text:
< Return To Hearing
Jack Landman GoldsmithOctober 2, 2007
Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism I thank the Judiciary Committee for inviting me to testify on the important issue of "Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism." I first confronted this issue when I was Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense from September 2002 through July 2003. My formative experiences on the issue occurred during my service as Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from October 2003 through June 2004. When I left the Justice Department and moved to Harvard Law School, I spent three years reading and thinking about the issue and reflecting on my time in government. The result of this study is a book called The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration. This testimony draws in part on ideas in my book. Under the U.S. Constitution, the President possesses the twin duties of keeping the country safe and enforcing the law. In the fight against terrorism, these duties pose historically unique challenges, and they often conflict. The last six years teach many lessons about how the President and Congress can better meet these challenges and resolve these conflicts. Since Watergate and Vietnam, and to a much greater degree than at any time in our history, the President's responsibilities as Commander in Chief have become regulated by law. Core traditional military functions like surveilling, targeting, detaining, and interrogating enemy soldiers are today regulated by complex domestic and international laws. Many of these laws have criminal penalties enforceable by the Justice Department, special counsels, inspectors general, and foreign and international courts. These laws, and the lawyers and courts that enforce them, serve many important goals. They are designed to prevent the extraordinary abuses committed by the intelligence community in the 1950s and 1960s when the community was largely unregulated by law and ignored by Congress - abuses that included experimenting with psychotropic drugs on unwitting human beings, and surveilling Americans who did nothing more than exercise their First Amendment rights to protest the Vietnam war or advocate civil rights change. The laws also aim to prevent wartime abuses by the military, and more broadly to take a stand against human rights abuses that were the scourge of the twentieth century. The laws also impose discipline and accountability on the sprawling intelligence and military bureaucracies. And they ensure that the Executive branch channels its wartime efforts in ways that maximize military effectiveness and minimize unnecessary harm. Compliance with these laws - and more generally with the rule of law in wartime - is critical to both domestic legitimacy and to the task of winning hearts and minds that is so central in modern warfare. Many people believe that the Bush administration has been indifferent to these legal constraints in the fight against terrorism. In my experience, the opposite is true: the administration has paid scrupulous attention to law. The CIA has more than 100 lawyers; the Department of Defense has more than 10,000. Nothing of significance happens in the military or intelligence establishments without the approval of at least one lawyer, and often several lawyers. And the Department of Justice has probably written more legal opinions related to this war than in all prior American wars combined. Executive branch officials take legal restrictions seriously because they have a constitutional duty to do so, because it is the right thing to do, and because they appreciate the virtues of compliance, described earlier. They also take legal restrictions seriously because they are afraid of going to jail. In my two years in the government, I witnessed top officials and bureaucrats in the White House and throughout the administration openly worrying that investigators acting with the benefit of hindsight in a different political environment would impose criminal penalties on heat-of-battle judgment calls. These men and women did not believe they were breaking the law, and indeed they took extraordinary steps to ensure that they didn't. But they worried nonetheless because they would be judged in an atmosphere different from when they acted, because the criminal investigative process is mysterious and scary, because lawyer's fees can cause devastating financial losses, and because an investigation can produce reputation-ruining dishonor and possibly end one's career, even if one emerges "innocent." In my experience, the intelligence community in particular, and especially the CIA, is fearful of "retroactive discipline" - the idea that no matter how much legal and political support an intelligence operative gets before engaging in aggressive actions, he will be punished after the fact by a different set of rules created in a different political environment. Fear of retroactive discipline is why CIA leaders encourage their officers to buy professional liability insurance for legal expenses to be incurred in criminal and related investigations. And it was one of the main causes of the much-criticized risk aversion that gripped the counterterrorism world before 9/11. Law and lawyers were a contributing factor to this risk aversion. Senator Bob Graham complained about "cautious lawyering" at the CIA one year after 9/11, during the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmation hearings of Scott Muller for the General Counsel of the CIA. "I know from my work on this Committee for the past 10 years that lawyers at CIA sometimes have displayed a risk aversion in the advice they give their clients," he said. "Unfortunately, we are not living in times in which lawyers can say no to an operation just to play it safe," the Senator added. "We need excellent, aggressive lawyers who give sound, accurate legal advice, not lawyers who say no to an otherwise legal operation just because it is easier to put on the brakes." Graham concluded by asking Muller to give "cutting-edge legal advice that lets the operators do their jobs quickly and aggressively within the confines of law and regulation."1 Senator Graham's comments reveal the national security lawyer's central dilemma. The lawyer is criticized for being too cautious, for putting on the brakes, for playing it safe in a dangerous world. But he is in the same breath cautioned to give "sound, accurate" legal advice within the "confines" of the law. It is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to do both. The laws that govern the intelligence agencies are usually written not in black and white, but rather in complex shades of gray. When intelligence clients ask lawyers whether aggressive counterterrorism actions are legal, clear answers don't always leap from the pages of the Constitution or the U.S. Code. Often the best a lawyer can do is to lay out degrees of legal risk, and to advise that the further the client pushes into the dark areas of gray legal prohibitions, the more legal risk he assumes. Even when the law is clear, lawyers sometimes offer hedging interpretations based on extra-legal concerns, such as a worry about political repercussions of the program under review. Whatever its source, equivocal legal advice understandably frustrates the men and women asked to take aggressive action to protect the country, and who want to know whether what they are doing is legal or not, period. When they hear a government lawyer talking about shades of gray and degrees of risk, they understandably hesitate, especially when criminal laws are in play. The first reason was that the risk aversion that characterized the pre-9/11 period was no longer acceptable. After 9/11, the message to the Executive branch from Senator Graham, others in Congress, the 9/11 Commission, and pundits of all stripes was that the government must be more forward-leaning against the terrorist threat: more imaginative, more aggressive, less risk-averse. These criticisms made clear to every counter-terrorism officer in the government that he or she, and ultimately the President, would be blamed harshly by the American people for failing to stop a second attack. This was not a new message for the Bush administration. "Don't ever let this happen again," President Bush told Attorney General Ashcroft during a National Security Council Meeting on September 12, 2001.2 The Commander in Chief's order had a big impact on the Attorney General and other counterterrorism officials, and induced a grave sense of responsibility for preventing the next attack. This responsibility was heightened by the harrowing threat reports that counterterrorism officials receive daily. "You simply could not sit where I did and read what passed across my desk on a daily basis and be anything other than scared to death about what it portended" says George Tenet in his book At the Center of the Storm, capturing the attitude of every person I knew in government who regularly read terrorist threat reports.3 One of the reasons the threat reports are so frightening is that the government has little "actionable intelligence" about who is going to hit us, or where, or when.4 This want of actionable intelligence combines with knowledge of the threats to produce an aggressive attitude that often assumes the worst about the threats and embraces a "better safe than sorry" posture toward them. Many people have criticized this attitude.5 But the Executive's internal anxiety in the face of the threats is not something we can wish or will away. For generations the Presidency will be characterized by an unremitting fear of devastating attack, a preoccupation with preventing the attack, and a proclivity to act aggressively and preemptively to do so. The threats have such a firm foundation in possibility, and such a frightening promise of enormous destruction, that any responsible Executive leader aware of the threats must take them very seriously and must often assume the worst. In my opinion, every foreseeable post-9/11 President, Republican or Democrat, will embrace this attitude, just as Presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and others did in time of war or emergency. If anything, the next Democratic President - having digested a few threat reports, and flush with the awareness that he or she alone will be wholly responsible when thousands of Americans are killed in the next attack - will be even more anxious than the current President to thwart the threat, especially if there is no attack in the interim. The anxious attitude toward threats affects the Executive branch's attitude toward law. After 9/11, CIA Director and former NSA Director General Michael Hayden would often say that he was "troubled if not using the full authority allowed by law," and that he was "going to live on the edge," where his "spikes will have chalk on them."6 Hayden's view permeated the Executive branch after 9/11, especially in the early years after 9/11. This attitude, too, was one that prior crisis presidencies - those of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and others - embraced. The second major development after 9/11 was uncertainty about how pre-9/11 law applied, or should apply, to the novel war against transnational non-state actor terrorists. Sometimes the issue was whether legal frameworks were up to the task of preventing a recurrence of 9/11. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for example, was enacted in 1978 on the basis of 1978 technological and legal assumptions, and was not designed for wartime surveillance, much less the nimble surveillance needed to find shadowy non-state terror groups who communicate and plan using disposable cell phones and encrypted e-mails buried in a global multi-billion-communications-per-day system. Other times the issue was legal uncertainty about how pre-9/11 law applied in the post-9/11 world - uncertainty that stoked counterterrorism officials' fears of later being deemed to have violated the law. There were dozens of hard questions about how domestic and international laws applied to the novel problem of war against a non-state transnational terrorist organization. One question was whether and how ordinary domestic constitutional and statutory law applied in this war. The Office of Legal Counsel, for example, wrote a long memorandum in 2002 analyzing the many ways that the famous Miranda rule ("you have the right to remain silent") applied on the battlefield in Afghanistan.7 Other questions concerned, for example, how the 1949 Geneva Conventions drafted primarily with traditional interstate war in mind applied in the very different type of conflict with al Qaeda and its affiliates. In light of all of these developments, the central challenge of "Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism" is the proper management of the tension between the Executive branch's duty to prevent the next attack and its duty to comply with the law. The Executive branch is under enormous pressure to do everything possible, including action at the edges of the law, to stop the next attack. But this fear of the next attack (and of the inability to thwart it) often clashes with a fear of law: a fear of going too far, of doing too much, of ending up before a grand jury or an Inspector General or a foreign court, and possibly going to jail. This tension between fear of attack and fear of violating the law lies behind the Bush administration's legal policy decisions about the Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Geneva Conventions, military commissions, interrogation, Guantanamo Bay, and more. Examining the issue from the always-more-lucid perspective of hindsight, I believe there are at least eight lessons - four for the Executive branch, and four for Congress - that can be gleaned from the nation's experience negotiating this tension during the last six years. 1. OLC Every day, thousands of Executive branch lawyers work to ensure that the Executive branch complies with the law. Sitting near the top of the hierarchy of Executive branch lawyers is the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") in the Justice Department, the office I headed for nine months. Ever since 9/11, OLC has advised the Attorney General, the White House, and other agencies about the legality of terrorism-related presidential actions. OLC decides whether the government's most sensitive and important counterterrorism plans are lawful, and thus whether they can be implemented. Its decisions are, with narrow exceptions, binding on all Executive branch actors, subject to being overruled by the Attorney General or the President. More than any other institution inside the Executive branch, OLC is supposed to provide detached, apolitical legal advice. And it has an honorable tradition of providing such advice to a remarkable degree. But OLC's position is precarious: few real rules guide its actions, it has little or no oversight or public accountability, and it is (and always has been) subject to many subtle pressures to help the President achieve his goals. In order to ensure that it provides the President with the high-quality advice that he needs, OLC has over the years developed powerful internal norms of detachment and professionalism. It has also developed a number of practices to help it avoid errors, and to compensate for the fact that its opinions are not subject to the same critical scrutiny of adversary process and dissent that characterize the judiciary. These practices include (1) insisting that agencies seeking OLC's advice request OLC opinions in writing, setting forth their view of the law and facts; (2) seeking the written legal and factual views of all agencies with expertise or that may be affected by the opinion; (3) subjecting draft opinions to multiple levels of scrutiny and review inside OLC; (4) writing narrowly tailored opinions; and (5) publishing non-classified opinions when possible. OLC has not always followed these norms and practices during the past six years, or even during the period before that. It seems clear that had these norms and practices been followed, OLC would have avoided some and perhaps most of the mistakes that it made. Presidents and Attorneys General should insist that OLC follow its traditional norms and practices, even in times of crisis. 2. Secrecy Secrecy is obviously important in war. But too much secrecy can be counterproductive. In my opinion, the Bush administration was excessively secretive inside the Executive branch when it came to the production and receipt of legal advice. For example, the controversial interrogation opinion of August 1, 2002, was not circulated for comments to the State Department, which had expertise on the meaning of torture and the consequences of adopting particular interpretations of torture. Another example is the Terrorist Surveillance Program ("TSP"). Before I arrived at OLC, the NSA General Counsel did not have access to OLC's legal analysis related to the TSP. FBI Director Mueller has noted that Attorney General Ashcroft complained "that he was barred from obtaining the advice he needed on the program by the strict compartmentalization rules of the WH."8 I too faced resistance from the White House in getting the clearance for the lawyers I needed to analyze the program. This extreme internal secrecy was exacerbated by the fact that the people inside the small circle of lawyers working on these issues shared remarkably like-minded and sometimes unusual views about the law. Close-looped decisionmaking by like-minded lawyers resulted in legal and political errors that would be very costly to the administration down the road. Many of these errors were unnecessary and would have been avoided with wider deliberation and consultation. The administration acknowledged, for example, that the extreme contentions about the President's exclusive constitutional powers in the famous interrogation opinions - contentions that led many in the United States and abroad to assume the worst about the administration's intentions related to torture - were "overbroad" and "unnecessary."9 There is a balance to be struck between too much and too little secrecy inside the Executive branch. But just as it was widely thought after 9/11 that the intelligence agencies were acting sub-optimally because they were not sharing information, it now seems obvious that the Executive branch was too secretive and compartmentalized in its legal deliberations in the years after 9/11. Executive branch legal analysis naturally suffers from a lack of external scrutiny and criticism, and every effort should be made to enhance rather than hinder such scrutiny and criticism inside the government, even, and indeed especially, on sensitive national security matters. 