Banksy Exposed – The Real Facts About the Artist Know As "Banksy"

[ad_1]

Aside from the humor and poignancy of Banksy's work, what people find alluring about the artist is his mystique. There have been numerous claims as to who he really is. Since his rise to fame, several newspapers have proclaimed that that they now had Banksy exposed. However, none of these claims have been confirmed or denied unequivocally by the elusive artist and those connected to him. Even today, people are not sure who Banky is. Most assert, though, that his identity is not really important. They are satisfied with his art and his reputation.

Banksy Photographs

There are two supposed pictures of Banksy that gained a lot of attention from the news media "one taken in Kingston, Jamaica and another taken in Bethnal, East London. Other pictures supposedly of the artist have popped up here and there, but these two are the most credible ones. Various news agencies have used them, especially the one taken in Jamaica, to trace the real identity of the artist.

One of the earliest supposed photographs of Banksy is the one that appeared on a Jamaican website. The face on the picture is clear, unlike other pictures where what is shown of the face is not enough to identify the person in it. The photographer reportedly claimed that Banksys arrogance "pushed him to expose the artists face.

In 2007, another picture of Banksy was purportedly taken by a passerby who saw someone painting graffiti in Bethnal Green, East London. The mural is a piece Banksy claims that he did. It depicts a painter and a simple depiction of a yellow flower as a continuation of yellow London street markings. Some people say that there are similarities between the man in this photograph and the one in the Jamaican picture.

The most recent picture of the artist that has surfaced was taken in 2001 in Mexico. Banksy is shown painting a mural. The lower portion of his face is covered by what appears to be a red bandana. The rest of it has been intentionally pixelated to obscure who he is. The artist himself released this image in his book Freedom Through Football.

Robert Banks

The earliest Banksy identity "with a biography attached to it is the Robert Banks identity. He is said to be someone from Bristol born between 1974 and 1978. This bio of the artist says that he did not undergo formal training in art. He was said to have learned his craft by doing rock memorabilia. his anti-establishment image was said to have started when he was in school and was rewarded with detention and, finally, expulsion. Graffiti began to be of interest to him at the age of 14.

Robin Gunningham

The person who is most likely to be the real Banksy is someone named Robin Gunningham, according to the British news agency The Daily Mail. A reporter for this agency went around Bristol and showed the Jamaica picture to the people there. The answers he got led him to Robin Gunningham, whose father was a contracts manager and whose mother was a secretary. This Banksy was said to have gone to an expensive elitist high school, the Bristol Cathedral School. The Daily Mail published this claim in 2008.

The writer of the expose, James Tapper, said that he believed this was the real Banksy because when he traced where Gunningham went, Banksy had been there at about the same time period. Gunningham even lived in places close to places where Banksy did some of his shows. A classmate of his said that he was already good at art when they went to school together. He also stated that Banksy was also a member of the school rugby team. Tapper stated that both Banksy and Robin Gunningham are elusive. There are also many parallels between what the reporter discovered and what Banksy says about himself in his books, films, and interviews. This, in the reporters eyes, strengthened his claim even further.

Mrs. Banksy

In 2011, the Daily Mail introduced another figure in Banksys life, his wife. Actually, that was Robin Gunninghams wife. Her name is Joy Millward. She is said to have met Banksy in 2003 while she was working as a researcher for a Labour MP. They got married in Las Vegas in 2006. The article states that she, like Gunningham, was raised in a comfortable lifestyle far removed from the implications of Banksys art. She is also a very elusive person, like Banksy.

These articles by the Daily Mail created a storm of controversy from those who admire Banksys art. The reports are seen as crude attempts to diminish the artists credibility as an anti-establishment graffiti artist. Many felt that the lives of private citizens were unduly invaded for the very superficial reason of trying to pull down the famous artist a peg or two. A considerable number expressed their opinion that they are not interested in who Banksy is in real life because they know him through his work and through his various escapades.

He is a Group, Not One Person

There is another strong speculation aside from the two mentioned. One is that Banksy is not a single person but a group of street artists. This is based on pictures of Banksy putting up graffiti on the walls in the West Bank. Other people, whose identities are hidden, are seen working with the one actually painting the image. They may be assistants or some of Banksys street artist friends, but they all also might be the artist known as Banksy.

The Real Banksy

People who have inadvertently conversed with the artist while he was working on a piece uniformly say that he is a nice, likeable person. There is only that one instance where someone claimed he was arrogant. This is not surprising. No one can be pleasing to everybody. There is always someone out there who will be put off by even the nicest person. In Banksys graffiti war "with Team Robbo, the artist is seen as taking the first steps to de-escalate things between them. This hints at the person behind the mystique.

People who claim to know Banksy and wrote books about him give an inkling of who he is through their eyes. For Robert Clarke, who wrote Seven Years With Banksy, the artist appears as a crusader who works at bringing the woes and contradictions of this world to light through art. He is depicted as someone who has made it a way of life to stay away from public view by being as unremarkable as possible. On the other hand, in Will Ellsworth-Jones book The Man Behind The Wall, he is shown as a person with his own dilemmas and inconsistencies, the most telling of which is his succumbing "to the lure of commercializing his work and becoming more mainstream "by entering them in art galleries and auctions.

The Question

So, who is Banksy, really? Is he Robert Banks or Robin Gunningham or someone else entirely? Does the news media truly have Banksy exposed? Maybe. Of course, none of the claims have been explicitly confirmed or denied. Even Steve Lazarides, Banksys agent, claims he does not know who the artist is. Thus, the Banksy mystique remains and the majority of people like it that way. The Banksy they know is the one they see in the satirically ironic and subversively anti-establishment graffiti of the artist.

[ad_2]

Source by Jessica Koontz

How First Time Offenders Can Defend Against New York Marijuana Charges

[ad_1]

As part of my practice of the defense of DWI and other traffic related matters I often have to deal with other drug offenses. It is all too common that a bong, pipe, and / or other paraphernalia (vaporizers, spoons, hammers, chillums, bubblers, sidecars, sherlocks, raydiators, tubes, bats, headies) are found inside the car. All the police have to do is scrape together enough resin / residue, and another criminal charge is added to the fray.

Over the course of my years of practicing in the Fingerlakes I have defended many college students from SUNY Cortland, SUNY Binghamton, Cornell University, Ithaca College, Keuka College, etc. Marijuana use seems to go with college like cereal goes with milk. Some people think that New York State has decriminalized marijuana, sometimes it is only charged as a violation, but even in relatively small quantities it can be charged as a misdemeanor or even as a felony (if sold to minors).

There were 92,800 arrests for Marijuana in New York during 2007. Males aged 15 to 24 made up 56% of those arrested, and 70% of those males were white.

NOTE: After any lawful arrest in an automobile in NYS the entire car is subject to search top to bottom, inside and out. So much for your 4th amendment rights in New York State.

Outside, in a public park or on the street we have a different story. Police will sometimes make a false statement ie. lie to get an arrest. I know, as unbelieveable as that may sound Virginia, it happens. Law enforcement will tell college kids that they "have to" make a search. That if they want to avoid an arrest they should empty their pockets, and to show them what they have or else? Legally they could only pat you down for weapons, but to go into your pockets requires permission or probable cause, but once the marijuana is exposed to public view we have a full blown misdemeanor.

Here is a ranking of the New York State Pot Laws from least severe to more severe (in terms of penalties and consequences):

1. UPM under Penal Law 221.05: Unlawful Possession of Marijuana is not a crime it is merely a violation BUT since marijuana is a controlled substance under Federal Law a plea of guilty will make you ineligible for Federal Financial Aid (thank you President Clinton) for one year. Side note: Marijuana is not considered a controlled substance under New York State Law but we are discussing Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Monies, Federal Grants, and the Federal Hope College Credit.

UPM is possession of less than 25 grams of marijuana. In the majority of these cases (with first time offenders) your attorney can move for an ACD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal) or a straight dismissal of the charge. The judge will set the term of staying out of trouble (no new criminal charges) FOR EITHER 6 MONTHS OR ONE YEAR. It is in his discretion. Also in his discretion is whether there is a substance abuse evaluation. Some judges also require community service.

The next level up of Marijuana offense is:

2. CPM under Penal Law 221.10: Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the 5th degree. This where the marijuana is either open to public view, burning, or where the amount is over 25 grams but less than 2 ounces. CPM is a crime. It is class B misdemeanor.

The next level up of Marijuana offense is:

3. CPM under Penal Law 221.15: Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the 4th degree. This is where you have more than 2 ounces but less than 8 ounces. Now that's what the District Attorney will say is real weight, and they are thinking at this point you are dealing drugs and not just possessing them for personal use. CPM in the 4th is a class A misdemeanor.

4. Penal Law 221.35 is for the Sale of Marijuana. All that is necessary is less than 2 grams or one joint / blunt. It is a Class B misdemeanor. Sale is a very loose term under the statute. Sale also includes gifting or an exchange of anything, as no "consideration" is needed under the statute to consider it a sale.

5. Penal Law 221.40 is for the Sale of Marijuana. Less than one ounce. It is a Class A misdemeanor.

The next two levels are where we move from misdemeanor level offenses (less than a year in jail) to felony level offenses (more than one year in jail). Misdemeanor offenses can be handled by City, Town, or Village Courts. Felony charges are only handled at the County Court level.

* Beware that Sale of More than ONE OUNCE moves the offense to Class E FELONY Status in New York State (punishable by up to 3 years in State Prison).

