text:
Washington, D.C.
(Note: The opening remarks and question-and-answer session have been transcribed from the meeting. Senator McCain's remarks appear here as prepared for delivery.)
NANCY ROMAN: Hello, I think we're ready to get started. Thank you all so much for being here. I'm Nancy Roman, director of our Washington Program here, and today is really a double treat, because at first we have Senator [John] McCain, and I won't take much time because you're eager to hear from him, but I very much want to welcome our Chairman Pete Peterson. It's a pleasure to have him, and we rarely get him down here. And I told Senator McCain he's one of the rare few who could draw him. So, thank you very much, Pete.
PETER PETERSON: It's an immense pleasure to be able to introduce a very good friend, and indeed a role model, if I may be frank about it. You know, sometimes it's humorous to have an anecdote or two that has an element of truth, even if a bit ironic, and, Senator, a couple of anecdotes that, in an ironic sense, have a relationship to you.
When I was in corporate life in Chicago in the '60s, there was some transcendent legislative issue that was so transcendent I can't even remember what it was now, but it was very important to my company to get this bill passed. And [former] Senator Everett Dirksen [R-Ill.] was our senator, and he had promised to support this bill. Along the time came for a vote, and he didn't support the bill. So I, of course, went in to see him. And before I can say a word he said, "Pete, you're probably wondering whether I am a man of high principle." I said, "As a matter of fact, that thought had crossed my mind, yes." He says, "I'm a man of very high principle, and my first principle is total flexibility." And, John, you'll remember that sonorous bass voice of his, so what could I do but laugh and go on.
A second story relates to President George Bush, Sr., who at a certain point was being pilloried, as you may recall, for his changed positions on such subjects as voodoo economics, and a few other subjects. He stands up before this group and he said, "I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that in view of my changed positions on voodoo economics, and this and that, whether I have the courage of my convictions." He pounded the lectern and he said, "I want you to know, I do have the courage of my convictions, I just don't happen to agree with them."
Now, Senator McCain is the opposite [of] these. He's wonderfully inflexible when it comes to his basic principles, and he has courage in every dimension, it seems to me: physical, political, and, indeed, moral. And today, I'm sure he's going to demonstrate that yet again on matters of national security and foreign policy in Iraq. But in my experience, he's always demonstrated that mind-set in domestic policy as well.
Some of you, at least, may recall in the early '90s, my dear friend and John's dear friend, [former Senator] Warren Rudman [R-N.H.] and I, and [former Senator] Paul Tsongas [R-Mass.] set up something called the Concord Coalition devoted to long-term fiscal responsibility and generational equity, which is a fancy word for fairness to our children and grandchildren. And as we look at the current situation at the Concord Coalition, at least— our current [situation], of course, is neither fiscally responsible nor is it fair to our children and our grandchildren. And it strikes us as rather interesting that LBJ [former President Lyndon B. Johnson] got pilloried for guns and butter during the Vietnam War, but now we've got guns and butter and tax cuts, and we're confronting the fascinating situation that I think is unprecedented; that if one asked what sacrifice we're being asked to make it's hard to know unless accepting a tax cut is somehow a sacrifice in some way.
And it's also unprecedented as to our defending from foreign capital, which is now at absolutely record levels, over 5 percent of the GDP [gross domestic product]. But in this area, too, John McCain has been a principled and courageous advocate. And the Concord Coalition is deeply honored that he's been graceful enough to accept our Annual Economic Patriot Award, because I consider him a great patriot in every sense of that word.
I've been asked, incidentally, to remind you that the meeting is on the record, as you can obviously see. Please turn off your cell phones, but not your hearing aides, of course, and it's my great pleasure to introduce Senator John McCain.
JOHN McCAIN: Thank you, Pete. Thank you for your kind words. Thank you for your continued crusade for fiscal sanity and stability on behalf of our children and grandchildren.
America faces today our biggest foreign policy test in a generation. The deteriorating security situation in Iraq in the past several weeks vividly emphasizes the difficulties inherent in bringing stability to that country, and is a wake-up call to policymakers in Washington.
Given events on the ground, and the resulting debate that has taken place in this town, it is worth reviewing why we needed to go to war in the first place, why we must prevail, and how our conduct in Iraq fits with America's broader foreign policy principles. The way in which we handle Iraq today will impact the Iraqi people, America, and the world for a generation or more. The costs of failure in Iraq are unacceptably high. The benefits of success, on the other hand, are extraordinary.
Why we are in Iraq
By early 2003, the status quo on Iraq was crumbling and could not be sustained. The international sanctions regime no longer constrained Saddam's ability to spend money as he wished, and the regime was growing stronger, not weaker, under the existing sanctions. At the same time, critics around the world were demanding that those sanctions that remained be lifted. U.S. and British warplanes patrolled the no-fly zones, taking fire from anti-aircraft guns on a weekly basis. America was forced to keep troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, in an overtly hostile environment, with no light at the end of the tunnel. International pressure on Saddam was wavering, and intensified only when the United States showed a determination to deal with him once and for all. Even the renewed inspections in 2002 and 2003 took place only when Saddam was confronted with coalition troops deployed to his borders— an obviously unsustainable situation— and even then he refused to cooperate fully.
We must also remember the mockery his regime made of the United Nations Security Council. He violated no less than 17 Security Council resolutions. If the word of the United Nations is ever to be worth more than a press release, there must be enforcement.
Some have argued that the U.S. exaggerated Saddam's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs, and therefore Iraq posed no threat. It is important to learn precisely what happened to Iraq's weapons, and to examine failures of our pre-war intelligence. That is why I have agreed to serve on the bipartisan commission that will examine WMD-related intelligence. But we must also recall the facts as we knew them in March 2003. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons, and might be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. European intelligence services concluded that Saddam likely had active WMD programs. Eight years of UNSCOM [United Nations Special Commission] inspections concluded Iraq was lying. Even [chief U.N. weapons inspector] Hans Blix and the U.N. inspectors assumed the regime was concealing weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam had secretly destroyed these weapons, he had numerous opportunities to document this destruction. But he did not do so.
At the same time, the world was painfully familiar with Saddam's use of WMD in the past, including his barbaric chemical attacks on Iranians and Kurds. We knew that Saddam was by far the most belligerent leader in the region, having invaded and pillaged Kuwait, launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president. We also knew of Saddam's past involvement in terrorism, and his hatred of America.
We had three choices— deal with Saddam early, while we could; deal with Saddam later, after sanctions had lost force and he had furthered his weapons ambitions; or simply sit back and hope for the best. The 9-11 Commission has spent months investigating who might be at fault for failing to connect disparate dots, and for inaction in the face of grave threat. In Iraq, the dots were connected.
Even those in Iraq who claim that all WMD were destroyed suggest that Saddam planned to restart his programs once the time was right— presumably, once sanctions had fallen apart, he had his hands on billions of dollars in oil revenues, and international attention was again distracted. But let us assume for the sake of argument that Saddam had forever abandoned his WMD ambitions. Is it then wrong to have toppled the dictator?
I supported humanitarian intervention in order to stop genocide in Kosovo. I wish that the U.S. had acted— with force if necessary— to stop genocide in Rwanda. In neither of these places were America's vital national security interests at stake, though our national values were. Murder in Kosovo and genocide in Rwanda demanded intervention. Time and time again, the world has witnessed vast brutality, done nothing, and then said "never again." But it takes determined action to stop these tragedies. With the final erosion of sanctions, how long would the Kurdish population of Iraq have remained beyond Saddam's reach? How many more mass graves would he have filled, how many more women raped, critics' tongues cut out, children tortured? The U.S., which on three occasions encouraged Iraqis to revolt, had a responsibility to take up this charge, and we have liberated 25 million Iraqis from a state of near slavery.
These are the reasons why we are in Iraq today. Now that we have toppled Saddam and liberated the Iraqi people, we must succeed in our ambition to help bring freedom and democracy to the country. We are not trying to turn Iraqis into Americans. We are promoting values that are universal. Iraqis are no more willing than Americans to endure beatings, terror, and a lack of freedom. We can argue about the steps the administration took in the run-up and aftermath of the war. I have my differences, and have outlined some of these in the past. But failure is not an option.
What success requires
We have gotten many things right in Iraq. The coalition has de-Baathified the country, built roads and hospitals, opened schools, expanded investment, and created jobs. Despite the instability, a majority of Iraqis say that they are better off than they were before the war, and just a small minority say that they are worse off. Even more— 71 percent in the latest Oxford Research poll— say they expect things to be better in a year than they are now. Ironically, the Iraqi people today are more optimistic about their future than many Americans are.
Iraqis today are of two minds in their attitude toward the coalition. Apart from a relatively small minority of ex-Baathists and extremists, Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, and thankful that the U.S. toppled the dictator. They also understand that the American presence is a stabilizing force in their country. At the same time, they resent foreign occupation. In addition, when it comes to their future, the Iraqi people are understandably hedging. How can they be sure that Saddam's followers won't rule once again? We must make them certain through our firm resolve to prevail in Iraq.
First, we need a constructive domestic debate. Rather than discuss how we can best achieve our objectives in Iraq, some have preferred to use the issue as a political weapon to score points in this election. This is simply irresponsible— the stakes in Iraq are too high. We must show bipartisan resolve to prevail in Iraq, and not allow the insurgents to believe that they are winning minds in Washington. Our troops, the Iraqi people, and the world need to see unified American political leadership.
Second, the president must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment required to prevail in Iraq. He needs to be perfectly frank: bringing peace and democracy to Iraq is an enormous endeavor that will be very expensive, difficult, and long. The American people understand that we are fighting for the freedom of others, and I believe they are willing to sacrifice. The president needs to be as straightforward and specific as possible when he describes these necessary sacrifices.
Part of this sacrifice starts here with lawmakers in Washington. We need to make tough decisions about where our wartime priorities lay, and this means that we have to reassess our domestic priorities. As the appropriations season starts up, it is clear that we simply cannot have it all— tax cuts, pork for the special interests, ever-growing entitlement programs, and war in Iraq. Congress cannot demand discipline and sacrifice only of the men and women fighting in the desert. We need it at home as well.
Third, it is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army chief of staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General [Eric K.] Shinseki now looks prescient. I have said since my visit to Iraq last August that our military presence is insufficient to bring stability to the country. We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers, and civil affairs officers. We must deploy at least another full division, and probably more.
Troop contributions from NATO are welcome, and we should continue to seek troops from other countries. But the fundamental truth is that we face the security task mostly alone. Our coalition partners— and the British forces in particular— are helpful, but they are not present in the strength and numbers necessary to provide security. The newly trained Iraqi security forces are not yet prepared for the job and many have been unwilling to fight. There have been exceptions, including groups of Iraqi forces that courageously battled insurgents in Falluja. In the short run, however, the United States will have to shoulder the responsibility for re-establishing security. We must ensure that we have the men and materiel necessary to do the job.
Fourth, we must ensure that our understandable efforts to minimize collateral damage in Falluja are not seen as a victory for the hardest of the hard-core killers. Our goal in places like Falluja, where unreconstructed Baathists, former intelligence officers, and foreign jihadists converge, should be to capture or destroy them. We face implacable enemies who reject a peaceful role in the new Iraq. We must be careful not to be seen by Iraqis as responding to direct attacks with accommodation.
Fifth, while the burden in Iraq will be primarily ours, we must do more to reinforce our friends and allies who are sharing the burden, risks, and responsibilities in Iraq. Bulgarians, Britons, Spaniards, Italians, and many other nationalities have been wounded and killed in Iraq. Our enemies seek to divide our coalition. They do it through bombs in Madrid and through kidnappings in Iraq. Every leader who has sent personnel to join the coalition in Iraq has done so out of principle, not out of political expediency. I am distressed to hear some denigrate the contributions of our allies— from the young democracy in Georgia that is tripling its troop contribution to our British and Australian friends who were with us on the ground before the first shot was fired. Those who sacrifice with us in adversity are our truest friends.
Sixth, we need to stop any irresponsible third country-interference in Iraq. We must make clear to Syria and Iran that any meddling in Iraq will have dangerous consequences for the security of their own fragile regimes. In addition, we must be exceedingly cautious about Iranian government involvement in a political settlement. Iran's interests in Iraq and American interests in Iraq are not, to put it mildly, the same. I was concerned to see the Iranian diplomatic delegation that visited Iraq last week attempt to mediate between U.S. forces and those of [rebel Shiite cleric] Muqtada al-Sadr. If the Iranian government has the influence to restrain the insurgency, it presumably has the capacity to encourage it, should it decide to do so. The answer to Sadr's challenge is not in Tehran but in Iraq.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need a political strategy. We do not currently have one. With no one identified to lead Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty, and with some questioning even the date for the handover, there is a political vacuum in Iraq today. We need to reduce the uncertainty as soon as possible by announcing our plan for events after June 30.
This begins by sticking to the turnover date. Were we to decide now, 70 days before the long-scheduled handover, that the U.S. will continue the occupation, we would feed the suspicions of all those who believe that we are in Iraq for conquest, rather than liberation. We must also announce, as soon as possible, who will lead the country and make clear that these new leaders, however chosen, are transitional, and will see the country through to elections. An Iraqi government will only have full legitimacy when it is freely chosen by the people, as called for by the transitional constitution.
The U.N. also has a role to play. U.N. participation in fashioning a political solution may increase the legitimacy with which the new regime is viewed by foreign countries, and make it easier for others to contribute troops and assistance. We should not fool ourselves, however, into thinking that we can turn over the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. Recent polls indicate that Iraqis do not equate a U.N. veneer with political legitimacy, and many distrust the institution that managed the Oil for Food program, which enriched Saddam at their expense. The U.N., while it has a number of capable diplomats on its staff, cannot alone solve this political situation, and [Secretary General] Kofi Annan has said recently that the security situation may preclude a significant U.N. presence in the near future. The U.N. can help, but it is no substitute for U.S. leadership.
Nor is it a substitute for transferring real political authority to the Iraqi people, which must be our urgent goal. A strong American role in Iraq's security is critical, but we must move to transfer decision-making power to the Iraqis as soon as possible. The June 30 handover must mean more than the transfer of policymakers from CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] headquarters to the new U.S. Embassy.
The risks of failure and the benefits of success
We have toppled Saddam, and we have the responsibility to finish the job-to place true sovereignty in the hands of the Iraqi people. But what if we fail? Let us be clear about the likely outcome of our leaving Iraq prematurely. In overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the apparatus of Baathist rule, we shattered a system built on total oppression. We are now helping the Iraqi people construct a new order, but we aren't there yet. If we leave, violence will fill the vacuum as groups struggle for political power, and we risk all-out civil war. At the very least, scores will be settled, warlords will reign, and the violence we see today will pale in comparison to the bloodletting. And we will repeat in much starker terms the mistake we made in 1991.
If we leave, we will pay a dear price as Americans. For years, al-Qaeda used our withdrawal from Somalia as an example of our lack of resolve. The lesson was clear— inflict enough pain on Americans, and you will achieve your aims. If our enemies succeed in Iraq, they will have taught the world the lesson of Mogadishu a hundredfold.
If we leave, we doom reform in the Arab world. Why should other Arabs embrace democracy and freedom when it cannot take root even after a wholesale regime change in Iraq?
If we leave, we risk turning Iraq into a failed state, handing its neighbors— including leading terrorist sponsors Iran and Syria— a prime opportunity to expand their influence in the region, and creating a breeding ground for terrorism.
But if we succeed in stabilizing the country, in building a new government to which we hand sovereignty, in establishing a political system based on freedom and democracy, what will we then have accomplished?
If we succeed, we will have affirmed the universal values upon which this country was founded, and on which our foreign policy must be based— that all men and women are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That people everywhere in the world, not just in the West, deserve the same rights and freedoms we enjoy. I do not believe that there is an Arab exception any more than there was a black African exception, an Asian, or a Latin exception.
If we succeed, we send a message to every despot in the region that their day is done— that no people will tolerate forever leaders who deprive them of liberty.
If we succeed, we help create in the center of the Middle East a representative and humane government that provides an example to the region. We help bring an end to the political repression and economic stagnation in which extremist roots grow. People in the region can then express their views within the political system, rather than being forced to its margins. They will have access to economic opportunity that will bring them hope, rather than despair.
Is this scenario unrealistic? I am not willing to condemn millions of Arabs to repressive government for another generation. Let's look at what Iraqis believe about their own future. In the Oxford Research poll I cited earlier, Iraqis were asked to select the type of political system they prefer. By far the top response— the response that garnered more support than an Islamic state or a single strongman— was Iraqi democracy. Over 85 percent of Iraqis polled said that they agreed that Iraq needs democracy "at this time." And Iraqis are not the only people in the region who yearn for freedom. As the U.N.'s 2003 Arab Human Development Report indicates, Arabs topped the worldwide list of those saying "democracy is better than any other form of government," and they expressed the highest level of rejection of authoritarian rule.
Just as the status quo on Iraq was unsustainable in early 2003, today the status quo in the Middle East is a clear and present danger. Every year the population of unemployed, disaffected, and politically disenfranchised youths grows. Lacking freedom of expression and assembly, with no access to the ballot box and few political and economic rights, some individuals will find no outlet but extremism. And we will pay the price.
Our foreign policy principles
I know the debate over what to do in Iraq is part of the larger debate over how to use the pre-eminent position of the United States in the world. No one can foretell how long we will stand astride the world with unmatched power. We must use our power now to shape the world for the future, to guarantee that future generations here and abroad will live in freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
We do not use American power to establish empire. We do not spend our blood and treasure for territorial gain, nor for oil, nor to enrich our corporations. We act in Iraq as we should act in the world— to bring lasting liberal order to the globe. Our power must be directed in ways that bolster freedom, democracy, economic prosperity, international institutions, and rules.
In Iraq our national security interests and our national values converge. Iraq is truly the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world. Faced with similar challenges, previous generations of Americans have passed such tests with honor. It is now our turn to demonstrate that our power, ennobled by our principles, is the greatest force for good on earth today. Iraq's transformation into a secure democracy and a force for freedom in the greater Middle East is the calling of our age. We can succeed. We must succeed.
PETERSON: We're now ready for questions. Please wait for the microphone, identify yourself, keep your questions to the point, if you would, and try to remember we have only one speaker here, speaker McCain. Our distinguished new head of the Washington office asked me to kick off one or two, senator, and let me try.
Let me give you a hypothetical, senator. What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there? I understand it's a hypothetical, but it's at least possible.
McCAIN: Well, if that scenario evolves, then I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because— if it was an elected government of Iraq— and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government, then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.
PETERSON: A second and final question from me. As you know—
McCAIN: By the way, could I— if we do it right, that's not going to happen, but we will be there militarily for a long, long, long time.
PETERSON: As you know, senator, your very good friend Warren Rudman co-chaired with Senator Gary Hart [D-Colo.] a prescient commission really on national security in the 21st century. You may not know that those same two gentlemen have chaired a task force at the Council on certain aspects of homeland security, including the first responder issue. It's under the leadership of Dr. Stephen Flynn [Jeane J. Kirkpatrick senior fellow for national security studies]. Some of the work suggests that we still have a lot of vulnerabilities in ports, in our healthcare system and a variety of other areas. How do you feel about the state of our homeland security program, and what would you have us do about whatever you think the state is?
McCAIN: Thanks, Pete. I think we've made progress. I think it's significant that we have not experienced another terrorist attack since 9/11. I think that is testimony to much of the progress that we've made. I agree with you and Gary Hart and Warren Rudman that we have a long way to go. We react a lot more often than we act, and that's true in Congress. In the Commerce Committee, the first thing we did after the [March 2004] Madrid bombing was hold a hearing on our rail security. Guess what we found out? That our rail security isn't really very good— [laughs]--and we're spending very little money on it, while we're spending tens of billions on airport security. Port security is also another major vulnerability.
But I'm going to surprise you with this part of the answer. My friends, we will never have a secure border until we enact meaningful and comprehensive immigration reform. People will continue to move across our borders as long as there is a supply of jobs because there is a demand for workers, and they will come to take those jobs.
I live in a border state. In the first three months of this year, they apprehended 155,000 people coming across our border between Arizona and Mexico illegally. We think we catch one out of four or five. Now, sooner or later, someone who wants to do bad things to the United States is going to figure that might be a good way to get into the United States. And as long as we have 8 million to 15 million people living in the United States who are here illegally, it's going to be very difficult to keep track of our population. It cries out— immigration reform is an issue we all duck because it's so controversial. We better address it from a national security standpoint.
PETERSON: All right, can we start with questions? Yes, sir. Please wait for the microphone. Identify yourself, if you will.
QUESTIONER: Good afternoon, senator. My name is Reuben Brigety. I'm a professor at American University. In light of the decisions of Spain and Honduras and the Dominican Republic to withdraw their troops, what specific policy suggestions do you have not only to strengthen our coalition of troops that are there, but also to encourage other countries to share the burden in Iraq?
McCAIN: I think the obvious answer, of course, is a greater United Nations involvement. These leaders, as I mentioned in my remarks, have shown courage by sending their troops to Iraq. None of them are popular for it; they did it out of principle as opposed to any political expediency. So they've got to give their constituents and their voters the imprimatur of the United Nations and other international organizations, but particularly the United Nations.
The second point is they probably— with the exception of the kind of unique aspect of the Spanish election, they probably would not be withdrawing them if we had a secure environment. And this goes back to the United States militarily having to obtain a secure environment, and once they have reasonable confidence that they won't sustain casualties, then I think you'll see a lot of other countries contributing. And, you know, there could be some benefits in the long run to these countries from a stable Iraq. It's a very wealthy country.
PETERSON: Yes, please?
QUESTIONER: Thanks. Barbara Slavin of USA Today, and a Council member. At a hearing this morning in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a couple of questions were asked that were not answered by government officials. What happens if the transitional government that is supposed to be in charge from July 1 until elections decides that they don't want U.S. forces, say, going into another Falluja; or if they decide to inhibit rights of women; or take other steps, or sign agreements, economic agreements, that we don't approve of? Who will tell them that they can't do this? Is this going to be the responsibility of the U.S. ambassador? And how will that make that government look legitimate in Iraqi eyes?
McCAIN: I can only go back to previous experiences— Korea, for example, and other countries that we've been involved in, in helping them. Bosnia is an example. We have considerable influence. We have enormous influence. It can't be in the interest of any freely elected government to have the situation as prevails in Falluja today to continue, because that's not a recognition of a freely elected and central government.
It will be a very delicate situation. It will be that we may have to sometimes— I won't use the word "threaten," but make them aware of the consequences of not doing the right thing. But at the same time, if— this goes back to Pete's question— if they decide that they want to act in a way that is not in consonance with our stated goals and principles, then we have to look at the realities on the ground at the time. The one thing we do know is that unless an occupying force is committed to the democracy and self-government of the country in which it exists, it cannot exist there for long. I mean, it's just a reality that history shows us.
But you know, when we talk about that, I'm surprised that— in a way, that the administration didn't do a little better job of answering that, because the scenario is that it is in their interest to have the United States there militarily for a very long period of time. It's in their interest to see us help them rebuild. It is in their economic interest to do the kinds of building of business and free enterprise system that they didn't know under Saddam Hussein. Everything dictates that we should get together, but— should act in consonance— but if there are disagreements, then the United States of America has to decide. And that decision— I doubt it, but could be one that would be— would mean that we would have to re-examine our role in Iraq.
PETERSON: Can we go in the back of the room a little bit? There. Thank you very much.
QUESTIONER: Philip Gourevitch from The New Yorker magazine and the Council. You refer quite a bit to the sort of— the public opinion in Iraq, but it seems that you're depending on one poll. And in the past, certainly, it seems the decisions around this war have not necessarily gotten quite right how Iraqis would think and, in some ways, not been sure of public opinion. So I guess I'm wondering: Do you feel confident that we now know what Iraqis think better, that this alleged majority that shows up in these polls is, in fact, likely to determine the fate of the nation, and that— is the distinction that you make between an elected government and an extremist government necessarily mutually exclusive? What's to keep one from being the— from those being the same?
McCAIN: Well, in answer to your first question, I not only rely on polling data, I rely on human nature. I— as I tried to point out in my remarks, I don't know of any group of people, no matter where they live in the world, that would like to live under a regime such as they lived under in Saddam Hussein— beating, torture. We all know all that. We saw the pictures of the 8- and 9-year-old boys coming out of a prison in Baghdad. I mean, they're human beings. I think that all human beings— there's a universality of, as I've mentioned before, of— and certain inalienable rights— that prevail in Iraq, as they prevail in Cincinnati. But there is a certain— as I also mentioned, there is a certain ambiguity out there. Look, three times— three times— the United States of America encouraged them to rise up, and three times those thousands— in some case, tens of thousands— were slaughtered by Saddam Hussein. I'd be a little nervous, too. I'd be very nervous about it.
I'll never forget going to the airport in Basra. In Basra they have this beautiful airport. It was built by the West Germans— excuse me, by the Federal Republic of Germany— excuse me; I'm showing my age— the— by the Federal Republic of Germany, at a cost of some, I think, $50 million. It's never been used. The people of Basra never use that airport. Why? It's in the no-fly zone.
So there were some inconveniences, to say the least, associated with the sanctions on Iraq. So I believe that these people understandably are a bit nervous and skittish about what their future is, and that's why we have to be certain.
I think the second part of the question— tell me the second part of the question, real quick.
QUESTIONER: You said, when Mr. Peterson asked you about—
McCAIN: Oh, an extremist government, oh. Yeah, I see. Yeah, yeah. You see, again, the lessons of history, including their neighbor, Iran, show that extremist governments do not gain the support of the people. The Taliban didn't, I don't believe that the mullahs in Iran have, and I don't believe that in any other part of the world where the— because extremist, by the nature of the description, doesn't mean popular. And unfortunately, much to our dismay, when some of these, quote, extremist governments and groups get in control, it's awfully hard to pry them out. I am sure that if you had an election— I'm positive if you had an election in Iran today, those guys would be on the street in a New York minute. So I— will they choose an extremist government? I don't believe so.
And finally, could I say the Iraqi people are not unsophisticated and not uneducated? They're a pretty sophisticated— they have a history of a certain amount of sophistication, and I think that they would, if given the right opportunity, would choose the right form of government.
And finally, could I just mention Turkey? Turkey is a secular government. They were yanked into the 20th century by [Mustafa] Kemal Ataturk [the founder of the Turkish Republic and its first president], and Turkey is a functioning democracy. So— and it's a Muslim country. And I think that Turkey we could replicate in Iraq as well if we did it right.
PETERSON: All right. In the way back.
McCAIN: I'm sorry for the long answer, but that's a very, very important question.
PETERSON: Way back, please.
QUESTIONER: Yes, sir. Joe Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment [for International Peace]. Senator, I have long admired your career and your service to the nation, but isn't it a sign of how desperate the situation is in Iraq today that you have to come here and make a speech one year after the fall of Baghdad defending the decision to go to war, defending a U.S. military presence in Iraq that you say should go on for a long, long time?
Senator [Richard G.] Lugar [R-Ind.] today at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that he thought public support for the war in Iraq was at risk. Is that your fear as well? Do you fear public support is eroding for the continued American military presence?
McCAIN: I certainly fear it because if we have continued large American casualties— and large is all in the eye of the beholder; 58,000 names are on the wall not too far from here, and we have no comparison to that, obviously, in this conflict. But when Americans see it on the crawl every hour of the day and every week in news, et cetera, it has dramatic impact. And their expectations were different after, quote, combat operations ended, quite a long period of time. That's why I said we've got to tell the American people how tough and long the slog is going to be.
Yes, I think things have been done wrong. Yes, I think they should have been done better. I can't tell you how upset I've been for months because we didn't send troops when we should have. And to say that it's because the commanders on the ground didn't say they asked for extra troops, what's that all about? It's the leaders; it's the leaders that decide. Napoleon said war is too important to be left to the generals— with all due respect to you, General [Edward L.] Rowny. [Laughter.]
But the point— and yes, I've been upset. And yes, mistakes have been made. But that's one reason why we avoid warfare. And just let me remind you that in other wars we've made serious mistakes and have adjusted and prevailed. In Korea, the greatest military operation probably in history was conducted in Inchon, and several months later, that same general told [former President] Harry Truman, "Don't worry, those guys speaking Chinese and in those clothes aren't really Chinese that are attacking." [Laughter.] And it was a terrible mistake, and it cost thousands of lives. But we adjusted to it, we adjusted to it and we prevailed, thank God, and it changed the entire Cold War.
So I am standing here with you saying— speaking to you, we need to stay the course. Yes, we have made mistakes. We have the best military we've ever had in our history, both leadership-wise and the men and women, as well as officers. But we've got to do the things that are necessary to make this thing work, and again, one of them is to have a plan.
PETERSON: General Rowny, I might say, you've probably learned to be careful of any statement that begins "with due respect." [Laughter.] What would you like to ask, sir?
QUESTIONER: No, I would first like to say that I think that peace is too important to be left only to the politicians. [Laughter, applause.] But— [inaudible]--is it etched in stone that the 30th of June is immovable? I understand, you know, the arguments that we don't want to break a promise, other people are going to think we're breaking promises, that a lot of Iraqis think we're breaking a promise, a lot of them don't want us there. But, if there's not stability, these technical people that are being put in cannot control the situation, is it impossible to move that date to, say, January 1, 2005?
McCAIN: You know, general, I have agonized over that issue and that aspect of it. And I understand. Your point is very well made. I would argue that, at this moment, we are not prepared, because when asked who's going to be the government— who was it that said, "That's a good question?"
AUDIENCE: Ambassador [L. Paul] Bremer [administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority].
McCAIN: Yeah, yeah. I saw him on television. They said, "Who's going to be their government?" And he said, "Well, that's a good question." [Laughs.] I do think that's a good question. [Laughter.] I agree with him. And I have the highest regard for Ambassador Bremer, by the way. And I understand that. I do, though, come down on the side, General, of going ahead with it and doing what we're capable of doing. We've got 70 days. We should be able to put in place a transitional government. We should be able to have a changeover, at least one that would at least send a message to the Iraqi people that we're beginning this turnover.
I think the ground that the extremists are plowing right now is that these Americans are occupiers. In Basra, after the bombs were set off, clearly an act of insurgency and sabotage, they're demonstrating, saying the Americans did it. That kind of thing, I think, we'd be facing in spades if we don't get this government over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible.
PETERSON: All right. Back there, please.
QUESTIONER: George Montgomery. Senator, do you support Senator [Chuck] Hagel [R-Neb.] in his attempt to get us to revisit the question of the draft?
McCAIN: I love Senator Hagel, despite the fact that he was in the Army. [Laughter.] But on this one, we're just in total disagreement. The all-volunteer force works. Look at the quality of men and women and the quality of leadership we have in our military today. [With] all due respect to my generation, I think they are superb. They're very well trained, they're very well educated and they're very well motivated.
The second thing is, by the way, kind of a technical aspect. If you restore the draft, do you draft women, as well? I think that would have to be addressed in the modern day Army. That would be a very interesting debate to engage in.
Third of all, the nature of our modern day military is that they're no longer the guy that— the 18-year old you give six weeks training at Fort Dix and send into combat. These people require and receive extensive technological training of enormous length of time and requiring a very high level of intelligence and capability.
And third [sic] of all, the military is very small today. What are we, about two-thirds the size we were of the size of the Persian Gulf War? We can recruit qualified and outstanding young men and women into the military.
And my final point is, no matter how you shape it, no matter how you shape— the reason why Chuck and others are saying we've got to return to the draft is because only a segment of our society is serving in the military today. There's nobody in Congress, literally, or in the Senate that— [inaudible]. You're still going to run into that same problem. We ran into it in Vietnam. We didn't have— rich people didn't serve. People from the lowest economic rung of our economic ladder served. And you're still not going to solve that problem by reinstituting a draft, in my view. And right now, especially. I don't want to be diverted to a discussion about Iraq when we may be at— as I mentioned in my speech, probably the most critical moment in a generation as far as American national security policy is concerned.
PETERSON: Yes, the woman back there, please. Thank you.
QUESTIONER: I want to follow up on that question, because— I'm Marie Coco with Newsday. The title of your speech is "The Tax For The Next Generation," but, as Mr. Peterson said in his opening remarks, no one other than military and Reserve families have been asked to make a single sacrifice for this war, and you are calling this endeavor a long, long one. So my question to you is, if we are going to keep an all-volunteer force, and particularly one that relies so heavily on Reservists, where does the rest of the public sacrifice, and are we not being asked to sacrifice specifically because the bottom would fall out of public support if we were?
McCAIN: First of all, as I mentioned, the most oblivious organization in America to what we're facing is the United States Congress. [Laughter.] We claim that— we claim that Lyndon Johnson was guilty of wanting guns and butter; this Congress wants guns and pork. We are— well, I don't have to tell you the multi-trillion dollar deficits we are amassing while the spending goes on and on, and I won't tell you a lot of my favorite examples. But we— the Congress wants to have it all. And that's the wrong example to set.
I believe that what we should do is ask Americans to serve. At nine— after 9/11, I think there was a very large mistake made, because at that time Americans were ready to serve. I would expand Peace Corps. I would expand AmeriCorps. I would say that young men and women can sign up for military service for 18 months in return for $18,000 in educational benefits and do a lot of the security things that don't require a lot of extensive training. I would encourage and even fund some neighborhood and community volunteer organizations. I would have, like— Americans want to serve. And if they're called to serve, they will serve. And I— and so your point is well made, and part of this long, hard struggle is that I would be doing a whole lot of that.
And by the way, every American I've ever known that served in the Peace Corps, every American I've ever known who served in the military, every American who ever served in the AmeriCorps says it's the best thing that ever happened to them. And young Americans, I think, are as patriotic as any generation we've ever had.
PETERSON: Senator, I've been wanting to ask you a question. Since you referred to a New York minute, you seem to talk pretty quickly. How much shorter is a New York minute than an Arizona minute? I'm just curious. [Laughter.]
McCAIN: Well, in Arizona we have a fairly leisurely pace— [laughter].
PETERSON: I'm not sure that's the word most people would use to describe you.
McCAIN: [Laughs.]
PETERSON: Yes, sir.
QUESTIONER: Thanks. Senator, Gary Mitchell from the Mitchell Report. I want to ask you a question that comes from that seven-point agenda that you outlined. It begins with constructive domestic debate and then secondly goes to some plain talking from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and it raises two questions for me. One is whether you'd consider a friendly amendment and reverse the priority of those. And it goes to the more serious question of whether or not we can have a serious and profitable domestic debate in this country until the president does something that I think, in the judgment of a large number of people, he has not yet done, which is to be candid about the mistakes that have been made along the way and to talk frankly in some of the terms that you've been talking about today.
McCAIN: First of all, I think the president gave a very energetic and strong argument for our continued efforts in Iraq at his press conference. I thought his opening statement laid out the scenario very well.
I think that— I think we should admit that mistakes were made, I really do. [Former President] John F. Kennedy, after the Bay of Pigs, many people in this room remember, said, "I take full responsibility." His approval ratings went up because he said, "I take full responsibility." He fired [former Secretary of State] John Foster Dulles right after that, but— [laughter]--but— and yes, I think we should say, "Look, here are the errors we made but we're fixing them. We're fixing them, and here's what we're going to do." And I would start out with increased troop presence.
To just kind of halfway say, well, we're extending these young people, 20,000 of them for three months— and by the way, have no— you have no idea how hard that is on them and their families. They will perform well, they will perform heroically, but that's tough. So we need to have a long-term plan for a troop presence at least for a year or two until we can get a handle on the situation. I'd start with that. Yes, we underestimated our troop requirements. Most Americans would say fine, let's fix it. Yeah, you got a—
PETERSON: OK, is there anybody on this side? We want to be politically correct. [Laughter.] On the right-hand side, here?
QUESTIONER: Can I ask a question just quickly?
McCAIN: Yes.
QUESTIONER: Where does the division come from, the new divisions for Iraq?
McCAIN: The new divisions— actually, some could come from Okinawa, some Marines from Okinawa. We could draw down in Korea if absolutely necessary. But what we really need to do along with this is say we need to expand the size of the Army and the Marine Corps. McCaffrey— [Retired] General [Barry] McCaffrey, for one, says we need an additional 80,000 in the Army and the Marine Corps. I don't— I'm not smart enough to know exactly what that number is, but I'll bet you that there are some real smart people and I don't see why 80,000 wouldn't be a reasonable number. You know, we could maybe not pay $250 million or $300 million for an airplane and maybe spend some of that money on personnel. And the reason why the Pentagon is reluctant is because the most expensive part of the armed forces today is personnel.
PETERSON: All right. Anybody on the—
McCAIN: Can I ask Mr.--
PETERSON: Yes, please.
McCAIN: Mr. Kalb is— if I don't answer his question he's in a snit until the next time that I get here. [Laughter.]
QUESTIONER: I promise not to snit. [Laughs.]
McCAIN: Thank you. Thank you.
QUESTIONER: Marvin Kalb with the Shorenstein Center at Harvard. You have spoken several times now about mistakes having been made. You repeated that. You have spoken about the 9/11 Commission citing failures in intelligence. And yet, nothing happens. There is no responsibility. No one is fired. No one quits. At what point is leadership to be shown?
McCAIN: Thank you, Marvin. That is a question that a lot of us have been asking. And I don't think there's any doubt that a lot of people were responsible, including the Congress, for our failure to anticipate 9/11. The blame is al Qaeda. Responsibility rests with a lot of individuals. I would hope that the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, which will be to restructure our intelligence organizations and apparatus, might also then make it viable, when we form up these new organizations, to have different leadership in them if we are aware that responsibility lies with certain individuals. But it is very unusual these days that we are all responsible, so therefore, no one is responsible. I thank you, Mr. Kalb, and it's good to see you again, sir.
PETERSON: OK, the final question. Yes, sir?
QUESTIONER: James Kitfield from National Journal magazine. Senator, the last year has been spent trying to mend some fences across the Atlantic from bruised feelings over going to the war, and also trying to get buy-in to what we're trying to do in Iraq by our allies in the region. Both those communities have expressed some dismay at Mr. Bush's move last week on the Mideast peace plan. Without getting into whether that was a wise thing, the timing certainly seems to me to be questionable. Could you comment on that?
McCAIN: Yeah. I'd say that I don't know if this is exactly the right move to take, but I do know that since Camp David, when President Clinton met with [President of the Palestinian National Authority, Yasir] Arafat and then-Prime Minister [Ehud] Barak [of Israel], basically we've had the status quo, with the exception of the building of a wall. And that status quo has entailed the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent lives. So what I hope is that at least this move would change the status quo and give us some progress.
I don't— I'm not surprised that King Abdullah [II of Jordan] did not— canceled his visit. Seventy percent of his population, roughly, is Palestinian. I mean, so, it wouldn't be surprising that it would get a negative reaction to start with. But I hope what this does is jump start the peace process.
And let me just add, since this is the last question, one other important point: why is it the Europeans don't like us? The Europeans don't like us for one reason, obviously, is envy. And that's part of it. But it goes a whole lot deeper than that.
The Europeans believe that we are arrogant and, on certain policies that are important to them, not only not in agreement, but dismissive. Climate change is one of those issues. In Europe, that is a very important issue. We should reopen negotiations with the European Community about the issue of climate change.
The International Criminal Court— I'm not prepared to see a young American soldier go before an International Criminal Court, because— well, they wanted to get [former Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger before one, remember? [Laughing.] Not a bad idea. But any— [laughter]--but— and—
PETERSON: And John, we're on the record, you know. [Laughter.]
McCAIN: Yeah. I love—
PETERSON: And Henry is very sensitive, as you probably know.
McCAIN: I love and admire Henry Kissinger as much as any human being. I really love him. [Laughter.]
QUESTIONER: [Inaudible.]
McCAIN: And he can still take a joke. [Laughter.] There are issues that are issues that are important. I don't know what you do about the French, because the French have announced they're a counterweight to the United States. I don't know how you can be an ally to a country that views themselves as a counterweight.
But we should emphasize the positive. The Germans are in Bosnia. They're in Kosovo. They're in Afghanistan. Our NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies are everywhere, with us. We should emphasize the positive. We should be a lot more humble. We can afford to be humble. And we should start opening negotiations on issues that we can identify that are very important to our European friends. And the real upshot of all this is an economic isolationism between our two trading blocs, and that can, of course, have the most devastating consequences for our long-term future.
So I would start reaching out to them, recognizing that we are— well, I'd do exactly what [former President] Teddy Roosevelt admonished us to do, and I think that those attempts should be made sooner, rather than later.
I want to thank you, Pete, I want to thank you, Nancy, for inviting me back again. It's always a pleasure. I'll be trying to respond to this for some period of time. [Laughter.] It's always a pleasure to be here.
ROMAN: Thanks for coming.
McCAIN: Thank you very much. [Applause.]
PETERSON: Nancy Roman— I'd like you to give a hand to Nancy and her staff for the job they do. [Applause.]


