Monthly Archives: August 2018

Jorge Manrique (ur. 1979)

Jorge Manrique Islas (ur. 18 czerwca 1979 w mieście Meksyk) – meksykański piłkarz występujący na pozycji środkowego pomocnika, obecnie trener.

Manrique pochodzi ze stołecznego miasta Meksyk i jako junior występował w tamtejszych klubach Pumas UNAM i Atlante FC, jednak profesjonalną karierę piłkarską rozpoczął w wieku dwudziestu dwóch lat w drugoligowym zespole Guerreros de Acapulco. Stamtąd po upływie pół roku przeniósł się do występującego w najwyższej klasie rozgrywkowej klubu Tiburones Rojos de Veracruz, gdzie za kadencji urugwajskiego szkoleniowca Hugo Fernándeza zadebiutował w meksykańskiej Primera División, 3 sierpnia 2002 w przegranym 3:4 spotkaniu z Morelią. Ogółem barwy tej ekipy reprezentował przez sześć miesięcy bez większych sukcesów, pełniąc wyłącznie rolę rezerwowego. W styczniu 2003 został zawodnikiem nowo założonej drugoligowej drużyny Jaguares de Tapachula, pełniącej rolę filii pierwszoligowego Jaguares de Chiapas z miasta Tuxtla Gutiérrez, gdzie spędził pół roku. Bezpośrednio po tym został włączony do pierwszego zespołu Jaguares, gdzie 13 marca 2004 w wygranej 1:0 konfrontacji z Monterrey strzelił swojego jedynego gola w pierwszej lidze. Ogółem w tej drużynie występował przez blisko pięć lat, jednak nie potrafił sobie wywalczyć pewnego miejsca w wyjściowym składzie, będąc wyłącznie głębokim rezerwowym ekipy.

Wiosną 2008 Manrique podpisał umowę z drugoligowym Petroleros de Salamanca, gdzie jako podstawowy zawodnik występował przez sześć miesięcy, po czym przeniósł się do innego klubu grającego na zapleczu najwyższej klasy rozgrywkowej – CD Irapuato. Tam również z miejsca wywalczył sobie niepodważalne miejsce w linii pomocy i już w pierwszym, jesiennym sezonie Apertura 2008 dotarł ze swoim zespołem do finału rozgrywek drugoligowych. Sukces ten powtórzył również rok później, podczas sezonu Apertura 2009, natomiast podczas wiosennych rozgrywek Clausura 2011 triumfował z Irapuato w Liga de Ascenso, wciąż będąc kluczowym zawodnikiem ekipy. Wobec porażki w decydującym dwumeczu z Tijuaną (0:0, 1:2) nie zaowocowało to jednak awansem do najwyższej klasy rozgrywkowej. Ogółem w barwach Irapuato występował przez cztery lata, z wyjątkiem ostatniego półrocza pełniąc rolę podstawowego gracza zespołu.

W lipcu 2012 Manrique powrócił do Tiburones Rojos de Veracruz, tym razem występującego już jednak w drugiej lidze. Tym razem spędził w nim rok, będąc wyłącznie rezerwowym zespołu i nie odnosząc z nim większych sukcesów, po czym wraz z resztą drużyny przeniósł się do klubu Atlético San Luis z siedzibą w San Luis Potosí, który wykupił licencję jego dotychczasowego pracodawcy. Tam już po kilku tygodniach doznał poważnej kontuzji stawu biodrowego, wskutek której musiał pauzować przez pół roku, a bezpośrednio po tym, w wieku 35 lat, zdecydował się zakończyć piłkarską karierę.

Bezpośrednio po zakończeniu kariery Manrique rozpoczął pracę jako szkoleniowiec, jesienią 2014 trenując trzecioligowe rezerwy Atlético San Luis. W listopadzie 2014 zdecydował się jednak wznowić karierę piłkarską, podpisując umowę ze swoim byłym klubem, drugoligowym CD Irapuato. Mimo to dwa miesiące później, po upływie okresu przygotowawczego, ze względu na swoją słabą formę fizyczną i zaawansowany wiek ostatecznie zakończył karierę, dołączając do sztabu szkoleniowego Irapuato. W lutym 2015 zastąpił Roberto Sandovala na stanowisku trenera pierwszej drużyny, którą prowadził przez cztery kolejne miesiące, po czym klub został rozwiązany, przenosząc się do Los Mochis i zmieniając nazwę na Murciélagos FC. W styczniu 2016 został trenerem tego zespołu, jednak wytrwał na stanowisku tylko przez miesiąc – zanotował dwa zwycięstwa i pięć porażek w siedmiu spotkaniach, po czym stracił pracę z powodu słabych wyników.

