text stringlengths 316 100k |
|---|
Cable Sports TV Ratings for Saturday May 28, 2016:
This is sorted from most-watched to least-watched. Using your browser’s search tool (usually CTRL/CMD+F) might be the faster way to go if you’re looking for something specific.
Note to readers using mobile phones: on most phones the tables are easier to read/scroll through if you tilt your phone to landscape orientation.
Program Net Episode Start End Total Viewers (000) Viewers Age 18-49 (000) NBA PLAYOFFS TNT GOLDEN STATE/OKLAHOMA CITY 9:00 PM 11:48 PM 10,811 5,181 INSIDE THE NBA PLAYOFFS TNT 11:48 PM 12:33 AM 5,368 2,889 NBA PLAYOFFS PRE TNT 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1,906 879 NASCAR XFINITY SERIES L FS1 CHARLOTTE 2:30 PM 5:35 PM 1,414 274 PGA TOUR: HANDOFF GOLF 2016 DEAN & DELUCA INVIT 6:00 PM 6:46 PM 762 113 NASCAR RACEDAY: XFINITY L FS1 CHARLOTTE 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 751 151 NASCAR SPRINT CUP FIN P L FS1 CHARLOTTE 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 671 140 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG L ESPN JAMES MADISON/LSU 12:00 PM 1:48 PM 637 250 SPORTSCENTER 1AM L ESPN 1:01 AM 2:00 AM 635 382 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG L ESPN ALABAMA/WASHINGTON 5:30 PM 8:13 PM 630 232 SPORTSCENTER WEEKEND ESPN 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 610 320 SPORTSCENTER WEEKEND ESPN 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 602 322 PGA TOUR GOLF 2016 DEAN & DELUCA INVIT 1:00 PM 2:30 PM 601 121 NBA PLAYOFFS TNT GOLDEN STATE/OKLAHOMA CITY 3:00 AM 5:49 AM 575 243 NASCAR RACE HUB WKND ED L FS1 CHARLOTTE 12:29 PM 1:00 PM 570 133 SPORTSCENTER MORNING L ESPN 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 544 350 SPORTSCENTER LATE L ESPN 12:10 AM 1:01 AM 543 302 NCAA STUDIO UPDATE L ESPN 1:48 PM 2:01 PM 534 239 SPORTSCENTER MORNING ESPN 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 514 283 NASCAR XFINITY QUALIFY L FS1 CHARLOTTE 11:00 AM 12:29 PM 492 110 SPORTSCENTER MORNING ESPN 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 472 289 INTERNATIONAL FRIENDLY L FS1 USA/BOLIVIA 7:50 PM 10:02 PM 454 226 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG L ESPN UCLA/OREGON 9:30 PM 12:10 AM 447 178 SPORTSCENTER MORNING ESPN 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 439 293 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG L ESPN MISSOURI/MICHIGAN 3:00 PM 5:18 PM 427 173 SPORTSCENTER MORNING ESPN 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 413 285 AFTERNOON BASEBALL GAME MLBN BOS AT TOR 1:00 PM 4:46 PM 409 120 SPORTSCENTER WEEKEND ESPN 8:13 PM 9:00 PM 401 161 CHAMPIONS TOUR: BONUS GOLF 2016 SENIOR PGA CHP 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 394 94 SPORTSCENTER MORNING ESPN 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 379 273 NCAA STUDIO UPDATE L ESPN 5:18 PM 5:30 PM 371 139 AMISTOSO/FRIENDLY MAT5/28 UDN MEXICO / PARAGUAY 5:22 PM 7:39 PM 371 209 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG L ESPN2 ARIZONA/AUBURN 6:42 PM 8:59 PM 366 97 FUTBOL CENTRAL (PT) SAT UDN 7:39 PM 7:51 PM 354 198 MLBT WEEKEND AFTERNOON MLBN MLB TONIGHT 4:46 PM 4:52 PM 342 90 NCAA STUDIO UPDATE L ESPN 2:01 PM 3:00 PM 334 167 NCAA STUDIO UPDATE L ESPN2 8:59 PM 9:10 PM 334 92 F1 QUALIFYING NBCSN MONACO 8:00 AM 9:30 AM 318 117 NASCAR SPRINT CUP PRAC L FS1 CHARLOTTE 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 304 60 INTERNATIONAL FRIENDLY L FS1 MEXICO/PARAGUAY 5:35 PM 7:34 PM 302 98 SPORTSCENTER WEEKEND ESPN 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 286 111 GOLF CENTRAL GOLF 6:46 PM 7:46 PM 271 81 AFTERNOON BASEBALL GAME MLBN NYY AT TB/BAL AT CLE 4:52 PM 7:26 PM 244 86 PREMIER BOXING CHAMPION L FS1 MIGUEL VAZQUEZ/ERICK BONE 10:02 PM 12:26 AM 242 84 GOLF CENTRAL PREGAME GOLF 12:28 PM 1:00 PM 239 55 NCAA LACROSSE CHAMP L ESPN2 BROWN/MARYLAND 3:10 PM 5:49 PM 225 85 INTL SOCCER FRIENDLY L ESPN2 SWITZERLAND/BELGIUM 10:00 AM 12:08 PM 221 140 US NATIONAL TEAM PREG L FS1 22 7:34 PM 7:50 PM 215 94 NATIONAL TEAM (PT) SAT UDN EEUU / BOLIVIA 7:51 PM 10:01 PM 213 119 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG ESPN2 FLORIDA STATE/UTAH 5:49 PM 6:42 PM 189 47 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPN2 30 FOR 30: BELIEVELAND 8:30 AM 10:00 AM 189 104 NCAA LACROSSE CHAMP L ESPN2 NORTH CAROLINA/LOYOLA 12:08 PM 2:34 PM 185 81 TRACK & FIELD NBCSN PREFONTAINE CLASSIC 3:30 PM 5:00 PM 175 49 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPN2 30 FOR 30: THIS MAGIC MOMENT 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 166 78 PGA TOUR: CBS GOLF 2016 DEAN & DELUCA INVIT 7:46 PM 1:00 AM 166 52 NCAA STUDIO UPDATE L ESPN2 2:34 PM 3:10 PM 165 64 NBA TONIGHT L ESPN2 1:00 AM 1:30 AM 161 56 BLEACHER FEATURE MOVIE MLBN A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN 7:30 PM 10:00 PM 158 72 EUROPEAN TOUR GOLF 2016 BMW PGA CHP 7:30 AM 12:28 PM 157 39 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG L ESPNU LSU/JAMES MADISON 3:00 PM 5:23 PM 153 42 NBA GAMETIME CF RECAP R NBAT NBA GAMETIME WCF RECAP GM6 1:02 AM 2:23 AM 148 74 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPN2 30 FOR 30: WINNING TIME 7:00 AM 8:30 AM 142 75 SPORTSCENTER LATE L ESPN2 11:00 PM 12:17 AM 142 65 UFC WEIGH FS1 ALMEIDA/GARBRANDT 12:26 AM 1:00 AM 142 52 PRIME BASEBALL GAME MLBN HOU AT LAA/MIN AT SEA 10:00 PM 12:56 AM 141 46 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPN2 30 FOR 30: SMALL POTATOES: WHO KILLED US 9:10 PM 10:10 PM 136 30 LPGA TOUR GOLF 2016 VOLVIK CHP 3:30 PM 6:00 PM 136 28 AMA MOTOCROSS NBCSN 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 133 64 E:60 ESPN2 12:17 AM 1:00 AM 125 54 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPN2 30 FOR 30: BELIEVELAND 1:30 AM 3:00 AM 125 57 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/28/16 2:30 AM 3:00 AM 125 62 NBA SPECIAL NBAT GOLDEN SEASON: 2015-16 WARRIORS, A 2:23 AM 2:30 AM 124 69 NBA GAMETIME CF RECAP L NBAT NBA GAMETIME WCF RECAP GM6 11:46 PM 1:02 AM 123 58 NBCSN MOVIE NBCSN APEX: THE STORY OF THE HYPERCAR 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 117 33 F1 QUALIFYING NBCSN MONACO 11:30 PM 1:00 AM 114 42 FOX DEPORTES EN VIVO ESP FOXD 12:00 PM 2:30 PM 107 51 NBA GAMETIME CF PREVIEW L NBAT NBA GAMETIME WCF PREVIEW GM6 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 107 54 600: HISTORY NASCAR RACE FS1 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 106 28 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 11A 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 102 44 NBA PLAYOFFS PLAYBACK NBAT 2016 OKC/GSW GM5-CF 2:30 PM 4:30 PM 102 25 NBA INSIDE STUFF P NBAT INSIDE STUFF N326 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 101 41 TMZ SPORTS WEEKEND FS1 28 1:00 AM 1:30 AM 97 38 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 1A 12:56 AM 2:00 AM 97 38 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/28/16 3:00 AM 3:30 AM 97 42 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/28/16 5:30 AM 6:00 AM 97 48 TIMELINE NFLN JERSEY GUYS 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 97 57 UCL 13 FOXD REAL MADRID VS ATL DE MADRID 10:00 AM 12:00 PM 96 59 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPN2 30 FOR 30: WHEN THE GARDEN WAS EDEN 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 95 52 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 12P 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 95 45 CONTACTO DEPORTIVO UDN 11:01 PM 12:00 AM 93 63 UFC UNLEASHED FS2 UFC BANTAMWEIGHTS 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 92 27 NBA INSIDE STUFF REAIR NBAT INSIDE STUFF N326 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 92 50 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/28/16 5:00 AM 5:30 AM 91 43 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/28/16 3:30 AM 4:00 AM 90 40 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/28/16 4:00 AM 4:30 AM 90 45 MECUM AUTO AUCTIONS NBCSN 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 90 18 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1967 PACKERS 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 87 41 TIMELINE NFLN FAVRE RETURNS 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 87 43 EXPEDIENTES UDN UDN 10:01 PM 11:01 PM 87 62 UFC MAIN EVENT FS2 DILLASHAW/CRUZ 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 86 28 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPN2 30 FOR 30: BAD BOYS 3:00 AM 5:00 AM 85 45 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/28/16 4:30 AM 5:00 AM 84 36 2016 PLAYOFF PLBK CF NBAT CLE/TOR GM6-CF 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 82 30 NBA PLAYOFFS PLAYBACK NBAT 2016 CLE/TOR GM6-CF 4:30 PM 6:30 PM 81 31 SALTWATER EXPERIENCE NBCSN 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 80 38 INDY 500 PARADE NBCSN 10:00 PM 11:30 PM 79 22 BASS 2 BILLFISH NBCSN 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 78 39 TIMELINE NFLN A TALE OF TWO CITIES PT. 1 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 78 42 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1968 JETS 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 77 23 TIMELINE NFLN A TALE OF TWO CITIES PT. 2 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 77 37 NASCAR XFINITY SERIES FS1 CHARLOTTE 1:30 AM 4:00 AM 76 35 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 7A 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 76 35 NBA ACTION NBAT NBA ACTION 2532 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 75 28 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 8A 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 72 31 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 2A 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 69 40 MORNING DRIVE GOLF 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 68 18 UCL FINAL FS2 REAL MADRID/CLUB ATLETICO DE MADRID 12:00 PM 2:00 PM 67 23 NASCAR SPRINT CUP FIN P FS1 CHARLOTTE 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 66 38 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 6A 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 66 38 NFL TOTAL ACCESS NFLN NFL TOTAL ACCESS 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 62 32 TIMELINE NFLN AMERICAS GAME & THE IRAN HOSTAGE CRISIS 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 62 37 INTO THE BLUE NBCSN 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 61 31 MLB NETWORK BREAKDOWN MLBN 2016 MLBN BREAKDOWN 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 58 17 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 58 20 GEORGE P WRLD OF SLTWATER NBCSN 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 57 31 BOXEO DE CAMPEONES FOXD M VASQUEZ VS E BONE 10:31 PM 12:37 AM 56 33 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1969 CHIEFS (18) 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 56 18 TOP 100 PLAYERS OF 2016 NFLN TOP 100: 80-71 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 56 26 LIGA MX EN 30 UDN 12:30 AM 1:00 AM 55 29 NHRA SPORTSMAN SERIES FS1 TOPEKA 8:06 AM 9:00 AM 54 15 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 54 19 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1972 DOLPHINS (1) 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 54 28 TIMELINE NFLN THE MERGER 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 54 29 COLL SOFTBALL SUPER REG L ESPNU ARIZONA/AUBURN 6:30 PM 6:47 PM 53 20 EUROPEAN TOUR GOLF 2016 BMW PGA CHP 1:00 AM 3:30 AM 53 19 NBA ACTION NBAT NBA ACTION 2532 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 53 29 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 53 28 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 53 20 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 53 20 EQUESTRIAN NBCSN ROLEX EQUESTRIAN CHAMPS 1:00 PM 2:30 PM 53 10 NFL TOTAL ACCESS NFLN NFL TOTAL ACCESS 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 53 27 E:60 ESPN2 10:10 PM 11:00 PM 52 11 MLB FOXD LA DODGERS VS NY METS 7:00 PM 10:31 PM 52 25 PLAY BALL MLBN PLAY BALL 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 52 19 TOP 10 NFLN SUPER BOWLS 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 52 17 SKYBET CHAMPIONSHIP BEIN HULL CITY VS. SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY 11:55 AM 2:00 PM 51 29 UFC WEIGH FS2 ALMEIDA/GARBRANDT 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 51 14 DRIVE NBCSN 201 3:00 PM 3:30 PM 51 13 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1966 PACKERS (6) 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 51 27 TOP 10 NFLN DYNASTIES 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 51 24 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 9A 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 50 22 RACERTV NBCSN 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 50 16 CENTRAL FOX WKND MID FOXD 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 49 26 LUCAS OIL MOTORSPORT HOUR NBCSN 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 49 14 MORNING DRIVE GOLF 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 48 9 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 48 19 NCAA LACROSSE CHAMP ESPNU BROWN/MARYLAND 7:08 PM 9:00 PM 47 8 NBCSN MOVIE NBCSN APEX: THE STORY OF THE HYPERCAR 1:00 AM 3:00 AM 47 16 SILVER KINGS NBCSN 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 47 19 UFC SPECIALS FOXD MAX:C MCGREGOR VS M HOLLOWAY 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 46 30 NASCAR SPRINT CUP PRAC FS1 CHARLOTTE 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 46 19 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 46 18 NCAA STUDIO UPDATE L ESPNU 2:37 PM 3:00 PM 44 23 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 44 20 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 5A 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 43 17 MISTERIOS DEL DEPORTE UDN 12:00 AM 12:30 AM 43 31 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1971 COWBOYS (15) 11:00 PM 12:00 AM 41 20 LA ULT PALABRA WKND FOXD 12:37 AM 1:37 AM 40 20 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1975 STEELERS (7) 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 40 21 COLLEGE BASEBALL L ESPNU LIBERTY/COASTAL CAROLINA 12:00 PM 2:37 PM 39 18 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1970 COLTS 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 39 19 TOP 100 PLAYERS OF 2016 NFLN TOP 100: 70-61 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 39 14 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1974 STEELERS 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 38 26 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPNU 30 FOR 30: FANTASTIC LIES 9:00 PM 11:00 PM 37 16 AMERICA REDONDA UDN 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 36 17 CENTRAL FOX WKND FOXD 1:37 AM 2:38 AM 35 15 HARDWOOD CLASSICS NBAT BULLS/KNICKS 3/28/1995 9:00 PM 11:00 PM 35 16 PRODUCT SHOWCASE NBCSN 3:00 AM 3:30 AM 35 19 CHEERLEADING ESPNU CHEERLEADING WORLDS 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 34 24 UCL BEST OF FS2 TOP 25 GOALS 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 34 15 LPGA TOUR GOLF 2016 VOLVIK CHP 3:30 AM 6:00 AM 34 7 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 3A 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 34 17 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 34 14 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 34 8 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1977 COWBOYS (11) 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 34 15 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 33 13 NBA GAMETIME NBAT GAMETIME 5/27/16 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 33 10 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIE EXPRESS PREVIEW 11:47 AM 11:55 AM 32 16 CYCLING BEIE GIRO D ITALIA ST 20-GUILLESTRE SANTANNA 7:00 AM 11:47 AM 31 10 E:60 ESPNU CATCHING KAYLA 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 30 12 CENTRAL FOX WKND ENC FOXD 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 30 16 QUICK PITCH MLBN QP 4A 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 30 17 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1976 RAIDERS (10) 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 29 9 FUTBOL CENTRAL 5/28 UDN 5:00 PM 5:22 PM 29 16 UFC RELOADED FS2 169:BARAO/FABER 2 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 28 8 UFC ULTIMATE INSIDER FS2 112 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 28 10 SKYBET CHAMPIONSHIP BEIE PLAYOFF FINAL-HULL CITY VS. SHEFFIELD 11:55 AM 2:02 PM 27 16 LA ULT PALABRA WKND ENC FOXD 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 27 18 AMERICAS GAME NFLN 1973 DOLPHINS 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 27 12 FIM SUPERBIKE BEIN DONINGTON PARK, UK RACE 1 2:30 PM 4:00 PM 26 12 UCL FINAL D FS2 REAL MADRID/CLUB ATLETICO DE MADRID 10:00 PM 1:00 AM 26 9 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIN EXPRESS XTRA WEEKEND-L 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 25 16 WMNS COLL LACROSSE ESPNU PENN STATE/NORTH CAROLINA 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 25 3 NBA SPECIAL NBAT GOLDEN SEASON: 2015-16 WARRIORS, A 11:30 PM 11:46 PM 25 8 WMNS COLL LACROSSE ESPNU SYRACUSE/MARYLAND 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 24 7 PRODUCT SHOWCASE NBCSN 3:30 AM 4:00 AM 24 11 FUTBOL MLS EN 60 UDN 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 24 11 CYCLING BEIN GIRO DITALIA – STG 20 GUILLESTRE SANT A 7:00 AM 11:45 AM 23 7 FOX DEPORTES EN VIVO ESP FOXD 5:00 PM 6:30 PM 23 13 CHARLIE MOORE NBCSN 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 23 13 SPORTSCENTERU ESPNU 1:30 AM 2:30 AM 22 16 SPORTSCENTERU ESPNU 12:30 AM 1:30 AM 20 10 LA ULTIMA PALABRA FOXD 2:38 AM 3:39 AM 20 18 CAMINO COPA AMERICA EN 60 UDN 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 20 13 UFC PPV CLASSIC FOXD UFC66-LIDELL VS ORTIZ 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 19 9 FISHING W ROLAND MARTIN NBCSN 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 19 6 CAMINO COPA AMERICA EN 60 UDN 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 19 7 SPORTSCENTERU L ESPNU 11:30 PM 12:30 AM 18 4 UCL BEST OF FS2 BEST OF MD 5&6 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 18 8 UCL BEST OF FS2 BEST OF ROUND OF 16 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 17 10 NBA ACTION NBAT NBA ACTION 2532 11:00 PM 11:30 PM 17 7 SALTWATER EXPERIENCE NBCSN 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 17 4 UCL BEST OF FS2 BEST OF QUARTERFINALS & SEMIFINALS 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 16 10 UFC UNLEASHED FS2 UFC BANTAMWEIGHTS 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 15 1 UFC PPV PRELIMS FS2 186:JOHNSON/HORIGUCHI 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 15 1 PARTIDO AMISTOSO UDN MEXICO / PARAGUAY 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 15 9 ESPN ORIGINAL DOCUMENTARY ESPNU SEC STORIED: SARAH & SUZANNE 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 14 3 AUSTRALIAN RULES FB LG L FS1 ESSENDON/RICHMOND 6:00 AM 8:06 AM 14 7 UFC UNLEASHED FS2 UFC BANTAMWEIGHTS-CHAMPIONS AND RISING S 6:24 PM 7:00 PM 14 4 PRODUCT SHOWCASE NBCSN 4:00 AM 4:30 AM 14 6 COPA AMERICA 2007 EN 60 UDN 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 14 7 UFC PPV CLASSIC FOXD UFC121-B LESNAR VS C VELASQUEZ 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 13 12 UCL HIGHLIGHTS FS2 93 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 13 10 PRODUCT SHOWCASE NBCSN 4:30 AM 5:00 AM 13 3 BOXING BEIE TORNADO VS. NICA/JULIO B VS. CHINITO 11:00 PM 1:00 AM 12 7 CENTRAL FOX US FOXD 3:39 AM 4:00 AM 12 11 UFC ULTIMATE INSIDER FS2 112 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 12 1 UNIVISON DEPORTES FC UDN 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 12 4 USMNT EN 60 UDN 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12 4 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIE EXPRESS WRAP-UP 2:02 PM 2:30 PM 11 6 AMERICA REDONDA UDN 9:12 AM 10:00 AM 11 6 GIRO D ITALIA HIGHLIGHTS BEIE STAGE 20 HIGHLIGHTS 10:30 PM 11:00 PM 10 5 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIE EXPRESS XTRA WEEKEND-R 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 9 4 CYCLING BEIN GIRO DITALIA – STAGE 20 HIGHLIGHTS 10:35 PM 11:05 PM 8 6 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIN EXPRESS PREVIEW 11:45 AM 11:55 AM 8 5 NATIONAL RUGBY LG L FS2 RAIDERS/BULLDOGS 2:00 AM 4:00 AM 8 1 UCL BEST OF FS2 BEST OF MD 3&4 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 8 5 INTO THE BLUE NBCSN 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 8 2 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIE EXPRESS XTRA WEEKEND-R 2:00 AM 2:30 AM 7 5 INTL SOCCER FRIENDLIES BEIE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND VS. HOLLAND 8:00 PM 10:00 PM 7 4 RUGBY BEIN GUINNESS PRO 12 CONNACHT VS. LEINSTER 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 7 5 SPORTSCENTERU ESPNU 4:30 AM 5:30 AM 7 3 UFC WEIGH FS2 ALMEIDA/GARBRANDT 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7 1 FORMULA 1 CLASIFICACION UDN GRAN PREMIO DE MONACO 7:55 AM 9:12 AM 7 3 NBA ACTION UDN 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 7 3 SPORTSCENTERU ESPNU 3:30 AM 4:30 AM 6 4 CENTRAL FOX WKND AM FOXD 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 6 4 GILLETTE WORLD SPORT UDN 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 6 5 PARTIDO AMISTOSO UDN EEUU / BOLIVIA 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 6 5 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIE EXPRESS XTRA WEEKEND-L 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 5 1 FIM SUPERBIKE BEIE RND 7-DONINGTON PARK, UK RACE 1 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 5 4 90 IN 30 BEIN HULL CITY VS. SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY 10:05 PM 10:35 PM 5 2 RUGBY BEIN GUINNESS PRO 12 CONNACHT VS. LEINSTER 11:05 PM 1:10 AM 5 3 SPORTSCENTERU ESPNU 2:30 AM 3:30 AM 5 4 INTERNATIONAL FRIENDLY L FS2 MEXICO/PARAGUAY 5:30 PM 6:24 PM 5 2 PRODUCT SHOWCASE NBCSN 5:00 AM 5:30 AM 5 3 PRODUCT SHOWCASE NBCSN 5:30 AM 6:00 AM 5 2 MOBIL 1 (THE GRID) UDN 7:30 AM 7:55 AM 5 0 SKYBET CHAMPIONSHIP BEIE PLAY-OFF FINAL-HULL CITY VS. SHEFFIELD 5:30 PM 7:30 PM 4 1 SKYBET CHAMPIONSHIP BEIN HULL CITY VS. SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY 1:10 AM 3:00 AM 4 2 PAID PROGRAMMING FOXD 4:00 AM 6:00 AM 4 4 UCL BEST OF FS2 BEST OF PLAYOFFS 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 4 1 CONTACTO DEPORTIVO UDN 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 4 4 GILLETTE WORLD SPORT UDN 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 4 1 EXPRESS WEEKEND BEIE EXPRESS XTRA WEEKEND-R 10:00 PM 10:30 PM 3 2 GIRO D ITALIA HIGHLIGHTS BEIE STAGE 20 HIGHLIGHTS 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 3 0 RUGBY BEIE AVIVA-FINAL-SARACENS VS. CHIEFS 2:30 PM 4:30 PM 3 2 RUGBY BEIN AVIVA – SARACENS VS. CHIEFS 6:00 PM 8:00 PM 3 1 SPORTSCENTERU ESPNU 5:30 AM 6:00 AM 2 1 UCL BEST OF FS2 BEST OF MD 1&2 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 2 1 90 IN 30 BEIE HULL CITY VS. SHEFFIELD 2:30 AM 3:00 AM 1 0 NORTH AMERICAN SOCCER LEA BEIN MIAMI FC VS. FC EDMONTON 8:00 PM 10:05 PM 1 1 PAID PROGRAMMING BEIE PAID PROGRAMMING 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 0 0 PAID PROGRAMMING BEIN 6:00 AM 6:30 AM 0 0 PAID PROGRAMMING BEIN 6:30 AM 7:00 AM 0 0 PAID PROGRAMMING FOXD 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 0 0
—
Note: viewership of around 100,000 or lower is technically what Nielsen refers to as a “scratch” i.e., not enough Nielsen panelists watched for Nielsen to validate it. There are around 40,000 homes in the Nielsen panel and a bit over 100,000 panelists, where 1 Nielsen panelist watching a whole telecast represents around 3,000 people. So something averaging a million viewers averaged around 370 people out of the ~100K panel — small, but still statistically significant. But when there’s a show with 30,000 viewers, that’s only around 10 Nielsen panelists… |
Some stories inspire action, and when one Winnipeg teacher heard the story of her student, Ciza Kanyambali, she was compelled to do something.
"He worked so hard in our classes and every day I would see him leave right after class to go to his job and to work to support his family in Winnipeg. I knew he was also supporting his family in Africa but I didn't know the details of his story," said Kaleigh Quinn, an English as a second language instructor at Red River College.
If all goes as planned, Quinn will help privately sponsor a family of seven currently living in a refugee camp in Zimbabwe.
Kanyambali fled his home in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and lived for three years in a refugee camp in Zimbabwe. He and his wife came to Canada in 2013 as government sponsored refugees, but his wife's brother, sister-in-law and five nieces and nephews were left behind.
Since arriving in Canada, conditions in the camp have worsened.
"Before you went and they give you 10 kilograms of meal and two kilograms of rice, two kilograms of beans and two small bottle of cooking oil. Now they stopped and tried to give people money," said Kanyambali.
Kanyambali's family must live off $20 per month. Preparing food is difficult because the refugee camp is next to a park where wild animals, such as lions and elephants, live. Gathering wood or water is unsafe, said Kanyambali.
Kaleigh Quinn is working to raise the money needed to sponsor Ciza'a wife's family who are currently living in a refugee camp in Zimbabwe. (Provided) Currently the family is experiencing temperatures around 45 C.
Ciza works two jobs and tries to send money to his family when he can, but coming up with the funds to sponsor his family is impossible.
"Even one person — we learn it is $13,000 to sponsor one person. How can I do that? I am working minimum wage. I can't," said Kanyambali.
Quinn and her family decided to sponsor Kanyambali's family, but soon learned it would be complicated, especially without a sponsorship agreement holder.
Sponsorship challenges
Sponsorship agreement holders are organizations that have signed agreements with the Government of Canada. They have expertise in the sponsorship process and, as charitable organizations, add legitimacy to fundraising efforts.
There are few sponsorship agreement holders in Manitoba, and while for several months they were permitted to accept an unlimited number of people from Syria and Iraq, spots for refugees like Kanyambali were limited.
"We realized early on that we needed to approach this as an individual group, so that added a layer of complication from the beginning," said Quinn.
Quinn and her family will sponsor Kanyambali's family as a "group of five". They will need to raise $35,000 and handle the application process on their own.
In order to fill out the proper forms, the family must travel over 500 kilometres to Harare, Zimbabwe. Even small mistakes must be corrected, and the family made its fourth trek to the capital this weekend.
Kanyambali's family relies on the support of a doctor who works in the refugee camp. Translation is key as the forms must be completed in French or English.
Meanwhile, Quinn and her family are fundraising for the initiative. So far they have raised $9,000 through crowdfunding, and are planning several community fundraisers for Kanyambali's family.
"He came forward and he asked for help, and it's really hard to not obey the impulse to help someone in need," said Quinn.
More information is available online. |
The Chong Chon Gang, the North Korean vessel caught smuggling weaponry through the Panama Canal, broadcast its return to Havana, Cuba on March 21.
The vessel continued to transmit positional data for three days, with the last signal sent at 3.14pm on March 26. The ship’s last know position in Havana Harbour is still currently visible on the NK News Vessel Tracker.
The 14000 tonne vessel docked at a birth in the Ensenada de Atarés area of the port, a part of the harbor dedicated to shipping and vessel repair services.
It is not currently known if the North Korean vessel is still in port or has left without broadcasting further positional information. Havana’s Port Authority could not be reached for comment.
The ship left Limon Bay near the Panama Canal more than five weeks ago on February 15. Sailing at its average speed of 9.1 knots the Chong Chon Gang could theoretically cover the distance between the two countries in approximately five days.
Whilst it was reported that the Chong Chon Gang would return to Cuba after being released by the Panamanian authorities, their reasons for returning to country where the North Koreans picked up the military hardware are unclear.
The seizure of the vessel in July 2013 provided the UN Panel of Experts with “unrivalled insight into some of the ways used [by North Korea] to evade sanctions.”
According to the Panel of Experts’ most recent sanctions report, the ship left North Korea in April 2013 and proceeded to Cuba via Vostochny in Russia and through the Panama Canal. The general cargo vessel then made three stops in Cuba, visiting Havana, and two smaller ports, Mariel and Puerto Padre, before being seized on its return journey through Panama.
“On 20 June, the ship docked in the port of Mariel, where it took on board the arms and related materiel. On 22 June, the Chong Chon Gang sailed to Puerto Padre, docking on 24 June to load sugar,” the UN report reads. The 10,000 tonnes of sugar was used to conceal the weapons and military hardware.
The Chong Chon Gang’s crew were released by the Panamanian authorities, except for the captain and two other officers that remained to face charges of weapons trafficking.
Featured Image: Eric Lafforgue |
Not one, but THREE of my weaknesses.
The time during the past year when I have been the most upset with myself.
When interview ing for a job , it is not uncommon to be asked what you consider to be your main weakness professionally. This is a very good question . Certainly your prospective employer would like to know in what areas you feel you need improvement . However, in a recent interview for a position posted internally at my company, I was compelled to provide my interviewer with:
Now again, ONE weakness is fair, but making your candidate tell you four bad things about themselves seems like dirty pool to me.
I mean, what a way to make someone crawl, right?
"Well, I guess I was most upset with myself this past year when I accidentally knocked my oldest boy off the roof while we were repairing the shingles and he went to the hospital in a coma. As I watched them load him into the ambulance, not knowing if he were alive or dead, I was overcome with feelings of shame and self-hatred that linger even today. I prayed to God to kill me where I stood."
"All righty! Now, how would you rate your customer service skills, on a scale of one to ten?" |
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has unveiled the new and updated version of the Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan in a post on the company's website. The plan outlines Musk's vision for a combined Tesla and SolarCity, which Tesla offered to acquire last month. Musk expects that deal to receive investor support.
Tesla plans to focus on selling integrated energy generation and storage, an expansion into other forms of ground transportation like trucks and buses, as well as autonomous driving technology. Finally, Tesla is looking to allow owners of its cars to share their vehicles with others in order to have the car make money when it isn't in use.
First, Tesla is looking to build an integrated solar-roof-with-battery product. It's part of the reason for the acquisition of SolarCity, and the two companies, according to Musk's vision, will be able to combine forces to build a single product. It'll combine batteries built at the Tesla Gigafactory with SolarCity's solar know-how.
Then, Tesla plans to expand beyond the Model S, Model X, and Model 3. Musk says there are plans for a future compact SUV and a "new kind of pickup truck." Then, for more industrial applications, he envisions heavy-duty electric trucks and solutions for "high passenger-density urban transport — in other words, buses. Electric buses already exist today, so it's easy to see how that will work. Finally, Musk envisions the "Tesla Semi" which, he says, will delivery a "substantial reduction in the cost of cargo transport."
Tesla's autonomous driving plans are well-known, as is its (beta) Autopilot system. The company plans to continue developing its hardware and software, and Musk says the beta label will be removed when Autopilot is "approximately 10 times safer than the US vehicle average."
Finally, Tesla plans to embrace vehicle sharing. "When true self-driving is approved by regulators, it will mean that you will be able to summon your Tesla from pretty much anywhere," Musk writes. Also, Tesla owners will be able to add their car to a "Tesla shared fleet" — likely an on-demand ride-hailing service that will allow the vehicle to give (autonomous) rides to the general public while the owner is at work or on vacation. Musk's vision is that if this system is used enough, the vehicle could potentially pay for itself.
In short, the "Master Plan, Part Deux" is:
Create stunning solar roofs with seamlessly integrated battery storage Expand the electric vehicle product line to address all major segments Develop a self-driving capability that is 10X safer than manual via massive fleet learning Enable your car to make money for you when you aren't using it
The last "Secret Tesla Master Plan" was released back in 2006. It discussed how, according to Musk, power plant emissions are cleaner than vehicle emissions and how becoming "energy positive" with personal transportation — via solar panels from SolarCity, naturally — was possible. Here's how Musk laid out his plan back then:
So, in short, the master plan is: Build sports car Use that money to build an affordable car Use that money to build an even more affordable car While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options Don't tell anyone.
The Tesla Model 3, introduced earlier this year, was meant to be the "even more affordable car" And now, with Tesla buying SolarCity, it all comes together. Makes me wonder if maybe that was the plan all along?
Of course, before it can execute on the Master Plan, Part Deux, Tesla needs to finish executing the first Master Plan. Building that "even more affordable car" is not something the company has shown it can do yet. Building the Model 3 in volume will be a very real challenge and Musk is already looking past that to a whole host of other vehicles and products.
To be fair to Musk and Tesla, aside from being unable to stick to its timetable, the company has nevertheless achieved the goals laid out in the original plan. We'll see if he can do it again.
TESLA MODEL 3 4K TRACK FOOTAGE |
A gray wolf that was seized two months ago in Harris County is now on its way to a wolf sanctuary in Washington state. The flight carrying him to a cooler climate and a recognized rescue that specializes in wolves left this morning.He was part of a seizure of more than a dozen animals from a feed store in the Aldine area. It wasn't aggressive, it would just stand at a distance," said Sgt Christine Hendrick, who also said it wasn't being fed an appropriate diet for a wolf, and its enclosure was inadequate.One of the store's owners said a man gave them the animal several years ago, because he was moving. "He told us it was a wolf hybrid." The SPCA's DNA test showed that it was almost pure grey wolf.By law, wolves, and wolf hybrids are not allowed to be kept in Harris County. Until recently, gray wolves were on the federal endangered species list.Since the seizure, the wolf was kept in the exotic animal area of the Houston SPCA. He has put on some weight, but human contact is kept to a minimum. "We didn't want him to imprint on any more people," said Brian Latham of the Houston SPCA. "We want him to be a wolf."Because of that, he was put in a covered kennel in preparation for the long flight to Washington state, so he wouldn't react to the activity around him.Wolf Haven International is regarded as one of the top sanctuaries to care for rescued wolves. Its newest resident, who was neutered several years ago, will be paired with a female wolf. It will likely be the first time he will be with one of his kind.The wolf was not given a name by the SPCA. "We don't name wildlife, because that's what they are -- wildlife," said Latham. |
Former journalist Arnab Goswami was recently in news for his false claims of having covered the Gujarat riots when his ex-colleagues from NDTV said that he was lying. In the face of unending embarrassment, his team had allegedly deleted the original video of the founder of Republic TV flaunting a reporting assignment he never took.
Few days later, it emerged that NDTV was being sold to the owner of SpiceJet, Ajay Singh, man who coined the phrase ‘Abki Bar Modi Sarkar’ during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.
The reports of NDTV’s ownership changing hands to someone who’s been a staunch supporter of Prime Minister Narendra Modi assumed significance given that the channel was often perceived to be unusually critical of the central government. Unusually because not criticising the government has become a rarity under the current BJP-led dispensation.
On Wednesday, Goswami was debating the issue of Rohingya refugees currently living in India arguing why deporting them back to Myanmar was the best option India had. To build his case further he said how some of them had alleged links to Pakistan.
It was at this point when a panelist tried to draw Goswami’s attention to a report by NDTV, when Goswami burst into laughter, which stopped only after a minute.
Responding to his panelist, Goswami said, “NDTV? What did you say? ” He was joined by BJP spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia, who not so long ago, desperately represented Samajwadi Party in TV debates, in his non-stop laughter.
After about a minute, Goswami perhaps realised the adverse reportage on his action, he said, “I did not say a word. If you ask me why I laughed at NDTV, then tomorrow Lutyen people will write about that. They will go after me and ask why I laughed on the mentioning of NDTV. This has become their hobby these days.”
The panelist who was quoting NDTV’s report told Goswami to not laugh like a ‘fool’ but this did not have much impact on him or his BJP guest Bhatia. The panelist was only trying to highlight a fact that, according to an NDTV report, law enforcing agencies had told the channel that they could not find a single FIR against Rohingya refugees living in India.
WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW FROM 3.15 MINUTES ONWARD:
It seems Goswami hasn’t forgotten how he was shamed on social media and among those who contributed to his shaming also included many of his former NDTV colleagues. |
Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Opposition protesters are pushing for a recall vote to remove Nicolas Maduro from power
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has threatened the seizure of factories that have stopped production, and the jailing of their owners.
In a speech to supporters in the capital Caracas, he said the country had to recover the means of production, to counter its deep economic crisis.
On Friday, he introduced a new, nationwide state of emergency.
Opposition protesters have been rallying in Caracas to push for a recall vote to eject him from power.
Mr Maduro said the state of emergency was needed to combat foreign aggression, which he blamed for Venezuela's problems.
And he said military exercises would take place next weekend to counter "foreign threats".
Left in the dark as Venezuela crisis deepens
Image copyright AP Image caption An opposition protester shows a mock empty refrigerator to protest against shortages
Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves but its economy has been severely hit by falling global oil prices. Its economy contracted by 5.7% last year and its official inflation rate is estimated to be topping 180%.
There are severe shortages of food, medicines and basic goods which Mr Maduro argues are due to business leaders and the US waging an economic war against his government.
Feeling the strain: Analysis by Daniel Pardo, BBC Venezuela correspondent, Caracas
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Queues outside shops are now a common sight
The economic crisis that started three years ago has deepened this year, to the point that it has affected immensely the day-to-day life of every Venezuelan.
On top of having to queue for hours every week to be able to buy the basic products, now Venezuelans have to cope with energy and water rationing almost daily.
This, in a country that used to be one of the most developed nations in Latin America, with the highest consumption rates in the region.
Venezuelans have lost interest in Mr Maduro's moves because of the economic crisis. The latest, like the state of emergency decree or the occupation of certain plants, are in fact already happening and have changed little for Venezuelans' daily lives.
'All measures'
The threat to seize closed factories came after Venezuela's largest food and beverage company, the Polar Group, halted production of beer, blaming government mismanagement for stopping it importing barley.
The group's billionaire owner, Lorenzo Mendoza, is a fierce critic of President Maduro.
"We must take all measures to recover productive capacity, which is being paralysed by the bourgeoisie," Mr Maduro told a rally in Caracas.
"Anyone who wants to halt [production] to sabotage the country should get out, and those who do must be handcuffed and sent to the PGV [Venezuelan General Penitentiary]," he said.
"We're going to tell imperialism and the international right that the people are present, with their farm instruments in one hand and a gun in the other... to defend this sacred land," he added.
Image copyright AFP Image caption Many at the pro-government rally expressed their support for Mr Maduro's policies
Image copyright AFP Image caption At the government rally, people wore images of the late Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez.
On Friday he declared a full-blown state of emergency, expanding the state of "economic emergency" he had announced in January.
In an address to the nation, he said the measures would be in place for three months but would likely be extended over 2017.
He did not specify if there would be limits to other constitutional rights but he said the decree would provide "a fuller, more comprehensive protection for our people."
A previous state of emergency was implemented in states near the Colombian border last year.
It suspended constitutional guarantees in those areas but did not suspend guarantees related to human rights.
The Venezuelan Minister for Communication and Information, Luis Jose Marcano, said the state of emergency would allow the government more resources to distribute food, basic goods and medicines.
But he added that it also created "mechanisms for the security forces to be able to guarantee public order needed because of the threats by armed groups".
'Time bomb'
The opposition has collected and submitted a petition with 1.8 million signatures in favour of a referendum on Mr Maduro, but the National Electoral Board (CNE) has so far not verified them.
The verification process was supposed to take five days but 12 days have already elapsed.
Image copyright AP Image caption Demonstrators chanted slogans against President Maduro
Image copyright Reuters Image caption Opposition supporters held placards designed to put pressure on the Electoral Council which read (L-R) "Deaf", "Blind" and "Dumb". "CNE".
Opposition activists say authorities are not letting them proceed to the next stage when they must collect another four million signatures.
Addressing the crowds on Saturday, opposition leader and former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles said: "We want a country without queues, where we can find medicines. We want change."
He described Venezuela as a "time bomb that can explode at any given moment".
According to the Venezuelan Constitution, if a referendum is held before the end of the year, a recall vote against Mr Maduro would trigger new elections.
Opposition protester Marisol Dos Santos said there would be "a social explosion" if Mr Maduro did not let the recall referendum happen. |
HOLLYWOOD, Fla. — Top Donald Trump aides descended on the Republican National Committee’s spring meeting to sell their path to victory to the very party insiders the GOP front-runner argues are helping to “rig” the nomination process.
Trump’s landing party included top aides Paul Manafort, Ed Brookover and Rick Wiley, as well as former GOP contender Ben Carson.
And even as the team set out to win over convention players, Manafort exuded confidence that Trump would avoid a contested Republican National Convention.
“There’s not going to be a second ballot, so it doesn’t matter,” he said to reporters when asked about efforts by Trump’s rivals to steal delegate pledges away from the businessman at the local level. “They can’t do that on the first ballot, so we aren’t worried about it.”
RNC members packed into a small conference room at the ritzy Diplomat Hotel & Spa in southern Florida for the Trump presentation. While the members were greeted with heaping displays of antipasto, as well as raw oysters, shrimp and crab legs, some people fled the room in search of some space.
“It was like sardines in there,” one RNC member said. “But sardines have more room.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Those in the room said the campaign aides didn’t spend much time on Trump’s path to the nomination, instead laying out more of the general-election argument.
Off the top, the aides addressed Trump’s controversial verbal assault on the system and warnings of consequences if he does not win the nomination despite having more delegates than Cruz or Kasich.
While it was unclear whether the presentation overall swayed any hearts or minds, members said that piece was important.
“They started off by reassuring members that they want to have a great relationship with the RNC, and I know that’s important,” said New Hampshire committeeman Steve Duprey, who chalked Trump's comments up to “political rhetoric.”
“It was very reassuring to members of the Republican National Committee when you see pros like Rick and Paul join the team and help to build out the infrastructure,” he added.
Trump’s team also pledged to expand the map — despite a rash of polls that show him losing to Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonSanders: 'I fully expect' fair treatment by DNC in 2020 after 'not quite even handed' 2016 primary Sanders: 'Damn right' I'll make the large corporations pay 'fair share of taxes' Former Sanders campaign spokesman: Clinton staff are 'biggest a--holes in American politics' MORE in swing states — farther than Cruz or Kasich.
“In terms of crossover appeal, Donald Trump Donald John TrumpHouse committee believes it has evidence Trump requested putting ally in charge of Cohen probe: report Vietnamese airline takes steps to open flights to US on sidelines of Trump-Kim summit Manafort's attorneys say he should get less than 10 years in prison MORE has a lot more than Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzTrump unleashing digital juggernaut ahead of 2020 Inviting Kim Jong Un to Washington Trump endorses Cornyn for reelection as O'Rourke mulls challenge MORE has. A lot more,” Carson said. “And in terms of John Kasich, the only way that he can be the nominee is with pretty much disregarding what the people have said and deciding on the basis of party leaders.”
Carson’s presence was important to some of the members on hand.
“In our part of the country, we view New York with a disdain a lot because they have a tendency to be in your face,” Alabama committeeman Paul Reynolds told The Hill.
“Carson is the exact opposite of that,” Reynolds said. “What Carson brings to the situation is he does do it with meekness and mildness. Carson is important to the Trump effort.“
Trump was the only one of the three remaining GOP candidates who did not personally attend the meeting, a move that irked some of the RNC members.
“You cannot get a larger gathering of delegates — 168 people who will be delegates to the convention,” Rhode Island state GOP chairman Brandon Bell said. “How a candidate doesn’t come here is baffling to me.”
Bell added that Cruz's and Kasich’s personal presence on Wednesday “meant a lot.”
While Trump did not attend the RNC meeting himself, the speech to delegates was far from the only outreach his aides did with the members, who will all serve as delegates to the convention in Cleveland.
Bell and fellow Rhode Island representative Lee Ann Sennick sat down with both Manafort and Wiley for a personal meeting in which they did not make an explicit ask for support but instead touted Trump’s general-election pathway.
A big pitch was Trump’s willingness to fundraise for the party.
“If Trump is the nominee, then he will be coming to help the GOP raise money either through him or a surrogate,” Sennick said. “He hasn’t yet, but that is one thing we did get from that meeting.”
Manafort, speaking to reporters, also said that Trump is expecting to help campaign for down-ballot Republicans.
“He’s going to be campaigning with all of them in the Republican Party — he’s going to be the nominee," he said. |
Get the biggest football stories by email Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Could not subscribe, try again later Invalid Email
Crystal Palace are interested in West Ham’s James Tomkins.
Sunderland are also big fans of the 27-year-old defender, who can play as a centre-back or right-back.
A product of the West Ham youth academy, Tomkins is hugely popular with the club’s fans and would be reluctant to leave.
West Ham are set to shake up their squad this summer, however, following their failure to sustain their shock Champions League bid.
In pictures — Crystal Palace win their FA Cup semi-final at Wembley:
It also comes on the back of a final-day defeat at Stoke which left them pinning their Europa League qualification hopes , ironically, on Manchester United beating Palace in Saturday’s FA Cup Final. |
Mind the Gap
Designing graphs with missing data
Matthew Ström Blocked Unblock Follow Following Dec 15, 2015
Data-driven interfaces are on the rise. Financial District CEOs want to see a birds-eye view of their bottom line as much as Silicon Valley Co-founders want to watch their growth hackers hack. Each user has their own hopes and fears about data, but there’s one thing nobody wants to see: a blank space.
Unfortunately, errors happen. No database is perfect, and as designers and product owners, we have to prepare for the worst. So let’s look at a (real-world!) example from some recent work at Planetary:
In this graph, the values for December 6th, 9th, 13th, and 14th are missing. What are the possible ways of handling this?
The first answer, of course, is “make sure the data is there.” But as I mentioned, there are likely going to be cases where we have to handle missing data — changes in the vendor APIs, hardware issues, acts of god — so let’s analyze a few solutions.
Solution 1: do nothing
This is what we’re currently doing. If we don’t have the data, we’re simply not drawing that portion of the graph.
Pros:
It’s not misleading : we don’t have this data, so we don’t display anything.
: we don’t have this data, so we don’t display anything. It’s technically simple: we don’t have any other design or development concerns: no need to distinguish between “we have data for these days” and “we don’t have data for these other days.”
Cons:
It lacks information : a user has no idea what’s going on here. If asked what this graph means, all they can say is “well, there are gaps in the graph.”
: a user has no idea what’s going on here. If asked what this graph means, all they can say is “well, there are gaps in the graph.” It doesn’t look good: while missing data is not, by default, a reason to panic, having gap-filled graphs might inspire stress in our users.
Solution 2: fill in the gaps
Here’s what it would look like if we simply filled in the gaps by connecting the dates that we do have:
Pros:
It looks good : It makes it much easier to track the trends in the data that we do have — there was a big increase in the middle of the time period, and that’s easier to understand this way.
: It makes it much easier to track the trends in the data that we do have — there was a big increase in the middle of the time period, and that’s easier to understand this way. It’s technically simple: Again, no tricks in design or development: if anything, this solution is slightly easier than not showing data we don’t have.
Cons:
It’s misleading : By drawing a line between December 5th and 7th, we’re implying what the data was for December 6th. While training and close inspection might lead a user to doubt the interpolation, it’s a little too easy to take the smooth line for granted. Was December 6th lower than the 5th? Higher than the 7th? Showing the line here might lead to inaccurate conclusions.
: By drawing a line between December 5th and 7th, we’re implying what the data was for December 6th. While training and close inspection might lead a user to doubt the interpolation, it’s a little too easy to take the smooth line for granted. Was December 6th lower than the 5th? Higher than the 7th? Showing the line here might lead to inaccurate conclusions. It lacks information: even though we’ve connected the dots, we can’t display anything for the most recent two days because we don’t have any points to extend the line. Again, we can’t give a user any idea of what happened these days.
Solution 3: error states
What if we shaded in the regions for which we didn’t have data with some informative error state?
Pros:
It’s not misleading : While we don’t have data for those days, we do have some information about why — for the yellow regions, we couldn’t collect the data. For the gray region, we haven’t tried to collect yet. There are a number of different reasons why we don’t have data, and we can provide that to the user.
: While we don’t have data for those days, we do have some information about why — for the yellow regions, we couldn’t collect the data. For the gray region, we haven’t tried to collect yet. There are a number of different reasons why we don’t have data, and we can provide that to the user. It has lots of information: This approach allows a user to answer questions not only about the data, but about the state of the application. It’s the most informative of the solutions.
Cons:
It’s technically complex : Implementing this solution is tricky, as it requires a number of steps to record the error state and then display the error state. In addition, a key needs to be present for this to be useful to untrained users.
: Implementing this solution is tricky, as it requires a number of steps to record the error state and then display the error state. In addition, a key needs to be present for this to be useful to untrained users. It might not look good: I say “might” because it really only gets ugly if we have lots of error states. Seeing lots of these errors could be anxiety-inducing for the user, even if the problem is on our end as the product manager.
Conclusion
As an advocate of user needs even over technical requirements, I prefer solution 3. But I’ve employed all three of these approaches in products, and each can be useful depending on the circumstance.
I’m curious to hear how others have addressed this problem. Opinions? Alternative solutions? I’m all ears. |
Remakes and rereleases of classic games have been so numerous in recent years that they’ve become a running joke. Whether it’s an HD shine on Twilight Princess, a remaster of a Resident Evil remake, or one of many trilogies and game collections, the current generation of consoles have no drought of material for those wanting a reason to play old games. Insomniac’s newest offering lies a bit outside of this trend, however. Ratchet & Clank (2016) offers far more than a simple remaster, but also isn’t slavish enough to its film tie-in to make fans of the series feel short-changed. This a fully featured reimagining of the 2002 original, with tweaks and additions that help tie it into the movie. Most importantly, it manages to do this all while feeling like a modern gameplay experience and retaining the chaotic fun the series has been known for all these years.
The improved visuals are especially noticeable during the train chase sequence.
If you’ve played the original (or the HD Collection version), you’ll notice the initial similarities. Many of the planets from the original make their return, often in the same order and almost always with the same basic visual style. Despite this, many elements within the stages themselves are different. Layouts are sometimes entirely new, and the placement of collectibles (and number of them) is totally different. Rarely did I explore a level and think “oh yeah, I remember this part.” Rather, it conjured up general memories of planet themes as I blasted my way through these stages.
By far, the most obvious upgrades to the original game come in the form of visuals and the weapon progression system. Insomniac takes full advantage of 14 years of graphical advancements and several installments’ worth of memorable weapons, and the end result is a Ratchet & Clank game that never feels like a simple throwback. Visually, it’s one of the most impressive games on the PlayStation 4. Enemies animate beautifully, the environments are gorgeous, and the action is perfectly chaotic with enemies, bolts, and explosions taking up every inch of the screen’s real estate.
Every enemy has a unique dance animation for the Groovitron, even bosses.
With this entry, Insomniac has created somewhat of a “greatest hits” collection of weapons, featuring many favorites that didn’t initially appear until later in the franchise. More importantly, every weapon in the game features a robust leveling system. Having access to favorites like the Groovitron and the Sheepinator in this entry is great, but being able to forge them (and every other weapon) to your liking is even better. By beating the game and starting its version of a new game plus, you can further level each weapon from a maximum of 5 to a maximum of 10, complete with plenty of new upgrades to purchase. Other bells and whistles have also been added, like cheats and visual filters that unlock as you collect hidden gold bolts.
This reimagining of Ratchet & Clank is successful on every front. If you have kids that were just introduced to these characters thanks to the movie, this serves as one of the most effective movie tie-in games out there. If you’re a longtime fan of the series, this entry will bring back fond memories of the original while introducing new elements and featuring all of the solid visuals and controls you’d expect from an action game in 2016. If you’ve never played the series at all, there couldn’t be a better jumping-on point to introduce you to the characters, weapons, and gameplay of Insomniac’s flagship series. The only downside is that it doesn't do anything in particular to push the franchise forward as a whole, opting instead to act as a sort of "greatest hits" of the series' trademarks. Those looking for the next leap forward for the franchise won't get that here, but I'm plenty happy with it serving as a standalone encapsulation of all of the elements that make Ratchet & Clank great. |
That's because, as both CoinDesk's Bitcoin Price Index (BPI) and Coinbase have tracked, the cryptocurrency has been slowly recovering from a low point at $200 per unit in mid-2015 up until today, when it hit $1,238.11. This topped gold's value of $1,237.73 per ounce, according to Bloomberg Markets, which has hovered around that price point for a couple years. Those values have varied throughout the day, although bitcoin's supremacy remains as of the time of publishing.
People aren't necessarily ditching their gold to buy bitcoin -- their prices don't trade in correlation -- but they're both alternative assets, points out TechCrunch. Gold has traditionally been used as a more secure bet than volatile investments like real estate, so bitcoin's rise in value is encouraging for cryptocurrency advocates who have been hoping it could supplant the "gold standard" of safer investing. |
There’s been a lot of talk of obstruction of justice of late, and we’ve been part of it. In the three weeks since President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and two weeks since the New York Times bombshell report that Trump had asked Comey to drop the investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, many commentators have examined whether evidence of President Trump’s behavior currently in the public record amounts to a prima facie case of obstruction of justice. In several prior pieces on Lawfare, writers looked at the question of how big a problem President Trump has under the obstruction statute.
The U.S. Attorneys’ Manual breaks down the three elements of an obstruction charge: “(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending.”
Our previous analysis focused on the third, and seemingly most complex, element: whether Trump’s conduct qualified as an effort to influence, obstruct, or impede justice and whether there is evidence that he possessed the requisite mental state to do so “corruptly.” Indeed, we took the first two elements as a given: “Here, the first two elements are abundantly clear. Assuming the Times account is correct, there was clearly an investigation, and Trump clearly knew about it.”
Not so fast, as it turns out. That statement missed an important and complex question—and one that may actually shield President Trump from exposure under the obstruction statute (though not under the impeachment clauses): whether an FBI investigation even counts as a “pending proceeding” for purposes of the agency obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
In an op-ed last week, Professor Elizabeth Foley made the case that FBI investigations are covered only by 18 U.S.C. § 1510, a narrow statutory provision that prohibits only interference by means of bribery:
In the almost 120 years since Section 1505 and its predecessor have been on the books, no court appears to have ever held that an ongoing F.B.I. investigation qualifies as a “pending proceeding” within the meaning of the statute. Instead, Section 1505 applies to court or court-like proceedings to enforce federal law. In addition to prosecutions (where charges have been filed with a court), such proceedings include actions of enforcement by federal agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, Securities and Exchange Commission or National Labor Relations Board, in which the agency has broad powers not merely to investigate statutory violations, but also to enforce them via subpoena or other administrative proceedings.
Foley may be right. A fair bit of authority suggests that an FBI criminal investigation is not a “pending proceeding” for the purposes of § 1505. The government has long conceded this point, in fact. Indeed, the U.S. Attorney’s Manual makes the blanket concession that “investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) are not section 1505 proceedings”—an interpretation that may well guide Special Counsel Robert Mueller in the conduct of his duties.
In one case often cited for this proposition—United States v. Higgins, a concise federal district court opinion—a police chief was indicted under § 1505 for allegedly alerting the target of an FBI investigation to undercover surveillance. Dismissing the charges, the court found that “the meaning of ‘proceeding’ in § 1505 must be limited to actions of an agency which relate to some matter within the scope of the rulemaking or adjudicative power vested in the agency by law.”
The case law on obstruction of FBI investigations is sparse in part because the Bureau can charge crimes that are much easier to prove—§ 1001 for making false statements, for instance—and because key modalities of obstruction of FBI investigation are individually criminalized. It is, for example, a crime to tamper with witnesses, a crime to bribe a law enforcement officer, and a crime to destroy evidence.
So is Trump off the hook on obstruction? Hardly. For one thing, it’s not entirely clear that Higgins is correct. At least some scholars doubt that the 36-year-old district court case, whose reasoning seems counter to a number of circuit court decisions defining “proceeding,” is the best reading of the law.
The obstruction statutes have generated enormous confusion and inconsistent analyses not only in the recent responses to allegations against President Trump, but also for decades in the courts. Georgetown Law Professor (and former federal prosecutor) Julie O’Sullivan argues that the obstruction statutes—”incompletely defined, redundant, and internally inconsistent”—are emblematic of larger problems in the U.S. criminal code. Because the code has been modified in reaction to specific events such as Enron, the provisions are “fairly incoherent, often overlapping, and overbroad—leaving much to the discretion of prosecutors.” When judges must fill in gaps and try to give coherence to the tangle of statutes, the result is often inconsistency across jurisdictions and difficulty predicting how a novel set of facts might be read against the statutes. So it’s perfectly possible that the Higgins interpretation of § 1505 will not be the prevailing one.
Moreover, as Andrew Crespo recently noted, the FBI investigation may not be the only proceeding at issue here:
even if [the] narrower view [of § 1505] were to prevail, Trump arguably endeavored to influence two other investigations that, as others observe, are more clearly covered by the statute: the pending grand jury investigation of Michael Flynn, and the pending congressional investigations of Russia’s role in the election. The former, in particular, seems potentially significant, given that Trump expressly mentioned Flynn during the Valentine’s Day tête-à-tête, telling Comey “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go.” So, there is at least some evidence that Trump made efforts to influence one or more potentially qualifying investigations, which could constitute one or more actus rei, although there are certainly arguments the other way.
Of course, we don’t know for sure that there is a grand jury proceeding to obstruct. While there have been reports of grand jury subpoenas in the investigation into Michael Flynn, it isn’t entirely clear when exactly those subpoenas went out and whether President Trump was aware of the grand jury investigation at the time of his potentially obstructive actions. But if the grand jury investigation did exist at the relevant time, and Trump knew that it existed, and he intended to obstruct it in some way, that could add up to violation of 18 U.S.C § 1503, a related provision of the criminal code focused on judicial proceedings.
Moreover, even if the Higgins test is correct in the specific context in which it was articulated, there’s at least some reason to wonder if some of the specific FBI activity here might actually qualify as a “proceeding.”
In United States v. Kelley, the D.C. Circuit rejected the Higgins formulation, holding that an AID Inspector General investigation was a § 1505 proceeding. The court noted that where other courts have found purely investigative activities to fall within § 1505, “the investigations typically have involved agencies with some adjudicative power, or with the power to enhance their investigations through the issuance of subpoenas or warrants.” In other words, “[f]or an investigation to be considered a proceeding . . . it must be more than a ‘mere police investigation.’” Although the IG lacked rulemaking or adjudicative power, because it was “empowered to issue subpoenas and to compel sworn testimony in conjunction with an investigation,” its investigation counted as a § 1505 proceeding.
The Kelley test, then, is that the proceeding must be more than a “mere police investigation,” and the proxy for what is sufficiently more than a mere police investigation is whether the investigating agency has authority to issue subpoenas or warrants or compel sworn testimony in the matter. Other courts have adopted the Kelley test. The indictment in United States v. Pacific Gas & Electric alleged obstruction of an investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of a fatal gas line explosion. PG&E moved to dismiss the § 1505 charges, arguing that, per Higgins, an NTSB investigation was not a 1505 proceeding. The court found that under the reasoning in Kelley, the NTSB investigation was a proceeding because the NTSB had broad authorities to enhance its investigation by issuing subpoenas, administering oaths, and holding hearings.
Here’s the thing: as the Attorney General Guidelines state, “[t]he FBI is an intelligence agency as well as a law enforcement agency.” Accordingly, its functions and powers “extend beyond limited investigations of discrete matters, and include broader analytic and planning functions,” with authority “derive[d] from various administrative and statutory sources.” On Lawfare, Aditya Bamzai explained some of the differences between a counterintelligence investigation and a criminal investigation:
Counterintelligence investigations are different from criminal investigations in several ways. For one thing, the goal of a counterintelligence investigation may be different from, and perhaps broader than, a criminal investigation. A criminal investigation would ordinarily pursue allegations of criminal conduct. A counterintelligence investigation, by contrast, may pursue allegations of “coordination” between U.S. persons and foreign hackers that may be unseemly and problematic if true, but potentially not criminal—such as, to use Professor Kent’s example, the possibility that a person within the United States coordinated to distribute material previously hacked by agents of a foreign government. As the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations explain, the FBI is “not limited to ‘investigation’ in a narrow sense, such as solving particular cases,” but may also collect information to support “broader analytic and intelligence purposes.” In the case of the FBI, the line between counterintelligence and criminal investigations may not be a bright one. “In many cases,” as the Guidelines put it, “a single [FBI] investigation will be supportable as an exercise of a number of these authorities—i.e., as an investigation of a federal crime or crimes, as an investigation of a threat to the national security, and/or as a collection of foreign intelligence”—because the FBI has a role in enforcing both criminal law and “in collecting foreign intelligence as a member agency of the U.S. Intelligence Community.” For another, a counterintelligence investigation may use tools distinct from a criminal investigation. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example, authorizes the government to conduct surveillance for “foreign intelligence” purposes where certain statutory requirements are met and “there is probable cause to believe that . . . the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” A similar kind of test exists for pen registers. In a similar vein, the FBI may obtain information from internet service providers using “National Security Letters” if the Bureau meets certain statutory requirements and certifies that the records are “relevant to an authorized investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” These statutes, and other comparable “foreign intelligence” authorities, require a showing that the government has reason to believe that the target is “a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power” and the information collected will be of a “foreign intelligence” nature. Critically, these tools do not require a showing that evidence of a crime will be discovered, which is the predicate for comparable criminal investigative tools contained in the Wiretap Act or the Pen Register Statute. While FISA surveillance may ultimately uncover evidence of criminal wrongdoing, each FISA application must establish that “a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information.”
In other words, while a run-of-the-mill FBI criminal investigation may not qualify as a “proceeding” for purposes of § 1505, a counterintelligence investigation looks a lot more like the sort of proceeding described in Kelley. In counterintelligence investigations, the agency is fulfilling a broader mandate and accordingly has broader authorities. Indeed, National Security Letters look a lot like subpoenas.
There is likewise reason to think the conduct may qualify under a related obstruction provision that is both easier to prove and comes with a harsher penalty. In 1982, Congress enacted the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA). As the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual explains, the new law was intended to rework the obstruction of justice statutory scheme:
Prior to the enactment of the VWPA, the primary objects of the protection of Chapter 73 were witnesses and parties in ongoing proceedings (former 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505) and informants (former 18 U.S.C. § 1510). The VWPA reorganized and expanded the coverage of Chapter 73 and transferred most of the work that had been allocated to former 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505, and 1510 to the new sections of 1512 and 1513. In addition, the former statutory scheme was organized on the basis of the identification of the victim of the illegal act as either a witness or party. Sections 1512 and 1513 eliminate these categories and focus instead on the intent of the wrongdoer. If the illegal act was intended to affect the future conduct of any person in connection with his/her participation in Federal proceedings or his/her communication of information to Federal law enforcement officers, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1512. If, on the other hand, the illegal act was intended as a response to past conduct of that nature, it is covered by 18 U.S.C. § 1513.
Notably, Higgins hails from 1981, one year prior to the statutory overhaul. There is at least some reason to think Trump’s conduct might implicate § 1512. As an initial matter, the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual concession that FBI investigations are not § 1505 proceedings is followed by this citation: “But cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1510, and 1512(b)(3), (c)(2).” Professor Foley’s Times piece notes that § 1510 is a narrow statute covering only bribery, but as a recent CRS Report notes, this is because of the 1982 rewrite of the statutes:
Before Congress rewrote federal obstruction of justice law in 1982, § 1510 covered the obstruction of federal criminal investigations by “misrepresentation, intimidation, or force or threats thereof” as well as by bribery. All that remains of the original proscription is the prohibition on obstruction by bribery . . . Prosecutions under subsection 1510(a) have been more infrequent since the enactment of 1512 in 1982, perhaps because § 1512 governs the obstruction of federal criminal investigations not only by corrupt persuasion such as bribery but also by intimidation, threat, deception, or physical force.
In other words, § 1512 applies to federal criminal investigations and covers conduct beyond merely bribery. The two potentially relevant § 1512 provisions cited in the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual are (b)(3) and (c)(2):
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— … (3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. (c) Whoever corruptly— ... (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The federal circuit courts are split on whether an FBI investigation itself constitutes an “official proceeding” within the meaning of § 1512; the Ninth and Fifth Circuits say no, while the Second says yes. Furthermore, the courts haven’t been clear on whether “proceeding” should take the same meaning in §§ 1505 and 1512. The Kelley noted that it “need not decide whether ‘proceeding’ has the same meaning in both [sections], since the parties agree[d] that a parallel should be drawn between the two sections.”
Courts have broadly interpreted the conduct covered by § 1512. For instance, a D.C. district court judge wrote last year:
Defendant argues that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3) is not applicable to Defendant's conduct as set forth in the Information because a violation under that statute requires the Defendant to engage in misleading conduct toward a third person with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer. Def.'s Resp. to Govt.'s Mem. in Aid of Sent'g at 5. As such, Defendant's argument is that he could not violate § 1512(b)(3) by directly misleading a federal law enforcement officer but rather that he must do so through a third party. The Court finds this argument is without merit. As previously mentioned, the statute requires that the defendant engage in misleading conduct toward "another person." Nothing in the statutory language appears to restrict the definition of "another person" to any non-federal law enforcement officer, and courts interpreting the provision have concluded that "another person" is commonly understood to mean "any person." See, e.g., Veal, 153 F.3d at 1245 ("As the district court found, there is no ambiguity in `another person,' which is easily and commonly understood to mean any person, regardless of whether he possessed knowledge of the commission or possible commission of a federal crime from being an eyewitness or investigating official.") . . .
In sum, it’s possible that § 1512 is the more appropriate statutory provision. It also happens to be easier to prove because it doesn’t require a “pending” proceeding (though the defendant must have contemplated the existence of some future proceeding in order to intend to obstruct it). But as Julie O’Sullivan highlights, the state of the law is a mess—predictably only in the vast array of conduct it could potentially sweep up.
All that said, the “pending proceeding” question certain makes criminal prosecution of the President—which was already exceedingly unlikely—even more unlikely. We elaborated on the reasons why you should not expect Trump to be frog-marched out of the White House any time soon in this prior analysis:
This case is not going to be prosecuted in federal court like a normal obstruction case—at least not in the first instance. Whether the President is immune from indictment during his time in office is an open question; the longstanding position of the Executive Branch is that the sitting President cannot be prosecuted. At a minimum, in this view, he has to be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office by the Senate first. Even if you don’t accept this position, the Justice Department under Attorney General Sessions is not going to indict the sitting president. So the immediate question is not whether this pattern of behavior—or any individual component of it—could support a prosecution and criminal conviction for obstruction of justice. It’s whether it would support an impeachment in the House and a removal vote in the Senate. . . . The critical point is that impeachment for obstruction of justice is ultimately not just a legal question; it’s also a political question, albeit a political question highly inflected by the law and often discussed in the language of the law. The boundaries of the impeachable offense are not coextensive with the boundaries of the criminal law. There are things that are not criminal that are certainly impeachable, and there are crimes that are generally regarded as too trivial to trigger the Constitution’s standard in Article II § 4 of “Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The great constitutional scholar Charles Black, in an excellent volume entitled, Impeachment: A Handbook written during the Watergate era, describes this point in vivid detail. So the real question boils down to this: Does the pattern of conduct that is emerging, in the view of a majority of the House of Representatives and a two-thirds majority of the Senate, constitute an obstruction of justice of a type that is grounds for impeachment and removal?
In other words, it’s perfectly possible that Trump’s conduct is not cognizable as a violation of § 1505 but that Congress regards it nonetheless as a gross abuse of power for purposes of the impeachment clauses. In its impeachment function, Congress may not care how courts have narrowly defined “proceeding” or how precisely the conduct at issue maps onto to any specific criminal statute. Notably, Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment charged “interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States [and] the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” The articles cite no criminal statute at all. |
Two of the channel’s libertarian ‘comedians’ are slagging off the British band – and their fans – after Thom Yorke and co were nominated for inclusion in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame
Knives out: why Fox News has declared war on Radiohead
Name: Fox News v Radiohead.
