text:
- 50% wool, 50% polyester.
- Center back to hem: 35" (89 cm).
- Sleeve length: 18" (46 cm).
- Fully lined.
- Removable hoodie.
- Front zipper.
- Dry clean.
- Imported.
- Model is 5'9" and is wearing a US size S.
The email address and password combination you provided was not found. Please try again.
We don't have the email address you entered in our records. Please try again.
Sorry, we are unable to log you in. Please contact Client Services at 877-bebe-777 or 877-232-3777 for further assistance.


text:
Hello everyone,
Does the Anthem allow you to have the same settings than the Anthem SL classical? I mean does the Anthem is also adapted for nylon string guitar?
what actual difference is there between the Anthem SL and the Anthem SL classical, is it about when the mic take over the UST?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
TRAINING LEVEL: Intermediate
CLASS SIZE: Minimum: 20 Maximum: 30
The course is designed to help practitioners develop a multimodal transportation system that supports desired land uses and helps them shape land uses to support the transportation system. Course lessons include the principles of transportation and land use; the processes through which transportation and land use issues can be jointly addressed; and implementation steps to ensure that transportation and land use systems are designed in a compatible, mutually supportive manner.
Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:
Primary: Mid-level State DOT employees, City and County engineers and planners, MPO staff, transit operators, Federal employees (FHWA, FTA, EPA), resource agency staff, consultants. Secondary: Elected officials, regulatory agency staff, local zoning officials, site designers, citizen activists, developers, media representatives and business leaders.
If you have questions about this NHI training, please contact NHI at
email@example.com or 877.558.6873.
There are no sessions available.
Sign up for session alerts
to receive email alerts when sessions of this course are scheduled.
The National Highway Institute (NHI) has been accredited as an Accredited Provider
by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET).
In obtaining this accreditation, NHI has demonstrated that it complies with the
ANSI/IACET Standard which is recognized internationally as a standard of good practice.
As a result of their Accredited Provider status, NHI is authorized to offer IACET CEUs
for its programs that qualify under the ANSI/IACET Standard.


text:
Two women injured in kitchen fire
BROCTON – On Monday evening, two women at 16 Harmon Ave. were sent to the hospital for treatment of burns.
According to Brocton Fire Chief Bryan Woleben, a grease fire in the kitchen led to severe burns to one woman and minor burns to the other.
The woman with severe burns was flown to Buffalo for treatment. The other woman was taken to the hospital in Westfield.
There was also fire damage to the kitchen.


text:
Different species of mammals have evolved to live in nearly all terrestrial and aquatic habitats on the planet. Mammals inhabit every terrestrial biome, from deserts to tropical rainforests to polar icecaps. Many species are arboreal, spending most or all of their time in the forest canopy. One group (Chiroptera) have even evolved powered flight, which represents only the third time that this ability has evolved in vertebrates (the other two groups being Aves and extinct Pterosaurs).
Many mammals are partially aquatic, living near lakes, streams, or the coastlines of oceans (e.g., Phocidae, Otariidae, Odobenidae, Lutrinae, Ondatra, and many others). Whales and dolphins (Cetacea) are fully aquatic, and can be found in all oceans of the world, and some rivers. Whales can be found in polar, temperate, and tropical waters, both near shore and in the open ocean, and from the water's surface to depths of over 1 kilometer. (Nowak, 1991; Reichholf, 1990a; Vaughan, Ryan, and Czaplewski, 2000)
Habitat Regions: Temperate; Tropical; Polar; Terrestrial; Saltwater or marine; Freshwater
Terrestrial Biomes: Tundra; Taiga; Desert or dune; Savanna or grassland; Chaparral; Forest; Rainforest; Scrub forest; Mountains; Icecap
Aquatic Biomes: Pelagic; Reef; Lakes and Ponds; Rivers and Streams; Coastal; Brackish Water
Wetlands: Marsh; Swamp; Bog
Other Habitat Features: Urban; Suburban; Agricultural; Riparian; Estuarine; Intertidal or littoral


text:
TRAINING LEVEL: Basic
CLASS SIZE: Minimum: 20 Maximum: 30
This course is designed to teach basic conflict management skills, including interest-based negotiation, communication, and facilitation skills, as well as leadership behaviors and to examine opportunities for applying these collaborative skills in the context of transportation decisionmaking where there are environmental issues. The purpose of the course is to help transportation and environmental agencies, Tribes, and stakeholders bridge their different agency mandates and diverse interests and offers opportunities for participants to share their varied perspectives on important issues and resources. The course models how to participate in meaningful discussions and demonstrates how to maintain a positive and constructive dialogue, arrive at integrative decisions, make good use of limited time and personnel resources, achieve streamlined processes, and make decisions that serve the public.
Upon completion of the course, participants will be able to:
This training program is intended for Federal, State, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Local Public Agency, and Tribal representatives who are involved in Federally-funded transportation projects. The target audience may include environmental protection specialists; transportation planners, project managers, design engineers, and transportation/environmental liaisons; legal counsel, and Federal, Tribal, and State resource agency staff who review and implement transportation projects and are involved in transportation planning as well as environmental consultants and non-governmental organizational representatives. Participants should have a working knowledge of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the transportation planning and project development processes.
If you have questions about this NHI training, please contact NHI at
firstname.lastname@example.com or 877.558.6873.
Sign up for session alerts
to receive email alerts when sessions of this course are scheduled.
The National Highway Institute (NHI) has been accredited as an Accredited Provider
by the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET).
In obtaining this accreditation, NHI has demonstrated that it complies with the
ANSI/IACET Standard which is recognized internationally as a standard of good practice.
As a result of their Accredited Provider status, NHI is authorized to offer IACET CEUs
for its programs that qualify under the ANSI/IACET Standard.


text:
The San Jose Earthquakes have an official partnership with Tottenham Hotspur Football Club of the English Premier League. The partnership was originally announced on October 9, 2008 during a press conference at the Fairmont Hotel in San Jose and has continued to blossom ever since.
With the objective of creating a long-term bond between the two clubs, the partnership primarily focuses on soccer and commercial development through the exchange and implementation of best practices both on the pitch and in the front office. The two clubs have also collaborated on several community and charitable endeavors.
The Earthquakes initially kicked off the partnership with a visit to London in December of 2008 to visit Tottenham Hotspur headquarters and training facilities. John Doyle, Frank Yallop, Ian Russell and Jason Batty met with members of Spurs technical staff during the visit and took in a match at White Hart Lane.
The partnership moved to a new level in 2010. First, the Earthquakes traveled to England for an 11-day stay at Spurs Lodge from March 4 through March 11. The Quakes trained on Tottenham Hotspurs' grounds during the trip and won three exhibition matches - 2-0 victories against West Ham and the Colorado Rapids as well as a 1-0 result against the Spurs' reserve side. Quakes players also had the opportunity to take in a Spurs match while enjoying their time in London.
Building on the success of the Quakes most recent trip to England, the partnership reached a major accord on April 22. Tottenham Hotspur and San Jose announced a friendly to be played at Buck Shaw Stadium, home of the Earthquakes, on July 17, 2010. The match took place in front of a sell-out crowd at Buck Shaw Stadium, and ended in a 0-0 draw.
After a successful 2010 season, the Earthquakes returned to London for another pre-season trip to Spurs Lodge. The club departed for England on Feb. 17 and trained through Feb. 27. The club again lined up three matches during their time across the pond. The Quakes won their first two matches – 4-0 over Birmingham city and 3-0 over Colchester United – before falling 3-1 to Sven Goran Ericksson's Leicester City. In addition to the entire first team making the trip to London, this installment of the pre-season trip also included four Academy players under the supervision of Technical Advisor Troy Dayak.
The clubs reached a milestone agreement on March 15, 2011 as the Earthquakes announced a loan deal that brought Simon Dawkins to San Jose from Spurs. The midfielder played with the Tottenham Hotspur Academy and Reserve sides and trained with the Quakes during their pre-season trip to London. Dawkins scored six goals and had two assists while with the Quakes in 2011.
What they said about the partnership:
Lew Wolff, Earthquakes Owner: "The Earthquakes and Major League Soccer are delighted and excited with the creation of this great professional soccer relationship. We believe our coming together with the historic Tottenham Football Club unites the premier soccer league in England with the premier soccer league in the U.S."
Fran Jones, Tottenham Hotspur Head of International Development: "This agreement with San Jose Earthquakes will provide us with an excellent opportunity to access a key region in a global market. As a Club we are continually looking for innovative ways to evolve and our partnership with the Earthquakes will enable us to market the Tottenham Hotspur to a wider audience. We already have a fan base within the state of California and the opportunity to grow the brand in the U.S is very appealing."


