An important part of keeping relationships healthy is balance.

The first two aspects of a relationship that must be kept in balance are those of independence and mutuality.  That is spending time together and spending time alone.

If this delicate balance is upset the consequences can be disastrous.  An example of one extreme; if the partners are always together and have absolutely no independence from each other then they will be unable to be  healthy as individuals or as a pair.  Their lack of freedom can stifle the ability for either to grow as an individual. And, if I can't become a better and stronger person how am I to make my relationship stronger and better.

On the other extreme, if the partners are never together then there can be no intimacy. By this I do not mean physically; there are many situations where a couple can be physically apart whether by choice or not and still retain a healthy intimacy.  When I say "never together" I am referring to a lack of sharing, of mutual activities and focuses.  If two people love each other and come together into a relationship such as marriage, and then each chooses to continue his or her life exactly as it was before meeting their partner without altering any aspect or in any way including their partner then there is no value in the relationship.  Neither person is putting anything into the relationship so neither will get anything out of it.

A healthy relationship means having independent interests and activities as well as mutual interests and activities.  There is no specific balance that every couple must achieve. The necessary balance may change over time.  Compromise may be needed to find a balance that feels right to both partners in order to keep the relationship in balance.   The most important thing is to love, honor and respect your partner.  Doing so, and listening to your partner, are the keys to keeping the balance.

Start: 11/21/2008 - 20:09
End: 11/22/2008 - 20:09
Timezone: Asia/Kuala Lumpur

Date   :  21 - 22 November 2008Venue: Pacific Sutera, Sutera Harbour Resort, 88100 Kota Kinabalu, SabahTheme: "Partners in Practice for Early Therapeutic Intervention"OBJECTIVES

* To discuss the effectiveness of Early Childhood Intervention issues in Malaysia.
* To strengthen collaboration with the relevant authorities.
* To provide a platform for sharing of ideas, experiences and 'know-how'.
* To systemize the delivery of Early Childhood Intervention Services.

But dancing alone can also be tiring.  To make the dance look good you've got to be in constant movement.  The audience eyes are focused squarely on you and you must work the entire time.

However, dancing with a partner can be a lot of fun as well.  There are some pitfalls.  You have to watch out for someone stepping on your toes and you have to be sure not to step on theirs, but once you've mastered the routine the problems are solved.

One of the most magnificent dances you can perform requires a partner and it is the Tango.  

The reason the dance is so grand is because both partners have to work.  They both take responsibility for their part in the dance and if they are well rehearsed and practiced, the Tango is undeniably the most rewarding dance to watch and to perform!

So why the dance analogy on a blog about commercial real estate?  Simple, this post is all about Partnerships.  I wanted to veer away from talking about types of real estate and take a moment to explore business relationships.

Many people like to own real estate solely.  They don't like the idea of a partnerships and they prefer to be the decision maker.  However, owning real estate in partnership with another can be a beautiful thing.  Once you learn the dance steps and establish the responsibilities of both participants, you'll rarely step on each others toes.

When developing a partnership the first thing to remember is that it takes two to Tango!  Even though you set the rule and responsibilities of the parties, sometimes you have to cover for each other.  A good working relationship with a lot of give and take and some strong support are necessary for success.

I love to relate the story of when a good friend of mine and I went into business.  He was younger than I was and his father (a very successful business man) wanted to meet me.  We met and had a great conversation and then his father took us into his study and gave us some good advise. 

He said that a business partnership was kind of like a marriage.  He stated that it would take a lot of work to hold it together and that sometimes things would be great and other times things would be tough.  But, he said, if you both strive to do what is best for the 'union' (the partnership) then it will always work out for the benefit of the partners.

I agree completely with this comment.  There are many rules of thumbs that should be adhered to when developing partnerships and partnerships can be great in your business.  They can help you to leverage your time and assets.  And you can achieve greater wealth and expand your goals if you will remember one simple truism.

It takes two to Tango!

Michael Gross is the President of Dividend America Mortgage and has been in real estate for over 20 years. He has been a builder, a Realtor, an appraiser, and currently he is a lender and an active real estate investor. He uses all of his experience and knowledge to show individuals how to properly use a mortgage as a tool to help create greater wealth through real estate investing. For more information on residential and small commercial loans please call 770-350-7373 or email mgross@dividendamerica.com

I told you about how I how I don't drink so much as to forget what I've done, don't get so high that I can't be perfectly responsible for my actions, told you that almost everything that I say and do I have already thought through carefully, processing and reprocessing in a way that is so unbelievably unsexy that I spare you from being a part of it. 

But you cannot be in control of your actions while you are sleeping. It is impossible.

I remember before, with an old friend of mine, very drunkenly reaching out to him in the night, our bodies intertwining under careful comfort of being "asleep".  I remember the ex who liked to sleep with one arm over and one arm under my neck, holding me so tight that in combination with my close proximity to the wall, I would stay awake for hours.  I remember sharing the bed of a boy in college who would sprawl out upon falling asleep and I would be forced into the position of either a) waiting patiently until morning or b) running quickly across campus back to my own bed.  I remember how abandoned he felt when he woke up and I wasn't there.  

I saw a book once that examined people's sleeping positions and analyzed them. I remember flipping through the book and wondering how anyone could possibly sleep in half of the positions mentioned, contorted like pretzels with limbs interwoven and faces melted together.  

I prefer not to be touched when I'm sleeping. I don't like facing the problem of the "awkward arm/hand/limb", the one that doesn't quite fit into the spoon and just kind of flops around uselessly like a stunted flipper. I am quickly suffocated when I am denied full access to the air in the room and space to move around. 

It's funny though, how when you are in a place of insecurity, not knowing whether or not someone wants you around while they are sleeping or wants to be in direct physical contact with you during the course of the night, how you can quickly sing a different tune.  When I have felt that the lack of contact is indicative of a flaw in the relationship, or if I was feeling insecure, I would move so quickly across the bed it was amazing, wrapping my arms around the other person as if it came naturally to me.  And of course it didn't.

It has been my own insecurities that smothered me at night. 

It was the part that couldn't quite relax, the part that wanted something so desperately from someone else to feed the vacuum of self doubt, that it would relinquish everything else just for the sheer close proximity of skin to skin. 

There is no reason to hold so close out of fear that there not being another day together. There either will or there won't and holding your breath while you sleep will not ensure it. Because at some point you have to realize that the person next to you is sleeping innocently while you are stuck with your brain churning, not participating in the conversation you are having with yourself. And sometimes having the space to move around is nice, without wondering if you are keeping someone else up, or participating in some sort of dual-dream-sleep-plane where you are neither asleep nor awake and yet are constantly communicating with one another.  I'm also feeling a little bit done with the control thing. Because no one is in control all the time, and the person you are oh-so-concerned about probably snores and drools anyway. And because, nobody is perfect. 

my bed, nola's 18th birthday

En sus propias palabras:

"Su mejor receta: la creatividad.