Age: About two weeks old.
Appearance: Almost entirely on Fox News.
What is it? Some kind of remix? It’s a feud.
Who are the combatants? On the one hand, Fox News; more specifically, Greg Gutfeld and Kat Timpf.
I’ve never heard of either of those people. Timpf, a millennial libertarian comedian, is a frequent guest on Gutfeld’s comedy libertarian chatshow on Fox.
I didn’t know there was such a thing as a funny libertarian. It turns out there isn’t, but they plough on.
And on the other hand? The popular beat combo Radiohead, formed in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, in 1985.
It’s hard to imagine two such entities squaring off. I thought Fox News was entirely devoted to hating immigrants, Muslims and Hillary Clinton. If it is trying to diversify, it’s off to a shaky start.
How did all this come about? It began during a televised discussion about Radiohead’s recent nomination for induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Timpf described the band’s fans as “strange, malnourished and sad”, and their music as “elaborate moaning and whining over ringtone sounds”.
Slagging off Radiohead – the one area where the US is still 10 years behind Britain. After some pushback from fans, Gutfeld and Timpf revisited the topic last week, with Gutfeld referring to Radiohead as “the poor man’s Coldplay”.
That remark proves he knows the names of two British bands, and almost nothing else. On another Fox News show, Gutfeld called for Radiohead’s music to be banned from public places, and referred to them as “the poor man’s Air Supply”.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Watch Kat Timpf take on Radiohead
That doesn’t work either. He sounds like a cut-price Jeremy Clarkson. All the bad-mouthing culminated in a spoof ad featuring Timpf as someone suffering from “Radiohead lice”.
Now they’ve gone too far. There’s nothing funny about head lice. This sketch certainly proved that.
What did Radiohead do in retaliation? Not a lot. Guitarist Jonny Greenwood changed his Twitter bio to include the phrase “strange, malnourished and sad”, but then he changed it back again.
So they won the feud. They didn’t really even turn up for it, but yeah.
Do say: “Fox News – where music criticism comes to die.”
Don’t say: “I think you’ll find most of us Radiohead fans are happy, conventional and dangerously overweight.” |
Over the weekend, "Furious 7" debuted to humongous box office numbers ($146 million to be precise). The film ends with a tribute to Paul Walker that is apparently leaving many moviegoers in tears. In case you didn't know, Paul was a pretty amazing guy on and off the big screen. Nothing illustrates his off-screen amazingness quite like this story of a random act of kindness he performed back in 2004 for a total stranger. We originally posted this article in December 2013 right after Paul's tragic passing, but wanted to repost today because it deserves to be told again and again…
Original Article:
The more I learn about the life of Paul Walker, the more bummed I am that he is gone. I know it might seem lame to feel that way about a person I did not personally know at all, but Paul truly might have been the coolest celebrity of all time. Not only were his movies fun and exciting no matter your language, location, age or race, but every story that has come out recently about Paul just further underscores what an amazing human being he was. This is a guy who had the talent, money and looks that easily could have allowed him to act like an arrogant Hollywood jerk, yet by all accounts Paul was exactly the opposite. It turns out that when he wasn't acting, Paul was volunteering with a number of charities. He personally helped deliver emergency supplies to people in Haiti and Chile after those countries suffered debilitating earthquakes. Tragically, when Paul died on Saturday, he was actually coming home from a charity event that was raising money for the victims of the recent Philippines typhoon. And perhaps what's most impressive about Paul was that he performed all these amazing acts of charity pretty much anonymously. They weren't PR stunts. He wasn't seeking to land a magazine cover or promote a movie. And as if all this wasn't impressive enough, a story came out today that might be favorite of all. I'm not afraid to admit that it actually made me tear up a bit.
Back in November 2004, a military man named Kyle Upham had just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq and was spending some much needed R&R with his fiance Kristen. Kyle was due to ship back to Iraq for his second deployment in a matter of weeks so he and Kristen decided to spend a weekend trip in Santa Barbara as a special treat. During their weekend getaway, the newly engaged couple wandered into a jewelry store. As Kristen puts it "the sales people should've laughed us out of there, we couldn't even afford a simple chain". But still, Kyle wanted to buy Kristen a ring she loved before he left. As they were trying on different rings, Kyle and Kristen noticed that another customer had walked in and was chatting up the store's clerk, Irene King. That other customer was Paul Walker. Kyle, who happened to be a huge fan of the Fast & The Furious movies, walked straight up to Paul and struck up a conversation. Kyle explained to Paul that he was a huge fan, had just come back from a tour of duty and was about to return to Iraq for the second time.
Again, in Kristen's own words:
"When he found out Kyle just came back from Iraq, I remember seeing the look in his face. He kind of transformed. He treated Kyle as if he were the celebrity. He shook Kyle's hand and told him how thankful he was for his service. I was busy looking at rings. I fell in love with the most beautiful ring I had ever seen. With a price tag of $9000, there was no way we could afford it. It cost more than what me and Kyle made in a year. We ended up leaving to lunch without the ring."
They may not have gotten the ring, but at least they both got to meet Paul Walker. End of story, right? Wrong. Just a heads up – What happened next might make you tear up a little, so our male readers might want to get some chopped onions ready on standby.
Later that day, Kyle received a strange phone call from the store's sales clerk, Irene. Irene requested that the couple return to the store as soon as possible. They figured this was just a sales technique trying to get them to come back and plunk down a credit card or something. Intrigued, Kyle and Kristen hopped back in the car and drove over. When they walked into the store, Irene walked over and said: "Here is your ring. It's been paid in full and the diamond purchased for the ring was one of the best quality in the store". All Irene would say was that an anonymous customer had paid for the ring, and she refused to reveal the identity, wink wink 😉 ;). But considering there were no other customers in the store a few hours earlier, Kyle and Kristen had a pretty good who their anonymous angel was.
Just as Kyle and Kristen suspected, Paul Walker was their generous ring angel. Apparently Paul overheard that Kyle and Kristen couldn't afford the dream ring. After they left the store, Paul walked up to the manager and requested that she put it on his tab. He also requested to keep the gift anonymous. Irene honored his request to remain anonymous for nearly a decade and only revealed the truth this week because she felt the world should know Paul's true character.
The Uphams are still together today, in fact they now have three gorgeous kids together! And, not surprisingly, Kristen still wears her dream ring every day. Kristen maintains that Walker's random act of generosity is the kindest thing anyone has ever done for her. Once again in her own words:
"This man was so much more than a movie star. He was humble and sincere and truly wanted to help people in need. And he actually did. He put his money where his mouth was not for recognition but because he cared. He made a huge impact on my life and I'm sure many others. He will be missed". |
Sometime late 2013 I stumbled upon the 100 Thing Challenge (100TC) which basically challenges you to fight consumerism and reduce your belongings to a 100 things or less.
At that time I had to move out of my apartment in Düsseldorf early so I was confronted with all the stuff I owned: Sorting things out, packing things into boxes, throwing things out or selling them if I thought there might be a value in them for someone.
I also knew already that I’d go to Thailand in March and so after the realisation that I owned way too much crap I started to throw a lot of things out to minimise the number of boxes I had to store.
However, I didn’t quite manage to get down to 100 things. My collection of GDR memorabilia alone consists of over a 100 items and although I know I don’t really need it, there’s some kind of sentimental bond that wouldn’t let me sell it.
The good thing is that all my belongings are now stored at my parents house and for my journey to Thailand I thought I’d limit myself to only travelling with hand luggage to also limit the number of items I could take with me.
Here’s a complete list of the things that are in my weekender bag as I am writing these lines:
1x German passport
1x extremely small wallet
1x visa card
1x EC card + TAN generator
1x pants
7x collared shirts
1x sweatshirt
1x polo shirt
4x t-shirts
2x ties
10x underwear
10x socks
1x sun glasses
1x prescription glasses
1x wrist watch
1x small army bag
1x MacBook Air
1x MacBook charger
1x iPad + sleeve
1x iPad charger + cable
1x iPhone
1x iPhone charger + cable
1x headphones
1x Magic Mouse
1x battery pack 4500mah + small cable
1x battery pack 20000mah + small cable
1x keychain + card holder
1x toothbrush
1x hair styling paste
2.5x blisters of Paracetamol
1x thermometer
1x earplugs
Now as you can see there is a lot of room for improvement here and there. I expect myself to throw out stuff I find not useful as well as buying new items that I’ve initially forgotten or couldn’t take with me because of hand luggage regulations as I go.
Update: After there has been some kind of discussion going on over at Reddit, I thought it would be a good idea to write a follow up on this post, going more into detail with some of the things I’ve packed. |
Cruz recently picked up the endorsement of Representative Steve King, the outspoken Iowa Republican and hardcore conservative. He’s also rumored to be close to clinching the endorsement of influential evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats.
Iowa has a tendency to elect more conservative and more religious candidates, which makes it ideal Cruz country. It’s getting increasingly easy to imagine that Cruz wins the Iowa caucuses (now just 69 days away!). If Cruz continues to gain, or if Trump finally does begin to slide, he could pull out a victory. So let’s say Cruz walks out of Iowa on February 1 with a win. That puts him in the elite company of such future nominees also-rans as Mike Huckabee (2008) and Rick Santorum (2012), right? While those two came in third and second for the nomination, respectively, neither was a serious threat. (Believe it or not, they are both ostensibly still candidates for 2016, too.)
In part, that’s because after winning in Iowa they ran into New Hampshire, which tends to be less fond of evangelicals. Both sank in those primaries. Cruz is placing a solid third in New Hampshire polls right now, behind Marco Rubio and well behind Trump. After that comes South Carolina, where Cruz is a solid fourth, behind Trump, Carson, and Rubio. That’s less promising for the Texan, but it’s also only so useful to compare him to Huckabee and Santorum.
Santorum limped out of Iowa with a cash-strapped campaign. (He also got very unlucky with media coverage: Preliminary results showed him losing the Hawkeye State caucus, only to be crowned the winner later, by 34 votes.) The former Pennsylvania senator never had much funding. Santorum was running a shoe-string campaign and was buoyed by impressive legwork—he crisscrossed the state obsessively—and the fact that no one was excited about weak frontrunner Mitt Romney. Huckabee has also struggled with fundraising throughout his career.
Cruz, by contrast, is a different sort of candidate. As Andrew Romano writes in a profile today—and as Cruz’s come-from-behind win in the 2012 Texas Senate primary showed—he’s always playing a long game. For one thing, Cruz isn’t lacking for cash. He raised the third-most of any candidate in the third quarter, and if you count the huge sums raised by several super PACs on his behalf, he trails only Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton in total fundraising. As Bush has discovered, the fact that a super PAC has a lot of cash doesn’t necessarily mean everything is copacetic; super PACs are legally barred from cooperating with candidates. Cruz aides have even criticized the Cruz-supporting super PACs for not spending more so far. Either way, the money isn’t going to run out soon. (One, Keep the Promise, also just announced a big hiring spree in South Carolina.)
Cruz is also running a far more elaborate operation than Huckabee or Santorum—what Dan Pfeiffer, President Obama’s former communications director, calls “the best campaign” on the Republican side. Just as Barack Obama won the 2008 primary in large part because of smart, careful planning of how to win delegates, Cruz’s campaign has put together a plan that includes a strong showing the March 1 “SEC primary” and picking off delegates in little-noticed territories like Guam and American Samoa. |
Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
A tipline for complaints against Kevin Spacey has been set up by the famed London theater where he served as artistic director for more than a decade.
“If you have been connected with The Old Vic or in our employment and feel you have a complaint that you were unable to raise, please contact us,” The Old Vic theater said in a statement Tuesday.
The theater, where Spacey worked between 2004 and 2015, said it is “deeply dismayed” by recent allegations against the “House of Cards” star — which include a claim that he groped a “young male” while both were on staff at the playhouse.
Spacey has also been accused of making sexual advances on Anthony Rapp in 1986 when he was 14.
The artistic director of another London theater said Monday that people in the local industry had “concerns” about Spacey for many years.
“I think that many people in the theater and in the creative industries have been aware of many stories of many people over a lot of years, and Kevin Spacey would be one of the people that people have had concerns about, yes,” said Victoria Featherstone, artistic director of London’s Royal Court Theatre. |
Matt Brown, the Mayor of London, Ont., is taking a leave from his duties after he admitted on Tuesday to an affair with deputy mayor Maureen Cassidy.
1. Why does this scandal matter so much?
Mr. Brown coasted to a landslide victory in October, 2014, after the conviction and resignation of former mayor Joe Fontana on fraud charges. He pledged to clean up a city council that was investigated twice by Ontario's Ombudsman for secret meetings between a group of councillors dubbed the "Fontana Eight."
Story continues below advertisement
Voters, fed up with the stream of scandals, elected 11 new faces to the 14-person council, seven of whom were under the age of 40. There was hope that the new council would avoid the scandals of the past administration.
But 20 months into his tenure, Mr. Brown is taking a break from his duties and is meeting with the city's integrity commissioner on Thursday to explain his "inappropriate personal relationship" with Ms. Cassidy.
2. How was the affair exposed?
The deputy mayor announced last week that she would be taking a leave of absence from her job. At Tuesday night's council meeting, Ms. Cassidy, 49, resigned from her position and held a press conference minutes later saying the reason was because her relationship with Mr. Brown crossed a professional boundary. Both Mr. Brown and Ms. Cassidy are married with young children.
Mr. Brown, 42, released a statement admitting to the affair after "rumours circulating about his private life" in the past few days. He said that it was a "grave error" and he intends to take some time off to be with his family.
The announcement caught councillors off guard, with one councillor saying most were not aware of the affair until Ms. Cassidy's statement.
3. So, who's in charge right now?
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
With Mr. Brown temporarily giving up his duties and Ms. Cassidy resigning as deputy mayor, there's a question of who's running London right now. Interestingly, London has two deputy mayors. The structure was implemented by the new council in 2014 so that one person would be chosen by Mr. Brown and serve for the duration of the term and a second elected by council on an annual basis. Paul Hubert, appointed by Mr. Brown, and one of the three re-elected councillors, is the other deputy mayor and will be in charge in the interim. Councillors will likely be electing an interim deputy mayor for the duration of Mr. Brown's leave.
4. What happened the last time London's mayor was embroiled in scandal?
In the fall of 2012, former mayor Joe Fontana was charged by the RCMP with fraud and breach of trust for using federal money to pay for his son's wedding reception in 2005 while serving as a cabinet minister in Paul Martin's government. While he faced calls to resign or take a leave of absence, he refused until after he was convicted in June, 2014. Mr. Fontana resigned and served four months of house arrest. Council elected Joni Baechler to serve as interim mayor until the October election.
5. What happens next?
Mr. Brown can take a leave of up to three months before his seat is declared vacant. He said in a statement that he intends to spend more time with his wife and children in the coming weeks and will return to his duties "when we're ready." He said he doesn't intend to resign.
Mr. Brown will likely face some push-back from those who supported his bid for mayor on a pledge to clean up the tarnished image of the mayor's office. Longer term, his working relationship with councillors – which has so far been very smooth compared with the previous administration – could be affected by this scandal.
Story continues below advertisement
Ms. Cassidy resigned as deputy mayor but remains a councillor for Ward 5. |
Jairus Byrad nearly intercepts ball, Saints vs Eagles 2015
New Orleans Saints free safety Jairus Byrd (31) nearly intercepts the ball intended for Philadelphia Eagles wide receiver Jordan Matthews (81) during the game at Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, Pa., Sunday, October 11, 2015. (Photo by David Grunfeld, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune)
(David Grunfeld, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune)
New Orleans Saints safety Jairus Byrd did not participate in the early portion of practice open to the media on Thursday.
Two players were absent. Offensive Terron Armstead, who has often missed practice time while playing through a knee injury, was not present. Receiver Marques Colston appeared to be taking his normal veteran's rest day.
Guard Jahri Evans, who missed the last two games due to injury, participated in the early portion of practice on Thursday.
The Saints will issue an official injury report later Thursday afternoon that sometimes differs from the unofficial observations from media.
The Saints (5-8) play the Detroit Lions (4-9) on Monday night at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome.
Byrd hasn't missed any games or practices since making his debut on Oct. 4 after sitting out most of the preseason and the first three games of the regular season with a knee injury.
Two new players were present at Thursday's practice. Running back Kendall Hunter wore No. 46 and cornerback Tony Carter was No. 37.
Practice squad running back Bronson Hill, previously assigned No. 37, is now No. 46.
New practice squad receiver Shane Wynn wore No. 19. |
By Aaron Kesel
The U.S. Senate voted 61-36 to kill an amendment proposed by Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) which would repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Here are the 61 Senators who voted to give Trump the power to start new wars without consulting Congress and the 36 who opposed. #AUMF pic.twitter.com/skkmYkKohK — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) September 13, 2017
The two bills have heavy scrutiny; the 2001 AUMF was approved in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, while the 2002 AUMF authorized the Iraq War.
Senators opposed the amendment stating that “It would mean that we would immediately need to start winding down” U.S. forces abroad, said Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee), who opposed Paul’s amendment.
The Senate can’t repeal the AUMF without replacing it with a new authorization, said war porn posterboy and head of the Congressional Armed Service Committee (SASC) Senator John McCain (R-Arizona).
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Paul’s move would “leave nothing but uncertainty” for the military and be “simply irresponsible.”
Paul previously threatened to delay the passage of the $700-billion dollar National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) if his amendment to repeal AUMF he sought to add to the NDAA bill didn’t pass.
“We have been there for 16 years. It is time for the wars to end. It is time for Congress to vote on whether or not they should end,” Paul said on Monday.
While the repeal has had strong opposition supporters of the bill included Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Mike Lee(R-Utah) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
“It’s been 16 yrs since Congress passed the existing AUMF after 9/11, but yr after yr, Congress refuses to re-examine this outdated policy. It’s long past time for Congress to do right by our troops & the American people,” Warren said on Twitter, announcing her support.
Earlier this year Paul spoke out during a congressional hearing on adding Montenegro to NATO proclaiming “they want to rubber stamp, they want no debates, and they want to send your kids to war with no debate,” when speaking about his fellow constituents.
American Natural Superfood - Free Sample He added, “Congress voted after 911 to go to war they voted to go after the people who planned and plotted the attacks on the Trade Center. That vote from 15 years ago is used to justify all war everywhere on the planet there has been no meaningful debate about the wars we are currently involved in, in the Middle East. We currently fight illegally and unconstitutionally in the Middle East because your representatives are afraid to have a public debate.” Paul then took to Twitter to put out the most important pieces of his speech tweeting, “For decades NATO has been an organization where the U.S. disproportionately spends our blood and our treasure,” adding “Nobody wanted to have this debate. They want to rubber stamp. They want no debates and they want to send your kids to war.” Watch Senator Paul’s speech from the floor: Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post and is Director of Content for Coinivore. Follow Aaron at Twitter andSteemit. This article is Creative Commons and can be republished in full with attribution. Like Activist Post onFacebook, subscribe on YouTube, follow on Twitter and at Steemit. |
Two lawmakers — a Democrat and a Republican — are pushing a bill to update a Cold War-era law on propaganda efforts by federal agencies that critics say hinders the U.S. war of ideas against Muslim extremists.
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was designed “to counter communism during the Cold War, [and] is outdated for the conflicts of today,” said Rep. Adam Smith, Washington Democrat.
“This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military and others,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry, Texas Republican. “Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”
At issue are provisions of the law banning the domestic dissemination of government-produced or -funded communications aimed at a foreign audience, to keep anti-communist and other kinds of U.S. propaganda out of America.
But experts say such restrictions do not make sense in the Internet age.
“Leaflets don’t blow across the world,” Isaac R. Porche, a researcher on strategic information campaigns at the Rand Corp., said last year.
The two lawmakers, authors of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (HR 5736), say the current law restricts the broadcast in the United States of any programs produced by Voice of America.
In 2010, for instance, emergency broadcasts in Creole, aimed to help the stricken survivors of the Haitian earthquake, could not be carried by Sirius satellite radio, according to a joint statement from Mr. Smith and Mr. Thornberry.
Officials say effective outreach and communication with foreign audiences, especially in the Muslim world, are essential elements in U.S. efforts to defeat al Qaeda and other violent extremists.
“Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums &mdash especially online,” Mr. Smith said.
Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission. |
The official website for the Arslan Senki: Fūjin Ranbu (The Heroic Legend of Arslan: Dust Storm Dance) television anime series revealed the character illustrations for Alfreed and Jaswant on Thursday. Manami Numakura and Wataru Hatano respectively are returning to voice the two characters.
The website revealed the character illustrations for Arslan, Daryun, Narsus, Elam, Gieve, and Falangies last month.
The second season will premiere in July. The new season will air on Sundays at 5 p.m. on MBS and TBS, which is the "Nichigo" timeslot.
The staff and cast are returning to the new series, but Kyō Yamashita is the new CG director, replacing Daisuke Suzuki, and Tatsuya Shimano is replacing Hiroshi Adachi as the modeling director. Felix Film is replacing SANZIGEN with the 3DCGI. Eir Aoi (Sword Art Online, Fate/Zero) will perform the new season's opening theme song and Kalafina (Madoka Magica, first season of The Heroic Legend of Arslan) will perform the ending theme song.
Source: Comic Natalie |
Florida Democrat Joe Garcia was caught on video by C-Span picking his ear then putting his finger in his mouth and then appearing to eat the contents removed from the ear.
The video was from a House Judiciary Committee meeting last Wednesday when he was caught in the act of apparently snacking on the wax, according to USAToday.com.
The video was quick fodder for the National Republican Congressional Committee which tweeted out a GIF of the video. Garcia is one of a number of Democratic freshmen being targeted by Republicans in the 2014 mid-term Congressional election.
Garcia released a statement Tuesday evening addressing the "scandal:" "I scratched my ear and noticed I had a hangnail. My mom always told me to keep my fingers out of my mouth, and now I know why. I look forward to immigration reform going viral." |
George W. Bush and his inner circle, photographed in the Cabinet Room of the White House in December 2001. From left: Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President Dick Cheney, the president, National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, White House chief of staff Andrew Card, C.I.A. director George Tenet (seated), and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld., Photograph by Annie Leibovitz.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This oral history was compiled from recorded telephone and in-person interviews with the participants over several weeks in late 2008. The interviews were transcribed, edited, condensed, and arranged chronologically. The authors sought interviews with the widest possible range of Bush-administration officials, from the president on down, some of whom either declined to participate or never responded to repeated requests. Some participants were interviewed only on specific topics narrowly related to their duties; others offered broader perspective.
January 20, 2001 After a disputed election and bitter recount battle in Florida whose outcome is effectively decided by the Supreme Court, George W. Bush is sworn in as the 43rd president of the United States. In foreign affairs he promises an approach that will depart from the perceived adventurism of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, in places such as Kosovo and Somalia. (“I think the United States must be humble,” Bush said in a debate with his opponent, Al Gore.) In domestic affairs Bush pledges to cut taxes and improve education. He promises to govern as a “compassionate conservative” and to be “a uniter, not a divider.” He comes into office with a $237 billion budget surplus.
On the day of the inauguration the White House chief of staff, Andrew Card, declares a moratorium on the Clinton administration’s last-minute regulations on the environment, food safety, and health. This action is followed in the coming months by disengagement from the International Criminal Court and other international efforts. Nonetheless, the early presumption is that the administration’s affairs are in steady hands, though some disquieting signs are noted.
In the Oval Office on January 20 the first President Bush and the new President Bush greet each other with the words “Mr. President.”
Dan Bartlett, White House communications director and later counselor to the president: It was a bitterly cold day. They got back to the residence from the inauguration. The president was going over to have his first moment in the Oval Office as president of the United States. And he called for his father because he wanted his father to be there when it happened. If I recall correctly, George H. W. Bush was soaking in the tub trying to warm up, because it had been so cold on the viewing stand. Not only did the former president quickly get out of the tub, but he put his suit back on, because he was not going to enter the Oval Office without a suit. His hair was still kind of wet.
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and vice-chancellor: We thought we were going back to the old days of Bush 41. And ironically enough Rumsfeld, but even more Cheney, together with Powell, were seen as indications that the young president, who was not used to the outside world, who didn’t travel very much, who didn’t seem to be very experienced, would be embedded into these Bush 41 guys. Their foreign-policy skills were extremely good and strongly admired. So we were not very concerned. Of course, there was this strange thing with these “neocons,” but every party has its fringes. It was not very alarming.
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national-security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire. What in effect happened was that a very astute, probably the most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur I’ve ever run into in my life became the vice president of the United States.
He became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush—personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum.
Richard Clarke, chief White House counterterrorism adviser: We had a couple of meetings with the president, and there were detailed discussions and briefings on cyber-security and often terrorism, and on a classified program. With the cyber-security meeting, he seemed—I was disturbed because he seemed to be trying to impress us, the people who were briefing him. It was as though he wanted these experts, these White House staff guys who had been around for a long time before he got there—didn’t want them buying the rumor that he wasn’t too bright. He was trying—sort of overly trying—to show that he could ask good questions, and kind of yukking it up with Cheney.
The contrast with having briefed his father and Clinton and Gore was so marked. And to be told, frankly, early in the administration, by Condi Rice and [her deputy] Steve Hadley, you know, Don’t give the president a lot of long memos, he’s not a big reader—well, shit. I mean, the president of the United States is not a big reader?
March 6, 2001 Secretary of State Colin Powell tells reporters that the United States intends to “engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off.” The next day, Powell is forced by the administration to backpedal. Other early administration actions—abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty, abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change—signal that America’s way of doing business has changed. In time, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will characterize traditional U.S. allies as “old Europe.”
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and vice-chancellor: During the Kosovo war we had developed a format which was, I think, one of the cheapest models for policy coordinating in the interests of the U.S. [Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright was in the driver’s seat, and the four European foreign ministers discussed with her on a daily basis how the war develops and so on. This was U.K., France, Italy, and Germany, together with the U.S., on the phone. We continued after the war, not every day, but this was the format, to discuss problems and understand the positions. And suddenly it stopped. We had very, very few—I don’t know, two or three times. Only for a very short period when Colin came in, and then it stopped, because the new administration was not interested any longer in a multilateral coordination.
Bill Graham, Canada’s foreign minister and later defense minister: My experience with Mr. Rumsfeld was: obviously an extremely intelligent person, with a lot of experience. But compared to Colin he was cold in terms of his personal relationships. He could have a sense of humor. I remember being at the famous Munich Security Conference that takes place every year. And I think Sergei Ivanov, who was the Russian defense minister at the time, went after him about some issue, and how the Americans had altered their position.
And Rumsfeld’s answer was “Well, that was the old Rumsfeld, and I am now the new Rumsfeld.” And of course it brought a great laugh. But he was terribly determined to have his way; there was no question about that.
One of his shticks—if I can call it that—at the nato meetings was always about caveats. He would pronounce the word “caveat” the way you and I might speak of some sort of sexual deviation. You know, people who had “caveats” were really evil, bad people.
Some caveats are not about an unwillingness to fight; some are about fundamental constraints on what you can do as a country. But Mr. Rumsfeld was not about listening and being cooperative. Mr. Rumsfeld was about getting the way of the United States, and don’t get in my way or my juggernaut will run over you.
May 16, 2001 A task force assembled and led by Vice President Dick Cheney unveils a blueprint for the administration’s energy program. The report, “National Energy Policy,” which had been in the works since shortly after the inauguration, calls for increased drilling for oil and more nuclear power. The energy task force becomes an immediate focus of controversy—and lawsuits—because its records and the list of advisers, mainly representatives of the oil and gas industries, are never divulged by the White House. The administration’s environmental policy is heavily politicized from the outset.
Rick Piltz, senior associate, U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Christine Todd Whitman, the E.P.A. administrator, was one of several people in the Cabinet, along with Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who strongly supported a proactive position on climate change. And she was, I think, in Europe telling European governments that the U.S. position was to regulate carbon dioxide. And when she got back home, she had an interaction with the president in which she was very brusquely told that that was off the table. The turning point, essentially, was that Cheney grabbed hold of this issue and took down the whole notion of regulating CO2.
Photograph by Annie Leibovitz.
May 24, 2001 Vermont senator Jim Jeffords, a Republican, changes party, and control of the Senate shifts to the Democrats, making Tom Daschle the Senate majority leader and testing the administration’s public face of bipartisanship.
David Kuo, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: I went to a communications meeting the day after Jeffords switched. I remember feeling like I was looking at people who had won a reality-game ticket to head up the White House. There was this remarkable combination of hubris, excitement, and staggering ignorance.
Someone made the suggestion that perhaps the president should call the new majority leader. And it’s like, Well, I’m not sure that’s really necessary. Margaret Tutwiler [assistant to the president and special adviser for communications] was there, and I remember her sitting at the head of the table, her eyes just sort of wide, and she sort of lost it. She’s like, Are you fricking kidding me? She goes, The president of the United States calls the new majority leader. The president of the United States calls the new minority leader, right? The president does these things because, you know, these things have to be done.
And, you know, people around the table—Karl [Rove], Karen [Hughes]—all these people were like, Oh, well, do we have to? It was like an absolutely serious debate.
Noelia Rodriguez, press secretary to Laura Bush: In the first weeks after he took office, I was in those daily communications meetings, and the conversation I remember one morning turned to, you know, Tom Daschle was going to be coming to the White House—should we allow him to come in the door of the West Wing entrance, while the camera’s on, or should he come in on the side, so that cameras won’t see him? And I’m thinking, You know, the president should go out there and greet him just like he would if he was coming to his own house—which, by the way, it is. But they ended up having him come in on the side.
Mark McKinnon, chief campaign media adviser to George W. Bush: My view is that civility was a heartfelt, well-intended objective that went right off the rails the day of the recount. The recount poisoned the well from the beginning. A good number of people in this country didn’t believe Bush was a legitimate president. And you can’t change the tone under those circumstances. There was a genuine effort, and I think there was some early success with Ted Kennedy and the education stuff. But it was acrimonious from the beginning.
Matthew Dowd, Bush’s pollster and chief strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign: There is a toxic nature to Washington that thrives on food fights and thrives on controversy and thrives on people not getting along. But I don’t think that’s the biggest part of the problem. It’s like the old argument of: somebody’s thrown in jail, and then they blame it on their environment. You’ve got to bear some accountability, even in a bad environment, for having a strength of will and a capacity to bring diverse opinion and not be bubbled in. We too easily say, Blame it on the Washington culture. Well, Washington is made up of people. It’s not like there’s this, like—you know, it’s not like some Star Trek episode where some room made me do it.
Ari Fleischer, Bush’s first White House press secretary: After the recount, the disputed election, a lot of people said you needed to start to trim your sails: What are you going to cut back on as a way to show outreach to the other party? The president rejected that line of thinking, making the case that mandates are created by presidents with ideas, and he was going to follow through on the ideas that he ran on.
May 26, 2001 With big bipartisan majorities, Congress passes Bush’s $1.35 trillion package of tax cuts, the centerpiece of the administration’s economic program. The tax cuts are skewed heavily toward the affluent. Those making $1 million a year receive an average tax cut of $53,000. Those making $20,000 a year receive an average tax cut of $375. A second round of tax cuts will be enacted in 2003. By 2004 the budget deficit will exceed $400 billion.
David Kuo, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: When Bush announced his “compassionate conservatism” [during the 2000 campaign], Elizabeth Dole’s communications director mocked him. He goes, Oh, that’s a great thing if you want to be president of the Red Cross, right? And that man was Ari Fleischer. Those are the people that ended up populating the White House. When the president’s tax package first came through Congress and first came through the Senate Finance Committee, his promise to have a tax cut for charitable giving for people who don’t itemize their tax deductions wasn’t even in the plan. [Senator] Charles Grassley looked at this and went, Oh, gosh, there must have been some oversight. And he was the one who inserted it into the tax plan. And the White House is the one that pulled it out.
June 16, 2001 During a five-day foreign tour Bush meets with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia. After the meeting, in Slovenia, Bush declares, “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.… I was able to get a sense of his soul.” By all accounts, including his own, Bush puts great stock in the primacy of personal relationships.
Noelia Rodriguez: I wish that more people could have seen the president the way I experienced him. Even if you don’t agree with him or respect his opinions or his decisions—strip that away, if you’re able to—he is a caring human being.
I brought my mom to the White House, to get a tour the day before Thanksgiving. The president came in and greeted her—it was a total surprise. And on the spot he invited us to go to Camp David for Thanksgiving. Of course, we went, and it was Disneyland for adults. We went to chapel services before dinner. I remember we got there early. A few minutes later the president walks in with Mrs. Bush and the family, and you could see him looking around, and he sees my mom in the distance, and he literally shouts at her from across the chapel, “Grace, come sit over here with me.” And at dinner, again, he sees her, and he says, “Grace, you’re going to sit over here next to me.” And he tilted the chair against the table so that nobody would take her place.
Ed Gillespie, campaign strategist and later counselor to the president: Picking up the phone, calling people who are visiting an ailing father in the hospital, personal notes to people whose child just had surgery. Things big and small. It’s hard to describe it all, but they are the kinds of things that do inspire great loyalty—and that’s not why he does it, by the way.
August 6, 2001 While vacationing at his ranch, in Crawford, Texas, Bush is given a Presidential Daily Briefing memorandum whose headline warns that the al-Qaeda terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden, is “determined to strike in U.S.” After being briefed on the document by a C.I.A. analyst, Bush responds, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”
Richard Clarke, chief White House counterterrorism adviser: We went into a period in June where the tempo of intelligence about an impending large-scale attack went up a lot, to the kind of cycle that we’d only seen once or twice before. And we told Condi that. She didn’t do anything. She said, Well, make sure you’re coordinating with the agencies, which, of course, I was doing. By August, I was saying to Condi and to the agencies that the intelligence isn’t coming in at such a rapid rate anymore as it was in the June-July time frame. But that doesn’t mean the attack isn’t going to happen. It just means that they may be in place.
On September 4, we had a principals meeting. The most telling thing for me about the attitude of these people was on the decision that had been pending for a long time to resume Predator [remote-controlled drone] flights over Afghanistan, and to now do what we couldn’t have done in the Clinton administration because the technology wasn’t ready: put a weapon on the Predator and use it as not only a hunter but a killer.
We had seen bin Laden when we had it in the Clinton administration, as just a hunter. We had seen him. So we thought, Man, if we could get this with a hunter-killer, we could see him again and kill him. So finally we have a principals meeting and the C.I.A. says it’s not our job to fly the Predator armed. And D.O.D. says it’s not our job to fly an unarmed aircraft.
Photograph by Annie Leibovitz.
I just couldn’t believe it. This is the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of C.I.A. sitting there, both passing the football because neither one of them wanted to go kill bin Laden.
August 9, 2001 Bush issues a directive that permits federal funding for research on stem cells from human embryos—but only on the 60 stem-cell lines already in existence. That evening, he gives the first nationally televised speech of his presidency, explaining his decision. Five years later, Bush will use his veto power for the first time to kill legislation that would permit broader federal funding for stem-cell research. In the late summer of 2001, stem-cell research is the most contentious political question facing the nation.
Matthew Dowd, Bush’s pollster and chief strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign: I had done a poll that finished the morning of 9/11. I was going to go to Washington that day to present the findings to Karl [Rove]. The amazing thing about that is: not a single question was asked about foreign policy, terrorism, national security. In the poll I’d been sitting on, Bush’s approval I think was 51 or 52 percent. Twenty-four hours later his approvals are 90 percent.
September 11, 2001 Terrorists crash two commercial airliners into New York’s World Trade Center, bringing both buildings down with a loss of some 3,000 lives. A third aircraft crashes into the Pentagon, killing 184. A fourth aircraft, its likely destination the U.S. Capitol, is brought down by the passengers in a field in Pennsylvania. It is known quickly that the perpetrators are members of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization, based in Afghanistan, but the search for a connection to Saddam Hussein and Iraq begins immediately.
Sandra Kay Daniels, second-grade teacher at Emma E. Booker Elementary School, in Sarasota, Florida, whose classroom the president was visiting when he received news of the attacks: When he came into the classroom, our principal introduced him to the children, and he shook a couple of the kids’ hands and introduced himself, tried to kind of lighten the room up a little, because the kids were in awe. They were like little soldiers, quiet and just struck by the sight of the president. And he said, Let’s get started with reading. I’m here to celebrate you—maybe not those exact words, but that was the feeling in the room.
The story was “My Pet Goat” from our reading series. And we started our lesson. And all I remember is someone walking over to him, and I knew that was totally out of character, because this was a live broadcast and nobody was supposed to move. I mean, everybody was in their position. And when I saw this man, who I now know is Andy Card, walk over to him and whisper in his ear, I could see and I felt his whole demeanor change. It’s like he left the room mentally. He wasn’t there anymore mentally.
When it was time for the kids to read with him, he didn’t pick his book up. His book was sitting on the easel, and he didn’t pick it up. I knew something was wrong, but I didn’t know what was wrong. And I’m thinking all the time, O.K., President Bush, pick up your book, that type of thing, you know. The cameras are rolling. My kids are here. And he left us mentally. I knew I had to continue with the lesson, and I did. I’m a teacher. I’ve got eyes all around the room. I’ve got eyes in the back of my head. I see everything that goes on. And I’m thinking, O.K., he’ll join us in a minute. And he did.
Mary Matalin, assistant to the president and counselor to the vice president: My enduring memory is how calm people at the White House were, and focused on getting their job done. Right from the get-go, people were mature. That’s not the right word, but there wasn’t hand-wringing and hair on fire and Keystone Cops or anything like that. It was how you hope that any government would function. “Professional” doesn’t even scratch the surface. They were all so fully functioning and integrated in everything that they did. Everybody was confident in the other guy’s ability.
Richard Clarke: That night, on 9/11, Rumsfeld came over and the others, and the president finally got back, and we had a meeting. And Rumsfeld said, You know, we’ve got to do Iraq, and everyone looked at him—at least I looked at him and Powell looked at him—like, What the hell are you talking about? And he said—I’ll never forget this—There just aren’t enough targets in Afghanistan. We need to bomb something else to prove that we’re, you know, big and strong and not going to be pushed around by these kind of attacks.
And I made the point certainly that night, and I think Powell acknowledged it, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That didn’t seem to faze Rumsfeld in the least.
It shouldn’t have come as a surprise. It really didn’t, because from the first weeks of the administration they were talking about Iraq. I just found it a little disgusting that they were talking about it while the bodies were still burning in the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center.
Dan Bartlett, White House communications director and later counselor to the president: The real change in the president, in my opinion, didn’t actually happen until that Friday, when he traveled to New York. The situation on Tuesday was so—you really didn’t have time to reflect. In New York, the range of emotions that he went through—standing on the rubble, the bullhorn moment, but just as important, when he sat there in that room in private and met with those people who were still trying to learn the whereabouts of their loved ones, and hugging them, and where he got the badge.
He always gets asked, Have you changed?, and he instinctively recoils at that kind of question. But when something like this happens on your watch, there’s no way it can’t change you. It can’t not change your worldview—and it obviously changed his in a way that has been controversial for a lot of people.
September 18, 2001 Envelopes containing anthrax spores are mailed to media outlets in New York and Florida. This first attack is followed by a second, aimed at government offices in Washington. All together 5 people die and 22 are infected. The administration’s initial reaction, which turns out to be wrong, is to suggest that al-Qaeda is responsible. (It knows “how to deploy and use these kind of substances, so you start to piece it all together,” Cheney explains.)
Michael Brown, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency: Very shortly after 9/11 I was leading a briefing in the Roosevelt room about smallpox. The president was there, the vice president. Condi was there. The president didn’t ask a lot of questions. Don’t get me wrong—he did ask some questions. But the majority of the questions came from either Condi or the vice president. As the president was leaving the room, he turned to everybody and said, God help us all. We should all say very strong prayers tonight for guidance. It really stuck in my head. You’re the president of the United States basically saying, I’m going to pray tonight, and I hope all of you pray, too, because this is much bigger than all of us.
September 27, 2001 At O’Hare International Airport, Bush advises Americans on what they can do to respond to the trauma of September 11: “Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America’s great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.”
Matthew Dowd: He was given a great, great window of opportunity where everybody wanted to be called to some shared sense of purpose and sacrifice and all that, and Bush never did it. And not for lack of people suggesting various things from bonds to, you know, some sort of national service. Bush decided to say that the best thing is: Everybody go about their life, and I’ll handle it.
There’s this West Texas thing in him, which is the—you know: Bad people are comin’ to town. Everybody go back to their house. I’ll take the burden on. Which, you know, may work in a Western town, but doesn’t work for a country that wants to be part of that conversation.
Mary Matalin: There was so much to do that was more important than—I mean, looking back, the national-unity thing is important, but it was way more important to re-structure the intelligence communities, way more important to harden targets. Know what I mean? It was all hands on deck. We were working on other shit. Everyone’s pulverized and beat, and there’s 24 hours in a day, so woulda, coulda, shoulda, but, you know, there was no office to do “feel-good” stuff.
Matthew Dowd: Karl wasn’t receptive to ideas that would’ve called the country to certain things and brought them to a common purpose and a sense of shared sacrifice. Karl came from a perspective of: you defeat people in politics by calling one side bad and one side good.
Scott McClellan, deputy White House press secretary and later press secretary: I remember Karl Rove was out there talking at some events about how we’d use 9/11, run on 9/11 in the midterms, and that it was important to do so.
October 7, 2001 American and British forces begin an aerial campaign against Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda has its base, followed weeks later by a ground invasion. The Taliban government falls and al-Qaeda is routed from some of its strongholds. One person captured is John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban. His handling proves to be a harbinger. The Defense Department’s general counsel, Jim Haynes, authorizes military intelligence to “take the gloves off.”
Jesselyn Radack, ethics adviser at the Department of Justice: I was called with the specific question of whether or not the F.B.I. on the ground could interrogate [Lindh] without counsel. And I had been told unambiguously that Lindh’s parents had retained counsel for him. I gave that advice on a Friday, and the same attorney at Justice who inquired called back on Monday and said essentially, Oops, they did it anyway. They interrogated him anyway. What should we do now? My office was there to help correct mistakes. And I said, Well, this is an unethical interrogation, so you should seal it off and use it only for intelligence-gathering purposes or national security, but not for criminal prosecution.
A few weeks later, Attorney General Ashcroft held one of his dramatic press conferences, in which he announced a complaint being filed against Lindh. He was asked if Lindh had been permitted counsel. And he said, in effect, To our knowledge, the subject has not requested counsel. That was just completely false. About two weeks after that he held another press conference, because this was the first high-profile terrorism prosecution after 9/11. And in that press conference he was asked again about Lindh’s rights, and he said that Lindh’s rights had been carefully, scrupulously guarded, which, again, was contrary to the facts, and contrary to the picture that was circulating around the world of Lindh blindfolded, gagged, naked, bound to a board.
October 26, 2001 Bush signs the USA Patriot Act, which among other things gives the government far-reaching powers to conduct surveillance. In addition, Bush will issue a secret executive order authorizing the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless wiretaps on American citizens and others living in the United States, bypassing the procedures mandated by Congress.
Jesselyn Radack, ethics adviser at the Department of Justice: When Ashcroft initially came on board as attorney general, he was a somewhat beleaguered person. He had just lost an election to a dead man [Mel Carnahan, his opponent in the Missouri senatorial race, who had been killed in a plane crash]. We were told that he liked to conduct things more in a top-down corporate manner, rather than with Janet Reno’s glasnost openness. The real shift came after 9/11. It wasn’t that we were sent a memo saying all the laws were out the window, but that was definitely the tone that pervaded the department.
November 1, 2001 A presidential executive order exempts presidents, vice presidents, and their designees from provisions of the 1978 Presidential Records Act and permits unclassified archived materials to be kept sealed in perpetuity, rather than being released after 12 years, as the law allows.
Robert Dallek, presidential biographer: I’ve testified twice before the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee, protesting this executive order. Now, there are two constraints that operate in relation to all executive materials. One is that if you’re going to violate someone’s privacy you are constrained from releasing the material. A much bigger issue is one of national security, and that’s what causes years to go by before many, many documents are released. So those are the two constraints.
But broadening this—and not only in relation to the president, but in relation to the vice president—reflects, I think, the Cheney proposition that the Watergate crisis put too many limitations on executive power.
And so we now have the issue of what sort of documentary record we’re going to find. I mean, this is a separate issue, I guess, but will they have sanitized the records?
November 13, 2001 Bush issues an order declaring that accused terrorists will be tried by secret military commissions that dispense with traditional rights and protections.
John Bellinger III, legal adviser to the National Security Council, and later to the secretary of state: A small group of administration lawyers drafted the president’s military order establishing the military commissions, but without the knowledge of the rest of the government, including the national-security adviser, me, the secretary of state, or even the C.I.A. director. And even though many of the substantive problems with the military commissions as created by the original order have been resolved by Congress in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hamdan case, we have been suffering from this original process failure ever since.
December 2001 Osama bin Laden and many of his followers have taken refuge in the mountains of Tora Bora, on Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan, where an attempt to dislodge and capture them proves unavailing. A decision by Washington has the effect of allowing bin Laden to escape into the tribal areas of Pakistan.
Gary Berntsen, C.I.A. intelligence commander at Tora Bora: We knew he was there—he had fallen into the mountains with about a thousand of his followers. That’s why we threw a BLU-82 [the bomb known as a “daisy cutter”] at him. At one point we knew where he was; we allowed food and water to go in to him. And then we came in with a 15,000-pound device. Bin Laden was outside the lethal effects of that blast. I understand he was injured.
I got a message out and made my request for inclusion of what I believed was needed—800 Rangers. The army of the Eastern Alliance on the north side had blocking positions there, so al-Qaeda couldn’t get back out into Afghanistan. But I was always concerned about the Pakistani side. I explained clearly that this was our opportunity to, so to speak, kill the baby in the crib. I was very concerned about them breaking out [south] into Pakistan, because I knew, if they did that, containing this thing would be a significant problem.
Unfortunately, the decision was made at the White House to use the Pakistani frontier force. What the White House didn’t understand is that the frontier force had cooperated with the Taliban. So they used individuals who were very, very sympathetic to the Taliban to set up purported blocking positions.
December 17, 2001 Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, where Dick Cheney had been C.E.O., is awarded a 10-year omnibus contract to provide the Pentagon with support services for everything from fighting oil-well fires to building military bases to serving meals. As defense secretary under George H. W. Bush, Cheney had pushed strenuously to outsource a variety of military functions to private contractors—part of a broader effort to transfer government functions of all kinds to the private sector.
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: Cheney brings this accumulation of power and ability to influence the bureaucracy to a fine art. He surpasses Kissinger even. This is all the more ironic because Cheney was the antithesis of this when he was chief of staff of the White House under Gerald Ford and when he was secretary of defense. He was very deferential. He was not trying to insinuate himself.
But he turns everything on its head and he becomes the power. And he does it through his network. This is a guy who’s an absolute genius at bureaucracy and an absolute genius at not displaying his genius at bureaucracy. He’s always quiet.
So are most of his minions, not all of them. [David] Addington [the vice president’s counsel] is brilliant, and Addington is a strange beast, and Addington is sort of the Ayman al-Zawahiri for Cheney, the brains trust. [Chief of Staff Lewis] Libby was the doer. Libby was a real bureaucrat’s dream.
January 8, 2002 Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act, which, among other things, mandates that, in return for continued access to federal funding, states must institute standardized tests to ensure that students meet educational goals. The bill, co- authored by Senator Edward Kennedy, passed with a large bipartisan majority.
Margaret Spellings, Bush’s domestic-policy adviser and later secretary of education: George Bush ran for office as a different kind of Republican and called for some things like annual measurement, accountability, closing the achievement gap—things that other Republicans hadn’t talked about. I mean, the standard Republican stock fare was Abolish the Department of Education. So he had had some equities on an issue that few Republicans previous to him had really talked about, especially on behalf of poor kids.
I’ve learned a lot from [Ted Kennedy], and I think he’s the consummate legislator. He is a person of his word. I remember the very first time that the so-called Big Four—it was Kennedy, Jeffords, John Boehner, and George Miller—met in the Oval Office to talk about how we were going to proceed. It was in the first week of the administration. At the end of the meeting—after we had agreed that we really needed to get something done, we had to close the achievement gap, I’m really serious, I’m going to put my money where my mouth is, all of those sorts of things—the president, in closing the meeting, as the press was about to come in, said something like: You know, they’re going to ask us about vouchers. They’re going to—the press is going to try to find division immediately. And I am not going to talk about vouchers today. I’m going to say we talked about how we’re going to close the achievement gap.
And, you know, we got to work.
January 11, 2002 A new detention-and-interrogation center at Guantánamo Bay receives the first of an eventual 550 “unlawful combatants” from the war in Afghanistan and the broader war on terror. Guantánamo is chosen because it is not officially U.S. soil and thus provides a rationale for denying detainees protections under American and international law, creating a “legal black hole.”
Jack Goldsmith, legal adviser at the Department of Defense and later head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel: After 9/11 the administration faced two sharply conflicting imperatives. The first was fear of another attack. This permeated the administration. Everyone felt it. And it led to the doctrine of pre-emption, which has many guises, but basically means that you can’t wait for the usual amounts of information before acting on a threat because it may be too late. They were really scared. They were afraid of what they didn’t know. They were very afraid they didn’t have the tools to meet the threat. And they had this extraordinary sense of responsibility—that they would be responsible for the next attack. They really thought of it as having blood on their hands, and that they’d be forgiven once but not twice.
On the other hand, there was a countervailing imperative, and that was the law, because there had grown up since the 70s—for a lot of good reasons—some extraordinary restrictions on presidential power and presidential war power, many of them embodied in criminal laws, many of them vague or uncertain, never having been applied before, certainly none of them ever applied in this new context. And there was enormous legal uncertainty about how far we could go.
John Bellinger III, legal adviser to the National Security Council, and later to the secretary of state: The Department of Justice often was the decisive voice on detainee matters, but the Justice Department really never lived up to its name. It was not the Department of Justice—it was often the Department of Litigation Risk, and they saw everything through the perspective of whether a decision might result in some kind of liability, whether someone might get sued or prosecuted. But that’s not the only role of the lawyer. The role of the lawyer is also to exercise good judgment and to look at long-term consequences, and ultimately to do what’s the ethically and morally correct thing.
January 29, 2002 In his State of the Union message, Bush invokes the specter of an “axis of evil”—Iraq, Iran, North Korea—and vows that the United States “will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.” Afghanistan remains unstable, but resources and attention are shifting elsewhere.
Bob Graham, Democratic senator from Florida and chairman of the Senate intelligence committee: In February of ‘02, I had a visit at Central Command, in Tampa, and the purpose was to get a briefing on the status of the war in Afghanistan. At the end of the briefing, the commanding officer, Tommy Franks, asked me to go into his office for a private meeting, and he told me that we were no longer fighting a war in Afghanistan and, among other things, that some of the key personnel, particularly some special-operations units and some equipment, specifically the Predator unmanned drone, were being withdrawn in order to get ready for a war in Iraq.
That was my first indication that war in Iraq was as serious a possibility as it was, and that it was in competition with Afghanistan for matériel. We didn’t have the resources to do both successfully and simultaneously.
February 7, 2002 Bush issues an executive order denying any protections of the Geneva Conventions to Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees. The order comes after an intense behind-the-scenes battle pitting the State Department against the Justice Department, the Defense Department, and the Office of the Vice President.
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: Based on what the secretary and [State Department legal adviser] Will Taft were telling me, I think they both were convinced that they had managed to get the president’s attention with regard to what they thought was the governing document, the Geneva Conventions. I really think it came as a surprise when the February memo was put out. And that memo, of course, was constructed by Addington, and I’m told it was blessed by one or two people in O.L.C. [Office of Legal Counsel]. And then it was given to Cheney, and Cheney gave it to the president. The president signed it.
Jack Goldsmith, legal adviser at the Department of Defense and later head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel: To conclude that the Geneva Conventions don’t apply—it doesn’t follow from that, or at least it shouldn’t, that detainees don’t get certain rights and certain protections. There are all sorts of very, very good policy reasons why they should have been given a rigorous legal regime whereby we could legitimatize their detention. For years there was just a giant hole, a legal hole of minimal protections, minimal law.
February 14, 2002 The Bush administration proposes a Clear Skies Initiative, which relaxes air-quality and emissions standards. This is followed by a Healthy Forests Initiative, which opens up national forests to increased logging. Climate change becomes a forbidden subject.
Rick Piltz, senior associate, U.S. Climate Change Science Program: At the beginning of the Bush administration, Ari Patrinos, a very senior science official who had run the Department of Energy’s climate-change research program for many years, and a half-dozen high-ranking federal science officials were brought together and told to explain the science and help develop policy options for a proactive climate-change policy for the administration. They moved into an office downtown, and they worked very hard and were briefing at the Cabinet level, in the White House. Cheney was there, Colin Powell was there, Commerce Secretary [Don] Evans was there. They were making the case on climate change.
And one day they were told: Take it down, pack it up, go back to your offices—we don’t need you anymore.
May 6, 2002 The effort to create an International Criminal Court, to which the United States and more than a hundred other nations have signed on, encounters a setback when Bush withdraws American participation by “unsigning” the I.C.C. treaty.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo, prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: When I started at the I.C.C., in 2003, the Bush administration appeared hostile towards the court, as though we were radioactive. But what started with hostility over time became less so. All of a sudden the court was seen to be useful. On Darfur, for example, the administration could have vetoed the Security Council vote referring Darfur to my office. They didn’t. That was a big change. But I’ve kept a respectful distance. They don’t give me intelligence. They cannot control me. When I received the U.N. Commission report on Darfur, inside the boxes there was a sealed envelope which appeared to contain classified U.S. information. We returned it to the U.S. Embassy, without opening it.
Ironically, the hostility has helped in my dealings with countries that might otherwise perceive me to be in the pocket of the Americans. It has been one positive factor in the Arab and African worlds. The U.S. distance from the court seems to have had the very opposite effect of that intended—of strengthening it.
June 1, 2002 In a graduation speech at West Point, Bush advances a new strategic doctrine of pre-emption, stating that the United States reserves the right to use force to deal with threats before they “fully materialize.” Preparations for war with Iraq are not yet publicly acknowledged, but earlier in the spring, as Condoleezza Rice discusses diplomatic initiatives involving Iraq with several senators, Bush pokes his head into the room and says, “Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
Photograph by Annie Leibovitz.
July 23, 2002 Senior British defense, diplomatic, and intelligence officials meet in London to discuss the American position on war with Iraq. An account of the meeting, known as the Downing Street Memo, is drawn up by one of the participants, but remains secret for several years. In the meeting, Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, gives an assessment of his recent talks in Washington: “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Bob Graham, Democratic senator from Florida and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee: I asked George [Tenet, the C.I.A. director], What did the national intelligence estimate [N.I.E.] that we had done on Iraq tell us about what would be the conditions during the period of combat, what would be the conditions post-combat, and what was the basis of our information on the weapons of mass destruction? Tenet said, We’ve never done an N.I.E.
Paul Pillar, national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia at the C.I.A.: The makers of the war had no appetite for and did not request any such assessments [about the aftermath of war]. Anybody who wanted an intelligence-community assessment on any of this stuff would’ve come through me, and I got no requests at all.
As to why this was the case, I would give two general answers. Number one was just extreme hubris and self-confidence. If you truly believe in the power of free economics and free politics, and their attractiveness to all populations of the world, and their ability to sweep away all manner of ills, then you tend not to worry about these things so much.
The other major reason is that, given the difficulty of mustering public support for something as extreme as an offensive war, any serious discussion inside the government about the messy consequences, the things that could go wrong, would complicate even further the job of selling the war.
August 1, 2002 A secret memorandum prepared by Justice Department lawyers Jay Bybee and John Yoo sets out the limits on coercive interrogation by U.S. government officials of those captured in the war on terror, finding that there are essentially none. The memo abandons international constraints and raises the threshold of what constitutes “torture.”
September 8, 2002 In a television interview, Condoleezza Rice builds the case against Saddam Hussein by invoking the nuclear threat. “We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon.… We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” This assertion is echoed by Vice President Cheney, even though Iraq’s nuclear capability is widely questioned by numerous experts.
Sir Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the United Nations and later the British special representative in Iraq: When I arrived in New York, in July 1998, it was quite clear to me that all the members of the Security Council, including the United States, knew well that there was no current work being done on any kind of nuclear-weapons capability in Iraq.
It was, therefore, extraordinary to me that later on in this saga there should have been any kind of hint that Iraq had a current capability. Of course, there were worries that Iraq might try, if the opportunity presented itself, to reconstitute that capability. And therefore we kept a very close eye, as governments do in their various ways, on Iraq trying to get hold of nuclear base materials, such as uranium or uranium yellowcake, or trying to get the machinery that was necessary to develop nuclear-weapons-grade material.
We were watching this the whole time. There was never any proof, never any hard intelligence, that they had succeeded in doing that. And the American system was entirely aware of this.
September 15, 2002 In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the assistant to the president for economic policy, Lawrence Lindsey, estimates the cost of a war with Iraq to be in the neighborhood of $100 billion to $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, quickly revises the figure downward to $50 billion to $60 billion, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld calls Lindsey’s estimate “baloney.” Lindsey is fired in December. Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill is dismissed the same day. Years later, an analysis by Nobel-laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes will estimate the cost of the Iraq war to be $3 trillion.
Ari Fleischer, Bush’s first White House press secretary: What happened was the president made the point to the staff that, if America ever goes to war, we go to war because it’s the right thing to do regardless of the cost. That is a moral issue, and so we should not be talking to anybody about how much it may or may not cost; the whole issue is, do you or don’t you go? And if you go, you pay whatever the cost is to win. The day the president dismissed Larry and Secretary O’Neill, I remember he said to me that he noticed that morning that everybody in the Situation Room was sitting up a bit straighter.
October 10–11, 2002 By an overwhelming vote, and at a politically delicate moment, Congress passes the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution, which gives the president a free hand to take military action. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. weapons inspector, invited to the White House before the vote, has as yet found no evidence that Iraq has an active program to produce biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.
Bob Graham: Unlike the first George Bush, who had purposefully put off the vote on the Persian Gulf War until after the elections of 1990—we voted in January of 1991—here they put the vote in October of 2002, three weeks before a congressional election. I think there were people who were up for election who didn’t want, within a few days of meeting the voters, to be at such stark opposition with the president.
Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq: The most remarkable thing was the talk that we had with the vice president before we were taken to Mr. Bush. To our surprise, we had no idea we would be taken to Mr. Cheney first, but we were, and we sat down, and I thought it was more a sort of a courtesy call before we went on to President Bush.
Much of it was a fairly neutral discussion, but at one point he suddenly said that you must realize that we will not hesitate to discredit you in favor of disarmament. It was a little cryptic. That was how I remembered it, and I think that’s also how Mohamed [El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who was present], remembered it. I was a little perplexed, because it was a total threat, after all, to talk about the discrediting of us. Later, when I reflected on it, I think what he wanted to say was that if you guys don’t come to the right conclusion, then we will take care of the disarmament.
November 4, 2002 Defying precedent, the Republicans make decisive gains in the midterm elections; the White House interprets the results as an across-the-board green light. In an interview withEsquire released in December, John J. Dilulio Jr., the former head of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, complains that the “compassionate conservative” agenda is dead and that politics alone drives the White House.
David Kuo, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: I happened to be in the stairwell of the West Wing when the president was walking down, and he goes, Hey! He goes, Dilulio piece. He goes, Is this true? Is this … I mean, is this stuff … is this, is he right? What the hell’s goin’ on?
And whoever was with him at the time—it was probably Andy Card, Andy and Karl—they were like, Oh, no, no, no, no, no, it’s fine. We’ll get back to it. That afternoon we get a call from Josh Bolten, who was at the time the head of domestic policy, saying, O.K., we need to have a “compassion” meeting.
I’ll never forget the discussion—we’re sitting around the table, and someone says, I know what we should do. We should tackle chronic homelessness. I hear there are like 15,000 homeless people in America.
What can you say to that?
November 25, 2002 The Department of Homeland Security comes into being. The new department, an amalgam of nearly two dozen existing agencies, soon emerges as perhaps the most dysfunctional and unwieldy of all the federal departments. By presidential directive D.H.S. issues a daily color-coded advisory of “threat conditions.” Its secretary, Tom Ridge, later acknowledges that the alerts were sometimes heightened under pressure from the administration.
Michael Brown, director of fema, which becomes part of the Department of Homeland Security: Bush’s strength was—he would say to everybody in the room, Tell me what the problem is and I’ll make a decision. The detrimental aspect of that is the president would make a decision and in his mind it was over with. There was no changing course. The blinders are on. You had to work incredibly hard to get back in front of that line of sight to say, We need to take a different tack here.
Photograph by Annie Leibovitz.
I’m asked at one point for my input, and I basically say we should not have a Department of Homeland Security, because it’s going to be disruptive to create it in the midst of all of these things going on. [Later,] I remember being in the car alone with Bush, where I’m talking to him about the department and how it’s not working and how we really need to make some changes. And while I thought he may have been listening, I quickly came to the conclusion that he wasn’t, because his answer to it was: Well, we’re bringing in a new leader, a new secretary or deputy secretary, and he’ll be able to fix all these things.
He had made the decision, and we’re going forward. And if things aren’t working, we don’t need to revisit the original decision. We’ll just put somebody else in there.
David Kuo: Every time you had a conversation with him, he would make it clear the subject was important. Bush would say, I care about this. Let’s get this done. But it was like a ship whose wheel is not attached to the rudder.
December 2, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld signs off on a memo from the Defense Department’s legal counsel, Jim Haynes, permitting the use of aggressive interrogation techniques at Guantánamo, including stress positions, isolation, and sleep deprivation. Rumsfeld writes on the memo, “I stand for 8–10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?” The memo is eventually rescinded, after strenuous objections from the general counsel of the Navy, Alberto Mora, among others, but policies and practices continue to be influenced by the philosophy outlined in the earlier Bybee-Yoo “torture memo.”
Alberto Mora, navy general counsel: When I saw the [Haynes] memorandum, I thought this was all a mistake. My assumption going into my first meeting with Haynes was that once these mistakes were pointed out the authorization would be instantaneously reversed. So I had a meeting with Jim, in which I indicated that I felt the document authorized abusive treatment that included torture. Jim’s instantaneous response was that, no, it didn’t. I asked him to think carefully about this, and I took him through the analysis that this could be torture, that it would necessarily have legal repercussions, including to the military-commission process, and could also engender liability for all individuals associated with this process.
I spent about an hour with him, and my sense was that he’d be picking up the phone and calling the secretary to have those authorizations rescinded. The next day I flew to Miami for Christmas vacation, thinking the problem was solved. I then got a phone call saying that the reports of abuse were continuing. That’s when I realized that this was not a simple mistake but that, in fact, people had adopted this course of action consciously.
As soon as I got back, I requested a second meeting with Haynes, in which I took him through some of the same reasoning but in much greater detail. I also discussed much more heavily the potential liability of individuals involved in authorizing these kinds of techniques. I pointed out Secretary Rumsfeld’s handwritten notation at the bottom of the authorization page. I said, This may be a joke, but it would not be regarded as a joke potentially by a prosecuting attorney or a plaintiff’s attorney, and I said that this would lead to very painful cross-examination of Secretary Rumsfeld on the stand. The implication or allegation by opposing counsel would be that this constituted a wink and a nod to the interrogators. I closed by saying, Protect your client—thinking that was the most powerful message one attorney could deliver to another.
John Bellinger III, legal adviser to the National Security Council and later to the secretary of state: One of the great tragedies for this administration has been the damage caused by its detainee policies—the decision to set up Guantánamo without the involvement of the international community, the issuance of the president’s executive order creating military commissions, aspects of the C.I.A. interrogation program, the conduct of certain renditions [sending detainees to other countries for interrogation], and the decision about the inapplicability of the Geneva Conventions. The most serious error is not any of these decisions individually or even collectively, but the administration’s inability to change course as the magnitude of the problems caused by these decisions became apparent.
January 28, 2003 Bush delivers his State of the Union message and continues to make the case for war with Iraq. The speech includes the assertion, later shown to be based on a crude forgery, that Saddam Hussein has “recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The administration had been warned that the information was unreliable.
Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq: I think [Tony] Blair, whom I admire for many things and respect for many things, but when he went out and he talked about the Iraqis’ being able to use weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, now that went much too far.
There was another example, and that was the famous case of the alleged contract between Iraq and Niger for the import of yellowcake, uranium oxide. I was very curious about that, because I could not see why Iraq should at this stage, in 2002, want to import yellowcake. That’s a long, long way from the enriched nuclear materials they can use in a bomb. I didn’t suspect that there was a forgery behind it.
January 31, 2003 Bush meets at the White House with Tony Blair. A secret account of the meeting, written by Sir David Manning, Blair’s chief foreign-policy adviser and later ambassador to Washington, will become public three years later. The administration’s public stance is that it hopes to avoid war with Iraq. In the meeting, however, Bush and Blair agree on a start date for the war, irrespective of the outcome of U.N. inspections: March 10. Bush proposes that a pretext for war might be provided if an aircraft were painted with U.N. colors and sent in low over Iraq, in the hope that it would draw fire. According to the memo, Bush also “thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups” in Iraq once Saddam was removed from power.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon belatedly turns attention to planning for the aftermath of war.
Jay Garner, retired army general and first overseer of the U.S. administration and reconstruction of Iraq: When I went to see Rumsfeld at the end of January, I said, O.K., I’ll do this for the next few months for you. I said, you know, Let me tell you something, Mr. Secretary. George Marshall started in 1942 working on a 1945 problem. You’re starting in February working on what’s probably a March or April problem. And he said, I know, but we have to do the best with the time that we have. So that kind of frames everything.
February 5, 2003 Colin Powell appears before the United Nations Security Council to present evidence that Iraq is actively seeking to make or acquire weapons of mass destruction. In the ensuing months, it will emerge that, although Powell was unaware of the fact, many of his claims are unfounded.
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and vice-chancellor: I spoke over and over and over with Colin Powell. He always looked, I don’t know, not at me, but I could see the pain in his eyes. These are very powerful questions, he used to say. I understood. It meant: I have serious problems inside the administration.
Hans Blix: In March 2003, when the invasion took place, we could not have stood up and said, There is nothing, because to prove the negative is really not possible. What you can do is to say that we have performed 700 inspections in some 500 different sites, and we have found nothing, and we are ready to continue.
If we had been allowed to continue a couple of months, we would have been able to go to all of the some hundred sites suggested to us, and since there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction, that’s what we would have reported. And then I think that, at that stage, certainly the intelligence ought to have drawn the conclusion that their evidence was poor.
I now feel sorry for Colin Powell. He was given the material by the C.I.A., and we read in the newspapers how he threw out a lot of it. But he retained some. And then he came to the Security Council, and, of course, in a way, this was to tell the world that, Look, this is what we’ve found. We have the means to do it. The inspectors are very good boys and nice, and we listen to them, but they haven’t seen this, and this is what there is.
February 25, 2003 General Eric Shinseki, the army chief of staff, tells a congressional hearing that “something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” will be required to mount a successful occupation of Iraq. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz publicly rebukes Shinseki, stating that the general’s estimate is “wildly off the mark.” Shinseki is forced to retire early.
Jay Garner: When Shinseki said, Hey, it’s going to take 300,000 or 400,000 soldiers, they crucified him. They called me up the day after that, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. They called me the next day and they said, Did you see what Shinseki said? And I said yes. And they said, Well, that can’t be possible. And I said, Well, let me give you the only piece of empirical data I have. In 1991, I owned 5 percent of the real estate in Iraq, and I had 22,000 trigger pullers. And on any day I never had enough. So you can take 5 percent—you can take 22,000 and multiply that by 20. Hey, here’s probably the ballpark, and I didn’t have Baghdad. And they said, Thank you very much. So I got up and left.
March 19, 2003 The Iraq war begins. Two weeks of “shock and awe” bombardment herald the invasion by ground forces. U.S. and British troops make up 90 percent of the “international coalition,” which includes modest support from other countries. The defeat of Iraqi forces is a foregone conclusion, but within days of the occupation Baghdad is beset by looting that coalition forces do nothing to stop. Rumsfeld dismisses the breakdown of civil order with the explanation “Stuff happens.” Kenneth Adelman, a Rumsfeld-appointed member of a Pentagon advisory board, and initially a supporter of the war, later confronts the defense secretary.
Kenneth Adelman, a member of Donald Rumsfeld’s advisory Defense Policy Board: So he says, It might be best if you got off the Defense Policy Board. You’re very negative. I said, I am negative, Don. You’re absolutely right. I’m not negative about our friendship. But I think your decisions have been abysmal when it really counted.
Start out with, you know, when you stood up there and said things—“Stuff happens.” I said, That’s your entry in Bartlett’s. The only thing people will remember about you is “Stuff happens.” I mean, how could you say that? “This is what free people do.” This is not what free people do. This is what barbarians do. And I said, Do you realize what the looting did to us? It legitimized the idea that liberation comes with chaos rather than with freedom and a better life. And it demystified the potency of American forces. Plus, destroying, what, 30 percent of the infrastructure.