text:
Beewolves (genus Philanthus), also known as bee-hunters, burrowing wasps, or philanthuses, are solitary, predatory wasps, most of which prey on bees, hence their common name. The adult females dig tunnels in the ground for nesting, while the territorial males mark twigs and other objects with pheromones to claim the territory from competing males.
As with all other sphecoid wasps the larvae are carnivorous, forcing the inseminated females to hunt for other invertebrates (in this case bees), on which she lays her eggs, supplying the larvae with prey when they emerge. The adults collect nectar from flowers or from squeezing the bees they capture for prey;[citation needed] the nectar is their energy source for flight.
The prevalent European species, P. triangulum, specializes in preying upon honey bees, thus making it a minor pest for beekeepers.[citation needed] Other Philanthus species may specialize on other bee species, or they may be generalists which prey upon a wide variety of bees, or other types of Hymenoptera.[citation needed]
They are notable in stinging their prey in a membranous location on the ventral surface where the venom quickly paralyzes major voluntary muscles, yet does not kill the prey. The prey may attempt to sting in return, but it is always grabbed in such a way that only well-armored portions of the beewolf's body are presented. The beewolf carries the prey back to a tunnel, but usually only stores it temporarily, until it is later used to provision a cell burrow, where an egg is laid.
The tunnel of Philanthus triangulum can be as much as 1 m long. The first part of the tunnel slopes downward at an angle of 30° after which it levels out. Up to 34 lateral tunnels each ending in a brood chamber branch off from the main tunnel.[1] Each brood chamber is stocked with one to six honeybees.[1]
The genus Philanthus contains about 170 species, some of which are listed here:[citation needed]
- Philanthus albopilosus (a.k.a. P. simillimus)
- Philanthus arizonicus
- Philanthus banabacoa
- Philanthus barbatus
- Philanthus barbiger
- Philanthus basilaris
- Philanthus bicinctus (bumblebeewolf)
- Philanthus bilunatus
- Philanthus boharti (Bohart's beewolf)
- Philanthus coarctatus (a.k.a. P. niloticus)
- Philanthus coronatus (crowned philanthus)
- Philanthus crabroniformis
- Philanthus crotoniphilus
- Philanthus elegantissimus
- Philanthus fuscipennis
- Philanthus gibbosus
- Philanthus gloriosus
- Philanthus histrio
- Philanthus inversus
- Philanthus lepidus
- Philanthus levini (Levin's beewolf)
- Philanthus loeflingi (Loefling's beewolf)
- Philanthus michelbacheri (Michelbacher's beewolf)
- Philanthus multimaculatus
- Philanthus nasalis
- Philanthus neomexicanus
- Philanthus occidentalis
- Philanthus pacificus
- Philanthus parkeri (Parker's beewolf)
- Philanthus politus
- Philanthus psyche
- Philanthus pulchellus
- Philanthus pulcher
- Philanthus sanborni (Sanborn's beewolf)
- Philanthus saxigenus
- Philanthus schusteri (Schuster's beewolf)
- Philanthus sculpturatus
- Philanthus serrulatae (a.k.a. P. siouxensis)
- Philanthus solivagus
- Philanthus stygius
- Philanthus tarsatus
- Philanthus triangulum (European beewolf)
- Philanthus variegatus
- Philanthus ventilabris
- Philanthus ventralis (a.k.a. Ococletes ventralis)
- Philanthus venustus
- Philanthus zebratus
- ^ a b Piper, Ross (2007). Extraordinary Animals: An Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals. Greenwood Publishing Group.


text:
neil wrote:It only seems to work with https addresses.
HGiles wrote:Thanks for the work, Mike.
The guy who tried to fix the router is the American who's been spending a lot of time in Forest in the last few days, generally being friendly and chatty and ITy.
gaia wrote:Are we sure it was him?
chombee wrote:In the office is another router that is plugged into the wall, but no modem there either.
scoutwinter wrote:Some NM's have been using the fuse box as light switches though, so could it happen then?
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest


text:
Skip to content
Northern Territory Department of Health
Northern Australia Department of Health
This poster provides a picture and brief description of the stages in the cycle of behaviour change model for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who use alcohol and other drugs.
The six stages are:
Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet abstract
This poster is a useful training tool as it can be applied to many health areas. It can also be used as a visual reminder for clients about what stage they are up to in the behaviour change cycle.
Northern Territory Government
Department of Health
Alcohol and Other Drugs Program
87 Mitchell Street
Darwin NT 0800
PO Box 40596
Casuarina NT 0811
Ph: (08) 8999 2780
Report broken link


