text:
SOMERSET, N.J. (RNS) David Gibson — Centuries ago, Roman Catholics helped kick-start the market for religious articles with their insatiable demand for rosaries, icons, prayer cards and all manner of devotional objects and spiritual souvenirs.
But in recent decades, evangelical Protestants have dominated the art of religious retailing, building a national network of bookstores and stamping the Christian message on almost any item that an American consumer might want, from perfume to golf balls to flip-flops.
Now, Catholic entrepreneurs are looking to catch up, and at the 17th annual Catholic Marketing Network trade show last week (Aug. 6-9) there was a sense that the Catholic sector has a new opportunity to expand — if businesses can update their approach and broaden their inventory beyond the usual catalog of sacred objects.
"If you are a Catholic gift and bookstore and you are not willing to reinvent yourself, you are going to be out of business," said Alan Napleton, president of the network, which organizes the convention.
"God doesn't seem to suspend the laws of economics just because we're Catholic," he added with a laugh.
The potential for success is there, Napleton said, mainly because Catholics have been so far behind the retail curve that there is a large untapped customer base — more than 60 million Catholics in the U.S. alone. Moreover, he said, a growing number of churches are willing to host bookstores, which helps business.
Also contributing to the sense of hope is the enormous enthusiasm generated across the Catholic world by the election of Pope Francis in March. "He's a hard guy not to love," said Napleton, "and that will drive people into the churches — and the bookstores."
Still, success will require hard work. Book, music and video sales remain the backbone of the Catholic retail business, but customers increasingly look for those items in many other venues, a phenomenon that is also proving to be a mortal threat to brick-and-mortar chains like Barnes & Noble.
The challenges facing religious retailers are most evident in the multibillion-dollar evangelical marketplace, which dwarfs the Catholic market. In the 1990s, members of the CBA — which started in 1950 as the Christian Booksellers Association — rapidly expanded their network of stores just as the Internet started to shift retail's center of gravity to the Web.
In addition, big-box retailers like Wal-Mart and Costco spotted the tremendous growth in the Christian market and started carrying traditional Christian titles and items, and at lower prices. Then the recession hit, delivering a blow from which the CBA is still struggling to recover.
At the International Christian Retail Show in June, for example, attendance was down to 3,700 from a high of 15,000 in 1999. While sales were reportedly up from previous years, a growing number of stores had closed.
Many small Catholic businesses, on the other hand, may have benefited from both a lower profile and lower overhead. The 100 or so distributors, retailers and publishers at this year's trade show seemed ready to exploit those advantages.
There was also a clear effort and willingness to move beyond viewing Catholic merchandise as purely devotional and instead to offer items that piggyback on the consumer culture in order to project the Catholic brand.
Hence the proliferation of Catholic-themed children's games, license plate frames, coffee mugs, papal key chains and a host of other products that were higher on whimsy than tradition — a bit of "Catholic kitsch," perhaps, to answer the "Jesus junk" that some use to describe many CBA items.
"I think you can only sell so many statues and rosaries and books," said Bruce Blake, who with his wife and son have produced Catholic car decals out of their Minneapolis home since 2006. "Vehicle Decals for Roamin' Catholics" is the motto of their company, CatholiCar.
Increasingly, Blake said, when retailers see their products, "they love them. It's something new."
Joe Klinker, who started a company called Tiny Saints, also represents the new Catholic marketer. A Coast Guard lieutenant, Klinker has an artistic side and when his daughter was stillborn in 2011 and he struggled to explain heaven to his other children, he started drawing saints that look like their toys.
A light went off, and the result was a series of clip-on charms and bracelets that Klinker and his brother began marketing out of his home in February. He expanded quickly from 20 characters to 54 — including, of course, a Pope Francis figure, even though the pontiff isn't a saint, at least not yet.
"The Internet opens up a whole world of possibilities," said Klinker in between chats with potential distributors. "A knucklehead like myself, if I had this idea 15 years ago, I never would have made it happen. Now there's no excuse not to capitalize on the gifts God gives us."
While booksellers and icon suppliers dominated the floor space — "A lot of people are still looking for traditional statues," insisted Giovanni Pierinelli of the Santa Teresita Statuary Co. — even familiar items came in new packaging.
There was a booth, for instance, for the Real Men Pray the Rosary ministry, which sells everyday products with bold graphics to promote the traditional Catholic devotion. "Rosaries aren't just for old ladies and funerals," said the ministry's Victoria Calvillo. "We use strong images and strong colors because there is strength behind it."
Edward Leonard of the Tennessee-based distributor Spiritus echoed that approach. "We look at things that have a broad appeal for a wide range of customers," Leonard said.
Spiritus has been instrumental in developing Christian (and specifically Catholic) products from toy makers like Playmobil and Melissa & Doug, and the Spiritus booth had a Jesus action figure as well as a Vocation Doll. "Certain stores embrace it right away," Leonard said of the new products. "Others have to see it to get the 'wow' factor."
The folks at Nelson Fine Arts & Gifts get it. The Steubenville, Ohio-based company, though it has just 20 employees, is one of the largest Catholic gift suppliers in the country. While they specialized in classic framed art when they began in 1994, they are quick to spot a new opportunity — which is what they saw with the election of Pope Francis in March.
"All we did for a week was cut and frame pope products. It was unreal," said Mike Nelson as he stood next to a life-size cutout of Francis, one of a host of pope-inspired products they offer, in addition to a range of Catholic apparel and other tchotchkes.
"They're really a lot of fun in a parish setting or for youth groups," Nelson said of the cardboard pope. "People love to line up and take their picture with it."
David Gibson is an award-winning religion journalist, author and filmmaker. He is a national reporter for RNS and has written two books on Catholic topics, the latest a biography of Pope Benedict XVI.
Mike Nelson, left, of Nelson Fine Art & Gifts shows retailers the new "Mary, Undoer of Knots" product line at the 17th annual trade show of the Catholic Marketing Network last week (Aug. 6-9) in Somerset, N.J. RNS photo by David Gibson. A selection of bumper decals from the "CatholiCar" company at the 17th annual trade show of the Catholic Marketing Network last week (Aug. 6-9) in Somerset, N.J. RNS photo by David Gibson. | Books are at the heart of Catholic retailing, and ones like these about Pope Francis could boost sales in that sector at the 17th annual trade show of the Catholic Marketing Network last week (Aug. 6-9) in Somerset, N.J. RNS photo by David Gibson. Giovanni Pierinelli of the Santa Teresita Statuary Co. checks on his Baby Jesus inventory at the 17th annual trade show of the Catholic Marketing Network last week (Aug. 6-9) in Somerset, N.J. RNS photo by David Gibson. |


text:
This has been a rough and busy year for our family and come Christmas, we will have a house full, so we are taking all the quite time we can get.
Our Thanksgiving table this year is very simple.
I am using my new Gibson dish set that I bought a while back and had not used yet.
I love the warm colors on these plates. Perfect for Fall.
Finished off the table with a Fall centerpiece and candles.
Fall napkin rings
My Cristal d' Arques glasses with gold trim
I love this little ceramic pumpkins in different colors to dress up each place setting
I sincerely wish that you all have a very Happy Thanksgiving Day.
Thank you for coming by!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Posted by Editoress on 01/29/11
Day 1 report from St. Wendel, Germany
Our coverage made possible with the support of Shimano
Junior Men (part one)
Junior Men (part two)
U23 Men (part one)
U23 Men (part two)
Day One of the 2011 Cyclo-cross World Championships saw the French and Dutch dominate, with the French sweeping the Junior men's podium and the Dutch finishing 1-2 in the Under Men's race. Perennial favourite Belgium could only manage a fifth and two sixth places for the day. Canada's top finisher in the Junior race was Yohan Patry of St-Jérome, Quebec, in 35th place, four minutes and 22 seconds behind winner Clément Venturini. Karl Hoppner of Carp, Ontario was 41st and Benjamin Perry of St Catherines, Ontario was 54th. Canada had no starters in Under-23 event.
After a cold night froze the course, the sun in a cloudless sky began to melt the top layer of the ground, turning the climbs and descents into treacherous, slippery sections. The short off-camber climb after the barricades became so slippery that some riders were reduced to crawling up it on their hands and knees, and others slid back down the hill and through the fencing. Junior winner Venturini, in his last lap, crashed badly getting tangled in the fencing and losing much of his lead.
Junior Men
In the 40 minute Junior race, a small group opened up a gap on the first lap, including Venturini, Vojtech Nipl (Czech Republic), Fabian Lienhard (Switzerland), Diether Sweeck (Belgium) and Laurens Sweeck (Belgium). Canada's national champion Ben Perry dropped his chain twice and crashed, putting him well back. By the third lap, it was down to Venturini and Sweeck at the front, and a lap later Venturini was away on his own for good.
Behind, the Doubey twins, Fabien and Loic, were gradually dropping all other chasers and, going into the final lap, sat 24 seconds behind Venturini, with Czech rider Jakub Skala a further 20 seconds back. Venturini looked to have it locked up until his crash, which saw him frantically trying to tear his bike out of the web fencing. Luckily, he was able to do so and get going some 12 seconds ahead of his team mates.
Patry moved up steadily during the seven lap event, after starting in the last row. "I didn't go out too hard at the beginning," explained Patry. "I knew that I would have to pace myself, and avoid crashing too much, although I did go down in the mud a couple of times."
U23 Men
The Under-23 men started their 50 minute race in the mid-afternoon, after the course had further opportunity to warm up. Paradoxically, that may have helped make the top muddy layer a little stickier, and the race certainly didn't have the extreme number of crashes that the Juniors had.
The Under-23 race seemed like more of a road race, with a sizable group of ten riders staying together for most of the race. The Dutch had three at the front - Lars van der Haar, Mike Teunissen and Tijmen Eising - the Belgians three also - Wietse Bosmans, Joeri Adams and Vincent Baestaens - plus two French riders, one Czech and one Swiss. American Danny Summerhill was there also until a flat put him out of contention; he recovered somewhat to finish 13th, only 42 seconds down.
Despite the large group, it was clear that van der Haas was the strongest - the European and World Cup champion was always near the front, especially on the climbs. In the final lap the Belgians tried an attack, but the Dutch responded immediately, splitting the group when Teunissen countered. Only Karel Hnik (Czech Republic) and Matthieu Boulo (France) were able to follow the three Dutch riders, and van der Haar dropped Teunissen and Hnik to take the title, with Teunissen outkicking Hnik for the silver medal.
Race Notes:
- American pro Jonathan Page and his wife are expecting their third child at, literally, any moment (they are a week past the due date). So, Page is preparing to race, but his wife is in St-Wendel, ready to go into the local hospital (less than a kilometre from the course) at a moments notice. We may see Page abruptly abandon the Elite Men's race at some point tomorrow!
- The Elite women race at 11:00 am local time (5:00 am EST), followed by the Elite men at 2:00 pm local (8:00 am EST). We will be providing live updates during both races.
Return to Canadian Cyclist homepage | Back to Top |


