Orange Color  Orange

Orange combines the energy of red and the happiness of yellow. It is associated with joy, sunshine, and the tropics. Orange represents enthusiasm, fascination, happiness, creativity, determination, attraction, success, encouragement, and stimulation.

To the human eye, orange is a very hot color, so it gives the sensation of heat. Nevertheless, orange is not as aggressive as red. Orange increases oxygen supply to the brain, produces an invigorating effect, and stimulates mental activity. It is highly accepted among young people. As a citrus color, orange is associated with healthy food and stimulates appetite. Orange is the color of fall and harvest. In heraldry, orange is symbolic of strength and endurance.

Blue Color  Blue

Blue is the color of the sky and sea. It is often associated with depth and stability. It symbolizes trust, loyalty, wisdom, confidence, intelligence, faith, truth, and heaven.

Blue is considered beneficial to the mind and body. It slows human metabolism and produces a calming effect. Blue is strongly associated with tranquility and calmness. In heraldry, blue is used to symbolize piety and sincerity.

You can use blue to promote products and services related to cleanliness (water purification filters, cleaning liquids, vodka), air and sky (airlines, airports, air conditioners), water and sea (sea voyages, mineral water). As opposed to emotionally warm colors like red, orange, and yellow; blue is linked to consciousness and intellect. Use blue to suggest precision when promoting high-tech products.

That color blue is harder to hide.  Thus, many wilderness types wear that color blue to make it easier to see them.

The Guardian | May 9, 2015
We, the Scottish people, cannot now be ignored - "Scotland as a whole may not have voted Yes to independence last September, but there is no doubt that the bitter, negative and hectoring tone of the No campaign and its constituent unionist parties was deeply resented by very many Scots. [...] I said before the election that being the largest party in England could not be the only test of legitimacy for a Westminster government and that greater legitimacy would always attach to building a majority from across the whole of the UK. [...] That makes it all the more essential that the new Westminster government listens to the Scottish people. I made clear before the election that, regardless of how many SNP MPs were elected, it would not be a mandate for independence or for a further referendum, and I stand by that. [...] For now, what is required is a relationship of mutual respect and cooperation between governments in Edinburgh and London. [...] There are huge issues and challenges ahead - not least the looming question of the UK and Scotland's place in Europe."

Prime Minister Cameron should take due heed of Ms. Sturgeon's remarks, for she is clearly a woman of genuine substance. And as the SNP leader, were she to take her liberal populist message south of the border in an alliance with a now-chastened Labour Party, she could offer a new liberal coalition that would pose a genuine threat to the Conservative government in Westminster.

I mean, if we think Rupert Murdoch's media shills are bad on the west side of the Atlantic, well, their work product (such as it is) is remarkably tame compared to the crazed bombast emanating from their News Corp. counterparts in the Mother Country. The pure crap that was being flung at the liberal opposition by them these past few weeks was both ugly and intensive.

I can't help but think that the sudden swing toward the Conservatives by the British electorate was in large part due to the purposeful stoking of English xenophobia in the campaign's home stretch by Murdoch's minions and their conservative allies on Fleet Street.

We all like to say that we're disgusted by such deplorable tactics and that it wouldn't affect how we vote, but the sad fact of the matter is that such tactics do work and that it does alter our personal perceptions of a campaign's intended target(s). Frank Luntz wouldn't presently be gloating once again if it didn't.

Parliamentary elections in places like Britain, Canada and India are quite often coattail elections, in that the people vote for the party (and thus, the party leader) and not for the individual legislative candidates standing for MP in their respective districts.

So even if individual English voters happened to like the local Labour candidate personally, if they were soured on Ed Miliband for whatever reason, they weren't going to cast a ballot for "Red Ed" the "class war zealot" and Labour in any event -- particularly if it meant a coalition government between Labour and those ungrateful Scots.

The Conservatives waged a relentless scorched-earth campaign of personal destruction against the Conservative Party's adversaries in Labour and the SNP which very likely succeeded, at least south of the Scottish border. To that effect, we should note that while Prime Minister David Cameron and the Conservatives did garner a decisive victory yesterday, they did so on the strength of English votes alone.

