Reasons To Think About Selling Gold For Cash

As far back as human history can tell us, gold has been of great value. People have been using it as a symbol of power and wealth for ages and will continue to do so for years to come. If you take for example the great gold rush in California in the'00's, where nothing was more important than striking it rich, you can see just how far people will go for this valuable precious metal. Most would sell this precious material but there were many who would just keep it as their most prized possession. Truly gold has always been an important part of society.

And today is no different ' the price of gold is extremely high going for over $1050 an ounce. Some say it may even double that in the near future. This is one of the main reasons that people are starting to sell off their old gold items that they don't want anymore. There may be some gold in your home that you don't use anymore that is just collecting dust in a jewelry box and you're wondering what to do with it. Well the answer is simple sell it for cash. But how do you get the most cash for your gold?

Gold buyers are just waiting to give cash for gold you may have. Examples of old gold jewelry you may consider selling are an earring set with one earring missing, a necklace or bracelet that is broken or rings you no longer wear. Any type of scrap gold like this can be put to good use by bringing you cash ' cash you can use any way you like. The jewelry doesn't have to be broken for you to sell it. Perhaps, you no longer wear the items or just don't like them anymore. If you are not using the gold jewelry any price might be the right price for your gold jewelry.

If you are looking to part with your unused or broken old gold jewelry, you can contact a gold buyer with a good reputation verified by the BBB and they will offer you cash for gold jewelry or scrap gold items. After sending you a gold kit, you can decide which used jewelry pieces you want to sell. Gold is in more than just jewelry so do a search around your house for any old gold items you have hidden away. Your gold kit will have labels for you to use to send back your scrap jewelry or items to them. Upon receiving your jewelry, they'll appraise it and either mail you the appraisal amount with an offer or they'll just send you the money, which you can accept or reject. Of course, if you reject their offer, the reputable gold buyers will return your jewelry or scrap gold back to you.

There are a few factors that might change how much cash you receive for your gold. For instance pure gold, or 24 karat gold, is what the spot price of gold is based on. But gold jewelry is almost never 24 karats as that would make it far too soft and easily broken. The price you get from the gold refiners will depend on how many karats your gold is. Also you have to take into consideration that the price of gold changes daily so what you see today may not be the same price tomorrow. The price may change day to day or it might just stay the same. Many gold buyers will let you lock in the current price when you contact them, which may or may not be a good thing.

Ecology and Life - Centered Issues

Some contemporary artists seek ways to engage people directly in thinking critically and taking action about life-centered environmental and community-based issues.

They believe that for healthy systemic ecological change to occur, individuals will need to question their own world views, and perhaps change the way they live from day to day. Mary Jane Jacobs suggests that new genre public art "must reach those for whom the art's subject is a critical life issue."

What are these life-centered issues and how do they compose the social, cultural, and historic fabric of daily living? How have artists dealt with life-centered ecological issues through their art? Paolo Soleri created a plan for an Arizona community based on limited energy resources. Viet Ngo works with larg-scale communities to construct sewage treatment plants that use plant life and wetlands to purify water.

Alan Sonfist has restored portions of urban landscapes with historic memories by reintroducing indigenous plants and animals. Some contemporary ecological artists address broad life-centered issues such as unfair labor practices, overpopulation,water contamination, toxic chemicals, nuclear waste, fossil fuel consumption, animal extinction, animal rights, forest depletion, soil erosion, and changing climate patterns, to name a few ecological concerns.

At the heart of these issues are views about community participation, communication, and ecological sustainability.

Community Participation

Community involvement is a prerequisite for significant, large-scale change. Definitions of community are elusive. It is used here to mean the integrative sets of relationships among people and their environment, organized around specific activities within a particular geographic location. For contemporary ecological artists, audience participation is a must.

Community participation is advocated as a means to promote positive socio-ecologicaland political-economic change. Artists are working with many different groups of people. Mierle Laderman Ukeles shook the hand of every sanitation worker in New York city during her eleven month performance called Touch Sanitation (1979-1980).

Her artist-in-residence stay with the New York Sanitation Department culminated in heightened awareness about the problems of public waste.
Dialogue and Communication

Establishing supportive dialogue among a community of voices is critical for building strong and lasting ecological connections. One of the criticisms of some public art performances and installations is that artists frequently complete their work and leave.

Many contemporary ecological artists strive to work closely with communities through open, public forums and by building partnerships that lead to ecologically sustainable ways of living. Through their art forms, artists engage community members in dialogue about a web of relationships that includes art, aesthetics, ecology, and culture.

