text:
Nowadays it seems like every lodging establishment has a "wellness program." A hotel plops lemon slices in the lobby water jug or makes chocolate chip cookies out of almond flour and then advertises its "nutritious, organic gastronomic enhancements." But what about rest? Relaxation? Healthy (but still tasty) dining options?
The folks at Red Mountain Resort near St. George, Utah, do wellness well by doing it simply. Even their name is simple. They're a resort nestled in some red mountains. Bada-boom, bada-bing. And that's how they approach their guests' experience — by focusing on the basics. You eat, recreate, get pampered and sleep. Rinse and repeat. Simple.
Here are four ways Red Mountain Resort nails the essentials of a perfect couples getaway in Utah.
Sure the red rock is pretty to look at, but it's even better when you get out and feel it, climb it, explore it. We won't even judge you if you taste it. It has that effect on people. Hiking trails here are endless. Yoga at Red Mountain blows yoga in your basement away. Indoor and outdoor pools mean you can swim whenever you choose to visit. Fitness studios keep you invigorated, happy and relaxed. There's also biking (road or mountain), canyoneering, horseback riding, rock climbing and more. Never a shortage of things to do. Or you can choose not to do anything at all. You can literally sit, stare at the red rock, and breathe in the sage and you'll be better off for it.
Not sure much needs to be written here. Just swipe through the gallery, then pick up your jaw. Suffice it to say, whether you choose a deluxe room or a villa you'll be happy. Who wouldn't be with a bed that feels like a hundred gentle hands and bath amenities that make you smell like outside (outside smells divine around here), and views of mountains that look like petrified red clouds?
Again, a bunch of superlatives come to mind — gourmet, haute, delectable, mouthwatering… — but we'll let the menus speak for themselves. Here are a few gourmet, haute, delectable sample dishes that'll get your mouth watering.
Breakfast: Lava Loop Omelet. Farm fresh whole eggs, vine-ripened tomato, organic baby spinach, red peppers, forest mushrooms, maple cured ham, cheddar-jack cheese.
Lunch: Every day is a buffet, but not the kind you normally think of. Instead of a carving station of dry meat, two-day-old rolls and limp salad, imagine tomato basil soup, herb garlic grilled chicken, roasted primavera vegetable medley and coconut brown basmati rice.
Dinner: Estancia Grass Fed Beef New York Striploin. Served with baked potato or baked yam.
[*Author's note: My wife doesn't consume gluten or dairy because of a medical condition. She has been to Red Mountain Resort twice for a spa day, and the lunch buffet is hands down her favorite dining experience of all time. Even better than the spaghetti I make with gluten-free noodles, if you can believe that.]
Travel + Leisure has named Red Mountain Resort one of the world's best destination spas. This isn't some recent massage school graduate with a vinyl table and clumsy hands giving you a who-knows-what massage. The Sagestone Spa & Salon is a full-service, high-end little slice of heaven style. A robust menu of treatments in a relaxing venue.
Couples Packages
Red Mountain Essential Retreat
Click here to learn more about Red Mountain Resort and to plan your retreat.
Spa Resort Chairs


text:
REUTERS Monday, 11 March 2013 03:21 PM EDT
"Investors and all market participants need to know that the playing field of our markets is level and that all wrongdoers -individual and institutional ... will be aggressively pursued by the SEC," said White in prepared testimony released ahead of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee.
"Proceeding aggressively against wrongdoers is not only the right thing to do, but it also will serve to deter the sharp and unlawful practices of others," White added.
White built a reputation as a hard-nosed Manhattan federal prosecutor before moving into private practice for the past 10 years, defending major Wall Street figures, including JPMorgan and former Bank of America Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis.
In pledging to aggressively go after individuals who violate the law, White appeared to be getting out in front of critical questions she will likely face on Tuesday, both on the SEC's record and her recent defense work.
Although the SEC has filed numerous cases in connection with the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the agency has faced criticism from the public and some lawmakers who say it has failed to hold high-level executives accountable and settles too frequently instead of taking banks to trial.
One liberal non-profit, Better Markets, announced Monday it has launched a new webpage called "SEC Watch" that will direct a spotlight on how the SEC handles enforcement cases.
"Unfortunately, the SEC failed miserably in the years before the financial crisis," said Better Markets CEO Dennis Kelleher. "While doing better, it has regrettably too often failed since then as well."
White's prepared testimony marks the first time the public has gotten a glimpse into her priorities for the SEC.
Little is known about her views on regulatory policy and how she may vote on crucial areas facing the SEC, such as rules for over-the-counter derivatives, credit-ratings and money market funds.
White's five pages of prepared testimony give little insight into how she might vote on these matters.
She did, however, highlight market-structure issues such as high-frequency trading, algorithms, order types and dark pools as areas the SEC should continue exploring.
Market structure became a big policy area under former SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro, who presided as head of the agency during the May 6, 2010 "flash crash" incident.
While White did not take a position on whether high-speed trading and certain order types may be harming retail investors, she said it is critical for the SEC to better understand its impact.
"There must be a sense of urgency brought to addressing these issues to understand their impact on investors and the quality of our markets so that the appropriate regulatory responses can be made," she said.
Separately, White also stressed the need for the SEC to complete rules required by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law and the 2012 Jumpstart our Business Startups (JOBS) Act.
She also pointed to the importance of vigorously studying the economic impact of any new regulations. Problems with proper cost-benefit analysis have plagued the SEC in the past, leading industry and business groups to successfully wage legal challenges that overturned several key rules.
© 2024 Thomson/Reuters. All rights reserved.
Receive breaking news and original analysis - sent right to your inbox.
Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Press releases Treaty bodies
Human Rights Committee considers report of the United States
14 March 2014
Human Rights Committee
14 March 2014
The Human Rights Committee this afternoon concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of the United States on its implementation of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Presenting the report, Mary McLeod, Principal Deputy Legal Advisor, United States Department of State, and Head of Delegation, introducing the report, said that the United States took its human rights obligations and the dialogue with the Committee extremely seriously. The report before the Committee described major developments, including new laws, judicial decisions, policies and programmes that recently expanded protections in various areas and provided remedies for violations of protected rights. While there might be matters regarding the interpretation or application of the Covenant on which the United States and Committee Members may not be in full agreement, the delegation hoped that the Committee would appreciate that the views of the United States were informed by a principled interpretation of international treaty law and its commitment to the protection of human rights.
All United States activities, including its intelligence surveillance activities and its activities in the context of armed conflict with Al-Qaeda, were carried out in strict compliance with domestic and international law. These activities were also subject to extensive domestic oversight. The Obama Administration was committed to closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and would continue its efforts towards that goal. The United States was also committed to addressing police brutality and to systematically investigate credible allegations. The United States was also committed to addressing violence against women, investigating all cases of trafficking in persons, and ensuring equal access to education and other services for all, regardless of sex, race, religion or sexual orientation.
Committee Members raised concerns regarding the United States' unilateral interpretation of the scope of applicability of the Covenant, which in some cases contradicted the views of the Committee: if all States Parties shared this interpretation there would be no protection of rights at all, an Expert said. Committee Members also expressed concerns regarding the lack of oversight over intelligence activities and the lack of remedies for the victims of United States' extraterritorial activities. Human rights violations perpetrated by the United States in the context of countering terrorism, including allegations of torture and indefinite and arbitrary detention, were also of concern. Experts asked questions regarding the death penalty, conditions of detention and solitary confinement, and the United States' immigration and refoulement policies. The Committee inquired about firearms and self-defence legislation, the criminalization of homeless persons, the situation of victims of trafficking, as well as on police and border law enforcement brutality.
In concluding remarks, Mary McLeod appreciated the active participation of civil society organizations in the review process and looked forward to receiving the Committee's concluding observations.
Sir Nigel Rodley, Chairperson of the Committee, said that the United States' approach regarding the extraterritorial applicability of the Covenant remained problematic and unclear. Mr. Rodley also referred to the victims of torture left without redress, trafficking in persons, and the situation of homeless people. While the Committee had spent time pointing out challenges and areas of concern, it had to be noted that the United States was a place where laws and rights were respected.
The delegation of the United States included representatives of the Department of State, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Interior, and the Permanent Mission of the United States to the United Nations Office at Geneva. The delegation also included the Mayor of Salt Lake City, the Attorney General of the state of Mississippi, and a contract attorney from Los Angeles.