As such, the PM and Conservatives now preside over a United Kingdom that has become markedly polarized between England and Scotland thanks to the efforts, to an extent probably not seen since the collapse of the Jacobite uprising in 1745, following the Battle of Culloden and subsequent flight to France of the Young Pretender to the Scottish throne, Charles Edward Stuart, aka "Bonnie Prince Charlie."

Because as the electoral efforts of Mr. Miliband and Labour collapsed throughout Britain, Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish nationalists were consolidating political support amongst their own people at Labour's expense, winning 56 of Scotland's 59 seats in Westminster.

And as British voters saw for themselves, nobody better articulates longstanding Scottish grievances and resentments toward London than does Ms. Sturgeon, who pretty much schooled both Mr. Cameron and Mr. Miliband during the one televised campaign debate in which she shared the stage with them.

As a result, Ms. Sturgeon and the SNP surged at the polls in Scotland and now enjoy rock-solid support amongst Scots age 50 and younger, who abandoned Labour wholesale by a wide margin and now support at least the concept of full Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Their elders, who by and large opposed the Scottish referendum on independence held last fall, have been neutralized and silenced, if not newly converted to the nationalist faithful themselves.

Labour leader Miliband and Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg have both resigned their respective party positions in the wake of yesterday's Conservative triumph. How deftly Prime Minister Cameron moves to mitigate the current raw feelings across Britain, particularly in an angry Scotland, may well determine whether the United Kingdom can maintain its status or will eventually dissolve into individual rump and squabbling states.

But I think with this particular topic, that views before mass incarceration for a lot of people changed after we locked up way too many people for too little reason.

I don't think Hillary is alone on this one, I think a lot of politicians that were for locking more people up in the 80/90's no longer hold that view now that we have actual data and not predictions.

I also think you can be against the DP while being tough on crime.  It's one think to want people punished it's quit another to want them dead.

Plus we had Reagan scaring the hell out of everyone, telling the whole country drugs were the evilest of evil things, that you should call the cops on your neighbors, friends, and even parents because drugs were the scourge of the US.  Now we realize that that isn't so, that the pot smoker down the street isn't going to gut you for some weed or that you won't die from taking one drag.

I just think that the views she holds are probably very similar to a lot of people, hard on crime back then, now realizing that locking people up was not the solution.

I am warming up to HRC, not totally, but this issue especially it's good to see someone evolve with the times, and not act like if they could do it all over they would invade Iraq without hesitation.  Acknowledging errors in judgement is something to be admired from time to time, not trotted out as some version of flip/flopping.

So was Buchanan's letter to Mrs. Roosevelt. People had trusted friends then, before the internet.  What a concept.

My submission above involved a show in which a child, a young boy, was made to say lines about placing a penis in a vagina, slowly, arousing the woman but not satisfying her until she screamed for completion.

The lines were not only graphic, but in my opinion, sadistic.

I questioned whether making this young actor, looking to be nine or ten years old, recite these lines, constituted some kind of child pornography - or child abuse, or even pediphilia.

The discussion was immediately diverted to whether Louis is a funny comedian, and to how many people may or may not think so... or to the fact that he a father...or whether I should be watching the show.

I had seen this kind of thing before - from Larry David of all people - having a mother in one of the episodes - refer to her young daughter's (about 10 years old) "pus-y".

As with Louis above, the issue that I wanted to discuss is not whether Larry is funny, or Louis is funny, or whether they have children in real life, but whether it is appropriate to have young children either on the set when graphic sex is being described, or, as in the case of "Louis" above, whether it constitutes some kind of abuse to have a child actor repeat lines about sexual intercourse and teasing constitutes some kind of abuse.

Link.

No matter how progressive her statements lately on the domestic front, her aggressive stances on foreign policy are to me very troubling.

And - as been shown over and over again - no matter the good intentions of politicians, if the major share of our resources are diverted to these entanglements in distant lands, the country will continue its slide into the sinkhole of income and social inequality.

Being against the obvious stupidity of those presented to us by the Republican party is easy.