text:
!! History Commons Alert, Exciting News
A federal judge in New York rules that Jose Padilla, a US citizen who has been accused of being an al-Qaeda "dirty bomber," has the right to meet with a lawyer (see June 10, 2002; June 9, 2002). Judge Michael Mukasey agrees with the government that Padilla can be held indefinitely as an "enemy combatant" even though he is a US citizen. But he says such enemy combatants can meet with a lawyer to contest their status. However, the ruling makes it very difficult to overturn such a status. The government only need show that "some evidence" supports its claims. [Washington Post, 12/5/2002; Washington Post, 12/11/2002] In Padilla's case, many of the allegations against him given to the judge, such as Padilla taking his orders from al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida, have been widely dismissed in the media. [Washington Post, 9/1/2002] As The Guardian puts it, Padilla "appears to be little more than a disoriented thug with grandiose ideas." [Guardian, 10/10/2002] After the ruling, Vice President Cheney sends Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement to see Mukasey on what Justice Department lawyers call "a suicide mission." Clement, speaking for Cheney, tells Mukasey that he has erred so grossly that he needs to immediately retract his decision. Mukasey rejects the government's "pinched legalism" and adds that his order is "not a suggestion or request." [Washington Post, 6/25/2007] The government continues to challenge this ruling, and Padilla will continue to be denied access to a lawyer (see March 11, 2003).
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Al-Qaeda, Jose Padilla, Abu Zubaida, Michael Mukasey, Paul Clement
Timeline Tags: Torture of US Captives, Complete 911 Timeline, Civil Liberties
District Court Judge John Bates rules against the General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, in its attempt to force Vice President Cheney to disclose some of his Energy Task Force documents (see January 29, 2001 and May 16, 2001). The judge writes, "This case, in which neither a House of Congress nor any congressional committee has issued a subpoena for the disputed information or authorized this suit, is not the setting for such unprecedented judicial action." [Associated Press, 12/9/2002] Bates is a Republican who worked as the deputy independent counsel to Kenneth Starr in the Whitewater investigation, and was appointed to the bench by President Bush in 2001. [Savage, 2007, pp. 112] The GAO later declines to appeal the ruling (see February 7, 2003). In a similar suit being filed by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, the Bush administration has successfully delayed deadlines forcing these documents to be turned over. [Associated Press, 12/6/2002] That case will eventually be decided in the administration's favor (see May 10, 2005). Cheney Pushes Back - Unfortunately, the ruling's claim of no Congressional involvement is somewhat misleading. The original request for information came from two ranking House members, Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the Committee on Government Reform and John Conyers (D-MI) of the Energy and Commerce Committee (see April 19 - May 4, 2001). Waxman and Conyers followed standard procedure by writing to David Walker, head of the GAO, to request information about who was meeting with the task force and what the task force was doing (May 8, 2001. Instead of complying with the request, Cheney's legal counsel, David Addington, replied that the task force was not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and therefore not bound by law to provide such information (see May 16 - 17, 2001). Addington later challenged the GAO's authority, saying that it was trying "to intrude into the heart of Executive deliberations, including deliberations among the President, the Vice President, members of the President's Cabinet, and the President's immediate assistants, which the law protects to ensure the candor in Executive deliberation necessary to effective government." The GAO was not asking for such information; former Nixon White House counsel John Dean will write in 2004, "It was clear [Addington] was looking to pick a fight." Tug of War - The GAO advised Addington that it did indeed have the legal power to examine the deliberations of such entities as the task force, and provided Addington both the statutory law and the legislative history, which flatly contradicted Addington's refusal. The GAO also noted that it was "not inquiring into the deliberative process but [was] focused on gathering factual information regarding the process of developing President Bush's National Energy Policy." The GAO even narrowed the scope of its original request, asking only for the names of those who had worked with the task force, and the dates (see July 31, 2001). But this provoked further resistance from Cheney and his office, with Cheney publicly stating on numerous occasions that the GAO was unlawfully trying to intrude into the deliberative process. Walker's patience ran out in January 2002, and he notified the White House and Congress that the GAO was taking the administration to court (see February 22, 2002). Hardball in Federal Court - Usually the case will be handled by lawyers from the Justice Department's Civil Division. But this case is much more important to the White House to be left to the usual group of attorneys. Instead, this lawsuit is one of the very few to be handled by a special unit operating under the direct supervision of Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement and Clement's boss, Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Olson, the lawyer who spearheaded the team that successfully argued the December 2000 Bush v. Gore case that awarded George W. Bush the presidency. Dean later learns that this special team was created specifically to find and handle cases that they can take to the Supreme Court in order to rewrite existing law, mostly laws that restrict the power of the presidency (see January 21, 2001). Many career attorneys at the Justice Department will become so offended by the existence and the agenda of this special legal team that they will resign their positions. The administraton sent a strong signal to Judge Bates when it sent Olson, who has argued many times before the Supreme Court, to argue the government's case in his court. Dean will write that Bates, a recent Bush appointee and a veteran of the Whitewater investigation, "got the message." He knows this case is slated to go to the Supreme Court if it doesn't go the way the White House wants. Standing the Law On Its Head - According to Dean, Bates turns the entire body of statutory law overseeing the GAO and its powers to compel information from the executive branch on its head. He rules that the GAO lacks the "standing to sue," saying that it doesn't have enough of a legal stake in the controversy to have a role in trying to compel information. Bates, flying in the face of over eight decades of law and precedent, rules that, in essence, the GAO is merely an agent of Congress, and because neither the GAO nor Walker had suffered injury because of the task force's refusal to comply with its request, the GAO has no legal recourse against the executive branch. Bates hangs much of his ruling on the fact that Congress has not yet subpoenaed the White House for the task force information. Thusly, Bates guts the entire structure of enforcement authority the GAO has as part of its statutory mandate. Bates does not go as far as the Justice Department wants, by not specifically ruling that the entire GAO statute is unconstitutional, but otherwise Bates's ruling is a complete victory for the White House. [Dean, 2004, pp. 76-80] Authors Lou Dubose and Jake Bernstein later write that "Bates's ruling creates a legislative Catch-22 for Democrats." Because the GOP is the majority party, and because GOP Congressional leaders refuse to subpoena the White House on virtually any issue or conflict, no such subpoenas as Bates is mandating are likely to ever be granted by Republican committee chairmen. [Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 14] In 2007, author and reporter Charlie Savage will write that Bates's ruling severely eroded the GAO's "ability to threaten to file a lawsuit [and] damaged the congressional watchdog's capability to persuade executive branch agencies to comply with its requests for information.… Bates had established a principle that, if left undisturbed, could change the attitudes of executive branch officials when the GAO asked for documents they did not want to disclose." [Savage, 2007, pp. 112-113]
Entity Tags: John Dean, Lou Dubose, Paul Clement, Sierra Club, John Conyers, US Supreme Court, US Department of Justice, Theodore ("Ted") Olson, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, John Bates, Judicial Watch, Henry A. Waxman, Bush administration (43), Charlie Savage, David Walker, David S. Addington, Government Accountability Office, Energy Task Force, Jake Bernstein, Federal Advisory Committee Act
Timeline Tags: US Environmental Record, Civil Liberties