Since 1977, Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison have spent many years traveling the globe, working with community people on long-term projects that last a month to several years, and examining and responding to environmental changes within particular ecosystems.

Barbara Matilsky (1992) wrote, After firsthand study, research, and interviews with ecologists, biologists, and planners, the artists create a photographic narrative that identifies the problem, questions the system of beliefs that allow the conditions to develop, and proposes initiatives to counter environmental damage.

Exhibiting their art in a public forum--like a museum, library, city hall--usually stimulates discussion, debate, and media attention. By communicating to the public the problems that confront a fragile ecosystem and the ways in which the balance can be restored, they exert pressure on the political system and rally public opinion in an attempt to avert ecological disaster (pp. 66-67).

The Harrisons' educational practices include documentation and public dialogue, which are important aspects of their working process. It is assumed that positive ecological change requires a deep commitment on the part of many dedicated individuals and groups of people. New genre public artists facilitate work across disciplinary boundaries and negotiate community conflicts through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise. These community-based ecological actions require patience and collaboration.

Ecological Sustainability

Some contemporary ecological artists believe what matters most is ecological sustainability. Artists working toward ecological sustainability have as their task the responsibility of "finding alternatives to the practices that got us into the trouble in the first place; it is necessary to rethink agriculture, shelter, energy use, urban design, transportation, economics, community patterns, resource use, forestry, the importance of wilderness, and our central values." (David Orr, 1992, Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany: State University of New York Press.)

One example of ecological sustainability through art is Mel Chin'sRevival Field (1990-present) in St. Paul Minnesota. Chin worked with Rufus L. Chaney, a Senior Research Scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to develop plans for the "green remediation" of toxic waste from the Pig's Eye landfill. Chaney developed hyperaccumulator plants for extracting toxic substances from the soil through the plant's vascular system. The goal of the artist was to eventually restore the area for plants, animals, and humans. In this way art, aesthetics, ecology, and culture become inseparable.

Methods commonly employed to initiate ecological sustainability include artistic actions, rituals, performances, and process dramas. It is important to understand, however, that ecological sustainability has many meanings. Van Der Ryn & Cowan (1996) point out.

Sustainability is not a single movement or approach. It is as varied as the communities and interests currently grappling with the issues it raises. The shape that it will take is being contested now, and the stakes are high.

On the one hand, sustainability is the province of global policy-makers and environmental experts flying at thirty-five thousand feet from conference to conference. On the other hand, sustainability is also the domain of grassroots environmental and social groups, indigenous peoples preserving traditional practices, and people committed to changing their own communities.

Quote of the day

The God-given rights revealed in the Judaeo-Christian scriptures and developed under the Anglo-American Enlightenment tradition of Natural Law have been usurped by a European Union Napoleonic system in which the state has become the ultimate arbiter of what privileges (‘rights’) are permitted and what liberties are protected. The state has been made omnipotent and has become both judge and jury, responsible for prosecution and punishment. And anyone who presumes to oppose any of this is labeled ‘extremist’ or ‘xenophobic’, and may now be subject to ‘limitations’ which meet the ‘objectives...recognised by the Union’.
His Grace on the EUnion 'justice' system.


Why Would Anyone Want to Join the EU?
The fundamental problem with the EU, however, is that the people of Europe have no faith in it and do not identify with it. A 2010 Eurobarometer poll found that only 49 percent of EU citizens think their country's EU membership is a "good thing," while only 42 percent trust EU institutions. Meanwhile, those institutions, like the EU's whole ethos, are positively anti-democratic. Its key decision-making bodies -- the European Council, Court of Justice, and European Commission -- are, for all practical purposes, unelected, unaccountable, and removed from the people (commissioners are usually washed-up has-beens whose political careers in their home states have ended in failure). Their decisions are irreversible in national parliaments, and the European Parliament, while vested with powers of co-decision-making with the European Council, is also remote. The Parliament is a glorified debating society -- not a government with an official opposition -- and its parties cannot promise any fundamental policy changes in their election manifestos; indeed, its election outcomes rarely have an impact on the course of EU politics. Its members are unknown and despised as opportunists who merely seek inflated salaries, perks, expenses, and pensions. Voter turnout in the EU's parliamentary elections is low and falling, reflecting the widely held belief among EU citizens that the EU doesn't protect or represent their interests.
No further comment required, methinks.

Tolerance that is not

One really has to read it to believe it: Dante's Divine Comedy 'offensive and should be banned'.
It is a world-renowned work of literature and one of the foundation stones of the Italian language, but Dante's Divine Comedy has been condemned as racist, homophobic, anti-Islamist and anti-Semitic.