* Beware of New York State Penal Law 221.50. Sale of Marijuana to a minor (a person less than 18 years old). It is a Class D Felony Status. Which is punishable by a term of 4 to 7 years in State Prison, that's not county jail.

I would like to end off with the GOOD NEWS about number 1 through 5 above:

That Penal Law 221.05 UPM (Unlawful Possession of Marijuana), Penal Law 221.10 CPM (Criminal Possession of Marijuana) in the 5th degree, Penal Law 221.15 CPM (Criminal Possession of Marijuana) in the 4th degree, Penal Law 221.35 Sale of Marijuana, and penal Law 221.40 Sale of Marijuana are all covered under the First Time Offender ACD statute.

New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 170.56.

Captioned as "Adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in cases in involving marijuana."

If a person qualifies under the statute a motion can be made by his attorney, and then his marijuana charges may be dismissed in the future, and all his official records and papers relating to his arrest and prosecution, whether on file with the Court, the police, or the New York State Division of criminal justice services will be sealed and not made available to the public or private agencies.

Upon the granting of such an order by the Court, the arrest and prosecution can be considered and deemed a nullity (as if they never happened) and the person shall be restored to his or her pre-arrest status.

If of course someone has has other prior charges (relating to marijuana and / or other drugs) then his attorney can potentially negotiate to some other non-criminal disposition, such as disorderly conduct. This is a violation and all the records of the arrest and prosecution would be sealed at the local level.

[ad_2]

Source by Lawrence Newman

People Skills: Eight Essential People Skills

[ad_1]

Being able to communicate effectively with others requires people skills, and here's eight essential ones:

1. Understanding people

People not only come in all shapes and sizes, but they come with different personality types as well. You may want to brush up on how to communicate with the four main personality types by reading this article. Indeed, dedicated students of communication could do little better than purchase Bem Allen's excellent introduction to personality types, 'Personality Theories'.

People are individuals, with as many similarities from one person to the next as differences. To communicate most effectively, each will require you to communicate with them in their own individual preference style, using their language, their body gestures, and their pace and intonation.

So how do you find out how best to communicate with someone? Spend time with them! Do not expect to meet someone off the street and talk intimately with them within a minute. Understanding a subject takes time – whether that subject is an academic one or another human being.

2. Expressing your thoughts and feelings clearly

Our brains can only take so much information in at any one time. We are bombarded with messages every second of the day, so to compete with the barrage of 'noise' a person faces, your message needs to be clear, succinct and to the point.

It is very worthwhile taking time to plan your communication – no matter by what method it is delivered – to ensure that you are taking the least amount of time to express the right level of thought in the most receptively simple manner.

3. Speaking up when your needs are not being met

Just as important in business relationships as in domestic ones, speaking up to ensure that your needs are met is a fundamental part of any relationship.

You may wish to read this article on assertive, not aggressive, communication, but in a nutshell there are six different ways you can be assertive and not aggressive in your communication: by rehearsing your behaviour prior to the communication; by repeating your communication (the 'broken record' technique); fogging; asking for negative feedback; tentative agreement with negative feedback; and creating a workable compromise.

Assertiveness is a useful communication tool. It's application is contextual and it's not appropriate to be assertive in all situations. Remember, your sudden use of assertiveness may be perceived as an act of aggression by others.

4. Asking for feedback from others and giving quality feedback in return

Alongside assertiveness techniques, the giving and receiving of feedback is a key communication skill that must be learnt if you want to have any hope of developing long-term business relationships ..

Toastmasters International teach a useful feedback and critical review technique – first give a sincere compliment, follow this with any practical suggestions for improvement, then wrap up with further sincere praise. It is known as 'CRC', or 'Commend, Recommend, Commend', a three-step model for excellence in giving quality feedback.

Remember, too, that truthfulness is a subjective view. What you may find distasteful in someone may be equally desirable from another's point of view. As I learnt, by living through a series of IRA atrocities in England and watching the US political and media reactions, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

5. Influencing how others think and act

We all have the opportunity to influence how others think and act. All the way from Cialdini's Persuasion principles down to simple violence (of a verbal or physical nature), we are daily able to shape the thoughts and actions of those around us.

From something as simple as smiling and saying, "Hello!" as a way of influencing someone's mood, to leading by example during an intense period of change, there are many ways of either leading to or drawing out of others required behaviours and attitudes.

Remember that an attitude leads to an emotion, which in turn leads to an action. Shape the attitudes and you have a more reliable way of predicting actions.

6. Bringing conflicts to the surface and getting them resolved

I confess: I'm not a 'natural' at handling conflict. It's taken marrying into an existing family of three children to help this only child come to terms with conflict.

It's taken me three years of living in my family to realise it's possible to co-exist in conflict and not get personally involved. But it was not an easy lesson to learn, I can tell you!

But being a step-father to teenage children has helped me learn the importance of bringing conflicts and resentments to the surface where they can be more easily managed.

Your employees might be harbouring secret resentments of you, and unless you find out what they are, bring these 'dark secrets' out into the light of day, you are never going to be able to successfully deal with them.

It's embarrassing, potentially humiliating and requires a strong level of patience not to launch straight into a defensive mode, but giving people the opportunity to express their concerns, disappointments and anger, face-to-face, gives you tremendous opportunity to put things right, or help them see where their thoughts and feelings are misplaced.

7. Collaborating with others instead of doing things by yourself

I'm a shocker at this, but learning to delegate and share has been instrumental in growing my own business.

The quickest way of burying yourself in excess detail and workload is to try and do everything yourself. Yet sharing the workload can be the smartest thing you will ever do. Here's why:

'Leverage'.

Leverage is taking your skills and abilities and allowing others to magnify your work capacity. You train them to do what you do and you do something else.

One bricklayer can only lay a certain number of bricks in an hour, but that same bricklayer can train 15 mates to lay bricks and suddenly those 15 bricklayers are building monuments while the first bricklayer is out securing more work for them.

While the 15 are laying bricks, the original bricklayer can be learning how to perform advanced bricklaying, or learn sales strategies, or learn supervision skills.

The lesson is simple: try and do it all yourself and the 'all' will bury you; teach others to do what you do and you build a monument.

Jesus taught 11 men how to do what he did. Then he left them to carry on while he moved on to other things. From the simple act of one man teaching 11 others, a church and the largest, most influential religious movement the world has ever known was born.

8. Shifting gears when relationships are unproductive

Sometimes you need to walk away. Sometimes you need to jettison unhealthy cargo. And sometimes you need to take drastic steps to regain balance and momentum.

'Shifting gears' can be as simple as changing the venue of your supervision meeting from a dark office to a nearby cafe. Sometimes it can be moving the meeting from straight after lunch to first thing next morning, when clearer heads might prevail.

Sometimes it can mean increasing the level of assertiveness in order to ensure the point you are making is being received. Sometimes it might mean bringing others into the meeting so that the other person understands the implications of their attitudes or actions.

And sometimes it can mean helping them find a more meaningful and satisfying role outside of your sphere of influence.

As a management psychologist I clearly remember one organisation I consulted to: the only way out of a staff impasse was to remove the impediments to progress. Which meant helping key protagonists find new work outside of the organisation. Sometimes culture change can only be effected in a quick way by bringing in an entire new team and throwing away the dead wood. But only as a last resort.

Conclusion

The whole idea of ​​being people skilled is knowing or finding how to bring out the best in others in any situation, rather than their worst. By mastering these eight essential people skills you dramatically increase your chances of achieving the best outcomes out of your interactions and business challenges.

[ad_2]

Source by Lee Hopkins

Mobsters, Gangs – Johnny "Dio" Dioguardi

[ad_1]

If there was a way to make an illegal buck, Johnny "Dio" Dioguardi, called by Bobby Kennedy the "master labor racketeer," had his sticky fingers in the pot. Dio was such a treacherous thug at a young age, in 1936, US Attorney Thomas E. Dewey claimed Dio was, "A young gorilla who began his career at the age of 15."

Johnny Dio was born Giovanni (John) Ignazio Dioguardi on April 28, 1914, on Forsyth Street in downtown Manhattan. Dio had three brothers: Frank and Vincent, who were legitimate guys, and Tommaso, or Thomas, who became, as did Johnny Dio, a capo in the Luchesse crime family. Dio also had an unnamed sister who can be identified only as "Mrs. Dioguardi-Priziola."

Dio's father Giovanni B. Dioguardi, who owned a bicycle shop, was murdered in August 1930 on a street in Coney Island, in what police called a "mob-related execution." It seemed that the elder Dioguardi and another enterprising gentleman had robbed a rich lady of her jewelry, and the two men had were arguing over how to split the proceeds. The elder Dioguardi, who had been arrested twice for murder but never convicted, took six shots to various parts of his body, and it is presumed the other gentleman kept all the jewelry.

Johnny Dio graduated grammar school, but after less than two years at Stuyvesant High School, Dio dropped out and went to work for his uncle on his mother side: gangster James "Jimmy Doyle" Plumeri. By this time, the handsome Dio (who was said to have looked like silent movie star Rudolph Valentino) had already gotten a reputation on the Lower East Side as a tough youth, who terrorized street vendors into giving him a good portion of their wares for free. Uncle Jimmy Doyle (nobody called him by his real name Plumeri), recognizing Dio's talents for thuggery, immediately put Dio to work as a schlammer (leg-breaker) in the Garment Center for Doyle's Jewish associates Louie "Lepke" Buchalter and Lepke's partner Jacob "Gurrah" Shapiro, who were affectionately known as "The Gorilla Boys." Lepke, along with Albert "The Lord High Executioner" Anastasia, was the head of Murder Incorporated, a group of stone killers who murdered whomever the mob bosses in New York City and around the country said needed to be murdered. However, there is no proof that Dio ever joined that august group. Dio's specialty was union-related extortion, and in that, he was tops in his field.

