text:
Entire Industry Needed To Make IH/M&RS Better
Wednesday November 9th, 2011 - 4:04PM
These are shortcuts to your favorite social networking and bookmark sites. Add this story to your Facebook page, del.icio.us, DiggIt, and many others!
It's hard to believe it is November again and time for the annual International Hotel/Motel & Restaurant Show in New York City. This will be my 24th straight year attending the show. I remember years when there was a foot of snow, and at the same time, I can even recall a year or two when the temperature was in the 70s. There's one thing, however, that has always been consistent for me, the feeling that nothing could be better than being in the world's greatest city during the fall.
That feeling has not necessarily subsided, but I must admit the excitement and buzz leading up to the show has waned a bit over the last few years. Let's face it, the IH/M&R Show isn't what it used to be. While reminiscing with people just recently coming into our industry, I frequently talk about how the show once was. It was the time when the entire marketplace would convene to recap the year just wrapping up, and begin planning and forecasting for the year to come.
Both exhibit floors, upstairs and downstairs, at the Jacob Javits Convention Center always seemed to be filled from wall to wall. There was the aroma of prime rib cooking at the Alto Shaam booth, hot fresh donuts being served at the Belshaw Bakery Group exhibit and, of course, all of the Nathans franks you could eat. The nightlife was nonstop and included client dinners at Smith & Wollensky and Sparks, galas at the Waldorf Astoria, the Plaza and New York Palace and party hopping at the Big Apple's hottest clubs and night spots. At the end of each evening, everybody who was anybody would meet up at the circular bar in the lobby of the Loews Hotel for a nightcap. I can remember as a newcomer to the industry intently listening to stories being told by such industry execs as Patricia Durkan from Durkan Carpets, Tom Strickland of Philips Electronics and John Beasley, formerly of Zenith. The IH/M&RS was, without a doubt, the most important event of the year.
My intention here isn't to live in the past, point fingers, nor put the sole responsibility for the show's decline on the shoulders of its management company (GLM), its owners, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, or the Hotel Association of New York City and the New York State Hospitality & Tourism Association.
Some of the world events, from 9/11 to the more recent economic meltdown, over the past decade have definitely had a major impact on the show. My objective is to challenge the entire industry to work on a solution together. Few would disagree that a successful IH/M&RS is important for all involved.
I'm not suggesting that company's exhibit or hoteliers attend just for the sake of gratuitously supporting the show. Nobody understands better than I do the pressure of showing an ROI on every marketing dollar spent. What I am recommending is to actively communicate with the officials at AH&LA, HANYC and NYSH&TA. Exhibitors, you need to let them know what changes will have to be made for you to continue supporting the show. Attendees do the same; make it clear what it will take for you to keep coming to New York in November.
Tags: • Hospitality •
I took a summer vacation to Alaska. This natural beauty of a state might be our 49th, but it was my 50th. Why all this talk of my summer vacation? Well, Allianz Global Assistance (AGA) just released data earlier this week saying that Americans are spending more on summer vacations this year, topping $100 billion for the first time in the AGA survey's eight-year history. This represents a 12.5% increase over last year.
Simplifying Integrated In-Room Entertainment »
Cachet Hospitality Group Plans Flagship Hotel in NYC
Arbor Lodging Partners Acquires Courtyard in Des Moines, IA
Hyatt Centric Debuts in Central America
Concord Hospitality Breaks Ground on Beaufort Hotel
Mast Capital and Angelo, Gordon & Co. Purchase Conrad Miami for $72M
AC Hotel in San Francisco Bay Sets September Opening
Access or Sign-Up for a
Digital Subscription
Click Here


text:
A 16-year-old Hollie is Beautiful and Quietly girl,...
Hiding (Squeal to I'm Adopted??) (Book 2 Complete)
- by Queen Of Fanfiction Nerdo
- Rating:
- Published: 12 Apr 2014
- Updated: 8 Apr 2015
- Status: Complete
Before you read this, just read the book one "I'm Adopted??" A missing deaf girl who now lives in America with her best friend, Hollie and Nelly. It's been two months. She has to change her new name, Emma. Because of Paparazzi and her new college. It's her dreaming college, New York University. She has to take Cochlear Implant away. She can lip reading. She has to become Hearing, not deaf. At home, yes, she can wear Cochlear Implant. But... Outside, she can't... Because everyone want to know Where's Hollie? In London, Liam was wondering how was she? Everyone know where Hollie was in except for Harry. He doses not know where was she! He still loves Hollie. Harry want to find her and apologise to Hollie. But he couldn't find her anywhere until America. She's Hiding from Harry when he came to Nelly's house. She's scared when Harry ask her what's her name. The boys know her! My question is.. Dose Harry found her or not?:) Have she love Harry back?! :O (Let's find out and Read!:) :D)
Join MovellasFind out what all the buzz is about. Join now to start sharing your creativity and passion
Loading ...

subset: commoncrawl


text: In an effort to shave off precious microseconds from the tedium of having to manually switch modes in his favorite multi-modal text editor, Aleksandr Levchuk fashioned a USB clutch pedal to do the job. Now, instead of typing an "i" to insert text or hitting "Esc" to edit it, Aleksandr need only tap or release the pedal to enter the corresponding mode. [via HN]


text:
Megan and Liz Talk Holiday Wishes at Y100's Jingle Ball 2012
Joining in on the Y100 Jingle Ball festivities, Megan and Liz were among the talent taking to Sunrise, Florida on Saturday afternoon (December 8).
The American pop girl band composed of fraternal twin sisters, Megan and Liz Mace, looked darling as they worked the arrivals area at the BB&T Center venue prior to taking their talents onstage.
Exclusively asked by GossipCenter what it is that she would love for Santa to bring her this year, Megan revealed, "It would probably be for as awesome as a 2013 as 2012 was."
Backed up by her twin sis, Liz chimed in to opine, "I agree, that's a really good one, nothing physical that I want. We had a great 2012 so hopefully 2013 will be just as good."
Check out the entire interview to find out which sister has the cheesiest playlist on their iPod and visit Y100 Miami for lots more of Megan & Liz at the Jingle Ball!


text:
You don't hit jumps blind, thanks to the Resort Poll, you don't have to blindly pick which resorts you hit up either. Study this best parks list and try to hit up all ten of 'em … why not?
* About The Poll: The online Resort Poll is voted on by both subscribers and the online readers of twsnow.com—in total over 1,600 readers logged on to cast their votes. Readers were given the opportunity to vote on the three best resorts they visited during the 2007/2008 season, ranking them on 21 different categories. Some 154 resorts across North America and Canada were judged, after the numbers were crunched, ten in each category rose to the top.
1. Whistler/Blackcomb, B.C., Canada
Logan Short shoots for the moon at Whister. Photo Scott Serfas
A switch was flipped for serious improvements in the parks at Whistler/Blackcomb this past season. Firstly, a changing of the guard in park management saw Brian Finestone take the reins with a plan to re-invigorate the park offerings at WB. He explains, "The first thing was to keep the parks fresh by switching up the setups weekly so riders would always have something different to discover. We also got creative with our fleet of rails, boxes, and picnic tables by setting up new combos that mimicked urban, skate-style features. I encouraged the crew to come up with creative stuff and let them just go for it." The park crews also expanded the size of several parks utilizing dead space in existing parks and building hits on parts of runs that were unused in the past, which ultimately added several acres and a dozen new features to the resort's ample park offerings.