The classic work should be removed from school curricula, according to Gherush 92, a human rights organisation which acts as a consultant to UN bodies on racism and discrimination.

Dante's epic is "offensive and discriminatory" and has no place in a modern classroom, said Valentina Sereni, the group's president. (...)

Schoolchildren and university students who studied the work lacked "the filters" to appreciate its historical context and were being fed a poisonous diet of anti-Semitism and racism, the group said. It called for the Divine Comedy to be removed from schools and universities or at least have its more offensive sections fully explained.
As the Anchoress writes, this is where the bastardization of the meaning “tolerance” has taken us: People who fancy themselves as broad-minded intellectuals support the banning of a classic in world literature.

So, what's next? A bonfire on Times Square where all and sundry will be invited to throw copies of La Divina Commedia into the blaze?

Vox Day comes to the conclusion that Muslims have the right idea after all: secularism merits nothing more than being stamped out, ruthlessly and without remorse.
Secular progressives are totalitarians and book-burners every bit as fanatical as religious extremists they decry. They always have been, they just build their cultural walls one stealthy and dishonest brick at a time.
Who will rid us of these troublesome fools?

Not whether, but how

Via GoV we learn of an open letter, written by Spanish German (or German Spaniard) Marco Pino, addressed to Helmut Kohl and through him all EUrocrat ideologues. In the letter Mr. Pino argues not for more or less 'Europe', but for a better Europe, a Europe that functions. A Europe for all, nit just the elites.

It sets out in remarkable clarity what is wrong with the EUnion, and why it will lead to the exact opposite of what the EUnion clais it is for. The closing is particularly strong, arguing that those of us who loath the EUnion at least share the vision of a prosperous and peaceful continent. Where we and the EUrocrats part ways is in our vehement opposition to the means employed by the EUrocrats. It is not whether we want peace and prosperity. It is how we will achieve it.

The letter is, I think, important enough to reproduce in full. I recommend reading it and spreading it around.
For a Free Europe!
An Open Letter to Helmut Kohl

March 1, 2012
by Marco Pino

In a recent essay for BILD magazine, former Chancellor Kohl appeals to Germans not to lose sight of the goal of a united Europe. Now, in crisis, more Europe would be needed, not less.

Blu co-founder Marco Pino, has a somewhat different opinion: the decisive question is not whether Europe is needed, but in what way. What is needed is a Europe that functions.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear Dr. Helmut Kohl,

It is with great interest that I read your essay on the Euro crisis in BILD magazine. And although I am not entirely in agreement with you, I thank you for this essay.

Your comments show that there is a general conflict in this country in this instance (as also in many other important matters). On the one hand are people like you, the oldest and most experienced who are still — understandably — under the influence of the last great war. There is the generation after them — the ’68 generation who reformed our society and are firmly convinced that everything they represented was right without exception and must remain permanently viable.

And there is my generation with its own experiences. For us, in our 20s and 30s, your evocation of European peace sounds like a relic of a time long past. Haven’t we had peace in Europe for as long as my generation can think? Didn’t we already have it when there were still border controls and national currencies? Were Germany, France and the other present-day Euro-states not — as long as my generation can remember — peaceful democracies, reconciled and allied? And was it really the idea of European integration which broke through the Iron Curtain and brought peace and freedom to the east of the continent? Or was it not rather the idea of democracy itself that laid the cornerstone of peace and liberty in Europe (as elsewhere)?

My generation worries more about the future than the past. Will we too enjoy the benefits of a pension? Will our children and grandchildren still grow up in prosperity? How will Germany look — how will Europe look — if the great social problems of the present continue to be unresolved? Those problems that your generation hardly notices, to which the ’68ers frantically close their eyes, which now we, the following generation, must be the first to experience firsthand? Foreign infiltration, rising violence, brutalization, plummeting educational standards. Increasing poverty. as a result of all that — and inflation besides. Burgeoning extremism of every hue as an unavoidable consequence. All that leads to the worry of whether peace and freedom will last long in Europe.

I am communicating this concern to you. As to why this concern is necessary, however, we differ fundamentally. That is the result of different life experiences. That makes it so much more important that the two sides listen to each other.

Europe’s intellectuals are making a big mistake. They see, without exception, nationalism as the cause of the wars of the past. No doubt it played a large role, but not the only one. Another substantial factor which promotes the development of crises and conflicts is poverty. Material poverty, from which
spiritual poverty logically grows. That was always true; that will always be true. But that, disastrously, is the actual result of present policy: it is creating poverty instead of fighting it.