I said, You have 140,000 troops there, and they didn’t do jack shit. I said, There was no order to stop the looting. And he says, There was an order. I said, Well, did you give the order? He says, I didn’t give the order, but someone around here gave the order. I said, Who gave the order?
So he takes out his yellow pad of paper and he writes down—he says, I’m going to tell you. I’ll get back to you and tell you. And I said, I’d like to know who gave the order, and write down the second question on your yellow pad there. Tell me why 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq disobeyed the order. Write that down, too.
And so that was not a successful conversation.
__Sir Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the United Nations and later the British special representative in Iraq:__The administration of Iraq never recovered. It was a vacuum in security that became irremediable, at least until the surge of 2007. And to that extent, four years were not only wasted but allowed to take on the most terrible cost because of that lack of planning, lack of resources put in on the ground. And I see that lack of planning as residing in the responsibility of the Pentagon, which had taken charge, the office of the secretary of defense, with the authority of the vice president and the president, obviously, standing over that department of government.
*May 1, 2003 Aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S.*Abraham Lincoln, under a banner reading, mission accomplished, Bush proclaims that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” Meanwhile, decisions have been made that will inadvertently prolong major combat operations, chief among them the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. The responsibility for this decision, which is promulgated by the new U.S. administrator in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, remains unclear.
Jay Garner, retired army general and first overseer of the U.S. administration and reconstruction of Iraq: My plan was to not disband the Iraqi Army but to keep the majority of it and use them. And the reason for that is we needed them, because, number one, there were never enough people there for security. I mean, I’ll give you an example. My first day in Baghdad, I went to see Scott Wallace, who was the corps commander, the V Corps commander, and I said, Scott, I need a lot of help here on security. And he said, Let me show you my map. I walked over to the map. And he had 256 sites that day he was guarding that he had never planned on. He just didn’t have the force structure to do it.
So we said, O.K., we’ll bring the army back. Our plan was to bring back about 250,000 of them. And I briefed Rumsfeld. He agreed. Wolfowitz agreed. Condoleezza Rice agreed. George [Tenet] agreed. Briefed the president on it. He agreed. Everybody agreed.
So when that decision [to disband] was made, I was stunned.
Charles Duelfer, U.N. and U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq: One Iraqi colonel told me, You know, our planning before the war was that we assumed that you guys couldn’t take casualties, and that was obviously wrong. I looked at him and said, What makes you think that was wrong? He goes, Well, if you didn’t want to take casualties, you would have never made that decision about the army.
May 27, 2003 Bush signs legislation authorizing the President’s Emergency Plan for aids Relief (pepfar). He visits Africa, a main focus of the legislation, soon thereafter. pepfar commits some $15 billion for aids prevention and treatment over a period of five years. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof concludes, “Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did.”
Michael Merson, M.D., international aids researcher, who has evaluated the relief program: Look, pepfar is the largest commitment ever made by any nation for a global health activity that’s dedicated to a single disease. I mean, that’s just not disputable. It has a prevention component, a treatment component, and a care component, but treatment is the centerpiece. The last number I’ve seen is that this initiative has led to treatment of more than 1.7 million people, most of them in Africa. Now, that’s not all the people who need treatment, but it’s a huge amount. pepfar at least tripled our aid flow to Africa—I’m talking about total aid flow.
August 19, 2003 A month after Bush indicates little concern about an insurgency in Iraq with the remark “Bring ‘em on,” a car bomb in Baghdad destroys the headquarters of the United Nations mission, killing the U.N. chief, Sergio Vieira de Mello. President Bush receives the news of the bombing while playing golf, and by his own account decides at that moment to give up the game in solidarity with troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan (although two months later he plays a round at Andrews Air Force Base). The U.N.-headquarters bombing is seen as the start of the full-blown insurgency.
Jay Garner: I think a lot of the problem the president had is: people around him were doing what he said, and nobody was doing the analytical questioning of the things we were doing where you could do all the puts and takes and say, O.K., Mr. President, here’s all the pros to do this and here’s all the cons to do this, and here’s the likely outcome. Now, let’s make a decision.
I don’t think that ever happened. I never saw anything like that. And I think the Defense Department was enamored with what they felt they’d accomplished in Afghanistan with a very small force of basically special-ops guys and the air force. And they looked at it as a high-tech thing. Nation building is a low-tech thing. Get a whole bunch of you. Roll up your sleeves. Get a bunch of shovels, and then everybody goes out and busts their ass every day. We just didn’t have enough soldiers to do that.
January 23, 2004 David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, resigns his position, affirming his belief that no W.M.D. stockpiles will be found in Iraq; the following week he discusses his conclusions at the White House. Nine months later his successor, Charles Duelfer, will conclude officially that Iraq not only did not possess W.M.D. but did not have an active program in place to develop them. The structural supports of Powell’s U.N. presentation begin to crumble.
Photograph by Henry Leutwyler/Contour/ Getty Images.
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: Well, [Powell] got a telephone call each time a pillar fell. It was either John [McLaughlin, deputy C.I.A. director], calling Rich [Armitage], and Rich telling him, or it was George [Tenet] or John calling the secretary. And I remember this vividly because he would walk through my door, and his face would grow more morose each time, and he’d say, Another pillar just fell. I said, Which one this time? And, of course, the last one was the mobile biological labs.
Finally, when that call came, the secretary came through the door and said, The last pillar has just collapsed. The mobile biological labs don’t exist. Turned around and went back into his office.
David Kay, chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq: As we turned to the trailers, it was probably—I guess the single biggest shock I had during the entire inspection process, because I’d been powerfully moved by Powell’s statement to the Council. Well, when we started tearing it apart, we discovered it was not based on several sources. It was based on one source, and it was an individual [code-named Curveball] held by German intelligence. They had denied the U.S. the right to directly interview him. And they only passed summaries—and really not very good ones—of their interrogations with him. The Germans had refused to pass us his name even.
As you delved into his character and his claims, none of them bore any truth. The case just fell apart.
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and vice-chancellor: I was astonished that the Americans used Curveball, really astonished. This was our stuff. But they presented it not in the way we knew it. They presented it as a fact, and not as the way an intelligence assessment is—could be, but could also be a big lie. We don’t know.
April 13, 2004 At a press conference Bush is asked by John Dickerson ofTimeto name the biggest mistake he has made since 9/11. Bush is unable to come up with an answer. He replies, “I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it.”
David Kay: He has a tremendous sense of calm and certitude about the positions he takes, and is unusually doubt-free about them. Most people, when they make monumental decisions, understand that they’re doing it under conditions of great uncertainty, and are not fully at the time really able to understand what the consequences might be—and that frightens them, or at least they have concern, disquietude about it. This president has none of that, as far as I can tell.
April 28, 2004 A televised report on60 Minutes IIreveals widespread abuse and humiliation of detainees by U.S. military personnel and private contractors at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, dating back to October 2003 and known to the Defense Department since January.
Kenneth Adelman, a member of Donald Rumsfeld’s advisory Defense Policy Board: I said to Rumsfeld, Well, the way you handled Abu Ghraib I thought was abysmal. He says, What do you mean? I say, It broke in January of—what was that, ‘04? Yeah, ‘04. And you didn’t do jack shit till it was revealed in the spring. He says, That’s totally unfair. I didn’t have the information. I said, What information did you have? You had the information that we had done these—and there were photos. You knew about the photos, didn’t you? He says, I didn’t see the photos. I couldn’t get those photos. A lot of stuff happens around here. I don’t follow every story. I say, Excuse me, but I thought in one of the testimonies you said you told the president about Abu Ghraib in January. And if it was big enough to tell the president, wasn’t it big enough to do something about? He says, Well, I couldn’t get the photos. I say, You’re secretary of defense. Somebody in the building who works for you has photos, and for five months you can’t get photos—hello?
Lawrence Wilkerson: The twin pressures were from Rumsfeld, and they were: Produce intelligence, and the gloves are off. That’s the communication that went down to the field.
Matthew Dowd, Bush’s pollster and chief strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign: When Abu Ghraib happened, I was like, We’ve got to fire Rumsfeld. Like if we’re the “accountability president,” we haven’t really done this. We don’t veto any bills. We don’t fire anybody. I was like, Well, this is a disaster, and we’re going to hold some National Guard colonel responsible? This guy’s got to get fired.
For an M.B.A. president, he got the M.B.A. 101 stuff down, which is, you know, you don’t have to do everything. Let other people do it. But M.B.A. 201 is: Hold people accountable.
Bill Graham, Canada’s foreign minister and later defense minister: We were there in Washington for a G-8 meeting, and Colin suddenly phoned us all up and said, We’re going to the White House this morning. Now, this is curious, because normally the heads of government don’t give a damn about foreign ministers. We all popped in a bus and went over and were cordially received by Colin and President Bush. The president sat down to explain that, you know, this terrible news had come out about Abu Ghraib and how disgusting it was. The thrust of his presentation was that this was a terrible aberration; it was un-American conduct. This was not American.
Joschka Fischer was one of the people that said, Mr. President, if the atmosphere at the top is such that it encourages or allows people to believe that they can behave this way, this is going to be a consequence. The president’s reaction was: This is un-American. Americans don’t do this. People will realize Americans don’t do this.
The problem for the United States, and indeed for the free world, is that because of this—Guantánamo, and the “torture memos” from the White House, which we were unaware of at that time—people around the world don’t believe that anymore. They say, No, Americans are capable of doing such things and have done them, all the while hypocritically criticizing the human-rights records of others.
Alberto Mora, navy general counsel: I will tell you this: I will tell you that General Anthony Taguba, who investigated Abu Ghraib, feels now that the proximate cause of Abu Ghraib were the O.L.C. memoranda that authorized abusive treatment. And I will also tell you that there are general-rank officers who’ve had senior responsibility within the Joint Staff or counterterrorism operations who believe that the number-one and number-two leading causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq have been, number one, Abu Ghraib, number two, Guantánamo, because of the effectiveness of these symbols in helping recruit jihadists into the field and combat against American soldiers.
July 22, 2004 The bipartisan 9/11 commission—whose creation was fiercely opposed by the administration—issues its report. It provides a detailed reconstruction of events leading up to the attacks, and of the attacks themselves; an earlier staff report found “no credible evidence” of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. The final report also determines that many warning signs of an impending attack were ignored.
Lawrence Wilkerson: John [Bellinger] and I had to work on the 9/11-commission testimony of Condi. Condi was not gonna do it, not gonna do it, not gonna do it, and then all of a sudden she realized she better do it. That was an appalling enterprise. We would cherry-pick things to make it look like the president had been actually concerned about al-Qaeda. We cherry-picked things to make it look as if the vice president and others, Secretary Rumsfeld and all, had been.
They didn’t give a shit about al-Qaeda. They had priorities. The priorities were lower taxes, ballistic missiles, and the defense thereof.
Lee Hamilton, former Indiana congressman and vice-chair of the 9/11 commission: Intelligence reform was our big recommendation. The principal conclusion we reached was that the 15 or 16 agencies of the intelligence community did not share information and that there had to be some mechanism put in place to force the sharing of information. In the intelligence business, you don’t get, or you usually don’t get, information saying that the terrorists are going to strike at nine in the morning in the World Trade towers in New York City on September 11. You get bits and pieces of information that have to be put together.
We knew, for example—when I say we, I mean the F.B.I. in Minneapolis knew—that those guys in flight-training school were more interested in flying the airplane than they were in taking off and landing. They knew that. Who didn’t know it? The director of the F.B.I. didn’t know it. The director of the C.I.A. did know it. His response was that it was none of his business. Technically correct, because his business is foreign intelligence.
That’s one of many, many examples.
November 2, 2004 Election Day. Bush defeats Kerry by a margin of three million popular votes and 35 electoral votes. In a press conference two days later Bush says, “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I now intend to spend it. It is my style.”
Mark McKinnon, chief campaign media adviser to George W. Bush: The interesting thing about both Bush campaigns is that they strategically defied conventional wisdom and turned it on its head. In 1999, on the old “right track, wrong track” question, which we ask on every poll—the reason we ask it is because it determines whether or not it’s a change environment or a status-quo environment—in 1999, the “right track” was 65 percent or 70 percent, which under conventional wisdom would indicate that it was a great environment for the Democrats and for Al Gore. The strategic challenge we had was—we were in the position of trying to argue everything’s great, so it’s time for a change, right?
Flash forward to 2004. It’s just the opposite. This time, the “wrong track” is like 65 or 70 percent. We’re in a very difficult war, uncertain economy, and so now we’re in the strategic position of saying, you know, everything’s all screwed up. Stay the course. We’re all f’d up. Stay the course.
November 15, 2004 Colin Powell announces his resignation as secretary of state. He is succeeded by Condoleezza Rice, who will in time have limited success charting a new direction on issues such as Iran and North Korea.
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: I’m not sure even to this day that he’s willing to admit to himself that he was rolled to the extent that he was. And he’s got plenty of defense to marshal because, as I told [former defense secretary] Bill Perry one time when Bill asked me to defend my boss—I said, Well, let me tell you, you wouldn’t have wanted to have seen the first Bush administration without Colin Powell. I wrote Powell a memo about six months before we were leaving, and I said, This is your legacy, Mr. Secretary: damage control. He didn’t like it much. In fact, he kind of handed it back to me and told me I could put it in the burn basket.
But I knew he understood what I was saying. You saved the China relationship. You saved the transatlantic relationship and each component thereof—France, Germany. I mean, he held Joschka Fischer’s hand under the table on occasions when Joschka would say something like, You know, your president called my boss a fucking asshole. His task became essentially cleaning the dogshit off the carpet in the Oval Office. And he did that rather well. But it became all-consuming.
I think the clearest indication I got that Rich [Armitage] and he both had finally awakened to the dimensions of the problem was when Rich began—I mean, I’ll be very candid—began to use language to describe the vice president’s office with me as the Gestapo, as the Nazis, and would sometimes late in the evening, when we were having a drink—would sometimes go off rather aggressively on particular characters in the vice president’s office.
Charles Duelfer, U.N. and U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq: You thought you had the dream team of foreign-policy experts, but they weren’t a team at all. Some of the wags over at the Department of Defense would call John Bolton’s office over at State the “American Interests Section.” Very funny, but it showed you how badly divided this administration had become.
Lawrence Wilkerson: The imbalance is huge. The Pentagon now gets three quarters of a trillion dollars every year and State gets $35 billion. Rumsfeld remarked one time, I lose more money than you get. He has two and a half million men. State is not even a combat brigade, you know?
Bill Graham, Canada’s foreign minister and later defense minister: We came out of our meeting, and our nato ambassador said, “Oh, Mr. Rumsfeld was really quite cordial and animated today.” And [one of our generals], his remark was something like: Oh, he’s sort of like, it’s like a snake on a hot summer day sleeping on the road in the sun. If an eyelid flickers, you say it’s very animated.
December 26, 2004 An undersea earthquake off the western coast of Sumatra—the second-largest earthquake ever recorded—unleashes a wave of tsunamis throughout the Indian Ocean, killing more than 200,000 people. Bush orders the U.S. Navy to spearhead emergency relief efforts, which are widely praised. Distracted elsewhere, the administration’s Asian initiatives are otherwise few. There is one clear beneficiary.
Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former ambassador to the United Nations: The Chinese never said so, because they are the best geopolitical strategists in the world, but it was immediately obvious that with 9/11 the U.S.-China relationship improved. The Chinese were smart. They didn’t put any real obstacles in the way of action in Afghanistan, and even if they strongly opposed the war in Iraq, they did so in a way that minimized the difficulties for the U.S. I saw that firsthand, in the period after the invasion was over, when the U.S. needed a Security Council resolution to get the oil sales flowing again. They got the resolution, and I remember asking a U.S. diplomat which country had been most helpful in getting the resolution passed. China, he replied. That 2003 resolution was a double win for the Chinese leaders: they obtained valuable political goodwill from the Bush administration, which translated into gains on the Taiwan issues, and they helped to ensure that American troops would remain bogged down in Iraq for a long time.
The Chinese have been brilliant in playing the Bush years. Asia is one part of the world where many will see George Bush in a positive light, although not necessarily for the reasons he may have wished.
February 2, 2005 In his State of the Union address, Bush starts spending his political capital with a plan to take the Social Security system in the direction of privatization by allowing individuals to divert payments to their own retirement accounts. The partial-privatization scheme is widely opposed—the public sees reliable benefits at risk—and in the end the proposal goes nowhere. Meanwhile, despite significant turnout by Evangelicals in the election, faith-based initiatives make little headway on the president’s agenda.
David Kuo, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: After the 2004 election they cut the White House faith-based staff by 30 percent, 40 percent, because it became clear that it had served its purpose.
There’s this idea that the Bush White House was dominated by religious conservatives and catered to the needs of religious conservatives. But what people miss is that religious conservatives and the Republican Party have always had a very uneasy relationship. The reality in the White House is—if you look at the most senior staff—you’re seeing people who aren’t personally religious and have no particular affection for people who are religious-right leaders. Now, at the end of the day, that’s easy to understand, because most of the people who are religious-right leaders are not easy to like. It’s that old Gandhi thing, right? I might actually be a Christian myself, except for the action of Christians.
And so in the political-affairs shop in particular, you saw a lot of people who just rolled their eyes at everyone from Rich Cizik, who is one of the heads of the National Association of Evangelicals, to James Dobson, to basically every religious-right leader that was out there, because they just found them annoying and insufferable. These guys were pains in the butt who had to be accommodated.
June 7, 2005 Documents emerge indicating that the decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, in 2001, was influenced by the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group with ties to Exxon. One State Department letter to the coalition states: “Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you.” Several days later, Philip Cooney, a former American Petroleum Institute lobbyist and the chief of staff of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality, resigns after it is revealed that he had edited government reports to downplay the threat of climate change. Cooney takes a job at Exxon.
Rick Piltz, senior associate, U.S. Climate Change Science Program: In the fall of 2002, I was doing something I’d been doing for years, which was developing and editing the [Climate Change Science Program’s] annual report to Congress. And it had been drafted with input from dozens of federal scientists and reviewed and vetted and revised and vetted some more.
And then it had to go for a White House clearance. It came back to us over the fax machine with Phil Cooney’s hand markup on it. I flipped through it and saw right away what he was doing. You don’t need to do a huge amount of re-writing to make something say something different; you just need to change a word, change a phrase, cross out a sentence, add some adjectives. And what he was doing was, he was passing a screen over the report to introduce uncertainty language into statements about global warming. The political motivation of it was obvious.
June 24, 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is elected president of Iran, a country whose regional sway has been enhanced by the implosion of neighboring Iraq under U.S. occupation. Iran steps up its efforts to enrich uranium, and Bush states more than once that he will not rule out the use of force if Iran seeks to develop nuclear weapons.
Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and vice-chancellor: The big problem was that the administration was in a permanent state of denial—that they are doing the job for Tehran. That’s another irony, a very tragic one. Because if you look to the basic parameters of Iran’s capability or strategic strength, this is not a superpower—they’re far from a superpower. They never could have achieved such a level of dominance and influence if they would have had to rely only on their own resources and skills. America pushed Iran in that way.
I was invited to a conference in Saudi Arabia on Iraq, and a Saudi said to me, Look, Mr. Fischer, when President Bush wants to visit Baghdad, it’s a state secret, and he has to enter the country in the middle of the night and through the back door. When President Ahmadinejad wants to visit Baghdad, it’s announced two weeks beforehand or three weeks. He arrives in the brightest sunshine and travels in an open car through a cheering crowd to downtown Baghdad. Now, tell me, Mr. Fischer, who is running the country?
Hans Blix, chief U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq: In my experience of negotiations, about the worst you can do is to humiliate the other side. And I think that this is one error that has been with the U.S.—they reject any talk with Ahmadinejad because he is someone who is regarded as a rogue and playing to the galleries and so forth.
Lee Hamilton, former Indiana congressman and vice-chair of the 9/11 commission: I was in the Congress when we began talking to members of the Supreme Soviet under the old Soviet Union. I’d get up and give a speech. My Soviet counterpart would get up and give a speech. Then we’d toast each other with vodka and say that we were for peace in the world and prosperity for our grandchildren, and then we’d go home. And we did that year after year after year. After doing it 10 or 15 years, we put aside the speeches and we began to talk with one another. That was the beginning of the thaw.
It might not take 40 years with the Iranians, but it’s going to take a long time. You’re going to have to have patience. You have to put on the table not just our agenda but their agenda as well. But the conversation is critical, and I don’t know how you deal with differences without talking to people. If you know a way to solve problems without talking to people, let me know, because I haven’t found out about it yet.
August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina, one of the most powerful hurricanes ever recorded, strikes the Gulf Coast. The storm surge breaches the levees in New Orleans; the city is flooded and eventually evacuated amid a complete breakdown of civil order. Bush flies over the city on his way back from a fund-raiser out West. Days later, visiting the destruction as relief efforts falter, the president praises the fema director, Michael Brown: “Brownie, you’re doing a heckuva job.”
Bush vows to rebuild New Orleans, and Brown, whose performance is widely criticized, is effectively fired; the president’s approval rating sinks to 39 percent. Three years after Katrina the population of New Orleans will have dropped by one-third. The city’s defenses against storms and floods will remain a vulnerable patchwork.
Dan Bartlett, White House communications director and later counselor to the president: Politically, it was the final nail in the coffin.
Matthew Dowd, Bush’s pollster and chief strategist for the 2004 presidential campaign: Katrina to me was the tipping point. The president broke his bond with the public. Once that bond was broken, he no longer had the capacity to talk to the American public. State of the Union addresses? It didn’t matter. Legislative initiatives? It didn’t matter. P.R.? It didn’t matter. Travel? It didn’t matter. I knew when Katrina—I was like, man, you know, this is it, man. We’re done.
Michael Brown, director of fema, which becomes part of the Department of Homeland Security: There were two things that went wrong with Katrina. One is personal on my part. I failed after having briefed the president about how bad things were in New Orleans and telling him that I needed the Cabinet to stand up and pay attention. When that didn’t happen, I should’ve leveled with the American public instead of sticking to those typical political talking points about—how we’re working as a team and we’re doing everything we can. I should’ve said this thing is just not working. Probably would’ve been fired anyway, but at least it would’ve caused the federal government to stand up and get off their butts.
The second thing that happened was this. [Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff inserted himself into the response, and suddenly I had this massive bureaucracy on top of me. I should have basically told Chertoff to kiss off, that I would continue to deal directly with the president. But he’s the new kid on the block and the White House deferred to him, and it gave me no choice but to work through him, which then scoped things down and caused it to just completely implode on itself.
Lee Hamilton, former Indiana congressman and vice-chair of the 9/11 commission: When you have a disaster strike, you have to have someone in charge. They didn’t have anybody in charge in New York during 9/11. They didn’t have anybody in charge in Katrina. And you get a mess.
Politically it’s a very difficult thing. You’ve got the counties, the cities, and the federal government and all the rest to work it out. Nobody wants to give up authority prior to the fact. The governor of Louisiana wants to be in charge. The governor of Mississippi wants to be in charge. The mayor of New Orleans wants to be in charge. You’ve got 50 other cities that want to be in charge. I have come to the view in these massive disasters—like Katrina or New York on 9/11—that the federal government has to be in charge because they’re the only one that has the resources to deal with the problem.
But presidents don’t like to stomp on governors and override them. When these kinds of problems are not resolved, people die.
December 6, 2005 nasa scientist James Hansen gives a lecture on climate change at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in San Francisco. nasa reacts by ordering his future public statements to be vetted in advance. Earlier in the year Rick Piltz had resigned from the Climate Change Science Program over other instances of political interference.
Rick Piltz, senior associate, U.S. Climate Change Science Program: To me, the central climate-science scandal of the Bush administration was the suppression of the National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts report. In the 1997–2000 time frame, the White House had directed the Global Change Research Program to develop a scientifically based assessment of the implications of climate change for the United States. It was a vulnerability assessment: If these projected warming models are correct, what’s going to happen? And over a period of several years a team made up of eminent scientists and other experts produced a major report. To this day, it remains the most comprehensive effort to understand the implications of global warming for the United States.
And the administration killed that study. They directed federal agencies not to make any reference to the existence of it in any further reports. Through a series of deletions it was completely excised from all program reports from 2002 onward. It was left up on a Web site. There was a lawsuit filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is an ExxonMobil-funded “denialist” group, demanding that the report be deleted from the Web. Myron Ebell of the institute said, Our goal is to make that report vanish.
*December 16, 2005*The New York Times reveals the existence of a massive warrantless-surveillance program conducted on American soil. Bush contends that the September 2001 war-on-terror authorization by Congress—“to use all necessary and appropriate force” against relevant “nations, organizations, and persons”—effectively gives the president unlimited power to act. Other kinds of snooping occur inside the administration.
Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: The Cheney team had, for example, technological supremacy over the National Security Council staff. That is to say, they could read their e-mails. I remember one particular member of the N.S.C. staff wouldn’t use e-mail because he knew they were reading it. He did a test case, kind of like the Midway battle, when we’d broken the Japanese code. He thought he’d broken the code, so he sent a test e-mail out that he knew would rile Scooter [Libby], and within an hour Scooter was in his office.
December 30, 2005 Bush signs into law the Detainee Treatment Act. The legislation was passed by Congress in order to prohibit the inhumane treatment of prisoners, but Bush appends a “signing statement” laying out his own interpretation and indicating that he is not otherwise bound by the law in any meaningful way. This is one of more than 800 instances in which Bush deploys signing statements to finesse congressional intent.
Jack Goldsmith, legal adviser at the Department of Defense and later head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel: Every president in war time and in crisis—Lincoln, Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, just to name three—exercised extraordinarily broad powers. They pushed the law and stretched the law and bent the law, and many people think they broke the law. And we’ve largely forgiven them for doing so because we think that they acted prudently in crisis. So Lincoln—he did all sorts of things after Fort Sumter. He |
Story highlights The United States calls on security forces, protesters to refrain from violence
A video of a woman's beating fuels new anger in Cairo
"Our troops do not just attack people for no reason," military spokesman says
The protests have left 11 dead and 500 wounded since Friday
Pro-democracy demonstrators battled Egyptian police for a third straight day Sunday, their anger stoked by images of a military police officer stomping on a woman's exposed stomach over the weekend.
The latest round of street clashes has left at least 10 people dead and 500 wounded since Friday, said Dr. Hisham Sheeha, a spokesman for Egypt's health ministry. An 11th person, a boy arrested Saturday, died in police custody from his wounds, the boy's attorney, Ragia Omran, said Sunday.
Cairo's stock exchange plunged amid the new turmoil, while Saturday's images of the woman's beating appeared to draw more people to the streets.
"I will go down and fight the army and retrieve the honor of this woman and those martyrs killed for the sake of Egypt's future," taxi driver Ahmed Fahmy told CNN.
The woman and a male companion were set upon by more than 20 police officers during Saturday's demonstrations in Cairo. She been dressed in a traditional robe and headscarf -- but as police clubbed her and dragged her down the street, those items were pulled away, exposing her midriff and blue brassiere in a country known for its Islamic conservatism.
Then one of the police officers aimed a foot at her upper abdomen and stamped squarely on it, while another officer jumped on the man as he lay on the pavement nearby.
"The army were like vultures who found a prey," said Mohamed Zeidan, who filmed the beating from a balcony overlooking Tahrir Square. He said after he stopped filming the beating out of fear of being discovered, "The soldiers even beat an older couple who tried to help her up."
A CNN crew that managed to escape Saturday's chaos witnessed other beatings, with children, the elderly and people on their way to work finding themselves on the end of police truncheons.
Images of the woman's treatment were splashed across the front pages of Egyptian newspapers on Sunday and zipped around the world on social media networks. But a spokesman for the military, which has ruled Egypt since February's ouster of longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak, had no apologies.
"What was woman like her doing in a conflict zone?" asked the spokesman, Maj. Mohamed Askar. "She must have participated in the attacks on the military and the Cabinet."
JUST WATCHED Egypt: Activists, security forces clash Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Egypt: Activists, security forces clash 03:05
JUST WATCHED The Arab Spring: 2011 defining moment Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The Arab Spring: 2011 defining moment 04:44
JUST WATCHED Second round begins in Egypt elections Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Second round begins in Egypt elections 02:40
Askar questioned why the woman has not come forward to identify herself.
"Our troops do not just attack people for no reason," he said. "If she had nothing to hide then she would have presented herself. Where is she?"
Two people who know her, including the man seen being beaten alongside her in the video, told CNN the woman is a political activist and student. She does not want to speak to reporters now, but a journalist who saw the incident and was beaten as well said the woman suffered "serious bruises and cuts" as a result.
"I started to run, but she froze and fell to the ground when another protester bumped into her," said Hassan Mahmoud, the journalist. "I tried to help her get up, but the soldiers were brutal even when I told them I was a journalist. They even continued to beat her after her body was exposed."
Some Egyptians questioned the authenticity of the video. Cairo businessman Shehab Ali said there was "something fishy" about it to him.
"The army officer is wearing a pair of sneakers, which is not standard military attire considering they are all in full gear and wearing flak jackets," he said. "And how come the woman is not wearing a t-shirt or anything else under the traditional Arabic robe, although it's freezing cold and winter now?"
But cabdriver Fahmy said the images brought tears to his eyes.
"I grew up admiring our army and chanted, 'The army and the people, one hand,' " he said. "This seems like the enemy."
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the reports of violence on Sunday and said her thoughts are with the families of those killed or injured.
"I urge Egyptian security forces to respect and protect the universal rights of all Egyptians, including the rights to peaceful free expression and assembly ... Those who are protesting should do so peacefully and refrain from acts of violence," she said in a statement.
Tahrir Square has been the epicenter of anti-government demonstrations since last January, when the revolt against Mubarak began. Fresh protests sprouted in November, when the generals named Mubarak-era premier Kamal Ganzouri as a caretaker prime minister until parliamentary elections are complete.
Hundreds of police and troops swept through the plaza on Saturday, barricading nearby streets, chasing off protesters and setting tents on fire. Authorities arrested 14 people Friday and 150 on Saturday, nine of them women, said Adel Saeed, the spokesman for the general prosecutor's office.
"They have been accused of inciting violence, resisting arrest, throwing Molotov cocktails and rocks at security forces, burning public property," Saeed said.
Sunday, demonstrators hurled more rocks and Molotov cocktails and police and soldiers, injuring 58 of them, Interior Ministry spokesman Gen. Marwan Mustapha said.
Protesters captured an army officer in uniform and beat him before debating whether to swap him for a demonstrator who has been captured by the military. Several newly elected lawmakers and religious leaders from Cairo's al-Azhar University tried to negotiate a truce between protesters and security forces, but failed and were asked to leave.
The Egyptian stock market went into a nosedive amid the latest violence, losing 6 billion Egyptian pounds (about $1 billion) at its opening Sunday and finishing down nearly 3.5%.
Ganzouri criticized the unrest as an "attack on revolution" Saturday and condemned protesters for throwing stones and damaging public property. He also denied that security forces were using live ammunition against demonstrators.
In addition, 213-year-old Egyptian maps and other artifacts were destroyed after a library in Cairo was set ablaze during Saturday's clashes, officials said.
The original manuscript of the "description of Egypt" and "irreplaceable maps and historical manuscripts preserved by many generations since the building of the Scientific Center in August 1798 during the French Campaign" were destroyed in the fire, Ganzouri said in a statement. |
Incredibly, in Sunday’s weekly video address, President Obama said, “Today, there is no greater threat to our planet than climate change.” I say “incredibly” because that just isn’t true – and if President Obama really believes it is, then it is time to panic. Given the state of the world and the urgent problems facing us that directly affect our prospects for peace and prosperity, global warming shouldn’t even be in the top five on the list of problems our president should be worrying about. In case this administration hasn’t noticed, a lot of the world is burning and global economic growth is so stagnant that it feeds the prospects of instability at home and abroad.
No less than Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, and Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest, wrote a piece published this week that asks “Could a U.S. response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine provoke a confrontation that leads to a U.S.-Russian war?” And not just any war, but one with “catastrophic consequences.” Russia is a nuclear power “capable of literally erasing the United States from the map.” Anything Graham Allison says has to be taken seriously.
If that’s not enough to worry you, after world economic leaders gathered in Washington last week for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, even the New York Times wrote that, “concern is rising in many quarters that the United States is retreating from global leadership just when it is needed most.” The chief economic adviser to the government of India called that concern “the single most important issue of these spring meetings.”
That New York Times piece echoed what Larry Summers, former economic adviser to President Obama, wrote earlier this month. In an op-ed in The Post (in which he didn’t mention President Obama), Summers asked if it was time for “A global wake-up call for the U.S.?” Summers implies that our allies are not only ignoring us, but wholesale abandoning the American point of view by siding with China and joining the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). He wrote that America’s “failure of strategy and tactics” in persuading allied countries to eschew the AIIB “should lead to a comprehensive review of the U.S. approach to global economics.”
Here at home, economic growth is anemic and job creation has stalled. In the Obama era, more people are on the dole, business start-ups are at an all-time low as entrepreneurs throw in the towel and the world is in more turmoil and danger than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Doug Holtz-Eakin of the American Action Forum wrote a paper, “The Growth Imperative: How Slow Growth Threatens Our Future and the American Dream,” which was published by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In it, Holtz-Eakin states that, “since 2007, trend growth in per capita income in the United States has been 0.7 percent – only one-third of the postwar average of 2.1 percent prior to 2007.”
We have a lot of problems. So why would our president say global warming is our biggest threat? Probably because it suits his ideology and his management style. The truth is, if you accept at face value everything he says about climate change, there is nothing he can do in the 20 months he has left in office that will appreciably affect the climate. This is especially true given what the president defines as “success.” He champions his agreement with China on cutting carbon pollution, but all it really means is the United States begins to raise energy costs immediately and China agrees to have a meeting in 2030 to discuss what actions they may or may not take.
President Obama is living in a world of denial. He uses global warming as a distraction to dodge the real problems we face and avoid critiques of his performance. If he did face reality, there is a lot he could do to try and juice economic growth. There is also a lot he could do to take the reins and provide American leadership around the world. He could deploy artful diplomacy to help us through some of the critical problems that the likes of Graham Allison, Larry Summers and Doug Holtz-Eakin have articulated. It may take a crisis to get the president’s attention, but let’s hope somewhere there are advisers telling him that urgent matters need his focus and global warming is simply not the priority that he wants it to be. America urgently needs the president to be the leader that the world needs today. |
The Obama administration and its “fusion centers” were working with the privately owned Federal Reserve as well as state and local law enforcement to spy on “Occupy Wall Street,” according to heavily redacted Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). While the controversial “Occupy” movement sparked serious concerns, the actions and lies of authorities detailed in the files have also raised fears over an out-of-control federal government and its central bank partner.
According to analysts, in addition to exposing numerous violations of the Constitution, the newly released documents also offer a great deal of insight into the emerging “police state” apparatus. Created under the guise of fighting “terror,” the quickly-expanding surveillance machinery is increasingly shifting its focus toward American critics of the establishment all across the political spectrum. The latest revelations, exposed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), only served to confirm that trend.
“This production, which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement,” explained PCJF Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard in a statement. “These documents show that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity. These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”
Among the greatest concerns sparked by the revelations is simply the massive scope of government spying on American citizens, even when there was little to no credible evidence indicating that the targeted individuals were involved in criminal activity — let alone terrorism. FBI field offices all across the country, for example, are exposed in the documents conspiring with local law enforcement and the “private sector” to infiltrate and spy on demonstrators, despite their own claims that the movement is actually non-violent. Even university police departments were working with the feds to spy on students.
One of the documents highlighted by critics of the surveillance state is a “Potential Criminal Activity Alert” released by the FBI’s Indianapolis division to “All Indiana State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies” on September 15, 2011. Much of the error-filled “alert” covers mundane so-called “intelligence” gathered from websites associated with the protests, which had not even been scheduled in the area yet. However, it also confirms once more that the federal government has become increasingly intertwined with state and local law enforcement agencies, which are supposed to be independent of Washington, D.C., through relatively new institutions known as “fusion centers.”
The Department of Homeland Security’s unconstitutional so-called fusion centers were created over the last decade in an effort to completely integrate state and local law enforcement into the domestic surveillance regime. There are currently more than 75 of the out-of-control “centers” operating across the country. And like virtually all lawless federal schemes, the institutions have been involved in countless scandals in recent years.
In 2009, for example, a “fusion center” in Missouri sparked a firestorm of controversy after a leaked document showed it was targeting supporters of GOP presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin as potential “domestic terrorists.” As with the “Homeland Security” bureaucracy itself, which is supposedly in charge of the institutions, a congressional report showed the “fusion centers” have not only been wasting gargantuan sums of taxpayer money, they’ve been squandering it unlawfully spying on peaceful Americans engaged in political activism.
Another player involved in the controversial scheme to federalize state and local law enforcement while engaging in lawless espionage activities is the Department of Justice, which is currently under fire for arming Mexican drug cartels as part of operation “Fast and Furious.” As The New American reported recently, leaked documents show the Justice Department was also training state and local police to equate political bumper stickers with “domestic terrorism” — even innocuous ones advocating a U.S. government withdrawal from the scandal-plagued United Nations, for example.
“Why the huge push for counterterrorism ‘fusion centers,’ the DHS militarizing of police departments, and so on? It was never really about ‘the terrorists.’ It was not even about civil unrest,” wrote author and activist Naomi Wolf in a column for the U.K. Guardian. “It was always about this moment, when vast crimes might be uncovered by citizens — it was always, that is to say, meant to be about you.” The FBI documents, she added, “show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world.”
Even more troubling than the feds’ own lawless espionage machine, according to some critics, is the involvement of the Federal Reserve System, a shadowy, highly controversial, privately owned institution with a government-enforced monopoly on American currency. The banker-owned “Fed,” as the central bank is known, has attracted increasing scrutiny and outrage from Americans of all political stripes in recent years — especially after it got caught handing out literally trillions of dollars to its cronies and foreign banks.
Despite being largely anti-capitalist in nature, certain segments of the “Occupy” movement began correctly zeroing in on the central bank as the primary culprit responsible for America’s current financial turmoil. And that had the Fed’s owners — primarily banks, more than a few of which helped keep tabs on protesters — very nervous, as the recently released FBI documents on Occupy Wall Street illustrate yet again.
“The Federal Reserve in Richmond appears to have had personnel surveilling OWS planning,” stated a press release by the PCJF, which first obtained the FBI documents and released them online. “They were in contact with the FBI in Richmond to ‘pass on information regarding the movement known as occupy Wall Street.’ There were repeated communications ‘to pass on updates of the events and decisions made during the small rallies and the following information received from the Capital Police Intelligence Unit through JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force).’”
Of course, this is not the first time that the Fed has been implicated in espionage against its critics. As The New American reported in 2011, the U.S. central bank was caught seeking contractors to help it monitor and analyze blogs, news reports, and social-media chatter about itself and its policies, with a supposed goal of being able to better use “public relations” strategies — also known as propaganda — to counter the growing barrage of negative publicity. Critics, however, blasted the scheme as “Orwellian” spying and “intimidation,” sparking further PR problems for the embattled central bank.
Unsurprisingly, much of the material released by the FBI about its Occupy Wall Street programs was blanked out, sparking even more concerns over what else might have been going on. PCJF, however, promised to keep seeking more information. “The documents are heavily redacted, and it is clear from the production that the FBI is withholding far more material,” said Heather Benno, a staff attorney with the non-profit organization. “We are filing an appeal challenging this response and demanding full disclosure to the public of the records of this operation.”
Another troubling matter raised by the documents is the exposure of past FBI lies. In November of 2011, the FBI issued a statement to the Huffington Post claiming that it had not been working with local police regarding the “Occupy” movement. "Recent published blogs and news stories have reported the FBI has coordinated with local police departments on strategy and tactics to be employed in addressing Occupy Wall Street protestors," the FBI claimed. "These reports are false. At no time has the FBI engaged with local police in this capacity." Those lies have now been officially exposed by the bureau itself.
After the most recent release of documents, which some analysts suggested may have been strategically disseminated to intimidate would-be discontents out of getting involved in the political process, the FBI released yet another dubious statement urging Americans not to read too much into the information. "The FBI cautions against drawing conclusions from redacted FOIA documents," bureau spokesman Paul Bresson was quoted as saying in a statement provided to Democracy Now. "It is law enforcement's duty to use all lawful tools to protect their communities."
It is not clear from the documents that there ever were any real threats identified. The closest the FBI ever got to “uncovering” any “terrorism” was when it used a convicted felon-turned informant to prod five young, naïve dupes into planting fake explosives on a bridge near Cleveland. Like virtually all of the bureau’s recent “busts,” the supposed “foiled plot” was actually run from start to finish by the feds, who even provided fake explosives.
The Occupy movement, meanwhile, was also largely a creation of the establishment itself — ironically, billionaire financier and top Obama backer George Soros' money was key to getting it off the ground, as The New American documented and exposed in the early stages. If the FBI is willing to squander so much money lawlessly spying on big government-supporting protesters so closely linked to the establishment, one can only wonder how it would treat a true grass-roots movement that represented a real threat to the “powers that be.”
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, and more. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
Related articles:
Big Soros Money Linked to Occupy Wall Street
FBI Dupes May Day Anarchists into Bogus Terror Plot
Unions, Socialists Join Forces to "Occupy Wall Street"
First Occupy Wall Street Now Occupy the Fed
Police Brutality, Mass Arrests Draw Attention to Occupy Wall Street
Justice Department Trained Police to Link Political Activism With Terror
DHS Fusion Centers Spend Much, Learn Little, Mislead a Lot
Homeland Security Uses Local Police to Set Up Surveillance Buffer Zones
Police Consolidation: The End of Local Law Enforcement?
Feds Slammed for Spying on Anti-war Groups, Lying
Terror War Expanding, Shifting to the Right
Fed Plotting to Monitor Critics, Tailor Propaganda
Fed Manipulations in the Crosshairs |
Provinces, SANA- Al-Boukamal city in Deir Ezzor province has been declared fully liberated as the units of the Syrian Arab Army eliminated the last hotbeds of Daesh (ISIS) terrorists there.
SANA reporter in the city, which is located 140 km southeast of Deir Ezzor, said al-Boukamla is now clear of Daesh after the army and allied forces fought fierce clashes with the remaining terrorists over the past few hours after isolating the eastern side of the city.
Earlier, the reporter said the army units advanced slowly and carefully because of the many mines and explosive devices planted by Daesh all across the city, which are now being removed by the engineering units and demining experts.
The reporter said that about 150 terrorists retreated from al-Boukamal to the east of Euphrates River under the cover and protection of the US-led international coalition while others surrendered to the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF) groups that are supported by the US.
In the same context,. army units, in cooperation with the supporting forces, regained control over villages of Haran and Hardaneh in the northeastern countryside of Hama province.
SANA reporter said that the army units carried out a precise military operation targeting Jabhat al-Nusra hideouts in the two villages, killing a number of terrorists and destroying their hideouts.
The reporter added that scores of Jabhat al-Nusra terrorists fled away and army units are pursuing them in the area.
Meanwhile, SANA delegate to al-Boukamal city in Deir Ezzor province said the Syrian Arab Army and its allies eliminated the last hotbeds of Daesh (ISIS) terrorists in the city, noting that army’s engineering units continue sweeping operations to demine the city’s streets and neighborhoods. |
The Arizona Diamondbacks will recall top pitching prospect Braden Shipley from Triple-A Reno to make his major league debut Monday with a start against the Milwaukee Brewers.
The first-round pick of the Diamondbacks in 2013, Braden Shipley is set to make his major league debut Monday. Mike Janes/Four Seam Images/AP Images
Shipley, 24, was the Diamondbacks' first-round pick (15th-overall) in the 2013 draft. The right-hander is 8-5 with a 3.70 ERA in 19 starts this season. He has struck out 77 batters in 119 1/3 innings while walking just 22.
"He's really pitched well in Reno," Arizona manager Chip Hale told reporters, according to MLB.com. "When you talk to [Reno manager] Phil Nevin, there's been a couple ... farmhands have come through and really have controlled the offenses in Reno's ballpark, and Braden's one of those guys. We're excited about it."
Shipley was ranked No. 24 overall in ESPN Insider Keith Law's top 100 prospects entering the 2016 season. |
SAN JOSE, Calif. – With Steven Beitashour traded to Vancouver, San Jose Earthquakes fans knew they would have to get used to another right back this season.
Few of those die-hards probably expected that replacement to wind up being Shaun Francis.
Yet as the Quakes have embarked on one of their most successful stretches this year – a season-best four-game unbeaten run that San Jose will put on the line against FC Dallas on Saturday night (10:30 pm ET; MLS Live) – it has been Francis, the left-footed 27-year-old out of Mandeville, Jamaica who has been starting in Beitashour’s old position.
Francis came on for an out-of-form Brandon Barklage at halftime against D.C. United on July 11. In four-and-a-half matches since then, the Quakes have allowed just four goals, and San Jose are on a 2-0-2 stretch with Francis playing opposite his typical left back spot.
“I don’t think it’s the norm, but Shaun’s done a good job there,” Quakes coach Mark Watson told reporters this week. “He’s a great defender, he’s a good athlete. He’s not completely comfortable [on the right], but I think he’s serviceable. He’s done a good job, and the team’s being playing well with him.”
Francis, who came to the Quakes via the Re-Entry Draft following four seasons spent in Columbus and Chicago, said this was the longest he’s been asked to play on the right side – but he has no complaints heading into what’s expected to be his fifth straight start at that position.
“Maybe once or twice,” Francis told MLSsoccer.com. “But not going into three, four or five games. … I don’t have a problem with it. If the coach wants you to play somewhere, you have to go out there and get the job done. You’re playing at the professional level, so you should be able to play anywhere on the field.”
Get the latest Quakes news at SJEarthquakes.com
Francis’ next league start will tie his career-high at 10 on the season, and he’s in line to surpass his single-season best for MLS minutes played with another pair of full-time performances. It’s a nice turnaround for someone who had to spend the winter boning up on the intricacies of the Re-Entry Draft after being cut loose by the Fire.
“Personally, for me, I always look at things in a positive way,” Francis said. “So no matter where I ended up, I would look at it as a positive chance. You’re going into preseason, anything is possible.
"You go in, you work hard, there’s always a possibility of you getting a chance at playing. So I did not see it as being negative or anything like that. I’m going out there to work hard. That’s all you can do. … You can’t make it easy for the coach.” |
Reviewing the state of the presidential race, I see that very little has changed for the past year. Every few weeks, the media roll out a new Trump “scandal” that has already been thoroughly covered, day in, day out, for the last 15 months.
In fact, all of the shocking new Trump scandals were aired in the very first GOP presidential debate, where he was asked seven questions about the following charges:
(1) He is mean to women.
(2) He is mean to Mexicans.
(3) He said nice things about Obamacare. (Since dropped by the media in order to help Hillary avoid the subject.)
(4) He is corrupt.
(5) He is a bad businessman.
(6) He is not a Republican. (Also since dropped — Hillary’s losing enough Democrats to Trump without reminding them that he’s not a “real Republican.”)
(7) His “tone.”
All that’s already been priced into the Trump brand. What new results do the media expect from telling us that Trump not only insulted Rosie O’Donnell, but also insulted Hispanic Mattress Girl, Alicia Machado: baby mama to a Mexican drug lord?
The only advance in the narrative is that the octaves of journalists’ voices keep getting higher, as they repeat the exact same attacks on Trump.
Each time, the media claim victory by asserting with bland certainty that any drop in Trump’s poll numbers is because of something very upsetting to journalists, but which is generally quite popular with voters — the Mexican rapists speech, the Muslim ban, and his response to the choleric Muslim, Khizr Khan.
The media can tell us where the candidates stand in the polls. They can’t tell us why. Nonetheless, they insist on identifying the precise statement of Trump’s that has caused any setback, which always happens to be whatever the media is being hysterical about.
Most absurd was the widely repeated claim that Trump’s “insult” of GOLD STAR DAD Khizr Khan caused him to dip in the polls. Except the problem is: (1) He didn’t insult Khan; and (2) anyone who occasionally leaves his apartment realizes that no one would have minded if he had.
Khan’s son was one of 14 Muslims to die serving in the U.S. military, which, coincidentally, is the precise number of American soldiers who have been killed by Muslims serving in the U.S. Military.
At the Democratic Convention, Khan waved a copy of the Constitution, asking Trump, “Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words, ‘the right of all Muslims in the world to move to America shall not be abridged!’”
Actually, that’s not in the Constitution. Incomprehensibly, Khan told Trump to look for the words “liberty” and “equal protection of law” — words that are noticeable for not mentioning “the right of all Muslims in the world to move to America.”
He rounded out his harangue saying to Trump: “You have sacrificed nothing and no one!”
In an article titled “Ire for Trump as He Derides Muslim Parents,” The New York Times described Trump’s response to Khan as “startling,” and said it “drew quick and widespread condemnation.” This included a tweet from Bush speechwriter Peter Wehner, calling Trump “a man of sadistic cruelty. With him there’s no bottom. Now go ahead and defend him.”
I must have accidentally been out of the country for a few days because I missed the part where Trump insulted the Khans.
But according to the Times, Trump was “derid(ing)” the Khans when he went on “Good Morning America” and called the snarling Muslim a “nice guy,” wished him luck, wondered why his wife didn’t say anything, and talked about the reasons Americans might want to hit the pause button on mass Muslim immigration.
To wit, Trump said:
“Well, I would say, we have had a lot of problems with radical Islamic terrorism, that’s what I’d say. We have had a lot of problems where you look at San Bernardino, you look at Orlando, you look at the World Trade Center, you look at so many different things. You look at what happened to the priest over the weekend in Paris, where his throat was cut, 85-year-old, beloved Catholic priest. You look at what happened in Nice, France, a couple of weeks ago. I would say, you gotta take a look at that, because something is going on, and it’s not good.”
I understand why the media are upset that Trump mentioned these notable contributions of Muslim immigrants, but unless I don’t know the country at all anymore, I do not believe a majority of Americans minded one bit.
The media are betting that after 9/11, the diaper bomber, the shoe bomber, the Boston Marathon, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, San Bernardino, the Orlando nightclub, the Chelsea bombing, and the recent mall attacks in both Minnesota and Washington, the revulsion of the American public to anti-Muslim bigotry will be a HUGE factor in this election.
Journalists swim in a sea of agreement. They don’t stop to think that the identity politics they majored in back in college might not be popular with all Americans.
Polls showed a post-convention bounce for Hillary before Trump had said word one about Khan. Perhaps their nonsense headlines about Trump attacking a GOLD STAR FAMILY also helped them in the short run.
But as soon as the public found out that it was this specific family and, also, that Trump didn’t attack them, voters weren’t mad at Trump, but they sure were with the media.
COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK |
Tatsunoko Production Company (株式会社タツノコプロ, Kabushiki gaisha Tatsunoko Puro), previously known as Kabushiki gaisha Tatsunoko Purodakushon (株式会社竜の子プロダクション) and often shortened to Tatsunoko Pro (タツノコプロ, Tatsunoko Puro), is a Japanese animation company. The studio's name has a double meaning in Japanese: "Tatsu's child" (Tatsu is a nickname for Tatsuo) and "sea dragon", the inspiration for its seahorse logo.[2][3] Tatsunoko's headquarters are in Musashino, Tokyo.[1]
History [ edit ]
The studio was founded in October 1962 by anime pioneer Tatsuo Yoshida and his brothers Kenji and Toyoharu (pen name "Ippei Kuri").[2]
The studio's first production was the 1965 TV series Space Ace.[citation needed] Since then many figures in the anime industry have worked with Tatsunoko, including Mizuho Nishikubo, Hiroshi Sasagawa, Koichi Mashimo, Katsuhisa Yamada, Hideaki Anno (Tatsunoko provided animation work on the Neon Genesis Evangelion TV series), and Kazuo Yamazaki.[citation needed] Sasagawa is notable for bringing his fondness for comedy animation to the forefront in Tatsunoko series such as the Time Bokan (1975) franchise.[4] The company later licensed Macross to Harmony Gold, who then produced Robotech.[citation needed]
Takara acquired Tatsunoko on June 3, 2005 after purchasing an 88 percent stake and made the company a subsidiary.[5] Production I.G was established in 1987 as I.G. Tatsunoko, a branch for the production of Zillion led by Mitsuhisa Ishikawa.[6][7][8]
In 2009, Tatsunoko announced that it would collaborate with Marvel Comics on a joint television project and other ventures.[9] IG Port announced on June 2, 2010 that its subsidiary, Production I.G, had purchased an 11.2 percent stake in Tatsunoko. Production I.G president Mitsuhisa Ishikawa became a part-time director of the studio.[10]
Talent agency Horipro announced on February 23, 2013 that it had acquired a 13.5 percent stake in Tatsunoko.[11] At Anime Expo 2013, Sentai Filmworks announced a deal to license and release some of Tatsunoko's titles, including Gatchaman and Casshan.[12] Nippon TV announced on January 29, 2014 that it had purchased a 54.3 percent stake in Tatsunoko and adopted the company as its subsidiary.[13][14][15]
Space Ace. The studio's first production was the 1965 TV series
Main productions [ edit ]
1960s [ edit ]
Space Ace
Mach Go Go Go
Oraa Guzura Dado
Dokachin
Kurenai Sanshiro
Hakushon Daimao
1970s [ edit ]
Honeybee Hutch
Inakappe Taisho
Kabatoto
Science Ninja Team Gatchaman
Neo-Human Casshan
Tentomushi no Uta
Space Knight Tekkaman
Time Bokan
1980s [ edit ]
1990s [ edit ]
2000s [ edit ]
2010s [ edit ]
Anime studios made by former animators [ edit ] |
During his campaign President Trump made it clear that his administration would strictly enforce immigration law while also seeking to limit immigration. Trump’s executive orders so far are consistent with his campaign rhetoric, including a revitalization of the controversial 287(g) program, threats to withdraw grants from so-called “Sanctuary Cities,” the construction of a wall on the southern border, a temporary ban on immigration from six Muslim-majority countries, and the hiring of 10,000 more Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Recent reporting reveals that these agents, tasked with implementing significant parts of Trump’s immigration policy agenda, will have access to an intelligence system that should concern all Americans who value civil liberties.
Earlier this month The Intercept reported on Investigative Case Management (ICM), designed by Palantir Technologies. ICE awarded Palantir a $41 million contract in 2014 to build ICM. ICM is scheduled to be fully operational by September of this year.
Here is The Intercept’s breakdown of how ICM works:
ICM funding documents analyzed by The Intercept make clear that the system is far from a passive administrator of ICE’s case flow. ICM allows ICE agents to access a vast “ecosystem” of data to facilitate immigration officials in both discovering targets and then creating and administering cases against them. The system provides its users access to intelligence platforms maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and an array of other federal and private law enforcement entities. It can provide ICE agents access to information on a subject’s schooling, family relationships, employment information, phone records, immigration history, foreign exchange program status, personal connections, biometric traits, criminal records, and home and work addresses.
In addition to access to DEA, ATF, and FBI databases, ICM at full implementation will, according to 2014 documents, allow users to have access to a wide range of intelligence systems (see Appendix B). These systems include but are not limited to:
Falcon - An ICE analytical system designed by Palantir, which allows ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents “to track immigrants and crunch data on forms of cross-border criminal activity.”
Seized Asset and Case Tracking System (SEACATS) - A Customs and Border Protection (CBP) system that tracks arrests, seizures, and property.
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) - According to the ICE website, SEVIS “is a web-based system for maintaining information on international nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors in the United States.”
The Alien Criminal Response Information Management System (ACRIMe) - “an information system used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to receive and respond to immigration status inquiries made by other agencies about individuals arrested, subject to background checks, or otherwise encountered by those agencies.”
Analytic Framework for Intelligence (AFI) - Palantir played a role in developing this system, which, according to one civil liberty expert, can provide the profiling algorithms necessary for the Trump administration to carry out “extreme vetting.”
The picture below from this document will give you some idea of the data available to ICM users.
Although it’s clear the ICM is used as part of immigration enforcement that doesn’t mean that it can’t affect American citizens. As the screenshot from an ICE funding page below shows, American citizens are part of ICM (the highlighting is mine).
You only need to take a fleeting glance at the history of American domestic surveillance to see how law enforcement priorities change. My colleague Patrick Eddington has put together an excellent timeline of surveillance, covering the last one hundred years or so. At the moment, Islamic terrorism and undocumented immigrants are at the forefront of the Trump administration’s law enforcement priorities. But Patrick’s timeline shows that in the last century socialists, pacifists, labor organizers, anarchists, civil rights leaders, Quakers, the ACLU, Japanese-Americans, folk singers, and others have all been the target of government surveillance.
No one knows what federal law enforcement priorities will be in the next few decades, but when we consider tools like ICM we should be aware of the fact that it and similar systems can and will be used on the next surveillance targets, whether they’re gun owners, progressives, conservatives, pro-life/choice advocates, marijuana users, or the many, many other groups that could upset a future Oval Office occupant. |
When Rails first came out, I was still a PHP guy. Slaving away at a web agency, pushing out website after website and letting designers have all the fun.
At the time I didn’t even notice Rails existed.
When news of Ruby and Rails finally did reach me, I was fully immersed in Python and Django. I scoffed at the idea of anything being better. Them silly Ruby people, why on earth would I play with their toys when I can use a real language such as Python?
Eventually I started loving the speed and flexibility of Javascript and particularly node.js. Django lay almost forgotten, Rails was that weird thing those other people use. The idea of learning Rails did not cross my mind.
In part because node.js was really buzzing at the time (around version 0.3.x I think), in part because by then a lot of the big names in the startup world started abandoning Rails in favour of faster executing environments.
What really attracted me to node.js was the blistering speed of execution and the fact it was the new kid on the block. That exciting new thing everyone’s looking at. Of course you’re going to learn node if you’re going to look at a new tech stack.
Just like these days you’d probably look at Go or Scala if you were going to learn a completely new way of making web apps.
A Javascripter starts using Rails
A few weeks ago somebody calls me up and says “Hey, you seem to have a grasp on automated testing. Want to help us write tests for our Rails app?”
“Uh, sure, but I’ve never even looked at Rails before …”
“No problem, I started the project off with zero Rails experience too. You’ll figure it out.”
In stark contrast to how programmers are hired these days, somebody was willing to use a generalist instead of holding out for a specialist. Bloody awesome, if you ask me!
And so I was thrown into the dizzying world of Ruby and Rails and a whole new ecosystem of stuff that is completely beyond my comprehension.
The really cool things
What struck me when I first saw Ruby code was just how readable it is. Even though I was looking at the language for the first time in my life, I could understand what everything is doing. I could follow the code and decide what tests need to be written.
Although a lot of the syntax is confusing – what’s with all the colons? – I like the fact you can execute functions without using parentheses. As with Haskell, this often makes code more readable, but unlike Haskell can be very confusing when you’re trying to discern functions from variables.
I also like the truthyness test by just appending a question mark to a variable/property/thing.
Rails has amazing support for writing tests. While Django makes it easy to write a bunch of unit tests and go so far as integration testing by calling the HTTP interface as a real browser would, Rails goes a step further by making it dead simple to test a real user’s interaction with your website … although I think that might actually be Capybara and not vanilla Rails.
Another thing I really like is that Rails is opinionated. Or maybe that’s just the impression I got. Either way, it’s a lot more mature than the node.js ecosystem so it is usually very easy to decide what library to use to do something. You pick Rails and you get this whole package of stuff.
Conversely, the most popular (perhaps even best) framework in the node.js ecosystem – express.js – can’t even decide what template engine to use. Database? Ha, you’re on your own, kid. Testing? Pick any of a million different testing libraries – you’re on your own.
This happens a lot in Javascript. The whole ecosystem treats opinions as they were a bad thing. Freedom and the related paradox of choice run rampant.
Things that suck
Ruby’s most powerful feature – meta programming and the whole domain specific language shebang, is also the most annoying for a beginner.
The project I’m working on just … works. I have no idea where dependencies are coming from, I can’t tell which gem file a function I’m calling is defined in and most of the time I am completely at a loss as to what is actually going on.
It’s getting better, slowly.
So far I’ve always been used to explicitly defining imports, explicitly calling a function from this library or that. You never do import * and yet with Ruby, that’s all you get. Everything is an import * and more often than not, it redefines the behaviour of the language itself.
As such, I have no idea whether I’m learning how to use Rails, Ruby or any of the 30 something gems the project depends on. It’s all rather confusing.
But what really ticks me off about Rails, or Ruby, possibly both, is just how slow the whole thing is! It runs well once it gets going, but what the hell is it doing in those 5+ seconds it takes to warm up to a functioning state? Mindboggling.
Maybe node.js just spoiled me.
Fin
All in all, I have to say I’ve grown quite fond of Rails. I love how simple it is to get started as a complete newbie and all the powerful tools are already giving me ideas for what I’m missing in node.js
Just a matter of finding some time to start bringing some of the cool concepts into node.js. Right now I doubt I’ll be making a full switch to Rails any time soon.
Related articles
Related
Learned something new? Want to improve your skills?
Join over 10,000 engineers just like you already improving their skills!
Here's how it works 👇
Leave your email and I'll send you an Interactive Modern JavaScript Cheatsheet 📖right away. After that you'll get thoughtfully written emails every week about React, JavaScript, and your career. Lessons learned over my 20 years in the industry working with companies ranging from tiny startups to Fortune5 behemoths.
Get thoughtful letters💌 “Man, I love your way of writing these newsletters. Often very relatable and funny perspectives about the mundane struggles of a dev. Lightens up my day. ~ Kostas” Improve my career 💌 No spam. Unsubscribe at any time. ✌️ Powered By ConvertKit
PS: You should also follow me on twitter 👉 here.
It's where I go to shoot the shit about programming. |
A DAY after an ambulance driver was shot at by the CRPF at Safa Kadal area of the city, officials Friday asked district and sub-district hospitals to manage critical patients at rural health centres at night instead of taking the risk of moving them to Srinagar.
Advertising
The decision has been taken to avoid confrontation with Army and CRPF personnel patrolling roads and highways at night.
Night curfew has been imposed stringently in the Valley, especially on the national highway, for the last two days.
On Thursday night, ambulance driver Ghulam Mohammad Sofi, 32, was ferrying two patients from Wussan village in central Kashmir to Srinagar when CRPF men fired pellets at him. Severely injured, Sofi took the patients to the nearby Shri Maharaja Hari Singh (SMHS) Hospital.
Sofi himself was hospitalised subsequently. On Friday, Dr Manzoor Ahmad, Head of the Department, Orthopedics Bone and Joints Hospital, said, “He was fired at from close range and had taken hundreds of pellets. He is now stable (after undergoing surgery).”
The CRPF has initiated an inquiry and suspended a sub-inspector for firing pellets at Sofi.
Pointing out that ambulances are not attacked even during a war, the superintendent of a government hospital said, “It is dangerous for us to work under these circumstances. We have (now) decided to move ambulances only during the day — we can’t risk lives of our staff and patients.”
Director (Health), Kashmir, Saleem-ur-Rehman has taken up the issue with the government.
State Health Minister Bali Bhagat said the issue has been taken up at the highest level. “Action has been initiated against the CRPF person who opened fire,” he said. Bhagat said more than 130 ambulances of the health department have been damaged, and drivers manhandled, ever since protests began following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen militant Burhan Wani. He said many ambulances were damaged by protesters as well.
Advertising
Several doctors and paramedical staff on night duty said CRPF and police personnel are not entertaining even curfew passes issued by the district administration for the last three days, since night curfew was imposed. “It is risking our lives even if we are in ambulances,” an SMHS doctor said. |
Memphis Man Was Paid Three Slices For Serving As Lookout In Robbery Of Domino's Deliveryman Share
Tweet
A Tennessee man who this week confessed his role in the robbery of a Domino’s delivery man told cops that he served as a lookout man in return for three slices of pizza, according to court records.
During questioning Monday by Memphis Police Department officers, Tony Hamer, 19, admitted that he was “present during the planning” of the July 10 robbery, which was carried out by a cohort.
Domino’s worker Jose Reyes told police that he was delivering a pizza around 9 PM when he was approached by two men, one of whom threatened to shoot Reyes if he did not “give him the money and pizza.” Reyes said he handed over $20, his HTC cell phone, and the pizza.
Hamer, seen in the adjacent mug shot, told investigators that he “participated as a look out and provided protection for the other male during the robbery.” Cops noted, “Hamer received three slices of Pizza for his participation in this robbery.”
In addition to the July 10 crime, Hamer also admitted to robbing a second pizza delivery person. Along with stealing a $54 pizza order, Hamer and an associate took $35 from victim Erica Northcutt (who was also relieved of her ID).
A complaint affidavit does not indicate what Hamer’s cut was from the July 20 robbery.
Hamer is being held in the Shelby County jail in lieu of $35,000 bond on two felony robbery counts. He is next due in court on August 1. |
- Police are searching for the person who stole a vehicle from a paramedic.
Burholme Emergency Medical Services has been serving the community in Northeast Philly and helping save lives for almost 85 years.
"Our staff provides 24 hours emergency care to our community," EMS supervisor Blake Bradley told FOX 29 Tuesday night.
While serving the community Friday night out on an emergency call, police say someone broke in the rear kitchen window of the non-profit EMS groups' headquarters on Bleigh Avenue. Police say the burglar quickly located two sets of car keys and then drove off in a white 2016 Jeep Compass belonging to one of the EMS workers.
"I think it's a terrible incident. Very aggressive for somebody to break into a non-profit ambulance organization," Bradley explained.
Investigators say the suspect left at least one identifiable fingerprint on the window. Surveillance cameras captured the suspect entering and exiting the building and then driving off in the EMS dispatcher's SUV. The video has not yet been released by police.
"Our dispatcher works very hard continuously. He loves his job here, loves what he does and I feel absolutely terrible for his car being stolen," Bradley explained.
EMS supervisor Blake Bradley says in the eight decades the squad has been here they've never been robbed or broken into.
"If someone could please step forward and provide some information on whereabouts the car may be or who this person is or where he may be," Bradley added.
Burholme EMS crews now carefully secure the building and double check all windows and doors. If you have any information you can call Northeast Detectives. |
EVENT
New Raid Event! (Jul. 4)
● Get Fire Samurai Avatars in this Special Raid Event!
Jul. 4, 2016 12:00 a.m. to Jul. 10, 2016 11:59 p.m. (PT)Jul. 4, 2016 7:00 to Jul. 11, 2016 6:59 (UTC)
We have a new and exciting Raid Event for you with new bonus times and a reduced AP cost of 1 AP per raid battle!
Defeat the Fortress Crab Ω Raid Bosses with your friends, earn Event Coins, and unlock exclusive Fire Samurai avatar parts on the event board!
NOTE: The Event Boards will remain accessible 3 hours after the Raid Event ends, in case you need more time to use up your Event Coins.
■ Raid Boss Bonus Time
Every day for the duration of the event, between the following times, you'll be able to get the following bonuses to help you collect Event Coins!
Pacific Time UTC 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. 20:00 to 21:00 0:00 to 1:00 3:00 to 4:00
• Appearance rate of raid bosses double!
• Lux received from raid bosses doubles!
Thank you for playing |
Status inconsistency is a situation where an individual's social positions have both positive and negative influences on his or her social status. For example, a teacher may have a positive societal image (respect, prestige) which increases their status but may earn little money, which simultaneously decreases their status.
Advocates of the concept propose that status inconsistency has consequences for social action that cannot be predicted from the so-called "vertical" dimensions of status alone. (In statistical terms, it is an interaction effect). Introduced by Gerhard Lenski in the 1950s, the concept has remained controversial with limited empirical verification. One unresolved question is whether people who are judged by sociologists to be status inconsistent actually feel they are somehow under-rewarded or over-rewarded. Blocker and Riedesel (1978) employed more than the usual statistical controls and found evidence of neither a correlation between "objective" and "subjective" status inconsistency, nor of effects of either on hypothesized behavior that was independent of the vertical dimensions of status.
General description [ edit ]
All societies have some basis for social stratification, and industrial societies are characterized by multiple dimensions to which some vertical hierarchy may be imputed. The notion of status inconsistency is simple: it is defined as occupying different vertical positions in two or more hierarchies. The complexity and dynamism of modern societies results in both social mobility, and the presence of people and social roles in these inconsistent or mixed status positions. Sociologists investigate issues of status inconsistency in order to better understand status systems and stratification, and because some sociologists believe that positions of status inconsistency might have strong effects on peoples behavior. In this line of reasoning people may react to an inconsistent status position as problematic, and thus may change their behavior, their patterns of sociation, or otherwise act to resolve the inconsistent position. During the last fifty years social researchers have investigated and debated evidence about how, where, why, and to what extent status inconsistency affects social action.
Most attention has been given to inconsistency between material status and prestige or respect, arising from education, occupation, or ethnicity. Geschwender (1967), among others, suggests that the balance of investments (e.g. education) versus rewards (e.g. income) is at the heart of any actual effects of apparent status inconsistency.