Dio and Doyle started a garment workers trucking association, whereby the truckers working in the Garment Center were forced to join the trucker's union, headed, of course, by Dio and Doyle. If a poor sap trucker decided he did not want to join the union, a trip to the hospital was inevitable, if not a trip to the morgue. The union dues was hefty, but at whatever price they were forced to pay, it was a small price indeed to ensure the trucker's continued good health. Of course, the "union dues" never made it into the union's coffers (it went straight into Dio's and Doyle's pockets instead), and phony books were established to satisfy whomever decided to enquire about the trucker's union's financial solvency.

Members of the trucker's union were even told where to spend their money and how much to spend on specific items. Dio and Doyle were pals with a local barber, and they ordered their truckers to patronized this special barber to the nifty tune of $ 2.50 a month. The truckers were also told where to buy their wine, where to buy their meats, and where to buy their clothing, and how much to spend on each item, which was certainly not at bargain prices.

For several years in the 1930s, Dio and Doyle, with nobody to stop them, had a sweet deal going for themselves in the Garment Center. Besides extorting the truckers, the dynamic duo of Dio and Doyle profited from the other end of the totem pole too. They forced the Garment Center's clothing manufacturers (bosses) to employ only union truckers. Then they used the clout of their trucker's union to bulldoze the clothing manufacturers into paying hefty off-the-books fees in order to keep their business up-and-running, and profitable.

If the clothing manufacturers refused to pay the extortion fees, Dio and Doyle would order their union truckers to go on strike, putting a dead stop to the clothing manufacturer's cash flow. On occasions, if the bosses did not play ball, union thugs (schlammers) would break the bosses' fingers, their arms and legs; and sometimes all three body parts on the same visit. In extreme cases, like if a boss threatened to talk to the Feds, Lepke's Murder Incorporated boys would enter the scene, and seconds later, the chatty boss would exit the face of the earth, toes up.

In 1932 and 1933, Dio and Plumeri were indicted twice for extortion, but they beat the rap both times, because their victims refused to talk to the Feds. In 1934, Dio was lucky enough to be elected executive secretary of the Allied Truckmen's Mutual Association, an association of employers. Even though Dio was boss of the trucker's union, he represented their employers during a strike by 1,150 Teamsters in September 1934.

Nice work if you can get it.

However, in 1937, both Dio and Doyle ran out of luck. The nephew and uncle duo were indicted for extortion and "atrocious assault." During the trial it was alleged that Dio and Doyle, and several other of their gangster underlings, had been extorting as much as $ 500 from each trucker. Plus, it was alleged they had forced the clothing manufacturers to add a hefty "tariff" to every suit, coat, and pair of pants manufactured in the Garment Center. This tariff went straight in the pockets of Dio and Doyle, and that increased the cost of good for the general public.

Sweet deal indeed.

According to an article in the New York Daily Mirror, "At the trial, frightened witnesses testified how recalcitrant employers and employees were beaten when they refused to pay. One man said he was confined to bed for two weeks after an assault. Another said the hoodlums had threatened to cut off his ears. "

Realizing they were dead in the water, during the middle of the trial, both Dio and Doyle pled guilty as charged. In return they received free room and board in upstate Sing Sing Prison for a period of three-five years.

After he was released from prison, Dio decided New York City was too hot for him, so he moved to Allentown, Pennsylvania, where he took up roots long enough to open his own dress manufacturing plant; non-union, of course. He later sold the plant, and to guarantee the new owners would have no trouble, Dio took $ 11,200 under the table to ensure that his erstwhile plant would remain non-union.

Dio sped back to New York City, and using the same tactics he had employed in Allentown, he set up a dress wholesaler. Using his profits from the business, Dio was smart enough to buy legitimate businesses, which included real estate and trucking. He also dabbled in the stock market, making him seem to the IRS as just another tax-paying citizen. But the New York City police knew better. They just could not pin anything illegal on Dio, although they continued trying.

Back in his old Forsyth Street neighborhood, Dio decided to start a family. He married the former Anne Chrostek (a non-Italian). She bore Dio two sons (Philip and Dominick) and one daughter (Rosemary) who sadly passed away from an unknown illness. It was during this time that Dio, before the age of forty, was officially inducted into the Luchesse Crime Family, making him all the more untouchable on the streets of New York City. Even though they were only Italian on their father's side, both of Dio's sons eventually followed in their father's footsteps into a life of crime. Philip Dio, who was called "Fat Philly," was later inducted into the Colombo Crime Family, while Dominick, like his father, became a made man in the Luchesse Crime Family.

(Editor's note: The Mafia rules changed around this time to allow more members to be inducted into the "Honored Society," to fill the gaps of those who either were killed or sent to the can; "college" as the mob likes to call it. At this point, only your father (not both parents) had to be Italian for you to get "your button." If your mother was Italian and your father a non-Italian – you were spit out of luck. Them's the breaks.)

By the 1950's, Dio had become a powerful captain (capo) in the Luchesse Crime Family, and with money pouring into his coffers in bundles (he allegedly earned $ 100,000 a week), he started living the life of a colonial baron. In the early 1960s, Dio moved his family into a spacious estate out on Freeport, Long Island, which cost Dio $ 75,000 in cash (Dio did not like banks or bank loans). During the week, Dio ate with his cronies in the best New York City eateries (his favorite being the trendy Black Angus Steakhouse). But, as is the Italian custom, Sundays were strictly for the family (famiglia). Inviting family member and close friends, Dio was proud of the fact he was an expert cook and was personally able to conjure up the best Italian delicacies to delight his guests. Dio was especially gracious to his wife, whom he loved dearly (unlike most mob men, Dio was faithful to his wife). Instead of personally buying his wife Christmas presents, Dio would give her a shoe box stuffed with cash, with a little note saying, "Buy yourself some nice clothes, honey."

During the 1950's, through his connections with New York City Teamster leaders Martin Lacey and John O'Rourke, Dio became tight pals with Teamster big-wig Jimmy Hoffa. Dio and Hoffa first met in a secret meeting in a New York City hotel room, and Hoffa, who had hoped to unseat Teamster President Dave Beck, figured Dio, with his union background, would be the perfect person to become chums with. In late 1955, Dio was able to obtain charters from the Teamsters to set up seven Teamster locals, called "paper locals," because they did not have actual teamsters as members. The roles were filled with Dio's relatives and pals, and their vote for teamster president was in Hoffa's back pocket.

Dio's modus operandi for more than 30 years was this: control the unions, then use the unions as a sledgehammer over the heads of the bosses. Dio would tell the bosses, "Pay or my boys will strike." The bosses always paid, the workers always got screwed, and Dio made out like a bandit every time.

During his illustrious criminal career, Dio controlled the unions to the detriment of its members to such an extent, that during the 1950's McClellan Committee hearings into organized crime, the committee issued the statement, "It can not be said, using the widest possible latitude, that Johnny Dioguardi was ever interested in bettering the lot of the workingman. "

Famous Mafia turncoat Joe Valachi owned a dress factory on Prospect Avenue in the Bronx for 12 years. Valachi once said, "I never belonged to any union. If I got into any trouble, any union organizer came around, all I had to do was call Johnny Dio and all my troubles were straightened out."

However, in 1956, as the Teamsters elections neared and they were scheming for control, both Hoffa and Dio had a stone in their shoe, and his name was syndicated newspaper columnist Victor Riesel.

Victor Riesel was born on March 16, 1913 on the Lower East Side to Jewish parents in a mixed Italian / Jewish neighborhood, not far from where Dio grew up. Victor's father, Nathan Riesel, was very proactive in union activities and was instrumental in creating the Bonnaz, Singer, and the Hard Embroiderers Unions. In 1913, he also helped organized Local 66 of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, and soon he was elected secretary-treasurer of that union, then finally president.

When Victor Riesel was a young child, his father taught him how to make union speeches, which the young Victor fiercely gave at union meetings and at outdoor union rallies. Nathan Riesel was hard-line anti-communist, and he was strident in preventing the communists from infiltrating his locals. Victor saw his father return home many times, beaten and bloodied from fights he had with communists activists, or the mobsters (schlammers) who were hired by the factory owners to break up union strikes that Nathan Riesel had participated in. This formed the notion in Victor Riesel's young mind that gangsters were the bane of legitimate unions.

In 1926, Nathan Riesel moved his family to the Bronx, where Victor attended and graduated with honors from Morris High School. While in high school, Riesel began working as an "stringer" for several newspapers throughout America. His writings were mostly about the labor movement in the United States, and how they were hampered by a "gangster element," who sought to play both ends of the spectrum by infiltrating the unions, then working for the boss manufacturers to physically quell any union strikes or demonstrations. In 1928, Riesel enrolled in night classes in the City College of New York City (CCNY), where he took courses in human resource management and industrial relations. To support himself while attending night school, Riesel worked at strenuous jobs, both in a steel mill and in a saw mill. While in college, Riesel also worked as a columnist, then as an editor on the student newspaper. Besides writing columns on the labor movement, Riesel also wrote columns on varied subjects like literature, and the theater.