Jack Goldsmith, the embattled head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) (see October 6, 2003), finds himself again mired in a conflict with Vice President Dick Cheney's hardline chief aide, David Addington. Goldsmith has already fought with Addington over Goldsmith's decision to withdraw the OLC's support for the administration's memos justifying torture (see December 2003-June 2004). Now Goldsmith and Addington are at odds over the policies governing the detention and trial of suspected terrorists. The spark for this conflict is the January 2004 Supreme Court decision to review the detention of US citizen and suspected "enemy combatant" Yaser Esam Hamdi (see January 9, 2004). Goldsmith suggests going to Congress to have that body pass legislation declaring such detention legal, reasoning that the Supreme Court would be less likely to rule against the administration if Congress had authorized such detention policies. Addington, who like his boss does not accept the idea that Congress has any business interfering in such policy decisions, refuses to countenance the idea, and Goldsmith's proposal goes nowhere. In June 2004, the Supreme Court approves the detention policies but put modest legal restrictions on the administration's ability to detain citizens without trial. Goldsmith, this time with deputy solicitor general Paul Clement, again suggests going to Congress; once again, Addington refuses. The White House, Goldsmith later says, continues to operate as if it could avoid any adverse decisions from the Supreme Court. When the Court issues its decision in the Hamdan case (see November 8, 2004), rejecting the administration's policy of trying terror suspects in military tribunals without Congressional approval, and upholding the preeminence of the Third Geneva Convention in protecting the rights of accused terror detainees—including al-Qaeda suspects—the decision has a shattering effect on the Bush administration's legal arguments towards detaining and trying those suspects. Goldsmith believes the Court's decision is "legally erroneous" but has huge political consequences. Now detainees at Guantanamo Bay have more legal rights than ever before, and for the first time, the specter of war-crimes charges against Bush officials becomes a real possibility. Goldsmith later says that it is in these arguments, more than in the battles over domestic wiretapping or interrogation techniques, that Addington's attempts to expand presidential power actually backfires. Goldsmith is later vindicated when, in September 2006, one of the last acts of the Republican-led Congress will give the administration every power the administration had asked for, authorizing the military commissions that the Court had rejected. The Bush administration could have avoided a damaging Court decision by working with Congress beforehand. "I'm not a civil libertarian, and what I did wasn't driven by concerns about civil liberties per se," he says in a 2007 interview. "It was a disagreement about means, not ends, driven by a desire to make sure that the administration's counterterrorism policies had a firm legal foundation." [New York Times Magazine, 9/9/2007]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Yaser Esam Hamdi, US Supreme Court, Paul Clement, Al-Qaeda, Bush administration (43), David S. Addington, Jack Goldsmith, Office of Legal Counsel (DOJ), Richard ("Dick") Cheney
Timeline Tags: Civil Liberties
Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement appears before the Supreme Court to argue for the administration in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (see June 28, 2004). Clement argues that the Court has no role in the White House's decision to hold suspected terrorists designated as "enemy combatants" without trial or charge. During oral arguments, several of the justices ask Clement if the Bush administration considers itself bound by the Convention against Torture (see October 21, 1994). Clement replies, "The United States is signatory to conventions that prohibit torture and that sort of thing, and the United States is going to honor its treaty obligations." He continues: "I wouldn't want there to be any misunderstanding about this. It's also the judgment of those involved in this process that the last thing you want to do is torture somebody or do something along those lines." That evening, CBS's 60 Minutes II airs the first photos of tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib (see April 28, 2004). [Oral Arguments, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 4/28/2004 ; Savage, 2007, pp. 188-189]
Entity Tags: Convention Against Torture, Paul Clement, US Supreme Court, Bush administration (43)
A Supreme Court Justice, during the oral arguments in the cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, asks how the Court can be certain that government interrogators are not abusing detainees. Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement answers that the court will have to "trust the executive to make the kind of quintessential military judgments that are involved in things like that." [First, 6/2004 ] The government's legal strategy is so inflexible in part because of Vice President Cheney, who through his lawyer David Addington refuses to allow the Justice Department to budge from its intransigent position. For months, Solicitor General Theodore Olson and his deputy, Clement, have pled for modest shifts in policy that would bolster their arguments in court. Hamdi has languished in a Navy brig for two and a half years without a hearing or a lawyer. British citizen Shafiq Rasul has been held under similar conditions at Guantanamo for even longer (see November 28, 2001 and January 11, 2002-April 30, 2002). Olson says that Cheney's position—the president has unlimited authority to order the indefinite detention of anyone suspected of terrorist activity without benefit of counsel or any judiciary intervention—would be easier to argue in court if he could "show them that you at least have some system of due process in place" to ensure against wrongful detention, according to a senior Justice Department official familiar with the issue. But Addington wins the argument, overriding Olson and the Justice Department by his arguments that any such retreat would restrict the freedom of future presidents and open the door to further lawsuits. The Supreme Court will find against Cheney in both the Hamdi (see June 28, 2004) and Rasul (see June 28, 2004) cases. Olson will resign as solicitor general 11 days later. [Washington Post, 6/25/2007]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, David S. Addington, Jose Padilla, Paul Clement, Richard ("Dick") Cheney, Theodore ("Ted") Olson, Shafiq Rasul, Yaser Esam Hamdi, US Supreme Court
Timeline Tags: Torture of US Captives
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning his 2004 visit to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room to pressure Ashcroft into signing a recertification of the NSA's secret domestic wiretapping program (see March 10-12, 2004). Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey has already testified before the same committee (see May 15, 2007) that Gonzales, then White House counsel, and then-chief of staff Andrew Card tried to pressure Ashcroft, then just hours out of emergency surgery, to overrule Comey, who was acting attorney general during Ashcroft's incapacitation. Gonzales and Card were unsuccessful, and Comey, along with Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and others, threatened to resign if the program wasn't brought into line with the Constitution. But today Gonzales tells a quite different story. Gonzales tells the committee that he and Card only went to Ashcroft because Congress itself wanted the program to continue (see March 10, 2004), and he and Card merely intended to "inform" Ashcroft about Comey's decision, and not to try to get Ashcroft to overrule Comey. Many of the senators on the committee are amazed at Gonzales's contention that Congress wanted Comey overruled. And they are equally appalled at Gonzales's seemingly cavalier explanation that he and Card were not, as Comey has testified, trying to pressure a sick man who "wasn't fully competent to make that decision" to overrule his deputy in such a critical matter: Gonzales's contention that "there are no rules" governing such a matter does not carry much weight with the committee. Many senators, including Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), simply do not believe Gonzales's explanations; she says that to secure Ashcroft's reversal was "clearly the only reason why you would go see the attorney general in intensive care." Gonzales replies that he and Card were operating under what he calls "extraordinary circumstances," in which "we had just been advised by the Congressional leadership, go forward anyway, and we felt it important that the attorney general, general Ashcroft, be advised of those facts." Only later in the hearing does Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) force Gonzales to admit that he was indeed carrying a reauthorization order from the White House, something that he likely would not have had if he were not there to secure Ashcroft's signature. [TPM Muckraker, 7/24/2007] Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) says in his opening statement that Gonzales has "a severe credibility problem," and continues, "It is time for the attorney general to fully answer these questions and to acknowledge and begin taking responsibility for the acute crisis of leadership that has gripped the department under his watch." He goes on to note that the Bush administration has squandered the committee's trust "with a history of civil liberty abuses and cover-ups." Gonzales garners little trust with his own opening, which states in part, "I will not tolerate any improper politicization of this department. I will continue to make efforts to ensure that my staff and others within the department have the appropriate experience and judgment so that previous mistakes will not be repeated. I have never been one to quit." [USA Today, 7/24/2007] 'I Don't Trust You' - Arlen Specter (R-PA) is another senator who questions Gonzales's veracity. "Assuming you're leveling with us on this occasion," he says, "…I want to move to the point about how can you get approval from Ashcroft for anything when he's under sedation and incapacitated—for anything." Gonzales replies, "Senator, obviously there was concern about General Ashcroft's condition. And we would not have sought nor did we intend to get any approval from General Ashcroft if in fact he wasn't fully competent to