Theory and its development [ edit ]
Max Weber articulated three major dimensions of stratification in his discussion of class, power, and status. This multifaceted framework provides the background concepts for discussing status inconsistency. Status Inconsistency theories predict that people whose status is inconsistent, or higher on one dimension than one another, will be more frustrated and dissatisfied than people with consistent statuses. Gerhard Lenski was a major proponent of this theory. He argues that if people are ranked higher in one dimension than another, then they are going to emphasize their higher rank. Since others may focus instead on the former's lower rank, the situation may generate conflict.
Lenski originally predicted that people suffering from Status Inconsistency will favor political actions and parties directed against higher status groups. Lenski continues by stating that Status Inconsistency can be used to further explain the phenomenon of why status groups made up of wealthy minorities will tend to be liberal instead of the presumed conservative. In the 1950s and 1960s, American Jews provided a strong anecdotal example: Politically liberal, better educated and more affluent than average, they were still subjected to discrimination in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
Outstanding issues [ edit ]
While well-known, the concept of status inconsistency is not without its challengers and unresolved questions.
Can status inconsistency be reliably measured independent of the constituent vertical dimensions of stratification?
Can the hypothesized social psychological mechanism (e.g. feeling of being under-rewarded) for the effects of status inconsistency be validated?
Can consistent empirical effects be found at all outside the narrow spectrum of American politics?
See also [ edit ]
Notes [ edit ] |
Digitizing sponsor Bell System
Employee orientation film for telephone company workers explaining structure and corporate values of the Bell System. With excellent footage of communications workers and everyday life, in Technicolor.
Shotlist
Followed by an outro by and about Southwestern Bell Telephone
Employee orientation film for telco workers explaining structure and corporate values of the Bell System. Followed by a film specific to Southwestern Bell.
NOT ALL SHOTS LOGGED Ð good film, return to
Two men looking at a blueprint in front of a building construction site
Family moving into a new house Ð kids running into front door, mom posing with kids on stoop
Kids at playground
Milkman delivering milk to side door
Older woman sweeping her front steps
Housewife hanging up laundry
Postman delivering mail
Man working on his boat
Woman watering plants in greenhouse
Tracking shot of main shopping street from automobile
CUs People in different walks of life talking on the telephone
CUs hands dialing phones with number MYtown 4-3122
Man climbing telephone pole, seen from below (good)
CUs line of operators at work, busy (good)
Woman supervisor walks behind line of operators
Night switchboard with many fewer operators
CUs faces of operators talking into headsets (good)
Information operator
MCU woman on phone asking for number of WilsonÕs Meat Market
CUs Operator plugging into jacks and filling out billing cards
More CUs of operators
MCU woman calling in emergency car accident
CU operator handling emergency call
LS huge conflagration exterior, explosion
Hurricane footage
Disaster footage (fires, hurricane) shown over faces of operators
Traffic cop standing in white circle on main street directing traffic
VS construction and heavy equipment in operation (bulldozer and operator)
MS steam shovel dumping load of dirt in front of camera
Group of telephone installers getting work assignments from installation supervisor
Installer putting in line, talking to young boy asking question: ÒWhere does this wire go?Ó (EXCELLENT PHONE PHREAK IMAGE)
Installer explains cable has 100 wires in it, connects to phones
Pan from cable box on top of pole down neighborhood street
VS in central office, including switching equipment
CU fingers dialing: phone number is Andrew 9-9945
Installer tells housewife her phone is ready, gives her directory
She thanks installer
Supervisor pulls up in car to check on how installer is doing; installer asks how the other departments fit into the picture
ÒAll of us in the telephone company are organized to do just one thing: to give people good telephone service.Ó
Review of how people get new phone service:
Woman in business office talking to a service representative in the Commercial Department
CU well-dressed woman with hat talking to service rep
VS people talking on phone in kitchen; woman in bed talking on phone; man in chefÕs hat during family barbecue talking on extension phone while family is out on the terrace (patio)
VS telco workers in action:
CU typing out order form
Clerk sitting in front of files assigns line
CU Teletype prints out order
Frame technician hooks up cable pair to frame
Boss: ÒWeÕve all got a lot to learn, Ted.Ó
VS service representatives talking on the phone
Customers paying bills at phone office
CU section of telephone directory listings
Directory sections coming off printing press
CU ÒMYTOWNÓ telephone directory cover
Collectors collecting coins from pay phones
Salesmen pitching phone equipment and Yellow Pages advertising to business customers
MS draftsmen in drafting room working on large drawings
Supervisor comes over to draftsman; they check out details of drawing together
VS laying underground and overhead telephone cable
Cable winding equipment passes by camera (good)
Engineer talking to homebuilder regarding immediate telephone installation when houses are completed.
ÒSome builders donÕt include us in our plans, and then homeowners have to wait for their telephone service to be installed.Ó
CU auger drilling into earth, pulling up dirt (good construction shot)
Setting poles into holes in ground
Stringing cable onto poles
Lineman installing terminals at top of pole
VS clerks and workers in accounting office
Women working on accounting machines, checking ledgers
Woman working on paycheck printer; CU paychecks being printed
CU fingers on IBM card punch (good)
CU IBM cards moving through punch (good)
VS CU IBM card sorter in action (good)
CU machine printing out bills and stuffing envelopes, adding postage (good)
Montage of telephones turning around; Bell vignette in middle, all 1960s-vintage color phones (good)
Low-angle shot of prosperous people walking on Main Street
Smiling cop directing traffic
Lineman on top of pole in suburban area, reeling down along cable (good)
Fingers on adding machines and accounting machines
Meeting of white-collar workers in personnel department
Man opening letter at his mailbox, smoking cigar, smiling
Doctor and nurse looking at workerÕs arm
Legal workers in law library
Public relations department
Ad designers
MS Woman starts 16mm projector (good)
Tour of telephone central office with town residents
Explanation of how AT&T, Western Electric and Bell Laboratories all fit together
Pan up AT&T headquarters in New York City
Map showing different Bell operating companies
Explanation of the operating companies and their relationship to AT&T
Diagram (abstract) of Long Lines connections between cities
Map of the United States with dots representing independent phone companies
VS microwave relay towers of AT&T Long Lines system
Cable-laying chips
TV network transmission control with video monitor
Guard opens iron gate into Western Electric factory
Telephone assembly lines (good)
Reels of cable winding (good)
Workers assembling switching equipment
Boxes moving down conveyor belt
Hands picking up parts from warehouse shelves (good)
Forklift moving telephone booth by camera (good)
Men loading Western Electric cartons into airplane (for emergency use)
Aerial flyby White Alice towers in Alaska (good)
Radomes on DEW Line (good)
LS guided missile taking off, SOF (good)
Sign: Bell Telephone Laboratories
VS Bell Labs buildings
Inside Bell Labs
MS man looking at/through some kind of optical device
Engineer with sliderules and pads at drafting table
Various experiments and testing around new phones
CU fingers on new 10-button touch-tone phone (old design) (good)
Engineers testing new electronic switching systems (good)
CU soldering iron pointing to transistors on circuit board
CU board filled with transistors
Various shots soldering/electronic assembly
Transistorized devices rotating on turntable in front of camera (good) including radio, components, etc.
Older man meets older woman on main shopping street; they shake hands
VS ÒMytownÓ
Looking up telephone pole at lineman working (from below) (good)
Mother and daughter looking into store window; kidÕs face contorts into expression of wonder
FOLLOWING PART NOT ENCODED:
[end main film, begin Southwestern Bell outro film]
Executive follows up on first film to explain structure and operation of Southwestern Bell itself. This is for employee orientation.
Finger points to outline map of U.S. divided into Bell regions (with no text labels Ð just colored areas and state outlines)
Outline map of SW Bell territory, with state lines and small dots showing independent telephone companies
Much of the footage in this section repeats from THE TOWN AND THE TELEPHONE
ManÕs hands assemble puzzle of Southwestern states on table
Departments: traffic, plant, commercial.
Other departments: accounting, legal, personnel, public relations.
CU advertising artist sketching out ad
<BR>
Closed captioning no Collectionid towntele Country United States Identifier Townandt1950 Numeric_id 1111 Proddate ca. late 1950s Run time 27:21 Type MovingImage |
By Daniel Friedman
It’s an important week for the New York Islanders. The NHL Entry Draft is on Friday and teams can begin communicating with impending free agents on Wednesday.
The Isles are at a crossroads and have a lot of questions to answer. I figured I’d sit down with Pro Hockey Talk’s James O’Brien and ask him a few of those questions. Here’s how the conversation went down:
The Islanders made a big move by going out and getting Jaroslav Halak. What did you think of the move, and what effect do you think it might have on the Islanders’ outlook for next season?
O’Brien: “Love it. After making what seemed like at-best a lateral move by re-signing Evgeni Nabokov last summer, the Islanders actually decided to roll the dice in aggressively pursuing and signing Jaroslav Halak. And by rolling the dice I mean taking less of a risk, as he’s been a dependably useful goalie who didn’t cost them an arm and a leg. At 29, Halak is still at or near his prime. His career save percentage is sterling (.918) and he was even better in his season split between Washington and St. Louis (.921 in 52 games). The Islanders’ team average of a .910 save percentage was the third-worst in the league, so they had plenty of room to improve … and did. That being said, Halak doesn’t have a great track record of staying healthy. If any GM should appreciate the value of a backup, it’s a former journeyman like Garth Snow. The Islanders need to think long and hard about whether or not they’d trust someone in their system to carry the ball for a decent amount of time, as that’s a distinct possibility with Halak. In the grand scheme of things, it’s a great move in the right direction. Goalies are odd beasts, though, so you never know.”
The Islanders made a lot of noise a year ago by taking Pittsburgh to six games, then followed that up with a dud. Which do you think was the fluke — the playoff year or this past season?
O’Brien: “When PHT asked which 2013 playoff team I expected to miss the 2014 postseason, I tabbed the Islanders, so I guess I’d pick the playoff year. Really, the truth is somewhere in between, though. I think that the Islanders should have bulked up quite a bit more for 2013-14, as they didn’t exactly make the playoffs that comfortably. Luck didn’t bounce their way a whole lot this time around, yet you don’t see good teams essentially blaming their misfortunes one or two injuries, even if it’s to a star. The Penguins seem to lose one or more of Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Kris Letang for extended chunks of every season and yet they keep making the playoffs. I imagine the natural response will be ‘The Islanders are clearly not the Penguins,’ but eventually that can’t be OK anymore. If you’re not aiming to be a power in your league/division/conference, then what’s the point?”
If you’re Garth Snow, are you drafting at No. 5 or trading the pick? If you’re drafting, who are you looking to pick and if you’re trading it, who are some possible targets?
O’Brien: “How much longer can the Isles be satisfied with landing lottery picks? It’s really all about what’s out there, though; the New Jersey Devils turned the No. 9 pick into an affordable, quality starting goalie in Cory Schneider last summer. In my mind, the Islanders need just about everything — more scoring depth, more defensive options — so combining the No. 5 pick with another asset or two could provide some nice rewards.”
What is this team missing in order to get back into the playoffs, and are there any particular free agents you think could sign with the Islanders and fill those holes?
O’Brien: “As I touched on earlier, the Islanders could use a little bit of everything. Oddly enough, a Matt Moulson reunion tour makes sense to me, but I’m not in the organization that seemed to sour on him. With that likely out of the question, players like Radim Vrbata, Mikhail Grabovski and Steve Downie — maybe even two of them — could help tilt the ice in the right direction. A cheap deal for Dustin Penner seems sensible as well, especially if you let him clean up Tavares and Okposo’s garbage. One player I’d recommend for just about any defense-lacking team is Ron Hainsey. He enjoyed nice possession stats last season and comes with a possible ‘blackballed by his union involvement’ discount, though that likely wears off compared to 2013. Tom Gilbert is another guy who could be cheap and competent, a combination the Isles badly need on D. Snow has a knack for finding bargains, so why not add a few this summer?”
Jack Capuano has received mixed reviews. What’s your take on the Isles’ head coach, and do you think he should’ve been fired? How much longer do you give him in NY?
O’Brien: “People who follow the Islanders on a day-to-day basis can probably answer this question with deeper analysis about the way he deploys his players and how many different ties he owns. As an outsider, my impression is simply that he’s just a ‘guy.’ It’s not totally fair, especially since he hasn’t been outfitted with star-studded rosters. Still, there are some chefs who can make quite the feast out of limited ingredients, but Capuano doesn’t strike me as a guy who really moves the needle. The move to Brooklyn makes the 2014-15 season do-or-die for him, if he even makes it through the whole thing. I’m guessing Snow has more to do with that than Capuano.”
Garth Snow’s had some ups and downs over his tenure. What’s your overall impression of him?
O’Brien: “I cannot help but make parallels between Garth Snow and Joe Nieuwendyk, even if one enjoyed a slightly more impressive career on the ice. To be more specific, each GM seemed to excel in an area or two while having enough flaws to make them endangered executives. Snow impresses with his ability to spot valuable players at bargain prices. For all the credit the new Dallas Stars regime receives, Nieuwendyk left behind an immaculate salary structure that only looks better with Tyler Seguin in the mix. Unfortunately, Snow doesn’t enjoy the highest batting average when it comes to blockbuster moves. The Moulson trade didn’t work out. The Nabokov gamble was a big bust. Many blame Charles Wang for the Rick DiPietro contract, but it’s remains the elephant in the room. He’s made bold moves only to see potential new players balk either initially (Evgeni Nabokov, Lubomir Visnovsky) or altogether (most recently Dan Boyle). I don’t mind the practice of sending picks for negotiating sneak previews especially considering the circumstances, yet it backfires with unsettling frequency. He also tried to give up an entire draft to move up from Griffin Reinhart to Ryan Murray and was denied. I know that was considered a weak year for prospects but good grief that’s just a mind-blowing scenario. Maybe I should stop here because Snow holds some really weird grudges. I think he’s sneaky good at times, yet he needs a great offseason and 2014-15 run to make it to Brooklyn.”
Are there any prospects or players within the Islanders’ organization that you would deem expendable? Who and why?
O’Brien: “At this point, the Islanders should be open-minded to moving anyone except absolute prime prospects and key roster players like Halak, Tavares, Okposo, Nielsen and Travis Hamonic. At some point, you need to make leaps instead of baby steps toward being a contender. That fork in the road is approaching soon.”
What’s your opinion of Josh Bailey? Do you think he’ll ever pan out?
O’Brien: “Josh Bailey’s possession stats were pretty impressive this season, which keeps me from burying him outright. That said, can we get this kid to shoot the stinking puck? He only generated 566 shots on goal in 406 career regular season games, including just 98 SOG in 77 games in 2013-14. You’d need Joe Thorntonian passing skills to be an offensive asset while being so gun shy. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if he ends up like Benoit Pouliot: a punchline because of his high-first-rounder status yet eventually a useful player. The question is: will Bailey need to leave the Islanders to shake those ‘bust’ worries and just reach whatever potential he has? Sometimes it’s hard for a guy labelled a ‘reach’ to just get on with his career without receiving a change of venue.”
The Islanders are moving into a new arena in 2015. What kind of effect do you think this will have on the organization?
O’Brien: “I think it will be enormous. Going from what’s described as one of the worst arenas in professional sports in Long Island to a flashy building in hipster-tastic Brooklyn is a quantum leap in drawing power. Andrew Ference is probably already calling Taylor Hall a donkey and Ryan Nugent-Hopkins a pixie in hopes of getting traded to the Islanders. All weird jokes aside, the Islanders could very well end up in a better venue, in a hipper area and bask in a beefier budget by moving to Brooklyn. Let’s just hope they keep those throwback sweaters in some form, though.”
Can you see John Tavares requesting a trade anytime soon?
O’Brien: “No, and even if he wanted one, the Islanders would be insane to listen. He’s an $8 million guy making $5.5 million through the 2017-18 campaign. At 23, he’s entering that glorious peak period where a player combines still-elite athleticism with the experience of knowing the lay of the land. It’s imperative that the Islanders transfer the money they’re saving on the likes of Tavares and Okposo to players who can make certain that good things are happening even when those two are huffing and puffing on the bench.”
James O’Brien writes for Pro Hockey Talk. You can follow him on Twitter @cyclelikesedins.
Follow Daniel Friedman on Twitter @DFriedmanOnNYI
You May Also Be Interested In These Stories |
(NaturalNews) Some of the scientific studies on vaccines show strong links to serious vaccine injuries. Other scientific studies on vaccines show no links to vaccine injuries. What is going on? Both sides of this issue quote their studies, and the public is understandably confused. How can scientific studies on the same subject have opposite findings and conclusions? I think I know the answer, and it isn't pretty. The major factor is who paid for the study or where the livelihood of the scientists comes from. If we look at the studies that show no problems with vaccines, they are nearly always funded by the CDC and/or the vaccine companies, or the livelihood of the scientists is tied to the vaccine industry. If we look at the studies that show major problems with vaccines, they are almost always done by independent scientists who are not financially dependent on the CDC or vaccine companies. We could cling to the naive belief that all science is a search for truth and corruption is rare, but that doesn't seem to be the case when it comes to science and vaccines. (Story by Dr. William H. Gaunt, republished from AgeOfAutism.com with additional editing by Natural News)Which side has the most money to throw around? It isn't close. The vaccine companies have enormous amounts of money to exert their influence, and the independent scientists have minimal financial support. Which side of the story gets the most play in all forms of mainstream media? That isn't close either. With billions of dollars on the line, golden rule #2 applies: the side with the most gold makes the rules. Don't expect equal treatment for both sides of this issue. Most people assume that the truth is what they see or hear in mainstream media, and they don't have any idea of the power and influence that is exerted on media by wealthy corporations. It is not fair at all, but that is the way it is.People can't expect the truth on this issue to just fall into their laps. They must actively search for the truth, and only a small percentage of people can and will do that. Those who have vaccine-injured children have had the sad truth thrust upon them. Their voices are suppressed and drowned out by those who benefit from maintaining vaccine policy as it is and continually adding more vaccines to the schedule. The vaccine industry solution is to pass laws that force everyone to get every vaccine. What a great business model for the vaccine companies: everyone must buy your products and you have no liability (since 1986) for injuries or deaths caused by your products.How will this turn out? No one knows. The dark side is winning at this point, but it looks like the tide is starting to turn. How would all this look if we could go a few decades into the future and look back? I believe that this era of medicine will be seen in the future as very dark because of the mostly preventable great harm being caused by vaccines A case can be made that a few of the vaccines have more benefits in terms of preventing infectious diseases than risks of vaccine injury. Greed is the major factor that has resulted in more and more vaccines being added that have virtually no benefits other than being great money makers but have serious risks of vaccine injury.The CDC is at the center of this controversy. They control vaccine policy. Their decisions are not based on what is best for our children's health. Their decisions are based on what is best for vaccine company profits. It is a sad story that must change.The single best resource for getting to the truth on this issue is the new book,. This book is readily available from amazon.com or your local bookstore. The authors grade each of the 14 vaccines on the schedule individually, and they provide great information on how to protect your child from infectious diseases and also minimize the risk of vaccine injuries.Doctor Gaunt is a retired Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine. Read more at AgeOfAutism.com |
< script type = "text/javascript" > function handleError () { return true ; } window . onerror = handleError ; < /script> < script type = "text/javascript" language = "javascript" > function doCallback1 ( param1 , param2 , param3 ) { Callback1 . Callback ( param1 , param2 , param3 ); } function doCallback2 ( param1 , param2 , param3 ) { Callback1 . Callback ( param1 , param2 , param3 ); Callback2 . Callback ( param1 , param2 , param3 ); Callback3 . Callback ( param1 , param2 , param3 ); } function doCallback3 ( param1 , param2 , param3 ) { Callback2 . Callback ( param1 , param2 , param3 ); Callback3 . Callback ( param1 , param2 , param3 ); } function InitLocation ( division ) { clbDivision . Callback ( division ); } < /script>
I’m not sure what’s worse - The fact that all JavaScript errors are silently ignored, doCallback2 having three callbacks and doCallback3 having two callbacks, or the use of globals (Callback1, Callback2, Callback3). The same site had JavaScript functions with names like “foo” and “bar”.
As a side note, an interesting oddity in JavaScript: When you return true in the window.onerror handler, this prevents the default event handler. This is the opposite to all the other DOM 0 events (such as onclick), where returning false prevents the default handler. |
They walk among us. Shuffling along sidewalks, mesmerized by the smartphones cradled in their hands. Some have earbuds in, seemingly oblivious to the physical world around them.
They are Pokémon Go players, and they are on one mission: They’ve gotta catch ‘em all.
From teenage girls to police officers, it seems like everyone is hopping on the augmented reality bandwagon to hunt down their first Charmanders, Squirtles, and Bulbasaurs. Recently ranked as the most popular game in U.S. history, the phenomenon has made its way through civilization and is now venturing into uncharted territory: national parks.
Searching Far and Wide
“There’s always a push-pull between how we experience our parks virtually and how we experience our parks in real time,” says Tim Rains, a public affairs specialist at Glacier National Park. “Here is this combination of the two.”
With lush trees and mountain ranges, national parks are not the easiest places to find cell reception or Wi-Fi. Because of this, Barb Maynes, public information officer at Olympic National Park, says she hasn’t heard reports of people playing Pokémon Go. Acadia National Park also hasn’t reported any activity.
But some visitors centers, which have Wi-Fi, double as pokégyms, or places where players can battle each other and level up. On Tuesday, Rains caught his first Pokémon—a Bulbasaur—near Glacier’s Apgar Visitor Center.
Lynda Doucette, a lead interpretive ranger at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, says the park’s landscape obstructs cell service. But she and her colleagues have found at least five Pokéstops, landmarks where players can collect useful items, and a Pokégym. They’ve identified at least 12 Pokémon, including Zubats and Squirtles.
“One of our goals as part of the National Park Service Centennial is to connect with and create the next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates,” Rains writes in an email. “Games that use geolocation are a new and emerging opportunity to bring new audiences to the park.”
Pokémon Go also has an educational component to it. Great Smoky Mountains’s Mountain Farm Museum has three Pokéstops. When found, historical text will pop up on screen, and players can tap an icon to learn more before returning to the game. There’s also a Twitter account called Pokémon Archaeology devoted to recording Pokémon in historical settings.
“It gets people out there,” Doucette says. “I think it’s an opportunity to bring a new audience to a site.”
Pokémon are popping up in Yosemite National Park, too. Spencer Gediman, the 12-year-old son of the park's public affairs officer Scott Gediman, spent nearly five hours playing Pokémon Go around Yosemite Village on Thursday. He came across about 40 creatures, mostly Pidgey, Nidoran, and Clefairy. He even found a Raticate in his father’s office.
Spencer ran into other players throughout the day. He saw lots of families playing together around places like the church, post office, and village store, which are Pokégyms.
“This game is really big,” Spencer says. “It’s all friendly. It’s really awesome.”
Potential Pitfalls
But as play increases, injuries abound. Already, players have been hurt after falling or walking into obstacles while cruising for critters. So far, though, national parks aren’t implementing any policies against the game.
Instead, Emily Davis, a public affairs officer at Grand Canyon National Park, says rangers will continue to remind visitors to be aware of their surroundings on their quests to track down new Pokémon.
“I don’t anticipate that we’re going to have any new rules implemented,” Doucette says. “It’s the same safety concerns we’ve had before this game.”
Overall, Pokémon Go may become a new way to explore historic parks, which tend to be dead spots for technology. In Washington, D.C., rangers will even soon be getting in on the game by leading a “Catch the Mall Pokémon Hunt,” according to the National Mall and Memorial Parks Facebook page.
“On top of reminding visitors to be safe during their visit, we are also asking them to be respectful of the solemn monuments and to avoid wandering into off-limits areas,” Tom Crosson, chief of public affairs for the National Park Service, writes in an email.
Who knows? Maybe Pikachu could end up on Mount Rushmore one day. |
The Battle of Peleliu, codenamed Operation Stalemate II by the United States military, was fought between the U.S. and Japan during the Mariana and Palau Campaign of World War II, from September to November 1944, on the island of Peleliu.
U.S. Marines of the 1st Marine Division, and later soldiers of the U.S. Army's 81st Infantry Division, fought to capture an airstrip on the small coral island. This battle was part of a larger offensive campaign known as Operation Forager, which ran from June to November 1944, in the Pacific Theater.
Major General William Rupertus, Commander of the 1st Marine Division, predicted the island would be secured within four days.[4] However, after repeated Imperial Army defeats in previous island campaigns, Japan had developed new island-defense tactics and well-crafted fortifications that allowed stiff resistance,[5] extending the battle through more than two months. In the United States, this was a controversial battle because of the island's questionable strategic value and the high casualty rate, which exceeded that of all other amphibious operations during the Pacific War.[6] The National Museum of the Marine Corps called it "the bitterest battle of the war for the Marines".[7]
Background [ edit ]
By 1944, American victories in the Southwest and Central Pacific had brought the war closer to Japan, with American bombers able to strike at the Japanese main islands from air bases secured during the Mariana Islands campaign (June–August 1944). There was disagreement among the U.S. Joint Chiefs over two proposed strategies to defeat the Japanese Empire. The strategy proposed by General Douglas MacArthur called for the recapture of the Philippines, followed by the capture of Okinawa, then an attack on the Japanese mainland. Admiral Chester Nimitz favored a more direct strategy of bypassing the Philippines, but seizing Okinawa and Taiwan as staging areas to an attack on the Japanese mainland, followed by the future invasion of Japan's southernmost islands. Both strategies included the invasion of Peleliu, but for different reasons.[8]
The 1st Marine Division had already been chosen to make the assault. President Franklin D. Roosevelt traveled to Pearl Harbor to personally meet both commanders and hear their arguments. MacArthur's strategy was chosen. However, before MacArthur could retake the Philippines, the Palau Islands, specifically Peleliu and Angaur, were to be neutralized and an airfield built to protect MacArthur's right flank.
Preparations [ edit ]
Japanese [ edit ]
By 1944, Peleliu Island was occupied by about 11,000 Japanese of the 14th Infantry Division with Korean and Okinawan laborers. Colonel Kunio Nakagawa, commander of the division's 2nd Regiment, led the preparations for the island's defense.
After their losses in the Solomons, Gilberts, Marshalls and Marianas, the Imperial Army assembled a research team to develop new island-defense tactics. They chose to abandon the old strategy of stopping the enemy at the beach. The new tactics would only disrupt the landings at the water's edge and depend on an in-depth defense farther inland. Colonel Nakagawa used the rough terrain to his advantage, by constructing a system of heavily fortified bunkers, caves and underground positions all interlocked into a "honeycomb" system. The old "banzai charge" attack was also discontinued as being both wasteful of men and ineffective. These changes would force the Americans into a war of attrition requiring increasingly more resources.
Japanese fortifications
Nakagawa's defenses were based at Peleliu's highest point, Umurbrogol Mountain, a collection of hills and steep ridges located at the center of Peleliu overlooking a large portion of the island, including the crucial airfield. The Umurbrogol contained some 500 limestone caves, interconnected by tunnels. Many of these were former mine shafts that were turned into defense positions. Engineers added sliding armored steel doors with multiple openings to serve both artillery and machine guns. Cave entrances were built slanted as a defense against grenade and flamethrower attacks. The caves and bunkers were connected to a vast system throughout central Peleliu, which allowed the Japanese to evacuate or reoccupy positions as needed, and to take advantage of shrinking interior lines.
The Japanese were well armed with 81 mm (3.19 in) and 150 mm (5.9 in) mortars and 20 mm (0.79 in) anti-aircraft cannons, backed by a light tank unit and an anti-aircraft detachment.
The Japanese also used the beach terrain to their advantage. The northern end of the landing beaches faced a 30-foot (9.1 m) coral promontory that overlooked the beaches from a small peninsula, a spot later known to the Marines who assaulted it simply as "The Point". Holes were blasted into the ridge to accommodate a 47 mm (1.85 in) gun, and six 20 mm cannons. The positions were then sealed shut, leaving just a small firing slit to assault the beaches. Similar positions were crafted along the 2-mile (3.2 km) stretch of landing beaches.
The beaches were also filled with thousands of obstacles for the landing craft, principally mines and a large number of heavy artillery shells buried with the fuses exposed to explode when they were run over. A battalion was placed along the beach to defend against the landing, but they were meant to merely delay the inevitable American advance inland.
American [ edit ]
Unlike the Japanese, who drastically altered their tactics for the upcoming battle, the American invasion plan was unchanged from that of previous amphibious landings, even after suffering 3,000 casualties and two months of delaying tactics against the entrenched Japanese defenders at the Battle of Biak.[9] On Peleliu, American planners chose to land on the southwest beaches because of their proximity to the airfield on South Peleliu. The 1st Marine Regiment, commanded by Colonel Lewis B. Puller, was to land on the northern end of the beaches. The 5th Marine Regiment, under Colonel Harold D. Harris, would land in the center, and the 7th Marine Regiment, under Col. Herman H. Hanneken, would land at the southern end.
The division's artillery regiment, the 11th Marines under Col. William H. Harrison, would land after the infantry regiments. The plan was for the 1st and 7th Marines to push inland, guarding the 5th Marines left and right flank, and allowing them to capture the airfield located directly to the center of the landing beaches. The 5th Marines were to push to the eastern shore, cutting the island in half. The 1st Marines would push north into the Umurbrogol, while the 7th Marines would clear the southern end of the island. Only one battalion was left behind in reserve, with the U.S. Army's 81st Infantry Division available for support from Angaur, just south of Peleliu.
On September 4, the Marines shipped off from their station on Pavuvu, just north of Guadalcanal, a 2,100-mile (3,400 km) trip across the Pacific to Peleliu. A U.S. Navy's Underwater Demolition Team went in first to clear the beaches of obstacles, while Navy warships began their pre-invasion bombardment of Peleliu on September 12.
The battleships Pennsylvania, Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee and Idaho, heavy cruisers Indianapolis, Louisville, Minneapolis and Portland, and light cruisers Cleveland, Denver and Honolulu,[1]:29 led by the command ship Mount McKinley, subjected the tiny island, only 6 sq mi (16 km2) in size, to a massive three-day bombardment, pausing only to permit air strikes from the three aircraft carriers, five light aircraft carriers, and eleven escort carriers with the attack force.[10] A total of 519 rounds of 16 in (410 mm) shells, 1,845 rounds of 14 in (360 mm) shells and 1,793 500 lb (230 kg) bombs were dropped on the islands during this period.
The Americans believed the bombardment to be successful, as Rear Admiral Jesse Oldendorf claimed that the Navy had run out of targets.[10] In reality, the majority of the Japanese positions were completely unharmed. Even the battalion left to defend the beaches was virtually unscathed. During the assault, the island's defenders exercised unusual firing discipline to avoid giving away their positions. The bombardment managed only to destroy Japan's aircraft on the island, as well as the buildings surrounding the airfield. The Japanese remained in their fortified positions, ready to attack the American landing troops.
Opposing forces [ edit ]
Naval command structure for Operation Stalemate II Admiral Chester W. Nimitz Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr. Vice Adm. Theo. S. Wilkinson
Expeditionary Troops and III Amphibious Corps commanders Maj. Gen. Julian C. Smith Maj. Gen. Roy S. Geiger
Marine ground commanders on Peleliu Maj. Gen. William H. Rupertus Oliver P. Smith as a major general Lewis B. Puller as a major general
American order of battle [ edit ]
United States Pacific Fleet[11]
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
US Third Fleet
Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr.
Joint Expeditionary Force (Task Force 31)
Vice Admiral Theodore S. Wilkinson
Expeditionary Troops (Task Force 36)
III Amphibious Corps[a]
Major General Julian C. Smith[b], USMC
Western Landing Force (TG 36.1)
Major General Roy S. Geiger, USMC
1st Marine Division
Beach assignments
Japanese order of battle [ edit ]
Lt. Col. Kunio Nakagawa Marine with captured Japanese 141mm mortar
Palau District Group[15]
Lieutenant General Inoue Sadao[f] (HQ on Koror Island)
Vice Admiral Yoshioka Ito
Maj. Gen. Kenjiro Murai[g]
14th Division (Lt. Gen. Sadao)
Peleliu Sector Unit (Lt. Col. Kunio Nakagawa[h])
2nd Infantry Regiment, Reinforced 2nd Bttn. / 2nd Infantry Regiment 3rd Bttn. / 2nd Infantry Regiment 3rd Bttn. / 15th Infantry Regiment 346th Bttn. / 53rd Independent Mixed Brigade
Battle [ edit ]
Landing [ edit ]
Routes of Allied landings on Peleliu, 15 September 1944
U.S. Marines landed on Peleliu at 08:32, on September 15, the 1st Marines to the north on White Beach 1 and 2 and the 5th and 7th Marines to the center and south on Orange Beach 1, 2, and 3.[1]:42–45 As the other landing craft approached the beaches, the Marines were caught in a crossfire when the Japanese opened the steel doors guarding their positions and fired artillery. The positions on the coral promontories guarding each flank fired on the Marines with 47 mm guns and 20 mm cannons. By 09:30, the Japanese had destroyed 60 LVTs and DUKWs.
The 1st Marines were quickly bogged down by heavy fire from the extreme left flank and a 30-foot-high coral ridge, "The Point".[1]:49 Colonel Chesty Puller narrowly escaped death when a dud high velocity artillery round struck his LVT. His communications section was destroyed on its way to the beach by a hit from a 47 mm round. The 7th Marines faced a cluttered Orange Beach 3, with natural and man-made obstacles, forcing the Amtracs to approach in column.[1]:52
The 5th Marines made the most progress on the first day, aided by cover provided by coconut groves.[1]:51 They pushed toward the airfield, but were met with Nakagawa's first counterattack. His armored tank company raced across the airfield to push the Marines back, but was soon engaged by tanks, howitzers, naval guns and dive bombers. Nakagawa's tanks and escorting infantrymen were quickly destroyed.[1]:57
At the end of the first day, the Americans held their 2-mile (3.2 km) stretch of landing beaches, but little else. Their biggest push in the south moved 1 mile (1.6 km) inland, but the 1st Marines to the north made very little progress because of the extremely thick resistance.[1]:42 The Marines had suffered 200 dead and 900 wounded. Rupertus, still unaware of his enemy's change of tactics, believed the Japanese would quickly crumble since their perimeter had been broken.[18]
On D-day the 7th Marines had a situation. They did not have enough men to man the line and get the wounded to safety. Three men were sent to find help and found two units, the 16th Marine Field Depot (11th Marine Depot Co. & 7th Marine Ammunition Co.)[19] and 17th Special CB. They were not certain what their officers would think because both were segregated units but they knew they needed help[20]. The 17th Seabees were assigned to the 1st Pioneers as shore party. They carried the wounded, buried the dead, and humped ammo to the front that day. At 0200 that night the Japanese mounted a counterattack. By the time it was over nearly the entire 17th had volunteered to hump ammo to the line, bring wounded back, fill in where the wounded had been, man 37mm guns that had lost their crews, and volunteer for anything. C Co 1st battalion 7th Marines needed the most help.[21][22][23][24][25] The 17th Seabees remained with the 7th through D-plus 3. Before the battle was over and the island secured Maj. General Rupertus wrote three letters saying "Well Done" to the two Marine Companies and the CB .
The airfield/South Peleliu [ edit ]
A wounded Marine receives a drink from a Navy corpsman
On the second day, the 5th Marines moved to capture the airfield and push toward the eastern shore.[1]:61 They ran across the airfield, enduring heavy artillery fire from the highlands to the north, suffering heavy casualties in the process. After capturing the airfield, they rapidly advanced to the eastern end of Peleliu, leaving the island's southern defenders to be destroyed by the 7th Marines.[1]:58
This area was hotly contested by the Japanese, who still occupied numerous pillboxes. Heat indices[26] were around[27] 115 °F (46 °C), and the Marines soon suffered high casualties from heat exhaustion. Further complicating the situation, the Marines' water was distributed in empty oil drums, contaminating the water with the oil residue.[28] Still, by the eighth day the 5th and 7th Marines had accomplished their objectives, holding the airfield and the southern portion of the island, although the airfield remained under threat of sustained Japanese fire from the heights of Umurbrogol Mountain until the end of the battle.[10]
American forces put the airfield to use on the third day. L-2 Grasshoppers from VMO-1 began aerial spotting missions for Marine artillery and naval gunfire support. On September 26 (D+11), Marine F4U Corsairs from VMF-114 landed on the airstrip. The Corsairs began dive-bombing missions across Peleliu, firing rockets into open cave entrances for the infantrymen, and dropping napalm; it was only the second time the latter weapon had been used in the Pacific.[citation needed] Napalm proved useful, burning away the vegetation hiding spider holes and usually killing their occupants.
The time from liftoff to the target area for the Corsairs based on Peleliu Airfield was very short, sometimes only 10 to 15 seconds. Consequently, there was almost no time for pilots to raise their aircraft undercarriage; most pilots did not bother and left them down during the air strike. After the air strike was completed and the payload dropped, the Corsair simply turned back into the landing pattern again.
The Point [ edit ]
Frontline warning sign on Peleliu, October 1944
The fortress at the end of the southern landing beaches (a.k.a. “The Point”) continued to cause heavy Marine casualties due to enfilading fire from Japanese heavy machine guns and anti-tank artillery across the landing beaches. Puller ordered Captain George P. Hunt, commander of K Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, to capture the position. Hunt's company approached The Point short on supplies, having lost most of its machine guns while approaching the beaches. Hunt's second platoon was pinned down for nearly a day in an anti-tank trench between fortifications. The rest of his company was endangered when the Japanese cut a hole in their line, surrounding his company and leaving his right flank cut off.[1]:49
However, a rifle platoon began knocking out the Japanese gun positions one by one. Using smoke grenades for concealment, the platoon swept through each hole, destroying the positions with rifle grenades and close-quarters combat. After knocking out the six machine gun positions, the Marines faced the 47 mm gun cave. A lieutenant blinded the 47 mm gunner's visibility with a smoke grenade, allowing Corporal Henry W. Hahn to launch a grenade through the cave's aperture. The grenade detonated the 47 mm's shells, forcing the cave's occupants out with their bodies lit aflame as well as their ammunition belts exploding around their waists. A Marine fire team was positioned on the flank of the cave where the former occupants were shot down.
K Company had captured The Point, but Nakagawa counterattacked. The next 30 hours saw four major counterattacks against a sole company, critically low on supplies, out of water, and surrounded. The Marines soon had to resort to hand-to-hand combat to fend off the Japanese attackers. By the time reinforcements arrived, the company had successfully repulsed all of the Japanese attacks, but had been reduced to 18 men, suffering 157 casualties during the battle for The Point.[1]:50–51 Hunt and Hahn were both awarded the Navy Cross for their actions.
Ngesebus Island [ edit ]
U.S. Marine in combat at Peleliu Island, September 1944
The 5th Marines—after having secured the airfield—were sent to capture Ngesebus Island, just north of Peleliu. Ngesebus was occupied by many Japanese artillery positions, and was the site of an airfield still under construction. The tiny island was connected to Peleliu by a small causeway, but 5th Marines commander Harris opted instead to make a shore-to-shore amphibious landing, predicting the causeway to be an obvious target for the island's defenders.[1]:77
Harris coordinated a pre-landing bombardment of the island on September 28, carried out by Army 155 mm (6.1 in) guns, naval guns, howitzers from the 11th Marines, strafing runs from VMF-114's Corsairs, and 75 mm (2.95 in) fire from the approaching LVTs.[1]:77 Unlike the Navy's bombardment of Peleliu, Harris' assault on Ngesebus successfully killed most of the Japanese defenders. The Marines still faced opposition in the ridges and caves, but the island fell quickly, with relatively light casualties for the 5th Marines. They had suffered 15 killed and 33 wounded, and inflicted 470 casualties on the Japanese.
Bloody Nose Ridge [ edit ]
After capturing The Point, the 1st Marines moved north into the Umurbrogol pocket,[1]:81 named "Bloody Nose Ridge" by the Marines. Puller led his men in numerous assaults, but every one brought on severe casualties by the Japanese. The 1st Marines were trapped within the narrow paths between the ridges, with each ridge fortification supporting the other with deadly crossfire.
A Corsair drops napalm on Japanese positions atop Umurbrogol.
The Marines took increasingly high casualties as they slowly advanced through the ridges. The Japanese again showed unusual fire discipline, striking only when they could inflict maximum casualties. As casualties mounted, Japanese snipers began to take aim at stretcher bearers, knowing that if two stretcher bearers were injured or killed, more would have to return to replace them, and the snipers could steadily pick off more and more Marines. The Japanese infiltrated the American lines at night to attack the Marines in their fighting holes. The Marines built two-man fighting holes, so one Marine could sleep while the other kept watch for infiltrators.
One particularly bloody battle on Bloody Nose came when the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines—under the command of Major Raymond Davis—attacked Hill 100. Over six days of fighting, the battalion suffered 71% casualties. Captain Everett Pope and his company penetrated deep into the ridges, leading his remaining 90 men to seize what he thought was Hill 100. It took a day's fighting to reach what he thought was the crest of the hill, which was in fact another ridge occupied by more Japanese defenders.
Marine Pfc. Douglas Lightheart (right) cradles his .30 caliber (7.62×63mm) M1919 Browning machine gun in his lap, while he and Pfc. Gerald Thursby Sr. take a cigarette break, during mopping up operations on Peleliu on 15 September 1944.
Trapped at the base of the ridge, Captain Pope set up a small defense perimeter, which was attacked relentlessly by the Japanese throughout the night. The Marines soon ran out of ammunition, and had to fight the attackers with knives and fists, even resorting to throwing coral rock and empty ammunition boxes at the Japanese. Pope and his men managed to hold out until dawn came, which brought on more deadly fire. When they evacuated the position, only nine men remained. Pope later received the Medal of Honor for the action. (Picture of the Peleliu Memorial dedicated on the 50th anniversary of the landing on Peleliu with Captain Pope's name)
The Japanese eventually inflicted 70% casualties on Puller's 1st Marines, or 1,749 men.[1]:66 After six days of fighting in the ridges of Umurbrogol, General Roy Geiger, commander of the III Amphibious Corps, sent elements of U.S. Army's 81st Infantry Division to Peleliu to relieve the regiment.[1]:66 The 321st Regiment Combat Team landed on the western beaches of Peleliu—at the northern end of Umurbrogol mountain—on 23 September. The 321st and the 7th Marines encircled The Pocket by 24 Sept., D+9.[1]:75,81
By 15 October, the 7th Marines had suffered 46% casualties and General Geiger relieved them with the 5th Marines.[1]:83 Col. Harris adopted siege tactics, using bulldozers and flame-thrower tanks, pushing from the north.[1]:83–84 On October 30, the 81st Infantry Division took over command of Peleliu, taking another six weeks, with the same tactics, to reduce The Pocket.[1]:85
On 24 November, Nakagawa proclaimed "Our sword is broken and we have run out of spears". He then burnt his regimental colors and performed ritual suicide.[1]:86 He was posthumously promoted to lieutenant general for his valor displayed on Peleliu. On 27 November, the island was declared secure, ending the 73-day-long battle.[18]
A Japanese lieutenant with twenty-six 2nd Infantry soldiers and eight 45th Guard Force sailors held out in the caves in Peleliu until April 22, 1947, and surrendered after a Japanese admiral convinced them the war was over.[1]:81
Aftermath [ edit ]
Marines in a hospital on Guadalcanal after being wounded in the Battle of Peleliu
The reduction of the Japanese pocket around Umurbrogol mountain has been called the most difficult fight that the U.S. military encountered in the entire war.[28] The 1st Marine Division was severely mauled and it remained out of action until the invasion of Okinawa began on April 1, 1945. In total, the 1st Marine Division suffered over 6,500 casualties during their month on Peleliu, over one third of their entire division. The 81st Infantry Division also suffered heavy losses with 3,300 casualties during their tenure on the island.
Postwar statisticians calculated that it took U.S. forces over 1500 rounds of ammunition to kill each Japanese defender, and that during the course of the battle, the Americans expended 13.32 million rounds of .30-calibre, 1.52 million rounds of .45-calibre, 693,657 rounds of .50-calibre bullets, 118,262 hand grenades, and approximately 150,000 mortar rounds.[10]
The battle was controversial in the United States due to the island's lack of strategic value and the high casualty rate. The defenders lacked the means to interfere with potential US operations in the Philippines,[10] and the airfield captured on Peleliu never played a key role in subsequent operations. The high casualty rate exceeded all other amphibious operations during the Pacific War.[6]
Instead, the Ulithi Atoll in the Caroline Islands was used as a staging base for the invasion of Okinawa. In addition, few news reports were published about the battle because Rupertus' prediction of a "three days" victory motivated only six reporters to report from shore. The battle was also overshadowed by MacArthur's return to the Philippines and the Allies' push towards Germany in Europe.
The battles for Angaur and Peleliu showed Americans the pattern of future Japanese island defense which would be seen again at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.[29] Naval bombardment prior to amphibious assault at Iwo Jima was only slightly more effective than at Peleliu, but at Okinawa the preliminary shelling was much improved.[30] Frogmen performing underwater demolition at Iwo Jima confused the enemy by sweeping both coasts, but later alerted Japanese defenders to the exact assault beaches at Okinawa.[30] American ground forces at Peleliu gained experience in assaulting heavily fortified positions such as they would find again at Okinawa.[31]
On the recommendation of Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., the planned occupation of Yap Island in the Caroline Islands was canceled. Halsey actually recommended that the landings on Peleliu and Angaur be canceled, too, and their Marines and soldiers be thrown into Leyte Island instead, but was overruled by Nimitz.[32]
In popular culture [ edit ]
The Battle of Peleliu is featured in many World War II themed video games including Call of Duty: World at War. The player takes the role of a US Marine forced to take Peleliu Airfield, repel counter-attacks, destroy machine-gun and mortar positions and eventually secure Japanese artillery emplacements at the point. In flight-simulation game War Thunder, two teams of players clash to hold the southern and northern airfields. In multi-player shooter Red Orchestra 2: Rising Storm, a team of American troops attack the defensive Japanese team's control points.
The battle including footage and stills are featured in the fifth episode of Ken Burns' The War.
The battle features in episodes 5, 6 and 7 of the TV mini-series The Pacific.
In his book, With the Old Breed, Eugene Bondurant Sledge described his experiences in the battle for Peleliu.
In 2015, the Japanese magazine Young Animal commenced serialization of Peleliu: Rakuen no Guernica by Masao Hiratsuka and artist Kazuyoshi Takeda, telling the story of the battle in manga form.
One of the final scenes in Parer's War, a 2014 Australian television film, shows the Battle of Peleliu recorded by Damien Parer with his camera at the time of his death.
Individual honors [ edit ]
Japan [ edit ]
Posthumous promotions [ edit ]
For heroism:
Colonel Kunio Nakagawa – lieutenant general
Kenjiro Murai – lieutenant general
United States [ edit ]
Pfc. Richard Kraus, USMC (age 18), killed in action
Medal of Honor recipients [ edit ]
Posthumous:
Unit citations [ edit ]
Presidential Unit Citation - 1st Marine Division, September 15 to 29, 1944[33]
See also [ edit ]
[36]
Notes [ edit ]
^ [12] Also included the Army's 81st Infantry Division (assigned to the capture of Angaur ), the 77th Infantry Division, and the 5th Marine Division ^ [13] Because the III Amph. Corps was still struggling with the capture of Guam, Marine Corps planning for Stalemate II was assigned to Gen. Smith; operational command for the invasion was turned over to Gen. Geiger. ^ [14] Rupertus was not at peak effectiveness, having broken an ankle at Guadalcanal during landing practice for Stalemate II, but Smith learned of this too late to make a change in divisional command. ^ While commanding the 1st Marine Division at the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War , Smith announced, "Retreat, hell ... we're just advancing in a different direction." ^ Became the most decorated Marine in the history of the Corps. ^ [16] "...stern-voice and strict disciplinarian;" served 10-year sentence on Guam for war crimes. ^ [17] Sadao sent Murai to Peleliu to provide sufficiently high Army rank to balance the command authority of Vice Adm. Ito, who was nominally in charge of Navy forces in the lower Palaus. ^ Committed suicide along with Murai as the struggle for the Umurbrogol Pocket neared its end.
References [ edit ]
Bibliography [ edit ]
Further reading [ edit ] |
by Greg Palast
In swing-state Colorado, the Republican Secretary of State conducted the biggest purge of voters in history, dumping a fifth of all registrations. Guess their color.
In swing-state Florida, the state is refusing to accept about 85,000 new registrations from voter drives – overwhelming Black voters.
In swing state New Mexico, HALF of the Democrats of Mora, a dirt poor and overwhelmingly Hispanic county, found their registrations disappeared this year, courtesy of a Republican voting contractor.
In swing states Ohio and Nevada, new federal law is knocking out tens of thousands of voters who lost their homes to foreclosure.
My investigations partner spoke directly to Barack Obama about it. (When your partner is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., candidates take your phone call.) The cool, cool Senator Obama told Kennedy he was “concerned” about the integrity of the vote in the Southwest in particular.
He’s concerned. I’m sweating.
It’s time SOMEBODY raised the alarm about these missing voters; not to save Obama’s candidacy – journalists should stay the heck away from partisan endorsements – but raise the alarm to save our sick democracy.
And that somebody is YOU. Joining with US, the Palast investigative team. Here’s how:
We have been offered an astonishing opportunity to place the Kennedy-Palast investigative findings on a national, prime-time, major-network television broadcast. Plus, separately, we have an extraordinary offer to create a series of reports for national network radio.
But guess what? The networks will NOT PAY for our public service reports. We have to raise the start-up funds in the next two weeks to film it, record it and get it on the airwaves.
WE need YOU to fund the reports, DISSEMINATE the findings as we post the print, audio and video on the web– and ACT on it.
So, for only the second time this year, I am asking each one of you to go to The Palast Investigative Fund and make a tax-deductible donation.
Progressives have complained for years of no opportunity to get the hard, cold sweaty truth on the air. Well, put your money where your heart and soul is.
Donations from our prior and only request already paid for some of our filming in the Southwest. Don’t let this story be swept under the border.
If you want more information, go to GregPalast.com, or write me directly at GregPalast.com – and hit the button, “contact Greg.”
Pass this on!
**************************
Greg Palast is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow for Investigative Reporting at the Nation Institute, New York. Read and view his investigations for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com. Support the investigation at www.PalastInvestigativeFund.org |
Director: Christopher Nolan.
Screenplay: Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan.
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, John Lithgow, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Ellen Burstyn, Wes Bentley, David Gyasi, David Oyelowo, Topher Grace, William Devane, Mackenzie Foy, Timothée Chalamet, Collette Wolfe, Francis X. McCarthy, Bill Irwin, Josh Stewart.
“You might have to decide between seeing your children again and the future of the human race”
With consistent deliveries over the years, director Christopher Nolan has now carved himself a place among the Hollywood elite. His sophomore movie Memento still remains one of my top ten personal favourite films but it was his hugely successful Dark Knight trilogy and the teasingly elaborate Inception that most people identified with. As a result of these blockbusters, there was much anticipation upon the release of his Sci-Fi epic Interstellar. Many were so enthused that they were literally counting down the days till the film’s release. The anticipation was so huge that there was bound to be disappointment as few films can ever truly deliver on such a basis of expectation. Interstellar has become prey to this and I can honestly say that I wish I hadn’t listened to the naysayers and their feelings of deflation.
In the near future, Earth is on the brink of decimation from climate change – resulting in dust clouds, famine and drought. Humanity’s last hope comes in the shape of astronaut turned crop-farmer, Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) who leaves behind his family to join a small crew of scientists and explore a wormhole in the far reaches our solar system. Travelling through this allows them to investigate planets which may be capable of sustaining life and possibly pave a new beginning for the human race.
Let’s face it, Nolan has never been one to scrimp on ideas or refrain from challenging his audience. Trying to tie your head around Inception or Memento, for example, were hard enough but he manages to go even further with Interstellar – and on a even grander scale. Beginning as a family drama, Nolan builds his characters and their relationships with a touching sensitivity – that he’s not normally known for. As much as he’s been able to bring a realism to his imaginative and convoluted films in the past, he’s never really brought a deliberately paced, dramatic edge. He normally sets up his stall and gets on with it. Interstellar, however, shows him at his most restrained. He builds slowly and assuredly which, ultimately, add real scope to his overall vision. And that scope is astounding; he achieves the apocalyptic dread of a decaying earth before reaching for the stars and injecting hope and wonder. Of course, this is not before he forces you to get your thinking cap on and ponder the complexities of gravity, neutron stars, spinning wormholes, black holes and Einstein’s theory of relativity.
In order to ensure the film was scientifically accurate, Nolan enlisted the help of theoretical physicist Kip Thorne – who acted as a consultant throughout. His theories may be challenging but they only add to how impressive the film’s idea’s are and how they’re not merely grown from a Hollywood script – they actually consist of scientific possibilities. This alone, hugely contributes to Interstellar being more than your average science fiction yarn. True, these theories and possibilities can be hard to wrap your head around but by building three dimensional characters and having reliable actors to embody them, Nolan has enough behind his grand ambitions to make events believable and manages to explain a fair bit on layman’s terms. That being said, there are some questionable moments whereby we are offered a hypothesis on how love can transcend time and space. Admittedly, this is misplaced and clunky (even laughable) but the magnitude and scope of the film is so vast and ambitious that it’s easy to overlook.
It’s occasions like these, however, that resemble a maudlin, schmaltzier touch more akin to Steven Spielberg (who was originally planning to make the film). Where it benefits from a Spielbergian influence, though, is in it’s sense of wonder and adventure. Despite it’s heavy themes, Nolan never forgets to entertain and (like Spielberg) delivers a real visual spectacle that reminds you of just how magical and escapist movies can be.
The film does, admittedly, have inconsistencies but they were not enough to bother me. If anything, I found the whole experience to fit wonderfully together: Hans Zimmer’s marvellously emotive score echoes the ethereal work of Philip Glass and serves the film perfectly – bringing a real gravitas to the whole spectacle – and McConaughey, yet again, delivers a central performance of depth to a character that could so easily have been swamped with the big budget and special effects.
Added to which, at a running time close to three hours, Nolan, seemingly, doesn’t know when to stop. However, I didn’t want him to. Any clock watching I found myself doing was only a result of not wanting it to end. It’s visually spectacular and as much as I greatly admired Alfonso Cauron’s Oscar winning Gravity for it’s visuals, I thought it’s story was found wanting. Interstellar, on the other hand, is narratively dense and the overall film that Gravity wishes it was. That being said, Nolan (and his co-writer and brother Jonathan) came in for some criticism in terms of their (almost indecipherable) plot and the holes therein. Personally, I think the criticisms are a tad harsh. Can it be deciphered? Is it too complicated for it’s own good? Is it because it strives to be an intellectual voyage yet remain a crowd pleaser the reason it has split audiences? These questions are better left to the individual viewer but big budget spectacles, where they dare to challenge and entertain are hard to come by and on it’s ambition alone, Interstellar succeeds. Nolan’s epic odyssey is an old fashioned mix of grandeur, sophistication and entertainment. The frequency of his transmission wasn’t well received by everyone but, personally, I was fully tuned in.
Mark Walker
Trivia: Early in pre-production, Dr. Kip Thorne laid down two guidelines to strictly follow: nothing would violate established physical laws, and that all the wild speculations would spring from science and not from the creative mind of a screenwriter. Christopher Nolan accepted these terms as long as they did not get in the way of the making of the movie. That did not prevent clashes, though; at one point Thorne spent two weeks talking Nolan out of an idea about travelling faster than light.
Advertisements |
Right then – time for some topical humour with halloween right around the corner! I present you 10 are some hand picked funny Halloween puns and jokes!
Vampires keep their money in the blood bank.
A ghosts favourite food is a HamBooger!
Ghosts use elevators to raise their spirits.
What’s a vampire’s favourite fruit? A necktarine.
Why did’t the skeleton cross the road? He didn’t have the guts.
What’s a monsters favourite desert? I-Scream!
What did the skeleton say to the vampire? You suck.
Why is a ghost such a messy eater? Because he is always a goblin.
Why can’t a Skeleton Lift Weights? He’s all bone & no muscle.
Why does a cemetery have to keep a fence around it? Because people are dying to get in.
Looking for more fun? Why not check out our main site for some Funny Puns or our Blonde Jokes! |
A prominent Pembroke dentist who drank and drove before killing a father of three is now staring down a lengthy prison term after a judge found her guilty of impaired and dangerous driving causing death.
After a marathon trial that spanned nearly three years and featured the best team of defence lawyers money can buy in Ottawa, Dr. Christy Natsis is now facing that stark reality after a judge concluded Friday that her driving on the night of March 31, 2011 was a danger to the public and caused the death of Bryan Casey in a head-on crash on Hwy. 17 near Arnprior.
The verdict was a huge victory for Crown prosecutors, who had to overcome a ruling earlier in the trial that tossed out breath readings that showed Natsis had a blood-alcohol level nearly 2 1/2 times the legal limit after the judge found the OPP violated her Charter rights by repeatedly interrupting — and eventually hanging up on — a call to her lawyer.
Immediately following the verdict, a wave of relief washed over Casey’s widow, LeeEllen Carroll, and his father, Gus, who sat quietly in the courtroom as they have for all 55 previous days of the long-running trial.
“We’ve been in court every single day of the trial and we’ve heard the evidence, we know the facts, we know the truth,” Carroll said outside the courthouse.
“We are relieved that justice is being done. The pain inflicted upon us and our families from the crash and the drawn out court case has left a huge impact on our family. It should not be experienced by others. I will never forget the look on my children’s faces when I told them what happened. I will never forget the pain in their eyes and in their hearts,” Carroll said.
Natis showed little reaction after Ontario Court Justice Neil Kozloff took three hours to deliver his verdict, meticulously outlining the evidence of each of the more than two dozen witnesses who testified during the trial. In the end, he said he chose to rely on the eyewitness evidence that painted a picture of a heavily intoxicated and unsteady Natsis leaving the Crazy Horse bar in Kanata following two glasses of wine, backing her Ford Expedition into a parked car and then swerving all over the highway at speeds that at times approached 130 km/h. Kozloff said he accepted witness evidence that she nearly hit a concrete wall during the 24-minute drive that ended with her slamming head-on into Casey’s Dodge pickup.
Numerous witnesses — other drivers who stepped to help, police officers and a paramedic — said they detected an odour of alcohol on Natsis following the crash, the judge added. Natsis’ average speed was 112 km/h during the 45 kilometre drive, the judge noted.
“Such conduct demonstrates a recklessness in creating a risk or danger to other users of the highway which, in considering the evidence of driving conduct, establishes a pattern of disregard for the safety of other users of the highway which amounts to a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver,” said Kozloff.
Casey, 50, suffered a broken femur, hip and pelvis and was bleeding to death internally when he went into cardiac arrest in the ambulance on the way to hospital in Ottawa.
Evidence collected by the OPP from the crash scene and computer modules inside Natsis and Casey’s wrecked vehicles further convinced the judge of Natsis’s guilt, he said. The trial heard evidence that Casey himself had a blood-alcohol level 1 1/2 times the legal limit to drive, but gouge marks and the debris field proved the crash occurred entirely within Casey’s eastbound lane.
Data gathered from Natsis’ vehicle showed she never slowed from the 87 km/h she was driving in the seconds before hitting Casey, who was not at all to blame for the fatal crash, Kozloff said.
“Mr. Casey, in spite of his elevated blood-alcohol level, perceived the danger presented by the presence of the Natsis vehicle entirely within his lane and reacted. He removed his foot from the accelerator, he applied his brakes, he began to turn his vehicle away and he reduced his speed … thereby taking evasive action in an apparent and tragically unsuccessful attempt to avoid a collision with the Ford Expedition,” Kozloff said.
Natsis’s highly skilled defence team, made up of top lawyers Michael Edelson and his partners, Vince Clifford and Solomon Friedman, had spent a great deal of the trial attacking the OPP’s collision investigation and accusing the officers involved of being biased and incompetent. Their efforts didn’t sway the judge, who noted the “sloppiness” of portions of collision investigator Shawn Kelly’s crash report but ultimately accepted its key findings, which were supported by the evidence and the work of other officers.
The 50-year-old Natsis — who remains out of custody on bail — will next return to court on June 10 when a date for her sentencing hearing is expected to be set.
Impaired driving causing death convictions typically carry prison sentences of between two and five years for first time offenders.
aseymour@ottawacitizen.com
Twitter.com/andrew_seymour |
President-elect Donald Trump at the DeltaPlex Arena on December 9 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
President-elect Donald Trump's transition approval rating is lower than that of his predecessors over almost the past 25 years, according to a new Gallup poll.
Trump's approval rating hovers around 48%, which is at least 17 percentage points lower than the lowest approval rating that any of the past three presidents had during his transition.
George W. Bush had a 65% approval rating when he first took office, Bill Clinton took office with a 67% rating, and Barack Obama entered with a 75% rating.
Trump's disapproval rating of 48% during his transition is also the highest of any president in the past quarter-century. The Gallup study notes that a potential factor driving down the president-elect's approval rating is that members of the opposing party are much more critical of Trump than they were of previous opponents.
Obama and Clinton had approval ratings of nearly 50% from members of the Republican Party, while Bush's was almost 50% from Democrats.
According to the poll, Trump's support among members of his own party, 86%, also lags behind Bush's Republican support (93%). He also does significantly worse among independents than his predecessors did.
Trump at a rally at the Ladd–Peebles Stadium on December 17 in Mobile, Alabama. Associated Press/Brynn Anderson
Trump could be in line to have the lowest job-approval rating upon taking office in Gallup's polling history. Initial job-approval ratings for presidents generally tend to be about 8 points lower than their transition approval ratings, the study notes. To date, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have the lowest initial job-approval ratings, at 51% each.
The study notes that to boost his approval ratings, Trump will need the support of more Democrats and independents, many of whom are wary of his Cabinet picks. His nominee for secretary of state, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, has drawn sharp criticism from many Democrats and some Republicans for his close ties to Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
His other Cabinet picks, many of whom are bankers, lobbyists, and climate-change deniers, have drawn the ire of prominent progressives like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. |
In The Man with the Golden Gun, Francisco Scaramanga is a typical Bond villain, flamboyant and menacing, with a supposedly unusual feature — a third nipple. But it's actually not that unique an identifier. One in 18 men have third nipples, while one in 50 women have them — and many people may have more than three.
It may be a shock to the people who have them, though. Supernumerary nipples come in eight classifications, the most mild of which can be as inconspicuous as an odd patch of hair on the skin. Others resemble moles, because they have no areola, and so are just nubs on the skin. The most developed nipples are fully-formed, with glandular tissue and fat tissue.
Advertisement
Extra nipples can form anywhere one the body — in one case, a woman grew an extra nipple on the bottom of her foot — but there are some areas where nipples are much more likely to grow. Those areas explain why third nipples aren't that unusual. Raise your left arm, and trace a line from your underarm, through your nipple, to your inner thigh. That is one of your "milk lines." There's a corresponding one on your right side.
In humans, milk lines usually are nothing more than very slight thickenings of the skin. In animals, spots on these milk lines develop to form nipples. An animal can have anywhere from two to 12 nipples. For some the nipples are high up, almost under the armpit. Others have inguinal nipples, meaning nipples down near the groin. For humans, two nipples high up on the chest are the norm, but milk lines show us we always have the potential for more.
Advertisement
Because third nipples don't pose any real danger to their possessors they don't get a lot of attention. Still, we have some idea as to why extra nipples start growing along milk lines. Recently scientists at the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre found, and nicknamed the Scaramanga gene after the villain. It produces a protein that the researchers call NRG3 which signals the body and causes it to develop breast tissue. Release the signal in the wrong place, and there's an extra nipple. The cancer center researchers hope that understanding the Scaramanga gene and its protein might help them find out more about breast development and breast cancer. In the meantime, check your milk lines for moles. You might get a surprise.
[Via Identification of signaling pathways in early mammary gland development by mouse genetics, Cancer hope over breast gene find] |
The Delhi high court came down heavily on the city government on Thursday for creating “chaos and confusion” in the nursery admission process every year by putting up fresh notifications just before the admission season starts.
“Why have you put up a new notification in January, when the admission process starts in January... This makes the citizen jittery, who does not know where to go,” justice Manmohan fumed.
The judge noted that this behaviour of the government created “chaos and confusion” for parents who didn’t get enough time to plan admission process of their kids.
“It has become very difficult to deal with this government... In the last four years, you (government) have come up with at least three notifications in the month of January,” justice Manmohan remarked, while hearing a fresh petition moved by an association of private unaided schools challenging a January 7 notification on nursery admission.
The court noted that the late notification on nursery has created a situation where if anyone challenges it and the court interferes, the whole admission planning of parents gets disturbed.
“What were you (government) doing the whole year. This notification should have come at least six months or a year in advance so that parents gets to plan in advance. Don’t take anyone by surprise,” justice Manmohan said, posting the case for hearing in the afternoon.
Action Committee Unaided Recognised Private Schools, consisting of more than 450 private unaided recognised schools functioning in Delhi has challenged the notification restricting private schools on public land to admit toddlers only using the neighbourhood or distance criteria.
Read | Parents must learn about nursery admission criteria before applying, say experts
The new policy was approved by lieutenant governor Anil Baijal and announced by the government on Saturday.
One of the major problems about 300 private schools, which are built on Delhi Development Authority (DDA) land, has with the new guidelines is that they can no longer deny admission to anyone who seeks admission from their neighbourhood.
The government January 7 notification said these private schools cannot “refuse admission to the residents of the locality” and fill 75% of the capacity. The remaining 25% seats are mandatorily reserved for children whose parents’ annual income is less than Rs 1 lakh a year.
Read | Nursery admissions: How to decide on a good school for your child
The notification gave priority to students living within a radius of one kilometre. In case seats remain vacant, those living within a distance of 3km will get a chance.
There are 1,400 private unaided schools in the Capital and 298 of them are built on land allotted by the DDA.
The committee has challenged the notification contending that it was “illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and unconstitutional”. It contended that the terms of allotment was superseded by the lease deeds subsequently executed and registered by the land owning agencies in favour of the private educational societies.
Find schools for your child that match Delhi government’s “distance” rule
First Published: Jan 12, 2017 11:53 IST |
Something has been frustrating me for a while, and has recently been fueled by a host of excitable ‘top 40 of the greatest websites ever using this effect’ lists, promoting what is essentially false advertisement.
This gripe is to do with the erroneous application and misguided views of true parallax in web design.
The common misconception is shared amongst a few parties.
The creator (designer, developer, firm) who in some cases is to blame perhaps due to a lack of understanding on what parallax actually is, or maybe because they do not have the ability to implement it correctly, or because they were too lazy to… I won’t continue speculating.
(designer, developer, firm) who in some cases is to blame perhaps due to a lack of understanding on what parallax actually is, or maybe because they do not have the ability to implement it correctly, or because they were too lazy to… I won’t continue speculating. The promotional site that the work has been featured on. Of course because the work includes some fancy scroll effects it gets blindly bucketed up as a ‘parallax scrolling website’ regardless of whether the creator sold it in as such.
that the work has been featured on. Of course because the work includes some fancy scroll effects it gets blindly bucketed up as a ‘parallax scrolling website’ regardless of whether the creator sold it in as such. Finally the audience who seem to be so overwhelmed by these fancy effects, combined with the falsely entitled article they are reading are fooled in to believing the effect they are experiencing is parallax.
The misuse of the effect has become so frequent that it is now being accepted as a given standard.
This article aims to highlight and rectify these views, delve a little in to the meaning of the term and also look at how it should and should not be applied.
So what is it?
First of all, let’s highlight exactly what this word ‘parallax’ means.
“Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight”
Now, obviously this is the simplest of synopses, but it is a clear and concise way to kick things off.
There are two parts to highlight from this single line extract; first is the “along two different lines of sight” part.
Line of sight requires an initial point of reference, and an end point of reference with clear visibility from one to the other.
The other extraction of this line we will focus on is the words “apparent position of an object”.
The object’s apparent position. Let’s keep that in mind, as these two lines together define what is essentially the core difference between true parallax, and a fancy ‘scroll effect’.
This statement tells us that for true parallax to be achieved, there must be a) an object or point of focus, and b) said object must have an apparent position in a given space which is manipulated by movement. In essence, formulating a sense of depth perception or ‘Stereopsis’.
We won’t delve into Stereopsis too much, as we could start discussing other related and interesting topics like lighting and abnormal binocular vision, but from this article what we need to take note is that humans with two working eyes or ‘binocular vision’ have the ability to see using Stereopsis. It allows us to formulate two separate scenes which our brain can then use to calculate depth in a single visual scene. This is the effect we are trying to replicate when applying a parallax effect to web design.
Returning to our chosen medium
Lets take a look at a few examples of websites which either by the creator, the audience or the featured site are claiming to be parallax. Let’s make an initial judgement as to whether they are or not in fact parallax:
This is not supposed to be a name and shame, as I am not critiquing the actual designs of the sites listed. I am only focusing on if the effects used on them are parallax or not. All the above have been featured on different lists of ‘some amazing examples of parallax websites’ or ‘top 30 parallax scrolling sites’.
None are in fact parallax. Did you think they were? The sites above are either using different scroll effects to simulate movement of objects not naturally expected by the user, or simply sliding two planes over one another at different scroll speeds.