text:
Kraus Out With Flu, Yoshihiro Sato in Glory Final 8 Tournament
- Written by Dave Walsh
Misfortune has struck Albert Kraus, the first ever K-1 World MAX Champion in 2002, as he has been afflicted by a bad case of the flu this week, putting him down for the count. This means that Kraus will be unable to fight this weekend at GLORY 3 Rome in the 70kg Final 8 tournament, which leaves an open slot. According to Glory, Yoshihiro Sato, who was originally slated to fight in a Reserve Fight, will step in to face Sanny Dahlback in the opening round.
Sato was chosen from Glory's new ranking system that they have implemented, which has Sato ranked at number nine, making him the clearest choice to fill in.
This means that Dzabar Askerov is without an opponent for the Reserve fight, right? Wrong, as Warren Stevelmans will be stepping up to fight Askerov, with both men having a chance to possibly get back into the tournament if anyone is injured during the course of their three fights in one night.
GLORY 3 Rome goes down this weekend and as always, you can watch it here live on LiverKick.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Paddle! Paddle! Paddle!
Trip Start Jan 31, 2008
3Trip End Mar 02, 2008
Map your own trip!
Loading Map
Loading Map
Show trip route
Hide lines
Back to the start.
Got here on Sunday at noon a little ball of anticpation and excitement eager to get started. 'Here' is a modern eco- architect designed school/hostel with 10 rooms a large kitchen/dinning area and a backyard pool and hangin' space. As one of the first of the students here, I was free to spend the arvo swinging in the hammock by the pool and watch the others arrive and let first impressions sink in.
My schoolmates are a lovely mixed bunch. David - the oldests is a 50yr old retired professional angler who knows more about Bass fishing than is healthy but is good enough not to share. Jess the youngest is a 16 yr old half Costa Rican from Canada whose mother inexplicably allowed her to come here all on her own.
Most are American - and I am working with that, including three dancing girls (they are acutally in the Rockettes chorus line in Radio City NYC!), but there is also a Dane a couple of Swedish, and a German flight attendent.
Each day we are divided into two groups one of which goes surfing whilst the other does Spanish lessons (not everyone is studying Spanish but most are). In the evening we eat and then head into town to party. Then we get up early and do it all over again. Getting in at 3.30am and then getting up for an 8am Spanish lesson was hard - but someone had to do it!
Surfing here is so much better than in Sydney. The waves this week are not particularly big but they are so consistent that you can catch plenty and really make progress in improving getting up and turning etc. The beach is volcanic black sand so isn't so pretty as a lot of Aussie beaches but the warm water and palm trees and jungle coated mountains more than make up for that.
My surfing has improved each day and I am top of the class at this point. So naturally I got all excited and bought myself a new board (a foot shorter and a good deal better than my one at home) which I am going to test out tomorrow. I don't have any photos of me surfing but here's one of my classmate Isabella to give you the idea
Now, I imagine you are all wondering whether there is any salacious news of goings on here in the balmy Costa Rican night - well there aren't really, but as you can imagine from seeimg my female buddies here at the school they have no shortage of interest from the locals - but I am concentrating on the waves and not on girls young enough to be my daughters (almost) - ahem.
I am having a quiet Saturday night whilst everyone else has gone to visit a volcano - frankly I just need a rest. Three more weeks of this to go - jeez I'm such a victim...:-) Well I'm off to bed now, and like every night this week I'm sure I will dream of the ocean and the cries of the surfing guide who urges me on even in my sleep "paddle! paddle! paddle!"


