SULFUR CARBENDAZIM DESINFEKTAN CAP GADJAH

 Desinfektan Cap Gadjah Sulfur Carbendazim & Fungisida Obat Penghilang Bau Amonia Kandang Biosecuriti no 1 sulfur carbendazim dosis rendah dan residue remover bio desulfurization sehingga ramah dan tidak mencemari lingkungan. Desinfektan Cap Gadjah Obat Penghilang Bau Amonia Kandang Obat Untuk Mengurangi gas Amonia, gas beracun, serta menjadikan kotoran tidak berbau sekaligus untuk sanitasi bio security Heat Stress Menekan pertumbuhan bakteri E-Coli, CRD & bakteri pathogen.

Biosecurity no.1
Ini adalah agent pembersih berbasis sulfur carbendazim dosis rendah & residue remover bio desulfurization sehingga ramah dan tidak mencemari lingkungan.

Berkinerja tinggi yang diformulasikan khusus untuk menghilangkan residu kimiawi mikroskopis, terutama dari penggunaan obat-obatan antibiotic yang larut bersama kotoran ternak termasuk metamfetamin, fentanil, heroin, oksikodon, dll. Juga efektif untuk infeksi jamur, protozoa, bakteri dan virus.
Diuji laboratorium & terbukti di lapangan.

SULFUR CARBENDAZIM DESINFEKTAN CAP GADJAH

Desinfektan Cap Gadjah Sulfur Carbendazim & Fungisida
Aturan Pakai

Untuk Peternakan Ayam Petelur
Pertama kali semprot 5 hari berturut-turut saat sore hari dosis 3ml/ liter air,
Spray kabut untuk kotoran, ayam dan seluruh kandang,
Saat bau mulai berkurang artinya parasit spt amoeba, bakteri, jamur dan virus sudah mulai terkontrol,
Setelahnya bisa anda semprot seminggu sekali atau saat bau kandang sudah mulai terasa.

Untuk Ayam Broiler
Spray seluruh kandang sebelum chick in, spray seminggu 2x saat umur seminggu,
setiap hari saat umur 8- 18 hari, umur 19 sampai panen spray setiap hari 2x sehari pagi dan sore

Untuk Pertanian Padi
Dosis 3ml/ liter air, spray saat olah lahan yakni 7hr sebelum tanam, 7hari setelah tanam,
dan setiap 2 minggu sekali total 4x selama musim tanam,
berfungsi menyehatkan tanah, pH buffer, mengendalikan virus dan jamur.

Untuk Tanaman Sayur penting untuk spray saat pengolahan lahan 7 hari sebelum tanam

Untuk Tanaman Tahunan seperti pohon durian, pisang, mangga, karet dan sawit,
spray saat awal musim penghujan,
pertengahan dan ahir musim penghujan, saat yg paling ideal adalah ketika tanah dan pohon basah.

Souce : SNTgadjah

The measure would have required doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of a clinic

 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Louisiana's tough restriction on abortions violates the Constitution, a surprising victory for abortion rights advocates from an increasingly conservative court.

The 5-4 decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's four more liberal justices, struck down a law passed by the Louisiana Legislature in 2014 that required any doctor offering abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Its enforcement had been blocked by a protracted legal battle.

Two Louisiana doctors and a medical clinic sued to get the law overturned. They said it would leave only one doctor at a single clinic to provide services for nearly 10,000 women who seek abortions in the state each year.

The challengers said the requirement was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. With the vote of then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that Texas imposed an obstacle on women seeking access to abortion services without providing any medical benefits. Kennedy was succeeded by the more conservative Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by President Donald Trump, who was among the four dissenters Monday.

Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the Texas decision, also wrote Monday's ruling. The law poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and offers no significant health benefits "and therefore imposes an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion."

Roberts said he thought the court was wrong to strike down the Texas law, but he voted with the majority because that was the binding precedent. 

"The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Loui

The Center for Reproductive Rights said the burdens on access to abortions in Louisiana would have been even more restrictive than those in Texas, where about half of the state's abortion clinics were forced to close. It also said the law was unnecessary, because only a small fraction of women experience medical problems after abortions, and when they do, they seek treatment at hospitals near where they live, not ones near the medical clinic.

"As Republicans continue their assault nationally on Roe v. Wade, they are also fighting on a state by state basis," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. "Louisiana's draconian abortion ban was a clear and intentional violation of the Constitution, explicitly designed to permanently destroy women's reproductive freedoms and dismantle their right to make their own decisions about their health, bodies and timing and size of their families."

Louisiana had defended the law, arguing that the requirement to have an association with a nearby hospital would provide a check on a doctor's credentials. But opponents said a hospital's decision about whether to grant admitting privileges had little to do with a doctor's competence and more to do with whether the doctor would admit a sufficient number of patients.

siana's law cannot stand under our precedents."

Painting murals gives students empowering role in protest movement

I'm reading "Painting murals gives students empowering role in protest movement" (Wisconsin State Journal):

For Madison-area youths such as Nelson Lashley, who just turned 10, participating in the Black Lives Matter protest movement by painting murals on boards covering Downtown businesses was empowering.