text:
By Samantha Critchell, Associated Press
Back-to-school shopping doesn't have to be all kids' stuff. The wardrobe to complement that first opening bell can help set the tone for a teacher's year, too.
Cristina Ehrlich, a style adviser to Coldwater Creek, remembers her first "cool teacher" in elementary school, who wore pleated slacks, V-neck silk blouses, a thin little belt and gold hoop earrings.
These days, that teacher might be wearing brightly colored skinny jeans and a boyfriend sweater, or trouser jeans and a crisp button-down in a cheerful color, Ehrlich said.
Maybe that same second-grade teacher would even try a pair of tuxedo-inspired jeans with a black stripe down the leg and a more fitted, cropped blazer, she said.
That might be an outfit similar to what high schoolers are wearing, and that's OK, said Emilia Fabricant, executive vice president of the Aeropostale brand.
Fabricant gives the caveat, though, that teachers might wear individual pieces differently so they're "appropriately styled": short skirts worn over leggings, tunics over tanks, and skinny jeans paired with the high front-low back cardigans that give an update to the classic silhouette.
Amazon.com fashion editor Sara Dooley imagines teachers of younger grades experimenting with prints. Florals are enjoying a fashion moment, she says, and animal prints — leopard spots and the like — have a little bit of edge but have been used for classic silhouettes.
Many closet-to-classroom items are basic pieces, including a pencil skirt, fit-and-flare dress, collared shirts, blazers, jeans and sweaters, so they can make the transition between seasons and between school years. They can all be dressed up or down, and adapted to look "new" with the right belt, shoe or jewelry.
"With little time during the school year to shop, teachers can maximize style all year long by buying key items that will update pieces they already own," said Sofia Wacksman, vice president of trend for Kohl's Department Stores.
Ehrlich suggests layers, as long as the overall look is relaxed without being sloppy. On the flip side, tailored is good, but too buttoned-up is not. If you're thinking of a bow-neck blouse, for example, make sure it has a soft touch.
Funkier accessories can be for anyone. Teachers need a stylish case for gadgets, and that's a neutral zone for experimentation.
So are ballet-flat shoes, which have more options than the periodic table.
Picking popular colors, including flashes of the almost neon brights, also is an easy "in," says Fabricant, and the broad choices in denim and knits should make it easier to find trend-right items.


text:
When you have multiple branches of the same project in SVN, you probably want to keep these branches in sync, at least to a certain extend.
One example of this would be feature branches, i.e. a branch were a bigger feature is developed. You usually want to keep that feature branch in sync with trunk by merging all commits from trunk into that feature branch. Once the feature branch is ready to be merged back to trunk, you want to do just that with as little work as possible.
Another example are the KDEPIM enterprise branches. All changes from the enterprise branches are merged to trunk, but only some changes from trunk are merged back to the enterprise branches.
In both situation, svnmerge.py will help you by keeping track of the merges and assisting you in the process of merging.
It has the following useful features:
See also the svnmerge wiki page.
Note that svnmerge.py should not be confused with svn merge. The later is a normal SVN command, which is used, among others, by svnmerge.py. When refering to svnmerge on this page, I always mean svnmerge.py. Also, when referring to svn merge, I mean the built-in subversion command.
svnmerge somehow needs to keep track of which commits are merged and which are not. For this, it uses the SVN properties of the top-level project directory. The properties contain a list with revisions, and that list is updated each time you merge something with svnmerge.
You can view that list with
svn propedit svnmerge-blocked .
and with
svn propedit svnmerge-integrated .
Never change those properties manually!
Download svnmerge.py from the svnmerge home page. The trunk version should be fine.
Then, put it into /usr/local/bin and make sure it has executable permissions by issuing
chmod +x /usr/local/bin/svnmerge.py
You need to have Python installed, probably with some add-on modules.
After creating a new work branch, you need to tell svnmerge about this, so it can set up the initial revision list in the properties. You can skip this section if somebody else already did set up merge tracking for your branches.
To get help in doing so, type
svnmerge.py help init
After you executed the correct svnmerge.py init command, make sure you commit your changes. Only the SVN properties should have changed, type svn status to confirm this.
Afterwards, commit it with
svn ci -F svnmerge-commit-message
All the svnmerge commands below should be issued in the top-level project working directory, i.e. the directory svnmerge.py init was run in. This directory is what I mean with working directory below.
First of all, you probably want a list of revisions that are not yet merged. This list can be retrieved with svnmerge avail. The avail command supports many options, to get help, type:
svnmerge.py help avail
Sometimes you already know the revision numbers of the commits you want to merge, in this case you don't need to run svnmerge avail. But be careful, it is easy to forget commits when you don't run this command.
A good practice is get the list of revisions to be merged together with their log message, which often comes in handy. Run the following to store that list in a file:
svnmerge.py avail --log -b > avail.txt &
Note that the command can take a long time, so we run it in the background with &. Also, svnmerge issues a lot of SVN command in the background, so be sure your passphrase is cached when using svn+ssh, by using ssh-add and ssh-agent.
When you have got multiple branches to merge from, you need to specify the target branch with the -S option. This is the case in the enterprise4 branch, which can merge from the enterprise35 branch or the KDE 4.2.x branch.
svnmerge.py avail --log -b -S enterprise > avail.txt &
Now, open avail.txt in a text editor. Your goal is now to deal with all revisions in this list, either by merging them, blocking them or marking them as already merged.
Merging a commit is simple:
svnmerge.py merge [-S enterprise] -r900000
Here, 900000 is a revision number you got from avail.txt, and the name after -S is the branch you want to merge from. You can omit -S if you only have a single branch with merge tracking.
Before typing that command, make sure your working directory is clean, neither the SVN properties nor any files in sub-directories should have any pending changes. Normally, svnmerge will abort if the directories are not clean. Also, your working branch should be up-to-date.
After svnmerge is finished, it will have modified the properties of the working directory, because the properties contain the list of merged revisions, and the revision 900000 was just added to that list. Also, the command has modified your source files, as it merged all changes from the original revision. Nothing is committed yet.
You should now test that the changes actually compile and work as expected, and fix any problems. Sometimes, you'll get conflicts, which you have to resolve manually and then mark as resolved by using svn resolved. After that is done, you can check your changes in.
svnmerge has helpfully created a file named svnmerge-commit-message. You can use that file directly as commit message, or modify its contents. Check in your changes with
svn ci -F svnmerge-commit-message
Congratulations, you have just merged your first commit!
You can also merge multiple revisions at once. But use this with care, it will appear as a single commit, and therefore make svn annotate less useful. Only use this for closely related changes. For this, you can specify a revision list after -r, like:
svnmerge.py merge [-S enterprise] -r900000,9000002,900004-900010
Sometimes, you don't want to merge a certain revision, and want that revision to not appear in the avail list at all, for example if the original revision is not useful for the current branch. This can be done by blocking a commit.
Blocking commits has the same syntax as merging:
svnmerge.py block [-S enterprise] -r900099,9000101,900110-900120
Unlike merging, you should block all revisions you want to block in one go, so you don't create many unnecessary commits.
You should edit svnmerge-commit-message before committing, adding a very brief explanation why you block the commits. Also, add the SVN_SILENT keyword.
Now you can commit your changes with
svn ci -F svnmerge-commit-message
Blocking a commit only changes the SVN properties, no source files are changed (since the goal of blocking the revision is to not merge the source file changes of that revision).
The next time you run svnmerge.py avail, the revisions you blocked will not show up there.
Sometimes, it happens that a revision is already merged, but svnmerge doesn't know this. One situation where this happens is if somebody else, who didn't use svnmerge, merged that revision manually. Because the revision was merged manually, the list of merged revisions in the SVN properties was not updated. This means that the commit will show up in svnmerge.py avail, although it was already merged.
To fix this situation, you can mark a revision as merged by adding -M to the svnmerge.py merge command:
svnmerge.py merge -M [-S enterprise] -r900099,9000201,900210-900220
This command will add the given revisions to the list of merged commits in the list of the SVN properties.
As with blocking commits, try to record as many merges in a single go as possible. Also, add a short explanation to the commit message, as well as the SVN_SILENT keyword.
To check in your changes, type
svn ci -F svnmerge-commit-message
One problem of svnmerge is that it can't deal well with moved files. As an example, take merging from the KDE 4.2 branch to the enterprise4 branch. In KDE 4.2, some files of KOrganizer have been moved to the views sub-directory, while in the enterprise4 branch, they are still in the top-level KOrganizer folder.
When this happens, svnmerge will say something like Skipped missing target xyz.cpp. It is now your job to merge the changes to the moved files manually.
This can be done by running svn merge. Example:
svn merge $SVNBASE/branches/KDE/4.2/kdepim/korganizer/views/agendaview/ -c934407
In this example, the exact directory where the moved files are is specified. If this command is run in the directory where the not moved files are, the changes will be applied.
After you merged the changes to the skipped and moved files manually, you can commit like you normally would do.
When you have a merge chain, it can sometimes happen that there are conflicts on the SVN properties, which will show up as conflicts on .. One place where this can happen is when merging a commit that was itself a merge of another commit, for example when merging from enterprise35 to enterprise4, and than merging that commit to trunk. This also happens when backporting a merge.
This conflict normally is bogus. To resolve it, type
svn resolved .
Afterwards, double-check that the SVN properties changes are indeed correct, by using the mergediff script from below. You do _not_ want your SVN properties to become corrupted!
Place those functions into your .bashrc.
The mergediff function shows the changes on the SVN properties in a nice way, because the normal output of svn diff is unreadable.
function mergediff {
svn diff -N | { read; read; read; read # skip headers} read line; echo $line | tr ' ' '\n' | tr ',:' '\n' | grep -v "^-$" > /tmp/svnmerge.pre while read line; do if ! [ -z "$line" ]; then break; fi done echo $line | tr ' ' '\n' | tr ',:' '\n' | grep -v "^+$" > /tmp/svnmerge.post } diff -u /tmp/svnmerge.pre /tmp/svnmerge.post rm /tmp/svnmerge.pre /tmp/svnmerge.post