make that decision. But General—there are no rules governing whether or not General Ashcroft can decide, 'I'm feeling well enough to make this decision.'" Gonzales adds that the fact that Comey was acting attorney general was essentially irrelevant, as Ashcroft "could always reclaim that. There are no rules." "While he's in the hospital under sedation?" Specter asks incredulously. [TPM Muckraker, 7/24/2007] "It seems to me that it is just decimating, Mr. Attorney General, as to both your judgment and your credibility. And the list goes on and on." [USA Today, 7/24/2007] After Gonzales's restatement of his version of events, Specter observes tartly, "Not making any progress here. Let me go to another topic." Gonzales goes on to say that he and Card visited Ashcroft hours after they had informed the so-called "Gang of Eight," the eight Congressional leaders who are sometimes briefed on the surveillance program, that Comey did not intend to recertify the program as legal, "despite the fact the department had repeatedly approved those activities over a period of over two years. We informed the leadership that Mr. Comey felt the president did not have the authority to authorize these activities, and we were there asking for help, to ask for emergency legislation." Gonzales claims that the Congressional leaders felt that the program should be reauthorized with or without Comey's approval, and that since it would be "very, very difficult to obtain legislation without compromising this program…we should look for a way ahead." Gonzales confirms what Comey has already said, that Ashcroft refused to overrule Comey. "…I just wanted to put in context for this committee and the American people why Mr. Card and I went. It's because we had an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room, where the congressional leadership had told us, 'Continue going forward with this very important intelligence activity.'" Feinstein is also obviously impatient with Gonzales's testimony, saying, "And I listen to you. And nothing gets answered directly. Everything is obfuscated. You can't tell me that you went up to see Mr. Comey for any other reason other than to reverse his decision about the terrorist surveillance program. That's clearly the only reason you would go to see the attorney general in intensive care." Gonzales says that he and Card were only interested in carrying out the will of the Congressional leadership: "Clearly, if we had been confident and understood the facts and was inclined to do so, yes, we would have asked him to reverse [Comey's] position." When Feinstein confronts Gonzales on the contradictions between his own testimony's and Comey's, Gonzales retreats, claiming that the events "happened some time ago and people's recollections are going to differ," but continues to claim that the prime purpose of the visit was merely to inform Ashcroft of Comey's resistance to reauthorizing the program. Like some of his fellows, Leahy is reluctant to just come out and call Gonzales a liar, but he interrupts Gonzales's tortured explanations to ask, "Why not just be fair to the truth? Just be fair to the truth and answer the question." [TPM Muckraker, 7/24/2007] Leahy, out of patience with Gonzales's evasions and misstatements, finally says flatly, "I don't trust you." [CNN, 7/24/2007] Whitehouse Grills Gonzales - Whitehouse wants to know if the program "was run with or without the approval of the Department of Justice but without the knowledge and approval of the attorney general of the United States, if that was ever the case." Gonzales says he believes the program ran with Ashcroft's approval for two years before the hospital incident: "From the very—from the inception, we believed that we had the approval of the attorney general of the United States for these activities, these particular activities." It is now that Gonzales admits, under Whitehouse's questioning, that he indeed "had in my possession a document to reauthorize the program" when he entered Ashcroft's hospital room. He denies knowing anything about Mueller directing Ashcroft's security detail not to let him and Card throw Comey out of the hospital room, as Comey previously testified. Whitehouse says, "I mean, when the FBI director considers you so nefarious that FBI agents had to be ordered not to leave you alone with the stricken attorney general, that's a fairly serious challenge." Gonzales replies that Mueller may not have known that he was merely following the wishes of the Congressional leadership in going to Ashcroft for reauthorization: "The director, I'm quite confident, did not have that information when he made those statements, if he made those statements." [TPM Muckraker, 7/24/2007; CNN, 7/24/2007] 'Deceiving This Committee' - Charles Schumer (D-NY), one of Gonzales's harshest critics, perhaps comes closest to accusing Gonzales of out-and-out lying. Schumer doesn't believe Gonzales's repeated assertions that there was little or no dissent among White House and Justice Department officials about the anti-terrorism programs, and what little dissent there is has nothing to do with the domestic surveillance program. "How can you say you haven't deceived the committee?" Schumer asks. Gonzales not only stands by his claims, but says that the visit to Ashcroft's hospital bed was not directly related to the NSA program, but merely "about other intelligence activities." He does not say what those other programs might be. An exasperated Schumer demands, "How can you say you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercises like this? You want to be attorney general, you should be able to clarify it yourself." [Associated Press, 7/24/2007] Specter does not believe Gonzales any more than Schumer does; he asks Gonzales tartly, "Mr. Attorney General, do you expect us to believe that?" [CNN, 7/24/2007] In his own questioning, Whitehouse says that he believes Gonzales is intentionally misleading the committee about which program caused dissent among administration officials. Gonzales retorts that he can't go into detail in a public hearing, but offers to provide senators with more information in private meetings. [Associated Press, 7/24/2007] Gonzales's supporters will later claim that Gonzales's characterization of little or no dissent between the White House and the Justice Department is technically accurate, because of differences between the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program and that agency's data mining program, but Senate Democrats do not accept that explanation (see Early 2004, May 16, 2007). Executive Privilege Undermines Congressional Oversight? - Specter asks Gonzales how there can be a constitutional government if the president claims executive privilege when Congress exerts its constitutional authority for oversight. Gonzales refuses to answer directly. "Senator, both the Congress and the president have constitutional authorities," Gonzales says. "Sometimes they clash. In most cases, accommodations are reached." "Would you focus on my question for just a minute, please?" Specter retorts. Gonzales then replies, "Senator, I'm not going to answer this question, because it does relate to an ongoing controversy in which I am recused," eliciting a round of boos from the gallery. [CNN, 7/24/2007] Mueller Will Contradict Gonzales - Mueller will roundly contradict Gonzales's testimony, and affirm the accuracy of Comey's testimony, both in his own testimony before Congress (see July 26, 2007) and in notes the FBI releases to the media (see August 16, 2007). Impeach Gonzales for Perjury? - The New York Times writes in an op-ed published five days after Gonzales's testimony, "As far as we can tell, there are three possible explanations for Mr. Gonzales's talk about a dispute over other—unspecified—intelligence activities. One, he lied to Congress. Two, he used a bureaucratic dodge to mislead lawmakers and the public: the spying program was modified after Mr. Ashcroft refused to endorse it, which made it 'different' from the one Mr. Bush has acknowledged. The third is that there was more wiretapping than has been disclosed, perhaps even purely domestic wiretapping, and Mr. Gonzales is helping Mr. Bush cover it up. Democratic lawmakers are asking for a special prosecutor to look into Mr. Gonzales's words and deeds. Solicitor General Paul Clement has a last chance to show that the Justice Department is still minimally functional by fulfilling that request. If that does not happen, Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales." [New York Times, 7/29/2007] A Washington Post editorial from May 2007 was hardly more favorable to Gonzales: "The dramatic details should not obscure the bottom line: the administration's alarming willingness, championed by, among others, Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, to ignore its own lawyers. Remember, this was a Justice Department that had embraced an expansive view of the president's inherent constitutional powers, allowing the administration to dispense with following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Justice's conclusions are supposed to be the final word in the executive branch about what is lawful or not, and the administration has emphasized since the warrantless wiretapping story broke that it was being done under the department's supervision. Now, it emerges, they were willing to override Justice if need be. That Mr. Gonzales is now in charge of the department he tried to steamroll may be most disturbing of all." [Washington Post, 5/16/2007]
Entity Tags: Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington Post, Robert S. Mueller III, Arlen Specter, Alberto R. Gonzales, Andrew Card, "Gang of Eight", Paul Clement, Sheldon Whitehouse, New York Times, Dianne Feinstein, Patrick J. Leahy, Charles Schumer, Federal Bureau of Investigation, David S. Addington, John Ashcroft, National Security Agency, James B. Comey Jr.