This is not parallax. Why? Well let’s go back to our initial dissection of our extract from Wikipedia. Where is the object? Where are the two lines of sight? You cannot effectively create true parallax without these.
A real life test
I want to now carry out a simple test to use as a demo of this effect in real life. It can be achieved whilst you are reading this article. Ideally for this test you will be sat at a desk with a device or PC in front of you and a wall behind it. Simply sit back so the whole device is in your peripheral vision, then whilst keeping the device still, lean your head to the left and right as if you were looking to see what is going on around your device.
Now slide the device out of the way and carry out the same leaning motions in the same position, sans object.
All you have now is a flat wall which you are looking at from different angles, and other than a shift in lighting does not give us the required sense of Stereopsis we are after.
Here is a a crude graphic to further highlight the effect.
Notice as you lean, you can see more wall. This is because the screen (the object) is closer to you than the wall (distant point of reference) therefore appears to be moving faster, hence giving us depth perception.
Another interesting take away from this experiment is if you keep both eyes open and lean to the right to a fixed position, then close your right eye, you will see less wall.
Due to our binocular vision our left eye is attempting to see the wall at a more acute angle around the object, therefore can see less of it. However keeping the same lean position if you then open your right eye and close your left, you see the same amount of wall as you did with both eyes open.
This is our brain detecting the existence of disparity from the input of our eyes, basically letting us know that if the eye with the furthest disparity can see the distant point of reference it doesn’t matter if the other cannot, it will project that image back to us but without the same level of depth perception.
This is all to do with Binocular disparity which is also important in understanding true parallax.
So what do you need to achieve true parallax in web design?
True great parallax in web design is the art of faking real life Stereopsis. We have already highlighted that we need two lines of sight and an object in order for this effect to truly work.
This means for websites we require:
The viewer, or an initial point of reference. An object. A background, or distant point of reference. Finally an action, something to trigger movement.
Some of the sites in the list above could have been adjusted to replicate pure parallax if they shifted the initial point of reference from being the content to being the user, then manipulated the position of the distant point of reference based on the user’s movement whilst viewing the screen. There are a few browser experiments around that utilize the desktop camera to track what angle the user is viewing the screen and changes what is displayed accordingly.
Effectively if this was applied the user would become our No.1 in the required list of elements, the ‘initial point of reference’. The content layer or front slide would become ‘the object’, and the background slide would become the ‘distant point of reference’. Hence giving us depth perception.
This however is not at all practical for browsing a website! So until such time as motion control becomes the norm, this is not really a viable option.
What are the above examples missing?
The object.
The object is our pivot, our focus. Creating two scrollable planes which move up at a slightly different velocity to one another is fine, and gives a nice effect when the user scrolls, however it is missing our key ingredient. The object. The front sliding plane is our initial point of reference, the back sliding plane is our distant point of reference. But in order to achieve the desired effect, we need to add the object.
The object can move, but only to a degree that renders the motion of the other two planes realistic.
In our experiment above, if you happened to lean to the right on your chair and your device or PC (the object) suddenly slid to the left twice the distance than the angle in which you moved, then this would feel unnatural. So if motion is applied to the object, it should feel natural.
Remember we are trying to mimic Stereopsis. So when compiling an area of your design that you intend to be parallax, consider the movement of each element involved and how it will transition. Here is a simple example of parallax using a scroll effect.
Original image courtesy of http://unsplash.com/
Notice the parallax version includes our initial point of reference (the content overlay) the object (glass tea percolator) and our distant point of reference (the background and flowers).
To further enhance the effect and to demo real parallax on the web, Matthew Wagerfield & Claudio Guglieri created the brilliant Parallax.js that not only offers a true sense of parallax but also picks up on tilt actions on phones and tablets equipped with gyroscopes.
To sum up
As designers, in order to apply a style or effect to any design, we must first understand it. Parallax in web is a trend, and if we are going to use it as a technique to enhance our designs, we should certainly learn the fundamentals and take the time to understand it.
Rather than grabbing an off the shelf jQuery plugin or making your background image fixed and state your design is parallax, have a read of the articles linked above. After reading just consider the effect, consider it’s application and whether it really offers an added value to your project.
As a client/consumer, don’t be fooled when a designer sells you on a parallax site, ask them what they intend to do in order to achieve the parallax effect and why it will benefit your product.
It can be very distracting and when used incorrectly focus the user’s attention away from your core messaging. Never forget the content and only request a section of a design to be parallax if you and your designer agree it enhances or improves the overall user experience.
For all those gallery sites with your lists of ‘top 20 featured parallax sites of all time’ I have just one request. When discovering a website with a cool scroll effect, really consider if it is parallax or is it just a cool scroll effect. Please don’t just play off a buzzword in order to promote people’s work incorrectly. As doing so will just further confuse the community to the correct application of the effect.
I want to finish with some websites that I feel use true parallax both effectively, and are fantastic creative examples of what it really is.
Thanks for reading! |
Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein’s call to raise funds to support vote recounts in three key states was met with ease late Wednesday, with the fundraiser quickly exceeding its $2 million goal.
Stein’s press director announced Wednesday afternoon that the Green Party candidate needed an initial $2 million to support recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, three states where President-elect Donald Trump performed better than expected.
Within hours, Stein’s fundraiser rapidly gained traction. Just after 11 p.m. EST, supporters had donated $1.9 million, then it climbed past $2 million before midnight. The goal was surpassed about eight hours after Stein’s announcement was delivered over Facebook Live. Just before 3 a.m. EST, the fund surpassed $2.5 million. By Thursday evening, that total had passed the $4 million mark, hitting $4.5 million around 11 p.m.
In hours, Jill Stein has raised $1.9 million of $2.5 million to pay for a recount in MI, WI and PA. https://t.co/TCTX5hQtPx — Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) November 24, 2016
Stein’s campaign originally set out to raise $2 million by Friday afternoon, in time to meet Wisconsin’s Nov. 25 deadline and $1.1 million filing fee. But the candidate secured enough funds for all of Wisconsin’s, Pennsylvania’s and part of Michigan’s filing fees before Thursday.
The multiple-state effort will take more than the initial request of $2 million, Stein’s campaign wrote on its fundraiser page, which displays a goal of $2.5 million.
“The costs associated with recounts are a function of state law,” Stein’s campaign wrote. “Attorney’s fees are likely to be another $2-3 million, then there are the costs of the statewide recount observers in all three states. The total cost is likely to be $6-7 million.” |
There was a serial killer here in BC when I was a teen. Robert Pickton. He slaughtered prostitutes by the dozen. Some estimate his victim tally to be well over 100 women. He went largely unnoticed for many years, out on his pig farm in Port Coquitlam, allowing him free reign to kill. It went on so long, and affected so many people, that nearly every person in the Greater Vancouver area has a story about a woman who went missing during that time.
A series of slip-ups on Pickton’s part eventually led police to issue a search warrant for the farm. What they found were the personal items and remains of several missing women. Further searches uncovered the DNA of more missing women, who had been fed to his pigs. The discoveries kept coming, and when all was said and done, the excavation of Robert Pickton’s pig farm cost $70 million dollars and lasted over a year. From Wikipedia:
Forensic analysis proved difficult because the bodies may have been left to decompose or be eaten by insects and pigs on the farm. During the early days of the excavations, forensic anthropologists brought in heavy equipment, including two 50-foot (15-meter) flat conveyor belts and soil sifters to find traces of remains. On March 10, 2004, it was revealed that Pickton may have ground up human flesh and mixed it with pork that he sold to the public; the province’s health authority later issued a warning.
All of this earned Robert Pickton the title of the most prolific serial killer in Canadian history. If more of the evidence found on his farm had been viable, the potential is high that they could have proven Pickton was the most prolific serial killer in the modern history of the world.
When a letter from Pickton to a prison pen pal was leaked, we found out he said (with awful spelling and grammar),
I know I was brought into this world to be hear today to change this world of there evil ways. They even want to dis-re-guard the ten command-ments from the time that Moses in his day brought in power which still is in existence today.
and
You can be sure that no immoral, impure or greedy person will in-herit the kingdom of God …. Don’t be fooled by whose who try to excuse these sins, for the terrible anger of God comes upon all those who disobey him.
From this, we can pretty safely glean that Pickton had religious motivations. He slaughtered upwards of a hundred women and fed them to his pigs… for God.
There is no need for speculation here. No need for mental gymnastics, conjecture or reaching. Pickton admitted, in his own words, why he killed all these sex workers. To cleanse the world of sinners for the almighty himself.
While Pickton was killing women with complete abandon, nearby in Abbotsford another man was assaulting and killing teenaged girls. Terry Driver, aka the Abbotsford Killer, wreaked havoc on Greater Vancouver. I remember the principal of my school announcing over the PA that no girls should be walking to or from school alone. I recall having nightmares and being afraid to close my eyes at night. The entire Lower Mainland shuddered in terror as Driver taunted police with phone calls, letters and vandalism. He had only managed to take the life of one girl, but he was attacking teen girls brutally with a baseball bat, crushing skulls and terrorizing the community.
It was nothing short of horrific.
Eventually, Driver’s taunting became sloppy and he was caught when police were able to take a fingerprint off the tape on one of his notes. He was arrested, charged, and is in a psychiatric hospital now.
When prompted for a motivation, Driver claimed variations of insanity. Not once did God come up. Not once did he refer to any passages in the Bible. Driver did this because he was fucked up. End of story.
Now, it is very possible that Driver was religious. Abbotsford is one of the most religious communities in all of BC, so the odds are pretty good he was raised a Christian. 61% of Abbotsford’s population identifies as some denomination of Christianity. The next largest is Sikh, so the odds get even better when you add race to it. Caucasians tend not to be Sikh. Terry Driver was caucasian, making the likelihood he was raised a Christian even higher. In fact, it would be strange if he wasn’t at least from a Christian family.
If we wanted to, we could find evidence to link Driver to some form of Christianity. Of this, I am almost positive. We could make the argument that he came from a Christian community and so therefore, Christianity helped motivate Driver to do what he did. But, why would we? We already have a clear reason why he committed the crimes he did. Not just in his own words, but in subsequent evaluations by mental health professionals, it was determined he was unwell. We have a reason. The reason may be difficult to understand, or to figure out how to prevent, but we have a reason nonetheless. There is no need to blame the Christian community he came from.
Right here in the neighbourhood where I grew up, we have one example of crimes clearly inspired by religion and one example of crimes not inspired by religion, even though both men came from faithful communities.
There is a correlation here, but clearly no causation.
When religious people assert that “atheistic regimes” have been responsible for the largest genocides in modern history, they’re seeing a correlation and ignoring that it doesn’t necessarily mean causation.
Like Driver, we have a clear reason why Joseph Stalin did the things he did. He was hungry for power.
Dictatorships don’t work if you have to share power with another institution. This is why it’s called a dictatorship. It’s also why many dictators tried to get rid of religion. Stalin could not afford to have people revering any power but himself. His motivation was not to make everyone atheist. That was his method. His motivation was to take absolute control of the country, and all the hearts and minds within. Getting rid of the church was just silencing an opponent.
Yes, Stalin became an atheist. Yes, he ran anti-religious terror campaigns. But he did not do it for religious reasons, like Robert Pickton. He did it to take more control.
Christianity is prescriptive. Christianity comes with a doctrine and an expected mode of behaviour. Christianity is dogmatic. Christian leaders preach about how to live to obey God. Christianity has had millions upon millions of texts written about what constitutes a “good Christian”. There are laws, rules and rituals, consequences, rewards and sin. Christianity makes claims about how you ought to behave. Not only can this be cited endlessly, but it can be cited with little to no effort. Christianity is prescriptive.
Atheism does none of these things. There are no atheist texts written about how to behave, who to love, what to wear. There is nothing written down for atheists that determines who we ought to hate and who we ought to support. There are no dogmatic consequences for the things we do, as atheists. We are left to our own innate morality to determine what is right and what is wrong and for the most part, we do alright. Sweden, Denmark, Norway and other countries with majority atheists are proof of this.
There have been people in history who have committed heinous acts because they read in the Bible or the Quran, that this is what they are supposed to do. They have found written word in the one book they are supposed to follow and never question, that calls for their actions. They can justify it with verses from holy texts. They often do justify it with verses from their holy texts.
Take Ephesians 5:5 for example:
For you can be quite certain that nobody who actually indulges in fornication or impurity or promiscuity — which is worshiping a false god — can inherit anything of the kingdom of God.
Does that sound familiar? That’s because Pickton mentioned it in the letter I quoted at the beginning of this post:
You can be sure that no immoral, impure or greedy person will in-herit the kingdom of God …
Do you see how clear this is? He was inspired directly by the word of God, there can be no mistaking.
When you look for justification for Stalin’s actions in atheist texts, you will find none. There are no calls to action in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. There is not one suggested behaviour in Hitchens’ God Is Not Great. You can’t find rules to live by in the End of Faith by Sam Harris. There are simply no texts within atheism that tell us how to live, how to act, and who to hate.
I actually had one person tell me the other day that I was wrong about that, and that all I had to do was read the Communist Manifesto. I laughed. Not only have I read all whopping 40 pages of the Manifesto, it is simply a call for the worker’s of the world to unite… the founding idea behind unions. Further, the Communist Manifesto is not an atheist text. It’s a communist text. Communism is an approach to society in which the means of production being publicly owned is valued. Examples of communism in modern America? Amtrak. OPIC. Legal Edge. NeighborWorks. The sidewalk in front of your house.
Not only did Stalin not kill for atheism, he didn’t even kill for communism… go figure.
Stalin was a power hungry monster who killed to further his rule. We all know this.
We also know there have been religiously inspired atrocities that would never have happened if that religion didn’t exist. The Crusades. The Salem Witch Trials. Charlie Hebdo. The slaughter of Christians by ISIS.
It is not conjecture to say these awful events were inspired by religion. We have overwhelming evidence, including admissions – even boastful ones – from the perpetrators themselves. We know, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that faith inspired these killings.
We also know that Hitler slaughtered to “purify” the species. We know that the Japanese killed millions in WW2 to expand their economic resources. We know Atilla the Hun killed to expand his territory.
We know that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot slaughtered people in great numbers to keep their grip on totalitarian dictatorships.
It is just a passing fact that they may have been atheists. Just like it matters very little that Hitler was a Catholic when he slaughtered millions or that Leopold II was Roman Catholic when he killed millions of Congolese, or that Hideki Tojo was Shinto when he led the Japanese to slaughter masses of people.
It doesn’t matter what religion these men identified with, because we know religion was not their motivation, unlike ISIS, Boko Haram or the Roman Catholic Church during the crusades.
This is not to say that atheists haven’t had their bad seeds. We have. Stalin clearly identified as an atheist. Craig Hicks, who recently killed 3 Muslim students, clearly identified as an atheist. We do have bad seeds, like any other group. But finding a man or a woman who committed atrocities because atheism called for such action, is impossible. It’s impossible, because there are no calls for any action amongst atheists, good or bad.
There is no dogma, no doctrine, no belief and certainly no passages in texts about atheism that call for hatred, violence, murder or any action at all.
Atheism is just a response to your claim that there is a god. As a matter of fact, if you really are concerned about atheism, the best way to eradicate it from the globe is to simply stop claiming there is a god.
To those of you who still think Stalin killed because he was an atheist, I have a challenge. Cite an atheist text that calls for his action. Show me what atheist literature he must have studied to have come to the conclusion that he must begin slaughtering people, like Pickton found in Ephesians 5:5 or ISIS finds in sharia or the Puritans in Salem found in Exodus 22:18.
I eagerly await your responses. |
In a surprise military and military-police raid, Israeli regime forces have broken into and stolen broadcasting equipment from eight Palestinian broadcasters, including Pal Media which provides RT broadcasts to viewers in Palestine.
Pal Media is one of the largest television providers in Palestine, carrying not only RT but also Al Mayadeen, TransMedia and western outlets BBC News and France 24.
قوات الاحتلال تغلق مقرات شركات ترانسميديا وبال ميديا ورامسات الإعلامية في الخليل ونابلس ورام الله وبيت لحم لمدة 6 شهور وتصادر معداتها فجراً. pic.twitter.com/QmZAWmdwJg — شبكة قدس الإخبارية (@qudsn) October 18, 2017
The Israeli regime stated that the eight broadcasters whose offices were vandalised and whose expensive broadcasting equipment was either stolen or smashed, were carrying, among many other things, Hamas related media organisations.
Time to buy old US gold coins
With Hamas and Fatah, the two main Palestinian parties, formalising a unity agreement, Tel Aviv continues to vocalise strong disapprobation, stating that they refuse to negotiate with the organisation in any guise, even though journalists have exposed the fact that Israel covertly helped to found Hamas in the 1980s.
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates has condemned the move by Tel Aviv in the following statement,
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemns in the strongest terms the aggression by the Israeli occupying forces against the headquarters of a number of Palestinian media institutions in the occupied west bank, and the ministry asserts that such piracy is in the context of ongoing attempts to conceal its daily crimes and acts of aggression. It represents a failed attempt to terrorise and prevent media institutions from doing their part in exposing violations by the occupiers and settlers”.
RT further reports,
“Pal Media and RT offices have already fallen victim to the Israeli forces’ raids. In 2014, they broke into the Ramallah office and seized hardware and videotapes as well as breaking a computer and office furniture. In June 2017, Israeli military raided Pal Media’s headquarters in the city, targeting the Palestinian Al-Quds channel. Israel has previously raided TransMedia, which runs several offices across the country, including two offices in Jerusalem, the area disputed by Palestinians and Israelis, and an office in Hebron in the West bank”.
n an age of internet and satellite global inter-connectivity, the Israeli regime continues attempts to deprive Palestinians of the most peaceful weapon available to mankind: the endlessly important, yet non-violent weapon of information. In attempts to continually oppress Palestinians, the information war has become as important a tool as military occupation.
This move by the Israeli regime should be condemned by all journalists and free speech advocates who stand for open, uncensored and multi-dimensional political and social discussions between peoples. |
Pic For years, boffins have been arguing over whether our galaxy has four spiral arms or just two, as seen by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope.
You spin me right round ... an artist's impression of the Milky Way
The only way to confirm the theory is to try to figure out where the stars are and their distances from us, since we're on the inside of the galaxy, making it tough to see what it might look like from the outside.
Now a new 12-year study has reaffirmed the theory that the Milky Way is a four-armed spiral galaxy, as originally hypothesised in the 1950s. Back then, astronomers used radio telescopes to map the galaxy, focusing on clouds of gas in which new stars are born, and deduced that there were four arms.
That theory was thrown into debate when Spitzer searched for the infrared light emitted by stars and announced in 2008 that it had spotted around 110 million of them, but only found evidence of two spiral arms.
The latest study is part of the Red MSX (RMS) Survey conceived by the University of Leeds to systematically search the entire galaxy for massive young stellar objects. Using several radio telescopes in Australia, the US and China, distances and luminosities of these massive stars were calculated, showing a distribution across four spiral arms.
"It isn't a case of our results being right and those from Spitzer's data being wrong – both surveys were looking for different things," said Professor Melvin Hoare, a co-author of the paper. "Spitzer only sees much cooler, lower mass stars – stars like our Sun – which are much more numerous than the massive stars that we were targeting."
Massive stars are much less common because they only live for a short time, galacticly speaking, around 10 million years. That shorter lifespan could be the answer to the discrepancy in the results.
"Lower mass stars live much longer than massive stars and rotate around our galaxy many times, spreading out in the disc. The gravitational pull in the two stellar arms that Spitzer revealed is enough to pile up the majority of stars in those arms, but not in the other two," explained Professor Hoare. "However, the gas is compressed enough in all four arms to lead to massive star formation.
"Star formation researchers, like me, grew up with the idea that our Galaxy has four spiral arms. It's great that we have been able to reaffirm that picture."
The full study, "The RMS survey: galactic distribution of massive star formation" was published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. ® |
OTTAWA – Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government is in need of a mid-mandate course correction as broken promises continue to pile up, warning that unfulfilled commitments will fuel cynicism and "hurt democracy in a very fundamental way."
May issued a report card on the government’s performance two years in, comparing their promises to their record so far, and in her eyes, the results are mixed. The government got failing marks on democratic reform and transportation, low grades on the environment and agriculture, and an incomplete in the Indigenous file. The highest mark was on immigration, which May gave a B+.
"My advice is: get serious. You can’t expect Canadians who had hope that you were going to keep your promises to have any faith in any promises you ever make again, if you claim climate leadership and then don’t deliver it… if you say you’re going to act for Indigenous peoples and Cindy Blackstock is still standing there with the order from the Human Rights Tribunal that says Indigenous children receive so much less than non-Indigenous children… these promises matter to Canadians," May told reporters at a press conference in Ottawa on Thursday.
May is placing some of the blame on the bureaucracy. She said certain departments are showing signs of not yet emerging from the culture of the previous Conservative government, citing Transport Canada’s work on restoring navigable waters protections as the Liberals promised. She also said Environment and Climate Change Canada, as well as Finance Canada, have a ways to go to deliver on the government’s progressive promises.
One of the biggest broken promises that May said she is still shocked by is the pledge that 2015 would be the last first-past-the-post federal election. After spending thousands on consultations and hearings, in February the Liberals announced they’d no longer be pursuing it, citing an inability to reach a consensus.
But May said there is still time, if the government wants to pursue electoral reform under a new timeframe.
A vocal critic of heckling in the House of Commons, May said there is still too much reading of notes and "bad high school drama" during question period and debates. She credits the Liberals for trying to improve the tone, but said the behaviour of the other opposition parties remains "appalling."
May said, now’s the time for Trudeau to revisit what’s left to be done on each minister’s mandate letter and reevaluate how to get it done.
"This is your last chance, his last chance, to deliver on these promises. You’ve got two years until the next election."
May plans to lead into 2019
It’s becoming increasingly likely May will face off against the other federal party leaders, as leader of the Green Party in the 2019 election. May is currently the only member of the Green Party with a seat in the House of Commons. She is planning on running again in her Saanich-Gulf Islands riding, but said, if another Green Party MP is elected to Parliament before the next general election, and they are interested in leading the party, she’d be open to stepping aside.
"It may be that a generational change would be in the interest of the Green Party, if such a person and a strong candidate were available. Otherwise, I’m very happy to run in 2019 as leader of the Green Party."
May said it’s a priority for the leader of the Greens to have a seat in the House of Commons.
The Green Party report card on the Liberal government:
Democracy: F
Climate: C-
Environmental law: D
Finance: C
Immigration: B+
Health: B
Foreign Policy: C
Trade: C-
Indigenous Peoples: Incomplete
Justice: C
Fisheries: B
Science: C+
Agriculture: D
Transportation: F
Public Safety: B- |
Readers were duly exercised about a paper published by Greg Mankiw which had to go through so many hoops to promote the idea that inequality was the result of merit as to be worthy of our Frederic Mishkin Iceland Prize for Intellectual Integrity.
Suffice it to say further ridicule of Mankiw is in order, and Parramore provides a useful contribution.
By Lynn Parramore, a senior editor at Alternet. Cross posted from Alternet
It’s not really news that America’s economics departments, particularly at elite institutions, are stuffed with people whose careers are founded on protecting monied interests. But it’s pretty rare when someone just comes straight out and announces the fact.
Meet Greg Mankiw, chairman and professor of economics at Harvard, one of the most influential economists in the country. As chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, he guided the economic blundering of George W. Bush. Then in 2006, he became an adviser to Mitt Romney and steered Romney's economic positions in 2012, which included some of the most shocking expressions of classism yet heard from a presidential candidate.
Mankiw's name might not be a household word, but the tentacles of his power and influence extend into Washington, the blogosphere and the classroom, where he molds young minds through his ubiquitous textbooks and lectures (that is, when students are not walking out to protest his conservative bias and harmful agenda).
Above all, Mankiw is the self-appointed Defender in Chief of the 1 percent. How do we know this? Well, because he just published a 23-page paper called “Defending the One Percent.” It’s helpful to understand the official propaganda line in the class war, and Mankiw has laid it out in a paper that purports to determine whether income inequality requires any intervention.
Professor Mankiw begins by asking the reader to imagine a perfectly egalitarian society where the economy is totally efficient and everybody has the same amount of money. What happens, he asks, when a Steve Jobs pops up? Somebody smarter, more creative than everybody else? Suddenly Mr. Entrepreneur makes amazing things that everybody wants to buy, and now economic inequality has entered the egalitarian utopia. Is it fair to intervene and restore equality by penalizing Mr. Entrepreneur?
It must be said that this opening sally, with its clumsily constructed straw man, would not pass muster with a high school debating coach. Most of Mankiw’s opponents do not ask for perfect income equality or imagine perfect efficiency, but rather envision a playing field in which everyone has a chance to succeed and Mr. Entrepreneur has incentives to conduct his business fairly and to share some of the rewards of his efforts with the community that made them possible. Instead of forming a cartel to hold down the wages of his young engineers, as Steve Jobs did. Or colluding to fix prices, as Steve Jobs is also accused of having done. Or backdating stock options to be sure he comes out in the money. And so on.
Mankiw’s writing displays the sensibility of a young person suddenly infatuated with the writings of Ayn Rand, and in the fine tradition of Randian entrepreneur worship, he pretends that economic inequality is mostly the result of certain people being smarter and more creative than others (one brief glance at the Forbes list of the richest Americans, which is populated by quite a few trust fund babies, destroys this illusion). In a nutshell, he argues that egalitarianism in antithetical to entrepreneurialism.
Not many people would actually argue that we don’t want smart people making cool things. We do. But we also recognize that sometimes Mr. Entrepreneur, heady with his economic success, becomes greedy and starts to try to arrange things so that other entrepreneurs will not be able to compete with him. He begins to cheat and bully and set his boot on the neck of his fellow residents of Utopialand. He may even channel his brilliance into making things that don’t help his neighbor, but actually do harm, like a complicated financial product rigged to drain the bank accounts of unsuspecting citizens.
Many Americans now have personal experience with what happens when Mankiw’s vision turns into a nightmare. They’ve begun to realize that markets often don’t work the way he says they do and that our political system has not been doing enough to correct their failures and address the resulting unfairness that leaves many smart, energetic people unable to find an opportunity to fully contribute to society and demonstrate their talents. That’s why Nobel Prize-winning economist and Columbia professor Joseph Stiglitz, whose proclivity for truth-telling has alarmed his Ivy League colleagues, wrote a book called The Price of Inequality in which he points out that America, our beloved land of opportunity, “may have become more class-based than old Europe” due to gross economic unfairness.
Unlike Stiglitz, Mankiw seems to be less interested in thinking about how to correct the market’s failures than reinforcing them. Why is this?
I don’t normally like to play the psychologist, but in trying to get a sense of what kind of man could be so blinded as to fail to grasp the fundamental challenge of our time, I watched some public appearances by Mankiw on the Web. I found something very revealing—a commencement speech he gave just a few weeks ago at Chapel Hill-Chauncey Hall, a prep school in North Carolina, where one of his children has been enrolled.
The story Mankiw tells about himself to those students seems to encapsulate so much of what is wrong with the field of economics that I think it’s worth dissecting. Mankiw comes off as an affable guy who transcended his early math geek persona to become a highly regarded economic professional. The fundamental moment in his history was when his parents chose to take him out of a large public school, where he was not being properly nurtured, and send him to an elite private school in New Jersey, where he flourished. Mankiw congratulates the students at Chapel Hill-Chauncey Hall for making a similar smart “choice” to better themselves in the supportive, tight-knit community of prep school. He seems blissfully unaware that for most children, attending an elite, expensive private school is not on the menu of options. Rather, he sees the world as a place where some succeed solely because they make better choices than others, not because some people have more money with which to advance themselves.
There’s also something very telling in Mankiw’s description of his youthful enthusiasm for mathematics. He was an excellent math student in high school, but realized in college that he would make a second-rate mathematician, so he turned to economics, graduating in 1980 from Princeton and going on to study at Harvard and MIT. This was just around the time that economics was falling into a deep infatuation with mathematical models and losing the sense of itself as a social science grounded in politics, history and culture. The result has been devastating. Economists left the human world behind and entered a mechanistic paradise where their dogmatic and ultimately destructive paradigm failed to acknowledge the forces that were gathering into an economic storm worse than anything the country had seen since the Great Depression.
Slowly and fitfully, the field is now trying to reorient itself. Some economists, like Rob Johnson and his colleagues at the Institute for New Economic Thinking, are calling to reestablish economics as a broad, interdisciplinary field, open to disagreement and grounded in the humanities. Figures like Mankiw, dedicated to the old model, will stand in the way of this process. The Mankiws of the economics profession have devoted themselves to math, but they have not been steeped in the traditional values and ethics that underpin our democracy, and they consistently fail to imagine that their elegant mathematical models might not accurately depict the real world of complex human interactions and institutions.
Mankiw is not a reality-based economist, and it’s no wonder, as he has been cocooned in elite institutions since his parents pulled him out of public school as a boy. He bounced from an elite private school to elite colleges, and then landed softly at Harvard where he has been teaching for three decades. Mankiw lives in Wellesley, Massachusetts, a town in suburban Boston that is one of the wealthiest in the country. He is a defender of the 1 percent because he knows no other community, and the 1 percent has embraced and richly rewarded the insecure math geek who sat in the back of his public school classroom trying to hide behind his spectacles. How could he question them now?
Economists talk a lot about bubbles, but not enough about the kind Mankiw occupies, which so disastrously impacts his ability to contextualize his models or think clearly about the experiences of most of his fellow citizens. During Occupy, 70 students walked out of his introductory economics class in protest (the class, interestingly, was on inequality). In the New York Times, Mankiw accused the protesters of spewing platitudes and insisted that economics is not “laden with ideology.” According to his account, he watched the students walk out, and then, “After a few minutes, I resumed the class as usual.”
More recently, instead of braving the painful process of exposing the failures of prevalent economic theories, like the recently discredited work on debt and economic growth of his fellow Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, he has leapt to defend promoters of nonsense. In a blog post centered on the theme, “Hey, everybody makes mistakes,” he dismissed the seriousness of pushing shoddy economic work that was molded into austerity policies that have caused job loss, hunger and misery for millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.
With his latest paper, Mankiw defends the 1 percent as the source of all good in our economy and society, sounding much like an astronomer defending the Earth as the center of the universe. An astronomer who, if Galileo walked into his class, would look up briefly, and then, in a few minutes, resume business as usual. |
“The Obama Justice Department has decreased the prosecution of violent gun crimes by 30 percent.”
--Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), in an interview with Capital New York , published May 30, 2013
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) offered this statistic as one of the reasons why he pushed an alternative to the Manchin-Toomey legislation to tighten background checks. (Both failed to get enough votes to emerge from the Senate.) As he put it, “the Obama administration has not made it a priority to prosecute felons and fugitives who try to illegally buy guns.”
We had previously examined one of Cruz’s other reasons, which we found worthy of a Pinocchio because he placed a partisan frame on the data. But we hadn’t seen this statistic before. How does this hold up?
The Facts
Cruz drew this statistic from a report by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which documented how prosecutions of weapons violations have shifted up and down, sometimes in dramatic fashion, since 1986. The report showed that prosecutions had fallen from a high of 11,015 in 2004 to 7,774 in 2012, for a decline of 29 percent.
So that’s where Cruz gets his figure. But note that once again he places it in a highly partisan frame — that the Obama Justice Department “has decreased” the prosecutions. But Cruz is comparing the last year of Obama’s first term with the high point of Bush’s presidency, which was reached in his first term. It turns out that weapons prosecutions started to tumble in Bush’s second term.
Comparing 2012 to 2008, Bush’s last year, the decline is just 8 percent. If you compare an average of Bush’s eight years with an average of Obama’s four years, that shows a decline of 15 percent. In other words, Cruz is stacking the deck.
But the TRAC report raises serious questions about whether the data are even relevant as a measure of presidential performance. That’s because many weapons crimes can be prosecuted either under state/local laws or under federal laws. Far more weapons cases are handled by state and local prosecutors, and “sometimes the decision of which jurisdiction — state or federal — will prosecute a gun offense depends upon the specifics of the laws, including which one calls for a longer prison sentence,” the report says.
In other words, the number of federal cases depends a lot on the interaction with state and local prosecutions, which may have little to do with an administration’s priorities.
One possible test of an administration’s priorities is the percentage of cases it chooses not to prosecute. Here, Obama does slightly better than Bush, according to data on the TRAC Web site. Over Obama’s first term, federal prosecutors declined to prosecute an annual average of 34.1 percent, compared to 37.6 percent for Bush. Bush managed to get the number down over the course of his presidency, but comparing 2004 to 2012 — as Cruz does — the difference is even greater. Prosecutors declined 38.2 percent of cases in 2004, compared to 32.5 percent in 2012.
TRAC shows virtually no difference in the length of a median prison term given under either president.
“This isn’t about comparing the two administrations to make a political argument,” said Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “The senator’s goal in any guns legislation is to focus on increasing prosecutions of those who have violated the law in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The point is that we know this administration can do more, but they aren’t.” She added that “the comparison of state versus federal cases is a different argument and doesn’t have anything to do with the statistic we cited.”
The Pinocchio Test
If Cruz were not trying to make a political argument, we’d imagine he could have used the TRAC data to make this point: “The prosecution of violent gun crimes by the Justice Department is down from its peak by 30 percent.”
But instead he said: “The Obama Justice Department has decreased the prosecution of violent gun crimes by 30 percent.” That certainly sounds like a political argument, since he is specifically saying this is something Obama has done — “has decreased” — when in fact Cruz is comparing Obama’s performance against a high that even the Bush administration achieved only once.
Moreover, this figure appears to say little about administration priorities, given that the numbers depend in part on decisions by non-federal prosecutors. In cases when federal prosecutors have decided whether to act on a referral, the data show that Obama’s record actually is better than Bush’s.
Three Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Follow The Fact Checker on Twitter and friend us on Facebook |
The original Columbia recording of Duke Ellington’s piano feature The Clothed Woman is from December 30th, 1947, and is available on “The Chronological Duke Ellington and his Orchestra 1947-1948.” Ellington had performed the piece a few nights earlier at Carnegie Hall. I first heard the studio version on a cassette compilation years ago.
I’ve since heard Dick Hyman and Marion McPartland’s live recordings of The Clothed Woman, and I’m sure many others have attempted to recreate this magical work.
This work has been described as enigmatic, angular, ahead of its time, revolutionary, and dissonant. There’s a tremendous amount of content within the simple ABA form: a dissonant “A” intro and outro surround a “B” stride/swing improvisation.
Invariably, everyone I’ve read, including the esteemed Gunther Schuller, label the “A” section “atonal”, and this is how I first heard it. It’s really hard to get a grasp on what Duke is doing here–it sounds like a barrage of modernist cluster chords, and it seems like there’s no functioning harmony. I had a revelation on perhaps the fiftieth time I listened, though. I had it sketched out, and I was trying to figure out where to put the barlines…then I heard it…(sorry Maestro Schuller)…
The A section is not atonal. Far from it. The “A” section of this amazing work is a twelve bar blues in F.
Dissonance is not necessarily atonal. In fact, the seemingly modernist structures and harmonies Duke lays out for us here in this piece are all well within the bounds of the modern jazz harmonic language. Nevertheless, its structure and tonality is elusive, and the piece certainly exceeds most listeners’ ability to follow form and chord changes. It sure exceeded my own. Yet, as “out” as it sounded to me in the 90’s when I first heard it, I can only imagine how it struck the ears of a 1940’s jazz audience.
Here’s my transcription:
The Clothed Woman–transcribed: Healy
And the studio recording:
The first “blues clue” is the overall tonality of the A section. Listen hard–we’re clearly in the key of F. The second clue is the strong move to the IV chord–straight ahead blues language (m.5 on my transcription). Once I “got” this I was hooked. I transcribe the A section, and played it a few times before it made sense. Then, all at once, every note, even the most “dissonant and atonal,” fell into place. Duke is playing around with an F blues, using wide left hand voicings, punctuated by right hand grace note runs, chords and cluster-y structures that embellish the basic I-IV-V tonality and blues form.
Following the A section there’s quick band interlude with rhythm section and couple of horn figures, then comes the B section, which is definitely not blues. I’ve heard a live recording of Ellington perform this swinging 4/4 semi-stride solo piano section by itself as a tribute to Willie “The Lion” Smith. Then comes the last A section–a repeat of the first with a few minor changes, and a strong bluesy tag and walk-up cadence.
A-B-A form, where A is a blues and B is a contrasting interlude piece, was not a new Ellington device. Duke had done this long form before, sandwiching a real tune in between bookends of the blues. He recorded Diminuendo and Crescendo in Blue in 1937 with a short piano interlude bridging the two sides of the 78. Yet when he performed it publicly in 1945, he experimented by replacing the middle interlude with Rocks In My Bed, Carnegie Blues and I Got It Bad, and renamed the entire suite Blues Cluster. I think we have a similar situation with The Clothed Woman: ABA form: blues/tune/blues.
He hadn’t done anything as “modern” as the A section of The Clothed Woman before, as a soloist or as a writer–such angular momentum, extended harmony, crunchy grace note figures, a rubato, slow groove with an implied swing, all with wide leaps across every register of the piano. Who else was doing this? Thelonious Monk? Monk was just getting going as a recording artist in 1947, in fact he recorded his first record that year. He was however big on the scene, and the house piano player at Minton’s at a time when NYC was abuzz about the emergence of bebop. Like Ellington, Monk was pushing the envelope for many years. Threads of modern jazz piano and new harmony reach back to the late 1930’s, and even the 20’s with James P. Johnson–Ellington was on the scene in NYC in the 40’s, Strayhorn lived in Harlem–they must have gotten more than a whiff of Monk’s new thing. They certainly seem to share a similar harmonic outlook: playing extensions on the dominant chord, triads over bass pedals, lots of substitute dominants and chromatic embellishments. Perhaps Strayhorn is the wild card; did his command of harmony and dissonance, and his piano chops seed The Clothed Woman? Something did—this work is an unprecedented masterpiece. Real historians, please chime in.
Here’s some music theory, get the coffee:
The Clothed Woman begins with a high chord hit, then a swooping downward arpeggio ending on a Gb, which resolves down a step to F (Ex.1.). The structure is diminished scale tones in repeating intervals–with the Gb in the bass and it sounds like Gb7(#9)–an altered chromatic “tritone” substitute for the V chord in the key of F–a perfect intro (Ex.1.) It’s a spooky chord no matter what you name it, and the harp-like arpeggio adds to the exotic quality of the intro. Play it with the pedal down, if you can with just your right hand. If you can’t, grab four notes with the RH, the next 4 with the LH, cross over the RH, etc…but that’s hard to pull off and make it smooth.
A basic harmonic device in the piece is the substitute dominant, or tritone sub. Chromatic voice movement and strong, melodic resolution are what this makes this progression work (Ex. 2.)
Many of the RH grace note licks have motivic similarities, and they fit the hand well. In Ex. 3 three of the grace note figures share common notes: an Ab triad. The Ab-A “blue note” motion reinforces the blues feeling, and provides chromatic embellishment.
One way to approach the style of The Clothed Woman is to think of the grace notes having a dual function: melodic upper extensions and stratified harmony. The hands are separated, and so are the strata of the harmonies (Ex. 4.)
What seems atonal and dissonant is actually functional harmony, like this passage from M 8-10 (Ex 5).
Here’s me playing The Clothed Woman with my trio last May at Vitello’s in Studio City, CA with Carlos Del Puerto on bass and Bill Wysaske on drums:
Advertisements |
Ah, those wonderful memories of six months ago, those 16 golden days of celebration and elation, of British medals wherever you cared to look, of a nation united in success and revelling in the happiest sporting summer of them all.
Or perhaps not.
I told some people I was a hairdresser. Others I told I was a post-lady. I couldn't tell them I was an Olympic athlete. I didn't feel I deserved that title
"For me, it was a disaster. I can't describe it in any other way. I felt it destroyed part of me."
Mhairi Spence represents the untold flipside of the London Olympics. World champion going into the Games, one of the favourites for gold, the modern pentathlete's tale is not only an extraordinary insight into the cruel vagaries of sport but a reminder of the very different way some will forever feel about London 2012.
For all of Baron de Coubertin's idealism about taking part, most competitors went to the Olympics to succeed. If they didn't - and in the harsh economics of elite sport, failure can be leaving without a medal - then worlds collapsed.
Spence was 26 years old, an athlete at the peak of her sport, as she stepped out at Greenwich Park on the afternoon of 12 August to compete for the final gold of the London Games.
A steady performance in the morning's fencing and swimming had left her in ninth, but with the show-jumping - her strongest event - to follow, she was well placed to make her move. Until, that is, she was allotted a mount named Coronado's Son in the random draw.
"I got on the horse and straight away felt out of control," she remembers. "My coach looked at what the horse was doing and asked me what was going on. I said: 'I'm not doing anything.'
Mhairi Spence Born: August 1985, Inverness School: Inverness Royal Academy Sport: modern pentathlon Trains: University of Bath Honours: 2012 individual gold, World Championships, Rome; 2012 women's team gold, World Champs; 2009 women's team gold, Worlds, 2008 team gold, Worlds
"A horse can be one way in the warm-up arena and another way entirely in competition, because they know what their job is. So I thought, he's out of control now, maybe that will switch. It wasn't until jump two when I realised, I'm in trouble here.
"You keep trying. Every jump is a new job. Go through your process again. But when I finished the course and the announcer read out my score, I realised it was over. Gone. You're fighting for hope, but I jumped off the horse and knew."
With four fences down and 104 penalty points conceded, Spence's hopes of Olympic success - built up over four long years since failing to qualify in Beijing, the product of thousands of hours of training and self-sacrifice, fantasised about since childhood - had disappeared in under two minutes. And then the self-recrimination began.
"That wonderful word, 'unfair'… It's a strange sport we do. You always know you might get a horse that doesn't want to work with you. But I'm a strong rider. I always hoped I wouldn't get anything so bad that I wouldn't be able to control it.
"For it to happen on that one day. Of all the competitions I've done in my life, why now? Why me?
"When I qualified for London, I felt like somebody. I felt like I was good enough, that I was the person I was trying to be for so many years.
"I climbed off the horse and walked away with my coach. There was nothing to say. 'I am done. My heart is broken.'"
Further hampered in the final discipline - the combined events - by a faulty shooting target, Spence would finish in 21st place, a forgotten footnote.
Team GB at London 2012 Team members: 541 Sports: 26 Medallists: 65 Gold medallists: 29 Final medal table: third
"As an athlete you put yourself out there to be tested, to fail. And every time you lose, a little piece of you gets chipped away," she says.
"Having been bullied in school and had so many knockbacks - to have success in London would have let me say to others, look what I've done, you can do it too.
"I had wanted to show people who I was. Instead I felt like I'd let everyone down. So many of my friends and family had come to watch. They said they were proud of me for competing, but you only think they would be more proud if you were on the podium.
"I felt like I was a nobody, that I shouldn't be in my GB kit. You would think it would get easier to deal with it, but it doesn't. It still breaks you down."
Spence was not the only athlete lost in London's giddy slipstream. Over the past six months I have spoken to several high-profile members of Team GB who considered quitting sport entirely in the wake of perceived failure at the Games, and others who endured their own dark nights when injury or selection denied them even the chance to compete.
While the rest of the country wanted only to talk of Olympics, many of its representatives in London wanted anything but.
"Every day I would turn on the TV and it would be there," says Spence. "It was making it impossible to get over what had happened. So I booked a flight to Australia. 'Get me away from this.'"
Media playback is not supported on this device Mhairi Spence's wild world title celebration
From home-town Olympian to indistinguishable backpacker. Dropping into the well-worn traveller route from Sydney to Cairns, Spence attempted to disappear.
"I refused to tell anyone what I did. You turn up at a hostel, check into a room with eight beds, and it begins: 'Where are you from, what do you do?'
"I told some people I was a hairdresser. Others I told I was a post-lady. I couldn't tell them I was an Olympic athlete. I didn't feel I deserved that title.
"For the first month I didn't let myself think about London. It was too hard. Anytime I thought about it I felt a heaviness. I could feel the tears coming. It was running away, but I needed to."
At one point, on a sailing trip around the Whitsunday Islands with a disparate group of travellers, talk turned to a previous port of call on that east coast route.
"We all figured out we were on Fraser Island at the same time," says Spence. "Then one girl says, 'Did you hear the rumour?' 'What rumour?' 'There was an Olympic athlete on the island when we were there!'
"And I had to pretend. 'No way - that is so cool!' I had to walk away."
One night on the yacht, Spence found herself unable to sleep. Just before dawn she climbed up on deck and sat there, alone, waiting for the sun to come up.
"It wasn't until then that I began to process what I was feeling. In those quiet moments I could ask myself, how do I feel about it?
"A few weeks later I got probed more and more in another conversation. It came out that I had been to the Olympics. This guy couldn't get over it, that he was sharing a room with someone who had competed in London. And all I could think was, big deal, I came 21st.
"But these little things helped. They slowly gave me a more balanced view of what had happened. People thought it was great that you had even made it there, and that gave me a renewed view of myself."
Modern Pentathlon • Introduced to Olympics in 1912 by Baron de Coubertin • Competitors fence, swim 200m freestyle, show-jump and then do a combined run/shoot final event • Takes place on a single day • Previous British Olympic medallists include Steph Cook (gold, Sydney), Heather Fell (silver, Beijing), Kate Allenby (bronze, Sydney) and Georgina Harland (bronze Athens) • In London, the women's modern pentathlon was the final event of the Games
To those of us who only experience elite sport from the outside looking in, such intense emotions might appear excessive, an over-reaction to something that is, to the unconverted, just a pastime. The Olympics matter, but they are not war or death or disease.
But they are also the pinnacle, and for someone whose life and ambitions have been built around them, their defining challenge.
Spence had no desire to become mired in her misery. On the other side of the world from her native Inverness, far from the Scottish winter and the constant reminders of London's summer, she was tempted to stay away for good - "out of the bubble", as she puts it.
That she came back, and to compete again in the sport De Coubertin himself introduced to the Olympics, was about avoiding the easy option.
"Even now it's not gone. Some days I do find it hard. Could I train for four more years and then have exactly the same thing happen to me?
"But I felt I owed it to myself - all the years of hard work, the brutal sessions. It wouldn't be right not to come back.
"Being a professional athlete is an amazing, wonderful life-style, and we're incredibly lucky. But it takes a lot to continually pick yourself up again.
"Everything is about maximising your training or maximising your recovery. You become your sport. It consumes every angle of your life. And you will meet with triumph and disaster."
That famous line from Kipling is no throwaway thought. The words are there on the inside of Spence's left forearm, tattooed in black ink, a permanent reminder of the Olympic ordeal she has come through.
"When I was eight years old, I won a 25m breast-stroke race at my club championship," she says. "It was the first thing I ever won. That was when I decided I was going to go to the Olympics, and that I was going to win a medal."
She laughs, and then falls silent for a long moment. "It would be a shame to let that eight-year-old down." |
What is wrong with the New York Giants' offense? Perennially one of the league's most prolific groups the Giants have scored only seven points in the past two weeks.
Eli Manning 'It's not the plays. It's not the tempo. Our execution has got to be better.'
What you guys really want to debate, and what many of you have already decided, is how much of this mess is the fault of offensive coordinator Kevin Gilbride?
Quarterback Eli Manning was not asked directly about Gilbride on Tuesday, but still ended up offering what amounted to a defense of the veteran coach, who has been with him his entire career.
"It's not the plays. It's not the tempo. Our execution has got to be better," Manning said.
Speaking specifically about the 31-7 loss to Kansas City, Manning said:
"I thought we had chances and I thought we had the right game plan. We said we're going to attack these corners, throw the ball down the field and try to get some big plays. We only hit one of them. I thought we had opportunities for some other ones and the defenders made some decent plays, but we still had some chances to make some plays that could have been game-changing. We've got to find ways to make some more plays when we have the opportunities to," Manning said.
"I thought we just didn't hit the big plays that we needed to. We threw the ball down the field and we've got to connect on those. That's me throwing it in the right spot and the receivers making the catch. I think we were attacking the right spots. We just didn't execute it well enough."
The Giants finished Sunday with 298 yards of total offense, the second straight week they have not gone over 300 yards. Let's look at some of what happened.
Manning was sacked three times and under duress much of the afternoon.
Hakeem Nicks failed to haul in three passes that could have gone for big yardage.
One big play Nicks did haul in was negated via penalty.
Da'Rel Scott dropped a perfectly timed screen pass. Look at the image below and see the miles of space, with blockers in front, Scott has if he simply catches the ball.
On a third-and-1 in the third quarter Gilbride calls for a pitch right to David Wilson. I keep hearing calls for 'get Wilson into space' and that is what is done here. Only all three tight ends -- Brandon Myers, Bear Pascoe and Larry Donnell -- miss blocks. The Giants punt.
How many of those mistakes can be pinned on the offensive coordinator?
The Bigger Picture
Eagles.com illustrated how the Giants have continually had 6-on-4 and 7-on-5 advantages in blocking the opposing pass rush, but have not been able to do so. Is that on Gilbride? He's doing his best to design plays that protect his quarterback.
Manning has made some horrid decisions in four games as he has piled up nine interceptions. Is Gilbride to blame for those?
Offensive Ineptitude Points per game: 15.3 (30th)
Plays from scrimmage: 239 (30th)
Turnovers: 16 (32nd)
Takeaway/Giveaway Ratio: -9 (30th)
Rushing: 231 yards (30th), 3.3 yards per carry (30th)
Sacks Allowed: 14 (27th)
Is the offensive coordinator to blame for Wilson's two fumbles vs. the Dallas Cowboys? Or, the two screen passes that were intercepted in that game where mistakes by Wilson and Da'Rel Scott led to the interceptions? Those aren't bad play calls. They are bad plays by the players on the field.
In the Denver game, is Gilbride to blame for the turf monster tackling Brandon Myers and likely preventing a touchdown? Is he to blame for Rueben Randle fumbling away a touchdown at the goal line? Is he to blame for Manning's awful interception right before the half? Or, for a ball bouncing off defender's foot and becoming an interception?
Against Carolina is Gilbride to blame for the fact that the offensive line was a sieve? Manning was sacked seven times and hit 17. That's atrocious. The Giants couldn't do anything well on offense, because there wasn't anything they could block.
Is it the offensive coordinator's fault that the thing Will Beatty has done best thus far in 2013 is commit holding penalties?
The Giants are second in the league in dropped passes with 12. How many more points would the Giants have on the board if they had made most of those plays? The coordinator can only design the play, he can't throw the ball or catch it. The Giants lead the league in turnovers. Is the offensive coordinator failing to protect the ball?
What Can Gilbride Do Better?
Let's talk about David Wilson. Is Wilson an untapped Darren Sproles? Is he the next Tiki Barber? Or, is he the newest Rocky Thompson? Don't know anything about Thompson, the running back the Giants made their first-round pick in 1971? Feel free to look him up.
Back to Wilson. There has been concern the past couple of weeks over the playing time split between Wilson and Scott, which has been virtually 50-50. Is it frustrating that Scott (125) has played more snaps than Wilson (103)? Yes. My belief? If the games were closer that split would be more like 70-30 tilted toward Wilson. Scott has been on the field so much because the fourth quarters of the past two games have been lopsided.
Like it or not, Scott is the third-down back. He does a much better job in pass protection than Wilson. The other problem is that Wilson has only six catches over two seasons after catching only 37 balls in three collegiate seasons. Is he a guy you can trust coming out of the backfield? Scott already has 10 catches this season, so we can see which back the Giants have more faith in when it comes to throwing him the ball.
The Giants would love to get him in space and I believe they are trying to find ways to do that. Throwing him the ball is one way. It's on Wilson to convince the Giants he can be part of their passing attack.
Now, let's talk about the no-huddle offense.
'Is Wilson an untapped Darren Sproles ? Is he the next Tiki Barber ? Or, is he the newest Rocky Thompson?'
Manning was asked repeatedly about the no-huddle on Tuesday, as was head coach Tom Coughlin. Here is part of what Manning said:
"I think it slows down the pass rush. It confuses the defense a little bit," Manning said. "I get worried about doing it an entire game just because ... If you do it a whole game, it will be a little slower. You have to be able to get into all of your plays. Do we have those capabilities of getting into every single play in a no-huddle situation? If you ran the same ones over and over again, eventually the defense would catch on."
Personally, more no-huddle is something I would advocate for. As Manning said, how much of the Giants' playbook is available when they do that? Also, with young offensive linemen and running backs can they handle their assignments on the fly like that?
Trying it is an idea worth exploring, but it is fraught with risks of its own.
Is Gilbride's Offense Stale?
That is one thing that has been uttered for years. I don't buy it. It's more traditional than many of the offenses around the league. Is it predictable? At times I think almost every offense is predictable, especially when you are always behind by a boatload of points.
Does watching the shotgun draw get tiresome occasionally? Sure. Would I have called the shotgun draw Sunday on third-and-forever inside my own 5-yard-line, like Gilbride did? You bet.
Have there been plays to be made in each game the Giants have had this season? Plays that the players have not made? Yes, there have.
The blocking is an issue. The play of Hakeem Nicks is an issue. The fact that Brandon Myers can't block and has most of his receptions in garbage time is an issue. The inexperience of the running backs is an issue. The inconsistent play of the quarterback is an issue.
Giants' Offensive Stats
Pts Yrds Pass Rush Off 15.3 325.5 (23rd) 267.8 (10th) 57.8 (30th)
Final Thoughts
'Every play that works is a brilliant play call. Every play that fails is a stupid one.'
When Tom Coughlin said this week that the Giants' play-calling is "like throwing a dart at a board" he was not criticizing Gilbride. He was saying that right now the Giants have nothing to hang their hat on, nothing they KNOW will work other than throwing the ball to Cruz.
Argue about play-calling all you want. There are play calls in every game that can be questioned. I believe this: Every play that works is a brilliant play call. Every play that fails is a stupid one. So, when teams play well the coordinator is great. When they don't he should be run out of town.
There is a legitimate argument to be made that the passing attack, with its many option routes, leads to some of Manning's interceptions. Would it be a bad idea to scale some of that back and take away some of those options, thus reducing miscommunications? Maybe not, but you might also take away some chances for big plays by doing it.
Can you make an argument that perhaps Manning's comfort in Gilbride's system, long considered an asset, has made him a bit lackadaisical? Probably an anecdotal one, but it's an argument you can make. Perhaps a change would do Manning good, if only because maybe he is too comfortable.
If this type of play continues would it surprise me at the end of the year if Gilbride, and other assistant coaches, are sent packing? Not at all.
A change in coordinator, however, is not a magic elixir for what ails the Giants' offense. Catching the ball. Not fumbling. Not missing blocks. Better pass protection. Better decisions by the quarterback. Those things will fix the Giants' offense.
More from Big Blue View |
US national among extremists killed in Bangladesh: police
A US national of Bangladesh origin was among nine suspected Islamist extremists killed in a massive gunfight in Dhaka, police said Wednesday, as officers hunted a militant who fled the shoot-out.
Dhaka Metropolitan Police spokesman Masudur Rahman told AFP that Shahzad Rouf was one of nine young men who were killed during Tuesday's early morning raid on a militant hideout.
"He was an American citizen. We confirmed his identity by checking finger prints," he told AFP.
An Islamic State group flag is seen in a handout photo released by Bangladeshi police of the house where suspected Islamist extremists were killed in a gun battle with authorities in Dhaka on July 26, 2016 ©STR (BANGLADESHI POLICE/AFP)
He said six other dead extremists were also identified by police investigators by matching their finger prints with their national identity cards.
The nine were shot dead when hundreds of armed police stormed their den at a six-storey apartment building in Dhaka's Kalyanpur neighbourhood.
Police on Wednesday launched a hunt for a survivor of the raid. Investigators hope the escaped extremist and another man who was arrested during the gunfight will shed light on the group's claimed ties with the Islamic State group (IS).
"We're conducting an investigation. Hasan has claimed that they were IS members," a senior security official told AFP, referring to a 25-year-old arrested in the raid who is being treated in hospital.
The British Council temporarily closed its offices in Bangladesh Wednesday over safety fears, as a rumour swirled that Islamist extremists would soon target a major market, school or foreign organisation.
Rouf, 24, was a business administration student at the North South University (NSU), Rahman said.
Local media said he was a close friend of Nibras Islam, one of five gunmen who attacked an upscale Dhaka cafe on July 1 and killed 22 people, mostly foreigners.
NSU, a top private university, has been a hotbed of Islamist extremism.
Another of its students was shot dead in a northern Bangladesh town a week after the Dhaka cafe attack when Islamists launched a major assault on the country's largest Eid prayer congregation, where some 250,000 people gathered.
Seven of its students were also convicted and jailed in December last year for the murder of an atheist blogger in early 2013, kickstarting a deadly campaign against secular activists and religious minorities.
Dhaka police chief Asaduzzaman Mia told reporters after the raid that most of the extremists killed in the operation were highly educated and from the country's elite.
- Islamic State? -
Rouf's father, Touhid Rouf, told AFP that he was shown a body, but was not sure whether it was that of his son.
"I am not 100 percent sure. I am confused. Maybe it is because the body had an autopsy and it was partly decomposed. We need a DNA test," he told AFP.
He confirmed that his son was an American passport holder and that he had been missing from home for the last six months.
A US embassy spokesman refused to comment on Rouf's case.
Rouf had been named on a list of missing people prepared by the elite security force Rapid Action Battalion after authorities raised concerns that he might have fled the country and joined the Islamic State group.
The nine had claimed that they were members of the Islamic State organisation, with officers recovering the group's black flags and robes from their hideout.
But the national police chief rejected the claim, asserting that the nine were members of banned homegrown militant outfit Jamayetul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB).
IS said it was responsible for the attack, releasing images of the carnage and photos of the five gunmen posing with the group's flag.The group has claimed responsibility for dozens of murders of religious minority members and foreigners in Bangladesh in recent months.
Bangladesh authorities, however, have steadfastly maintained that the IS has no presence in the world's third-largest Muslim majority nation. They blame homegrown groups such as JMB.
The government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has launched a nationwide man-hunt for Islamists, arresting more than a dozen suspected extremists including one of JMB's regional heads.
Bangladeshi onlookers gather near the house where police killed nine suspected Islamist extremists in Dhaka on July 26, 2016 ©STR (AFP) |
To gain admittance to college in the 17th century, students had to be able to read and translate various Latin authors on sight. 100 years ago, students were required to have read various classical works before being admitted.
Today, however, many American students are being admitted to colleges without ever having read a book from start to finish. They are part of a cohort of students known as “book virgins.”
The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has pointed out this phenomenon in their recent report titled “Beach Books: 2014-2016. What Do Colleges and Universities Want Students to Read Outside Class?” The report offers a detailed assessment of the books that colleges across America recommend to their students before they begin classes in the fall.
The reading level of these books is oftentimes very low, meant to cater to the group of students who are “book virgins”:
“The desire to appeal to incoming students who have rarely if ever read an adult book on their own… lead selection committees to choose low-grade ‘accessible’ works that are presumed to appeal to ‘book virgins’ who will flee actual college-level reading… [S]uch ‘book virgins’ have to be wooed with simple, unchallenging works.”
And how many “book virgins” are there among entering college freshmen? According to NAS' David Randall—who drew upon NEA and Pew statistics—about 4 million, which represents about 20% of the entering freshmen class. Sadly, these students have discovered that they can receive adequate, and even good, grades in high school without ever reading a page of assigned texts.
For many students today, it’s considered an embarrassment not to have lost one’s virginity before going to college.
Would that more were embarrassed about being “book virgins.” |
34% city teenagers experience psychotic symptoms, finds study
Posted on 05-31-2017 Posted in Mental Health - 0 Comments
Be it for better amenities or good job opportunities, everyone wants to live in a city. While the facilities are many, city life can result in mental health disorders in people. According to a new study, growing up in a city may remarkably increase the risk of psychotic experiences such as hearing voices and paranoia.
The study, published in the journal Schizophrenia Bulletin on May 22, 2017, investigated the role played by neighborhood social conditions, personal crime victimization and urbanity in psychotic experiences among adolescents. The researchers at King’s College London and Duke University in North Carolina interviewed more than 2,000 British twins 18 years old regarding psychotic experiences they have had since they turned 12.
According to the research, among those living in the most densely populated cities, 34 percent of the participants reported psychotic experiences. The researchers also noted that 18-year-olds raised in big cities were 67 percent more likely to have such experiences. The findings revealed that up to 1 in 3 adolescents in the general population experienced psychotic symptoms, including hallucinations and delusions. The researchers also found that even after eliminating a range of potential risk factors, including family psychiatric history and adolescent substance problems, the link between adolescent psychotic experiences and growing up in an urban environment remained consistent.
In addition, personal victimization resulting from violent crimes was found to be twice as common among adolescents and those who had experienced such victimization were over three times more likely to experience psychotic episodes. The researchers also found that the combined effect of personal victimization and adverse social conditions was greater on teenagers than the independent effects of each.
The authors observed that the study results are quite important since early psychotic experiences are associated with a greater risk of psychiatric disorders and other related problems in adulthood. As early interventions offered the best hope for improving adult psychopathology, it was deemed necessary to understand various factors influencing psychotic experiences among young people to design effective preventive interventions, the researchers said.
Prior studies
The recent study is not the first one to link city living to psychosis. In a 2005 research, it was discovered that the higher prevalence of psychosis in cities was one of the most consistent findings in schizophrenia research. Similarly, a 2016 study suggested that the genetic variants that increased the risk of schizophrenia were found more common in cities rather than rural areas.
One of the factors that increased the rate of schizophrenia in cities was related to the immigrant population. According to Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman of Columbia University, people who migrate to cities face problems in speaking the local language or understanding the customs that often put them under stress, which may result in schizophrenia in an individual vulnerable to it.
Psychotic disorders: Severe but treatable
Psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia, affect the mind making it hard for someone to think clearly, communicate effectively and behave appropriately. Those with severe symptoms have trouble staying in touch with reality and are often unable to perform daily activities. Although the exact cause of psychotic disorders is not known, some of the factors that may play a role in their development include inheritance, drug abuse, stress and other major life changes. However, most psychotic disorders can be treated with a combination of medications and psychotherapy or counseling.
A leading behavioral health care provider in the U.S., Sovereign Health offers world-class treatment for a variety of psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia. At Sovereign Health of Florida, we view all mental health disorders as brain-based problems and incorporate various aspects of brain wellness to improve a patient’s cognitive faculties and brain functioning.
By providing our patients a comprehensive treatment through evidence-based techniques, we help them manage their stress, deal with underlying problems and prevent relapse of symptoms. For those looking for a psychotic disorder treatment, please reach out to a representative at Sovereign Health of Florida by calling our 24/7 helpline number. You can also chat online with our counselors to know about psychosis treatment offered at our state-of-the-art facility. |
A guard watches over detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2009. John Moore/Getty Images
Zain Abidin Mohammed Husain Abu Zubaydah had endured days of beatings, humiliation and being tied up in a stress position. But his Pakistani-intelligence interrogators were not giving up as they grilled the self-styled jihadi on his role among the Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets but were now often suspected of plotting attacks against the West. Although the CIA had worked with Pakistani and Arab intelligence agencies to support these volunteer networks in the 1980s, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was the first sign of a dramatic blowback, and Pakistan’s security services were now under pressure from their U.S. allies to crack down on an enterprise they had originally helped nurture. One officer repeatedly struck Abu Zubaydah, according to the vivid account written in 1995 and 1996 in the fourth volume of his diaries — the U.S. government translation of which has been obtained exclusively by Al Jazeera. “I want you to talk about your life for the last 10 years,” the officer told his captive. Today one of 14 high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Zubaydah back then was a leading figure in the Arab mujahedeen milieu from which Al-Qaeda emerged.
Leg restraints in an interview room at Camp V, styled after state-of-the-art U.S. federal prisons, at Guantanamo Bay. Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images Abu Zubaydah was not going to confess. When asked by his Pakistani tormentors for specific information — by his own account — he gave the impression of suffering greater physical pain than was the case and eventually offered false information in order to stop the abuse. “Who is your trainer?” the officer asked, referring to the identity of the individual who trained him in weapons at Khaldan camp in Afghanistan. “My teacher’s name is Mahmud,” Abu Zubaydah replied. “Mahmud who?” “Mahmud Al-Milaiji,” he answered, confident that his interrogator would not be aware that this was the name of an Egyptian film star. Abu Zubaydah would repeat the name of the Egyptian actor during a later CIA interrogation session, according to the book “The Black Banners,” written by Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent who was present at the CIA black site where Abu Zubaydah was rendered after his capture. Abu Zubaydah was found along with his diaries in Pakistan on March 28, 2002, having fled the collapse of the Taliban regime. In the hands of the CIA, he became something of a guinea pig for the George W. Bush administration's interrogation procedures, which many groups, including top human-rights organizations, have labeled as torture. Although Al Jazeera has not seen the three subsequent diary volumes that Abu Zubaydah wrote while in CIA custody, according to his lawyers, they are a chronicle of his torture at the hands of U.S. captors.
(John Yoo's memo) authorized the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah using 10 techniques, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cramped confinement, stress positions, wall slamming and being placed in a confinement box with insects.
On Aug. 1, 2002, five months after Abu Zubaydah’s capture, the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel sent the White House a memo drafted by attorney John Yoo and signed by his boss, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee. It authorized the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah using 10 techniques, including waterboarding, sleep deprivation, cramped confinement, stress positions, wall slamming and being placed in a confinement box with insects. This last technique was inspired by his diaries, where he had written of his fear of bugs. Yoo’s memo asserted that Abu Zubaydah had been one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks, the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and every other major assault carried out by Al-Qaeda — claims later significantly pulled back by U.S. authorities. On April 27, 2002, Newsweek reported, under the headline “How Good Is Abu Zubaydah’s Information?” that he was the source of information leading to two U.S. domestic terrorism warnings pertaining to possible attacks against banks, supermarkets and shopping malls.
'Your jihad is over'
The chronicle of his Pakistan torture experience in his diaries raises the question of whether Abu Zubaydah attempted to confound his American interrogators, too, by concealing information while appearing to be releasing gems of intelligence. Obviously, unlike his Pakistani interrogators in 1995, the CIA may have been using physical duress in conjunction with other more sophisticated methods. Still, the diaries which could be painting a rosier picture than was the case of his performance under physical assault — suggest that Abu Zubaydah saw interrogation and torture as a contest from which he could emerge with his secrets intact, having fooled his questioners. Abu Zubaydah had been captured at a Pakistani checkpoint as he drove with another man — a Yemeni from Saudi Arabia — on a journey in a mini-convoy of two vehicles delivering materials to comrades moved to a safe house, the House of Exile in Babi Jadeed, because of a crackdown by Pakistani police and intelligence services. They had been looking for Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Before he was caught, Yousef was one of the most notorious residents of the House of Martyrs, the guesthouse Abu Zubaydah ran and “the center of terrorism, as it’s called,” Abu Zubaydah wrote. He recounted in his diary, “The police stopped us … I didn’t say a word. The police said to me, while pointing at me to come down, in a broken English, as if the Arabs are English speaking, he said, ‘Your Jihad is over.'”
Abu Zubaydah was repeatedly tortured by Pakistani authorities. Inter Press Service/Getty Images Abu Zubaydah handed the border guard a United Nations refugee card he acquired earlier in the year, but the ploy did not work, and he and his passenger were taken to an office in the nearby Pakistani city of Peshawar. He recounted a frantic attempt to get rid of some seals that he had used to make fake Afghan passports for his comrades: They decided to search us before being presented to the person in charge, and I was scared that they might discover the faked seals that I was carrying with me, so I said, I need to go to the bathroom (to urinate) but they didn’t allow me before doing a search. But I insisted that I can’t stand it any more, and that I will urinate in my pants. So they had to take me to the bathroom. After I closed the door, and get rid of the plastic seals, and left the wooden parts in the upper window … Then I pulled the flush and all the seals disappeared in the toilet. So I went out cheerfully because I don’t have a problem now. However, he had forgotten one seal in a pocket, which was soon found. Abu Zubaydah wrote that he tried to portray himself as a “poor oppressed reporter who is calling for democracy and fighting dictatorship.” But the Pakistani officer didn’t believe him. “F--- you don’t try to bluff,” he reportedly said. Soon the beatings began. Abu Zubaydah was taken downstairs to a prison and waited as a police car packed with Pakistani soldiers arrived. He sat in the backseat, handcuffed. The officer was in the front seat. “They took me around most of the places in the city (at night), and showed me to whomever they encountered, but no one could identify me … So they beat me up in the street and in front of the public while I was tied up. I could only push them back or scream in their faces.” The Pakistanis were trying to force Abu Zubaydah to identify the location of the House of Martyrs. He was hit using shoes and facial slaps. Then he was taken to the upper floor of a house and thrown to the ground. Two of the men grabbed his feet “while the officer started flogging using a heavy stick.” Abu Zubaydah wrote that he “turned to deceit” to get the Pakistanis to stop beating him. “I played a theatrical role; I cried loudly while pointing to my head with my hand, then the beating stopped, and he wanted to check out what happened, so I held his hand and put it on the wound toward the opening.”
