Tag: 香草范上海

March 2, 2021 | |Post a Comment

first_imgUPDATE: It appears that Ween has subtly swapped the photo on their announcement to something less Prince-y, all but dashing our hopes for a Purple show. Not that we’re complaining about the band’s usual shade of Brown! Check out the new artwork below:Beloved rockers Ween have announced a brand new show, hitting the Roy Wilkins Amphitheatre in St. Paul, MN on September 15th. The newly-reunited group have played a handful of performances throughout 2016, but this new announcement has us intrigued.The artwork for the show appears in purple, with lettering at the bottom that is reminiscent of the “Purple Rain” font. Considering the show will be in Minnesota, hometown of the dearly departed Prince, it stands to reason that the show may serve as something of a tribute for the members of Prince.The Ween guys have not been shy about their love of Prince, especially in the wake of his untimely death. We recently shared some classic footage of the group playing “Purple Rain,” and Dean Ween recently told the story of breaking into a studio at Paisley Park, Prince’s home and workspace. Read that tale here.Ween and Prince are both acts associated with colors, Brown and Purple respectively, and we’d be delighted to see what happens when those colors mix. Pre-sale tickets will be released tomorrow, July 6th, and can be found here with the password BROWN, before a general on-sale here on Friday, July 8th.last_img read more

December 19, 2020 | |Post a Comment
first_img September 15, 2000 Gary Blankenship Regular News Both sides weigh in on ballot language challenge Both sides weigh in on ballot language challenge Senior Editor The merit selection and retention referendum ballot language approved by the legislature this year is fairer and more accurate than the wording it approved last year, and a challenge to that language — which goes to voters in November — should be dismissed, the state of Florida has argued to the Supreme Court. Solicitor General Tom Warner filed the state’s response August 28 in a case brought by a group of South Florida attorneys earlier in the month. The lawyers argued the ballot language adopted this year by lawmakers was misleading. (See story in the September 1 Bar News.) Five amicus briefs were also filed, including one by 20 former Florida Bar presidents. Led by 1995-96 President John A. DeVault III, that brief supported the challenge to the language. The four other amicus briefs, including one from the House of Representatives, backed the state’s position that the ballot language should not be changed. The court was scheduled to hold oral arguments in the case September 12, after this News went to press. Florida Bar President Herman Russomanno said the Bar is working very hard to educate voters about the merit process and how Florida’s trial judges should be selected. He added it is essentional that all citizens become well informed on the issue by the November 7 election. Although the Bar’s Board of Governors supports merit selection and retention for trial judges, the Bar’s Executive Committee recently reaffirmed the Bar’s earlier position during the legislative session not to become involved in the ballot language dispute. At issue is the wording approved by the legislature earlier this year — to replace language it originally adopted in 1999 — to appear on the November 7 general election ballot in a constitutionally mandated referendum. Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1998 that required the 2000 referendum in each circuit and county. Residents can choose between switching to a pure merit selection and retention system for the trial judges or keeping the method used now where end of term vacancies are filled by election and mid-term vacancies by merit appointment, with all judges standing for election at the end of their terms. The 1999 language asked voters to vote “yes” or “no” on this question: “Shall circuit judges in the (insert circuit number) judicial circuit be selected through merit selection and retention?” The 2000 language reads: “Shall the method of selecting circuit court judges in the (insert circuit number) judicial circuit be changed from election by a vote of the people to selection by the judicial nominating commission and appointment by the Governor with subsequent terms determined by a retention vote of the people?” Similar questions would be asked in each county for county court judges. On August 15, a group of South Florida lawyers filed for a writ of mandamus contesting the newer language, saying the legislature adopted a misleading ballot summary in an attempt to defeat the referendum. They requested an expedited hearing, which was granted, so a decision could be made before general election ballots are printed after the October 3 runoff primary. The petitioners asked the court to return to the 1999 language or