Four Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee request that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales be investigated for perjury in light of his contradictory testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the NSA warrantless wiretapping program (see July 24, 2007). "It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," the four senators—Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)—write in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement calling for a special counsel to investigate. "We ask that you immediately appoint an independent special counsel from outside the Department of Justice to determine whether Attorney General Gonzales may have misled Congress or perjured himself in testimony before Congress." [Senate Judiciary Committee, 7/26/2007] (The letter is sent to Clement because he would be the one to decide whether to appoint a special counsel. Gonzales and outgoing Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty have recused themselves from any such investigation due to their own involvement in the incidents. The next person in line at the Justice Department, acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, lacks the authority to make such a decision.) [CBS News, 7/26/2007] Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who did not sign the letter but supports the request for a special counsel, says, "I'm convinced that he's not telling the truth." The call for a special counsel follows earlier testimony by FBI director Robert Mueller that flatly contradicted Gonzales's testimony (see July 26, 2007), though White House spokespersons denied that Mueller contradicted Gonzales. White House Denies Perjury Allegation - White House press secretary Tony Snow says the apparent contradictions stem from Gonzales's and Mueller's restrictions in testifying in public about the classified program. "The FBI director didn't contradict the testimony," Snow says. "It is inappropriate and unfair to ask people to testify in public settings about highly classified programs. The president, meanwhile, maintains full confidence in the attorney general." And Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse insists that Gonzales was referring during his testimony to a separate intelligence operation that has not yet been revealed, though numerous other sources have contradicted that position (see July 25, 2007). "The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified," Roehrkasse says. Further Instances of Misleading Testimony - Senate Democrats also assert that Gonzales has repeatedly given false and misleading testimony about the US attorney firings, has been part of a White House program to encourage White House aides to ignore Congressional subpoenas, has falsely claimed that he has never discussed the firings with other witnesses (including White House aide Monica Goodling, who recently testified that she discussed the firings with Gonzales), and other instances of deception. Schumer says, "There's no wiggle room. Those are not misleading [statements]. Those are deceiving. Those are lying." [Associated Press, 7/26/2007] Schumer says at a press conference later in the day, "The attorney general took an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, he tells the half-truth, the partial truth and everything but the truth. And he does it not once, and not twice, but over and over and over again. His instinct is not to tell the truth but to dissemble and deceive.…I have not seen anything like it from a witness in the 27 years that I have been in Congress." Feingold adds, "Based on what we know and the evidence about what happened in terms of the gang of eight and what he said in that sworn testimony in the committee, I believe it's perjury.…Not just misleading—perjury." [US Senate, 7/26/2007] Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) does not sign the letter asking for the investigation, and has instead sent his own letter to Gonzales giving him a week to resolve the inconsistencies in his testimony. "The burden is on him to clear up the contradictions," Leahy says. Leahy is joined by ranking Republican committee member Arlen Specter (R-PA), who says the call for a special counsel is premature. Specter accuses Schumer of "throwing down the gauntlet and making a story in tomorrow's newspapers." [Associated Press, 7/26/2007] Specter has suggested that Gonzales resign instead of continuing as attorney general. [USA Today, 7/26/2007] 'Linguistic Parsing' - Justice Department aides acknowledge that Gonzales's self-contradictory testimonies have caused confusion because of his "linguistic parsing." [New York Times, 7/26/2007]
Entity Tags: Paul J. McNulty, Robert S. Mueller III, Senate Judiciary Committee, US Department of Justice, Tony Snow, Sheldon Whitehouse, William W. Mercer, Paul Clement, Patrick J. Leahy, Russell D. Feingold, Monica M. Goodling, Alberto R. Gonzales, Arlen Specter, Charles Schumer, Brian Roehrkasse, Harry Reid, National Security Agency, Dianne Feinstein
Receive weekly email updates summarizing what contributors have added to the History Commons database
Developing and maintaining this site is very labor intensive. If you find it useful, please give us a hand and donate what you can.Donate Now
If you would like to help us with this effort, please contact us. We need help with programming (Java, JDO, mysql, and xml), design, networking, and publicity. If you want to contribute information to this site, click the register link at the top of the page, and start contributing.Contact Us
Except where otherwise noted,
the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike


text:
PDF and HTML5 App Cache Support for Boarding Passes
September 16, 2013
Just to give you an update on what's been happening on the Boarding Pass API front in recent weeks.
In addition to some design improvements in our default web and email template, we can now also generate boarding passes in PDF format which are included as attachments in the boarding pass email. Check these out on our demo page at https://www.developer.aero/Boarding-Pass-API/API-Overview and enter your email address.
Another useful feature that we have added is support for HTML 5 app caching of the mobile web page enabling the mobile web page to be stored offline on the phone. Details of how to implement this feature are available in the boarding pass Developer's Guide on our documentation page at https://www.developer.aero/Boarding-Pass-API/API-Overview.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
0800 622 6464 or 01454 413636
0 items
Free Delivery on Everything*
& Installation
Optional Accessories
Select any number of optional accessories to add to your order:
A pair of Bookshelf Speakers designed to match the range of Sound Leisure jukeboxes
A pair of Floorstanding Speakers designed to match the range of Sound Leisure 1015 jukeboxes
A pair of Floorstanding Speakers designed to match the range of Sound Leisure jukeboxes
A Teardrop Speaker designed to match the range of Sound Leisure jukeboxes
Free Delivery
Please choose installation if you wish (where available):
96% satisfaction rating
The Sound Leisure Dime Box Jukebox Selector comes with Free Delivery, plus we have the Lowest UK Price.
The Sound Leisure Dime Box Jukebox Selector recreates the classic diner experience of selecting tracks for the jukebox from the comfort of your dining booth (or anywhere else).
Known as "Dime" or "Booth" boxes, these jukebox selectors were usually installed in seating booths and on the bars of diners during the 50s and 60s, allowing customers to select the songs they wanted on the jukebox without leaving the comfort of their seats. Please note that the Sound Leisure Dime Box Jukebox Selector is only compatible when used with with Sound Leisure's Vinyl Rocket and SL45 Jukeboxes.
Sound Leisure's Dime Boxes are cast from metal using a sand casting, which is then chrome plated and polished. Up to ten Dime Boxes can be connected directly to the Vinyl Rocket Jukebox via a CAT 5 cable, and using the Label Magic software you can create high-quality labels to show songs for up to 50 records. Your Dime Box can be set to freeplay or can be operated by inserting coins or tokens.
Please note that the Dime Box does not play music itself, and does not contain a speaker of any kind.
Key Features:
Award Winning Jukebox Specialist
In January 2020, Sound Leisure were awarded the highly acclaimed Manufacturing Guild Mark, recognising the company as truly outstanding manufacturers. Sponsored by Biesse Group and Lectra, the Manufacturing Guild Mark has been the mark of excellence, distinguishing Britain's top furnishing manufacturers, since 1993. The Mark is awarded to companies that demonstrate high standards across seven assessment criteria: design, product development and function, manufacture, human resources, financial stability, sustainability and sales and marketing.
Officially Authorised Sound Leisure Retailer: We are proud to have been selected to be an Officially Authorised Sound Leisure Retailer. All our Sound Leisure Jukeboxes are delivered, installed, and serviced by our specialists. When you buy a jukebox from us it and is delivered to your home, our specialist installer will spend an hour taking you through all the features and settings of your new jukebox, so you know how to get the best from it.
Please call us now on 0800 622 6464 or 01454 413636 to discuss your requirements, or visit our showroom to experience the quality of a Sound Leisure Jukebox in the flesh.
If you fancy checking out some of our fantastic Sound Leisure Jukeboxes in the flesh, then pop into our showroom in Bristol, when you have a chance. We have a fantastic range on site, so you can see a variety of different jukeboxes.
We have the SL45 in Medium Oak, which is a beautiful model and has to be seen to be believed.
We also have the SL15 Digital, which takes the great design of the SL15 and brings it into the 21st century with digital technology.
We also have the Rocket CD, with its classic 50s styling and CD playback.
A visit will allow you to get a real feel for the quality of a Sound Leisure Jukebox. Come in and listen to your favourite tracks with our team. For more details see our Showroom page. For directions see our How to Find Us page.
These products are made to order and can take 4-10 weeks to be delivered, depending on their availability. Please contact us on 0800 622 6464 or 01454 413636 for a current update on Sound Leisure jukebox availability.
More About Sound Leisure:
We made a visit to the Sound Leisure factory and thoroughly enjoyed being shown round their amazing facilities by their MD, Chris Black. Please read our blog - Sound Leisure Factory Tour - to find out what we saw, and enjoy the video below:
Free friendly advice:
You can call us free on 0800 622 6464 or 01454 413636 and speak to a member of our expert team who will be able to answer any questions you might have.
Cash price:
Finance Option:
* On selected products subject to availability. T&Cs apply.
Pay on Finance
We know purchasing any of our products is an investment, that's why we offer the option to Pay on Finance. If you spend £250 or more online, you can choose to spread the cost of your purchase over a time to suit you, whether it's 6, 12, 24, 36 or 48 months. Just select the Pay on Finance option when you check out.
It's as easy as:
Add your productsto the basket
Select Apply for Financeat the checkout
Complete the easy application
Representative Example
We want our Pay on Finance option to be as easy to understand and straightforward as possible. We've created the chart above to tell you how much you'll pay back per month. On selected products, Interest Free and Buy Now Pay Later payment options will be available as part of specific promotions.
Finance Terms and Conditions
If your application is successful, you'll be asked to verify your identity by authorising a 50p transaction against a credit or debit card that you own. This helps protect you and us against fraudulent finance contracts. No money will be taken from your card, the details are only used to check that they are valid and registered to your address.
Pay on Finance for interest-bearing credit products is available over 12, 24, 36 or 48 months, subject to status. From time to time, we may offer an interest-free credit product over 6, 10, 12 or 18 month terms, at our discretion. To be eligible to apply for finance, you must be 18 or older, in regular employment and have been a UK resident for more than 3 years. Other conditions may apply and we cannot guarantee that your application will be accepted. We reserve the right to withdraw finance on certain products at any time. Pay on Finance is provided through our external partner, V12. If your application is successful you'll enter into a credit agreement with Secure Trust Bank Plc; V12's parent company.
Should you cancel your credit agreement and have already received products from us, then you will be liable to pay us in full for the product (unless your cancellation rights apply).