Drimer Chocolates es una empresa argentina que desde 1992 ha logrado posicionarse como una de las marcas más reconocidas del mercado local.
Hablar de Drimer Chocolates es hablar de innovación en todo sentido.

Su imagen altamente cuidada a través de novedosos packagings, su atractiva exhibición, y una sobresaliente creatividad en todos sus diseños le dieron la posibilidad de competir con las mejores marcas del mundo, con una excelente respuesta en capacidad de producción.

Desde el primer momento, además de aspirar a la más alta calidad en la elaboración de sus productos, Drimer Chocolates sumó a su constante evolución puntos de venta exclusivos, como canales gourmet y Free-Shops.

El haber sido seleccionado para ocupar un lugar en Free-Shops se debe, justamente, a todos los diferenciales de imagen que transmite esta joven y pujante empresa."

Agradecemos a Drimer por su confianza en nosotros.

Para conocer más, hacé clic en http://www.drimerchocolates.com/

The biological mother left the homosexual lifestyle and is now married to a man, but Alliance Defense Fund attorney Austin Nimocks says the fact that his client was formerly involved in a lesbian relationship is not the issue.
 
"What matters is that she is the mother of her children and that her ex is not -- [the point is] that this other woman involved in this situation has no legal relationship with the children, no biological relationship with the children, no relationship by blood or marriage. None. She is a complete legal stranger to these kids, and yet a court has seen fit to treat her as if she is the actual mother and treat our client as if she is not," Nimocks contends.

In writing his decision, District Judge Ed McLean stated: "To discriminate further against [this woman] because of her sexual preference in this day and age is no different than telling a person to go to the back of the bus because of her skin color."
 
The attorney believes Judge McClean treated the former relationship as a marriage. "You can't start treating relationships as marriages that are not marriages, and Montana law is very clear," Nimocks adds. "They have a constitutional amendment that says marriage is one man and one woman."
 
Nimocks says he plans to appeal to the Montana Supreme Court -- and win.

Source: ONN

177 F.Supp. 376

James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff,
v.
Ole SINGSTAD and David G. Baillie, Jr., Individually and as Partners doing business as Singstad & Baillie,
and
Robert O. Bonnell, Chairman, Edgar T. Bennett and John J. McMullen, Constituting the State Roads Commission of Maryland, acting for and on behalf of the State of Maryland, Defendants.

Civil No. 10050.

United States District Court D. Maryland.

September 28, 1959.

Page 377

Ernest N. Votaw, Regional Atty., and Louis Weiner, Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Chambersburg, Pa., Stuart Rothman, Sol. of Labor, John J. Babe, Asst. Sol., and James M. Miller, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

A. Victor Cherbonnier, New York City, Theodore Sherbow, James J. Doyle, Jr., and Sherbow & Sherbow, Baltimore, Md., for Singstad & Baillie.

C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Joseph D. Buscher, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles C. Seymour, Special Atty., Baltimore, Md., for State Roads Commission of Maryland.

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

This is an action brought by the Secretary of Labor in September, 1957, to enjoin the defendants, Ole Singstad and David G. Baillie, Jr., individually and as partners doing business as Singstad & Baillie, from violating the overtime and record-keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C.A. §§ 207, 211(c)). No request is made for a money judgment. Singstad & Baillie are consulting engineers who, under contract with the State Roads Commission of Maryland (Commission) had designed and were supervising the construction of a vehicular tunnel under the Patapsco River in Baltimore Harbor. The Commission was permitted to intervene as an additional defendant.

The principal questions presented are:

I. Whether the employees of Singstad & Baillie were excluded from coverage (a) because the tunnel project was "new construction", or (b) on the ground that Singstad & Baillie "represented" the Commission and therefore were entitled to the benefit of the exclusion from the Act of "States or political subdivisions of a State".

II. Whether (a) the controversy is moot; or (b) the court should exercise its discretion to refuse an injunction.

Facts1

The Project

The practicability of a highway crossing the Patapsco River in Baltimore Harbor by bridge or tunnel had been discussed for many years. In 1953, after preliminary traffic and engineering investigations, the Commission developed

Page 378

the Patapsco River Tunnel Project (also known as the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel Project), comprising a two-tube tunnel under the Patapsco River from Canton to Fairfield, in Baltimore City, and approaches connecting the tunnel with heavily traveled interstate highways which pass through Baltimore City.2 The overall length of the facility is 15.2 miles, of which 1.7 miles are tunnel and open depressed ramps adjacent to the tunnel. The major purpose of the Patapsco River Tunnel was to permit the easier flow of interstate traffic by relieving the congestion in the streets of Baltimore around the head of the Harbor.3 The local traffic value of a direct highway link between the two waterfront industrial areas was also a factor in the decision to build the tunnel.

The Relationship between the Commission, Greiner and Singstad & Baillie

In the ordinary operations of the Commission, its employees design the highways which it builds, prepare the plans and specifications, and supervise the construction. When its work is unusually heavy, the Commission sometimes engages outside engineering firms to prepare detailed studies, designs, plans and specifications for particular highways. In such cases, however, the Commission customarily retains complete and exclusive control of the project.

The Patapsco River Tunnel Project was an exceptional undertaking for the Commission. It was financed entirely by the proceeds of revenue bonds, issued under Chapter 561 of the Acts of Maryland of 1947, as amended by Chapter 41 of the Acts of 1947, Extraordinary Session, Maryland Code, 1951 ed., Art. 89B, §§ 106-126, 1957 ed., Art. 89B, §§ 120-140. The trust agreement under which the bonds were issued provided that payments from the construction fund (except payments of interest) should be made only with the approval both of the Commission and of J. E. Greiner Company (Greiner), the "Consulting Engineer". Greiner's duties included the issuance of engineering directives, the approval of completed construction contract plans and specifications, and the coordination of the inspection of construction. The Deputy Chief Engineer of the Commission served as the liaison between Greiner and the Commission. His duties included the review of all contractors' estimates recommended for payment by the Consulting Engineer (Greiner).

The Commission had no one on its staff competent to design or supervise the construction of the projected tunnel. The Commission, therefore, entered into a contract with Singstad & Baillie, dated June 3, 1954, under which Singstad & Baillie undertook to design, prepare the plans and specifications for, and supervise the construction of the tunnel proper, the adjacent ramps, the service building, and two emergency garages near the tunnel entrances, all subject to the authority of the Consulting Engineer (Greiner). Singstad & Baillie's contractual obligations and authority were limited to the 1.7 miles from grade point to grade point.