While in college, to get needed experience in the outside newspaper world, Riesel took a job as a general office boy at The New Leader, a political and cultural weekly magazine that was both liberal and anti-communist. Riesel cuts his teeth in the business by doing anything his bosses at the newspaper told him to do, including sweeping the floors, and writing columns for the newspaper. In 1940, after 12 long years of hard work, both in and out of school, Riesel finally earned his Bachelor of Business Administration from CCNY. He was offered the job as the managing editor at The New Leader, and he took the job with the determination of ridding the unions of "gangsterism."

Riesel caught his first big break, when in 1941, he was hired as a columnist for The New York Post. In the 1948, when the Post changed management, Riesel switched to the New York Daily Mirror, owned by newspaper magnate William Randolph Hurst. By 1956, Riesel's column was syndicated in 193 newspapers throughout the United States. In that same year, Riesel began working in conjunction with United States Attorney Paul Williams, with the expressed purpose of taking on the gangsters who ran the New York City garment and trucking unions.

This was a double whammy for Johnny Dio, who was heavily involved in both unions, and for Jimmy Hoffa, who was trying to unseat Dave Beck as head of the Teamsters.

On April 5, 1956, Riesel was asked to be a guest host on Barry Gray's WMCA overnight radio talk show. Riesel had recently been on a rant in his columns concerning the International Union of Operating Engineers and its President William DeKoning Jr., who Riesel claimed was conspiring with known labor gangster Joseph Fay to reinstall DeKoning's father William DeKoning Sr. as the president of the union. DeKoning Sr. had just exited the can after being imprisoned for extortion, and Riesel felt that having the senior DeKoning back as president of the union would be a downright disaster.

As a result of his columns on both DeKonings and Fay, Riesel received numerous death threats. However, Riesel shrugged them off, knowing only a fool would hurt an esteemed member of the press. Doing so would certainly result in the law coming down hard on all union racketeers, and their rackets.

On this particular radio show, Riesel invited two members of the International Union of Operating Engineers, who were challenging the DeKonings for control of the union. This did not sit too well with Johnny Dio, or with Jimmy Hoffa, who both figured Riesel would go gunning for them next.

Gray's show originated at Hutton's Restaurant on Lexington Avenue and 47th Street. After the show, which ended at 2 am, Riesel and his secretary moseyed over to Lindy's restaurant, on Broadway between 49th and 50th Street, to grab a bite to eat and drown the food down with hot steaming coffee. (Ironically, this was the same Lindy's Restaurant in front of which small-time gambler Herman Rosenthal was shot to death in 1912.)

At approximately 3 am, Riesel and his secretary emerged from Lindy's and started walking toward the secretary's parked car on 51st Street. Riesel wore his eyeglasses to work, but when he was out in public, for appearances sake, he normally removed his eyeglasses. Just as Riesel and his secretary neared the secretary's car, Riesel took off his eyeglasses, put them in an eyeglass case, and inserted the case into the breast pocket of his overcoat. Suddenly, a tall, thin man, wearing a blue and white jacket, sprung from the shadows of the Mark Hellinger Theater and flung a vial contain sulfuric acid into Riesel's eyes, rendering Riesel blind for the rest of his life. Then the assailant calmly walked away and disappeared into the night. Thereafter, Riesel wore sunglasses to shield the public from the sight of his severely disfigured eyes.

The day after the attack, the Daily Mirror offered a $ 10,000 reward for information that led to the capture and conviction of Riesel's assailant. The Newspaper Guild of America, the New York Press Photographers, the New York Reporters Association, and the Overseas Press Club chipped in with another five grand. In less than a week, donations from assorted groups, including the labor unions and radio station WMCA, had raised the reward total to $ 41,000.

With tips coming in in droves, some reliable, some not so reliable, in August of 1956, the FBI ascertained that Riesel's assailant had been small-time hood Abraham Telvi. The only problem was, Telvi was now deceased; apparently murdered on July 28 because he had demanded another $ 50,000 on top of the paltry $ 500 he had already been paid for throwing the acid in Riesel's face.

On August 29, Dio was arrested for conspiracy in the Riesel attack. Dio pled not guilty and was released $ 100,000 bond on.

On October 22, Dio's pal Joseph Carlino pled guilty to hiring Telvi to attack Riesel. Carlino implicated two other men, Gandolfo Maranti and Dominick Bando, as accomplices in hiring Telvi. Carlino also said that Dio had ultimately given the order for the attack. Dio lawyered up with a top New York City mob attorney, and his attorney was able to get Dio's trial severed from the trial of Maranti and Bando.

At their trial, both Maranti and Bando verified Carlino's assertion that Dio had engineered the attack against Riesel. Maranti and Bando were both found guilty of conspiracy. But their sentencing was delayed until after the Dio trial.

Dio's attorney was able to delay his trial for almost six months, and during this time Maranti and Bando began to have bouts of memory loss. When Dio's trial finally commenced, both Maranti and Bando recanted their testimony, and with no corroboration of Carlino's claim that Dio ordered the Riesel attack, all charges against Dio were dropped. Maranti was given 8-16 years in prison, and Bando 2-5 years in prison, and another 5 years for contempt of court. Amazingly, Carlino received a suspended sentence for aiding the law in the convictions of Maranti and Bando. However, no matter how the situation was cleared or not cleared up in court, Dio has forever been remembered as the man who "blinded Victor Riesel."

In October of 1956, Dio was indicted, along with several Teamster officials, on extortion and conspiracy charges. The indictment said that Dio had extorted money from New York City Garment Center truck drivers, and had also extorted money from Garment Center manufacturing bosses not to have the same truck drivers go out on strike. Also included in the indictment was the alleged extortion of New York City stationery store owners, whose stores Dio's men had picketed. The store owners were allegedly told that if they wanted the picketing stopped, they would have to force their employees to join Teamster Local 295, and hire Johnny Dio's "labor consulting" firm, Equitable (not) Research Associates, for a $ 3,500 retainer, and $ 200 a month salary.

Because Dio's attorneys were so adept at stalling tactics, and the fact that key government witnesses had recanting their testimony, Dio's trial did not take place until November of 1957.

The trial took four weeks, but when it ended, Dio was convicted as charged and sentenced to two years in prison. While in prison, Dio was indicted again on extortion charges. This time, instead of the victims being stationery store owners, they were the owners of electroplating shops. In 1958, Dio was convicted again, and this time the judge threw the book at Dio, sentencing him to 15-30 years. Dio began serving his time in Sing Sing Prison, while appealing his sentence. On June 23, 1959, an appeals court inexplicable overturned the decision in Dio's trial, saying that since Dio did not issue the threats personally, he should not have been convicted of extortion. A split court ruled, "Extortion can not be committed by one who does not himself induce fear, but who receives money for the purpose of removing or allaying pre-existing fear instilled by others."

Jonathan Kwitney said in his book Vicious Circles, "The decision seemed to legitimize the whole purpose of the Mafia."

However, the law was not finished with Johnny Dio. On June 24, 1959, one hour after he finished his two-year bit on the first extortion charge, Dio was pinched by the Feds and charged with income tax evasion; for non-payment of taxes for three dress manufacturing companies he owned (non-union, of course), and two labor union locals. Dio went on trial in March of 1960. He was found guilty and was sentenced to four years at the federal prison in Atlanta, Georgia. Dio was released in March of 1963, partially on the basis that he had obtained a real job in a legitimate industry. Dio claimed he was now a salesman for Consumers Kosher Provision Company, another sham job that provided Dio the opportunity to do what he had done in several other industries before. This time it was the kosher meat business that would pay the piper for Dio's Machiavellian machinations.

At first, the scam worked like a charm. Dio and a bunch a his mobster buddies separately approached two rival kosher meat companies and convinced both of them that their business would be ruined if they did not hire their group of thugs to fight back against the other company's group of thugs. The two competing companies were the Consumers Kosher Provision Company, run by a dupe named Herman Rose, and the American Kosher Provision Inc., who had employed mobster Max Block (he had just been forced to resign as head of the butcher's union) to make sure other mobsters did not try to shake down American Kosher. Block's muscle was provided by Genovese thug Lorenzo "Chappy" Brescia, who had been extorting the butcher's union for years. According to Vicious Circles, Block was receiving an annual salary of $ 50,000 a year from American Kosher, and Brescia's cut was $ 25,000 a year.

This is where Dio began working his magic in the kosher meat business. Through two intermediaries, Dio approached Herman Rose and convinced Rose that in order to compete with American Kosher, it was imperative Rose hire Johnny Dio to protect his interests. Rose figured this was the right thing to do and he hired Dio at the salary of $ 250 a week; not an exorbitant amount of money. But it gave Dio the appearance of an honest job, and it gave the Mafia the opportunity to control the prices in the two top kosher meat companies in the area. (This is why, overnight the price of kosher meats skyrocketed.)

After Herman Rose died in 1964, Dio convinced the Kleinberg family, which owned the majority of stock in Consumer Kosher that it was good business to merge with American Kosher. The Kleinbergs, trembling in their boots, agreed with Dio's assessment, and with the mob running both companies, the "bust-out business" in the kosher meat industry began in full throttle.