text:
WASHINGTON (NNPA) — More than 200 African American men, ranging from a taxi driver to university professors, sent a letter to President Obama on Tuesday urging him to expand his Black male initiative to include Black girls and women, saying they were "surprised and disappointed" that the president had sought to include only half of the race to tackle community-wide issues.
A copy of the letter to Obama was obtained by the NNPA News Service.
After praising the president for saying that addressing the needs of those left behind is as important as anything else he is undertaking, authors of the letter wrote, "So we were surprised and disappointed that your commitments express empathy to only half of our community – men and boys of color. Simply put, as Black men we cannot afford to turn away from the very sense of a shared fate that has been vital to our quest for racial equality across the course of American history."
The letter continued, "As African Americans, and as a nation, we have to be as concerned about the experiences of single Black women who raise their kids on sub-poverty wages as we are about the disproportionate number of Black men who are incarcerated. We must care as much about Black women who are the victims of gender violence as we do about Black boys caught up in the drug trade."
The 893-word letter maintained a respectful, dignified tone throughout, but was consistently firm in asserting that President Obama had erred in limiting his initiative to Black males.
"We write as African American men who have supported your presidency, stood behind you when the inevitable racist challenges to your authority have emerged, and have understood that our hopes would be tempered by the political realities that you would encounter," the letter stated. "While we continue to support your presidency, we write both out of a sense of mutual respect and personal responsibility to address what we believe to be the unfortunate missteps in the My Brothers Keeper initiative (MBK). In short, in lifting up only the challenges that face males of color, MBK – in the absence of any comparable initiative for females – forces us to ask where the complex lives of Black women and Black girls fit into the White House's vision of racial justice?"
On Feb. 27, President Obama announced his "My Brother's Keeper Initiative, a program to assist young Black males. With the parents of slain Florida teenagers Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis looking on, Obama said: "After months of conversation with a wide range of people, we've pulled together private philanthropies and businesses, mayors, state and local leaders, faith leaders, nonprofits, all who are committed to creating more pathways to success. And we're committed to building on what works. And we call it 'My Brother's Keeper.'"
Among those signing the letter to Obama were Luke C. Harris, associate professor of American politics and constitutional law at Vassar College; Robin D.G. Kelly, professor of history at UCLA; Michael Hanchard, professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University; James Turner, founder of the Africana Studies and Research Center at Cornell University; Robert Hill, professor of history and editor-in-chief of the Marcus Garvey and Universal Negro Improvement Association Papers Project at UCLA; Houston Baker, professor of English at Vanderbilt University; Charles Steele, president and CEO of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); poet Saeed Jones; David Melton, a taxicab driver; writer Robert Jones, Jr.; psychiatrist Adisa Ajamu; filmmaker Byron Hurt; and former NFL player Wade Davis Jr., executive director of the You Can Play Project, an organization dedicated to ending discrimination and homophobia in sports.
"Everyone is focused on getting nearly 300 girls safely returned home in Nigeria and rightly so," said Steele, president of the Atlanta-based civil rights organization co-founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. "We should stay focused on the 300 girls in Nigeria, but at the same time not forget about the millions of Black girls and women suffering right here at home."
Professor Harris said the men's activities will not cease with sending the letter to Obama. He and several others will write a series of articles for the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service and BlackPressUSA.com, NNPA's companion website, beginning next week. They will host a webinar in June and continue to educate the public about the issues raised in the letter.
Meanwhile, the group will continue to collect signatures [ firstname.lastname@example.com] and provide updates on future activities at the African American Policy Forum's website, www.aapf.org. Organizers said more than 200 men had signed the letter by Tuesday.
The letter to Obama stated, "We are not suggesting a national moratorium on Black male-oriented projects. But our sense of accountability does reflect the fact that our historic struggle for racial justice has always included men as well as women who have risked everything not just for themselves or for their own gender but for the prospects of the entire community."


text:
French officials dispatched a military unit to secure the site in restive northern Mali where an Air Algerie plane crashed with the loss of 116 people. France's interior minister said Friday that terrorism cannot be excluded as a cause for the tragedy, though it was likely due to bad weather.
French president Francois Hollande announced Friday that there were no survivors in the crash of the MD-83 aircraft, owned by Spanish company Swiftair and leased by Algeria's flagship carrier, which disappeared from radar less than an hour after it took off early Thursday from Burkina Faso's capital, Ouagadougou, for Algiers. The plane had requested permission to change course due to bad weather.
Speaking after a crisis meeting, Hollande also announced that one of the aircraft's two black boxes has been found in the wreckage, in the Gossi region near the border with Burkina Faso. It is being taken to the northern Mali city of Gao.
A French Reaper drone based in Niger spotted the wreckage, French Transport Minister Frederic Cuvillier told France-Info radio on Friday. Two helicopter teams also overflew, noting that the wreckage was in a concentrated area. A column of soldiers in some 30 vehicles were dispatched to the site, he said.
A statement early Friday from the Hollande's office said the aircraft had been clearly identified "despite its state of disintegration."
Quick discovery of the wreckage is "decisive" in piecing together what happened, the transport minister said, describing the aircraft as "disintegrated" and debris "in an apparently small area."
"We think the plane went down due to weather conditions, but no hypothesis can be excluded as long as we don't have the results of an investigation," French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve told RTL radio.
"Terrorist groups are in the zone. … We know these groups are hostile to Western interests," Cazeneuve said.
The pilots had sent a final message to ask Niger air control to change its route because of heavy rain, Burkina Faso Transport Minister Jean Bertin Ouedraogo said Thursday.
French forces intervened in northern Mali in January 2013 to rout Islamist extremists controlling the region. A French soldier was killed earlier this month near the major town of Gao, where French troops remain. Separatist Touaregs also have been fighting each other.
Nearly half the 110 passengers aboard the plane were French, and France is deeply shaken by the drama. The president promised to mobilize all French military and civilian means in the region and call on partners to help.
The French gave the location of the crash site as in the Gossi region of Mali, on the border with Burkina Faso.
"We sent men, with the agreement of the Mali government, to the site, and they found the wreckage of the plane with the help of the inhabitants of the area," said Gen. Gilbert Diendere, a close aide to Burkina Faso President Blaise Compaore and head of the crisis committee set up to investigate the flight.
The crash was the third airline disaster within a week.
Last week, a Malaysia Airlines flight was shot down over war-torn eastern Ukraine; the U.S. has blamed it on separatists firing a surface-to-air missile. On Wednesday, a Taiwanese plane crashed during a storm, killing 48 people.
French forces had joined the search for the Air Algerie flight, alongside Algeria and other neighboring countries plus the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA. Algerian aircraft also participated in the hunt.
Swiftair, a private Spanish airline, said the plane was carrying 110 passengers and six crew, and left Burkina Faso for Algiers at 0117 GMT Thursday.
The passengers were 51 French, 27 Burkina Faso nationals, eight Lebanese, six Algerians, five Canadians, four Germans, two Luxembourg nationals, one Swiss, one Belgian, one Egyptian, one Ukrainian, one Nigerian, one Cameroonian and one Malian, Ouedraogo said. The six crew members were Spanish, according to the Spanish pilots' union.
Associated Press


text:
Poor People's Campaign Expert, Dr. Gordon Mantler
- When:
- Location:
- H. Mebane Turner Learning Commons
- Room:
- Town Hall
- http://blogs.ubalt.edu/poorpeoplescampaign/
- Description:
As part of our commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Poor People's Campaign, the UB campus and the greater community are invited to a presentation by the foremost expert on the Poor People's Campaign, Dr. Gordon Mantler. His book, Power to the Poor, focused on the genesis of the Campaign in Dr. King's pivot to economic inequality, the diversity of the participating groups and their varied issues, and the implications of the 42-day encampment on the Washington Mall and its aftermath.
After Dr. Mantler's talk, exhibits recalling the campaign—created by Prof. Betsy Nix's winterim class on the Poor People's Campaign—will be on display in the Town Hall Atrium.
Please RSVP below to join us.
- Contact Name:
- Ed Gibson
- Contact Email:
- firstname.lastname@example.com
Appropriate accommodations for individuals with disabilities will be provided upon request 10 days prior to a campus event and 30 days prior to an event requiring travel.


text:
Why Does Pineapple Burn Your Mouth?
Recently I cut some fresh pineapple, then proceeded to eat a lot of it before remembering that every time I consume a copious amount of pineapple, the roof of my mouth becomes itchy and sore. So why is this condition a common complaint among fresh-pineapple aficionados?
Pineapples contain a plant protease enzyme called bromelain. Because it readily breaks down protein, bromelain is frequently used as a natural meat tenderizer. In addition, bromelain may also induce a prickly sensation in the mouth when consumed.
Although the enzyme is present in all parts of the pineapple plant, it's most concentrated in the stem, the hard piece in the middle of the fruit, which is much more fibrous and chewy but still edible. Many people believe that letting a pineapple sit overnight helps take away the irritation factor, but one surefire way to alleviate the burn is to cut out the core.


