#CMStemplate | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

wordpressthemefree · 4 years ago

Text

The Way to Set up and Publish a WordPress Theme

WordPress topics available for downloading from various places online are typically packed in.zip files (i.e. theme-name. Zip ). Installing a WordPress theme involves only unzipping the.zip file to the appropriate directory of your WordPress setup, and triggering the motif from the WordPress console.

To be able that you put in your brand new wordpress Plugins and Modules Extensions properly, you have to know that the basic principles of the way the WordPress strategy interacts using topics. A WordPress motif requires three fundamental files so as to work with all the WordPress management:

O An index.php file: This document could be the control of a WordPress website. Most WordPress topics have additional PHP files which reflect various chapters of a WordPress site, however index.php could be your only necessary PHP file.

Additionally, it Comprises the information That's utilized from the Manage Themes part of WordPress to Produce the subject title, model, author, and description

O A"screen shot" image: The image is utilized to make preview of this corresponding motif from the Manage Themes element of the WordPress management. This is any one of the frequent web pictures files (png, jpg, gif), however it has to be termed screen shot.

When you've obtained your motif out of a designer that knows what he is doing, then that you never absolutely have to be worried about ensuring the motif is installed properly. If you are uncertain, you could only need to doublecheck that you have the essential files necessary to put in your own theme.

WordPress Directory Structure

Exactly the WordPress directory arrangement Comprises three folders at the directory:

O wp admin

Under the wpcontent folder there's a folder called topics. In this folder is the place you want to deposit the folder which contains the motif. Here's a good illustration. Say I am installing a motif to get a recipe site. The subject is Named Recipe, and its own folder structure looks like this:

This motif would ordinarily be packed in a.zip document. When I've WordPress installed on my Internet server under a directory known as website, my directory structure would appear like that:

#webtemplates #cmstemplates

0 notes

solarpunk-gnome · 7 years ago

Link

Isabel Sawhill wrote a short essay about basic income, arguing that it may be a step too far. To me, what has been “too far” is precisely this present-day Kafkaesque system of oppression, where poverty runs rampant (even in the so-called “rich” countries), inequality is breaking all records and societal and environmental stress reach all-time highs. Nonetheless, the article deserves a response. I think that is important, not the least because in this very short article, Isabel manages to aggregate the most common criticisms/preconceptions regarding basic income: that we cannot afford it, that the wealthiest should not be “helped” and that without obligation people do not meaningfully contribute to society (a nuance on the trendy “people will just be lazy” argument).

So, let’s deconstruct this.

“(…) logic is inescapable: either we have to spend additional trillions providing income grants to all Americans or we have to limit assistance to those who need it most.”

This logic is not inescapable. In fact, it is wrong. Financing a basic income does not just amount to thinking of an amount for the grant (say, 1000 US$/month), multiplying it by the country’s population (319 million people) and then paying the bill (in this case, 319 trillion US$/month, or 3828 trillion US$/year). That’s very bad math. A more sensible tax policy will transfer a part of the taxes collected from the relatively wealthier to those relatively poorer. Actually, the former will be net-payers of basic income, and the latter will be net-receivers of basic income. Depending on the taxation levels at a certain moment in time, this redistribution of income can even be done without any supplementary cost.

Another fallacy is this idea that a basic income could “limit assistance to those who need it most”. For how would that even be possible, if the basic income is enough for basic human needs, and is universal and unconditional? Would it not then provide the assistance to those in need?1 It will, but only in a much better way than in the present system: it would do it without policing, without stigmatizing, without controlling and with much less bureaucracy. In fact, building on the previous paragraph part of the money necessary to finance basic income will come from savings in conditional social assistance grants that have become obsolete, mainly because beneficiaries no longer meet their requirements (mostly means-tests). Furthermore, there are too many targeted social safety net policies in the US, which nevertheless fail to effectively eradicate poverty. In an analysis (https://www.bon.com.na/CMSTemplates/Bon/Files/bon.com.na/56/56018376-a730-4fc6-920d-0d3c3116cce6.pdf) by Karl Widerquist, around 7% of workers live in poverty, as do 22% of children. The idea is then, precisely, that basic income can circumvent all these conditional assistance programs, providing universal unconditional support, and reducing social assistance complexity, bureaucracy and cost.