text:
Trending Now: Aaron Hernandez pleads 'Not guilty'
Former Patriots TE Aaron Hernandez pleaded not guilty to two 1st degree murder charges for the shooting deaths of 2 men in July of 2012 in Boston.
Miami Heat guard Ray Allen (hip) and forward Chris Andersen (thigh) are both considered game-time decisions for tonight's Game 5 vs. the Pacers after missing shoot-around this morning.
Rockies SS Troy Tulowitzki is the leading vote-getter in the National League in the 1st round of voting for the MLB All-Star Game.
2nd seed Novak Djokovic and 4th seed Roger Federer advanced to the 3rd round of the French Open with straight set victories.


text:
As August Bebel might have said if he were watching all this, bipartisanship is the optimism of fools.
Bebel expects some day a great crisis which will go far beyond the power of any merely political means to solve.
That they do is denied by all the most representative Socialists from Marx to Bebel.
Still more fully did Bebel declare himself during the session of the Reichstag of March 7, 1904.
It appears that Bebel's position on this matter is really the more radical.
All these statements except one (that concerning England) Bebel denied.
Bebel is not talking Economic Esperanto; he is talking German.
Bebel had to beat a retreat and introduce another resolution.
French law only recognizes man as a human being.August Bebel.
As there is no such way, there was nothing else that Bebel could do.


text:
Brevard, N.C.- Brevard College Women's Soccer Coach Shigeyoshi Shinohara is pleased to announce the addition of four commitments to the 2013 Brevard College Tornados women's soccer team as Kayla Harrison, Alex Perri, Janet Widenhouse, and Mackenzie Williams have committed play for the Tornados in 2013.
Harrison is a forward out of Denver, North Carolina, who played under Kelly Barney at North Lincoln High School where she was a four year starter. Harrison holds the Lincoln County record for goals scored in single season with 32. She was also Conference Player of the Year and an All-Region selection for the Knights. In the classroom, Harrison was a four-year Honor Roll student.
"Kayla has tremendous speed as an attacking player, and I'm glad to have the addition of another offensive threat," said Shinohara. "Her dedication to soccer is great and she is committed to both her high school and club team,and I hope she can continue the scoring ability she has displayed in high school and club."
The Tornados have also signed Alex Perri, a defender from Naples, Florida. Perri was a three-year letter winner at Gulf Coast HS and Team Captain as a senior. Perri also lettered in track and field for two seasons. Off the field, Perri was an AP Scholar and Honor Roll student.
"Alex has great knowledge of the game, and her ability to read to the game is something we always look for," Shinoahar said. "She is very calm on the ball and her technical ability will be a great asset to our back line and midfield."
Widenhouse is a midfielder out of Belmont, North Carolina. She attended South Point High School under John Miller, where she was a four-year starter on the soccer team. She also played club for SGCSA Hurricanes where she played under Mike Whiteman. Widenhouse also played tennis for the Red Raiders.
"Janet is a very athletic player, and I'm delighted she has chosen Brevard College," said Shinohara. "Her athleticism will give us great energy and will prove to be a huge asset in conference play."
The fourth addition to Tornados roster is Mackenzie Williams, a goalkeeper from Cary, North Carolina. Williams was a four-year letter winner and Team Captain as a senior at Cary High School. Off the field she was a member of the Ambassador Program. Williams also played softball, swam, and ran cross country for Cary High School.
"Mackenzie has an unbelievable work ethic and the desire to compete at the collegiate level," Shinohara added. "I believe she will be able to improve and develop her skills, and I'm excited to see her compete at the goalkeeper position this fall."