The Committee this afternoon also discussed its methods of work and the outcome of the intergovernmental process of the General Assembly on strengthening the treaty body system (A/68/L.37). The outcome document fortunately avoided the establishment of a code of conduct and left the work of the Committee Members intact. The Addis Ababa Guidelines were very useful for States that sought to defend the independence and impartiality of the treaty body system. Meeting time was now based on the rate of received reports rather than on the number of ratifications. Experts noted that the process resulted in an improvement of the treaty body system. One of the main gains for the system was the allocation of additional meeting time for treaty bodies to deal with the backlog of reports pending consideration; a second main gain was the capacity-building package to support States' reporting obligations. The outcome resolution would also lead to several cost savings.
The Committee will next meet in public on Monday 17 March, at 3.00 p.m., to discuss the second periodic report of Chad (CCPR/C/TCD/2).
The fourth periodic report of the United States can be read via the link: CCPR/C/USA/4.
Presentation of the Report
MARY McLEOD, Principal Deputy Legal Advisor, United States Department of State, and Head of Delegation, introducing the report, said that the United States took its human rights obligations and the dialogue with the Committee extremely seriously. The United States had found this process of review and reflection with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) had been very helpful as it strove to improve efforts to protect civil and political rights. The broad and comprehensive legal framework within the United States to implement the Covenant remained firmly in place. The report before the Committee described major developments, including new laws, judicial decisions, policies and programmes that recently expanded protections in various areas and provided remedies for violations of protected rights.
Many of the rights and freedoms protected under the Covenant had parallels in the constitution of the United States, and the country took pride in the numerous other civil and political rights protections available under its laws and policies. While there might be matters regarding the interpretation or application of the Covenant on which the United States and Committee Members may not be in full agreement, the delegation hoped that the Committee would appreciate that the views of the United States were informed by a principled interpretation of international treaty law and its commitment to the protection of human rights.
ROY AUSTIN, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, said that the right to vote was fundamental in a democracy, and was ensured by the United States. Law suits had recently been filed against the states of Texas and North Carolina seeking to block their restrictive voter-identification laws. Those lawsuits evidenced the Department of Justice's continuing commitment to ensuring that American could vote free from discrimination. Equal access to educational opportunities was essential. Education was the gateway to full participation, recognized as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court almost 60 years ago. Federal laws were continuously enforced to expand opportunities for all students without discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, sex, language, religion and disability. Equal opportunities also meant that qualified borrowers deserved equal access to fair and responsible lending, as well as to meaningful access to courts, including for people with limited English skills. The United States ensured meaningful access to Courts. Through its Access to Justice Initiative, the United States was working to help the Justice system efficiently deliver fair outcomes, irrespective of wealth and status.
Effective and accountable police departments were also a fundamental part of democracy. When systematic problems emerged or officers abused their powers, the Department of Justice used its authority to implement meaningful reform and to hold specific individuals accountable under criminal laws. Individuals confined in institutions were also often among the most vulnerable and the Justice Department continued its work to detect, prevent and respond to abuses in detention facilities. The United States took seriously the importance of addressing racial and ethnic disparities at all levels of the justice system, especially with regards to criminal sentencing; and the Government was working to modify charging policies so that those who committed certain low-level, non-violent federal offences received sentences commensurate with their individual conduct rather than mandatory minimum sentences. In its 2013 annual report to the Sentencing Commission, the United States had called for reform of some mandatory minimum sentencing statutes, including those triggered by drug-trafficking offences, and amendments that could lead to reducing eligible sentences were voted on last January.
The United States was also making progress in its efforts to reduce violence against women. Under new provisions in the reauthorized Violence Against Women Act, tribes and the federal Government could better work together to address domestic violence against Native American women, who experienced the highest rates of assault. The act had led to significant improvements at the local Government level by encouraging victims to file complaints, improve evidence collection, and increase access to protection orders.
MARY McLEOD, Principal Deputy Legal Advisor, United States Department of State, and Head of Delegation, summarized the delegation's responses to the list of issues adopted by the Committee. She said that the United States was working actively to address human and civil rights issues in numerous ways and the delegation looked forward to further elaboration of those during the discussion. While the Government was pursuing those matters aggressively, there remained much work to be done.
The United States continued to believe that its interpretation of the Covenant applied only to individuals who were both within the territory of a State Party and within its jurisdiction, which was most consistent with the Covenant's language and negotiating history. While the United States did not have a single national human rights institution, it counted on multiple complementary protections and mechanisms to guarantee respect for human rights, including an independent judiciary. At the time the United States became a Party to the Covenant its reservations to a few of the provisions were crafted in close collaboration with the United States Senate. Ms. McLeod indicated that the United States had no current plans to withdraw its reservations to the Covenant.
The United States were committed to addressing unwarranted racial disparities in the criminal justice system. The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act reduced disparities in sentencing between powder cocaine and crack cocaine and the Department of Justice had pledged to work with the Sentencing Commission and the United States Congress to reform mandatory minimum sentencing statutes. Under its first strategic plan to end homelessness, the Administration was assisting communities to adopt alternatives to laws and policies that led to the criminalization of homelessness.
All people in the United States, including undocumented migrants, were entitled by law to emergency health services. Most states allowed undocumented students to enrol in public education and, in some cases, to pay in-state tuition. The number of states that had the death penalty, the number of persons executed each year, and the number of persons on death row had decreased in the last few years. Today, legislation permitted the imposition of the death penalty in 32 states, reduced from 38 in 2011. Approximately 470,000 fatal and non-fatal violent crimes were committed with firearms in 2012, and the percentage of gun-related homicides committed by intimate partners had declined over the past thirty years.
The United States was in an armed conflict with Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, and may also use force consistent with the inherent right to national self-defence. Targets with remotely piloted aircraft were conducted in compliance with international and domestic law, and the United States went to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties. Under the law of the United States every official was prohibited from engaging in torture and other cruel or inhuman treatments, at all times and in all places. Investigations were systematically conducted when there was a credible allegation that detainees had been mistreated, and a number of such cases had been prosecuted. The United States had also prosecuted military and civilian personnel, including contractors, for suspected unlawful killings committed in operations conducted outside the United States.
Under the law, every United States official was prohibited from engaging in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, at all times and places. The Government conducted prompt and independent investigations into credible allegations concerning mistreatment of detainees, and had prosecuted a number of cases involving alleged detainee abuse, for example, the prosecution of David Passaro in 2004, a CIA contractor accused of brutally assaulting a detainee in Afghanistan in 2003. Ms. McLeod recalled that President Obama stated had stated his belief that "waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake"; and the practice of waterboarding was explicitly prohibited in the army field manual.
The President of the United States had repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and to that end had appointed a Special Envoy to continue to pursue the transfer of detainees, consistent with international law. The United States Department of Justice had jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute excessive use of force and had recently put in place mechanisms to correct unlawful practices in police departments in New Orleans, Portland, Seattle, Puerto Rico and other places. Most states had outlawed corporal punishment in schools. Federal laws ensured protection for detainees with mental issues and others from violence, including sexual violence. Juvenile offenders were separated from adult ones.
The Immigration and Nationality Act provided for detention of aliens who had committed certain criminal acts or were likely to engage or had engaged in terrorist activities. Unaccompanied alien children had their best interests taken into account and benefited appropriate care and services. The United States had made significant improvements in addressing violence against women at the local level, and offered a coordinated response to domestic violence. All cases of trafficking in persons were aggressively investigated and prosecuted, including cases of sexual exploitation of children.
Surveillance activities by the National Security Agency were subjected to extensive oversight by the Executive Branch, the Congress and the Judiciary. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court played an important role as it not only authorized foreign intelligence surveillance activities but also played an active role in ensuring that they were carried out lawfully.
Questions from the Experts
Experts noted that the report had carefully been drafted and welcomed the fact that it had been submitted almost on time. Committee Members also welcomed the report's attention to both the United States' legal framework and its implementation.
Experts regretted that the United States had the largest number of reservations to the Covenant, some of which were against the object and purpose of the Covenant, and that it refused to lift such reservations. Experts also regretted that the United States considered that the dispositions of the Covenant were not directly applicable and could not be invoked before domestic courts. While the Committee had already made recommendations on that regard, nothing seemed to have been done.
Regarding the applicability of the Covenant, Experts remained concerned about the application of the Convention by the states of the Federation and the fact that citizens could not invoke the Covenant before the courts. The position of the United States regarding the inapplicability of the Covenant to its extraterritorial activities remained a serious problem and ha had negative effects on the rights of people affected by such actions. The Covenant clearly stipulated that the rights it enshrined had to be protected for all persons under a State's jurisdiction. At the time of ratification, the United States had made no reservations regarding its territorial applicability, despite the fact that the position of the Committee on that question was already clear at that time. Reservations on the issue were made later.