“One option is to provide unconditional payments along the lines of a UBI, but to phase it out as income rises”

As long as one looks at basic income as an income redistribution scheme, this is just stating the obvious. As income rises, and taxes paid also rise, then on a net basis people will of course be paying for basic income, not receiving.

“Liberals fear that such unconditional assistance would be unpopular and would be an easy target for elimination in the face of budget pressures.”

Fear has never been a wise consultant, but, philosophy aside, there’s also no evidence that basic income would be unpopular in the US, even considering the precocious opposition from lead political figures. Plus, in the face of budgetary pressures, I don’t see why basic income would be any more likely to be subject to cuts, or to be targeted for elimination, compared to other social security policies. Actually, as a wider policy than targeted programs, and one that would make some of these targeted programs obsolete, basic income could be, if anything, more difficult to take away, since more would be at stake (in comparison, say, to just losing a tax benefit or food stamps eligibility).

“(…) poor and jobless are lacking more than just cash. They may be addicted to drugs or alcohol, suffer from mental health issues, have criminal records, or have difficulty functioning in a complex society. Money may be needed but money by itself does not cure such ills.”

Now let’s think a bit about this. What can bring on addiction or addictive behaviours? What can cause mental health issues? What can lead to criminal behaviour?

Addictions may come into a person’s life for a multitude of reasons: past traumas, family issues, health problems, professional pressure…and poverty. Poverty has been extensively shown (ex.: A primer on Social Problems, Effects of Poverty) to be a generator of many social problems, including malnutrition, health issues, economic distress and crime. So, it's obvious that poverty bears a feedback relation to trauma, family unrest, health and professional pressure, although it's not the only cause of social ills. (Rich people also share some of society’s problems.) Addiction specialists, like Katarzyna Gajewska, are also not convinced that basic income can have an exacerbating effect on addictive behaviour, due to its multifaceted nature. Meanwhile, no basic income trial test to date has found significant increases in the use of addictive substances due to unconditional cash transfers (Scott Santens, 2016). As for mental health issues, in fact, the Canadian “Mincome” experiment has found a correlation between basic income and reduced hospitalizations due to mental illness, as described in the relatively recent report by Evelyn Forget. And as for crime, hard data from at least one of the basic income pilot studies, in Namibia, has shown a 42% decrease in crime rate attributable to the distribution of an unconditional basic income for 9 months.

Somehow Isabel resists the idea of a basic income on the grounds that it stems from a flawed assumption that money alone can cure society. But, looking at this evidence from the “cause” perspective, the lack of money – that’s poverty – is indeed at least partly causing these problems of addiction, mental illness and crime. And so money, although not a cure in itself, is bound to substantially reduce these social illnesses.

“A humane and wealthy society should provide the disadvantaged with adequate services and support. But there is nothing wrong with making assistance conditional on individuals fulfilling some obligation whether it is work, training, getting treatment, or living in a supportive but supervised environment.”

There is, actually, something wrong about a conditional social program. Social Security in the US is very complex, particularly due to means-tested criteria. Plus, there is evidence that social security programs can lead to stigmatization (to which political and media discourse also contributes in an important way). Moreover, the worry that people will just stop working without a work obligation is unfounded – all basic income experiments to date have shown little to no work reduction on average. That’s despite the fact that most research tells us that people work too much (particularly in the US), and that is a bad thing generally. So, a cut in average worked hours would actually be welcomed. And this is not even discussing the type of work performed (useful or not, meaningful or not, benefiting society or not).

“In the end, the biggest problem with a universal basic income may not be its costs or its distributive implications, but the flawed assumption that money cures all ills. “

Indeed. Money isn’t everything. But too many people suffer daily the consequences of not having enough of it (and yes, they are many people, around 24 million in the USA alone), which is totally unnecessary and utterly avoidable. And while not having enough money makes people stressed and desperate to find more of it, just to meet their basic needs, they are not enjoying the non-monetary parts of life: quality time with family and friends, leisure, acquiring meaningful knowledge, participating in public/cultural life, volunteering and so on.