Buy Now Pay Later and Interest Free finance options will be available on selected products as part of a specific promotion. These promotions are subject to availability and can be withdrawn at any time.
A little bit about V12 Retail Finance
Finance. Pure and simple.
We've teamed up with V12 Retail Finance Limited ("V12") to offer you a flexible and affordable option to pay on finance. V12 is the UK's only specialist provider of Retail Point of Sale Credit, providing finance options for more than 20 years through its industry leading online paperless processing system. If your application is successful, you will enter into a Credit Agreement with Secure Trust Bank Plc (V12's parent company) which will be administered by V12. V12 is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Secure Trust Bank Plc is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority under registration number 204550.
Who is eligible for finance?
Finance is available on orders of £250 or more, placed on our website. This amount includes any additional services and delivery options selected. You'll need to be:
Other conditions may apply and we cannot guarantee that your application will be accepted.
* If you are retired and receive a pension, V12 Retail Finance may ask for proof of sufficient income.
How long will it take to apply?
You should get an instant answer on whether your application for finance has been successful. In some cases, V12 – our 3rd party financial services provider - will need to look at the application in more detail before making their decision.
What do I need to apply?
All you need to do is fill out the online form at the payment stage and add an electronic signature. It's important you use your full name and address details and make sure everything is spelt correctly. Please note, this is an online only finance option.
If your application is successful, you'll be asked to verify your identity by authorising a 50p transaction against a credit or debit card that you own. This helps protect you and us against fraudulent finance contracts. No money will be taken from your card; the details are only used to check that they are valid and registered to your address.
What happens if my application is turned down?
Applications may not be accepted for a number of reasons, including mis-typed information, or not meeting the specified requirements. Please note that other conditions may apply and we cannot guarantee that your application will be accepted.
If your application isn't successful, you can still purchase the item in full via PayPal, Pay with Amazon, or with a valid credit or debit card. If your application is declined, it's usually for one of the following reasons:
If you wish to appeal the decision made by V12, it's advised you obtain an up to date copy of your credit report before appealing directly to V12. Due to data protection, all customer appeals must be email to email@example.com or for more advice, call V12 on 02920 468916.
Terms & Conditions apply
Loans available to permanent UK residents aged 18 and over. Subject to status. Eligibility and conditions apply. Home Leisure Direct Limited acts as a credit intermediary and only offers credit products from Secure Trust Bank PLC trading as V12 Retail Finance. Registered in England 541132. Registered office: One Arleston Way, Solihull, B90 4LH. Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Financial Services Register number: 204550. The address of Home Leisure Direct Limited is Unit 8 Redhill Farm Business Park, Marshacre Lane, Elberton, Bristol, South Gloucestershire, BS35 4AL.
Free delivery within most parts of the UK.
Everything we sell is delivered to you FREE of charge within most of the United Kingdom. Some exceptions may apply - check our delivery policy and individual product listings for details.
82 reviews
Industry leading security
We accept the following payments
Multiple award winners
Proud to be Official Merchandise Partner for these prestigious brands
Proud to Supply
Proud to Sponsor
Join Us On Social Media
Useful Links
Join our Newsletter
Keep up to date with offers, new products and news from HLD
If you need help with anythingcontact our team on
0800 622 6464 or 01454 413636
Opening Times
Monday - Friday 9am - 5:30pm
Saturday 10am - 4pm
Sunday 10am - 4pm
Home Leisure Direct Limited is registered in England and Wales
Registered Office: Unit 8 Redhill Farm Business Park, Marshacre Lane, Elberton, Bristol, South Gloucestershire, BS35 4AL
Company Registration: 6364345 | VAT Registration: 914619912 | Consumer Credit License: 692501
Home Leisure Direct is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority
Home Leisure Direct acts as a credit broker and only offers credit products for Secure Trust Bank PLC trading as V12 Retail Finance
Credit provided subject to age and status.
Created by bluebox


text:
You are here
Digital disruption is here
AT Cisco's 2015 customer conference, its then-CEO John Chambers told the 25,000 attendees that "40 per cent of the businesses in this room, unfortunately, will not exist in a meaningful way in 10 years".
This diminishing corporate life span, according to Mr Chambers, was due to the rise of digital technology. He added that the "digital world will change our life, our health, our education, our business models at the pace of a technology company change".
According to the Accenture Technology Vision 2016 Report, we are in the midst of a major technology revolution and the research points to a digital domination of every sector of the economy. It is therefore not a matter of if, but a matter of when businesses will go digital.
However, in spite of numerous studies backing this phenomenon, it appears that a majority of boards are still lagging behind.
They are only just becoming aware of this thing called "digitalisation" - the use of disruptive technologies to change business models and create new revenue and value-producing opportunities. Many have yet to see how this can matter to their very business survival.
Perhaps it is a lack of understanding on how to deal with this new wave of change that is causing the board's inaction.
Deloitte's survey of 614 global board professionals from 50 countries in early 2016 revealed that 40 per cent of the survey respondents have no director with sufficient digital knowledge.
The Harsh Nash Board Report 2015, which represented the views of 300 non-executive directors and chairs in the UK, also showed 53 per cent of non-executive directors believe their boards lack the skills to tackle digital disruption, rating it as by far "the most needed skill to improve board performance".
There is no denying the opportunity that digital technology provides in reframing business and industry models in powerful ways, creating tremendous positive value for consumers, companies and communities.
Consider the conventional industry value chain, which broadly comprises three parts: suppliers, distributors, and consumers. In the pre-digital, pre-Internet era, controlling the supplier and distribution relationships often enabled companies to achieve strong competitive positions.
Digitalisation has however turned this relationship dynamic on its head as transacting and distributing digital goods can be accomplished at zero or near-zero costs.
This changed competition. Now, distributors no longer compete based on having exclusive relationships with key suppliers. Instead, suppliers can be aggregated at scale, and distributors can focus on building and maintaining strong relationships with consumers. Many new success stories are about companies that provide a platform, a marketplace, a sharing economy that delivers out-sized performance on a global scale.
In changing playing fields and transforming industries, digital technology has decimated companies that could not keep up. Consider the well-discussed example of Kodak. In its heyday in the 1990s, Kodak was the market leader in cameras and films. In 1996, it had a market valuation of US$28 billion and 140,000 employees. Yet in 2012, Kodak filed for bankruptcy protection and while it was emerging from bankruptcy in 2013, it sold most of its units and is now a much smaller company.
This rapid decline is especially surprising for it was Kodak that invented the digital camera but it was too married to its money-making film development and photo printing business. Kodak's leaders had simply missed the boat when digital cameras were incorporated into mobile phones.
And with any good thing, one can expect a dark side. These days, cyber threats to national and economic security are increasing in frequency, scale, sophistication and severity in impact. The types of cyber threat actors, methods of attack, the systems that are targeted, and their victims are also expanding and evolving.
Recent major cyber attacks were startling and serve as a portent for companies to tread cautiously when adopting new technologies.
In 2014, a data breach at Home Depot exposed information from 56 million credit and debit cards, and 53 million customer e-mail addresses. In 2015, the United States Office of Personnel Management discovered that a number of its systems were compromised and resulted in 21.5 million personal records being stolen.
Despite ever improving network defences, nearly all information and communications technology networks and systems are at risk indefinitely.
The era of digital disruption has undeniably arrived. As Mr Chambers said: "Either we disrupt, or we get disrupted."
Digital technology enables productivity and profitability, but can undermine a business' ability to stay in business. The impact of digital technology comes in many forms and disrupts businesses and industries. Its potential to create and destroy value is immense.
Such complex, high-impact issues should surely draw the attention of business leaders, boards and management. Boards need to challenge and direct management to seek out digital opportunities, while providing oversight of the risks associated with cyber security.
- The writer is a member of the governing council of the Singapore Institute of Directors.


text:
Ernest Hemingway wrote standing up, Marcel Proust stayed in bed, Toni Morrison booked herself into a hotel room and a guy called Dalton Trumbo wrote in the bath. Dame Edith Sitwell, however, comes top of the pops for her writing place as she would climb into an open coffin before she started to write. Can you imagine?
Place is important when it comes to writing and for me, it depends what stage I'm at. If I'm writing new stuff, so fresh, unspoken words as in the first dirty draft then I like to be alone, without any kind of distractions. This was difficult in our small casa. Sometimes I'd do it first thing, in bed before my consciousness woke. I still do that sometimes now, particularly when somethings been niggling away at me during the early hours. Now we have the camper van, I choose to lock myself away, without access to the internet and I only take my phone so that I can time my sessions. So Bobbus (the name of our motorhome) has become my Writing Lab, and I love it.
