text:
British anarchism in the era of Thatcherism
The late 1970s and early 1980s were a period of unexpected resurgence for the British anarchist movement, and for wider libertarian political initiatives circling in the orbit of an expanding anarchist core. The renaissance of anarchism in the UK was not something which many contemporary commentators on the British political fringe had anticipated. But British anarchism’s recovery and renewed confidence was not only unexpected, it took on political hues, adopted practices and rallied around political priorities which were themselves novel and innovative (if often controversial). That British anarchism should encounter a period of revival in the unprepossessing context of the arrival of a new neoliberal, free-market, strong-state government appeared surprising, but for a significant number of political activists that combative context served to increase the attractiveness of the ‘anarchist alternative’, especially as the assault of Thatcherism seemed to place so many of the long-standing assumptions of the British extra-parliamentary left in doubt.
What is notable about this period in the history of post-war British anarchism is how far the political centre of gravity within the movement would shift over the course of a decade — as the pre-eminence of perspectives based on militant anti-militarism, individualism and counter-culturalism were challenged first by internal political developments and then by a largely external reassertion of anarchism based on class politics and the celebration of nascent oppositional instincts within existing, mainstream working-class culture.
That these breakthrough political initiatives could ignite such interest, and inspire the engagement of significant numbers of radical militants, is evidence of the continually innovative nature of the British anarchist impulse, of its continuing resilience and of the movement’s capacity to reinvent and recover itself. That these new anarchist agents were to discover within so short a timespan that they appeared to have reached the limits of their own restorative agenda (far short of their stated ambitions) seemed to confirm once again the cyclical nature of the advance and retreat of British anarchism.
British anarchism into the 1970s
For libertarian, autonomist, left-communist and anarchist movements across post-war Europe, the political, social and cultural upheavals of 1968 provided both a contemporary touchstone and a turning point in their modern histories. In the UK, at only a few points in the twentieth century had anarchism intruded into the mainstream of extra-parliamentary opposition; and in the post-war environment the current’s varied traditions had struggled to find purchase outside of the radical political fringe. In the UK, the 1950s ‘had been a period of hibernation for anarchist ideas’, which only entered a nascent period of recovery in the 1960s, pushed forward by the emergence of hippy counter-culture and anti-authoritarian currents around the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), notably the Committee of 100, and within that subversive anti-militarist initiatives such as the ‘Spies for Peace’ affair. The tumult which engulfed Paris, Prague and other cities in 1968 left a great deal of volatile political ferment in its wake across Europe, and although the repercussions in the UK were far more muted those ripples were conducive to the advance of libertarian forms of organisation and practice.
Prior to the 1970s, the history of post-war British anarchism had been a story of patchy, partial and inconsistent advance, intertwined with often prolonged periods of retrenchment. The Anarchist Federation of Britain (AFB), an unstable alliance of anarchists of widely different hues (‘from syndicalists and libertarian communists through hippies and liberals to individualists’) which had been re-established several times (most recently in 1963), had once again unravelled, suffering defections to the International Socialists (IS) and the International Marxist Group (IMG). The Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists (ORA), originally set up as ‘a reaction to the powerlessness and lack of formal structure’ of the AFB, as a small ginger group within the federation (around the paper Libertarian Struggle), had first become independent, and then in 1975 evolved into the new Anarchist Workers’ Association (AWA); an organisation defined by an explicit orientation to industrial and workplace struggles and determined to move beyond the frustrations of ‘synthesis’ politics. The AWA declared that: ‘class struggle has been the primary factor in the determination of the form and structure of society’, adamant that capitalism would be overthrown ‘through the development of working-class organisations and by means of a violent social revolution’. Despite its attempts at political redefinition, the AWA endured a volatile existence, suffering further splits and losses, whilst struggling to rally the organisation to the struggles of the day. The main current to emerge from the last major schism in the AWA (which came to a head at the May 1977 conference), became the LCG (Libertarian Communist Group), which was launched in 1978. The LCG announced the group’s departure from the British anarchist tradition which it insisted had rendered itself ‘unable to intervene actively in the struggles of the working class’.
The 1979 general election, which brought to power the first Thatcher government, became the political nadir for the fractious ‘post’-anarchist group, who opted to commit the organisation to the Trotskyist-led electoral Socialist Unity initiative. After dismal poll results, the LCG majority opted for fusion with the libertarian leftist group Big Flame.
Elsewhere within the anarchist movement there were signs of greater political resilience. From within the British anarcho-syndicalist tradition, the Direct Action Movement (DAM) was formed in March 1979, from remnants of the earlier Syndicalist Workers Federation (SWF), later acknowledging that ‘syndicalism in this country has not really existed since the early 1920s’. Early editions of the Direct Action newspaper had an irreverent style and the cut-and-paste design motif of a punk fanzine, only later adopting a more sober tenor for its industrial reportage. The more high-profile Black Flag newspaper which had been founded by Albert Meltzer and Stuart Christie in 1970 (initially entitled Bulletin of the Anarchist Black Cross, to emphasise its focus on anarchist prisoner support), stood firmly within the ‘revolutionary class struggle’ traditions of anarchism. Freedom, the longest running of British anarchist newspapers, reflected the interests of a wider libertarian readership, and had stronger roots in the more liberal, artistic, cultural and intellectual traditions of the movement. The long-standing and bitter animosity between the latter two publications was partly refracted through the loyalty of a divided partisan readership, which (particularly in the uniquely intense political hot-house of the radical London milieu) often identified exclusively with one title or the other.
Yet when taken together, despite the politically receptive environment, the formal organisations and publications of British anarchism had failed to benefit from the seemingly more conducive post-1968 context and had again slid into the fringes at the close of the 1970s. Almost a decade earlier, Meltzer and Christie had written a landmark text on contemporary British anarchist theory which (anticipating the forward surge of the movement) concluded that the ‘floodgates holding back anarchy are cracking’. Ten years on and the official anarchist movement appeared to be stuck in the political backwaters, with the prospect of gains in either influence or organisation fast receding.
The impetus for the political revival of British anarchism in the late 1970s and early 1980s came from something of an unexpected quarter. Punk band the Sex Pistols, who burst into mainstream cultural notoriety in 1976–77, may have declared themselves as advocates for ‘Anarchy in the UK’, but the band’s ideological ambitions (where they existed at all) were chaotic, and for all the band’s nihilistic protestations, their political manifesto was threadbare at best. It was the emergence of a consciously anarchist current within the ‘second wave’ of British punk (1978–79) which became the catalyst for the revival in the energy, initiative and momentum of the forces of British anarchism.
The rise of anarcho-punk
Two unusual and highly distinctive punk bands share a pre-eminent role in the emergence of the new genre of ‘anarcho-punk’. Based in a farmhouse on the outskirts of north London, the band Crass formed in 1977, but did not come fully to wider prominence in the UK punk scene until the closing months of 1978. Crass embraced a new fusion of punk and anarchism, concocting a mixture of individualism (infused with elements of bohemian culture and the ethos of hippy) and insurrectionism to inform a politics infused with anti-militarism, atheism, feminism, anti-authoritarianism and implacable anti-statism. The band’s sound was as distinctive as its orientation to the punk idea: a harsh, guitar layered aural assault, backed by militaristic drum patterns, and atonal soundscapes. The band’s uncompromising, didactic approach (if not their musical motif) was shared by Poison Girls, a political punk band formed in Brighton, with strong anarcha-feminist credentials and a background more rooted in nightclub cabaret and theatre than in rock and pop. The band’s libertarianism was no less anti-state than Crass’s, although Poison Girls’ early lyrical focus concentrated on the themes of gender identities and the alienated experiences of women; particularly in the context of the family. Though their approaches had their differences, both bands shared a common recuperative aim: to rekindle the subversive, revolutionary original ambitions of punk. Founder member of Crass, Penny Rimbaud, later recalled: ‘When in 1977 the Sex Pistols harped on about anarchy in the UK, it became pretty obvious to me that their interest was not in revolution but in their bank balance [...] We saw Johnny Rotten’s “no future” rantings as a challenge. We believed that there was a future if we were prepared to fight for it, and fight for it we did.’ Following Poison Girls’ relocation to London, both bands began a period of intense and close cooperation; collaborating on shared record releases, live gigs and tours; and a broadly similar approach to the practice of design, presentation and political publishing.
Anarcho-punk provided the momentum to re-energise the movement, but its impact changed its profile and the centre of political gravity within it. The political priorities of anarcho-punk were very different from what had gone before. Clear political foci were provided by the anti-nuclear and anti-war movements, but the attentions of anarcho-punk extended to include a matrix of other issues — including militant vegetarianism and animal liberation; civil liberties and opposition to police powers; struggles against wage slavery; feminism and struggles over gender equality; opposition to organised religion; and opposition to cuts and the reductions in the wider ‘social wage’.
Key to anarcho-punk identity was a focus on the practice of Do-It-Yourself (DIY); an approach to production and distribution based on the assumptions of not-for-profit, independence and autonomy, anti-commercialism, and driven by strong anti-hierarchical and collaborative considerations. Over the next four to five years, with next to no formal organisation to support it, an independent network of radical punk practitioners identifying with the ethos of anarcho-punk came together through the shared production of recordings (on vinyl and cassette tape), fanzines and magazines, gigs (usually outside the circuit of commercial venues), and a diverse array of punk propaganda in a variety of different formats, all designed to make the anarchist case.
As anarcho-punk was not much interested in the traditional prescriptions of the movement, conflict and disagreement accompanied this resurgence. For many traditionalists, the insurgency of young punks was confusing, unwelcome or irrelevant to the ‘real business’ of the movement. Many of the papers and organisations of the existing movement were unsure of how to respond to a revival that they could claim little responsibility or credit for.
In the early 1980s it was from within anarcho-punk that so many of the profile events and developments which bore the imprint of the anarchist movement drew momentum — including the celebrated 1982 Zig-Zag squat gig (a large one-day anarchist-punk festival held in a mothballed London nightclub); the series of Stop the City demonstrations held in the financial district of London in 1983 and 1984; the rise of a newly militant animal liberation lobby; the surge of punk activity at ‘peace camps’ outside nuclear air bases — and from its ranks that so large a percentage of the anarchist contingent of innumerable political demonstrations was rallied. At the same time, principally through the agency of the political punk fanzine, a plethora of new anarchist publications (of a wider variety of punk vernaculars, politics and styles) were produced and distributed through makeshift independent networks. The different communities of anarcho-punk produced a large array of tapes, singles and albums, and self-organised thousands of gigs at venues across the country. But political engagement was as central to the anarcho-punk idea as DIY cultural production. Rimbaud judged that: ‘most anarchist punks were just as happy tearing down the barbed wire fences of military bases as they might be going to a gig’.
Anarchism in the early years of Thatcherism
In the early 1980s, a shared agenda of opposition to the prescriptions of the Thatcher government proved sufficient to maintain the (albeit fragile and largely untested) unity of the reviving anarchist movement; or at least prevent a reoccurrence of the fractures of the 1970s. Anarchists of most hues could find common cause in the battles raging over cuts in the social wage, in opposition to increased powers for the police and court systems, and through joint struggles on other fronts. Despite the major differences in analysis as to the causes of the renewed nuclear arms race most anarchists could support the anti-militarist logic of the ‘peace movement’ (through the shared conviction that peace required not just the decommissioning of the nuclear arsenals but the dismantling of the ‘war state’ itself).
Although the nature of the underlying critiques again differed, anarchists from the syndicalist to the peace-punk wings of the movement shared a hostility to the politics and practice of the contemporary Bolshevik left in Britain. By virtue of on-the-ground political proximity, much critical attention was directed towards what were seen as the manipulative, self-serving ‘front organisations’ of the Trotskyite left in general, and of the Socialist Workers Party in particular: including the Right to Work campaign, Rock Against Racism and the Anti-Nazi League. Anarchists together opposed the party-building pre-occupations which were seen to drive them.
The short-lived London Anarchist Centre (August 1981-March 1982) based in the Docklands area of the capital provided another example of political cross-over between different wings of the movement, but put into sharp relief many of the tensions and conflicts which hampered efforts at collaboration. Start-up funds for the centre had been provided through a joint Crass and Poison Girls benefit single, but relations between the anarchist punks, the London Autonomists group and others remained fraught and, although the venue hosted many gigs and a number of political events, the centre closed within a year.
Division and disunity still afflicted sections of the anarchist movement, but the upturn in the current’s fortunes and the volatile political context of early Thatcherism continued to keep centrifugal pressures in check. At the large CND rallies in London in the early 1980s (such as the 250,000-strong march in October 1981) activists from around the country would gravitate together to form impromptu ‘anarchist blocks’, identifiable from afar by the black and black-and-red flags waving above them. To the frustration of march organisers (and many of the other marchers nearby) this anarchist contingent showed itself determined to barrack and heckle platform speakers from political parties and other organisations judged as antithetical to the anti-militarist struggle. By the time of the June 1982 rally, this assemblage of anarchists was subject to additional marshalling by a combination of police and CND stewards. Frustrated by the lockdown, a breakaway group of around 300 anarchists marched towards London’s Oxford Street where their demonstration was swamped by police and 48 arrests were made. A defence campaign rallied cross-movement support.