draft its own, fairer ballot language. Solicitor General Warner argued in the state’s responding brief the 2000 language is accurate and fair. The brief also maintained the court should not use a mandamus writ to declare a state law unconstitutional, and the only reason for an expedited hearing was the petitioners waited almost two months from the time the law was signed to file their case. Warner said the petitioners’ claim of unfairness boiled down to two points: that it was unfair to say that judicial nominating commissions “select” instead of “nominate” candidates and the 1999 statutory language was fairer than the 2000 version. He disputed both points. The uniform Rules of Procedure for Circuit Judicial Nominating Commissions used “select” instead “nominate,” and the new ballot language is clear that it is the Governor, not a JNC, that does the appointing, the brief said. Nor is the new language flawed because it fails to mention “merit selection and retention,” the brief argued, adding under that logic the 1999 ballot summary was flawed because it failed to mention that judges are currently elected. Those problems prevent the court from substituting the 1999 language for the 2000 language, and the court is powerless to draft its own alternate version, the brief said. Warner also contended that the 2000 language was more accurate and fairer than the 1999 proposal. “For example, the 2000 version of the ballot question informs the voters that the method for selecting judges is currently election; the 1999 version does not mention election,” he wrote. “The 2000 version asks whether the voters are in favor of changing that method to something else; the 1999 version does not mention a change in method. The 2000 version informs the voters that the alternative to election is appointment by the Governor; the 1999 version does not indicate the Governor’s involvement. The 2000 version informs the voters that the JNC will be involved in the selection of judges; the 1999 version does not indicate the JNC’s involvement.” The former Bar presidents disagreed. “Given the history of the Bar’s advocacy for merit selection [for trial judges] we thought that it’s important that the court know that the former leaders of the Bar support the petitioners’ position and think this issue should be presented to voters in a straightforward and objective manner rather than in the slanted manner the 2000 legislature seeks to put it,” DeVault said. “Our hope is if it’s presented in a straightforward and objective manner, with the help of the Bar, Florida’s newspapers, and the League of Women Voters, voters will support the merit selection and retention of trial judges.” The petition from the former presidents argues “the provision is in danger of being eviscerated by the ballot language passed by the legislature in the 2000 amendments to §101.161 because the amendments are neither accurate nor informative, and because they mislead the electorate. The amicus supports the position of the petitioners in this matter and urges the court to grant the relief sought in the petition for writ of mandamus, for the reason therein argued.” Other former presidents joining the brief are William F. Blews, Edward R. Blumberg, Howard C. Coker, Marshall Criser, Alan T. Dimond, Patrick G. Emmanuel, Robert M. Ervin, John W. Frost II, Leonard H. Gilbert, William O.E. Henry, Benjamin H. Hill III, Mark Hulsey, Rutledge R. Liles, Edith G. Osman, James C. Rinaman, Jr., L. David Shear, Chesterfield H. Smith, Wm. Reece Smith, Jr., and Burton Young. The original writ was filed by attorneys Bruce Rogow and Beverly Pohl, representing attorneys Dennis G. Kainen, Gerald F. Richman, John L. Hampton, Don L. Horn, Rebekah J. Poston and Norman Davis. Rogow said the 2000 language is misleading because it misrepresents the role of the judicial nominating commissions by saying they “select” instead of “nominate” candidates for each vacancy, with the Governor making the final appointment. He also said the language fails to mention “merit selection and retention,” or even the word “merit.” The brief from the House of Representatives, filed by Maggie Moody, director of the House Civil Justice Council, and General Counsel Thomas R. Tedcastle, adopted Warner’s arguments and added some additional ones. They said the petitioners wrongly argued there is a constitutional requirement that the language be clear and unambiguous. In reality, that requirement is statutory, in §101.161(1),(2). That statute was superseded by the law passed by the legislature establishing the ballot language, and consequently the “test is simply `that the ballot be fair and advise the voter sufficiently to enable him intelligently to cast his ballot (Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151 (Fla. 1982) and Hill v. Millander, 72 So.2d 796 (Fla. 1954)),’” Moody and Tedcastle contended, adding the language easily