Would the delegation recognize that the United States' position on extraterritorial activities allowed the United States to commit violations everywhere except in their own territory? The non-applicability of the Covenant to extraterritorial activities led to impunity and rights violations. If all States were to share that interpretation, there would be no protection of rights at all. Was the Government ready to review its position concerning the extraterritorial application of the Covenant?
Experts said that it seemed difficult for the Federal Government to enforce the dispositions of the Covenant at the local level, and requested further details regarding efforts to ensure that local authorities and federal states enforced the provisions of the Covenant. Had effective mechanisms been established to monitor the activities and actions of the federal states and to ensure that they did not contradict Covenant? Were remedies available for violations of the Covenant but that did not violate domestic legislation in the United States? What follow-up activities to this dialogue at local level and with civil society organizations had been planned? Experts regretted that the United States did not have even one National Human Rights Institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. Noting that national human rights institutions played a very important role in dispute resolution, Experts asked whether the creation of such an institution was planned.
Experts appreciated the recognition by the United States that the criminalization of homelessness raised serious human rights concerns, as well as steps taken to address homelessness. However, were such efforts, in a federal context, enough? What was the Federal Government effectively doing to address such criminalization by states? Would criminalization policies be sanctioned?
Regarding the issue of the death penalty, Experts welcomed the decrease in the number of executions but expressed concerns about discrimination. The number of persons wrongfully sentenced to death illustrated the flaws in the judicial system of federal states that continued to carry out executions. Incidents surrounding the administration of the lethal dose were worrying and certainly amounted to inhuman treatment. Was it correct that some states did not, or barely, compensate persons wrongfully sentenced to death? Would the United States ensure that no executions were carried out using drugs that were not validated by the federal drug department? In light of the large number of persons on death row, some of them were probably innocent, an Expert said. What effective measures had been taken to ensure that the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life was respected, including when international bodies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights had expressed concerns about some cases? Would it be realistic to imagine the United States ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, on the abolition of the death penalty?
The Committee was extremely worried at the high number of persons killed by fire arms, most victims being children or juveniles. While the Committee appreciated the clear position taken by the President of the United States on the issue, much more needed to be done. What measures would be undertaken to fulfil the United States' obligation to protect life under Article 6 of the Covenant? Experts were deeply concerned that laws on self-defence, including "stand-your-ground" laws, that seemed to go beyond regular provisions on that issue and sometimes allowed for total impunity. Would any effort be made to harmonize the practices of different federal states in this regard?
Experts also expressed concern at the use of lethal force by police officers and requested information concerning the practice of systematic investigations into such cases, as stipulated by the Covenant. The excessive use of force by police forces had always been an issue of concern for the Committee. There had been allegations concerning incidents of police brutality against members of ethnic minorities, and against migrants by United States' border patrol agents. It was undeniable that this issue continued to cause problems despite the reforms undertaken, particularly at the border between the United States and Mexico. Had criminal cases been initiated against alleged perpetrators? Were steps being taken to ensure that lethal force was only used when absolutely necessary? How were border patrol agents trained? Were statistics available regarding the use of force by law enforcement officers? What steps were being taken to implement effective oversight and transparency mechanisms to ensure effective remedy for victims of police brutality?
Amnesty International had expressed concern about the excessive use of Tasers and the lack of regulation on their use, and the abusive use of Tasers had been reported. Experts found the use of Tasers against inmates for many minor offences, including juveniles, alarming; and there seemed to be no oversight on the use of Tasers. Could the delegation provide further information on this issue?
Experts welcomed the United States' recognition that racial disparities existed in the judicial system and the creation of a working group to review the practice of racial profiling. According to official statistics: 3.1 per cent of the Afro-American population and 1.3 per cent of the Latin-American population were incarcerated, while only 0.5 percent of the white population was. What further steps would the Government take to address the situation? Could the delegation provide details regarding reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had allegedly carried out discriminative activities and implemented systematic surveillance targeting the Muslim population?
Segregation had increased in the area of education, Latin-American and African American people were more likely to quit school. What measures were being taken to address unequal access to education?
Regarding the principle of non-discriminatory access to healthcare, the Committee was concerned regarding the de facto discrimination against undocumented migrants. Could the delegation explain the legal justification for not allowing undocumented migrants to purchase health insurance? There were concerns regarding the link between migratory status and access to medical care, including the obligation for hospitals to inquire into their patients' immigration status. What measures had been taken to ensure that such practices did not violate migrants' right to access healthcare? Concerns were also raised regarding limitations on undocumented migrants' access to free education.
Experts recognized that the United States had the responsibility to protect its citizens against terrorism. However, the use of lethal force had to be regulated and restricted to circumstances of absolute necessity during all counterterrorist activities. Committee Experts were concerned by the United States' open-ended approach regarding the definition of armed conflict, in particular, the lack of clarity regarding when such a conflict would end.
The laws concerning the right of the military to employ lethal force were also unclear. Experts raised concerns related to the use of drones and the practice of targeted killings, including doubled strikes. Experts underlined allegations by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that indiscriminate drone attacks had been carried out in Pakistan and Iraq. Were accountability mechanisms available to victims of drone attacks? Experts also expressed concern about the absence of prosecution against any commanders allegedly responsible for violations of the Covenant. Committee Members insisted that the United States enhance its standards of transparency on such cases.
Regarding the prohibition against torture, Experts inquired about the conviction of officials following allegations of torture during interrogations carried as part of United States' "war on terror". How would the United States respond to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on human rights and countering terrorism? What remedies had been made available for victims of torture? Regarding the interrogation programmes during the war on terror, would information be made public? Committee Members regretted that the United States had refused to implement recommendations made by other United Nations bodies in that regard. What legal guarantees were offered during transfers of prisoners, was it ascertained that persons transferred would not be subjected to torture in another country? There had been recent cases of prisoners being transferred to Algeria, an Expert said, asking what measures had been taken by the United States to establish with absolute certainty that those prisoners would not be tortured in Algeria and would benefit from due process?
Experts were concerned that a different criminal law applied to prisoners considered "high value detainees", which seemed not to offer the appropriate guarantees of due process and fair trial. Was the right to a defence protected? Could lawyers intervene, even when prisoners were transferred to another country?
More than ten years after the 9/11 attacks, an Expert asked what lessons had been learned following the subsequent investigations, and asked whether information on Central Intelligence Agency investigations would be declassified so as to allow the Committee to learn more about how interrogations were conducted?
Responses by the Delegation
Regarding the scope of the application of the Covenant, the United States said it had made its position clear on many occasions, including to this Committee, and it would not change its position on this question.
The United States' conduct overseas was regulated by international treaties, including on the prohibition of torture, and its extraterritorial activities abroad were based on the rule of law and ensured protection of the right to life, the right to a fair trial, and the right to non-discrimination. Under the Detainee Treatment Act, no individual in custody under the authority of the United States could be subjected to torture. In addition, no transfer of prisoners occurred if there were doubts as to whether the prisoner might risk torture.
Regarding the criminalization of homelessness, considerable work had been undertaken by the administration and the Government had taken a firm position that criminalization was not a solution. Solutions included efforts to prevent homelessness and educating police officers regarding how to address homelessness. People who were released from prison were often the ones most vulnerable to the risk of homelessness, a delegate said. The Federal Government supported housing programmes at tribal level and in Indian reservations.
The death penalty did remain a sanction at the federal level and in several states but only for the most serious crimes, in accordance with the Covenant. Every effort was made to ensure that no innocent people were sentenced to death. Mechanisms were in place to ensure that convicted persons benefited from all guarantees for a fair trial and non-discrimination. High levels of procedural safeguards were in place to ensure that the death penalty was only imposed in the appropriate cases; and post-conviction reviews, including habeas corpus reviews, were also available. States had the obligation to provide appropriate reparations to wrongfully sentenced persons.
Responses by the Delegation
Concerning the scope of application of the Covenant, the delegation reiterated its position. At the time it became a Party to the Covenant, the Government had carefully evaluated whether it could implement its dispositions. None of the reservations were considered to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant. Furthermore, the withdrawal of reservations was not an easy or usual process in the United States. Considering the protection offered by the United States Constitution and laws, it was decided that the direct applicability of the Covenant at the domestic level was unnecessary. Although there was not a single national human rights institution in the United States, there were several mechanisms monitoring the protection of civil rights at different levels.