text:
Backgrounder #2578 on Economy
July 18, 2011
July 18, 2011 | Backgrounder on Economy
Abstract: Federal social programs are rarely evaluated to determine whether they are actually accomplishing their intended purposes. As part of its obligation to spend taxpayers' dollars wisely, Congress should mandate that experimental evaluations of every federal social program be conducted. The evaluations should be large-scale, multisite studies to guard against mistakenly assuming that a program that works in one location or with one population will automatically work in other situations. Congress should place substantially less emphasis on funding evaluations based on less rigorous types of research designs, because their conclusions are much less reliable. Finally, Congress should exercise strict oversight to ensure that the evaluations are conducted and the results reported in a timely manner.
The notion that public policy should be informed by social science has gained widespread acceptance. The evaluation of federal social programs, using scientific techniques, offers policymakers and the public ample opportunities to learn about the effectiveness of government programs. Despite the availability of evaluation methods, the effectiveness of federal social programs is often unknown in far too many cases. Many programs operate for decades without ever undergoing thorough scientific evaluations.
With the enormous federal debt increasingly shaping policy debates in Washington, D.C., Congress should subject all federal social programs to rigorous evaluations to determine what works and what does not work.
Evidence-Based Policy
The social sciences can make important contributions to policymaking. Perhaps the greatest contribution is the evidence-based policy movement that seeks to inform and influence policymakers through scientifically rigorous evaluations of the effectiveness of government programs.[1] The evidence-based policy movement, in other words, seeks to inform policymakers about what works and what does not work.
Scientifically rigorous impact evaluations are necessary to determine whether these programs actually produce their intended effects. Thus, the implementation of rigorous impact evaluation offers policymakers excellent opportunities to exercise oversight of government programs. Policymakers are shirking their responsibilities to taxpayers if they continue to fund social programs that are not known to work or that do not work at all. Obviously, there is little merit in continuing programs that fail to ameliorate their targeted social problems.
However, there is disagreement over what can be counted as evidence.[2] For example, should high-quality quasi-experiments be given the same level of scientific credibility as experimental evaluations? Despite such disagreements, this paper argues that experimental evaluations are the most credible and accurate method by which to assess effectiveness.
The Advantages of Experimental Evaluations
The impact of programs cannot be estimated with 100 percent certainty. All such impact evaluations face formidable control problems that make successful estimates difficult. As a general rule, the more rigorous the research methodology is, the more reliable the evaluation's findings are.
Determining the impact of social programs requires comparing the conditions of those who had received assistance with the conditions of an equivalent group that did not experience the intervention. However, evaluations differ by the quality of methodology used to separate the net impact of programs from other factors that may explain differences in outcomes between comparison and intervention groups.
Broadly speaking, there are three types of research designs: experimental designs, quasi-experimental designs, and nonexperimental designs.[3] Experimental evaluations, often called randomized field or control trials, randomly assign individuals to the intervention and control groups.
Experimental evaluations are the "gold standard" of evaluation designs. Random assignment helps to ensure that the control group is equivalent to the intervention group in composition, predispositions, and experiences.[4] In other words, randomization eliminates any systematic association between intervention status and the observed and unobserved participant characteristics, thus largely eliminating the selection bias that potentially contaminates other evaluation designs.[5] Weaker evaluation designs are often plagued by unobserved differences between the intervention and control groups, which makes drawing reliable causal conclusions impossible.
Randomized evaluations ensure that pre-program differences between the intervention and control groups do not confound or obscure the true impact of the programs being evaluated. Random assignment allows the evaluator to test for differences between the experimental and control groups that are due to the intervention and not to pre-intervention discrepancies between the groups. Because they draw members of the interaction and comparison groups from the same pool of eligible participants, these experimental evaluations are superior to other evaluations that use weaker designs.
In addition, this design's methodology is easier to describe to policymakers and laymen than other evaluation methods that use sophisticated statistical modeling techniques,[6] which often have significant weaknesses in determining program impact. Further, the results of an evaluation using sophisticated statistical modeling techniques can "become entangled in a protracted and often inconclusive scientific debate about whether the findings of a particular study are statistically valid." Alternatively, the results of experimental evaluations are more straightforward and can be easily grasped: "Compared to the control group, the intervention group that participated in the program experienced a 10% increase in the outcome measure."[7]
In both quasi-experimental and nonexperimental designs, failure to remove the influence of differences that affect program outcomes leaves open the possibility that the underlying differences between the groups, not the program, caused the net impact. While quasi-experimental and nonexperimental designs use sophisticated techniques, experimental evaluations are still considered better at producing reliable estimates of program effects. Evidence in criminal justice policy indicates that quasi-experimental and nonexperimental evaluations are more likely to find favorable intervention effects and less likely to find harmful intervention effects.[8]
Given that experimental evaluations produce the most reliable results, Congress should promote the use of experimental evaluations to assess the effectiveness of federal programs. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that experimental evaluations are used to assess the impact of federal social programs. Quasi-experimental and nonexperimental designs, no matter how well designed, may be incapable of controlling for non-program factors that influence how participants respond to the intervention.
Given the importance of criminal justice policy, Professor David Weisburd of George Mason University argues that researchers have a moral imperative to conduct randomized experiments[9] because of their "obligation to provide valid answers to questions about the effectiveness of treatments, practices, and programs."[10] This moral imperative also applies to Congress, which spends hundreds of billions of dollars on social programs. Yet Congress has seldom supported experimental evaluation of federally funded grant programs.
Major Experimental Evaluation of Federal Social Programs
Despite the trillions of dollars that Congress has spent on federal social programs, only a few programs have undergone large-scale experimental impact evaluations. These evaluations include:
The welfare-to-work evaluations of job training and job search programs for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) participants were highly influential in efforts to reform the nation's welfare system during congressional debates on the Family Support Act of 1998 and helped to pave the way for further reforms that occurred with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.[11]
Can Effective Programs Be Replicated?
Policymakers and advocates often assume that a social program that is effective in one setting will automatically produce the same results in other settings. Policymakers should not make this assumption.
Many advocates of social programs have adopted the language of the "evidence-based" policy movement. Under the evidence-based policy movement, programs found to be effective using rigorous scientific methods are deemed "effective" or "evidence-based" and held up as "model" programs.
However, many of the programs labeled as "evidence-based"—often by program advocates—have been evaluated in only a single setting, so the results cannot necessarily be generalized to other settings. In addition, these evidence-based programs have often been implemented by highly trained professionals operating under ideal conditions. These programs are carefully monitored to ensure that the participants receive the intended level of treatment. In the real world, program conditions are often much less than optimal.
The success of replicating evidence-based programs often depends on implementation fidelity—the degree to which programs follow the theory underpinning the program and how correctly the program components are put into practice. Incorrect implementation often accounts for the failures of previously successful or model programs when implemented in other jurisdictions.
Reconnecting Youth. A good example of a "successful" program that has not been found to be effective when replicated in the real world is Reconnecting Youth, a school-based substance abuse program. Reconnecting Youth was designated as a "model program" by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA)[12] and as a "research-based" program by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.[13] These classifications are important because schools receiving Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities grants under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 must select only drug prevention programs that have been previously designated as effective.[14]
Denise Hallfors, a senior research scientist at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, and her colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of Reconnecting Youth in real-world conditions.[15] In a random experiment, 1,370 high-risk youths in nine high schools in two large urban school districts were assigned to intervention and control groups. Overall, Reconnecting Youth had no effect on academic performance, truancy, or substance abuse. However, Reconnecting Youth participants showed statistically significant decreases in conventional peer bonding and pro-social weekend activities (e.g., doing homework, club or church activities, and family activities) and a statistically significant increase in high-risk peer bonding.[16]
Hallfors and her colleagues concluded that "Reconnecting Youth failed to meet the requirement to do more good than harm."[17] Further, programs found to be effective in a single location "do not provide adequate evidence for widespread dissemination or designation as 'model' programs."[18]
MST. Multisystemic therapy (MST) is another program model that has been labeled effective. It has shown promise in reducing the delinquency of youth who display serious antisocial behavior. As a highly intensive and tailored counseling program aimed at individuals, not groups, MST recognizes that antisocial behavior is influenced by three areas where youth interact: family, school, and peer associations.[19] Highly trained MST counselors work with parents, usually in the home, to improve discipline, enhance family relationships, increase youth interactions with pro-social peers, and improve school performance.[20]
Several randomized experiments by its developers have linked MST to reductions in offending by participants.[21] However, there is some debate about whether MST is truly effective and can be replicated successfully across the nation.
Professor Julia H. Littell of Bryn Mawr College and her colleagues have pointed out that some MST experimental evaluations have suffered from attrition in which subjects in the evaluation dropped out of treatment.[22] Evaluations, even random experiments, that exclude dropouts from outcome assessments may inadvertently engage in "creaming of the crop," in which those least likely to succeed drop out, leaving behind an intervention group composed of individuals most likely to succeed. This type of attrition breaks equivalence between the intervention and control groups, thus biasing the impact estimates.
Further, the successful MST effects have yet to be replicated in other settings. An experimental evaluation of MST in Ontario, Canada, included intervention dropouts in its final outcome measures to avoid the problem of attrition. This evaluation, unbiased by attrition, found that MST failed to reduce delinquency.[23] In Norway, MST was found to be effective based on intermediate measures, but delinquency was not measured.[24]
After conducting a meta-analysis of MST, Littell and her colleagues concluded that "it is not clear whether MST has clinically significant advantages over other services."[25] While the debate over MST's effectiveness is not yet settled, evaluations suggest that MST has had little success when replicated in other settings.
These examples illustrate why programs should be evaluated in multiple settings before being labeled "evidence-based." Generalizing from a single evaluation conducted in one setting is at best premature.
What Congress Should Do
Congress can take several steps to ensure that federal social programs are properly assessed using experimental evaluations. The Appendix presents model legislative language that Congress could use to mandate experimental evaluation of the social programs that it authorizes and funds.
Step #1: When authorizing a new program or reauthorizing an existing program, Congress should specifically mandate experimental evaluation of the program.
Congressional mandates are necessary because federal agencies often resist performing experimental evaluations.
Local recipients of federal funding may also resist participating in experimental evaluations for a variety of reasons. They may not want to deny services to members of the control group or may not want the final results to reflect negatively on the program. For example, many jurisdictions receiving funding through the Job Training Partnership Act and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills programs refused to cooperate with large-scale experimental evaluations of these programs.[26]
Interest groups and some Members of Congress may also oppose experiments. For example, Upward Bound is a program intended to help disadvantaged high school students prepare for college. Many Upward Bound centers and the Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), which lobbies on behalf of Upward Bound centers, opposed Department of Education efforts under the George W. Bush Administration to conduct an experimental evaluation of Upward Bound.[27] A previous experimental evaluation found that Upward Bound had no impact on whether most participants attended college.[28]
Research suggests that Upward Bound serves a population that, while viewed as disadvantaged, is already very likely to attend college.[29] However, participants who originally had no expectation of attending college were more likely to enroll in college.[30] In response to these findings, the Bush Administration wanted to focus Upward Bound on students with low academic expectations, where the program appeared to be effective, and conduct a new experimental evaluation of the revised program's effectiveness.[31]
However, many Upward Bound centers opposed the policy change and the additional evaluation using random assignment to assess the revised program's effectiveness. COE President Arnold L. Mitchem compared the use of random assignment, which would ultimately deny some eligible students access to Upward Bound, to the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments, in which medical treatment was withheld from black men so that government scientists could learn about the negative effects of the disease.[32] In the end, a rider barring the Department of Education from using funds to perform the proposed evaluation was attached to the fiscal year 2008 omnibus appropriations law.[33]
As previously mentioned, Congress has the moral imperative to ensure that it allocates taxpayer dollars effectively. Experimental evaluations are the only way to determine to a high degree of certainty the effectiveness of social programs. Congress should not cave in to interest groups that are opposed to rigorous evaluation of their programs. Congress should mandate that all recipients of federal funding, if selected for participation, must cooperate with evaluations in order to receive future funding.
Step #2: The experimental evaluations should be large-scale, multisite studies.
When Congress creates programs, especially state and local grant programs, the funded activities are implemented in multiple cities or towns. Federal grants are intended to be spread out across the nation. For this reason, Congress should require national, multisite experimental evaluations of these programs.
While individual programs funded by federal grants may undergo experimental evaluations, these small-scale, single-site evaluations do not inform policymakers of the general effectiveness of national programs. Small-scale evaluations only assess the impact on a small fraction of people served by federal social programs. The success of a single program that serves a particular jurisdiction or population does not necessarily mean that the same program will achieve similar success in other jurisdictions or among different populations. Thus, small-scale evaluations are poor substitutes for large-scale evaluations.
In addition, a multisite experimental evaluation that examines the performance of a particular program in numerous and diverse settings can potentially produce results that are more persuasive to policymakers than results from a single locality.[34]
The case of police departments performing mandatory arrests in domestic violence incidents is a poignant example of why caution should be exercised when generalizing findings from a single evaluation. During the 1980s, criminologists Lawrence W. Sherman and Richard A. Berk, currently professors at the University of Pennsylvania, analyzed the impact of mandatory arrests for domestic violence incidents on future domestic violence incidents in Minneapolis, Minnesota.[35] Compared to less severe police responses, the Minneapolis experiment found that mandatory arrests lead to significantly lower rates of domestic violence. Sherman and Berk urged caution, but police departments across the nation adopted the mandatory arrest policy based on the results of one evaluation conducted in one city.
However, what worked in Minneapolis did not always work in other locations. Experiments conducted by Sherman and others in Omaha, Nebraska; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Charlotte, North Carolina; Colorado Springs, Colorado; and Dade County, Florida, found mixed results.[36] Experiments in Omaha, Milwaukee, and Charlotte found that mandatory arrests lead to long-term increases in domestic violence. Apparently, knowing that they would automatically be arrested prompted repeat offenders to become more abusive. In a subsequent analysis of the disparate findings, Sherman postulated that arrested individuals who lacked a stake in conformity within their communities were significantly more likely to engage in domestic violence after arrest, while married and employed arrested individuals were significantly less likely to commit further domestic violence infractions.
The Building Strong Families (BSF) demonstration project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides a more recent example. BSF provided counseling services to unmarried couples who were expecting or had recently had a baby in eight sites (Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Orange and Broward counties, Florida; Houston, Texas; Allen, Marion, and Lake counties, Indiana; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and San Angelo, Texas). The marriage program's intent was to steer low-income unmarried couples with or expecting a child toward marriage.
The eight-site demonstration project is undergoing an experimental evaluation by Mathematica Policy Research, a leading research firm that specializes in conducting impact evaluations of government programs. More than 5,000 couples were randomly assigned to a relationship counseling group or a control group that could not participate in the program.
In 2010, Mathematica released the initial findings from a 15-month follow-up study.[37]
Overall, the authors found that "BSF did not make couples more likely to stay together or get married. In addition, it did not improve couples' relationship quality."[38] For example, 17 percent of all couples participating in the program eventually married, while 18 percent of the couples excluded from the program were married 15 months after random assignment—a statistically indistinguishable difference of 1 percentage point.[39]
While the evaluation of the eight demonstration sites found federally funded marriage promotion programs to be ineffective overall, the results from Baltimore and Oklahoma City were contradictory. (The results from the other six sites were largely consistent with the overall finding that BSF had no effect on improving the relationships of participating couples.) In Baltimore, compared to couples in the control group, unmarried couples participating in the program were less likely to be still romantically involved.[40] In addition, couples in the program reported less support and affection in their relationships, and fathers were less likely to provide financial support for their children and less likely to engage in cognitive and social play with their children.[41]
In Oklahoma City, the opposite occurred. While unmarried couples in the program were no more likely to marry than were the control group couples, Oklahoma participants reported improvements in relationship happiness, support and affection, use of constructive conflict behaviors, and avoidance of destructive conflict behaviors.[42] Additionally, fathers participating in the program were more likely to provide financial support for their children than were their counterparts in the control group.[43]
If Baltimore were the only site evaluated, then the results would indicate that federally sponsored marriage counseling for unmarried couples with children has harmful effects. The somewhat positive Oklahoma City results would have led to the opposite conclusion.