meets that standard. They also said the petitioners implicitly asked the court to draft the ballot language, and under separation of powers the court cannot do that, unless the legislature has refused to act and the amendment is self executing. Indeed, the legislature acted again in 2000 because it deemed that the 1999 language had been too hastily adopted and did not fully inform voters. “Should this court determine that the 2000 ballot question, like the 1999 ballot question, does not sufficiently inform the voters to permit them to intelligently cast their votes, the legislature is certainly prepared to further modify the question,” the House said. “This should be left to the legislature to do, however, and the court should decline the invitation of the petitioners that it enter the legislative sphere.” Miami attorney John K. Shubin filed a amicus brief on behalf of the Cuban American Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Black Lawyers Association, Inc., and the Miami-Dade County Chapter of the Florida Association for Women Lawyers. Like other supporters of the 2000 language, Shubin argued it is more accurate than the 1999 version and that the petitioners failed to meet the strict standards under which the court could override the legislature. “[I]t is not this court’s task to weigh the competing amendments and choose its favorite,” Shubin wrote. “This court’s sole obligation is to recognize that the existing language provides Florida voters with fair notice of the proposed changes and, accordingly, deny the petition.” Miami attorney Victor Diaz filed an amicus brief on behalf of several lawyers and residents around Florida, urging the court to reject the mandamus petition. He noted that the Constitution Revision Commission, which drew up ballot language for the 1998 referendum on the merit selection and retention issue, decided to omit those words because members were concerned that voters didn’t understand what merit selection and retention was. Diaz also argued that the 1999 language sought by the petitioners is misleading because it doesn’t tell voters that by approving the merit plan they are giving up their right to directly elect judges. Another problem he cited is merit selection and retention does not translate well onto the Spanish language ballot. “In short, the ballot questions are neither ambiguous nor misleading,” Diaz argued. “As required, the ballot language gives voters fair notice that they are choosing between the right to elect local circuit and county court judges and giving up that right to judicial nominating commissions and the Governor. Accordingly, the court should deny the petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Kainen petitioners.” University of Florida law Professor Joseph Little, and attorneys Harvey Alper and Henry Trawick, argued in their amicus brief that the language was not misleading, and the petitioners were asking the court to overstep its bounds. “Petitioners cannot properly ask this court to question the motives of the legislature, and certainly cannot ascribe a motive to deceive,” they wrote. “Plainly the legislature did not believe its chosen ballot title was deceptive, and its choice must be accepted absent the most compelling showing that the ballot title is `clearly and conclusively’ deceitful and defective, which petitioners have not made.”last_img
September 28, 2020 | |Post a Comment

first_img ALEX JORDAN — MCGRATH PADDINGTON — 30 Ruskin St Taringa “The kitchen is where most families gravitate to. And when it comes to selling, it is often the most important room in the house for buyers. It is important to have an impressive kitchen if you can but in terms of investment, the focus should be on the facades, the gardens, the first impression, internal painting and property styling. Those are the elements to focus on if you don’t have the budget for an expensive kitchen renovation. You will want to cook for friends at 30 Ruskin St at Taringa JASON ADCOCK — ADCOCK PRESTIGE — 36 Morley St Chelmer “It is the hub of the house and in most homes these days, the kitchen is an integral part of the whole open-plan family room setting. There is a big push to have everything from stone or marble benchtops to top-of-the-line appliances, butlers pantries. The days of the kitchen being closed off a long gone. When it comes to selling, I tell sellers that cleaniless is everything. Get in some qualified cleaners, paint. Put your money into new carpet and making the gardens look spectacular, and don’t forget styling”. Stylish and functional, the kitchen at 36 Morley St, Chelmer, is the hub of the home LEIGH KORTLANG — RAY WHITE ASCOT — 36 Mein St, Hendra Kitchens are generally open-plan, light and bright and nowadays everyone focuses on the kitchen. They combine it with outdoor areas, it is often overlooking the pool or garden. These days they are often the most fun room in the house. If a seller had a budget to renovate, my advice would be to do the benchtops because that can give the space a big lift. 36 Mein st hendracenter_img 30 Ruskin St, Taringa is a real entertainers homeWhat room will sell a house and why? Three out of three Brisbane agents said the kitchen was the biggest selling point, but a full renovation was not always needed to secure a buyer. More from newsParks and wildlife the new lust-haves post coronavirus17 hours agoNoosa’s best beachfront penthouse is about to hit the market17 hours agoThe kitchen at 30 Ruskin St, Taringa, has been described as the ultimate “social kitchen”last_img read more