“I’ve been feeling good that I am in the protest,” said Nelson, who will be a fifth-grader at Lowell Elementary School. “It’s kind of beautiful how you can show what you’re doing through a peaceful form like art.”

The murals were painted on plywood put up after windows were broken during protests following the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis police custody. Many still stand.

Nelson painted with his father, Yorel Lashley, who said the opportunity aligned with the messages he tries to instill through his Drum Power company, which teaches drumming but also strives to develop the whole person.

As a musician, Lashley liked the idea of trying something in the visual arts. The project also was personal.
 

Ask the schoolchildren to paint the murals "Black Life Matters" for downtown Madison.

 

     As murals were being painted at the end of the school year, SJ Hemmerich, art teacher at Randall Elementary School, created a slide presentation of them. Hemmerich then presented it to students and as a last assignment asked , “If you could design your own mural for (Black Lives Matter), what would it be?” Then Hemmerich got the idea of why not do it for real.

    Hemmerich, like other teachers, reached out to “Black and brown students” to get involved. Hemmerich got permission to work on one large mural and five panels located near each other. ... Hemmerich also sent an email out to art teachers in the Madison School District to recruit more help beyond Randall and wound up with more than 135 students and some staff members.

    “I am really passionate about social justice work,” Hemmerich said. “I thought it would be a really good way to get students involved.”...

    Monique Karlen, art teacher at La Follette High School, said she started by recruiting some of her students and then got other help from students from Middleton and East high schools...

The only mention of parents in the article is about one student who said that her parents worry about her participation in the protests, so the mural-painting is a good, safe alternative. But I don't think teachers should be recruiting children to engage in political activism — even if it's artistic — without first involving the parents and getting their consent. I don't think adults should put any sort of pressure on children to take a political position and to do political work — even if it's artwork. Teachers should not be exploiting their access to children for any political purpose. They are given access to our children for the purpose of education, and it is a solemn trust that should never be violated. 

 

Chris Wallace Grills Mercedes Schlapp On Failed Tulsa Rally: 'You Guys Look Silly When You Deny Reality'

Fox News host Chris Wallace challenged Trump 2020 campaign spokesperson Mercedes Schlapp for making "campaign speeches" during an interview on Sunday.

On his Fox News Sunday program, Wallace noted that President Donald Trump's Tulsa rally on Saturday had been sparsely attended despite the fact that the president claimed nearly a million people had requested tickets.

"We all saw the pictures last night," Wallace explained. "The arena was no more than two-thirds full. And the outdoor rally was cancelled because there was no overflow crowd. What happened?"

"The key here is to understand," Schlapp replied, "there were factors involved, they were concerned about the protesters who were coming in."

"He talks about how he can fill an arena," Wallace said, referring to the president. "And he didn't fill an arena last night. You guys were so far off that you had planned an outdoor rally and there wasn't an overflow crowd."

"Protesters did not stop people from coming to that rally," he added. "The fact is, people did not show up."

Schlapp disagreed before attacking presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden for holding virtual events during the ongoing pandemic.

"Mercedes, please don't filibuster," Wallace interrupted. "Frankly, it makes you guys look silly when you deny the reality of what happened."

"I don't know why you are saying that," Schlapp complained.

"There are empty seats there," Wallace replied. "At least a third, if not half of the rally was empty. You can't deny it."

"Joe Biden has been a failed politician that has done nothing but support failed institutions," Schlapp opined. "This is in contrast with President Trump who has a strong record and is rebuilding this economy."

DOJ SPOKESWOMAN: 'THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE RESOLUTION' OF DURHAM INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA PROBE

Department of Justice spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told "Hannity" Wednesday that "the American people deserve resolution" about exactly what happened in the early stages of the Russia investigation."[Connecticut U.S. Attorney] John Durham and his team have been thoroughly and meticulously working on their investigation for many months now, as the attorney referenced earlier this week ... " Kupec told host Sean Hannity.

"The American people deserve resolution as to what happened to President Trump, his campaign, and then, of course, subsequent to that as well. It's important for the American people. It's important for our system of justice. And it's important, certainly, for the media to accurately report and cover that as well. What that resolution looks like remains to be seen."

DURHAM MOVING 'FULL-THROTTLE' ON RUSSIA PROBE REVIEW

Last week, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein -- who oversaw the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller -- testified that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal application for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about since-revealed "significant errors" in in the document.

Mueller’s investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election, though the question of whether Trump obstructed justice was left open in the final report.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Kupec declined to comment on Rosenstein's testimony but assured Hannity that Durham was "is working as hard as ever."

"What happened to President Trump was one of the greatest political injustices in American history," she said, "and never should happen again."

Oklahoma Supreme Court allows Trump rally to proceed as planned; Tulsa mayor rescinds curfew

The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Trump’s upcoming rally in Tulsa can go ahead as planned despite concerns about coronavirus -- just as Trump announced that a curfew in the city had been lifted for the rally.