Contradictory results from evaluations of similar social programs implemented in different settings are a product not only of implementation fidelity, but also of the enormous complexity of the social context in which these programs are implemented. Jim Manzi, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, uses the conflicting results of experimental evaluations to explain the influence of "causal density" on the social sciences.[44] Causal density, a term coined by Manzi, is "the number and complexity of potential causes of the outcomes of interest."[45] Manzi postulates that as causal density rises, social scientists will find greater difficulty in identifying all of the factors that cause the outcome of interest.
Just as with the contradictory effects of mandatory arrest policies by location, the confounding influence of causal density may have contributed to the conflicting BSF findings in Baltimore and Oklahoma City. For this reason, experimental evaluations of federal social programs should be conducted in multiple sites.
Step #3: Congress should specify the types of outcome measures to be used to assess effectiveness.
A federal program that is intended to ameliorate a particular social problem should be assessed on its impact on that particular social problem. For example, when assessing the impact of prisoner reentry programs, the most important outcome measure is recidivism. Some have questioned the emphasis on recidivism as a measure of effectiveness compared to other measures that assess adjustment or reintegration of former prisoners into society,[46] but while intermediate measures, such as finding employment and housing, are important, these outcomes are not the ultimate goal of reentry programs. If former prisoners continue to commit crimes after going through reentry programs, then any intermediate outcomes are irrelevant to judging whether the programs are effective.
Impact evaluations that rely solely on intermediate outcomes tell little about the effectiveness of federal social programs in ameliorating the targeted social problems. While federal social programs should be assessed on intermediate outcomes, these measures should never substitute for primary outcomes.
Step #4: Congress should institute procedures that encourage government agencies to carry out congressionally mandated evaluations, despite any entrenched biases against experimental evaluations.
Simply mandating an experimental evaluation does not necessarily guarantee that the evaluation will actually be made. The Department of Labor, for example, has a poor track record in implementing and disseminating experimental evaluations mandated by Congress.
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 mandated a large-scale, multisite evaluation of the Department of Labor's job-training programs and required the department to report the results by September 2005. Despite this mandate and deadline, the Department of Labor procrastinated.[47] In November 2007, nine years after the passage of the Workforce Investment Act and more than two years after the deadline, the department finally submitted a request for proposals for the evaluation.[48] The contract for the experimental evaluation was awarded in June 2008, almost four years after the deadline.[49] According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the evaluation will not be completed until June 2015—nearly 10 years after its original due date and 17 years after Congress mandated the evaluation.[50]
Congress needs to take steps to ensure that evaluations are completed in a timely manner. One recommended method is to require department heads, such as the Attorney General or Secretary of Labor, to submit annual progress reports, with the first report to be submitted no later than one year after Congress mandates the evaluation. The progress reports would go to the appropriations and oversight committees of both chambers of Congress. For example, the Department of Labor would be required to submit the report to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations; the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Thirty days after the report is submitted to Congress, it should be posted on the department's Web site.
Step #5: Congress should require that congressionally mandated evaluations be submitted to the relevant congressional committees in a timely manner after completion.
Thirty days after any evaluation is submitted to Congress, the evaluation should be made available on the Web site of the federal government agency responsible for the evaluation. Requiring that Congress and the public be informed of evaluation results is important because government agencies are quick to release positive results but sometimes reluctant to release negative results.
For example, a cost-benefit analysis of the Job Corps that found that the program costs outweighed the benefits was finalized in 2003,[51] but the Department of Labor withheld it from the public until 2006.[52] The Government Accountability Office has criticized the Department of Labor for its history of delaying the release of its research findings.[53] Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services has noticeably delayed the release of an evaluation of Head Start that reported underwhelming results.[54] Congress needs to be vigilant in ensuring that evaluation results are disseminated promptly.
With the federal debt reaching staggering heights, Congress needs to ensure that it is spending taxpayer dollars wisely. Multisite experimental evaluations are the best method for assessing the effectiveness of federal social programs. Yet to date, this method has been used on only a handful of federal social programs. Congress needs to reverse this trend.
—David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
Model Legislation for Multisite Experimental Evaluations
SEC. <Insert number>. EVALUATIONS.
(a) PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT UNDER THIS TITLE.—For the purpose of improving the management and effectiveness of programs and activities carried out under this title, the Secretary shall provide for the continuing impact evaluation of the programs and activities, including those programs and activities carried out under section <Insert number>. Such impact evaluations shall address—
(1) Outcomes measures of the effectiveness of such programs and activities in relation to their cost, including the extent to which the programs and activities—
(A) Improve the <Insert outcome measures> of participants in comparison to comparably situated individuals who did not participate in such programs and activities;
(B) Increase the <Insert outcome measures> over the level that would have existed in the absence of such programs and activities; and
(C) Increase the <Insert outcome measures> of participants in comparison to comparably situated individuals who did not participate in such programs and activities;
(2) The effectiveness of the performance measures relating to such programs and activities;
(3) The effectiveness of the structure and mechanisms for delivery of services through such programs and activities;
(4) The impact of such programs and activities on the community and participants involved;
(5) The impact of such programs and activities on related programs and activities;
(6) The extent to which such programs and activities meet the needs of various demographic groups; and
(7) Such other factors as may be appropriate.
(b) OTHER PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary may conduct impact evaluations of other federally funded programs related to <Insert policy area (e.g., employment, early childhood education)> and activities under other provisions of law.
(c) TECHNIQUES.—Impact evaluations conducted under this section shall use appropriate methodology and research designs, including the use of intervention and control groups chosen by scientific random assignment methodologies. For each impact evaluation, the Secretary shall fulfill all the notification and reporting requirements under subsections (d), (e), and (f). The Secretary shall conduct as least 1 multisite control group evaluation under this section by the end of fiscal year <Insert year>.
(d) NOTIFICATION OF IMPACT EVALUATION PROGRESS.—
(1) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the <Insert name of Act>, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to the <Insert two or more House committees> of the House of Representatives and the <Insert two or more Senate committees> of the Senate a report on the progress the Secretary is making in evaluating the programs and activities carried out under this section.
(2) AVAILABILITY TO GENERAL PUBLIC.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the <Insert name of Act>, and annually thereafter not later than 30 days after the transmission of an annual report under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall make available the reports to the general public on the Internet website of the Department of <Insert name>.
(e) REPORTS.—The entity carrying out an impact evaluation described in subsection (a) or (b) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary a draft report and a final report containing the results of the evaluation.
(f) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after the completion of such a report described in subsection (e), the Secretary shall transmit the draft report to the <Insert House committees from subsection (d)> of the House of Representatives and the <Insert House committees from subsection (d)> of the Senate. Not later than 30 days after the completion of such a final report, the Secretary shall transmit the final report to such committees of the Congress. All reports must be made available to the general public on the Department's internet web site within 30 days of being transmitted to such committees of Congress.
(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:
(1) IMPACT EVALUATION—The term "impact evaluation" means an evaluative study that evaluates, in accordance with subsection (a), the outcomes of programs and activities carried out under this title, including the impact on social conditions such programs and activities are intended to improve.
(2) SCIENTIFIC RANDOM ASSIGNMENT METHODOLOGIES—The term "scientific random assignment methodologies" means research designs conducted in program settings in which intervention and control groups are—
(A) formed by random assignment; and
(B) compared on the basis of outcome measures for the purpose of determining the impact of programs and activities carried out under this title participants.
(3) CONTROL GROUP.—The term "control group" means a group of individuals—
(A) who did not participate in the programs and activities carried out under this title; and
(B) who outcome measures are compared to the outcome measures of individuals in an intervention group.
(4) INTERVENTION GROUP—The term "intervention group" means a group of individuals—
(A) who participated in the programs and activities carried out under this title; and
(B) whose outcome measures are compared to the outcome measures of individuals in a control group.
Show references in this report
[1]See Karen Bogenschneider and Thomas J. Corbett, Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights from Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers (New York: Routledge, 2010).
[2]Stewart I. Donaldson, "In Search of the Blueprint for an Evidence-Based Global Society," in Stewart I. Donaldson, Christina A. Christie, and Melvin M. Mark, eds., What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice? (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2009), pp. 2–18.
[3]William R. Shadish, Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002). A fourth research design is the natural experiment. Natural experiments use naturally occurring differences between intervention and comparison groups.
[4]Peter H. Rossi, Mark W. Lipsey, and Howard E. Freeman, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 7th ed. (Thousand Oaks, Cal.: SAGE Publications, 2004).
[5]Gary Burtless, "Randomized Field Trials for Policy Evaluations: Why Not in Education?" in Frederick Mosteller and Robert Boruch, eds., Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 2002), pp. 179–197.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid., p. 183.
[8]After conducting a meta-analysis of 308 criminal justice program evaluations, Professor David Weisburd of George Mason University and his colleagues found that weaker evaluation designs are more likely to find favorable intervention effects and less likely to find harmful intervention effects. They caution that quasi-experimental and non-experimental designs, no matter how well designed, may be incapable of controlling for the unobserved factors that make individuals more likely to respond favorably to the intervention. See David Weisburd, Cynthia M. Lum, and Anthony Petrosino, "Does Research Design Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice?" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, No. 578 (November 2001), pp. 50–70.
[9]David Weisburd, "Ethical Practice and Evaluation of Interventions in Crime and Justice," Evaluation Review, Vol. 27, No. 23 (June 2003), pp. 336–354.
[10] Ibid., p. 350.
[11]Ron Haskins, "Congress Writes a Law: Research and Welfare Reform," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 10, No. 4 (1991), pp. 616–632; David Greenberg, Donna Linksz, and Marvin Mandell, Social Experimentation and Public Policymaking (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 2003); and Judith M. Gueron and Edward Pauly, From Welfare to Work (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1991).
[12]Steven Schinke, Paul Brounstein, and Stephen E. Gardner, Science-Based Prevention Programs and Principles, 2002, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002, at http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED474651 (June 29, 2011).
[13]Elizabeth B. Robertson, Susan L. David, and Suman A. Rao, Preventing Drug Use Among Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide for Parents, Educators, and Community Leaders, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, October 2003, at http://drugabuse.gov/pdf/prevention/RedBook.pdf (June 29, 2011).
[14]Denise Hallfors, Hyunsan Cho, Victoria Sanchez, Sheren Khatapoush, Hyung Min Kim, and Daniel Bauer, "Efficacy vs. Effectiveness Trial Results of an Indicated 'Model' Substance Abuse Program: Implications for Public Health," American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96, No. 12 (December 2006), pp. 2254–2259. See also 20 U.S. Code §§ 7112 and 7115.
[15]Hallfors et al., "Efficacy vs. Effectiveness Trial Results of an Indicated 'Model' Substance Abuse Program."
[16] Ibid., p. 2257.
[17] Ibid., p. 2258.
[18] Ibid.
[19]Scott W. Henggeler, Gary B. Melton, and Linda A. Smith, "Family Preservation Using Multisystemic Therapy: An Effective Alternative to Incarcerating Serious Juvenile Offenders," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 6 (December 1992), pp. 953–961.
[20]Cynthia Cupit Swenson, Scott W. Henggeler, Ida Taylor, and Oliver W. Addison, Multisystemic Therapy and Neighborhood Partnerships: Reducing Adolescent Violence and Substance Abuse (New York: Guilford Press, 2005).
[21]Charles M. Borduin, Scott W. Henggeler, David M. Blaske, and Risa J. Stein, "Multisystemic Treatment of Adolescent Sexual Offenders," International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, Vol. 34, No. 2 (September 1990), pp. 105–113; Charles M. Borduin, Barton J. Mann, Lynn T. Cone, Scott W. Henggeler, Bethany R. Fucci, David M. Blaske, and Robert A. Williams, "Multisystemic Treatment of Serious Juvenile Offenders: Long-Term Prevention of Criminality and Violence," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 63, No. 4 (August 1995), pp. 569–578; Scott W. Henggeler, W. Glenn Clingempeel, Michael J. Bronding, and Susan G. Pickrel, "Four-Year Follow-Up of Multisystemic Therapy with Substance-Abusing and Substance Dependent Juvenile Offenders," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 41, No. 7 (July 2002), pp. 868–874; and Scott W. Henggeler, Gary B. Melton, and Linda A. Smith, "Family Preservation Using Multisystemic Therapy: An Effective Alternative to Incarcerating Serious Juvenile Offenders," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 6 (December 1992), pp. 953–961.
[22]Julia H. Littell, Melanie Popa, and Burnee Forsythe, "Multisystemic Therapy for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems in Youth Aged 10–17," Campbell Systematic Reviews, September 21, 2005.
[23]Alan Leschied and Alison Cunningham, Seeking Effective Interventions for Young Offenders: Interim Results of a Four-Year Randomized Study of Multisystemic Therapy in Ontario, Canada (London, Ontario: Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System, 2002).
[24]Terje Ogden and Colleen A. Halliday-Boykins, "Multisystemic Treatment of Antisocial Adolescents in Norway: Replication of Clinical Outcomes Outside of the US," Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2004), pp. 77–83.
[25]Littell et al., "Multisystemic Therapy for Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Problems in Youth Aged 10–17."
[26]Fred Doolittle and Linda Traeger, Implementing the National JTPA Study (New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1990), and Judith M. Gueron, "The Politics of Random Assignment: Implementing Studies and Affecting Policy," in Mosteller and Boruch, Evidence Matters, pp. 15–49.
[27]Kelly Field, "Senate Votes to Block Upward Bound Evaluation," The Chronicle of Higher Education, November 2, 2007.
[28]David Myers, Robert Olsen, Neil Seftor, Julie Young, and Christina Tuttle, The Impacts of Upward Bound: Results from the Third Follow-Up Data Collection, Mathematica Policy Research, 2004, at http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED483155.pdf (April 29, 2011).
[29]Neil Seftor, Arif Mamun, and Allen Schirm, The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound on Postsecondary Outcomes 7–9 Years After Scheduled High School Graduation: Final Report, Mathematica Policy Research, January 2009, at http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/15740.pdf (April 29, 2011).
[30]Myers et al., The Impacts of Upward Bound.
[31]Field, "Senate Votes to Block Upward Bound Evaluation."
[32]Kelly Field, "Education Department Agrees to End Controversial Upward Bound Study," The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 25, 2008.
[33] Ibid. and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, § 519, December 26, 2007.
[34]Erica B. Baum, "When the Witch Doctors Agree: The Family Support Act and Social Science Research," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Autumn 1991), pp. 603–615, and Gueron, "The Politics of Random Assignment," pp. 15-49.
[35]Lawrence W. Sherman and Richard A. Berk, "The Specific Deterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault," American Sociological Review, Vol. 49, No. 2 (April 1984), pp. 261–272.
[36]Lawrence W. Sherman, Domestic Violence: Experiments and Dilemmas (New York: Free Press, 1992); Lawrence W. Sherman, Douglas A. Smith, Janell D. Schmidt, and Dennis P. Rogan, "Crime, Punishment, and Stake in Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Domestic Violence," American Sociological Review, Vol. 57 (October 1992), pp. 680–690; Lawrence W. Sherman, Janell D. Schmidt, Dennis P. Rogan, Douglas A. Smith, Patrick R. Gartin, Ellen G. Cohn, Dean J. Collins, and Anthony R. Bacih, "The Variable Effects of Arrest on Criminal Careers: The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment," The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 83, No. 1 (1992), pp. 137–169.
[37]Robert G. Wood, Sheena McConnell, Quinn Moore, Andrew Clarkwest, and JoAnn Hsueh, Strengthening Unmarried Parents' Relationships: The Early Impacts of Building Strong Families, Mathematica Policy Research, May 2010, at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/family_support/BSF_impact_finalrpt.pdf (March 14, 2011). A long-term follow-up study will be conducted when the couples' children reach the age of three.
[38] Ibid., p. xii.
[39] Ibid., p. 12.
[40] Ibid., p. 16, Table 7.
[41] Ibid., p. 16, Table 7, and p. 22, Table 11.
[42] Ibid., p. 16, Table 7.
[43] Ibid., p. 22, Table 11.
[44]Jim Manzi, "What Social Science Does—and Doesn't—Know," City Journal, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer 2010), pp. 14–23, at http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_3_social-science.html (March 14, 2011).
[45] Ibid.
[46]Christy A. Visher and Jeremy Travis, "Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 29 (2003), pp. 89–113.
[47]David B. Muhlhausen and Paul Kersey, "In the Dark on Job Training: Federal Job-Training Programs Have a Record of Failure," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1774, July 6, 2004, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/07/In-the-Dark-on-Job-Training-Federal-Job-Training-Programs-Have-a-Record-of-Failure.
[48]U.S. Department of Labor, "Requests for Proposals (RFP) 2007," at http://www.doleta.gov/grants/rfp07.cfm (July 18, 2010), and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed to Improve Transparency and Accountability of Its Research Programs, GAO–11–285, March 2011, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11285.pdf (April 21, 2011).
[49]U.S. Government Accountability Office, Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed.
[50]U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing Areas of Concern, but More Focus Needed on Understanding What Works and What Doesn't," Statement of George A. Scott, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, before the Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, GAO–09–396T, February 26, 2009, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09396t.pdf (July 18, 2010), and Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed.
[51]Peter Z. Schochet, Sheena McConnell, and John Burghardt, National Job Corps Study: Findings Using Administrative Earnings Records Data: Final Report (Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, October 2003).
[52]David B. Muhlhausen, "Job Corps: A Consistent Record of Failure," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 1374, February 28, 2007, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/02/Job-Corps-A-Consistent-Record-of-Failure.
[53]U.S. Government Accountability Office, Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed.
[54]Jennifer Marshall, David B. Muhlhausen, Russ Whitehurst, Nicholas Zill, and Debra Viadero, "Is Head Start Helping Children Succeed and Does Anyone Care?" video feed, The Heritage Foundation, March 22, 2010, at http://www.heritage.org/Events/2010/03/Head-Start (July 19, 2010).