text:
Alternate name: Salmo gilae
Family: Salmonidae, Trouts view all from this family
Description 13" (32 cm). Yellowish-brown, gold, or copper above with numerous small, closely placed black dots on back and uppersides and extending onto belly. Small dark spots on dorsal and caudal fins.
Endangered Status The Gila Trout is on the U.S. Endangered Species List. It is classified as endangered throughout its range in Arizona and New Mexico. In the first half of the 20th century, a variety of factors began to have a deleterious effect on populations of the Gila Trout. These included the stocking of streams with non-native sportfish, such as Rainbow and Cutthroat Trout, and the modification of habitat caused by numerous activities, including the clearing of waterside vegetation, the altering of waterways to provide water for residences, farms, and industry, and the runoff of sediment and contaminants into the water. Trout need clear, cold water, and their waters began to cloud up with silt and to warm up as the shading vegetation was stripped away. By 1960 there were only five small populations of Gila Trout surviving. Measures have been taken to breed the fish and restock them in their native streams. The recovery program had a major setback in 1989 when a forest fire and the resulting runoff of ash and sediment into Main Diamond Creek, New Mexico, severely depleted the Gila Trout population there. Efforts continue to rescue this trout.
Habitat Mountain streams.
Range New Mexico and central Arizona.
Discussion This species was formerly called Salmo gilae, and sometimes has been considered a subspecies of the Apache Trout (O. apache).