So they beat me up in the street and in front of the public while I was tied up. I could only push them back or scream in their faces. Abu Zubaydah, 1995 while detained in Pakistan
In Volume 2 of his diaries, Abu Zubaydah wrote that he suffered a shrapnel wound to his head, which left a small hole in his skull, while performing ablutions on a mountain in Gardez, Afghanistan. He temporarily lost his sight and hearing and the ability to move his body. He also lost part of his memory, the ability to speak and write for about seven months. He wrote in an entry that reading his “memoirs help(ed) me memory (sic) to recall everything.” At the interrogation, Abu Zubaydah contorted his fingers to make it appear that the beating “will leave me in a state of nervous shock … I opened my right hand keeping two of my fingers twisted, and said, ‘I cannot control them.’” The officer “became more scared, left the room and lighted a cigarette hoping that the smoking will calm down his anger.” But he returned about 15 minutes later and started beating Abu Zubaydah again. “I am not going to let you go even if you die, where is the house?” he said. “I only answered with a few words trying to show that my nervous (sic) had an impact on my tongue … But he started beating me again more forcefully while I was shouting at them in English, ‘you animals!” Abu Zubaydah wrote. The officer left the room while a soldier continued to beat Abu Zubaydah. He was then taken to a prison at Qura Qabrastan. The officer, Abu Zubaydah wrote in his diary, “ordered that I should be tied up to the high bars so I can’t sit down or sleep during the night, and in fact that was what happened.” “Hours passed by and I was feeling the pain in the bottom of my foot (The location of the beating). I also felt the pain in the calf, and the thigh, because of standing a long time … And I started to realize their intention, they must be trying to make me reach a nervous breakdown so I will confess with everything I know at the time of interrogation … I relied on my determination and rested against the bars and tried to sleep, and I really slept while standing, and when the pain increased in one foot, I woke up and leaned on the other foot so I could sleep.” The technique the Pakistanis used on Abu Zubaydah was a stress position, one of 10 “enhanced interrogation methods” the CIA used on him. Almost immediately after his capture, according to declassified documents released several years ago, top Bush administration officials discussed using an “alternative” set of interrogation methods “because the CIA believed that Abu Zubaydah was withholding imminent-threat information during the initial interrogation sessions.”
A Viet Cong prisoner is interrogated by U.S. forces in a stress position in Thuong Duc, Vietnam. National Archives The CIA prepared a psychological assessment of Abu Zubaydah in July 2002, based heavily on his six volumes of diaries, that focused on how to break down a man the CIA then believed was the No. 3 person in Al-Qaeda’s hierarchy. His diaries provide clues to how he may have hoped to respond to physical pain inflicted by his CIA interrogators — although what actually transpired in the course of his “enhanced interrogation” by U.S. operatives remains unknown. During his interrogation in Pakistan, after a night of half-sleeping in a stress position, Abu Zubaydah once again faced the interrogator with the “big mustache,” who questioned him about the fake passport seals. Abu Zubaydah was returned to the prison cell, where, he said, he spent more than two days “standing on my feet, almost torn down.” But “God gave me help because as long as I am thinking of (the brothers who are outside the prison, I don’t feel the pain, but when I stop thinking of them, then I think of pain).”
Prince at House of Martyrs?
Another day, Abu Zubaydah was taken by bus along with his Yemeni companion to an office he calls “The Special Branch.” There, he watched the interrogation of a young man he believed might have been a Pakistani who plotted a failed assassination attempt on Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. It’s unclear why Abu Zubaydah was present at the session. He wrote that he was forced to “sit in some place, and from the opening of the door we were revealed to — or we can see at the same time — a veiled person.” He said after the man responded to the interrogator’s questions, he and his companion were quickly taken back to the bus and returned to the prison. Abu Zubaydah was then hooded, tied up and interrogated again by the “huge man with the big mustache.” The room, Abu Zubaydah wrote, was crowded and he could hear English words coming from near the vicinity of the “huge man.” “The huge man started with a question which I was expecting … He said, ‘What do you know about the House of Martyrs?’ He spoke the words ‘House of Martyrs’ in Arabic, and the rest in English.” Abu Zubaydah responded, he said, “In a very cool manner, ‘I heard about it.’” The officer used his baton and smashed Abu Zubaydah “on the upper calf, just in the back of my left knee.” “I said angrily, ‘What happened?’” He was asked another question, “What do you know about the (prince of the House of Martyrs)?” “I said angrily, ‘I don’t know him.’” The officer smashed Abu Zubaydah on the back of his calf again. After repeated blows he said, “If the interrogation will continue in this manner, then go ahead and writing down all the answers that are appropriate for you, then I will sign, and everything will be over.” As the beating continued, Abu Zubaydah started giving false names to his questioners. He denied that he was the “prince” of the House of Martyrs. When asked about his affiliation, he denied that he was the emir of the Khaldan training camp. “I am a sick man, and I am still taking medications … for my memory case, do you think that anyone is going to rely on me to run a camp,” he said.
Waterboarding equipment used for torture. Waterboarding.org After his capture by the United States, Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations became more intense. In “The Black Banners” Soufan, one of two agents who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah at that CIA black-site prison, suggested the “enhanced interrogation techniques” were an experiment. It’s a word that he uses more than a dozen times in his book to describe the techniques first used on Abu Zubaydah. Soufan interrogated Abu Zubaydah using traditional rapport-building techniques that, Soufan said, resulted in cooperation. It was only after two psychologists under contract to the CIA took over the interrogation in the weeks after Abu Zubaydah’s capture and used abusive methods that he began to clam up. Soufan left the black site, according to an interview he gave “60 Minutes” after the publication of his book in 2011, when one of the psychologists introduced a box to be used during Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation session that resembled a coffin. The effectiveness of the CIA’s interrogation of Abu Zubaydah is questioned in a 6,000-page report prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which spent four years investigating the CIA’s so-called rendition, detention and interrogation program. According to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who chaired the panel, the report “uncovers startling details about the CIA detention and interrogation program and raises critical questions about intelligence operations and oversight.” Abu Zubaydah figures prominently in the report, the executive summary of which Al Jazeera is seeking from the Justice Department under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. It is uncertain whether being held by the CIA was Abu Zubaydah’s first experience of American intelligence operatives during interrogations. He wrote that some questioning took place while he was hooded. He said at one point he heard “… some people leaving the room quietly, and I later learned that they were Americans who came to watch the interrogation with the one who is supposed to be the prince of the House of Martyrs.” Former CIA operations officer Marc Sageman, who was based in Islamabad in the late 1980s, is now a forensic psychiatrist and reviewed Abu Zubaydah’s diaries for Al Jazeera. He believes the Americans Abu Zubaydah referred to were FBI agents who were in Pakistan hunting for Ramzi Yousef’s fellow conspirators. The FBI would not respond to questions about that possibility.
The effectiveness of the CIA’s interrogation of Abu Zubaydah is questioned in a 6,000-page report prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which spent four years investigating. |
Media playback is not supported on this device Highlights - Hearts 2-2 Inverness CT aet (2-4 pens)
Nine-man Inverness exacted League Cup semi-final revenge on Hearts, winning on penalties to set up a first major final against Aberdeen on 16 March.
Greg Tansey's wonderful strike put Inverness ahead but Jamie Hamill scored twice in two minutes for Hearts after Gary Warren was sent off.
Caley Thistle's Josh Meekings also saw red but the Highlanders grabbed an injury-time leveller through Nick Ross.
After a goalless extra-time, Ross Draper netted the crucial spot-kick.
His successful penalty eventually sealed the game, the outcome of which had swung like a pendulum.
Cruelly, Hamill was one of those who missed for Hearts in the shoot-out, Dean Brill saving the midfielder's effort after previously denying new signing Paul McCallum.
Media playback is not supported on this device Interview - Inverness Caledonian Thistle boss John Hughes
It fulfilled the pre-match feelings of Caley Thistle manager John Hughes, who stated his players had a "glint in their eyes" as they readied themselves for getting their own back against Hearts at Easter Road.
For at the very same stage of the Scottish League Cup competition last season, it was the Tynecastle side who had progressed to the final via spot-kicks.
And seven points from nine in their last three league matches had Hearts feeling confident of coming out on top again.
However, Danny Wilson's third minute jitters almost had his side on the back foot immediately.
The Hearts captain dithered and Billy McKay swooped to cut back for Draper, who scooped over with his right foot when a shot on his left seemed the better option.
That early opportunity was the appetiser for a fast-paced first half not short of bite in the tackle, but one which produced no goals
Hearts midfielder Jamie Hamill is dejected after seeing his penalty saved
Dale Carrick and Sam Nicholson were the Hearts players giving Inverness goalkeeper Dean Brill most to think about in the opening 45 minutes.
Carrick glanced a header over the crossbar from Dylan McGowan's delivery, while Nicholson's driven shot from 20 yards stung the palms of the Englishman.
But the best opportunity came to McKay close to the half-time whistle.
Already on 18 goals this season, he sneaked goal-side of young defender Brad McKay to latch onto Draper's perfectly curled through ball, only to see Jamie MacDonald beat away the low angled effort which was headed for the far corner.
Inverness took the lead in spectacular fashion soon after the break.
Tansey's second stint with the Highlanders is only 17 days old and he could not have chosen a better way to endear himself to Caley Thistle fans once again - he thumped the ball into MacDonald's right-hand corner when the ball broke to him 20 yards out.
Hearts rallied and Brill had already made a fantastic save from Callum Paterson before the game turned on 66 minutes.
Media playback is not supported on this device Interview - Hearts boss Gary Locke
Warren, one of those yellow carded in the first half, was deemed guilty of another after a tangle with Nicholson on the edge of the box.
Hughes' rage at the debatable sending-off was compounded when a well-worked Hearts free-kick brought the equaliser.
Ryan Stevenson, on as a substitute, cleverly rolled the ball to Hamill, whose relatively tame effort deflected off the foot of Draper and into the bottom corner.
Two minutes later Hearts were in front via another Hamill set-piece and there was no fluke about this one. Carrick won a free-kick when fouled by Josh Meekings, leaving Hamill to curl wonderfully into Brill's top left corner.
Meekings' bullet header almost restored parity for Inverness but MacDonald saved well, and the Caley Thistle defender's next major piece of action was getting sent off for a crude foul on Scott Robinson.
So Hearts found themselves in pole position for a place in the final, but there was to be another twist in the fifth minute of injury time when a tactical gamble by Hughes paid off.
Inverness manager John Hughes celebrates after his side reach their first major domestic final
He had thrown on Ross in place of David Raven and the midfielder dramatically ensured the game went to extra-time, firing home from the angle at the second attempt from close range despite MacDonald's best efforts.
Hearts piled on the pressure in extra-time and despite a couple of goalmouth scrambles, the nine men of Caley Thistle managed to prevent their goalmouth being breached.
Hughes' charges even tried snatching it themselves and had McKay and Ross go close to nicking a winner.
In the penalty shoot-out, Inverness's Graeme Shinnie and Hearts' McCallum failed to convert the opening kicks.
But Caley Thistle would not miss again, with Billy McKay, Ross, Tansey and Draper scoring to capitalise on Hamill's miss. |
Steve Davis is out as co-host of the “Norris & Davis” morning show on WJZ-FM (105.7 The Fan), the veteran sportscaster confirmed Friday afternoon.
Davis, who has been on Baltimore and Washington TV and radio since 1994, joined 105.7 in 2010 after being laid off by WBAL radio in what management there characterized as a cost-cutting move. He had been on WBAL for five years as host of “Sportsline with Steve Davis,” a popular talk show.
Since 2009, Davis has also owned Steve Davis Media Group, which offers corporations and nonprofits video production services and motivational speeches from Davis, according to his LinkedIn page.
The 1988 Boston College graduate came to Baltimore to cover sports for WBFF (Fox 45) in 1994 from KOIN-TV in Portland, Oregon. He joined WBAL radio in 2004. Davis has won a regional Edward R. Murrow award and a National Sports Story of the Year award from the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association.
He has been paired in mornings at 105.7 The Fan with Ed Norris, Baltimore's former police commissioner, since July 2010.
CBS Radio, which owns 105.7 The Fan, has been cutting costs across the country in recent months as its parent explores a sale or IPO of the division, according to Media Life magazine. Many of those cuts involve longtime on-air talent. That looks to be the larger picture and could suggest there might be more change to come at 105.7 The Fan.
CAPTION Actor Kevin Spacey has been spotted in Baltimore recently. Scheduled to appear in court Jan. 7 in Nantucket to be arraigned on the indecent assault and battery charges, Spacey could face as many as five years in prison if convicted. Actor Kevin Spacey has been spotted in Baltimore recently. Scheduled to appear in court Jan. 7 in Nantucket to be arraigned on the indecent assault and battery charges, Spacey could face as many as five years in prison if convicted. CAPTION Dirt bike riders were seen zipping down North Monroe Street in West Baltimore and popping wheelies Tuesday while filming a movie scene. Based on a casting call posted to the Maryland Film Office’s website , it appears the “ride scenes” were shot for the feature film “Charm City,” alternately called “12 O’Clock Boys.” The film will reportedly be executive produced by Will Smith and is based on the 2013 documentary “12 O’Clock Boys” directed by Maryland Institute College of Art alum Lotfy Nathan. Dirt bike riders were seen zipping down North Monroe Street in West Baltimore and popping wheelies Tuesday while filming a movie scene. Based on a casting call posted to the Maryland Film Office’s website , it appears the “ride scenes” were shot for the feature film “Charm City,” alternately called “12 O’Clock Boys.” The film will reportedly be executive produced by Will Smith and is based on the 2013 documentary “12 O’Clock Boys” directed by Maryland Institute College of Art alum Lotfy Nathan.
The departure of Davis will trigger other lineup changes starting Monday.
Rob Long will be the new partner of Ed Norris from 6 to 10 a.m., with Bob Haynie replacing him alongside Vinny Cerrato from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
"Over the past four years I've had the distinct pleasure of being one half of the Vinny and Rob Show with Vinny Cerrato," Long wrote on Facebook Saturday. "Now, it's time for a new challenge. I will co-host Norris and Long In The Morning with Edward T Norris beginning Monday at 6am. "
Jerry Coleman said that he will be on the air 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. weekdays starting Monday as part of a new lineup.
Davis sent the following statement to the Sun in a text message Friday afternoon:
"I'm really proud of the show. We went from ninth in ratings the month before I started to number one within three months. I want to thank our listeners for making us, for much of the last six years, the top ranked show at the station and in morning drive in Baltimore.
"The listeners have been awesome. I especially want to thank Bob Philips and Dave Labrozzi for the opportunity. I had a good conversation with the station and was told it was a financial decision.
"I can't wait to rediscover what it's like to sleep past 3:30 a.m. and get a full night's sleep. I've been doing this 27 years. These things happen. I'm looking forward to exploring some new opportunities I have been working on. I'll keep people updated on Twitter @SteveDavisBmore."
Labrozzi and Philips are 105.7 The Fan and CBS radio executives.
Calls and emails to station management were not returned Friday. |
FARRUKHABAD: Activists of India Against Corruption (IAC) and a journalist were allegedly manhandled here by some persons today when they were conducting a survey regarding allegations of financial irregularities in a trust run by Union minister Salman Khurshid.
A Delhi-based journalist Abhinandan Mishra and members of IAC led by their local convener Laxman Singh were allegedly manhandled and stones were pelted on them when they were returning from Pitaura, native place of Khurshid in Kayamganj area this afternoon, sources said.
Khurshid represents the Farrukhabad Lok Sabha constituency of Uttar Pradesh.
The IAC members claimed that they have informed senior police officials about the incident.
When contacted, additional Superintendent of Police O P Singh said he has been informed over phone about the incident and has asked the journalist and IAC members to lodge a written complaint.
The matter would be probed and the required action would be taken against those found guilty, he said.
Khurshid dares Kejriwal
In a clear challenge to Arvind Kejriwal, law minister Salman Khurshid has dared him to stage a protest in his constituency Farrukhabad in Uttar Pradesh and said "let him also return from Farrukhabad".
At a closed-door function here last night whose footage was aired by some news channels, Khurshid said, "I have been made the Law Minister and asked to work with the pen. I will work with the pen but also with blood."
Apparently referring to Kejriwal's threat to stage a protest in his home constituency from November 1, the senior Congress leader said, "Let them come to Farrukhabad and visit Farrukhabad. But let him also return from Farrukhabad."Khurshid, whose NGO Zakir Hussain Memorial Trust has been accused by Kejriwal of financial bungling, said, "They say we will ask questions and you have to give the answers. We say you hear the answers and forget about asking questions."Kejriwal saw the comments as a death threat to him. "Mr Salman Khurshid has threatened me. The kind of language which he has used, it does not suit the stature of country's law minister," the activist said."Killing me won't help because the country has been awakened. If one Arvind is killed, there will be another 100 Arvind. Rather than threatening like this, it would be better that Congress sensed the anger of people and took some concrete steps against corruption," he said.Khurshid was accompanied by his wife Louise and several other supporters during the programme. |
We first talked about this back in February. But now it’s finally on paper. Andy Diggle and Mark Buckingham’s Doctor Who, scheduled with a new issue 1 for September from IDW. And one of the covers appears to be a make-your-own-TARDIS model. But who would cut up their comic to do such a thing?
Naturally there’s the Star Trek Next Gen/Doctor Who crossover going on
STAR TREK TNG DOCTOR WHO ASSIMILATION #5 IDEA & DESIGN WORKS LLC (W) David Tipton & Various (A/CA) J. K. Woodward The two greatest science-fiction properties of all time cross over for the first time in history, in STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION/DOCTOR WHO: ASSIMILATION2! Captain Jean-Luc Picard faces one of the most difficult decisions of his life, but the fate of the galaxy may depend on it! Can the Doctor convince him to make the correct choice?
Probably, yes. And finally an IDW Star Trek: The Next Generation series too. Generation Hive. Oh look, there’s Borg. Locutus. Seven Of Nine. And the Queen. And they’ve got Next Gen’s Brannon Braga to write it…
STAR TREK NEXT GENERATION HIVE #1 IDEA & DESIGN WORKS LLC (W) Brannon Braga, Terry Matalas (A) Joe Corroney, Photo (CA) Photo, Joe Corroney Celebrating the 25th anniversary of Star Trek: The Next Generation!
In the distant future the entire galaxy has been completely assimilated by Borg and it’s king… Locutis! The only hope for the future lies in the past, in the hands of Captain Jean-Luc Picard and the crew of the starship Enterprise-as Picard faces off against the Borg collective in one final, terrifying and definitive encounter!
Brannon Braga is one of the writers most associated with the Star Trek Franchise. He has written a number of fondly remembered episodes of TNG, including co-writing the two-part series finale, “All Good Things…,” for which he won the prestigious Hugo Award. Terry Matalas has written for Star Trek: Enterprise, as well as Terra Nova.
About Rich Johnston Chief writer and founder of Bleeding Cool. Father of two. Comic book clairvoyant. Political cartoonist.
(Last Updated )
Related Posts
None found |
I’m a female scientist, and I agree with Tim Hunt.
Allie Rubin Blocked Unblock Follow Following Jun 13, 2015
Nobel Prize winner Sir Tim Hunt recently caused a stir when he argued that male and female scientists should work independently, because women are a distraction to men in the lab. At a conference, he was quoted as saying, “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls… three things happen when they are in the lab… You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.”
As improbable as it might sound, I am a female scientist, and I agree with Tim Hunt.
First of all, Sir Tim’s comments are based on his personal experiences, and are therefore incontrovertible. Three hundred and fifty years ago, Isaac Newton saw an apple fall and decided that gravity existed. Three weeks ago, Tim Hunt saw a woman cry and decided that all women are unfit to be scientists. Science is based on observations, which are the same thing as universal proof. Even I know that, and I’m just a woman whose brain is filled to capacity with yoga poses and recipes for gluten-free organic soap. Once, I was lured into a trap in the woods because I followed a trail of Sex and the City DVDs for three miles into a covered pit. Do you really think I could do something as complicated as thinking about science?
Second, Tim Hunt is correct in asserting that women are distracting to men in a lab setting, which greatly affects their productivity. Last month, my labmates and I had to burn our female coworker at the stake for witchcraft because we saw her holding an unwrapped tampon. Between building the stake, lighting an adequate fire, and waiting for her to die, we lost an entire day that we could otherwise have spent working. I make every effort to not distract my male colleagues; sometimes I have to work on my astrology charts from home when I’m menstruating or have leprosy, just so I can let the men in my lab focus on doing real science. It’s a small sacrifice I make that keeps morale in the lab way up.
Tim Hunt also mentions that men and women are constantly falling in love with each other within the lab. This is true; I used to identify as homosexual before working with a group of bearded men and a set of phallic pipettes turned me straight. Once that happened, I couldn’t stop falling in love with every man I met. One time I fell in love with Ernest Rutherford because there was a picture of him in our lab. Another time I dated a coworker for three months before realizing he was actually just an extra large lab coat with a smiley face drawn on the lapel. (He currently holds a tenure-track faculty position at Harvard University.)
Finally, women are just too damn emotional to be scientists. One time, I knocked over a vat of acid because I saw a baby duck through a window and I couldn’t stop crying. My uncontrollable biological clock killed six people that day. While menstruating, I once savagely castrated a visiting speaker because I ran out of chocolate. These may be appropriate actions for women in the domestic sphere, but they’re certainly not acceptable in the realms of science and academia.
Frankly, I don’t even know how I managed to become a scientist. I can only name a handful of important women in science, and they are all dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. I remember wanting to become a scientist when I was young, but I knew this must be a mistake; as a woman, I was better suited to a career in something more traditionally feminine, like becoming a prostitute or dying in childbirth. I likely only made it to my current position in a well-established lab by using reverse sexism, which is rampant in science.
I firmly endorse Sir Tim’s suggestion that labs be segregated by gender. That way, men can work on men’s science, like physics and chemistry, and women can do women’s science, which I think involves sitting in a quilting circle and making sure our cycles are synced. It’s important to make sure that all scientific discussions are conducted between men who are exactly the same and have identical worldviews. How else can they achieve progress?
I know my points might be controversial, but I truly believe all women are too emotional and sexy to do scientific research with men. Additional data are needed to support my claims, but a series of unrelated anecdotes from prestigious male scientists should suffice. |
+ Show
+
You might have seen me trying to explain the build on MrBitter's 12 weeks with the pros, but I felt that I didn't explain it sufficiently enough to be satisfied. It's a fast expansion style build that opens the same vs all 3 match ups (ZvT, ZvP, ZvZ), with small tweaks to the opener depending on the match up.
The build revolves around a few key ideas:
1: that in the early game larva is extremely important, and having to produce units from that limited larva (instead of drones) is very disadvantageous to you.
2: that by delaying your gas you're able to drone extremely quickly. This is because your income won't be split between gas/mineral income (it will be all mineral), and thus you're able to get drones quicker than you'd normally be able to.
3: that creep spread increases the effectiveness of Zerg by a LOT. To the point where it is extremely worth it to spend in-game resources to expedite the process of spreading creep.
4: that mid and late game Zerg is very strong (compared to early game Zerg).
5: that over saturating is terrible (like, terrible terrible).
+ Show
+
The build always opens 16 hatchery 15 spawning pool. I'll go into the specifics of what happens if you're blocked/etc in the later parts of the guide.
This part is very essential, and I'm going to randomly put it here because I forgot to put it in the individual ZvT/ZvZ/ZvP sections. Using your initial queen energy to connect your natural and main is necessary.
The early hatchery is critical, as it serves multiple roles. Increasing your ability to produce queens, increasing your larva production (drones), increasing the number of mineral patches (and gas geysers, this is very important) available to be mined from (so that you won't be over saturated), creating a defensive area to set up spine crawlers, and putting the 'ball' in your opponent's court (forcing him to play catch up in the macro game, or try to end it quick with an all-in/cheese).
Then, you'll get 4 queens as soon as possible for spawn larva/spreading creep. This is an important part as the creep spread is extremely necessary for defense (as queens are pretty slow off creep, or so I've heard) and on the off-chance that you're forced to make slow lings (see: MC style 4 gate, Jemag 5 gate) they won't be too ridiculously slow. All of your larva will be going to drones and a SMALL amount of zerglings (1 or 2 sets) purely for scouting purposes. Spreading creep is very important. If you can't spread creep effectively, this build will not be effective. There is no tricky deciding between units and drones in this build, although you will have to decide between more spine crawlers/queens or less (which is the same concept).
As you're approaching 32 drones (the point of saturation for two bases, 2 drones per mineral patch, 8 patches per base) you'll throw down all 4 of your gas. You'll keep droning for now, because you'll need more drones to replace the drones that will now be mining gas, as well as the drones lost to tech buildings/extractors. This is generally around 40+ food, as you'll have 32 drones and 4 queens. I cannot stress enough the importance of not getting supply blocked with this build, as if you mess up the timings even slightly you'll be extremely vulnerable to quick 2 base aggressive pushes.
With the first 100 gas, I like to get my lair. I get lair before zergling speed, upgrades, or baneling nest because poking/prodding with zerglings at his front will not bring sufficient enough scouting information for this late in the game, and thus a quick overseer is crucial. The second 100 gas, I like to get my zergling speed. Anything further than this is match up specific and will be addressed in the later sections. Almost all match ups do involve double evo chamber though, as this is a build focussing on mid to late game zerg play.
+ Show
+
The build order:
9 OL
16 Hatch
15 Pool
18 OL
2 queens (eventually 2 more), and a pair of zerglings for scouting
Drones until 40 (assuming you didn't lose the scouting pair of zerglings)
All 4 geysers on 40, keep droning until you have a total of 44 drones (being sure to replace lost drones due to building construction/harassment etc)
100 gas, lair (start double evo chambers, and either roach warren or baneling nest [or, depending on the situation, both] depending on what he's harassed you with)
100 gas, ling speed
@100% evo chambers, +1 to melee and carapace* (even if you threw down a roach warren and are forced to produce a lot of roaches)
@100% lair, overseer to scout
Match up specifics: As terran, he shouldn't really be able to block your expansion because you can just harass the SCV with 2 drones. I'm not sure if this holds a 2 rax scv all in on close positions. I've never been able to do it against anyone competent, so maybe it's impossible. Keep that in mind when doing this build close positions. You can hold a 2 rax not-all-scvs (3 or so) pressure. I'm still working on the most appropriate response, but so far I've come up with pull 6 drones for 1 marine 3 SCV, 9 drones for 3 marine 3 SCV. Use the drones to stall for queen at natural and a spine crawler. Don't be afraid to chase him into the middle of the map, as you're just stalling. It's very critical to lose as few drones as possible to these early attacks, as losing too many could put you too far behind (zerg is not a catch up race, at least on hatchery tech it isn't).
Because of the above, I scout on 12 with this build. The scout will tell you whether or not he's doing a 2 rax, quick reaper, quick hellion, or quick expansion build. Terran doesn't do anything slow so you needn't worry about that (jk jk, but those are the most common builds that I see).
If you see a gas, steal his other gas. I'm not sure whether or not this is terribly effective, but it keeps the scouting drone alive and I'm sure it pisses off your terran opponent (keep on top of those cancels/remakes, and don't forget that 3 marines out dps an extractor in construction). Also be sure to check the gas mined on his refinery, this will tell you how soon he started mining from the refinery, and thus how soon you can expect hellions.
You will need 2 spine crawlers minimum to hold the initial hellion harass if he so decides to, and then you will want to add 1 more to your main mineral line on the off chance he drops you or he gets up your ramp (although your queens should be blocking). Time the spine crawlers with his hellion tech, and the third with his starport tech (you don't need perfect numbers, just don't throw down all 3 spines at once because he won't have starport tech as soon as his hellions are produced [essentially you're just delaying throwing down the inevitable spine crawler to eek out a bit more economy]). Keep 1 queen at each hatchery for injects, and the rest to ward off his marauding hellions. Try to keep on top of injects, larva usage, and creep spread throughout this stage.
Once you've reached saturation for your minerals and all 4 gas geysers, immediately switch into all unit-production mode. Don't worry if you haven't scouted a big push coming, or this or that, because you're not producing the units to defend some huge push by him (coincidentally, that is the case just because this is around the time for 2 base aggression) you're producing them because you're in the mid game and your units will be very strong (early upgrades, lair tech upgrades like drop/roach speed/bane speed/burrow, infestors, etc).
Pick between a spire (I only recommend building 6 mutas) to ward off medivac drops, or an infestation pit for harassment/epic comebacks/stalling for hive tech. If you get a spire, then only build a small number of mutalisks and start your +1 carapace. Time your hive to complete when +1 carapace, or +2 carapace completes (when +1 is 60 seconds completed, or +2 is 90 seconds completed). Then go for broodlords (obviously if he's expecting this and hard countering it then throw down an ultralisk cavern instead).
Oh, and I'd get overlord speed as soon as can be reasonably expected with this build. I don't really know why, I just like having overlord speed to be able to goop up the potential expansions of my opponent (cute trick: burrow a zergling at his expansion AND goop it, that way it's that much more delayed and they get super frustrated [messes up SCV transfer]) as well as position them better to scout for drops/run away from vikings and whatnot. Also opens up the opportunity for drops/overseer play, and you can do mind games like running a random overlord into your opponent's mineral line and seeing if they freak out.
If you chose infestors, I generally like to throw down the infestation pit when +1 +1 is completed and +2+2 is just starting. This is because the hive tech timing (starting hive when infestation pit is @100%) matches nicely with 3/3, and you'll have excess gas stockpiling (you just burned it all on +2+2, pathogen glands, burrow, banelings/whatnot). A timing I like with infestors is to build them when pathogen glands is at 30 seconds (31 to be safe) so that they complete right as the energy upgrade completes. I also start burrow immediately when the infestation completes (or more specifically, ~20 seconds before you start pathogen glands).
Burrow is extremely critical, as it allows you to stall for hive tech/harass. Picture this: burrowed banelings at his third, or burrowed infestors creeping up into the mineral lines of the nat/main for a double fungal scv all-kill. Or, if he's pushing you hard on a 2 base all in with tanks he'll be forced to scan for burrowed banelings. And you'll be able to burrow and use infamous spanishiwa infested terran bombs ('pop pop pop pop') on tanks to get them to splash eachother and thus weaken/defeat/delay his push long enough for hive tech (ultralisks or broodlords). Burrow also matches nicely with roaches, as you can go for tunneling claws and shift queue some burrow/unburrow commands to his third (do it right, so that they park outside the range of the inevitable PF at their third).
A key thing to note: I didn't mention it previously, but overseers are a very viable mid-game option! You are not limited to spire/infestation pit (although you will transition to one or the other eventually). You can instead use your initial gas on a healthy number of overseers (maybe 5-8). This works best on meching terrans or terrans doing a 2 base timing with stim/shields/siege mode. 4 overseers is enough to permanently contaminate a building, so goop up a stim timing/siege mode timing long enough for infestor tech or baneling speed!
* The +1+1 melee/carapace instead of range attack is because I feel that roaches are for tanking and zerglings are for DPS. It also transitions better into the late game as you're essentially just stalling for either ultra/broodlord tech for a late game composition of infestor/ling/bling/broodlord or infestor/ling/bling/ultralisk. I may dabble with triple evo chambers, but yeah as of now I think +1+1 melee/cara is the best way to go.
Things to watch out for: 2 rax scv all ins and hellion drops. Blue flame drop is pretty effective, but with good OL placement you should be able to see it coming and position queens appropriately. You'll have 1 spine in your main and nat min lines anyway, so no biggy there. The timing for this is around the time you start producing slow lings/roaches anyway, so you'll have some units on the field (although they are pretty much just for show, as slow lings are pretty terrible and your speedling timing won't be quick enough). 2 port banshee isn't really that effective because (presumably) you stole his gas so he won't have the gas for banshees AND cloak. So pure banshee will just melt to your 4 queens usually. 1 port with cloak isn't really that effective.. at this point it's super all in and you can just all drone and you'll be fine. You're getting evos as lair starts, so it's not like you're that vulnerable. If he targets drones you can just run them around and bleed drones will making more, and if he targets queens well you'll just transfuse and you'll take 0 losses. About the 2 rax scv all in: yeah I don't know if it's possible to hold, supposedly you sacrifice the natural and defend the main or something but I'm skeptical. On cross positions you'll have a better chance though, so I can definitely see you holding your natural there.
There is no nydus in this build. Haven't been able to incorporate one as of yet. Personally I prefer drops over nydus, and infestors over drops (in ZvT) but I'm still experimenting.
+ Show
+
The build order:
9 OL
16 Hatchery
15 Spawning Pool
18 OL.
@100% Hatchery 1 spine crawler
2 queens (eventually 2 more), and a pair of zerglings for scouting
Drones until 40 (assuming you didn't lose the scouting pair of zerglings)
All 4 geysers on 40, keep droning until you have a total of 44 drones (being sure to replace lost drones due to building construction/harassment etc)
100 gas, lair (start double evo chambers)
100 gas, ling speed
@100% evo chambers, +1 to melee and carapace
@100% lair, overseer to scout, ventral sacs, overlord speed
baneling nest (about when overlord speed finishes. obviously you might want to get it sooner if you see he'll be pressuring you in a timing such that you won't have overlord drop in time to defend)
Match up specifics: Scout on 13ish, and steal the protoss guy's second gas! It really grinds their gears. It can also uh.. like egg on (incite? instigate?) a 4 gate or other form of all in from him. I think the funniest one I've seen is the KiWiKaKi 2 immortal+warp prism drop on me. Except that I don't get roaches.. so it was lol.
Also, if he scouts on 9 and you see him coming up the ramp with your second overlord (that should be positioned at your natural to scout for cannon cheese) throw down a gas on 14 to trick your opponent into thinking you're doing 14/14. Just cancel it and throw down the 16 hatch when the probe is sufficiently out of position. If he doesn't fall for this, and the map allows it, you can take the third instead of your natural (maps like metalopolis cross positions or close positions by air, for example). See: Jemag 5 gate on my mrbitters ep for an illustration.
The one spine crawler @100% hatchery is extremely necessary to hold off the zealot + stalker harass that will inevitably be coming.
After that spine is up, it's just scouting from here. If he goes for a 3 gate sentry expand you will need 2 more spine crawlers (a third, on some maps). This is also why 4 gate doesn't really work, because if he does a 4 gate and fools you into thinking it's a 3 gate sentry expand.. well you have spines anyway. Although, against a shameless 4 gate all in I do like to get about 4-5 spines in my natural as well as 2 spine at the top of my ramp and ~8 slow lings parked at the top of the ramp.
If he's doing a phoenix opener, you'll just need to delay overlord drop tech, grab a third, and get a spire as well as infestation pit down. Active scouting will tell you whether or not he's committing to air tech, and if he is I feel the best response is a double spire with double upgrades going. All the gas will be going to corrupters/a few infestors, and a small handful of banelings to clear whatever amount of zealots he has (so that the zerglings can do their work). Minerals will be going to aggressive expanding as well as zerglings/drones/static D/whatever.
In this match up (as in all), overseer is also very viable. If he's going robo tech, I like to get 4-8 overseers and goop up his robotics while waiting for drop tech. Then I'll do a massive like infinity-pronged attack on his main/natural (banelings in drops to mineral lines, and a few in overlords to complement your zergling army) while expanding. At the very minimum you'll take out his sentries and you'll have stalled for your spire/infestation pit (one or the other, or I guess both) to come up, but usually this is a game ending attack.
So yeah if it doesn't kill him, you've got some nice +2/+2 ling/bling/(either corrupter/infestor, or both) composition with hive tech on the way. Much like ZvT, just stall for either ultras or broodlords with infestors/good drop play, and hopefully you can take the game from there.
The third base timing is usually when you start to switch to unit production, or when you feel safe. Can't really explain this.
A key thing to note: I don't like to spread overlords (except my first 1-3ish) with this until I have, or have started/will start overlord speed, because there is a scouting blindness where you won't be able to tell if he's going stargate play or not. If he is, and you have spread out overlords.. chances are you could be set too far behind. It's not really a big deal anyway, as there's not much the overlords would scout that early in the game regardless (they can't even poop out creep to deny an expansion).
Things to watch out for: 1 base DT is pretty eh, but if you wall your ramp with queens/drones you'll be able to stall for lair tech. It's actually pretty simple, you just buy time by hold positioning drones and transfusing queens. A spore at the top of the ramp and maybe one in the main mineral line is all you need. If he focusses your natural hatchery, you can just throw down some panic spores and transfuse to save it. If he focusses your queens, well to be honest they've already pooped out their creep tumors so they've done their job and are expendable. Just transfuse what you can, and try to mess up DT ai as you can with drones. It'll be a pretty easy win, because even if you take heavy losses he's just on one base and he can't really attack because you have spines (by deductive reasoning: if you thought he was doing air, you'd have spores and thus DTs would be nullified. Only way DT would catch you off guard is if you misread DTs as a 3 gate expand or 4 gate, and in either case you'd have 3 or more spines as previously discussed).
Cannon rushes are pretty baller though, just know where he can throw down cannons (there are some spots, for example on shattered temple there is a spot near the ramp where if a cannon is being constructed only like 2 drones can attack it). Although good scouting/control will stop this.
3 gate blink stalker is pretty deadly too, in this case you need to treat it as a 4 gate and put the 2 spines above your ramp as previously discussed. If you don't, he'll just blink up the ramp (as opposed to walking).
Against forge FE openings I like to do a hatchery/evo cancel where his nexus would go, just to force cannons before nexus. That way you'll retain some semblance of an economic lead.
+ Show
+
The build order:
9 OL
16 Hatch
15 Pool
17 OL (or 18, depending on scouting information!)
Depends..
Match up specifics: Personally, I like to scout early enough such that the drone will get to his expansion soon enough to block it should he be going for a hatchery first build. This usually means around 1:15 on XNC, or 1:04 on scrap station (I do not recommend scrap station for this build. It is the one map where it is very difficult to hold).
The drone scout will either delay his expansion, evo block his gas, scout to see his larva saved / whether or not he has pulled from gas (or a combination of the above). You will need to OL on 17 if he is saving for 3 sets of lings, and OL on 18 if he's saving for 2 sets. From here you just queen and spine appropriately. The longer he doesn't take his natural, the more spines you get. Add a spine around each minute or so, as this means his larva will be going to zerglings (and if they're going to drones, then he's just over saturating and you'll be ahead regardless).
I will make zerglings and keep trading zerglings/bum rushing his base until his zergling speed comes up. All the while I'll have my 4 queens producing and defensive spines in production. The spines need to be placed such that more than one won't be hit by baneling splash, and that they either defend the ramp (where your queens will block) or your hatchery/mineral line (or ideally, both). Once the spines are up, I will make all drones.
Just react to your opponent's timings, if he goes for an expansion still continue to produce spine crawlers at a rate of around 1 per minute until it's almost up/you see the drone transfer (or scout to see if his larva is going to lings or not). Once you've survived the early game, and have reached lair tech with your delayed 4 gas geyser timing you can play standard from there.
I say standard because I'm still working out ZvZ, at the moment I favor a mass queen/speedling/spine crawler/roach/infestor defense while taking a third and heading for hive tech (ultras! :D). Speedlings to do run bys and snipe infestors if he's not looking, infestors to counter his infestors/roaches/hydras, roaches of your own because pure speedling will die to his fungals and queens complement roaches pretty well. Spines because you will be down in roach count, but that's alright because you'll be gas starved from all the infestors you're getting and you need to be defensive to hold your third anyway.
A key thing to note: Overseers viable here too! Feel free to goop up all his stuff. Hatcheries and evo chambers for starters, and a cute thing you can do is goop his infestation pit if it's researching. Chances are he timed his pathogen glands to finish right before his infestors popped, and thus you'll totally screw over his timing and he'll raaaaage.
Also: I'm not sure if the double evos are viable here.. still deciding whether or not it's worth it. I like them, because they let the lings fair a bit better against roaches and you'll be transitioning to ultra/broodlord anyway (go ultra though, broodlord is very easily countered).
Things to watch out for: Very hard baneling all ins (off 2 base), 8 pool drone/spine all in. Hard 2 base speedling all in with fake drone transfer. The very hard baneling all in can be stopped with some good sim city. It's only effective because the banelings go straight for the mineral line and bust your queen blocking with shear numbers (and you won't have roach tech, so a counter attack is pretty much impossible even if you do manage to hold off the attack [slow lings vs banelings..]).
I'm not sure how to effectively hold off 8 pool/spine all in. I think the best way is to send your drones out to the middle of the map and dance with his drones to delay for your spawning pool/zerglings to arrive. Cancelling your hatchery, of course.
The fake drone transfer 2 base speedling all in can give you a false sense of security and you might cancel a spine that's in production and that will end you. It's pretty dumb yeah, but with good timings you should be able to hold regardless. Also, being super active about scouting (sneaking slow lings into his base somehow, I realize he has speedlings but sometimes you're able to sneak some by sneakily, i.e. XNC).
+ Show
+
+ Show
+
+ Show
+
A note to readers: I would appreciate it if you would refer to this build as 'The Ice Fisher' or 'The Ice Fisher Build' or I guess Spanishiwa's build or something would suffice.EDIT: Replays are up, request more if you want to see more. Finding pictures was such a pain though, so I'm gonna be lazy and put that off for awhile. The replays also show the old 16 hatch/15 pool build order that was advocated in this thread. I now prefer 13h/15p. The concept is the same, just the timings are a little different (13h/15p is slightly faster and more economical, so it's just better overall).Verdict is still out on which is better.. 16h 15p or 13h 15p. 13h won't get blocked as often, but the economic advantage is slightly less than 16h if you're forced to make early lings. Also experimenting with an 11p 18h build zvz, to prevent early pool + spine shenanigans.IntroOverviewZvTZvPZvZReplays: Keep in mind that whether or not I lose in the end is not really important. What's important is that I get into the mid/late game on equal footing, or with an advantage. Or (if my timings were off/didn't scout correctly/etc) I would be ahead, if I had played it better.ZvZZvPZvTAlso: Some/most of the replays are pre-patch, but if you don't think that this strategy works, feel free to watch the mrbitters episode, check out my replay pack that I will be releasing soon, or check out my stream any time.Last things to note! Doesn't work on scrap (yet!), 2 rax all scv all in close positions it doesn't work, proxy 2 gate it doesn't work (although I've pulled it off before, but that's.. a different story), 6 pool you have to cancel the hatchery, pylon block by P with no viable 3rd = it won't workQueen Energy Management: Don't spend it all on tumors at once, keep some in reserve for transfusions unless you know there won't be pressure or you've switched to unit production. About 5 or so tumors should be enough for the early game.Upon recommendation, I'm plugging my stream (is this allowed?): Spanishiwa's Stream |
Carl McCoy sits in a west London pub, dressed in black, his eyes hidden behind a pair of sunglasses. The Fields of the Nephilim frontman is gruffly polite, but with the best will in the world, not the most forthcoming interviewee. He doesn't like discussing his lyrics and talks about the band's music in very imprecise terms: "We liked that dark flavour," he offers, not perhaps the most illuminating insight into a seminal goth band.
He struggles to name any influences on their formative sound, offers scant details about his upbringing as a Jehovah's Witness ("you didn't have Christmas and you didn't have birthdays … it was interesting") and declines to elaborate on the interest in the occult that has led him to make regular references to chaos magic in his songs and to perform gigs he calls Ceromonies (sic) on the anniversaries of Austin Osman Spare and Aleister Crowley's deaths. "It's nothing to do with believing, like I believe you," he frowns, when I ask him if he actually believes in magic or is merely using it as interesting imagery. "It's knowing. I know. I've experienced things that are beyond reality. Many things." This sounds fascinating, but McCoy collects himself. "I don't want to go too far on this," he says hurriedly, "because I don't want to make a twat of meself."
But there's one topic on which McCoy becomes positively voluble: the band's fans, who have seen Fields of the Nephilim through a turbulent history – McCoy is currently the only surviving member of the original lineup – and who still pack out the Ceromonies. No, he says, he doesn't mind Fields of the Nephilim being labelled a goth band. "I see that as a label the followers have given themselves. It's a brilliant following. We're quite lucky, they've stayed with us and grown. We do this festival in Leipzig in Germany and the whole town is taken over for a week – the whole town – by these people draped in black, wonderful, massive, dramatic clothes. It's fantastic."
McCoy thinks his religious upbringing and interest in magic may play a role in their undying devotion. "When I formed Fields of the Nephilim, it was about things that were quite real to me. I think that's probably why the fans have stuck by us, they know there's a bit more to it than some band parading around in Stetsons, trying to be something they're not." A more prosaic explanation is that the Nephilim are beneficiaries of one of the weirder aspects of the scene: the dogged refusal of goths to stop being goths despite their advancing years. Instead of doing what many youth tribes do – abandoning the subculture in middle age – they prefer to "negotiate adulthood" as goths, in the words of Paul Hodkinson, senior sociology lecturer at the University of Surrey by day, goth DJ with a penchant for Bauhaus' Dark Entries by night. His research on ageing goths was published in The British Journal of Sociology. "There's a very large number of people who are staying involved as they're getting older and also perhaps a comparative lack of younger people coming into the scene," he says. "There are younger people that dress in a gothy way and listen to what you might think of as gothy music – emos and related scenes – but I think there's a bit of a disconnection between those younger goths and the cohort of goths who are becoming older. You're not just talking about some individuals who are getting older in an otherwise young scene, you're talking about a whole scene that's collectively growing up."
Goth has been with us for 30 years. The term "gothic" was used by producer Martin Hannett to describe Joy Division's sound, and a lot of the musical signifiers of classic goth rock – scything, effects-laden guitar, pounding tribal drums – are audible on Siouxsie and the Banshees' 1979 album Join Hands. But the notion of a goth as we understand it today – black and purple clad, dyed hair, a liking for the Sisters of Mercy – really formed in the early 80s. The makeup and increasingly elaborate clothing were a glamorous reaction to post-punk's dour anti-image, the theatrical air of gloom a rejoinder to the jollity of 80s pop. And yet, it never went away, despite or perhaps because it was largely reviled, mocked or ignored by the music press. Bizarrely, goth's commercial zenith, when Fields of the Nephilim, the Mission and All About Eve made the singles chart and the global success of the Cure's Disintegration album meant they could briefly claim to be the biggest band in the world, was in the era of acid house and Madchester.
After that, the scene went underground. In 2012, the world of the middle-aged goth is a fascinating alternative universe, big enough to support a plethora of events and festivals, including the bi-annual Whitby Goth Weekend, which this weekend offers not just Gene Loves Jezebel and In The Nursery but a goth pool competition, a goth dog walk and the amazing-sounding Real Gothic Ladies FC vs Whitby Gazette Girls penalty shootout. You can peer into it by visiting gothic-family.net, a German website that organises creches at goth events, does a brisk trade in toddler clothes bearing the legend I'M A LITTLE DARKLING – or, for fathers, T-shirts with the words I'M DEAD in gothic script with the letter E crossed out – and encourages goth parents to send in snaps of themselves with their offspring for their Goth Family of the Month page. If it occasionally sounds faintly tragic – it's a hard heart that doesn't break a little at Hodkinson's stories of goths adapting their appearances to symptoms of ageing such as balding or becoming larger – it is more often a heartwarming tale of strong bonds and lasting companionship. "People have long-term friendships as part of the subculture and their patterns of behaviour were dominated by the subculture," says Hodkinson. "Some people would say to me, you're asking why I stay involved, but really it would be odd not to be involved. If you're so attached to the music and style and it's something that has got you a good sense of belonging and community and practical friendships, why would you break off with that?"
The music they like hasn't responded to the ageing of its audience. "You get self-conscious references onstage sometimes to the age of everyone in the room, but I can't imagine it coming into lyrics and things because there's a certain degree of backward-lookingness about many people's involvement in it. In terms of themes they want it still to fundamentally be about what it was always about, not about being a dad," offers Hodkinson. While McCoy got his daughters to sing on the title track of the last Fields of the Nephilim album, Mourning Sun, the lyrics understandably stuck with the esoteric religious imagery rather than musings on fatherhood. Still, it's hard not to be impressed by the sheer resourcefulness with which middle-aged goths have adapted other aspects of the subculture to fit their changing requirements.
I speak to Tim Chandler, 39, who became a goth 22 years ago after a visit to a goth club he chucklingly describes as "the sort of scene that The Terminator and all those bad 80s films used as their idea of what happened in a nightclub", and today balances membership of three goth bands – Manuskript, Pretentious, Moi? and Sins of the Flesh – with working as an architect. He talks with authority about cybergoth, horror punk, gothic metal and the other musical subgenres, but also about goth bring-and-buy sales (the one at the Whitby Goth Weekend raises money for the suitably vampiric Bat Conservation Trust) and meeting groups for goths who work in the City. "Not bankers," he quickly adds, lest someone start protesting about fat-cat goths bringing the nation to its knees, "more goths that work in IT for banks". Hodkinson, meanwhile, encountered a group of older female goths who had started the Alternative Women's Institute, which met regularly for activities including "zumba fitness".
If you can tear your mind from the admittedly compelling image of goths doing zumba classes, it's worth considering that goth isn't the only youth cult whose adherents have declined to pack it in. I've met teddy boy grandads in a rock'n'roll club in Surrey, while anyone who lives in Brighton can tell you about the regular bank holiday influx of middle-aged mods. But as Hodkinson points out, you can be a punk without looking like Wattie from the Exploited, but it's not so easy to be a goth without dressing at least faintly like a goth, a look that has resisted assimilation into the mainstream of fashion. "If you think about punk, to some people it was always about beliefs that were at least semi-political, so they can be transferred into something that's less externally obvious or spectacular. Whereas in the case of goths, the subculture is centred on aesthetic themes, primarily expressed in music and style. It is unclear whether there is a unique set of goth values beyond these."
Indeed, the lack of a unique value system might explain goth's longevity. "It's a group that sees itself as being fairly intelligent and well-read in a way that perhaps you wouldn't find in other subcultures, and even if they were, they wouldn't necessarily make a point of emphasising it in the context of the group. It is in some ways a group that's very subversive – you could say that it raises challenges in terms of sexuality, there's a degree of androgyny, a far greater embrace than usual of bisexuality, elements of fetishism – but I wouldn't categorise it as a particularly anti-establishment group."
Chandler agrees. "Goths tend to be middle-class and quite clever. Even when they undergo these life-changing experiences that people have, goths still tend to be on the scene. Certainly, work and growing up and getting a well-paid job are no reason for people to move away from the scene. Most goths I know are basically well-paid professionals."
There may be other reasons for goth's continued appeal to its participants. As McCoy says, goth is about more than clothes and music: it's "a lifestyle, a good culture", something underlined when you look at the traders setting up stall at the Whitby Goth Weekend's Bizarre Bazaar. There are certainly a lot of clothing companies, ranging from the straightforward (Nightshades: alternative clothing for big boys and curvy girls) to the saucy ("Lace Me Tighter: bespoke corsetry and lingerie") to the mind-boggling ("Chandler's Chainmail: chainmail clothing and accessories"). But there are also authors, fine artists, florists, comic books, a purveyor of "gothic and fantasy giftware" – which turns out to mean everything from goth jigsaws to goth duvet covers to mirrors in the shape of coffins – and representatives from both the Wicca religion and English Heritage.
"To my mind, unlike other genres, goth has got strands of literature and art you would associate with it," says Chandler. "You could look at art nouveau, or 18th-century romantic poetry or the pre-Raphaelites or 1930s bad horror films and call them all goth. Plus there are elements with goth that go into more spiritual things, there's a stong element of paganism. There are all these other facets that mean there's space to manouevre, always things to discover within the scene. As you get older, you can still find things that are interesting and appealing to you. Also, when you're growing up as a goth, you might find you have more to defend yourself against. There are still hick towns in Britain where you can get beaten up for being a goth, occasionally killed for being a goth. [In 2008, two men were given life sentences for kicking 20-year old goth Sophie Lancaster to death in Bacup, Lancashire.] I can't help but wonder whether people that have defended their sense of style and identity so hard for so long have maybe got more emotional investment in it and are therefore maybe likely to stick at it for longer."
They might tone down their look for work, or leave clubs and gigs earlier than they once used to, but neither Chandler, Hodkinson, nor any of the goths the latter interviewed for his research plan to hang up their crimpers and black lipstick in the foreseeable future. "Being a goth is just something that I am now," says Chandler. "I don't think it's something I can leave behind. It doesn't define me as such, but it's a facet of my character."
Certainly, there seems no letup in demand for Fields of the Nephilim: tickets have gone so fast for a Halloween gig in London that they've been forced to put another show on the night before. Back in the pub, McCoy is still talking about his fans, marvelling at the way some still travel to every gig, noting how they express their approval by forming human pyramids in the crowd ("I don't know if any other band has that"), praising the way their behaviour makes shows "ritualistic, full of symbolism and gesture".
The weird thing is, he says, they never set out to be a goth band. "When we started out, there wasn't a goth scene as such, just this dark, alternative underground scene of people. I think the name goth developed later on. But we were happy to be one of the bands that audience took on. Fantastic audience. Romantic, intellectual …" His voice trails off. "I couldn't wish for anything better really."
Fields of the Nephilim's Ceromonies is out now on EMI |
Poison Ivy is a 1985 American made-for-television romantic comedy film starring Michael J. Fox and Nancy McKeon, directed by Larry Elikann, and written by Bennett Tramer. The film premiered on NBC on February 10, 1985 and aired just months before Fox's feature film breakthrough Back to the Future and follow-up Teen Wolf.
Plot [ edit ]
Michael J. Fox plays camp counselor Dennis Baxter, who works at a boys' summer camp called Camp Pinewood, located in Clifton, Maine. He falls in love with the new camp nurse Rhonda and spends the summer trying to convince her to leave her fiancé for him. Baxter's campers include the slick-talking Jerry Disbro, the sensitive writer Brian (who also has a crush on Rhonda), the baseball star Bobby, the overweight comedian Toby, and the shy Timmy Mezzy who is afraid of the water and wants to run away. Jerry ends up becoming the camp con man, operating such scams as a letter writing concession using Brian, turning the P.X. into "his own personal candy store", and making outlandish demands to help win Bobby his much-coveted spot on the Varsity baseball team by acting as his agent . "It's an honor to play for the Yankees, but Dave Winfield still cashes his checks", says Jerry. Along with Bobby, he hatches a plan to sneak over to the neighboring girls' camp to visit a girl he met on the train ride to camp. Timmy is always finding new and creative ways to escape, including busting out in a laundry truck and trying to sneak out by way of the girls' camp across the lake dressed in drag. The camp is run by 'Big Irv' Klopper and his wife Margo (much to her apparent displeasure). Baxter's arch-rival is fellow counselor Ike, who is much more serious about his job than Baxter. Ike is not at all popular among the campers and is seen as being something of a "Square", having been educated in a military school. Maintenance man Walter carries around a red-stained axe and is rumored to be a murderer.
As the summer progresses, Timmy makes friends with the other kids and stops trying to run away. Eventually he learns to swim and enters a swimming race in the annual Color War competition. Jerry, who is on the opposite team in the Color War, tells Timmy the story of "Tough Break Thompson", a camper who supposedly drowned after conquering his fear of water at the camp. Timmy panics during the swimming event when Jerry says "Timmy - tough break!" to him right before the race. Bobby then punches Jerry when he finds out what happened. Later, Jerry apologizes and the kids learn that their friendship is more important than the winner of the Color War, and the Color War is declared a tie. The climactic moment of the movie occurs when a camper shouts, "Timmy Mezzy's swimming the lake!" and the whole camp runs to watch Timmy swim across the lake, finally conquering his fear of water. Walter is also revealed to be a painter who uses his axe to create art. At the end of the summer, Baxter is offered the job of head counselor for the following year, having been chosen over Ike, much to Ike's chagrin. Rhonda and Baxter end up together.
Cast [ edit ]
Reception [ edit ]
Lawrence Van Gelder of The New York Times called Poison Ivy "two hours of tedium".[2] |
Jeremy Corbyn appeared at the Glastonbury CND festival, as part of an ongoing comeback more surprising than Dylan’s 1997 Time Out of Mind turnaround. Like Dylan, a contrary Corbyn refused to give his enthusiastic new fans what they wanted. A last-minute set amendment pledging to block Brexit would have displaced even the Wombles from all-time Glastonbury CND festival top fives. But Corbyn didn’t deliver. Once he had mountains in the palm of his hand, and rivers that ran through every day. He must have been mad. He never knew what he had, until he threw it all away.
Nonetheless, Nigel Farage, a stateless Twitter golem, its task complete but still rampaging around the internet with a torn-up Daily Express between its teeth, was instantly furious about the BBC coverage of Corbyn’s set. And rightly so. It is wrong of the BBC to use the licence fee to give airtime to politicians, and Farage has proven this more convincingly than anyone.
Suddenly cross Conservative commentators nationwide all knew what the Glastonbury CND festival was supposed to be, and who should be allowed to be on there, despite never having expressed any interest in attending it ever, because it obviously isn’t for Daily Telegraph readers, bastards, and people who hate humanity.
It would probably have been better, apparently, if the Saturday mid-afternoon slot had seen Dan “Dan” Hannananananan, dressed as a pound note, introducing Mike Read singing a racist calypso in a Jamaican accent over footage of migrants being beaten back into the sea with umbrellas. I am sure the audience reaction would have been memorable.
Personally, I think the Henley Regatta, instead of having loads of boats in it and being by a river, would be better if it featured Napalm Death, Kunt & the Gang, Yoko Ono, and some Grayson Perry plates that mocked sailing, and took place in a landlocked desert full of ferocious wolves. I suppose it’s not aimed at me.
Know this! There is a genuine photo online of Jeremy Clarkson and David Cameron shooting the breeze at the cheese bloke from Blur’s cheese and music festival in Oxfordshire in 2011. This image, more than any other, which should never have happened, told us that the 60s were finally over. Did Free Festival founder Wally Hope die so Jeremy Clarkson could eat a Groucho club cheesemaker’s pop cheese?
Tories like Cameron and Clarkson should not be at rock festivals. If two such turds had turned up at Glastonbury in the 80s they would both have been fatally stuffed face-first into a deep trench latrine by hordes of psilocybe-crazed convoy dwellers, the sound of Black Uhuru’s Youth of Eglington growing ever more faint as their fat pink ears filled with festival-goer faeces.
You cannot have our festivals! You have taken everything else! Our health service! Our libraries! Our very air!
Ironically, Clarkson would have then escaped the far more ignominious fate of spending his twilight years manufacturing bespoke controversy to an ever-diminishing audience of impotent Level 42 fans who think ice cream is gay, like a failed dictator awaiting arrest, yet still making futile proclamations, in his supermarket denim-lined Amazon firestick bunker.
You! You awful people! You cannot have our festivals! You have taken everything else! Our health service! Our libraries! Our very air! Even our future! Leave us our filthy fields! We will always have Glastonbury! No pop music for you!
But what do I know? I attended the Glastonbury CND festival a dozen times or so, usually as a performer, from the mid-80s to the mid-00s. Every year the late Malcolm Hardee would host the comedy tent and open by observing, “I remember when this was all fields.” It never got old.
In 1992, still awake, I saw the sun rise over a misty morning meadow, profoundly empty, except for Jimmy Pursey from Sham 69, sitting high on an upturned wheelie bin, heroically topless, dragging on a cigarette and staring blurry-eyed into the distance, as if searching for an answer that had always eluded him. Either that or he’d forgotten where his tent was.
But, eventually, rather than being a cut and paste Shangri-La of freak rock and folkies and topless hippy chicks, the Glastonbury CND festival came to feel to me like it was full of music I didn’t like any more, squares taking ironic pictures of themselves in front of Lionel Richie, and privileged young people wandering around eating expensive street food while looking at their phones and saying how funny they thought Hayseed Dixie were.
The crusties were cleared out and the hipsters had moved in to gentrify their abandoned haunts. To be fair to the Glastonbury CND festival, I now feel the same about much of London, which I once loved beyond all reason, the city redeemed in comparison to the festival only by the quality of its toilet facilities.
The Glastonbury CND festival was changing. And I was changing too. At least we parted as friends.
Maybe I’m romanticising things. The festival movement was always, if not middle class, then at least more bohemian than Bolshevik. After my Glastonbury CND festival sets I was paid in food vouchers by the festival’s co-founder, an ex-debutante philanthropist called Arabella Churchill, granddaughter of our national icon, who still oversaw the circus and cabaret tents on what was now the site’s fringes, her death in 2007 severing a seam that ran back to the sensibility that first shaped the event in 1970.
Facebook Twitter Pinterest Illustration by David Foldvari.
Each year as I signed my chit I amused myself by trying to sneak Churchillian rhetoric into our perfunctory conversation. “How was your show?” “We’ve all been finding it hard, Arabella, with the flooding this year, but you know what it’s like. We will never surrender.”
Arabella Churchill just smiled wryly, stubbing out her massive cigar as she petted her poodle.
In the London Evening Standard, a weak anti-Corbyn humour piece by a man called Nick Curtis mocked the Glastonbury CND festival’s “perfect spread for ordinary, young, working-class music fans who can afford £238 for a ticket plus the cost of transport, organic falafel, and reiki sessions”. In the same awful paper, there are restaurant reviews for dinners for two that cost more than that, and they don’t come with thousands of different acts over hundreds of different stages. They come with some bread. And the tip doesn’t go to Greenpeace.
This year, Jeremy Corbyn’s logical appearance at the Glastonbury CND festival seems to have reminded people that 60s and 70s festivals emerged from an actual un-co-opted counterculture. Maybe they, and their attendees, will now re-embrace the radical spirit that spawned them, alongside the apparently unavoidable 21st-century follies of glamping, Goan seafoods and selfies with Jack Whitehall.
Oh, the times they are a-changing. Jang jangy jangy jang jangy jangy jang jangy jangy jang!
Stewart Lee is touring his new show, Content Provider, throughout 2017; see stewartlee.co.uk for details |
Search of bra leads to major heroin bust in Poconos
Jasmine Ackerman, 33, of Cresco, was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for speeding Thursday on Route 940 in the Pocono Summit section of Tobyhanna Township, according to police.
Pocono Mountain Regional Police Department made a major heroin bust during a traffic stop after finding 170 bags of heroin along with some marijuana stuffed inside a woman's bra, according to police.
Benjamin Fara, 22, allegedly was in possession of marijuana when Pocono… (POCONO MOUNTAIN REGIONAL…)
The driver, Danielle Mitchell, 27, was taken into custody on suspicion of driving under the influence of heroin and prescription medications.
Ackerman was searched as a result, and police said they found 170 packets of heroin and a small amount of marijuana in her bra.
According to police, Mitchell and Ackerman purchased the heroin in Patterson, N.J., and had already distributed quantities of the drug in Monroe County prior to their arrest. Another passenger in the car, Benjamin Fara, 22, also was in possession of marijuana, police said.
All three were taken into custody on drug charges and were being held in Monroe County Prison pending arraignment.
Tracy Jordan |
A 'No-Nonsense' Classroom Where Teachers Don't Say 'Please'
Enlarge this image Annette Elizabeth Allen for NPR Annette Elizabeth Allen for NPR
Any classroom can get out of control from time to time. But one unique teaching method empowers teachers to stop behavior problems before they begin.
You can see No-Nonsense Nurturing, as it's called, firsthand at Druid Hills Academy in Charlotte, N.C.
"Your pencil is in your hand. Your voice is on zero. If you got the problem correct, you're following along and checking off the answer. If you got the problem incorrect, you are erasing it and correcting it on your paper."
Math teacher Jonnecia Alford has it down pat. She then describes to her sixth-graders what their peers are doing.
"Vonetia's looking at me. Denario put her pencil down — good indicator. Monica put hers down and she's looking at me."
In "no-nonsense nurturing," directions are often scripted in advance, and praise is kept to a minimum. The method is, in part, the brainchild of former school principal Kristyn Klei Borrero. She's now CEO of the Center for Transformative Teacher Training, an education consulting company based in San Francisco.
Klei Borrero says the foundation of the program isn't new. It just puts into practice what she's observed from high-performing teachers — that is, keeping expectations high by only praising outstanding effort.
"It notices students who are doing the right thing. It creates this positive momentum, but also gives the students who might have missed the directions another way of hearing it without being nagging, and also seeing it in action," says Klei Borrero.
The center has worked with more than 250 schools across the country since 2009. Many of those are charter schools, but some are traditional public schools in places like Denver and Cleveland. All of them have similar populations: students from low-income families, many of them black and Hispanic. Nine of those schools are in Charlotte.
No-nonsense nurturing makes some education specialists uncomfortable, though. "Maybe we are doing them a favor by teaching them codes of power, but maybe we're also participating in some kind of, I don't know, colonization," says Barb Stengel, an education professor at Vanderbilt University. "We're simply teaching kids to look like me."
She worries there's too much emphasis on compliance, not engagement.
School leaders in Charlotte say no-nonsense nurturing gives their students structure that they need. They say they've noticed kids are more engaged since the district began using the approach. Out-of-school suspensions are down, and kids are missing fewer days at some schools.
Teachers like Kelly McManus, at Druid Hills, go through several weeks of training before implementing no-nonsense nurturing in their own classrooms.
"I would say, 'Students, please, raise your hand on a level zero, if you ...' "
Her coach and colleague Vanetia Howard interrupts, "Stop. 'Please.' You want them to do it; there's no opt-out. Drop the 'please.' "
After this one-on-one session, it's time to put what McManus has learned into action — while still being coached. McManus wears an earbud. Howard stands in the back of the class. She whispers directions to McManus through a walkie-talkie.
"Ask for complete sentences when students respond," Howard instructs to McManus.
"We're going to respond in complete sentences," McManus tells the class.
As if one coach watching her every move isn't nerve-racking enough, the whole session is overseen by a coach from the Center for Transformative Teaching. McManus feels stressed, but finds it valuable.
"I have never gotten so much feedback from a coach like that before. I mean, intentional feedback where I can take that back to my room and use it," she says.
Her complaint, which you hear a lot, is that she feels like a robot at times.
Stengel, the Vanderbilt professor, sees how the scripted directions and narration help, but adds, "I just don't want these teachers — particularly if they're going to stay in the profession — to think this is all there is to developing children toward autonomy and responsibility."
No-nonsense nurturing acknowledges this, and encourages teachers to lay off that robotic voice over time. The hope is that, eventually, students won't need it. |
The day I moved to Windenburg was sunny and peaceful. The summer was at its peak, but it wasn’t hot, even a little bit windy. I, Takenoko Kobayashi, arrived to this place in search of… independence. Back in Japan the family was always watching my every step and judging, judging and judging. I got sick of their advances, hopes and plans, so decided to move as far away as I can and start leaving on my own.
Parents weren’t content with my decision, but their furiosity wasn’t as strong as granny’s, the true daughter of old traditional system where women should always obey their husbands and spend most of their time at home taking care of children. She had great plans on me, even chose where should I live, with whom, how… Parents were pretty much satisfied with granny’s choice, and I can’t blame them – this is how they used to live, always listen to elders’ will and do as they say.
I, on the contrary, can’t deal with this way of things anymore. Many years I tried to be perfect, to study good, to be obedient and shy, to listen Mother and Father, to threat relatives with respect, to be prepared to my future housewife’s life… but I just can’t. I want to build my own future. I don’t want to follow somebody’s plan. This is my life, and I want to live it the way I want.
And so, here I am, poor but full of high hopes. I will become a great writer and amaze The World with my masterpiece writing, but now… I’m just an immigrant with no money, huge chank of empty land, which my uncle, mother’s brother, graciously gave me for free (but forgot to left here at least a small shed), and a little backpack. Gladly I have a notebook and a pen. And rather poor knowledge of the local language. Oh well, let’s hope that high school program will be enough for comfortable living… well, for the beginning.
By the way, my invisible readers, you wonder what is the meaning of my name and surname? Even if you don’t, I’ll still tell you because I have nothing to do, just standing in the middle of empty field and admiring the view with awe and the question «What should I do now?». Takenoko means «bamboo shoots» and Kobayashi – «small forest». So, literally I’m a bamboo forest. Great, right? Granny was always calling me Kaguya-hime*, or Princess Kaguya, and threated me as such, but, as in the tale, I wasn’t happy. Firstly, of course, it was charming and funny, but then I grew up and realized that I was trapped in the golden cage. Such as my mother, and grandmother, and great grandmother, and all these women who obediently accepted their future of a model housewives. Sure, maybe, this kind of lifestyle is absolutely acceptable for some people, but not for me. When I realized it during the last year of middle school, I decided to grow up the person I will be proud of, not the one that will be thoughtlessly follows other’s words and orders.
And here I am, alone, lonely and poor. Will I surrender? Will I return to parent’s house and accept the fate they chose to me? No. I must succeed. Despite the sheer lunacy of my decision, powerful Uncle helped me and found me a job as writer’s assistent. I can’t give up his hopes. And I won’t.
Firstly I need to browse the Internet for some great places where I can meet new people… and where I will be able to sleep for free. And to eat. Huh… Welcome to Windenburg, Bamboo girl.
————————————–
*Princess Kaguya is the main character of The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, a 10th-century Japanese story.
Advertisements |
Finance minister Malusi Gigaba has withdrawn a damning Treasury report into the Gupta's acquisition of the Optimum coal mine from Parliament, saying it was not final, raising fears about whether he is protecting the friends of the president, Business Day reported on Wednesday.