text:
Gold subscription and internet connection required for play. Hybrid is a multiplayer third person shooter in which two factions fight for world domination on a persistent world map. Take control of a soldier fighting for the Paladins or the Variants as they race to control the world's most powerful resource; Dark Matter. Your victories on the battlefield directly affect the course of the war!
Buy Xbox content on Xbox.com. Your Xbox 360 console will automatically download the content next time you turn it on and connect to Xbox Live.Learn More
Click to create and send a link using your email application


text:
Topic: Preparing family financially for passing
There does not seem to be a lot of information accululated here on the issue of providing for your family after your passing. It may be because we continue to hope and pray that our Dr's terminal sentance will be wrong and if we think about it we will be giving in. I have heard more than one person tell me that. But - on the contrary - I think it is wise. And I think that if the patient is the person than handles the finances for the family that some clear direction and steps need to be taken before the cancer progresses too far.
I'd love to eventually be able to put together a "packet" of information for terminally ill patients to review to line up some of the things that will need to be taken care of in the event of their passing. Some examples:
1. Funeral prearrangements
2. Estate planning/will documents (they need to be done anyways, why not be prepared)
3. Life insurance information (if available) and how to claim it.
4. Many, many more.
I know that my wife has always trusted me with all of these sorts of things so I am writing out instructions in all areas to help her and then we will briefly review it so that when it is time, she does not feel overwhelmed.
I am also curious how some others of you may be using alternate ways to try to fund for children's eductations (for young patients with families, etc) or who have not been able to get life insurance due health issues early in life, etc.
During the last 8 years with my wife, it has been my job to be the financial provider, investment coordinator, and handle several things that she either didn't want to do or thought I was better with. As I work through a manual or notes for her on how to take over where I leave off I started thinking that so many people here on this website deal with the same or similar issues. If we can start a discussion on some of these topics and as I finish up my planning notes, etc. I would be happy to put together a generic packet of financial and legal issues for future users to download.
What do you think? Please offer as many comments as you can! Especially for the younger patients who may have kids involved this is an important area to evaluate!


text:
Your shopping cart is empty!
Estudiantes de La Plata 2011 home shirt red/white stripes and gold piping.Features combination of felt and screened on crest with gold stars around it and Topper logo.Screened on sponsor in front and back.On the back of the neck reads in spanish`El Leon Manda`.Back of the shirt is all in mesh breathable fabric with `Campeon del Mundo` at the lower end.Also you can add official player N&N as sample shows.100% polyester.
|Name and Number
Soccerplus first opened in 1994. We were one of the first soccer websites to hit the webView more
Address: 1640 E. Washington Blvd.
Pasadena, Ca 91104, USA
Phone: 1-800-945-7291
Get Direct


text:
I know the "post-season scoreboard watching..." thread might already have covered some of this sentiment. But I just wanted to put it out there.
That is all.
I know the "post-season scoreboard watching..." thread might already have covered some of this sentiment. But I just wanted to put it out there.
That is all.
"Ill kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thats just how I do things. -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013
I get no joy out of it.
Butterflies and zebras and moonbeams
And fairytales
The off season just got better.
Baseball is like church. Many attend, few understand
Anybody else following the hilarious Baseball's Best Fans account on Twitter? https://mobile.twitter.com/BestFansStLouis
It's almost like they forgot they shouldn't have even been in the playoffs.
Is it "next season" yet?
"Since I've been with the Reds in 1989, we've never had a farm system this loaded," Bowden said. "If we were the New York Yankees and had unlimited dollars, we could have traded for Colon, (Jeff) Weaver, Rolen, (Cliff) Floyd, (Kenny) Rogers and Finley and gotten them all -- and still held onto our top five prospects. That's an amazing statement."
I likewise feel the pain lessen knowing that I won't have to put up with the sports world slobbering all over St Louis as they "do it again". I'll likely watch at least some of the series as I don't have any real problems with either Detroit or San Fran because the hurt was self inflicted as we failed so many times vs San Fran. Cardiac Kids is usually a pretty good storyline in sports and we'll see if the "underdog" who has "perceivered" through so much this post season has a play on the national stage and boosts ratings higher than what SF vs Det normally would carry.
I find baseball's new playoff format a little hard to take. Consider the Cardinals won the world series last year when they finished 5 or 6 games behind Milwaukee. Add to that the fact they were within a game of going back there when they finished 9 games behind the Reds would have been tough to watch.
Baseball is like no other game. You have 162 games to state your case. The Cards didn't get it done during the season. In fact, fell far short. I know most people probably favor the wild card stuff. Maybe it's a good thing. But adding a 2nd wild card was over the top, in my opinion. Having the 5th best team in the NL almost make the world series should open some eyes.
Last edited by Redlegs; 10-23-2012 at 06:37 AM.
As God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly.
Anytime the Cardinals lose I feel a sense of relief.
Ah, Chris Carpenter. You never disappoint.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/cardina...-23060809.htmlCain exacted some revenge on Holliday as well, burying a fastball into his back in the top of the sixth inning, vengeance for his hard takeout slide at second base on eventual NLCS MVP Marco Scutaro in Game 2. Cardinals starter Chris Carpenter screamed from the dugout: This was not the time, the place, for payback. The Giants begged to differ.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.