For editing, I prefer to sit at the desk, or the dining room table. I don't mind distractions too much but if Simba, one of our five cats, decides to lie across the keyboard in full belief that he's 'helping' then I might extract myself. I prefer this space for editing because I can spread myself out a bit more than in the van, where I just need pen and paper or the laptop.
For writing blogs, I often sit in the lounge (or outside in the Summer) with the laptop, television on (for example whilst I'm writing this the Six Nations Rugby is on, Ireland vs Scotland and there is a lot of noise coming from my husband opposite!).
For my birthday, Simon bought me this contraption which means I can stand up and use my laptop, a little like a standing desk. I'm gradually getting used to it, finding the right angle and height and use it mainly to write and answer emails. Short jobs.
So as you can see, I have a very movable writing space, depending on the need. I couldn't however, quite bring myself to write in a coffin and I don't have a bath. What about you?
"A woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction." – Virginia Woolf


text:
Welcome to the Department of Emergency Medicine at the Ottawa Hospital. Our Emergency Departments are amongst the busiest in Canada, allowing you excellent opportunities to gain experience with ambulatory care and emergency medicine.
In addition to being a gatekeeper of the hospital, Emergency Physicians and Housestaff represent the Ottawa Hospital to the community. We ask that you consider this and remain respectful of this in your patient interactions, personal appearance and professional conduct.
Emergency Medicine is an applied science. You will be required to view the patients you care for as your own, with all of the responsibilities to them that you would have to patients in your family practice, outpatient clinic, or hospital ward.
It is our expectation that you will present your cases to us in an orderly fashion, beginning with a presumptive diagnosis and relevant differential diagnosis. This will be followed by a pertinent history and physical exam followed by a summation and treatment plan.
You will find our input in the management of your patients to be based on current Emergency Medicine research and literature, providing you with the tools to more effectively manages your next similar case. The experience you gain from this rotation will be directly proportional to your efforts.
You will receive feedback to assist you in identifying those areas that may require improvement prior to the final evaluation by the Emergency Physicians of the Department.
As well as direct patient care, emergency care encompasses many other aspects of medicine.Those of you rotating through the Department for the second time will realize the importance of triage, appropriate timely referral, bed management, effective utilization of medical and nursing staff/skills, and our responsibility to the local emergency pre-hospital care system in effectively accommodating ambulance traffic. As a large team of administrative staff, orderlies, nurses, social workers, pastoral care workers, respiratory therapists, housestaff and staff physicians entrusted with managing and directing significant hospital resources, we recognize that your Emergency rotation may provoke some anxiety. Remember that your staff will always closely supervise you as you manage patients. The staff is available to enhance your learning experience. Feel free to discuss any difficulties with us and we will gladly help in any way that we can.
We look forward to working with you and anticipate that your rotation will be a rewarding experience, both personally and professionally.
Andrew Stiell, MD, CCFP
Off-Service Resident Education Program Director
Department of Emergency Medicine
University of Ottawa


text:
Denise's birthday brain teaser was written by Dr. Joseph Yeo Boon Wooi of Singapore's National Institute of Education. Yeo is also the author of the viral "Cheryl's birthday" problem, and this puzzle is very similar to the original... but it's even more complicated: Denise wants her friends to guess her birthday, and gives them 20 possible dates. The dates for year 2001 are Feb. 17, Mar. 13, Apr. 13, May 15, and Jun. 17. The dates for year 2002 are Mar. 16, Apr. 15, May 14, Jun. 12, and Aug. 16. The dates for year 2003 are Jan. 13, Feb. 16, Mar. 14, Apr. 11, and Jul. 16. The dates for year 2004 are Jan. 19, Feb. 18, may 19, Jul. 14, and Aug. 18. Albert knows the month, Bernard knows the day, and Cheryl knows the year. Albert says, "I don't know her birthday, but I know Bernard doesn't know." Bernard says, "I don't know her birthday, but I know Cheryl doesn't know." Cheryl says, "I don't know her birthday, but I know Albert doesn't know." Albert says, "Now I know her birthday." When is Denise's birthday? Stumped? Watch the video to get the answer.
Written by Curiosity Staff June 14, 2016
Wake up with the smartest email in your inbox.
Our Best Articles Daily
Curiosity uses cookies to improve site performance, for analytics and for advertising. By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.


text:
You can read the press release here.
From the Post & Courier:
Adding to the wave of new and expanding retirement communities in the Charleston area, a longtime Summerville facility plans to add a new independent living wing and replace an existing facility for long-term care, short-term rehabilitation, post-acute care and memory support services.The Village at Summerville, one of five Presbyterian Communities of South Carolina, plans to build a new 18-unit independent living structure and attach it to the main building at 201 W. 9th North St.
Footings for the new 27,245-square-foot structure, called Grand Oak Way, are expected to be poured in early February. The $6.5 million facility will house new residents beginning in 2018.
The Village at Summerville currently offers 92 independent-living units, 95 assisted-living rooms and 88 skilled nursing, or long-term care, spaces.
Next month, the facility is expected to announce it will build a new skilled nursing facility with the same number of rooms, though larger, on an additional 48 acres it recently acquired. It will replace the existing building, Carter said.
The new independent-living wing will offer one- and two-bedroom options ranging from 854 square feet to 1,117 square feet, Carter said. The units will include spacious kitchens, equipped laundry rooms and covered patios and decks.
"In addition, some of the apartments will have a lovely view of the pond," Carter said.
The wing will include a bistro dining venue as well.
Boyer Commercial Construction of Columbia has been contracted to build the new facility.
The new wing is the first major addition to the retirement facility since it built a wellness center and indoor pool in 2005, according to Kathy Ligon, president and CEO of Presbyterian Communities of South Carolina.
"PCSC is meeting a growing need for senior housing in the Summerville area while continuing to expand our mission and ministry," Ligon said.
The retirement facility is open to all faiths, and those interested in living in the new wing can call the community to be put on a waiting list.
The expansion comes at a time when more than a dozen new retirement facilities are planned or under construction in the Charleston area to help meet the demands of caring for aging baby boomers and those retiring to the Lowcountry.


text:
Putting on on sunscreen can be hard when you have dry skin. I use creams and oils as moisturizers because lotions aren't enough for me. Clinique Broad Spectrum SPF 50 Body Cream is a dream. And in the evening, after I've had my shower, I'll use Kiehls Creme de Corps.
Etsy.com has an amazing range of skin and hair care products that rival big names on the market. That's where I found a great decolletage moisturizer. Skin Infusion Therapy Oil, by Anne Martineau, is also said to be good for scars too! Let's see shall we?!
My hands will be given the special treatment this summer: Julep's Glycollic Hand Peel and Burt's Bees Almond Milk Hand Creme, together, make a formidable team.
For my feet I will enlist Julep's Instant Warming Foot Scrub and refreshment, and Butter London's Rock off Glycolic Callus Peel should be amazing for taking off any stubborn skin on the soul of my feet. Butter London's Stiletto Hydrating Heel Balm will serve as a post foot peel balm, and Burt's Bees Coconut Foot Creme works beautifully as an overall moisturizer and moisture sealer.
Wish me luck.
8. Clinique Broad Spectrum SPF 50 Sunscreen Body Cream, $24,00 for 5oz
9. Kiehls Creme de Corps All Over Body Moisturizer, $87.00 for 1 Litre
10. Infusion Skin Therapy Treatment Oil , $16.00 for 4.0z
11. Julep Glycolic Hand Scrub, $26.50 for 3oz Burt's Bees Almond Milk Hand Creme, $12.99 for 2oz
12. Step One: Julep Instant Warming Foot Scrub $22.00, for 3.5 oz, Step Two: Butter London 'Rock Off' Glycolic Callus Peel, $32.08 for 2oz, Step Three: Butter London 'Stiletto Stick' Hydrating Heel Balm, $32.08 for 2.5 oz, and Step Four: Burt's Bees' Coconut Foot Creme, $14.99 for 4.3 oz


text:
How do you move millions of items which are cumulatively worth tens of millions of dollars? The joking answer is "very carefully," but it's not too far from the truth. My team experienced it this summer as we relocated our entire collection to a new state-of-the-art storage facility.