The general specifications for the Tunnel Project, under the heading "Definitions", stated: "Consulting Engineer—J. E. Greiner Company, the representative of the Commission duly authorized to control and coordinate the work performed under the various construction sections." Singstad & Baillie were referred to as the "Contracting Engineer", a misleading term, but their function was clearly stated as follows: "In the performance of the Work, the Contracting

Page 379

Engineer is the direct representative of the Commission, subject to coordination and direction by the Consulting Engineer. All activities, documents, and materials initiated by the contractor which concern the Work and which require approval or action by the Commission shall be submitted to the Contracting Engineer and will be processed through the Consulting Engineer to the Commission."

During the construction, the representatives of Singstad & Baillie gave orders to the contractors who were performing that part of the work which Singstad & Baillie had designed. Such orders were usually given after consultation with a representative of Greiner who had been designated for that purpose. Objections by the contractors to such orders were heard by representatives of Singstad & Baillie, Greiner and the Commission, meeting together. Claims presented by contractors engaged in the construction of the tunnel proper were presented to Singstad & Baillie for processing to the Commission. Recommendations as to the action to be taken on such claims were made by Singstad & Baillie and forwarded to Greiner, who, together with the Commission, decided what action should be taken. The work, designs and orders of Singstad & Baillie were usually, perhaps always, approved by Greiner and by the Commission. Singstad & Baillie were independent contractors, with specified, limited authority.

A consideration of all the documents and evidence shows that the Commission retained all of its authority except as it was modified by the provisions of the trust agreement which required the concurrence of the Consulting Engineer (Greiner) for certain purposes.

Singstad & Baillie's Operations

Singstad & Baillie are design engineers, having their principal offices in New York City. Since 1951 they have been engaged in the design (including preparation of plans and specifications for construction) of vehicular tunnels for state highway departments, turnpike commissions, municipalities, and other public bodies. They regularly employ in their New York offices engineers, designers and draftsmen. Although the evidence on the question was meagre, it appears that some of these employees are not "professional employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.A. § 213; Reg. 29 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 541.3.

The contract with the Commission was unique so far as Singstad & Baillie were concerned, because they had never theretofore agreed to supervise the construction of a tunnel. Such supervision is customarily undertaken by the public authority, using its own employees, who may consult with the partners or professional employees of Singstad & Baillie. In the case of the Patapsco Harbor Tunnel, however, Singstad & Baillie themselves employed the inspectors, field clerks, rodmen, chainmen, and others, who performed nonprofessional work at the site; they also had some professional employees at the site. Singstad & Baillie opened an office in Baltimore; their top men visited Baltimore from time to time, and kept in touch by telephone with the men in the field, who sent periodic written reports to the New York office.

The provision that Singstad & Baillie prepare the plans and specifications was normal for them. Ole Singstad and other engineers at the top of the organization originated the ideas for the tunnel and passed them on to other engineers, chief draftsmen and group leaders; they, in turn, passed them down the line to designers and draftsmen, who, under supervision, worked on details of the plan.

The wages, salaries or other compensation of all of Singstad & Baillie's employees in New York and at the site in Baltimore were fixed and paid by Singstad & Baillie, who also determined their hours of work. Those employed in Maryland were insured under the Maryland Workmen's Compensation Law by a policy issued to Singstad & Baillie. None of the employees of Singstad & Baillie was covered under the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Maryland, nor were any of the employees of Singstad &

Page 380

Baillie hired, fired or controlled by the Commission or any other agency of the State of Maryland. Singstad & Baillie have been registered with the Department of Employment Security, State of Maryland, since June, 1954, and paid "unemployment" taxes on their employees in Maryland.

The non-professional employees of Singstad & Baillie at the site in Baltimore sometimes worked more than forty hours in a work week, and were not paid by Singstad & Baillie in accordance with the provisions of 29 U.S.C.A. § 207. Moreover, daily and weekly records of the hours worked by those employees were not maintained by Singstad & Baillie in accordance with the regulations issued by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 211.

Actual work on the Harbor Tunnel Project began in 1955, and was substantially completed on November 29, 1957; thereafter no further work was done on the project by Singstad & Baillie. The wage and hour investigation covered the period from February, 1955, through February, 1957. The complaint in this action was filed on September 26, 1957.

The men employed by Singstad & Baillie at the site in a non-professional capacity had not theretofore been regular employees of Singstad & Baillie. When their work was completed they left the employ of Singstad & Baillie, and it is not contemplated that they will be rehired.

Singstad & Baillie does not intend to do any further supervisory work with their own employees, but cannot say that they will never do so if the proposition is sufficiently attractive. In connection with a tunnel project in Florida, on which they are now engaged, they have agreed to furnish professional engineers to consult with the employees of the public authority who are supervising construction.

Discussion

I.

Some of the designers or draftsmen employed by Singstad & Baillie in their New York office appear not to have been "professional employees", and some of the inspectors, field clerks, and others who worked at the tunnel site in Baltimore certainly were not "professional employees". Since the decision of the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Lublin, 358 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 260, 3 L.Ed.2d 243, it is clear that such employees were engaged in commerce and were within the coverage of the Act unless, as defendants contend, (A) they were excluded by the "new construction" rule, or (B) Singstad & Baillie are entitled to the benefit of the exclusion from the Act of "States and political subdivisions of States".

A.

For some years after the decision of the Supreme Court in Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125, 63 S.Ct. 494, 87 L.Ed. 656, it was generally held that employees engaged in the repair or reconstruction of existing roads and bridges which carried a volume of interstate traffic were engaged "in commerce" within the meaning of the Act, but that employees engaged in the original construction of roads, bridges, etc. were engaged in a local activity and were not engaged "in commerce", even though the roads and bridges were to be integrated later into an interstate highway system. See e. g. Reed v. Murphey, 5 Cir., 168 F. 2d 257, certiorari granted and judgment vacated 335 U.S. 865, 69 S.Ct. 105, 93 L.Ed. 410; Van Klaveren v. Killian-House Co., 5 Cir., 210 F.2d 510, 43 A.L.R.2d 885; Koepfle v. Garavaglia, 6 Cir., 200 F.2d 191; Crabb v. Welden Bros., 8 Cir., 164 F.2d 797; Moss v. Gillioz Const. Co., 10 Cir., 206 F.2d 819. The Fourth Circuit recognized the so-called "new construction" rule, but refused to apply it in the case of a watchman employed by a contractor engaged in constructing a new bridge to replace a bridge which was part of an interstate highway. Bennett v. V. P. Loftis Co., 4 Cir., 167 F.2d 286.