Bonfiglio (1951) · García (1952–53) · Castañeda (1953–54) · Costa (1954–55) · Alonso (1955) · García (1956) · Ross (1957–58) · Tamayo (1958–59) · J.M. Rodríguez (1959–60) · García (1960–62) · Miloc (1962–64) · Reynoso (1964) · Blanco (1964–65) · Gómez (1965–67) · Miloc (1967–71) · Rey (1971–72) · Villalobos (1972) · Navarro Corona (1972–74) · Mireles (1974–75) · Manzotti (1975–76) · Villaseñor (1977) · López (1977–78) · Prieto (1981–82) · Torres (1983–84) · Malta (1984–86) · Haro (1986–87) · Maldonado (1987–89) · Maciel (1989) · C. Rodríguez (1989) · Puppo (1989) · Troche (1989–90) · Puppo (1990–91) · F. Vargas (1992–93) · G. Vargas (1994–95) · G. Vargas (1997) · Trejo (1997) · Rergis (1998–99) · Alvarado (1999–2001) · Trejo (2001) · Aranda (2001) · Fernández (2001) · Saldívar (2002–03) · Hisis (2003t· de los Cobos (2003) · Guimarães (2004) · Ascencio (2005) · López (2005–06) · Alvarado (2006) · Alonso (2006) · Bacas (2007) · Manjarrez (2008) · Rayas (2008–09) · Orozco (2009) · Batocletti (2009–10) · I. Rodríguez (2010t· Alvarado (2010) · Scatolaro (2010) · I. Rodríguez (2010–11) · Arellano (2011) · Eugui (2011) · Rayas (2012) · Orozco (2012) · Medrano (2013) · Márquez (2013t· Serrano (2013) · Ramírez Perales (2014) · Sandoval (2014–15) · Manrique (2015t· Sosa (2015–16) · Padilla (od 2016)

Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

The original Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was negotiated and concluded during the last years of the Cold War and established comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe (from the Atlantic to the Urals) and mandated the destruction of excess weaponry. The treaty proposed equal limits for the two “groups of states-parties”, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact. In 2007, Russia “suspended” its participation in the treaty, and on 10 March 2015, citing NATO’s de facto breach of the Treaty, Russia formally announced it was “completely” halting its participation in it as of the next day.

In 1972, US president Richard Nixon and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev reached a compromise agreement to hold separate political and military negotiations. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) would deal with political issues, and Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions (MBFR) with military issues. The CSCE resulted in 1975 in 35 nations signing the concluding document: the Helsinki Final Act. Negotiations for MBFR were stalled by the USSR in 1979 because of NATO’s decision to deploy new intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. In 1986, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev proposed in the context of MBFR negotiations to reduce ground and air forces, and to include conventional and nuclear weapons from the Atlantic to the Urals. This proposal was later that year formalized during a Warsaw Treaty meeting. NATO’s North Atlantic Council of foreign ministers issued the Brussels Declaration on Conventional Arms Control, which called for two distinct sets of negotiations: one to build on the Confidence and Security-Building Measures (CSBM) results of the Stockholm Conference and the other to establish conventional stability in Europe through negotiations on conventional arms control from the Atlantic to the Urals (ATTU). In 1987, the Stockholm Document entered into force and provided for the first time for a negotiated right to conduct on-site inspections of military forces in the field.

Informal talks between the 16 NATO and the 7 Warsaw Treaty nations began in Vienna on February 17, 1987 on a mandate for conventional negotiations in Europe, which would set out treaty negotiating guidelines. Several months later, on June 27, NATO presented a draft mandate during the 23-nation conference in Vienna. The mandate called for elimination of force disparities, capability for surprise attack, and large-scale offensive operations, and the establishment of an effective verification system. Meanwhile, in December the INF Treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union was signed, effectively allowing mutual inspections. During the May–June 1988 Moscow Summit, US President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev emphasized the importance of stability and security in Europe, specifically calling for data exchange, verification of these data, and then reductions. In December Gorbachev announced at the United Nations a unilateral withdrawal of 50,000 troops from Eastern Europe, and demobilization of 500,000 Soviet troops.

In January 1989, NATO and the Warsaw Treaty members produced the Mandate for the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The mandate set out objectives for the CFE Treaty and established negotiating principles, and formal negotiations began on March 9, 1989 in Vienna. When US President George H.W. Bush and France’s President François Mitterrand met in May, Bush announced the acceptance of reductions of combat aircraft and helicopters. He also proposed a ceiling of 275,000 personnel stationed in Europe by the US and Soviet Union. Bush’s proposal was formally adopted during the 1989 Brussels NATO summit and subsequently presented in Vienna. In November the Berlin Wall fell and in the following months revolutions broke out in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Bush and Gorbachev agreed to speed up arms control and economic negotiations. Bush proposed even steeper reductions, and the Soviet Union negotiated and concluded troop withdrawal agreements with Warsaw Treaty states.

In addition, at the time, German reunification was underway, which would lead to the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany. The treaty was linked to the CFE treaty by specifying that certain military limits imposed on Germany would come into force upon the conclusion of the CFE Treaty.

The Treaty was signed in Paris on November 19, 1990 by 22 countries. These were divided into two groups:

In 1991 the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty dissolved and Czechoslovakia was in the middle of splitting into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which explains why the treaty was ratified by 30 rather than 22 states:

The treaty entered into force on July 17, 1992. Russia notified other signatories of its intended suspension of the CFE on July 14, 2007.

On May 31, 1996, the treaty was amended by the so-called flank agreement, which relaxed the restrictions for Russia and Ukraine in the flank region defined in Article V, subparagraph 1(A) of the treaty.