The Archives of The
Kurtz was born into his love of history – his father, Wilbur Kurtz, Sr. was an artist with a passion for history who recreated many famous historical scenes. He even served as the technical advisor for the filming of Gone with the Wind. When I began working at the Atlanta History Center in 1987, I worked with Franklin. My first task was to create the finding aid (a document that helps researchers understand what is in a museum or archive) for Kurtz, Sr.'s collection.
While Garrett was more focused on writing about the history of the company, Kurtz Jr. began to amass the memorabilia which forms the core of our collection now. The Archives had been limited in scope to North America until it was transferred to the global Corporate offices in 1971.
In 1977, as Kurtz retired, The
When I interviewed with Phil for the job of Archives Manager in 1997, I was surprised when I was not able to see the collection. Phil did say that the collection storage was about to be modernised, and that the successful candidate would be responsible for that project. That was no joke! I spent the first year on the job overseeing the installation of 13,000 square feet of compact moving shelving.
Every item had to be removed from the shelves as construction took place, then returned to the new shelving. In 2000, the collection outgrew the rooms, and we were able to expand the space by adding a new room. You can get a good feel for the layout of the Archives via the virtual tour website and app.
Phil retired in 2013, and I was named Archivist. I never imagined that I would move the collection again, but due to a renovation project at the
With excellent humidity and air conditioning available because of the room's former use as a computer "server farm," the location is perfect for the long-term storage and preservation of the collection.
Construction began around February to convert the location for the installation of the high-density shelving, which was installed in June.
So, how are we moving the collection? Very carefully! In order to maximise space, we have done months of pre-planning to place similar collections together. We have installed new art shelving, which allows the art to be hung in a manner better suited for long-term preservation and also to serve as a showcase.
Our team has worked with the movers to box and pack the fragile items, and we even hand-walked the Norman Rockwell paintings and other high-value items between the two spaces.
Having now moved the Archives collection twice, I hope my successor gets to move it the next time!
Ted Ryan is director of Heritage Communications at The
Related links
- The Circular Economy: What Changes Do Stakeholders In The Packaging Sector Need To Make?
- Relationships Matter: Why Coke's Muhtar Kent Never Dines Alone
- We're listening to consumers and taking action to reduce sugar - a tax won't help
- Why Developing A Mobile Commerce Ecosystem In The Emerging World Is A Top Priority For Coke
'I'd Like To Buy The World A Coke' (In 4k): Remastering A Classic


text:
Wundersmith by Jessica Townsend and The Murderer's Ape by Jakob Wegelius.
In Wundersmith, we return to the world of Nevermoor with our intrepid hero, Morrigan Crow, as she begins her first year at the magical academy, WunSoc. But everything is not as it seems and Mog's loyalty and bravery will be tested. I think this second instalment in the instant classic series is even better than the first – without the need to introduce the world, Townsend has more time to develop her characters and plot. I giggled with delight at her magical inventions, shivered with fear at the action sequences and am so excited to urge this upon readers young and old.
The Murderer's Ape was released before Christmas last year in hardback, but I've just gotten around to reading the new paperback edition. Full of gorgeous illustrations, this is a noir crime thriller set in early 20th century Portugal and India. Sally Jones is a sensitive and intelligent ship's mechanic, who also happens to be a gorilla. When her captain is wrongly arrested for murder, she sets out to try to clear his name. A fun romp for anyone aged 10 and up.
The Afterwards by A.F. Harrold, illustrated by Emily Gravett
The Afterwards is a compelling, thoughtful and dark new illustrated novel, for confident young readers. Dealing with loss and grief, with an inventive vision for the afterlife, A.F. Harrold's story is ambitious and imaginative. Emily Gravett's illustrations are the perfect accompaniment: very gloomy, but in a friendly way. Fair warning: this book is deeply sad, and sometimes genuinely scary. But it's also exciting and original, and has an immense amount of heart. Those eager readers from 8 to 12 years of age who can handle heavier themes will find plenty to enjoy, and to think about.
Not reading by e-reader
This is a comment about how I am reading, not what I have read. I downloaded Anna Burn's Milkman (this years Man Booker winner) while I was travelling on my bicycle recently. But I didn't read it – I found I did less reading on this holiday because I didn't have actual books with me. So I started reading it last week and whilst I am loving the style of writing and the content, I have now decided to get a hard copy and read it. I wonder what your experiences are with e-reading because I really don't like it. For me when I read, I am looking for an experience of relaxed luxury and immersion and I just can't get this on an e-reader. When I hold a book, smell the book, turn the pages, see the words on paper, admire the cover – all in my comfy chair or in bed in the evening – I am having a special experience. One that I relish daily and look forward to. I would be very interested to hear your experiences of reading. Next month I will tell you what I thought of Milkman.
Milkman by Anna Burns


text:
(July) Coming Undone
He seriously missed mirrors. And occasionally, Carly Simon. When that song of hers hit the charts, he'd taken it as a compliment. Just to annoy her. He'd written a note and sent it along with a dozen blood-red roses. All it said was, 'Thank you.'
Everyone thought it was about Warren Beatty - old, washed-up ham! He hummed the tune under his breath as he adjusted his bow-tie. She'd promised never to reveal the song's inspiration, but she'd come dangerously close with that line about the gavotte. He was amazed at how many people sang it incorrectly – '…watched yourself go by'. Still, he thought, it did keep the truth at bay. He remembered coaching Carly through the dance's humorous moves. In his gleaming black, patent leather shoes he paced out a few of the steps.
Slipping into his dinner jacket, he longed once more for a mirror. It was his one real regret. Virgins were ten a penny in any decade, although they did seem to be getting younger and younger. He grimaced. Perhaps he should move to Pennsylvania? Amish country. Lots of virgins of the right age there, he imagined. But could he stand the countryside? He doubted it.
"You had me many years ago, when I was still quite naïve," he sang as he fixed the cuff links into place. Dear Carly, you were never naïve, he thought. Foolish, but never naïve. "Igor?"
"Must you, Sir?" His valet appeared from the walk-in closet, a long-suffering look on his face.
He grinned. "Sorry. Is it cold outside?"
"According to the weather report. I have your overcoat here."
"Thank you. A scarf, do you think?"
"Apricot, Sir? It is the anniversary of Miss Simon's best-known refrain, after all."
Sir smiled. "Do we still have that scarf? We only wore it to tease dear Carly. Not much point now she's departed."
"Indeed, Sir. Red, then."
He sighed. "Yes, I suppose so. Although, it does get a tad theatrical after so many years."
"Would Sir prefer to wear blue jeans and a tight white T-shirt perhaps?" Most of the time, the ever-so-correct valet wouldn't dream of being sarcastic. This wasn't one of them.
Sir laughed. "And slick my hair back with brylcream? That would be amusing." He fingered the woollen overcoat. The thing about a diet of virgins is the lack of adult entertainment. "You know what? Bugger the theatre. There's only so many performances of A Midsummer Night's Dream a man can watch. Jeans and jumper. Black, of course."
"Of course, Sir." Like there was any other colour in Sir's wardrobe, apart from the scarves. "But, if I might - Lady Chloe and her mother?"
"Chloe's sleeping with her chauffeur. Hasn't been a virgin for years. And to be frank, I'm not in the mood for the pretence. Send them the tickets, tell them I've gone to…Paris for an emergency board meeting."
"The International Blood Bank, sir?"
He laughed. "Why not?" He pulled on the jeans and turned towards – "Damn it." He wondered how long it would take before looking for the mirror was no longer his first reaction.
"No change, Sir. Still as fine as ever."
"Thank you, Igor." He smiled as the valet rolled his eyes.
The motorbike growled with anticpation as he pulled into the parking lot of the saloon. A gleaming row of Harleys slumped on their stands with an air of aggression. Odd how some inanimate objects carried such an attitude of danger at night, he thought. A facade that, come daylight, dissolved like dust. Some of the neon letters in the bar's signage were out. 'T—Fi--Des-in---- Bar' flickered without much enthusiasm in the dark. He barely noticed as he let the door slap shut behind him.
The nicotine haze hung thick in the air. There might be laws about smoking in public, but no one had told the Hell's Angels who made this low-ceilinged, alcohol-sodden place their own personal domain. Some nameless heavy metal music thumped up through the floor and out the walls. Not a lot of money had been spent on lighting. The mirror, thankfully, was dirty, fly-blown and chipped. Covered with peeling decals, it was doubtful anyone could see anything in it. He slid onto an empty stool at the end of the bar, just in case.