But Gigaba, through a spokesman, says there is nothing untoward in his decision to withdraw the report.
Gigaba reportedly told Parliament that the report on Eskom's coal supply agreement with the Gupta's Tegeta Exploration and Resources had "mistakenly" been marked final. The report was sent to Parliament's standing committee on public accounts (Scopa).
City Press reported on Sunday that the report recommends that Eskom's former CEO, Brian Molefe, suspended CFO Anoj Singh and former acting Eskom head, Matshela Koko should be investigated for corruption, and that the report was also forwarded to The Hawks.
The report also recommends that the Office of the Chief Procurement Officer appoint a forensic audit firm to probe whether Tegeta offered "gratification" to any of the officials for contracts, received confidential information from them or was involved in any crime.
Significantly, the report also reportedly includes the GuptaLeaks – the first time government has officially acknowledged the allegations contained in the leaked emails and other documents given to journalists.
Business Day reported that Tegeta had threatened to take legal action against Treasury if the report was released without the company being given an opportunity to respond.
Gigaba's spokesperson, Mayihlome Tshwete reportedly said Gigaba wanted to strengthen the legal enforceability of the report and that the committee would receive an updated version of it by mid-August.
But he insisted Gigaba had not withdrawn the report under duress.
"There is no threat to legal action that we know of now," he reportedly said. |
Which Real Madrid and Barcelona players would make it into your combined XI?
Which Real Madrid and Barcelona players would make it into your best XI?
The two giants of Spanish football go head to head at the Bernabeu on Saturday, live on Sky Sports Football and Sky Sports Mix from 11.30am.
Table-topping visitors Barcelona have the upper hand in La Liga, with an 11-point lead over Real Madrid. However, fourth-placed Real have a game in hand and will be on a high after their Club World Cup win last weekend.
Here, Sky Sports' Spanish football expert Terry Gibson picks and explains his choices, which heavily favour Barcelona, and you can pick your own side at the bottom of the page...
"This was harder than it has been before. There's a lack of players who have really stood out this season, and I've been quite self-indulgent in picking players I'd like to see play together, rather than picking them on their performances.
"I've gone fantasy football, self-indulgent, six or seven of my players pick themselves because of their true form, but a number of positions in this team were up for debate."
Goalkeeper
"It's easy. Marc-Andre ter Stegen. Probably the easiest choice in the team. Barcelona have only conceded seven, and he's proving himself now to be one of the best goalkeepers in the world.
Marc-Andre ter Stegen has been in impressive form this season
"He's very similar to Manuel Neuer in terms of style, and he makes saves that look really easy because of his movement and positioning, and his foot movement across the line, where most goalkeepers dive at full length.
"He makes saves look comfortable. As opposed to Keylor Navas, who has missed a lot of this season and hasn't been in particularly great form."
Defenders
"Dani Carvajal goes at right-back. Normally it is very hard to pick a Clasico XI, usually because you could fit around 20 players in it, but it's not like that this time. Barcelona haven't really had a regular right-back; Sergi Roberto, Nelson Semedo and Aleix Vidal have all played there. I can't think of many better right-backs in world football than Carvajal. He's good going forward, good defensively.
"Alongside him, continuing with the fact that Barcelona have the joint-best defensive record in La Liga, I'm going to go with three Barcelona defenders. This time, no Sergio Ramos, as punishment for two red cards this season, so it's Gerard Pique, who doesn't need any explanation, and maybe the big surprise, the success of Samuel Umtiti.
Samuel Umtiti has been part of a Barcelona defence which has conceded just seven goals in La Liga this term
"He fits really well with Pique, has a bit more pace than him, is left-footed and gives better balance as opposed to playing with two right-sided central defenders. He has become a really important player.
"He's perfect for that role for Barcelona, because if you note how the full-backs play, one of the ways to get at Barcelona is releasing the ball quickly to one or two quick strikers, and in the past few seasons that has been strikers up against Pique and Mascherano. Umtiti is very, very quick, and has the pace to deal with attacking players.
"Ramos is a big favourite of mine - I know he's got his faults - but having only conceded seven goals, you can't leave Ter Stegen, Pique and Umtiti out. Their defence is now something they are taking pride on.
"Jordi Alba is playing better this season, defensively and attacking, as opposed to Marcelo, who hasn't been at his best. That was quite a straightforward choice at left-back."
Midfielders and forwards
"I've talked about the strength of Barcelona in midfield, and Sergio Busquets is really important to that, particularly with his positional play. I've noticed this season under Valverde he sometimes drops into central defence and makes a three.
Gerard Pique, Sergio Busquets and Luis Suarez all make Gibson's XI
"But again, he has been rock solid, and personally I think he is the best holding midfielder in the world, and has been for a while now, not just defensively but also because of his bravery to receive the ball in dangerous positions. That's all the things you were taught not to do as a kid; don't play around with it in dangerous positions! He's having a really good season.
"My next cert is Lionel Messi. He's scored 14 goals this season, and he's also hit the woodwork 14 times. He is the one outstanding striker in the two teams this season. It might seem weird that I've jumped from Busquets to Messi, but that's because he's my last dead cert.
"After that it gets tricky. Striker-wise, we're looking at Ronaldo, Suarez, Benzema, Gareth Bale too, and it's hard to make a case for any of them. I'm going to be slightly self-indulgent and play fantasy football, going with the line-up that would never happen; Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and Luis Suarez. Suarez in the middle, Messi in his old spot on the right, Ronaldo on the left.
"The central midfield position is similar as well. Toni Kroos hasn't been at his best, I've gone with Busquets over Casemiro, and while you can make a case for Paulinho and Ivan Rakitic, neither have been spectacular. It's hard again to make a case.
Luka Modric is one of only three Real Madrid players in the XI
"Again, I'm going to be slightly self-indulgent, and go with a player who has gone under the radar this season, he's being treated with kid gloves by Barcelona, but we saw against Deportivo his importance to the team, and just how good a player he is.
"Honestly, I can't imagine a better technical player, and that's including all players of the years, so I'm going with Andres Iniesta. He's 33, time is running out, we should enjoy him while we can. They need him fit for big games, because he will start them, and they'll treat him carefully throughout the season.
"Another one of my favourite players, probably the pick of the Real Madrid players this year, is Luka Modric. Granted, compared to last season he hasn't been at that level, and has suffered a bit with Real Madrid chopping and changing the midfield, the position of Ronaldo, and their indifferent form. Kroos would have been the closest option, and maybe Isco."
Terry Gibson's combined Clasico XI includes eight players from Barcelona
It should be a fantastic contest, with star players aplenty on each side - but which names would make it into your combined XI of the teams?
Use our interactive team selector to select your ultimate Clasico line-up and then share it with your friends using social media... |
A few decades ago, U.S. factory jobs began moving offshore to countries that lured corporations with the prospect of weak or non-existent unions, minimal regulation, lavish tax breaks and other profit-fattening benefits. Workers in those runaway shops enjoyed little in the way of a social safety net, thus making them all the more dependent on whatever dismal employment opportunities foreign firms had to offer. Much of the U.S. manufacturing sector was left for dead.
Now, we are told, U.S. manufacturing is undergoing a resurrection. “Manufacturing is coming back,” President Obama told a group of blue-collar workers at a recent public event. “Companies are bringing jobs back.” Obama earlier used the State of the Union address to tout the recovery of the U.S. auto industry in the wake of the bailout he championed. One of the bailed-out firms, Chrysler, aired a Super Bowl commercial called “It’s Halftime in America” in which Clint Eastwood hailed the country’s industrial recovery.
It’s true that manufacturing employment has been on the rise after many years on the decline. But is this something calling for unqualified celebration?
Boosters of the industrial resurgence would have us believe it is a reflection of improved U.S. productivity, entrepreneurial zeal or, as Obama put it in the State of the Union, “American ingenuity.” In the case of Chrysler, that should be Italian ingenuity, given that the bailout put the company under the control of Fiat.
But it can just as easily be argued that domestic manufacturing is advancing because the United States has taken on more of the characteristics of the countries that hosted those runaway shops. Deunionization, deregulation, corporate tax preferences, excessive business subsidies and a shriveled safety net are more pronounced than ever before in the U.S. economy. If any of the Republican Presidential candidates get in office, those trends will only accelerate.
Even the Obama Administration is on the bandwagon to a certain extent. Its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has obstructed a slew of new environmental and workplace safety regulations. Now the President has legitimized years of conservative rhetoric claiming that companies are overtaxed by introducing a corporate tax reform plan that would reduce statutory rates in general and create an even lower rate for manufacturers. The plan has some good intentions—such as ending special giveaways to Big Oil and other loopholes while encouraging corporations to bring jobs back home—but it ignores years of evidence from groups such as Citizens for Tax Justice showing that big business will exploit any softening of the tax code to bring its actual payments down to the absolute lowest levels.
The perils of joining the manufacturing revival chorus can be seen by looking at heavy equipment producer Caterpillar. The company has been getting a lot of attention lately for expanding its domestic employment through moves such as the planned construction of a $200 million plant in Athens, Georgia that is projected to employ about 1,400.
This needs to be put in some context. According to data in Cat’s 10-K filings, the company’s workforce outside the United States soared from around 13,000 in the early 1990s to more than 71,000 last year, growing to some 57 percent of the firm’s total employment. The number of foreign workers in 2011 was greater than the company’s total head count in 2003.
Cat’s love affair with places such as China blossomed as the company was trying to escape its U.S. unions, which it had unsuccessfully tried to destroy. Cat’s hard-line approach to collective bargaining soured relations with its workers, resulting in a series of strikes and other confrontations, including a dispute in the 1990s that lasted for more than six years.
It appears that unions have no role in Cat’s limited back-to-the-USA plan. The company’s new domestic facilities tend to be located in “right to work” states. After recently trying to impose huge pay cuts at a factory in Ontario (photo), Cat first locked out the workers, then shut down the plant and is now reported to be shifting the work to a facility in Muncie, Indiana, the latest state to adopt a “right-to-work” law to hamstring unions.
By locating the Athens plant in a labor-unfriendly state such as Georgia, Cat is expected to be able to pay wages far below those in its unionized plants. It is also worth noting that Cat agreed to build the plant in Georgia only after it received $75 million in tax breaks and other financial assistance, one of the largest subsidy packages the state has ever offered.
The message of all this seems to be that the U.S. can enjoy a renewal of manufacturing if we are only willing to put up with a few minor inconveniences such as union-busting and big tax giveaways to corporations. That’s apparently what is really meant by American ingenuity. |
SALT LAKE CITY — If you are a company owner, or work for one, watch out for a new scam that involves bogus negative online reviews.
A company is putting horrible reviews of small business online, and then offering to improve the company's reputation and take the reviews off for a fraction of the cost that a real reputation improvement company would charge.
Sierra West Jewelers owner Tim Branscomb believes his business was right in the middle of one of these scams.
"We knew it wasn't really a real thing. Of course when someone is offering $500 the day (the bad review) goes up seemed not legitimate," he said.
Branscomb believes he and his employees keep their customers happy and answer all complaints. But he says that they received a call from a "reputation improvement company" telling them they had a negative review online and that the company would take the review offline if Sierra West paid $500. Then, for that same $500, they would monitor the Internet to remove any other bad reviews.
We took it very seriously and wanted to get to the bottom of it, but then were not able any longer to get a hold of the company. –Tim Branscomb
Branscomb says it was clear from the writing that this bad reviewer had never even been to a Sierra West Jewelry store.
"They said that we were rude and thug-like and that all we want to do is sell them something, and that we put ourselves above everyone else, and that we supposedly talked bad about other jewelers. We do not allow that type of service," Branscombe said.
So, when the supposed reputation improvement company called again, Branscombe was prepared.
"We asked hard questions they didn't want to answer, like who was the head of your company? What did the initials stand for? Why aren't you on Google search?" Branscombe said.
Here's another clue you're dealing with a scam -- they hang up on you.
"We took it very seriously and wanted to get to the bottom of it, but then were not able any longer to get a hold of the company. And, of course, they hung up on us," Branscombe said.
Here's part of the problem: There are legitimate reputation improvement companies out there. If you run into a "real" negative online review, you have options. Online expert Matthew Hunt with smallbusinessonlinecoach.com says:
Look at it as a positive - If it's a real review, use it as a learning experience.
Contact the reviewer - Thank them for their feedback, ask how you can make it right and if they wouldn't mind amending their review.
Be on the offensive - Counteract that bad review with a bunch of good ones.
If you encounter a scam, there are agencies to contact. For instance, the Small Business Administration has a whole department trying to fight fraud.
Signs of a possible scam
The people behind the scams are great at hiding. The phone number had a fake caller-id, and if it is like most of these sorts of scams, it is all done outside the country. So even if you can trace the scammers somehow, it's extremely difficult to get the other country to cooperate in the investigation.
When it comes to payment, a sure sign that it is a scam is when the business demands that you pay by wiring the money. If you wire money, it is not traceable or refundable, and it vanishes into the anonymous thief's pocket. So, always use credit cards or Pay-Pal, or something that offers protection. Only wire money if you absolutely, positively know the person to whom you are sending it.
×
Photos
Related Links |
MIAMI — In true Miami fashion, the rains came quick and heavy — at least four times — as Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony, and Gente de Zona performed at a get-out-the-early-vote concert for Hillary Clinton Saturday under the glass-rimmed hotels and residential towers of downtown Miami. The mostly Latino crowd of 7,500 people moved fast, not to leave, but to retrieve their umbrellas. They weren't going anywhere.
And by the time Lopez looked ready to wrap her set, Clinton came onstage. Her lines could have used some workshopping (after J.Lo's "Let's Get Loud" she said, "Well, I say, let’s get loud at the voting booth!") but no one left. They cheered for her, seemed genuinely excited to see her standing with the divorced Lopez and Anthony, and when she echoed Michelle Obama's now-famous line "When they go low..." the crowd thundered back in unison with Clinton, "we go high!"
This crowd was packed with young Cubans, Venezuelans, and Puerto Ricans — the Latino vote everyone talks about.
Ten days earlier, Clinton took the stage after her last debate in working-class and predominantly Mexican-American North Las Vegas, sharing a stage with Mexican music legends Vicente Fernandez and Los Tigres del Norte. The older debate-watch party crowd went wild as Bill Clinton embraced Fernandez, while she addressed the audience.
Hours earlier, when the sun was still out and Clinton appeared on the big screen, walking towards the debate site, the crowd gave its first big cheer of the night. Local Spanish-language radio DJs helped fuel turnout for the event with PSAs. Ultimately, the campaign's 2,700 RSVPs turned into 6,500 energized attendees.
This is the Latino vote, too.
These kinds of events, and the attentiveness of Clinton's campaign toward Latino voters, may be paying unexpected dividends. The campaign is encouraged by early voting in Clark County, which is 31% Hispanic and where 75% of Nevada residents live, as well as other states with large Latino populations, like Colorado and Arizona. While black turnout in the early voting states has been lower (and potentially troubling for Democrats) with Barack Obama no longer on the ballot, Latino and Asian voters are showing apparent strong enthusiasm for voting so far.
There is excitement from Democrats and Latino leaders, but privately also concern: What happens if Latinos don't turn out after historic attacks on Mexicans and immigrants and Trump on the ballot?
"Yes, I’m worried, I don’t want to say the worry is just for the Latino community, but for the country," said Mi Familia Vota executive director Ben Monterroso, whose group works on registering Hispanic voters and getting them out to vote in key swing states. "If we don’t turn out, what happened?"
While he expects a record number of Latinos to vote, he said, there will still be 10 million out of 27 million eligible Hispanics who didn't register to vote and 5–6 million people who were eligible but didn't become US citizens. "So we have a lot of work to do. I’m always afraid, as a good organizer, the campaign doesn’t end until the day after Election Day." |
Aasiya Hassan Beheaded By Husband in Buffalo NY (Photo)
, a 44 year old Buffalo cable TV executive turned himself in at the Orchard Park Police Department on Thursday evening and told Chiefthat he had murdered his 37 year old wife
The founder and CEO of Bridges TV told police that they would find his wife's beheaded body at his place of business. He has been charged with second degree murder.
The couple, who have two children age 4 and 6, were estranged. Aasiya filed for divorce on February 6 and had the court initiate a protection order which barred her husband from entering their home. According to Aasiya's divorce lawyer, Corey Hogan of the firm Hogan Willig, there had been domestic violence in the past.
Muzzammil Hassan launched Bridges TV in 2004, wanting to portray Muslim's in a more positive light. The network slogan is "Connecting People Through Understand". The English-language broadcasts have received the endorsement of prominent American Muslims, including boxing great Muhammad Ali.
Bridges TV website has posted the following statement: "Bridges TV is deeply shocked and saddened by the murder of Aasiya (Zubair) Hassan and subsequent arrest of Muzzammil Hassan. Our deepest condolences and prayers go out to the families of the victim. We request that their right to privacy be respected." |
Director: David Lean
Cast: Celia Johnson, Trevor Howard
You’d think that Lean’s tale of stiff-upper-lip emotion would be frightfully and unwatchably old-fashioned today. A married woman falls in love with a married man and they do the decent thing. And…? Unlike ‘Casablanca’, the future of civilisation isn’t hanging on the outcome. Just the happiness of two families. And not to mince words, they’re an unglamorous pair.
She’s Laura (Johnson), a not especially pretty housewife. He’s Alec (Howard), an earnest doctor. So why do we continue to find Lean’s much-loved classic so unbearably moving? Because it’s still thrilling to watch the continents of emotion beneath Laura and Alec’s icy properness. Celia Johnson is like a silent movie star with her huge eyes, showing so much emotion with barely a rustle of an eyelash.
Adapted from a Noël Coward play, ‘Brief Encounter’ is a brilliantly crafted film, beginning with a goodbye in a railway café – the end of an affair that never really was. From there, Lean flashes back to the lovers’ first meeting in the same café. Laura has grit in her eye. Alec gallantly removes it. Later, they run into each other in a restaurant. They have luncheon (this is the 1930s), take a trip to the cinema, drive in the countryside. He borrows a flat for the afternoon for them to meet in, but embarrassment takes over and they don’t make love.
It’s all so very innocent. We listen to her innermost thoughts – as she narrates a kind of an imaginary confession to her sweet but dull husband: ‘I’m an ordinary woman. I didn’t think such violent things could happen to ordinary people.’ Laura and Alec know in their heart of hearts that leaving their families and running off together will not make a happy ending. And so they must part. He accepts a job in South Africa. Our hearts stop with the lovers’ when a busybody crashes their last few precious minutes together. Unforgettable. CC
Buy, rent or watch 'Brief Encounter' |
Court of Appeal, Second District, California.
THE PEOPLE v. TREVOR GLENN LANDERS
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TREVOR GLENN LANDERS et al., Defendants and Appellants.
B218366
— July 19, 2011
Mark D. Lenenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Trevor Glenn Landers.Leslie Conrad, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Anthony Red Vigeant.Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Yun K. Lee and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
A jury convicted Trevor Glenn Landers (Landers) and Anthony Red Vigeant (Vigeant) of first degree murder (Pen.Code, § 187) 1 (count 1), attempted home invasion robbery (§§ 211, 664) (count 2), and first degree residential burglary (§ 459) (count 3).2 The jury found that the murder was committed while Landers and Vigeant were engaged in an attempted robbery and burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). The jury also found that a principal was armed with a handgun (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)).
Landers and Vigeant received identical sentences. In count 1, for the crime of first degree murder with the special circumstance of the crime having been committed during an attempted robbery and burglary, the trial court imposed an indeterminate term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court imposed a consecutive determinate term in count 2 with an additional year for the principal-armed allegation under section 12022, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court stayed a sentence in count 3 pursuant to section 654.
Landers and Vigeant both appeal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdicts in the absence of substantial evidence to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony. Landers appeals additionally on the grounds that: (1) prosecutorial misconduct during argument mandates reversal; and (2) admission of extrajudicial hearsay statements made by codefendant Vigeant to the police violated his right to confront witnesses. Vigeant appeals on the ground that reversal is compelled because he was denied his constitutional right to discharge retained counsel.3 Landers and Vigeant join in any issues raised by the other that may accrue to their respective benefits.
FACTS
We review the evidence in accordance with the usual rules on appeal. (See People v. Snow (2003) 30 Cal.4th 43, 66.) Ramon Hernandez (Hernandez) testified that he was a charged codefendant in the shooting death of David Pettigrew (Pettigrew). He had pleaded guilty to one count of murder and had admitted the special circumstance that the murder was committed during the course of a residential burglary and during the course of an attempted robbery. He had admitted to the personal use of a firearm and pleaded guilty to the attempted residential robbery and residential burglary counts. He had not yet been sentenced.
Hernandez had not been offered any deal or plea bargain and had not asked for one. He pleaded guilty to accept responsibility for his actions. He was not offered any leniency for testifying and had volunteered to testify because “the truth needs to be out there, and everybody has a right to the truth.” He also wanted to bring justice to the victim’s family.
Hernandez was a marine who had done two tours in Iraq. He was injured when a suicide vehicle exploded near him and shrapnel entered his head. He lost his left eye, his sense of smell, his left frontal lobe and part of his right frontal lobe. He suffered nerve damage in his right arm and hand. His brain injury affected his thinking and caused him to be more emotional than before, but his ability to feel empathy with others was diminished. He had also become “very compulsive.” He did things he normally would not have done, and he sometimes processed information more slowly.
Hernandez met fellow marine Vigeant at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base. Shortly thereafter, he met Vigeant’s cousin, Landers, another marine. At some point, Hernandez talked to them about Iraq and his injuries. Hernandez acknowledged that he did not discuss the emotional or psychological issues related to his injuries with Landers and Vigeant.
Hernandez heard Landers complain about his problems with Pettigrew, whom Hernandez did not know. Landers said that Pettigrew owed him some cocaine, and Vigeant had left his laptop computer with Pettigrew as collateral for the cocaine. Landers believed that Pettigrew was dodging him. Although Pettigrew had told Landers he could pick up the cocaine at Pettigrew’s apartment, Pettigrew would “blow [Landers] off” by turning off his cell phone whenever Landers called him.
Hernandez heard Landers and Vigeant threatening Pettigrew over the telephone. During a period of two and one-half hours, Landers and Vigeant left four threatening messages on Pettigrew’s voicemail. This occurred on the night of September 7, 2007, and the early morning of September 8, 2007.
On the evening of September 9, 2007, Hernandez was drinking with Vigeant and another marine at the barracks. They then went to a party at someone’s house. Landers telephoned Vigeant there and asked Vigeant to pick him up. Vigeant eventually agreed, and Hernandez went with Vigeant so as not to be stranded. When Landers joined them, Landers began complaining again about Pettigrew dodging him. Landers said Pettigrew still had not given him his cocaine, and if he had a gun “he would bust a cap in his ass․”
Hernandez told Landers that he had a handgun, whereupon Landers became “excited, very enthusiastic” and asked Hernandez where the gun was located. Landers wanted to get the gun to shoot Pettigrew. Vigeant also said he wanted Hernandez to get his gun, and he said he wanted Pettigrew to be killed. The only reason that Hernandez went with Landers and Vigeant to Pettigrew’s apartment was because Landers and Vigeant were looking for someone with a gun.
Hernandez, Landers, and Vigeant drove to Hernandez’s barracks, a 40–minute drive south, and Hernandez retrieved the gun from his car. They then began driving northward to Long Beach. Landers drove, Vigeant was in the front passenger seat, and Hernandez was in the rear seat. At some point during the two-hour drive, Hernandez asked the other men what they wanted him to do, and they said they wanted Pettigrew to be shot. Hernandez told them that there was a difference between being shot and being dead and asked them, “Which one do you want?” Landers said, “I want him dead.” Vigeant did not say anything, nor did he say, “No.” Hernandez then stated that Landers had the lead role, but Vigeant joined in the response that he wanted the man killed.
As they drove northward, Hernandez fired the gun out the window of the car in the Camp Pendleton area. He asked both defendants more than once what they wanted and they both said they wanted Pettigrew dead. According to Hernandez, “Plan A was to pick up cocaine. Plan B was to kill somebody, which was Mr. Pettigrew.” Hernandez did not like the fact that Pettigrew was messing with fellow marines.
When they arrived at their destination, they all got out of the car and headed to Pettigrew’s apartment complex. Hernandez told Landers that if Landers wanted “this guy” dead, and the guy did not give Landers what he wanted, then Hernandez was going to shoot him, “because you said you want him dead, right?’ ” In response, “they were, like, ‘Yeah.’ ” Landers jumped a fence beside Pettigrew’s apartment building and then returned because “some lady” saw him. Landers had gone over the fence to check if Pettigrew’s window was open. If the window had been open, Landers was going to have them all hop the fence and enter Pettigrew’s apartment through the window.
Jennifer Potter (Potter) lived next door to Pettigrew’s apartment, where she thought a woman named Felicia lived. On the night of the shooting, at approximately 9:30 p.m., Potter saw a man walking past her window by means of a walkway that was closed off to tenants and the public. Potter challenged the man. He said he was locked out and was trying to get in his window. She asked how long he had lived there, and the man said, “ ‘two weeks.’ ” The man was young, white, and skinny. Potter asked the man not to climb over the fence into the walkway because it made people nervous, and the man apologized. She did not call the police because Felicia had always had a lot of people coming and going. Potter believed she heard a gunshot approximately 20 minutes after she saw the man.
After Landers jumped back over the fence, Hernandez asked to see a floor plan of Pettigrew’s apartment. Landers made one for him out of twigs and small rocks. Hernandez testified that “the plan was always the same: go in, get this guy to give us the coke, and if not, that he was supposed to get shot.”
The three men entered Pettigrew’s building, and Landers lightly turned the door knob of Pettigrew’s apartment. Hernandez told Landers that the door was not locked and that he could push it open, which he did. Landers entered first, then Vigeant, then Hernandez. Once they had quietly entered the dark apartment, either Landers or Vigeant turned on a lamp. Hernandez then saw Pettigrew, but Landers and Vigeant had already gone through another doorway inside the apartment. Hernandez could hear them moving things around, although they were being quiet.
Hernandez saw that Pettigrew was passed out. Pettigrew awoke and saw Hernandez, whom he did not know. He just looked at Hernandez and said nothing. Landers and Vigeant came back in and saw that Pettigrew was awake. “They were, like, ‘Hey, what the fuck? Where is my coke?’ ” Both Landers and Vigeant were yelling, “Where is the computer. Where is my shit.” They began yelling at Pettigrew, demanding the coke.
Hernandez noticed that Pettigrew was “on something.” Landers asked Pettigrew if he was on Oxycontin, and Pettigrew said he was. Pettigrew said he would call his connection and get the coke. Pettigrew pushed some buttons on his cell phone and Landers’s phone rang. Landers looked at his phone and said “ ‘What the fuck? ․ [W]hy are you calling me? Call your dealer.’ ” Landers and Vigeant continued to demand that Pettigrew get the cocaine, and Pettigrew again attempted to make a phone call. After no more than 20 minutes, Hernandez pulled out his pistol and told Pettigrew he had something that would refresh his memory. Hernandez jammed the pistol into Pettigrew’s right eye socket and said, “ ‘You need to make your call. Call your dealer. Call whoever you have to call, but get that coke here now.’ ”
Pettigrew continued to push buttons on his phone. Hernandez told him that he would give him 10 seconds. If Pettigrew had not produced something at the end of those 10 seconds, Hernandez was going to shoot him. Neither Landers nor Vigeant said anything or attempted to stop Hernandez. Neither told him to put the gun away. They continued to yell at Pettigrew saying, “ ‘When he starts counting and he gets to ten, when he makes it to ten he is going to shoot you, so hurry up, get on the phone, call your dealer and get the coke here right now.’ ”
Hernandez began counting. He counted very slowly, waiting approximately 10 or 15 seconds between each number. When he got to 10, he shot Pettigrew from a distance of approximately four feet. He did so because that is what Landers and Vigeant had brought him along to do. He did it to back up his fellow marines. At no time during the count did either man say or do anything to register their objection to Hernandez shooting Pettigrew. Landers and Vigeant were telling Pettigrew to come up with the stuff or Hernandez would shoot him.
When Hernandez shot Pettigrew, Landers and Vigeant were shocked. Hernandez believed the shock was not caused by the fact that the shot actually occurred but rather because they were shocked at what they saw—they were not conditioned to see something like that. They knew they were all there to shoot Pettigrew. Landers jumped back and said, “ ‘Dude, you almost got blood on me.’ ” Vigeant just stood there with his mouth and his eyes wide open. The three men ran to the car. Landers drove around aimlessly for about half an hour until Hernandez told him that they needed to get back on the freeway. Vigeant was hysterical.
Hernandez explained that, when he said Vigeant was “hysterical,” he meant that he was speaking very loudly and saying, “ ‘Do you think, he is dead? Do you think he is dead? We should go back.’ ” He wanted to see if the police would show up. He was not crying, and Landers was not crying either. Before the shot was fired, neither Landers nor Vigeant told Hernandez not to do it.
Hernandez repeated that after he asked Landers and Vigeant if they wanted Pettigrew killed, they both answered “yes.” Hernandez asked the same question during the trip between Camp Pendleton and Long Beach, when they got to Long Beach, before they left the barracks, and just before they entered Pettigrew’s apartment. Both Landers and Vigeant looked at the gun during the trip, and Vigeant played with it until he was told to stop it.
Hernandez said that when he told defense counsel on cross-examination that he did not intend to kill Pettigrew, he meant that he did not want him dead. It was not up to him. He did not even know him. However, he was willing to kill him because Landers and Vigeant had asked him to do so. The rationale was that Pettigrew was messing with Hernandez’s fellow marines. Hernandez acknowledged that he had previously testified that he shot Pettigrew because Hernandez had given Pettigrew a specific order and Pettigrew had not obeyed it.
After the shooting, the three men drove back to Camp Pendleton, stopping on the way for food at a convenience store. They went to Landers’s room and talked about the shooting. They agreed not to say anything and to pretend they did not know each other. They drank and “hung out” for about three more hours. Landers told Hernandez he should have shot Pettigrew two more times to ensure he was dead.
On the day after the shooting, September 10, 2007, Mauricio Rosales (Rosales) was doing maintenance at Pettigrew’s apartment building. He noticed an apartment door ajar, and he looked inside. Rosales believed that a woman named Felicia lived in the apartment. Rosales saw a man slumped down on the sofa with a cell phone in his right hand. The man was bloody and was not breathing. Rosales called 911.
The fire department and police officers responded to the scene. A nine-millimeter casing and an expended round were collected in the apartment. Dr. Raffi Djabourian, a deputy medical examiner, testified that Pettigrew had a bullet entrance wound at the left temple that exited on the back of the head. The wound was rapidly fatal. The victim was found still holding his cell phone due to a rapid onset of rigor. None of the various drugs found in his system contributed to his death.
Melissa Sandoval, the executive relations coordinator for Verizon Wireless, testified about Pettigrew’s cell phone records from June 24, 2007 through September 9, 2007. Verizon is able to unlock a given individual’s voicemail for police investigations. The records showed calls to and from Landers and Vigeant. The last call was made to Landers on September 9, 2007 at 9:42 p.m. Pettigrew’s telephone service allowed him to do three-way calling, and his records showed he made an overlapping call at 9:43 p.m. that lasted one minute. Telephone records can show the city where a phone is located at the time a call is placed. Sandoval’s records did not show any calls from Vigeant to Pettigrew on September 9, 2007.
Zafar Siddiqui is a network performance manager for AT & T. He explained that “pinging” means that one is “attaching” oneself to the nearest cell tower when one is talking on a cell phone. As a person changes location, the signal is handed off from one cell tower to another. The call is logged by AT & T and sent to a depository. It can be determined which tower was used for a particular call and at what time. He testified about Landers’s and Vigeant’s phone records and about certain cell site records.
Detective Bryan McMahon (Detective McMahon) assisted the homicide detectives assigned to the case by examining Pettigrew’s cell phone records. He investigated cell site hits for telephones linked to Landers and Vigeant. He discovered that the hits on the cell sites during the evening of Pettigrew’s death began near Camp Pendleton and proceeded north along the coast, the No. 5 freeway, the No. 22 freeway, and all the way to Long Beach. A cluster of hits at a certain point led the investigators to go to that location, and they located a gas station near that spot. The investigators obtained footage from the gas station’s security cameras that showed Vigeant, Landers, and Hernandez pulling up to the pumps at 8:40 p.m. They all got out of the car. Vigeant is seen talking on his cell phone, and Landers also used his cell phone. The footage showed Landers driving away from the gas station at 8:51 p.m.
Detective Dennis Robbins (Detective Robbins) assisted in the investigation of Pettigrew’s murder. After Landers was arrested in the Bay Area by United States Marshalls, Detective Robbins interviewed Landers in the Contra Costa County jail on September 27. When shown a photograph of his cousin, Vigeant, Landers said he did not know him. Landers said he did not know Hernandez when shown a photograph of him. Landers said he had not been in Long Beach in the preceding weeks. Landers acknowledged that he was due back at Camp Pendleton on September 24, 2007, and had failed to show up. He said it was because he had been scheduled to go to Iraq on September 28, and he did not want to go.
Detective Scott Lasch (Detective Lasch) was assigned to the Pettigrew murder case along with Detective Malcolm Evans (Detective Evans). They did not find any narcotics or drug-dealing paraphernalia in Pettigrew’s apartment. They found a laptop computer that was registered to Vigeant on the rear seat of Pettigrew’s truck. Detective Lasch discovered that a parking citation was issued to Vigeant on September 6, 2007 (three days before the shooting), in the area of 661 Orizaba Avenue in Long Beach, near Pettigrew’s apartment.
Detective Lasch arranged to have Pettigrew’s voicemail unlocked. Four telephone messages were played for the jury, and jury members were provided with transcripts. Three messages to Pettigrew were from Vigeant and one was from Landers, and they were left shortly before the shooting. Detective Evans testified that there was a distance of approximately one block between the cell site on 7th Street and Orizaba Avenue, near where Vigeant had received a parking ticket, and Pettigrew’s apartment building.
Detective McMahon testified that he made a series of phone calls to Vigeant on September 23, 2007, between 4:32 p.m. and 6:45 p.m. Not all of the calls were answered. An audio recording of the calls was played for the jury. Detective Evans reviewed Pettigrew’s cell phone records and subsequently placed two calls to Landers’s number. An audio recording of the detective’s conversation with Landers on September 21, 2007, was played for the jury.
After the shooting, Hernandez tried to break his connection with Landers and Vigeant by avoiding them. Hernandez was disgusted by what he had done. Both Landers and Vigeant approached Hernandez and told him that Long Beach police had been trying to contact them. At one point, Landers told Hernandez that Vigeant was acting “really, really squirrely” and asked Hernandez what he wanted to do about him. Hernandez said he would talk to Vigeant. Hernandez interpreted Landers’s words as a request or suggestion that Hernandez should kill Vigeant. Hernandez tried to let Landers know that he was not going to kill a fellow marine.
Detective McMahon interviewed Hernandez on September 28, 2007. He initially denied going to Long Beach. After being told that another suspect was in custody, Hernandez related the events on the night of the murder. An audio recording of Hernandez’s interview was played for the jury.
Detective McMahon retrieved Hernandez’s gun from a location in Tempe, Arizona, where Hernandez had directed him to look. The gun was a Browning high-power nine millimeter weapon (People’s exhibit 20). Troy Ward, a criminalist with the Long Beach Police Department, confirmed that Hernandez’s firearm matched the shell casing found at the scene of Pettigrew’s shooting.
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of Evidence Corroborating Hernandez’s Testimony
A. Appellants’ Arguments
According to Landers, the rules governing accomplice testimony mandate that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for first-degree murder or felony murder, attempted robbery, and burglary. He also maintains there was insufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the true findings on the special circumstance allegations.
Vigeant’s argument focuses on the issue of intent and contends that Hernandez’s testimony provided the only evidence that Vigeant had the intent necessary to be guilty of the charged crimes. According to Vigeant, Hernandez’s testimony was inconsistent and insufficiently corroborated and led to only a mere suspicion of Vigeant’s guilt rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Landers and Vigeant both join in the arguments of the other to the extent that the argument inures to his benefit.
B. Relevant Authority
Section 1111 provides in pertinent part: “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other evidence as shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.” Thus, the testimony of an accomplice “has been legislatively determined never to be sufficiently trustworthy to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt unless corroborated.” (People v. Tewksbury (1976) 15 Cal.3d 953, 967.)
“To corroborate the testimony of an accomplice, the prosecution must present ‘independent evidence,’ that is, evidence that ‘tends to connect the defendant with the crime charged’ without aid or assistance from the accomplice’s testimony. [Citation.] Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it tends to implicate the defendant and thus relates to some act or fact that is an element of the crime. [Citations.]” (People v. Avila (2006) 38 Cal.4th 491, 562–563.)
Adequate corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony need not in itself be sufficient to convict the defendant; it may be slight and entitled to little consideration when standing alone. (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1128; People v. Douglas (1990) 50 Cal.3d 468, 507.) It need only “tend[ ] to connect the defendant with the crime so that the jury may be satisfied that the accomplice is telling the truth.” (People v. Douglas, supra, at p. 506, fn. omitted.) The corroborating evidence may be circumstantial and may consist of a defendant’s conduct or statements. (Id. at p. 507.) It thus may be evidence that shows a consciousness of guilt. (People v. Hurd (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 865, 875.)
The corroborating evidence must tend to connect the defendant to the crime, but it has to neither establish every element of the offense nor corroborate all of the accomplice’s testimony. (People v. Heishman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 147, 164–165.) Although the corroborating evidence need only tend to connect the defendant to the crime, it must do more than raise a mere conjecture or suspicion of guilt. (People v. Szeto (1981) 29 Cal.3d 20, 27 (Szeto ).) “[I]t is not sufficient to merely connect a defendant with the accomplice or other persons participating in the crime. The evidence must connect the defendant with the crime, not simply with its perpetrators. [Citations.]” (People v. Falconer (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 1540, 1543.)
“ ‘The trier of fact’s determination on the issue of corroboration is binding on the reviewing court unless the corroborating evidence should not have been admitted or does not reasonably tend to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Abilez (2007) 41 Cal.4th 472, 505; People v. McDermott (2002) 28 Cal.4th 946, 986; People v. Narvaez (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1303.)
C. Evidence Sufficient
Hernandez was an accomplice as a matter of law, and the jury was so instructed. The jury was also instructed on the type of evidence needed to corroborate his testimony.4 We disagree with appellants and conclude there was sufficient independent evidence that tended to connect Landers and Vigeant with the burglary, attempted robbery, and murder to the degree that the jury reasonably could be satisfied that Hernandez was testifying truthfully. (People v. Douglas, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 506.) Therefore, there was sufficient evidence of Lander’s and Vigeant’s participation in the murder under a theory of premeditated murder and felony murder, and the jury verdicts and findings must be upheld.
The first suspects to be contacted by the police were Landers and Vigeant. By means of Pettigrew’s cell phone records, the investigating officers established that calls were made from Landers’s and Vigeant’s cell phones to Pettigrew on the night of his death and two days before his death. The content of the messages left on Pettigrew’s cell phone was incriminating. Two days before the shooting, Vigeant said: “Hey what’s up brotha. I know you know who this is. It’s fuckin’ Tony. And dude, fuckin’, eh-heh, if you don’t stop playing games, it’s gonna get ugly dude. And, fuckin’, I’m gonna come to your house. And it’s gonna be all bad. So hit me back, ASAP. Late.” (Italics added.) Fifty-three minutes later, Vigeant left the following message: “Dave you better fuckin’ hit me back right now dude. Fuckin’, me and my cousin, we ain’t playin’ dude. You fuckin’ hit us back up or I’ll fuckin’ find your ass dude. Hit me up. Late.” (Italics added.) In between Vigeant’s two messages, Landers left a message stating, “Hey Dave, you better fuckin’ call me back bro.’ ” Shortly after midnight, on September 8, 2007, Vigeant left the following message: “Dave, don’t even play dude. Fuckin’, me and my b-me and my homeboy Tre, fuckin’, are ready to rumble dude. Fuckin, pick up your phone dude or it’s gonna get ugly. Just to let you know. Nobody fuckin’ robs me dude. No one. So, it’s in your best interest to pick up your phone, otherwise it’s gonna get really ugly, and we know where to find you. Not only at your apartment, but we got fuckin’ military fuckin’ aspect. Fuckin’, we know where to look man. You’re fucked if you try to run. Alright ․ Hit me up. See if I’m playing. Late.” (Italics added.)
These voicemail messages corroborated Hernandez’s testimony that he heard both appellants making threats to Pettigrew. They also provide evidence of appellants’ state of mind as they traveled to see Pettigrew. The calls independently show that Pettigrew had something that Landers and Vigeant wanted, and Vigeant particularly felt he had been cheated. Both showed their intent to go to Pettigrew’s apartment and harm him unless they got what they wanted from him. This, in combination with independent evidence that a man answering Landers’s description was seen in a restricted area outside Pettigrew’s window is corroborative of the intent to commit burglary and a home invasion robbery in order to obtain the item or items Pettigrew had and that appellants wanted, which Hernandez’s testimony indicated was cocaine. The fact that Vigeant did not once mention his laptop in his phone messages was independent evidence of his intent to go to Pettigrew’s for a different purpose than to seek return of his laptop as he alleges. “ ‘Evidence tending to establish prior quarrels between a defendant and decedent and the making of threats by the former is properly admitted ․ to show the motive and state of mind of the defendant’ [citations],” especially when a defendant is accused of unlawful conduct against the same person. (People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 Cal.4th 614, 668; see also Rufo v. Simpson (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 573, 585; People v. Daniels (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 36, 46.)
The lies that Landers and Vigeant told investigating detectives, as related in the facts portion of this opinion, and Landers’s flight also served as corroborating evidence. Evidence of flight or an attempt of the accused to conceal one’s identity supports an inference of consciousness of guilt sufficient to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice. (People v. Perry (1972) 7 Cal.3d 756, 771–772; People v. Felton (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 260, 272; People v. Ruscoe (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1012; People v. Hurd, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d at pp. 875–876.) False and contradictory statements of a defendant in relation to the charge are themselves material corroborative evidence. (People v. Santo (1954) 43 Cal.2d 319, 330; People v. Taylor (1924) 70 Cal.App. 239, 244.) Detective Evans asked Landers by telephone if he had spoken to a David Pettigrew late the prior Sunday, which was September 9, 2007, the day of the shooting. Landers said he had called Pettigrew, and the time of the call was 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. When asked if he knew what happened to Pettigrew, Landers said his sister had called him about the matter. He said he had only known Pettigrew as his sister’s friend’s boyfriend, and he had only seen them “a couple times.” Landers said he was on base at Pendleton when he called Pettigrew. He said he did not speak with Pettigrew long and called only to ask the whereabouts of his sister, who was supposed to be in Long Beach. Landers said he never was able to contact his sister. Landers said Pettigrew sounded tired, and his speech was slurred. Landers said, “Uh, I have to be honest, I really don’t know the guy at all.” He said he had never been to his apartment and did not know where he stayed. According to Landers, before the call on the 9th, Landers had not spoken to Pettigrew or seen him for several months.
Landers told Detective Evans that he had never had problems with Pettigrew. No one else had used Landers’s phone, and Landers had his phone at all times. No one was with Landers when he telephoned Pettigrew. Landers could not give Detective Evans his sister’s phone number because he did not know it. Landers said he had stayed on the base all day on Sunday, September 9, 2007.
In his second phone call to Landers, Detective Evans told Landers that the phone records showed that he called Pettigrew at 9:42 p.m. Landers said he did not remember calling him then—at that time he was still on the base, and he was the only person who had use of his phone. He was in his room the whole time. He then agreed the call could have been later. He said he had never visited Pettigrew and he did not “even know him. He’s my, fuckin’, sister’s friend’s boyfriend.”
Vigeant’s attitude and evasiveness with Detective McMahon and his obvious lies also showed consciousness of guilt and served as corroborating evidence. Vigeant did not seem surprised to receive a call from a detective with the Long Beach Police Department, and he exchanged pleasantries with the detective, beginning with “How’s it going man?” when the detective introduced himself. When asked if he knew anybody that had recently been murdered down in Long Beach, Vigeant merely replied, “Negative.” When told that the guy’s name was David and asked if the name rang a bell, Vigeant said “Yes.” When Detective McMahon then asked “What’s that?” Vigeant said he had left his laptop “down there.” He said David was his cousin’s friend. He then said his cousin, named Trevor Landers, had met David a couple of times. Vigeant said he lent Pettigrew the laptop “a couple of months” earlier. Vigeant denied several times having spoken to Pettigrew on his phone just after midnight on September 8, 2007. He said he had never been to Pettigrew’s home in Long Beach. Vigeant said that Landers knew Pettigrew from school. When the detective asked Vigeant how he could be contacted, Vigeant replied that he had just moved into his barracks two weeks earlier and was not sure the detective could contact him there. When asked again about phone calls to Pettigrew, Vigeant claimed he had lent his phone to a friend named Hernandez, but Hernandez did not know Pettigrew. Vigeant had not seen Pettigrew in “probably like a month.”
After a lengthy period of conversation, Vigeant expressed no curiosity when the detective stated that he was trying to figure out what happened to Pettigrew. Vigeant merely replied, “Yeah.” When the detective told Vigeant that Pettigrew was murdered, Vigeant expressed surprise (although Detective McMahon had said at the beginning of the conversation that a man named David was murdered in Long Beach). Vigeant told the detective that he had gone to a going-away party at the home of a Corporal Schrader on September 8, 2007, a Saturday. He was at the party from 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. until 1:00 or 2:00 the next morning. He said he called Pettigrew from the party to ask for his laptop. In a subsequent phone call, Detective McMahon clarified to Vigeant that the murder took place on Sunday, September 9. Vigeant said he was alone that day, “just chilling.” As noted, false and contradictory statements of a defendant regarding the offense are material corroborative evidence. (People v. Santo, supra, 43 Cal.2d at p. 330; People v. Taylor, supra, 70 Cal.App. at p. 244.) Even if the corroborating circumstances are consistent with the innocence of the accused, the determination as to whether the corroborating evidence is as compatible with innocence as it is with guilt is a question of weight for the trier of fact. (People v. Gallardo (1953) 41 Cal.2d 57, 63, fn.†; People v. Ruscoe, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 1012.)
Vigeant’s and Landers’s connection to Pettigrew was further enhanced by the evidence that on September 6, 2007, a parking ticket was issued on Vigeant’s car. The car was parked on Orizaba Avenue, near Pettigrew’s apartment. Although it is stronger evidence against Vigeant, the telephone conversations of both appellants reveal that they were both after Pettigrew, and they were phoning him to resolve their problem with him. In addition, Vigeant’s laptop computer was found in the rear seat of Pettigrew’s truck, which corroborated Hernandez’s testimony about the laptop having been given as collateral for a cocaine deal. The presence of the laptop also corroborated Hernandez’s testimony about the motive for the shooting. Landers and Vigeant had vowed to get the cocaine they were owed, and for which the laptop had been held by Pettigrew, or to have him shot.
More corroborative evidence was provided by the cluster of phone calls that led police to the video footage of Landers, Vigeant, and Hernandez at the gas station in Garden Grove, on the way to Long Beach from Camp Pendleton. Both the front passenger and the driver, identified in court as Landers and Vigeant, were using their cell phones during this stop. Landers was wearing a green baseball cap, which corroborates Hernandez’s testimony that Landers jumped the fence into the prohibited area behind Pettigrew’s apartment in an attempt to enter through a window at approximately 9:30 p.m. that night. The description of the intruder that Potter saw corresponded to Landers, including the fact that the intruder wore a baseball cap. The video places the three men together approximately one hour before the shooting 5 and confirms Hernandez’s testimony about stopping at the gas station. It also confirms the accuracy of the cell-site tracking of the calls Landers and Vigeant made to Pettigrew—calls that show their eventual arrival in Long Beach near Pettigrew’s apartment. Landers left the gas station at 8:51 p.m. Pettigrew was shot a little after 9:42 p.m., when he made his mistaken call to Landers instead of his dealer.
Moreover, the fact that Pettigrew’s last outgoing call was to Landers’s cell phone corroborates Hernandez’s testimony that Pettigrew mistakenly called Landers’s number when he said he would call his dealer. According to Hernandez, Landers’s phone rang as Landers stood in front of Pettigrew, just before Hernandez became frustrated and began his deadly countdown. This cell phone record also confirms Hernandez’s testimony about the impetus for Landers’s and Hernandez’s frustration that led to Pettigrew’s death. The fact that Pettigrew was found seated on the sofa, still grasping his cell phone, with a single gunshot wound to his head and the discovery of one expended bullet, as independently testified to by Rosales and Officer Carlos Del Real, all corroborated Hernandez’s account of the murder. These independent facts also corroborated the attempted home-invasion robbery, since it showed that Landers and Vigeant, true to their threats, were determined to take what they wanted from Pettigrew—the cocaine—by force and/or fear. Although nothing was ultimately taken from Pettigrew’s apartment, the corroborative value of these independently offered facts is not negated.
Other circumstantial evidence corroborated Hernandez’s account. There was testimony that Pettigrew’s apartment showed no sign of forced entry, which aligned with Hernandez’s testimony that the three of them entered the apartment through an unlocked door. Hernandez’s account of the actual shooting was corroborated by Dr. Raffi Djabourian, the deputy medical examiner, who testified that Pettigrew had a bullet entrance wound at the left temple that exited on the back of the head. Dr. Djabourian also testified that Pettigrew was found still holding his cell phone.
The corroboration evidence in this case thus established, at a minimum, motive and opportunity, which, when corroborated, were found to be sufficient factors to sustain convictions largely based on accomplice testimony in Szeto, supra, 29 Cal.3d at pages 28–29 and People v. Vu (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1022–1023, 1024 (Vu ). In Szeto, the defendant was convicted of being an accessory to a felony and possession of a sawed-off shotgun. (Szeto, supra, at p. 25.) The convictions were largely based on the evidence of an accomplice, Chester Yu, who testified that defendant put the pieces of guns that had been used in a shooting in the trunk of his car and, accompanied by Yu, drove the guns to the San Francisco bay and dumped them in the water. (Id. at p. 27.) It was independently established, by means of a police officer’s testimony, that defendant had a motive to help the shooters because he was in the same gang that orchestrated the shooting to gain revenge for a fellow gang member’s slaying. (Id. at p. 28.) The testimony of three other witnesses “bore upon defendant’s opportunity to commit the crimes.” (Ibid.) The persons to whose home the killers had free access, the Rodriguezes, and one other person, testified that the guns were in a closet in the home on a Saturday night. The Rodriguezes testified that the defendant brought soup to the home on Sunday morning, and the guns were not in the closet on Sunday evening. (Ibid.) Yu also testified that the defendant said he knew where to dump the guns because he had worked in a nearby restaurant, and the testimony of the restaurant assistant manager confirmed the defendant’s past employment. (Id. at pp. 27–28, 29.) The California Supreme Court held that, “[b]ecause the corroborating evidence does tend to connect defendant with the commission of the crimes of which he has been convicted, we must uphold the jury’s verdict.” (Id. at p. 29.)
In Vu, the defendant was convicted of street terrorism, conspiracy to murder and the first-degree murder of a 14–year–old Hispanic boy, Fernandez, who was not a gang member. (Vu, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1012–1013.) Vu was an admitted member of an Asian gang, and he had been attacked a few years earlier by a rival Asian gang. Vu’s best friend had been killed in the attack. (Id. at pp. 1013–1014, 1016, 1022.) Fernandez and some friends were riding in a taxi and were fired upon when they alighted. The shooters were the occupants of a following car. (Id. at p. 1015.) One of the taxi riders identified Jack San as one of the shooters. (Ibid.) San linked Vu with the shootings by saying that a person riding in a car with San called Vu and told Vu to check who was riding in the taxi. (Id. at p. 1018.) Vicki Bui, who was associated with Vu’s gang, testified that Vu told her to give him an alibi for the night of the shooting—an alibi he used in his police interview. (Id. at pp. 1020, 1022.) The Vu court held that “independent evidence sufficiently corroborated accomplice testimony by establishing motive and opportunity, placing Vu with the conspirators on the night of the murder, and showing he gave the police a false alibi after the crime.” (Id. at pp. 1013, 1022.)
As noted, motive, opportunity, and false alibis were shown independently in this case as well. Vigeant admitted that he had “lent” Pettigrew his laptop, which was one of the motives for the trip to Pettigrew’s with Hernandez. The threatening cell phone records also showed motive of a different sort. Opportunity was independently shown by the video of Landers and Vigeant at the gas station on their way to Long Beach. Their route was confirmed by the hits on the cell phone towers along the way.
Finally, in order to cast doubt on the jury’s verdicts and findings, Landers argues at length about the lack of corroborating evidence of the attempted home invasion robbery and the burglary. Landers attempts to show that, because there was insufficient corroborating evidence of the attempted robbery, there was insufficient evidence of the burglary to commit any felony other than murder. Landers points out that felony murder cannot be based on an assaultive crime such as murder. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 59–62; People v. Wilson (1969) 1 Cal.3d 431, 440–442, overruled prospectively in People v. Farley (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1053, 1117–1121.) Landers argues that, since we cannot know if the jury based its guilty verdict on the felony murder theory or the premeditated murder theory, the murder convictions must be reversed along with the convictions for attempted robbery and burglary. This alleged lack of corroborating evidence of the attempted robbery and thus the burglary also would have the by-product of invalidating the special circumstance allegations, according to Landers. As we have indicated, we disagree. We also disagree that the jury was misinstructed on the “unsupported” theories of attempted robbery-murder and burglary-murder. We believe that the record shows sufficient corroboration of Hernandez’s testimony, which provided sufficient evidence that an attempted home-invasion robbery took place, since Landers and Vigeant searched Pettigrew’s apartment before demanding the cocaine from him at gunpoint. And it is clear that a burglary occurred when Landers and Vigeant entered the apartment with the intent to take the cocaine, which they had not paid for, even though they had left the laptop as collateral.
In sum, we conclude that Hernandez’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated to support Landers’s and Vigeant’s convictions for first degree murder, attempted robbery, and burglary. Appellants’ lies to authorities, their flight, and their phone calls are independent evidence corroborating all of the crimes associated with that ill-fated expedition to Pettigrew’s. That Landers and Vigeant tried to break in a window rather than knock on Pettigrew’s door is independent evidence that corroborates the burglary and attempted robbery counts shown by Hernandez’s testimony. The circumstantial evidence in this case supports the inference that Landers and Vigeant entered Pettigrew’s apartment with the felonious intent to take the cocaine by force and by instilling in Pettigrew the fear of being shot. “The corroboration required of accomplice testimony ․ need only connect the defendant to the crime sufficiently that we may conclude the jury reasonably could have been satisfied that the accomplice was telling the truth. Moreover, the corroborating evidence may be circumstantial, of little weight by itself, and related merely to one part of the accomplice’s testimony. [Citation.]” (People v. Letner and Tobin (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99, 185–186.) Therefore, felony murder instructions were properly given and the special circumstance findings are justified. Appellants’ arguments are without merit.
II. Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct
A. Landers’s Argument
Landers argues that the prosecutor engaged in prejudicial misconduct when he chose to misstate the law in his rebuttal argument. The prosecutor told the jurors that Landers could not legally assert a claim of right to the computer in Pettigrew’s possession, which was owned by Vigeant. Because the theory of the case was premised on aiding and abetting, the prosecutor’s argument was legally wrong. A claim-of-right defense is applicable to attempted robbery and burglary premised on larceny when a defendant believes the property belongs to a coprincipal. Landers points out that an earlier jury hearing his case deadlocked on the issue of intent to steal at the time of entry to Pettigrew’s apartment.6
B. Relevant Authority
“The applicable federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well established. ‘ “A prosecutor’s ․ intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct ‘so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.’ ” ’ [Citations.] Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves ‘ “ ‘the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.’ ” ’ [Citation.]” (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.) “[W]hen the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) “[W]e ‘do not lightly infer’ that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor’s statements. [Citation.]” (People v. Frye (1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 970, disapproved on another point in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421.)
Even if a defendant shows that prosecutorial misconduct occurred, reversal is not required unless the defendant can demonstrate that it was reasonably probable a result more favorable to him would have occurred absent the misconduct or with a curative admonition. (People v. Arias (1996) 13 Cal.4th 92, 161.)
C. Proceedings Below
The jury was instructed on the felony murder doctrine with CALJIC Nos. 8.21 and 8.27. In explaining this theory to the jury, Landers’s counsel stated that the crimes of burglary and robbery were the cornerstones of felony murder related to the crime of theft. He then explained the claim-of-right defense described in CALJIC No. 9.44.7 Counsel told the jury members that, if they believed the two defendants went to Pettigrew’s to recover the computer, then there was no theft involved, no intent to commit the theft, and therefore, no robbery, burglary, or felony murder.
In his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor briefly addressed the claim of right defense stating, “If there was a claim, first of all, Mr. Landers wouldn’t have the claim because no one suggested it was or was ever his computer. Mr. Vigeant, of course, the only information we have from him is that that computer is turned over. Now, I am talking about his own statements to the detective, in which he does so in that statement immediately. We are going to talk about the unnatural way that that comes up.”
Further along in the prosecution’s rebuttal, Landers’s counsel asked to approach the bench. Counsel stated at sidebar, “I’m real hesitant to interrupt, but just seemed like the best point to do it. I think counsel made a misstatement of law earlier that, if not corrected, verdict against the defendants results in reversal. He indicated that the defense of claim of right would not apply to Mr. Landers, basically, if, not saying so many words, inferring because it is not his property. I think that that is a misstatement of law that needs to be corrected. Number one, I think under the rules of agency, Mr. Landers has the same defense as Mr. Vigeant. And, number two, the whole issue is whether or not there is the intent to steal and whether or not in the mind of Mr. Landers he has an honest belief he has a right to recover the property.”
The prosecutor responded that he did not know if any rules of agency applied, but he had been trying to argue that the computer at that point did not belong to either of the defendants anyway. The trial court stated that it was going to instruct the jury that “if attorneys have stated law that is incorrect, court’s previous reading—you must follow the court’s previous reading.” The prosecutor expressed his intent to explain the same concept and, with the court’s permission, told the jury, “If I, and I know that counsel both as well, if either of us states something in terms of the law in the instructions that in any way is different from the instructions given to you by the court, you, of course, accept the instruction given by the court. I think we are all doing our best in good faith to argue the instructions, what their meaning is, how you apply them to the facts. But if I have misstated any of those in any way or any wording, what we do is governed by the instructions the court gives you.” Upon resuming argument, the prosecutor said, “This is what we mentioned before. What we have to say to you as attorneys is not evidence․ [I]f you heard it here first, it is not evidence.”
D. No Prejudice
It is true that the prosecutor misspoke when he stated that Landers could not rely on the claim-of-right defense under the defense theory that Landers and Vigeant went to Pettigrew’s to retrieve Vigeant’s laptop computer. (See People v. Williams (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1521, 1528–1529 [“a good faith belief by a defendant, tried as an accomplice, that he was assisting his coprincipal retake the principal’s property negates the ‘felonious intent’ element of both larceny and robbery”].) Nevertheless, under the circumstances of this case, the trial was not thereby infected with such unfairness that the convictions constituted a denial of due process. (See People v. Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 841.) Nor did the prosecutor, in this offhand remark, seek to use a deceptive or reprehensible method in an attempt to persuade the jury. (Ibid.)
Any remark by a prosecutor during closing argument must be viewed in the context of the argument as a whole. (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 522.) The prosecutor argued strenuously that it was not the computer that Landers and Vigeant were so determined to obtain when they went to Pettigrew’s that night. It was the cocaine. Appellants had no claim of right defense to the cocaine. (See People v. Hendricks (1988) 44 Cal.3d 635, 642 [claim-of-right defense does not apply to claims based on illegal activities].) In his opening statement, the prosecutor presented the People’s theory as showing that the victim “died because whatever deal that they had in place, they were unsatisfied with what he had done, and they went to his home that day in order to take what they wanted, whether it was drugs or money or whatever they felt that they were owed. And that after making the demand, they didn’t get what they wanted, so he was killed.” In opening argument, the prosecutor stated, “Mr. Pettigrew, however high he was at the time, didn’t sacrifice his life simply because he didn’t want to produce this cocaine. It was because he didn’t have it, he couldn’t at that time.” In closing argument, the prosecutor stated, e.g., “but what counsel did is, well, he said Mr. Schreiner [the prosecutor] has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn’t about a computer. Again, we are having some twisting of what the elements are. You have the elements to the defenses. What we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, a reasonable doubt, that a murder was committed, that it was committed by either premeditation or in the course of felony, both of which exist, and further, that each of these defendants is liable for the actions of the others by being aiders and abettors, and by being coconspirators, all of which are present.”
Later, the prosecutor stated, “I think one of the attorneys made a comment that people don’t get killed over a laptop computer. And that’s true. That’s not what this is about. This is about cocaine that he was to provide that he did not provide in a timely fashion, and that resulted in his death.” The prosecutor pointed out that Pettigrew did not make a phone call in order to locate a computer that was 40 feet away in his truck. He made a call because the defendants were “in front of him demanding that he make it and to supply them with the drugs that they are asking for.” The prosecutor pointed out that the defendants had made a great number of calls to Pettigrew between September 5 and 6, before the murder, when they were in the vicinity of his home. The prosecutor stated they were “angry when they don’t get him. They are angry because he owes them cocaine, and they want that.” In closing, the prosecutor argued that Hernandez committed the crime out of loyalty to his fellow marines, and the defendants did so “because of this drug deal that the victim didn’t come through on.”
The prosecutor also cautioned the jury before rebuttal argument that “what we have to say as attorneys is not evidence.” And “if it was from up here from this lectern or some representation was made, it did not occur from the witness stand or doesn’t show up in the documents that you have or the records, it is not evidence.” The prosecutor admonished the jurors again after the sidebar, as noted previously. Moreover, the trial court also instructed the jury that if the attorneys said anything concerning the law during their arguments that was different from the instructions given, the jury should accept the law as stated in the court’s instructions. As noted previously, the trial court read CALJIC No. 9.44 on the claim-of-right defense to the jury. Finally, there was strong evidence presented through the voicemails to Pettigrew from Landers and Vigeant and from the testimony of Hernandez that the defendants went to Pettigrew’s apartment looking for the cocaine they had been promised rather than Vigeant’s laptop.
Given the brevity of the misstatement and the subsequent admonitions to the jury as well as the evidence that the defendants were on a quest to obtain the cocaine, appellants suffered no prejudice from any misconduct. It was not reasonably probable that a result more favorable to appellants would have occurred absent the prosecutor’s misstatement.
III. Admission of Vigeant’s Prior Statement
A. Landers’s Argument
Landers argues that Vigeant’s comments to police in telephone calls made weeks after the shooting in which he referred to Landers by name and as his cousin directly incriminated him (People’s exhibits 33, 33A). Citing Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36 (Crawford ), Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123 (Bruton ), and People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518 (Aranda ), he contends that admission of the statements denied him his federal and state constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine Vigeant, who did not testify.
Under Crawford specifically, Landers claims that the telephone calls in question were testimonial in nature. Vigeant had been identified as a potential perpetrator of the murder, and the police made a pretextual phone call in which they pretended to be merely seeking information. In fact, they wished to obtain incriminating evidence for a later trial. Vigeant was unavailable to testify, since he was on trial for the same crimes as Landers and chose not to testify, and it is undisputed that there was no prior opportunity to cross-examine Vigeant. Therefore admission of the statements in the telephone calls violated Landers’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under Crawford, and the statements in their entirety required exclusion.
Under Aranda/Bruton, Landers argues that the statements in Vigeant’s telephone calls with Detective McMahon painted him (Landers) as the person who introduced Vigeant to Pettigrew and the person who was with Vigeant when the laptop computer was handed over to Pettigrew. These statements by an accomplice constituted hearsay that does not fall within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule and does not contain sufficient guarantees of reliability such that adversarial testing would be expected to add little, if anything to the statement’s reliability. (See White v. Illinois (1992) 502 U.S. 346, 356–357.) Thus the statements incriminated Landers, and their use at trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses.
According to Landers, admission of the statements also violated independent state evidentiary grounds. Assuming Vigeant’s statements were admitted as statements against penal interest,8 all portions of the statements were not “ ‘specifically disserving’ ” to Vigeant as required by People v. Duarte (2000) 24 Cal.4th 603, 612, and the portions implicating Landers should not have been admitted. Landers argues that, under Williamson v. United States (1994) 512 U.S. 594, Vigeant’s conversations cannot be looked at as a whole, but rather, each statement in the larger narrative must be examined. It was necessary to parse the words of Vigeant’s conversation and redact all portions that were not self-inculpatory. (Id. at pp. 599–601, 602.)
Landers asserts that reversal is required because the evidence was inherently prejudicial, and the presumption of prejudice cannot be rebutted. Citing Richardson v. Marsh (1987) 481 U.S. 200, 207 (Richardson ), he contends that the fact that the jury was admonished not to consider the evidence against Landers cannot be considered in a determination of prejudice caused by Aranda/Bruton error. Citing People v. Song (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 973, 984, Landers argues that because there is both Crawford error and Aranda/Bruton error, the limiting instruction given by the trial court was insufficient to eliminate Crawford error. He adds that the case against him was relatively weak, as evidenced by his deadlocked jury in a prior trial. Landers also contends that, if defense counsel forfeited the issue at trial, counsel was by definition ineffective in doing so.
B. Proceedings Below
Before the prosecutor played a recording of the telephone conversation between Vigeant and Detective McMahon, Lander’s counsel stated to the trial court that he had just noticed there were references to his client in the transcript of the call. Counsel stated, “I don’t think it is a serious Aranda situation; however, I would ask that the jury be advised that it is only to be used as to Mr. Vigeant.” The trial court clarified, “So your only request on behalf of Mr. Landers is, in relation to the pretext call from Mr. Vigeant, that there will be limited instruction that that evidence is only to be used against Mr. Landers?” Counsel confirmed this.
The prosecutor stated, “I know the court is going to put a copy of the transcript in the record. And I just want to be clear, I am playing this and any other statements because I don’t believe there is any Aranda/Bruton issue. The cousin is mentioned, but not in an incriminating way.” The trial court pointed out that the only thing Landers was requesting was a special limiting instruction.
Detective McMahon testified and laid the foundation for his phone calls to Vigeant. The trial court admonished the jury as follows: “This is a purported statement, a conversation with defendant Vigeant. This evidence is only being introduced against defendant Vigeant; you are not to use it in any way against defendant Landers.”
Landers was mentioned only a few times throughout Detective McMahon’s first telephone conversation with Vigeant, which was contained in 27 pages of transcript. Vigeant said his cousin (Landers) knew Pettigrew and that Pettigrew was his cousin’s friend. Vigeant then said his cousin had met Pettigrew a couple of times, and Vigeant gave Detective McMahon his cousin’s first and last names when asked. Later on in the conversation, when asked, Vigeant again stated that he knew Pettigrew through his cousin Landers. When asked how his cousin knew Pettigrew, Vigeant said he thought they met through school or something like that. When asked if he knew the last time his cousin saw Pettigrew, Vigeant said he was not sure. The detective asked Vigeant if Landers was living in Northern California, and Vigeant replied that he was not sure where he was because he had not gotten in touch with him in a couple of days. The detective asked Vigeant if he had talked to Landers about Pettigrew, and Vigeant said he had not talked to him at all. In the second conversation, Detective McMahon asked Vigeant, “Alright, and you said it was Trevor [Landers] and you and him that met at the pizza place?” Vigeant replied, “Yes.” Landers was not mentioned during the rest of the second conversation, which is contained in seven pages of transcript.
C. Forfeiture
As we have noted, Landers’s counsel did not object at trial to admission of Vigeant’s statements on Aranda/Bruton, Crawford, or state evidentiary grounds. Landers cannot complain for the first time on appeal on these grounds. (Evid.Code, § 353; People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 166 [defendant’s failure to raise confrontation clause claim at trial forfeits issue on appeal]; People v. Lewis and Oliver (2006) 39 Cal.4th 970, 1028 [same]; People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 717; People v. Alvarez (1996) 14 Cal.4th 155, 186; People v. Mitcham (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1044 [finding waiver of Aranda/Bruton objection].) The United States Supreme Court noted in its opinion in Crawford that the defendant raised a timely objection that admission of his non-testifying wife’s prior statements “would violate his federal constitutional right to be ‘confronted with the witnesses against him.’ ” (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at p. 40.) Nothing prevented Landers from doing the same. Even if this failure is overlooked, however, the claims lack merit.
D. Relevant Authority
The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “ ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ․ to be confronted with the witnesses against him.’ ” (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. 42.) The phrase “ ‘witnesses against him’ ” is not limited to in-court witnesses, but also applies to admission of hearsay statements. (Id. at pp. 50–51.) The confrontation clause has traditionally barred “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” (Id. at pp. 53–54.) “Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” (Davis v. Washington (2006) 547 U.S. 813, 822.)