3. Working with Congress One obvious solution to the many legal novelties and legal hurdles that the administration faced after 9/11 was to work with Congress to update the law. This was easier to do with some issues (for example, detention and military commissions) than others (for example, surveillance and interrogation). But on these issues and many others, the administration often eschewed genuine deliberation with Congress, both formal and informal, not just with members of the opposition, but with members of the President's own party as well. It instead took a "go-it-alone" approach that rested on the President's Article II powers, World War II and Civil War precedents, and imaginative interpretations of extant law. Political disagreement and debate are strengths of a democracy in wartime, for they allows the country's leadership to develop a fuller picture of legal, practical and strategic questions, and to learn about and correct its errors. The administration's failure to engage Congress deprived the country of national debates about the nature of the threat and its proper response that would have served an educative and legitimating function regardless of what emerged from the process. The go-it-alone strategy minimized the short-term discomforts to the Executive branch of public debate, but at the expense of medium-term Executive branch mistakes. When the Executive branch forces Congress to deliberate, argue, and take a stand, it spreads accountability and minimizes the recriminations and other bad effects of the risk taking that the President's job demands. The Bush administration's failure to do this has often left the President alone, holding the bag, as things have gone wrong. And it has hurt the Executive branch in dealing with the third branch of government as well. Courts have been much more skeptical of the President's counterterrorism policies than they would have been had the President secured Congress's express support. The administration did go to Congress twice in the last thirteen months, and Congress responded with the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which authorized military commissions and much more, and the Protect America Act of 2007, which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to give the President more power and flexibility in finding the enemy. These statutes show that when the President insists that Congress stand up and be counted, he can get a lot of what he thinks he needs to protect national security. Forcing Congress to assume joint responsibility for counterterrorism policy weakens presidential prerogatives to act unilaterally. But it strengthens presidential power overall, as Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt understood. 4. Executive Power and Trust It is no secret that a top priority for the administration has been to leave the presidency more powerful than it found it. I do not believe, as many have claimed, that the administration has used 9/11 as an excuse to expand Executive power. But I do think that its views of Executive power have influenced how it has executed the fight against terrorism. There is much to say on this topic, but I focus here on two lessons that I believe the last six years teach. The first concerns relations with Congress. One of the reasons that the administration did not consult more with Congress is that it believed doing so on any particular issue would imply a lack of inherent or exclusive Executive power, and might result in restrictions imposed by Congress that tied the President's hands in ways that prevented him from thwarting the terrorists. The administration believed that the President would be best equipped to identify and defeat the uncertain, shifting, and lethal new enemy by eliminating all hurdles to the exercise of his power. It had no sense of trading constraint for power - the idea that the President's strength and effectiveness could be enhanced by accepting reasonable limits on his prerogatives in order to secure more significant support from Congress, the courts, and allies. I believe the last six years have shown this to be a flawed conception of Executive power. The President possesses broad inherent wartime powers under our Constitution. And there is a place for Executive unilateralism, especially in time of crisis when there is no opportunity for consultation, or when the President faces some other form of genuine necessity. But the last six years have borne out the truism among political scientists and historians who study the American presidency that a president's authority is not measured primarily by his hard power in statutes and precedents, but rather by his softer powers to convince the other institutions of our society to come around to his point of view. The second point concerns the administration's public pronouncements about its desire to expand Executive power vis à vis Congress. The administration has often engaged in this unusual practice in contexts (such as interviews, legal opinions, and signing statements) where the assertions of such power were entirely unnecessary. The main consequence of these pronouncements has been to legitimize the fear and mistrust of presidential power that is always present in wartime, and that most wartime presidents seek to assuage rather than exacerbate. When a wartime administration makes little attempt to work with the other institutions of our government and makes it a public priority to expand its power, Congress, courts, and the public listen carefully, and worry. These pronouncements about Executive power have been especially costly in this war, where trust in the Presidency is more important than ever because the public cannot fully see the terrorist threat and does not fully appreciate it; because this war has an indefinite and diffuse character that challenges a democracy's vigilance; because the academic and journalistic establishments are much more skeptical about many aspects of this war than they were in World War II or the Civil War; and because this war is fought in an unprecedentedly constrictive legal culture. Congress 1. Oversight The first lesson of the last six years for Congress is the value of oversight. Despite years of studying the separation of powers, I was impressed during my time in government how even the weakest forms of congressional oversight forced valuable deliberation inside the Executive branch. Questions from Senators on this Committee in 2003-2004 about definition and treatment of enemy combatants, for example, sparked extended inter-agency discussions that led the government to improve the definition and treatment of detainees in ways that likely never would have otherwise occurred. The seemingly trivial requirement to notify Congress about covert actions has a similarly beneficial impact on Executive branch actions. "I sat in the Situation Room in secret meetings for nearly twenty years under five Presidents," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates once said, reflecting on the significance of such notification during his prior jobs in the CIA and NSC, "and all I can say is that some awfully crazy schemes might well have been approved had everyone present not known and expected hard questions, debate and criticism from the Hill."10 Oversight is important because it forces the Executive branch to deliberate, to explain, to defend, to justify, and to learn about and fix its errors. Had the Executive been subject to more congressional oversight during the last six years, it would have committed fewer mistakes. 2. New Legislation Presidential-congressional relations are a two-way street, and in the last six years Congress has not always exercised its national security responsibilities to update relevant law. As mentioned earlier, Congress and the President have worked together recently to address some of the hardest issues in U.S. counterterrorism policy. But these statutes do not come close to establishing the comprehensive, coherent, and durable institutions the country needs to meet the endless terror threat. The 2006 military commission legislation is bogged down in litigation, and we have not had a single trial by military commission. Nor do we have a consensus on whether and when terrorists should be tried in military or civilian courts, if at all, or about the proper scope of interrogation. Congress and the President also have not acted together to establish a coherent and durable institution for detaining the hundreds of dangerous terrorists who probably can never be brought to trial in any forum. Finally, while the 2007 surveillance legislation reflected a consensus on the need to modernize our ability to monitor terrorists, the legislation was not comprehensive, and it conferred only temporary authorities that are now the topic of intense debate in Congress. In my opinion Congress is too often inclined - on issues ranging from surveillance policy to detention policy - to push off the hard and controversial questions of counterterrorism policy to courts. Courts have an important role to play in policing the boundaries of counterterrorism policy. But judges are unelected and politically unaccountable, and lack expertise in intelligence or access to intelligence reports. They should not be forced to make the hard tradeoffs, or to address the difficult questions of institutional design, that modern counterterrorism policy requires. The Supreme Court "is only one branch of government, and it cannot, and should not, give broad answers to the difficult policy questions that face our nation today," said Justice O'Connor, soon after her retirement, in a speech at West Point about legal issues in the war on terror. "[W]e expect Congress to step in," she said, before noting, disappointingly, that "it has done surprisingly little to date to clarify United States policy towards prisoners in the war on terror."11 Two years after Justice O'Connor wrote these words, Congress has still done nothing of substance to resolve the novel and difficult issues surrounding the most consequential U.S. policy toward prisoners in the war on terror: the long-term military detention, without trial, of dangerous terrorists. About all Congress has done recently on this issue is to strip federal courts of statutory habeas corpus jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainee issues in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and then to debate this Fall whether it should restore habeas jurisdiction. At bottom this is a debate over which court Congress wants to craft this country's detention policy: a court on habeas review or, if habeas remains eliminated, the D.C. Circuit acting on direct review under standards articulated in the Detainee Treatment Act.12 Either way, Congress has essentially delegated to courts the task of resolving one of the country's most serious and contested counterterrorism debates. Justice O'Connor is right: The People's elected representatives should not pass the buck on this hard issue to the judiciary. 3. Vague Legal Prohibitions When Congress places vague legal prohibitions on the Executive branch in the intelligence and military contexts, and especially when the vague legal prohibitions are enforceable by criminal penalties, three potential effects follow: the President has significant potential discretion about how to implement the law, counterterrorism officials worry that a prosecutor down the road will conclude that they violated the vague law; and unaccountable lawyers will often have the last say on the scope of the law and thus on the scope of our counterterrorism policies. Consider the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which made clear that U.S. officials will go to jail if they commit acts of "cruel or inhuman treatment."13 Although Congress defined the term "cruel or inhuman treatment,"14 it left many concrete issues unsettled. The new law "rein[s] in the [CIA] program," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed. It makes it a crime to use interrogation techniques like "painful stress positions and prolonged sleep deprivation," said Senator Richard Durbin. Senator John McCain agreed that the 2006 Act would end "extreme measures" by the CIA.15 President Bush had a different view. In his official "signing statement" for the law, he said: "When I proposed this legislation, I explained that I would have one test for the bill Congress produced: Will it allow the CIA program to continue? This bill meets that test."16 Who is right? Suppose U.S. forces in Afghanistan capture Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden's lieutenant, and find in his "pocket litter" concrete evidence of planning for a large-scale biological attack on Los Angeles, but no dates or names. And suppose that the CIA, responding to the Presidents' demand to do everything lawful to get the information, proposes "tough" interrogation techniques short of torture. What effect will the prohibition on "cruel or inhuman" treatment have? There are three potential answers to this question. The first is that the Executive branch rather than Congress will decide this question. The President's constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" requires that he interpret the law before he enforces it. When a legal prohibition is vague, it gives the Executive branch discretion about how to interpret and enforce it. And in the military and intelligence context the Executive branch will usually have the last word on this interpretation, because most military and intelligence matters are beyond judicial review. The second potential effect of the "cruel or inhuman" prohibition is to chill counterterrorism officials from acting at the edges of the law. It is well known that vague criminal prohibitions over-deter because actors subject to the prohibitions will not want to risk touching the fuzzy criminal line and thus will keep some distance from it. Vague criminal prohibitions are a prime cause of lawyer-induced risk aversion. They cause special fear of "retroactive discipline" by investigators and prosecutors down the road who, acting in a different political or threat environment, might take a different, more restrictive view of the vague prohibition. The third and dominant effect of a criminal prohibition on "cruel or inhuman" treatment is to empower an executive branch lawyer - probably the head of OLC, or the General Counsel of the CIA - to determine the scope of the prohibition. The President in theory has wide interpretive power, but in fact counterterrorism officials will not act beyond what their lawyers tell them is permissible under the law. The lawyer trying to determine what is permissible under the "cruel or inhuman" treatment standard will have few judicial precedents to draw on, and little concrete guidance from the statute. The scope of Congress's prohibition will thus depend on the lawyer's interpretive philosophy, his background and outlook, his perception of the threat, his sense of professionalism, his ambitions, and many other vagaries that lead different people to interpret the same law differently. This means that the legal answers counterterrorism officials receive depends critically on which lawyer they ask, and under what circumstances. It also means that the scope of our counterterrorism policies are often determined by a largely unaccountable lawyer rather than by the politically accountable President or Congress. I am not criticizing Congress's enactment of the "cruel or inhuman" treatment standard, for as mentioned earlier Congress did struggle to define the term, with modest success. The example is merely illustrative, and is designed to show the not-always-welcome consequences that follow when Congress regulates the military and intelligence establishments, as it so often does, with vague criminal prohibitions. 4. Confirmation Today many top spots at the Justice Department remain vacant due to retirement or to the Senate's delay in confirming, or refusal to confirm, the person nominated for these spots. The President's nominee for General Counsel at the CIA recently withdrew from consideration after it became clear that the Senate would not confirm him. The Senate has delayed or declined to confirm other top legal positions in the Executive branch. I believe this practice has a deleterious effect on the rule of law. In my experience, a nominee for a legal position has a greater sense of responsibility to the American people, enhanced independence, and more fortitude in resisting political pressures to bend the law, when he or she has been confirmed by the Senate. I thus believe that one important step in preserving the rule of law in the fight against terrorism is to confirm nominees for top legal positions in the Executive branch as expeditiously as possible. The primary responsibility for maintaining national security and enforcing the law rests with the President. The President represents all the people, he directs the military and intelligence apparatus, and only he can act with the force, secrecy, and decisiveness needed to meet and defeat the enemy. But the President's control over the military and intelligence agencies, his ability to act in secret, and his power to self-interpret legal limits on his authority create opportunities for abuse, and spark mistrust of his power, especially in war. "The problem is to devise a means of reconciling a strong and purposeful Presidency with equally strong and purposeful forms of democratic control," wrote Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in a Watergate-era book that still resonates today.17 The problem Schlesinger identifies concerns not just the current president, but also future presidents as far as the eye can see. These future presidents will read the same frightening threat reports as President Bush, and probably more frightening ones; the responsibilities of the office will cause these presidents to take super-aggressive steps to keep the country safe; and these steps will often bump up against legal limitations designed to check presidential power and foster democratic accountability. I have tried to suggest ways to help our government meet the twin challenges of keeping us safe and preserving the rule of law. The first and most important step, I believe, is to recognize that the government - and especially the President - will have an extraordinarily difficult time managing these challenges, and to acknowledge that the institutions of our government can only address these challenges by working together in good faith.