The CFE Treaty set equal ceilings for each bloc (NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization), from the Atlantic to the Urals, on key armaments essential for conducting surprise attacks and initiating large-scale offensive operations. Collectively, the treaty participants agreed that neither side could have more than:

To further limit the readiness of armed forces, the treaty set equal ceilings on equipment that could be deployed with active units. Other ground equipment had to be place in designated permanent storage sites. The limits for equipment each side could have in active units were:

The treaty further limited the proportion of armaments that could be held by any one country in Europe to about one-third of the total for all countries in Europe – the “sufficiency” rule. These limits were:

All sea-based Naval forces were excluded from CFE Treaty accountability.

In addition to limits on the number of armaments in each category on each side, the treaty included regional limits intended to prevent destabilizing force concentrations of ground equipment.

To meet required troop ceilings, equipment had to be destroyed or, if possible, converted to non-military purposes.

The treaty included unprecedented provisions for detailed information exchanges, on-site inspections, challenge inspections, and on-site monitoring of destruction. Treaty parties received an unlimited right to monitor the process of destruction. Satellite surveillance was used to verify placement and progress on destruction of large military equipment like vehicles and tanks.

Finally, the Treaty established in Vienna a body composed of all Treaty members, which was called the Joint Consultative Group (JCG), and which dealt with questions relating to compliance with the provisions of the Treaty. The group aimed to:

After the treaty entered into force, a 4-month baseline inspection period began. Twenty-five percent of the destruction had to be completed by the end of 1 year, 60% by the end of 2 years, and all destruction required by the treaty completed by the end of 3 years.

The principal accomplishment was the large-scale reduction or destruction of conventional military equipment in the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains (ATTU) region during the first 5 years the Treaty was in effect. By the end of the Treaty’s reduction period in 1995, when equipment limits took effect, the 30 States Parties completed and verified by inspection the destruction or conversion of over 52,000 battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery pieces, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. In addition, they have conducted/accepted over 4,000 intrusive on-site inspections of military units/installations, and of specified areas.

NATO mostly fulfilled its obligations by destroying its oldest equipment. Also, NATO members with newer equipment, such as the United States, agreed to transfer some of this equipment to allies with older equipment.

The US plans to create bases in Romania and Bulgaria constituted, according to Russia, a breach of the treaty. NATO officials disputed this and stated that the US bases were not intended as permanent and thus could not be seen as a breach. However, it was then reported that the agreements signed with both Romania and Bulgaria in 2006 specifically allowed for permanent bases under direct American control and The Washington Times also had obtained the confirmation of a senior US official that the facilities were intended to be permanent.

A June 1998 Clinton administration report stated that Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan were not in compliance with the CFE treaty. Violations ranged from holdings of treaty-limited equipment (TLE) in excess of CFE ceilings to denial of full access during treaty inspections. The report concluded that the compliance issues were not “militarily significant” and Russia and Ukraine, the former USSR republics with the largest holdings among the Eastern bloc, remained within their treaty limits.

In the run-up to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) November 1999 Istanbul summit, NATO members perceived three treaty compliance problems. First of all, the continuing existence of Russian equipment holdings in the “flank” region (i.e. Russia’s North Caucasus Military District) were in excess of agreed treaty limits. Secondly, the Russian military presence in Georgia was beyond the level authorised by the Georgian authorities. Thirdly, the Russian military presence in Moldova lacked the explicit consent of the Moldovan authorities.

During the summit, 30 OSCE members signed the adapted CFE treaty and Russia assumed an obligation to withdraw from the Republic of Moldova, reduce her equipment levels in Georgia and agree with the Georgian authorities on the modalities and duration of the Russian forces stationed on the territory of Georgia, and reduce their forces in the flanks to the agreed levels of the Adapted CFE Treaty. These agreements became known as the “Istanbul Commitments” and were contained in 14 Annexes to the CFE Final Act and within the 1999 Istanbul Summit Declaration.

NATO members however refused to ratify the treaty as long as Russia refused, as they saw it, to completely withdraw its troops from Moldovan and Georgian soil. While Russia partially withdrew troops and equipment from Georgia and Moldova, it did not do so completely as requested by NATO.

CFE-1A negotiations began shortly after the original CFE Treaty was signed in 1990. CFE-1A was unlike the original CFE treaty not a legally binding treaty, but a political commitment that simultaneously came into force with the CFE treaty and served as a follow-up agreement. The commitment was that all signatories of the CFE Treaty would undertake steps to improve further confidence and security in the ATTU region. CFE-1A committed the 30 members of the treaty to establish manpower limits and, if deemed necessary, to reduce the existing manpower levels within the CFE area of application to reach these limits. The United States was limited under this commitment to have no more than 250,000 troops in the area of application. As an additional source of security assurance, the CFE -1A agreement required the parties to provide advanced notification of any increases made to the force levels. The compliance with the CFE-1A agreement by a member was evaluated during on-site inspections conducted under the CFE Treaty.

The Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (also known as the adapted CFE treaty) was a revision of the original treaty and was signed during the November 1999 Istanbul summit and took into account the different geopolitical situation of the post-Cold War era by setting national instead of bloc-based limits on conventional armed forces. NATO members refused however to ratify the treaty so long as Russia refused to completely withdraw its troops from Moldovan and Georgian soil. While Russia partially withdrew troops and equipment from Georgia and Moldova, it did not do so completely as demanded by NATO. The linkage between the ratification of the adapted treaty and the complete withdrawal had no legal basis, but was rather a political decision made by NATO members.