text:
By Ben Levisohn
Susquenna's James Friedman upgraded Infosys (INFY) to Neutral from Negative today, though you wouldn't know it from looking at the IT company's stock. Its shares have dropped 0.4% to $41.59 today, and has plunged 23% since announcing earnings on April 11.
Now don't misunderstand. It's not that Friedman loves Infosys. But he does believe that most of the bad news is priced into the stock. He writes:
A recent fall in the stock properly captures the headwinds Infosys faces…The stock price has fallen 25% since its last earnings (vs. an average of -9% at peers and 0.02% for the S&P), with a downward correction of PE multiple (from 18x previously to ~14x).
And concerns about the U.S. immigration bil might also be reflected in its beaten-down shares.
We have analyzed the U.S. Immigration Bill and the potential cost and structural challenges it may create for offshore vendors. We calculate INFY may face $100 mln or more of incremental expense. Consensus margins down 200+ basis points appear to have contemplated some of this risk.
Expectations for the stock are also very low, especially now that the company is thought to have been overly optimistic back in January, and April may be getting off to a strong start. "We are hearing that April was a better month for the industry as a whole," Friedman writes. "[And] we see some encouraging signs at INFY." Volume, for instance, has increased 1.8%, the company is getting "more proactive on management headcount," and Europe is looking "solid," Friedman notes.
Friedman also raised his target price to $40, from $38.
Infosys has dropped 1.3% this year, while competitors Wipro (WIT) has dropped 8.4%, Cognizant Technology Solutions (CTSH) has plunged 12.3%, and IBM (IBM) has gained 6.2%. The WisdomTree India Earnings ETF (EPI) has dropped 2.3% this year.