Before applying the death penalty, systematic procedures sought primarily to ensure that the punishment was fair and non-discriminatory. The overrepresentation of persons of African descent on the death row was of great concern for the United States and motivated the Government to grant greater attention to compliance to the principle of non-discrimination. The delegation indicated that a total of 100,000 dollars were awarded every year to victims of wrongful imprisonment. In Mississippi, some defence attorneys had spread misinformation regarding drugs used for lethal injections. The product in use was pentobarbital, which was commonly used in surgery, and it was wrong to claim that these products were sometimes outdated. The United States had no plans to become a party to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
On the issues of police brutality, Tasers and use of lethal force, the delegation underlined the belief that life mattered and was sacred. There were more than half a million police officers in the United States, and most of the time, people relied on their services without any problem related to race, sex, religion or sexual orientation. The United States trained its officers and constantly aimed at improving police services but, when problems did occur, accountability mechanisms were in place. Over the last five years, 246 police officers had been federally convicted for police misconduct. Several federal agencies worked to inform police departments anything that could violate rights enshrined in the United States Constitution. Tasers could indeed be dangerous or lethal and officers received training regarding their use. In the past five years, five police officers had been prosecuted for using their Tasers unnecessarily. Prosecution in the United States needed credible evidence and witnesses. Officers sometimes faced life-threatening situations and were compelled to use force, but the Department of Justice did not hesitate to conduct comprehensive and independent investigations on the use of lethal force and did not hesitate to prosecute when necessary.
Border patrol officers were subject to a strict set of rules and had to avoid placing themselves in situations where deadly force might be necessary. They were also required to avoid responding with lethal force attacks with objects such as rocks. Allegations of racial profiling were taken very seriously by the United States, a delegate said, and information was provided to prevent racial profiling and racial discrimination.
Regarding self-defence and stand-your-ground legislation, the delegation recalled that most laws in the United States were decided and implemented at the state level. The position of the Federal Government regarding stand-your-ground laws was clear: such laws had to be questioned as they could lead to discriminatory acts of violence or impunity.
The Obama administration had taken measures to bring common sense to bear on legislation on weapons and remained committed to enacting federal legislation to address abuses committed with small arms.
At the local level, the United States was undertaking efforts to address discrimination and inequality in education. The Federal Government continued its efforts to combat racial disparities and discrimination. The United States believed that children should not be sent away from school for minor offenses. Schools were not allowed to have policies that banned or discouraged students from attending schools based on their immigration status, in some cases, states provided financial aid regardless of immigration status.
In relation to undocumented migrants' access to basic services, such as healthcare, and with regards to concerns expressed about the law in Arizona that forced state officials to denounce undocumented migrants, the delegation indicated that the United States wanted to ensure that all people in the country had access to minimal care, including undocumented migrants. A directive stated that no child in the territory of the United States could be denied access to school, regardless of its immigration status.
Many of the questions asked about the United States overseas activities touched upon issues that did not fall within the scope of the Covenant but rather of international humanitarian law. The United States was in a armed conflict against Al-Qaeda and exercised its right to self-defence. All activities were conducted to protect the lives of the American people and military operations were regulated by provisions of United States' law, including drone strikes. The United States took allegations of civilian casualties very seriously, and investigations were systematically conducted. The United States did its utmost to avoid civilian casualties. All strikes had to respect the principles of international humanitarian law and to distinguish between civilians and combatants. It was not true, as some had claimed, that the United States considered in the context of certain operations that all men of fighting age were suspected fighters, the delegation assured.
The United States did not permit its officers to undergo acts of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, both inside and outside of American borders, and allegations of torture were investigated. In recent years, many American soldiers had been prosecuted for abuses or illegal conduct towards detainees, and those responsible for such acts incurred in criminal penalties, as well as criminal prosecution by court martial or federal court. Neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment required States Parties to undertake comprehensive legislation prohibiting torture as long as the right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment was effectively protected. Several states in the United States provided laws protecting citizens from torture.
The United States position was that the Covenant did not create non-refoulement obligations on States Parties. In accordance with its international obligations, the United States did not transfer individuals to countries where they might face risks of torture and this applied to Guantanamo detainees. Transfers of prisoners from Guantanamo to their countries of origin were undertaken in full compliance with the United States' international obligations and refoulement procedures. One of the Algerian prisoners had expressed the wish to be returned to Algeria, where authorities had offered him the right to appeal the conviction that had been imposed on him in absentia. At present, there were 154 detainees in Guantanamo.
Questions from the Experts
Regarding the extraterritorial applicability of the Covenant, Experts regretted that the delegation could not change the official position by the United States, but hoped that an evolution would eventually come. Committee Members were very concerned at the United States' unilateral interpretation of the Covenant. For example, it had continuously been the view of the Committee that non-refoulement was covered by the Covenant. What would happen if all States parties had their own interpretation in that regard?
What measures had been adopted to prevent corporal punishment in schools and minor detention facilities? A zero tolerance policy, regardless of the context and behaviour of the person, constituted a reactive policy. Prevention, however, was needed. Experts were alarmed by the high percentage of corporally punished inflicted on young African-Americans or young persons with disabilities. Were allegations of corporal punishment being investigated?
Experts also regretted the lack of a preventive focus against domestic violence; States had to take active steps towards prevention to address that issue. Experts were also concerned that victims of trafficking in persons were criminalized, and asked whether the United States would ensure federal level decriminalization for victims.
Experts reminded the delegation that international standards required that juvenile offenders were not treated as adults and that alternative penalties to imprisonment were preferable. Experts regretted the lack of a national requirement to separate juveniles from adults in detention facilities. Experts were also concerned that states did not comply with guarantees on that issue set up by the federal government. In some states, 16 and 17 year-olds were excluded from the juvenile justice system and brought to adult criminal courts. What steps were taken by the federal government to address this issue?
Experts regretted that the United States law did not recognize trade union rights for agricultural and domestic workers.
Was the United States Government concerned about the non-consensual use of psychiatric medication? What steps had been taken to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities in medical and psychiatric institutions? Experts recalled that the Special Rapporteur on torture had recently called for an absolute ban on non-consensual medication of persons with disabilities.
There were 80,000 prisoners currently detained in terrible conditions, including in solitary confinement, and also including pre-trial detainees. Solitary confinement had serious persistent psychological and physical side-effects, which could continue after release. In addition, solitary confinement was used disproportionately against people from minority backgrounds. Solitary confinement was clearly incompatible with the Covenant. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture had released a report on solitary confinement, describing minimum guarantees for detainees, stating that the use of solidarity confinement had to be only exceptional and limited and that instances of solitary confinement beyond 15 days amounted to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. What steps had the United States taken to restrict and regulate the use of solitary confinement, particularly for vulnerable persons?
Experts appreciated that prisoners in Guantanamo could now file petitions, but were deeply concerned about continued restrictions to prisoners' right to a fair trial and to a defence. In addition, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights considered that the continued detention of those prisoners, for whom transfer had been accepted, constituted a flagrant violation of human rights. Did a timeline exist for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison? Given that the majority of prisoners were of Yemeni origin, were there resettlement efforts in place? Did the accused ever had the opportunity to review and challenge the evidence presented against them by the United States Government? Was it true that a prisoner had continuously been on hunger strike for the last seven years?
In relation to deportation and mandatory detention of immigrants and asylum seekers, Experts were concerned about mandatory daily quotas. How could this practice be compliant with the Covenant? Experts welcomed the fact that aliens enjoyed the same rights than citizens regarding access to legal counsel and assistance during criminal cases, and asked whether this was also the case for civil or administrative procedures. Experts asked for further clarification on deportations in cases of minor crimes, which had negative impacts on families and children. Mandatory deportation to countries that faced grave humanitarian challenges, including resulting from natural disasters, was a further concern, an Expert said.
With regards to the interception of the content of electronic communications worldwide by its intelligence services, Experts wondered whether the United States considered that the rights to privacy and to freedom of expression enshrined in the Covenant applied to foreigners living outside of the American territory. Experts believed that such interpretation would indeed defeat the object and purpose of the Covenant.
Was the National Security Agency's surveillance proportional to the aims of achieving national security? Was the collection of telephone and metadata, in contradiction with of the rights of American citizens, necessary? Experts were also deeply concerned that the oversight on such practices seemed too poor.
Experts asked how the United States understood the concept of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples, particularly with regard to the protection of sacred sites.