After Russia was not willing to support the US missile defense plans in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin called for “moratorium” on the treaty in his April 26, 2007 address. Then he raised most of his points for rewriting the treaty during the Extraordinary Conference of States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, held in Vienna on June 11–15 at Russia’s initiative. As his requests were not met during this conference, Putin issued a decree intended to suspend the observance of its treaty obligations on July 14, 2007, effective 150 days later, stating that it was the result of “extraordinary circumstances (…) which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures,” and notified NATO and its members. The suspension applies to the original CFE treaty, as well as to the follow-up agreements.

An explanatory document from Russia’s presidential administration mentioned several reasons for its original suspension of compliance in 2007. First of all, Russia considered the linkage between the adapted treaty ratification and the withdrawal of troops from Georgia and Moldova as “illegitimate” and “invented”. Russia also considered the troop-withdrawal issue a bilateral Russia–Georgia and Russia–Moldova issue, not a NATO–Russia issue. Secondly, the three Baltic states, which border Russia unlike the rest of NATO (excluding Poland and Norway), were not covered under the original CFE treaty as they were still part of the Soviet Union when the treaty was signed. Also, the Baltic states like all NATO members did not ratify the adapted CFE treaty. Russia’s wish for a speedy ratification and accession of the Baltic states to a ratified treaty, hoping to restrict emergency deployments of NATO forces there, was not fulfilled.[citation needed]

Thirdly, Russia emphasized that NATO’s 1999 and 2004 enlargements increased the alliance’s equipment above the treaty limits. Consequently, Russia demanded a “compensatory lowering” of overall NATO numerical ceilings on such equipment. Fourthly, Russia mentioned that the then planned basing of U.S. military units in Romania and Bulgaria “negatively affects” those countries’ compliance with the CFE Treaty’s force ceilings. Fifthly, the document demanded a “removal” of the flank (i.e., North Caucasian) ceilings on Russian forces by a “political decision” between NATO and Russia, ostensibly to “compensate” Russia for the alliance’s enlargement. Sixthly, Russia wanted to re-negotiate and “modernize” the 1999-adapted CFE treaty as soon as it was brought into force. Russia’s position was that it would proceed unilaterally to suspend the treaty’s validity unless NATO countries brought the updated version into force by July 1, 2008, or at least complied with its terms on a temporary basis, pending a re-negotiation of the treaty.

Most likely, but not mentioned in Russia’s explanatory document, the above-mentioned “extraordinary circumstances” referred to the US plans for a missile defense complex in Poland, with a radar component in the Czech Republic. Another likely reason is that NATO members refused to ratify the Adapted CFE Treaty due to the continuing presence of several hundred Russian troops in Moldova—something they considered as a violation of the obligations Russia assumed during the 1999 Istanbul summit. However, there was no legal connection between the Adapted CFE treaty and the Russian withdrawal from Georgia and Moldova. The linkage between these two security issues was a decision made by NATO member states to protest against the Second Chechen War and was used as a reason not to ratify the treaty. Russia never accepted this decision—a decision also made six months after the Istanbul summit. Russia also considered the original CFE treaty to be outdated and strategically flawed as it did not take into account the dissolutions of the Warsaw Treaty or the Soviet Union.

In Russia, even Vladimir Ryzhkov, an opposition leader and an independent member of the Duma, agreed that Russia had been forced to respond. However, he also speculated that Putin’s suspension by decree was “primarily an election-year message to the country: “Your leader won’t budge, no matter who formally becomes next President”.”

NATO immediately expressed regret over Russia’s decision to suspend the treaty, describing it as “a step in the wrong direction”, but hoped to engage Moscow in what was described as constructive talks on this issue. The United States along with European states such as Germany, Poland and Romania also expressed their disappointment. Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) General Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha and former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev expressed support for Putin’s decree. On 25 November 2011 the UK stopped sharing military data with Russia.

The Russian Foreign Ministry also said that the consequences of the suspension would be the halting of inspections and verifications of its military sites by NATO countries and that it would no longer have the obligation to limit the number of its conventional weapons. In practice, Russia had already halted such verification visits in June 2007 after an extraordinary CFE treaty conference held in Vienna turned a deaf ear to Russia’s complaints. Consequently, military delegations from Bulgaria and Hungary had been denied entry to Russian military units.

Yuri Zarakhovich speculated in Time that the above-mentioned “immediate measures” would be a build-up of its forces in areas bordering NATO eastern members, in particular Poland and the Baltic states. Time further speculated at the time that other measures could include troop buildups along southern borders in the Caucasus, new pressures on Ukraine to maintain the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea beyond the (then planned) 2017 withdrawal deadline, and a refusal to leave Moldova.

In March 2015, the Russian Federation announced that it had taken the decision to completely halt its participation in the Treaty.

Bucks County Show

The Bucks County Show is an annual one-day agricultural show held in Buckinghamshire, England established in 1859. In recent years it has been held in Weedon Park, two miles north of Aylesbury on the last Thursday of August. The show is organised by Bucks County Agricultural Association, a registered charity.