text:
|Art of Casting Analysis, refinement of the cast
|Topic Review (Newest First)
|Well, it went quite well using this approach. I only had a tailing loop a couple times in my practice yesterday. I think the main thing that helped was in doing a better back cast. I followed Lefty Kreh's approach and concentrated on bringing my casting hand back in a straight line at an upward angle. I was able to get much better loading of the rod before the forward cast, and the forward cast seemed much easier to do without a tailing loop.
Thanks juro. I just read the same advice in Lefty Kreh's book "Advanced Fly Casting" from the library. The Elements of the Cast section of this book explain things quite well. I also have "The Cast" on order from Amazon. I don't mind getting to the technical side of casting - I'm an engineer.
Anyway, I'll try this when I get home tonight.
If the yarn hits the line because the leader seems to whip, pull or fall downward as it unravels, it's a tailing loop as described by others.
There are several ways we can create one of theses little buggers, and to really correct root cause it requires some face to face with an experienced friend or instructor - but there are also some generalisms that are worth mentioning even without having seen it happening... (I'll refrain in this case from going technical stuff about path of accleration, tip deflection, application of power, etc)
Try this:
Make sure the rod tip "ducks" under the line coming over the top at the end of your forward cast.
In other words, as you come to the stop, make sure to turn the wrist so that the rod tip tucks just below and thus out of the way of the line flying overhead toward the target.
Not too far downward or it will open up your loop. If you practice this you'll find the right amount, just a bit will do it.
Try that first and we'll go from there.
|Rick J
A very common problem on the forward cast is to hit it early with power - you start right off hitting it hard. The term accelerate means to constantly increase in speed. The forward cast needs to start very smoothly and accelerate right to the final stop. You really need very little power on the forward cast - just smooth acceleration to a dead stop.
As mentioned previously if you start fast or hit from the top you cause the rod tip to bend immediately and if you slow down at all during the casting stroke it unbends some giving a tailing loop
|Wee Hooker
|It's called a tailing loop and is a common problem. It's usually the result of trying to overpwer your forward cast. Try rotating the rod out from straight over your shoulder to 2 oclock or so. Also, try not to be quiet as agressive in the forward cast. Let the rod do the work.
Beginner Casting Problem
I've been practising overhead casting in the backyard, and it's not going terribly, but I am having a fairly consistent problem on the forward cast . I'm getting good loading of the rod on both the backcast and the forward cast, but about half the time my practice fly (yarn) hits the middle of the flyline before it's done unrolling. Any ideas on what the source of the problem is?
|Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