Soon, Dio and his pals, using their usual tactics, began scooping up, and creating from scratch, other small kosher meat companies. Stock was transferred back and forth between the companies, and so were the assets, which included the kosher meat itself. First, Consumer Kosher went bankrupt; then did American Kosher. The other Dio-controlled companies started acquiring the meats (that had not been paid for), and one by one, they too declared bankruptcy, only to be acquired by another sham company owned by, what the newspapers called, "The Kosher Nostra. " The suppliers of the meat out west, because of the multiple bankruptcy proceeding, were stiffed of their meat payments. According to New York Post reporter Marvin Smilon, one of these meat providers had the temerity to ask one of Dio's meat cronies, "Why do we have to deal with Dio?" He was told, "Sit down and be quiet. You ask too many questions."

But all good things must come to an end. In 1966, Dio, along with four of his associates, were indicted for "bankruptcy fraud." In 1967, they were all found guilty, and Dio was sentenced to five years in prison. However, with his high-powered attorneys working their magic, Dio was able to stay out of prison for almost four years. This gave Dio the extra time he needed to work another scam, called "The Great Mafia Bagel War."

It started with Ben Willner, who had a machine that could make automated bagels, for around 50 cents a bagel, whereas a hand-rolled bagel cost about 65 cents to produce. This was not good news for the Bakery and Confectioners Workers Union, because it put their member's jobs at risk. Willner was great pals with Moe Steinman, who did not care too much how the bagels were being made, because he had a stranglehold on bagel distribution, not bagel production. Willner ran to Steinman, and Steinman, hoping to help his pal out, introduced Willner to Johnny Dio, whom Steinman knew was an expert at "labor-related problems." Dio helped out Willner, for a piece of the pie of course, and soon Steinman was packing his supermarkets with anywhere from $ 3,000 to $ 4,000 worth of Willner's bagels a week.

The only problem was that Genovese Crime Family capo Thomas "Tommy Ryan" Eboli had his own bagel maker, who was being short-changed because of the Willner / Dio / automated bagel-making machine trio. This man was named Arthur Goldberg and he ran to Eboli, screaming. Eboli demanded a sit-down with Dio, who had been with the Luchesse Family for more than 30 years. At the time, in the New York City Mafia pecking order, the Genovese Family was much more powerful than the Luchesse Family, and Dio was effectively pushed out of the bagel business for good. Dio broke the bad news to Willner, and as a result, in December of 1969, Willner was forced to close shop. This led to the Eboli / Goldberg crew taking over Willner's business, and his automated bagel-making machines.

Dio felt bad about losing his bagel scheme, but he felt even worse, when in November of 1970, he ran out of appeals and was forced to go to prison for a five-year stretch at the federal prison at Lewisburg, PA on the bankruptcy fraud charges. (He did not Pass Go, and he did not collect the customary two hundred dollars.)

In 1972, while still in prison, Dio was indicted again, this time for stock fraud, concerning the At Your Service Leasing Corp., a luxury car leasing firm that did most of its business with organized crime figures. It was alleged that in 1969, before Dio went to prison, Dio, along with Carmine Tramunti, Vincent Aloi, and Michael Hellerman, "floated" $ 300,000 of false stock in the car leasing company. Dio's group then either bribed, or forced security dealers to sell the stock, and then turn over the money to the Dio investment group. The jury found Dio guilty, and he was hit when a knockout blow when he was sentenced to nine and ten-year prison terms, to run consecutively. Dio appealed his convictions twice, but he lost both appeals.

Johnny "Dio" Dioguardi never was a free man again. Dio died on January 12, 1979, in a Pennsylvania hospital, where he had been transferred to from federal prison. To add insult to injury, Dio was scheduled for parole in just a few short months.

The news of Johnny Dio's death did not receive an inch of space in any of the New York City daily newspapers, even though a paid death notice appeared a few days after his death in the New York Daily News.

It was as if Johnny Dio, a gangster's gangster if there ever was one, had never existed.

[ad_2]

Source by Joseph Bruno

The Disputed Authorship of Ephesians

[ad_1]

INTRODUCTION

The authenticity of Ephesians as a genuinely Pauline epistle has been doubted especially since the time of the Dutch Humanist Erasmus in the sixteenth century. Several schools of thoughts exist today in connection with the authorship in Ephesians. Barth (1974) identifies four such options. Some scholars accept Paul as the author. Others see him as responsible for an original manuscript that has been augmented by an editor. A third set – Moffatt, Goodspeed, Dibelius etc. – Rejects Pauline authorship and the fourth thinks there is not enough evidence to decide. Gabel, Wheeler and York observe in their discussion on the canon of letters that Ephesians is categorized as a disputed letter that is "almost certainly not by Paul" (1996, 237). Scholars "have tried to explain this letter as the writing of a student and admirer of Paul's, bringing the apostle's gospel to his own later generation" (Turner 1984, 1222). Some conclude that it is most reasonable to consider it as deuteron-Pauline, that is, in the tradition of Paul but not written by him. While I recognize the strength of the other views, I accept (with supportive evidence) the traditional view that classifies Ephesians as an authentic Pauline letter.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PAULINE AUTHORSHIP

Rhein (1974) asserts that "Ephesians is thought to be spurious by many" (264). His argument is that the purpose and impersonal tone are difficult to explain if it is attributed to Paul.

Dating

Some see the Ephesians as an early Catholic writing and that there is an un-Pauline interest in various orders of ministry. Rhein (1974) also rejects Paul's authorship on the basis of dating. He observes that "the subject matter indicates a later date than its companions. Christ is no longer the lone foundation of the Church" (268). He asserts that the apostles have taken his place (2: 20-22), heretical sects have had time to make their appearance (4:14), and the church itself is now regarded as a means of revelation.

Language

Some doubt Pauline authorship since a number of words in Ephesians can not be found in other Pauline writings (Drane 1986). Examples include aswtia (wantonness) and politeia (citizenship / commonwealth). Others include some prominent features such as the references to 'the heavenly world' (Eph. 1: 3; 1:20; 2: 6; 3:10; 6:12). Guthrie (1965) admits that "the style (in Ephesians) is certainly different from the other nine undisputed Pauline epistles and this has seemed to some to weigh against Pauline authorship" (483).

Style

Drane (1986) observes that "the way Ephesians is put together is also distinctive. Instead of the unplanned – and largely unrestrained- language of the other letters, Ephesians moves from one theme to another in more sedate fashion" (346).

Relationship with Colossians

Drane (1986) observes that some scholars view Colossians as the original letter which was subsequently copied and adapted by the later author of Ephesians who can not be Paul. Colossians is usually considered to be a genuine Pauline letter, and Ephesians is thought to be the work of an imitator who used Colossians for some of his ideas.

Doctrine and theology

Drane (1986) also comments on the fact the Ephesians seems to reflect concerns that were especially typical of church life later than the time of Paul. Examples cited include the use of the term 'church', apparent absence of any reference to the parousia of Jesus, and to the theme 'justification of faith'. Furthermore, it is observed that believers are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (2:20), whereas Paul sees Christ as the one foundation (I Cor. 3:11). Some believe that these are really in contradiction, for "in 2:20, Christ is 'the chief cornerstone', which surely accords with the passage in I Corinthians. Others note that in Ephesians ekklhsia always refers to the universal church, while Paul normally uses the word for the local congregation "(Carson, Moo and Morris 1992, 307). It is noted that "further differences are claimed to appear in Paul's Christology in this Epistle" (Guthrie 1965, 489). Acts attributed to God in the other epistles are attributed to Christ in Ephesians. Ephesians 2:16 (where reconciliation is described as the work of Christ) is compared with Colossians 1:20 and 2: 13-14. Another example is Ephesians 4:11, where Christ is paid to appoint officials in the Church as compared with I Corinthians 7:28.

Possible authors

Barnett (1946) proposed that Onesimus prospered so well in Christian service that he later became Bishop of Ephesus and believed that he wrote Ephesians. Miller and Miller (1973) comments on Goodspeed and Mitten's submission that the likely authors are Onesimus (Col. 4: 9) and Tychicus (Col. 4: 7); Eph. 6:21) respectively. If Paul was in prison, Holding (2003) argued, then he was probably in no condition or had no ability to do significant cross-checking, and would give his scribe considerable latitude in composition, indicating only major points to be developed – if indeed it was someone he trusted. On this account, he further argues, and given other factors, Timothy is a likely candidate. The issue is that "there has been a question whether Paul himself wrote it or one of his disciples after his death" (Chamberlin and Feldman 1950, 1111).

ARGUMENTS FOR PAULINE AUTHORSHIP

My conviction of Pauline authorship is in consonance with the following supportive evidence.

Doctrine and theology

Drane (1986) observes that "whatever we conclude about the person who actually wrote the words down, we should certainly not miss the weakness of the other arguments put forward against Paul's authorship" (346). He dismisses the close relationship as proving nothing since a modern author writing about theology will quite base on book on something that has been written – and Paul had certainly done this before. Furthermore, nothing in Ephesians actually contradicts previous statements by Paul, and much is a logical development of things he had said elsewhere. The parousia is not mentioned in Ephesians, but it is not mentioned in Romans either. According to Wallace (2003), "the case is quite similar to the relation of Galatians to Romans: the first, an occasional letter, is less developed theologically; the second, a more reflective letter, is more developed" (3). Both the time when written and the reason for writing shape Paul's style and theological statements.

