academic snobs like Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag, Charen’s devastating critique of the left's philosophical incompetence is a must-read for Americans on both sides of the aisle. https://a.co/d/1lyw8Eb
    Haha
    1
    0 Комментарии 0 Поделились 3Кб Просмотры
Расширенные страницы
Спонсоры

We are 100% funded for October.

Thanks to everyone who helped out. 🥰

Xephula monthly operating expenses for 2024 - Server: $143/month - Backup Software: $6/month - Object Storage: $6/month - SMTP Service: $10/month - Stripe Processing Fees: ~$10/month - Total: $175/month

Xephula Funding Meter

Please Donate Here