August 14, 2020 | |Post a Comment

first_imgWellington girls celebrate Ark Valley Chisholm Trail League Div. IV title.by Tracy McCue, Sumner Newscow — The girls basketball sign in the Wellington High School gymnasium will no longer stand alone. Wellington has just won the 2015-16 Ark Valley Chisholm Trail League Div. IV title.Wellington defeated Circle 51-32 to improve to 9-0 in league with one more regular season game to play – a trip Thursday to Clearwater. The Crusaders are 19-0 overall and have the opportunity to wrap up their first undefeated regular season in history – boys or girls – before heading into the sub-state basketball tournament next week to be played in Wellington.The Crusaders batted down the Thunderbirds, who were 7-1 in league coming in, with a potent switch-point defense, allowing Circle just 10 points in the second half and four field goals – two of those in the waning moments with the game wrapped up.“The girls had a meeting before the game, and decided defense was going to decide this game,” said Eric Adams, Wellington head girls basketball coach. “They had to win the 50-50 battle, and outbound the opponent.”Wellington had 11 blocked shots for the game as Circle had no answers inside or outside in shooting the ball.Adams said Wellington’s switch-point zone allowed the team to pressure the perimeter while staying in a zone formation. Circle, which shot five 3-pointers in the first game between these two opponents, had just two in the first half – both coming during a wild second quarter.Wellington would end up with 13 deflections and seven steals. Wellington also had 37 rebounds including 25 defensively and 12 offensively.On the other end, the Crusaders shot 45 percent from the field which was much lower in the second half. The Crusaders have been wicked beyond the three-point line as of late. Not Tuesday. They had only two 3-pointers for the game and was 2-of-11 beyond the arch.Wellington got rolling early, taking an early 9-2 lead and held an 11-5 advantage at the end of the first quarter.Circle had its best quarter in the second, scoring 17 of its 32 points. But Wellington was playing tit-for-tat outscoring Circle 20-17 and taking a 31-22 advantage into halftime. The second quarter alone accounted for more than 50 percent of the points scored the rest of the game.Wellington and Circle traded misses for much of the third quarter, but Wellington would go on a 7-2 spurt at the three-minute mark to open up a 15-point lead. Circle could never get any closer.The Crusaders were led by Grace Mitchell with 15 points, all of those points in the first half. Lauryn Snipes had 12.———Technical foul: Mitchell was called for a technical foul in the first half after hitting a 3-pointer. Adams explained that it was not for being belligerent but instead as she was falling she grabbed the jersey of the Circle defender as she was going down. 6 32 — Circle 11 17 5 Wellington 52, Circle 32 Follow us on Twitter. 10center_img Wellington — G. Mitchell 15, L. Snipes 12, A. Rusk 9, S. French 8, T. Zimmerman 6, T. French 1.Total: 20 (2) 5-11 51. 21 4 Wellington 10 — 51 Circle — E. Dennison 9, K. Martin 7, C. Kifer 5, K. Rushing 4, C. Beck 3, S. Jeffries 2, K. Kelly 2. Total: 11 (1) 11-14 32. Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (3) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +5 Vote up Vote down Bobby WIlson · 233 weeks ago Congrats Lady Crusaders. Well done Coach Adams and the rest of the staff. Job well done. So proud of all of you. Just a classy team all around. Good luck the rest of the season. Report Reply 0 replies · active 233 weeks ago +4 Vote up Vote down Valerie · 233 weeks ago So proud! Congrats Coaches and girls! Historical night. Can’t wait to see the banner on the wall of the gym. First one ever for girls basketball. Exciting times! Report Reply 0 replies · active 233 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down Rhonda · 233 weeks ago Congratulations ladies – Lauryn we are so proud of you sorry we didn’t get to see you play last Friday but will definitely be making another trip home soon to see you play Report Reply 0 replies · active 233 weeks ago Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new commentslast_img read more