“I just spoke to the highly respected Mayor of Tulsa, G.T. Bynum, who informed me there will be no curfew tonight or tomorrow for our many supporters attending the #MAGA Rally. Enjoy yourselves - thank you to Mayor Bynum!” the president tweeted.

TRUMP WARNS 'ANARCHISTS' NOT TO DISRUPT TULSA RALLY, AFTER THREAT PROMPTS EMERGENCY ORDER

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

I just spoke to the highly respected Mayor of Tulsa, G.T. Bynum, who informed me there will be no curfew tonight or tomorrow for our many supporters attending the #MAGA Rally. Enjoy yourselves - thank you to Mayor Bynum! @gtbynum

111K

2:09 AM - Jun 20, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

45.9K people are talking about this

Bynum on Friday issued a statement and said he was "told the curfew is no longer necessary."

"Last night, I enacted a curfew at the request of Tulsa Police Chief Wendell Franklin, following consultation with the United States Secret Service based on intelligence they had received,” he said in a news release, the Tulsa World reported. “Today, we were told the curfew is no longer necessary so I am rescinding it.”

Bynum, a Republican, had declared a civil emergency and announced a curfew near the arena where Trump plans to hold a campaign rally on Saturday.

Bynum, in his order, said “in the interest of national security” he would establish a “federal exclusion zone” in the vicinity of the rally. He cited “crowds in excess of 100,000” and opposition protests as well as recent “civil unrest” -- referring to protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd that in the early days escalated into looting and violence in some cities. Additionally, he had warned that he had information that organized groups known for violence were traveling to the city “for the purposes of causing unrest in and around the rally.”

"Is it me, or do we seem to have a problem with sculpture today? I don’t mean contemporary sculpture..."

"... whose fashionable stars (see Koons, Murakami et alia) pander to our appetite for spectacle and whatever’s new. I don’t mean ancient or even non-Western sculpture, either. I mean traditional European sculpture — celebrities like Bernini and Rodin aside — and American sculpture, too: the enormous universe of stuff we come across in churches and parks, at memorials and in museums like the Bode. The stuff Barnett Newman, the Abstract Expressionist painter, notoriously derided as objects we bump into when backing up to look at a painting.... [S]culpture skeptics from Leonardo through Hegel and Diderot have cultivated our prejudice against the medium. 'Carib art,' is how Baudelaire described sculpture, meaning that even the suavest, most sophisticated works of unearthly virtuosity by Enlightenment paragons like Canova and Thorvaldsen were tainted by the medium’s primitive, cultish origins. Racism notwithstanding, Baudelaire had a point. Sculpture does still bear something of the burden of its commemorative and didactic origins. It’s too literal, too direct, too steeped in religious ceremony and too complex for a historically amnesiac culture. We prefer the multicolored distractions of illusionism on flat surfaces, flickering in a movie theater or digitized on our laptops and smartphones, or painted on canvas. The marketplace ratifies our myopia, making headlines for megamillion-dollar sales of old master and Impressionist pictures but rarely for premodern sculptures...."

From an essay by Michael Kimmelman, published in the NYT in 2008, which I'm reading this morning because I blogged it at the time with my tag "sculpture" and I'm going through all my old posts with that tag looking for things that deserve my new tag "destruction of art."

The new tag is something I'd thought about creating for a very long time. I've been interested in violence directed at art much longer than I've been writing this blog — at least as far back as 1974 — but somehow my resistance to tag proliferation kept me from breaking this subtopic out of my generic topics "sculpture" and "art." There was also the "protest" tag. "Destruction of art" is (usually) a subtopic of that one too. But the pulling down of statues of Junipero Serra and Francis Scott Key — last night in San Francisco — finally dragged me over the line.

Speaking of Junipero Serra, I remember Richard Serra and his "Tilted Arc." I was one of the workers of lower Manhattan in the 1980s who rankled at the hostility the artist expressed toward mere pedestrians. I've written about that a few times. The people in the plaza have feelings and interests and may richly resent the impositions of artist ego and elitist civic pride. Once art is in place, it demands admiration, and what happens? It might be ignored — that's what Kimmelman fretted about — and it might be attacked — the present-day rage.

I'd like to look up what the "sculpture skeptics" — Leonardo, Hegel, Diderot, Baudelaire, et al. — had to say. Oddly, they — at least some of them — expressed racism. The sculpture skeptics of today style themselves as anti-racists. But there's resonance in Kimmelman's summary of the skepticism:

Sculpture does still bear something of the burden of its commemorative and didactic origins. It’s too literal, too direct, too steeped in religious ceremony and too complex for a historically amnesiac culture. We prefer the multicolored distractions of illusionism on flat surfaces, flickering in a movie theater or digitized on our laptops and smartphones, or painted on canvas. 

We — some of us — prefer the multicolored distractions of illusionism on the flat surface of the embedded video on Twitter as protesters drag down another stately chunk of metal.