text:
Twisted Taco founders and partners Paul Gibbs, Ray Sieradzki, and Tom Nahas are proud to announce their beloved taco and margarita cantina brand is offering both full-service cantina and fast-casual franchise opportunities to qualified franchise partners across the United States.
Since opening in 2002, Twisted Taco has built a reputation as Atlanta's premier Tex-Mex destination for families, sports enthusiasts, and late-night revelers alike.
With eight successful locations throughout the greater metro area, Twisted Taco has become the go-to spot for an exciting and innovative family friendly, casual-dining experience featuring Southwestern fare and flair.
Twisted Taco continues to establish itself as a leading sports cantina in each new market with a menu featuring a Tex-Mex taste for every palate, from signature tacos, sizzling fajitas, and hearty sandwiches to fresh salads, crowd-pleasing appetizers, and hand-crafted margaritas, along with an extensive beer selection.
In addition, each location offers numerous high-definition televisions throughout the space, creating a perfect destination for game-day viewing.
The menu, prime sports programming, and distinctive Southwestern-inspired décor combine to create an instantly popular concept paramount for a successful franchise opportunity.
"We have worked to allow the Twisted Taco brand to grow organically in order to maintain our commitment to the best cuisine and quality atmosphere that our guests have come to expect," says Twisted Taco Franchise Inc. president Paul Gibbs.
"Now that the concept is established and we are confident in our foundation, we believe we can successfully expand Twisted Taco throughout the United States and provide profitable opportunities for our qualified franchise partners," he adds.
With a commitment to setting up burgeoning franchisees for success, Twisted Taco partners receive much more than the beloved recipes and brand name.
Additional benefits include a fully developed business program, a professional business management system, complete training, website management, marketing ideas, and on-going support, all honed through the founding team's extensive hospitality careers.
In addition to the full-service cantina, Twisted Taco is offering the opportunity for fast-casual franchises.
Utilizing all of the elements of the successful full-service stores, the quick-service concepts are infused with a fresh, modern design featuring bright citrus hues complimented by rich woods and stainless steel accents.
The commitment to offering the finest Tex-Mex fare remains, as the fast-casual outlets serve up a fresh, made-to-order menu that has been streamlined to maximize efficiency and accommodate high volume.
The success of the existing locations and the introduction of the fast-casual concept show that the brand is poised to grow in numbers not only throughout the Southeast, but nationally and internationally.


text:
(Phoenix, Arizona-June 16, 2003) Attorney General Terry Goddard today announced the indictment of Tony Lynn Porti, 52, for three counts of theft and one count of fraudulent scheme. Mr. Porti, a former aquaculture specialist for the University of Arizona, Maricopa Agricultural Center, is accused of taking over $25,000 in fish raised at the Maricopa Agricultural Center using University of Arizona trucks, personnel and equipment to deliver the fish to customers who paid him.
A yearlong investigation by the University of Arizona Police Department resulted in the indictment.
The theft of fish took place between January, 1998 to May, 2002. The Maricopa Agricultural Center raises grass carp and tilapia for sale to irrigation districts and golf courses for control of algae and weeds, catfish for urban fishing programs and koi for ornamental fish. He is charged with theft of his salary when he consulted for companies while being paid by the University and theft of the records related to the raising of fish at the Maricopa Agricultural Center which he took when he resigned on May 24, 2002.
Mr. Porti appeared today in Pima County Superior Court and pled not guilty to the charges. His next hearing is scheduled before Judge Lina Rodriguez in July.
If convicted of all charges, Mr. Porti could be sentenced to prison for up to 23.25 years and ordered to pay restitution. Assistant Attorney General John Evans is assigned to this case.


text:
Related links:
Desert Insects and Arachnids
You can find insects almost anywhere in the world. So it should be of no surprise that there are plenty of insects in the desert. One of the most common and destructive pests is the locust. A locust is a special type of grasshopper. They travel from place to place, eating all the plants they find. Locusts can destroy many crops in a single day.
Not all desert insects are bad, though. The yucca moth is very important to the yucca plant, because it helps pollinate it. The darkling beetle has a hard, white, wing case that reflects the Sun's energy. This allows the bug to look for food during the day.
There are also several species of ants in the desert. The harvester ants gather seeds and store them for use during the dry season. And the honeypot ants have a very weird habit. Some members of the colony eat large amounts of sugar, so much that their adomens get too large for them to move! The rest of the colony feeds off this sugar.
There are also arachnids in the desert. Spiders are the most notable arachnids, but scorpions also belong in this group. Some species of scorpions have poison in their sharp tails. They sting their predators and their prey with the piercing tip.


text:
CulturCultur is your Ultimate Event Resource, to get what you need when you want it. Find any activity/event going on around you at any time and any place. See if your friends or people with like interests will be there. Cultur has a simple jquery mobile interface for navigating events crawled by a Ruby on Rails crawler
Started: 2014-09-01 Launched/Lasted: 2015-02-01 Technologies: Ruby on Rails, mySQL, AJAX, JavaScript, jQuery Mobile, Facebook Graph API, MapBox Industries: Music, Events Team: Kaili Miyamoto: Design. E.A.Taylor: Front-End. Rama Mcintosh: Back-End. Caleb Haye: Back-End. Jan Uetz Ayacaba Ondo: Business Development. Jonny Mack: Business Development. Mike Hegazy: Business Development Companies/Brands: Cultur LLC |


text:
Country star Brad Paisley breaks ground on free grocery store in Nashville
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Country star Brad Paisley took the controls of a backhoe to dig up the first pile of dirt in the space that will become a free grocery store to support needy families in Nashville, Tennessee.
Paisley donned a cowboy hat-shaped construction helmet for part of Wednesday's groundbreaking ceremony for The Store, which is a partnership with his alma mater Belmont University.
The country star and his wife, actress Kimberly Williams-Paisley, said they got the idea after volunteering with their kids at a similar store called the Unity Shoppe in Santa Barbara, California. Construction on the Nashville store is projected to be completed by the end of the year.
"Hunger and food insecurity is a real issue in Nashville," said Williams-Paisley. "One in seven people deal with food insecurity. That means they don't know where their next meal is coming from. And it's even worse for kids, one in five children."
The store will operate like a real grocery store so that people can go shopping through the aisles and Belmont students and other volunteers will scan their items, but no money will change hands.
"We really want to get people before this is a major crisis," Williams-Paisley said. "We want to help people in this gap where they are trying to get back on their feet."
The store will be located on Belmont's campus and next to the university's Ministry Center, which will provide heath care and legal aid ministry clinics.
Paisley said this model "takes away the sting of embarrassment for a parent who maybe feels that way because they can't feed their kid."
Even the mechanical horse for kids on the outside of the store will be free, he said.
"The kids should not know what their parent is going through," Paisley said. "That's not stress a child needs."


text:
February 8, 2013
Convert Images Hosted by Google to WebP
The format is supported by Chrome, Opera, Android 4.0+ and there are many tools that help you convert images to WebP and view them. It's also interesting to find that all the images hosted by Google services like Picasa Web, Blogger and Google+ can be converted to WebP using a simple URL adjustment.
Here's an example of JPEG photo hosted by Google+:
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-b1qAbtG7VuI/TqON2f_eReI/AAAAAAAA4P4/r_5AKUt42rg/s633/DSC03146.JPG [57 KB]
To convert the photo to WebP, just replace "/s633/" with "/s633-rw/" ("/sNUMBER/" with "/sNUMBER-rw/") :
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-b1qAbtG7VuI/TqON2f_eReI/AAAAAAAA4P4/r_5AKUt42rg/s633-rw/DSC03146.JPG [33 KB]
I'll also include the URL of a PNG screenshot from the previous post:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aeOopCNVt3o/URVPw-F7c0I/AAAAAAABHlU/XIQiLthvLjQ/s640/new-gdrive-create-menu.png [21 KB]
Here's the WebP photo:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aeOopCNVt3o/URVPw-F7c0I/AAAAAAABHlU/XIQiLthvLjQ/s640-rw/new-gdrive-create-menu.png [14.5 KB]
5 comments:
But these converted images in WebP format cannot yet be displayed in Firefox -- this is still a deal breaker.
ReplyDeleteReplies- AnonymousMarch 6, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Yeah, Firefox this time said "you will not fool us again" and said that they will not support WebP that will be again Google-only format.
Delete As a site owner, you can install mod_pagespeed, ngx_pagespeed, or use Google's PageSpeed Service to serve webp images to Chrome, Opera, and Android, while serving jpegs to IE, Firefox, and other browsers.
PageSpeed automatically transcodes the jpegs to webp and caches the result.
Also see iispeed, for IIS users, and Edgecast's new Edge Optimize.


text:
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, makes it possible to produce natural gas extraction in shale plays that were once unreachable with conventional technologies. Recent advancements in drilling technology have led to new man-made hydraulic fractures in shale plays that were once not available for exploration. In fact, three dimensional imaging helps scientists determine the precise locations for drilling.
Horizontal drilling (along with traditional vertical drilling) allows for the injection of highly pressurized fracking fluids into the shale area. This creates new channels within the rock from which natural gas is extracted at higher than traditional rates. This drilling process can take up to a month, while the drilling teams delve more than a mile into the Earth's surface. After which, the well is cased with cement to ensure groundwater protection, and the shale is hydraulically fractured with water and other fracking fluids.


text:
SRINAGAR (REUTERS) - India has agreed to a Chinese demand to demolish bunkers near their de facto border in the Himalayas, Indian military officials said, as part of a deal to end a standoff that threatened to scupper slowly improving relations.
Indian and Chinese soldiers faced off 100 metres apart on a plateau near the Karakoram mountain range, where they fought a war 50 years ago, for three weeks until they reached a deal on Sunday for both sides to withdrew.
The tension had threatened to overshadow a visit by the Indian foreign minister to Beijing on May 9. China's Premier Li Keqiang is expected to visit India later this month.
Details of the deal have not been made public but a senior official from the Indian army's northern command said India had agreed to abandon and destroy bunkers in the Chumar sector, further south along the disputed border.
"The bunkers in Chumar were dismantled after we acceded to Chinese demand in the last flag meeting. These bunkers were live-in bunkers," the army officer told Reuters on Tuesday.
India said up to 50 Chinese soldiers intruded into its territory on the western rim of the Himalayas on April 15. Some Indian officials and experts believed the incursion signalled Chinese concern about increased Indian activity in the area.
India said the Chinese soldiers were 19km beyond the point it understands to be the border in the Ladakh region of Kashmir, a vaguely defined line called the Line of Actual Control, which neither side agrees on.
China denied it had crossed into Indian territory.
China won the border war they fought in 1962, which soured relations for decades, but ties between the Asian giants have been improving in recent years. China is India's top trade partner.
India has been beefing up its military presence for several years on the remote Ladakh plateau, building roads and runways to catch up with Chinese development across the border in a disputed area known as Aksai Chin.
The decision to agree to the Chinese demand and demolish the bunkers followed heavy criticism of the Indian government over its handling of the incident by the opposition.
The Indian officer said earlier that Chinese officers demanded that India stop construction of bunkers, tunnels and huts along the Line of Actual Control, as the vaguely defined border in place since the 1962 war is known.
They also objected to nomads crossing from India to grazing meadows on the Chinese side, the Indian army officer said.
An official in India's Defence Ministry said on Monday that the deal to end the standoff as a "quid pro quo" and said China had also demanded India take down listening and observation posts in the Chumar area, which is close to a Chinese road through Tibet.
It was not clear if India was dismantling those posts.