text:
Accepted Offer
Negative Experience
Difficult Interview
I applied through an employee referral and the process took 1+ week - interviewed at Microsoft in July 2009.
Interview Details 6 interviews with a blend of technical and business/consulting type questions. HR when I was originally hired was much better and more professional. Now they seemed to have outsourced HR to a company that was clearly the lowest bidder. They mess up interviews times etc. - completely unprofessional - but you get what you pay for.
Interview Question – A couple of off the wall questions like "what are you reading now". Technical questions in can be challenging, but generally not an issue if you are smart and know your stuff. Answer Question
Negotiation Details – Here is the deal - no real negotiation.
Accepted Offer
Positive Experience
Difficult Interview
I applied through a recruiter and the process took 5 weeks - interviewed at Microsoft in October 2013.
Interview Details MicroSoft really does have a machine when it comes to the interview process. It started when I got an invite from an internal MS Recruiter on LinkedIn. After initially turning him away, he was persistent and we had a short discussion on the phone. This was followed by a more formal phone discussion where he outlined the job and what they were looking for to see if I might have an interest. He allowed me to think about it for a weekend and we decided to move forward.
That was followed up with a phone interview with a Sr. Consultant that was focused on technical questions on the system primarily along with some soft skill questions.
I had another phone interview with a consultant and was then handed off to a Staffing Consultant Team who arranged for me to have an onsite interview.
I flew in the night before and got into their office early on a Friday. I met with the Consulting Manager who interviewed me, followed by 2 other interviewers. It was approximately a half day process in their office.
They followed up with a response the early part of the next week.
Truthfully, I probably had as many questions for them as they had for me. And I believed that worked in my favor. I did research on LinkedIn for the final three interviewers to get an understanding of where they may be coming from.
Interview Question – Whether or not I minded working on a team. View Answer
Negotiation Details – They indicated that there really wasn't any room salary wise on their offer (which was very fair for the position). After initially making some requests, and after discussing it with my wife, we decided that their offer was generous and we didn't need to negotiate any further.
Accepted Offer
Positive Experience
Average Interview
I applied through a staffing agency and the process took 4+ weeks - interviewed at Microsoft in October 2010.
Interview Details Head hunter contacted me and initiated the process. Then MS recuiters kept me updated and scheduled appointments.
I had a meeting with my direct manager (will ask about salary expectations), then a technical interview with another consultant, and then an interview with HR and department manager.
frequency of meetings was every 10 days approx.
Interview Questions
Negotiation Details – No negotiations. They asked my what my expectations were, and presented my a "take it or leave it" offer that was less then my declared expectations were
Accepted Offer
Neutral Experience
Average Interview
I applied through an employee referral and the process took 2+ weeks - interviewed at Microsoft in May 2009.
Interview Details Had six rounds of interview. It was straight forward. Had a Technical round and then puzzeles interview round and then meet some management and leaders. The lunch was informal and was able to talk general work stuff as well. The turn around time was quick. Did not get a chance to negeotiate much
Interview Question – Puzzeles View Answer
Accepted Offer
Positive Experience
Difficult Interview
I applied online and the process took 2 weeks - interviewed at Microsoft.
Interview Details Good hiring process , multiple rounds , each round is equally important and need to do good in all the rounds.
Interview Question – Puzzles , it was a long time back Answer Question
Accepted Offer
Neutral Experience
Difficult Interview
I applied through a recruiter - interviewed at Microsoft in August 2008.
Interview Details 5 rounds
Interview Question – what are your strength and weakness Answer Question
Negotiation Details – What were you able to negotiate? What advice would you give others considering an offer?
Accepted Offer
Positive Experience
Difficult Interview
I applied through a recruiter and the process took 2+ weeks - interviewed at Microsoft in January 2012.
Interview Details Was initially contacted by a recruiter from my LinkedIn profile. Consistently well-organized and professional process. Three phone interviews - the first describing how they felt my experience fit the position and the last two were more technical ensuring that I knew the product architecture using specific customer scenarios. I was then flown out to an office and had three seperate on-site interviews that focused mostly on consulting skill set. It was a well performed conversational interview process and a low-stress experience.
Interview Question – Have you delt with a difficult customer - what what the situation and how did you deal with it? Answer Question
No Offer
Negative Experience
Average Interview
I applied online and the process took 2 months - interviewed at Microsoft in March 2011.
Interview Details Microsoft is a weird place to interview. I spent two days in face to face interviews. All the questions were about customer service, except for some brief technical questions. Not one question related to my experience. My resume was not even referred to. I guess they either really trusted what I said, or didn't really care about my experience.
I couldn't gage how I did, since all the questions could have been answered in several different ways. I was always interviewed by 2 people at a time, and I would say every 4th question the interviewers argued about what they thought the correct answer should be.
I was told during one of the phone interviews that if an internal candidate applied, we external people didn't stand a chance, but they still needed to interview 5 people. I get the feeling the interview was simply a check mark to say they interviewed the 5 people they were told they had to interview.
I never got any feedback after the face to face, not even the basic reject letter. I requested it about 3 weeks after the last interview, but was told by the interview coordinator that was not their job.
During the process I had 2 face to face interview days and 3 phone interviews. They were very good about communication until they were done with me. That left a pretty bad taste in my mouth for the company.
Interview Question – If you had to choose between helping your top two clients, what process would you use to decide which one you should help. View Answers (2)
Accepted Offer
Positive Experience
Difficult Interview
I applied through an employee referral and the process took 2 days - interviewed at Microsoft in February 2011.
Interview Details Interview lead was provided through posting on Facebook and through a friend who already works in the group I wanted in. The team was the Services (consulting) group. Had 4 interviewers each focusing on a different technical area (from what I listed in my resume) - in addition to technical questions, a lot of "soft-skills" probes to find out how to handle typical project situations.
Overall a great experience.
Interview Question – Describ, in detail, the differences between the Java VM/Runtime and the .NET runtime. Answer Question
Accepted Offer
Positive Experience
Difficult Interview
I applied through an employee referral and the process took 3 months - interviewed at Microsoft in March 2010.
Interview Details The outsourced HR/Recruiting staff is abysmal, committing all sorts of offenses ranging from misspelling of my name to outright failure to communicate interview timing. I was extremely underwhelmed at first, but found that if you can make it past them the Microsoft employees themselves are far more competent. Most interviews (except with the management staff) were very technical in nature. Expect to do some whiteboarding, and also expect that you won't be able to answer every question. One of my interviews seemed to be designed to push and push me to the point where in the last 10 minutes I said a whole lot of "I don't knows," and was absolutely sure I bombed it. To my surprise, I got an offer anyway. So don't get yourself down if you don't know everything.
Interview Question – What does the yield keyword in C# do? View Answer
Negotiation Details – There was no clear "negotiation" phase, and the process seemed geared toward moving directly from interviewing to an offer. Nobody asked me "what are your salary expectations?" or "what would it take to get you on board?" or any similar questions. Instead, they made an offer, and I negotiated from there. I got the distinct impression that negotiation is something that is rarely accommodated -- either you want to work for Microsoft or you don't. Still, I'm sure if you have a unique skill set and they REALLY want you, there is a little bit of wiggle room.
What do you want in a job? Do you want more than a paycheck? At Microsoft, you can discover potential you didn't know you had, push your limits, turn your ideas into reality and make a real impact on the industry and… — Full Overview
Provided by employer [?]
This is the employer's chance to tell you why you should work for them. The information provided is from their perspective.
Would you like us to review something? Please describe the problem with this {0} and we will look into it.
Sorry, but your feedback didn't make it to the team. Your input is valuable to us – would you mind trying again?
The difficulty rating is the average interview difficulty rating across all interview candidates.
The interview experience is the percentage of all interview candidates who said that their interview experience was positive, neutral or negative.
Your response will be removed from the review – this cannot be undone.
Copyright © 2008–2014, Glassdoor. All Rights Reserved. Your use of this service is subject to our Terms of Use and Privacy & Cookies Policy. Glassdoor ® is a registered trademark of Glassdoor, Inc.
Simply post an anonymous review for a recent interview experience or current/former employer. Your post is anonymous – and if you're worried someone will be able to identify your review, you can even post without telling us your job title and location. Learn More.
No thanks – I'll just look around
We do not post on Facebook
We do not post on Facebook