text:
Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.
Join us for our newly revamped Hoosier Quest – the patch program that gets you outside and active at Indiana's State Park and Reservoirs.
The Hoosier Quest outdoor adventure program consists of three levels: Discover, Challenge and Explore.
Designed for everyone who is at least 5 years old.
Attend interpretive programs, volunteer and complete activities listed in the brochure.
Earn your patch and certificate after completing all requirements.
There's no time limit.
Patch requirements can be done using multiple properties on different visits.
Download the brochure.
What about the old Hoosier Quest program?
Our former Hoosier Quest program (Discover, Connect, Explore) will be honored through 2015 for participants who started it before July 2014. After that date, the new version will be the only version offered. It is designed to be much easier to follow, and allows many more choices for active participation.
Is there a program for my group (scouts, youth group, etc)?
Yes. The Hoosier Pathfinder Patch Program is designed for any group wishing to earn a patch while hiking or working on a service project in one of several selected Indiana State Parks, State Forests and State Reservoirs. To learn more about the program, view the brochure.
Can adults participate in all three programs?
Absolutely! Many of the activities involved in each program can be taken to a more advanced adult level. Talk with an interpreter at your favorite park or reservoir for more information.


text:
"You are so motivated to make sure the trip goes smoothly, because you know that the organs of these two kids are now going to save the lives of more than just a handful of other kids."
Giving Back
BJT readers–who represent one of the highest-net-worth magazine audiences anywhere–clearly have the means to contribute to a better world. To help you do that, we're spotlighting one deserving organization per issue. All of them have received a four-star overall rating from Charity Navigator (charitynavigator.org), which evaluates philanthropic institutions based on their finances, accountability and transparency.
Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation (alexslemonade.org) raises money and awareness to combat childhood cancer–with an emphasis on research into new treatments and cures–and encourages others to get involved and make a difference. ALSF was created in 2005 by the parents of four-year-old Alexandra Scott, who suffered from neuroblastoma and said she wanted to create a lemonade stand to raise money for doctors to allow them to "help other kids, like they helped me." Scott passed away at age eight after having inspired others worldwide to operate their own Alex's Lemonade Stands. ALSF has raised more than $60 million and helped to fund approximately 275 cutting-edge research projects. It has also created a travel program to support families of children receiving treatment and developed resources to aid people touched by pediatric cancer.
Add your comment:
By submitting a comment, you are allowing AIN Publications to edit and use your comment in all media.