text:
Careers in Psychology
An Experimental career
Experimental psychologists are a diverse group of psychologists who conduct research, and often teach, about a variety of basic behavioral processes. These processes include learning, sensation, perception, human performance, motivation, memory, language, statistical analysis, thinking and communication, and the physiological processes underlying behaviors such as eating, reading, and problem solving. Experimental Psychologists study the basic behavioral processes by which humans take in, store, retrieve, express, and apply knowledge. In order to do so, they work with human beings and with animals such as rats, monkeys and pigeons. Much experimental study is done in the areas of learning, physiological psychology (the relationship of behavior to physiological processes) or comparative psychology (sometimes called animal psychology). When experiments are carried out on animals, psychologists usually do so because the animals' environments can be more carefully controlled or because of ethical concerns.
Experimental psychologists tend to work in academic settings, teaching courses and supervising students' research as well as conducting their own. Institutions, businesses, industries and governments also employ experimental psychologists. In order to have mobility and advancement in this area of psychology, a research-oriented doctoral degree is usually needed.


text:
TopCar was one of the brands at Top Marques 2010. The Russian car tuner brought two new concepts to the Monaco event. One was the brand new TopCar Panamera Stingray. Developed in collaboration with Cardi, body work specialists and also with 9ff, they have created a car they hope will entice customers away from other Panamera projects we have seen recently.
A full overview of what has been changed to the car check out our story here. For real live shots of the vehicle select the pictures in the gallery below.


text:
Jewels of Central Europe with Paris – Eastbound
On this remarkable Europe river cruise vacation, you'll sail along the Moselle, Rhine, Main, and Danube Rivers. Start with two overnights in dazzling Paris and end in Budapest, Hungary's vibrant capital—with the most intriguing cities of France, Germany, and Austria along the way.Before you embark on your European river cruise, the famous sights of romantic Paris will be yours. You've seen pictures of the Notre Dame Cathedral, the Louvre Museum, and the Eiffel Tower—now experience these treasures up close. Ride the high-speed train from Paris, then board your ship to cruise the wide, peaceful curves of the Moselle River Valley, famous for its picturesque scenery. First stop is Trier, Germany, believed to be even older than Rome and many remnants can still be found, such as imperial baths. The wine village of Bernkastel, surrounded by Germany's largest expanse of vineyards, will fascinate you with its narrow streets and half-timbered houses still standing from the Middle Ages. Continue your European river cruise through the dramatic Rhine Gorge, considered the most beautiful stretch of the Rhine River. See the rock of the Lorelei and ancient castles standing majestically on cliffs 400 feet above the water. Visit the magnificent Bishop's Residenz in Würzburg and marvel at medieval Bamberg, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Enjoy a guided visit of historic Nuremberg and an excursion to Bavaria's capital, Munich. Along the Danube River is Regensburg, Germany, one of Europe's best preserved medieval cities, where you can taste some of Germany's famous beers! Visit Passau with its narrow, winding cobblestone streets, and Melk's magnificent 11th-century Benedictine Abbey, before arriving in Vienna, the "City of Music" that inspired the genius of Beethoven, Mozart, and Strauss.There are countless opportunities to be enchanted by the sights on this fascinating Europe river cruise, and it doesn't end until you've experienced the unique energy of Budapest. A local expert will show you the famous sights and you can walk across the Chain Bridge and bask in the coffee house culture with a rich cream cake in the renowned Gerbeaud Café.
City Highlights
Day 1 Paris: welcome to FranceDay 2 Paris: guided sightseeingDay 3 Remich (Embarkation): travel by high-speed train to Luxembourg city; motorcoach transfer to Remich; onboard welcome receptionDay 4 Trier: choice of guided city sightseeing or "Roman Trier" sightseeing, see the Porta NigraDay 5 Bernkastel: guided walk, or hike up to the castle ruins with your Avalon Adventure Host; wine tastingDay 6 Rhine Gorge–Rüdesheim: scenic cruising through the Rhine Gorge; choice of visit Siegfried's Mechanical Musical Instrument Museum, or cable car ride in Rüdesheim; special treatDay 7 Main River Village: guided walkDay 8 Würzburg: guided sightseeing, visit the Bishop's ResidenzDay 9 Bamberg: lecture on board; guided tour, see the Old Town HallDay 10 Nuremberg. Excursion to Munich: guided sightseeing, see the MarienplatzDay11 Roth. Excursion to Nuremberg: choice of Nuremberg guided tour, or Nuremberg Rally Grounds tour; lecture on boardDay 12 Regensburg: guided walk; beer tasting on boardDay 13 Passau: guided walkDay 14 Melk–Wachau Valley–Vienna: guided tour of the Benedictine Abbey in Melk; scenic cruising through the Wachau ValleyDay 15 Vienna: guided sightseeingDay 16 Budapest: guided tour, see Heroes' SquareDay 17 Budapest (Disembarkation): your vacation ends this morning
In the event of water level problems or any problems of a technical nature, it may be necessary to operate the itinerary by motorcoach or to alter the program.Included visits and special features are subject to change. If a change is necessary, a substitute will be offered.Please check visa requirements with your local consulate(s); responsibility for obtaining visas rests with the traveler.