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Bass Pro Shops® Hard Arm Folding Chair
Sale price: Clearance price: Starting at: Sale starting at: Clearance starting at: Reg. price:
- Supportive and comfortable
- Powder-coated steel frame
- Tough aluminum armrests
- Water resistant polyester back and seat
- Built-in cupholder/mesh pocket
- Comes with carry bag with shoulder strap
Rated 4.3 out of 5 by 10
Rated 5 out of 5 by blig35 Well worth the extra bucks
If you're sick of sitting in the cheap folding chairs - you know the ones - you sink into them and are basically forced into sitting in an uncomfortable slouching position, then buy this chair. I bought one for my dad - he loved it. I then bought one for myself. I love it so much that I got my brother to buy one - and of course he loves it as well. This chair will last for a long time. Spend the extra $$$ and you'll definitely not regret it.
December 28, 2013
Rated 1 out of 5 by ScubaInst Poorly constructed
I purchased this chair fall of 12, I have used it maybe five times. The rivet that attaches to the back support came off at the end now the chairs is useless!
October 21, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by Gbear38 Nice Chair
Definitely a nice comfy chair. Takes a fraction of a minute longer to setup than most folding chairs but worth the effort. I'm quite satisfied with this chair.
July 16, 2013
Rated 5 out of 5 by Aaron33 Excellent Chair
Chair is great, had a gift card from a previous purchase, again thanks Bass Pro, Sturdy and easy to tote. Thanks again
June 28, 2013