Joint efforts in shared arenas of struggle notwithstanding, key lines of political fracture still stressed the British anarchist milieu. The politics of contemporary anti-fascism were one such sharp dividing line. In the context of the resurgence of the National Front and other formations of the British far-right, large sections of the anarchist movement rallied around the long-standing ‘no platform’ policy, which sought to deny fascists the ability to organise in public. While some questioned whether the threat posed by the far-right merited the level of opposition many in the movement were prepared to commit to the anti-fascist struggle, others went further, arguing that the ‘the politics of anti-fascism’ were a disabling political cul-de-sac for the movement. Perhaps unexpectedly, anarcho-punk’s rejection of the prescriptions of the anti-fascists drew them into close alignment with that current on the class politics wing of the anarchist and left-communist movements which saw the ‘fascist threat’ as a chimera. What did distinguish the anarcho-punk approach was the willingness to accept the attendance at gigs of those who held far-right ideas with the aim of engaging with and challenging their worldview. This was allied with a philosophical rejection of the authoritarianism seen as inherent in the effort to silence (by law or by force) the opinions of others, however objectionable.
The riots which erupted in a number of British inner-cities in the summer of 1981 exposed again many long-standing disagreements amongst anarchists in the UK over the questions as diverse as: the interplay between class politics and questions of race and racism; the utility and legitimacy of recourse to political violence; and the issue of revolutionary strategy itself. Differences in the perception of the centrality of ‘the class struggle’ were also manifest, in the early 1980s, in the extent to which anarchist militants identified with those strikes in the public and private sector that were called to oppose the early efforts at the neoliberal restructuring of the economy attempted by the first Thatcher administration.
The Falklands War was a defining moment in the modern history of both Thatcherism and the British state, and for the anti-Thatcherite opposition. The iconography and rhetoric of CND and that of the ‘peace movement’ had, in the context of the early 1980s, appeared interchangeable. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament had made little effort to distinguish its narrower unilateralist nuclear remit. In the context of a ‘conventional war’ to reclaim British ‘sovereign territory’ in the South Atlantic, CND shed this duality and reasserted its anti-nuclear mission statement. It was a logical move, but one which hobbled independent opposition to the war and deprived a small but vociferous anti-Falklands War movement of any campaign structure or organisation. In the vacuum, anarcho- punk played an important contributory role in articulating anti-war and anti-militarist sentiment, outraging Tory politicians with blunt and ‘obscene’ anti-Falklands War singles (such as Crass’s excoriating How Does It Feel to Be the Mother of a Thousand Dead?) and public statements which led to ‘questions in the House’, and putative legal moves against the band.
New anarchist forces in the 1980s
Military victory in the South Atlantic transformed the electoral prospects of a Thatcher administration which had been beset with the problems of soaring unemployment, economic decline and domestic unrest. The resilience of Thatcherism after her second general election victory in 1983 accelerated the mood of pessimism and self-doubt across all ‘progressive’ forces in the UK. As the 1980s progressed, and in response to that deepening mood of despondency, the anarcho-punk movement became a more diverse and disaggregated force.
Poison Girls began concerted efforts to position the band as an artistic force within the independent sector of the music business, eschewing much of the didactic ‘baggage’ (as they now saw it) of their earlier practice, and restyling the band as ‘cultural saboteurs’, making forays into the territory of the commercial enemy. By contrast Crass, increasingly frustrated by what the band saw as their inability to respond effectively to the political challenges of the hour, came to see their rock’n’roll medium as increasingly unfit for purpose. Their musical releases and live performances became more intense, atonal and politically direct and shorn of the usual punk musical trappings. Anarcho-punk band Conflict were attracting attention from the music press for adopting a more consciously ‘street level’, confrontational anarchist punk method; one which set aside any associations with a hippy pre-history and which felt in no way bound by pacifist precepts. (Conflict would later collaborate with Class War on the 1986 anti-royal wedding single Better Dead than Wed).
While Poison Girls continued working until 1989, Crass ceased operations in 1984 (as the band had always pledged). In their first full statement on their dissolution Crass explained: ‘We felt no compulsion to continue gigging. We were no longer convinced that by simply providing what had broadly become entertainment we were having any real effect. We’d made our point and if after seven years people hadn’t taken it, it surely wasn’t because we hadn’t tried hard enough.’
Their disbandment signalled a key turning point in the history of the original anarcho-punk wave. Political differences within Crass over the band’s future political orientation had been growing for some time, and the winding up of the band meant that hard-fought debates over future strategy were left unresolved. Rimbaud suggested that the logic of the Crass’s later work was the advocacy of an increasingly clandestine campaign of unattributed actions by punk militants. The pronouncements of the 1984 You’re Already Dead single were not cast in orthodox class terms, but spoke clearly of the need to confront the entrenched power and military might of capitalism and state directly and (it was increasingly implied) through whichever uncompromising political actions were required. Speaking to Maximum rocknroll magazine in the autumn of 1983, Crass suggested that: ‘the class thing is gonna become central over the next five years. The struggle between the people as one class and the elite as another class’. It was though as anarcho-punk’s first wave began to peak that new agencies promoting revolutionary class-based anarchism again began to make the political running within the movement, exemplified by the group which coalesced around a new provocative tabloid.
Class War was a militant anarchist newspaper (and later organisation) originally set up by Ian Bone and other activists in 1983. The initiative had its origins in Swansea, Wales, developing out of the work of a group of activists who produced local paper The A larm , which focused on strong ‘community newspaper’ issues such as corruption within local government and invidious police practices. Bone suggests that the paper was distinguished by its willingness to ‘name names’ and print detailed evidence of its allegations (with little concern for the legal risks), and by its mischievous humourist style; approaches which would later find echoes in the pages of Class War.
After abortive experiments with standing Alarm candidates for the local council, and a short-lived involvement with the Welsh Socialist Republican Movement, Bone relocated to London. Bone approached the London Autonomists group and a decision was reached to produce a tabloid-style anarchist newspaper which would reach a wider audience, and be particularly aimed at young anarchists, including anarcho-punks.
From its first issue, the Class War newspaper displayed a strong affinity with punk sensibilities, but expressed these in the context of a tabloid style newspaper which revelled in the celebration of working-class violence against authority; combined humour, self-consciously outrageous text and imagery to celebrate assaults on the police; picket line violence; inner-city revolts; and to pour scorn on what it derided as the timidity of ‘middle-class left’.
As anarcho-punk had been able to do five years earlier, Class War seized the initiative and the notoriety of the movement. Class War ‘the paper’ only later became Class War ‘the organisation’, and throughout its lifespan, its numerical strength (initially, editors and networks of paper sellers; later, signed-up members) remained extremely small. Even at its height, the Class War Federation ‘never had more than 150 members’, with paper sales peaking at between 15–20,000 copies.
Class War organised a short series of ‘Bash the Rich’ marches (first in Kensington, then in Henley-on-Thames, and then finally in 1985 in Hampstead and then Bristol). These highly theatrical demonstrations of ‘class hatred’ (which saw the march led by a banner proclaiming ‘Behold your future executioners!’) met an increasingly uncompromising response from the authorities, with the final Hampstead event being completely swamped by a large police mobilisation. Although the pages of Class War lauded the success of the marches, others in the anarchist scene judged the marches as absurd and politically inept. Speaking the following year, Bone conceded: ‘I think most people in Class War would acknowledge that the ‘Bash the Rich’ marches were unsuccessful.’ Years later, Bone suggested that the Hampstead event: ‘was to prove a disastrous farce for Class War’, reinforced by the abortive last-gasp re-enactment in Bristol.
Just as the insurgency of anarcho-punk had not been universally welcomed by the existing anarchist movement, Class War’s arrival was also met by wary scepticism from some and outright opposition by others. Black Flag’s Meltzer suggested in his autobiography that the new paper: ‘came as a cultural shock ... to many older revolutionaries’, who were initially unsure ‘whether it was a one-off parody of anarchists’ or ‘a modern version of the caricature-sheet’, though he acknowledged that the group ‘quickly became the most popular anti-establishment youth grouping for years’. In contrast, one correspondent to Freedom reported the emergence of the group’s ‘crudely nihilist broadsheet’ with some alarm, concluding that the paper’s amoral advocacy of crude class violence meant its ideas had ‘more in common with Marxist dictatorship than with anarchy’.
Anarcho-punk had (collectively) resisted attempts to germinate formal organisation out of the subculture’s networks. Within three years of the paper’s launch, the majority view within Class War was to support the shift toward a new anarchist support structure. In 1986, supporters of the paper agreed to form the national Class War Federation in an attempt to place the production of Class War on a sounder footing; a move which heralded a minor split: ‘Some people could not accept the idea of such a degree of organisation and left’, the group later acknowledged.
At a conference in Manchester in 1990, a majority of the federation voted to become ‘a membership organisation, with membership fees, and a straightforward constitution’, effectively completing the evolution of Class War from an informal editorial collective to a more orthodox anarchist organisation. The March 1990 anti-poll tax riot in Trafalgar Square once again thrust all of the UK’s anarchist organisations into the limelight, as the British press began the obligatory post-riot hunt for the ‘outside agitators’ responsible for the violence. Amongst their peers Class War exploited the publicity opportunities this provided to greatest effect, with member Andy Murphy’s appearance on national television news to defend the ‘working-class heroes’ who battled with the police being reported internationally.
Despite such notoriety, the poll tax struggle would in retrospect prove to be a high water mark in the organisation’s influence — and its self-confidence. By the mid-1990s, the Class War Federation was finding the challenges of operating as a more traditional anarchist formation (and the longer-term limitations of the group’s simple political lexicon) increasingly problematic.
Self-critical voices inside the organisation gathered momentum, and at the organisation’s annual conference in Nottingham in 1997, Class War again split: the majority agreeing to dissolve the organisation, while a far smaller minority (based around the London group) determined to continue without the ‘quitters’. The Leeds editorial group announced that issue 73 of Class War would be the last ever, and focused on ‘an open letter to the revolutionary movement’ which would raise the question of potential political regroupment of class struggle anarchist forces. Announcing that ‘Class War is dead ... long live the class war’, the final issue’s editorial offered a political balance sheet of the organisation’s history concluding: ‘The Federation remains a tiny group with a big image that has outlived its usefulness. The appeal of our paper has become too narrow and limited’, and insisting that the time had come ‘to try something new.’ The London Class War minority fitfully produced editions of Class War for several years (announcing in its first issue that: ‘Just as the Labour Party had to get rid of its ‘militant’ tendency, we have got rid of our non-militant tendency’) before winding-up operations in the mid-2000s.
Other class struggle anarchist forces judged that although Class War had served a useful disruptive role, it no longer served a productive purpose. The Anarchist Federation praised the group for ‘helping the breakaway of serious class struggle anarchism from lifestylism and do-gooding liberalism, typified by the anti-nuclear movement of the time’, but criticised the Class War Federation for its flimsy political rubric and its organisational self-obsession. The short-lived Anarchist Workers Group (1988–92) declared more damningly: ‘Class War has ended up a mirror image of the pacifist ghetto it so despises: chaotic, disorganised and lacking politics and strategy, [and] firmly stuck in the ghetto of its own making.’
Conflict and continuity: Class War and anarcho-punk
Historian of anarchism Peter Marshall suggests that Class War’s style and method shared ‘some of the shock tactics and “fuck-off” graphics of punk’, but judges that ‘the similarity stops there.’ Yet although the two approaches (the anarchist punk and the class warrior) appear on first glance to be sharply defined dichotomies in the modern British anarchist tradition, the distinctions between the two are less pronounced, and the overlaps far greater, than many have acknowledged.
Although they wrestled with the dilemmas differently, both these anarchist currents celebrated the ‘otherness’ of oppositional culture in their different settings — Crass idealised the hippy experience of rejecting the existing social order, seeing its subversive potential reinvented in the punk counter-culture; Class War championed a very specific (and in its own way no less romanticised) reading of the incendiary elements of British working-class culture. Both of these readings of anarchism celebrated radical ‘moments’ as having values in themselves — in anarcho-punk, the thrill and excitement of gigs and other aspects of punk culture; for Class War, street ruckuses and clashes with the forces of law and order. Those actions were seen as having genuine (if temporary) liberating value in themselves, and also hinting at and anticipating the more seismic possibilities to come. In doing so both manifestations of the anarchist politic appealed and made their strongest pitch to a similar core audience — primarily the disaffected, urban young.
Both movements revelled in the idea of ‘saying the unsayable’, seeing great value in the deployment of shock and of being provocative and intentionally seeking to offend and outrage (and at the same time attract those intrigued by such provocations). The anarchism of both approaches shared a strong (and, at times, unconvincingly overstated) anti-intellectualism, which was refracted through the neglect of the established canon of nineteenth- and twentieth-century anarchist thought. Although both were keen to position their political efforts within a longer-term historical context (Crass and anarcho-punk, through a sense of affinity with the tradition of the counter-culture’s rejection of the power of the state; Class War, by association with the history of uncontrolled working-class resistance to authority, police and state) neither saw particular value in explicit identification with the anarchist heritage, in Britain or internationally.
Both currents shared a strong opposition to mediated forms of political representation — trade unions, political parties, and in particular a deep hostility to the organised far-left and to the interference of front organisations in the arena of political activism (although initially Crass, at least, were more supportive of those campaigning bodies and single-issue pressure groups which were not seen as driven by organisational fetishism). Genuine, empowering political action was, for both currents by definition, direct, autonomous and self-directed. But the particular culture and form of the anarchist punk milieu and that surrounding Class War made the brokering of alliances with other activist forces extremely difficult, reinforcing an isolating ‘otherness’.
The lack of clarity over strategy (and the absence of any clearly articulated sense of how this anarchist activity might, over time, be generalised into a combative revolutionary catalyst) had a number of repercussions; not least that it made it difficult to assess how political progress might be quantified, and increased the sense of frustration when these sketchily defined political advances were not forthcoming. Such uncertainties were reinforced by a reluctance within both currents to disentangle the degree of inform ed support for the substance of their political ideas from the (relative) popularity of the form and presentation of their political-cultural output.