In the past, the Committee had expressed the view that life without parole sentences could raise human rights concerns and ought to be used only in cases of exceptional gravity. The mandatory use of life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders or in cases where no murder had been committed did not seem to meet this standard.
Committee Members denounced an exaggerated use of censorship against students who supported the Palestinian cause or who criticized Israel.
Experts regretted the lack of paid maternity leave in the United States, which could be viewed as a problem in relation to the Covenant. Concerns were also raised regarding increasing restrictions on women's right to abortion in some states.
Experts sought clarification regarding the stand-your-ground laws and recalled that the normal rules regarding self-defence included the absolute necessity to use force, the use of minimum force, and the use of force that did not exceed the one the person was being threatened with.
Responses by the Delegation
The detainees in Guantanamo continued to be held in accordance with international and United States law. All current military proceedings in Guantanamo met or exceeded international fair-trial guarantees set forth by international humanitarian law, including the presumption of innocence and the prohibition of the use of torture. The closure of Guantanamo was a difficult and complex process, but the United States would continue its efforts towards that goal. Detainees received exceptional healthcare, exceeding the ones that United States officers received there. President Obama had recently lifted the moratorium on transfers of detainees to Yemen, and situations could now be examined on a case by case basis. Extradition was, in general, governed by bilateral or multilateral treaties, and did not fall within the scope of the Covenant and human rights law.
The United States had no desire to detain juveniles in the context of conflict. Preventive detentions were undertaken in order to prevent soldiers from returning to the battlefield, and were not more frequent or longer than absolutely necessary. In the domestic system, trying juveniles in adult courts remained extremely rare. When individuals were transferred to adult facilities, it was because of very specific and exceptional circumstances. Procedures and safeguards were in place to ensure that juvenile offenders were treated appropriately.
Life without parole sentences for adults were not considered an issue in the United States, and no recommendations had been made to Congress to change the existing situation.
With regards to free prior and informed consent of indigenous people, the delegation said that this was not a disposition of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, rather than the Covenant. The United States, however, regarded the situation of indigenous people very seriously. Consultation with Indian tribes did not always produce satisfactory results for them, as compromises often had to be made, but the United States attached great importance to these dialogues. The Government was restoring lands to Indian tribes, where they could exercise their self-government. Sacred sites were often outside of Indian lands, which was an issue. Extractive industries had the potential to cause great arm to such sites.
The federal law of the United States prohibited non-consensual medical treatment and allowed for the granting of medication without consent only in most extreme cases. The law provided flexibility for employers who wanted to provide for maternity leave.
The United States was committed to a smart and effective immigration system. The United States immigration laws provided authorities with the right to temporarily detain illegal immigrants. Mandatory detention for some categories of criminal or terrorist aliens provided for limited detention. Detention conditions were, safe, secure and human for all detainees.
The United States was committed to combating trafficking in persons through a victim-centered approach and granted specific immigration rights to victims of trafficking.
Before an individual could be placed in solitary confinement, all conditions of due process had to be guaranteed. There were limitations on the practice of solitary confinement, and individuals could only be placed as such if this was necessary to protect themselves or others.
Intelligence programmes respected the law of the United States and were transparent in many aspects. Intelligence data collection was only undertaken for valid purposes, and data collection did not intend to change or to challenge freedom of expression, and did not seek to discriminate on any ground. Oversight was in place at multiple levels, including in a variety of contexts, including from the Executive, Congress and the judiciary. Over the last years, the United States had conducted an extensive review of its intelligence practices. President Obama had demanded further safeguards to Congress.
The Supreme Court of Bolivia had sent the United States a new request for extradition of former Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, which will be duly considered.
The Department of Education was continuously defending freedom of expression in schools, which included the right to criticize Israel.
Follow-up questions from the Experts
Experts required further information regarding the detention practices on asylum seekers and the mandatory detention of aliens.
Expert asked whether, should Guantanamo be shut, this would mean that the United States would stop its continued detention practices.
Committee Members also raised concerns about the lack of national regulations regarding solitary confinement of juveniles.
Regarding life without parole sentences, Experts asked whether the department of justice was committed to reducing the length of sentences for non-violent drug offenses.
Did the United States intend to apologize to indigenous people and provide reparation for past events?
Responses by the Delegation
Regarding the detention of individuals seeking asylum, the delegation said that the Government, when addressing a demand for asylum, first established whether the individual had a credible fear to return to his/her home country, and if so, then proceeded to the release of the individual.
The United States always considered how to ensure that sentencing was appropriate. There were however no steps that would be taken to change existing legislation on life without parole sentences.
The delegation presented a variety of federal laws that provided for an effective protection against torture.
The United States would reserve its right to continue its detention activities for as long as it was engaged in armed conflict, in conformity with international and American law.
Juvenile offenders were always kept separated from adults.
The United States had already issued an apology to indigenous people, in 2000, for past crimes.
Concluding remarks
MARY McLEOD, Principal Deputy Legal Advisor, United States Department of State and Head of Delegation, expressed appreciation for the active participation of civil society organizations in the review process and looked forward to receiving the Committee's concluding observations.
Sir NIGEL RODLEY, Chairperson of the Committee, noted that this review had been held in a much more constructive manner than the previous review, which illustrated President Obama's will to enhance international cooperation in the field of human rights. The Committee had highly appreciated the expertise and diversity of the delegation. While the Committee had spent time pointing out challenges and areas of concern, it had to be noted that the United States was a place where laws and rights were respected. The United States' approach regarding the extraterritorial applicability of the Covenant, however, remained problematic and unclear. The provisions of the Covenant were rather clear on the fact that it applied to both people in the territory and people under the jurisdiction of the State Party, and this was the most common interpretation. It was worrying that the United States presented such an example to the international community. Mr. Rodley also referred to the indefinite detention practices, and the victims of torture left without redress. The Committee was reassured about the victim-centred approach to trafficking in persons. While alarmed by the idea of criminalizing homeless people, Mr. Rodley was reassured that housing services and assistance were provided.
For use of the information media; not an official record


text:
'Iron Man 3' will make you notice this phone, Alcatel hopes
All eyes will be on Alcatel's One Touch Idol in the upcoming 'Iron Man 3' movie, out May 3.
Marvel character and billionaire entrepreneur Tony Stark loves his tech toys, most notably the glowing chemical core embedded in his chest and his supercharged flying suit. But starting May 3, he may show a little love for the Alcatel One Touch Idol smartphone.
First seen at CES 2013, and soon to be seen in the film "Iron Man 3," the One Touch Idol is part of an exclusive mobile phone partnership for the film.
Alcatel and Marvel aren't sharing how often Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey Jr., and other characters will hold the phone, or how much spotlight it'll receive among the blasting rocket packs, exploding bombs, and whizzing futuristic computing devices that make their home in the FX-heavy "Iron Man" franchise. However, based on this preview, it could be quite a few.
This also isn't the first time Iron Man's Stark has flashed his smartphone. In "Iron Man 2," the megamogul-turned-super hero also sports a transparent LG concept phone.
Not to be confused with its close kin, the Idol Ultra, Alcatel's One Touch Idol is a light, thin 4.7-inch Android phone with a 1GHz dual-core processor and an 8-megapixel rear-facing camera. Compared to the competition, it's now more of a midrange device when it comes to features, and we're still not sure exactly when it will come to the U.S. (apart from "later this year"), on which carrier, and for how much.
Those details aren't stopping Alcatel from pumping up the phone. The company, just a three-year-old entrant in the U.S. mobile market, is offering fans a chance to win a trip to the "Iron Man" premiere in Hollywood on April 24.


text:
Over on Meta: A wishlist for Mathematica
I got an interesting comment on the following suggestion and thought it merited a stand alone question:
re: NOTEBOOK INTERFACE USABILITY & ORGANIZATION
Dock palettes -- When I use palettes, I'd love the ability to just stick them on to the side of a notebook window so I don't have to keep searching for them.
This may be able to be done using docked cells. @rcollyer
See: DockedCells in the documentation.
I recognize that Wolfram builds palettes as notebooks and I can imagine that one could create a custom palette whose cells one could dock at the top of another notebook (this would work great if one could split a notebook into panes and scroll through them separately so one always had access to the palette). Just not certain I see a clear way to do this with a supplied palette.
So, does anyone know how to dock a palette to a notebook (or any reasonably functional equivalent)?


text:
Our vision
To achieve a profitable and sustainable business, by positioning our company among the best managed airport operators of comparable size, leveraging our relationship with customers and stakeholders.