text:
Download Preview | Edit or add effects |
by FBB, Stock Photo 34549877
action, artist, band, brazil, colors, concerts, curva-da-cintura, drums, entertainment, event, festival, festival med, festival-med, fun, guitar, guitar player, instruments, joy, lights, loul�?�©, mali, med, movement, music, music instruments, musician, party, people, performance, performer, performing, portugal, rhythms, rock, sing, singer, song, sound, stage, traditional, traditional music, voice, world, world music
Made with love in NYC.
Bigstock and Big Stock Photo are registered trademarks of Shutterstock. Bigstockphoto is a trademark of Shutterstock.
© 2004-2014 All rights reserved - Bigstock®


text:
Username Password (forgot?) or Register
Woocommerce payment module for use with http://bitcoin.in.th merchant accounts
Download Version 1.1
Requires: 3.0.1 or higher Compatible up to: 3.5.2 Last Updated: 2013-9-14 Downloads: 163
Got something to say? Need help?
0 people say it works. 0 people say it's broken.
Log in to vote.


text:
Short Creek raid
A Mormon polygamist family in 1888.
The Short Creek raid is the name given to Arizona state police and Arizona National Guard action against Mormon fundamentalists that took place on the morning of July 26, 1953, at Short Creek, Arizona. The Short Creek raid was the largest mass arrest of polygamists in American history. At the time, it was described as "the largest mass arrest of men and women in modern American history."[1]
Just before dawn on July 26, 1953, 102 Arizona state police officers and soldiers from the Arizona National Guard entered Short Creek. The community—which was composed of approximately 400 Mormon fundamentalists—had been tipped off about the planned raid and were found singing hymns in the schoolhouse while the children played outside. The entire community was taken into custody, with the exception of six individuals who were found not to be fundamentalist Mormons.[2] Among those taken into custody were 263 children. One hundred and fifty of the children who were taken into custody were not permitted to return to their parents for more than two years, and some parents never regained custody of their children.[3]
Public and media reaction[edit]
Arizona Governor John Howard Pyle initially called the raid "a momentous police action against insurrection"[4] and described the Mormon fundamentalists as participating in "the foulest conspiracy you could possibly imagine" that was designed to produce "white slaves."[2] More than 100 reporters had been invited by Pyle to accompany the police to observe the raid. However, the raid and its tactics attracted mostly negative media attention; one newspaper editorialized:
By what stretch of the imagination could the actions of the Short Creek children be classified as insurrection? Were those teenagers playing volleyball in a school yard inspiring a rebellion? Insurrection? Well, if so, an insurrection with diapers and volleyballs![5]
In the same week that the Korean War Armistice Agreement was signed, the raid achieved notoriety in media across the United States, including articles in Time[6] and Newsweek,[7] with many media outlets describing the raid as "odious" or "un-American."[8] One commentator has suggested that commentary on the raid was "probably the first time in history that American polygamists had received media coverage that was largely sympathetic."[9] Another has suggested that the raid's "only American parallel is the federal actions against Native Americans in the nineteenth century."[10]
When Pyle lost his bid for re-election in 1954 to Democratic candidate Ernest McFarland, Pyle blamed the fallout from the raid as having destroyed his political career.[11]
Support from LDS Church[edit]
One of the few media outlets to applaud the raid was the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News, which was owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).[12] The News applauded the action as a needed response to prevent the fundamentalists from becoming "a cancer of a sort that is beyond hope of human repair."[13] When the paper later editorialized its support for separating children from their polygamist parents, there was a backlash against the paper and the church by a number of Latter-day Saints, including Juanita Brooks, who complained that the church organization was approving of "such a basically cruel and wicked thing as the taking of little children from their mother."[8] The Short Creek raid was the last action against polygamous Mormon fundamentalists that has been actively supported by the LDS Church.[14]
After the Short Creek raid, the fundamentalist Mormon polygamist colony at Short Creek eventually rejuvenated.[15] Short Creek was renamed Colorado City in 1960. In 1991, the Mormon fundamentalists at Colorado City formally established the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church). The members of the sect did not face any prosecutions for its polygamous behavior until the late 1990s, when isolated individuals began to be prosecuted.[16] In 2006, FLDS Church leader Warren Jeffs was placed on the FBI Ten Most Wanted List; he was arrested in 2007 and in 2011 was convicted in Texas of two counts of child sexual abuse.
On 3 April 2008, following allegations of physical and sexual abuse by an unidentified caller who claimed to be a 16-year-old girl, law enforcement officers raided a FLDS compound Jeffs had founded in Texas called the YFZ Ranch.[17] As of 8 April, a total of 416 children had been removed from the compound by authorities.[18] A former member of the FLDS Church, Carolyn Jessop, arrived on-site 6 April and stated her opinion that the action in Texas was unlike the Short Creek raid.[19] Others, however, have drawn direct connections between the two events.[20][21]
See also[edit]
- Joseph White Musser: leader of the Mormon fundamentalist Short Creek community during the raid
- ^ C.R. Waters, Mohave Miner, 1953-08-30.
- ^ a b Ken Driggs, "After the Manifesto: Modern Polygamy and Fundamentalist Mormons", Journal of Church and State 32:367 (1990).
- ^ Ken Driggs, "Who Shall Raise the Children? Vera Black and the Rights of Polygamous Utah Parents", Utah Historical Quarterly 60:27 (1992).
- ^ Martha Sonntag Bradley (1993). Kidnapped from That Land : The Government Raids on the Short Creek Polygamists (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press).
- ^ Arizona Republic, 1953-07-28.
- ^ "The Great Love-Nest Raid". Time magazine. 1953-08-03. Retrieved 2009-01-05. "Arizona's Governor Howard Pyle declared that the colonists were in a "state of insurrection." Authorities alerted newspapers and press services weeks ahead of time. "This is a white-slave factory," an assistant attorney general announced. "No woman has escaped this community for at least ten years. They are forced to submit to men old enough to be their grandfathers." Warrants charging 122 adults with conspiracy to commit such crimes as polygamy, rape, bigamy and misappropriation of school funds were carefully drawn up."
- ^ "People: The Big Raid", Newsweek, 1953-08-03, p. 26.
- ^ a b Richard S. Van Wagoner (1989). Mormon Polygamy : A History (2d ed) (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books).
- ^ Stephen Eliot Smith, The "Mormon Question Revisited : Anti-polygamy Laws and the Free Exercise Clause (LL.M. thesis, Harvard Law School, 2005).
- ^ D. Michael Quinn, "Plural Marriage and Mormon Fundamentalism", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1998, p. 1.
- ^ Abbie Gripman, "Short Creek Raid Remembered", The Miner, 2002-08-02.
- ^ By the 1950s, the LDS Church was opposed to the traditional Mormon practice of plural marriage and excommunicated any of its members that practiced it.
- ^ Deseret News, 1953-07-27.
- ^ Gordon B. Hinckley, president of the LDS Church, has stated that the decision whether or not to prosecute a Mormon polygamist is "entirely in the hands of the civil officers. It's a civil offence. It's in violation of the law. We have nothing to do with it. We're totally distanced from it. And if the state chooses to move on it, that's a responsibility of civil officers." : Gordon B. Hinckley on Larry King Live, CNN tevevision broadcast, 1998-09-08.
- ^ Neil J. Young, "Short Creek's Long Legacy", Slate, April 16, 2008.
- ^ "The Primer" - Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities. A joint report from the offices of the Attorneys General of Arizona and Utah.
- ^ "52 children taken during raid". The Eldorado Success. April 4, 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-06.[dead link]
- ^ "Texas takes legal custody of 401 sect children". CNN. April 7, 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-04-11. Retrieved 2008-04-07.
- ^ Adams, Brooke (April 7, 2008). "People who have left sect go to Texas to help". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-07.
- ^ Adams, Brooke (11 April 2008). "Polygamous crackdown echoes 1953 Short Creek arrests". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2008-04-18.
- ^ "Polygamy: Where religious liberty ends". The Salt Lake Tribune. 13 April 2008. Retrieved 2008-04-18.
Further reading[edit]
- Martha Sonntag Bradley (1993). Kidnapped from That Land : The Government Raids on the Short Creek Polygamists (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press).
External links[edit]
- Florea, John (January 1, 1944; republished online, 2011), Rare: LIFE With Polygamists, 1944: Meet the [Rulon Clark] Allreds (photo gallery: Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images), Life magazine, retrieved August 18, 2011
- Police raid Arizona polygamist enclave, a special report by The Salt Lake Tribune -- "[a]n historical account of a radio address given by Arizona Governor Howard Pyle shortly after the Short Creek raid in 1953."
- Short Creek Mormon Raid - LIFE Magazine archive


text:
Contact Information
Phone: 202-319-6702
Fax: 202-319-5704
Email: email@example.com
Robert Miller II, O.F.S., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Old Testament
Biblical Studies Area Director
- The history and archaeology of ancient Israel/Palestine
- The Bible and theology
- Anthropological methods, especially dealing with orality, myth, culture
- The ancient Near Eastern influences that have shaped the development of the Old Testament
- The book of Judges
Born in Ohio, Robert D. Miller II is a Secular Franciscan, married (wife Anne-Marie) with four boys. He earned a PhD in Hebrew Bible from the University of Michigan. His book, Chieftains of the Highland Clans: A History of Israel in the 12th and 11th Centuries BC (2005), Oral Tradition in Ancient Israel (2011), and related articles have made him a recognized authority on Early Israel. He is also greatly interested in Biblical Theology, having organized several conferences on the subject, edited the volume, Syriac and Antiochian Exegesis and Biblical Theology for the 3rd Millennium (2008), and attempted a new critical biblical theology in Covenant and Grace in the Old Testament: Assyrian Propaganda and Israelite Faith (2012). He is a former member of the Board of Trustees of the American Schools of Oriental Research and serves on the Board of Control of the New American Bible for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Current Research Projects
Zion, the Dragon, and the Nations
A major research project on the trope of Mount Zion in the Psalms and its relationship to the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God, exploring the ways in which Canaanite (and earlier!) mythic material on which these Psalms are based reappears in both the Psalms and their literary "offspring" (Daniel, Revelation).
Suggested Areas of Research for Prospective Postgraduates
I would particularly welcome proposals for research in the following areas:
- The history of ancient Palestine.
- The debate on historical methodology within Biblical Studies (the minimalist-maximalist debate).
- Folklore/mythography and the Bible: this is an area that has not been researched very extensively in decades and offers considerable opportunities for new research students.
- The critical study of the Old Testament as the "soul of theology" – practical exploration of how historical-critical scholarship can produce material of use to academic theology.
- Anything dealing with the book of Judges


text:
- The definition of a colon is a punctuation mark (:) used to shows that what follows is an explanation such as a quotation, example or list and as a mark used between numbers to show time and ratios, or the last part of the digestive system, or part of a poem that forms a rhythmic unit.
- An example of a colon is the : in 5:30 a.m.
- An example of a colon is a part of the large intestine from the cecum to the rectum that can get diseased with cancer.
- An example of a colon is a type of section in a Greek poem.
colon definition by Webster's New World
- a mark of punctuation (:) used before an extended quotation, explanation, example, series, etc. and after the salutation of a formal letter
- pl. cola in Greek prosody, a section of a prosodic period, consisting of a group of two to six feet forming a rhythmic unit with a principal accent
Origin: Classical Latin ; from Classical Greek kōlon, part of a verse, member, limb ; from Indo-European base an unverified form (s)kel-, to bend, crooked from source Classical Latin coluber, snake, calx, heel
Related Forms:
- colonic adjective
Origin: French
colon definition by American Heritage Dictionary
noun pl. co·lons
- a. A punctuation mark ( : ) used after a word introducing a quotation, an explanation, an example, or a series and often after the salutation of a business letter.b. The sign ( : ) used between numbers or groups of numbers in expressions of time (2:30 A.M.) and ratios (1:2).
- pl. co·la A section of a metrical period in quantitative verse, consisting of two to six feet and in Latin verse having one principal accent.
Origin: Latin cōlon, part of a verse, from Greek kōlon, limb, member, metrical unit.
noun pl. co·lons or co·la
Origin: Middle English, from Latin, from Greek kolon, large intestine.
Related Forms:
- co·lonˈic adjective
noun pl. co·lons or co·lo·nes
Origin: Spanish colón, after Cristóbal Colón, Christopher Columbus.
colon - Computer Definition
In programming, the colon (:) is used to separate parts of an address. For example, the first part of 1AAA:1FFF might be a segment address and the second part the actual offset within the segment.
colon - Cultural Definition
The middle and longest part of the large intestine. (See digestive system.)
A punctuation mark (:) used to introduce a description, an explanation, or a list. For example, "She would own only one kind of pet: a Siamese cat" and "The little boy announced that he wanted the following for his birthday: two sweaters, a new tent, and three toy cars."
colon - Investment & Finance Definition
The currency unit of Costa Rica, comprised of 100 centimos, and El Salvador, comprised of 100 centavos.
Webster's New World Finance and Investment Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana. Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.colon - Medical Definition
noun pl. co·lons or co·la
Related Forms:
- colonic adjective
colon - Science Definition