Dating

Gundry (1981) firmly believes that Paul must have written Ephesians and Colossians at approximately the same time because the subject matter in the two epistles is quite similar. He asserts that "Tychirus must therefore have carried both letters at once. (Colossae was about one hundred miles east of Ephesus)" (294). Commenting on the view that the reference to "the holy apostles and prophets" (Eph. 3: 5; cf. 2:20; 4:11) indicates that the writer belonged to the second generation, Thiessen (1955) argues that "this can not be, for the writer includes himself among the 'holy ones (saints) (3: 8)' "(241).

Language

Commenting on the argument that synonyms are used instead of Paul's usual words and that more words are used in a new sense, Thiessen (1955) argues that the criticism is strange and doubtful. He continues, "besides, is a man always obliged to use a word in the same sense unless he does not care about losing his identity?" (241). He attributes the absence of personal greetings in the last chapter due to the encyclical character of the epistle and observes that the reference to the Church, rather than to some local church or churches, is likewise in harmony with the destination of the letter. Responding to the objection that there are forty-two words in Ephesians not found in other Pauline writings, McCain (1996) observes that "this is about the same percentage of unique words found in other Pauline writings" (249). Carson, Moo and Moris (1992) quote Cadbury's forceful and convincing argument: "which is more likely – that an imitator of Paul in the first century composed a writing ninety or ninety-five percent in accordance with Paul's style or that Paul himself wrote a letter diverging five or ten per cent from his usual style? " (306). Even if the style may be different from Paul's usual manner of writing, Guthrie (1965) argues that "it may, in fact, be regarded as evidence of Paul's versatility" (493).

Relationship with Colossians

Scholars have argued that the same writer could not have produced Colossians and Ephesians and that the latter is the work of an imitator. Carson, Moo and Morris (1992) dismiss this argument as unconvincing for they seem to support the view that "the same man wrote Colossians and Ephesians a little later, with many of the same thoughts running through his head and with a more general application of the ideas he had so recently expressed "(308).

Relationship with I Peter

Thiessen (1955) argues that the similarities in the Epistle to the Ephesians and in I Peter do not disprove the Pauline authorship of Ephesians. He notes that "if there is any dependence between the two writers, it is more likely that Peter borrowed from Paul than that Paul borrowed from Peter" (241).

Internal evidence

Among other things, "the writer twice calls himself Paul" (Eph. 1: 1; 3: 1). The epistle is written after the Pauline pattern, beginning with greetings and thanksgiving, leading on to a doctrinal discussion, and concluding with practical exhortations and personal matters "(Theissen 1955, 240).

External evidence

Ephesians had been in wide circulation from the early days and its authenticity does not seem to be questioned. From all indications "it was accepted by Marcion (as the letter to the Laodiceans); it is the Marcion (as the letter to the Laodiceans); it is in the Muratorian Canon and was used by heretics as well as the orthodox. No one seems to have queried Pauline authorship "(Carson, Moo and Morris 1992, 306).

CONCLUSION
To echo my thesis statement in the introduction, I endorse the argument that "from all this, we conclude that there are no insurmountable obstacles to the traditional view of the Pauline authorship of this Epistle" (Theissen 1955, 241). In other words, "when all the objections are carefully considered it will be seen that the weight of evidence is inadequate to overthrow the overwhelming attestation to Pauline authorship, and the Epistle's own claims" (Guthrie 1965, 507). Bruce (1961) logically defends Pauline authorship in an indirect but forceful argument:

If Epistle of the Ephesians was not written directly by Paul, but by one of his disciples in the Apostle's name, then its author was the greatest Paulinist of all time – a disciple who assimilated
his master's thought more thoroughly than anyone else ever did. The man who could write
Ephesians must have been the Apostle's equal, if not his superior, in mental stature and spiritual insight (11).

In spite of the fact that pseudonymity is regarded in modern scholarship to have been an established practice among the early Christians, the advocates of the traditional view (the researcher included) are entitled to emphasize the self-testimony of the Epistle as supportive evidence for their position "until some satisfactory explanation is found which accounts for the universal acceptance of the Epistle at its face value" (Guthrie 1965, 507).

CONCLUSION:

Barnett, AE 1946. The New Testament: Its Making and Meaning.

New York: Abington-Cokesbury Press.

Barth, M. 1974. Ephesians.

New York: Doubleday.

Carson, DA, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. 1992. An Introduction to the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Chamberlain, RB and H. Feldman. 1950. The Dartmouth Bible.

Boston: Hougton Mifflin Co.

Gabel, JB, CB Wheeler and AD York. 1996. The Bible as Literature: An Introduction. 3rd ed.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Gundry, RH 1981. A Survey of the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Guthrie, Donald. 1965. New Testament Introduction.

Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press.

Holding, JP 2003. Wrote Wrote Ephesians? "Available [Online]:

[Http://www.tektonics.org/ephauth.html]. 20th August 2003.

McCain, D. 1996. Notes on New Testament Introduction.

Jos: African Textbooks.

Miller, MS and JL Miller. 1973. Harper's Bible Dictionary.

New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Rhein, FB 1974. Understanding to the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing House.

Turner, M. 1984. Ephesians. In New Bible Commentary. 21st century ed., 1222-12244.

Leicester: Inter Varsity Press.

Wallace, DB 2003. Ephesians: Introduction, Argument and Outline.

Available [ . Online]: Http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/ephotl.htm . 19th August 2003.

[ad_2]

Source by Oliver Harding

Descriptive Language in Charles Dickens's Dombey and Son

[ad_1]

Dombey and Son is a novel rich in descriptive detail, with both the exteriors and interiors in which its many characters feature being vividly realized. However it is arguable that such detail is not intended to be merely decorative but instead perform a range of elaborate functions within the vast and intricately plotted story.

The Dombey residence is situated "on the shady side of a tall, dark, dreadfully genteel street" (p.23). It is a large corner house whose interiors are depicted with an overriding sense of bleakness – the words "dark", "dismal" and "grim" abound – creating an atmosphere that borders on the funereal. The fact that Mr. Dombey appears unable to separate familial matters from his business affairs is evinced in the title of the third chapter, where the father is described as being "at the head of the home-department", and "the various members of Mr. Dombey's household subsided into their several places in the domestic system "(p.23). This particular detail subtly highlights another aspect of the Dombey abode, in that it vaguely resembles a prison, with his son's nurse Polly Toodle (or 'Richards' as Mr. Dombey has arbitrarily renamed her) being "established upstairs in a state of honourable captivity "(p.23).

It is clear from the outset that Mr. Dombey only views people as commodities, a facet of his personality which ultimately proves to be his downfall. The small selection of rooms that Polly's employer has allocated for his own private purposes is significant to the story, particularly the glass conservatory or 'chamber', where he summons the nurse to "walk to and fro with her young charge" (p.24 ). Glass performs an important metaphorical function within the narrative. It has been noted that a particularly common use for the large expanses of glass whose manufacture only became possible towards the middle of the nineteenth century was the display of goods in shop windows. Mr. Dombey would appear to be regarding his son in such a manner, his interests in the boy solely motivated by his plans for him in his firm.

Dickens makes use of the 'pathetic fallacy' by depicting inanimate objects as distinctly anthropomorphized. This can be compared with the portrayal of certain characters in a dehumanized form. For example, when Polly glimpses Mr. Dombey watching her with his son through the glass, the narrative is focalized through her, and seen from this perspective her employer is described in relation to "the dark heavy furniture" (p.25) he occupies as opposed to any physical description of him . Such an approach also occurs in Mr. Dombey's daughter Florence's conception of him – to her he appears merely a collection of parts: "The child glanced keenly at the blue coat and stiff white cravat, which, with a pair of creaking boots and a very loud ticking watch, embodied her idea of a father "(p.3). By way of contrast, the descriptions of the Dombey house delineate its facade as if it were a human face always "lowering on the street" (p.337), containing cellars which are "frowned upon by barred windows, and leered at by crooked -eyed doors "(p.23). Such details are not limited to the building's exterior either as each of the covered chandeliers is said to look like a "monstrous tear depending from the ceiling's eye" (p.24) – it is as if the house itself were visibly weeping on account of Mr. Dombey's lack of grief at his recently deceased wife. This particular technique serves to enhance the portrayal of Mr. Dombey becoming a commodity himself through the ceaseless reification of his own surroundings.

Some have contended that the kernel of Dombey and Son is Florence's quest for her father's love. As a character, Mr. Dombey's daughter is essentially non-realist, possessing qualities typical of heroines from eighteenth century sentimental writing, such as innocence and kindness. However melodrama is not the only convention the narrative invokes when chronicling Florence's attempts to affiliate herself into her father's affections, as the Gothic is also evident in these scenes: "the dreary midnight tolled out from the steeples", as well as the "dropping of the rain "," moaning of the wind "," shuddering of the trees "(p.270). However any feelings of 'terror' on Florence's part are quashed by one overriding emotion: love, and it is this that drives her down to "making her nightly pilgrimage to his door" (p.270). The glass that had appeared to separate Mr. Dombey from his son's nurse is apparent here also, "The rain dripped heavily on the glass panes in the outer room" (p.271). The repetition of the phrase "Let him remember it in that room, years to come" (p.272) much later on when the adult Florence returns to her father when his second wife has left him and his business faces bankruptcy, is effective in linking these two scenes. Florence finally succeeds in gaining her father's love and saving him from the house which appears to be consuming him: "The great house, dumb as to all that had suffered in it … stood frowning like a dark mute on the street" (p 0.892).