"Jack Daniels."
The heavily tattooed barman nodded, sliding a glass towards him. He might be wearing an incredibly expensive Tom Ford overcoat, but Sir knew how to blend in. Plenty of practise had, as the saying goes, made perfect.
After the second hit of Jack, he noticed a woman sitting in the dark. Actually, what he saw was one neat foot and ankle encased in sheer black stocking and a high heeled stiletto. It was beating time in small movements.
He'd grown up in an era when neat ankles were enough to get a man's blood racing. And this was a very neat ankle indeed. His eyes travelled up. It was attached to a shapely, elegant leg. Much more promising than Chloe Bracknell, whom no one could deny, was rather on the stocky side of feminine.
He glanced in the mirror. The dark lady was sitting too far back for him to see her clearly. The Dark Lady. Amusingly, it sounded like a character from a gothic novel. Probably about a blood-sucker and some poor innocent traveller falling into her clutches. Well, he was no innocent. He asked the barkeep for a fresh bottle and another glass.
When he approached her table, she smiled and with that expensively shod foot, pushed the chair opposite her out in invitation. She looked vaguely familiar. But then, he'd known many women, Biblically, over his lifetime. Nowadays, most of them looked familiar.
They dispensed with names. It really didn't seem to matter. They flirted deliciously for a while before making their way to the rooms above. She shut the curtains, plunging the room into pitch darkness. He heard the scritch of a match and watched with lazy enjoyment as she lit the candles.
The night stretched ahead like a satisfied cat and the Dark Lady lived up to all her black-stockinged promise.
She was sitting in the dark-red brocade chair when he awoke, watching him, humming a song he knew well, "…with some underworld spy…wife of a close friend".
The words dropped hot coals into his memory. He knew her. He remembered that night, so long ago, in Nova Scotia. He realised he was handcuffed to the brass bed. And there was nothing erotic about it. For someone without a heartbeat he went oddly cold. He should have gone to the theatre.
"I am sorry," he said, with a rueful smile that he knew could melt any heart. "I blame that northern eclipse. Could you possibly forgive me my bad behaviour?"
"You haven't changed, have you? Charming as ever. Still so vain." She pulled a cord, opening the curtains. The sun blazed in, blinding him. He cursed. He could feel every cell in his body coming undone, dissolving, turning to ash.
Outside, the neon sign, 'The Final Destination Bar', flickered with new life.
7/15/2017 06:10:23 am
So clever, rich, how do you manage to develop such depth of character in so short a story ? I love it !
Elaine Dodge
7/15/2017 10:43:48 am
Thanks so much, Sarah. I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for leaving a comment.
Leave a Reply.
WRITER'S WRITE have issued a challenge: 12 Short Stories in 12 Months. Each story must conform to the prompt, word count and deadline given. It began in February 2017. I've accepted the challenge. Originally, once my story had been on the challenge's Facebook page for a day or so, I'd post them here. No though I am putting them into an anthology which I hope to self-publish early in 2019.
March 2018


text:
New Feature: Multi-Instance Support for Wechaty v0.16(WIP)
Author: Huan LI, Half machine half human boy.
Wechaty v0.16 is working in progress.
- Good news: We will be able to run as many as Wechaty instances than only one singleton before!
- Bad news:
BREAKING CHANGES were introduced.This enhancement has no BC any more!
Wechaty could only be able to instantiate once before. This comes for one reason: I'm lazy at the beginning.
I'm lazy because there's need some works to support the second instance. For example, we can image when we are using
Contact.find('name') to search contacts,
Contact must know the exactly wechat account we are using. When we have one, it's all ok, but when we got the second one, we have to make a choice.
That's the problem,
Contact is very hard to choose because it knows nothing about anything.
To make it work, we designed a strange pattern: clone the
Contact class and using it's
static properties to store information for future usage.
Please let me know if you know any design pattern similar to it, or it's a confirmed an anti-pattern.
Talk is cheap, show me the code.
const bot1 = new Wechaty({ profile: 'bot1' })
const bot2 = new Wechaty({ profile: 'bot2' })
const room1 = await bot1.Room.find('my room')
const room2 = await bot2.Room.find('my room')
That's all. Instead of
Wechaty.instance(), we now support instanciated Wechaty directly, without any limitations.
The BREAKING CHANGES is: when you want to use
FriendRequest, and
Message, you can not call them directly anymore, because they will become the
Abstract Class soon, which means cannot be instantiated.
Update 2018-05: We can still be able to instanciate the
bot.Messageby using clone-class NPM module
Instead, use
bot.FriendRequest, and
bot.Message, which
bot is the instance of
To allow multi-instance is on our todo list for many months.(See Github Issue #518)
It will be straightforward to design all the class methods with a
puppet parameter, which can solve the problem but we have to remember the puppet in the userspace code and pass it in for every call. I do not like that.
I write four versions of Proof of Concept Code to store and hide the
1. PoC V1:
ES6 Proxy
The first PoC is to use ES6 Proxy. It's very straightforward just to wrap the original class and set the puppet when it is being called.
const Bot1Contact = new Proxy(Contact, handlerFactory(puppet1))
But we need a new class is
instanceof the original class, which means
Bot1Contact instanceof Contact should be true.
Proxy cannot meet this goal.
Full ES6 Proxy PoC source code is at https://github.com/Chatie/wechaty/issues/518#issuecomment-383319998
2. PoC V2:
The second PoC is to bind the Class to a new context object by using
const Bot1Contact = Contact.bind({})
By doing this, we can get a branding new
Bot1Contact which we can set static properties on, and
Bot1Contact instanceof Contact will be
However, by this technology, we can not get the right static properties inside the instance methods. We always got the static properties from the original class, which means it's utterly useless for us if we can not get back the information we need on the static properties from the new class.
Class.bind({}) source code is at: https://github.com/Chatie/wechaty/issues/518#issuecomment-383357185
3. PoC V3:
How about creating a new class by
eval the source code from original class?
const Bot1Contact = Function('return ' + Contact.toString())
It works like a charm, and it will be qualified if we can set the
Bot1.Contact.prototype to the
Object.create(Contact.prototype), which could make
instanceof works.
However, I found that the
Bot1.Contact.prototype could not be changed because it's
configurable &
writable properties are set to
false, and the
writable could not be changed by
Reflect.defineProperty(), which means it will not be able to support the
Bot1Contact instanceof Contact.
eval source code is at https://github.com/Chatie/wechaty/issues/518#issuecomment-383384175
4. PoC V4:
class extend
After lots of massive research & experiment work, I decided to extend the original class to create a new one for our usage.
class Bot1Contact extends Contact {}
By this technic, the code is very clean, the
instanceof work as expected, everything as my wish finally!
After all the work, I modulized this part of the code as my new npm module:
clone-class at https://github.com/huan/node-clone-class, with automatic unit tests and deploy to NPM by CI/CD.
And finally, I can create as many bots as I need than before!
NPM @latest v.s. @next
Another enhancement had been implemented while developing this new feature, is that we can publish the NPM package with
@next tag instead of
@latest when the version indicates that this is a development release.
For example: if the current version's minor number is odd, which means it is a development release, then when publishing it to the NPM, it will be set
dist-tag to the
@next instead of
So the regular users will always use the stable/production version when they try to
npm install wechaty or
npm install wechaty@latest. If they want to use the development release version, they have to opt-in by run
npm install wechaty@next.
See more about this by reading the GitHub Issue: Continious Deploy to NPM with the @next tag when the MINOR version number is odd(in developing branch)
The Simplicity Behind Complexity: The complex is easy; simple is hard.
Designing and developing anything of consequence is incredibly challenging. Our goal is to try to bring a calm and simplicity to what are incredibly complex problems so that you're not aware really of the solution; you're not aware of how hard the problem was that was eventually solved."
– Sir Jonathan (Jony) Ive
Wechaty twins bot powered by blessed-contrib, terminal session recorded at https://asciinema.org/a/177857


text: Podcast: Indian Fever – 10/2/17 Posted on October 2, 2017 by Alex Kaufman In this episode of Indian Fever, we mostly focused on end-of-season awards. Expect a playoff preview podcast later in the week. Listen to the podcast below and subscribe to The Alex Kaufman Show on iTunes, Stitcher, and Google Play! powered by podcast garden Share this:TweetEmailPrint Related