The new construction rule received a severe if not a fatal blow from the Supreme Court in Mitchell v. C. W. Vollmer

Page 381

& Co., 349 U.S. 427, 75 S.Ct. 860, 99 L. Ed. 1196, where the Court, refusing to follow an F.E.L.A. case4 which had applied the new construction rule, said: "We are dealing with a different Act of another vintage—one that has been given a liberal construction from Kirschbaum Co. v. Walling, 316 U.S. 517, 62 S.Ct. 1116, 86 L.Ed. 1638, to Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, 345 U.S. 13, 73 S.Ct. 565, 97 L.Ed. 745. The question whether an employee is engaged `in commerce' within the meaning of the present Act is determined by practical considerations, not by technical conceptions. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 570, 63 S.Ct. 332, 336, 87 L.Ed. 460; Overstreet v. North Shore Corp., 318 U.S. 125, 128, 130, 63 S.Ct. 494, 496, 497, 87 L.Ed. 656. The test is whether the work is so directly and vitally related to the functioning of an instrumentality or facility of interstate commerce as to be, in practical effect, a part of it, rather than isolated, local activity. McLeod v. Threlkeld, 319 U.S. 491, 497, 63 S.Ct. 1248, 1251, 87 L.Ed. 1538. Repair of facilities of interstate commerce is activity `in commerce' within the meaning of the Act as we held Fitzgerald Const. Co. v. Pedersen, 324 U.S. 720, 65 S.Ct. 892, 89 L.Ed. 1316. And we think the work of improving existing facilities of interstate commerce, involved in the present case, falls in the same category." 349 U.S. at pages 429, 430, 75 S.Ct. at page 862.

Shortly thereafter the Eighth Circuit questioned how far Vollmer had "changed or eliminated" the new construction rule, Chambers Const. Co. v. Mitchell, 8 Cir., 233 F.2d 717, 721. But within a week after Chambers the Supreme Court said, by way of dictum in an F.E.L.A. case: "This Court recently rejected the `new construction' doctrine in determining whether an employee is `engaged in commerce' within the meaning of a like provision in the Fair Labor Standards Act." Southern Pacific Co. v. Gileo, 351 U.S. 493, 500, 76 S.Ct. 952, 957, 100 L.Ed. 1357. Since Gileo, the Fifth Circuit has decided Archer v. Brown & Root, Inc., 241 F.2d 663, a case dealing with a new causeway built across Lake Pontchartrain to relieve the overburdened highways on the south side of the lake and to facilitate the flow of traffic in and out of New Orleans. The Court said:

"Whether, prior to Vollmer, this project, physically isolated by considerable distance from the established facilities of which it was to be a functional part, would have been considered an improvement of an existing facility may have been open to considerable doubt, especially as to those within the geographical reach of our pronouncements, see Van Klaveren v. Killian-House Co., 5 Cir., 210 F.2d 510, [43 A.L.R.2d 885] (deemed overruled by the dissenters in Vollmer). But Vollmer does, we think, at least do this much: in the emphasis to be given `practical considerations' if it is plain that the project, when completed, is intended to and will serve as an important, definite addition to, or improvement of, existing identifiable instrumentalities and thus facilitate the flow of commerce, whether by savings in time, or distance, elimination of costly delays or obstacles, or by an infinite variety of other causes, then mere physical isolation, separation of the project from the point or points of its ultimate connection with existing facilities or the necessity for a future connection will not be decisive.

"That it would be a link in the existing interstate system was indispensable to the planning, execution, financing and operation of this Expressway. Thus it was, within the teaching of Vollmer, `so directly and vitally related to the functioning of an instrumentality or facility of interstate commerce as to be, in practical effect, a part of it, rather than isolated local activity * * *,'

Page 382

349 U.S. at page 429, 75 S.Ct. at page 862, 99 L.Ed. at page 1200." 241 F.2d at page 667.

The instant case is remarkably similar to Archer. The tunnel project was intended to serve as an important, definite addition to or improvement of existing identifiable instrumentalities (the highways through Baltimore City referred to above) and thus facilitate the flow of commerce by savings in time and distance, by the elimination of costly delays and bottlenecks, and by a variety of other means.

Defendants argue that the tunnel, 1.7 miles from grade point to grade point, should be considered by itself, apart from the approaches or the project as a whole. This contention is without merit. "If the declared purpose of the Act is to be accomplished, a project should be considered as a whole, in a realistic way; not broken down into its various phases so as to defeat the purpose of the Act." Bennett v. V. P. Loftis Co., supra, 167 F.2d at page 288.

The new construction rule offers no shelter to defendants in the instant case.

B.

Sec. 3(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 203(d), provides that the term "employer" shall not include "the United States or any State or political subdivision of a State". Defendants argue that Singstad & Baillie were acting for and on behalf of the Commission "on all phases of the 1.7 miles from grade point to grade point", not as an independent contractor but as "agent" of the Commission; that Singstad & Baillie "had the general authority and responsibility of the Commission and was in fact its alter ego"; and that, therefore, "occupying the position of the Commission on this phase of the project places Singstad and Baillie in the position of being exempt from the provisions of the Act."

This argument is not supported either by fact or law. The terms "agent" and "independent contractor" are not mutually exclusive. Restatement of Agency, 2d ed., sec. 2. Singstad & Baillie were independent contractors, who acted on behalf of the Commission as its agent for certain purposes, namely, the design of the tunnel, the preparation of plans and specifications, and the supervision of construction. Singstad & Baillie were not agents of the Commission for the purpose of hiring employees of the Commission. The inspectors, field clerks, linemen, and others were the servants (employees) of Singstad & Baillie. They were hired, fired, controlled and directed by Singstad & Baillie, and were treated as the employees of Singstad & Baillie for purposes of the workmen's compensation law and the unemployment security law. Neither Singstad and Baillie nor their employees became servants of the Commission.5

Defendants have cited no authority which holds that Singstad & Baillie are exempt from the provisions of the Act under these circumstances. More or less analogous cases hold the contrary. Magann v. Long's Baggage Transfer Co., D.C.W.D.Va., 39 F.Supp. 742, 747, Barksdale, J.; Thompson v. Daugherty, D.C. D.Md., 40 F.Supp. 279, 282, Chesnut, J.; Powell v. United States Cartridge Co., 339 U.S. 497, 70 S.Ct. 755, 94 L.Ed. 1017; Walling v. Patton-Tulley Transp. Co., 6 Cir., 134 F.2d 945, 949; Walling v. McCrady Construction Co., D.C.W.D.Pa., 60 F.Supp. 243, 245, affirmed 3 Cir., 156 F. 2d 932.

II.

A.