Descriptive language in Dombey and Son forms a vital function within the story. We are able to see that through the implementation of several techniques, such as 'symbolism', 'metaphor' and 'comparison', and the invoking of other literary conventions – such as Melodrama and the Gothic – into its essentially realist construction, as well as the adoption of literary strategies, such as the 'pathetic fallacy', Dickens's descriptions serve many functions within his narrative, making considerable enhancements to his portrayal of characters and development of plot, ultimately enriching the overall effect of his novel.

[ad_2]

Source by Ben H Wright

Philosophies and the Purpose of Corrections

[ad_1]

We define the four philosophies allied within our correctional system in alphabetical order as deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and retribution. Some manner of justice must be meted out in order for the victim to be appeased and the public to feel that justice has justly prevailed. In our efforts to be fair we are confronted with the need to provide identical justice to all offenders according to the laws. In no way can the preferred system be overly callous while on the other hand it can not be too lenient in its scope. Out of the four philosophies presented I have selected at this time to talk of deterrence and retribution.

The deterrence philosophy focuses upon the resultant consequences of the punishment and not upon the immediate satisfactions provided to the victims of the offence. The concept revealed here with this punishment philosophy is the aspect of discouraging any possible future offenses.

We are reminded of the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham who aptly stated that the fear of punishment would serve as the motivating factor to deter others from committing similar crimes. If we reflect upon the corrective methods employed amongst the Mid-Eastern nations and the Islamic states we quickly discover that they have established their penal policies upon the premises of deterrence. A prime example of this is found in the countries of Saudi Arabia or Iran where capital punishment is performed openly in view by the masses so as to forgo future transgressions of the law.

Even here in America we are drenched in a history of deterrent actions upon the criminal elements in order to provide examples for others to follow. Having its start during the Salem witch trials and progressing to our early western settlements the process of hanging was intended not merely as an ultimate means of punishment but by its very nature it was displayed within an atmosphere of nothing less than that of a circus. During the hangings we would find venders hawking and competing for sales of their merchandise. We witness small children carefully seated beside the edge of the dirt road passing through town but in direct view of the gallows. If the hanging was of a high-profile individual we would perceive roves of reporters and photographers lining up along the street competing for an opportunity to seize a quick byline on the next edition of their newspaper.

Currently, the philosophy of deterrence does not merely entail the death penalty but could include other appropriate corrective actions as well. It is the death penalty which is highlighted the most. We frequently discover that deterrence focuses clearly upon the individual with an ultimate goal of forcing the offender to recognize the consequences of his actions. There is also convergence upon the prevention of future crime by the act of making an example out of the deviant. There is nothing personal in this process as its sole rationale is to mete out a form of punishment in view of others with the ultimate hope of eliminating future crimes. Alternately it removes the individual's opportunity to commit additional crimes.

Our next topic of discussion is retribution. By definition, retribution refers to the concept whereas offenders should be punished for committing crimes and violating generally accepted social rules. In the distribution of justice this form of punishment would not condone chastising anyone who did not exercise free will in the commission of the crime or those who may have been forced into committing a crime. By this it is understood that if a gunman were to compel a victim to rob a bank they would not be totally guilty of the crime.

When we mention retribution the first thing that comes to mind is an eye for an eye. We find similar beliefs recorded within the books of the Old Testament as they relate to early Jewish law. This presence indicates that certain crimes demanded harsher responses. Nowhere in the guidelines of retribution are formulated provisions where an offender should receive rehabilitation or other philosophies other than retribution for the crime they have committed. Throughout the ages the prospects of retribution have never been widely accepted by the public although punishment of some sort was expected. It is almost as if the system seeks to extract revenge upon th offender rather than to see an offender repented of his crime.

It was widely accepted that if the punishment was sever enough the offender would remember his punishment and not make the same mistake again. It is debatable if this system actually deters crime at all. Retribution in our modern society could readily take the form of prison time, weekly community service or assignment under the probation program. The unspoken point which must be understood is that the sentence imposed upon the offender must be compatible with the crime committed. Over the years society has reduced the severity of retribution providing a more standardized assessment system.

Copyright @ 2012 Joseph Parish

[ad_2]

Source by Joseph Parish

Should My Son Go to Gymnastics Classes?

[ad_1]

Your son seems to have the right abilities for gymnastics or has expressed a desire to go to gymnastics classes. Is gymnastics right for boys or is it purely a girls' sport? This article explores the pros and cons of taking up gymnastics as a boy. Firstly, we will consider the pros.

  1. Gymnastics creates incredible core body strength. You only have to look at the physique of the men competing in the rings at any major gymnastics competition to see that male gymnasts have muscles that other men can only dream of!
  2. Doing gymnastics can enhance coordination and bodily control. This is useful for all sports, such that gymnastics can be a springboard for performing other sports to a high level.
  3. Urban street dance is one of the latest youth crazes and is seen regularly on our TV sets. Street dance groups are now becoming famous and street dance is performed around all the 'in' pop acts. It is therefore natural that boys should aspire to become street dancers. Gymnastics is an essential part of street dance with many moves requiring gymnastic abilities such as the planche which is a semi-horizontal handstand.
  4. With the boys-girls ratio likely to be far in the boys favour, gymnastics classes can be a great way of finding girlfriends with similar interests.
  5. Gymnastics is imperative for anyone thinking of becoming a stunt man. Doing stunts can be an exciting career, with involvement in TV and films in different locations across the world.
  6. Gymnastics is extremely important for anyone thinking of a career on the stage or in performing arts. Cirque de Soleil is filled with talented gymnasts who stretch the boundaries of gymnastics with their death-defying feats and artistic performances. The fame and success of the Cirque de Soleil shows just how popular gymnastics is, even outside of traditional competition-based training.
  7. The popularity of gymnastics acts in talent shows such as 'America's Got Talent' and 'Britain's Got Talent' shows how useful it is to practise the sport. Indeed, a gymnastics tumbling act called 'Spellbound' won the 2010 series of Britain's Got Talent. Interestingly, the troupe has more boys than girls in it.
  8. In the US, some colleges offer gymnastics scholarships which could help immensely with the high costs of putting yourself through a college degree course. With less men doing gymnastics, men would have an advantage over women in securing one of these scholarships.

So what are the cons of signing your son up for gymnastics classes?

  1. Your son could be the only boy in the gym class. Do not assume that this is automatically going to be the case. You will only find this out by going along to one of the classes yourself to view it or contacting the gym coach by phone or email. You can request that your son does a free taster session to see how it likes it and whether he is comfortable if there are not many other boys. If your son is reticent about going along by himself, a gymnastics-related gift could encourage him, such as as hand guards, a keyring or some gymnastics jewellery. Gymnastics jewelry comes in different types of metals such as silver and gold. Be careful of gymnastics jewelry produced in base metals as it can cause skin allergies. Alternatively, your son could take a friend along with him, if he has someone suitable. Talk to the parents of your son's friends to see if any of his friends might be interested in going along with him.
  2. Your son could be teased at school. However, once he demonstrates how he can do back flips and handsprings, his classmates will be filled with admiration instead! Alternatively, your son could take up street dance classes at the same time and argue that he does the gymnastics to improve his street dancing. Everyone knows that street dancers are cool and get respect!
  3. Your son may not have time for more traditional boys sports such as football and rugby. It is true that no one can do everything, so a choice always has to be made as regards to what pastimes to pursue. However, your son may well get to play the tradtional sports at school and so can use his free time for more specialised sports such as gymnastics.
  4. Some parents may worry that doing gymnastics could make their son too feminine. However, Mens gymnastics has different disciplines to womens gymnastics. The apparatus of mens gymnastics is Floor, Vault, Parallel Bars, Highbar, Rings and Pommel Horse. Women have 4 apparatus: Floor, Vault, Beam and Bars. However, even where the women and men cross over ie in Floor and Vault, the disciplines are different. The womens floor routine is done to music and is usually performed in a balletic style. The mens floor routine is not performed to music and is done is a masculine style. The vault is also different in that the horse is placed horizontally for women and length-ways for men.

To conclude, the pros of boys doing gymnastics significantly outweigh any cons. Parents should not be put off from placing their sons in gymnastics classes, but instead should embrace their talents. Gymnastics is useful in a variety of different arenas and can actually make a boy stand out as 'cool'.

[ad_2]

Source by David Valle

What Is the Most Profitable Options Strategy?

[ad_1]

Out of all the many option trading strategies available, how do you decide which one is the most profitable? When you read through investing forums, you will find so many different opinions that it is pretty hard to sort out the facts from all noise. Some writers take a rigid academic approach and analyse risk and profitability from that point of view, while other hands-on traders take a more flexible view. However, one fact remains – the main reason investors consider using options is because they want to achieve better returns than can be achieved through any ordinary stock trading strategy. With the wild gyrations of the stock market in the last few years, most investors have started to realise the folly of strategies such as 'buy-and-hold' or 'dollar-cost-averaging', and have been looking for more sustainable, reliably profitable trading tactics.

Is Options Trading Profitable?

Some forum contributors will have you believe that options trading is dangerous and highly risky. The truth is that for sheer magnitude of profit, options trading can not be beaten. The potential for gain provided by the leverage employed in options is enormous. For relatively small amounts of money, you can control large blocks of stock, and can reap the profits from a move in the right direction. The flipside is that this same leverage also has the ability to wipe out your portfolio, if you are using a trading plan that does not address the risk issues of the particular strategy that you are using. So, the simple answer to the question is: yes, options trading can be profitable, but it can also be very risky in some circumstances.