Both Class War and the anarcho-punks shared a sense of uncertainty about questions of organisation and strategy — sharing a deep suspicion of formal organisation and fixed structures; and both inspired by an innate belief in the power of spontaneous initiatives that would thrive without alienating hierarchies. As both Class War and the militants of anarchist punk responded to the realities of the peaking of their own political experiments, they each struggled with the recognition that their circles of influence did not correlate directly with the popularity of their current’s cultural output. Crass had long been frustrated at how many punk enthusiasts who identified with the anarcho-punk canon appeared reluctant to put their ideas into practice and to move beyond the position of music fandom to political engagement. There was a sense that, amongst the movement’s ranks, there often appeared to be too many passive record collectors and too few engaged, self-directing militants. The editors of Class War appeared to lack similar self-reflective skills (and were far less self-critical of their publishing practice), appearing reluctant to accept that a significant proportion of the paper’s readership treated the paper as an ‘anarchist Viz’ rather than as an irreverent, hard-hitting political tabloid. The renovating majority of Class War reflected the difficulty that the organisation had faced in mobilising committed supporters, noting that while many believed the group had ‘thousands of people about to go on the streets and fight’, the reality was ‘that we are a group of super-active individuals who do it for them, an essentially passive readership’. Such problems seemed to typify the dangers set-out in Jo Freeman’s celebrated critique of anarchist disorganisation, The Tyranny of Structurelessness. The group belatedly suggested: ‘In many respects it’s true to say that Class War failed to become much more than a “punk” organisation.’
Despite these, often unacknowledged, instances of convergence, significant and irreconcilable differences between the two forms of anarchist practice persisted. Most fundamental was the disagreement on the question of revolutionary agency and the conduct of revolutionary action. Class War identified collective class conflict as the axis of the struggle against capitalism and the state. Anarcho-punk began with a belief that the individual is the agent of resistance to the compound tyrannies of the state, and that the maximisation of personal liberty is the cumulative guarantor of social freedom.
Class War’s account of privation and exploitation was grounded in a (fairly crude) material interpretation of class and class relations; Crass’s understanding of oppression and alienation extended beyond the narrowly material to propose philosophical, existential explorations of the idea of individual freedom. Class War embraced (and made definitional) the idea of the use of direct physical force (even in pre-insurrectionary conditions) while Crass’s message was (in the early years of the group’s work at least) one of militant pacifism. Although acts of material sabotage and the destruction of the property of the ‘war state’ were exempted, Crass expressed philosophical concerns about the impact on the individual psyche of a recourse to violence, and on the social level of the corrupting authoritarianism of Blanquism.
There were sharp differences too over the question of the agency of the revolutionary ‘organisation’ itself. Although acutely aware of their prominence within the scene Crass, Poison Girls and other anarchist punk bands were reluctant to have their message ‘branded’, and actively resistant to the efforts of others to profit from the commercial exploitation of their work and popularity. In contrast, the organisers of Class War seized every opportunity to promote the paper and the organisation’s brand, producing and selling the type of self-promoting merchandise that was anathema within anarcho-punk.
Class War’s public position was that its paper and organisation represented the single legitimate expression of contemporary British anarchism, and the paper rarely acknowledged the existence of other anarchist currents. Crass and other anarcho-punk artists tended to have a much more open and expansive (not to say generous and inclusive) sense of the wider anarchist movement, and to groups and campaigns beyond it (many of which Class War would have dismissed as irrelevant or even counter-revolutionary).
Impacts and legacies
By the time of the 1984–85 miners’ strike, the British anarchist movement was in a more vital and dynamic condition than it had been a decade before. Its numerical strength had been much improved; its press was stronger and more visible; its ability to mobilise its forces again proven; and its orientation to contemporary political concerns reinforced.
Although the bands that were together the catalysts for anarcho-punk did not set out to re-energise the British anarchist m ovem ent (their interest was in the vitality of British anarchism), anarcho-punk brought in a renewed sense of dynamism and (in relative terms) a major influx of enthused young militants, raising the formal anarchist movement from its doldrums, and proposed radical new counter-cultural practices. Crass founder-member Rimbaud has claimed that the intervention of anarcho-punk ‘changed the minds of a generation’. That claim is hyperbole, but within the radical milieu the impacts of anarchist punk culture, politics and practice were significant and far reaching.
Class War reasserted the primacy of uncompromising class politics in the making of the anarchist case, and again reinvigorated the anarchist movement with a brash new sense of confidence. As Class War faltered, new anarchist organisations advanced — notable amongst them the Anarchist Communist Federation (ACF), which offered a more considered and theoretically grounded articulation of the anarchist class war impulse; based on a specific ‘anarchist-communist’ identity: ‘the term anarchist has often been misused: ‘anarchist’ can range from the hedonistic individual to the naïve pacifist. We felt the need to define ourselves in stricter terms’. In terms of existing class-based anarchist alternatives, the ACF later explained: ‘The objections to anarcho-syndicalism which would become more defined in the following years, precluded us joining DAM. Whilst we welcomed the imaginative approach of Class War, we saw that they lacked a strategy for the construction of a coherent national organisation and for the development of theory.’ The group, which retitled itself the Anarchist Federation in the late 1990s, later suggested its efforts were largely discontinuous with earlier anarchist initiatives in the UK: ‘Although there is some historic continuity with earlier anarchist groups in Britain, the federation was mainly a new phenomenon, drawing on people new to anarchism in the 1980s.’ This was yet another ‘restorative’ claim by an emergent British anarchist agency.
By the close of the decade, the cyclical nature of British anarchism’s advance and retreat appeared to be reconfirmed. Neither the anarcho-punk experiment nor the Class War dalliance with unreconstructed ‘class politics of the mob’ had settled the key questions facing the movement. The issues of organisation, practice, alliance formation, the relationship between reform and revolutionary ambition, resilience, flexibility and more — none of these had been decisively resolved.
The mid-1980s to the mid-1990s were a period in which class politics remained resurgent within British anarchism, even as the recuperative perspectives of Class War unravelled. New forms of mobilisation which came to the fore after the anti-globalisation protests in Seattle in 1999 (such as Reclaim the Streets, anti-roads protests, Earth First! and more recently the world-wide Occupy! initiative) have evoked more echoes of the activist-centred anarchist punk practice than the orthodox class perspectives of 1970s. These new radical libertarian initiatives and forms of organisations have posed new answers to the questions of agency, strategy and to the challenges of combining political autonomy with the ability to mobilise credible coalitions.
In many of these struggles the ‘revolutionary subject’ has been the voluntary collation of self-motivated, self-directed militants rather than an insurgent proletariat. Class struggle anarchist organisations in Britain have not responded to the emergence of such new radical forces with the hubris of dismissal which would have been commonplace in the 1980s. Indeed, these struggles have often been supported as authentic expressions of resistance to capital being waged in arenas beyond the community and workplace, by legitimate anti-capitalist forces. Although it was not the intention of either, perhaps the contemporary outcome of the ‘restorative’ political efforts of the agents of Class War and of anarcho-punk has been to contribute to the convergence of an anarchist politic able to see value in the battles being fought in both the counter-cultural and the class wars.
 G. Woodcock. ‘Anarchism: A historical introduction’, in G. Woodcock (ed.), The Anarchist Reader (Glasgow: Fontana, 1977), pp. 11–56 at p. 49.
 See, for example, V. Richards, Protest without Illusions (London: Freedom Press, 1981); R. Bradshaw, D Gould and C. Jones (eds), From Protest to Resistance: The Direct Action Movement against Nuclear Weapons (Nottingham: Mushroom, 1981); G. Woodcock, ‘Anarchism’, pp. 50–1.
 Anon, ‘The Spies for Peace and after’, The Raven: Anarchist Quarterly, 2, 1 (1988), pp. 61–96.
 B. Franks, Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of Contemporary British Anarchisms (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2006), pp. 49–70; P. Shipley, ‘The Libertarian Alternative’, in Revolutionaries in Modern Britain (London: Bodley Head, 1976), pp. 172–206.
 G. Foote, ‘Building the Revolutionary Party?’, Libertarian Communist Review, 1, winter (1974), flag.blackened.net, accessed 17 December 2013; M . Curtis and H. Stone, ‘A Short History of the Libertarian Communist Group’.
 AWA, ‘Aims and Principles’, Anarchist Worker, July (1977), p. 7.
 Editorial Collective, ‘What’s in a Name? Why We’re Changing’, Anarchist Worker, October (1977), p. 2; M . Curtis and H. Stone, ‘A Short History of the Libertarian Communist Group’.
 ‘Build This New Paper’, Libertarian Communist, January-February (1978), p. 4.
 ‘Libertarian Communist Group [LCG] (Groups Who joined Big Flame No. 2)’, Big Flame, 1970–1984, 3 December (2010), bigflameuk.wordpress.com, accessed 17 December 2013; B. Franks, Rebel Alliances, p. 74.
 Direct Action Movement and International Workers’ Association, Anarcho-Syndicalism: History and Action (Manchester: DAM, n.d., but circa 1980), pp. 20–1.
 Direct Action Movement, ‘Introduction to Syndicalism’, Direct Action , 4 (n.d.), pp. 6–7.
 See, A. Meltzer, I Couldn’t Paint Golden Angels: Sixty Years of Common place Life and Anarchist Organisation (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1996); S. Christie, Granny Made Me an Anarchist: General Franco, the Angry Brigade and Me (London: Scribner, 2004).
 S. Christie and A. Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy (London: Stanmore Press, 1970), back cover; passim.
 For histories of the band’s work, see: Crass, A Series of Shock Slogans and Mindless Token Tantrums (London: Exitstencil Press, 1982); G. McKay, ‘Crass 621984 ANOK4U2’, in G. McKay, Senseless Acts of Beauty: Cultures of Resistance since the Sixties (London: Verso, 1996), pp. 73–101; P. Rimbaud, Shibboleth (Edinburgh: AK Press, 1998); G. Vaucher, Crass Art and Other Pre Post-modern Monsters (San Francisco: AK Press, 1999); R. Cross, ‘“The Hippies Now Wear Black”: Crass and the Anarcho-punk Movement, 1977–1984’, Socialist History, 26 (2004), pp. 2 5 -4 4 ; B. Cogan, ‘“Do they Owe Us a Living? Of Course They Do!”: Crass, Throbbing Gristle, and Anarchy and Radicalism in Early English Punk Rock’, Journal for the Study of Radicalism, 1, 2 (2007), pp. 77 -9 0 ; G. Berger, The Story of Crass (Oakland: PM Press, 2009); S. Ignorant and S. Pottinger, The Rest Is Propaganda (London: Southern Records, 2010); A. Bandez, You Can’t Sing the Blues While Drinking Milk (Coventry: Tin Angel, 2012).
 The history of Poison Girls has been only sparsely written to date. Key articles from the contemporary music press include: P. Du Noyer, ‘Passion and Poison’, New Musical Express, 17 October 1981, p. 17.
 P. Rimbaud, ‘Introduction’, in P. Rimbaud, The Last of the Hippies: An Hysterical Romance (London: Active Distribution, 2009), pp. vii-xxi at vii-viii.
 See, for example, the approaches outlined in: Crass, A Series of Shock Slogans and Mindless Token Tantrums.
 For an appraisal of the practice of contemporary ‘DIY culture’, see A. Spencer, DIY: The Rise of Lo-fi Culture (London: Marion Boyars, 2005); for a discussion of the struggle for independence by independent punk record labels, see: A. O ’Connor. Punk Record Labels and the Struggle for Autonomy: The Emergence of DIY (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008).
 For a collection of participant accounts of their involvement in anarcho-punk culture in the UK, see I. Glasper (ed.), The Day the Country Died: A History of Anarcho-punk, 1980–1984 (London: Cherry Red Books, 2006); R. Wallace (dir.), The Day the Country Died — the DVD (London: Cherry Red Films, 2006).
 B. Franks, Rebel Alliances, pp. 71–4.
 See the discussion in R. Cross, ‘“There Is No Authority But Yourself”: The Individual and the Collective in British Anarcho-punk’, Music & Politics, 4, 2 (2010), pp. 1–20; K. Dunn, ‘Anarcho-punk and Resistance in Everyday Life’, Punk & Post-Punk, 1, 2 (2012), pp. 201–18.
 P. Rimbaud, ‘Introduction’, p. ix.
 A. Martin. ‘Autonomy Centres, Riots and the Big Rammy’, Smile 12, (1994); G. Berger, The Story of Crass, pp. 191–3; P. Rimbaud, Shibboleth, pp. 121–4.
 ‘Anarchists Attacked’, Freedom , 12 June 1982, pp. 1–2.
 R. Cross, ‘“There Is No Authority But Yourself”’, pp. 1, 14–15.
 Crass, ‘In Which Crass Voluntarily Blow Their Own’, republished in Black Flag, 28 April 1986, pp. 4–5.
 R. Schwartz (interviewer), ‘Crass’, Maximum rock n roll, 9, October-November (1983).
 B. Franks, Rebel Allian ces, p. 75; Class War, This Is Class War: An Introduction to the Class War Federation (Stirling: AK Press, 1989); for I. Bone’s own account of Class W ar’s history, see I. Bone, Bash the Rich: True-life Confessions of an Anarchist in the UK (Bath: Tangent Books, 2006).
 A. Brown (interviewer), ‘Sound and Fury’, Solidarity, 13 (1986), pp. 10–13.
 A. Murphy. ‘Class War: A Serious Business’, The Heavy Stuff, 1, December (1987), pp. 4–10.
 See I. Bone, A. Pullen and T. Scargill (eds), Class War: A Decade of Disorder (London: Verso, 1991); Class War Federation, Unfinished Business: The Politics of Class War (Stirling: AK Press, 1992); and I. Bone, Bash the Rich.
 B. Franks, Rebel Alliances, p. 78; Bone, Bash the Rich, p. 177.
 A. Brown (interviewer), ‘Solidarity and Class War Meet Uptown’, p. 4.
 I. Bone, Bash the Rich , p. 262.
 A. Meltzer, I Couldn’t Paint Golden Angels, pp. 338–40.
 D. Isiorho, ‘Class War’, Freedom , 30 July 1983, p. 5.
 Class War, This Is Class War, p. 8; A. Brown (interviewer), ‘Solidarity and Class War meet uptown’, p. 6.
 Class War, This Is Class War, p. 8.
 An off-air recording of the interview with Murphy is included in the anonymously produced documentary The Poll Tax Revolt which was widely circulated amongst protest groups (in VHS format) in the early 1990s.
 Class War, ‘Class War Is Dead ... Long Live the Class War’, Class War, 73 (1997), p. 2.
 Class War (London), ‘Editorial’, Class War, 74 (1997), p. 2.
 Anarchist Communist Federation, ‘Revolution: An Unfinished Business’, Organise!, 47 (1997), pp. 7 -8 at p. 8.
 Anarchist Workers Group, ‘Anarchism in the Thatcher Years’, Socialism from Below , 1, August (1989), pp. 6–11 at p. 8. With its origins in the Direct Action Movement, the founders of the AWG ‘broke’ with anarcho-syndicalism and positioned the group in the tradition of the anarchist Platform (based on the 1926 Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft) written by Russian anarchists determined to counter the ‘swamp of disorganisation’ and the ‘interminable vacillations on the most important questions of theory and tactics’ within the international movement, and establish a more tightly defined degree of political and organisational rigour). The AWG’s ‘recuperative’ efforts found little echo within the British anarchist movement (where its reading of the Platform proved contentious even amongst those in the milieu sympathetic to its perspectives) and it soon disintegrated in disagreement. A number of founding members joined Trotskyist organisations; echoing in many ways the trajectory seen in the history of the Anarchist Workers Association and Libertarian Communist Group a decade earlier.
 P. Marshall, Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism (London: Harper Perennial, 2008), p. 494.
 Class War, ‘The Second Coming: An Open Letter to Revolutionaries’, Class War, 73 (1997), pp. 3–9 at p. 8.
 First published as Jo Freeman, ‘The Tyranny of Structurelessness’, The Second Wave, 2, 1 (1972), available (in revised form), www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm, accessed 17 December 2013.
 Class War, ‘The Second Coming: An Open Letter to Revolutionaries’, C lass War, 73, p. 8.
 Anarchist Communist Federation, A n archism as W e See it (London: ACF, n.d., but circa 1987), p. 21.
 Anarchist Communist Federation, ‘ACF: The First Ten Years’, Organise! , 42, Spring (1996), pp. 19–20 at p. 19.
 Anarchist Federation, ‘The Anarchist Federation: In Thought and Struggle’, Organise!, 78 (2012), pp. 7–11. ‘In the late 90s we changed our name to the Anarchist Federation, not because we had changed our politics, but for pragmatic reasons.’