text:
Here's how RW members rated this race in the past (229 votes).
In short: As ever, a very well organised raceIn full: As has been noted, apart from the first mile or so and the little bit at the end where we ran around the houses, this is a very good race for organisation, goody bag, route, scenery, atmosphere, marshalling, and PB potential. Another success for Royston Runners. See y'all next year!Date of review: January 5, 2008
In short: Well marshalled and organised, with plenty of parkingDate of review: January 4, 2008
In short: Great marshalls, all very cheerful. Once out of Buntingford, the course was pleasantly scenic. More toilets and a better baggage area would have helped. Liked the memento. Lots of parking.nDate of review: January 3, 2008
In short: Alway's worth turning up for particuarly well marshalledIn full: Cones and anoying housing estates apart, I like this race for its challenging nature which pushes you at the end of the year and reminds you of the training which still need to be done. HQ would benefit from a rethink incorporating baggage hold area and hot water.Refreshments were great and cake especially welcome thank you..Date of review: January 2, 2008
In short: Too many twists and turnsIn full: This is a great race to burn off some of the excesses of Christmas - first few miles are pretty dull (too many twists and turns) but the last half is much faster. Preferred the previous (mid 90's)route -but marshalling and the Police probably had something to do with the current route. Worth a trip Date of review: January 1, 2008
In short: Great race again In full: Have done this several times and it is always a great way to blow away the cobwebs after Christmas and an excellent way to finish and start the New Year! Congrats and thanks to all involved in organising, marshalling,etc.Date of review: December 31, 2007
In short: A great end to the racing yearIn full: Second time I've run this and enjoyed it just as much this time, it's verging on 'hilly', but I still managed a PB by 4 minutes! Great marshalling - thanks to all involved.Date of review: December 31, 2007
In short: Very good raceIn full: I actually like the "upslopes" which added to the race. Until we hit the country roads I found it a little annoying running around the housing estates, but there again there are worse places to be running in life!.As ever the wife finished at head of me in 72 minutes, but I managed to aeroplane my way across the finshing line in just under 77 minutes a pb for me & 4 minutes faster than my last 10 miler in Bishop's Storford. Woo Hoo.Sadly now the training starts for the FLM 08.Gulp.Date of review: December 31, 2007
In short: very friendly and good spectator support at the start and finish. First vtime for me, enjoyed it treemendously and will be back next year to improve my 1 Hour 18 time..Date of review: December 31, 2007
In short: Well organised and friendly.In full: Have only run 4 races to date and this was definitely one of the most hilly. Not that that took anything away from it, was doing fine right up till the last 2 miles, which i personally found particularly challenging :) Had fun, Thanks!Date of review: December 31, 2007
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Click here
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
Injury Clinics
About Runner's World


text: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADOCriminal Action No. 96-CR-68UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,vs.TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH,Defendant.REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT(Sentencing Hearing)Proceedings before the HONORABLE RICHARD P. MATSCH, Judge, United States District Courtfor the District of Colorado, commencing at 10:01 a.m., on the 14th day of August, 1997,in Courtroom C-204, United StatesCourthouse, Denver, Colorado.PROCEEDINGS(In open court at 10:01 a.m.)THE COURT: Be seated, please.This is Criminal Case 96-CR-68, United States vs. Timothy James McVeigh. The matter comes on for the imposition of sentence pursuant to the jury verdictfinding the defendant guilty on all 11 counts of the indictment and the jury'sspecial findings and recommendation that the defendant be sentenced to death.Appearing for the Government? Mr.Hartzler?MR. HARTZLER: With me this morning is Mr. Mackey, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wilkinson;behind me is Mr. Connelly, Mr. Orenstein, and Mr. Goelman.And for defendant, Timothy McVeigh?MR. JONES: Stephen Jones is here with the defendant, your Honor;and also seated hereas counsel, Mr. Tritico, Ms. Ramsey, Mr. Nigh, Mr. Burr, Ms. Merritt, Ms. Welch,Ms. Hillerman, Mr. Wyatt, Mr.England, Ms. Derbes, and Ms. Mears.THE COURT: All right. And Mr. McVeigh is present, of course.My view is that Rule 32(c) is applicable, even though under the statute the Courtis required to follow the recommendation of the jury with respect to the sentenceto be imposed. But under Rule 32, there is provision for the Court to hearstatements from counsel for the defendant, from the defendant, and also counselfor the Government. And I intend to follow that rule. Accordingly, I'll call forany statement from counsel for the defendant.MR. JONES: Your Honor, I have no statement to make at this time, but it's myunderstanding that Mr. McVeigh has a statement to make.THE COURT: All right. Mr. McVeigh, you have the right to make any statement you wish to make. Do you wish to make a statement?THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor, briefly.THE COURT: Would you please come to the lectern to make that statement.You may speak, Mr. McVeigh.THE DEFENDANT: If the Court please, I wish to use the words of Justice Brandeisdissenting in Olmstead to speak for me. He wrote, "Our Government is the potent,the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example."That's all I have.THE COURT: All right.The rule also provides for counsel for the government to have an opportunityto speak. Mr. Hartzler, do you have any statement to make?MR. HARTZLER: Thank you, your Honor. We do not.THE COURT: Then I'm prepared for the imposition of sentence. Mr. McVeigh, will you please come forward with counsel to the lectern.Timothy James McVeigh, pursuant to the jury verdict returned on June 2, 1997, finding youguilty on all11 counts of the indictment, the defendant is adjudged guiltyof each of the following offenses: A conspiracy to usea weapon of mass destructionas charged in Count One, the use of a weapon of mass destruction as chargedin Count Two, destruction by explosive ascharged in Count Three, and first degree murderas charged in Counts Four through Eleven.Pursuant to the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, appearing in 18 United StatesCode Sections 3591 to 3596 and the special findings of the jury returned on June 13, 1997,and the jury's unanimous vote recommending that the defendant shall be sentencedto death, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant,Timothy James McVeigh,is sentenced to death on each of the 11 counts of the indictment.Pursuant to the provisions of 18 United States Code Section 3596, it isordered that the defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney Generalof the United States until exhaustion of the procedures for appeal ofthe judgment of conviction and review of the sentence. When the sentence isto be implemented, the Attorney General shall release defendant to the custodyof a United States marshal, who shall supervise implementation of the sentencein the manner prescribed by the law ofthe State of Colorado.As required by 18 United States Code Section 3013, it is ordered the defendantshall pay a special assessment of $550, which shall be due immediately.Mr. McVeigh, you have the right to appeal the judgment of conviction and fora review of the sentence. To exercise that right, you must file a notice ofappeal with the clerk of this court within ten days from this day. If you fail to file a notice of appeal within that ten-day period, you would lose your right of appeal.You have had several counsel appointed to represent you in this caseand throughout the trial. The counsel have the duty to proceed, if you wishto file a notice of appeal, on your behalf, and to undertake the proceduresnecessary to perfect the appeal.Do you understand your right of appeal?THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do.THE COURT: And do you have any question with respect to the procedure to be followed?THE DEFENDANT: Not with this court, your Honor.THE COURT: Very well. The -- you wrote to me at one time, Mr. McVeigh,you will recall, with respect to counsel to represent you on appeal.THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.THE COURT: I responded to your letter with a letter of mine. I have been informed throughthe clerk of this court that the media, or some persons in the media, have asked for copiesof your letter to me and my letter to you. And of course, copies went to Mr. Jones of bothletters. Do you have any objection to my releasing your letter to me and my letter to you?THE DEFENDANT: I have no objection to that, your Honor.THE COURT: And Mr. Jones?MR. JONES: I have no objection, your Honor.THE COURT: Then those letters will be released to -- copies of those letters released to themedia, of course to counsel for the Government.All right. The defendant is remanded to the custody of the Attorney General through the Marshal's Service as ordered.Court is in recess.(Recess at 10:09 a.m.)


text:
|Thread title
|Last replied
|Now searching...
quote mast3rlinkI was never impressed by lighting.. but cold damage.. i could get into that..I've actually never played dungeons or dragons.
I was thinking more along the lines of final fantasy or Oblivion. <- those could be described as dungeons and dragons.
And yeah, Paralyze could be pretty cheap. In general, I just want more elemental spells for the sake of creativity and versatility. How cool would it be to bring down lightning from the sky onto the head of an unsuspecting black phantom?
quote mast3rlinkyou are thinking for dungeons and dragons, and no offense.. i'd be awesome but it would make the game a hell of a lot easier if you had a quick heal or paralyze ability.. could you imagine invading someone standing behind the black phantom spawn with the paralyze spell?I'd like a new world as well with some of the following:
Standard stuff like new armor and weapons, but also some spells and miracles.
New miracles:
More offensive "white magic" such [Insert name for spell of goodness here] such as "Arrow of Justice" where white character tendency boosts its power.
A fast heal miracle.
A miracle that puts a spell-reflection shield on the caster. Would not reflect all of a spell, but would send a major chunk back at the opponent.
New spells:
More elemental spells. Fire is great, but I want ice and lightning magic as well.
Paralyze. 'Nuff said. Can be resisted by endurance to prevent cheapness. Could be similar to Fool's Idols circles.
Revive monster. Could be used on the corpse of a slain demon to have them fight for the caster for a limited amount of time.
Powered by neoforums v3.0.0b
Copyright Neo Era Media, Inc. 1999-2017


text:
When last we left our intrepid workshoppers, one month ago, we had had a rollicking discussion of definitions of gender, sex, and related terms.
One of the things that came out of that discussion is that when we are each pressed to define exactly what each of us as individuals mean by each person's specific, personal use of terms like "gender" and "sex" and "transsexual" we not only consistently come up with different definitions, but we also routinely fail to come up with terms that actually cover everything we want to say.
In looking at people overtly performing gender, many of us struggled to find a way to express exactly what we wished to communicate using the terms we had just defined. Worse, in something little discussed as of yet, those people who are assumed to be the best and most skilled of us frequently declined to use gendered pronouns for some performers, but not others.
Why is this the case? If declining to assume an appropriate pronoun for Conchita Wurst is respectful, why not decline to assume an appropriate pronoun for Julie Andrews or Shirley Temple? One of the things we should, in fact, be discussing is the coercive nature of many gendered interactions. Did Shirley Temple choose the clothing or choreography for that scene? Did Temple have more agency in creating a gender (or a gendered image) than Conchita Wurst? At age 3 and 4? Given the legacy nature of Temple's income and ability to work, what are the implications for Temple's gender agency at age 40? And if Shirley Temple can't be assumed to have had a free gender hand, why are we willing to trust an application of a gendered pronoun for Temple more than we trust an application of a gendered pronoun to Wurst?
To help solve some of these problems, it is necessary to have a common language. As revealed in previous exercises, we do not currently have that. We have idiosyncratic usage as created and modified by our successes and failures in conceptualizing and communicating sex and gender concepts. That simply isn't enough when the times get rough.