More information at:

Isabel Sawhill, 2016. “Money for nothing: why a basic income is a step too far”, Brookings, June 15th 2016 (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2016/06/15-universal-basic-income-is-step-too-far-sawhill)

Steven E. Barkan, 2012. “A primer on social problems”, Creative Commons 3.0 licence, November 29th 2012 (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/pdfs/a-primer-on-social-problems.pdf)

Scott Santens, 2016. “Universal basic income is the best tool to fight poverty”, February 6th 2016 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/universal-basic-income-is_b_10251176.html)

Evelyn L. Forget, 2011. “The town without poverty”, February 2011 (https://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf)

Tyler Prochazka, 2016. “Beyond temptation: scholar discusses addiction and basic income”, January 28th 2016 (http://www.basicincome.org/news/2016/01/beyond-temptation-scholar-discusses-addiction-and-basic-income/)

Claudia and Dirk Haarmann, 2015. “Relief through cash – impact assessment of the emergency cash grant in Namibia”, July 2015 (http://woek.de/web/cms/upload/pdf/kasa/publikationen/haarmann_2015_relief_through_cash.pdf)

Karen Rowlingson, 2011. “Both inequality and poverty cause health and social problems – they are forces that need to be tackled together”, September 22nd 2011 (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/tackling-inequality-and-poverty/)

Anup Shah, 2014. “Causes of Poverty”, September 28th 2014 (http://www.globalissues.org/issue/2/causes-of-poverty)

Kate Bell, 2013. “Poverty, social security and stigma”, Poverty nº144 10-13 (Child Poverty Action Group) (http://www.cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/CPAG-Povertyarticle-stigma-0213.pdf)

Sarath Green Carmichael, 2015. “The research is clear: long hours backfire for people and for companies”, August 19th 2015 (https://hbr.org/2015/08/the-research-is-clear-long-hours-backfire-for-people-and-for-companies)

Notes: 1 – That’s not to say that special needs would not be attended to, like disabilities or disease supplements. For those special needs, basic income just needs to be topped up with an extra amount which can satisfy them.

#solarpunk #UBI #universal basic income

1 note · View note

freethemelock-blog · 7 years ago

Text

illusion v1.2 - Premium Multipurpose Drupal Theme

Download Free illusion v1.2 - Premium Multipurpose Drupal Theme

Click here to Download: http://bit.ly/2qUD9Lr

#CMSTemplates #Drupal #TF

0 notes

ascendingmatrix · 7 years ago

Text

WHAT’S ID 2020 AND ARE YOU READY TO BECOME IMPACTED BY IT?

Posted by M M | Jan 1, 2018 | 2017, Conspiracy, Cabal, and Government, Daily Blog, Liberty, Freedom, Privacy

NATURAL BLAZE

By Catherine J. Frompovich

An apparent New World Order (NWO) numbering of the world’s population is in the works, which will affect and impact every human being on the planet from the first day of birth forward!

Below is a schematic of their ‘game plan’. It’s called the “ID2020 Alliance” and is the most comprehensive surveillance database probably to date and being implemented on a GLOBAL basis, as you can see from the International Organizations involved, governmental agencies feeding it statistical data, and the countries that will fund it.

(Source)

If you look closely, you realize the importance vaccinations will play in that Alliance and the apparent role(s) Big Pharma will take in providing ever-increasing numbers of vaccines, which probably will never see legitimate scientific testing for safety and/or efficacy!

The other thing that jumps off the page is the apparent close relationship between GAVI and the UN’s UNICEF!

According to the webpage “Why An Alliance?”

Gavi was officially launched at the World Economic Forum in 2000 at a time when multiple organizations were pursuing siloed approaches to immunization, leading to inefficiencies and ineffectiveness in the market for vaccines. The organization’s founding partners, including UNICEF, the World Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, developing and donor governments, and others, recognized that uncoordinated programs and unpredictable financing were hindering vaccination efforts and hypothesized that streamlining funding was a critical driver of a coordinated approach. As such, the alliance not only coordinates action on the ground, but achieves scale and impact by operating as a multi-stakeholder partnership around a single funding entity. The alliance raises a single fund to support global immunization efforts, then channels that funding into vaccination programs meeting criteria determined by alliance partners. The result has been coordinated programs, efficient use of funding and a large pooled market for vaccines that has driven down the cost of vaccinations for more than 880 million children worldwide. [CJF emphasis]

The above brings to mind Bill Gates infamous statement made during his February 2010 TED Talk when he gave his famous equation for global population control, which definitely included the use of vaccines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=6WQtRI7A064#t=8

The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.