text:
Strongly influenced by his father, Paul Wolfowitz became "a soft-spoken former aspiring-mathematician-turned-policymaker ... were forged by family history and in the halls of academia rather than in the jungles of Vietnam or the corridors of Congress ... They married in 1968, had three children and lived in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Against his father's wishes, Wolfowitz decided to go to graduate school to study political science. At the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz took two courses with Leo Strauss, who James Mann argues influenced Wolfowitz's thinking and his belief in democratic ideals.They separated in 1999, and, according to some sources, became legally separated in 2001 and divorced in 2002. He completed his dissertation under Albert Wohlstetter.
According to Mann, "The underlying issue was whether the C. Based on the recommendation of Perle, Pipes picked Wolfowitz for this committee, which was later called Team B.
In the 1970s, Wolfowitz and Perle served as aides to proto-neoconservative Democratic Senator Henry M. A Cold War liberal, Jackson supported higher military spending and a hard line against the Soviet Union alongside more traditional Democratic causes, such as social welfare programs, civil rights, and labor unions.
In 1972, US President Richard Nixon, under pressure from Senator Jackson, dismissed the head of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and replaced him with Fred Ikle.
Wolfowitz was a member of the Quill and Dagger society. In the summer of 1969, Wohlstetter arranged for Wolfowitz, Perle and Peter Wilson to join the Committee to Maintain a Prudent Defense Policy which was set up by Cold War architects Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson.
While finishing his dissertation, Wolfowitz taught in the department of political science at Yale University from 1970 to 1972; one of his students was future colleague Scooter Libby.