The show was established in 1859 and was originally known as the Royal and Central Bucks Show following the amalgamation of the Royal Bucks Agricultural Association (obtaining its royal prefix in 1834) and the Central Bucks Agricultural Society.

By 1891 it was called the Royal Bucks Show, and had 5,000 visitors and 670 entries.

Between 1988 and 1952 the show was held in the grounds of Hartwell House. Since 1988 when it has remained at Weedon Park.

Since its inception, the show has been held in various locations including Waddesdon Manor, Walton Grange, Mentmore and Chesham.

The show used to include ploughing matches held at Prebendal Farm, Aylesbury.

The 2014 show was the 147th. There have been breaks in its history due to war and the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001.

Trelleborg (Sverige)

Trelleborg er Skånes og Sveriges sydligste by med 25.000 indbyggere og kommunesæde i Trelleborgs kommun.

I Trelleborg findes en rekonstruktion af trælleborgen, der blev opført omkring år 800.

Byen var så rig, at Malmø-borgerne i 1600-tallet klagede over konkurrencen. Under Den Nordiske Syvårskrig gjorde svenskerne landgang udelukkende for at plyndre og svide byen af. I 1617 blev den igen ødelagt (ved brand), og malmøboerne udnyttede situationen ved at gå til kongen og forklare ham, at Trelleborg var helt overflødig. Christian 4. gav dem ret og inddrog Trelleborgs købstadsprivilegier.

Men trelleborgerne fortsatte bylivet uden privilegier. Selv efter at Danmark ved Roskildefreden i 1658 havde måttet afstå Skånelandene til Sverige, måtte øvrigheden have skarp besked fra Stockholm om at platt avskaffa all borgerlig näring i den fläcken.[kilde mangler] Det hjalp en tid, men beliggenheden var for indlysende rigtig og havnen for god, så i 1865 fik byen igen tildelt købstadsstatus. Byens stavemåde var Trälleborg mellem 1910 og 1937.

Togfærgeforbindelser:

Færgeforbindelser:

Koordinater:

Watson’s Wine

Watson’s Wine is wine retailer in Hong Kong and a member of the A.S. Watson Group (ASW), a wholly owned subsidiary of CK Hutchison Holdings Limited (CK Hutchison). They offer a comprehensive selection of fine wine, spirits, accessories and cigars. With vintages sourced directly from over 20 countries, Watson’s Wine lists over 2,000 different wines, more than 400 of which are “exclusive” and cannot be found elsewhere.

A distinctive feature of each retail store is the Fine Wine Room containing over 300 different vintages ranging from the top Chateaux from Bordeaux to emerging New World Classics from around the world.

All wines are temperature controlled, 24 hours per day, both in the stores and the state-of-the-art wine warehouse, ensuring the provenance of all wines are perfectly maintained when they reach the customer.

It opened its first store in International Finance Centre, Central, Hong Kong in 1998. It is now the largest specialist wine store in Hong Kong, which has 20 retail stores in Hong Kong, 2 retail stores in Macau and an online shopping site .

All staff in the stores are trained on their wine knowledge and required to pass the “Wine & Spirit Education Trust” courses.

The Watson’s Wine Club which offers members a number of benefits including rewards with purchase, a regular wine magazine, invitations to wine tastings and events as well as exclusive benefits with a number of loyalty partners.

In 2007, Watson’s Wine was named “Best Retailer” in Hong Kong’s wine industry by Wine Business International, a global wine business publication in recognition of its outstanding performance.

In August 2007 Watson’s Wine opened a store-within-store concept at the Venetian, Macau in partnership with travel retailer Nuance-Watson. The wine section offers guests at the biggest casino resort complex in Asia an excellent selection of fine wine and professional service.

Dinamo Tbilisi

Sapechburto Klubi Dinamo Tbilisi (gruz. საფეხბურთო კლუბი დინამო თბილისი) – gruziński klub piłkarski z siedzibą w Tbilisi, grający w Erownuli Liga.

Klub został założony w 1925. Na początku grał w rozgrywkach lokalnych. W 1936 debiutował w Grupie B Mistrzostw ZSRR, w której zajął 1. miejsce i awansował do Grupy A – ówczesnej radzieckiej ekstraklasy. W najwyższej klasie rozgrywkowej ZSRR występował do 1989. Największymi sukcesami w historii klubu były: Mistrzostwo ZSRR w 1964 i 1978 oraz zdobycie Pucharu Zdobywców Pucharów Europy w 1981. Klub dokonał tego jako reprezentant ZSRR, pokonując w finale w Düsseldorfie Carl Zeiss Jena 2:1.

W 1990 klub zmienił nazwę na Iberia Tbilisi i debiutował w pierwszych rozgrywkach o Mistrzostwo niepodległej Gruzji. W sezonie 1991/92 występował jako Iberia-Dinamo Tbilisi, ale potem powrócił do historycznej nazwy Dinamo. W latach 90. był jedyną poważną siłą w lidze gruzińskiej. Zdobył pierwsze 10 tytułów mistrzowskich, dopiero na początku XXI wieku dominację stołecznego klubu przerwały inne kluby. Jednak w sezonach 2002/03, 2004/05 i 2007/08 tytuł ponownie przypadł drużynie Dinama.