text:
The intire vocabulary of the Rat Party is "Bush Lied".
I think my mother,a dyed in the wool democrat, is coming around on the bush lied thing. She didnt know that all the democrats, including clinton, made the same case as bush. She knows that i also did support clinton in 92 and 96 so she trusts my word as not one of a clinton basher. I hope this is the beginning of a bush counter offensive
Try typing "great president" at google and see what the first entry is.
Make it easy for your anti-war friends to feel like an idiot today. E-mail the following link to them:
The anti-war left relies on Google as much as anyone else to try to back their strange conspiracy theories and wreckless accusations with the most obscure information to be found on the Web.
This simple Google search is certainly within their capability, and the results are instantaneous and indisputable.
Bush, Saddam, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Bush lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is the mantra of most of the democrat candidates, all of their professional spinmeisters, and the constant harangue of the liberal media. To determine if Bush did, in fact lie, we must accomplish two goals. First, we must determine what is meant by the word lie. Then, we must consider the facts of the situation and see if President Bush did actually lie, as the word is generally understood.
So then, what is a lie? Is it merely an untruth? Is it just a false statement? No, it is more complicated than that. A witness in court must swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This three-part element, when violated in any of its components, is what a lie really is. It may be a lie of commission or omission, covert or overt.
When Bill Clinton said that he never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, he was committing an overt lie. The statement itself is patently false. It is so false that even Clinton, the master of the genre, could make only a feeble effort to redefine what sex is to try to extricate himself from his own falsehood. His democrat cohorts, however, committed a lie of omission in their defense of him. The party line became, Sure he lied, but he only lied about sex. Any man would lie about a private act whose discovery would be hurtful to his family.
What they omitted was that Mr. Clinton was the defendant in a sexual harassment case (Paula Jones) and was queried about Ms. Lewinsky because the law says that prior bad acts can be brought up in court in such cases, due to the he-said, she-said nature of the charges. So, if your secretary sues you because you told her that if she didnt have sex with you, she would get fired, it would be permissible to bring up facts related to the last ten secretaries that had been dismissed. If one or more of them corroborates the plaintiffs story, it would certainly lend credence to the charges. So, to say that Mr. Clintons lie was only about sex is as disingenuous as if Michael Jackson were found to be lying only about sex. Having sex with an underling, in the first case, or a twelve year-old boy, in the second, is different from having a consensual affair with your next-door neighbor.
It is evident that, for something to be the truth, it must be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Here is another example. A woman hears her husband leaving the house early one Saturday morning. He returns at ten oclock after being gone for several hours. He has had a history of philandering, so the wife is suspicious.
Where the Hell were you? she inquires. I got the car washed, is the reply. He points out the window to their gleaming sedan. But was he telling the truth, as it is commonly understood?
Heres what actually happened: he left the house at seven, got to the car wash when it opened, left there at seven thirty, and drove to his girlfriends house a few miles away. He spent a few hours there committing adultery, and was back home at ten. His statement, that he got the car washed, while perfectly true and perfectly obvious from the cars exterior, is, in fact, part of a lie. The lie is clearly one of omission. The critical question, from the wifes viewpoint, was an implied, Have you been seeing that bimbo again? But, since it was not specifically asked, the question went unanswered. Had the wife countered with, It took you all morning to get your car washed? the man would still not be caught in an overt lie. He could have replied with It takes over an hour to get the car washed on Saturday morning at eight oclock. While the statement is true, it is irrelevant because he wasnt at the car wash at eight oclock. He was there at seven when the lines are short. His answer implied that he was there at eight, but he didnt actually say that he was. Bill Clinton would be proud.
Now to the question of George Bush and the Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the issue of who really is lying. The democrats are all using the same basic talking points. They allege:
1. George Bush said that Saddam had WMDs.
2. He took the country into war because of it.
3. Despite nearly a year of searching, no WMDs have been found, and therefore,
4. George Bush is a liar, which leads to
5. And should be replaced by a democrat, the party renowned for its honesty.
There are some shades and gradations of the above, depending upon whether its Howard Dean or John Kerry doing the talking, but the basic premise is the one I have outlined. Lets check it for veracity.
The very first statement is a lie of omission, and is actually the key to the democrats game plan to discredit the President. On the face of it, the statement George Bush said that Saddam had WMDs appears to be perfectly true. And it is, as far as it goes. But, as we have learned, sometimes statements dont go far enough, and the veracity of the statement is quite dubious, based upon a key omission. What is it that is omitted here? We all heard the President make the statement many times. Here is the key element: because George Bush subsequently acted (attacked Iraq) based upon this statement, the democrats are trying to make it seem like the statement really is:
George Bush (and George Bush alone) said that Saddam had WMDs. That is clearly what they are implying. But, before the war started, everyone in the world said that Saddam had WMDs. Bush said it, but so did Clinton, Gore, Daschle, Kennedy, Pelosi and Kerry, to say nothing of Koffi Annan and Dominique de Villepin. Even Saddam Hussein said that he had weapons of mass destruction. Weekly Standard Link.
Of course, it wouldnt be much of an indictment of the President if the first premise was: George Bush and the entire world said that Saddam had WMDs, or even, more accurately, The entire world said that Saddam had WMDs, which clearly would include George W. Bush among its minions. No, the liars on the left find it convenient to assign a belief which is held by all, and attribute it to one (and only one) person. This disingenuous act is exacerbated by their turning the truth further on its head by calling Bush the liar.
The second statement, He took the country into war because of it, is also partly true, but false in what it omits. George Bush and, indeed, Colin Powell, made a very strong case for the war, and the existence of the WMDs was only part of the reason. The democrats have attempted (rather successfully) to frame their argument that Bush made an assertion which ultimately he has been unable to prove. They (conveniently) omit just enough to keep their argument strong. Lets examine what they have left out.
What is inarguable is that Saddam, at one point in time, did have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is inarguable because there is clear evidence that he used them. He killed thousands of Kurds with poison gas, dealt the Marsh Arabs a similar fate, and was actively using chemical weapons throughout the long war with Iran. Nobody, not even Howard Dean or Scott Ritter can say, with a straight face, that Saddam never had WMDs. The 1998 inventoried list, as cited above in The Weekly Standard, is not in dispute. The United Nations passed over a dozen resolutions, attempting to get Saddam to disarm. The final one, Resolution 1441, clearly, irrevocably, and for the final time, gave Saddam a last chance to come clean. Since the weapons clearly existed at one time, it was necessary for Saddam, as demanded by The United Nations, to hand over all proscribed munitions, and to explain and verify what had become of the rest. If weapons had been destroyed, he was to show evidence (video, trace element, even a bookkeeping entry) to prove it.
No evidence of such compliance has ever been offered. George Bush went to war because Saddam Hussein did not comply with the UNs resolution. The onus was on Saddam to prove he had destroyed known stocks of illegal weapons. The onus is not, as implied by the democrats, on George Bush to find those weapons. It is almost as if George Bush had invaded some peace-loving nation, like Switzerland, accusing it of making illegal weapons. That is not the case at all. The prior existence of Saddams WMDs was never in dispute
To give another analogy, consider the case of a mass-murderer who pulls out an automatic weapon and fires into a bunch of schoolchildren, killing nine of them. There are about a thousand witnesses, including a police officer, who gives chase. After a long run, he eventually starts gaining on the perpetrator, and yells, Police! Put down your weapon! Put your hands up and surrender! But, the alleged perpetrator keeps running. The policeman uses his own weapon to shoot the guy. Unfortunately, the police are unable to find the perpetrators weapon. If you are a democrat, the only conclusion that you could draw is that the weapon never existed. Tell that to the nine dead schoolchildren. And tell the Kurds that Saddam never gassed their village.
The left is forced into a syllogism that is absurd on its face. They really are saying:
1. Saddam had WMDs.
2. We cant find the WMDs, therefore
3. Saddam didnt have WMDs , and
4. George Bush is a liar for saying that he did.
Clearly, syllogisms dont work that way. One must start with a premise, and, based upon that premise, come to a conclusion. However, (and this is critical),
the conclusion can never invalidate the original premise.
For instance, my premise might be: "An apple is a fruit." It is clearly a true statement. From this, I can infer that if I am eating an apple, I am, in fact, eating a fruit. I cannot, however, by the rules of logic, infer that if I am eating a fruit, it must be an apple. I obviously could be eating an orange or a pear, and would still be eating a fruit. One could make many statements related to the original premise, but one could never say, An apple is a fruit. I am eating a fruit. It is a pear. Therefore, an apple is not a fruit. One can never invalidate the original premise. It is an absurdity.
While Saddams possession of WMDs is not quite the tautology of An apple is a fruit, it is pretty close. If the democrats accept it as a fact, as they all did in 1998 when Clinton was president, they are left with the above non sequitur. Since he did have the weapons and we cant find them, we cannot conclude that he never had them. (Unless we are democrats!) So then, what can rational people conclude? The choices are obvious. I will list them.
1. He hid them so well that we havent discovered them.
2. He transferred them to another country or entity.
3. He destroyed them.
Of course, there might be some combination of these three. If Saddam hid or transferred the weapons, the President was clearly correct in launching the invasion. That he had years to hide them does not make us at fault for not yet finding them. If he transferred them to a terrorist state, or a terrorist group, the invasion gains even more justification. Finally, the left might lead you to believe that if he destroyed them, we were wrong to invade. That is not the case. He had to show proof that he destroyed them, or else, like a gunman running from the police, the only safe assumption that can be made is that he still has the weapon or weapons. Thats why the police say, Come out slowly with your hands up! It is not enough to disarm. If you act as if you are still armed (for a criminalkeeping your hand in your pocket, pointing like a gun), the only way that you can be treated is as if you are, in fact, still armed. If the weapon is found, of course, these issues are moot. In Saddams case, the weapons have yet to be found in any significant quantity. This does not mean that he never had them, nor does it indicate that Saddam complied in any way with UN Resolution 1441, which passed unanimously, with even France and Germany approving it. Yes, there is a big lie involving George Bush, the invasion of Iraq, and the Weapons of Mass Destruction. Clearly, hes not the one telling it.
It is an amazing adventure into logical Wonderland watching the left spin this story. The usual sequence on any of the "Talking Heads" shows goes like this:
Lib: Bush lied about the reasons for going to war.
Conservative: Congress, which had the same intelligence, voted to go to war. Clinton said Saddam had WMD's back in 1998. Kerry, Pelosi, Schumer, and virtually the entire democrat party all said Saddam had WMD's.
Lib: But Bush took us to war over it.
That's where the logic breaks down. The issue isn't what Bush did with the information--the issue is whether Bush provided false information (i.e., "lied.") The dems conveniently change the subject. Unbelievably, the Sheeple have let them get away with it.
WJS this morning tells it all.
Who Is Lying About Iraq -- WSJ refutes?
A campaign of distortion aims to discredit the liberation.
Monday, November 14, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
The Wall Street Journal
Among the many distortions, misrepresentations and outright falsifications that have emerged from the debate over Iraq, one in particular stands out above all others. This is the charge that George W. Bush misled us into an immoral or unnecessary war in Iraq by telling a series of lies that have now been definitively exposed.
What makes this charge so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.
The main "lie" that George W. Bush is accused of telling us is that Saddam Hussein possessed an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, or WMD as they have invariably come to be called. From this followed the subsidiary "lie" that Iraq under Saddam's regime posed a two-edged mortal threat. On the one hand, we were informed, there was a distinct (or even "imminent") possibility that Saddam himself would use these weapons against us or our allies; and on the other hand, there was the still more dangerous possibility that he would supply them to terrorists like those who had already attacked us on 9/11 and to whom he was linked.
This entire scenario of purported deceit was given a new lease on life by the indictment in late October of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby stands accused of making false statements to the FBI and of committing perjury in testifying before a grand jury that had been convened to find out who in the Bush administration had "outed" Valerie Plame, a CIA agent married to the retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The supposed purpose of leaking this classified information to the press was to retaliate against Mr. Wilson for having "debunked" (in his words) "the lies that led to war."
Now, as it happens, Mr. Libby was not charged with having outed Ms. Plame but only with having lied about when and from whom he first learned that she worked for the CIA. Moreover, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor who brought the indictment against him, made a point of emphasizing that "this indictment is not about the war":
This indictment is not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national-security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer's identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person--a person, Mr. Libby--lied or not.
No matter. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, spoke for a host of other opponents of the war in insisting:
This case is bigger than the leak of classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.
Yet even stipulating--which I do only for the sake of argument--that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq in the period leading up to the invasion, it defies all reason to think that Mr. Bush was lying when he asserted that they did. To lie means to say something one knows to be false. But it is as close to certainty as we can get that Mr. Bush believed in the truth of what he was saying about WMD in Iraq.