text:
One day more.
« Libby Trial:The NBC Connection | Main | Tim Russert, Equivocator? »
What is 1x2x6? I seem to have missed that.
We all know that the great majority of press accounts of the trial have been extraordinarily biased. And we have Russert on Imus's show the day after, with Russert and Imus both congratulating Russert on the fine job he did.
My sort of philosophical question is, how much does it matter that the truth is unlikely to ever be spoken in the mainstream media? We might get a not-guilty verdict, but then the spin will be that Libby managed that only because he had an expensive lawyer.
I'm feeling frustrated by the incredible major media lock-out of the truth in this case. Will it always be that just a few percent of the public know what really happened?
Some people are just not good liars (good=convincing). If Andrea Mitchell is allowed to testify for the defense and if she tries to play the Russert game of "I can't remember," I don't think she will be convincing.
Two instances that demonstrate this are: her back and forth with Imus on his show, where she stammered and stuttered and acted giddy, even allowing she must have been drunk; her granite face and glaring eyes when Bill O'Reilly pressed her about NBC's blatantly liberal slant and her rediculous assertion that she didn't think Chris Matthews was a liberal.
Unlike some, I believe that Andrea is just as capable of lying as Russert. I just don't think she has it in her to make it even minimally believable. I am sure that is at least one reason why they are trying so hard to keep her off the stand. Not that she won't follow the script, but that her acting will stink.
Ralph, 1x2x6=David Corn's column on July 16, 2003 -- the first to break the news of Plame's outing:
A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife...."Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
Will it always be that just a few percent of the public know what really happened?
Yes, until the news-consuming public assumes the responsibility for learning the truth.
Most of the public now expects the Media to feed them the truth and unfortunately the Media standard has devolved to the "truth is whatever most people believe it to be." Therefore objective truth will remain elusive for all but the steadfast -- those who seek truth for its own sake.
Yes, until the news-consuming public assumes the responsibility for learning the truth
...learning and reporting the truth.
Any predictions of bombshells coming from the defense team?
I suspect Libby will write a book to recoup his legal expenses. Perhaps that will help straighten the record, but the MSM will ignore him unless he dishes serious dirt (on Republicans), which seems unlikely.
Didn't the old Independent Counsel statute reimburse legal expenses in some cases?
Thank you, sbw. And we assume the "Senior Administration Official" quoted is Wilson. And of course, no one would have noticed Novak's wife reference if Wilson hadn't had a cow. He's a narcissist of Clintonian proportions.
Somehow, in reading the 700+ comments yesterday, I did not find or missed a prediction that the FBIECK would be called by the defense.
Called or not called, can some scholar explain why.
I saw Mitchell's original claim that everyone knew, and heard her try to explain it away on Imus. The former was utterly believable, the latter a joke.
I have a theory about the former. My sense is that the network newsies are egomaniacs. There probably had been lots of gossip about "Wilson's wife" among the newsies. Who knows to what degree of specificity anything had been nailed down.
It's possible, as Mitchell said, that everyone knew. It's also possible that at that stage, everyone was speculating, and that Mitchell was merely grand standing--of course, every competent, in the know reporter knew, you fools.
What seems impossible to me is that Mitchell and Russert had not been party to the gossip before the Novak column. It also seems unlikely that they hadn't gone fishing trying to pin down the details with folks like, oh I don't know, Scooter Libby.
The body wasn't normal. Her face had been eaten..............
From the prior thread where there is some suggestion that Eckenrode was Murray Waas' source on what was going on in the gj and investigation:
1. If E was leaking secret gj and investigative matters to Waas and maybe others, he establishes that he is a partisan with a purpose:Get the administration.
2. The summary shows that Russert's denial was not emphatic but hedged--he may have mentioned Wilson's wife to Libby it says.
3. The notes would provide more evidence of that but along with E they are missing.
4. Whatever Russert said to Libby is at the heart of Fitz' stupid case. Evidence in his[Eckenrode's] possession contrary to his claim would kill this tottering edifice.
5. If E was so partisan, and he took the notes, and they are missing, what is the jury to think?
6. And BTW the gj proceedings are secret and it is a crime for those involved to leak what goes on there whereas no one can show that anything Libby said was illegal to transmit.
Ta DAH
Why were Eckenrode's summaries allowed in court without him present? Couldn't Wells have said that Bond testifying about them wasn't good enough?
Clarice, I think it is civil contempt, but not a crime, to leak grand jury material.
?I thought that meant lumber for a mobile home?
Bush, known as "Bucky," becomes the second member of the president's family to become enmeshed in the stock options scandal this month.
The defense cannot put Eckenrode on the stand because he now has all the information he needs to construct a lie that supports Russert's testimony.
There's nothing the defense coud do about it without the notes.
It would be nice if the notes are missing because they were inadvertently given to the defense.
Will it always be that just a few percent of the public know what really happened?
Speaking only for myself, I would be thrilled (& surprised) if I know what really happened when this trial concludes.
I've been toying with the idea that Wells will say something like this at some point in his closing:
"Mr. Libby talked to Mr. Russert. Both of them agree that they did.They differ in their memories of what happened in their conversations. Mr. Fitzgerald has shown that it is possible for Mr. Russert's version to be correct. We, with Mr. Fleischer's help, have shown that it is possible for Mr. Libby's version to be correct. Virtually every witness has had difficulty describing their recollections to you. Some have even disagreed with their own notes, written during their conversations.
I am not going to stand here today and tell you that either version is absolutely true in every detail. But, unless you say with certainty that it is completely unreasonable for either of them to to remember the conversation the way they have described it, you cannot convict Mr. Libby.
OT--so let's assume it is civil contempt--Does that change the impact much: On the one hand *if* E was the leaker which is a punishable offense, and his exculpatory notes are missing in a case which ostensibly began about an illegal leak which turns out not to have been one(a) is this not the very sort of thing that will turn the jury against the prosecution?(b) does it not raise the odds on the possibility that these notes were not missing by accident?(c) would it not be an irony of the highest magnitude?
From the Previous Thread...
I thought MJW's question had to do with the trial rather than the GJ. Doesn't Fitz have to introduce evidence to substantiate the elements of the alleged crime? Doesent he somehow have to show that he was actually investigating a real crime as defined by the statutes? Mustn't he also show, at trial, how Libby's statements, if actually false, were material to that investigation?
He does, and I think he's hoping the jury will be confused by the crime he couldn't prove (IIPA) which is why he got in the news articles etc.
clarice | February 11, 2007 at 07:33 AM
He didn't do anything like that during the prosecution portion of the trial. Does he get an opportunity to present evidence on this later?
He will have to extract from the trial testimony those things from which he wishes the jury to draw those conclusions and argue them at closing. All he can put on after Wells' case is rebuttal evidence.
I'm feeling frustrated by the incredible major media lock-out of the truth in this case.
IMO that's the war going on in this country. The media, encouraged by the left has relinguished any committment to honesty in exchange for pushing their own agenda. And that's not just true in the Libby case, it's pretty much true with all major issues - the war, global warming, you name it.
I've always believed that democracy requires a free press; At this point I think it is more important to have an honest press, and we simply do not have one. And like politicians, they will go to amazing lengths to preserve the status quo. And the status quo right now is really really really bad.
Did anyone watch Reliable Sources? Any mention of the Libby Trial?
I hadn't seen this version of Andrea's denial:
"So clearly back in October of '03, I screwed it up. . . . I was quite surprised to hear about [making the October 2003 statement] because it isn't consistent with anything in my memory. I can't find any notes that reflect this, this alleged knowledge, and so I was muddled on the timeline, that is all I can imagine.".
LOL...how can you be muddled on the timeline before you know something?
Why were Eckenrode's summaries allowed in court without him present? Couldn't Wells have said that Bond testifying about them wasn't good enough?
Bond adopted Eckenrode's summaries of the Libby interviews as her own. Thus she could be (and was) questioned on the differences between her recollections, her notes, and what actually happened and that summary.
And you didn't ask, but someone might be confused--without that summary and associated testimony, Fitzgerald would not be able to prosecute Libby on the "false statements" counts regarding Cooper and Russert. As you surmised, without someone attesting to the accuracy of those summaries, they are inadmissible hearsay as to Libby.
Unless he adopts them as his own. But, as Grenier and Russert didn't subscribe to the accuracy of the FBI reports of their interviews, it would be unlikely for Libby to do so.
For the record, it's not unusual for defendants to stipulate to police reports, etc. I once had a case where the police officer was absent (he had showed for the trial but had to leave before testifying to respond to a bomb threat in another building) and I offered to stipulate to the contents of the police report. The prosecuter refused any stipulation to his testimony that did not include a confession by my client (which, of course, did not appear in the report). The case was held over for a week. When the officer testified, he said what was in the report--no less, no more. Peeved me to no end, that did.
Doesent he somehow have to show that he was actually investigating a real crime as defined by the statutes?
Good luck with that one. You'll notice that Fitz has never given enough information to determine if there was a real crime to begin with.
So, Andrea's testimony like fine wine improved with age, did it? A familiar pattern in this case and one not in accord with reality.In the absence of notes to refresh recollection, most people tend to remember things better closer in time to the actual events.
Begs the question, was Eckenrodes little talk with Russert, where he revealed Libby's testimony AUTHORIZED by anyone??
I was quite surprised to hear about [making the October 2003 statement] because it isn't consistent with anything in my memory.
Heck, it may be worthwhile to call Mitchell merely to get this statement on the record. That would give us three people testifying "it couldn't have happened that way because I remember being surprised when I heard about it."
Not the same as a memory expert, but data is the plural of anecdote.
Addendum to my speculation from last night.
Last night I speculated that, since the referral was handled by the espionage section at DOJ, part of their initial concern would be to get the FBI fully on board with this investigation--committed, willing to devote resources like a hard charging chief investigator. Given the nature of the case--intelligence violation alleged--their logical contacts at the FBI (outside of Mueller) would be the counterintelligence and espionage people. That seems pretty unarguable.
I further presented a rationale by which DoJ, CIA and DoS (possibly) could convince the FBI that this was a major case worthy of significant investigative attention. Is their precedent for the type of obsessive, wrongheaded pursuit of Rove/Libby that resulted? It seems there may be. The Hanssen spy case came down in 2001. That's pretty close in time to Plamegate. Part of that Hanssen case was the obsessive and wrongheaded pursuit of CIA employee Brian Kelly over a period of years. Were the same FBI people who bungled that case still in positions of authority at the FBI when the Plame referral came along? It would be interesting to know the answer to that question. Might the CIA have argued: trust us on this one--after all, you owe us big time!
Has anyone posted a glossary of all the Plame shorthand? Or is it a moving target?
I don't know which I find more appalling: the FBI's E-man first interviewing Russert over the phone, or Russert (or anyone with sense) actually telling him something without establishing bona fides. Is this normal procedure for either party? Let a thousand conspiracies (continue to) bloom.
Was anyone else surprised by how weak Fitz's case was? With all the poor memory and mis-remembering, etc.
Testimony by Grebier, Smallz, Miller which was basically I don't remember anying but what Fitz needs me to.
I would rate his case was about 50% of what I had expected to see.
azaghal says it had to have been and that he certainly made it on a speaker phone with others identified to Russert on the other end, that after the call, those people discussed the conversation as the notes were prepared to be sure they were accurate reflections of the conversation.
Again--and here's the main thing--how likely is it that notes which apparently are exculpatory to Libby on the main charge of the case missing by accident?
I think Fitz's only strong witness was Ari Fliescher, MR IMMUNITY. Funny how much better everyones memories got as they cut deals with Fitz....
Doesen't he somehow have to show that he was actually investigating a real crime as defined by the statutes?
I'm beginning to see that Fitzgerald was thinking ahead when he made the argument that the Justice Department oversaw his investigation through press reports.
That allows him to make the case that leaks of the investigators' focus (1x2x6) were not only legal (because necessary for proper oversight), they were binding as notice of the investigation's objectives on those being interviewed.
(tongue only somewhat in cheek)
azaghal as you know David Szady was the FBI guy who bungled the Hanssen and other major CI cases, to the best of my recollection he was head of CI at the FBI when this was begun. I researched that for another article. Let me grab it and see.
Patton, I don't think E. revealed "testimony" (as in GJ testimony) but rather he revealed what Libby said during an interview. Big difference. Plus, GJ material can be used for investigative purposes. For example, subpoenaed documents are extensively used by investigator--not maintained by the GJ itself.
While releasing GJ sealed info may only be a civil contempt violation (assuming that is right), doesn't motive enter the picture? If the intent was (and can be proven to be) to swing a court case against a defendant, that would appear to me to be a civil rights violation too. And if more than one were conspiring...
Just playing Fitz's game.
Agazhal, you would think the first thing DoJ would look at is: Were laws broken? Does the Spy Outing Statute apply to Plame? Did CIA lie to them about her status to get the ball rolling?
If I were Libby, I would be so angry. So much for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.
Sunny Day has the latest filing by Fitz trying to gag Mitchell--It repeats much of the same stuff and I'm hoping SD will post a link to it and put it on her site. Much of it is repetitive of his initial filing but I think this is amusing:
"In his response, the defendant asserts that the issue of "whether Ms. Mitchell had heard a rumor that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA prior to July 14, 2003 is directly relevant to Mr. Russert' s credibility," and that it is "unfair for the government to make the issue of when Mr. Russert learned of Ms. Wilson's identity of critical importance in this case, and then hide behind a cramped view of evidentiary rules to bar the defense from introducing a contradictory statement by Ms. Mitchell." Def. Resp. at 17-18 (emphasis added). Any suggestion that testimony regarding a rumor Ms. Mitchell may have heard (which stems only from an inference suggested by a purportedly prior inconsistent statement that has been repeatedly disavowed) is somehow directly relevant to Mr. Russert's credibility is absurd. Since there is no good faith basis for believing Ms. Mitchell would testify that she knew or even had heard a rumor that Ms. Wilson worked for the CIA prior to Mr. Novak's column, and no basis for believing she would have passed such a rumor on to Mr. Russert,4
4Mr. Russert in fact has already testified that his news organization tries "to stay away from rumors," and that "[y]ou can get tips and things you want to pursue but rumors don't make it on the air." 2/7/07 p.m. Tr. at 37. Moreover, although defense counsel repeatedly stated "all I have to show is that they heard some kind of buzz or enough to ask a question" or "could have heard a rumor," 2/8/07 p.m. Tr. at 76, 80, 81, that is not sufficient; if it were, the Government would have the right in rebuttal to call everyone at NBC News who Ms. Mitchell or Mr. Russert had contact with for all of them to say the same thing that Mr. Russert said in his testimony and that Ms. Mitchell would say in her testimony if asked, that they did not know the information and did not tell anyone else.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 276 Filed 02/10/2007 Page 10 of 12
and no basis for believing that even if Ms. Mitchell had heard such a rumor and had passed it on to Mr. Russert, and that Mr. Russert would have asked the defendant about it, which is the inference the defendant wants to make, this is pure unfounded speculation.5 The Court noted on Thursday, "[t]hat's a whole lot of inference to draw," 2/8/07 p.m. Tr. at 91, and asked the defendant to provide cases that show that that type of speculative analysis is appropriate to put before a jury. 2/8/07 p.m. Tr. at 92. Defendant's response provided no case law on that issue.
Finally, prohibiting the defendant from eliciting from Ms. Mitchell a prior statement lacking any indicia of reliability does not come close to raising constitutional concerns. The Supreme Court has made crystal clear that "state and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials." E.g., United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998). See also Montana v. Egelhoff 518 U.S. 37,42 (1996) (plurality opinion) (terming such rules "familiar and unquestionably constitutional"). "While the Constitution.. . prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote, well-established rules of evidence permit trial judges to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury." Holmes v. South Carolina, 126 S.Ct. 1727 (2006)(holding that rule excluding reliable evidence of third-party guilt violated defendant's rights). See also Washington v. Renico, 455 F.3d 722, 734 -736 (6th Cir. 2006)(enforcement of legitimate rules is no violation). Neither Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S.
5Defendant seemingly ignored the fact that defendant testified in the grand jury that Mr. Russert told the defendant information about Ms. Wilson's employment as a fact, not as a rumor, and added that "all the reporters know it" thereby negating any possible suggestion that this would have been an idle rumor being passed from Ms. Mitchell to Mr. Russert to the defendant.
Case 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 276 Filed 02/10/2007 Page 11 of 12
284 (1973)(holding that prohibiting the defendant from impeaching his own witness and from presenting trustworthy out-of-court statements that his witness had admitted to the murder with which he stood charged rendered defendant's trial fundamentally unfair), nor any other precedent, requires this Court to depart from generally applicable evidentiary principles to allow a criminal defendant to present to the jury inadmissible hearsay that is untrustworthy and marginally relevant,"
That would give us three people testifying "it couldn't have happened that way because I remember being surprised when I heard about it."
Hey that's my one note samba!
How reliable is "surprise" as a landmark event? If someone testifies "I'm very certain that's what really happened because IT CAME TO ME IN A DREAM", what credible claim have they in fact actually testified to?
Andrea Mitchell is in this up to her eyes. It is obvious from the wealth of strange quotes attributed to her during the initial stages of this mess. She should be compelled to testify.
We can handle the truth, Mrs. Greenspan, we swear!!!
Ralph L.
Based on unrelated experience with FBI, I was called and interviewed over the phone. But I was expecting a call and knew what the topic would be. I suppose it could have been someone other than FBI. And I could have been someone other than who I said. No real ID handshake took place.
I think it's likely Russert was told to expect the call. But I don't see how the FBI could proven his bona fides over the phone to a reporter (unless a prior ID protocol had been established) on an open home line. So Russert probably just took E's word that he was E. Likewise, E took Russert's. Not exactly solid chain of evidence if either wanted to play games (and it appears at least one did). All that can be established with "hard" evidence is that a call went from number A to number B.
Not exactly what I'd consider to be tight procedure.
Well Russert just thru in the comment that Mitchell, Woodward and Pincus were going to testify.
The rest of the conversation (suggesting the WH is using the press to carry out their politics) is frustrating.
David Szady --In Sept 2004 David Szady held a senior position in the FBI's CI unit.(per Maariv)
Aptil 2002 he is Assistant Director, Counterintelligence Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/040902szady.html>Szady
I'm suprised Wells didn't decide to impeach Russert on that bit about not airing rumors.
Introducing about 3 examples of just that wouldn't have taken more than 10 minutes.
Though, it would end up being a definition of "is" situation. In my book a story sourced only anonymously, especially if by more than one, is by definition a rumor. Especially when it's proven false.
Jane--Russert said TODAY that Mitchell was going to testify? I wonder if that was fact based or rumor based--on no, he said at trial he doesn't report rumor and Fitz wants us to take that as gospel.
I have no knowledge that the judge has yet ruled on this.