Montaldeo

Montaldeo is een gemeente in de Italiaanse provincie Alessandria (regio Piëmont) en telt 311 inwoners (31-12-2004). De oppervlakte bedraagt 5,2 km², de bevolkingsdichtheid is 60 inwoners per km².

Montaldeo telt ongeveer 178 huishoudens. Het aantal inwoners daalde in de periode 1991-2001 met 12,6% volgens cijfers uit de tienjaarlijkse volkstellingen van ISTAT.

De gemeente ligt op ongeveer 332 m boven zeeniveau.

Montaldeo grenst aan de volgende gemeenten: Casaleggio Boiro, Castelletto d’Orba, Lerma, Mornese, Parodi Ligure, San Cristoforo.

Acqui Terme · Albera Ligure · Alessandria · Alfiano Natta · Alice Bel Colle · Alluvioni Cambiò · Altavilla Monferrato · Alzano Scrivia · Arquata Scrivia · Avolasca · Balzola · Basaluzzo · Bassignana · Belforte Monferrato · Bergamasco · Berzano di Tortona · Bistagno · Borghetto di Borbera · Borgo San Martino · Borgoratto Alessandrino · Bosco Marengo · Bosio · Bozzole · Brignano-Frascata · Cabella Ligure · Camagna Monferrato · Camino · Cantalupo Ligure · Capriata d’Orba · Carbonara Scrivia · Carentino · Carezzano · Carpeneto · Carrega Ligure · Carrosio · Cartosio · Casal Cermelli · Casale Monferrato · Casaleggio Boiro · Casalnoceto · Casasco · Cassano Spinola · Cassine · Cassinelle · Castellania · Castellar Guidobono · Castellazzo Bormida · Castelletto Merli · Castelletto Monferrato · Castelletto d’Erro · Castelletto d’Orba · Castelnuovo Bormida · Castelnuovo Scrivia · Castelspina · Cavatore · Cella Monte · Cereseto · Cerreto Grue · Cerrina Monferrato · Coniolo · Conzano · Costa Vescovato · Cremolino · Cuccaro Monferrato · Denice · Dernice · Fabbrica Curone · Felizzano · Fraconalto · Francavilla Bisio · Frascaro · Frassinello Monferrato · Frassineto Po · Fresonara · Frugarolo · Fubine · Gabiano · Gamalero · Garbagna · Gavazzana · Gavi · Giarole · Gremiasco · Grognardo · Grondona · Guazzora · Isola Sant’Antonio · Lerma · Lu · Malvicino · Masio · Melazzo · Merana · Mirabello Monferrato · Molare · Molino dei Torti · Mombello Monferrato · Momperone · Moncestino · Mongiardino Ligure · Monleale · Montacuto · Montaldeo · Montaldo Bormida · Montecastello · Montechiaro d’Acqui · Montegioco · Montemarzino · Morano sul Po · Morbello · Mornese · Morsasco · Murisengo · Novi Ligure · Occimiano · Odalengo Grande · Odalengo Piccolo · Olivola · Orsara Bormida · Ottiglio · Ovada · Oviglio · Ozzano Monferrato · Paderna · Pareto · Parodi Ligure · Pasturana · Pecetto di Valenza · Pietra Marazzi · Piovera · Pomaro Monferrato · Pontecurone · Pontestura · Ponti · Ponzano Monferrato · Ponzone · Pozzol Groppo · Pozzolo Formigaro · Prasco · Predosa · Quargnento · Quattordio · Ricaldone · Rivalta Bormida · Rivarone · Rocca Grimalda · Roccaforte Ligure · Rocchetta Ligure · Rosignano Monferrato · Sala Monferrato · Sale · San Cristoforo · San Giorgio Monferrato · San Salvatore Monferrato · San Sebastiano Curone · Sant’Agata Fossili · Sardigliano · Sarezzano · Serralunga di Crea · Serravalle Scrivia · Sezzadio · Silvano d’Orba · Solero · Solonghello · Spigno Monferrato · Spineto Scrivia · Stazzano · Strevi · Tagliolo Monferrato · Tassarolo · Terruggia · Terzo · Ticineto · Tortona · Treville · Trisobbio · Valenza · Valmacca · Vignale Monferrato · Vignole Borbera · Viguzzolo · Villadeati · Villalvernia · Villamiroglio · Villanova Monferrato · Villaromagnano · Visone · Volpedo · Volpeglino · Voltaggio

Grape and raisin toxicity in dogs

The consumption of grapes and raisins presents a potential health threat to dogs. Their toxicity to dogs can cause the animal to develop acute kidney injury (the sudden development of kidney failure) with anuria (a lack of urine production). The phenomenon was first identified by the Animal Poison Control Center (APCC), run by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Approximately 140 cases were seen by the APCC in the one year from April 2003 to April 2004, with 50 developing symptoms and seven dying.

It is not clear that the observed cases of renal failure following ingestion are due to grapes only. Clinical findings suggest raisin and grape ingestion can be fatal, but the mechanism of toxicity is still considered unknown.