domain: politics


text:
Michael R Vissers
Physicist, NIST; Materials Focus Area Team Member, SQMS
Areas of Expertise: Condensed Matter Physics, Quantum Devices, Microwave Engineering
Thrust: Technology, Science
Dr. Michael Vissers has spent more than a decade working on the design fabrication and characterization of superconducting devices. These devices have been used as superconducting detectors for astronomy, parametric amplifiers and other non-linear devices and superconducting qubits. He is a member of the Quantum Sensors group at NIST.

domain: design


text:
I opened the front door on December 31 and let 2021 walk out of my life. What was done was done (or left undone), but what is left to do needs the freedom to get started. I need to get started. Saturday morning, January 1, 2022, I opened the door and invited the new year in. I’m ready to move forward. I’m ready to focus. I’m ready to share what I know and inspire you to attack your writing with passion.
Two Steps to Making Progress with Your Writing Projects
#1 – EVALUATING YOUR PAST EFFORTS
In order to set goals, it is important to examine your past efforts.
What projects are sitting unfinished in that WIP box? What projects are awaiting a query? What stories are spinning in your brain waiting to be recorded?
Why have you not finished that WIP? Why haven’t you written that query? Why haven’t you recorded at least the premise of the stories spinning in your brain?
When are you going to get started? When are you going to progress with your writing?
But probably the most important question to answer: If not you, who will tell the stories only you can tell? Who can write the articles only you can write?
I sat for the better part of December 2021 evaluating my past efforts to publish my writing and attempted to figure out why I felt like I had mostly failed.
I have only a ONE-word answer: RESISTANCE!
Resistance and Frances Greenslade’s words: “Failure to plan is planning to fail.”
But it is more than resistance and failing to plan. It is the fear of . . . (go ahead and finish the statement). It’s the fear of failure; the fear of criticism; the fear of judgment; the fear of success. I could go on indefinitely.
#2 – PLAN AND RECORD YOUR PROGRESS
I taught high school. I have taken courses in planning curriculum for units and semesters. When I retired, however, I moved willy-nilly into a writing career. I remember my answer when coworkers asked what I would do with all my free time.
I had been squeezing my writing into the five minutes between classes when I could, during my lunch breaks, and late at night after the curriculum planning and grading had been completed. Unfortunately, I threw all that organization and planning out the window. I had all day to write. Why plan?
It has taken me the better part of seven and a half years to realize the cost of failing to plan as well as the cost of failing to record my progress as a writer.
After writing mostly morning pages for much of the second half of 2021, my passion and stories have gotten the best of me, and I sat down in December and wrote down goals and steps that focus on how to reach that goal.

domain: literature


The iPhone 12 Pro starts at 999 US dollars and the iPhone 12 Pro Max starts at 1,099 US dollars. While the two phones share most of the features in common, there are actually a number of differences between the devices in addition to screen size. Our guide shows the differences between the iPhone 12 Pro and the 12 Pro Max and helps answer the question of how to decide which of these two iPhones is best for you.
Comparison of the iPhone 12 Pro and the iPhone 12 Pro max
The iPhone 12 Pro and the iPhone 12 Pro Max have practically all important functions in common. Both phones have the same OLED Super Retina XDR display technology, an A14 Bionic processor, 5G connectivity, a “Pro” camera setup with 12 MP ultra wide, wide and telephoto lenses and a LiDAR scanner and are in the same Colors available. What is more interesting is where the two devices differ.
Phone 12 Pro
- 6.1-inch OLED Super Retina XDR display with a resolution of 2532 x 1170 pixels
- Telephoto lens with ƒ / 2.0 aperture
- 2x optical enlargement, 2x optical reduction; 4x optical zoom range
- Digital zoom up to 10x
- Double optical image stabilization
- Battery life with 17 hours of video playback
- Weight of 6.66 ounces (189 grams)
- $ 999, $ 1099, $ 1299 for 128GB / 256GB / 512GB
IPhone 12 pro max
- 6.7-inch OLED Super Retina XDR display with a resolution of 2778 x 1284 pixels
- Telephoto lens with aperture ƒ / 2.2
- 2.5x optical enlargement, 2x optical reduction; 5x optical zoom range
- Digital zoom up to 12x
- Optical image stabilization with sensor shift
- Battery life with 20 hours of video playback
- Weight of 8.03 ounces (228 grams)
- $ 1099, $ 1199, $ 1399 for 128GB / 256GB / 512GB
Aside from the physical size, Apple has added a few more camera improvements to the Max. Read on to take a closer look at each of these aspects and see exactly where the iPhone 12 Pro stands out from its bigger sibling.
The most noticeable difference between the iPhone 12 Pro and the iPhone 12 Pro Max is the screen size. The iPhone 12 Pro is 6.1 inches and the 12 Pro Max is 6.7 inches. This means that the larger phone can display more content, with app UI elements being further apart and elements like the keyboard being much larger. However, the smaller phone is much easier to pocket and is easy to use with one hand.
IPhone 12 mini vs 12 Pro vs 12 Pro Maximum screen size in Xcode.
You can find the MacRumors ad-free subscription here.
The displays themselves use exactly the same technologies and have the same functions. The main reason for preferring the hiPhone 12 Pro, however, lies in its better fit in the hand and easier one-hand operation. Likewise, those who prefer a larger display, to the point that it can cannibalize the 7.9-inch iPad mini, clearly prefer the iPhone 12 Pro Max.
Dimensions and weight
As a smaller phone, the iPhone 12 Pro obviously has a smaller height and width than the iPhone 12 Pro max. The iPhone 12 Pro is 14.1 mm shorter and 6.6 mm narrower than the iPhone 12 Pro max. However, both phones are the same thickness of 7.4mm. The iPhone 12 Pro is only 189 grams (1.66 ounces in total) 39 grams lighter than its larger counterpart.
The camera is another important area for the separation between devices. The two iPhones have very similar rear camera arrays with three 12-megapixel cameras, including an Ultra Wide, Wide and Telephoto and a LiDAR scanner, and many of the same software features like Smart HDR 3, Night Mode, Deep Fusion, and Apple ProRAW . However, the larger size of the 12 Pro Max allowed Apple to add three additional camera features.
The wide-angle camera of the iPhone 12 Pro Max has a 47 percent larger sensor with larger pixels, which lets in much more light than the wide-angle camera of the iPhone 12. Photos taken with the iPhone 12 Pro Max in low light conditions are 87 percent better, according to Apple, because the pictures also have more details and better colors.
The telephoto lens of the iPhone 12 Pro has an aperture of f / 2.0, while the telephoto lens of the iPhone 12 Pro Max has an aperture of f / 2.2. However, the iPhone 12 Pro Max has a focal length of 65 mm and a superior 2.5x zoom lens to the 52 mm focal length and the 2x zoom lens in the iPhone 12 Pro, which enables a 5x optical zoom range .
The iPhone 12 Pro Max has optical image stabilization with sensor shift on its wide-angle lens instead of optical image stabilization with lens shift. This means that the camera sensor moves to counteract camera shake, not the lens. The result is improved optical image stabilization.
Increased magnification, better low-light performance, and optical image stabilization with sensor shift are notable, if not particularly groundbreaking, improvements to the camera. However, if you use your iPhone frequently for photography and videography, then the advances made on the 12 Pro Max will likely be appreciated.
The iPhone 12 Pro and the 12 Pro Max also differ in terms of battery life. According to Apple, the iPhone 12 Pro can deliver up to 17 hours of video playback. However, since the iPhone 12 Pro Max is much larger, it can hold a larger battery and therefore offers longer battery life. This means that the iPhone 12 Pro Max can reportedly deliver up to 20 hours of video playback. The actual battery life of both devices is likely to be less than Apple estimates, as mixed usage tends to be a little heavier than video playback alone.
If battery life is your priority, the iPhone 12 Pro Max offers the best possible battery life in an iPhone. If you choose the iPhone 12 Pro, it will have adequate battery life, but it will not match the performance of the 12 Pro Max.
Other iPhone options
If the iPhone 12 Pro is outside of your comfortable spending range starting at $ 999, then you should definitely consider the cheaper counterpart, the iPhone 12 ($ 799 / $ 829) or even the iPhone 11 ($ 599) .
The most obvious decision point between the “iPhone 12 Pro” and the “iPhone 12 Pro Max” is the screen size. The camera extensions of the iPhone 12 Pro Max also make it the best iPhone for photography and videography. Heavy battery users will also appreciate the additional capacity.
The iPhone 12 Pro Max offers the best that you can get out of an iPhone in all areas. However, this is not necessarily a worthwhile purchase for all users. A large 6.7 inch phone is not for everyone. Some might think the iPhone 12 Pro Max is too big or uncomfortably large, while others love the larger display for media consumption.
Screen size is ultimately a matter of personal preference, and Apple offers the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro lines in three different sizes to meet the needs of all users. Since the iPhone 12 Pro and the iPhone 12 Pro Max have almost all functions in common, with the exception of some camera hardware, it depends on individual taste. The additional $ 100 price tag seems like a fair trade for the added size, battery life, and camera features.
These were the details of the news iPhone 12 Pro vs. iPhone 12 Pro Max Buying Guide for this day. We hope that we have succeeded by giving you the full details and information. To follow all our news, you can subscribe to the alerts system or to one of our different systems to provide you with all that is new.
It is also worth noting that the original news has been published and is available at de24.news and the editorial team at AlKhaleej Today has confirmed it and it has been modified, and it may have been completely transferred or quoted from it and you can read and follow this news from its main source.