text:
One Direction Singing Toothbrushes Launch Worldwide
Brush Buddies, the world's leading brand of licensed manual toothbrushes, and Global Merchandising Services, a leader in international music merchandising, announced today that One Direction is the newest artist to be featured on the wildly successful line of Brush Buddies Singing Toothbrushes. The announcement was made today by Anish Patel, Chief Executive Officer of Brush Buddies, and Barry Drinkwater, Founder and Owner of Global Merchandising Services, Ltd.
Brush Buddies created the Singing Toothbrush category during the summer of 2011 with their launch of two products that each featured two hit songs by Justin Bieber. Brush Buddies expanded the category with new products in 2012 featuring new songs by Justin Bieber and new artists Lady Gaga and LMFAO.
"We are thrilled to announce One Direction as the second music group in our portfolio and are particularly excited about launching in their home countries of the UK and Ireland," states Patel. "Our products have become known for representing artists in their unique style and our packaging allows consumers to play the two songs on each brush while maintaining the product in a safe hygienic shell while in-pack.
Brush Buddies is one of three licensee's of One Direction in the Oral Care category. Brush Buddies acquired the worldwide license, excluding North America, to produce singing toothbrushes utilizing the name, likeness and music of One Direction.
One Direction is comprised of members Niall Horan, Liam Payne, Harry Styles, Louis Tomlinson and Zayn Malik, who were put together after auditioning for The X Factor UK in 2010. Their debut album, Up All Night, has reached #1 in 16 countries, selling more than 3 million albums, 8 million singles and 1 million DVD's worldwide. The group has also amassed nearly seven million followers on Twitter and 10 million Likes on Facebook.
About Brush Buddies
Brush Buddies is the world's leading provider of entertaining and educational oral care products for people of all ages. The Brush Buddies brand includes Singing toothbrushes, featuring chart-topping hits by Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga and LMFAO; Sonic toothbrushes, which clean with 30,000 stokes-per-minute; Talking toothbrushes, designed as five characters to teach young brushers proper technique; Poppin' toothbrushes, designed as five animal characters whose brush head pops with action and Standard toothbrushes, designed as three whimsical characters fit for smaller hands.
Brush Buddies |
Follow on Twitter |
Like on Facebook |
Pin on Pinterest |
Watch on YouTube |
About Global Merchandising Services
Based in London, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, Global is the turnkey solution for design, product development, manufacturing and sales in all channels of retail distribution: live events, web stores, sponsorships, and third-party licensing. Global Merchandising Services was established in 2008 by 30-year industry veteran Barry Drinkwater, founder and former worldwide CEO of Bravado International Group. GMS provides a non-corporate alternative for artists and entertainment-rights holders searching for a combination of old-school service and cutting edge development. Global creates unique and innovative international merchandise programs as creative as they are profitable. Our staff of industry experts combine passion, experience and knowledge to maximize all potential revenue streams and deliver quality merchandise to the consumer.
More On: One Direction, Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga,
Related Links |
Atlas Music Signs Grammy Award Winner TOBY GAD March 03, 2014 |
One Direction, Katy Perry & Justin Timberlake Score 2014 Radio Disney Music Awards Nominations February 26, 2014 |
NOW That's What I Call Music! Vol. 49 Debuts at No. 1 on Billboard 200 Albums Chart February 12, 2014 |
Simon Cowell Reveals ONE DIRECTION Reality TV Show in the Works February 11, 2014 |
The Piano Guys Come to The Paramount Tonight February 06, 2014 |
About Author
- Cast of Las Vegas' JERSEY BOYS to Perform on THE QUEEN LATIFAH SHOW Tomorrow
- GOO GOO DOLLS & DAUGHTRY to Hit the Road This June
- Queen and Adam Lambert Announce North American Tour!
- SNL Ratings Slip with Lena Dunham as Host
- Broadway Actress and Star of THE HONEYMOONERS Shelia MacRae Passes Away at 92
- VIDEO: Lifetime's THE TRIP TO BOUNTIFUL, with Cicely Tyson, Premieres Tonight
- Cast of Broadway's LES MISERABLES to Perform on ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA, 3/13
- CUNY TV's ASIAN AMERICAN LIFE Features KUNG FU's Cole Horibe, Beg. Today
- 'TONIGHT SHOW' & 'LATE NIGHT' Deliver Strong Showings with L+3
- HBO to Premiere In-Depth Documentary BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN'S HIGH HOPES, 4/4


text:
My husband and i are taking a cruise out of Venice. We will be staying there for two days before we depart. We would like to stay close to the down town area of Venice. We would like to be able to walk to San Marcos Square. Our budget in $200 or less. However we could go a bit more if it is worth the stay. Can anyone please give us some suggestions on hotels. When we log on to hotels.com they all sort of look the same. Help is appreciated. Thanks
Hotels in Venice
36 Replies | Jump to last reply |
Report Abuse
Just to help, the place has two types of transport, walking and boat. Everywhere is within 30 minutes walk of San Marcos, but it is very easy to get lost (so making it a great deal more than 30 minutes). San Marcos is a very expensive centre so you need to find a hotel a bit back to get the price way down. I'd surf here a bit more
Report Abuse
Try the Star Splendid
3 min walk San Marco 3 min the other way to Rialto Stop
Close to just about everything, great service. Ask for Canal view room -
Report Abuse
For a simple one-star hotel, we liked the Hotel Riva in Venice, close to St Mark's (but not too close that it felt crowded). I think it is in your budget.
Hotel Riva is on the confluence of two small canals, and our corner room on the first floor had views of both canals. I think we had room #1, which had a double bed and a twin bed in a small alcove. The bathroom was tiny, but not a big problem. (First floor is good because there is no elevator.)
A very simple breakfast is offered in a dining room which directly overlooks the little canal.
http://www.hotelriva.it/ENG/description.html -
Report Abuse
We have stayed at Pensione La Calcina twice and enjoyed both our visits. It's about a 15-20 minute walk to San Marco.
Report Abuse
Hotel Corte Grimani would be perfect. It does require a 2 night stay. We stayed years ago and it's only 2 minutes to San Marco.
Report Abuse
Thanks everyone. I have been looking for several hours and I just posted our first two choices and wanted to know what everyone thought. Hotel Rialto or Carlton on the Grand Canal.
Report Abuse
Check B&B Al Teatro.
We stayed here this past May. A very small (only 3 rooms) B&B, just a short (approx 7 minutes) straight shot (or as straight is it gets in Venice) walk to Piazza San Marco.
The proprietor, Eleanora, is a gem. Just a fantastic hostess. Cannot speak highly enough of our experience here.
One of the rooms, the Amber Room, which we stayed in is the largest (and it is very large, especially by European standards AND has a small balcony overlooking a heavily trafficked (read gondolas) canal just below. That particular room may be out of your stated budget range, but not by much and location and hospitality would be VERY MUCH worth it. The other two rooms cost less and from speaking to other guests during our stay, are very comfortable as well.
Quite a number of photos available on Trip Advisor, including a few of my own.
Highly highly highly recommend!!! -
Report Abuse
forgot to mention what many people find to be a very important "perk" for a hotel in Venice...
After exiting the vaporetto at the appropriate stop, there are NO bridges to cross to get to Al Teatro. It is a very short walk from the vaporetto stop to the B&B -
Report Abuse
Honestly, for a 2-night stay in Venice, it is not worth one second of thought thinking about a moderate financial "upgrade" to any hotel room in the $200-a-night range for any hotel near or within brief walking distance to Piazza San Marco.
The bottom line in Venice is: If you aren't requesting a specific room by number (which is what repeat visitors do, and Venice has them by the millions), you're going to get what is available at the time of your booking. If you're not willing to stay in one of the bigger "institutional" properties, the available choices in boutique properties will be slim to none, depending on the time of year.
Spending $20-$50 more a night will mostly likely yield no benefit. You'll just be paying more money for a very small room with a tiny bathroom, no matter which hotel you select. -
Report Abuse
NYCFoodSnob, you may want to insert at least one, if not a couple, "IMO/IMHO" into your post, because I'm sure there would be a decent number of people, myself included, who would whole-heartedly disagree with you.
Unless you have been to Venice many, many times and scouted out a vast number of hotels, your statement is not fair at all. If you have, and you spent your entire time in Venice, recon-ing hotels, there are also a whole lot of people who would say you completely wasted your time in Venice.
That's why the OP posted the question, was to find out what people's experiences have been. I, for one, can fully attest that the B&B I spoke of is 100% worth a stretch in budget, if possible. I have sent three friends and/or friends of friends to it since my stay, and all have absolutely loved it. -
Report Abuse
OP gave a budget of USD200 ( €150 ). Is that per night ( I hope) ?
This would be useuful if OP mentioned the dates of stay as well because the rates change a LOT depending the the seasons and on specific days ( holidays, etc). And high seasons can be 200/300% more expensive than lowest time. For expample, last December we stayed at a 3* B&B like hotel Ca' Zose in nice Dorsoduro area between Salute Church and Guggenheim Museum. Modest hotel but still nice enough for us and not a tiny room - 16m2, with bathroom - lots of hot water. We checked out the hotel as satisfied customers. We paid the lowest seasos rate of €55.00 per night incl. breakfast. If I look at their rate for the room of the same category in May, that costs €170.00. -
Report Abuse
We don't see many IMHO on Fodors because virtually all of it is IMHO>>
in fact it goes without saying, Bilbo. -
Report Abuse
Snow in Yorkshire (sat snug by fire), I guess Cornwall is just rain?>>
you're not wrong, bilbo, and sadly I have to work.
though it was glorious sunshine yesterday, so much so that I got 4 or so hours gardening done. -
Report Abuse
"Unless you have been to Venice many, many times and scouted out a vast number of hotels, your statement is not fair at all."
I've been to Venice 56 times in the last 30 years, and I've checked out every hotel that deserved a look-see, no matter the price point or the neighborhood. I know the local real-estate scene, and I certainly know what a $50 upgrade will and will not purchase, no matter the season. I wouldn't change a word of my post above. On an internet forum, IMOs are redundant. -
Report Abuse
"I've been to Venice 56 times in the last 30 years, and I've checked out every hotel that deserved a look-see, no matter the price point or the neighborhood. I know the local real-estate scene, and I certainly know what a $50 upgrade will and will not purchase, no matter the season. I wouldn't change a word of my post above. On an internet forum, IMOs are redundant."
Report Abuse
Any more suggestions? I plan on going to Venice with my wife and daughter 5/30-6/2. Will need additional bed for my daughter. My budget is around $400/night.
Report Abuse
inca2000: Instead of tacking on to this old thread, you'll do better to start a tread of your own. You are asking about an entirely different price point than the OP and your post might get lost in the shuffle.
Report Abuse
We actually ended up booking at the Hilton. Has anyone stayed there? Is the location okay?
Report Abuse
Mestre or Giudecca? Either way, you are not in the center of Venice and can not walk to San Marco from either. From Mestre you have to take a shuttle to the train station, then catch a vaporetto. From Giudecca, you take a boat to San Marco. If the price was great, I might stay on Giudecca, but never Mestre.
Report Abuse
In case you're still undecided, I have stayed at Hotel Flora, which is a short walk from San Marco. It is nice, not wonderful, but convenient. We also stayed at Pensione Accademia, which is nicer, but not as convenient to Piazza San Marco. We stayed at Corte Grimani, which is in a great location ( although a bit challenging to find at first), and that is our favorite. It's two minutes from San Marco and the Rialto. I'd highly recommend it. Have a wonderful trip!
Report Abuse
Is that the Molino Stucky Hilton?
It is OK but you have to take a boat launch to get over to the Zatterre.
I would think it would be a pain in the ass.
Thin -
Report Abuse
hi kitty,
I note that you are going to be in Venice before picking up your cruise boat. what time of year? one of the attractions of the Stucky is the swimming pool which would be very attractive in high summer.
another is the shuttle service it runs to the cruise port, either by private water taxi, or via the alilaguna, which apparently costs €7 pp each way.
here's the link:
there is also a shuttle to the Zattere [part of venice "proper" ]which gives relatively easy access to the rest of the city.
only you know if that's something you can live with.
36 Replies |Back to top
|Sign in to comment.
Recent Activity
View all Europe activity »- 1 Maitaitom & Tracy's Romantic 20th Anniversary Paris 2014 Trip In September
- 2 Barcelona to SW France to Madrid in 10 days
- 3 We saw London, we saw France as well as The Netherlands and Belgium
- 4 A little help with our Dordogne itinerary
- 5 Berlin/Prague Itinerary Too Much, Too Little?
- 6 Tours For Young Professionals Other Than Contiki
- 7 Hotel in Venice
- 8 Summarizing my Renfe train ticket before purchase for Madrid to Cordoba
- 9 50 and Fabulous in 2015---need help planning my trip to Amalfi, FINALLY
- 10 Bordeaux, Burgundy & Paris recommendations
- 11 GRAUBUNDEN: exploring Pontresina, Sils, Poschiavo, Zernez, Guarda, Scuol
- 12 Day trip from London to Paris
- 13 iDTGV Sales Open Today for Travel through September 11, 2014
- 14 Barcelona to Girona: Rent a Car or just take the train?
- 15 England/Scotland/Wales Planning-Summr 2014
- 16 Budapest 4 nights - Top 10 must do
- 17 Spain in 18days -finalizing itinerary and a special bday celebration!
- 18 Dare I ask a Transportation Question?
- 19 A Winter Wander – Engadine and Berner Oberland
- 20 Calling Jamikins
- 21 How far in advance should I book my car rentals ?
- 22 From CDG to the Seventh?
- 23 HS Seniors in Finland and the Baltics - How to plan their spending
- 24 Zurich, Switzerland
- 25 Cilento, Calabria and Basilicata: Help fill in a few blanks for us