Clarice, I was simply nitpicking on the issue of grand jury disclosure. I certainly would not minimize the seriousness of the conduct, nor its apparent sleaziness. But for some reason congress has never got around to passing a statute on the subject, so it simply remains a violation of Rule 6 of the federal rules of criminal procedure.
Yes. OT. I haven't time to do it, but anyone who wants to dig thru the attic can certainly find critiques by TM on Waas' articles in that period and we can see how likely it was that E was his source.
If he was caught out at it, it certainly would have been a firing offense.
Re your contention that someone was standing beside Eckenrode during his "phone interrogation" of Russert - why wouldn't Fitz call the second FBI party to the conversation? If he heard both sides his testimony sure wouldn't be hearsay.
I agree with others that investigator's notes are sometimes lost but notes central to a key event are lost much less frequently. With the notes "lost", doesn't the prosecution have some duty to provide the defense with, at minimum, the name of another party to the interrogation?
Jane--Russert said TODAY that Mitchell was going to testify?
That should have been "threw" not thru. He said something like: "and now Andrea Mitchell, Bob Woodward, and Walter Pincus will have to testify. It was a definate statement, no qualifyers. It's the very last think said on Meet the Press today.
My guess is that Mitchell's lawyers have probably communicated that it's a lost cause and they are preparing her.
Howie Kurtz was on MTP, and he responded about how the public will now believe that journalist are being used by the WH to further their agenda. Ugh
I see the prosecution case as much less than I expected. I would expect to leave the prosecution's presentation with a feeling that guilt is the only logical conclusion.
But Fitzgerald had to show only that (1) Libby knew (from official sources with access to highly classified information) about Plame before Russert; (2) Russert disagrees with Libby's sworn testimony that Russert told Libby; (3) Cooper and Miller disagree that Libby told them that he only knew what he heard from reporters; and (4) Libby had some reason to intend to misead the investigation.
He introduced that evidence.
Libby cannot win by disproving 1, 2, 3, or 4. That is, no matter what happens from here on out, Libby will still have known of Plame (if only from Cheney) before talking to Russert. Russert will still be on record denying telling Libby. Miller and Cooper will not recall Libby telling them that he heard about Plame only from reporters. And Libby will still have had in his office articles saying that Plame was a covert agent and that the investigation had moved beyond Novak's article.
Libby will certainly attempt to show that there is reason to disbelieve Russert, Cooper, and Miller. He has already demonstrated that their memories are unreliable in (tangential but related) matters. He will continue to demonstrate Fleischer's interest in providing testimony pleasing to Fitzgerald.
These efforts may possibly suffice to show reasonable doubt. (I've argued that they have succeeded with regard to Cooper, but I'm not on the jury.)
But Libby's only sure shot at an acquittal is to disprove intent by showing he had no reason to lie: he cannot disprove any of the other elements.
THAT is why Libby will almost certainly testify.
No one else KNOWS what was going through his head when he testified. If he is convincing, he wins. If not, he (probably) loses.
And if he does, he has a wealth of issues to bring up on appeal. [I'd go with introducing 1x2x6 as evidence of Libby's understanding of the case when much of the prosecution's case shows that Libby actively disputed media coverage of OVP as my first prong. Clarice might start with Comey's super-duper unprecedented delegation as hers. cboldt has what is becoming a long list at his site. MJW, Jane?]
Thanks , Jane--I would guess then that he is not reporting fact but something he heard on the grapevine. Maybe we can call him at home on clarify. Sunday is the day he takes calls, isn't it?
As for"Howie Kurtz was on MTP, and he responded about how the public will now believe that journalist are being used by the WH to further their agenda. Ugh"
If the public believes that they are spending too much time in the wrong places.
Wells is a brilliant defense counsel. I'm thinking he has lots of surprising stuff up his sleeve. And he is not going to defend according to the simple pattern.Re the prosecution's well-prepped witnesses he did what anyone would do--though better than most--attack their credibility and memory. But I fully expect some surprises on his case..
Do we know at this point the proposed jury instruction on motive? How about the proposed jury form treats motive.
Right now lack of motive seems Libby's best chance, but motive is all the press has been talking about since day one, as seen on MTP today. So a lot depends on whether the jury actually bases its verdict on what is in the trial.
""Patton, I don't think E. revealed "testimony" (as in GJ testimony) but rather he revealed what Libby said during an interview.""
Well, we don't really know that do we?
But, shouldn't the FBI ask you FIRST for your recollection, rather then share with you someone else first? Kind of stacking the deck isn't it.
Jane:"Do we know at this point the proposed jury instruction on motive? How about the proposed jury form treats motive."
Both parties' proposed jury instructions and arguments about disputed instructions are at CBoldt's site.
It's very entertaining to consider that the first defense witness (if Woodward is first) has a reputation built solely on the fact that a high FBI officical (Mark Felt) chose him as a pliable press conduit in order to take out a disobedient President.
That was 33 years ago. Nothing changes.
cboldt thinks Mitchell will not be compelled to testify--Russert says she is testifying. Cboldt says that he thought Libby went to far in outlining what he'd ask. I think he had to, both to persuade the judge that her testimony was essential for a fair trial and as well to make the record on appeal should he lose this motion and be convicted.
Two lawyers. Two views. Naturally.
But Rick, Kurtz says that what the public will take away from this case is that the press is a tool of the administration. LOL
It seems to me that the serious leaks (CIA referral, 1x2x6,etc.) happened before the grand jury was empaneled and Fitzgerald was appointed.
Many of the later ones can be traced back to witnesses or defense counsel*. I remember a couple of years ago reading Luskin's quotes in the NYT and WaPost on the same day and remarking on how how he contradicted himself.
*Or some really, really, really choice psychodelics obtained by someone at Raw Story.
That was my thought. But ts last night had some interesting Waas article which seems almost certainly to have been sourced by E. Now, it may be that some of those leaks were about inside the investigation stuff not yet before the gj--witness statements etc and if those came from E that are every bit as damaging to the govt. These witnesses did not take the Fifth and were compelled to cooperate and had every reason to expect their remarks to investigators would be confined to use in the investigation and not plastered in the press.
And some may have been deliberate disinformation to get shoe clerks like Fleischer to confess to anything--even things not true.
Would people clam up if investigators recorded all interviews? I assume they would legally have to announce it. It would certainly clear many things up in this case.
I can't understand how Walton allows newspaper articles in for the jury to 'infer' what Libby's state of mind was and refuses to allow tapes of Russert and Mitchell in which would cause the jury to 'infer' something. I don't think Mitchell will testify. The judge has ruled more for Fitz than against him and I think he is tending to lean that direction in this instance too. What I can't figure out is why Fitzgerald is so worried about Mitchell testifying. If the story her and Russert have concocted is true, what's the harm?
But Libby's only sure shot at an acquittal is to disprove intent by showing he had no reason to lie: he cannot disprove any of the other elements
One step further, Libby can recant certainty based on "surprise". Claim that whatever it was Russert said that "surprised" him misled his reconstruction of events. Perhaps Rove and Cheney can support that something Russert said had an observable effect on Libby.
Also the Cooper note that plausibly meant "didn't even know if it were true" or "didn't even know if he had a wife" indicates Libby may have said something about unofficial sourcing. Reporters do seem to over interpret ambiguous language as confirmation, ie Novak and "heard that too". Perhaps they distill information on the fly and discard portions unimportant to their take.
Boris--Sorry, didn't mean to steal your applause. Let's just call it a particularly sincere form of flattery.
While I still have a chance to be proven incorrect, I'd like to agree with cboldt on this one.
I don't think that J. Walton will allow Libby to make the case that he didn't leak to many reporters, and that seems to be the best predicate for admitting her testimony.
If Wells was willing to represent that Libby now recalls hearing from Mitchell, he could probably get her in. But, given her current testimony, it seems highly unlikely that he would trade one NBC person who claims he couldn't have told for another who claims that she couldn't have told. And it wouldn't help wrt Fleischer.
Of course, if Wells got her to admit knowing on the stand, we could expect that argument in the following question.
Re Cooper, Boris, even his own editors didn't regard what Libby said as confirmation--they said he hadn't enough to go with it.
An interesting thing from the Novak-Russert MTP appearance:
MR. RUSSERT: As you know, Harlow works as an NBC News consultant. I talked to him on Friday. He said that he told you, "It would be really bad if you wrote her publicly."
MR. NOVAK: He didn't say that. He never said that. Now, he may think he said it, but he never said that to me. I don't know if you know Mr. Harlow very well. He's a very low-key guy. I like Mr. Harlow, he's a novelist, he's a very interesting man, but he's very low-key. He didn't press me. "
Jane: Kurtz had Ariana Huffington and Glen Reynolds on to discuss Libby trial during Reliable Sources. When Glen said that he thought Mitchell should have to testify, Kurtz quickly countered that she would be testifying, which I thought was odd since it could still be up in the air due to filings.
Ariana, of course pounded on Russert blabbing to the FBI before NBC tried to quash GJ subpoenas. At the end of her piece, Kurtz stated that everyone felt Russert did a fine job of testifying as compared to Judith Miller.
I don't think Mitchell will testify
If her subsequent denials were as credible as the original statement against interest, Walton's inclination against might hold. He really doesn't have much choice now since he's already mentioned that her notes contain something of interest on the issue.
"Re Cooper, Boris, even his own editors didn't regard what Libby said as confirmation--they said he hadn't enough to go with it."
Mr. Grunewald couldn't even get a quote for attribution correct and agreed to correct it ib the online version. It's litte surprise that the TIME editors might require require a bit more from him. That's also possibly why they fired his sorry ass.
I believe that if Libby is acquited the government is required to reimburse him for his legal defense costs. Does anymone else think that is the law regarding prosecution of government employees? In that case, Libby gets to keep this legal defense fund contributions and buys a nice yauht in south Florida.
I just really surprised that Russert is talking about his testimony and now commenting on the case.
Doesn't he realize that there's the distinct possibility that he'll be recalled?
I ask that because I've been rear-ended twice in 20 years, and both times the cops had me hitting the other driver. Not confidence inspiring.
My guess is Wells will use Woodward to show what Fitz's original idea for motive was, and that it was totally wrong. I really hope he manages to show Fitz stating with all certainty during the presser that "Mr. Libby was the first government official to talk to a reporter." Would be great to have that in the juror's minds when they listen to Fitz's closing. This man is capable of making a totally false argument sound convincing.
Sorry, didn't mean to steal your applause
It was not a possesive exclamation, it was supportive. Hey Look !
Regarding "Russert knew" when he talked to Libby:
I listened to part of the grand jury testimony last night. I know that portions of this have been discussed here before, but it struck me that Libby, in 2004, was telling the grand jury that the portion of the conversation with Russert wherein he was told of Plame happened much later, possibly on the 11th.
Again, apologies (to tsk9?) if it's been covered, but I suspect that's related to Fitzgerald's focus on Libby's phone lines, as he was trying to obtain independant verification of that second call.
Wells has enough to imply at closing that Russert could have known from Gregory or from the advance wire. (Of course, our summaries, which are not transcripts, don't tell us whether Russert remembers reading Novak's column on Sunday morning. Fitzgerald may well have elicited that he read it in the physical paper, which precludes Friday the 11th.)
Also, C-Span played one hour of the Libby GJ tape today, but I only caught the last 20 minutes or so. I thought Libby came across as very honestly trying to answer to the best of his ability (during the segment I heard).
Let's hope he goes a blab too far before that happens.
Well, Walter, I for one would take as dispositive a proffer of her testimony from the NBC lawyers who prepared Russert's pleadings on the subpoena and I do think she has information valuable to the defense and that the Fitz argument is not so fabulous against the Constitutional right to a fair trial.
Who's right? I don't know, but today both Russert (on mTP) and Kurtz said she's testifying, As to the claim that the Oct 3 statement can be mitigated by an instruction to the jury that it is only impeachment not substantive evidence--goose/gander with the news articles on intent Fitz was allowed to put in.
***YIPES***Should be "I for one wouldNOT take as dispositive a proffer of her testimony from the NBC lawyers who prepared Russert's pleadings
Today's MTP was quite a media lovefest. Anyone under the mistaken impression that Howie does not play ball w/his fellow pros...really needs to be informed. Kurtz is as bad as any of them. They are all flat out lying to the public on mutiple of issues.
The media STINKS. It has never been this bad in my lifetime. They do not have to tell the truth. They have full control.
Someone tell me who else in this country gets to tell the People? This bunch decided they knew The Truth. So they write it/show it and promote it. They created the Val Lie even though we all know Val had to be the Leaker. They demanded the SP. They are the Witnesses. The court allows some of them to Hide and others to write the Evidence.
They are all in bed together and have the camera. The media has just wrecked what was left of our justice system. But Mr FitzMagoo got his man....HE was able to punish Miller/Libby and the administration for hiring Libby. Vengence and Stinking Media.
JOM Junkie..the now lapsed independent prosecutor statute provided reimbursement of legal fees for successful defendants. I see nothing in this special special appointment that does, perhaps upon acquittal Libby will test the unconstitutional appointment again as grounds for reimbursement or find some other basis to sue for them.
"The media STINKS. It has never been this bad in my lifetime. They do not have to tell the truth. They have full control." -- Owl
I hear you and I agree that the media smells badly of rat urine, but I'm unsure the "never been this bad" part is true. Do we know how had they were in, say, 1980? We have some inkling they were pretty bad in 1970.
I suspect we just have much better tools to dissect their work and communicate our findings today. And that IS hope inspiring.
I just pray we can keep Congress's ink-standed hands off those channels of communication. They also help us track and communicate just how bad a job those incumbents are doing.
If Libby testifies and is asked if it's possible he's conflated Russert and Mitchell's conversations in his mind, and he answers, 'yes', then it would seem he'd be allowed to call Andrea.
Surely, if his GJ testimony had been that he'd heard, as if for the first time, SOMEONE at NBC news, maybe Tim Russert or Andrea Mitchell, she'd be in.
Kurtz quickly countered that she would be testifying, which I thought was odd since it could still be up in the air due to filings.
Interesting. And it's interesting Russert was addressing his comment to Kurtz on MTP.
Of course I don't believe much "journalists" have to say these days, so I won't hold my breath.
BTW on MTP Gwen Ifill mentioned that at least one reporter she knows is now burning his notes.
'Russert remembers reading Novak's column on Sunday morning.'
But it didn't get published until Monday, the 14th. And I don't believe his reaction was what he said it was. There's no evidence anyone at NBC reacted to Novak's column at all.
The earliest report on Valerie being CIA that I can find is July 22nd on the Today Show. It took eight days for Andrea Mitchell to call up Bill Harlow to confirm what Novak wrote?
Do you think the judge would have allowed a Duke lacrosse player on the jury??
Howie Kurtz was particularly obtuse this morning discussing his own name being mentioned in the cross examination. He said of his role in embarrassing Russert over the forgotten phone calls to the Buffalo Reporter, something like, "I only thought that showed Russert, like everyone, has less than a perfect memory."
...buys a nice yauht in south Florida.
As someone who signed on to this proposition early on, I feel compelled to disabuse others who may have relied upon my endorsement (Now THAT's the ethical cumpulsion that Fitzgerald arguably ignored).
1. The old special prosecutor law allowed reimbursement only if a person was not indicted. Since Libby has been indicted, he would not qualify even if acquitted. Current law contains no such provision.
2. Another law allows reimbursement in extraordinary cases. As that standard is much tougher than merely "not indicted", it is unlikely that it will be interpreted to require or even allow reimbursement for Libby. [Rove might have a shot].
3. I don't know if you've been to a lot of boat shows recently, but a truly nice yacht costs a bit more than $3 million. (I haven't priced yauhts recently, though. :P)
Is it possible that Woodward would testify and say that although he doesn't remember specifically telling Libby, he could have since the information was on his notepad when he talked to Libby.
It would probably help if Woodward says: ""Weirdest thing is he kept calling me Tim...""
Byron York's SUNDAY article at the NY POST.
(No. I have not begun to read this thread. Just up and rising, now, when I found this)
Somehow I doubt that Kurtz got around to asking:
"Say Tim, that Wells fellow called you a liar and a hypocrite in open court and the prosecutor and the judge didn't even object. They let his claim just soak into the juror's minds. Why do you think they didn't object?"
MURRAY: And the second question is: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?
MITCHELL: It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that. But frankly I wasn't aware of her actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role involving weapons of mass destruction, not until Bob Novak wrote it.
Fitz motion to prevent Mitchell testifying
Ms. Mitchell has said that she mis-spoke or misunderstood the question being asked on the Capital Report program, and since that broadcast, she has consistently has maintained that her comment on that show should not be understood as an indication that she knew of Ms. Wilson's employment prior to Mr. Novak's July 14, 2003 column. The October 3, 2003 statement can in fact be read consistent with her not having
had such knowledge prior to Mr. Novak's column.
more Fitzle logic
Sorry, Clarice. I got distracted looking at boats for my link.
As far as Wells/Libby taking the NBC lawyers's statements at face value, I agree wholeheartedly.
But Walton, in the absence of contrary admissible evidence, has to make his decision based on something other than mere suspicion.
And Fitzgerald is more than happy to take the representation at face value, especially since he has no indicia that she is misrepresenting a material fact. (Unless, of course, there is something in the raw FBI notes from her interview...Nah, that would have been turned over as exculpatory. Wouldn't it?)
It's my understanding that if Libby is acquitted he is entitled to reimbursement of his fees and expenses by the government. I am uncertain what would happen with his legal defense fund money at that point. I assume that everything that has come in to date has been paid out to Wells's firm. In any case, his book could be Gone With the Wind and it still wouldn't make a dent in his defense costs--they are well up in the millions, and counting.
The best research job on everything you wanted to know about Plame.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780926/posts>Fedora does it again
If you scroll to the bottom you will see about inside leaks to reporters. He says Mark Allen was getting them, too.
Andrea and Russert and everyone else (as Fedora documents) thought very little of the story until Corn gave it his special twist.
And that was a few days after Novak's story.
Actually having Woodward on the stand could thoroughly embarrass Fitz.
Imagine questioning him about why he decided to go public.
Well, the prosecutor went out there and did a press conference and said Libby was the first to disclose this and I knew that was a damn lie. I knew Armitage was out spreading this stuff..I just couldn't figure out why the prosecutor didn't know..I mean, how dense was he after investigating for over two years??
I knew I had to come forward because the government was making irresponsible statments to the press that just weren't true.
Fitz will be boiling.....
"And Fitzgerald is more than happy to take the representation at face value, especially since he has no indicia that she is misrepresenting a material fact. (Unless, of course, there is something in the raw FBI notes from her interview...Nah, that would have been turned over as exculpatory. Wouldn't it?)" -- Walter
You mean, assuming they haven't lost them?
DanS--Sure, that's what I meant...
Other Tom,
Where Clarice and I are united, none shall prevail against us. (USCA at 20 paces at dawn?)
It is beyond the pale that Russert is talking about this case while it continues. Inexcusable!
Andrea Mitchell's statement "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger." goes to the heart of Libby's testimony. Reporters knew. It should be up to the jury whether Ms. Mitchell was telling the truth when she said it was widely known, or whether she is telling the truth when she says she was drunk. To not allow Libby at least the opportunity to put her under oath and make her retract the widely known statement is wrong.
The comments to this entry are closed.