Our mission
To efficiently manage our airport infrastructures and to contribute toward the economic, social and cultural development of the surrounding communities.
To provide our customers with a world-class service offering, while enthusing our shareholder and motivating our people.
Our values
Customer Satisfaction
We are fully focused on understanding our customers' needs and fulfilling them flawlessly. Integrity We honour our commitments with customers, communities, shareholders and stakeholders, in a professional and respectful manner. Innovation We continually strive to improve our performance, encouraging an open-minded and creative approach to management.
Team Spirit
We aim to learn, communicate, and share ideas and resources, prizing individual work as a crucial part of the whole organization.
We support all opportunities for the professional and personal growth of our team.
We are committed to meeting ambitious targets.


text:
"It was a brief lightning bolt of music that lasted six months, tops, and then it was gone," says Pearl Jam guitarist Mike McCready of Mad Season, the mid-'90s band he formed with Alice In Chains singer Layne Staley, Screaming Trees drummer Barrett Martin and bassist John Baker Saunders. "We did a lot of stuff in that short period of time. Luckily, most of it was documented."
There were a tight handful of Mad Season shows, such as those at Seattle's Moore Theatre and that city's famed (and now-defunct) RKCNDY nightclub, but most notably, there was the band's sole full-length disc, 1995's Above, an engrossing collection of moody, blues-and-jam-oriented songs that yielded the radio hit River Of Deceit.
Following the release of Above, McCready and Staley returned to their full-time bands, and while there was some talk of Mad Season reconvening, the deaths of both Saunders (in 1999) and Staley (three years later) effectively put an end to the band. Recently, Above received the deluxe reissue treatment, with the package including a DVD of both the Moore Theatre and RKCNDY gigs, along with three long-dormant, previously unreleased tracks that Screaming Trees singer Mark Lanegan wrote lyrics for and has now put vocals to. Also included in the set is Mad Season's version of John Lennon's I Don't Wanna Be A Soldier that the original band recorded for the 1995 John Lennon tribute album, Working Class Hero.
McCready recently sat down with MusicRadar to talk about the reissue of Above, how the band formed and functioned, and his recollections of both Layne Staley and John Baker Saunders.
Artists don't usually listen to their own albums a lot. Had you listened to Above much, or at all, since it came out?
"I listened to it all the way through probably two times in the 16 years since it came out. I have heard River Of Deceit on the radio since then. But I haven't listened to the album because, for me, it's very sad. Baker and Layne both died, so there's a sadness that hangs over the entire record; I wasn't willing to live that again. Those couple of times I did listen to it, it was tough.
"When I went back and heard it again, it was freeing and sad. I cried and laughed and felt proud. I felt a real mixture of emotions that'd I'd never had with any other music I'd done, because two of the guys passed away, and I miss them."
So, obviously, working on this reissue was very bittersweet.
"It's kind of bittersweet, yeah. It's bittersweet talking about it - I wish that they could be here talking about it, too. I'd like to see what they'd be like now, when they weren't as young as they were 16, 20 years ago, whenever we made the record. But in terms of the music and getting it together, that was kind of the cool part.
"While bittersweet, there was also a feeling of closure, because we sort of put out everything we did. That was a big deal. To be able to do two DVDs from two shows, one at the Moore Theatre and one that I forgot we even had, at the RKCNDY, was pretty cool. It was good to just say, 'This is what we did in a short period of time. We were a quick flash, and then we were gone.' But it re-flashed with Mark Lanegan singing on a few songs."
Mark is a very different singer from Layne, but he fits with the music. I understand that you wanted him to sing these songs for quite a while. What took so long?
[Laughs] "That's a good question. I'm just grateful that he did it. I had approached him over the years, you know, 'Hey, man, would you be interested in listening to these songs and singing over them?' Mark was kind of the true right guy for it. In my mind, I couldn't think of anybody else. I know a lot of great singers and have luckily been able to work with Eddie [Vedder], Chris [Cornell], Layne and Star Anna, all of these great singers from Seattle, but Mark… he just wanted to do it now.
"The timing was never right before - I was on tour, Mark was on tour; he's got his solo thing and doesn't live here anymore. Maybe it just struck him as something he didn't want to do. And I didn't want to keep bugging him about it; if I'm working with somebody, I want them to be as excited about something as I am. You can't just go, 'Be excited about it.' [Laughs] And I think he was. Barrett approached him, and you know, they're very close - they'd played in The Screaming Trees together. Mark trusts Barrett's intuition on a lot of things, and I do, too. I think Barrett came to him in a cool way, and then Mark put those ideas down."
On Mad Season's formation, McCready (right) recalls, "I was like, 'I've got these guys. Let's try to do something. Let's just see what it is."
Help me with the chronology of how Mad Season came together. Were you talking to Layne first, or did it start when you met John?
"I was in rehab in Minneapolis in 1994, and I saw this kind of crusty old guy pull up to the place. He drove a Dodge Dart, and it had a bumper sticker that read, 'What We Have Here Is A Failure To Give A Shit.' [Laughs] I just thought, 'This guy is awesome. I've got to meet him.'
"A couple of days passed, and we're doing whatever it was that we were doing, and then I heard Bob Dylan playing from this one room. I thought, 'Well, that's interesting,' because we weren't supposed to play music. I went in the room and said, 'Oh, cool.' And it was Baker. He and I started talking about Bob Dylan. We struck up a friendship, and when we got out, he was living in Minneapolis, and I just wanted to stay there for a while and not go back to Seattle.
"When it was time to come back, it was right around the time that we had to find a new drummer - that's a whole other story - and I just said to Baker, 'Hey, do you want to come back with me?' I don't think he had anywhere to go in Minneapolis, so I just moved him here. I had met him first, but I had called Layne from Minneapolis. He was receptive. When I got back, Layne was off the road, and Pearl Jam was off the road; there was Barrett from The Screaming Trees - I had always wanted to work with him because he's a fantastic drummer - and I was like, 'I've got these guys. Let's try to do something. Let's just see what it is. Let's jam and maybe do a record.' It was more of a jam thing at first."
So you and Layne hadn't talked about doing something prior to this; it definitely started with John.
"It started with John Baker Saunders, and I appreciate you bringing that up. He doesn't get talked about a lot in the history of Mad Season. It was pretty awesome when he moved to Seattle. He fit right into the scene here; he had a cynicism and dark side that worked with all of the Seattle guys. Jeff Ament was very nice to him and let him borrow a bass for a few things. Just recently, he gave me the bass that he borrowed, and I was very touched by that.
"Everybody sort of gravitated towards Baker. He was a real honest, really cool bluesman. I think that Layne felt that - the honesty and the realness - and so did Barrett. When we first got together to jam, it was a free-form, fun thing; there wasn't any pressure, like, 'This isn't my band, Pearl Jam.' I didn't have all of the insecurities that went along with that. Running back to that time, I definitely needed something to help me gain confidence in my songwriting. Mad Season was kind of the vehicle for that."
That's interesting. I've never heard you talk about that before.
"Well, I was in a band with some very prolific songwriters, guys who know what they want and know how to get it. I was not that way - back then. I've completely changed, of course, but for the first three records, I didn't really write anything on them. After Mad Season, I started writing my own music for Pearl Jam and brought it in. Given To Fly came out of that, and so did Faithful - those were on Yield, which came after Mad Season. I can draw a direct lineage in my confidence growth after we did that record. Mad Season changed my life in a million different ways."
So you were looking to boost your confidence as a songwriter. What about Layne? Did he ever tell you what he was looking for in Mad Season?
"That's a good question. I don't know. I can only interpret his lyrics and what I think they mean to me. I think they're him searching for a way… [sighs] to get out of the spiral he was in. Or documenting it - documenting the pain and the suffering he was feeling, knowing that he couldn't get out of it, the horror that goes along with it. But he's also being very honest about it; he's dealing with some very heavy stuff - some addictions, his girlfriend dying and things like that. It's very intense and artistic, how he did that. Wow… It's almost too heavy to think about at times.
"I think that he might have just felt like it was a good break from his band, as it was for me from my band, and as it was for Barrett. He might have felt as though there was more freedom in this. This was a jam. Baker brought this blues element to it that he hadn't had before; we were all heavier and more 'rock.' This was a new experiment: We were using cellos and vibes, Baker was a new element, and I was the only guitar player, but I think Layne was used to that with Jerry. Although I wasn't used to that; I was only used to two guitar players, sometimes three! It was very freeing thing."