text:
Death By Deliciousness: Burger King's 2,500 Calorie Whopper Pizza
So there's this Burger King in Times Square called the BK Whopper Bar (you don't even serve booze!) that's selling a 2,520 calorie, $13 Pizza Burger. WTF's a Pizza Burger? The best gotdamn thing you could imagine.
Exclusive to NYC's Whopper Bar. Four flame-broiled Whopper® patties topped with pizza-lovers' favorites (pepperoni, mozzarella cheese, marinara sauce and Tuscan pesto sauce) all on a 9 1/2-inch sesame seed bun.
Of course, Tuscan pesto sauce. I was wondering what the green stuff in my vomit was! And here I thought it was something healthy like lettuce. BWAHAHAHAHA! Lettuce on a cheeseburger. This ain't Jenny Craig!
Fat bomb from Burger King debuts [chealth]
Burger King's New York Pizza Burger [thisiswhyyourefat]
Thanks to Stone, Kaibedz, navin and Anthony Pants, who could each eat one and still down a small order of onion rings. Awh yeah, don't forget the dipping sauce!
Thought KFC's Double Down sandwich was bad for you? Then think again. Because Friendly's just dropped the Grilled Cheese Burgermelt. What the hell's a Grilled Cheese Burgermelt? The sound of your heart trying to escape out your butthole. This is the BurgerMelt to end all ... / Continue →
This is a picture of a slice of pizza with 2-inches of delicious deliciousness piled on. I don't understand the logistics of even cooking a pizza with 2-inches of topping, but I do understand the logistics of eating one. GET INSIDE ME. It buuuuurns! What we got here is a fa... / Continue →
This is a hamburger made from 100% ground bacon. If you think about it, it's actually more of a hamburger than a regular burger because it's actually made from pig. Not unlike pork-chop sandwiches (links to G.I. Joe PSA, NSFW for language). My God, did that smell good. South... / Continue →


text:
Ordered, thanks guys! Now I just need t-911 and eviscerate to come so I can order again!
Whey Protein Blend (5 lb) By: All The Whey
For Free Shipping, this time our code is ZipShip
48 Hours, or WHILE SUPPLIES LAST!
Ordered, thanks guys! Now I just need t-911 and eviscerate to come so I can order again!
IN! Thank you, guys, stuff like this is a lifesaver for me right now. It's highly appreciated.
Got 2 bags. Same as last time, also got the 3 trinitine combo with T-shirt!
This will sell out in less than 48 hours...
Man nutraplanet is draining me lately just got a big order last week and now another one. Got my 2 bags though.
alright picked up 10lbs. hopefully choco pb is as good as they say, same with cc. last time i got cc, it was the most blandest thing - almost tasted like nothing. so i'm hoping it was just a bad batch.
CupCake batter has always been delicious to me.
Reps to Steveoph for sounding the alarm
Got a bag of CBun (and asked for a few samples). Im having a hard time not busting out the credit card and ordering a few more bags...Im already sitting on 15lbs of the isolate...but Im burning through it thanks to protein shakes and sludge.
BTW....cinnamon bun sludge...amazing.
Sweet I was going to order more RPN stuff today too
Applied Nutriceuticals Representative
FACEBOOK FAN PAGE: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Applie...ls/64122223218
Awesome I orderd 5!! Thanks Nutraplanet
Put me down for four and some other goodies
order processing!
- Join Me: Tex89 M-Sten RX Log... Dicing that iron -
ZipShip doesn't seem to work for me ?
Im In!!! Been waiting for this, just ordered 50lbs of protein and a Glycobol/Stoked stack. Thanks Nutra!!!! Im guessing a coupon discount isnt good with the sale right??
^it says in the first post that zipship is the code.
Awesome! Picked up 3 bags
Steveoph, with the buyers... How can you tell between forum members and those pesky "outsiders"?


text:
Complete forecast by
Text size:
Squash Dressing
Comment on this recipe
"This was a family favorite that came from my mother's recipe box. I had forgotten how good it is and how easy to prepare."
1 tablespoon baking powder 1 package Mexican cornbread mix 1/2 cup butter 6 to 7 medium yellow squash, sliced 1 onion, chopped 1/2 cup chopped green bell pepper 1 jar (2 ounces) pimiento 1 can (10-3/4 ounces) cream of mushroom soup 1/4 cup water 2 cups grated Cheddar cheese Salt and pepper, to taste
Combine baking powder and Mexican cornbread mix and bake according to package directions. Set aside.
Melt butter in heavy skillet. Add cut up squash, onion and green pepper. Saute until tender.
Transfer to a baking dish and add remaining ingredients. Crumble the cornbread and add to casserole, stirring slightly. Bake at 300 degrees for 30 minutes.
Linda Gist-Fossett Davenport
Mom's Macaroni Salad (More recipes)


text:
Disney Idea Generator Matt Buchanan brainstorms around Star Wars Weekend events – with a very special guest. Read more at the Disney Parks Blog. Listen to our Top Tips to Get the Most Out of Star Wars Weekends (and interview with David Prowse – the man behind the mask of Darth Vader!) on Show #273 […]
Brainstorming with Darth Vader for Disney's Star Wars Weekends
Monday, May 14th, 2012 233 Comments »
Show # 273 – May 6, 2012
Monday, May 7th, 2012 1 Comment »
Top Tips for Star Wars Weekends, David Prowse Interview (Darth Vader)


text:
regional news
News stories tagged with "business"
Few Agreements on Final Issues in Albany
Jul 01, 2002 — As the July 4th holiday approaches, a number of bills remain on the agenda for the New York State Assembly and Senate, but so far there are few agreements on issues ranging from raising the minimum wage to giving police more tools to fight terrorism. Karen Dewitt reports. Go to full article
Bill Would Ban State Money For Union Organizing Attempts
Jun 26, 2002 — Business groups and not-for-profits are lashing out against a bill in the state legislature that would forbid some recipients of state money from using the funds to talk to employees about union organizing attempts. Albany correspondent Karen Dewitt reports. Go to full article
Business Groups Oppose Minimum Wage Hike
Jun 17, 2002 — Business groups in New York are protesting an end of session agenda that they call Albany's attack on jobs. They are particularly concerned about two bills to raise the minimum wage and increase workers compensation benefits. Karen Dewitt reports. Go to full article
PSC Studies Rural Telecommunications
Apr 12, 2002 — A study of rural areas by the Public Service Commission will demonstrate ways to improve access to telecommunications in the North Country. State Senator Jim Wright says rural communities continue to fall behind more populated areas in technological infrastructure. Go to full article
Study: Corporate Tax Collections Decline
Apr 05, 2002 — Corporate income tax collections have declined precipitously in the nation and that has repercussions for New York state, says a study by SUNY's Rockefeller Institute of Government. Karen Dewitt reports. Go to full article
Schumer Tours the North Country
Mar 29, 2002 — Senator Charles Schumer was on a whirlwind tour of the North Country Thursday with stops in Jefferson, Lewis and St. Lawrence counties. One of his visits was to the Alcoa plants in Massena. As Jody Tosti reports, the Senator met with union leaders and plant management to discuss the company's role in the community. Go to full article
Sap Flows Above Average
Mar 18, 2002 — The wild temperature fluctuations this winter have been good to New York's maple syrup producers. David Sommerstein reports the sap flow is already above average. Go to full article
Thousand Islands Casino to Open This Summer
Mar 08, 2002 — Canadian gaming officials briefed community leaders from the Thousand Islands region Wednesday on the casino under construction in Gananoque, Ontario. It will add to the entertainment mix in the tourism-heavy area. David Sommerstein reports many on the U.S. side of the St. Lawrence fear the casino will bring more bad than good. Go to full article
Stream Update
Mar 07, 2002 — Watertown and Jefferson County officials are making preparations for Stream International's customer service center in hopes the company will decide to locate in the city. David Sommerstein has the latest... Go to full article
Fort Drum Deployments Strain Jefferson County Economy
Feb 27, 2002 — Jefferson Community College in Watertown will get money from the state to help compensate for student-soldiers from Fort Drum who have been sent overseas. David Sommerstein reports the deployments put a strain on the economy in Jefferson County. Go to full article
« first « previous 10 179-366 of 188