The reason some dogs develop renal failure following ingestion of grapes and raisins is not known. Types of grapes involved include both seedless and seeded, store-bought and homegrown, and grape pressings from wineries. A mycotoxin is suspected to be involved, but none has been found in grapes or raisins ingested by affected dogs. The dose-response relationship has not been determined, but one study estimated ≥3 g/kg for grapes or raisins. The most common pathological finding is proximal renal tubular necrosis. In some cases, an accumulation of an unidentified golden-brown pigment was found within renal epithelial cells.

Vomiting and diarrhea are often the first clinical signs of grape or raisin toxicity. They often develop within a few hours of ingestion. Pieces of grapes or raisins may be present in the vomitus or stool. Further symptoms include weakness, not eating, increased drinking, and abdominal pain. Acute renal failure develops within 48 hours of ingestion. A blood test may reveal increases in blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, phosphorus, and calcium.

Emesis (induction of vomiting) is the generally recommended treatment if a dog has eaten grapes or raisins within the past two hours. A veterinarian may use an emetic such as apomorphine to cause the dog to vomit. Further treatment may involve the use of activated charcoal to adsorb remaining toxins in the gastrointestinal tract and intravenous fluid therapy in the first 48 hours following ingestion to induce diuresis and help to prevent acute renal failure. Vomiting is treated with antiemetics and the stomach is protected from uremic gastritis (damage to the stomach from increased BUN) with H2 receptor antagonists. BUN, creatinine, calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and potassium levels are closely monitored. Dialysis of the blood (hemodialysis) and peritoneal dialysis can be used to support the kidneys if anuria develops. Oliguria (decreased urine production) can be treated with dopamine or furosemide to stimulate urine production.

The prognosis is guarded in any dog developing symptoms of toxicosis. A negative prognosis has been associated with oliguria or anuria, weakness, difficulty walking, and severe hypercalcemia (increased blood calcium levels).

Metaphor

A metaphor is a figure of speech that directly refers to one thing by mentioning another for rhetorical effect. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas. Antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy and simile are all types of metaphor. One of the most commonly cited examples of a metaphor in English literature is the “All the world’s a stage” monologue from As You Like It:

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances …
—William Shakespeare, As You Like It, 2/7

This quotation expresses a metaphor because the world is not literally a stage. By asserting that the world is a stage, Shakespeare uses points of comparison between the world and a stage to convey an understanding about the mechanics of the world and the behavior of the people within it.

The Philosophy of Rhetoric (1937) by rhetorician I. A. Richards describes a metaphor as having two parts: the tenor and the vehicle. The tenor is the subject to which attributes are ascribed. The vehicle is the object whose attributes are borrowed. In the previous example, “the world” is compared to a stage, describing it with the attributes of “the stage”; “the world” is the tenor, and “a stage” is the vehicle; “men and women” is the secondary tenor, and “players” is the secondary vehicle.

Other writers employ the general terms ground and figure to denote the tenor and the vehicle. Cognitive linguistics uses the terms target and source, respectively.

The English metaphor derived from the 16th-century Old French word métaphore, which comes from the Latin metaphora, “carrying over”, in turn from the Greek μεταφορά (metaphorá), “transfer”, from μεταφέρω (metapherō), “to carry over”, “to transfer” and that from μετά (meta), “after, with, across” + φέρω (pherō), “to bear”, “to carry”.

Metaphors are most frequently compared with similes. A simile is a specific type of metaphor that uses the words “like” or “as” in comparing two objects. A metaphor asserts the objects in the comparison are identical on the point of comparison, while a simile merely asserts a similarity. For this reason a common-type metaphor is generally considered more forceful than a simile.

The metaphor category contains these specialized types:

Metaphor, like other types of analogy, can be distinguished from metonymy as one of two fundamental modes of thought. Metaphor and analogy work by bringing together concepts from different conceptual domains, while metonymy uses one element from a given domain to refer to another closely related element. A metaphor creates new links between otherwise distinct conceptual domains, while a metonymy relies on the existing links within them.

A dead metaphor is a metaphor in which the sense of a transferred image has become absent. The phrases “to grasp a concept” and “to gather what you’ve understood” use physical action as a metaphor for understanding. The audience does not need to visualize the action; dead metaphors normally go unnoticed. Some distinguish between a dead metaphor and a cliché. Others use “dead metaphor” to denote both.

A mixed metaphor is a metaphor that leaps from one identification to a second inconsistent with the first, e.g.:

I smell a rat […] but I’ll nip him in the bud”-Irish politician Boyle Roche

This form is often used as a parody of metaphor itself:

If we can hit that bull’s-eye then the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards… Checkmate.

An extended metaphor, or conceit, sets up a principal subject with several subsidiary subjects or comparisons. In the above quote from As You Like It, the world is first described as a stage and then the subsidiary subjects men and women are further described in the same context.

The term metaphor is used to describe more basic or general aspects of experience and cognition:

Metaphors can be implied and extended throughout pieces of literature.