River Of Deceit has an opening guitar figure - and tone, as well - that's very reminiscent of Pearl Jam. Were you maybe working on it for that band, but it wound up with Mad Season?
"It's hard to remember, but I think I so, yes. I think I had that part kind of hanging out. I definitely had the verse part. [Sings the verse guitar riff.] That part I had. I might have done the intro while we were doing Mad Season - it's hard to remember. But I definitely had chords like that going on, but I didn't really do anything with them until I was in the room with those guys. I was unafraid to go somewhere with it, whereas I might have felt that way with Pearl Jam at that time."
The riff for Lifeless Dead is a monster. Where did that come from?
[Laughs] "Thanks. I was way into Jimmy Page at that time, so I was trying to write a riff-type thing in the vein of that. The intro was maybe more Pink Floyd, but I did use the Gibson doubleneck SG, so the vibe is very Pagey - I think. That's what I was listening to back then."
What time signature is that song in?
"You are asking the wrong guy. I don't know! [Laughs] I'd have to ask Barrett - he would know."
The turnarounds in the guitar phrase are so unexpected. When I listen to it, I think, "He's going to miss that one note."
"That's Barrett and me. He's counting it out and playing in a certain way that makes it go like that. On my side, it's pure feel; I couldn't count it out like he does."
Who brought up the idea of doing John Lennon's I Don't Wanna Be A Soldier?
"That was me. We were approached by Hollywood Records, and I think it was John Dee, who is Mark Lanegan's manager now, who asked us to do a song for a John Lennon tribute record. It was a fat check, too, so we were like, 'Sure!' [Laughs] That helped pay for most of the Mad Season record. I can't remember where the idea of the song itself came from, but I always thought it was cool. Those guys gravitated towards it. Layne did a great job on that."
The band did some shows, but how and when did it all come to an end? Were you indeed looking to do another album?
"It's kind of blurry. It was mid-'94 to '95, or mid-'95 to '96, and we all went back on the road. Pearl Jam did the Yield record, and we got a new drummer, Jack Irons, at that time. I went back into that world, which was all encompassing. Barrett went back into the Trees. Layne was struggling, but his band went in to do their last record with him. I'd say the band ended right around the New Year's Eve show we did at RKCNDY.
"I haven't watched the live shows all the way through, but I want to watch the RKCNDY one again, because that's when Layne was feeling really good. I remember it as being a good example of us firing on all cylinders."


text:
The first year of New York City's Expanded Success Initiative (ESI), which is designed to boost college and career readiness among Black and Latino male students, has led to a notable expansion of supports in participating schools, according to a new study by the Research Alliance for New York City Schools.
The study's authors examined 38 of 40 schools where New York City's Department of Education (DOE) is implementing the initiative. They concluded that "while participating schools and the DOE's ESI team both encountered challenges, there are many encouraging signs from our fieldwork. It is clear that schools have made a number of important changes that hold promise for improving college readiness among Black and Latino young men."
The report by the Research Alliance, housed at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, follows the announcement of the White House's "My Brother's Keeper" initiative, which is aimed at bolstering opportunities for boys and young men of color.
The study's authors, led by Adriana Villavicencio, say that while "it is too soon to know if ESI is having an impact on student outcomes," the report can "help ESI schools and the NYC Department of Education as they refine programming and district-level support through the remainder of the initiative."
"More broadly," they add, "these early implementation findings and recommendations can inform efforts in other schools and districts working to better engage young men of color."
Based on more than 100 interviews with educators in ESI schools, the report found:
- A substantial expansion of college supports, not only in terms of adding programs, but also in terms of shifting the school culture to be more explicitly college focused, beginning in the 9th grade;
- The raising of academic standards and benchmarks and an increase in opportunities for students to take more rigorous coursework; and
- Improvements in relationships between students and their peers as well as between students and teachers.
The researchers also found that the DOE provided an array of resources, including funding, workshops, planning meetings, and information about potential partners, to help schools expand or develop programs as part of the initiative. However, "some schools raised concerns about delays in funding, which largely stemmed from having to revise and resubmit their work plans. Others expressed dissatisfaction over not being able to work with existing external partners who were not on the approved vendor list."
The report makes a number of recommendations for schools and the district about how ESI might be strengthened and enriched in subsequent years. These include: rethinking the process for approving vendors, focusing on the cohesiveness of programs within schools, and structuring more time for ESI principals to learn from one another.
In 2011, the New York City Mayor's Office, in partnership with the Campaign for Black Male Achievement of the Open Society Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies, began the Young Men's Initiative (YMI), a city-wide effort to improve outcomes for Black and Latino young men in the areas of education, health, employment, and criminal justice. YMI's core education component—ESI—is a "research and development" effort designed to meet two related goals: increase college and career readiness among Black and Latino male students in participating schools, and identify and disseminate effective strategies that might be replicated in other NYC schools and possibly other districts.
Data for the report were gathered beginning in the summer prior to the 2012-2013 school year, but primarily entailed visits to 38 ESI schools in the spring of 2013. Two of the 40 ESI schools were not included in the analysis because they were relocated or closed for a length of time due to Hurricane Sandy. The Research Alliance's evaluation of ESI will continue through 2016, examining the initiative's ongoing implementation in all 40 schools, as well as its impact on a range of student outcomes.
The report, "Promising Opportunities for Black and Latino Young Men," may be downloaded here.
Housed at New York University's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, the Research Alliance for New York City Schools conducts studies on topics that matter to the city's public schools. It strives to advance equity and excellence in education by providing nonpartisan evidence about policies and practices that promote students' development and academic success. For more information, please visit http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/research_alliance/.


text:
End of a Short Road?
I've been having so much fun lately that I may have missed something but let me ask, have we already reached the end of the customer experience trend? I think CX still has a lot of life in it but let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
CX is a nebulous term and idea and its discussion leads to all kinds of confusion about its meaning. Is CX about how the customer uses or engages with your product? Is it about the idea of turning your product or service into an experience? Is it more holistic and if so what's that all about?
First off, some threads of CX are not new. For instance Joe Pine was talking and writing about it in the last century (1999, lol!) in his excellent book, "The Experience Economy." Pine — and co-author Jim Gilmore — have been building on that idea all these years and they've added new insights to the original idea.
Basically though, they thought of CX almost like you'd think about a maturation process. Things go from commodity raw materials, to branded products to services to (hopefully) experiences. The classic example is coffee beans that traverse a path from bulk beans to roasted and ground product to service at a counter to experience at a hip coffee shop that gets five bucks for a cup and offers good sounds and lighting. But I've written about this before and you know it almost intuitively.
Another school of thought obsesses over the user interface, the store, or whatever is central to the moment of the purchase. That's a more narrow definition and one that's taking the original idea down its own trajectory to the moment of transaction.
So here's why I can make the case that CX is over (though in my heart I don't believe it fully). I prefer a different interpretation of the time we live in and the importance of how we reach out to customers via what passes for some kind of experience. Since no single definition suffices for me, let me just say that I'd rather we talked about Geoffrey Moore's idea of whole product rather than messing around with trying to figure out what an experience is.
Experience is ethereal and philosophical while whole product is much more concrete. Whole product is CX and a bit more because it explicitly incorporates the notion of an end-to-end process that even the best definitions of CX only allude to. Philosophical CX may be more CRM while concrete CX is all about business process management (BPM). In mature markets, which we seem to have an abundance of these days, customers buy whole product, which typically includes the core thingie plus the policies, practices and other seemingly extraneous attributes that the company brings to the customer relationship.
We could argue that a low priced but more than adequate product that comes with no obvious policies and practices bucks this trend. Ah, but the low priced and adequate product has been engineered to be so intuitive that it doesn't need those things and so they are there even if absent.
A couple of decades ago you might have bought a wireless phone for the convenience of being able to make calls from anywhere. All phones and services were about the same and we made purchase decisions based on simple attributes like flip phone style vs. candy bar shape. That was about it, you might have selected a service based on strength of signal or bars but the vendors did a pretty good job of never letting a rival get too far ahead by merging aggressively.
Ok, then things got complicated first by BlackBerry and then by Apple. RIM gave us a big screen and keypad for email while Apple gave us a true mobile lifestyle that, more than providing communication, freed us from lugging around laptops. When that happened the market went into mature phase and suddenly attributes that Apple was only mid-wife for became part of the whole product — I am talking about the ecosystem of affiliated applications — and if you didn't have an ecosystem, you weren't a contender. Add in the Apple Store near you with its Genius Bar and well staffed call center and the build out of the CX was complete. Today vendors compete on ecosystems and stores.