Under Bruton and Aranda, a statement of a non-testifying codefendant at a joint trial is generally inadmissible if it implicates the defendant, because the defendant cannot cross-examine the non-testifying codefendant. (Bruton, supra, 391 U.S. at pp. 135–136; Aranda, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 526.) Bruton’s holding was predicated on the confrontation clause contained in the federal Constitution. (Bruton, supra, at p. 136.) Aranda’s holding was a judicially declared rule of practice implementing section 1098, which governs joint trials. (Aranda, supra, at pp. 524–526.) The Bruton court cited with approval the California Supreme Court decision in Aranda. (Bruton, supra, at pp. 130–131.) The Aranda /Bruton rule applies not only to confessions but to incriminating statements not amounting to confessions. (People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1123.) As a result of Bruton, the decision in Aranda, which did not articulate a constitutional requirement, is now recognized as a constitutionally based doctrine, at least in part. (People v. Mitcham, supra, 1 Cal.4th 1027, 1045.)
The Aranda/Bruton rule was limited by Richardson, which required that the accomplice testimony be incriminating on its face. (Richardso n, supra, 481 U.S. at pp. 208, 209; see also People v. Fletcher (1996) 13 Cal.4th 451, 463.) In Richardson, a redacted confession of a codefendant passed constitutional muster because it omitted any reference to the codefendant and suggested only the declarant and a third party, who was not the codefendant, had been involved in the crime. (Richardson, supra, at p. 203.) Since the accomplice’s statement was not incriminating on its face and became so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial, its admission was constitutionally sound. (Id. at p. 208.)
Improper introduction of a codefendant’s out-of-court statement requires reversal only if the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Archer (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1380, 1390.) “That analysis generally depends on whether the properly admitted evidence is so overwhelming as to the guilt of the nondeclarant that a reviewing court can say the constitutional error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Ibid.)
E. Any Error Harmless
With respect to Landers’s Aranda/Bruton claim, his counsel believed there was no serious Aranda issue involved in allowing the recordings, and neither do we. The extrajudicial statement in the case at bar most closely resembles the situation presented in Richardson. The various statements on their face did not incriminate Landers in the crime and were incriminating only in light of Lander’s own phone conversations with police, his call to Pettigrew, and the video from the gas station.
In addition, here, as in Richardson, the trial court instructed the jury to limit consideration of Vigeant’s statement to Vigeant only. The court so instructed at the time the telephone conversations were played for the jury. As the high court noted, “with regard to inferential incrimination the judge’s instruction may well be successful in dissuading the jury from entering onto the path of inference in the first place, so that there is no incrimination [for the jury members] to forget.” (Richardson, supra, 481 U.S. at p. 208.) Furthermore, to violate Aranda/Bruton, a statement must substantially inculpate or incriminate a codefendant. (See People v. Epps (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 146, 158, overruled on other grounds in People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1123.) Here, the statements were clearly not “ ‘powerfully incriminating.’ ” (Richardson, supra, at p. 208; see also Bruton, supra, 391 U.S. at p. 135.) This bolsters the sufficiency of the jury admonishment with respect to the alleged Crawford error, since under Richardson there was no Aranda /Bruton error. (People v. Song, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 984 [finding a limiting instruction to be an inadequate substitute for the right to cross-examine a witness when there is also Aranda /Bruton error].)
With respect to Landers’s Crawford claim, we note that in that case the Supreme Court stated that testimonial statements include “ ‘ex parte in-court testimony’ ” and its functional equivalent, such as “ ‘․ pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially,’ ” as well as “ ‘statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.’ ” (Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at pp. 51–52.) Vigeant’s statement to police was testimonial in that it consisted of statements that objectively were likely to be used in a later trial. However, the jury was instructed to consider the statements only against Vigeant and not against Landers. This limiting instruction was effective in restricting admission of the statement. Since Vigeant’s hearsay statement was not admitted against Landers, there was no hearsay that violated Landers’s confrontation rights under Crawford. The statement was moreover not significantly incriminating to Landers, as discussed ante.
Even if admission of Vigeant’s statement constituted a violation of Aranda/Bruton and Crawford, the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 (Chapman ). (Lilly v. Virginia (1999) 527 U.S. 116, 139–140 [applying reasonable doubt standard of Chapman to Sixth Amendment error]; People v. Anderson, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1128 [applying Chapman standard to Aranda/Bruton error].) The Chapman test requires a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the complained-of evidence did not contribute to the verdict, i.e., that it was unimportant in relation to everything else the jury considered on the issue in question. (Yates v. Evatt (1991) 500 U.S. 391, 403, disapproved on other grounds in Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72, fn. 4.)
Vigeant’s statement was merely cumulative of other overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence against him and Landers. (Harrington v. California (1969) 395 U.S. 250, 254 [Aranda /Bruton error is harmless where the properly admitted evidence against the defendant is overwhelming and the improperly admitted evidence is merely cumulative].) The threatening calls and the video from the night of the murder made it clear that both appellants knew Pettigrew and had some shady business with him that night. The cell phone towers tracked their progress all the way to Pettigrew’s apartment. Compared to this evidence, Vigeant’s statement was inconsequential. On its face, Vigeant’s statement did not constitute a finger pointed at Landers for any wrongdoing. Vigeant’s statements were merely incidental to additional overwhelming evidence against Landers.
Because we have concluded the evidence at issue was not incriminating to Landers under the Aranda /Bruton rule and was not admitted against Landers in violation of the confrontation clause, and was furthermore not prejudicial to Landers, Landers’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is rejected.
IV. Vigeant’s Motion to Discharge Retained Counsel
A. Vigeant’s Argument
Vigeant argues that the trial court erred in treating his request to discharge his retained attorney and acquire appointed counsel as a motion to substitute counsel under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden ). Vigeant contends that this was reversible error because he had a Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to relieve his privately retained attorney.
B. Relevant Authority
Criminal defendants have the right to dismiss a retained attorney. (People v. Ortiz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 975, 983 (Ortiz ).) A defendant need not have cause or demonstrate that his attorney is incompetent. (People v. Munoz (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 860, 863 (Munoz ).) This rule also applies to posttrial proceedings. (Ibid.) The trial court, however, may deny a motion to relieve counsel if, within its discretion, relieving retained counsel would result in “ ‘significant prejudice’ to the defendant” or “ ‘disruption of the orderly processes of justice.’ ” (Ortiz, supra, at p. 983; see also People v. Lara (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 139, 152.)
Munoz and People v. Hernandez (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 101, 107–108 (Hernandez ) clearly establish the proposition that the evaluation of a defendant’s request to discharge his or her retained counsel exclusively in terms of Marsden standards results in automatic reversal.
C. Proceedings Below
At the sentencing hearing, Vigeant’s defense counsel, David Cohn (Cohn), did not appear. Stephen Klarich (Klarich), an attorney for Cohn’s firm, was present to argue Cohn’s request for a continuance. The trial court stated, “I have also got a letter from Mr. Vigeant’s family indicating that they are going to make a motion for a new attorney. And I believe there is going to be a Marsden motion; is that correct?” Klarich replied, “Well, I don’t know about a Marsden motion for a privately-retained, but my client did want to make a statement regarding that, regarding our representation. I believe there is a conflict of interest.” The trial court stated, “If there is a request for new attorney, the only way that is going to happen is if the court finds there was substantial evidence to support removing Mr. Cohn from this case and allowing Mr. Vigeant either to get himself a private attorney or, if he shows that he is indigent, appointing an attorney on his behalf.”
The trial court recognized Rahel Kent who stated he had been retained for the sole purpose of attempting to obtain appointed counsel for Vigeant. The trial court reiterated that first it had to determine whether there was a conflict with Cohn to the degree that he could no longer represent Vigeant. Vigeant then had to show he was indigent. The only way to reach that point was for Vigeant to request a Marsden motion. Vigeant told the court he wanted to release his attorney due to ineffectiveness of counsel and a complete breakdown of communication. The trial court asked the prosecutor to step outside because it appeared Vigeant was raising a Marsden motion.
After the Marsden hearing, the trial court announced it would continue Vigeant’s sentencing, and there was a good chance he would have to release Cohn. When Cohn appeared at a later date, the trial court asked Vigeant if he was still having a problem with his attorney. Vigeant said he was, and the trial court cleared the courtroom for a second Marsden hearing. At the hearing Vigeant read numerous complaints about Cohn into the record. Cohn gave a lengthy response. Vigeant responded to Cohn, and Cohn gave further explanations for his actions. The trial court told Vigeant, “We don’t usually do this when it involves a private attorney, but I have done it in this instance because you have indicated you are indigent.” The trial court informed Vigeant that he had the burden to show his situation would be substantially impaired if Cohn were not relieved. Based on all it had heard, the court did not “see that there is a conflict. And I don’t see that I need to remove Mr. Cohn, and if I didn’t, it would substantially impair your representation.” 9 (Italics added.) Vigeant proceeded to sentencing with Cohn.
D. Marsden Inquiry Erroneous
The issue in Munoz was whether the rule of Ortiz (that a defendant can have his retained counsel relieved without cause) applied after the defendant had been convicted. (Munoz, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 863.) As in the instant case, when the trial court addressed Munoz’s request to relieve his counsel, it stated that substitution of counsel required a conflict of interest or incompetent representation. (Id. at p. 864) It denied the request on the ground that the defendant had failed to make an adequate showing that retained counsel was incompetent. (Id. at p. 865.)
The Munoz court concluded Ortiz did apply postconviction, since assistance of counsel is considered essential at every critical stage of the criminal process, including postconviction proceedings such as motions for new trial, sentencing, and pronouncement of judgment. (Munoz, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 867.) Munoz reiterated that “ ‘[a] court faced with a request to substitute retained counsel must balance the defendant’s interest in new counsel against the disruption, if any, flowing from the substitution.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 870.) Blanket generalizations about possible delay are not sufficient. (Ibid.) In Munoz, although the trial court might have been correct had it found that substantial delay in the administration of justice would result from granting the defendant’s request, the record did not contain anything to suggest that the trial court made such an inquiry. (Id. at pp. 869–870.) The Munoz court noted that the trial court itself had delayed the proceedings for five weeks after denying the substitution request. (Id. at p. 870.) Accordingly, Munoz reversed and remanded to allow the defendant to discharge retained counsel. The Munoz court observed that its decision did not require an automatic retrial, and the case would proceed anew from the point at which the defendant originally sought to discharge his lawyer. (Id. at p. 871.)
The request for substitute counsel in Hernandez was made just four days before trial. (Hernandez, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 105.) Again, the court evaluated the request as if it were a Marsden motion (“the trial court here held what was in essence a Marsden hearing”), and required the defendant to show that his counsel was providing inadequate representation. (Hernandez, supra, at pp. 105–106, 108.) As in Munoz, the Hernandez court stated that the trial court might have been correct had it found that a disruption to the judicial process would result. It made no such inquiry, however, and it did not mention this factor in its decision, which was based entirely on a Marsden analysis. (Hernandez, supra, at p. 109.) The Hernandez court expressly rejected the idea that, by virtue of the belatedness of the discharge request, there was some sort of implied recognition that a disruption of justice would result from granting it. (Id. at p. 109.) The denial of the request required automatic reversal. (Ibid.) Significantly, the defendant in Hernandez, like Vigeant, sought to relieve his retained counsel and seek representation by the public defender or other appointed counsel. (Id. at p. 105.) The Hernandez court concluded that a Marsden analysis “does not suffice in a case such as this, when the defendant is represented by retained counsel and is or may be eligible to have appointed counsel.” (Hernandez, supra, at p. 109.)
In the instant case, it was improper for the trial court to hold Marsden hearings. The trial court should not have declined Vigeant’s request to relieve Cohn without making a finding that granting the request would result in significant prejudice to the defendant or a disruption in the orderly processes of justice. (Ortiz, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 983.) The published record and the record of the two Marsden hearings show that no such inquiry was made. Moreover, the sentencing was continued in any event. The trial court erred in not making the proper inquiry and finding, and the proper remedy is to set aside the judgment, but not the conviction. (Munoz, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 871.) “Once new counsel is appointed, the case shall proceed anew from the point [the] defendant originally sought to discharge his attorney.” (Ibid.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed in Landers’s case. The trial court’s decision denying Vigeant’s motion to relieve his retained attorney is reversed, and the matter is remanded to allow Vigeant to discharge his retained attorney. Although this requires a reversal of the judgment in Vigeant’s case, his convictions are not reversed, and a retrial is not required. When new counsel is retained or appointed, Vigeant’s case shall proceed from the point at which he originally sought to discharge his attorney.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
_, Acting P. J.
DOI TODD
We concur:
_, J.
ASHMANN–GERST
_, J.
CHAVEZ
FOOTNOTES
1. FN1. All further references to statutes are to the Penal Code unless stated otherwise.
2. FN2. A third defendant, Ramon Hernandez, pleaded guilty before trial and subsequently testified for the prosecution in the trial of Landers and Vigeant.
3. FN3. Vigeant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in case No. B231443, which will be considered concurrently with, but separately from, the instant appeal.
4. FN4. CALJIC No. 3.12 provides, “To corroborate the testimony of an accomplice there must be evidence of some act or fact related to the crime which, if believed, by itself and without any aid, interpretation or direction from the testimony of the accomplice, tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime charged. [¶] However, it is not necessary that the evidence of corroboration be sufficient in itself to establish every element of the crime charged, or that it corroborate every fact to which the accomplice testifies. [¶] In determining whether an accomplice has been corroborated, you must first assume the testimony of the accomplice has been removed from the case. You must then determine whether there is any remaining evidence which tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. [¶] If there is no independent evidence which tends to connect defendant with the commission of the crime, the testimony of the accomplice is not corroborated. [¶] If there is independent evidence which you believe, then the testimony of the accomplice is corroborated.” (CALJIC No. 3.12.)
5. FN5. Potter heard a gunshot approximately 20 minutes after she saw the intruder at Pettigrew’s window at approximately 9:30 p.m. The last outgoing call on Pettigrew’s cell phone was to Landers at 9:42 p.m. Pettigrew was shot shortly thereafter.
6. FN6. Lander’s and Vigeant’s cases were originally severed because Vigeant’s attorney was unavailable. After Landers’s jury deadlocked, the trial court granted the prosecution motion for joinder.
7. FN7. The trial court read CALJIC No. 9.44 to the jury as follows: “An element of the crime of robbery or theft by larceny is a specific intent permanently to deprive the alleged victim of his or her property. That specific intent does not exist if the alleged perpetrator had a good faith claim of right to title or ownership of the specific property taken from the alleged victim. In other words, if a perpetrator seeks to regain possession of property in which he honestly believes he has a good faith claim of ownership or title, then he does not have the required criminal intent. [¶] However, the required criminal intent exists if, rather than seeking recovery of the property, the perpetrator attempted to satisfy, settle or otherwise collect on a debt, liquidated or unliquidated, specifically intends permanently to deprive the alleged victim of his or her property in furtherance thereof. [¶] Claim-of-right defense does not apply if the claim arose from an activity commonly known to be illegal or known by the defendant to be illegal. [¶] If, after consideration of all the evidence, you have a reasonable doubt that defendant possessed the required specific intent, you must find him not guilty of the crime of robbery or theft by larceny.”
8. FN8. As Landers notes, the prosecutor did not state a basis for admission of the two telephone calls between Vigeant and Detective McMahon. Neither the trial court nor defense counsel asked the prosecutor to state the basis for admission of this evidence, nor did defense counsel challenge it.
9. FN9. The trial court appeared to believe it could relieve Cohn only if Vigeant showed that keeping Cohn would prejudice Vigeant rather than making the required finding that Vigeant would be significantly prejudiced if Cohn were relieved (or that the orderly processes of justice would be disrupted if Cohn were relieved). (See Ortiz,supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 983.) |
David Coombs files four motions with US military court asking judge to drop several counts because of lack of evidence
Defence lawyers acting for Bradley Manning, the US soldier who fed a trove of state secrets to WikiLeaks, have called for several of the 22 counts against him to be dismissed, including the most serious charge that he "aided the enemy".
Manning's lead lawyer, the civilian attorney David Coombs, has filed four motions with the military court in Fort Meade, Maryland, asking the judge to drop several charges because of lack of evidence. In addition to aiding the enemy, the relevant counts include the allegation that Manning stole or purloined US property in the form of unauthorised intelligence drawn from Afghan and Iraq warlogs, Guantánamo detainee files and hundreds of thousands of US diplomatic cables from embassies around the world.
Coombs has also filed a motion to dismiss the allegation that Manning violated section 1030 of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act by "knowingly exceeding authorised access" on a secret military network and transmitting documents to WikiLeaks, "with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation".
Section 1030 carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, while aiding the enemy – a violation under military law – carries a possible life sentence with no chance of parole. Manning has already pleaded guilty to less serious offences carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years, although he has denied that he aided the enemy.
Coombs opened the defence stage of the trial of Manning by playing the court the video of a 2007 Apache helicopter attack on a group of civilians in Baghdad. The video is one of the most famed releases by WikiLeaks which posted it in April 2010 under the title Collateral Murder.
The defence had intended to screen 20 minutes of the footage focusing on the actual attack in which two Reuters journalists died. But the military prosecutors insisted that the entire 39 minutes of film was played to show the aftermath at the scene.
Coombs also entered into the court record an excerpt of The Good Soldiers by the Washington Post reporter David Finkel. The lawyer said that the excerpt was designed to show that the Apache video had not been "closely held" by the US government – in other words, it was not regarded as so secret as that it must never be made public.
In earlier hearings, Manning has revealed that he was partly motivated to leak the video to WikiLeaks after he noticed that Finkel's book contained a precise transcript of sections of the audio from the attack helicopter. He said that he realised that the journalist must already have been provided with the raw footage.
Manning's defence comes after five weeks of intermittent government evidence in a trial that will go down in US history as the highest-level prosecution of a leaker of state documents in at least a generation. Coombs is expected to call about 40 witnesses, potentially taking the trial into August.
Among the first 10 defence witnesses, whose names have been made public, are the former chief prosecutor at the Guantanamo detention camp, Colonel Morris Davis. One of the 22 counts against the soldier relate to his leaking of more than 700 files of Guantanamo detainees.
Professor Yochai Benkler, a Harvard law professor who heads the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, will also be called later in the week. It is expected that his testimony will focus on the role of Wikileaks as a modern digital organisation, the defence hope being to undermine the prosecution claim that Manning intentionally and "wantonly" sought to assist enemy groups, notably al-Qaida, by leaking the material.
The defence's room for manoeuvre in questioning witness is very tightly curtailed. The judge, Colonel Denise Lind, who is presiding over the case in the absence of the jury, has ruled in earlier sessions that the defence cannot raise Manning's motives for leaking or attempt to show how harmless the leaks were to US interests until the sentencing phase of the trial.
The first defence witness called on Monday was chief warrant officer Joshua Ehresman, who worked alongside Manning in the intelligence unit of Forward Operating Base Hammer outside Baghdad between November 2009 and May 2010. Ehresman described the culture of the unit as one in which intelligence analysts such as Manning regularly downloaded classified information onto CDs, as well playing music and movies on their secret government computers. There were no rules on what an analyst could or could not burn onto a CD or download from the secret Siprnet database to which they had access.
Ehresman described Manning as the best intelligence analyst of the group. "He was the best; that's why he was our go-to guy for that stuff," he told the court. |
Here is the news release from Metro:
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) today announced that it has received an unsolicited proposal that provides a unique approach to fund and accelerate some of its mega projects included in Measure M – Metro’s November ballot measure.
The proposal was submitted by Parker Infrastructure Partners and centers around a concept that provides flexibility to fund projects in different stages of progress with the goal of accelerating and improving project delivery. While the contents of the proposal are confidential at this time, the approach offers a chance to deliver multiple Measure M projects sooner than anticipated. The Parker proposal has moved through phase one of Metro’s unsolicited proposal review process, and is now moving into the detailed proposal phase.
“This is exactly what we were hoping for when we put out our call to the industry last February to be our partners in innovation,” said Metro CEO Phillip A. Washington. “We are now seeing how the private sector responds when we empower them to do what they do best – optimize project delivery. This effort is totally market driven by the private sector, and our desire and intent is to rewrite the rules of strategic transportation infrastructure project delivery in LA County and this Country.”
Metro has been paving the way to consider different ways of delivering projects through innovative thinking – the impetus behind the agency’s first major industry forum, Transformation Through Transportation, in February 2016. That’s when Metro officials invited the private sector to bring the agency their ideas for helping Metro deliver projects sooner than they are scheduled.
“This is the first major capital infrastructure proposal to come our way since we rolled out our new unsolicited proposal policy last February,” said Joshua Schank, Metro’s Chief Innovation Officer. “We’ve received nearly 50 proposals on various levels and for different ideas, but this one is the most ambitious thus far.”
Metro has also received three other unsolicited proposals for specific Measure M projects; each is undergoing initial review to see if they have technical and financial merit. They include a proposal from ACS to accelerate the West Santa Ana Branch Light Rail Project through a public-private partnership (P3) financing model; and two proposals from Skanska – one to accelerate the West Santa Ana Branch Rail Project through a P3, and another to accelerate Phase 3 of the Purple Line Extension to UCLA and the Veterans Administration campus.
In Measure M, Metro identifies other projects that are potential P3 candidates including the Crenshaw Northern Extension to West Hollywood, the High Desert Multi-Purpose Corridor in the North County, the 710 South Corridor and the Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor.
“My desire is that these projects listed above be completed prior to our scheduled opening dates,” said Washington. “An example would be possibly completing the West Santa Ana Branch project by 2029.”
Metro is also reviewing a fourth proposal from Goldman Sachs to provide a regional network approach to develop and manage Metro’s High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Metro expects to receive additional unsolicited proposals for mega projects in the coming weeks.
All of these proposals are dependent on Metro having an additional funding stream to leverage private dollars, either through Measure M or some future funding that is identified.
Metro is implementing a “shovel ready” plan to bring key transportation projects to a shovel ready state in the event that previously unforeseen funding becomes available. Also, Metro recently named Ernst & Young Infrastructure Advisors, LLC, a recognized authority in the U.S. public-private partnership infrastructure market, to help Metro select the best delivery methods for advancing its major transportation projects in L.A. County.
To learn more about Metro’s Measure M ballot measure, you can visit http://theplan.metro.net.
Like this: Like Loading... |
As it happens, the proportions are roughly similar to those asked for by SPC Ardmona to save its fruit canning plants in Victoria. SPC had suggested $25 million from the state government, $25 million from the Commonwealth and $90 million from itself. In fact, as a proportion of the total, SPC had asked the Commonwealth for less than Huon - $2 in every $10 rather than $3.
Jamie Briggs announced a grant of $3.5 million to Huon Aquaculture. Credit:David Mariuz
Why did the Commonwealth reject one, creating ''an important marker'' and not the other? On Tuesday, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann tied himself in knots explaining that one was a ''grant'' while the other was a ''co-investment'', although it wasn't always clear which was which.
''Let's just be very clear,'' the Finance Minister said. ''We were not being asked to make a co-investment, we were being asked to make a grant from the taxpayer to an individual business so that they would be able to invest in a $12 million restructure of their business. We were not being asked to make an investment. If you make an investment, you actually get a share in the business and you end up getting a return.''
Governments of all persuasions support businesses, sometimes by direct grants, sometimes by tax breaks, sometimes by tariffs and sometimes by the provision of services such as Austrade, subsidised water and electricity, technical colleges and the CSIRO. Often the support has a broader justification. We are told the grant to Huon Aquaculture will ''support Tasmania's contribution to this vital industry''. |
Only the most pop culturally isolated English speakers don’t know what the word “stan” means. Its origins lie in Eminem’s 2000 hit song “Stan,” about an overzealous fan, and has come to describe anyone who takes their love of a particular artist or entertainment franchise to new extremes. (For Eminem’s fictional Stan, portrayed in the music video by actor Devon Sawa, that extreme meant murdering himself, his girlfriend, played by Dido, and their unborn child by driving their car off of a bridge.) The use of “stan” as a noun gradually gained popularity.
Though Eminem gave the world the image of Stan, Nas showed the world how to put "stan" to work, having used it in his classic 2001 diss track “Ether": "You a fan, a phony, a fake, a pussy, a Stan." His is the first recorded usage of "stan" as a label (and a pejorative one) for an obsessive fan rather than the name of the fan himself. From there "stan" slowly took off, and while the noun's pejorative meaning remains, the murderous intent it was originally associated with has nearly disappeared. Stans all over the world label themselves as such to express just how dedicated they are to a particular artist and their fandom.
Today, the word “stan” is just as popular as a verb as it is a noun, which got us wondering, who was the first to make this linguistic transformation? The advent of the internet has meant that the evolution of words, and slang in particular, takes place and spreads faster than ever before. For example, the phrase “on fleek,” according to website Know Your Meme, has actually been around since the early 2000s and was popularized by a viral Vine created by user Peaches Monroee in 2014. Despite being around for years, when the phrase entered pop culture its use spiralled out of control, and was subsequently coopted by celebrities and corporate marketing departments, sparking important discussions of ownership and appropriation of black youth culture. But it also shed some light on how word origins are determined in the digital age. UrbanDictionary and social media apps have taken on an important role in recording and tracking language usage, and thus have become key resources in the field of lexicography.
In the case of “stan,” Eminem named obsessive stalker fans for us, but it was consumers of that content that gave the word a new life. The first definitions of it as a verb don’t appear in UrbanDictionary until 2008. One posted in April of that year, seems to be personally motivated: “The act of being a complete asshole to somebody for no reason whatsoever.” Another posted in November is similarly personal, but offers the word’s common definition today: “To Stan: i.e. Obsess over Stan Shunpike. I can't believe I'm actually Stanning.”
But according to the folks at the Oxford English Dictionary, which tracks the historical usage of words, the first recorded use of “stan” as a verb that they have found so far was in a tweet from April 2008: “I stan for santogold. I may even like her more than MIA.” It got no replies, no retweets, and no likes, but could nevertheless prove to be an important historical artifact should “stan” make it into the OED. For now, though, it lives in the OED’s free online counterpart, Oxford Dictionaries, which focuses on current word usage, as well as the OED’s “watch list” — nearly 40,000 words strong — since 2010.
The OED's first recorded use of "stan" as a verb.
Twitter is a relatively new source for citations for the 133-year-old historical glossary, said Katherine Connor Martin, head of U.S. dictionaries for the OED. In the 19th century, lexicographers alone had access to the vast catalogue of index cards that recorded word use and origin from various written sources. But Martin said the internet, and social media in particular, have democratized this process: “Now we're using a lot of data that's available to anyone who chooses to look at it. That's a great thing because it allows the general public to correct us when we're wrong and provide us with more information.” Additionally, conversational online sources like Twitter preserve informal uses of language that, before the internet age, were simply lost to time. “If you think about the slang of kids in the late 19th century or the early 20th century, if young people are using slang terms amongst themselves they're not leaving much of a record of them. Maybe they write them in a letter to each other, but probably we have no record that these words ever existed at all,” Martin said. “Any slang that you're looking at after Twitter you have this amazing record of just ordinary people communicating with each other in a public way. So now, even words that aren’t popular in mainstream publications can have their histories preserved and tracked.”
We devoted a whole episode of our daily podcast, The Outline World Dispatch to stanning. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts or wherever else you listen.
Eminem stans, 2002
In the case of “stan” and its evolution from noun to verb, Martin said the 2008 tweet can’t be credited as the first time the shift happened, but rather is evidence that by that time, “stan” the verb was already in common use in certain online and real life communities and was beginning to spread. “One thing that makes it easy for words to shift in English is that we don't have a specific set of endings for nouns and verbs,” Martin said. “Stan noun becomes stan verb just by you using it that way… There's not a lot of morphological change that's required.”
Eminem stans (as portrayed by Mariah Carey), 2009
Parsing word origins is by no means a perfect science, but social media has helped lexicographers more than anyone could have predicted. So while modern dictionaries are still imperative historical records, they wouldn’t be nearly as complete if it weren’t for all of us sharing our everyday conversations and thoughts via messages, posts, and of course tweets. “Stan” is far from the only modern word to have its origins and evolution so closely tracked on social media. For example, the first usage of the word “tweet” known by the OED is a 2006 tweet that read, “Thanks for the new Twidget and knowing who likes my tweet and who don’t.” (The tweet has since been deleted.) But looking back on its well-recorded, pinpointable history, “stan” is perhaps one of the best examples of how pop culture and social media not only introduce new words into the mainstream, but record their evolutions, as well. |
MakerBot 3D Scanner
NEW YORK CITY — 3D-printing company MakerBot introduced on Friday its first desktop 3D scanner to go along with its printers, allowing you to scan objects that can then be replicated and printed in 3D.
Called the Digitizer, the $1,400 scanner creates 3D digital design files that are ready to print in 12 minutes. This means, for example, if you have a small figurine of a gnome or a shell you want replicated, the scanner will create the file the 3D printer will use to crank out a model.
SEE ALSO: This Gadget Turns Your iPad Into a Powerful 3D Scanner
"I've seen 3D scanners priced from thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands and each one was focused on something specific; for example, boat scanners are used to scan hulls of boats," Bre Pettis, CEO of MakerBot, said at the Digitizer's launch event at the company's headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. "We wanted something you could scan and make on a MakerBot replicator. When I realized there wasn't anything out there for our users, we started the internal project to see if it was even possible."
Here's how it works: The Digitizer takes consecutive pictures of the object as it slowly spins on what looks like a turntable. The accompanying software — compatible for Macs, PCs and Linux — processes the scanned image to interpret it as an object. You'll need to follow a few steps every time you want to scan something, such as selecting if the shading of an object is light or dark.
Once the scanning begins, a rendering will slowly appear on the computer screen. The scanner filters out the extra color, so it only sees the lines.
It can fit objects that measure up to 8 x 8 inches. It can scan items accurately down to a size of 2 x 2 inches, but it loses some precision when it's smaller than that.
The Digitizer, which will ship in early October, is intended not only for the companies already using MakerBot's printers (such as NASA and General Electric) — it's aimed at the average consumer, too.
Would you buy a Digitizer? Let us know in the comments.
Images: Mashable |
Thirteen years ago, USA Today obtained 74 pages of explosive court documents on Peyton Manning, Archie Manning, the University of Tennessee, and Florida Southern College that revealed allegations of a sexual-assault scandal, cover up, and smear campaign of the victim that was so deep, so widespread and so ugly that it would've rocked the American sports world to its core. Yet USA Today never released those documents for reasons I can't explain.
Mel Antonen, now a baseball writer for Sports Illustrated, wrote about the documents for the paper on Nov. 3, 2003. Three days later, Christine Brennan, longtime sportswriter for USA Today wrote an op-ed about Peyton Manning and the documents entitled, “Do you really know your sports hero?” but the scandal pretty much died right there.
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images Peyton Manning visibly reacts on the sideline to a loss to the Florida Gators at Neyland Stadium in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Facebook wouldn’t be invented for three more months. Twitter didn’t come for three more years. The word “viral” was still only being used to describe the spread of infectious diseases.
But when the documents were sent to me on Tuesday, two days after the Super Bowl, it was immediately clear to me that had the world actually known what they contained, it’s doubtful that Peyton would have ever been the “swell, golly, gee-whiz” pitchman for Nationwide Insurance, DirecTV or Papa John’s Pizza. Certainly, evangelical op-eds calling him “squeaky clean” and positioning Peyton as the arbiter of all things good and decent in the world simply wouldn’t be the case.
KING: RACIAL DOUBLE STANDARD BETWEEN CAM NEWTON AND PEYTON MANNING
But as his career winds down, we're left to grapple with the reality that there is credible evidence that Peyton and the Manning family knowingly, willingly, wantonly ruined the good name and career of Dr. Jamie Naughright, a respected scholar, speaker, professor, and trainer of some of the best athletes in the world.
On the morning after Super Bowl 50, I posted a picture on my Facebook page of Cam Newton smiling and embracing Peyton Manning after the game and simply asked why that warm photo wasn't being talked about instead of Cam being frustrated at the post-game press conference. It has since been shared more than 234,000 times and seen by more than 20 million people. It now has nearly 6,000 comments, but on that morning, just one leaped out at me, which mentioned something to the effect of "Peyton sexually assaulted a girl in college."
Now, I get a lot of crap posted on my Facebook page, but I decided, on a whim, to Google "Peyton Manning sexual assault University of Tennessee." That's how I discovered the two old USA Today articles about the case. Later that day, when I wrote an article on the racial double standards in the media between Peyton Manning and Cam Newton, I decided to mention the sexual assault case, and how the allegations had somehow slid right off of Peyton like virtually every other mistake he has ever made in his career.
JONATHAN ZIMMERMAN: WHEN BLACK ATHLETES CAN'T WIN
Less than 24 hours later, a source who claimed to see my article on the racial double standard, sent me a 74-page court document from Polk County court in Florida. Sitting in the San Francisco airport, waiting for a flight home, I opened the PDF, began reading, and felt like I had stumbled on to state secrets. I literally moved to where nobody could see my computer screen.
While Peyton Manning is not the president of the United States, in a land where football is king, he is the Captain America of sports and certainly one of the best quarterbacks of all time. He's also a prolific pitchman, the friendly face of several multi-billion dollar corporations.
This document says, in essence, that it's all a facade, an act, a well-designed for-profit creation, maintained and manicured at all cost. For me, it was like reading proof that the first Apollo moon landing was really a fictional tale filmed in a Hollywood studio designed to dupe us all. That flag, planted in the moon, seemingly blowing in the wind, was a ruse after all. Maybe B.o.B. was right on this one fact.
I read every single page in the airport before I boarded my flight. Maybe a good hundred times, I wondered to myself, Why — and how — had all of this been kept secret for so long?
Titled "Facts of the Case," and submitted to the court by the plaintiff's lawyers, the document, which warrants many more takes and reflections than what I will offer today, is simultaneously shocking, disgusting, painful, and infuriating. It offers us the living, breathing human names and faces of the individuals the American sports machine is willing to mow down in the name of profit and fame.
To begin with, Dr. Jamie Naughright was not "a girl" sexually assaulted by Peyton Manning; she was an esteemed professional widely admired by students and peers alike at the University of Tennessee, where she was the Director of Health & Wellness for the Men's Athletic Program. Originally from New Jersey, Naughright had made Knoxville her home away from home.
In 1991, she earned her B.A. from the University of Tennessee in Exercise Physiology with a Minor in Football Coaching (I didn't even know such a minor existed). A year later, with a 3.7 GPA, she earned her Master's Degree in Health Education and Promotion. A few years later, with a 3.925 GPA, she earned her doctorate from the University of Tennessee in Health Education and Wellness.
In fact, Jamie Naughright had been a staple across all sports programs at the University of Tennessee and had more tenure than most of the football staff, including the head coach at the time, Phillip Fulmer.
Tatiana Orellana/Youtube Dr. Jamie Naughright is a respected scholar, speaker, professor, and trainer of some of the best athletes in the world.
Starting as a student in 1988, Naughright devoted her entire life to the University of Tennessee athletic program. She was a student trainer for the women's athletic programs and a supervisor for intramural sports on campus. From 1989-91, she was the student trainer for the men's athletic department. After earning her bachelor's degree and entering grad school, she became the graduate assistant trainer for the men's athletic program for two years. Gifted and respected throughout the campus, she was hired as the assistant trainer for the entire men's athletic program in 1993, following a year as a full-time intern.
After two years in that role, she was hired as the Director of Health and Wellness for the Men's Athletic Program. In that position she developed widely acclaimed educational and medical programs for students and oversaw the drug testing of all of the male athletes. She presented academic papers, served as an instructor and lecturer for college courses, and traveled frequently with students and staff to conferences all over the country. She started successful community projects and raised funds for local charities.
While serving as the Director of Health and Wellness, Naughright also was the head trainer for Tennessee's track and field program, which includes cross country, indoor, and outdoor athletics. In that position she hired and trained 25 staff members, oversaw all medical care for every track and field athlete, served as the medical director for large events, coordinated annual physicals and supervised weekly drug testing. So many athletes — which would eventually include medal-winning Olympians — developed such a deep respect for Dr. Naughright that she would be requested to travel with them to international events and world championships.
In addition to all of her other responsibilities, Naughright served as the associate athletic trainer for the men's football program. Where you live probably determines how much you know or care about Southeastern Conference football. But in small- to medium-sized cities across the south — places like Knoxville, Tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, Gainesville — SEC football is just a little more important than God. The years Naughright was employed as the associate trainer by the men's football program, from 1996-98, were arguably the three best years in the modern history of the program, as the team won back-to-back SEC championships and the national title. Dr. Jamie Naughright was as an absolute force of nature in the University of Tennessee's sports program.
At that time, Naughright's education, training and ascension through the ranks of the University of Tennessee's athletic program should have culminated, after more than 10 years of service to the institution, with her being able to land any job she wanted. When football teams win SEC championships and national titles, key employees can pretty much dictate where in the sports world they want to work next. If Dr. Jamie Naughright was a man that likely would've been the case for her as well.
As an undergraduate in 1989, Naughright, who had interned for a year with the women's athletic programs (including the world-famous UT women's basketball team), was transferred to the men's programs. According to court documents and affidavits, her boss, associate trainer Mike Rollo, perceived Naughright to be a lesbian. Rollo, who had just left working with a group of young women he also thought to be lesbians, allegedly began calling Naughright "c--t bumper." This wasn't a rare occurrence or something he said to her only in private; he allegedly called her that in front of others. For three years, until 1992, when Naughright built up enough courage to complain, she said she was almost exclusively called "c--t bumper," or "bumper" for short, by a variety of staff members in the program (see court documents, pages 5-7; all subsequent references are to these).
According to the allegations in the documents, Rollo regularly referred to the women's teams, known as the Lady Volunteers, as the Lady Lickers. Naughright, who is not a lesbian, said she was told by Rollo that she would just have to get used to hearing such vulgarities. Since she was one of the first women to work in the men's program, the 20-year-old Naughright decided to endure the abuse if it meant she could serve as a pioneer of sorts for women in sports. After Naughright issued a formal complaint, Rollo and other staff members allegedly were ordered by administrators to cease the practice. While the name "c--t bumper" ceased, Rollo and the staff continued to call her "bumper" and would frequently add other sexual adjectives to it (see page 8).
Determined to persevere without jeopardizing her career, Naughright began writing policies for the program prohibiting foul or abusive language. First she instituted the policies for athletic training rooms, then later the male cheerleading program. Eventually she would train a variety of student athletes on the proper and professional use of appropriate language.
In the fall of 1994, Peyton Manning entered the University of Tennessee football program as the already-famous son of legendary college and pro football star Archie Manning. That semester, his first on campus, some type of incident involving Manning and Naughright occurred. By request of the counsel of Peyton Manning, the details of that incident have been sealed and three-and-a-half pages concerning it have been redacted from the permanent record (see pages 11-14).
Whatever happened, Naughright claims it colored and informed the professional interactions between Naughright and Manning from that time on and caused Manning to consistently harbor anger toward her. Yet in spite of the drama, Naughright served as the medical director for the NCAA Track and Field Championships in 1995 and was a member of the training staff for the Olympics trials for the 1996 Games in Atlanta.
To say that her problems with Peyton Manning boiled over in 1996 would be understating it.
On Feb. 29 of that year, Naughright, at that point the university's director of health and wellness, was in a training room, examining what she thought might be a possible stress fracture in Manning's foot. At 6 feet, 5 inches, his feet dangled off the edge of the table. Manning allegedly then proceeded to scoot down the training table while Naughright examined his foot. At that point, she said, he forcefully maneuvered his naked testicles and rectum directly on her face with his penis on top of her head. Shocked, disgusted, and offended, Naughright pushed Manning away, removing her head out from under him (see pages 14-15). Within hours, she reported the incident to the Sexual Assault Crisis Center in Knoxville (see page 18).
According to the court records, Manning initially denied the incident ever took place. It was a calculated risk. He was the star quarterback, a Heisman trophy hopeful, and a likely No. 1 pick in the NFL Draft. While Naughright was now a respected member of the staff, Manning was the star, the savior of Tennessee football. It was his word against hers.
Ezra Shaw/Getty Images While Peyton Manning is not the president of the United States, in a land where football is king, he is the Captain America of sports and certainly one of the best quarterbacks of all time.
When Rollo learned of the complaint, he allegedly concocted a story that Manning actually pulled down his pants to moon another student-athlete, Malcolm Saxon, who was nearby. According to Rollo, after mooning the student, Naughright just happened to move her head right into Manning's pelvic region. Rollo acknowledged under oath that he was the first person to use the word “mooning.”
One person, though, could settle all of this: Malcolm Saxon.
And, in fact, he did settle it. In an affidavit, Saxon refuted Manning's story and made it clear that Manning never mooned him. In a letter to Manning, Saxon, who stated that he lost his eligibility as a student-athlete over it, practically begged him to come forward and tell the truth (see page 20). Here's an excerpt from the letter:
First, I have stuck to my same story throughout this drama. I told Mike Rollo the next day and Coach Fulmer a week or two afterwards. I had nothing to hide at that point and I have nothing to hide today. I have never been on Jamie's side or on your side (contrary to what the athletic department was telling you and telling her). I stuck to the truth and I lost my eligibility for it. My redshirt request sat on Mike Rollo's desk for months as the process was going forward. I'm not angry about it anymore, just getting a little tired of it!!
Peyton, you messed up. I still don't know why you dropped your drawers. Maybe it was a mistake, maybe not. But it was definitely inappropriate. Please take some personal responsibility here and own up to what you did. I never understood why you didn't admit to it.…
Saxon goes on to tell Peyton things like:
Coming clean is the right thing to do.
AJ Mast/AP IMAGES PAPA JOHN�S NFL stars Peyton Manning (r.), Jerome Bettis (l.) and Papa John's Founder John Schnatter enjoy Papa John's pizza and Pepsi MAX during a commercial shoot.
You have shown no mercy or grace to this lady who was on her knees seeing if you had a stress fracture.
You might as well maintain some dignity and admit to what happened.
Your celebrity doesn't mean that you can treat folks this way.
For anybody other than Peyton Manning, such damning statements from a fellow student who had no dog in the fight would have been the nail in their coffin. As a general rule, it's not just gross to smash your testicles on a woman's face, it's a crime.
I'm embarrassed to even be typing such things, but imagine if a grown man forced his genitals on to the face of your daughter or sister or mother or beloved colleague. What would you think about that? Would you tell your wife, "Well, that's gross, honey. How was the rest of your day?" Would you ask your daughter, "What she did to deserve that?" Of course you wouldn't. You'd be outraged.
When Rollo was asked, under oath, if the woman he had known for more than seven years would respond in such a way to being mooned, he repeatedly said no (see pages 15-16). Yet he allegedly concocted the mooning narrative, nonetheless.
Instead, the school asked Naughright to leave. Having poured her heart and soul out to the University of Tennessee for nearly 10 years, she agreed, as a part of a settlement agreement, to part ways.
Before she left, though, two staff members of the school, according to the documents, asked Naughright if she would consider blaming the entire incident not on Manning, but on another athlete — a black one. According to Naughright, the staff members (named as Mr. Wyant and Mr. Rollo), went so far as to actually name a specific black athlete she could blame it on. Of course, she refused (see pages 18-19).
In her remaining time at the university, Naughright testified that Manning, in her presence, on two separate occasions, deliberately reenacted the sexual assault on other student athletes to terrorize her. On another occasion he allegedly called her a "bitch" in front of other athletes after snatching a marker used to label drug-test specimens from her hand and throwing it across the room (see page 22).
When Naughright finally left the University of Tennessee it was both heartbreaking and a great relief. She was hired to be an assistant professor and the program director of the Athletic Education Training Program at Florida Southern College. For more than three years she served Florida Southern with great distinction. She received, according to the court documents, regular raises, outstanding reviews, and was credited for helping grow the program in measurable ways.
In 1998, she served as the head athletic trainer for the U.S. women's track and field program in Beijing. Two years later, she was hired to be the head athletic trainer for the both the men's and women's USA track and field teams in their competition versus Canada. Her professional life had clearly turned a corner. Beloved both by athletes and her colleagues, Naughright had decided she'd never discuss the sexual assault by Manning publicly. In fact, both she and Manning signed a confidentiality agreement when she left the University of Tennessee that they would not discuss it.
Yet, in 2001, after moving on and revitalizing her career, everything came crashing down again. Now a quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts, and more famous than ever, Manning violated the confidentiality agreement in a way that could not be undone. It has scarred Naughright like a scarlet letter to this very day.
On May 16th, 2001, Naughright returned to Florida after accompanying her students on an educational and medical trip to South Africa. When she arrived at her office, she found a large manilla envelope in a receptacle on her door with the words "Dr. Vulgar Mouth Whited" printed on it (see page 1). Whited was Naughright's married name for most of her time at the University of Tennessee. She was immediately disturbed. Other employees testified that the envelope had been there for a few days before she arrived home from South Africa.
In it, were Xerox copies from some type of publication. It appeared to be written by Peyton Manning and it was about her. Colleagues who saw her after opening it testified that she was shaken up by what she read. Manning and his father, Archie, had written a book called "The Mannings" and perhaps wanting to put their stamp on the incident in Knoxville before it ever reached the public, they threw Naughright under bus.
Her supervisor at Florida Southern had already opened the envelope and read what was in it. What Manning said about her ruined her career at Florida Southern and in college athletics once and for all. After years of amazing reviews and great work at the university, the controversy from the book and the stress it created eventually caused Dr. Jamie Naughright to be let go, once again, for doing nothing wrong.
It appears that Peyton and Archie Manning thought Naughright would accept what they did to her quietly. They were wrong. This time, she did file suit against Peyton Manning, Archie Manning, the ghostwriter John Underwood, and the publisher Harper Collins. Manning and his lawyers asked for the case to be dismissed, but Polk County Circuit Judge Harvey A. Kornstein not only denied the motion but put Peyton Manning, his father, and the others on blast. In his statement, he said:
"Even if the plaintiff is a public figure, the evidence of record contains sufficient evidence to satisfy the court that a genuine issue of material fact exists that would allow a jury to find, by clear and convincing evidence, the existence of actual malice of the part of the defendants.
Jonathan Bachman/AP Archie Manning walks on the sideline before an NFL football game against the Detroit Lions in New Orleans.
"Specifically, there is evidence of record, substantial enough to suggest that the defendants knew that the passages in question were false, or acted in reckless disregard of their falsity. There is evidence of record to suggest that there were obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of Peyton Manning's account of the incident in question. The court further finds that there is sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that the defendants entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the passages in this case."
In other words, Judge Kornstein said that there is evidence to support the conclusion that Peyton Manning lied in his book about the incidents and knew that he was lying about the incidents.
Under deposition, it was learned from their ghostwriter, John Underwood, that Archie Manning, speaking of Dr. Jamie Naughright said, "He didn't really like this girl" (see page 24).
Playing a bit of good cop, bad cop, Peyton said, "I certainly didn't dislike her. I thought she had a vulgar mouth, but I always tried to be nice." Peyton went on to describe a few favors that he did for Dr. Naughright, including one on a trip to Virginia, where, at Naughright's request, he gave some younger students a ride somewhere (see page 25).
When forced to testify about this incident in a deposition, attorneys asked Peyton to describe a specific incident when Dr. Naughright had a "vulgar mouth." He could only think of one — it was during the Virginia trip. According to Manning, Dr. Naughright said to him, "These motherf---ers are yours. Get these motherf---ers off my hands for a little while."
It appears that Manning, who was under oath, completely concocted this story out of thin air. Again, just as he expected the student athlete, Malcolm Saxon, to go along with the story of his mooning Naughright, he assumed that the plethora of witnesses in Virginia would also go along with his new lie. Unfortunately for him, they didn't (see page 26).
On the trip to Charlottesville, Va., five University of Tennessee students were selected to go to the NCAA's annual APPLE Conference, a training symposium on substance-abuse prevention and health promotion for student athletes and athletic department administrators. One was Manning. Three were teammates from the football team: Eric Lane, Scott Pfeiffer and Tyrone Hines. The last, Geno Devane, was a track and field athlete.
The other four students, all juniors and seniors, were all older than Manning, who was a sophomore. Under oath, they each testified that Manning never gave them a ride anywhere that night and never would have. It was a peculiar story. But the strangest — and most damning — part of their testimony, though, was that they each made it abundantly clear that they never heard Naughright say one vulgar word that night or any other. Devane, a medical student at the time of his testimony, said, "I can assure you that I would remember. I would have been very upset if that had occurred. That type of language would have been completely out of character because she was always very professional around me and other student-athletes."
Furthermore, Devane recalls very clearly who drove the athletes that night and it wasn't Manning; it was Eric Lane (see page 28).
Devane's testimony gets even more damning. Line by line, and statement by statement, he repeatedly testifies, "I unequivocally state that this did not occur," regarding virtually every aspect of the story Manning concocted.
For some, the testimony of Eric Lane can be considered even worse than that of Devane. Lane was not only Manning's teammate, but also his fullback on offense. At the time of his testimony he was an employee of the University of Tennessee and in the final year of law school. He also testified that he could not recall any such thing ever being said or done by Naughright (see page 29).
Jill Griffin, the head of the Metropolitan Drug Commission in Knoxville, who was also on the trip, roomed with Naughright and spent a great deal of time with her, testified that she never heard Naughright say a vulgar word over the entire history of them knowing each other and, furthermore, that she never heard her calling students by vulgar names. In fact, Griffin testified that Naughright was exceedingly professional at all times with the students (see pages 30-33).
While not personal friends, Griffin and Naughright worked together on the drug commission for over three years. She testified that she was an "excellent board member," and that she "had a good reputation in the Knoxville community and on the Metropolitan Drug Commission."
ASSOCIATED PRESS A 1997 photo of Peyton Manning.
But it gets worse. Much worse.
Soon after the alleged sexual assault, records show that Manning told the school, "I have never approved of Jamie's vulgar language. It has always been my opinion, along with the majority of the team, that Jamie wants to be one of the guys."
To his father, he concocted far worse lies that were torn apart, one by one, when he and others were forced to testify under oath. He told his father, Archie, "she's kind of trashy," and "had the most vulgar mouth of any girl he'd ever seen" and "was unattractive but had big breasts" and had "been out with a bunch of black guys" and "had a toilet mouth."
Under oath, the ghostwriter, John Underwood revealed that Archie Manning suggested to him that Naughright was going into the dorms and having sex with large numbers of black student athletes. After saying that she was up in the dorms with black students, Archie, states:
And, she'd, she'd, been up in the dorm before, I mean hey, you know, they could have, you know, could have pulled off stuff on her too. Ah, she, toilet mouth, ah Peyton told me he never did like her, but he always did, cause what I'd told him to do, ah, I instructed him to be nice to the tr- … don't ever look down on a trainer or an equipment person you know.
According to the records, attorneys for Naughright drilled person after person, staff member after staff member, asking them to identify an instance where they heard Naughright use vulgar language. Not a single person could do so. One after another, those who claimed she was promiscuous admitted under oath that they didn't have any evidence to support such claims. Instead, everyone, to the person, claimed they had just heard such charges from somebody who heard from somebody that it might be true (see pages 37-40). No one with firsthand knowledge testified to her ever being vulgar or having sexual relationships with student athletes.
In fact, the opposite was true.
Lawrence Johnson, an Olympic silver medalist and gold medalist at the World Indoor Games, testified at great length to the character, compassion, professionalism, and overall amazing nature of Dr. Jamie Naughright (see pages 42-43). He testified that he believed he had attended at least 80 different local, national, and international events with her and that he had not heard her a single vulgar word in the 10 years he had known and worked with her. He testified that she was "professional and proper" in her conduct, appearance, and demeanor. He went on testify how she came to check on him at his bedside after surgeries and traveled with him to meets all over the world to ensure his peak performance.
Another student athlete, Antonio Brewer, who has known Naughright since 1995, testified that he personally knew her to have high moral character and that her reputation for being a moral person was actually well-known at the university. He testified that he had never heard her use vulgar language of any kind (see page 43) and that he was deeply offended by the racist suggestion made by Archie Manning that she was sleeping around with black athletes.
Until this very day, have you ever seen a single interview with Dr. Jamie Naughright trashing Peyton Manning? Me neither. I never knew that any of this happened until last week. My understanding is that she has not worked in college athletics since being let go from Florida Southern.
The defamation suit was settled in 2003 but terms were not disclosed. Naughright settled her suit againt the University of Tennessee for a reported $300,000.
The book, which trashes the character of Dr. Jamie Naughright, continues to be sold to this very day, while Peyton Manning continues to benefit from his reputation not only as a superstar quarterback, but also an individual of high moral character. In fact, he has reaped tens of millions of dollars in endorsement deals based on a fraudulent mystique he's cultivated as a good guy, an upstanding citizen, the ideal professional athlete.
This document alone puts the lie to all this. He hasn't come close to apologizing for sexually assaulting Dr. Jamie Naughright. Quite the contrary, he besmirched her stellar reputation and character. The price he should have paid for what he did her — at very least — she has ended paying over and over again, both at the University of Tennessee and, later, at Southern Florida. |
Lloyd Dyer's goal was his first for Burton since mid-August, when they beat Sheffield Wednesday 3-1
Burton Albion scored a goal in each half to deservedly win their first competitive meeting with Birmingham.
The visitors, managed by former Burton boss Gary Rowett, pinned the Brewers back in the opening exchanges.
But Jackson Irvine then tested Blues keeper Adam Legzdins before former Birmingham loan signing Lloyd Dyer put Burton ahead with a superb finish.
Jamie Ward volleyed the second, before skipper Michael Morrison headed Blues' best chance wide from a late corner.
Burton's second victory in nine league games lifts Nigel Clough's side six places to 13th in the Championship, while Birmingham remain fifth after only their third defeat of the season - but their second on successive Fridays.
The home side initially struggled to get out of their own half, creating their first clear chance when former Burton keeper Legzdins used his legs to deny Irvine after former Aston Villa trainee Ward flicked on.
Northern Ireland international Ward then provided the pass for 34-year-old Dyer to run onto, and he gave the Blues keeper no chance with the outside of his left foot.
Ward forced Legzdins to a smart near-post save after outsmarting Ryan Shotton, but benefitted from a marginal offside decision to drive home the second as Burton made it six games unbeaten in matches played on Friday evenings.
Burton's Tom Naylor was one of six players shown yellow cards during the game
Burton Albion boss Nigel Clough told BBC Radio Derby:
"Quite often this season we haven't got what we deserved but tonight we could have won by more than two. That is the next stage for us, to really get the results that our performances deserve.
"Psychologically, it is important for us to try and stay out of the bottom three if we can. It is going to be a battle to do that but nights like tonight undoubtedly help.
"Jamie Ward has made one and scored one. That is what we brought him in for - that little bit of quality. The balance between him and Chris O'Grady is important.
"Chris is working his socks off up there. He is such a great team player and appreciated by everyone in the dressing room."
Birmingham City manager Gary Rowett told BBC WM:
"We were very poor but Burton thoroughly deserved it. They showed a bit more energy and drive on a difficult evening for us.
"Derby and Sheffield Wednesday have found out the hard way here too. Nigel has got a good side, who play with real forward impetus and quality. They'll turn a lot of teams over here, playing like that.
"For the first 15 or 20 minutes, the game panned out how we wanted and we exploited the spaces. But then they got back into it, worked what we were doing and started to pin us back with their wing-backs.
"After that we didn't play with anywhere near enough quality. We're going to have to be a lot better than that against Aston Villa next week." |
Kanye West is headed back to the United States for the first time since February. The G.O.O.D. Music rapper/producer will be leaving his Parisian confines to make an appearance as the musical guest on the May 18th episode of Saturday Night Live.
Page Six reports:
Kanye West is due back in the States next month, Page Six has exclusively learned, but it’s not necessarily to rush to the side of his very pregnant reality star girlfriend, Kim Kardashian. Sources tell us the rapper — who’s been working on a new album in France — will appear as musical guest on “SNL” on May 18. West’s been holed up in a palatial pad ever since Paris fashion week in February, leaving his baby mama alone to brave pregnancy and public scrutiny over her weight, maternity fashions and upcoming divorce trial with Kris Humphries. Sources tell us the rapper’s even pondering a permanent move to Paris. An NBC rep would only say the show hasn’t announced its lineup.
The most recent rapper to perform on SNL was Kendrick Lamar back in January, but Jay-Z did make an appearance when Justin Timberlake was the musical guest, and host, in March. Miguel is the latest artist to grace the SNL stage doing so this past weekend.
This isn’t the first time Yeezy has appeared on SNL. In 2010, he wooed the crowd to some of his My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy cuts. |
A Canadian special forces soldier has died in Iraq, the first life lost in this country's military deployment to fight Islamic State extremists.
Sergeant Andrew Joseph Doiron was killed Friday, March 6 in what the Canadian Armed Forces are calling a friendly-fire incident.
Three other Canadian soldiers were injured and receiving medical care. The Forces have not divulged the extent of their injuries except to say they're in "stable condition."
Story continues below advertisement
The military says the shots that killed Sgt. Doiron came from the Kurdish fighters whom Canadians have been assigned to train in northern Iraq.
This first Canadian death in Iraq, during what the Harper government insists is a non-combat mission, will weigh heavily on the Conservatives as they make plans to extend a deployment that is up for renewal at the end of March.
"Sergeant Doiron was killed while conducting advise and assist operations in Iraq when he and other members of the Special Operations Forces were mistakenly engaged by Iraqi Kurdish forces following their return to an observation post behind the front lines," Defence Minister Jason Kenney said in a statement.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered condolences to Sgt. Doiron's family, friends and colleagues as he saluted the fallen soldier.
"Sergeant Doiron lost his life in the line of duty. We will honour and remember his service to Canada," the prime minister said in a statement.
"This tragic incident reminds us of the very real risks that our brave men and women in uniform assume on our behalf to defend the freedoms that we cherish," Mr. Harper said in a statement.
He wished the injured soldiers a speedy recovery and said his government remains resolved to stay in Iraq.
Story continues below advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
"Almost daily we see new evidence of the violent threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant," the prime minister said.
"More than ever, it is imperative that we, along with the more than sixty countries in the coalition, continue the campaign to halt ISIL's spread and reduce its capacity to carry out terrorist attacks abroad and here in Canada."
Sgt. Doiron was with the Canadian Special Operations Regiment and based at CFB Petawawa, Ontario.
The special forces, roughly 69 of them, were sent to help training Kurdish fighters last September in a mission that was billed as non-combat and one where the elite troops would work far behind the front lines.
But it was revealed in late January that the troops had been accompanying their charges to the largely static forward outposts, and they had been involved in three firefights with extremists.
And they were even guiding coalition airstrikes by "painting" extremist positions with for pointers for the laser-guided bombs.
Story continues below advertisement
From the beginning, Harper has acknowledged the danger.
"We don't think the risks are enormous but the risks are very real," the prime minister said in Newport, Wales, on the day he announced the deployment.
This military advisory mission is one of two Canadian deployments to Iraq which form Operation Impact.
More than 600 Canadian Armed Forces personnel are in Kuwait supporting an aerial combat mission that includes six CF-18 fighters bombing Islamic Forces targets in Iraq as well as two surveillance planes and a flying refueling tanker.
The Conservatives used their Commons majority last fall to pass a motion endorsing Operation Impact for a six month period that concludes at the end of March
The government has repeatedly signaled it wants to remain in the fight against Islamic State forces, a military commitment that Canadians to date have strongly supported.
Story continues below advertisement
Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau mourned Sgt. Doiron's death and thanked the injured troops for their service.
"On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I offer my sincere condolences to the entire Canadian Armed Forces family at this very sad time," Mr. Trudeau said in a statement.
With files from the Canadian Press |
HOOSICK FALLS, N.Y. — One resident called 911 asking whether the village’s water would burn his skin off. Families have lined up to have their blood drawn and their wells tested. Banks stopped giving out mortgages, and some local residents stopped washing their dishes, their clothes and themselves. Erin Brockovich has been to town.
Such are the unpleasant contours of a public health emergency that is playing out in Hoosick Falls, a quiet river-bend village near the New York-Vermont border that has been upended by disclosures that the public water supply was tainted with high levels of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, a toxic chemical linked in some studies to an increased risk for cancer, thyroid disease and serious complications during pregnancy.
Last week, a federal class-action lawsuit was filed against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International, the current and former owners of the plant that, according to the state, was the source of the PFOA contamination. The toxic chemical is associated with the making of Teflon, which was used in products manufactured at the plant.
After the revelation of lead contamination in Flint, Mich., where Gov. Rick Snyder’s response was widely criticized, the situation in Hoosick Falls has provoked both deep concern about water quality and a heightened scrutiny of how public officials have responded. |
Here is an aerial view of the region where we worked.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3703/9403084254_a60e3c954b.jpg
We worked with the military stationed in the region.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2890/9400323399_30de9845c8.jpg
Most people think Afghanistan is a big sandbox, but soils in the valleys range from Loamy Sand to Clay Loam; good soils to grow most anything and similar to many places in the US.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/9403084100_57988b9c62.jpg
Start seeds early and plant crops that are adapted for your area. We used open pollinated seeds since people in Afghanistan save their seeds and have had problems saving seeds from a good crop of hybrids not producing the next year. It is good to keep this in mind and know the difference.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5485/9403084022_d2c40deca4.jpg
Get the right tools for the job. Take into consideration what tools are available in the area.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3708/9400323167_f99292b9ec.jpg
Get your fertilizer. We used manure and stayed away from commercial fertilizers that could have alternative and destructive uses.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2894/9403083836_cb298dd63b.jpg
We strived to use 1880's technology - before the gas engine and electricity. This would allow locals to continue to use our methods even after we left. This is also useful knowledge in the event that power went out in the US for a period of time. Low tech = sustainable.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7359/9403083716_22eb213786.jpg
In Afghanistan many people lost their knowledge of farming due to 30-years of war. Many cannot read or write so in the past they learned from their elders passing on knowledge. This chain of information was deeply impacted by war...loss of life, being displaced from their homes and/or living in refugee camps has all but wiped out the current population's knowledge of farming. Similarly, here in the US we see a disconnect between the consumer and the producer, how many people still have a connection to farming or even know someone that farms?
To begin re-teaching the basics of farming we put the word out for villagers to come to a field day.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5327/9403083648_67befcf968.jpg
We had a good farmer turnout for our field day where we demonstrated each step of starting a garden or small-scale farm. Here we are putting fertilizer in a small bed then mixing it in with the soil.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7342/9400322783_baf201e344.jpg
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5339/9403083436_5858177924.jpg
Some of our projects got quite large and involved a lot of people. It was good to to see the community coming together. There is a real benefit to pooling resources and knowing who you can count on, what their abilities are and also identifying your own skill set.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2892/9403083366_6211088ab2.jpg
Bed preparation: In a dry climate, you make planting beds with a dike around them to hold water in, whereas in a wet/tropical climate you plant on a raised bed so water runs off. In a temperate climate, such a Iowa, you plant on the flat.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5325/9403083312_8b2fd1d3d8.jpg
Some beds were watered before planting.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5342/9400322433_055c6d2e04.jpg
We held planting demos throughout the project.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3709/9403082400_f4766c26b4.jpg
Our demonstration farms varied from ¼ acre to 3 acres in size. Planted were the main crops locals were accustomed to in AF.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5521/9400322363_7d426d4bd5.jpg
We left enough room for the creeper to get out.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5518/9403082310_31bef31cc5.jpg
Weeds were not much of an issue in the dry areas so we did not have a need for pesticides. This was a good thing since most of the pesticides came from Pakistan and you couldn’t be sure what was actually in the bottle – besides since many farmers could not read it would’ve been hard for them to maintain a regimen using pesticides.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2831/9400322263_856bd478e3.jpg
One thing we tried but did not work well was this stair garden, which dried out much too fast in this desert climate. This set up would work much better in a wet climate.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3819/9403082970_a6fa736e68.jpg
Working in the desert climate it was extremely important to water only what needed to be watered, never waste water. Over watering could also be problematic because you want the plant roots to go down in search of natural water sources. We got lots of buy-in from the villages; many kids would come and play - a good sign in AF. If kids were out it meant that you could expect to have a good day free from violence.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2831/9403082870_8eed07f84b.jpg
Harvest: We were able to increase yields more than 300% utilizing only the tools and technology available to the local population at each project location. Was it sustainable? Yes. We ensured sustainability through teaching and leaving behind the “know-how” to repeat the process.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5544/9403082214_5cba1e5010.jpg
If you are unsure of the crop you’re planting, start small. A 4x4 foot area is enough to see success but not too much to lose if it doesn’t work out. You always learn from mistakes.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5453/9400321995_7614033b51.jpg
The average size farm in Afghanistan is 1 to 3 acres and sustains a family of eight. Each farm is fenced or walled to maintain security.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5537/9403082658_4f628be559.jpg
Security for your property is very important to keep in mind when planning your garden/farm layout. Livestock and wild animals can wreak havoc on crops. Additionally, other people can also become a threat under the right conditions. For example, what if you had food and you neighbor had none?
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2839/9403082576_f39808c8a9.jpg
All in all my experience in Afghanistan was very positive. There were some close calls…
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2813/9400321737_5b0b5b5873.jpg
but, I also got to meet a lot of interesting people.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2891/9403082100_f99f98b5c3.jpg
We accomplished our mission and, through our work, reduced conflict, which saved lives!
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7374/9400323577_e92500e303.jpg
I hope you found this informative and if you have any questions, let me know. -- Combat Farmer Through my business, I worked in Afghanistan on agriculture projects designed to assist with stabilization efforts in the region. I want to share with you some of the lessons learned along with some photos. I hope these are beneficial to those of you looking into or already working on low tech, sustainable farming/gardening projects here in the states.Here is an aerial view of the region where we worked.We worked with the military stationed in the region.Most people think Afghanistan is a big sandbox, but soils in the valleys range from Loamy Sand to Clay Loam; good soils to grow most anything and similar to many places in the US.Start seeds early and plant crops that are adapted for your area. We used open pollinated seeds since people in Afghanistan save their seeds and have had problems saving seeds from a good crop of hybrids not producing the next year. It is good to keep this in mind and know the difference.Get the right tools for the job. Take into consideration what tools are available in the area.Get your fertilizer. We used manure and stayed away from commercial fertilizers that could have alternative and destructive uses.We strived to use 1880's technology - before the gas engine and electricity. This would allow locals to continue to use our methods even after we left. This is also useful knowledge in the event that power went out in the US for a period of time. Low tech = sustainable.In Afghanistan many people lost their knowledge of farming due to 30-years of war. Many cannot read or write so in the past they learned from their elders passing on knowledge. This chain of information was deeply impacted by war...loss of life, being displaced from their homes and/or living in refugee camps has all but wiped out the current population's knowledge of farming. Similarly, here in the US we see a disconnect between the consumer and the producer, how many people still have a connection to farming or even know someone that farms?To begin re-teaching the basics of farming we put the word out for villagers to come to a field day.We had a good farmer turnout for our field day where we demonstrated each step of starting a garden or small-scale farm. Here we are putting fertilizer in a small bed then mixing it in with the soil.Some of our projects got quite large and involved a lot of people. It was good to to see the community coming together. There is a real benefit to pooling resources and knowing who you can count on, what their abilities are and also identifying your own skill set.Bed preparation: In a dry climate, you make planting beds with a dike around them to hold water in, whereas in a wet/tropical climate you plant on a raised bed so water runs off. In a temperate climate, such a Iowa, you plant on the flat.Some beds were watered before planting.We held planting demos throughout the project.Our demonstration farms varied from ¼ acre to 3 acres in size. Planted were the main crops locals were accustomed to in AF.We left enough room for the creeper to get out.Weeds were not much of an issue in the dry areas so we did not have a need for pesticides. This was a good thing since most of the pesticides came from Pakistan and you couldn’t be sure what was actually in the bottle – besides since many farmers could not read it would’ve been hard for them to maintain a regimen using pesticides.One thing we tried but did not work well was this stair garden, which dried out much too fast in this desert climate. This set up would work much better in a wet climate.Working in the desert climate it was extremely important to water only what needed to be watered, never waste water. Over watering could also be problematic because you want the plant roots to go down in search of natural water sources. We got lots of buy-in from the villages; many kids would come and play - a good sign in AF. If kids were out it meant that you could expect to have a good day free from violence.Harvest: We were able to increase yields more than 300% utilizing only the tools and technology available to the local population at each project location. Was it sustainable? Yes. We ensured sustainability through teaching and leaving behind the “know-how” to repeat the process.If you are unsure of the crop you’re planting, start small. A 4x4 foot area is enough to see success but not too much to lose if it doesn’t work out. You always learn from mistakes.The average size farm in Afghanistan is 1 to 3 acres and sustains a family of eight. Each farm is fenced or walled to maintain security.Security for your property is very important to keep in mind when planning your garden/farm layout. Livestock and wild animals can wreak havoc on crops. Additionally, other people can also become a threat under the right conditions. For example, what if you had food and you neighbor had none?All in all my experience in Afghanistan was very positive. There were some close calls…but, I also got to meet a lot of interesting people.We accomplished our mission and, through our work, reduced conflict, which saved lives!I hope you found this informative and if you have any questions, let me know. -- |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.