text:
Lawrence Howard Young, MD
Professor of Medicine (Cardiology) and of Cellular And Molecular Physiology; Vice-Chair, Department of Medicine
Research Interests
Cell Survival; Diabetes Mellitus; Insulin Resistance; Myocardial Ischemia; Apoptosis; Glucose Transporter Type 4; AMP-Activated Protein Kinases
Research Organizations
Internal Medicine: Cardiovascular Medicine: Yale Cardiovascular Research Center | Diabetes Research Center | Fellowship Training
Cellular & Molecular Physiology
Research Summary
Our laboratory is studying the cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for the metabolic adaptation to the hypoxic stress associated with myocardial ischemia.
Specialized Terms: Myocardial ischemia; Metabolic adaptation to hypoxic stress; Cardio-protection; Cardiomyopathy; LKB1-AMPK pathway; Diabetes
Extensive Research Description
Our laboratory is studying the cellular and molecular mechanisms responsible for the metabolic adaptation to the hypoxic stress associated with myocardial ischemia, recently focusing on the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) signaling pathway. AMPK has emerged as a key regulator of glucose transporter (GLUT4) translocation, cellular metabolism, ion channel activity, and cell survival and apoptosis in the heart.
Combining physiologic models of ischemia with cellular and molecular techniques, we are interested in the cardio-protective action of AMPK in the heart, the upstream mechanisms of AMPK activation and its downstream interaction with other signaling pathways, as well as the discovery of novel AMPK targets. The use of transgenic mouse models allows us to dissect the role of AMPK and other signaling pathways in the intact perfused heart and in vivo. The goal of this research is to develop novel strategies to protect the heart against injury during myocardial ischemia.
- Stress signaling pathways is the heart.
- Alterations in metabolism in cardiac disease.
- AMPK as a target for protecting the heart against ischemic injury.
- LKB1 regulation of metabolic signaling and cardic growth.
- Cardiac-derived autocrine-paracrine secreted proteins in the regulation of cardiac signaling pathways.
- Insulin resistance and diabetes in cardiovascular disease.
Selected Publications
- Qi D, Atsina K, Hu X, Wu X, Xu B, Piecychna M, Leng L, Fingerle-Rowson G, Zhang J, Bucala R, Young LH. The vestigial enzyme D-dopachrome tautomerase protects the heart against ischemic injury. J Clin Invest 2014; 124;3540-50.
- Li J, Qi D, Cheng H, Miller EJ, Wu X, Russell, KS, Mikush N, Zhang J, Xiao L, Sherwin RS, Young LH. Urocortin 2 autocrine/paracrine and pharmacologic effects to activate AMP-activated protein kinase in the heart. PNAS 2013; 110:16133-8.
- Zaha VG, Young LH. AMP-activated protein kinase regulation and biological actions in the heart. Circ Res. 2012; 111:800-814.
- Kim AS, Miller EJ, Wright TM, Li J, Qi D, Atsina K, Zaha V, Sakamoto K, Young LH. A small molecule AMPK activator protects the heart against ischemia-reperfusion injury. J Mol Cell Cardiol, 2011;51:24-32.
- Qi D, Hu X, Wu X, Merk M, Leng L, Bucala R, Young LH. Cardiac macrophage migration inhibitory factor inhibits JNK pathway activation and injury during ischemia-reperfusion. J Clin Invest 119:3807-3816, 2009.
- Miller EJ, Li J, Leng L, McDonald C, Atsumi T, Bucala R, Young LH. Macrophage migration inhibitory factor stimulates AMP-activated protein kinase in the ischaemic heart. Nature, 451:578-82, 2008.


text:
Montax imposer Standard
Montax imposer Standard The Product Review:Montax imposer is a plugin for Adobe Acrobat 6 or later (not Acrobat Reader). It is a tool for imposition, placing several pages from PDF document on one or more sheets.
This plugin simplifies printing of business cards, tickets, invitations, but also newspapers, magazines and books. It can be used for offset, prepress, copyshop, and it is also useful for personal needs. The output of Montax imposer is PDF for any digital printer, imagesetter or CTP.
Montax imposer allows you to impose pdf very quickly by various ways.
In addition to the standard N-UP imposition, in which pages are imposed side by side to a sheet in the order from the PDF source, it allows many other variations.
The "Cut and Stack" imposition is determined e.g. for numbered tickets print – after cutting the sheets just stack the blocks and tickets will be already in the correct order.
Another type is the "Booklet" imposition which is used for print of magazines, newspapers, books etc. Montax imposer allows also sophisticated imposition variants, e.g. cross-fold, double cross-fold, their combinations and many other imposition alternatives.
The Standard version allows max 330 x 480 mm output size and up to 40 pages on a sheet.
Montax imposer Standard is the product proudly presented to we by RegNow Vendor Software:Multimedia & Design. You can find out some-more about Montax imposer Standard Montax imposer Standard website: Montax imposer Standard.
If you have no examination nonetheless from a users, it can be probable which this revolutionary product is completely new. If we have experience right before with all the products achievable Vendor Software:Multimedia & Design , we're going to serve this village by withdrawal a reputable comment.
Montax imposer Standard! Money Back Guarantee
Montax imposer Standard is agreeable underneath ClickBanks Refund Policy. It is settled during RegNow site.
Our lapse process for all RegNow products is as follows:
You can try Get Montax imposer Standard during 100% RISK-FREE. If after the squeeze we have been not confident with the calm of this product or whatsoever reasons , we can emanate the Without-Questions-Asked-Refund inside of 60 days of your purchase. There is no RISK in perplexing out Get Montax imposer Standard.
Montax imposer Standard WebSite Preview
Click Here To Get Montax imposer Standard Original Page
Rating: 7 out of 10 (from 67 votes)
This entry was posted by hamdouch on August 7, 2013 at 4:27 pm, and is filed under Last Product Review. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0.Both comments and pings are currently closed.


text:
A collection of stories from individuals with disabilities, families, friends, and disability service providers in Tennessee
Showing stories 1 - 2 of 2
Results related to: Blind / Independence
"Like any other teenager, she loves her family but eagerly awaits full independence.
"If the general public only understood that with training and minimal assistance a blind person can live a full life, things would be so much easier for us. It's the attitudes we encounter that make our success more difficult than it should be.


text:
I searched the threads but didn't quite find what I was looking for so I've started a new thread...
I mainly drink green (sencha) and oolong (wu yi, tgy). I buy 50-100g of a variety of each, and I drink them over 2-3 months. I usually have 5-8 different teas open at one time. Some of the teas come in re-sealable foil bags, and others (recent purchases from o-cha and dragon th) come in 100g bags that are not re-sealable...with these I've been rolling the bag down and pushing air out, and putting a clip on the bag. Is this enough to preserve the freshness (to a point, I'm not anal about this)?
Or, are their other storage ideas...like buying re-sealable foil bags, tins, etc.


text: A significant portion of the population have a genetic variant that leaves them very susceptible to aminoglycoside ototoxicity—much more so than the general population. Since Gentamicin is one of the aminoglycosides, it would seem wise to be tested to see if you have the 1555A-G variant of the 12S rRNA gene (see page 109 in my book "Ototoxic Drugs Exposed for more information), and if you have it, really consider whether the supposed benefit will be worth the greatly increased risk. by Neil Bauman, Ph.D This drug can leave you in worse shape than what you started. My entire balance system was wiped out and I have what is known as "bouncy vision". Before taking this drug make sure ALL other options have been exhausted and you truly are on deaths doorstep.


text:
Home > Authors > Geoffrey Precourt
Geoffrey Precourt is Warc's US editor. He reports from key events across North America and is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Advertising Research. You can read all his articles below.
Prior to joining Warc in July 2008, Geoffrey held senior editorial roles at titles including Strategy + Business, Point, Smart Business and Fortune, and edited the book CMO Thought Leaders.