How indeed could it have been otherwise? George Tenet, his own CIA director, assured him that the case was "a slam dunk." This phrase would later become notorious, but in using it, Mr. Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States.
In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."
The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and--yes--France all agreed with this judgment. And even Hans Blix--who headed the U.N. team of inspectors trying to determine whether Saddam had complied with the demands of the Security Council that he get rid of the weapons of mass destruction he was known to have had in the past--lent further credibility to the case in a report he issued only a few months before the invasion:
The discovery of a number of 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km [105 miles] southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker, and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions. . . . They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
Mr. Blix now claims that he was only being "cautious" here, but if, as he now also adds, the Bush dministration "misled itself" in interpreting the evidence before it, he at the very least lent it a helping hand.
So, once again, did the British, the French and the Germans, all of whom signed on in advance to Secretary of State Colin Powell's reading of the satellite photos he presented to the U.N. in the period leading up to the invasion. Mr. Powell himself and his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, now feel that this speech was the low point of his tenure as secretary of state. But Mr. Wilkerson (in the process of a vicious attack on the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense for getting us into Iraq) is forced to acknowledge that the Bush administration did not lack for company in interpreting the available evidence as it did:
I can't tell you why the French, the Germans, the Brits and us thought that most of the material, if not all of it, that we presented at the U.N. on 5 February 2003 was the truth. I can't. I've wrestled with it. [But] when you see a satellite photograph of all the signs of the chemical-weapons ASP--Ammunition Supply Point--with chemical weapons, and you match all those signs with your matrix on what should show a chemical ASP, and they're there, you have to conclude that it's a chemical ASP, especially when you see the next satellite photograph which shows the UN inspectors wheeling in their white vehicles with black markings on them to that same ASP, and everything is changed, everything is clean. . . . But George [Tenet] was convinced, John McLaughlin [Tenet's deputy] was convinced, that what we were presented [for Powell's UN speech] was accurate.
Going on to shoot down a widespread impression, Mr. Wilkerson informs us that even the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, was convinced:
People say, well, INR dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.
In explaining its dissent on Iraq's nuclear program, the INR had, as stated in the NIE of 2002, expressed doubt about:
Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes [which are] central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear-weapons program. . . . INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors . . . in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program.
But, according to Wilkerson:
The French came in in the middle of my deliberations at the CIA and said, we have just spun aluminum tubes, and by God, we did it to this rpm, et cetera, et cetera, and it was all, you know, proof positive that the aluminum tubes were not for mortar casings or artillery casings, they were for centrifuges. Otherwise, why would you have such exquisite instruments?
In short, and whether or not it included the secret heart of Hans Blix, "the consensus of the intelligence community," as Mr. Wilkerson puts it, "was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002,"
Pollack has written:
I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in
One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).
No wonder, then, that another conclusion the NIE of 2002 reached with "high confidence" was that "Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material." (Hard as it is to believe, let alone to reconcile with his general position, Joseph C. Wilson IV, in a speech he delivered three months after the invasion at the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, offhandedly made the following remark: "I remain of the view that we will find biological and chemical weapons and we may well find something that indicates that Saddam's regime maintained an interest in nuclear weapons.")
But the consensus on which Mr. Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:
Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:
He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."
Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:
Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:
There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier:
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency.
Thus Al Gore in September 2002:
We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:
I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Byrd: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Liberal politicians like these were seconded by the mainstream media, in whose columns a very different tune would later be sung. For example, throughout the last two years of the Clinton administration, editorials in the New York Times repeatedly insisted that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year [and] future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again."
The Times was also skeptical of negotiations, pointing out that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as his country's salvation."
So, too, the Washington Post, which greeted the inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 with this admonition:
Of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous--or more urgent--than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf [where] intelligence photos . . . show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons.
All this should surely suffice to prove far beyond any even unreasonable doubt that Mr. Bush was telling what he believed to be the truth about Saddam's stockpile of WMD.
It also disposes of the fallback charge that Mr. Bush lied by exaggerating or hyping the intelligence presented to him. Why on earth would he have done so when the intelligence itself was so compelling that it convinced everyone who had direct access to it, and when hardly anyone in the world believed that Saddam had, as he claimed, complied with the 16 resolutions of the Security Council demanding that he get rid of his weapons of mass destruction?
Another fallback charge is that Mr. Bush, operating mainly through Mr. Cheney, somehow forced the CIA into telling him what he wanted to hear. Yet in its report of 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, while criticizing the CIA for relying on what in hindsight looked like weak or faulty intelligence, stated that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities.
The March 2005 report of the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission, which investigated intelligence failures on Iraq, reached the same conclusion, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments."
Still, even many who believed that Saddam did possess WMD, and was ruthless enough to use them, accused Mr. Bush of telling a different sort of lie by characterizing the risk as "imminent." But this, too, is false: Mr. Bush consistently rejected imminence as a justification for war.
Thus, in the State of the Union address he delivered only three months after 9/11, Mr. Bush declared that he would "not wait on events while dangers gather" and that he would "not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer."
Then, in a speech at West Point six months later, he reiterated the same point: "If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long." And as if that were not clear enough, he went out of his way in his State of the Union address in 2003 (that is, three months before the invasion), to bring up the word "imminent" itself precisely in order to repudiate it:
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.
What of the related charge that it was still another "lie" to suggest, as Mr. Bush and his people did, that a connection could be traced between Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11? This charge was also rejected by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Contrary to how its findings were summarized in the mainstream media, the committee's report explicitly concluded that al Qaeda did in fact have a cooperative, if informal, relationship with Iraqi agents working under Saddam. The report of the bipartisan 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion, as did a comparably independent British investigation conducted by Lord Butler, which pointed to "meetings . . . between senior Iraqi representatives and senior al-Qaeda operatives."
Which brings us to Joseph C. Wilson, IV and what to my mind wins the palm for the most disgraceful instance of all.
The story begins with the notorious 16 words inserted--after, be it noted, much vetting by the CIA and the State Department--into Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
This is the "lie" Mr. Wilson bragged of having "debunked" after being sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to check out the intelligence it had received to that effect. Mr. Wilson would later angrily deny that his wife had recommended him for this mission, and would do his best to spread the impression that choosing him had been the vice president's idea.
But Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, through whom Mr. Wilson first planted this impression, was eventually forced to admit that "Cheney apparently didn't know that Wilson had been dispatched." (By the time Mr. Kristof grudgingly issued this retraction, Mr. Wilson himself, in characteristically shameless fashion, was denying that he had ever "said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent.") And as for his wife's supposed nonrole in his mission, here is what Valerie Plame Wilson wrote in a memo to her boss at the CIA:
My husband has good relations with the PM [the prime minister of Niger] and the former minister of mines . . ., both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.
More than a year after his return, with the help of Mr. Kristof, and also Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, and then through an op-ed piece in the Times under his own name, Mr. Wilson succeeded, probably beyond his wildest dreams, in setting off a political firestorm.
In response, the White House, no doubt hoping to prevent his allegation about the 16 words from becoming a proxy for the charge that (in Mr. Wilson's latest iteration of it) "lies and disinformation [were] used to justify the invasion of Iraq," eventually acknowledged that the president's statement "did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." As might have been expected, however, this panicky response served to make things worse rather than better. And yet it was totally unnecessary--for the maddeningly simple reason that every single one of the 16 words at issue was true.
That is, British intelligence had assured the CIA that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy enriched uranium from the African country of Niger. Furthermore--and notwithstanding the endlessly repeated assertion that this assurance has now been discredited--Britain's independent Butler commission concluded that it was "well-founded." The relevant passage is worth quoting at length:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.
As if that were not enough to settle the matter, Mr. Wilson himself, far from challenging the British report when he was "debriefed" on his return from Niger (although challenging it is what he now never stops doing), actually strengthened the CIA's belief in its accuracy. From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:
He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Mr. Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.
And again:
The report on [Mr. Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.
This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research--which (as we have already seen) did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons--found support in Mr. Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it--which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Mr. Bush in the famous 16 words.
The liar here, then, was not Mr. Bush but Mr. Wilson. And Mr. Wilson also lied when he told the Washington Post that he had unmasked as forgeries certain documents given to American intelligence (by whom it is not yet clear) that supposedly contained additional evidence of Saddam's efforts to buy uranium from Niger. The documents did indeed turn out to be forgeries; but, according to the Butler report:
The forged documents were not available to the British government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine [that assessment].
More damning yet to Mr. Wilson, the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that he had never laid eyes on the documents in question:
[Mr. Wilson] also told committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article . . . which said, "among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.' " Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.
To top all this off, just as Mr. Cheney had nothing to do with the choice of Mr. Wilson for the mission to Niger, neither was it true that, as Mr. Wilson "confirmed" for a credulous New Republic reporter, "the CIA circulated [his] report to the Vice President's office," thereby supposedly proving that Cheney and his staff "knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie."
Yet--the mind reels--if Mr. Cheney had actually been briefed on Mr. Wilson's oral report to the CIA (which he was not), he would, like the CIA itself, have been more inclined to believe that Saddam had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.
So much for the author of the best-selling and much-acclaimed book whose title alone--"The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity"--has set a new record for chutzpah.
But there is worse. In his press conference on the indictment against Mr. Libby, Patrick Fitzgerald insisted that lying to federal investigators is a serious crime both because it is itself against the law and because, by sending them on endless wild-goose chases, it constitutes the even more serious crime of obstruction of justice. By those standards, Mr. Wilson--who has repeatedly made false statements about every aspect of his mission to Niger, including whose idea it was to send him and what he told the CIA upon his return; who was then shown up by the Senate Intelligence Committee as having lied about the forged documents; and whose mendacity has sent the whole country into a wild-goose chase after allegations that, the more they are refuted, the more they keep being repeated--is himself an excellent candidate for criminal prosecution.
And so long as we are hunting for liars in this area, let me suggest that we begin with the Democrats now proclaiming that they were duped, and that we then broaden out to all those who in their desperation to delegitimize the larger policy being tested in Iraq--the policy of making the Middle East safe for America by making it safe for democracy--have consistently used distortion, misrepresentation and selective perception to vilify as immoral a bold and noble enterprise and to brand as an ignominious defeat what is proving itself more and more every day to be a victory of American arms and a vindication of American ideals.
Mr. Podhoretz is editor-at-large of Commentary and author of 10 books, most recently "The Norman Podhoretz Reader," edited by Thomas L. Jeffers (Free Press, 2004). This article will appear in Commentary's December issue.
"Bush Lied" in not a plan for America. The dems have NO plan for America they just wont't tell you that.
Joseph Goebbels
Substitute 'national Democrat Party' for 'the state' in the above quote and you will have arrived at the truth of what Screaming Howie and his ilk are attempting to do (with the full support of the MSM). The 'Rats have sank so far that they're reduced to using the tactics of the late Nazi Propaganda Minister. Amazing.