text:
Story #33
February 8-17, 1998 — Nagano, Japan
The 1998 Olympics was historic for two reasons. For the men, it was the first time full NHL participation occurred. For the women, it was the first time they were playing Olympic hockey at all. The excitement of the women's event was all the more palatable because it was virtually certain that Canada and USA were headed towards a gold medal showdown. These had been the two best countries since 1990, when the IIHF started the women's world championship, and both countries had been preparing for years for this inaugural competition. The six teams entered played a simple round robin, the top two advancing to a gold-medal game, and the third and fourth teams playing for the bronze medal.
As expected, Canada and USA played for the gold, but the result came, if not as a shock, then certainly as a surprise. The first period was scoreless, but early in the second the Americans took the lead thanks to Gretchen Ulion. Midway through the third, they extended the lead to 2-0 on a Shelley Looney goal, but Danielle Goyette finally beat Sarah Teuting to make it 2-1 with 4:01 left in regulation. The Canadians poured on the pressure in the dying minutes, but the only puck to cross the goal line was fired by American Sandra Whyte into the vacant Canadian net at 19:52. The Americans won gold, and the teary-eyed favourites from Canada had to settle for silver after having won all four World Championship gold medals. But for the Americans, they didn't win the game on this day so much as three days earlier in the final game of the round robin.
In that game, Canada had built an impressive and comfortable 4-1-lead early in the third period only to see the Americans score six unanswered goals and win 7-3. Canada has never before or since given up as many goals in a period or game, but the incredible onslaught by USA gave the players confidence that they could beat Canada when the gold medal was on the line. And that's just what they did.But regardless of the final outcome – women's hockey was the winner. As of 1998, it was not only endorsed by the IIHF. Women's hockey was now accepted by sport's most prestigious movement.
As part of the IIHF's 100th anniversary celebrations, www.IIHF.com is featuring the 100 top international hockey stories from the past century (1908-2008). Starting now and continuing through the 2008 IIHF World Championships in Canada, we will bring you approximately three stories a week counting down from Number 100 to Number 11.
The Final Top 10 Countdown will be one of the highlights of the IIHF's Centennial Gala Evening in Quebec City on May 17, the day prior to the Gold Medal Game of the 2008 World Championship.
These are the criteria for inclusion on this list: First, the story has to have had a considerable influence on international hockey. Second, it has to have had either a major immediate impact or a long-lasting significance on the game. Third, although it doesn't necessarily have to be about top players, the story does have to pertain to the highest level of play, notably Olympics, World Championships, and the like. The story can be about a single moment — a goal, a great save, a referee's call — or about an historic event of longer duration — a game, series, tournament, or rule change.
Click here for the 100 Top Stories