text:
Madison neighbors deal with days with no water
City crews pull marathon shifts to respond to all calls
MADISON, Wis. - For Ken Bavery, the last 48 hours have been like camping in his own east side Madison home.
Bavery's house is situated on a cul-de-sac on Stacy Lane, and he has lived there for 22 years. He said there has never been a winter when his water was frozen out of his own home.
"We didn't get a drop," Bavery said.
Bavery and his wife came home Saturday around dinner time to no running water in the house. Since then, dishes stacked up next to the sink. Bavery has had to borrow gallons of water from neighbors to flush toilets and use bottled water to cook.
He got a hold of someone with Madison Water Utility Sunday morning.
"He says, 'There are 17, I think, on the list.' I say, 'OK,'" Bavery said. "What do you do? It is what it is."
Madison Water Utility went door to door in Bavery's neighborhood Monday asking certain people to leave their faucets on with a pencil-thin stream of water to prevent more pipes from freezing. The department received more than 30 reports of water not running in homes in the last two days.
The city is used to handling a handful of these calls every winter, not dozens.
"We're stuck with this until we get some really good thaws," Bavery said.
Bavery said the city tested the water temperature from a hydrant near his house, and he was told it measured out to less than 31 degrees when it is usually around 50 degrees.
"That's the problem with the circle. The neighbors were gone across the street for a week. This one here has been empty for months," Bavery said. "And there's not a lot of water moving!"
City welder Mike Draper came out to Bavery's house Monday evening. He said it was his 85th house of the season, and he still has at least 30 left on his list.
"I'm doing at least 12 to 14 a day, and then 16 to 18 on the weekends," Draper said.
Draper fixed Bavery's laterals by pushing electric currents through the pipes and thawing them out until water starts to flow again.
Draper said he's not only dealing with call volume, but also has to worry about overworking his equipment. He said electrical issues can also be challenging. He has to make sure no stray electrical currents from equipment ignite any part of the house he's working on.
"On top of the cold weather, now all of the sudden lack of water," Draper said.
Monona Public Works has responded to about a dozen homes and two businesses without water. That community might not see help for up to three days because the contractors are backlogged with work.
Sun Prairie's water utilities team fixed three residential pipes over the weekend and had reports of another leaky lateral Monday.
Monona, New Lisbon, Sun Prairie and Middleton are among the communities asking their residents to run a pencil-thin stream of water through one of their faucets at all times.
Local And Regional News
- Autopsy unable to ID human remains found in shed fire, officials say
- State plan seeks to cut achievement gap in half
- No injuries reported in burst of afternoon gunfire in residential neighborhood
- Local woman shares warning after credit card theft
- Bond reduced in UW-Stout student death case
- Madison police make arrest in downtown robbery


text:
By Marty Russell
You never know what the day will bring.
I had originally intended to write this column today about the lawsuit filed against Punxsutawney Phil, the groundhog. In case you haven't heard, Michael Gmoser, the prosecuting attorney for Butler County, Ohio, filed a lawsuit last week against Phil charging him with "misrepresentation of early spring," according to the indictment, and asking for the death penalty as a result.
According to the lawsuit, the groundhog "did purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the people to believe that spring would come early." Gmoser posited as evidence to the contrary the record cold temperatures and snowfall amounts currently being experienced in his county.
The prosecutor has since withdrawn his lawsuit after the groundhog's handlers came forward to take the blame for "misinterpreting" the rodent's prediction. No word yet on whether Gmoser will go after them and whether he will also seek the death penalty in that case but given the late arrival of spring this year, I say go for it. Name Mother Nature as a co-conspirator.
Anyway, that was to be the topic of today's discussion until my wife woke up this morning and discovered a dog on our front porch. It was a beautiful golden that looked like a lab/retriever mix just sitting on the porch watching the road.
"Somebody's dumped another animal in our yard," my wife groused.
Apparently we're known far and wide as being big softies when it comes to animals. We've had kittens with their eyes barely open so they didn't crawl there themselves and mangy, tick-ridden dogs appear on our doorstep. So we assumed this was just another case of someone who should be euthanized for dumping their problems on us.
The dog just sat there on the porch all morning watching the road as if waiting for whoever dropped it off to come back and pick it up as I grew angrier at the thought of someone abandoning an animal that had obviously been a pet. The dog appeared fat, healthy and clean.
Finally, as I was about to leave the house I knew better than to feed it but I figured a bowl of fresh water couldn't hurt so took a bowl out and sat it in front of the dog. That's when I noticed the blood. Not a lot, just enough to leave small stains on the decking.
It had been injured, maybe bitten by another dog or hit by a car and had found our porch as a safe haven. That's when my anger changed to concern. It was obviously, as I said, someone's pet. So I took a picture of it and went up and down the road knocking on doors trying to find the owner. I met a lot of nice people, but no one who recognized the dog.
So if anyone is missing such a dog in the Clear Creek area of Lafayette County, please contact me. I may have your dog.
MARTY RUSSELL writes a Wednesday column for the Daily Journal. He can be reached at email@example.com


text:
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Hybrid View
12-01-2012, 03:29 AM #1Junior Member Guppy
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Posts
- 3
Sick Red Cap Oranda. Please help!
I have a red cap oranda and his eyes are popping out + there was whit-ish fluid coming out of it(popeye?). His scales are falling off, he bottom-sits a lot, and stays in the top barely moving. But some days, he swims normally and also, he still eats normally.
I asked the pet store employees and they said to treat him with Pimafix... But I kinda don't trust them so I haven't started the treatment--but I did buy it.
Any suggestions? It's my first fish so I'm completely clueless. :( Thank you!
can you post a pic?
While that loads-we need the following info:
tank size
tank mates
water parameters: ammonia, nitrite, nitrate
it is all very relevant to treat and prevent it from happening again.
12-01-2012, 04:35 AM #3Junior Member Guppy
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Posts
- 3
Thank you so much for the reply!
Tank size: 5 Gallon
Tank mates: He's a single fish.
I don't know how to do water parameters... Do I have to buy something for that? ><
what is the filter for the tank? or do you not have one?
so here's the down side to your predicament. if you don't get that fish a new home-i.e a 30gallon tank at minimum. then he'll never get better.
Full healthy grown oranda's such as yours will get 7-10inches long...so it physically will not fit in your 5gallon tank.
However, if you chose not to rehome him-then his organs will outgrow his body and start a slow painful death because he is "stunted" and cannot grow out to his appropriate size.
so next:
go to your local fish store or online(cheaper) and buy something called the "API Master Test Kit" this is how you test the ammonia, nitrites and nitrates. until then do a 80% water change on your tank with fresh water.
then read up on this forum "how to cycle a tank"
you need to cycle the tank so that the fish won't be in toxic water that hurts him (and causes issue's as you currently have)
12-01-2012, 05:41 AM #5Junior Member Guppy
- Join Date
- Dec 2012
- Posts
- 3
I have the filter that uses a sponge and it flows like a waterfall. The aqua clear power filter.
Oh... Okay! I will get a new tank asap and a test kit. And I will read the cycle post.
Does that mean I don't use the pimafix I bought yet? I just saw cottony things come out of his eye earlier when I checked on him. :(
Thank you so much for all the advice! ><
Sounds as he is being burned by ammonia. Nothing belongs in a 5 gallon tank other than perhaps a Betta or micro-fish. If this is a common or a comet goldfish, he is a pond fish unless you have a very large tank (as well as many of the others).
Check the red link in my signature and you'll see what size goldfish grow.