text:
The center brake light, sometimes referred to as the third brake light or stoplight, on your 2008 Dodge Charger lights up when you hit the brake pedal and helps prevent you from being rear ended by the cars behind you. See how to change the center brake light (CBL) on your Dodge Charger in the video above. Be careful not to touch the bulb directly with your fingers when you replace the center brake light bulb on your Charger, touching the bulb causes the it to burn out quicker.
A burnt out center brake light bulb in your Charger is an excuse for a police officer to pull you over. Check your bulbs frequently and change burnt bulbs promptly.
Browse our page and choose from the best 2008 Dodge Charger Headlights available on the market. At AutoLightPros we take great pride in offering superior Headlights that match the performance style and durability of your 2008 Dodge Charger. We are a company of car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts and we are passionate about helping you enhance the look feel and handling of your 2008 Dodge Charger. Moreover all our Headlights are guaranteed to have the proper fitment so you never have to worry about products once they have been shipped to you. We are confident that you can shop around our page and find exactly what you are looking for. Do not hesitate to contact us if you any have any questions!
2006 Dodge Charger taillight blackouts.
2007 Dodge Charger taillight blackouts.
2008 Dodge Charger taillight blackouts.
The GTS Dodge Charger taillight covers, also known as taillight blackouts, are the perfect matchup for the GTS Dodge Charger headlight blackout covers.
Easy installation with no tools required.
Easily removeable for cleaning.
Sold as a set of 2 Dodge Charger taillight blackout covers.
The GTS decals are usually not included with the covers as they are for product marketing identification only.
Note: Will not fit 2009 and newer Charger models.
Scroll the applications box to find your Dodge Charger taillight covers blackouts.

domain: hobby


BD Accuri C6 flow cytometers, BD CFlow® Software and Workstation PC supply all the capabilities of a full-featured flow cytometer at an affordable price. The system includes blue and red lasers, four color detectors, and both forward and side scatter detectors plus software that is so intuitive that you will typically be up and running within an hour of receiving your BD Accuri system.
FORUMSView All (1)
6 years ago
My BD Accuri C6 displays the message- refill sheath fluid- while the tank is almost full?
Takes more than usual time to analyze samples?
any hints? what is the problem?
DOCUMENTS / MANUALSView All
Decade dynamic range: The totally digital C6 Flow Cytometer has state-of-the-art electronics that make it possible to simultaneously collect 16 million channels of digital data.
Optical bench needs no alignment: The C6 optical bench is compact and employs components that have evolved to be smaller, more robust, and less expensive.
Fluidics control: The C6 uses a unique low-pressure pumping system to drives fluidics as opposed to more expensive pressurized systems.
Maintenance made simple: The C6 automatically runs Decontamination fluids through the fluidics lines and then replaces it with sheath upon instrument shutdown.
Works with current protocols and reagents: Accuri developed the C6 to use the same reagents you currently use on the market-leading cytometers.
FCS 3.0 compatible file format
Low power usage: The C6 Flow Cytometer operates on a low power, universal power supply (100-240V, 50-60Hz).
- Excitation: 488nm (rated at 20,000hr life) 640nm (rated at 20,000hr life)
- Laser profile: 15 x 75 microns
- Scatter detection: Forward (0 degrees, +/-15) Side (90 degrees, +/-15)
- Emission detection:4 colors, user swappable optical filters
- Standard set installed: FL1 530 / 30nm (FITC/GFP)
FL2 585 / 40nm (PE/PI)
FL3 >670nm (PE-Cy5, PE-Cy5.5, PerCP-Cy5.5,PE-Cy5, PE-Cy7)
FL4 675 / 25nm (APC)
- Optical alignment: Fixed alignment, no maintenance required
- Flow cell: 200 micron ID quartz
- Minimum particle size: 1 µm
- Minimum sample size: 30 µl
- Nominal flow rate - variable:10 to 100 µl/min ; CFlow Plus only
- Fixed Flow Rates & Core Sizes:
Slow - (Flow = 14uL/min ; Core = 10 um)
Medium - (Flow = 35uL/mim ; Core = 16 um)
Fast - (Flow = 66 uL/min ; Core = 22 um)
- Recommended Sheath Fluid: 0.2 um filtered DI water
- Core diameter: User selectable from 5 to 40 microns, CFlow Plus Only
- Florescence sensitivity: <750 MESF FITC
- Scatter resolution: Resolves human peripheral blood erythrocytes, lymphocytes, monocytes & granulocytes
- Fluorescence linearity:]2+/-0.05% for chick erythrocyte nuclei (CEN)
- Fluorescence precision:<3% CV for CEN
- Speed: 10,000 events/second maximum
- Absolute counts: Yes; CFlow Plus only
- Warm-up time:Less than 5 minutes
- Power: 70 Watts maximum, 100-240 VAC, 50/60 Hz
- Heat output: 240 Btu/hour maximum output
- Operating ranges: 15-30°C; <80% relative humidity
- Instrument size:11"H x 14.3"W x 16.5"D (27.9 x 36.3 x 41.9 cm)Foot print with fluid tanks 17.3"W x 16.3"D (43.9 x 41.4 cm)
- Weight: 30 lbs (13.6 kg)
- Fluid tank capacity: 1L Sheath Fluid, 1L Waste250mL Cleaner, 250mL Decontamination
- Signal processing:24-bit A/D conversion
- Computer: 17" (14.5 cm) flat-panel monitor2GB memory
- Computer interface: USB 2.0


text:
A Washington Post story on Thursday completely contradicts widespread mainstream media cynicism about the deal reached with Mexico to limit migration from its southern border under threat of tariffs.
View co-host Sunny Hostin once again showed just how blindly partisan she is on Tuesday’s show, arguing that anyone who agrees with Trump’s border wall is a racist bigot against “brown people.”
If you didn’t know the New York Times was in the tank for amnesty, Sunday’s stories would prove it. Reporter Jeremy Peters laid on a family guilt trip by strongly hinting that Sen. Marco Rubio was a hypocrite on immigration because of how his grandfather got to America: “Rubio’s Policies Might Shut the Door to People Like His Grandfather.” Turning to the New York Times Magazine, there was the 9,000-word cover story, “10 Shots Across the Border -- This Is The Wall Where A Mexican Teenagers Was Killed By A U.S. Agent Firing Through The Fence. Is the Border Patrol Out Of Control?” Gee, what do you think, New York Times? At the back of the magazine, Democratic activist Ana Marie Cox spoke to amnesty activist and Univision newscaster Jorge Ramos for the back of the magazine’s Talk page.
As of 2 PM ET, various searches at the national web site of the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press (on "furious"; on "Univision"), Reuters ("furious"; "fast and furious"; "univision"), and United Press International ("furious"; "Univision") indicate that the three wire services have given no coverage to reports from Univision exposing the wider geographic scope and far more fatal fallout of the deliberately untrackable guns-to-cartels operation known as Fast and Furious.
I wonder how the leading U.S. Spanish network's broadcasters and audience feel about getting the same treatment the establishment press gives center-right blogs? (A lengthy yet partial transcript of Univision's broadcast with details which will shock all but those who have immersed themselves in the evolving scandal follows the jump.)
MSNBC's prime-time "town hall" on immigration reform yesterday exemplified one of the more unseemly elements of media bias: brazen political advocacy disguised as an "honest conversation."
Attempting to pass itself off as a forum for voices on all sides of the immigration issue to elevate the dialogue, "Beyond Borderlines" featured droves of liberal guests who dismissed, admonished, and overwhelmed only token conservative opposition.
From the outset of the program, conservative guests were disadvantaged and drowned out. The "conversation," which touched on a wide-range of issues related to immigration reform, was steered by hosts Lawrence O'Donnell, who is a self-described socialist, and Maria Teresa Kumar, who is executive director of Voto Latino, a liberal immigration reform group.
Mike Cutler, one of the few guests who offered a contrasting perspective on the issue, was repeatedly attacked by Kumar, who oscillated between the conflicting roles of questioner and answerer, and the other panelists.
Contributing to Time Magazine's 2009 "Time 100" list, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. sucked up to Mexican media mogul Carlos Slim (who has coincidentally purchased 6% of NYT Co. shares and lent the company $250 million recently). After acknowledging Slim's investment in NYT Co., Sulzberger gushed:
Carlos, a very shrewd businessman with an appreciation for great brands, showed a deep understanding of the role that news, information and education play in our interconnected global society....As he spoke at our meeting, he conveyed the quiet but fierce confidence that has enabled him to have a profound and lasting effect on millions of individuals in Mexico and neighboring countries. Carlos knows very well how much one person with courage, determination and vision can achieve.
Geez. That slobbering is quite a change from the paper's attitude toward Slim less than two years ago, when Eduardo Porter labeled the Mexican mogul a thief and robber baron in an August 2007 editorial:
U.S. hostility to amnesty for illegal immigrants from Mexico is not only hurting illegals here, but crippling poor Mexicans in Mexico as well. So says the New York Times, taking its talking points from a survey performed by a pollster.
To be precise, a Democratic pollster who studies Hispanic voting trends for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- a tidbit that didn't get into reporter Julia Preston's sympathetic story on Mexican immigrants no longer sending cash home because of a hostile climate in the U.S.
In the first sentence, Mark Stevenson of the Associated Press says the liberal candidate for Mexican president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is used to being cheated out of elections. Since the conservative candidate, Felipe Calderon, has been announced the winner, liberals/the media have a ready fallback position, the same used against Bush: "He stole the election."
Representatives from Fox News, CNN, and the BBC were told that broadcasting opinion surveys about Mexico's upcoming election eight days before the voting was forbidden. They are also banned from analyzing the candidates' weaknesses and reporting on campaign activities.
CNN and BBC both have separate feeds from the one shown in America (No Lou Dobbs en Español), so they have no problem complying with the rules. Fox News has only one feed, and would have to alter its entire programming.
In the border town of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico (Laredo is on the U.S. side across the Rio Grande) two state police were shot by border smugglers in the town close to the crucial I-35 corridor that goes from Mexico to Canada.