It has long been recognized that "the court is not * * * to decide moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare, for the government of future cases, principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue in the case before it." People of State of California v. San Pablo & T. R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 314, 13 S.Ct. 876, 878, 37 L.Ed. 747. On the other hand, in Walling

Page 383

v. Haile Gold Mines, 4 Cir., 136 F.2d 102, Judge Dobie said: "It is familiar law that the discontinuation of an illegal practice by a defendant (either by going out of business or otherwise) after the institution of legal proceedings against the defendant by a public agency, does not render the controversy moot. * * * This particularly is true where the challenged practices are capable of repetition. * * * Nor is a case rendered moot where there is a need for the determination of a question of law to serve as a guide to the public agency which may be called upon to act again in the same matter. * * *" 136 F.2d at page 105. See also Avery v. Wichita Falls Independent School Dist., 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 230, 234; Fleming v. Phipps, D.C.D.Md., 35 F. Supp. 627, 630, Chesnut, J.; McComb v. Homeworkers' Handicraft Cooperative, 4 Cir., 176 F.2d 633, 641.

Singstad & Baillie continued to employ a few non-professional employees in Maryland at the tunnel site after the instant suit was filed. In the normal course of their operations in their New York office, they still employ some designers and draftsmen who may be nonprofessional employees. Neither defendant has conceded that the new construction rule does not apply in this case, or in other similar cases on which Singstad & Baillie have been working or will work in the future. The case is not moot, and injunction is a proper remedy. Mitchell v. Lublin, 358 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 260, 3 L.Ed.2d 243.

B.

Whether an injunction shall issue in a particular case rests in the sound discretion of the court. Mitchell v. Chambers Construction Co., 10 Cir., 214 F.2d 515; Chambers Construction Co. v. Mitchell, 8 Cir., 233 F.2d 717; Mitchell v. Hodges Contracting Co., 5 Cir., 238 F. 2d 380; Mitchell v. Empire Gas Engineering Co., 5 Cir., 256 F.2d 781. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 69 S.Ct. 497, 93 L.Ed. 599; United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303. "The purpose of an injunction in a case of this kind is to prevent future violations in the public interest, not to punish for past transgressions." Mitchell v. Chambers Construction Co., 10 Cir., 214 F.2d 515, 517.

I am satisfied that Singstad & Baillie have been acting in good faith, under the advice of counsel. Until the decision of the Fifth Circuit in the Lake Pontchartrain case in 1958 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Lublin, in 1959, there was room for doubt about the issues involved in this case. The position of Singstad & Baillie was supported by the Attorney General of Maryland.

At a hearing on the question whether an injunction should issue, counsel for Singstad & Baillie stated that their clients will in the future keep the records required by the Act and will pay nonexempt employees in accordance with the provisions of the Act. They also said that they will pay, in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the past claims of all non-exempt employees against which limitations had not run on September 22, 1959. Counsel stated, however, that only one of the employees in the New York office is a non-professional employee; they contend that most routine drafting is done by graduate engineers, many of them with European degrees, who are not qualified to practice as engineers in the United States. It is hard to believe that a firm as large as Singstad & Baillie can operate with only one nonprofessional employee, a secretary. However many degrees a person may have, if he does routine work under supervision or other work which does not qualify as professional work under the test provided by the statute, he is a non-professional employee.

I shall enter a customary decree embodying the conclusions set out in this opinion and enjoining Singstad & Baillie from further violations of the Act, but will suspend the operation of the injunction unless and until it is made clear that Singstad & Baillie will not voluntarily comply with all the provisions of the Act, including the payment of all proper claims not barred by limitations on September

Page 384

22, 1959. The government may move at any time more than thirty days and less than three years after the date of such decree for an order removing the suspension of the operation of the injunction.

Counsel for plaintiff will prepare an appropriate decree.

---------------

Notes:

1. More detailed findings, as requested by the several parties, have been filed with the Clerk.

2. The approaches connected the tunnel with U.S. 1, near Elkridge, Maryland, west of Baltimore; with the Baltimore-Washington Expressway; with Alternate U.S. 301, south of Baltimore; and with U.S. 40, leading north and east, near the eastern boundary of the City.

3. The streets in Baltimore City which were involved in this heavy flow of interstate traffic included Light Street and Hanover Street—U.S. 301 and Md. 2; Washington Boulevard—U.S. 1; Pratt Street, Lombard Street, Fayette Street, Franklin Street, Orleans Street and Mulberry Street—U.S. 40.

4. Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 243 U.S. 43, 37 S.Ct. 268, 61 L.Ed. 583.

5. Nothing said herein is intended to imply that Greiner became the alter ego of the Commission or was exempt from the provisions of the Act.

---------------

I wonder if he's been to rub and tugs, had escorts, etc.  He has never admitted to any of those - but I can pretty much now think of scenarious for everything - like how when he was coming to my house (before we bought a house together this year) it sometimes took an hour and a half when it was a 45 minute drive (and there was a massage parlour on the way).  I have no evidence to support this whatsoever, but I still doubt everything and wonder if he's disclosed everything.

I have moments when I think something is up and now I wonder if it's intuition or simply jealous paranoia.     I found a receipt for lunch on Friday - he told me (before I found it) that he had lunch with 2 guys from work.  The receipt had 2 drinks, 2 meals and said 2 guests.  I brought it up and he text messaged one of the guys, "hey buddy, what was that restaurant called where we had lunch on Friday" and the guy texyed back the name.  It checked out and I was mad for nothing - just paranoia.  Apparently the guy forgot his wallet so Bob picked up the tab.

He still has an external hard drive that he carries around with him - he says it's to back up his work files and he travels a lot for work so he needs his files.  As a reminder, Bob had 10 gig of porn stored before this sex addiction was revealed the end of May. I can't figure it out to get in there to see what's there.  I asked Bob about it and he looked a bit nervous, trying not to look nervous, but then is it me looking for every sign and seeing things that aren't there? I should have asked him to see what was on there (he's away for business this week), but felt like a knob after the lunch receipt checked out.  Now I wish I had.  He'll let me look at anything and it would have likely made me feel better - sometimes I'm stupid.  Now I wonder if he's in a hotel room deleting everything. 

We went to a function on the weekend and I had too much to drink.  I'm not usually a drinker, but when I drink I want sex.  Bob is still on his 60-day celibacy gig. When we went to bed he said, "well, I'm so tired that even if I wanted to..." and we went to sleep.  Then I get all paranoid about the celibacy thing...I think, "is he sleeping with other people and it's an excuse becuase he's relieved not to sleep with me?"  "Isn't he attrcted to me?" ...I hate my brain sometimes.  But, I'm proud of him for being the one who wants to stay on this road to sex addiction recovery.  In the morning he said, "i wanted to, but I don't want to do another 60-days for screwing up."  I still don't know how his 30-days turned into 60.

Anyway, the point is...I'm not sure if any of this will ever go away. It's been 5 months since I found out about the long affair, the cybersex addiction, masterbation addiction and porn addiction.  To be honest, I am not obsessed with it as much as I was for the first 3 months (when I think I may have been agoraphobic - I'd leave the house and panic.  Never ever been like that before).  So with time the pain isn't so intense, but it is there everday reminding me.  I wonder how Bob feels when I snoop and don't trust him.  I fear that my jealousy, distrusting will drive him away too.