Is there a consistently profitable options trading strategy ?

Most new derivatives traders are introduced to the simple concepts of buying calls or puts. While these are easy to understand and all too easy to implement, the reality is that to be successful in this strategy, you must have exceptional technical analysis skills which allow you to predict both the magnitude and direction of any market moves. This strategy certainly offers the greatest potential for profit, but the reality is that this potential is not often achieved. It often takes several good trades to recover from one single large loss. So while the 'buying calls and puts' method has the largest potential for profit, it is quite hard to achieve that potential on a consistent basis.

Options Selling Strategies

Two academic studies (in 2006 and 2012) have shown that the most profitable options strategy on a consistent basis involve not buying options, but selling them. Selling puts, or for those with lower margin limits, selling credit spreads, was shown to be more profitable over the long term than any other approach. The absolute magnitude of the profit is less than that from other strategies, but the consistency of this profit makes it the best method available. The huge advantage is that the technical analysis requirements for selling puts or credit spreads is not nearly as stringent as that required for other strategies, and the risk profile is significantly lower at every level. In fact, with sturdy trading plan, which includes a well tested exit strategy, selling options can be more profitable and less risky that almost any stock trading strategy.

[ad_2]

Source by Rob Forbes

Rape – Understanding the Five Rules

[ad_1]

Women often find themselves in precarious conditions because they are unaware of or oblivious to the rules of conduct and situation from the male perspective. Women even in the most positive sense take up the role of the victim too readily, easily and far too often. It seems that women are often not ready to make the commitment to changing their thinking, habits, self destructive lifestyles, and ideas about modesty. All men are potential rapists therefore women must be able to distinguish men according to fact and circumstances rather than feelings and delusions. This is where the "Five Rules" come in to protect women not just from men but from their own misconceptions and fears. Rapes just do not happen as a rule there is premeditation involved from the male point of view and often considerable logical thought. Being a man the natural inclination is to treat other men (especially those unknown) with a definite degree of mutual caution if not suspicion, although commonly men share the threat of mutual destruction if violence ensues. Women do not have the protection of mutual aggression, strength and the assured possibly devastating retaliation. Men do not have fear of women and males of other species from chimpanzees to dogs can identify women as female, rank them as dominate or non dominate and threaten them accordingly. However with human males they are much more cautious because they know they can never be sure of the outcome. With this in mind, I have developed Five Rules that if followed could serve any woman in any society quite well if taken seriously.

1. Wild Kingdom Rules
Men consciously or unconsciously are able view women in a way women do not perceive. For rough example a panther, leopard or any big cat watches the landscape from a high place or the shadows and learns the habits routine and movements of its prey. It logically uses this information to stalk, herd, ambush, and ultimately attack its prey, while the prey almost always stays in reactive mode rather that a proactive one. The prey's defense is to be alert, panic and to flee but even this has a predictable pattern and the big cats count on this because they are often fed by it. Women must assume they are being watched especially when they have no apparent male companion or relatives that are frequently visible. Profiles on serial rapist bear out the fact that the most dangerous men are not men of other social economic, racial, or cultural groups, but rather the men that seem to fit in from the victims own race, economic strata and cultural settings. These are the men women look at but do not see (hiding in plain sight using the best camouflage of all) because society has trained them not to. Nice upscale gated community may not just be locking the undesirables out but locking potential victims in with the real sex criminals. Assume the men in the neighborhood, on the street, at the job, clubs, sports events etc. know a lot more about local women than they think. Today's new casual male friend, sports partner, or associate could be tomorrows date rapist or nighttime intruder. The clean cut very socially acceptable men can be the ones with the most skeletons in their dark mental closets, and the criminal animal mind can be shockingly logical. Do not jog or walk alone especially in deserted or semi deserted places like wooded areas, roads, parks, alley ways, bike paths etc. and never at dawn, dusk or after dark. There have been instances of mountain lions attacking or even killing women in secluded locations and they do not have the advantages of a human brain as men evidently do.

2. Prison Sex Rules
An office, a hotel, a park, a mall parking lot, a parking garage or entire city can be a prison because men are nearby and women know nothing of their true intent. Women must mentally function the way a man would if incarcerated, be aware, be cautious, be armed if possible (a key, a pen or pencil, a magazine, etc. are all weapons of opportunity if used correctly) "soap on a rope "can do a lot of damage to a human being in or out of the showers and they will not see it coming. The point is not to have sex with anyone because sex and violence have no distinction in a confined environment and men recognize the predatory nature and tendency of man. Do not assume anyone is a friend and never smile. Do not do favors for anyone. Do not accept gifts even small ones from any man (candy, cigarettes, money etc). Remember yes means "yes" maybe means "yes" and most important "no" means "yes" to "sex" in any conversation no matter what the weaker parties intent or the conversational context. Never show fear rather be stoic or show aggression stay as quiet and detached as possible, quiet people are hard to fathom and unpredictable when under attack. Know your escape routes, never turn your back; if you have to flee use your head stay lucid and a fighting retreat can spoil the plans and aggression of an attacker. Last of all prepare yourself to mentally deal with the possibility of gang rape. If men use violence against men in the form of rape in prison then certainly it will be used against weaker and often less savvy women.

3. Cover-up Rules

A woman's best preventative defense is to recover from her mis-education and indoctrination that presents women as sex objects to sell everything from cars to toothpaste. Women put more clothes on for protection to mask the female shape which prevents men from imprinting. When a man sees a woman in a state of undress (and this does not mean she is naked but dressed too scantly) men make assumptions the woman is loose or less worthy of respect. Nuns, Muslim women that cover, and modestly dressed women are treated differently, with more respect and are much less likely to be molested verbally or otherwise by men. Many men control their desires and curiosity when it comes to women but this is not necessarily the rule. A woman displayed in public can incite lust and bad behavior in men the same way a gun brandished in public incites fear and uncertainty. It is not hard to see women that are wearing garments that are too tight, see through, too shear, too small or too short chafe at unwanted male attentions that range from hard stares, cat calls, whistles, to blocking her path and touching. Not to mention men that are seen with women dressed like this do not exactly garner the respect of other men. Men in authority from bosses to policemen are men too and certainly capable of committing heinous crimes against women, so do not be fooled. There are many beautiful types of apparel available for women to look smart while being covered. Men that see women covered are more likely to offer a modicum of respect and keep their distance if nothing else and those with bad intentions are more likely to choose another female victim less dressed. There is no death penalty for rape in most western countries and the burden of proof is on the woman so if nothing else, more clothes will make it at least more difficult for any attacker. How conservative a woman dresses can make her a much smaller target of opportunity.

4. Lifestyle Rules
Drugs, alcohol, questionable locations and late hours open up so many opportunities for rape one hardly knows where to begin. Women seen in this frame work are in serious trouble no matter how many times they have lived through it without incident it only has to go wrong once. Women that have decided to be drug addicts alcoholics prostitutes, or just happen to live on the streets tend to instinctively know rape is a definite part in their world. Rape leaves them with survival skills, STD's, PTSD, and another filthy memory awash in a sea of ​​substance abuse, poverty and fear. However no one prepares or warns the new female recruit fresh from home about the military services which are more dangerous rape and sexual assault wise than any dark street corner or alleyway. The news contains a litany of articles and stories about females being sexually mis-treated while in the military but the general public only seems to turn a blind eye when confronted with this disturbing truth. Media sources remain relatively mute when the subject of rape is mentioned in conjunction with the military. Instead the focus is on "do not ask do not tell" when in reality the spotlight needs to be on female rights and safety in the military and the phase should be "do not tell do not ask" because this is the real "defacto" policy of the military. Male soldiers are directly or indirectly responsible for more female enlisted deaths injuries and attacks than the Taliban or the so called Al Qaeda combined. The families of the female enlisted victims can not seem to get true and correct information from the military let alone consistent actual arrests and convictions. Therefore the military is a very hazardous lifestyle choice for any woman, in fact more dangerous than being on the streets doing drugs and alcohol. Choose a lifestyle after careful consideration but never assumed that even lifestyles of the norm are safe.

5. Combat Rules
Violence is something to be avoided at all cost, unless the cost is your right to your own personal physical and mental well being. For a woman facing a serious threat from a man or men bent on the violence of rape the play book of human kindness immediately goes out the window. In fact she will find that her best savior is herself and this will require conviction and commitment. Even the most fearful woman must dig down deep to find the where with all to do what she must, "survive"! The women of Bosnia, Chechnya, Darfur, Kashmir, Rwanda, Uganda, and thousands of rape victims in the USA can tell about the horrors of being in a rape situation and how they wish they could have avoided being a victim if only they could have defended themselves. Women often first respond to an impending attack with fear and indecision this conveniently paralyzes them at the most crucial moment. At that moment a woman must react by doing what the attacker least expects commit to combat "hit harder faster more often and hit him first"! Of course sharp contact with vital sensitive areas of the male anatomy can have the added beneficial effect of making any male attacker unable to perform or perpetuate an attack. This is something that is not hard to do regardless of height weight or strength but women are almost never taught this. I urge all women take a few hours learn some form of self defense get use to the feeling of combat and how to keep yourself calm and thinking during it, because attackers tend to be careless, arrogant and make a lot of mistakes. A little preparation and a lot of conviction to self preservation are better than a million hours of post rape counseling; counsel yourself to "win" before it ever happens!

[ad_2]

Source by Habib Thompson