domain: news


text:
BLEAM Antigua – American DJ & house music producer BLEAM releases new track ‘Antigua’ via Sous Chef Records.
The new single comes after the COVID-19 relief campaign he launched, creating personalized remixes for each person who donates, with 100% of the proceeds going to No Kid Hungry and the CDC Foundation. You can check out all of the amazing mixes he created on his instagram, @BLEAM, in the COVID-19 Mixes story highlight!
‘Antigua’ conveys a multitude of emotions while also being simplistic. BLEAM produced the track using nothing but his macbook and a small microphone to record original vocals. It encapsulates the build and anticipation of a bass house track, and drops into a simple, yet low-heavy seductive topline groove.
Listen on Spotify:
Hailing from Newport Beach, California, Ryan Eshaghi, better known as BLEAM performed live for the first time in front of an audience totaling 4,000+ at University of California, Irvine’s annual Summerlands Music Festival, opening for Ayokay, Gallant, and Masego. In the coming months of 2019, BLEAM opened for and played alongside artists such as DVBBS, JOYRYDE, Firebeatz, and Feed Me. In November 2019, he released his first single ‘New Age’ via Sous Chef Records, an independent record label based in Orange County, California. On April 18, 2020, BLEAM performed for The Electro Side’s Lockdown Festival with 30 other DJs from around the world.
Follow BLEAM Via:

domain: artistic


Wayne Hazzard, Executive Director
Before his manifold career in arts management, Wayne Hazzard had a distinguished 20-year career performing with many notable choreographers and companies including the Joe Goode Performance Group; Margaret Jenkins Dance Company; Ed Mock & Company; June Watanabe; Aaron Osborne; Emily Keeler and more. Coinciding with his life as a dancer, Hazzard has and continues to work as an advocate for dance. In 2000 he worked with the dance legend Anna Halprin presenting her work in a performance retrospective celebrating her 80th year and in 2009 helped present Halprin’s latest work, “Spirit of Place,” that premiered in San Francisco’s historic Stern Grove Concert Meadow. In 2000 he received an Isadora Duncan (Izzies) Award for his innovation, dedication and contribution to the field of dance and in 1996 was awarded an Izzies for his role presenting The Dedication Project: remembering those lost to AIDS. Hazzard has served as an advisor and panelist with such organizations as the Center for Cultural Innovation, National Endowment for the Arts, California Arts Council, San Francisco Arts Commission and Dance Advance in Philadelphia.
Michelle Lynch Reynolds, Program Director
Michelle Lynch Reynolds came to the Bay Area from her native Pennsylvania in 2005 to pursue a career in dance. She received her BA in Dance and International Studies from Goucher College in Baltimore and an MA in Dance Theatre: the Body in Performance from the Trinity Laban Conservatiore of Music and Dance in London. In addition to experience in institutional fundraising, Michelle served as curator of dance programming at Meridian Gallery and was a fellow with the San Francisco Bay Area Emerging Arts Professionals from 2010-11. She is currently part of the Emerging Arts Professional’s Leadership Team and is a member of Trio, a loosely London-based experimental performance collective.
Edgar Mendez, Program Assistant
Edgar is a San Francisco native and a graduate of Saint Mary’s College of California with a split major in Dance and English. Over the course of his studies he found that dance was the only thing that fueled his soul and knew that this was what he wanted to experience in his life daily. He is currently a company member with Stranger Lover Dreamer and Davalos Dance company and has worked with choreographers Catherine Marie Davalos, Rogelio Lopez, Bliss Kohlmyer, Shaunna Vella, and Elizebeth Randall to name a few. He is thrilled to be on board at Dancers’ Group as its continuing to help achieve his objective of living his life creatively, unlimited, and available – a very special lesson that dance has taught him.
Christina Leyva, Administrative Assistant
Christina is an arts advocate, choreographer, and social change artist. She received her BA from UCLA’s Department of World Arts & Cultures as a recipient of the Emma B. Keller Arts Scholarship. Christina is co-director of anthrocollagik sound + movement co., a dance film / site-specific company, and director of The Bee Dance Project, a multimedia dance initiative connecting audiences to environmental concerns, which premiered at Bioneers 2015. She is excited to contribute to the Bay Area’s rich ecosystem of dance as both an artist and an administrator, utilizing experience at fellow advocacy organization Dance Resource Center of Greater Los Angeles. She is proud to serve on the advisory panel of Dancing Earth, New Mexico, and trains with Gamelan Sekar Jaya, Berkeley.
Rosa Lisbeth Navarrete, Advertising Coordinator
Rosa comes from Perú and Los Angeles, California. Rosa is a writer, performance artist, and media professional/filmmaker. She has an English degree from the University of California, Berkeley and two minors in Creative Writing and Dance Performance. Before attending Cal she worked and interned for television and film companies such as: Disney, ColorForce, Inc. in association with DreamWorks Studios, Univision Network, and Mun2 with ImaginaUs Productions. Her specialties are film/television production, video editing, script coverage, and administrative work for non-profit organizations like Inner-City Filmmakers and Pasadena Playhouse. She is also a graduate of Inner-City Filmmakers (ICF), a non-profit film school based in Los Angeles that provides job and internship opportunities in the film/television industry for talented youth. Rosa recently completed the Certification Program with Integrated Movement Studies in Laban/Bartenieff Movement Analysis.
2015 Board of Directors
Mary Armentrout, President
Artistic Director, Mary Armentrout Dance Theater
Choreographer/Performer, Lecturer-Stanford University
Co-director, Navarrete x Kajiyama Dance Theater
Dana Lawton, Secretary
Professor, Saint Mary’s College
Gianna Shepard, Treasurer
Director of Alumni Leadership Initiatives, Education Pioneers
Erin Mei-Ling Stuart
Artistic Director, EmSpace Dance
Farah Yasmeen Shaikh, Vice President
Kathak Dancer, Arts Advocate, Mother
Attorney, Morrison & Foerster LLP
Wayne Hazzard, ex officio
Executive Director, Dancers’ Group
Jose Maria Francos
Production Manager, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts
Artistic Director, ZACCHO Dance Theater
Choreographer, Dance Innovator
Choreographer-performer-citizen, Circo Zero
Founder and Director, Luna Dance Institute
Artistic Director, AXIS Dance Company
Executive Director, Northern California Land Trust


text:
The UK has been at this “universal” health care for decades, you would have thought that the bugs would have been worked out by now.
Perhaps they have been – and this is exactly the way it is supposed to work – from today’s Daily Mail:
New cancer drugs held up by the NHS for nine years as rationing body accused of letting down patients
- Rationing body NICE is denying potentially life saving drugs because it is bogged down in other tasks, doctors claim
- Delays can make the difference between someone being able to live independently or needing full time care
- Some treatments for Alzheimer’s, arthritis and hepatitis C delayed for more than a decade on average
Astonishing. There are at least 3 or 4 stories a week in the UK papers about some sort of major failing by the NHS ranging from abject neglect of helpless patients to disintegrating facilities.
Notice the word “rationing”. It is a natural consequence of cost control in these programs. Sarah Palin was right, rationing is the equivalent of death panels.
The article continues:
Patients are waiting up to nine years for cancer and Alzheimer’s drugs to be available on the health service because approval takes so long.
The delays mean that even new drugs given the all-clear in extensive trials remain stuck in the queue for years.
A major study found that on average it takes five years from a treatment’s launch by a manufacturer to approval by the rationing body, NICE.
But the process often lasts far longer, and on occasions NICE will not even start its assessment until a drug has been on the market for more than a year.
One of the problems is that NICE – the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence – has a wide-ranging remit which includes drawing up NHS guidance on tackling obesity, alcohol abuse and other public health issues.
But last night doctors and charities said it was unfair that patients were being denied potentially life-saving drugs just because the rationing body is bogged down in other tasks.