Some theorists have suggested that metaphors are not merely stylistic, but that they are cognitively important as well. In Metaphors We Live By, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson argue that metaphors are pervasive in everyday life, not just in language, but also in thought and action. A common definition of metaphor can be described as a comparison that shows how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in another important way. They explain how a metaphor is simply understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another, called a “conduit metaphor”. A speaker can put ideas or objects into containers, and then send them along a conduit to a listener who removes the object from the container to make meaning of it. Thus, communication is something that ideas go into, and the container is separate from the ideas themselves. Lakoff and Johnson give several examples of daily metaphors in use, including “argument is war” and “time is money”. Metaphors are widely used in context to describe personal meaning. The authors suggest that communication can be viewed as a machine: “Communication is not what one does with the machine, but is the machine itself.”

Metaphors can map experience between two nonlinguistic realms. In The Dream Frontier, Mark Blechner describes musical metaphors, where a piece of music can “map” to the personality and emotional life of a person. Musicologist Leonard Meyer demonstrated how purely rhythmic and harmonic events can express human emotions. It is an open question whether synesthesia experiences are a sensory version of metaphor, the “source” domain being the presented stimulus, such as a musical tone, and the target domain, being the experience in another modality, such as color.

Art theorist Robert Vischer argued that when we look at a painting, we “feel ourselves into it” by imagining our body in the posture of a nonhuman or inanimate object in the painting. For example, the painting The Lonely Tree by Caspar David Friedrich shows a tree with contorted, barren limbs. Looking at the painting, we imagine our limbs in a similarly contorted and barren shape, evoking a feeling of strain and distress. Nonlinguistic metaphors may be the foundation of our experience of visual and musical art, as well as dance and other art forms.

In historical onomasiology or in historical linguistics, a metaphor is defined as a semantic change based on a similarity in form or function between the original concept and the target concept named by a word.

For example, mouse: small, gray rodent with a long tailsmall, gray, computer device with a long cord.

Some recent linguistic theories view all language in essence as metaphorical.

Friedrich Nietzsche makes metaphor the conceptual center of his early theory of society in On Truth and Lies in the Non-Moral Sense. Some sociologists have found his essay useful for thinking about metaphors used in society and for reflecting on their own use of metaphor. Sociologists of religion note the importance of metaphor in religious worldviews, and that it is impossible to think sociologically about religion without metaphor.

As a characteristic of speech and writing, metaphors can serve the poetic imagination. This allows Sylvia Plath, in her poem “Cut”, to compare the blood issuing from her cut thumb to the running of a million soldiers, “redcoats, every one”; and enabling Robert Frost, in “The Road Not Taken”, to compare a life to a journey.

Metaphor can serve as a device for persuading an audience of the user’s argument or thesis, the so-called rhetorical metaphor.

Cognitive linguists emphasize that metaphors serve to facilitate the understanding of one conceptual domain—typically an abstraction such as “life”, “theories” or “ideas”—through expressions that relate to another, more familiar conceptual domain—typically more concrete, such as “journey”, “buildings” or “food”. For example: we devour a book of raw facts, try to digest them, stew over them, let them simmer on the back-burner, regurgitate them in discussions, and cook up explanations, hoping they do not seem half-baked.

A convenient short-hand way of capturing this view of metaphor is the following: CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (A) IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (B), which is what is called a conceptual metaphor. A conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains, in which one domain is understood in terms of another. A conceptual domain is any coherent organization of experience. For example, we have coherently organized knowledge about journeys that we rely on in understanding life.

Lakoff and Johnson greatly contributed to establishing the importance of conceptual metaphor as a framework for thinking in language, leading scholars to investigate the original ways in which writers used novel metaphors and question the fundamental frameworks of thinking in conceptual metaphors.

From a sociological, cultural, or philosophical perspective, one asks to what extent ideologies maintain and impose conceptual patterns of thought by introducing, supporting, and adapting fundamental patterns of thinking metaphorically. To what extent does the ideology fashion and refashion the idea of the nation as a container with borders? How are enemies and outsiders represented? As diseases? As attackers? How are the metaphoric paths of fate, destiny, history, and progress represented? As the opening of an eternal monumental moment (German fascism)? Or as the path to communism (in Russian or Czech for example)?[citation needed]

Some cognitive scholars have attempted to take on board the idea that different languages have evolved radically different concepts and conceptual metaphors, while others hold to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. German philologist Wilhelm von Humboldt contributed significantly to this debate on the relationship between culture, language, and linguistic communities. Humboldt remains, however, relatively unknown in English-speaking nations. Andrew Goatly, in “Washing the Brain”, takes on board the dual problem of conceptual metaphor as a framework implicit in the language as a system and the way individuals and ideologies negotiate conceptual metaphors. Neural biological research suggests some metaphors are innate, as demonstrated by reduced metaphorical understanding in psychopathy.

James W. Underhill, in Creating Worldviews: Ideology, Metaphor & Language (Edinburgh UP), considers the way individual speech adopts and reinforces certain metaphoric paradigms. This involves a critique of both communist and fascist discourse. Underhill’s studies are situated in Czech and German, which allows him to demonstrate the ways individuals are thinking both within and resisting the modes by which ideologies seek to appropriate key concepts such as “the people”, “the state”, “history”, and “struggle”.

Though metaphors can be considered to be “in” language, Underhill’s chapter on French, English and ethnolinguistics demonstrates that we cannot conceive of language or languages in anything other than metaphoric terms.