text:
Home » Wonderful Portugal » Email Vacation to Friend
Email to a friend: "Wonderful Portugal (click to view details)"
Privacy Statement
The email addresses you entered here will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected or used by InfoHub for any marketing purposes. * : indicate a required field. Please read the instructions on the right side of the form.


text:
Al-Arabiya news team missing in the Philippines
CPJ is monitoring with concern the news coverage of Baker Abdulla Atyani, a Pakistan-based Jordanian Al-Arabiya TV journalist, and his two Philippine crew members, Rolando Letrero and Ramelito Vela, who have been unaccounted for since June 12.
Atyani, Letrero, and Vela left their hotel in Jolo, in the southern Philippines, to interview a commander for the militant Abu Sayyaf, a banned Islamic separatist group in the region, according to local and international news reports. The three refused offers of a security detail from local authorities, the reports said.
They have not returned. Various news accounts report them as "missing," "kidnapped," and a link between Abu Sayyaf and Al-Qaeda.


text:
I'm now just over two months into my Django experiment and about halfway into my first client project. I'll admit to anyone who even feigns an interest in listening that I've never had this much fun working on the web. The framework never fails to impress.
On relating data.
If you're building a website or application of any considerable complexity, you're going to have one type of data that you want to relate with another. The example I seem to most often in CMS and programming tutorials is a database for musical acts. You'll have one-or-many artists who belong to none-or-many relate to bands. You can extend this example out to include, music videos, albums, individual songs – all distinct types of data that need to interrelate in your application or website.
ExpressionEngine, the CMS that powers this site, handles content relationships in a logical, user-friendly way that makes rapid development of data-heavy (and even data-heavy-esque) sites possible.
But EE does have its limits.
Take for example the problem I was confronted with in building an online registration system for an after-school program at a local elementary school. At its core, this app has five main data types: Courses, Sessions (that is, Fall 2009, Winter 2009, etc.), Course Instances (or a particular course happening during a particular session), Students, and Registrations – whose soul responsibility is to link a Student to a Course Instance. As parents register their children for courses, administrators will need to login to Django's admin interface and mark when the registration fee has been paid.
The problem.
Because the intermediary model does very little more than provide a bridge between two data types, I didn't want to require administrators to hunt down the appropriate registration instance to mark it as paid. Not that the admin site would have made this a particularly difficult task, but it just seems so much more natural to look up the student and have all current registrations listed on their admin change screen. If you're doing fifty of these in a shot and you've got a class to teach in fifteen minutes, you're gonna want the most logical system possible. Fortunately for me and the future administrators, inline model admin objects allow you to show child data inline with a parent model. Exactly what I needed.
See, I got pretty ambitious with how I set up this data. What I really wanted to do was give the site admin's the ability to, at the end of each school year, mark a session as inactive and have all associated course instances effectively disappear from the site. So the Session data type has a field "is_active." Django makes it dead simple to limit course instances on the front end – and most of the backend – by providing a
limit_choices_to parameter to foreign key fields (which are one of your options for relating one bit of data to another).
But when I set up my registration inline admins on student records, I noticed that the
limit_choices_to option was being ignored. The docs do point this limitation out, but I'd completely missed it on first read.
limit_choices_tohas no effect on the inline FormSets that are created to display related objects in the admin.
A hack-free solution.
Here I have to point out my hands-down most favorite thing about Django: hacks are almost never needed. That's not to say that the solution _solr from the Django irc channel helped me come up with isn't a bit inscrutable. But it involves absolutely no hacking of core files. It lives right in the admin module for your application. And, if you spend a bit of time studying Django's core, it actually does kinda start to make sense. Kinda.
- """
- Override the typical inline formset with a custom formset that
- excludes all registrations not related to active sessions.
- """
- class StudentRegistrationInlineFormset(BaseInlineFormSet):
- def get_queryset(self):
- return super(StudentRegistrationInlineFormset, self).get_queryset().filter(course_instance__session__is_active=True)
- class StudentRegistrationInline(admin.TabularInline):
- model = Registration
- fk_name = 'student'
- formset = StudentRegistrationInlineFormset
- class StudentAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin):
- inlines = [
- StudentRegistrationInline
- ]
Now, if my boss asked, I'd have to admit that the solution is pretty much completely undocumented, and I did spend a good amount of time sussing it out. But the point is when all things are said and done, the solution is just so gosh durned beautiful. All we're doing is overriding the function –
get_queryset() – that's responsible for providing data to a generic inline admin. The beauty is that we didn't have to do this for the whole system, or even for our whole project. This behavior is attached to just one inline admin in one app in our project. And nothing more.
I do so love clean code.


text:
I've not been to Toys 'r Us for a while now because the nearest branch is about 20 miles out of town so I have to wait ages for the new figures to come in to a specialist dealer in my home town, the last figures that they had in where Nexu and Chewbacca (Cloud City Escape), that was about 2 weeks ago, and I still need Jango Fett (Final Dual), Massif, and Endoor Rebel Soldier and obviously the Ki-Adi Mundi Wave. Do Toys 'R Us have them in yet?
I need to know so that I don't have a wasted journey if I trvel there.


text:
Congrats Bobby Lane winning the Am and qualified for National Am,and second on the derby with Frazier.
Bonadventure's Buster ***
Bonadventure's Bijoux
Bonadventure's Jiggs
Way to go Boley and Chili!!!
FC AFC Wing Magic's Louisiana Roux MH "Roux"
GRHRCH Bayou Magic's Tough as a Boot QAA "Boot" (still a Knucklehead Puppy)
Bayou Magic's Reverend Jackson "Jesse" (Knucklehead Puppy)
"Never let the fear of striking out get in your way." -- George Herman Ruth
I'd like to say thanks to all of those who came to enter our event and thank you to all the club members who worked thier butts off even while running dogs. Congrats to all finishers, I hope everyone had a good time.
Congratulations, Bobby Lane, on your AM WIN with ALI, and Derby 2nd with Frasier!
Yea Mike and Chilli!!!!


text:
Toggle: English / Spanish
Rocky Mountain spotted fever is a disease brought on by a type of bacteria carried by ticks.
Spotted fever
Rocky Mountain spotted fever is caused by Rickettsia rickettsii (R. Rickettsii), which is carried by ticks. The bacteria spread to humans through a tick bite.
In the western United States, the bacteria are carried by the wood tick, and in the eastern U.S. they are carried by the dog tick. Other ticks spread the infection in the southern U.S. and in Central and South America.
Contrary to the name "Rocky Mountain," most recent cases have been reported in the eastern United States, including North and South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma. Most cases occur in the spring and summer. About 2,300 cases were reported in 2006. Most of the reported cases have been in children.
Risk factors include recent hiking or exposure to ticks in an area where the disease is known to occur. The bacteria are unlikely to be transmitted to a person by a tick that has been attached for less than 20 hours. Only about 1 in 1,000 wood and dog ticks carry the bacteria. Bacteria can also infect people who crush ticks they have removed from pets with their bare fingers.
Symptoms usually develop about 2 to 14 days after the tick bite. They may include:
Other symptoms that may occur with this disease:
Tests that may be done include:
Treatment involves careful removal of the tick from the skin and antibiotics to get rid of the infection. Doxycycline or tetracycline are the drugs of choice for both confirmed and suspected cases. Pregnant women may take chloramphenicol.
Note: There is concern that tetracycline and doxycycline may stain the teeth of children whose permanent teeth have not yet formed. However, tooth discoloration is very unusual when a child takes these medicines for 14 days or less. These medicines are first-line treatment, even for children.
Treatment usually cures the infection. Complications are rare, but can include paralysis, hearing loss, and nerve damage. About 3% of people who get this disease will die.
Call your health care provider if you develop symptoms after exposure to ticks or a tick bite. The complications of untreated Rocky Mountain spotted fever are often life threatening.
When walking or hiking in tick-infested areas, tuck long pants into socks to protect the legs, and wear shoes and long-sleeved shirts. Ticks will show up on white or light colors better than on dark colors, making them easier to see and remove from clothing.
Remove ticks immediately by using a tweezers, pulling carefully and steadily. Insect repellent may be helpful. Because far fewer than 1% of ticks carry this infection, antibiotics are not usually given after a tick bite.
Raoult D. Rickettsioses. In: Goldman L, Ausiello D, eds. Cecil Medicine. 23rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders Elsevier; 2007:chap 348.
Walker DH. Rickettsia rickettsii and other spotted fever group rickettsiae (rocky mountain spotted fever and other spotted fevers). In: Mandell GL, Bennett JE, Dolin R, eds. Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases. 7th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2009:chap 187.
A.D.A.M., Inc. is accredited by URAC, also known as the American Accreditation HealthCare Commission (www.urac.org). URAC's accreditation program is an independent audit to verify that A.D.A.M. follows rigorous standards of quality and accountability. A.D.A.M. is among the first to achieve this important distinction for online health information and services. Learn more about A.D.A.M.'s editorial policy, editorial process and privacy policy. A.D.A.M. is also a founding member of Hi-Ethics and subscribes to the principles of the Health on the Net Foundation (www.hon.ch)
The information provided herein should not be used during any medical emergency or for the diagnosis or treatment of any medical condition. A licensed medical professional should be consulted for diagnosis and treatment of any and all medical conditions. Call 911 for all medical emergencies. Links to other sites are provided for information only -- they do not constitute endorsements of those other sites. © 1997- 2013 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited.


text:
Search Tips
Dolfin Winners swimwear beautiful bright colors to brighten your swim!
80% Nylon, 20% Spandex Note this suit is an all over print, the back is being shown in black.
We promise to never spam you, and just use your email address to identify you as a valid customer.
This product hasn't received any reviews yet. Be the first to review this product!
Choose a currency below to display product prices in the selected currency.
Click the button below to add the Dolfin Winners Sonic Magenta Female Swimsuit to your wish list.