80886/05-05 White Conversion Plate For Fixed Downlight
Made from a high aluminium plate and powder coated for enduring lifespan. Replace old ceiling lights or downlights without plastering or painting. Can be used for low voltage or 240V downlights.
◦ Covers holes up to 160mm Overall diameter 174mm
◦ To suit fixed downlights with a cut-out up to 70mm
◦ Retaining using stainless steel springs
Finishes Other colours are available please e-mial for price .
Order codes ;


text:
To ensure board diversity, TOC's mission is to expand the pool of people of color to serve on Delaware's nonprofit boards through recruitment, training and support to boards and candidates.
growing number of highly qualified professional people of color remains
underutilized by nonprofit boards, while the boards seek to increase
their diversity. Historically, there has not been a successful
organized mechanism to connect accomplished candidates of color with
Nonprofits have indicated a need for assistance in recruiting and training candidates of color. To fulfill this initiative, a sustainable process is required to identify these candidates, provide them with leadership training and connect them with nonprofit organizations seeking board diversity. This effort must continue until representation on boards closely resembles the diverse population of society.
In 2003, a group of leaders of color met to identify new prospects of color and suggest recruitment strategies for placement on Delaware nonprofit boards. They named the initiative Trustees of Color (TOC), and formed Planning and Advisory groups.
A 2005 survey of for-profit and nonprofit community leaders confirmed the need. In 2007, a board diversity survey was sent to 700 nonprofits to ascertain their experiences and identify those who needed assistance in this area. The ninety respondents indicated a need for a program like TOC.
TOC's First Board Diversity Expo was held in April 2008 in New Castle County. Thirty-eight non profit organizations and 100+ people of color attended.
TOC has partnered with the University of Delaware, the Delaware Alliance for Nonprofit Advancement (DANA), United Way of Delaware (UWD), Food Bank of Delaware (FBD), Metropolitan Wilmington Urban League (MWUL), and the YWCA.
For Trustee Membership: click here for Member Benefits.
For Nonprofit Organizations: click here to advertise in our Board Opportunities newsletter.
back to top
©2015 Trustees of Color ™

domain: sociology


Last year Blood Orange – aka Devonté Hynes – released his sophomore LP under that moniker, entitled Cupid Deluxe. Today Blood Orange announces a 12” featuring remixes of the track “Uncle ACE,” which is out May 19th.
Kindness directed a music video for “Uncle ACE (Kindness Remix feat. Robert Owens),”which follows Hynes around his childhood hometown of Ilford in Essex. The video also features a text Q&A about his upbringing, hometown and how his environment influenced him as a musician and adult.
Blood Orange – Uncle ACE (Remixes) Tracklist:
1. Blood Orange – Uncle ACE
2. Blood Orange – Uncle ACE (Kindness Remix feat. Robert Owens)
3. Blood Orange – Uncle ACE (a/jus/ted Remix)
13/04/14 USA: Indio, CA @ Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival
14/04/14 USA: Los Angeles, CA @ El Rey Theatre – SOLD OUT
15/04/14 USA: San Francisco, CA @ Great American Music Hall – SOLD OUT
20/04/14 USA: Indio, CA @ Coachella Valley Music & Arts Festival
1/8/14 USA: Chicago, IL @ Lollapalooza


text:
Chemical Dependency Treatment at Alvarado Parkway Institute
At Alvarado Parkway Institute, we believe addiction is more than a dependency on drugs or alcohol – it’s a disease. Our alcohol chemical dependency programs are designed to help people with substance abuse problems get sober and stay sober with intensive inpatient treatment, outpatient treatment, or partial hospitalization. Through working with our dedicated medical staff, patients are empowered to break the physical and behavioral cycles of addiction, establish a support system, and claim responsibility for a better quality of life.
What is Chemical Dependency?
Chemical dependency is the term used to describe an addiction to a mood- or mind-altering substance, including drugs and alcohol. A person who suffers from chemical dependency has an unhealthy relationship with a particular substance and is unable to stop drinking or taking a particular drug despite the debilitating consequences to their health, relationships, and careers. Like all chronic diseases, chemical dependency is progressive and powerful. If left untreated, the addiction can lead to serious psychological and physical issues.
Fortunately, those suffering from chemical dependency can recover and reclaim control over their lives.
Chemical Dependency Treatment Programs
At Alvarado Parkway Institute, our chemical dependency treatment programs help individuals with addictive disorders begin the recovery process through education, stabilization, relapse prevention, and support. We offer several different programs in varying levels of intensity to address the unique needs of our patients.
- Our inpatient chemical dependency program is best suited for patients suffering from severe substance abuse problems. Through detoxification and highly structured treatment, our interdisciplinary team of medical professionals helps individuals with addictive disorders stabilize and avoid relapse.
- Once a patient has stabilized and no longer requires the 24-hour care of inpatient services, they may be referred to our partial hospitalization program (PHP). In PHP, patients attend treatment during the day and return home in the evenings and on weekends. This program of care is also appropriate for patients who want to avoid hospitalization for their chemical dependency issues.
- Our outpatient chemical dependency programs provide a flexible option for patients who experience less severe symptoms of substance abuse but still need intensive treatment to break the destructive cycles of addiction. Sessions are held in the evenings on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays to allow participants to meet their daily responsibilities while receiving care.
In all of our chemical dependency treatment programs, patients are provided with an individualized plan of care that addresses the unique challenges of addiction, no matter where they are in their recovery journey.
Signs of a Chemical Dependency
While no two cases of chemical dependency look the same, there are some key signs that may indicate a loved one has a substance abuse problem or addictive disorder. Symptoms include:
- Withdrawing from social activities
- Neglecting appearance and personal hygiene
- Experiencing gaps in memory
- Needing to use more alcohol or drugs to achieve desired effect
- Hiding drinking or medication/drug use
- Ongoing drug or alcohol use that interferes with work or relationships
- Taking risks, such as driving under the influence
- Experiencing withdrawal symptoms when not using drugs or alcohol
- Unsuccessful attempts at controlling/reducing alcohol or drug use
- Poor concentration
- Unsteady movements and shaky hands
- Chronic daytime sleepiness and fatigue
- Deterioration of physical appearance
- Making excuses for drinking
Drug Rehab in San Diego
Coming to terms with an addiction is no easy task. When you or your loved one is ready to seek help, give us a call. Our chemical dependency treatment program is centered on helping our patients achieve sobriety with the collaborative effort of compassionate physicians and allied health professionals. Learn more about What are Chemical Dependency Programs?
By taking an open approach to treatment, we’re able to match a tailored selection of interventions and services to a patient’s unique needs. This individualized level of care is critical for helping patients with addictive disorders develop the coping skills they need to restore a high level of functioning. In particular, our program employs the following strategies:
- On-going evaluation and assessment
- Individual and group therapy sessions
- Relapse prevention
- Re-entry planning
- Family psychotherapy
- Random drug screenings and breathalyzers
- Managing uncomfortable symptoms of withdrawal
- Stress management techniques
- Trigger identification and avoidance

domain: medical


text: I know, I know, you will hate me for today’s travel photo, but I just happened to run across it and couldn’t stop myself. This is called disc potatoes – or disc-fried potatoes. It’s basically because that dish you place directly above the fire looks like a disk. The taste, other than being awesome, is somewhere between baked and fried. To make them taste even better, a few pieces of meat (pork mostly) are placed around the potatoes, so that all those yummy juices can enhance the taste. I couldn’t stop eating. We had this in Maramures, Romania.

domain: food


This illusionary tub overflow cover in polished chrome from westbrass provides a touch of functionality and aesthetic elegance. This drain type is the easiest to use for all bathers.
Install a bathtub drain and overflow assembly in a new tub when replacing the assembly for a bathroom upgrade.
How to install tub overflow cover. Over time, the overflow drain can become corroded or clogged with hair and other. Thread in a spout tub pipe through the tub spout hole and into the way connecting to the wall. Tub overflow in new install is leaking bathtub overflow drain cover suction to install a tub overflow drain cover value pack kit bathtub drain stopper should i caulk or seal the bathtub drain.
The overflow is located behind the cover that is installed directly above your tub drain and beneath the faucet. By changing the overflow plate and drain on your tub in conjunction with a new tub spout and trim plate, you can breathe new life into your bathroom. Add an updated style or new finish, and you will feel like you stepped into a completely new room without a renovation budget.
Install the screws with a screwdriver and tighten down. Take the new piping you have purchased and install it. Simply run warm water over the cups or submerge them in water for a second as you’re filling the tub, and press securely against the tub’s surface, covering the overflow.
Your bathtub overflow cover may have a toggle switch in the middle. Perfect for the sleek, even lines in today's designs, this floating faceplate cleanly cover the overflow. This tool can be found in a local hardware store in the plumbing section.
The first step to installing bathtub overflow drain is removing the waste and overflow is to remove the overflow cover. Press once to close and again to open the drain. This assembly allows water to travel down the overflow pipe behind the tub in the event that the bathtub overfills.
Position the gasket for the overflow tube on the backside of the tub, between the wall of the bathtub and the mouth on the overflow tube. Finding a stopper for bathtub overflow drain thriftyfun. Usually the overflow tube is accessed from the bottom.
If you want to take a bath, the switch goes up to block the main drain and keep water in. The linear plumber's pack leg tub drain with overflow from westbrass features a sleek, rectangular overflow cover which beautifully finished the inside of the overflow channel. It will be attached to the piping either by way of screws or clips.
Replacement overflow drain cover that matches your old cover; Tub covers are easy to install and take off. Some designs may need to be removed with an overflow drain cover remover tool;
If you can get to the trap then you can get to the overflow. You usually don’t need a tool to do this. If they are screws then you will need a screwdriver to remove them comfortably.
The remover tool is fitted into a notch on the side of the drain. In most cases the drain cover will be removed by unscrewing 2 small screws. Remove replace repair your bathtub overflow drain.
On the bottom of the bath, pop the drain gasket into place. Use the provided nut to secure the shroud to the valve. If you want to shower, the switch goes down.
Finally, secure the overflow filler cover. Remove the old tub drain. The removal of the cover is an easier part of the process.
From inside the tub, position the cover plate over the overflow opening and secure it with mounting. Before installing a tub without an overflow drain or modifying your tub’s existing overflow drain, check local building codes. It works like a dream.
When it's installed, the drain is held in place by a black retainer nut that grips the drain to the tub. The ada approved toe tap drain is easy to operate; If the gasket is tapered, the thicker side of the gasket should face down.
Insert the rod, linkage, and plunger through the tube overflow hole and let it drop down until the overflow cover lines up with the overflow drain hole. The material is nice and flexible, and the little suction cups allow for this to be installed virtually anywhere, even if your overflow drain is closer to the rim of the tub. Attach the overflow cover plate.
The trap and overflow tube come as an assembly and the overflow tube usually has two threaded bosses to mount your overflow drain cover and a rubber gasket that goes up against the back of the tub to seal it. The purpose of that switch is to keep water in the tub or allow it to drain out. If your bathtub is fitted to a wall, the plumbing can be hidden inside the walls, and you have no unsightly pipes or tubes visible.
Both of the options above create a lasting seal with the tub. Position the unit so that the valve pin comes through the hole from the backside of the tub and cover it with the filler shroud. The entire system includes the tub stopper, the lever and overflow cover plate, as well as the drain and overflow pipes.
This overflow cover is usually directly above the plug that drains the water on the bottom of the tub. You can also research uniform plumbing code if planning for new construction. Once the retainer nut is installed, the cover plate slips down over the top of the nut from above and clicks into place.