text:
Private Moves Into Mobility Rehab Equipment
Despite uncertainties over possible cuts in federal medical reimbursements, there is one bright spot in the private equity health-care investments: rehabilitation-related services.
Last week there were two deals regarding three designers and manufacturers in the mobility rehabilitation equipment industry — wheelchairs, scooters, etc. Wellspring Capital Management announced its purchase of National Seating & Mobility Inc. on Wednesday, followed by the mergers of ATG Rehab and United Seating & Mobility. Rocky Hill, Conn.-based ATG is owned by Audax Group, while USM is backed by LLR Partners.
The consolidation is not just a recent phenomenon.
Both ATG and USM have been active acquirers. In December, ATG bought the complex rehab technology business of Carolina Mobility & Seating Inc. and Medical Specialty Supply of Oklahoma, among others, expanding its services in North Carolina, Virginia and Oklahoma. In December 2011, USM acquired Pinnacle Rehab and Rehab Specialties' complex mobility businesses, giving the St.Louis-based company regional exposure to Illinois and Texas.
As with most things health-care, the mobility rehabilitation equipment industry is localized and fragmented. This is especially true for mobility rehabilitation equipment makers, who often have to tailor-make wheelchairs to suit users' needs and conditions.
While rehab equipment is a small percentage of the overall wheelchair market, due to its specialized nature, but it remains a "reasonably profitable" one, according to Wellspring Capital Management Partner Alexander Carles.
The emphasis on "reasonable" is important, as it means the private equity backers are making a decent gains out of investments, but not big enough as to attract the attentions of regulators.
With the top three players commanding about a third of the market, further acquisitions within the industry are almost certainly on the horizon.