Oh complicated sex addiction, why do you have to exist?

Why would I talk about this??? Well for one, once again, I know I'm not the only one. I also know that the percentage of sexual partners normally goes up for people who have been sexually abused. I think it might be for all people who get abused in general, but sexual abuse especially. 

I have always thought of myself as a kind of enigma. I learned early with my first sexual experiences that something was different about me.

Through the years I have carried this burden and still to this day it haunts me...Sexual Anxiety.

Why do I have sexual anxiety...I always have played it off and passed it off as something else, but it's there and I never confronted the real reason it is there. 

The former wife and I had a long conversation about my sexual experiences and sexual self on Friday. A lot of stuff came out that not even she was aware of. 

So let me try to make sense out of this and start from the beginning...

I have never, not once, made the first move on a girl I liked or thought I could like or thought there could be more than a friendship...Pretty much I have never made the first move on any girl that I respected. Now the question is why? I have had girlfriends ask me why it took them to make the first move when apparently they had been waiting for me to do it. Why? Well for one I somehow am completely oblivious and also because I have always cherished closeness and friendship so much that I do get a lot of anxieties thinking about taking the next step...

When I was being abused, I was the one who played the role of "female". I had to play Marty's Mom Lorraine in the back seat of the car outside of the school in that particular scene in Back to the Future. I was the one who was always "prompted" to initiate the oral sex. I never was the aggressor or the "Man" in the role playing. I was always the timid one. I was second fiddle. Literally, my fiddle was always played with second. (Okay, bad joke, but that was funny!) So I was never used to going first. It wasn't my "role". I never "understood" why I didn't take the first step, but talking it out this point in my abuse had to be the reason. 

So flash forward, I would gather that is the reason I am so timid and unassuming when it comes to making the first move...

Now, my friend today when I talked to her about it because she had been really interested in my blogs and she had some questions, we talked about this blog I am writing now. She brought up an excellent point. She said that my demeanor is that I am a player. That I exude the confidence and game, that of a person that has no problem talking to women or getting a woman. And I agreed with her. It's not confidence in talking I lack, I am a great talker, I'm funny, I can be cocky and arrogant, and like she said, I have plenty of pictures with me on the town with random hot girls. Like my old Sgt. Will from Ft. Bliss once said, "I don't know what you do, or how you do it, but you find the hottest girl and you have always get her. You have the biggest balls I know." It's not about the ball size, but let's face it, I, like every other male on earth, love beautiful women, and when I see one, if they turn down my conversation; the next one is around the corner. But usually I have a knack for making conversation. Once again, it's not the "hunt" (what a horrible term) that I have the issue with...I'm good at the "hunt"

It's the anxiety...Because when I meet these "hot" girls, some of them I actually find quite intriguing and want to get to know them better...And some girls, believe it or not, just want to have a one night stand...Swear! So when I get put in these awkward moments for me, I have built up a conversation, I have the door opened possibly, but I "hunt", I never go in for the "kill"...never.

Example: When I was first dating to the former wife, she was serving at a strip club...Me and my boys used to go in there and get our "pre-game" on before we went out to the real clubs. One time she asked why I hadn't come over the night before, and I said that it was late and I went home because she got off real late. She then asked me why I hadn't asked for a key to her apartment so I could be waiting for her when she got off work...Not only was I floored, cause I wasn't expecting that, it shows how dumb and naive I am. How, as she explains it, girls "hunt" too, and girls want you (guys) to go in for the kill, not the other way around...But apparently I wasn't going in for the kill...

One of the reasons I have never gone in for the kill is because I learned in high school I had a problem and it's embarrassing. I have sexual dysfunction. I think the smart people in the world call it sexual anxiety. I call it not being a man. What does that mean? Sexual anxiety? What kind of man doesn't want to have sex? That makes no sense. Right?

Well for me it means this. Unless I am completely comfortable with the person I am with, on all levels, I cannot perform. No matter how hot the girl is, no matter how much I want it, no mater how much stimulation I receive, I cannot perform. And yes, it's embarrassing. Now there are aberrations, but not a lot...

How has this affected my hunt??? Well I know that every time I go out with the guys, that the chances of me meeting a girl that night and taking her home are very unlikely. I play the "hunt" to perfection, but that's all I do. I am the one who tries to convince girls that I'm worth knowing and that we can start a friendship..Then, maybe down the line something might happen...(Once again, the ones I respect and see something in...)

I can trace my first experience with sexual anxiety back to the first time I shoulda had sex. I was going to be a sophomore in high school, the girl is still prolly one of the hottest girls I've seen to this day, and everything was good...I was rock solid if you know what I mean...Then when the point came and she pulled out the condom...Boom...Over...Flaccid as all hell...I had no idea what was going on. Here I was about to lose my virginity to an uber hot chick, not some slobber knocker like some of my friends, and I couldn't get it up. I was all nervous and jittery inside...Needless to say, I chopped it up to being my first time and we both accepted that excuse...That began the long line of excuses.

There were a lot of other times in high school where I had issues and I always made some sort of excuse. Even as I got older, more girls, more excuses, sometimes to the point that I stopped trying to have sex, or I would make an excuse before I got to "the" point where penetration was expected...

Like any other guy that hangs out with the boys, we all talk about our sexual exploits...And I have my fair share, but not like them. Okay, there was a time in El Paso when I did go crazy nuts and I have no idea how, not proud of it, but that 4 month stretch when we got back from War the first time, when I was 23, I went from 6 sexual partners in my life, to 20 or so. Once again, not proud of it, but still not near the numbers my boys have...Even if half of theirs are lies I'm still lacking in the "#'s" department. I was always jealous in a way that I wasn't able to just go out and "bone" whoever whenever. There have been times where I had "one night stands" that weren't just one night, that got better after the first night, I guess they were flings, but only because the first night was so bad by my part, and whatever excuse I said, whether it be I was to drunk, on to many pills, I wasn't ready, I didn't have a condemn...They gave me a second chance to make up for my flaccidness...So it all worked out and I think most of them would forget the first time we "attempted". I never did, and I never had. I know who, when and where all of my shortcomings have been.

Even with the more important sexual partners in my life, my longest girlfriends, my fiancée(s), my wife(s) (LOL), the first time I fell short. Once I got to know them, and they knew me, my sex life was great...But what about now? What do I do know...Newly single in a way, wanting companionship....

It makes me overly anxious. It's the ultimate stressor, knowing I can be amazing in bed, partly because I love to pleasure the other person, (another learned trait of sexual abuse that actually comes in handy, how sick is that. But true, I always want to please my partner before self. In fact, I've only had 2 important females in my life ever tell me to just relax and let them pleasure me for once...), and because well, I'm good at it. Really. I am. I promise...