text:
Unfortunately, along with being deaf and scoliotic, Astro must've been color blind, too. The finished product was too ugly to wear, yet too nice a memento to discard. It remained in a drawer until we heard Sedaris was coming to town.
And Celeste decided she wanted to be the only person on earth with a shirt that had been painted by a scoliotic dolphin and signed by David Sedaris.
As we slowly made our way through the long line of fans at the book signing before the performance, Celeste nearly backed out, worried Sedaris might refuse to sign anything but a book.
Her friend Emillia Samosky went first. Sedaris asked her age and made small talk for a bit, then reached into a bag of goodies he reserves for teenagers who come to his shows. She left with a tiny bottle of shampoo he'd taken from the Four Seasons Hotel.
And then it was Celeste's turn. For a moment I worried she'd bolt, but he looked intrigued by what she was placing before him. As she explained the strange shirt, he first raised one eyebrow, then both.
Out came his little green notebook, where he jotted, "dolphin with scoliosis."
After signing the shirt, he rewarded Celeste with shower gel, also from the Four Seasons, and we went in search of our seats.
Toward the end of his performance that night -- a show so funny my jaws ached from laughing so hard -- he told about the strange shirt he'd been asked to sign earlier that evening. Seems Sedaris has had a long-held ambition to be paid to visit every state, and West Virginia had been the only state that was left on his list. But now that he's been to West Virginia and learned the people here care about scoliotic dolphins, he said he'd come back here for free.
Reach Karin Fuller via email at karinful...@gmail.com.


text:
Prosecution, defense rest cases in trial of Myles Webster
UPDATED 12:42 PM EST Dec 10, 2012Defense attorneys rested their case after only calling one witness in the trial of a man accused of trying to kill a Manchester police officer to avoid capture.
The views expressed are not those of this site, this station or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to accept our terms of use.blog comments powered by Disqus


text:
3 out of 3 people recommended this car.
by 5.0 from Phoenix, AZ | May 27, 2013
This is a great one owner used car with 65000 miles. It is a great cruising car. Get on the highway and just let it cruise. Took me 23 years to find one I could afford but it was worth the wait.
Purchased a new car
Uses car for Just getting around
Does recommend this car
by JimytheCoot from Dallas Or | November 24, 2011
I have wanted a Mark VII for years, it is a dream come true , 43000 orig miles, one owned, no endts scratches or blemishes . A few mechanical problems due to non use.
Purchased a new car
Uses car for Having fun
Does recommend this car
by jg from mass. | July 22, 2011
best car Lincoln ever made and all include the 5.0 engine just like the mustang. Most Mark Vll didn't change much and besides all parts from 1984 to 1992 are interchangeable with some interior parts that would be different styles.
Purchased a new car
Uses car for Work
Does recommend this car
What will my monthly cost be?
Check PaymentWhat is the most I can afford?
Check PriceCompare finance offers to decide what's right for you.


text:
Messi could be fit for Bayern clash - Roura
UEFA Champions League - 10 months ago
Watching: Messi has sat out the past two games in La Liga to prepare for the clash with Bayern Munich on Tuesday, but assistant coach Jordi Roura isn't making any promises about the Argentine's involvement.
Hosted at performgroup.com This video is provided and hosted from a 3rd party server. Our search functionality is helping you discover publicly available websites & their content. Footytube as a search engine does not host or upload this material and is not responsible for the content.
Share your thoughts
Page 1 of 1


text:
Apply to Huntingdon
Visit Our Campus
Give to Huntingdon
Browse the Directory
December 18, 2010For immediate release:
Huntingdon CollegeNews Release
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. ---- The Huntingdon College men's basketball team dropped its' six game of the season, 92-85, to host Birmingham-Southern College in the Birmingham-Southern Christmas Classic on Saturday afternoon. The Hawks trailed 44-33 at the half, and struggled stopping the Panthers' offense in the loss.
In the first half, the Hawks' led 20-14 with 11:22 left in the first half, prior to the Panthers' 12-0 run. Birmingham-Southern took a 26-20 lead after the 12 point run, before freshman Jason Varney's three-pointer ended the Panthers' scoring streak.
Huntingdon struggled scoring in the first half shooting 12-of-26 (46 percent), while Birmingham-Southern extended the lead 41-30 from a 7-0 run with 4:41 left in the half. The Panthers shot 68 percent in the first period, hitting on 15-of-22 attempts.
In the second half, Huntingdon never regained a lead, but fought back cutting the deficit down to six points, 89-83, after freshman Dayne Smith converted a pair of free throws with :24 seconds left in the contest. However, time was against the Hawks' comeback and Birmingham-Southern finished with the 92-85 victory.
Senior Deshaun Williams led the team with a season-high 20 points, including a team-high four rebounds. Senior Ephriam Hudson added 18 points, while senior Jack Montgomery contributed 12 points and four rebounds in the loss.
For the game, Birmingham-Southern held a 35-25 advantage on the glass. The Panthers' converted 60 percent of its shots, hitting 29-of-48, while Huntingdon finished 27-of-60 (45 percent).
Birmingham-Southern (7-1) was led by Patrick Price with 17 points, followed by Blaise White's 14. Zac Richards had a game-high 10 rebounds in the victory.
Huntingdon (4-6) travels to New Orleans, La. On Wednesday, Dec. 22, against the University of New Orleans (5-3). Tip-off is set for 7 p.m.
Hodge Patterson Sports Information Director Phone: (334) firstname.lastname@example.com
More Athletic News | More Huntingdon News


text:
Jarrow Formulas Bromelain -- 500 mg - 60 Tablets
Priced right and easy to take
I like the dosage and ability to take this with meals. I can't tell whether it's made a difference. It's the best pricewise.
September 21, 2012
Great Product!
Excellent aid in digestion.
May 29, 2009
Terrific product
I use this when I'm eating something that causes really bad gas, like beans, broccoli, artichokes, etc. It takes care of the problem very effectively. You may still have the "sound" but not the "fury".
May 15, 2008
1-4 of 4


text:
LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, N.J. — An annual Christmas mystery is playing itself out again along a busy New Jersey highway.
Roadside Secret Santa at it again along New Jersey highway
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 | 1:51 p.m. CST
To read the full article, please sign up or login.
Get full access to the Columbia Missourian on your computer, phone, and tablet for just $5.95 per month.
* Unlimited access on your iPhone, iPad, Android phone and Android tablet
* All the high-quality, in-depth journalism of the Columbia Missourian and Vox Magazine, updated 24/7
* Your news. Your device. Your time.
If you'd like to read more about the value of being a member, read this column from the Missourian's executive editor, Tom Warhover.


text:
Skip navigation.
Freshman Lindsey Segal-Bator (Bow, NH/Bow) paced a field of 26 with a time of 21 minutes, 35 seconds, as three Gators finished in the top 10 en route to a second-place finish Saturday at the Blue Jay Invitational at St. Joseph (CT) College.
Pine Manor (49 points) ran to its highest finish of 2008, taking second behind the host Blue Jays (33 points). Sophomore Kelly Pirzl (Dalton, MA/Washona) and senior Patty Pabon (Bronx, NY/ Townsend Harris) placed eighth and ninth, respectively, at 26 minutes, 30 seconds and 26 minutes 36 seconds.
The reigning GNAC Cross Country Rookie of the Week, Segal-Bator finished nearly a minute ahead of the second place finisher.


text:
this was the worst punked ever you wanted to laugh at justin timberlake but ended up just feeling really sorry for him because he just sits there and accepts his fate
#thank god you eventually brought sexy back because it was clearly gone here
legit have that saved as 'justin timberlakes hair'
literally every frame in this gif set is funny oMFG
6/50 pictures of andrew garfield
#andrew garfield #displays an appropriate reaction to speaking to joe mazzello
Justin Timberlake masters telekinesis
Justin 'left-alone", The Social Network Paris premiere
Nothing to see. Just showing my boyfriend around.
Interviewer: You do have facebook pages though. (to Justin) Because you have four million likes people on your website. (to Andrew) You have about 500.
Andrew Garfield: Is that supposed to make me feel bad? Is this supposed to be defining who I am as a person? Is that what you're saying?
Justin Timberlake: Now look what you've done.
Andrew Garfield: Hold me back.
Justin Timberlake: See what you've done? Why did you do that?SO IN LOVE WITH HIM. I CAN'T EVEN -
Cute and intelligent. Where do I find a guy like that?
Justin: You're SPIDERMAN?
Andrew: No, don't tell him; don't tell him, he loves Spiderman! I've been trying to keep this from him…
Justin: You're SPIDERMAN?
Andrew: Just … let's move on as quickly as we can…
Justin: Why didn't you tell me?
Andrew: It's nothing personal, Justin-
Justin: I thought we were … I thought we had something.
Andrew: We do, we do, it's just…
Justin: You're Spiderman.
Andrew: Just remain professional right now.
Justin: And you didn't tell me.
Justin Timberlake thinks he hears the voice of God, then quickly realizes it's only the airport loudspeakers
TSN Behind the scenes —> Make-Up & Wardrobe Tests
Damn jt you lookin fine


text:
[Back to list] [Actualizar Datos]
Events CalendarConcerts, exhibitions, conferences, sporting events, seminars. occurring on the island of Margarita, as well as regional days, holidays and other events.
Events included are provided by users. Enter a new event. 14/03/2014 - 06:22:22 - 28/655 |
® All rights reserved. Rif: V-06822776-0 |