So the mobile communications market is a great example of CX reduction and as you can see it more resembles the Pine and Gilmore idea of an experience than the how-can-we-make-buying-our-stuff-even-easier school of thought. The latter seems a pale imitation of the real McCoy to me.
So, to round it out, is CX over? Have we gotten so enamored of it as a tool for "accelerating sales" (I love the naiveté of that phrase) that it has lost its punch? Or have we forgotten the importance of what it means? If we approach CX as an accelerator rather than as the way we need to do business in an era of mature markets where people need to be attended to, then maybe. But savvy companies seeking ways to keep from sliding back down the curve to commodity status will see plenty of life in the idea of CX even though it has too many meanings. Better, I think, to call it what it is, whole product orientation.


text:
Recently, a lot of clients have felt that they need to be on Twitter, and so have signed up, tweeted a bit and followed a few people. The question that seems to follow is: "Whats next?"
There seems to be the feeling that, especially at the start, without many followers you are talking to no one, and have no one listening. In discussing this, I hope some of these points help you get the most out of Twitter.
Create, Curate, Comment
Create content
You've probably heard that content is king. Well it's true. Good content will always find readers. So spend time to generate great content. Now Twitter can be tricky to get your point across in just 140 characters, so if you don't already have one, setting up a blog should be the next thing to do. It allows you to go into a bit more detail and elaborate on your points.
Then, by tweeting out the link, your followers may want to retweet (publish your tweet to their followers) or promote it themselves.
Curate content
Now, generating posts like that takes time, so not every tweet will like that, so follow your peers, and follow industry leaders and link to their posts.
You may be initially sceptical about this, but becoming a curator, and reposting other peoples good content makes you a valuable person to follow. If you constantly talk and link to interesting stuff, people will want to listen.
Comment, join in on the conversation
One of the fantastic things about Twitter is its instant, real-time feedback so if people are asking questions, or looking for an opinion on something, converse with them. Firstly, they'll notice who you are (if they don't currently follow you) and if your opinion is a good one, you'll be known as someone with a decent opinion.
- Have a voice, have an opinion and people will want to listen to you
- Create, curate and comment
- Tweet predictably and with rhythm. Try not to be quiet for a few days and then tweet 10 times a minute
Tips and Tricks
- Use a URL shortening service (like bit.ly) to keep track of how many people click your links
- Add 'tweet this' and 'follow' buttons to your site, to allow others to promote your content


text:
Operations Improvement Committee
The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science (SC)—the lead federal agency supporting fundamental scientific research for energy and the Nation's largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences—has two principal thrusts: direct support of scientific research and direct support of the development, construction, and operation of unique, open-access scientific user facilities, housed at its 10 Office of Science national laboratories.
The SC's Operations Improvement Committee (OIC), a collaboration of the 10 science laboratories, is charged with enhancing the science research mission through efficient and effective operations. The OIC will take advantage of its collective strength to achieve streamlined operations and to reinvest the savings into research. OIC working groups, launched in 2012, will focus their efforts on operational efficiencies in four key areas: acquisitions optimization, human capital, infrastructure/mission readiness, and information technology.
Acquisition Optimization Working Group
The 10 SC laboratories are projected to spend almost two billion dollars on purchased goods and services during fiscal year 2012. Spending this money wisely and efficiently is the responsibility of a group of highly trained and dedicated procurement professionals across all 10 labs and within the Department. OIC's Acquisition Optimization Working Group enables these professionals to focus their collective knowledge to identify, explore, and implement improvements in this critical business area.
Human Capital Working Group
The SC laboratories boast one of the most educated, accomplished, and unique workforces assembled anywhere in the world – our mission demands nothing less. Recruiting, training, and retaining a workforce of more than 25,000 professionals requires a significant investment. The Human Capital Working Group identifies ways to deliver this mission-critical workforce in the most cost-efficient way possible.
Infrastructure/Mission Readiness Working Group
Attracting world-class scientists to conduct world-class research demands world-class facilities. The OIC's Infrastructure/Mission Readiness Working Group, comprising facilities management professionals from across the complex, is exploring strategies to provide the modern laboratory infrastructure needed to deliver the advances in science our Nation requires to remain competitive in the 21st century.
Information Technology Working Group
From science, to finance, to communications, every laboratory depends on information technology for performing world-class science and excellence in operations. The OIC's Information Technology Working Group, comprised of the Science Laboratory CIO's, works together to share best practices, and stays abreast of the latest technologies and strategies that will result in more effective and efficient science and operations.


text:
What type of equipment can I connect to my product?
You can connect the projector to a computer with a USB, VGA cable, or HDMI.
You can connect the projector to video equipment that support composite video, S-Video, component video, RGB video, and HDMI connections.
To use a component video connection, you'll need a component-to-VGA cable to connect to the projector's Computer1 or Computer2 port. You can purchase a component-to-VGA cable from the Epson Store.
You can also connect the projector to a digital camera, camera phone, USB flash drive, USB hard drive, USB memory card reader, or multimedia storage viewer. Then you can use the projector's Slide show function to display images.
Related references
Connecting to Computer Sources
Connecting to Video Sources
Connecting to External USB Devices
Projecting a Slide Show
Published: Feb 3, 2012
Was this helpful? Thank you for the feedback!


text:
Putting Things in Perspective
I've discovered a way to bring a new perspective to your life.
To explain it, I have to tell a little story.
Driving home Friday night, I was remembering a time years ago, when my daughter Lauren (now six years old) was in her first year. An old friend of mine was coming to town, and we went with my wife to see a Glen Phillips solo acoustic concert down near San Diego.
We were very excited to see the show. But for some reason, we couldn't get a babysitter. So we decided to take Lauren. Since it was just an acoustic show, we hoped that she'd sleep peacefully on my lap. If, during the show, she got upset, I would take her out to the car. Thereafter, my wife and I would take turns watching her in the car.
Lauren was asleep when the concert began — but she awoke, crying, five seconds into the first song. It was louder than we had thought it would be. I hurriedly took her to the car, which was parked on the street about half a block away.
Once I had her out there, I never brought her back inside the club. Although part of me wanted to be back inside watching the concert, I was also having fun being with my daughter — at times talking to her when she was awake, and at times watching her sleep. Plus, I wanted to let my wife see the whole concert. I figured there was no reason to interrupt her enjoyment if I was having a perfectly good time.
It wasn't so much that I preferred to be with my daughter than to watch a concert. I just didn't mind staying out with her in the car.
Thinking about this the other night, I asked myself: Patrick, if you could go back to that night, right now, and either stay out in the car with Lauren, or be inside and watch the concert — which would you do?
And of course the answer was obvious.
The night it happened, I didn't mind being in the car with my daughter. But if I could go back now, there's no question that I would want to be there.
Not only would I stay in the car with her — I would make the most of the experience, realizing that I had a precious chance to see her at that age again. I would try to commit every moment to memory.
And then I realized: some day, years in the future, I might be asking the same question about my life today — this very minute. If you could have this moment back to live over again, what would you do?
The rest of that evening, I pictured myself as having been sent into my body from the future, to relive the moments I was experiencing. And I saw everything differently. I sat on the couch and watched television with my arm around my wife — all the while imagining myself as an old man, transported back in time to relive that moment. And all of a sudden, what otherwise might have seemed like a mundane moment seemed like a privilege. I felt like the luckiest guy in the world, just sitting there with my wife.
I've tried the trick all weekend, and it really changes your outlook. Just sitting around with a sleepy child in your arms is great any way you look at it. But if you picture yourself as someone whose child has grown up — if you imagine yourself as an older man, who would give the world to be back in that chair with that child in his arms — it makes you realize how important the moment is. And you appreciate it more.
Like any epiphany, I know that this will pass, to be remembered only from time to time. I hope I remember it often, when routine is wearing on me.
But there are times I actively need to forget it, because this outlook promotes a sort of hedonism. For example, right now, I need to clean the house — but that's not really what I would choose to do if I were sent here from the future.
Oh, well. I'm going to clean up anyway. I think the guy from the future would understand — sometimes, you just gotta do what you gotta do. I can hear my future self in my head right now. He says to make a nice cup of coffee and put on some music while I do it, and take some breaks to play with the kids. Enjoy the chores as well as the easy and fun moments, I hear him saying. Some day, you'll miss even the chores. Some day, you'll miss almost everything about your life the way it is right now.