text:
Every day companies are coming out with new tools to reach their users on the Web. Many companies have learned that rolling out products before they are completely formed—in beta or even in alpha mode—can save them development time and money. By giving their customers an early look at a product, companies are empowering customers to use the tool in new ways and are providing them with an opportunity to ask the company for functionality that product developers may never have considered.Companies in BetaMeebo, a robust, widely used instant-messaging (IM) service is still in an alpha phase. Meebo allows users to sign into more than one IM account with more than one IM provider at the same time, so all of a user's accounts appear together on the same screen. For people in restrictive IT environments, there are no downloads when using Meebo. Read More »
We will anticipate and respond to the ways our users find, create, and
share knowledge, and we will be fully integrated into the personalized
library experience for each user and welcoming spaces for collaboration
and discovery.
On campus and online, we will be a valued partner in the academic life of our students, faculty, and community. Read More »
See all contributors »
Posts (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Follow us on Twitter


text:
Skip to comments.Now You Know Who the RINOS Are
Posted on 01/02/2013 9:37:51 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
Give them Hell in the primaries boys. Let no one be spared.
The key is going to be the next battle in two months.
In two months it will be starving children, homeless, and religion hurts women, and recreational sex means marriage.
Not all these are "rinos" just yes votes.
All this does is give us some moron who runs in the primary who could not pass an IQ test for parking lot pointer. (for those in rio linda, the person paid to stand in a parking lot during events and direct people to go a particular direction over and over)
Heh, Lou Barlettuh. It's like Paul Kanjorski never lost.
good luck with that in California.....That state proved to be so far left in the last election it would be amazing if this reps even are reelected....
Glad I am moving to a rino free state soon
Still amazed that Paul Ryan voted for this pile.
an idiot in a primary is just what we need,,,, NOT!
primary candidates should be somehow screened to be COMPETENT COMMUNICATORS, not some doofus who could not present a kindergardent book report on "spot".
We conservatives are the true RINO's. The GOP establishment has controlled the party for a very long time, and the mainstream Republicans do not like us.
Ron Paul didn't vote and he claims to be such a fiscal hawk. So he isn't a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, big surprise.
Happy New Year
Did you want to include yourself among the Bumpersticker reactionaries?
"DON'T BE FOOLED: The Republicans Are Winning"
At least one down....1st Congressional District of Oklahoma will have a new Congressman come tomorrow...Jim Bridenstine defeated John Sullivan this past November.
I suspect RP didn't vote cuz he realizes or thinks his term expired at midnite on 12-31. Plus he is not in the new congress. Which hasn't been sworn in.
At some point names lose meaning. I would argue that those who voted or abstained are Rebuplicans. Those who voted no are labelled Republican; their actions speak differently. They are the rinos.
You people are absolute morons. If the Democrats get the House in 2014 the country as we know it is over.
Kill yourselves.
Very nice work.
Bilbray is already voted out, replaced by a democrat.
Larry, consider posting the BI article as a thread here. A big question for Freepers is whether the "starve the beast" strategy (a) is working and (b) is still a sound strategy.
only 16 DEM 'NO" votes. But what was the conservative majority GOP alternative bill? It didn't really exist because it wasn't written. So the majority of the majority supported something else (allegedly), and they couldn't bring a bill up for a vote?
it is the conservatives in the House who seem to be stooges ... but they were painted into a corner because their constituents would not allow support for anything except "extend cuts for all". it's a non-negotiable position. People who take non-negotiable positions don't fare well in legislatures. The House Conservatives need a leader. Somebody who has been purged. But somebody who can negotiate.
There was real negotiation going on behind the scenes. The DEMS aren't stupid. They knew a bill would have to be passed and they made sure that it was their bill. DESPITE ALL THE VILE RHETORIC BY THE DEM-SCUM
The Conservative alternative would have been to pass a bill making the Bush tax cuts permenant, let Boehner sign it and pass it on to the Senate.
The Conservative alternative would have been to pass a bill making the Bush tax cuts permenant, let Boehner sign it and pass it on to the Senate.
How's a Democrat House in 2014 different than a Republican House in 2012 that gives Democrats everything they want?
It's like saying, there's a wrong way, and there's a Homer Simpson way, which is the same as the wrong way, but faster.
Hate to tell you this...but it seems now that Dimlicans already run the House.
Kill yourselves.
Funny wording....What political party are you in?
I wonder that also. He's throwing the word "morons" around at FReepers real loosely, he just got a post removed on another thread.
the conservative bill never happened.
it never even happened in '02-'06 when the GOP held the House, Senate and POTUS. I think they wanted to blame the DEMS for tax increases during election seasona.
They figured expiring tax cuts would keep the American public hungry for more tax cut extentions. Stupid is as stupid does.
the philosophy is to "go down to glorious defeat." And die on the battlefield, with a name that will be remembered by generations of rebels. "Kill Yourselves", although technically accurate, is not an appealing slogan for this philosophy.
Please get with the program.
I was surprised to read that Paul Ryan voted for this, but he has already proposed the 2014 budget that will make up for what was lost in this bill. I imagine that he felt that we needed to get off this subject giving the repu
Personally, I think that WE are the ones who need to take up the battle and talk up the bad effects Obama's [plan will and is having. Take this to our representatives...let them know on a regular basis how bad things are getting. If you go to the president's website, you get all this ooey-gooey stuff about how his policies are going to save America. BS! We need to email our reps OFTEN and encourage them to get behind Paul Ryan's new bill that the CBO says will reduce the deficit by over 80% in 4 years. It is the closest thing to a balanced budget that we'll ever see in my opinion. A lot of these people listed here are KNOWN RINOs, so I have no problem primarying them out. However, a bad vote here or there should not throw out an otherwise very good man. He was the one conservative on the ticket, if you remember.
Gary Bauer talks about the new budget proposal and it sounds very good. Maybe Ryan just wanted to get this out of the way and go on with things as quickly as possible. I can understand that. We need to sit back a take a deep breath and evaluate things, as well. There has been more than enough hype about everything since the election. Let's look at the RINOs that need purging in 2014 and go from there. Anybody with less than 75% ACU rating SHOULD be looked at to be replaced in their primaries.
Oh yeah, this is much better.
The opening lines from http://fitzpatrick.congressnewsletter.net/mail/util.cfm?gpiv=2100097868.438032.100&gen=1
Last night, I voted to make lower taxes permanent for 99% of American taxpayers, ending a climate of uncertainty which has plagued 8th District families and small businesses for months...
Several of the people on that list were already defeated or are retiring.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Connect with us:
These lovely dagger shaped beads measure 5mm x 16mm. Sold on strands of 25 beads.
Made in the Czech Republic.
Tell A Friend
Your Price: $6.75/str.
Qty: str.
Availability: Contact us for availability
Click here to be notified when it is back in stock:
Customers who bought this item also bought:
This product has not yet been reviewed.
Please login or register to write a review for this product.
Home | About Us | Orders & Shipping | Returns | Contact Us | Featured Projects | Sales & Events | Privacy Policies | Featured New Products | New Products


text:
Here my daughter is relaxing in the hotel lounge at the hotel where we stayed in Thailand. The lounge was very thai and very posh.
The layout is made for the February sketch at Get Picky. Why don't you play along?
Superfin, vännen!! Vilka otroligt vackra färger!
Your layout makes me longing for summer:) It's so gorgeous and tropical! I love how you combined these soft papers with some darker tones.
A very pretty and relaxing layout.
gorgeous!!!! Love this to bits
sååå otroligt vacker... finns hönsnätsmönstret på pappret eller är det mistat/stämplat???
Vi ses på fredag
Love this page!
kind regards, Corina
Hi Camilla, I'm just popping in to say hi after a long time away from blogging and commenting. I just want you to know that I look at your blog all the time and find your work so incredibly inspiring. You're so talented, thank you for sharing what you do :-)
Gorgeous layout, Camilla! Love the colors!


text:
We work all over the world to support entrepreneurs and promote Switzerland as a business location. On behalf of the Swiss Confederation (State Secretariat for Economic Affairs SECO), our role as a center of excellence for internationalization is to foster exports, imports and investments, to help clients develop new potential for their international businesses and to strengthen Switzerland as an economic hub. We are a strong and trusted partner for clients, the cantons and the Swiss government, with a global network of experienced advisers and experts.
Export Digital – driver of growth for Switzerland
S-GE has launched the Export Digital online platform jointly with Google. Featuring almost 100 educational videos on the subjects of export and online marketing, you can create your own individual learning path, in order to develop your export strategy. The sales market locator provides an initial overview of which markets are searching for your product and you will also find interesting training courses and advice. More information


text:
Lake Shore Drive property to be cleaned up
The city of Dunkirk will see another brownfield cleanup with the Bertges property on Lake Shore Drive. The state Department of Environ-mental Conservation has said it is necessary for the property to be cleaned up.
The announcement by Chair Steve Neratko came at the monthly meeting of the Dunkirk Local Develop-ment Corporation. The DEC identified the property located at 18 Lake Shore Drive W. is in need of remedial and cleanup work. The DLDC owns the site of the property.
"There is contamination on the site. We were previously working with Krog and TurnKey regarding cleanup … they are no longer interested in going forward," Neratko said. "The DEC is requiring us to do the minimal amount of cleanup."
When Krog and TurnKey submitted their application, Neratko said the application involved cleanup of the entire site for which the city would have had to take the lead and pay for the cleanup. There was no action on the application. Another option for cleanup would involve the city to be enrolled in the Brownfield Program, which the city is no longer a part of.
Another option for the DLDC would involve being a part of the New York SPILLS Program through the state DEC. Through this program, there are two options for the DLDC. One option would involve the city taking the lead or another option allows the state DEC to be the lead.
"We take the lead and we front the costs. We wouldn't be able to get any funds from previous owners. If we did want to go that route, we'd have to take legal action and it would probably be a long process.
"The other route we can take is let the state take the lead. They come in, they pay for it and then after the fact they may or may not request some reimbursement for that process. At that point, they will look to see who is responsible – it could be the current owner, past owners or a combination," Neratko said.
According to Neratko, sometimes the state does not require reimbursement payment. The state DEC said its prices would be comparable to other prices the DLDC would find if they were to take the lead on the cleanup. Councilwoman Stacy Szukala asked why the state DEC would want to take the lead on the project.
"Their prices are competitive. They have contracts already in place with all their vendors. It's a much quicker process. … Really they're just in the business of doing this," Neratko said.
The DLDC voted to approve an agreement with the state DEC for the SPILLS program and to give permission to Neratko to let DEC be the lead agency on the project. The cleanup could start in a few weeks and may be finished by the end of February, Neratko said.
Comments on this article may be sent to email@example.com