text:
The T-Mobile Dash 3G is designed by HTC and powered by Microsoft's Windows Mobile 6.1. It is available in a glossy-black finish with red accents, features a full-QWERTY keyboard, trackball and vibrant display. It also supports voice calling, messaging, personal and business e-mail, GPS and synchronization with Microsoft Outlook.
The new T-Mobile Dash 3G is anticipated to be available in the US in July at T-Mobile retail stores.
- Wireless broadband developments in Southeast Asia markets
As of 2013, the 10 ASEAN nations had a total of over 700 million mobile subscriptions, with the CAGR from 2003-2013 reaching 24%. This Digitimes Research Special Report analyzes the various mobile broadband markets in ASEAN and looks at the respective trends in 4G LTE development for those markets.
- 2015 global tablet demand forecast
This Digitimes Research Special Report provides a 2015 forecast for the global tablet market and analyzes the strategies of key market players such as Google, Apple, Intel, and Microsoft.
- 2015 China smartphone panel trend forecast
This Digitimes Research Special Report analyzes the strategies of key China-based major panel makers BOE, Tianma and IVO for attacking the different market segments through technology and pricing, and their relationship to local vendors Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, Xiaomi and Coolpad.


text:
? Place an order in the next
Hours Minutes . Overweight charges may apply to some items.
Not the correct shipping zip code? Update your information below.
Enter a valid zip code
Please select options for this product
Estimated Delivery for
Change Shipping Destination
(based on 149 reviews)
of respondents would recommend this to a friend.
Ratings Distribution
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Stars
Best Uses
Feels too small
Feels true to size
81% (113 reviews)
(113 reviews)
Feels too big
Feels too short
Feels true to length
82% (112 reviews)
(112 reviews)
Feels too long
Reviewed by 149 customers
Displaying reviews 1-10
Back to top
Previous | Next »
By Dingus
from California
About Me Avid Cyclist
Comments about Louis Garneau Genesis Jersey:
Good fit, not tight for this 65 yr old frame. OK with bibs, but a little short with regular shorts. Good buy on sale.
Bottom Line Yes, I would recommend this to a friend
Was this review helpful? Yes / No
- You may also flag this review
Comfortable Jersey
By Josh riding Specialized Tarmac
from Denair, Ca
About Me Casual/ Recreational
Second one of these jerseys I've purchased at Nashbar on sale. This is my favorite everyday training jersey
Sizes are wack
By Armyballer
from Alabama
Fits like a wetsuit through the gut. Length is good, arms are good.
Bottom Line No, I would not recommend this to a friend
Nice jersey
By Mayub
from El Paso, Tx
See all my reviews
Nice jersey, perfect fit!
Comfortable jersey, very good value, odd elastic
By Lex
from Fort Worth, Texas
Pros:*Good looking casual style, club fit jersey.*Subtle white reflective logos.*Thin material, yet warm enough for low 60s days with a sleeveless or short sleeve baselayer undershirt.*Zipper functions fairly smoothly one-handed.*Should be an excellent summer jersey for casual rides to social occasions when I don't want a bike racer look.Cons:*Elastic bands are 3/4" wide, feels odd, like a low-stretch bungee strap. Fine for easy access to three segmented rear pockets, but odd for waistband. Causes jersey to ride up unless tugged down.*Slight rubbery chemical odor to the elastic, which may bother some sensitive folks, but not around upper torso area of jersey.*Micro-mesh outer shell feels snaggy to the fingertips, but so far hasn't shown any signs of pilling or pulling up.
By jato
from nyc
Looking for the chartreuse color. However, the material feel wasn't at all comfortable, the fit was XL but I ordered a L, and the zipper was way too short. The price was great and I gave it a try. Sorry it wasn't for me. Am sure someone else will like this.
Good looking, quality and style.
By Cricket
from Madison, AL
Bought as a gift for an avid biker. He was well pleased.
Love it!
By brochad32
from hudson, fl
Wear it almost every time now that I have the overall bibs so I need a place for my phone. Nice to use the back pockets.
Very nice jersey great value
By ellobovelo
from Eau Claire Wisconsin
I normally wear a large which is what I ordered the first time and it was quite loose. This time I ordered a medium and fits great. I am a casual roadie and like a slightly loose fit which this fits the bill nicely The hi-viz color is easily seen. The fabric has a very nice feel and breathes well. I will order a few more at this price.
Excellent gift
By Ettore
from Orange City, FL
Gave the jersey to a friend as a gift.
Item No. »
We Make Shopping Safe, Secure and Easy
© 2017 Nashbar. All Rights Reserved.
Return to Mobile


text:
First technical assistance webinar, March 6: "Options for New Investigators"
"Options for New Investigators: Grant Mechanisms," the first in a series of Technical Assistance Webinars sponsored by the NIA Office of Special Populations was Thursday, March 6, 2014 from 10:00-11:00 a.m. EST. The purpose of this webinar series is to provide participants with technical assistance for successfully engaging the NIA grants application process.
Target Audience:
Pre-and post-doctoral students and recent recipients of Ph.D., M.D., or related doctoral degrees who are researchers with an interest in health disparities and aging research are encouraged to register and participate. Applicants from diverse backgrounds, including individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities and women are encouraged to attend.
About the Speaker:
Robin A. Barr, D.Phil.
Dr. Barr joined the National Institute on Aging in 1987 as a program officer in the Behavioral and Social Research Program. He developed several initiatives there, most notably the ACTIVE clinical trial on cognitive training. During an interval as Acting Assistant Director for Special Populations, He helped to develop the ongoing program of Research Centers on Minority Aging Research. From 1994 to 2006 he was Deputy Head of the Division of Extramural Activities ‑ contributing to policy development and coordination at the NIA ‑ and the NIA Training Officer. During this time he developed the research dissertation (R36) program aimed at increasing the number of students from underrepresented backgrounds who obtain research doctoral degrees. He has also overseen and helped to shape substantial growth in the career development awards program at NIA and has played a key role in establishing public-private partnerships to pursue career development and training initiatives. In April 2006, Dr. Barr became Acting Director of the Division of Extramural Activities, NIA and was appointed Director of the Division in June 2007. Since that time he has worked at the NIH level to help shape NIH's policies towards new and early stage investigators. He was centrally involved in managing NIA's response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. His leadership role at NIA includes managing the National Advisory Council on Aging and advising the Director, NIA on all extramural activities of the Institute.
For additional information:
Ms. Andrea Griffin-Mann
Office of Special Populations
National Institute on Aging
National Institutes of Health