And in keeping with that promise comes another wrinkle in my story. Insecurity. Oh of the sexual insecurity I have with myself. If I am with someone I care about, I ask after every intimate sexual moment, "Was it good for you? Was I okay?" to the point that I have had my partners ask me to stop asking, why do I ask, why am I so insecure, do I not think I am good...Just a multitude of questions where my insecurity takes away from the "moment". Let me tell you, that does not help the anxiety whatsoever at all either. 

Then when I have become comfortable in my relationships, I still have a hard time being the "aggressor". I want to so bad but I am and have always been afraid of disrespecting my girl. I appreciate my partner, the ones I'm in love with or like, or see a future with, or care about, so much that I'm afraid to lose them by being overly aggressive. It's been pointed out o many occasions that "I'm not the aggressive, arrogant, confident guy I met" once I have sealed the deal in a relationship. I revert to my role of timidness. I'm the biggest man's man not man's man. Beer, Poker, Clubs, Bars, Sports, Gambling, ATV's, SnowBoarding, Cursing, Army..."Afraid to make a move on a girl" (Oh what an effing pansy! Why oh why am I so metrosexual. Jesus dude!)

My sexual anxiety has probably prevented me from having a lot of partners, but it has increased the pleasure and respect in the partners I have had. My sexual anxiety has prevented me from one night stands, but like the former wife says, "It probably prevented you from STD's". Good point. Thanks.

I hate my sexual anxiety and I spite Larry Way, my abuser, for causing this...But what I can thank him for is the positive things that came out of my sexual anxiety. Like always treating women with respect and not looking at them like pieces of meat, because unlike my "boys" who can just go "bone", for me, I need a lot more intimacy, and in the long run, that's a good thing. I need companionship and relationships, not waking up with random people all the time. I'm the ultimate relationship guy, the total anti-one night stand guy...And that's SO UNMANLY! (Right?)

It's not easy to talk about this and it is somewhat embarrassing, but it's true. The reason I wanted to bring this up is because the statistics prove that sexually abused kids are more promiscuous. I am not one of them, I want to know that I am not alone in my sexual anxiety, that I'm not the only one that gets "scared", "jittery", "clammy" and ridiculously anxious to the point of flaccidity when it comes to new sexual partners...

Lastly, my age. Lordy lordy I'm almost 30. Yet I have this penchant for liking the younger girls. The college kids...Shit, I was 26 and the former wife was 19 when we met, so I've always had a thing for the younger ones. For some reason I get intimidated by females my own age, females with careers, females in power, and especially females that are older than me. I will say this, when I was 22 I was with a 29 year old and she effed up my world in a good way...Whoa....But seriously, it's weird because when I meet females that are 26-30 I think they are much older than they are. They carry themselves much older than me, and they are my age. Why do they intimidate me? Is it because I want to have "control", to feel smarter, to "teach" my younger partner about life? To be a partner and a mentor? How gay! What's wrong with me? I want educated girls with prospects and aspirations of a career, yet I think in some sick and twisted way I feel that I'm not mature enough for a female my age. Event though I like wine, and arts, and nice dinners...I'm still the guy who drives a civic, has multiple tattoos, has nipples pierced, listens to punk rock, emo and Rap, and that's what the young kids like...But the young kids don't want relationships, they want booty calls...When I was reading the book last night, at the end of the chapter, I figured it out I think. I am always told that I act like a kid, that I'm playful and funny and not serious and stuff. Which can be good? But females my age are looking to get grounded soon...While the young college girls just wanna have fun and don't want to get grounded soon...So here's my dilemma, I want an educated woman who wants to have fun and realizes that a relationship doesn't necessarily hold you down and that supports me in all of my "kid" activities, my "man" activities, and wants more that a booty call..And maybe when I enroll at UT Fall '09 I'll meet that girl...Until then, maybe this paragraph will explain my mental immaturity when it comes to my decisions in relationships and for whom I choose to be attracted to relationship wise. It might explain why at almost 30 I act and want to be 21 and why I find it easier to hang out with 20 year olds than 30 years olds...

"I've heard it said that children are free spirited, but I don't remember ever being free when I was young. My mind and my heart carried a heavy burden as far back as I can remember. As a child, I carried the pain of an adult. As an adult, I carried the pain of a child."- Page 47, No Momma's Boy byDominic Carter.

As a kid all I wanted to be was an adult and grow up so I had control...As an adult, all I've ever wanted to do is be a kid and get back the childhood I always wanted.

(Im)Perfectly Me,

Donnie D.

The meeting will take place on Thursday 16th October at The Stone House Hotel, Stone, ST15 0BQ from 7p.m to approx. 9.45 p.m.

This month’s event will bring two inspiring presenters:

Firstly, Tony Altham with his presentation ‘SOS Networking’, ‘Secrets of Successful Networking’ draws from his own experience in changing careers in the difficult early 1990’s he started his own company and watched, listened and learned from the best social and business communicators to hone into what makes them highly effective networkers.

In his presentation ‘SOS Networking’ Tony shares exactly what he has learned that makes effective Networking such a key ingredient in business success.

The second guest is Jane Keogh with ‘Who’s Life is it Anyway?’. This is a presentation that touches on attitudes and choices, and how by becoming truly centred, anyone can have crystal clear vision and purpose.

Jane is a successful business woman running many businesses in a wide array of sectors and from her experience she noticed that self doubt, limiting beliefs and that 'little voice' can really get in the way. Jane has become increasingly passionate about personal development and how it works in achieving business and life goals and to those ends she is now a coach and Master NLP Practitioner.

All this and for just £10 on the door! Money well spent and all proceeds over running costs go to charity!

Bring along plenty of business cards and any samples or information you have about your business or organisation, it won’t be wasted!

Booking is taken in advance all you need to do is email: info@communicate4.co.uk or call: 08443 577 222

"Jongeren Over De Drempel"

Jongeren Over De Drempel (JODD) is een nieuw project dat loopt in Eeklo en dat als doelstelling heeft: Jongeren uit de tweede en derde graad van het BSO onderwijs voorbereiden op de arbeidsmarkt.

De coördinatie van het project is in handen van vzw EnNU?, in samenwerking met de stedelijke jeugddienst. Het provinciebestuur van Oost-Vlaanderen staat in voor een deel van de financiering.

JODD loopt in het schooljaar 2008-2009 op alledrie de Eeklose scholen (College OLV Ten Doorn, K Atheneum en PTI).

Aanpak

Bedoeling is dat de scholieren zich aan de hand van bedrijfsbezoeken een duidelijk beeld leren vormen van de sector en de bedrijven waarin ze later zullen werken. Er wordt daarbij een onderscheid gemaakt tussen de tweede en de derde graad.