text:
Chickpeas with fresh tomatoes, broccoli rabe, orzo, all in a light wine sauce, a whole meal in one dish... |
1 or 2 cans 14.5 oz cans chick pea's or dried 2 cups fresh chickpea's made(these were fresh from the crockpot overnight) I love chick pea's so you determine at least 2 cups though.
2 cups of whole tomatoes pulsed in the food processor till leaving chunky or 6 fresh plum tomatoes pulsed in the food processor
1 cup chicken broth
1/2 cup white wine (I use Chablis)
2 cloves garlic
1/2 teaspoon each garlic powder, oregano, basil, parsley
3 tablespoon extra virgin olive oil
plenty of grated cheese
1/2 cup cooked orzo
1 bunch of broccoli rabe stems cut off, cleaned, chopped and boiled till soft around 25 minutes in a pan of boiling water, drain well and set aside.
In a large saucepan add oil saute garlic. Add chick pea's and drained broccoli rabe saute around three minutes. Add tomatoes, broth, wine, herbs. Cover and cook on very low simmer for a half hour.
In a small pan boil orzo pasta. Drain add at the end. Ladle into bowls serve with garlic bread and plenty of grating cheese.


text:
Ever wonder how Netflix decides what movies to recommend for you? Or how Amazon recommends books? We can get a feel for how it works by building a simplified recommender of our own!
In this capstone, you will show off your problem solving and Java programming skills by creating recommender systems. You will work with data for movies, including ratings, but the principles involved can easily be adapted to books, restaurants, and more. You will write a program to answer questions about the data, including which items should be recommended to a user based on their ratings of several movies. Given input files on users ratings and movie titles, you will be able to:
1. Read in and parse data into lists and maps;
2. Calculate average ratings;
3. Calculate how similar a given rater is to another user based on ratings; and
4. Recommend movies to a given user based on ratings.
5. Display recommended movies for a given user on a webpage.


text:
FILTER To Release 'The Inevitable Relapse' Seven-Inch Single
June 23, 2010On July 6, FILTER will release an exclusive "The Inevitable Relapse" seven-inch single, available exclusively at indie retailers nationwide. The B-side is the 666 remix of the track by Rob Patterson.
"The Inevitable Relapse" is the first single off FILTER's fifth studio album, "The Trouble With Angels", which will be released this August on Rocket Science Ventures. Fans of the band's "Short Bus" and "Title of Record" will be ecstatic to hear Richard Patrick return to his industrial roots.
Rocket Science owner Kevin Day says, "I have known Richard for a good while and have been a fan of his music and the FILTER 'sound' since their first release. 'The Trouble With Angels' is exciting because it's a strong return to the sonically dark jet engine growl that FILTER invented and defined."
Produced by Bob Marlette (BLACK SABBATH, ATREYU, SALIVA),the album's debut single, "The Inevitable Relapse", features thundering chords and an isolated bass line that both conjure and modernize FILTER's signature sound. "People think 'The Inevitable Relapse' is about addiction, consumption, and obsession, but they're wrong," says Richard Patrick. "It's a love song." The single will be impacting Active Rock and Alternative radio June 21.
FILTER will also be releasing a limited-edition seven-inch vinyl single, exclusively for the Record Store Day coalition of stores on July 6, featuring "The Inevitable Relapse" album version and a Rob Patterson 666 re-mix on the B-side.
Richard Patrick has taken "Angels" to the next level both lyrically and musically, employing some of the best in the business for the upcoming tour. The live band features Patrick on vocals and guitar, guitarist Rob Patterson (KORN, OTEP),bassist Phil Buckman and longtime FILTER drummer Mika Fineo.
"The Trouble With Angels" track listing:
01. The Inevitable Relapse
02. Drug Boy
03. Absentee Father
04. No Love
05. Fades Like a Photograph (Dead Angel)
06. Down With Me
07. Catch A Falling Knife
08. The Trouble With Angels
09. Clouds
10. No Re-Entry