ID2020 Alliance probably is a NWO game plan to effectuate mandatory global vaccinations so the transhumanism agenda can be fast-tracked more readily, since many of the neurotoxic ingredients in vaccines adversely affect human DNA. Plus, check out the UN’s Agenda 21 and 2030, if you haven’t done so already.

Here is the 15-page online ID2020 Alliance webpage, which I really encourage everyone to study, as its mission will become part of your future, and probably very soon! One of the opening pages claims

Committed to improving lives through digital identity.

Folks, if you haven’t realized it yet, the digitalization and technological pushes can, and probably will, make life unbearable.

Acceptance of all that technology everyone thinks is so fantastic has now become the albatross around everyone’s neck; you no longer will be your own person; you will be owned by technology!

What happens if you don’t want to comply with all the toxic vaccinations, etc.? Well, remember what the CDC did in 2016, and which I wrote about?

The “Spider’s Web” of Controlling Factors 2016: Understanding the CDC’s Power-grab Proposed Rule on Communicable Diseases https://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/spiders-web-controlling-factors-2016-understanding-cdcs-power-grab-proposed-rule-communicable-diseases.html . and

An Epic Rulemaking Comment Period Regarding the CDC’s Power Grab Ends October 14, 2016 – What Is Your Position About Its Infringement Upon Your Health? https://www.activistpost.com/2016/10/an-epic-rulemaking-comment-period-regarding-the-cdcs-power-grab-ends-october-14-2016-what-is-your-position-about-its-infringements-upon-your-health.html

However, there’s a most interesting aspect to many of the newer vaccines being created – close to 300 [1] – by Big Pharma, I offer. Many aren’t for communicable diseases, but for diabetes, cancer vaccines, peanut allergy vaccine, etc.

Shouldn’t Congress be investigating the CDC/FDA’s ‘charter’ as to why both those federal agencies seem to be overstepping their charters and powers regarding and recommending vaccines, since vaccines originally were implemented to “prevent communicable vaccines,” which, in fact, they contribute to spreading by what’s called vaccine shedding [2-3]?

There definitely is some apparent other agenda with regard to vaccines and their toxins, especially since the CDC exercised a hugely anti-Constitutional federal agency over-reach in 2016 when it mandated everyone be quarantined or jailed without legal representation for not taking vaccines and even fined up to $500,000!

CDC seems to be operating like a rogue agency with total disregard for any oversight, which is nothing new for it or, more specifically, for the FDA. Here’s proof as published in the monograph Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation January 2011 Presented to the 112th Congress Oversight Committees, edited by Laraine Abbey-Katzev and Catherine J Frompovich.

In two other well argued, erudite books, Global Censorship of Health Information and The Rise of Tyranny—How Federal Agencies Abuse Power and Pose Risks to Your Life and Liberty, authored by a brilliant constitutional attorney, Jonathan Emord shows how frighteningly lawless some of our regulatory agencies have become. Emord tells us, “…FDA refuses to honor five decisions holding its censorship unconstitutional.” 1

An attorney in the FDA Chief Counsel’s office regarding a court order to FDA made this really shocking statement, “Jonathan, the FDA will never abide by the Pearson decision.” 2 Despite Jonathan’s noting it was a final and binding decision—an order of the court—the FDA attorney said, “That may be so, but I am telling you the FDA will never abide by that court decision, never, ever.” 3 Emord tells us, “His words pierced to the very core of my being. Here was an agency’s legal officer telling me that the agency was, intentionally, lawless.” 4

1 Emord, JW. Global Censorship of Health Information (Washington, DC: Sentinel Press, 2010) 16. 2 Ibid. 17 3 Ibid. 17 4 Ibid. 17

Besides the new Travel IDs U.S. citizens will need effective in 2018 per Homeland Security [4], you now will be identified in a database as a “citizen of the New World Order”.

References:

[1] http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Vaccines_2013.pdf Pp. 10-31 [2] http://www.thevaccinemom.com/2015/02/vaccine-shedding-should-you-really-be-concerned/ [3] http://www.nvic.org/cmstemplates/nvic/pdf/live-virus-vaccines-and-vaccine-shedding.pdf [4] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/08/dhs-sets-2018-travel-deadline-real-id/78523112/

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Image Credit: Pixabay

0 notes