Voor leerlingen van de tweede graad zal de klemtoon vooral liggen op het kennismaken met de sector en de regionale bedrijven. Met scholieren uit de derde graad kan er al meer gewerkt worden in de richting van sollicitatievaardigheden, arbeidsattitude aankweken, uitbouwen van contactennetwerk, enz ...

Flankerend aan het traject met de bedrijfsbezoeken voor leerlingen, zal er ook een informatiecampagne worden ontwikkeld rond de werking van het centrum "Leren en Werken" van het PTI. Bedoeling daarvan is niet zozeer jongeren en of leerlingen aan te spreken, maar wel de andere scholen/partners.

Een concreet idee dat ook leeft is het organiseren van een jobbeurs op het einde van het schooljaar. De komende weken zal blijken of dit een haalbare kaart is.

Het project is gestart op 01 september 2008 en staat dus nog in zijn kinderschoenen. Momenteel worden alle mogelijke partners aangesproken. Vandaar ook deze nieuwsbrief.

We zijn momenteel op zoek naar alles en iedereen die mee wil helpen denken rond dit nieuwe project!

GEZOCHT: PARTNERS

We zijn op zoek naar personen of organisaties die ervaring hebben met het thema jongeren en tewerkstelling. Hoe meer organisaties input (knowhow) kunnen geven aan het project, hoe meer kans op slagen. Ook indien er al ergens andere, soortgelijke, projecten lopen die zich richten tot jongeren kan dat nuttig zijn om weten.

GEZOCHT: BEDRIJVEN

We zijn op zoek naar (Eeklose) bedrijven die interesse hebben om aan dit project mee te helpen. Het is een vrij uniek project in Vlaanderen en onder het motto "baat het niet, dan schaadt het niet" roepen we iedereen op om open te staan voor eventuele voorstellen. Wie weet levert het u op termijn immers geen nieuwe, gemotiveerde werkkrachten op?!

Voorlopig houdt een engagement nog niet heel veel in: laat gewoon weten dat er interesse is via bspdeserre@gmail.com en we houden u sowieso op de hoogte van verdere ontwikkelingen. Indien zou blijken dat uw bedrijf actief kan meehelpen in het project zal er later nog verder overleg gepleegd worden.

GEZOCHT: FINANCIËLE ONDERSTEUNING

Het project wordt voor 75% betaald door de provincie Oost-Vlaanderen, maar de overige 25% moet vzw EnNU? zelf zien te vinden. Het stadsbestuur is bereid gevonden om voor een stuk in de kosten te delen, maar daarnaast moet er nog op een andere manier geld gegenereerd worden.

Vandaar dat er een klein sponsorplan is opgesteld.
- Voor 250€ wordt u sponsor.
- Dat houdt in dat uw logo op al het drukwerk/promo/website komt te staan.
- Daarnaast maken we 1x 5000 fullcolor flyers, specifiek voor uw bedrijf. Verspreiding zal gebeuren over tweede en derde graad (4000 scholieren). De overschot zal kunnen dienen als eigen promomateriaal.

Wilt u met uw bedrijf of merk onder de aandacht komen bij zowat ALLE scholieren in Eeklo? Of draagt u het idee achter het initiatief gewoon een goed hart toe? Steun dan het project Jongeren Over De Drempel en wordt sponsor!

Wilt u niet optreden als sponsor maar denkt u wel op een andere manier te kunnen bijdragen aan het project? Laat het ons weten!

Hopelijk kunnen we elkaar helpen!

Voor vzw EnNU?,
Jurgen De Wever
info@jongerenoverdedrempel.be
0478900811

How is this Monday morning? With my coffee was reading news from Microsoft and called my attention to the expansion in Latin America of Microsoft which will open up new business opportunities to partners and customers.

Microsoft continues to innovate and create more business solutions to its partners and customers in Latin America.

According to Microsoft the scene of the industry is evolving and with this growth are doing their business partners. They are providing their customers greater expertise in vertical solutions, geography and business.

Latin America compared to other regions of the world has risen to sixth to fourth level in terms of business opportunities between customers and partners of Microsoft.

Doubling the number of solutions published in the tool "solutions Finders" and 596% increase in the connections between customers and partners through this tool.

 Microsoft to grow in Latin America,

Best regards,

Mireya

The more people opened up to me about their ideas and beliefs, I found a common theme around love and partnership. Most men and women are not being true to their own intuition and ideas.  People all over have been listening to "advice" about how to find love that was given to them by family, friends, and strangers who had no idea how to find true love for themselves. 

"Don't tell them everything you know", "Play games", and "Don't let your emotions show" are phrases that I have heard over and over again given as advice to men and women trying to find a partner.  To me, this advice is deeply flawed.  "Why, you may ask, is that not good advice?"  Well, I live my life by the simple thought 'you get what you give'.   You attract people into your life based on what you are putting out – if you are guarded, you are more likely to bring another into your life that is guarded.  If you play games, then chances are the person or people you attract into your life will be more than ready to start taking score.  Hiding your emotions is only going to cause confusion and pain in YOUR heart, and in that act you are saying to yourself, "I care more about how the other person feels than myself".  What good will ever come of that? If you can't love and respect yourself, then you definitely can't sincerely love and respect another.  People rarely stop to think for themselves, especially when it comes to something that involves searching within for the answer.  It is so much easier to ask others for advice, to live by the rules that others have set up before you - for we live in a society that is based on instant gratification on so many levels. 

Sure, there are those out there who have realized love for themselves and are dancing to their own tune – but most of the men and women I have come in contact with have been lost as to where and how to find the love they so desperately seek.  In this silent desperation they find it easiest to look outside themselves for the answer – when the answer is right inside.  Tucked away in the very thing they are trying to satiate – their hearts. 

So, the next time you find yourself in a situation where you are looking for love and can't seem to find it – be it online, in the real world, or even if its just an idea in your mind you haven't acted upon – take a few minutes and ask yourself why you haven't found what you are looking for. Think about the type of person you want to bring into your life and ask yourself what kind of individual THAT person would want to love.  Most of the time you will realize that just being yourself and listening to your heart will attract them to you – no games, no hiding your feelings, and no playing dumb.  Yes, it might take longer to find "the one" this way, but be true to yourself and the right person is bound to find you.

I am pleased to announce a new alliance with ContractEdge for IT Professionals. I don't know about you but I have always found contracts to be somewhat of a pain to produce and ContractEdge just seems to make it that much easier.  As part of its alliance with ContractEdge, SMBTN members

• Computer consulting
• Software and application development
• Software licensing
• Web site development and hosting
• Application services
• Network installation and maintenance
• Other technology-related services

ContractEdge’s sophisticated interview format walks the user step-by-step through the drafting process, automatically inserting the appropriate legal clauses and project data into the document. A typical document can be completed in about 10 minutes.