text:
Miley Cyrus Slams the Twilight Sagaby Hilton Hater at . Comments
Jealous much, Miley Cyrus?
Interview by a Cleveland radio station prior to a concert on Sunday night, Cyrus was asked about the Twilight Saga.
She could have simply said she's never read the books or seen a movie in the franchise. Instead, the singer chose to thumb her nose at the series:
"I've never seen [Twilight], nor will I. I don't believe in it. I don't like vampires, I don't like the wolf that pops out of the screen when I'm watching TV at night, I don't want anything to do with it. I don't like the shirts, I don't like any of it."
Jeez, Miles. You don't believe in Twilight?!? We're sorry to report: it exists.
Moreover, that wolf has a name: Taylor Lautner. And, finally, don't worry: no one asking you to have anything to do with it. It was just a question.
Choose a side in this feud:
Watch Miley dig herself into an enormous hole after this article's jump.


text:
|Bonefish, Tarpon, and other Obsessions Turquoise water, silver demons on the fly
|Topic Review (Newest First)
|I'm not a fan of tournament angling but I have to say: If you are going to run an event, this is the right way to do it.
|The signature block for PTTS says it all - "Silver King Entertainment, LLC". These tournaments encourage all the wrong angling behaviors. The last thing we need is another B.A.S.S.-type outfit to pollute the waters of the sport.
Tarpon contest chatter on the web... FYI
Dear Fellow Anglers:
From its inception, the Professional Tarpon Tournament Series (PTTS) has been conducted in a sporting manner with an emphasis on promoting conservation and the sport of Tarpon fishing in Boca Grande. I would like to tell you about our history of conservation efforts and share some facts about ongoing and future efforts to protect the fishery that we all respect and depend upon.
Firstly, the PTTS has worked closely with biologists from the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commissions, Fish & Wildlife Research Institute to make sure we all benefit from the best science available and help to manage the fishery. In 2005, the PTTS served as the pilot study for the FWC´s current Tarpon DNA tagging program. Since then, our organization and our anglers have provided nearly 1,000 Tarpon DNA samples to the FWC to further their research.
More recently, at the request of FWC biologists, we allowed FWC Tarpon Researchers to take possession of Tarpon that had been weighed during our 2010 PTTS & WPTTS events, so they could take blood samples and perform other tests that they were not normally able to perform, as easily, and cost effectively, as they could at our events. The purpose of the Tarpon Physiology study was to evaluate the effects of fight time, handling and the environment on the stress responses of tarpon measured using changes in blood chemistry. This study is ongoing.
Today, the best scientific data available indicate the Tarpon population is healthy and stable. The harvest of Tarpon each year in Florida is less than 1 percent of total fish caught. The Catch and Release mortality of Tarpon in Florida is an average of 13 percent. Absent of predation, the Catch and Release mortality rate falls to 5 percent. These numbers are very low and further illustrate that there is not a problem with the Tarpon population in Florida.
As for Boca Grande area and PTTS's impact, on average, 81 Tarpon per year are weighed in PTTS & WPTTS events. Hypothetically assuming the mortality rate of these fish was 100 percent, which it has been scientifically proven not to be, PTTS tournament activity likely has no effect on the Tarpon population as a whole. Further, each of those fish is legally allowed to be harvested, but PTTS tournament regulations require the fish to be released alive.
In addition, the PTTS remains one of the only inshore fishing tournaments that require the use of circle hooks, which have been found to greatly reduce the catch and release mortality on Tarpon and a variety of other fish species because of their design to hook fish in the corner of the mouth. Circle hooks are required for use with livebait or artificial lures in PTTS competition. This rule will remain in effect in 2012, and we encourage our anglers to exercise this practice outside of tournament hours.
On that topic, in 2004, scientists at the Florida Wildlife Research Institute, the research arm of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission conducted a study of Tarpon Catch and Release Mortality and the incidences of foul hooking of Tarpon in Boca Grande. The study found foul hooking using the methods of livebait or "jig" fishing did not contribute significantly to the mortality of Tarpon. The report also pointed out foul hooking is normal in hook and line fishing, and the percentages of foul hooking of Tarpon by anglers using the "jig" was in accord with foul-hooking percentages recorded in other fisheries. Since our inception we have disqualified any fish hooked outside of the mouth, and this rule will remain in effect.
This year we plan to further our conservation efforts by continuing to work closely with the FWC and making adjustments to our tournament rules. Based on the best science available and recommendations by the FWC on how to further reduce stress and mortality of fish caught during our events, we will be implementing the following changes for our 2012 events:
Boundaries: Teams fighting a fish will no longer be allowed to weigh the fish if the team's boat leaves the designated Boca Grande Pass boundaries.
This rule will motivate the teams to land the fish as fast as possible, which will result in less fight time. It will also limit the towing time and distance to the weigh scale.
Line Size: The minimum line size permitted for use will be increased from 40lb test, to 50lb test.
Increasing the minimum size and strength of our competitor's fishing line will result in less fight time.
Weigh process: Teams will no longer hoist the fish out of the water for pictures at the weigh scale. The photos will be taken in our newly designed clear sling. Additionally, we will have two designated "Release Teams" trained by fisheries biologists in proper handling and revival techniques. The release teams will be responsible for the revival and release of all weighed fish ensuring that they are released outside of the fight zone
Our organization and anglers understand that we have a duty to conserve and protect the resource we enjoy so much, and to give back to the community by supporting conservation and preservation efforts. This year we pledge to provide $15,000 to further support the FWRI's Tarpon Genetic Recapture Study, and to resurrect the Boca Grande Pass Cleanup.
Tarpon can be identified using DNA fingerprinting, or "fin printing," techniques. Genetic samples collected by the angling public can be used to determine recapture rates, health, migration, and movements of individual fish. By evaluating these factors on recaptured fish over time, biologists at the FWRI and partners at Mote Marine Laboratory can assess the success of tarpon stocks and the connectivity of, or relationship between, tarpon and different bodies of Florida waters.
Efforts designed to remove human generated debris from the bottom of Boca Grande Pass have not occurred since 2008. During past cleanup efforts, tons of debris has been cleared from the floor and ledges of the pass. Among recovered items have been many anchors, ropes, crab traps, heavy wire and cable, and fishing terminal tackle or all types and sizes. These items often hang up anglers' lines only adding to the debris. Resurrecting the Pass cleanup effort will have a positive impact on the Boca Grande Pass habitat and the variety of wildlife that calls it home.
We will continue to promote conservation and to conduct our activities while exercising the utmost respect for the fishery, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss anything we can do to provide additional benefits to the community.
Joe Mercurio
VP/General Manager
Silver King Entertainment, LLC
Vince Staley
12:16 PM (1 hour ago)
to PTTS, etc
Dear Joe:
1st. You sent your email in the open so that anyone can copy several hundred addresses instead of using BCC. Thank you in advance for the spam surely to follow.
2nd. I've watched your "contest" enough times to realized that many of your collected tarpon DNA samples represent dead fish that will never be seen again.
3rd. Your operation will eventually cause the tarpon to avoid Boca Grande as it is so disruptive of their normal migration patterns.
4th. The circus atmosphere your "contest" creates furthers the culture of excess where more is the ultimate goal.
5th. Only the sharks and bottom feeders benefit from this absurdity.
Vince Staley
|Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


text:
Alternative Titles: gnosiology, theory of knowledge
Epistemology, the study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē ("knowledge") and logos ("reason"), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. Epistemology has a long history, beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing to the present. Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy, and nearly every great philosopher has contributed to it.
The nature of epistemology
Epistemology as a discipline
Why should there be a discipline such as epistemology? Aristotle (384–322 bce) provided ... (100 of 25,108 words)


text:
Having an online store or a page for business isn't enough when it comes to gaining lots of income. If you're serious about making a lot of money from the internet, you should create a website that is discoverable, appealing to people and fully-functional as well. If you're already selling goods and services but think that you aren't making more than what you should then you should do something about your page. You should consider applying internet marketing strategies if you're really serious about making money because promoting yourself and advertising whatever it is that you're selling would let you improve your sales. Aside from marketing your page, you should also try to improve the overall content or interface of your website. Try to make your site easy to navigate and also easy to understand as well. Once you take these things into consideration, it would be possible for you to gain more followers and real buyers. You would not only increase your sales but also improve your reputation as well. Plea read on for some of the techniques that you could apply for help.
To improve your income generation, instead of simply providing people with your contact information and the details of your bank account number, you should try make use of online payment services like PayPal so that you would be able to make payments easier and also gain the confidence of customers as well. People who want to shop online usually look for ways wherein they could make instant purchases with the utmost ease. Some of them don't have the time or the inclination to travel to payment centers just to deposit money for payment and that's why they do online shopping. Of course, doing something about the payment method for your site isn't enough if you want to improve your earnings online. If you're getting negative comments about the physical appearance of your website or are unsatisfied with the site that you own then you should also improve its overall look and contents. If you're not an expert when it comes to site enhancement and management, you could try to hire a professional graphic designer to help you out. Although you might have to spend a bit of your money when you employ a site editor, you would at least be able to have many advantages when you do so.
Of course, you would only be able to sell more and gain customers when people see and have direct access to your website. Even if you've already uploaded your site to a server, you still need to make an effort in order to make search engines believe that they should include your page as one of their relevant search results. For you to let people see your page, you should visit organicseoconsultant.com/ and hire at least one SEO professional. That's because search engine optimization can let your website become indexed and also considered to be relevant. If you don't want assistance, you could do SEO on your own. For you to know how to do it, you should try to search instructions on how to do keyword research, inbound link creation and also indexing first.