The struggle against nationalism has long since degenerated into a confused campaign against any healthy patriotism, even against the most basic identity of human beings, against their understanding of themselves as peoples and nations. This Europe will not function. We cannot build your house without a foundation. The citizens are the foundation of Europe. Policy must respect the will of human beings instead of trying to implement its own vision, which is in reality only the vision of a small elite.

Your European house is undemocratic! It must of necessity be undemocratic, for a policy that cannot gain a majority cannot be actualized democratically.

I am a Spaniard, also a German. And I have for a long time also felt myself to be a European.

As a Spaniard, I tell you, I want Spain to continue to exist! And we Spaniards want to be independent. We want to and are able to solve our own problems. Our pride alone demands it. Exaggerated solidarity will not help us along, but slow us down, paralyze us, make us dependent.

And as a German, I tell you, I want Germany to continue to exist. Because the Germany of today is a superb, free and just country no one need be ashamed of. That is the great legacy from your generation which must be preserved.

And as an avowed European, I tell you, our strength is our diversity. We Europeans want what you once promised: a Europe of peoples, not a population of Europeans. We want to cooperate where it makes sense, and remain independent where is makes more sense. We want a unity in diversity, not a unity in simplicity.

There is no European people. Anyone who wishes to create this is working against the instincts and desires of the majority of the people on this continent — committing a crime. No one has the right to do away with historically matured peoples. Should not that too be a lesson from the Second World War?

Contemporary policy does not ensure peace in Europe; it endangers it. The salvation of the euro has long since achieved a mass effect similar to that of the Treaty of Versailles at the time of the Weimar Republic. Enormous fortunes are being destroyed and re-distributed. The ordinary person’s buying power is sinking. The policies of today are laying the groundwork for the poverty of tomorrow and thus creating the prerequisites for the wars and conflicts of the day after tomorrow. That is the reality.

We do not need more Europe or less Europe. We need a Europe that functions. And we need a Europe that is not just the vision of the elite but is the vision of the majority.

That is not the case for today’s Europe. This Europe does not work. A substantial reason for that is the euro — this political straitjacket which was shredded long ago on contact with economic reality, and is kept alive only at the cost of future generations.

A common currency is not necessary for peace and liberty. Europe — first and foremost the currency union — urgently needs to be reformed. Thoroughly. That is the only way to halt the destructive downward spiral. That is another sad truth, the actual result of contemporary policy: we, Germany, Europe, the entire proud West are in a historic decline. Frantically clinging to your vision of Europe is accelerating this decline. And the introduction of the transfer union is putting the final seal on it. How is a continent — a system — supposed to be successful when it rewards production with taxes and mismanagement with astronomic transfer payments?

The crisis of recent years is not the work of speculators and bankers. It is more than anything the work of politicians. It is the result of the system. A system that creates completely false incentives can only produce equally false results, This crisis, Mr. Kohl, is endemic to the system. It is endemic to the euro. It is endemic to the EU.

Your motives are noble. But they are not in tune with the times. Do you seriously believe that because of European currency reform the majority of Germans would suddenly favor blitzkrieg and attack their neighbors? This kind of argument is so far removed from reality and — with all due respect — ludicrous, that it seems incredible that broad elements of policy are elevating this mischief to supreme maxims of thought and action.

Precisely that could soon form the greatest mistake of the younger generation: the fatally mistaken idea of compelling Europe to an eternal peace by doing away with its peoples. What then, Mr. Kohl, if this lays the groundwork for future conflicts?

So I appeal to you and to the politicians of this country: Stop the black-and-white descriptions. Stop defaming as enemies of the European idea every person who is not prepared to approve of overt economic mistakes. Let us have a targeted, realistic and solution-oriented discussion of how we can together make our Europe better. “Better” in the sense of “more successful.” Our Europe, Mr. Kohl, has been peaceful for a long time. And the basis of that is not the euro, is not even European integration. It is democracy, prosperity, enlightenment and wisdom. That is what must be defended, instead of gambling on the daydream of a united Europe, the “United States of Europe.”

And I appeal to you and the politicians of this country: Stop the idea of ruling people in the spirit of a long past time. Come join the present. Of course the conduct of policy must learn the lessons of the past. But it must also accept the problems of the “here and now.” And it must ultimately recognize that we cannot alter the past. The future, to be sure. Or, as Albert Einstein said: “The future interests me more than the past, because I expect to live there.”

And I believe that I am speaking for many so-called “euro-critics” when I say: I too have the dream of a peaceful, free and united Europe. The question is not whether we want it, but how.

Yours truly,

Marco Pino